Vorkosigan

Jay, that is an very interesting data set. Have you ever discussed this privately with Ken Olsen, who is working on the Eusebius forged the TF theory?

TedM, the reason my response is so laconic is that I had a bad moment channeling Steve Carr, except without his talent. But seriously, there is no methodological justification whatsoever for positing a negative TF; it is an apologetic, not scholarly, move, to save the HJ for the Christian faith in the last desperate way possible.

Vorkosigan

maryhelena

Rather than thinking the writer of Acts was misreading Antiquities - perhaps one could instead think that the reverse order has something of relevance to say.

Antiquites:

Judas the Galilean in 6 c.e.
Theudas beheaded by 46 ce.

A 40 year period between the two events.

Acts: with it's reverse order.

Theudas beheaded in 6 c.e.
Judas the Galilean not in 46 ce but prior to Theudas, 40 years back from 6 c.e. to 34 b.c.

Nothing much happening in 34 b.c. - however it is 7 years back to around 40 b.c. when Antigonus becomes King and High Priest. And, in the middle of that 7 year period, 37 b.c, Antigonus gets bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded.

And it is also around 46 c.e. that Josephus has the two sons of Judas the Galilean, James and Simon, crucified.

Yes, a play on numbers - seems to be a pastime of both Josephus and gLuke.

And as to these two crucified sons of Judas the Galilean - whether Antigonus had sons living after 37 b.c. might be a moot point - however, two sons of the Hasmonean Mariamne I, her two Hasmonean/Herodian sons, were executed by Herod the Great in 7 b.c. - 30 years after the events of 37 b.c. And 70 years from that dual execution in 7 b.c. is 63 ce and the Josephan story re the murder of James the brother of JC.

Looks like the prophetic historian, Josephus, is retelling Hasmonean history at a time of Roman occupation - thus requiring considerable circumspection in his attempt to keep alive the memory of that last King and High Priest of the Jews.

footnote:

If the gospel writers can create a pseudo-historical gospel JC, Jesus from Galilee - there is no reason not to think that the prophetic historian, Josephus, can not do likewise with a pseudo-historical Judas the Galilean....what's good for the goose is good for the gander... - and of course, those Essenes that Rachel Elior has questioned Josephus about...

TedM

I don't think that's my motivation, but I do agree that It is argumentation that can be considered to fall under the category of apologetics. However, I still think the observations are worthy of considering if for no other reason but to address the issue of whether the placement of the TF makes sense.

I'm addressing the fact that it curiously says nothing about WHY Jesus was arrested. And, I"m pointing out multiple reasons why it would have made sense to mention the temple money-changer incident in the TF at that particular point in all of Antiquities. I certainly can't prove it and there is nothing AFAIK in the manuscript evidence history to support it, so it falls under the category of 'reasonable speculation'.

It may be that a partial TF was put there that excluded the temple incident but the reason it was put there was that Josephus was quite aware of the temple incident and all of the other paragraphs he was writing at the time reminded him of the wise man named Jesus, that some believed was the Christ. But of course that too is speculation.

We are allowed to make observations that seem to have some validity aren't we?

PhilosopherJay

Hi TedM,

Judas the Galilean was a symbol of the Zealot movement and symbols are easily transformed into their polar opposites.

Take Nietzsche's Superman concept. He is an anti-Christ Character, in the sense of not accepting any God-given morality, but determining his own morality. He is probably closest to the Historical Russian Nihilists of the 19th century who created their own moral purpose in attempting to make a revolution by overthrowing the Czar. George Bernard Shaw took the concept in his play "Man and Superman" and applied it to Don Juan who created his own morality by dedicating his life to seducing women and pleasure. It was next applied to Lenin and his Bolsheviks who actually eliminated the Czar in Russia, just as the Nihilists had planned. From there, the concept moved to Mussolini and Hitler and their Black Shirts and Brown Shirts, who used extreme violence to promote their political ends and obtain great power. Finally, it ended up as a comic book character revised as a man of great power from another planet who chooses to defend bourgeois morality and American Christian middle-class ideals. This is almost the exact opposite of Nietzsche's Superman who would have laughed at these Christian middle-class ideals and the people who defended them.
In the same way, the Zealot-messianic ideal of Judas the Galilean was turned upside down in the Gospel stories of Jesus the Galilean, from someone defending nationalist Jewish interests against the Emperor and the pax Romana in the name of the one true God, to someone who embraces the Emperor (both Earthly and Heavenly) and the pax Romana in the name of the one true God.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Doug Shaver

To keep this sort, I'll just stipulate that Doherty's argument from silence on this point is a bit weak. Regardless, I also think any such argument is beside the point. I fail to see how your hypothesis is more parsimonious than the one suggesting that Josephus originally wrote nothing at all about Jesus. Virtually everyone agrees that Christians added something to the original. I have yet to see anyone suggest a good reason for assuming that there was anything about Jesus in the original.

