|
|
 | | From: | Longfellow | | Subject: | Josephus scholars? | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:52:34 -0000 |
|
|
 |
Not sure where to ask this question, but this seems a reasonable place
to start.
Are there any readers who are scholars of Josephus, and if so, would one
of them answer a couple of questions for me? If not, can anyone suggest
a more likely venue for such a question?
Thanks,
Bill Tallman
--
Email is wtallman at olypen dot com
|
|
| | From: | roger_pearse at yahoo.co.uk | | Subject: | Re: Josephus scholars? | | Date: | 22 Jan 2005 01:09:43 -0800 |
|
|
| Longfellow wrote:
> Okay, thanks.
>
> It's just a variation on the no doubt very common question concerning
> the Testimonium Flavianum, etc: I've seen it asserted that one or
more
> the the Russian/Slavonic versions of the "Wars" contains a physical
> description of Jesus.
>
> So far as I know, the Greek version contains no mention of either
John
> or Jesus, although the "Antiquities" does, hence the TF. It's said
that
> the Slavonic manuscripts all contain 8 references (John 3, Jesus 4,
> Christians 1), and none of these is a physical description. Is there
> indeed something the scholars are not mentioning, or is the assertion
> simply false? Do you have access to any translations of the Slavonic
> texts, and if so, can you confirm or refute said assertion?
There is a complete translation of the Old Slavonic Josephus, in
parallel columns with a translation of the standard Greek:
H. LEEMING, K. LEEMING, with L. OSINKINA. Josephus' Jewish War and its
Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison. Leiden:Brill (2003). Series:
Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und das Urchristentums
46. ISBN: 9004114386.
There are indeed mentions of Jesus and John in this text, although I do
not have it here. But the text was not really written as a translation
of Josephus at all. Rather, it is part of a medieval Russian book
named "The three captures of Jerusalem". The last portion is based
very heavily on Josephus, Jewish War -- what else was there? -- but
with omissions and additions from wherever, including the bible,
Antiquities, John Malalas, and whatever.
I believe 8 chunks from it were included as an appendix to the Loeb
edition: these do come from the OSJ. But there is more.
Before this book came out, all that was available was a Russian edition
by N.A.Meshcherskii. His work is more or less completely translated by
Leeming &c, but before then I did a rough version of some of the stuff
on the manuscripts, which is here:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/slavonic.htm
The TF is part of Antiquities; however it was copied into the margin of
one family of the Jewish War, and so found its way into the text.
Whether the copy of the Jewish War used as a basis for the Old Slavonic
was one of that family, I do not know.
I do not recall any physical description of Jesus in the OSJ, but then
I really was not looking when I read it.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
|
| | From: | Longfellow | | Subject: | Re: Josephus scholars? | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:49:58 -0000 |
|
|
| On 2005-01-22, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Longfellow wrote:
>> Okay, thanks.
>>
>> It's just a variation on the no doubt very common question concerning
>> the Testimonium Flavianum, etc: I've seen it asserted that one or
> more
>> the the Russian/Slavonic versions of the "Wars" contains a physical
>> description of Jesus.
>>
>> So far as I know, the Greek version contains no mention of either
> John
>> or Jesus, although the "Antiquities" does, hence the TF. It's said
> that
>> the Slavonic manuscripts all contain 8 references (John 3, Jesus 4,
>> Christians 1), and none of these is a physical description. Is there
>> indeed something the scholars are not mentioning, or is the assertion
>> simply false? Do you have access to any translations of the Slavonic
>> texts, and if so, can you confirm or refute said assertion?
>
> There is a complete translation of the Old Slavonic Josephus, in
> parallel columns with a translation of the standard Greek:
>
> H. LEEMING, K. LEEMING, with L. OSINKINA. Josephus' Jewish War and its
> Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison. Leiden:Brill (2003). Series:
> Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und das Urchristentums
> 46. ISBN: 9004114386.
>
> There are indeed mentions of Jesus and John in this text, although I do
> not have it here. But the text was not really written as a translation
> of Josephus at all. Rather, it is part of a medieval Russian book
> named "The three captures of Jerusalem". The last portion is based
> very heavily on Josephus, Jewish War -- what else was there? -- but
> with omissions and additions from wherever, including the bible,
> Antiquities, John Malalas, and whatever.
