Josephus and New Testament (Recent Releases)

Rating:
Summary: Connects Luke to Josephus
Review: Great book that tells the affect that the Jewish revolt in A.D. 70 had on the Roman Empire and the writers of the time. Talks about the different groups within the Jewish Community. Gives a comparison between Luke and Josephus in treatment of events and N.T. characters. It describes how Josephus contradicts himself and sometimes seems to change his view on an event. So reading a single one of Josephus' books may not give a clear picture. This book does. I have never read Josephus, but I feel that I know what to expect.

Rating:
Summary: Fair enough, but what about the slavonic text?
Review: I give here the viewpoint of a general reader, however interested in the subject matter, but not that of an erudite. The book is excellent and outstanding, conceived by the author as a map to penetrate the intricate world of Josephus' works and their relation to the NT. He highlights some of the main issues, focusing the attention on the works themselves, the literary aims of Josephus, how persons and events are reflected in the NT and in one and another of Josephus' books, and finally the significant insight or conclusion, drawn elegantly and scholarly, that probably Luke -that is to say, the autor of the gospel according to Luke and the Acts- knew Josephus' works, had them in mind while writing, and that he depends on those in many a place. I think that Mr. Mason establishes this result without trying to push it to hard.

However, I've been let down by his silence concerning the "slavonic" version of the War. He confines his comments to a footnote, only to say that the slavonic additions are considered to be Christian embellishments. Accepting the conclusion -I find the author quite honest, reliable and devoid of biases-, I would have liked it a bit more elaborated. Because according to G.A. Williamson -who offers some of these puzzling "slavonic additions" in the Penguin edition (1970) of the "War"-, they seem to come as a traslation of a Greek text into old Russian, are sometime irreconciliable with Christian interests and possess a particular strength of their own. Maybe the complete text is a primitive form of the established Greek versions. As I read them, I'm able to guess some arguments to support even further critical points whence Luke could derive from Josephus, from these particular passages. Maybe the matter is academically resolved, but at any rate, a discussion of it would have been welcome.

Rating:
Summary: Good introduction to Josephus and NT writings
Review: Recommended!! Written by an author who is a specialist in the literary traditions and content of first century authors like Josephus. Provides useful detailed insights and commentary on the comparitive style and content of Josephus and NT writers. For most of the book the author stays on-topic, and readers will find the Luke/Acts chapter one of the best in the book. The author should have pruned some of the off-topic wandering into biblical interpretation of the NT with no real connection to Josephus; fundamentalists might find the author's comments annoying, but there are enough plain interesting quirks in the NT text that the author cites to be useful nevetheless.