Post
by _David » Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:13 pm
Hello,
I am joining this thread late, but wanted to recommend a book called "Josephus and the New Testament" by Steve Mason. Although I do not know this for certain, I get the impression from reading this book that the author is not a believer, and so his writing is free from any motive to make Josephus' writings say more than they really do.
Scholars apparently have known that the authenticity of this text from Josephus' writings was suspect, beginning as far back as the 16th century. By 1863, German scholars had written entire books just on this one passage. Some of the problems raised with this passage by scholars are:
1) This testimony does not fit the context of the rest of Antiquities 18 - Josephus is speaking of the futility of the Jewish rebellion and the multitude of troublemakers present at that time, and then mysteriously in the same breath mentions Jesus (also considered by some in his day to be a rabble-rouser) and does so in a favorable way, almost sounding as if he supports Jesus and his followers
2) The phrase "This man was Christ" has raised questions, first because of the use of the word Christ, as it would have special meaning for a Jewish audience only. Much of Josephus' audience was Roman, since he had been appointed by Rome to keep a historical record of the Jewish rebellion from a Roman point-of-view. Usually, when referring to traditions and ideas that were distinctly Jewish, Jospehus would pause and explain their significance so his audience could understand it's deeper meaning. He supposedly refers to Jesus as "the Christ" or literally, "the annointed" - yet offers no explanation to his gentile pagan audience.
3) Jospehus, though a worldly man by most accounts, was an advocate for Judaism, and had a commitment to the sufficiency of Judaism. The statement "This man was Christ" sounds like his own confession, yet is in contradistiction to everything else he wrote in regard to religion
4) This testominy does not appear in copies of Antiquities present before the fourth century. We do not have the original copy of Jospehus' writings, and the earliest known copies (known as P and A) date from the ninth century. However, we have record of a dozen Christian authors from the second and third century who were familiar with Josephus' writings. It is important to note that none of these authors mention Josphus' belief in Jesus, though his writings are quoted in other respects.
5) Origen stated in two different contexts that Joesphus did not believe in Jesus as Christ. In one instance, Origen expresses his wonder that the Jewish historian "did not accept that our Jesus is Christ" (Commentary on Matthew to Matt. 10:17). Also, in Against Celsus, he directs the reader to Josephus' own defense of Judaism, but then states regrettably that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as Christ" (Against Celsus 1.47).
6) The testimony is fluid in early Christian writings, which suggests it was not "fixed", and therefore not authentic. Eusebius quotes three different versions of it in three of his writings. Jerome has an even different wording of it.
Though it is exciting to see a possible correlation between Josephus's writings and the events of 70AD, I think a word of caution is in order about using Jospehus for much else, including listing him as a believer.
I hope this helps.
God bless,
David
[/i]
Last edited by
Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
is a bit "ludicrous". These theories above, I think, at least merit some consideration and seem far from ludicrous, but maybe lean on the ambitious side.