FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2013, 03:45 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
See this post on XTalk2 for a summary of Weedon's theories:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/12940
Cheers. I wondered if someone had done a considered appraisal.
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 06-12-2013, 04:33 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

There are also interesting parallels between the accounts of John the Baptist in Josephus's account/s & the Gospels

Quote:
II. Two Parallel Incidents from Josephus and the New Testament

A. John the Baptist (Ant. 18. 5. 2; Matt 3:1-12; Mark 1:3-8; Luke 3:2-17; John 1:6-8 and 19-28.

1. Main Points in Agreement
a. Josephus, and Matthew and Mark, refer to John as the Baptist.

b. Josephus says that John commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, that is, righteousness toward one another and piety toward God. Matthew says that John taught those baptized to bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance. Luke says the same thing basically and carries it a bit further by offering examples of what repentance might look like (i.e. sharing tunics; collecting the proper amount of taxes; soldiers using force properly and not for dishonest gain; no bearing false testimony against another).

c. Many crowds, according to Josephus, came to listen to his words. Matthew, Mark, Luke say that great multitudes followed John and were baptized by him. John says the Jews sent priests and Levites to question him.

d. Josephus seems to indicate that John’s followers were very dedicated to him (118). John’s followers, according to the Gospels, and Acts 19 were very dedicated to him and his message.

e. According to Josephus, Herod had John sent to prison in Macherus [on the east side of the Dead Sea] and there had him put to death. The Gospel writers affirm that John was put in prison by Herod, though they do not indicate where.
2. Main Points in Disagreement
a. Josephus says that some Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army was due to his killing of John—a judgment of God. The Gospel writers record no such interpretation of Herod’s defeat. There is no record in any of the four Gospels that God had Herod’s armies destroyed as a result of him killing John unjustly.

b. Josephus does not give the area of John’s ministry, but the Gospel writers taken together indicate that John ministered outside of Antipas’ territory, in Jerusalem, Judea and neighboring areas (e. g. areas around the Jordan).

c. In Josephus, Herod Antipas feared John because he thought that with the people following him John might lead a rebellion. Herod wanted to put him to death on the grounds of suspicion and nothing more. The Gospel writers say that Herod wanted to kill John because John preached against his unlawful marriage with Herodias. In the end, it was the whim of Herodias, conspiring with her daughter, which led to John’s death (Matt 14:3ff; Mark 6:17ff; Luke 3:19, 20).

d. Josephus says that John’s baptism was not for the remission of sins, but was for the purification of the body due to the fact that the soul was already purified by the people’s return to righteousness prior to coming for John’s baptism. The Gospel writers appear to unanimously indicate that John’s baptism of repentance was for the remission of sins and Matthew and Mark state that people were confessing their sins to John, meaning they had no previous righteousness per se, at least as Josephus seems to indicate.

e. Josephus does not connect John with Jesus Christ. All the Gospel writers make the connection in no uncertain terms.
3. Conclusion
The main areas of agreement are substantial enough to provide the basis for an attempt to harmonize the areas of disagreement. Points (a) and (b) under areas of disagreement do not concern the essential story and as such really do not pose a problem. Point (c) above is really no contradiction—both could be true at the same time. Perhaps Herod was nervous about the sizable crowds following John and combined with the fact that John openly condemned Herod’s marriage, thus weakening Herod’s position among the people, caused Herod to want to kill him. Herodias’ daughter was really just the occasion for the act.

Point (d) above, where Josephus says that John’s baptism was for the purification of the body and not for the remission of sins, seems to be at odds somewhat with the Gospel accounts ...

The last point (e) has caused problems for certain scholars. Steve Mason1 thinks that the Gospel writers have annexed John for their own purposes beyond anything which the Baptist envisioned. According to Mason, they had more of a motive to use John to this end than does Josephus for his ends. Thus Josephus’ portrait of the Baptist more closely resembles John as he was. Further, Mason claims that traces in the N.T. of the real John appear in:
  1. John’s wondering whether Jesus was the Christ; and
  2. the disciples of John in Ephesus who did not know about Jesus or the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 19:1-7).
These incidents, says Mason, point to the “integrity” of John over and against his representation by the Gospel writers as a forerunner to Messiah.


http://bible.org/article/josephus%E2...-new-testament

1. Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992); pp 155-63.
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 06-12-2013, 05:14 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

More commentary about Josephus's & the NT accounts of John the Baptist
Quote:
The Popularity of John the Baptist

Both the New Testament and Josephus depict John the Baptist has having a more powerful influence on the majority of the people of the time than did Jesus.

