Should Josephus have mentioned Jesus?

[TedM]

Assuming for the moment that the TF is entirely an interpolation, my question is this: If Jesus had existed--maybe not as a widely known person--but as associated with Christianity as a real person, should we expect Josephus to have mentioned him ANY MORE than we should have expected him to mention the rise of Christianity itself?

If the 'sect' of the Nazarenes or "The Way", as the early believers in Jerusalem are called, existed, and even were persecuted by the Jews, and Paul was spreading the message all over the place, and Christians existed in Rome, then isn't the silence of Josephus toward the entire movement a bit strange? If not, couldn't the reasons for such silence be applied to his silence toward Jesus himself?

ted

[Roger Pearse]

Assuming for the moment that the TF is entirely an interpolation, my question is this: If Jesus had existed--maybe not as a widely known person--but as associated with Christianity as a real person, should we expect Josephus to have mentioned him ANY MORE than we should have expected him to mention the rise of Christianity itself?


I have a methodological query about this question: how do we answer this in a manner that does not involve subjectivism, and descopes the (irrelevant) opinion of people living 2000 years later?

Do not people write books for their own reasons? While we can sometimes indicate significant omissions, it is remarkable how little the things important in hindsight impinge on many forms of literature.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[TedM]

I have a methodological query about this question: how do we answer this in a manner that does not involve subjectivism, and descopes the (irrelevant) opinion of people living 2000 years later?

Do not people write books for their own reasons? While we can sometimes indicate significant omissions, it is remarkable how little the things important in hindsight impinge on many forms of literature.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Hi Roger. I guess I should have clarified that I am looking for subjective opinions, and don't expect proof of anything. It is a hypothetical question and I admit it is designed to foster discussion questions about whether a lack of mention of a HJ by Josephus is an important argument in the case against a HJ.

ted

[Toto]

Assuming for the moment that the TF is entirely an interpolation, my question is this: If Jesus had existed--maybe not as a widely known person--but as associated with Christianity as a real person, should we expect Josephus to have mentioned him ANY MORE than we should have expected him to mention the rise of Christianity itself?

If the 'sect' of the Nazarenes or "The Way", as the early believers in Jerusalem are called, existed, and even were persecuted by the Jews, and Paul was spreading the message all over the place, and Christians existed in Rome, then isn't the silence of Josephus toward the entire movement a bit strange? If not, couldn't the reasons for such silence be applied to his silence toward Jesus himself?

ted

You are assuming that the TF is a total interpolation.

Assuming that you accept the Josephan passage on John the Baptist as not an interpolation, I would expect Josephus to mention Jesus and Christianity if they had existed in a form comparable to what is described in the NT, as I would expect that Christianity was at least as prominent as the Baptist's movement.

You seem to want to say that Christianity did exist, and if Josephus did not mention Paul or Christianity, it is not so surprising that he did not mention Jesus.

I don't think that this is strong evidence one way or another. Josephus discusses 4 major philosophies, but implies that there were many others. He mentions John the Baptist, but says little or nothing about his followers.

We have no independent verification of most of Josephus' history, and no way of knowing what he left out, or why.

There is also the possibility that Josephus did mention Jesus and Christianity, but the references were so unflattering that they were excised, perhaps replaced by the TF.

[Vorkosigan]

I have a methodological query about this question: how do we answer this in a manner that does not involve subjectivism, and descopes the (irrelevant) opinion of people living 2000 years later?

There's no escaping our subjectivity, but we can construct our methodology in such a way as to make maximum appeal to intersubjectivity of everyone involved.

Roger, speaking of the TF, did you see my summary of Joseph Atwill's observations on it (http://michaelturton2.blogspot.com/2005/07/atwill-on-tf.html)?

Vorkosigan

[Roger Pearse]

There's no escaping our subjectivity, but we can construct our methodology in such a way as to make maximum appeal to intersubjectivity of everyone involved.


I don't agree that it is impossible to remove our own subjectivity, tho.


Roger, speaking of the TF, did you see my summary of Joseph Atwill's observations on it (http://michaelturton2.blogspot.com/2005/07/atwill-on-tf.html)?


Many thanks for this. This is the first piece of anti-TF writing I have seen that recognises that the next passage, with that racy story about Eastern cults, is also 'out of context/sequence'. (I'm sure you've seen many, many people claim that the TF must be wrong because it doesn't fit in the series of events, as I have. I've always refer them to the next passage.)

I don't think his 'parallels' mean anything, because he would have to demonstrate that the parallels are significant, by using the same method on other passages. It's much too like numerology for me. How do we know this means anything? The parallels are trivial, really. "3 days" does not seem to me significant, for instance.

What I did find interesting was the suggestion that the two passages may have some relation. The connection is perversions of religion, in both cases; first of Jewish, then of pagan religion. But I'd be reluctant to go further.

What it does highlight is the ramshackle nature of Antiquities.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[DE BERGERAC]

Maybe Josephus is in fact recording some facts and names about early Christianity under different names. Eisenmann observes that the NT fails to mention the Esenians while touching at lenght on Pharisees, Sadducees and even somehow, "Zealots"; perhaps because Christianity occupies its place.

And what about the Fulvia passage, not far from the TF and after de Mundus and Pauline story. Where Christians distinguisable from proselytes?

If we take the references, for example, to Flavius Clemens and Domitila in Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Eusebius, it comes out that atheists, proselytes (of Judaism) and Christians were barely distinguishable.

[Roger Pearse]

If we take the references, for example, to Flavius Clemens and Domitila in Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Eusebius, it comes out that atheists, proselytes (of Judaism) and Christians were barely distinguishable.

All being atheists, as far as the Romans were concerned -- without belief in the (pagan) gods *. The accusation chanted against the Christians in the Martyrdom of Polycarp is "down with the atheists"; likewise in Minucius Felix, the accusation is made by Caecilius.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
* Of course Judaism was in a different position, since it was a religio licita; and as was remarked, although 'highly peculiar, they are the customs of their ancestors' (can't remember which ancient writer says this).

[Killer Mike]

Assuming for the moment that the TF is entirely an interpolation, my question is this: If Jesus had existed--maybe not as a widely known person--but as associated with Christianity as a real person, should we expect Josephus to have mentioned him ANY MORE than we should have expected him to mention the rise of Christianity itself?

If the 'sect' of the Nazarenes or "The Way", as the early believers in Jerusalem are called, existed, and even were persecuted by the Jews, and Paul was spreading the message all over the place, and Christians existed in Rome, then isn't the silence of Josephus toward the entire movement a bit strange? If not, couldn't the reasons for such silence be applied to his silence toward Jesus himself?

ted

Always remember just because someone is not mentioned does not mean they did not exist. I mean there are no records of any kind that mention my great great great grandfather. No body wrote about him. He did not write any letters (that have survived at least).

That of course does not mean he did not exist :Cheeky:

[andrewcriddle]

* Of course Judaism was in a different position, since it was a religio licita; and as was remarked, although 'highly peculiar, they are the customs of their ancestors' (can't remember which ancient writer says this).
IMS Celsus as cited by Origen.

