ficino wrote:
I'm not a specialist in any of this stuff, save that I read Greek and have read a good deal of Josephus and have poked around in the secondary literature on him and on the different ancient translations of his work. From what I can see, Bowman does a good job of putting SlaJos in a context. If the scholars on whom he relies were right, it does look as though in SlaJos we have a fascinating case of story development - but that it gives us a window into a process of development taking place in early medieval Russia, not in 1st century Palestine.
'Story development"? Just where did the story go? Is there a development line that can be observed? Or are we here just talking about language development in the translating of manuscripts?
I'm very envious of your daughter!
The "story line" is a construct of the critic. I don't think a story line from one text of one writer to that produced by another writer develops according to an interior, genetic logic. (I don't think you think that either.) On what I understand is the prevailing scholarly take on SlaJos (with a few folks like Nodet excepted), the story would be undergoing step by step transformation from stories and accounts in a bunch of different texts - Bible, Josephus' BJ, maybe parts of the AJ, Pseudo-Hegesippus, Josippon - to what we now have in SlaJos, consumed by some audience in early medieval Russia. The interests of the consumers of SlaJos, esp. of its "additions" --in fact, their identies --are unknown to me. The whole result seems to be a fascinating instance of intertextuality and creativity. That would, if the prevailing view is correct, be a destination of "story line" worth investigating, though not as world-historically significant as your proposed destination in the gospels.
Mary Helena can't see how she might be wrong. Even after years of bumping her head into people at these forums. Somehow what she is proposing 'all makes sense' to her so anyone who can't see 'how it all makes sense' isn't just trying hard enough or spending too much time doubting her abilities to conjure the truth from the texts (albeit possessing no linguistic abilities in any of the relevant languages in which these texts are preserved). Over and over again at this forum you see how sad it is only fools have certainty and are always willing to share their certainty with those who lack certainty not the other way around.
Stephan Huller wrote:Mary Helena can't see how she might be wrong. Even after years of bumping her head into people at these forums. Somehow what she is proposing 'all makes sense' to her so anyone who can't see 'how it all makes sense' isn't just trying hard enough or spending too much time doubting her abilities to conjure the truth from the texts (albeit possessing no linguistic abilities in any of the relevant languages in which these texts are preserved). Over and over again at this forum you see how sad it is only fools have certainty and are always willing to share their certainty with those who lack certainty not the other way around.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
ficino wrote:
I'm not a specialist in any of this stuff, save that I read Greek and have read a good deal of Josephus and have poked around in the secondary literature on him and on the different ancient translations of his work. From what I can see, Bowman does a good job of putting SlaJos in a context. If the scholars on whom he relies were right, it does look as though in SlaJos we have a fascinating case of story development - but that it gives us a window into a process of development taking place in early medieval Russia, not in 1st century Palestine.
'Story development"? Just where did the story go? Is there a development line that can be observed? Or are we here just talking about language development in the translating of manuscripts?
I'm very envious of your daughter!
The "story line" is a construct of the critic. I don't think a story line from one text of one writer to that produced by another writer develops according to an interior, genetic logic. (I don't think you think that either.) On what I understand is the prevailing scholarly take on SlaJos (with a few folks like Nodet excepted), the story would be undergoing step by step transformation from stories and accounts in a bunch of different texts - Bible, Josephus' BJ, maybe parts of the AJ, Pseudo-Hegesippus, Josippon - to what we now have in SlaJos, consumed by some audience in early medieval Russia. The interests of the consumers of SlaJos, esp. of its "additions" --in fact, their identies --are unknown to me. The whole result seems to be a fascinating instance of intertextuality and creativity. That would, if the prevailing view is correct, be a destination of "story line" worth investigating, though not as world-historically significant as your proposed destination in the gospels.
I appreciate your input here - albeit a reflection of the scholarly position on Slavonic Josephus. Scholars do a lot of work which enables others to further their research. (I do hope to see your own reasons, not linguistic ones, for upholding the scholarly position). However, scholars are, like everyone else, not infallible. In the case of the Slavonic Josephus, I don't think the wonder-doer story and it's related material has been given the sort of consideration it needs. I don't believe linguistics can be the trump card. Thus.......I'll soldier on with attempting to define the relationship of the Slavonic Josephus material to the gospel story.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
maryhelena wrote:
Why write a story that has no name for the wonder-doer. No name for any followers/disciples. No mention of the betrayal of Judas. No resurrection on the third day. No mention of the baptism by John the Baptist. No raising of the dead Lazarus. No walking on water. Why write a story so devoid of all the colour of the gospel story and produce a no-name brand? It boggles the mind to think that a Christian would write such a story....