>
> I believe 8 chunks from it were included as an appendix to the Loeb
> edition: these do come from the OSJ. But there is more.
>
> Before this book came out, all that was available was a Russian edition
> by N.A.Meshcherskii. His work is more or less completely translated by
> Leeming &c, but before then I did a rough version of some of the stuff
> on the manuscripts, which is here:
>
> http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/slavonic.htm
Thought I recognized your name! This was one of the sites that I read
through, and the one that seemed most authoritative; all results of a
Google search.
> The TF is part of Antiquities; however it was copied into the margin of
> one family of the Jewish War, and so found its way into the text.
> Whether the copy of the Jewish War used as a basis for the Old Slavonic
> was one of that family, I do not know.
>
> I do not recall any physical description of Jesus in the OSJ, but then
> I really was not looking when I read it.
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
Thanks for this response. It is quite probably exactly what I was
seeking.
I'm going to draw the following conclusion: It is not necessary for you
to have actually done an exhaustive critical evaluation of all of the
material, I think, because you are evidently familiar with most if not
all the work done by others. A physical description must be counted as
an extraordinary and highly valuable, if also highly controversial,
find. If one such existed, I cannot imagine that it has not been
made the subject of readily accessible discussion, much less discovered
and reported. If that were the case, I think I'm safe in assuming that
you would know of it.
As you are apparently unaware of any such, I shall at least tentatively
conclude that no such passage exists. And that satisfies my inquiry
here.
Thanks again, Roger!
Bill Tallman
--
Email is wtallman at olypen dot com
|
|
| | From: | roger_pearse at yahoo.co.uk | | Subject: | Re: Josephus scholars? | | Date: | 22 Jan 2005 14:16:51 -0800 |
|
|
| Longfellow wrote:
> > http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/slavonic.htm
>
> Thought I recognized your name! This was one of the sites that I
read
> through, and the one that seemed most authoritative; all results of a
> Google search.
You're very kind.
> I'm going to draw the following conclusion: It is not necessary for
you
> to have actually done an exhaustive critical evaluation of all of the
> material, I think, because you are evidently familiar with most if
not
> all the work done by others. A physical description must be counted
as
> an extraordinary and highly valuable, if also highly controversial,
> find. If one such existed, I cannot imagine that it has not been
> made the subject of readily accessible discussion, much less
discovered
> and reported. If that were the case, I think I'm safe in assuming
that
> you would know of it.
Is this safe, tho? I wouldn't commit myself on this sort of basis.
You're basically guessing that I would know if there was one, and I
didn't look for one. So you'd be pretty restricted in what you could
say.
What I would do in your place is borrow Leeming's translation through
your local library, using an interlibrary loan (they may charge, of
course) and check for yourself. Nothing like first hand knowledge, eh?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
|
| | From: | Longfellow | | Subject: | Re: Josephus scholars? | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:09:59 -0000 |
|
|
| On 2005-01-22, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Longfellow wrote:
>> and reported. If that were the case, I think I'm safe in assuming
>> that you would know of it.
>
> Is this safe, tho? I wouldn't commit myself on this sort of basis.
> You're basically guessing that I would know if there was one, and I
> didn't look for one. So you'd be pretty restricted in what you could
> say.
As a scholar, I could only take your response as an indication of
whether or not research would be useful, and probably just that. But
I'm not a scholar, and have no intent to assert anything on the subject.
Probably should share my reasons, might be good for a few laughs...
I might suppose that you've heard of a book called The Hiram Key. It's
the account of a couple of Freemasons looking for the factual basis of
Freemasonry. Both men have had university training of some sort, and so
should be familiar with the rudiments of scholarship. The book has no
bibliography and few footnotes, mostly for included citations.
On page 230 of the Barnes and Noble edition (printed by arrangement with
Element Books, and so possibly in that edition as well), we find the
following:
"... From that moment [Jesus' tantrum at the Temple] the Roman and
Jewish authoritiews decided to act to end the trouble from this sect at
Qumran before it got too big to handle.