Andrew Criddle

[krosero]

* Of course Judaism was in a different position, since it was a religio licita; and as was remarked, although 'highly peculiar, they are the customs of their ancestors' (can't remember which ancient writer says this).
Do you mean Tacitus in the Annals? "Whatever their origin, these observances are sanctioned by their antiquity."

EDIT: sorry, I saw Andrew's answer only after sending my post.

[vsop44]

Even if the communications in the 1 st century AD were not as instant as they are nowadays ; Josephus would have heard about Jesus not only for healing the sick , ressuscitating the dead , walking on water , feeding 5000 people with 2 fishes and 5 loaves and walking out of his grave and appearing shortly thereafter in front of 500 witnesses but also if we are to believe the NT of his arrival in Jerusalem on palm sunday and for creating a serious disturbance at the temple on the eve of
the spring festival .
All these events were important enough and drawing large crowds to be reported by the local historians for it is the stuff out of which myths are created and people talk about that kind of feats for generations .

[Toto]

If these things had happened and had been reported, wouldn't you expect Josephus to say more about Jesus than he did about John the Baptist? If these wondrous events had happened, wouldn't more people have noticed? Wouldn't Christianity have converted more of the Jewish population of Palestine?

[Vinnie]

Assuming for the moment that the TF is entirely an interpolation, my question is this: If Jesus had existed--maybe not as a widely known person--but as associated with Christianity as a real person, should we expect Josephus to have mentioned him ANY MORE than we should have expected him to mention the rise of Christianity itself?

If the 'sect' of the Nazarenes or "The Way", as the early believers in Jerusalem are called, existed, and even were persecuted by the Jews, and Paul was spreading the message all over the place, and Christians existed in Rome, then isn't the silence of Josephus toward the entire movement a bit strange? If not, couldn't the reasons for such silence be applied to his silence toward Jesus himself?

ted

See the Jesus FAQ: Sections 1 and 2:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/jesusfaq.html

I need to update that....

for the first one i might want to change "christianity" to "emerging jewish sect" or some such thing to avoid the anachronism of "Christianity"....

and so on and on... ....working on all my articles now..........

______________________________________


[1] Argument: Josephus Doesn't mention Jesus and this counts as positive silence against the historicity of Jesus.

Rebuttal: Even if Josephus did not mention Jesus of Nazareth this hardly argues against his existence. Why? How embarrassing is it for the Jesus skeptics that Josephus says nothing of Christians or Christianity either! Do we take this silence as indicate that there was no such movement as "Christianity" in the first century C.E.?

Josephus also mentions nothing of Paul. We have primary litrature from paul, he founded communuties, preached to a large number of audiences, traveled outside Palestine, causing disturbances across the Roman Empire, ending up under arrest in Rome itself! He was also "popular" to the Jews as well In 2 Cor 11:24-26 he writes, "Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move." We also have a bunch of epistles which popped up in Paul's name. Yet there is no mention of him in Josephus!


Historicists have everything to gain and nothing to lose when discussing Josephus. Any silence here would be probative of nothing at all save possible a determination of the popularity of Jesus to the outside world at this time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Argument: There are no contemporary references to Jesus or any by an outside source before the second century. This counts against his existence.

Rebuttal: The same type of reasoning applied to Josephus above can be applied to other non-Christian sources that do not mention Jesus--virtually all of which should not be expected to mention Jesus. How much contemporary source material actually survives? Very little! How many of them mention Christians or Christianity? How many contemporary sources mention Paul or John the baptist--two figures who's historicity is secure--like Jesus'? Peter or John, Mary Magdalen, et al?

We can easily dismiss bad arguments from silence such as these. Scholars have already known this for quite some time. As E.P. Sander's wrote:

"Jesus became such an important man in world history that it is sometimes hard to believe how unimportant he was during his lifetime, especially outside Palestine. Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world. . . . When he was executed, Jesus was no more important to the outside world than the two brigands or insurgents executed with him -- whose names we do not know." -- The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.49.


That last quote about sums it up. Jo does mention Jesus thoughm twice along with his brother James whom Mark. And Paul's BotL.

Vinnie

[DE BERGERAC]

But remember that according to ACTS: "this things were not done in a corner". Josephus had to mention those things, since he mentions lesser events.

On the other hand, JUSTUS OF TIBERIAS, whom Josephus mentions and whose works have been lost, didn't mention at all Jesus, to the outrage of PHOTIUS who still was able to peruse copies of his works.

[Clivedurdle]

[1] Argument: Josephus Doesn't mention Jesus and this counts as positive silence against the historicity of Jesus.

Rebuttal: Even if Josephus did not mention Jesus of Nazareth this hardly argues against his existence. Why? How embarrassing is it for the Jesus skeptics that Josephus says nothing of Christians or Christianity either! Do we take this silence as indicate that there was no such movement as "Christianity" in the first century C.E.?

Is it embarassing? Is there any real evidence that xianity existed in the first century CE?

We have messianic and gnostic cults of various flavours, even the dating of Paul is tautological because it relies on Acts, and who says the earliest references to xianity have any but the vaguest links to how we perceive this group of beliefs we label xianity now?

Is the silence of Josephus about xianity actually pointing out that maybe it is a late first, early second century phenomena? Did it really take off with Hadrian in Jerusalem?

[Vinnie]

Is it embarassing? Is there any real evidence that xianity existed in the first century CE?

We have messianic and gnostic cults of various flavours, even the dating of Paul is tautological because it relies on Acts, and who says the earliest references to xianity have any but the vaguest links to how we perceive this group of beliefs we label xianity now?

Is the silence of Josephus about xianity actually pointing out that maybe it is a late first, early second century phenomena? Did it really take off with Hadrian in Jerusalem?

*shaked head*

The movement started in the thirties. It only grew in popularity after its founders death. If the movement (strange Jewish sect) wasn't important enough to discuss, how much less uts obscure rabble rousing founder convicted and condemned to death on a Roman cross.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

But remember that according to ACTS: "this things were not done in a corner". Josephus had to mention those things, since he mentions lesser events.

On the other hand, JUSTUS OF TIBERIAS, whom Josephus mentions and whose works have been lost, didn't mention at all Jesus, to the outrage of PHOTIUS who still was able to peruse copies of his works.

Yeah, teaching on a hilltop is not "preaching in a corner" but what is your point? The gospels over-emphasixe the popularity and impact of Jesus.

Sander's quote:

Jesus became such an important man in world history that it is sometimes hard to believe how unimportant he was during his lifetime, especially outside Palestine. Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world. . . . When he was executed, Jesus was no more important to the outside world than the two brigands or insurgents executed with him -- whose names we do not know." -- The Historical Figure of Jesus, p.49.

This is all irrelevant to me as well though, cause Jesus is plugged by Josephus.

Vinnie

[krosero]

See the Jesus FAQ: Sections 1 and 2:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/jesusfaq.html

I need to update that....
For your item "[12] Argument: Paul Doesn't Mentions Any HJ Details", you list the HJ details that Paul does provide. The issue can be pressed further by pointing out that epistles after Paul generally do not mention HJ details, and that indeed most of early Christian literature seems more concerned with the glorified Christ, living presently in the Church, than with biographical details of the brief incarnation here on earth. Yet surely much of this literature knows of the Gospel picture of Jesus. I have not made a hard count, but it seems to me that the later, non-Pauline epistles give even fewer biographical details than Paul does, which is a curious thing for anyone who regards Paul's silence on many biographical details to be meaningful. If Paul's silence, so defined, means that he didn't know the Gospel Jesus, does the equivalent or greater silence of later writers in the first three centuries mean that they also did not know the Gospel Jesus?