You have suggested something that could have happened. I agree: It could have happened. But why should we think it did happen -- unless we're just presupposing Jesus' historicity?

TedM

It's not a strong argument against Josephus adding nothing UNLESS the TF is terribly out of place. For those that think the TF is out of place and doesn't belong there it should make more sense that there was SOMETHING there to begin having to do with the temple.

TedM

You know Jay, you often have some really interesting things to say. And, I like your salutation--takes the edge off whenever I am scratching my head. Here, you've come up with a great example except that it is a comic book character based on an original fictional created character. I am just not so certain that a real person with a real following that is big enough for Josephus to have given it so much attention/status(negative) could be overturned so easily with a fictional book by Mark. However, the destruction of Jerusalem certainly would have made that much more possible.

This is why I wonder about your views on the chronology of things. Do you believe Christianity did not exist until ____ date? How does Paul/Galations fit it? and so on..

Thanks,
Ted

maryhelena

But the TF is not out of place! There is nothing in gMark (using it as the first of the synoptic gospels) that prevents a crucifixion of JC storyline in the 7th year of Tiberius in 21 ce. Nothing. Even the marriage of Antipas and Herodias can be dated that early. (although giving more problems...the dating of this marriage is not settled)

Pilate can be dated to 19 c.e. As is suggested by Daniel Schwartz.

“Studies in the Jewish background of Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office (or via: amazon.co.uk)”.

Eusebius is aware of this 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story. If Eusebius inserted the TF into Antiquities - doing so because Josephus had not done so - then his placing of it within a context of Pilate's early rule, from 19 c.e. would be following the placing of the wonder-doer story in the account now contained in Slavonic Josephus. And, incidentally, within the Slavonic Josephus account, the wonder-doer passage is placed between the account of the Roman standards and the account of the money taken for the water program. In Antiquites, the TF, comes at the end of these two accounts. Eusebius, if it is him who put the TF into Antiquities, would have had 'justification' for placing it where he did. Probably not too happy with having to place it where he did - but to move it to a different time slot would perhaps have brought more attention to what he was up to: Placing it into Antiquities when Josephus had decided not to include this story from an earlier version of War.

It's only the assumed historical gospel JC that causes problems re placing the TF, ie it is out of context with, in particular, gLuke and his storyline re the 15th year of Tiberius. Put gLuke on the shelve for a while and the gospel JC storyline can begin to look quite different: A developing story about a pseudo-historical JC that incorporates prophetic understandings, developments, as well as theological interests. Prophecy is a moving game - nothing static. One time a crucifixion story in 21 c.e. - more insight - and bobs your uncle, a new crucifixion story in 29/30 ce., or 33 c.e. or even right to the end of Pilate's rule in 36 c.e. Take your pick, apply your prophetic measuring stick, or whatever - and on with the show....

TedM

ok. I may have misinterpreted comments about it not flowing well as being a statement about it being in a poor location. If all agree that the location for the TF is fine (do all?), then I would agree that having a TF there is in no way an indication that there was an original hostile TF in its place.

The CONTENT of an original that mentions the temple would have fit in better than what we have though but that does not make it more likely that something was there than nothing.

Thanks.

maryhelena

Indeed, the TF does not flow well in the context of the Roman standards and the water money issue. But that is where it's been placed. Early in Pilate's rule. Dating that rule, of course, being rather ambiguous.

Slavonic Josephus mentions the crucifixion under Pilate. However, it gives the birth narrative at around the 15th year of Herod the Great - about 25 b.c. (counting from 40 b.c.) Thus a JC being 46 plus years in 21 c.e. for the crucifixion story. (gJohn saying JC is not yet 50 years). Hence requiring an early dating for Pilate - which then coincides with his bringing the Roman standards to Jerusalem...Yes, the subject matter does not 'fit' - but hey - we are not dealing with rocket science - it's pseudo-history that allows for out of context elements to be hooked onto history.

So, either run with gLuke and find the TF out of context - or consider putting gLuke on the shelve for a while and consider gMark on it's own.