This research project concerns itself with the three disputed passages of Christian import as preserved in extant manuscripts of the AJ (Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία a.k.a. Antiquitates Judaicae), viz.: AJ, XVIII, 3, 3 / 63 (i.e. the so-called Testimonium Flavianum), AJ, XVIII, 5, 2 / 116 -119 (i.e. the references to John the Baptist) and AJ, XX, 9, 1 / 200 - 203 (i.e. the references to James the brother of Jesus). Within the context of contemporary historicity research outcomes, and employing an interpretist/constructivist episteme, a series of critical analyses was undertaken aimed at verifying to what degree the three passages in question may be deemed to be in any way authentic and/or historically reliable. The result of the investigation proves beyond reasonable doubt that no reliable extra-biblical/scriptural accounts exist to support the historical existence of, inter alia, Jesus of Nazareth, James the Just or John the Baptist. Certainly, no such accounts ever appeared in Josephus’ original texts. Furthermore, and most importantly, the three passages are confirmed to be total forgeries initiated in the first four centuries of the Common Era most likely by Origen and Eusebius respectively. / PhD (Greek), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

This research project concerns itself with the three disputed passages of Christian import as preserved in extant manuscripts of the AJ (Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία a.k.a. Antiquitates Judaicae), viz.: AJ, XVIII, 3, 3 / 63 (i.e. the so-called Testimonium Flavianum), AJ, XVIII, 5, 2 / 116 -119 (i.e. the references to John the Baptist) and AJ, XX, 9, 1 / 200 - 203 (i.e. the references to James the brother of Jesus). Within the context of contemporary historicity research outcomes, and employing an interpretist/constructivist episteme, a series of critical analyses was undertaken aimed at verifying to what degree the three passages in question may be deemed to be in any way authentic and/or historically reliable. The result of the investigation proves beyond reasonable doubt that no reliable extra-biblical/scriptural accounts exist to support the historical existence of, inter alia, Jesus of Nazareth, James the Just or John the Baptist. Certainly, no such accounts ever appeared in Josephus’ original texts. Furthermore, and most importantly, the three passages are confirmed to be total forgeries initiated in the first four centuries of the Common Era most likely by Origen and Eusebius respectively. / PhD (Greek), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Thesis (MPhil (Ancient Studies)--University of Stellenbosch, 2006. / This thesis is a study of five books (Jubilees, 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Damascus Document and Josephus Jewish Antiquities) that represent the literature dealing with the issue of the Sabbath in significant ways, written between 200 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. In this study the author is determined to find the most prominent ways in which various Jews of the period treated the Sabbath, considering both its theological significance and actual practical application. The author seeks to apply the literary-critical method to the study of these books by identifying how the Sabbath pericopes fit into the larger structure of each book and contribute to the overall argument of each work. After dealing with introductory issues, such as terms, methods, historical settings and methodology, the author then works through the major Sabbath-related pericopes in each book followed by a concluding summary for each book. Then author moves from detailed individual conclusions to general summaries, seeking to deduce the “big picture” of the Judaisms represented in the five works that he researched. Throughout the thesis the author is asking all of the texts the following questions: Was there a major Jewish view of the Sabbath or were the views varied within Judaisms? Was the Sabbath one of the most important issues facing the Jewish Community or was it rather a peripheral one? What was the place of Covenant with YHWH in the Sabbath thought of the day? What was the impact of the historical events of the period on the views of the Sabbath? Was the understanding(s) of the Sabbath legalistic or was there a depth of heartfelt spirituality accompanying Sabbath observance? Were the rules with regard to the Sabbath actually carried out or were they largely ignored? At the conclusion he attempts to answer these questions point by point based upon the data that he collected by studying the passages related to the Sabbath observance within the books mentioned above. This study is preliminary in nature, since it attempts to provide only some background information to the question: Did the Jewish Christians of the first century change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday? If so, how did they do so while managing to avoid any kind of major debate over the change? This question the author plans to pursue in his forthcoming research.

This thesis examines the relationship between speech and action in Dionysius' Antiquitates Romanae. It consists of five main chapters, an introduction and a conclusion. In the introduction I establish the status quaestionis and consider different modes of presenting discourse. Chapter 2 is an intertextual analysis of Dionysius' first preface, AR I.1-8, exploring Dionysius' engagement with his Greek and Roman predecessors. I take one modern theory, concerning Dionysius apparent 'idealisation' of the Roman past, in order to examine the relationship between the Antiquities and Dionysius' rhetorical works. In the four chapters that follow, I trace the changing texture of narrative across the Antiquities, sinking shafts at moments to examine closely what is going on. First (ch. 3), I analyse speech in the Regal Period, focusing on the story of Lucretia and Brutus (AR IV.64-85), and the way that Herodotean allusion meshes with intratextual devices to narrate the fluctuations of the Regal Period. Chapter 4 is a paired reading of (4a) the story of Coriolanus' trial (VII.21-66) and (4b) the story of Coriolanus' encounter with his mother (VII.39-62). Ch. 4a concentrates on Thucydides and Isocrates, and how Coriolanus' trial binds the Greek literary past to the first-century Roman present. In 4b, I examine how Dionysius manages the shift between high politics and family relationships. Chapter 5, on the decemvirate (X.50-XI.44), explores again Roman tyranny, this time in a Republican frame; the power of the senate is consequently in point here. Chapter 6, on AR XIV-XX, probes the questions of Greek and Roman ethnicity and the individual which had arisen in the earlier chapters. In the conclusion I consider the precise question of Dionysius' Augustanism, relating it to Dionysius' apparent status in Rome.

