Diogenes the Cynic

"The Josephan writer?" You think Jospehus didn't exist either now?

Diogenes the Cynic

You see it even more strongly in John, which takes special pains to say that John denied being the Messiah, bowdlerizes the baptism and has John call Jesus "the Lamb of God." Regardless of whether either John or Jesus existed, those rival groups existed.

Something I've gotten from Robert M. Price is that a lot of this material should be understood as referential to disputes and rivalries contemporaneous to authorship - that they aren't really talking about the past, but (their own) present. So characters and events in the stories often map out as signifyers for competing groups and individuals. John was a competing, executed Messiah.

maryhelena

Somebody wrote 'Josephus' i.e the written work. For what it's worth - I happen to think 'Josephus' is a pseudonym....

But that position does not change what is written in the work that is attributed to Josephus. It's the details in that work that are relevant for any investigation into early christian origins. And since that work is, by it's own admission, the work of a historian with an interest in Jewish prophets - one should proceed with great care.....

aa5874

Please, maryhelena, your claims about Josephus are illogical. Writings of Josephus have been found to be fundamentally credible over 1800 hundred years ago.

Cassius Dio, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Elder fundamentally CORROBORATED the writings of Josephus.

Virtually all sources of antiquity that mentioned Josephus regarded his writings as fundamentally reliable.

It is most disturbing to see that you are engaged in promoting propaganda and are making hopeless erroneous claims about the writings of Josephus.

You very well know that gospels are NOT history at all--the main character was the son of a Ghost, God the Creator that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

maryhelena

Evidence please that the Josephan writer is historically accurate re 'Herod Antipas had John executed".

Keep in mind that the Josephan writer has also written "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man,........ And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, ...."


According to the Josephan writer, Pilate had Jesus crucified and Herod had John executed. So - is it to be cherry-picking time?

outhouse

with john it was possibly personal

with jesus it was a temple issue pushed to far

nothing cherry picked really



and since this source backs up other sources, I dont see any cherries

outhouse

Galilee
teachers
healers
baptism
jews
romans


all have historicity, but once a name is dropped its a myth !!! and we know they named some people correctly who have 100% historicity


so who is it really that are cherry picking? mythers would be the correct answer.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is nothing inherently implausible about Josephus' Baptizer account, he had nothing to gain from it and there was definitely a Baptizer sect who were, early on, rivals to the Palestinian Yeshuine sect.

maryhelena

There is also nothing inherently implausible about a wandering carpenter preacher guy who got himself hung on a cross - point, is, for both these figures, JC and JtB, we lack historical evidence.

How do you know that the Josephan writer had nothing to gain from his story re John being executed by Herod? Sure, we can assume that is the case - or we can assume the contrary....It's where our assumptions might take us that is relevant. In this case, opting for the Josephan JtB to be a historical figure, one is denying the Josephan writer the creative imagination to create such a figure. Why would one do that? Why would one deny the Josephan writer the intellectual, creative, freedom, to colour his history with a mix of pseudo-history? Is that not the very thing the gospel writers have done? Is pseudo-history only about raising the dead and walking on water? Is pseudo-history only about miracles? Surely not. Yes, Herod Antipas was a historical figure (the Herodian coins). But the JtB and Herod Antipas story is just that, a story. And it should remain a story until such time as the historicity of JtB can be established. No Josephan story should get a free pass.

Yes, JC as a normal guy hung on a cross and JtB as a guy offering a dip in the water, could both be real flesh and blood figures. But they could also both be ahistorical figures.

Diogenes the Cynic

Why would Josephus completely invent a character referred to only in passing? How did Josephus Mark and Q all simultaneously invent the same character independently of each other?