http://www.josephus.org/JohnTBaptist.htm
Quote:
A Baptism of Repentance

Josephus seems genuinely intrigued by the notion of baptism and tries to explain it in terms his audience can understand. (The word derives from the Greek baptô, "dip".) He understands it first as a purification of the body, playing the same role as the traditional mikvah.
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 06-12-2013, 07:10 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

All this makes perfect sense in context, given the fact that there is no evidence for the actual existence for a Jew named Josephus ben Matityahu who wrote these texts, and there is no evidence of the existence of these texts among Jews at all. The texts were in the hands of the Church.
The writings of Josephus are somewhat related to those of "Yossipon ben Gorion", and there could be some overlap. But otherwise the fact that Josephus's writings were in the hands of the Church is what is most significant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMacSon View Post
More commentary about Josephus's & the NT accounts of John the Baptist
Quote:
The Popularity of John the Baptist

Both the New Testament and Josephus depict John the Baptist has having a more powerful influence on the majority of the people of the time than did Jesus.

http://www.josephus.org/JohnTBaptist.htm
Quote:
A Baptism of Repentance

Josephus seems genuinely intrigued by the notion of baptism and tries to explain it in terms his audience can understand. (The word derives from the Greek baptô, "dip".) He understands it first as a purification of the body, playing the same role as the traditional mikvah.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-12-2013, 10:32 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
All this makes perfect sense in context, given the fact that there is no evidence for the actual existence for a Jew named Josephus ben Matityahu who wrote these texts, and there is no evidence of the existence of these texts among Jews at all. The texts were in the hands of the Church.
If you are implying that the 'Church' wrote the works of Josephus, why would they have made things so confusing and not helpful for themselves? Doesn't make sense to me. Please spell out the history of Josephus' writings, in your view.
TedM is offline  
Old 06-12-2013, 10:56 AM   #16
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
All this makes perfect sense in context, given the fact that there is no evidence for the actual existence for a Jew named Josephus ben Matityahu who wrote these texts, and there is no evidence of the existence of these texts among Jews at all. The texts were in the hands of the Church.
Your statement is false. There are sources of antiquity that mentioned Josephus and made references to his writings.

Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Cassius Dio.

The claim that a writing was in the hands of the Church is of no real consequence because Julian's "Against the Galileans" was in the hands of the Church.

Julian's Against the Galileans"
Quote:
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth....
It is clear that writings in the hands of the Church may not have been manipulated or that not all writings in the hands of the Church were corrupted to support the Church.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-12-2013, 01:19 PM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

There are no ancient Jewish sources attesting to the texts under the name of Josephus son of Mattathias the priest. None. These texts were in the hands of the church and not the Jews. And there are too many peculiarities in those texts that give reason to argue that the texts were not written by Jews.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
All this makes perfect sense in context, given the fact that there is no evidence for the actual existence for a Jew named Josephus ben Matityahu who wrote these texts, and there is no evidence of the existence of these texts among Jews at all. The texts were in the hands of the Church.
Your statement is false. There are sources of antiquity that mentioned Josephus and made references to his writings.

Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Cassius Dio.

The claim that a writing was in the hands of the Church is of no real consequence because Julian's "Against the Galileans" was in the hands of the Church.

Julian's Against the Galileans"
Quote:
It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth....
It is clear that writings in the hands of the Church may not have been manipulated or that not all writings in the hands of the Church were corrupted to support the Church.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-12-2013, 01:21 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

I don't see the problem with arguing that they were written by Romans, probably more than one, over time, under the pseudonym of Josephus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
All this makes perfect sense in context, given the fact that there is no evidence for the actual existence for a Jew named Josephus ben Matityahu who wrote these texts, and there is no evidence of the existence of these texts among Jews at all. The texts were in the hands of the Church.
If you are implying that the 'Church' wrote the works of Josephus, why would they have made things so confusing and not helpful for themselves? Doesn't make sense to me. Please spell out the history of Josephus' writings, in your view.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 06-12-2013, 05:39 PM   #19
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
There are no ancient Jewish sources attesting to the texts under the name of Josephus son of Mattathias the priest. None. These texts were in the hands of the church and not the Jews. And there are too many peculiarities in those texts that give reason to argue that the texts were not written by Jews.
Where is it claimed Josephus was a High priest in the writings of Josephus?
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-12-2013, 06:18 PM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Where did I say that it says he was the HIGH priest? He was a kohen, a member of the priesthood. Nothing to do with the high priest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
There are no ancient Jewish sources attesting to the texts under the name of Josephus son of Mattathias the priest. None. These texts were in the hands of the church and not the Jews. And there are too many peculiarities in those texts that give reason to argue that the texts were not written by Jews.
Where is it claimed Josephus was a High priest in the writings of Josephus?
Duvduv is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:45 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.