I mention this here because it's very much like asking, "If Josephus is silent about Christ, why is he also silent about Christianity?" It amounts to holding any proposed silence to its own standards. You can ask, for instance, "If it's meaningful that Philo doesn't mention Christ, then what does it mean that Philo doesn't mention the Baptist, surely a figure who would have been at least comparable to Christ, if not more important, in Philo's estimation?" Pressing silences like this is not definitive, and as mentioned here already it gets into highly subjective matters, but it does highlight the question of how much meaning arguments from silence can be expected to deliver.

There is a good counter-argument to the Josephus question at Peter Kirby's online summary (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html) of pro and con arguments concerning the TF (search for "Maurice Goguel"). The answer given is that Josephus would have wanted to avoid discussing Messianic cults so as not alienate his Roman audience. To this it may be replied that Josephus had only to mention something in an unflattering light if he wanted to discuss it, but either way this counter-argument should be addressed.

[Clivedurdle]

Shaking heads can lead to brain damage! In the Romans thread, I asked:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle
. . .

What external evidence is there for when Paul's writing were written? Are they placed post 30 because of the assumed date of Christ's mission?

response:

There is no good external evidence. They are dated by fitting them into the chronology of Acts, based on references to a few historical figures there.

Quote:
If we are proposing a theory that discards an HJ, what effect does that have on all dates of everything?

response:

It does make things rather imprecise, doesn't it? If Ellegard is correct and we ignore Acts, Paul could have been much earlier. Or later.


And got the above reply!

[Vinnie]

Paul wrote in the fifties. Its a historical fact (whatever that means).
Do we really need to hash the evidence for this?
I just don't see it as a line of inquiry worth pursuing.
Convince me and I'll take the time to type up the reasoning.

Vinnie

[Peter Kirby]

Paul wrote in the fifties. Its a historical fact (whatever that means).
Do we really need to hash the evidence for this?
I just don't see it as a line of inquiry worth pursuing.
Convince me and I'll take the time to type up the reasoning.

Vinnie
Could he have also wrote in the late forties or early sixties? Of course; your statement is just inexact.

The question is whether the letters were written by Paul at a later date, say in the 70s, or whether they were written by someone other than Paul at an even later date.

It will also be interesting to see what reasoning involves only external evidence for Paul's letters, what reasoning involves only the internal evidence of Paul's letters and background knowlede, and what reasoning involves the evidence of Acts and other sources on Paul.

I think these kinds of basic questions are the sort that we can attempt to be more rigorous about, and rigor is in great demand. Bring it on, Vinnie!

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[spin]

If Jesus had made the splash the gospels say he did, it would be a fair bet that Josephus would have said something about him (that would have made more sense that the TF: besides, why should Josephus have described Jesus as the "ointment" to his Roman Greek-reading audience?).

Josephus mentions various disturbances that christians would consider to have been on a much smaller scale than the activities of Jesus. Thousands go out to him at various times. He causes riots in Jerusalem. He gets a messianic reception in Jerusalem. He causes a ruckus at the temple. He restores sight and raises the dead. And Josephus gives us silence. The downplay by people, such as Sanders, shows Orwellian doublethink.

What we know:
messianism in various forms had been popular throughout the diaspora since at least the beginning of the 1st c.;
numerous messiahs went to the wall in Judaea;
the diaspora Jew,Paul, has a vision of a messiah who went to the wall;
Paul makes contact with Jerusalem messianists, who show little interest in him;
Paul directs his energies to the diaspora and the gentiles, including writing letters;
Paul's letters were collected edited, redacted and expanded upon;
Messianism continued in various guises until the downfall of Simeon ben Kosiba.


What else have we got from the first century? How much of the theological material in the Pauline tradition is actually Pauline? How does one know? Was any of the christian testament written in Judaea and how does one know?


spin

[krosero]

Thousands go out to him at various times. He causes riots in Jerusalem. He gets a messianic reception in Jerusalem. He causes a ruckus at the temple. He restores sight and raises the dead. And Josephus gives us silence. The downplay by people, such as Sanders, shows Orwellian doublethink.

Actually any hard-headed skeptic can downplay Jesus. You imply that Sanders and other HJ scholars are not using what skepticism they might have and are actually engaging in doublethink, which is defined in 1984 this way:

"the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

This is such pathology that it really does us no good to debate whether current scholars are engaging in it. Don't get me wrong, people of all walks of life probably can engage in some doublethink, but Orwell's depiction of it is monstrous (e.g., "to tell deliberate lies"), and you used the adjective Orwellian.

If you're a skeptic, and you have the NT and Josephus to examine, you decide quite reasonably that the picture of Jesus given to us by those who loved and worshiped him must be inflated. You know with some confidence, then, that Josephus could have been a contemporary of a Jesus who was a lesser figure than the one in the Gospels, though he may have heard of the Gospel Jesus. As a skeptic it's doubtful to your mind that Josephus, a Jew, and a man concerned not to give credence to Messianism in writings directed at a Roman audience, would give credence to the Gospel picture of Jesus (if he even heard it). He'd be likely, at most, to report Easter as a belief, not a fact. So then the investigation of the TF proceeds, with all the pros and cons that we know -- but my point is that reducing Jesus to a marginal Jew looks very much like skepticism. Why cannot an HJ scholar be granted that quality among other qualities? Are HJ scholars merely credulous? That does not seem possible -- and I say that from my skeptical side. :)

Look, to decide about the TF one has to be skeptical about it -- perhaps it was an interpolation by those who loved and worshipped Jesus; but then, perhaps the Gospels were a glorification of Jesus by those who loved and worshipped him. Why insist on the formula, "If Jesus had made the splash the gospels say he did, it would be a fair bet that Josephus would have said something about him"? The only thing challenged by that formula is biblical literalism. A skeptic already knows on naturalistic grounds, and on grounds of psychology, that Jesus did not do everything people credited him with doing.

[spin]

Actually any hard-headed skeptic can downplay Jesus.
That entails analysis of the texts which should denude them of functional theological content.

You imply that Sanders and other HJ scholars are not using what skepticism they might have and are actually engaging in doublethink
Those who both hold Jesus as the performer of many gospel deeds yet not worthy of contemporary note, seem to me to be able to hold two conflicting opinions at the same time, ie doublethink.

This [doublethink] is such pathology that it really does us no good to debate whether current scholars are engaging in it. Don't get me wrong, people of all walks of life probably can engage in some doublethink, but Orwell's depiction of it is monstrous (e.g., "to tell deliberate lies"), and you used the adjective Orwellian.
I don't see why you need to go past the actual definition you cited for doublethink, ie "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." I am looking at those who manifest doublethink, not analysing the causes of it. The notion of doublethink is extremely clear without needing any concomitant cause clause. You have read too much into my statements by over-applying your reading from 1984.

