Resurrection
Ed Tyler etyler@truman.edu
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:44:51 -0600 (00919219491, 4.1.19990216143829.00b4f8b0@pop.truman.edu)
--=====================_2759738==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 03:09 PM 2/16/99 -0500, D.R. Edwards wrote:
>KORNFORM
>I don't have my references in front of me so I am summarizing what I have
>read.
>
>First, many of most of the early patriarchs of the Church fail to cite these
>passages. It wasn't until Eusebius in the third or fouth century that first
>mentioned the Josephus material. One would think that the early fathers
>would
>have glommed onto Josephus like flies on a dead corpse in support of their
>alleged savior. Since they didn't, that is good negative evidence that
>Josephus said not a word about Jesus.
>
><snip>
>
>EDWARDS
>Actually, Origen seems to have referred to a form of the passage in
>Josephus. I'm working without my references also, so I could be wrong, but
>I think he refers to Josephus in his commentary on Matthew and/or Contra
>Celsus. I say "a form" because, according to Origen, Josephus did not
>believe that Jesus was the christ. Quite obviously, this is squarely at
>odds with the Testimonium.
>
>Origen is good for more food for thought - according to Origen, Josephus
>attributed the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James the brother of Jesus.
>The passage regarding the role of James in the fall of Jerusalem doesn't
>appear in the extant copies of Josephus, at least not as far as I know.
>
>What I make of this is that Josephus probably did mention Jesus and James,
>but that the early Christians took sweeping editorial liberties with his
>words, interpolating and omitting as supported their case.
>
Ed
Actually, Origen says that Josephus specifically rejected Jesus as the messiah;
but no such rejection is found in extant texts of Josephus. It's unlikely that
Origen would lie about Josephus' rejection, and even more unlikely that
Josephus would completely overlook the origins of Christianity in his copious
writings.
The most reasonable explanation for this development is that Josephus did in
fact treat Jesus just like he treated all the other false messiahs he talked
about: he lampooned Jesus good and proper. Naturally, Chrsitian scribes
aren't going to stand for that, so they excise his account and put in a few
connecting phrases about what a wonder Jesus was. Hence, we end up with the
Testimonium Flavianum in its extant form.
--=====================_2759738==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 03:09 PM 2/16/99 -0500, D.R. Edwards wrote:
>KORNFORM
>I don't have my references in front of me so I am summarizing what I
have
>read.
>
>First, many of most of the early patriarchs of the Church fail to
cite these
>passages. It wasn't until Eusebius in the third or fouth century that
first
>mentioned the Josephus material. One would think that the early
fathers
>would
>have glommed onto Josephus like flies on a dead corpse in support of
their
>alleged savior. Since they didn't, that is good negative evidence
that
>Josephus said not a word about Jesus.
>
><snip>
>
>EDWARDS
>Actually, Origen seems to have referred to a form of the passage
in
>Josephus. I'm working without my references also, so I could be
wrong, but
>I think he refers to Josephus in his commentary on Matthew and/or
Contra
>Celsus. I say "a form" because, according to Origen,
Josephus did not
>believe that Jesus was the christ. Quite obviously, this is
squarely at
>odds with the Testimonium.
>
>Origen is good for more food for thought - according to Origen,
Josephus
>attributed the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James the brother of
Jesus.
>The passage regarding the role of James in the fall of Jerusalem
doesn't
>appear in the extant copies of Josephus, at least not as far as I
know.
>
>What I make of this is that Josephus probably did mention Jesus and
James,
>but that the early Christians took sweeping editorial liberties with
his
>words, interpolating and omitting as supported their case.
>
Ed
Actually, Origen says that Josephus specifically rejected Jesus as the
messiah; but no such rejection is found in extant texts of
Josephus. It's unlikely that Origen would lie about Josephus'
rejection, and even more unlikely that Josephus would completely overlook
the origins of Christianity in his copious writings.
The most reasonable explanation for this development is that Josephus did
in fact treat Jesus just like he treated all the other false messiahs he
talked about: he lampooned Jesus good and proper. Naturally,
Chrsitian scribes aren't going to stand for that, so they excise his
account and put in a few connecting phrases about what a wonder Jesus
was. Hence, we end up with the Testimonium Flavianum in its
extant form.