Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 06-04-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are the one who may have some 'Cuckoo' in your nest. You have PRESUMED John the Baptist was NOT a figure of history while you CLING to Josephus' account of ANTIGONUS.

YOU NEED JOSEPHUS, your so-called "prophetic historian" for ANTIGONUS or else your theory goes 'Cuckoo'.

Not at all - the coins, aa5874, the Hasmonean coins, testify to the historicity of Antigonus....:huh:

And don't forget the two independent historians....

I told you ALREADY that JOSEPHUS is CORROBORATED and CREDIBLE.

You KNOW we HAVE COINS and other CREDIBLE HISTORIANS TO CONFIRM the CREDIBILITY of JOSEPHUS.

I told you ALREADY that Josephus is NOT a "prophetic historian". If Josephus claimed John the Baptist existed then he is FAR more likely to be credible than even the Pope of the Church.

JonA · 06-04-2011, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

“Mental finagling”? Well, now - if one thinks that trying to get to grips with early Christian origins to be a walk in the park - then perhaps you might care to try something else....

When trying to determine the historicity of unimportant nobodies there can be a tough bit of work. Unlike the nobility/ruling members of society, these people don't build statues with their names on then, or get their heads stamped onto a coin.

When your popularity extends, by definition, to about 12 people and an execution order, you can be fairly certain that contemporaneous evidence of your existence is not likely to survive; and if it did, it may just be indistinguishable from the evidence for anyone else's existence. (Using Jesus as an example.)

When we try to ask ourselves whether such people—who may, for many reasons, not get mentioned until well after their death—existed or whether the stories were just complete fabrications, we must consider the likelihood of the stories being fabricated (and what steps may have influenced the story as it is) against the likelihood of them being based on real people.

When we come to our conclusions, we recognize that they are very weak and tentative; they rest on extremely careful and detailed analyses of texts, which lend them probabilistic support more than evidential support.

And that's just the way it is.

Jon

maryhelena · 06-04-2011, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are the one who may have some 'Cuckoo' in your nest. You have PRESUMED John the Baptist was NOT a figure of history while you CLING to Josephus' account of ANTIGONUS.

YOU NEED JOSEPHUS, your so-called "prophetic historian" for ANTIGONUS or else your theory goes 'Cuckoo'.

Not at all - the coins, aa5874, the Hasmonean coins, testify to the historicity of Antigonus....:huh:

And don't forget the two independent historians....

I told you ALREADY that JOSEPHUS is CORROBORATED and CREDIBLE.

You KNOW we HAVE COINS and other CREDIBLE HISTORIANS TO CONFIRM the CREDIBILITY of JOSEPHUS.

I told you ALREADY that Josephus is NOT a "prophetic historian". If Josephus claimed John the Baptist existed then he is FAR more likely to be credible than even the Pope of the Church.

And why should I take your word for that?

Quote:

Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus: Rebecca Gray

Josephus presents himself in two different, but overlapping, prophetic roles. He appears , first, as a Jeremiah-like figure, a priest who denounces sin and preaches repentance, whose message is the submission to foreign rule is God’s will, who stands fast against the delusions of false prophets and rebels, and who is concerned, above all, with preserving God’s holy temple. He claims to have been called to perform this role in a dramatic moment of revelation he which in appears, secondly, as a Daniel-type figure, an esoteric wise man who can interpret the meaning of even the most difficult dreams and omens, who understands the prophecies of the sacred books, and who knows God’s plans for kings and kingdoms’ in this portrait, too, I noted a certain priestly element. Like Daniel, Josephus was to rise to a position of prominence under a foreign ruler as a result of his prophetic gifts and would be subject to accusations from envious opponents and rivals.

One question remains: how much of this self-portrait is true? That is, how much of Josephus’ portrayal of himself as a prophet reflects what he actually said and did and thought at the time of the events he is depicting, and how much of it is a result of later reflection and literary elaboration?

This is, of course, an extraordinarily difficult question to answer. There is no denying that the picture we now possess of Josephus as a prophet has been refined and developed in various ways. For example, the ideas that he claims first came to him in a moment of prophetic revelation at Jotapata – that God was punishing the Jews for their sins and that fortune had gone over to the Romans - have become major interpretive themes in the War as a whole. Josephus also sometimes reinforces the prophetic claims that he makes for himself by subtle changes in his presentation of the ancient prophets. And it is probable that, with the passage of time, Josephus’ image of himself as a prophet became clearer in his own mind.

Amazon link (or via: amazon.co.uk)

my bolding

maryhelena · 06-04-2011, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

“Mental finagling”? Well, now - if one thinks that trying to get to grips with early Christian origins to be a walk in the park - then perhaps you might care to try something else....

When trying to determine the historicity of unimportant nobodies there can be a tough bit of work. Unlike the nobility/ruling members of society, these people don't build statues with their names on then, or get their heads stamped onto a coin.

When your popularity extends, by definition, to about 12 people and an execution order, you can be fairly certain that contemporaneous evidence of your existence is not likely to survive; and if it did, it may just be indistinguishable from the evidence for anyone else's existence. (Using Jesus as an example.)

When we try to ask ourselves whether such people—who may, for many reasons, not get mentioned until well after their death—existed or whether the stories were just complete fabrications, we must consider the likelihood of the stories being fabricated (and what steps may have influenced the story as it is) against the likelihood of them being based on real people.