If you're a skeptic, and you have the NT and Josephus to examine, you decide quite reasonably that the picture of Jesus given to us by those who loved and worshiped him must be inflated.
Where are you getting this picture of what those "who loved and worshiped him" from? How do you know what Jesus, if he actually did anything, did?

Modern common sense is not a guideline when doing historical research. You must attempt to make your analysis not on what you want ancients to have done, but from what you can observe that ancients did.

You know with some confidence, then, that Josephus could have been a contemporary of a Jesus who was a lesser figure than the one in the Gospels, though he may have heard of the Gospel Jesus. As a skeptic it's doubtful to your mind that Josephus, a Jew, and a man concerned not to give credence to Messianism in writings directed at a Roman audience, would give credence to the Gospel picture of Jesus (if he even heard it). He'd be likely, at most, to report Easter as a belief, not a fact.
How would you know? Answer: you wouldn't.

Once you've watered down the story, you have no way of verifying it, so why bother watering it down? You aren't doing history, you are just rationalising the tradition to your experience.

So then the investigation of the TF proceeds, with all the pros and cons that we know -- but my point is that reducing Jesus to a marginal Jew looks very much like skepticism. Why cannot an HJ scholar be granted that quality among other qualities? Are HJ scholars merely credulous? That does not seem possible -- and I say that from my skeptical side. :)
How do you separate good tradition from bad tradition?

Look, to decide about the TF one has to be skeptical about it -- perhaps it was an interpolation by those who loved and worshipped Jesus; but then, perhaps the Gospels were a glorification of Jesus by those who loved and worshipped him.
Perhaps they were, but you aren't interested in epistemology at all, are you?

Why insist on the formula, "If Jesus had made the splash the gospels say he did, it would be a fair bet that Josephus would have said something about him"?
Because, in its statement, it is quite reasonable. You haven't attempted to actually critique it and probably not even attempted to understand it, given your comments. In fact, I think you should be able to agree with it, as stated with its limitations.

The only thing challenged by that formula is biblical literalism. A skeptic already knows on naturalistic grounds, and on grounds of psychology, that Jesus did not do everything people credited him with doing.
You are just misusing the term "know". You know nothing of the sort. You just believe your position according to your experience. You have no way of going beyond that.


spin

[Toto]

. . .

If you're a skeptic, and you have the NT and Josephus to examine, you decide quite reasonably that the picture of Jesus given to us by those who loved and worshiped him must be inflated. You know with some confidence, then, that Josephus could have been a contemporary of a Jesus who was a lesser figure than the one in the Gospels, though he may have heard of the Gospel Jesus. As a skeptic it's doubtful to your mind that Josephus, a Jew, and a man concerned not to give credence to Messianism in writings directed at a Roman audience, would give credence to the Gospel picture of Jesus (if he even heard it). He'd be likely, at most, to report Easter as a belief, not a fact. So then the investigation of the TF proceeds, with all the pros and cons that we know -- but my point is that reducing Jesus to a marginal Jew looks very much like skepticism. Why cannot an HJ scholar be granted that quality among other qualities? Are HJ scholars merely credulous? That does not seem possible -- and I say that from my skeptical side. :)

Look, to decide about the TF one has to be skeptical about it -- perhaps it was an interpolation by those who loved and worshipped Jesus; but then, perhaps the Gospels were a glorification of Jesus by those who loved and worshipped him. Why insist on the formula, "If Jesus had made the splash the gospels say he did, it would be a fair bet that Josephus would have said something about him"? The only thing challenged by that formula is biblical literalism. A skeptic already knows on naturalistic grounds, and on grounds of psychology, that Jesus did not do everything people credited him with doing.

Under the usual dating, Josephus would not have been contemporaneous with Jesus, but with Paul. Josephus shows no sign of having read the gospels if they were in their current form; as Leidner (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967790107/) has argued, Josephus in Contra Apion attempts to refute all of the anti-Jewish literature of the day, and he does not mention the gospels, which contain a fair amount of anti-Jewish material. (Some excerpts from Leidner are here (http://www.christianism.com/html/add36b.html).)

The attempted historical recreation of Jesus the Marginal Jew (whom I have labeled "wimpy Jesus" in the past) is a possible, but not a probable explanation of the data. It does not explain the reference in Josephus as well as Ken Olson explains the particular language and concepts used as a later interpolation by Eusebius. It doesn't explain the early "high Christology" of first century writers, followed later by more historical details in the gospels.

Once you realize that there is no history to be reconstructed from the gospels, you are left with no particular reason to assume that Christianity started with a founder figure around 32 CE, or that there was any person to be "inflated" into the gospel Jesus.

[krosero]

Spin, so many of your points in reply to my last post are about how I could not know this or that suggested reconstruction of the past -- when I was in fact just suggesting. It's probably my fault for not using a phrase like "if we take for granted..." I spoke of a hypothetical skeptic who "knows", for instance, that Jesus did not do everything attributed to him: in other words, after he's done his analysis he'll most likely accept at least the modest conclusion that Jesus was less than the Gospels say he was (a conclusion more modest than full-blow mythicism). I did not say how he arrived at his reconstruction, except to say that we know he'll get there just starting with the fact of his skepticism and rationalism (he'll reject miracles). There are more than one specific reconstruction by which you could arrive at mythicism, or naturalistic HJ, or traditional belief. I was not insisting on specifics like Josephus and Jesus being contemporaries because their lives might have overlapped. I was trying just to set out a position that everyone in the current discussion could agree on, for the sake of argument -- Jesus probably did not do everything attributed to him -- with some of us holding to an HJ, and others going all the way to say that he didn't do anything in the Gospels because fictionalization was full (he never lived). I do not dispute the need for such basic things as "analysis of the texts which should denude them of functional theological content." Nor am I uninterested in epistemology just because I was focusing on something else in this thread.

This thread was about whether there's any inconsistency in arguments about Josephus that are used to challenge Jesus' historicity. I say that if we all here can agree at least that Jesus did not do everything in the Gospels, the Testimonium question should not consistently be phrased "If Jesus caused the splash that the Gospels say he did..." It should be rather, "If Jesus did some of the non-supernatural stuff attributed to him, and perhaps other similar unrecorded things, and none of the supernatural things, but had these latter feats attributed to him, would Josephus have mentioned him in his work?" I still have not seen any argument that seriously challenges the plausibility of Josephus writing one paragraph (later tampered with, "glorified" so to speak) about such a man. He wrote about failed Messianic claimants, defeated by the state, and Jesus was such a man according to the NT (and he was nothing else, if you remove a literal Resurrection).

All of that can lead us further into the specific TF arguments, pro and con, but let's stick to the inconsistency question. I think it's an inconsistency to insist on the Gospel Jesus (the one who made a BIG PUBLIC splash, supernatural or not) when asking about Josephus and then insisting on a minimal or mythical Jesus when asking about the Gospels. The actual Jesus (or the nonexistent one) -- is the only Jesus that Josephus could have known, or given credence to. Perhaps he heard about the Gospel Jesus, but I don't think so, and neither does Toto. In short: Josephus would not have heard of the Gospel Jesus (that is, he would not have seen the Gospels); why insist on this Jesus when asking whether Josephus would have written about Jesus?



