On Apr 8, 10:32 am, "roger.pea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
<roger.pea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>...
> Again this presumes that Josephus was identifying Jesus as the
> Messiah, to his Roman audience.
>...
I ask the same of you as I did of Christopher.
Please inform yourself of Dr. Barbara Thiering's [former professor of
religious
studies - please see Wikipedia article on her] take on Josephus.
(I omit JMB from my hopes because of his tin ear.)
My Christian Origins yahoo forum - I was Moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3304
"I hope we'll hear more about the Slavonic Josephus. The point I have
been
contributing is that when the information from the DSS is taken into
account,
information that was not available to earlier scholars, there is a
greater
probability that this work included Josephus' own early account of the
Baptist
and Jesus, and that the sections on the Christ in his later
Antiquities are also
genuine.
The same insight applies to a whole range of do***ents that have been
dismissed as apocryphal. Vast amounts of early Christian history have
been
lost, primarily because of the canonical dogma. It is, of course,
still denied
in conservative circles that the DSS are directly relevant to early
Christian
history, but that view is well on the way to being superseded."
-----
The Slavonic Josephus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3269
"I'll take up the im****tant issue that Roger Pearse has
presented to the Quaker group, passed on by David. Of
particular interest is his link
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/slavonic.htm
in which he gives notes on the Old Slavonic Josephus, with
a very informative account of its textual history."
"They [the famous Testimonium Flavianum, and material
apparently concerning John the Baptist that is not found
elsewhere]
are vital to the question whether there is any contem****ary
external evidence that Jesus existed. If Dr Pearse can
show that the whole of the text makes a difference, it
would be very valuable to hear about it."
-----
==>Josephus' accounts of Jesus - all genuine?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/109
"On the assumption that belief in Jesus as a powerful figure
only developed gradually, these passages have been
universally assumed to be the product of Christianising,
not genuine. But there is another possibility, well worth
considering now, that the Slavonic Josephus was the first
version of his Jewish War, written in the early 60's when
Josephus was a young man (born AD 37 ). Up to the
mid-sixties he was friendly with the Christians and
Jewish Christians, especially James the brother of
Jesus, and he shared their reverence and that of many
people for Jesus. But in the mid-sixties the question
arose whether hellenised Jews such as Josephus
should take part in the war that was obviously coming.
He chose to defend his country, although he deplored
the zealotry that had brought about the crisis. But the
Christians, including Jewish Christians, chose to stay
out, the former because they no longer felt any loyalty
to Judaism and saw that the destruction of the city
was inevitable. King Agrippa II, who is said in Acts
26:28 to have been influenced towards Christianity,
said at the time of the war that God was on the side
of the Romans (JW 2, 390).
Josephus would at this point have revised his book
so as to leave out any sympathy with Christians,
and added other material to take their place. It is
the original version that is preserved in the Slavonic
Josephus. When he later wrote his Antiquities, he
included as a matter of history only the brief reference
to Jesus' appearance after the crucifixion, and the
account of the death of James, with whom he had
sympathised more.
If this is so, there would obviously be considerable
historical consequences, adding to the evidence of
the Scrolls that practices like those of the Christians
were followed at Qumran, that they became zealot -
as shown in the War Scroll and the Masada finds- ,
and that one part of their member****p under a certain
leader broke the ritual law and led many of their
members away."
-----
The human Christ of Qumran and Josephus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3281
"The im****tant issue we are dealing with concerns the Slavonic
Josephus,
whether or not it is a genuine contem****ary record about Jesus. One of
the major objections raised is his use of the term "Christ". "He
(Jesus)
was the Christ" (Ant. 18, 63) and "James the brother of Jesus who was
called the Christ" (Ant. 20, 200). How could a Jew have written such a
thing?
A Jew could easily write it, if he was drawing on the contem****ary
definition
of the word 'Christ', without the heavy overloading of Christian
theology. The
DSS have given us a contem****ary definition, which has not yet been
made
known to popular Christianity."
"This is the best illustration of all of the need to integrate the DSS
with
previous biblical scholar****p, the subject to which this group is
committed."
-----
Information on Josephus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2169
-----
For the big picture of a paradigm ****ft in Christian Origins I
encourage you
to take a week to study closely the brilliant scholar****p she
deployed -
Official Thiering website - Pesher of Christ
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/
Meaning of pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/193
"I'm happy to tell you that the word 'pesher' is in the 1999
edition of the Australian Macquarie Dictionary."
All the best,
David Christainsen
|
