rlogan

Hello C.A. Well it wouldn't be. But then you also would not be speaking of Jesus Christ. Josephus does mention many of these. So we can actually pick which ones you want to talk about.

Related issue. There are some very interesting personages in Josephus. I recall one militant Jesus who was a leader of fishermen and other rabble. They killed a goodly number of Romans. I remember another one that was tricked into a city and had to surrender. But they let him go in trade for a promise to behave. Then there was this fellow who went around bewailing that basically "the end is near" before the temple came down.

So there are really two fronts here. There is no extraordinary wise man who spoke before the multitudes and gave the temple politicos a scare. There is an abundant presence of players though- across a wide spectrum from the lone nut to leaders of major rebellions against Rome. And none of these are the Jesus we're looking for.

Jayhawker Soule

But, for me at least, only one issue: what, if anything, can we say about the likely origins and development of the Jerusalem church?

Attonitus

To be honest, you have not answered any of my questions. The answer to its question is NO, but it is irrelevant when not having any relationship with the subject. Regards,

Jayhawker Soule

Regards.

Amaleq13

I consider establishing the beliefs/claims of the Jerusalem group to be crucial but the evidence seems way too unreliable to allow for a sound conclusion.

Paul claims they taught the same gospel as he did but Paul also tells us that those same beliefs warranted persecution by Jewish authorities. If both claims are true, how does the Jerusalem group survive in the Jewish capital? Also, Paul claims to have only persecuted outside Judea.

The Jerusalem group is portrayed as having two requirements of Paul's gentiles: 1) keep the cash coming 2) fully convert to Judaism (eg get circumcised).

They had "high reputations" among Paul's gentiles but he felt free to dismiss that reputation as irrelevant?

Some, like Maccoby and Bernard Muller, argue that the Jerusalem group held significantly different beliefs than Paul. Their arguments basically require a historical Jesus but one who had Paul's theology artificially grafted to him.

spin

What about one who did miracles (unlike any of the others)? or one who drew huge crowds yet noit the attention of the Romans (unlike the erecorded messianic figures)? Our knowledge of this messianic leader comes with baggage from which he cannot be separated meaningfully.

Do you find the tradition of Jesus going to India not wholly fictive? What about the events in the various other apocryphal writings?

There may have been some small component which reflected events from the past concerning Paul, but wasn't Acts partly to promote Peter and to demote Paul? This is no reflection on whether either existed: we are dealing with competing traditions and therefore later internal church struggles.

Mainly from LXX and other Greek sources.

I've dealt with this here. The Peshitta version of Mark transliterates some of Mark's latinisms, strongly suggesting a path which went from Latin into Mark's Greek text, then into the Syriac. You'll find for example the mention of the praetorium found in Mark's Greek also in the Peshitta and, while its existence in Greek Mark is understandable if the audience is a Roman Greek speaking one, it is highly improbable that we are dealing with an originally Roman Aramaic speaking audience.


spin

spin

Mark gives us two feedings, one of five thousand the other of four thousand. These are examples of multitudes.

By reducing the text to untrustworthiness means that there is no way to use any of the text as historical data without entering matters of personal arbitrariness.


spin

Tristan Scott

Just so we are clear, are you saying that if any information in any text is incorrect, then the whole text should be discounted as unreliable?

spin

Given that part of the text proves unreliable (incorrect) and there is no way of corroborating what is left, yes. But it is not just a matter of errors. There are errors in Josephus, but much of his texts has been corroborated, so there is a good case for not discarding his text. We know who is writing, when, to whom, why and about what (ie the type of text he was writing). We cannot talk about any of these things regarding the gospel, so it is rather difficult to treat them as historical documents. Things might change a little if we knew more about the texts and were able to corroborate them more. But as it is they seem unable to be redeemed to me. Most texts have the potential to be historical documents to some degree for the times in which they were written, but we don't know when the gospels were written, so we don't know about the context which makes them historical. Using the gospels as history seems totally unjustifiable to me, as they are unprovenanced, uncorroborable documents containing errors.


spin

Jayhawker Soule

Thanks, spin.

I'm not a big fan of miracles. Nor is it my understanding that messiac figures were typically recorded. If I recall correctly, a number are known to us solely via Josephus.

What I am honestly trying to understand is the reality (if any) of the Jerusalem group and what that suggests about its origins and development. I am not at all sure that conclusive answers are available.

I've frankly never looked at it that way. Thanks.

My point was that a Jewish-Christian sect might well have viewed the Tanach as its sole scripture. I see no reason why the relative preponderance of Greek sources would by substantially different from those later found at Qumran, Masada, and elsewhere.

Thank you again. You are a valued resource.