Those who both hold Jesus as the performer of many gospel deeds yet not worthy of contemporary note, seem to me to be able to hold two conflicting opinions at the same time, ie doublethink.

I don't see why you need to go past the actual definition you cited for doublethink, ie "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." I am looking at those who manifest doublethink, not analysing the causes of it. The notion of doublethink is extremely clear without needing any concomitant cause clause. You have read too much into my statements by over-applying your reading from 1984.


This whole business about doublethink is related to the Josephus question, in my opinion, but allow me a short note on definitions. I quoted the full definition of doublethink because I don't regard it as merely referring to the holding of "two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them," nor does anyone I know limit it to that. If that's all it is, it's likely to be confused with F. Scott's Fitzgerald's remark that "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.� Doublethink, which is practically synonymous with saying Orwellian doublethink, entails all those other nasty things from the quote I used. What you're talking about, Spin, is just one of the elements of Orwellian doublethink, one that's ordinarily referred to as being self-contradictory, or inconsistent (i.e., not sticking to one premise but retaining two incompatible ones so you can make use of each whenever it's convenient). Along with lies and other nasty stuff, it's described as part of Orwell's doublethink: "to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed."

Everybody does that, or something approaching that, because when you're driving home a point or a few points, you lose sight of previous points you made and let yourself get into an inconsistency. Christian apologists certainly do this. I also perceive it happening -- but you can tell me where I'm wrong -- when skeptics use the Gospel Jesus to judge the text of Josephus but they actually argue for a Jesus who was nothing like the one found in the Gospels. As I said, the one they argue for, if their argument is correct, is the only one that Josephus could have known about (and it's the only he could have given credence to, given what we know from the rest of his writings).

Maybe there's no inconsistency here. I look forward to more.

[krosero]

I didn't find a good way to include this in my last post:

What we know:
messianism in various forms had been popular throughout the diaspora since at least the beginning of the 1st c.;
numerous messiahs went to the wall in Judaea;
the diaspora Jew,Paul, has a vision of a messiah who went to the wall;
Paul makes contact with Jerusalem messianists, who show little interest in him;
Paul directs his energies to the diaspora and the gentiles, including writing letters;
Paul's letters were collected edited, redacted and expanded upon;
Messianism continued in various guises until the downfall of Simeon ben Kosiba.



I can give some meaningful assent to all but one of these points as things that we know with great certainity, though I may not see them each the way you do (particularly the statement about Paul having a vision of a messiah). And I certainly would not agree that this is all we know; it is all that you (Spin) feel confident knowing. And I would add that many reconstructions of the past can be changed wildly if we strip our conclusions down to those things, only, that cannot be doubted and do not have counter-challenges. I mean, seriously, all the important questions in history have counter-challenges; everything that's "in question" or "in doubt" or "under discussion" is there because there are counter-challenges. The proper way, though more difficult, IMHO is to bring into our account of the past not just the absolute certainties but those things which are even plausibly suggested by the evidence; not bringing them in literally, of course, and without challenge, but bringing them in.

The one thing I really question is that the Jerusalem community had little interest in Paul. You say yourself that we don't know if the Christian testimony was written in Judea, and that we don't know who the authors are (all granted), so then how do you know that the author of Luke-Acts, someone very interested in Paul, is not to be associated with the Jerusalem community and their interests? Or do you not hold that Luke and Acts were written by the same person? If not, why? and tell me how you have certainty about this negative ("Acts and Luke are not the product of the same pen") when you don't have certainty about who wrote the Christian testimonies?

[Toto]

. . . I spoke of a hypothetical skeptic who "knows", for instance, that Jesus did not do everything attributed to him: in other words, after he's done his analysis he'll most likely accept at least the modest conclusion that Jesus was less than the Gospels say he was (a conclusion more modest than full-blow mythicism).

But a true skeptic would want some evidence of Jesus' existence, and that's what we're looking for.

. . .

All of that can lead us further into the specific TF arguments, pro and con, but let's stick to the inconsistency question. I think it's an inconsistency to insist on the Gospel Jesus (the one who made a BIG PUBLIC splash, supernatural or not) when asking about Josephus and then insisting on a minimal or mythical Jesus when asking about the Gospels.

There are Christians who argue that the reason there is so little historical record of Jesus is that he was just a backwater preacher, but then bootstrap their way to believing in the gospel Jesus by various means. That's where the inconsistency lies.

The liberals who just believe in Jesus without the miracles tend to accept the TF as reflecting some person named Jesus.

The actual Jesus (or the nonexistent one) -- is the only Jesus that Josephus could have known, or given credence to. Perhaps he heard about the Gospel Jesus, but I don't think so, and neither does Toto.

Toto thinks that he never heard about any Jesus of Nazareth.

Everybody does that, or something approaching that, because when you're driving home a point or a few points, you lose sight of previous points you made and let yourself get into an inconsistency. Christian apologists certainly do this. I also perceive it happening -- but you can tell me where I'm wrong -- when skeptics use the Gospel Jesus to judge the text of Josephus but they actually argue for a Jesus who was nothing like the one found in the Gospels.

Who are those skeptics? spin has certainly not argued for any Jesus for any sort. Most of the skeptics here argue that if Jesus had been close to the figure described in the gospels, or if he had had any significant following, he would have been mentioned in Josephus, (and if he were too insigificant, who cares if he existed or not?)

I think that the only "evidence" of the historic Jesus is the gospels, and if there is no gospel Jesus, there is no HJ.

[spin]

Spin, so many of your points in reply to my last post are about how I could not know this or that suggested reconstruction of the past -- when I was in fact just suggesting. It's probably my fault for not using a phrase like "if we take for granted..." I spoke of a hypothetical skeptic who "knows", for instance, that Jesus did not do everything attributed to him: in other words, after he's done his analysis he'll most likely accept at least the modest conclusion that Jesus was less than the Gospels say he was (a conclusion more modest than full-blow mythicism). I did not say how he arrived at his reconstruction, except to say that we know he'll get there just starting with the fact of his skepticism and rationalism (he'll reject miracles). There are more than one specific reconstruction by which you could arrive at mythicism, or naturalistic HJ, or traditional belief. I was not insisting on specifics like Josephus and Jesus being contemporaries because their lives might have overlapped. I was trying just to set out a position that everyone in the current discussion could agree on, for the sake of argument -- Jesus probably did not do everything attributed to him -- with some of us holding to an HJ, and others going all the way to say that he didn't do anything in the Gospels because fictionalization was full (he never lived). I do not dispute the need for such basic things as "analysis of the texts which should denude them of functional theological content." Nor am I uninterested in epistemology just because I was focusing on something else in this thread.

This thread was about whether there's any inconsistency in arguments about Josephus that are used to challenge Jesus' historicity. I say that if we all here can agree at least that Jesus did not do everything in the Gospels, the Testimonium question should not consistently be phrased "If Jesus caused the splash that the Gospels say he did..." It should be rather, "If Jesus did some of the non-supernatural stuff attributed to him, and perhaps other similar unrecorded things, and none of the supernatural things, but had these latter feats attributed to him, would Josephus have mentioned him in his work?" I still have not seen any argument that seriously challenges the plausibility of Josephus writing one paragraph (later tampered with, "glorified" so to speak) about such a man. He wrote about failed Messianic claimants, defeated by the state, and Jesus was such a man according to the NT (and he was nothing else, if you remove a literal Resurrection).