"James was duly arrested and a wanted poster was issued for Jesus,
giving a visual description of the man. All copies and references to
this were destroyed a long time ago, because to have a description of a
lest than perfect god would never do for a growing church. It was,
however, reported by Josephus in his "Capture of Jerusalem". Josephus
drew his information directly from the 'forma' produced by Pontius
Pilatus's officers. This was the document that carried the description
of the wanted man, a copy of which had to be filed in Rome. The New
Testament states that a warrant was issued for the arrest of the man
that says he is the king of the Jews, and that it was Judas who turned
in his master.
"Despite Christian censorship a copy of Josephus's description survived
in Slavonic texts and came to light in the last century. We cannot be
certain it is genuine but many scholars believe it is, and there is no
reason to doubt them. It paints a picture of a man quite different to
the image most people imagine:
"'... a man of simple appearance, mature age, dark skin, small stature,
three cubits high, hunchbacked with a long face, long now, and meeting
eyebrows, so they who see him might be affrighted, with scanty hair with
a parting in the middle of his head after the manner of the Nazarites,
and with an undeveloped beard.'
"A height of three cubits would put him at under four feet six inches
which combined with a hunchback and sever facial features would make
Jesus the Christ a very easy person to recognize..."
So it would seem that the authors are stating that they know of a
document, or documents, that contain the above passage. If I understand
all this correctly, the cited "Capture of Jerusalem" was part of
Josephus' writing on the Jewish war, which is the basis for the Russian
"Histories of the Jewish wars". The question is: what manuscript might
contain this passage?
> What I would do in your place is borrow Leeming's translation through
> your local library, using an interlibrary loan (they may charge, of
> course) and check for yourself. Nothing like first hand knowledge, eh?
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
From your website, I gather that the Vilnius manuscript and the Archival
Chronograph are the primary sources, and that the separate manuscripts
are considered secondary. Does Leeming's translation contain these
secondary sources?
There appear to be one or more manuscripts that contain historical
information not included in the Greek Josephus, that is regarded as
effectively irrelevant because the sources are unknown. Perhaps one of
these contains such a passage?
In any case, I simply cannot imagine such a passage being discovered
without there being a significant amount of discussion. If the TF
passages are controversal in their own right, a physical description
would certainly be even more so. Unless the authors of the book in
question have access to a source not known to the scholarly community,
and what are the chances of that? Probably not very good, I would
think.
Thanks,
Bill Tallman
--
Email is wtallman at olypen dot com
|
|
| | From: | roger_pearse at yahoo.co.uk | | Subject: | Re: Josephus scholars? | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 12:59:46 -0800 |
|
|
| Longfellow wrote:
> Not sure where to ask this question, but this seems a reasonable
place
> to start.
>
> Are there any readers who are scholars of Josephus, and if so, would
one
> of them answer a couple of questions for me? If not, can anyone
suggest
> a more likely venue for such a question?
Well, scholars do not read or post to usenet. Everyone in these fora
is an amateur. I don't know much about Josephus, except for a few
specialised areas, but I'm willing to look.
What was the question?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
|
| | From: | Longfellow | | Subject: | Re: Josephus scholars? | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:12:17 -0000 |
|
|
| On 2005-01-21, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Longfellow wrote:
>> Not sure where to ask this question, but this seems a reasonable
> place
>> to start.
>>
>> Are there any readers who are scholars of Josephus, and if so, would
> one
>> of them answer a couple of questions for me? If not, can anyone
> suggest
>> a more likely venue for such a question?
>
> Well, scholars do not read or post to usenet. Everyone in these fora
> is an amateur. I don't know much about Josephus, except for a few
> specialised areas, but I'm willing to look.
> What was the question?
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
>
Okay, thanks.
It's just a variation on the no doubt very common question concerning
the Testimonium Flavianum, etc: I've seen it asserted that one or more
the the Russian/Slavonic versions of the "Wars" contains a physical
description of Jesus.
So far as I know, the Greek version contains no mention of either John
or Jesus, although the "Antiquities" does, hence the TF. It's said that
the Slavonic manuscripts all contain 8 references (John 3, Jesus 4,
Christians 1), and none of these is a physical description. Is there
indeed something the scholars are not mentioning, or is the assertion
simply false? Do you have access to any translations of the Slavonic
texts, and if so, can you confirm or refute said assertion?
Thanks again,
Bill Tallman
--
Email is wtallman at olypen dot com
|
|
|
