ஜோசபஸ் இயேசு கிறிஸ்து வசனங்கள் கிறிஸ்துவ போர்ஜரி இடைசெருகல்கள்

ஜோசஃபஸ் கூற்றுகளின் மொழியாக்கம்

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

பிலாத்துவின் காலத்தில் இயேசு என்ற அறிவாளி(மனிதர் என அழைப்பதில் தயக்கம் இருப்பதாக ஜோசஃபஸ் குறிப்பிடுகிறார்),போதகர் பல‌ யூதர்களுக்கும், பிறருக்கும் உண்மைகளை போதித்து வந்தார் .பிலாத்து யூத பாதிரிமார்கள் குற்றச்சாட்டுகளின் பேரில் சிலுவையில் அறைய செய்தான் என்று குறிப்பிடுகிறார்.அவர் வணங்கியவர்களுக்கு பழைய உடம்பில்  உயிரிடன் தெரிந்ததாகவும்,அவரை வணங்குபவர்கள்,கிறிஸ்தவர்கள் என
அழைக்கப்  பட்டார்கள் .
*************
ஜோசஃபஸின் புத்தகத்தில் பல இடைசெருகல்கள்(பிற்கால கிறிஸ்தவர்களால்) செய்யப்பட்ட து என நடுநிலையாளர் தெளிவாக ஆதாரத்தோடு சுட்டினர்.

யோசிபஸ் ஏடுகள் எல்லாமே பிற்காலத்தியவை எனத் தெளிவாக காட்டியும், கிறிஸ்துவ மழுப்பலாளர்கள் ஏற்க இயலா வாதங்கள் வைத்து அது ஏதோ ஏற்கத் தக்கது எனக் கதை பரப்புகின்றனர்.

 A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities  xviii:63

Dr. Paul J. Hopper -professor of Humanities at Carnegie Mellon University,

Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of the Humanities, Rhetoric and Linguistics, Department of English

மொழியியல் ரீதியில் அமைப்பியல் ஆய்வுகள் மூலமாய் அமெரிக்காவின் கார்னெகி மெல்லான் பல்கலைக் கழக பேராசிரியர் முனைவர். பால் ஹார்ப்பர் எழுதிய கட்டுரையின் இணைப்பும் முக்கிய பாகங்களும்

Dr.Hopper’s linguistic analysis of the TF in his article “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus” is definitive and adds significantly to the numerous other arguments against the passage’s authenticity evinced over the centuries.

In this regard, Hopper comments:

http://www.academia.edu/9494231/A_Narrative_Anomaly_in_Josephus

It is suggested that the Jesus passage is close in style and content to the creeds that were composed two to three centuries after Josephus.

He further explains:

The Testimonium itself is, when compared to the surrounding episodes, unusually short. Its very brevity is a suspicious feature, one that has led some defenders of its authenticity to suggest that while parts of the text are genuinely Josephan, the text has been tampered with by later Christians wanting to erase scandalous content.… In fact, however, the syntax of the Testimonium does not display the kinds of discontinuities we might expect to find if substantial changes such as major deletions or insertions had been made.

Here the linguist states that the syntax or arrangement of words and phrases of the TF shows no sign of either removals or insertions, the former put forth to explain the TF’s brevity and the latter as in the partial interpolation theory.

After discussing the history of TF criticism, Hopper concludes:

There is, then, reason to suspect that the Jesus episode is a later insertion, dating from more than two hundred years after Josephus’s death, and probably absent from most manuscripts of theJewish Antiquitiesuntil even later.

The Testimonium’s syntax and morphology indicate it was written as an apology or profession of faith, rather than a historical report. The passage seems to be addressing criticisms, as if written for those who had challenged Christian doctrine at some point after the religion had been established. Its structure reflects protest, and “Methinks it doth protest too much.”

The problems with the TF, therefore, go beyond a few Christian-sounding interpolations and extend to the syntax of the sentences themselves. To wit, they are composed not in typical narrative styles, but resemble more closely the writings of early Church fathers and apologists of succeeding centuries.

As concerns plot, the TF as a whole represents a summary of the gospel story, as recounted in the New Testament, not drawn from separate historical reports or oral history. As Hopper remarks:

…it is from the Gospels, and the Gospels alone, that the Jesus Christ narrative in theTestimonium draws its coherence and its legitimacy as a plot, and perhaps even some of its language. It is not just that the Christian origin of the Testimonium is betrayed by its allegiance to the Gospels, as that without the Gospels the passage is incomprehensible. … the Testimoniumdoes not so much narrate to first century Romans new events, but rather reminds third century Christians of events already familiar to them.

The evident Christian context of the TF speaks also to genre or category of subject matter, likewise examined by Hopper, who states:

The Testimonium is anchored in a radically different discourse community from that of the rest of the Jewish Antiquities. TheTestimonium reads more like a position paper, a party manifesto, than a narrative….

Again, the Testimonium Flavianum as a whole sounds like a Christian “political statement,” creed or profession of faith, precisely as so many have averred in the past.

Hopper next says that the “closest generic match for theTestimonium is perhaps the various creeds that began to be formulated in the early fourth century, such as the Nicene Creed (325 CE).”

Hopper’s linguistic analysis is yet another nail in the Testimonium coffin and should convince fence-sitters, although Christian apologists likely will never relinquish this “best evidence” because without it their claims to historicity are threadbare indeed.

In conclusion, Hopper states:

The narrative grammar of theTestimoniumFlavianum sets it sharply apart from Josephus’s other stories of the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. The most likely explanation is thatthe entire passage is interpolated, presumably by Christians...

In the end, it can be argued convincingly that the Testimonium Flavianum as a whole is a forgery and therefore does not provide evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate.

A longer and more in-depth analysis of Paul J. Hopper’s work on the Testimonium Flavianum can be found at “Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum Examined Linguistically: Greek Analysis Demonstrates the Passage a Forgery In Toto.” See also “Jesus passage in Josephus a forgery.”
 

 யோசிபஸ் இயேசு பற்றி உள்ள வசனங்கள் போர்ஜரி