All of that can lead us further into the specific TF arguments, pro and con, but let's stick to the inconsistency question. I think it's an inconsistency to insist on the Gospel Jesus (the one who made a BIG PUBLIC splash, supernatural or not) when asking about Josephus and then insisting on a minimal or mythical Jesus when asking about the Gospels. The actual Jesus (or the nonexistent one) -- is the only Jesus that Josephus could have known, or given credence to. Perhaps he heard about the Gospel Jesus, but I don't think so, and neither does Toto. In short: Josephus would not have heard of the Gospel Jesus (that is, he would not have seen the Gospels); why insist on this Jesus when asking whether Josephus would have written about Jesus?



This whole business about doublethink is related to the Josephus question, in my opinion, but allow me a short note on definitions. I quoted the full definition of doublethink because I don't regard it as merely referring to the holding of "two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them," nor does anyone I know limit it to that. If that's all it is, it's likely to be confused with F. Scott's Fitzgerald's remark that "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.� Doublethink, which is practically synonymous with saying Orwellian doublethink, entails all those other nasty things from the quote I used. What you're talking about, Spin, is just one of the elements of Orwellian doublethink, one that's ordinarily referred to as being self-contradictory, or inconsistent (i.e., not sticking to one premise but retaining two incompatible ones so you can make use of each whenever it's convenient). Along with lies and other nasty stuff, it's described as part of Orwell's doublethink: "to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed."

Everybody does that, or something approaching that, because when you're driving home a point or a few points, you lose sight of previous points you made and let yourself get into an inconsistency. Christian apologists certainly do this. I also perceive it happening -- but you can tell me where I'm wrong -- when skeptics use the Gospel Jesus to judge the text of Josephus but they actually argue for a Jesus who was nothing like the one found in the Gospels. As I said, the one they argue for, if their argument is correct, is the only one that Josephus could have known about (and it's the only he could have given credence to, given what we know from the rest of his writings).

Maybe there's no inconsistency here. I look forward to more.
You're talking to yourself.


spin

[Vinnie]

Could he have also wrote in the late forties or early sixties? Of course; your statement is just inexact.

55 C.E. +/-10

Is that better? :p

My statement only applies to Paul's genuine epistles. Paul could have written something in the 20s for all I know or care. The maximum date depends on Paul's death.


Limited External attestation which does occur 1st century (e.g. Clement)


Evidence of Collections. Marcions collection and the one behind most Greek Manuscripts and P46 which is dated ca 200. Both were current in the mid-2d century. This is obvious for Marcion who is placedi n that time period but undoubtedly, p46 was current in the middle of the second century as well. Why? Scholar will not relegate the creation of this colection as occuring in Egypt and it must have undergone significant development to include Hebrews. Thus the latest possible date of this collection of letters that were written in different times before it is mid second century.

There is another collection that is usually dated no later than early second century (at the latest!). Its one which 10 letters addressed to seven churches which contained the letters in decreasing length and counted together letters to the same community. The evidence for this is less direct but it all fits.

Its evidenced by Marcion's collection which seems to have depended on this earlier one and is tied in with two other groups of letters to seven churches ca. 100 which do not imitate one another and also with the problems of Paul's letter's particularity which as Harry Y. Gamble wrote in Books and Readers in the Early Church, "The textual traditions of Paul's letters preserves indications of an early, certainly first century, effort to overcome the problem by deleting or generalizing the addresses of some of the letters and sometimes by omitting other locally specific matter as well, thus mechanically conferring on Paul's particular letters the appearance of general letters."p. 60 But this chopping method proved inadequate since the particularity of Paul's letters was too extenive to obscure through textual emendation. The collection of ten books to seven churchs referenced above appears to be a more adequate solution to chopping up Paul. But the letters certainly predate this and some time for development is needed.

Already off the limited generic material above our latest possible date is shrinking back down....

To use an internal and less generic and more specific evidence: to take just one example, I can date Thessalonians easily and early on the basis of its uber-urgent eschatology. It was OBVIOUSLY written very early. I noted the progression here before (Paul to Mark to John to Red.John). Paul's audience was shaken that Christ has not returned when some of them have died. This is a very clear chronological indicator IMO.

Then we have the letters written in Paul's name afterwards which can be dated to varying degrees. Obviously Paul's letters predate these and presumably Paul was dead by this time as well.

We haven't even discussed Acts and the Pauline corpus yet though nor any of the content of the genuine epistels themselves and their chronological indications.

You just have not yet convinced me that something so bland and basic is worth the effort? Why go on?

[krosero]

But a true skeptic would want some evidence of Jesus' existence, and that's what we're looking for.

So apparently I wasn't skeptical enough in the common ground I thought we could all stand on. I should have said, "A skeptic would find at least that Jesus, if he even existed, did not do everything the Gospels said he did." Minor edit, minor difference. My question is still there: is there an inconsistency in the way Josephus is used against HJ arguments?

Who are those skeptics? spin has certainly not argued for any Jesus for any sort. Most of the skeptics here argue that if Jesus had been close to the figure described in the gospels, or if he had had any significant following, he would have been mentioned in Josephus, (and if he were too insigificant, who cares if he existed or not?)

Yes, that's what skeptics here argue: and they follow up with the conclusion (separately reached) that Josephus did not mention Jesus. They use, as I say, the Gospel Jesus as a hypothetical figure that Josephus should have heard about, rather than asking whether Josephus would have heard or written about a naturalistic figure.

The question about if he was a big splash or if he was too insignificant for Josephus to write about just seems like a false choice to me. Why the extremes? A person can cause quite a stir, and remain interesting historically, if one historian of the time happens not to have found him interesting the way we do. And leaving us aside and sticking just to Josephus, he could have found someone interesting who was not supernatural but who did cause a stir and may not fairly be described as an insignificant nobody.

[Vinnie]

actually strike the Clement attestation from my post....too specific a dating assumed...though late first early second would be accurate but this gives us nothing new....

[Peter Kirby]

You just have not yet convinced me that something so bland and basic is worth the effort? Why go on?
Because bringing systematization to the bland and basic is the essence of science, an enchantment with the ordinary. And because in the discipline of NT studies, as in any--to quote the ancient saw--well begun is half done. Setting down a solid foundation makes so many other questions easier.

So far we have this: Marcion had a collection of Paulines and, if he did not write them, they must have been written some time before. How much longer before? Can we tell from some data other than Marcion's use, which doesn't move us any earlier than 'the early second century or before'?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[Vinnie]

Because bringing systematization to the bland and basic is the essence of science, an enchantment with the ordinary. And because in the discipline of NT studies, as in any--to quote the ancient saw--well begun is half done. Setting down a solid foundation makes so many other questions easier.

So far we have this: Marcion had a collection of Paulines and, if he did not write them, they must have been written some time before. How much longer before? Can we tell from some data other than Marcion's use, which doesn't move us any earlier than 'the early second century or before'?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

No, thats not what I said. I said there were three collections.

