Vorkosigan

Is it a limited and concise genealogy? It looks more like a variegated history. Else why would Photius expect to find so many details of the Jesus story in it?

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

Good questions. And remember these were Jewish tombs, from what I understand, making the finding of crosses more interesting. And remember Freke & Gandy went to the fourth century to find their cover-art bas relief from paganism !

So what specifically are these other groups in the 1st century who used crosses, that would show up on a Jewish ossuary ? And hjalti, why would this be a terrible argument, what is the substantive argument that Christians did not use crosses in the first century ?

Ironically, the mythicists are constantly bemoaning the paucity of Christian evidences from the 1st century, now all of a sudden there are enough evidences that you can argue a significant silence in 1st century crosses ?

Wow.. that is exciting, can you share the evidences

And doesn't the evidences then dovetail in a complementary fashion, the crosses on one ossuary and the "Yeshu aloth" type of wordage on the other two, one in Aramaic and another in Greek ? (different words I know). How we view one any of these should now be best complementary with the interpretations of the others. Granted, only if it fits well.

The irony in all this is that I view the cross with great dubiousness as a symbol the way it is used today -- jewelry, church steeples, etc. However, here we are dealing with a very hard and fast evidence that does need some real theories. There is a danger in falling into hand-waving.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

The word limited was my addition, but there is no problem with starting such a chronology with Moses, so that should best be retracted.

And clearly you add the idea of what Photius would 'expect', where it is what he would like to read about. Here is a shortened form of the full paragraph.

XXIII. .. A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias..He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews...He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus' style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him. ..Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed..It is said that the history which he wrote is in great part fictitious, especially where he describes the Judaeo-Roman war and the capture of Jerusalem.

Chronicle of the Kings
in the form of a genealogy
his history
very concise
omits a great deal that is of utmost importance
(note even mention..Christ) clause
great part fictictious history

You get the sense of a sentence or paragraph on various kings, more on major figures, and more on the recent Judaeo-Roman war. "very concise" is used, not just concise. No indication of more wide-ranging discussions. It would be nice to read more of Photius, is there more online ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

I have no idea out of what left field this comment comes from.

Vorkosigan

rlogan

Of course, that is what an apologist would want us to believe. More precisely, that the historical Jesus was essentially "excised" from their history because they are non-believers.

Several things about that.

First, all of the non-Jewish historians are "guilty" of the same charge.

And so what we have here is, is the worn-out refrain that whoever did not write Christian apologetics was a non-believer and cannot be trusted.


And when Josephus, the Jew, supposedly mentions Jesus - well, I guess he is a contrary example?

No, he was "healed" of his affliction via a post-mortem interpolation operation by our good Christian doctors.

While we're busy pointing fingers, I think it pretty telling that Iasion was so reasonable about including the full quote when this was brought to his attention, and moreover sought full discussion on the matter.

This is something you sure do not see much of in the apologetics crowd.


And if we really want to claim purity of agenda here in quoting people then I think it appropriate to ask Roger Pearse to at least correctly identify Photius as "The Priest" Photius or better still the "Boot licking apologist" Photius. Saint Photius. hmph.

All the best back to you, anyways!

Vorkosigan

I wish I'd got to this conversation sooner. Photius says that Justus omits much that is important. The comment is meaningless and cannot be used to make any judgments on whether a comment about Jesus would be expected, because we do not know what Photius considers important and we do not know what kind of information was included. Photius thinks the tale of Jesus was important enough to be included, and blames Justus' ethnicity for the problem, a good example of bigotry imputing its own problem to others. He also reports that Justus' history is said to be fictitious. Of course, we only know of Justus through his enemies......

Iason's list of reasons remains valid. Justus was from Galilee, and lived until the end of the first century, when Christianity had already been rolling along for a half-century.

Another reading: the negative comments on Justus character and origin, suggest that Photius is of course presenting the information in a one-sided manner ....

• ...Justus' style is very concise and
  ....he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance.
  ....Suffering from the common fault of the Jews,
  ....a slave to vice and greed.
  ..... It is said that the history which he wrote is in great part fictitious,

...as an apologetic be to help explain why the text of a historian from Galilee does not mention the Son of God and Savior of the World. The negative presentation of Justus softens the blow. Photius even distances himself from the accusations by turning them into reports of the opinions of others.

Vorkosigan

Iasion

Greetings,

It appears that Photius is aware of other Jewish writings that do not mention Jesus, and that he thus blames Justus' silence on his Jewishness.

But is Photius' apologetics the real point here?
Surely the point is whether Justus silence is expected, not Photius' opinion on same.

Because some other Jewish writers DO mention Jesus.


Iasion

GakuseiDon

I see more in that comment by Photius than that. He says, "Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him."

This from an 8th C author suggests (at least to me) that Christ was generally ignored by Jewish literature. Something to keep in mind when examining Jewish literature for references to Christ.

The question is "how likely is it that Justus would have mentioned Christ if he had been historical"? I think there is enough there to show that the conclusion "Justus should probably have mentioned such a Christ" is not supportable.

GakuseiDon

What apologetics?

I agree.

Iasion

Greetings,

Spunk and empassionment?
I thought it was rude and insulting, and full of strawmen and ad hominem attacks.

Iasion