Thesis (MA)--Stellenbosch University, 2001. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In this thesis I will examine and discuss the reasons given for the Jewish War of AD 66 - 70. Reasons put forward by modern scholars specializing in the study of the works of Flavius Josephus are examined and discussed. However, the bulk of my study centres on the reasons that Flavius Josephus supplies for the war as found in his major work Bellum Judaicum. One is lead to the conclusion that he firmly believes that reasons on the human and transcendent planes contributed to the catastrophic events that lead to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The worldview of this Jewish priest, general and accomplished historiographer was strongly influenced by the religious tenets of the Torah and the past history of the Jewish nation. He cannot countenance the wicked and evil deeds committed shamefacedly by his people against the clear standards that God had given to the nation, and believes that retribution by God will follow. He cannot forget occasions on the past when God intervened in the affairs of his nation by using a pagan world power to accomplish the purposes of God. He sees a similar recurrence of the events that lead to the destruction of the Jerusalem and the Temple in 587/6 BC being manifested in the Jewish War of AD 66 - 70. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In hierdie tesis word die redes wat vir die Joodse Oorlog van AD 66-70 aangebied word, ondersoek en bespreek. Veral die redes wat moderne geleerdes wat in die bestudering van Flavius Josephus se werk spesialiseer, word nagespeur en bespreek. Die grootste deel van die studie fokus egter op die redes wat Flavius Josephus self vir die gebeurtenis voorhou, soos wat hy dit in sy belangrike werk, Bellum Judaicum, uiteensit. 'n Mens kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat hy met groot oortuiging glo dat die redes wat tot die katastrofiese gebeure rondom die vernietiging van Jerusalem en die Tempel 'n bydrae gelewer het, op die vlak van sowel die menslike as bomenslike te vinde is. Die wêreldbeskouing van hierdie bedrewe geskiedskrywer en Joodse priester is deur beide die Torah se godsdienstige voorskrifte en volksgeskiedenis sterk beïnvloed. Hy kan nie sy steun aan die blatante en bose dade van sy volksgenote teen die duidelike standaarde wat God gegee het, toesê nie. Volgens hom moes God se vergelding volg. Hy kan ook nie vergeet hoe God in sy volk se verlede ingegryp het deur om goddelose wêreldmagte aan te wend om sy Goddelike doelwitte te bereik nie. Hy gewaar 'n soortgelyke herhaling van gebeurtenisse wat tot die vernietiging van Jerusalem en die tempel in 587/6 vC gelei het, in die aanloop tot die Joodse Oorlog van AD 66-70.

This essay is based on trying to understand the relationship that exists between Josephus’ writings and the pseudepigraph Assumptio Mosis. Although the comparisons made between the texts in this essay are not enough to give a definite answer, none of the examples exclude that Josephus may have used Assumptio Mosis as a primary source. Rather, there are indications in which a direct relationship between Josephus and Assumptio Mosis potentially could explain from where Josephus acquires some of his source material, especially for his narrative of the time period around 4 BCE–6 CE. / Denna uppsats bygger på att försöka förstå relationen som finns mellan Josefus skrifter och pseudepigrafen Assumptio Mosis. Även om jämförelserna som görs mellan skrifterna i denna uppsats inte räcker för att ge ett säkert svar i slutändan, utesluter inga av exemplen att Josefus kan ha använt Assumptio Mosis som direkt källa. Snarare finns indikationer i vilka en direkt relation mellan Josefus och Assumptio Mosis skulle kunna förklara varifrån Josefus hämtar en del av sitt källmaterial, inte minst för hans narrativ om tiden runt 4 f.v.t–6 v.t.

This thesis is the first full-length study of the English clergyman and historian William Cave (1637-1713). As one of a number of Restoration divines invested in exploring the lives and writings of the early Christians, Cave has nonetheless won only meagre interest from early-modernists in the past decade. Among his contemporaries and well into the nineteenth century Cave’s vernacular biographies of the Apostles and Church Fathers were widely read, but it was with the two volumes of his Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria (1688 and 1698), his life’s work, that he made his most important and lasting contribution to scholarship. The first aim of the thesis is therefore to build on a recent quickening of research into the innovative early-modern genre of historia literaria by exploring how, why, and with what help, in the context of late seventeenth-century European intellectual culture, Cave decided to write a work of literary history. To do so it makes extensive use of the handwritten drafts, annotations, notebooks, and letters that he left behind, giving a comprehensive account of his reading and scholarly practices from his student-days in 1650s Cambridge and then as a young clergyman in the 1660s to his final, unsuccessful attempts to publish a revised edition of his book at the end of his life. Cave’s motives, it finds, were multiple, complex, and sometimes conflicting: they developed in response to the immediate practical concerns of the post-Restoration Church of England even as they reflected some of the deeper-lying tensions of late humanist scholarship. The second reason for writing a thesis about Cave is that it makes it possible to reconsider an influential historiographical narrative about the origins of the ‘modern’ disciplinary category of literature. Since the 1970s the consensus among scholars has been that the nineteenth-century definition of literature as imaginative fictions in verse and prose – in other words literature as it is now taught in schools and universities – more or less completely replaced the early-modern notion of literature, literae, as learned books of all kinds. This view is challenged in the final section of this thesis, which traces the influence of Cave’s work on some of the canonical authors of the English literary tradition, including Johnson and Coleridge. Coleridge’s example, in particular, helps us to see why Cave and scholars like him were excluded lastingly from genealogies of English studies in the twentieth century, despite having given the discipline many of its characteristic concerns and aversions.