1) Marcions which dats ca 140 or whenever Marcion is placed.
2) The one behind Greek manuscripts today and P46 whic his dates ca 200. This must be placed as current at least mid 2d. for the two reasons I articulated: can't be viewed as created in Egypt and it includs Hebrews suggesting development.
3) Three cumulative reasons for an even earlier collection on which Marcion;s was based with consisted of letters to 7 Churches (number symbolizing completeness of Paul's addresses to the church when in fact he wrote particualr letters).
4) Thus the evidence is that Christians seem to have had difficulties with the particular nature of Paul's letters in the first century. This collection embraced the problem and furnaced a solution to it no later than early 2d. century. As I quoted Gamble: "The textual traditions of Paul's letters preserves indications of an early, certainly first century, effort to overcome the problem by deleting or generalizing the addresses of some of the letters and sometimes by omitting other locally specific matter as well, thus mechanically conferring on Paul's particular letters the appearance of general letters."p. 60 But this chopping method proved inadequate since the particularity of Paul's letters was too extenive to obscure through textual emendation."


I also posed other methods for dating.

1) Using epistles written in Paul's name to establish a maximum date. I was not specific on exacts.
2) You can use specific examples such as the overly-urgent eschatology found in Thessalonians which places this letter early--between Jesus and the gospel of Mark in my progression. There are theres.
3) Add in Acts of the apostles (I was not specific on parts).
4) There are limited attestations to individual works e.g. Ignatius (early 2d.), 1 Clement, (late first to early second century) and on and on. To add another:
5) Even something as mundane as dating James (faith vs works) can tie in evidence.

Because bringing systematization to the bland and basic is the essence of science, an enchantment with the ordinary. And because in the discipline of NT studies, as in any--to quote the ancient saw--well begun is half done. Setting down a solid foundation makes so many other questions easier.

The problem is this is old news. We are not doing anything new here as far as I am aware. Do you have some good reasons for doubting what most everyone sees as overly obvious that should cause us to take up this issue again? No one wants to discuss it, its dead. Effort is better spent on methodology and reconstruction.

[spin]

The question about if he was a big splash or if he was too insignificant for Josephus to write about just seems like a false choice to me.
If he wasn't a big splash then he drops below historical radar. Not only doesn't Josephus talk about him, but you don't reach him with depth charges either. The fish is running too low for the usual means of historical detection devices. This means the fish gets away, that is if the fish was there in the first place. Who really knows what was seen in the fog? Was it just a trick of shadows? Or was there something real?


spin

[Clivedurdle]

Never mind Josephus mentioning Jesus, did he discuss xianity or something similar to it? Is there a silence about xianity?

[Clivedurdle]

70: Roman Emperor Vespasian takes control of Jerusalem following a Jewish rebellion, and razes the city. The temple was almost totally destroyed.
130: Jerusalem, now a city largely deserted and in ruins is stated to be reconstructed as a new city called Aelia Capitolina by the orders of Emperor Hadrian.
132: A new Jewish rebellion is staged by Simon Bar Kokhba, that would last or 4 years. Hadrian responded by recreating Jerusalem as a non-Jewish city under the name of Aelia Capitolina. No Jews were admitted into it.

from http://i-cias.com/e.o/jerusalem.htm.

Let's try something else. Jesus is a complete fiction. Xianity arose post 70 and towards Hadrian 130, and this is evidenced by discussion of the new Jerusalem, and the kingdom is with you. Josephus does not mention anything because it wasn't there! Acts is definitely based on Josephus. Marcion pulls it all together about 140.

[Clivedurdle]

Further, do we have several separate religions/cults that became joined together with its history rewritten afterwards to make it look all reasonable and logical?

A gnostic paul going on about a heavenly christ elsewhere in the empire, some real social advances about keeping things in common arising from the experience of the Jewish wars, various other bits and pieces?

[spin]

Peter Kirby and Vinnie have decided when Paul was doing his thing. On what grounds they have done so they have not stated, other than a brief undefined reference to the letter of Clement (c. 96 CE). I have started a thread to see how one can date the Pauline corpus independently from other nt efforts. Perhaps they can enlighten me.


spin

[Peter Kirby]

Peter Kirby and Vinnie have decided when Paul was doing his thing.
Not really.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[spin]

Not really.
Sorry, yes, rereading your statements more closely, I find Vinnie is the sole/soul culprit.


spin


The question is whether the letters were written by Paul at a later date, say in the 70s, or whether they were written by someone other than Paul at an even later date.

[Vinnie]

Peter Kirby and Vinnie have decided when Paul was doing his thing. On what grounds they have done so they have not stated, other than a brief undefined reference to the letter of Clement (c. 96 CE). I have started a thread to see how one can date the Pauline corpus independently from other nt efforts. Perhaps they can enlighten me.


spin

I'd rather drink greygoose than churn through material that shows you that Paul wrote in 50s. I mean if there was some benefit to it other than "convincing a guy named spin on iidb" I might be bothered. But there isn't and I'm not. You could always buy a few books and enlighten yourself.

And i don't even understand your "apart from other nt efforts". How do you date texts in a vacuum? :rolleyes:

Vinnie

[spin]

I'd rather drink greygoose than churn through material that shows you that Paul wrote in 50s. I mean if there was some benefit to it other than "convincing a guy named spin on iidb" I might be bothered. But there isn't and I'm not. You could always buy a few books and enlighten yourself.

And i don't even understand your "apart from other nt efforts". How do you date texts in a vacuum?
:rolleyes:

That's the problem, Vinnie. All the rest is window dressing.

You can't assume gospel or Acts material ("other nt efforts"), unless of course you could date them. But you have consistently failed to do so in the past.

And, no, you don't have to convince me. You have to show people here (amongst other places) that there is a reasonable way to date Paul. Arguments tend to taint Paul's information with gospel or Acts data, which isn't kosher if we are trying to work from what Paul understood (as imparted in his writings).

Be nice and shift your brain out of neutral, Vinnie.


spin

[DE BERGERAC]

Take:

1) The story about Jesus son of Ananias (Woe to Jerusalem!) in War.
2) The story about Carabas in Philo.
3) The story about three crucified in Josephus' Life.

And you have the basic inspirational framework for the message, Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus.

Whoever wrote the gospels was aware of these texts. Even Josephus (according to "some", says Robert Eisenman) is present in disguise since he is Joseph of Arimathea. In fact, he was (Life) Joseph bar Matthias.

So, Mark's construction takes up these materials and more to bulid his narrative. Hence, he is later than Josephus.

[yalla]

DE BERGERAC: "Take:

1) The story about Jesus son of Ananias (Woe to Jerusalem!) in War.
2) The story about Carabas in Philo.
3) The story about three crucified in Josephus' Life.

And you have the basic inspirational framework for the message, Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus.

Whoever wrote the gospels was aware of these texts. Even Josephus (according to "some", says Robert Eisenman) is present in disguise since he is Joseph of Arimathea. In fact, he was (Life) Joseph bar Matthias.

So, Mark's construction takes up these materials and more to bulid his narrative. Hence, he is later than Josephus."

I like that.
Particularly #2....complete with robes, title, "Matthew's" ID in some mss of C[B]arabbass as "Jesus", crown, anti Herod as "King of the Jews"...have I got them all right?