Just a thought: it might be a worthwhile avenue of investigation to look into the cultural exchanges between Jews and Christians in the Khazar kingdom, the only Jewish state in the middle ages, and its Byzantine and Russian neighbors. The person or persons who penned the "additions" in SlaJos - whether they invented them or found them in earlier texts - may not have had the agenda that we today imagine a Christian would have. I don't know.
It's a missing piece that, at least those present, can't fill in. We don't know what agendas or motivations the author may have had. It seems clear that tracing SlaJos back to Josephus is, at this juncture, a difficult task, not the easiest explanation. If one has 30 years of certitude behind them though, I am sure it would be hard to budge. We can leave at that, this is a dead end it seems to me.
1. Again Claudius sent his authorities to those states—Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander, both of whom kept the people in peace, not allowing them to depart in anything from the pure laws.
2. But if anyone diverged from the word of the Law, plaint was brought before the teachers of the Law. 3. Often they expelled him and sent him to the Emperor's presence.
4. And at the time of these two many had been discovered as servants of the previously described wonder-doer; and as they spake to the people about their teacher,—that he is living, although he is dead, and that he will free you from your servitude,—many from the folk gave ear to the above-named and took upon themselves their precept.
Not very christian ("he is living although he is dead"
this is the best evidence here. it doesn't really say Josephus to me, it does seem odd for a Christian
We have a mixed bag here, it seems to me. There isn't anything that seems to be authored by Josephus, but I can see where some of it seems odd from a Christian.
I think the "he is living, although he is dead" thing is what one might expect with the double-thinking of belief around an allegedly resurrected messiah who is not physically present.
maryhelena wrote:
Why write a story that has no name for the wonder-doer. No name for any followers/disciples. No mention of the betrayal of Judas. No resurrection on the third day. No mention of the baptism by John the Baptist. No raising of the dead Lazarus. No walking on water. Why write a story so devoid of all the colour of the gospel story and produce a no-name brand? It boggles the mind to think that a Christian would write such a story....
Just a thought: it might be a worthwhile avenue of investigation to look into the cultural exchanges between Jews and Christians in the Khazar kingdom, the only Jewish state in the middle ages, and its Byzantine and Russian neighbors. The person or persons who penned the "additions" in SlaJos - whether they invented them or found them in earlier texts - may not have had the agenda that we today imagine a Christian would have. I don't know.
It's a missing piece that, at least those present, can't fill in. We don't know what agendas or motivations the author may have had.
Indeed, we don't know the motivation for a Russian writing the material in Slavonic Josephus. That its the scholarly position that a Russian writer wrote this material is difficult to take seriously. Why would a Russian writer do so? No answer has been forthcoming...Why would a Russian writer of the Slavonic Josephus write a story about the Tetrarch Philip being married to Herodias and having four children when Antiquities denies any such thing? Did the Russian writer of the Slavonic Josephus have gMark and gMatthew before him and develop his Philip and Herodias story from the gospels - while with the wonder-doer story he abridged the gospel Jesus story to a no-name brand.....
It seems clear that tracing SlaJos back to Josephus is, at this juncture, a difficult task, not the easiest explanation.
Sure, it's not an easy task but it is the easiest explanation. I'm not saying that the Josephan writer is the creator of this material. What I'm saying is that the Josephan writer has included, recorded, this material in his work.
If one has 30 years of certitude behind them though, I am sure it would be hard to budge. We can leave at that, this is a dead end it seems to me.
"30 years of certitude" - sarcasm is out of place here
Thomas Brodie seems to have held his ahistoricist position on Jesus for many years prior to publication of his latest book - are you prepared to take aim at him for doing so?
And for your information my remark had to do with holding to an ahistoric position on Jesus - it had nothing to do with my views on the Slavonic Josephus - a writing I had never heard of 30 years ago....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