When we come to our conclusions, we recognize that they are very weak and tentative; they rest on extremely careful and detailed analyses of texts, which lend them probabilistic support more than evidential support.

And that's just the way it is.

Jon

I don't take the gospel JC storyline as the definitive story re early christian origins....so any arguments based upon that storyline for early christian origins - get discarded. My primary interest, for early christian origins, is Josephus.

JonA · 06-04-2011, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I don't take the gospel JC storyline as the definitive story re early christian origins....so any arguments based upon that storyline for early christian origins - get discarded. My primary interest, for early christian origins, is Josephus.

Discarding evidence is not the act of an honest historian; I can see no way that anyone could continue in fruitful discussion on this matter if they are willing to discard certain types of evidence outright.

Jon

maryhelena · 06-04-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I don't take the gospel JC storyline as the definitive story re early christian origins....so any arguments based upon that storyline for early christian origins - get discarded. My primary interest, for early christian origins, is Josephus.

Discarding evidence is not the act of an honest historian; I can see no way that anyone could continue in fruitful discussion on this matter if they are willing to discard certain types of evidence outright.

Jon

And what evidence would that be?

jgoodguy · 06-04-2011, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Today's assignment for all the lurkers . . . .

Calculate the probability that, given Josephus's mention of John the Baptist, anybody would question his existence if he had never been mentioned in any Christian document.

Question his existence is a bit strong. How about he probably existed in that he was mentioned in Josephus.

jgoodguy · 06-04-2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I told you ALREADY that JOSEPHUS is CORROBORATED and CREDIBLE.

You KNOW we HAVE COINS and other CREDIBLE HISTORIANS TO CONFIRM the CREDIBILITY of JOSEPHUS.

I told you ALREADY that Josephus is NOT a "prophetic historian". If Josephus claimed John the Baptist existed then he is FAR more likely to be credible than even the Pope of the Church.

And why should I take your word for that?

Quote:

Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus: Rebecca Gray

Josephus presents himself in two different, but overlapping, prophetic roles. He appears , first, as a Jeremiah-like figure, a priest who denounces sin and preaches repentance, whose message is the submission to foreign rule is God’s will, who stands fast against the delusions of false prophets and rebels, and who is concerned, above all, with preserving God’s holy temple. He claims to have been called to perform this role in a dramatic moment of revelation he which in appears, secondly, as a Daniel-type figure, an esoteric wise man who can interpret the meaning of even the most difficult dreams and omens, who understands the prophecies of the sacred books, and who knows God’s plans for kings and kingdoms’ in this portrait, too, I noted a certain priestly element. Like Daniel, Josephus was to rise to a position of prominence under a foreign ruler as a result of his prophetic gifts and would be subject to accusations from envious opponents and rivals.

One question remains: how much of this self-portrait is true? That is, how much of Josephus’ portrayal of himself as a prophet reflects what he actually said and did and thought at the time of the events he is depicting, and how much of it is a result of later reflection and literary elaboration?

This is, of course, an extraordinarily difficult question to answer. There is no denying that the picture we now possess of Josephus as a prophet has been refined and developed in various ways. For example, the ideas that he claims first came to him in a moment of prophetic revelation at Jotapata – that God was punishing the Jews for their sins and that fortune had gone over to the Romans - have become major interpretive themes in the War as a whole. Josephus also sometimes reinforces the prophetic claims that he makes for himself by subtle changes in his presentation of the ancient prophets. And it is probable that, with the passage of time, Josephus’ image of himself as a prophet became clearer in his own mind.

Amazon link (or via: amazon.co.uk)

my bolding

Because Josephus had to be a Roman apologist for survival and a comfortable living, we cannot trust him on points related to Roman issues nor issues with the Jewish revolt.

On mundane historical issues, I think he is trustworthy.

jgoodguy · 06-04-2011, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I don't take the gospel JC storyline as the definitive story re early christian origins....so any arguments based upon that storyline for early christian origins - get discarded. My primary interest, for early christian origins, is Josephus.

Discarding evidence is not the act of an honest historian; I can see no way that anyone could continue in fruitful discussion on this matter if they are willing to discard certain types of evidence outright.

Jon

Generally in historical analysis, the historian discards reports of supernatural events outright. Then the historian, must account for the biases of his sources. So some evidence is discarded outright. Some is discarded after analysis.

dogsgod · 06-04-2011, 10:00 AM

I'm coming into this discussion late, so sorry if I am repeating what has been discussed already.

According to a passage in Josephus, the execution of John was blamed for a defeat Herod suffered c. 36 CE. This would have John the Baptist executed after the preferred time the supposed Jesus was executed. When writing fiction it is of no consequence to have John executed before Jesus was executed if it serves a purpose.

It appears, for a number of reasons, that the author of Mark makes use of JtheB for theological purposes rather than to relate actual events, in my opinion. Having JtheB announce the coming of one greater than himself, for eg.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-04-2011, 10:00 AM	#120
dogsgod Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: British Columbia Posts: 104	I'm coming into this discussion late, so sorry if I am repeating what has been discussed already. According to a passage in Josephus, the execution of John was blamed for a defeat Herod suffered c. 36 CE. This would have John the Baptist executed after the preferred time the supposed Jesus was executed. When writing fiction it is of no consequence to have John executed before Jesus was executed if it serves a purpose. It appears, for a number of reasons, that the author of Mark makes use of JtheB for theological purposes rather than to relate actual events, in my opinion. Having JtheB announce the coming of one greater than himself, for eg.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.