AutismUK writes:
>>Why are you about the only person on the planet who thinks the TF is real
>>?
Of course, this is bunk. The majority of NT scholars accept the historical
reference to Jesus in this passage. A great paper on the Testimonium
Flavianum has just been presented in the Josephus Seminar at the SBL
meetings. It can be found online at:
http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf
For a run-down on RECENT research on the topic, see Louis H. Feldman in "The
Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question" in Christological
Perspectives, e.g.. Robert F. Berkey and Sarah A. Edwards (New York:
Pilgrim, 1982). Some liberal scholars even leave the entire passage intact!
(e.g. A.M. Dubarle, the French scholar).
According to Feldman's count, 4 scholars regard the larger passage as
completely genuine, 6 more as mostly genuine; 20 accept it with some
interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; 13 regard it as being totally
an interpolation.[ Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. P. 684-91]
The MAJORITY view among scholars is that the passage is authentic, barring
some interpolation. Ben Witherington III renders the passage as many other
scholars do:
"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man…a doer of startling things, a
teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a
following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin….And when
Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned
him to the cross, those who loved him previously did not cease to do so….And
up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not
died out." (Ant. 18.3.3)
Certainly this middle-ground is the most reasonable view, and more and more
scholars are adopting it as Luke Timothy Johnson, NT Professor at Emory,
notes. Even John Dominic Crossan, who is regarded by many as the most
prominent liberal scholar alive today, accepts the passage with
interpolation. Crossan is no friend to traditional Christianity, as he
believes the reason Jesus' body was missing is due to it having been eaten
by dogs beneath the cross, or birds while ON the cross.
Thackeray, whom Meier describes as the "former 'prince' of Jospehan
scholars," formerly regarded the entire set of passages as a forgery, but
later changed to the middle-ground view of partial interpolation.
Biblical scholar Craig Blomberg states: "many recent studies of Josephus,
however, agree that much of the passage closely resembles Josephus' style of
writing elsewhere….most of the passage seems to be authentic and is
certainly the most important ancient non-Christian testimony to the life of
Jesus which has been preserved."[C. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of
the Gospels (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987) p.201]
"many scholars are prepared to accept much or all of the remainder of the
text as genuine" (Barnett, 1986)
Even if the material containing the alleged Christian interpolation is
removed, the vocabulary and grammar of the section “cohere well with
Josephus’ style and language” (Meier, 1990, p. 90). In fact, almost every
word (omitting for the moment the supposed interpolations) is found
elsewhere in Josephus (Meier, p. 90). Were the disputed material to be
expunged, the testimony of Josephus still would verify the fact that Jesus
Christ actually lived.
Habermas therefore concluded:
"There are good indications that the majority of the text is genuine. There
is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good
manuscript evidence for this statement about Jesus, thus making it difficult
to ignore. Additionally, leading scholars on the works of Josephus
[Daniel-Rops, 1962, p. 21; Bruce, 1967, p. 108; Anderson, 1969, p. 20] have
testified that this portion is written in the style of this Jewish
historian." (1996, p. 193).
R.C. Stone writes: "The passage concerning Jesus has been regarded by some
as a Christian interpolation; but the bulk of the evidence, both external
and internal, marks it as genuine. Josephus must have known the main facts
about the life and death of Jesus, and his historian's curiosity certainly
would lead him to investigate the movement which was gaining adherents even
in high circles. Arnold Toynbee rates him among the five greatest Hellenic
historians..." (R.C. Stone, "Josephus" in ZPEB, vol 3:697)
Far from concluding that Jesus is not referred to at all by Josephus, the
Jewish scholar Paul Winter concludes:
"Although Josephus certainly did not call Jesus the Messiah and did not
assert that his resurrection on the third day had been announced by divine
prophets, the impression gained from an intimate study of his report is that
he was not on the whole unsympathetic toward Jesus."[P. Winter, "Josephus on
Jesus." JHS 1 (1968): 301.]
Another eminent Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes similarly concludes: "All this
seems to imply that Josephus deliberately chose words reflecting a not
unsympathetic neutral stand."[G. Vermes, "The Jesus Notice of Josephus
Re-examined," JJS 38 (1987): 10]
New Testament historian F.F. Bruce sums up the evidence that Josephus
provides us with:
"We have therefore very good reason for believing that Josephus did make
reference to Jesus, bearing witness to (a) His date, (b) His reputation as a
wonder-worker, (c) His being the brother of James, (d) His crucifixion under
Pilate at the information of the Jewish rulers, (e) His messianic claim, (f)
His being the founder of 'the tribe of Christians' and probably (g) the
belief in His rising from the dead."[F.F. Bruce, The New Testament
Documents: Are they Reliable?, p. 112]
Also, see Jeff Lowder's article at:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#josephus
John
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 01 2001 - 15:26:38 EST