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

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

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

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

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?

Vorkosigan

Roger Pearse

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

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

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

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

IMS Celsus as cited by Origen.

Andrew Criddle