Dunno about Joe as J b M, was'nt that his dad's name as well? Seems a bit far-fetched but I've read worse.

But I'll add this [tentatively] to my growing list of reasons as to why I date "Mark" much later than the orthodox position.

Big presuumption follows:
"Mark" is pretty ignorant of details re Judaism [sabbath, hand washing, synagogues, rabbis], Palestinian geography [it's a long way to Tyre and back by the circle route]...etc..
So what was his source of information?
What did he know and who/how did he know it?

Any specifics?

[DE BERGERAC]

The fact is that the existence of a place called Arimathea is not an established fact for NT times. Yes, Matthias was Joe's father's name, so he was Joseph, son of Matthias, that is to say, Joseph Bar Matthias. Eisenman makes this remark only in a note and says that "some" make this contention, but he avoids saying who, so he doesn't comit himself, but one feels that this is his opinion.

But the analogy between Jesus, son of Ananias and the gospel Jesus is very striking. The author of "The Two Jesuses" says that what is really behing this maybe the fact that Mark is recalling and oral tradition about the same character. By the way, this explains why the Roman governor is a "procurator": Jesus, son of Ananias was brought before Albinus who was in fact a procurator, Pilate's precise title was prefect.

[spin]

The fact is that the existence of a place called Arimathea is not an established fact for NT times.
Ramoth. (Aramaic has the propensity of putting a frontal alep on words. I was chasing up the use of "drachma" drkmwn in the HB and found it also fronted with an alep )drkmwn.)


spin

[Toto]

Wikipedia about Ramoth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ramoth-Gilead)

Ramoth-gilead - heights of Gilead, a city of refuge on the east of the Jordan river; called "Ramoth in Gilead" (Deuteronomy 4:43; Joshua 20:8; 21:38). Here Ahab, who joined Jehoshaphat in an effort to confront the king of the Arameans, was mortally wounded (1 Kings 22:1-36). A similar attempt was afterwards made by Ahaziah and Joram, when the latter was wounded (2 Kings 8:28). In this city Jehu, the son of Jehoshaphat, was anointed by one of the sons of the prophets (9:1, 4).

Biblical tourism (http://www.ancientsandals.com/overviews/ramoth-gilead.htm)

Ramoth-gilead was designated as one of the cities of refuge, where one who had killed another unintentionally could await trial, protected from avenging relatives (Deut 4:43; Josh 20:8). The city was also given to the Levites (Josh 21:38; 1 Chr 6:80).

. . .

As the struggle for Ramoth-gilead continued, the prophet Elisha sent one of the sons of the prophets to the city to anoint an army captain, Jehu, king over Israel. He also instructed Jehu to kill the injured King Joram and all the members of his father Ahab’s house to avenge the deaths that Ahab had inflicted on the Lord’s servants. After helping the Israelites take the city, Jehu zealously obeyed the Lord’s instructions, killing Joram, his mother Jezebel, and all who were associated with Ahab. He then went on to eradicate Baal worship from Israel (2 Kgs 9-10:28).

I'm not clear what this implies. A city of refuge, meaning Jesus taking refuge from his pursuers? Or a reference to the final battle which will restore YHWH worship to Israel?

[DE BERGERAC]

This text is written by TOTO in some other place: [mod note - Toto was quoting Paul Tobin]

This leads us naturally to the next question: was Joseph of Arimathea an historical person? We can immediately see the difficulty involved here, when we note that even the town of Arimathea is a fictitious town! As the scholar E. Goldin Hyman pointed out, there is no record in the Old Testament, Torah, Talmud or anywhere else except in the gospels of a place called Arimathea. [5] Attempts to identify the place with Ramathaim (I Maccabees 11:34) and Ramathaim-Zophim (I Samuel 1:1) is based on pure conjecture. [6] How certain can we be of the existence of a person who came from a non-existent town. . .

If he did not exist, the next question would be where Mark got his story (and the name) from. There is a very likely candidate for this. As the Jewish scholar, Hugh Schonfield [8], pointed out, the story of Joseph of Arimathea in the gospels resembles very closely an episode from Josephus' Autobiography.. . .

The similarity in the names of the main protagonist is also considerable. In the same work, Josephus elucidated his distinguished ancestry. His grandfather, also named Joseph, begot Matthias his father in the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus (AD6). In the Greek text (the language Josephus wrote in) Joseph begot Matthias is rendered as Josepou Matthias. In Mark's gospel, Joseph of Arimathea is written in Greek as Joseph apo Arimathias, the similarity is curious. To quote Schonfield:

It is certainly curious that we have Josephus, himself a Josepou Matthias, begging the Roman commander for the bodies of three crucified friends, one of whom is brought back to life. [11]
. . .

[spin]

This text is written by TOTO [quoting Paul Tobin] in some other place:

This leads us naturally to the next question: was Joseph of Arimathea an historical person? We can immediately see the difficulty involved here, when we note that even the town of Arimathea is a fictitious town! As the scholar E. Goldin Hyman pointed out, there is no record in the Old Testament, Torah, Talmud or anywhere else except in the gospels of a place called Arimathea. [5] Attempts to identify the place with Ramathaim (I Maccabees 11:34) and Ramathaim-Zophim (I Samuel 1:1) is based on pure conjecture. [6] How certain can we be of the existence of a person who came from a non-existent town. . .

If he did not exist, the next question would be where Mark got his story (and the name) from. There is a very likely candidate for this. As the Jewish scholar, Hugh Schonfield [8], pointed out, the story of Joseph of Arimathea in the gospels resembles very closely an episode from Josephus' Autobiography.. . .

The similarity in the names of the main protagonist is also considerable. In the same work, Josephus elucidated his distinguished ancestry. His grandfather, also named Joseph, begot Matthias his father in the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus (AD6). In the Greek text (the language Josephus wrote in) Joseph begot Matthias is rendered as Josepou Matthias. In Mark's gospel, Joseph of Arimathea is written in Greek as Joseph apo Arimathias, the similarity is curious.
hrmtym, ha-ramotym, "the heights", with a Greek transliteration of arimaQaia, Arimathea, is nothing strange, given the shiftiness of Hebrew unstressed vowels. It is much easier to see it coming from the Hebrew than from Matthias with some prefix -- what does this prefix mean??? And why no doubled /t/ in Arimathea? Greek gives us the doubled /t/ in Matthias. This name comes from mtt, "reward", yh, YH, and is found as Mattithiah (eg 1 Chr 9:31). There is little to relate Arimathea to Matthias.


spin

[Toto]

That was Toto quoting Paul Tobin (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/burial.html)

I see google took you here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-33677.html

which is based on Question re Joseph of Arimathea (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=33677)

So now I will clean up the formatting to avoid convusion.

[Ted Hoffman]

Never mind Josephus mentioning Jesus, did he discuss xianity or something similar to it? Is there a silence about xianity?
Christianity was by and large a second century phenomena.
In case you dispute this:
(a) define first century Christianity [assuming there was such a thing - Galileans? Nazareans?]
(b) Provide examples of 1st Cent Christianity.
was Joseph of Arimathea an historical person?
He was a deus ex machina that the writer employed to move the plot further. A literary creation.