Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 07-10-2011, 10:03 AM

A possible argument in support of a historical Jesus is that Josephus had written an entirely different passage which was hostile in place of the TF. Some arguments in favor of that are as follows:

1. Josephus was known to not be a Christian. Origen, who was familiar with the Antiquities was one of the first church fathers to explicity say so.

2. He was negative/hostile in his writings about revolutionaries like Judas the Galilean and the Egyptian prophet.

3. The placement of the passage could be seen as highly appropriate:

Para 1: Pilate secretly sent Caesar's effigies to Jerusalem, which the Jews strongly opposed because it transgressed their laws. Pilate relented.

Para 2: Pilate's use of sacred temple money in a way that displeased the Jews. A protest ensued and Pilate ordered military action. Many men were slain which was beyond what Pilate had ordered.

Para 3: The TF

Para 4: This seeming diversion discussed the misuse of the most holy part of the temple of Isis, which involved deception toward a very rich and virtuous, yet gullible woman(Pauline). Tiberius, the Roman Emperor ordered the crucifixion of the priests of the temple, and the demolition of the temple.

Para 5: Discusses the misuse-by a Jewish man who had been banished to Rome from his own country-of funds he persuaded a woman to send to the temple in Jerusalem, and subsequent banishment of 4000 Jews from Rome by the Roman Emperor Tiberius.

Para 3, the position of the current TF, is an ideal place for a paragraph about Jesus' crucifixion (approved by both Romans and Jews) for 'desecrating' the temple in Jerusalem via turning over the tables of money changers, as told in all four gospels:

*Pilate is involved in the first 2. Tiberius is involved in the last 2

*The bad character in the first 2 was Pilate. The bad character in the last two were individuals presumably both Jewish.

*All 4 paragraphs are about desecration of sacred ground. The last 3 are about desecrating a temple. Two of those were about desecrating the Jewish temple.

*The two about desecrating the Jewish temple were money-related. The first was about the misuse of temple money by Pilate. The last was about the misuse of money directed to the temple by a bad Jewish man.

IF I WERE JOSEPHUS and I was looking for a place to insert the story about Jesus being crucified by Pilate at the request of Jews who were offended by Jesus' 'desecration' of the temple by overthrowing the money changers, I would have chosen the exact spot that we find the TF.

Keep in mind that a negative TF could be a simple as the following:

Quote:

Now there was about this time one named Jesus, called Christ by his followers, whose act of sedition caused great anxiety among the people. During passover he desecrated the temple by overturning tables in opposition to his false accusation regarding the misuse of temple funds by the priests. Jewish leaders brought him before Pilate, who had him crucified."

An objection to the hostile TF hypothesis is the lack of witness by church fathers. Doherty has commented on this:

Quote:

And yet, the startling fact is that during the first two centuries when such a passage is claimed to have existed in all manuscripts of the Antiquities of the Jews, not a single Christian commentator refers to it in any surviving work.

This includes Justin (mid-2nd century), Irenaeus and Theophilus of Antioch (late 2nd century), Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria (turn of 3rd century), Origen and Hippolytus (early 3rd century), Cyprian (mid-3rd century) Lactantius and Arnobius (late 3rd century)....

Their very oeuvres also demonstrate that a Testimonium which might have been hostile would similarly have compelled a reaction of defense and rebuttal, so that the claim that these writers were silent on account of a perceived animosity toward Jesus by Josephus fails to work either.

I'd like to hear any comments about that here. Which church fathers writings that we have should we expect to see commentary on a negative TF, and where in their writings would we see it?

I might add that I'm not sure why we would expect to see any early commentary on a passage that only confirms the raw facts spelled out in the gospels. Maybe there is a reason to though..that's why I'm asking.

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2011, 03:21 PM

When you are a pericope about adultery, and you are found in a couple of different gospels, it is clear that you are a later addition to the text.

When you are a paragraph about Jesus, and you are found in a couple of different works of Josephus, it is clear you must have been there all along.

Vorkosigan

TedM · 07-10-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

When you are a pericope about adultery, and you are found in a couple of different gospels, it is clear that you are a later addition to the text.

When you are a paragraph about Jesus, and you are found in a couple of different works of Josephus, it is clear you must have been there all along.

Vorkosigan

Come on Vork, you can do better than that.

My arguments are actually quite strong for something that is no longer there. TF is often criticized for being 'out of place'. It is considered a partial or complete interpolation. That means those that put it in (full interpolation) chose an odd place according to those criticizers, and that Josephus chose an odd place if what is there now is partial. I've given an alternative that makes sense on several levels--the content makes sense, and the location makes perfect sense, and therefore the current TF location also makes sense because the interplator(s) simply would have used the same location that the original was at.

PhilosopherJay · 07-10-2011, 03:59 PM

Hi TedM,

I think this is an excellent analysis of why there was probably something there that was highly negative about somebody, but Doherty's objection remain valid if it was Jesus. However, if the wonder-worker was somebody other than Jesus than there would be no need to expect Christians to mention him.
My supposition is that the mystery man was Judas the Galilean.
We should consider that Josephus spends a lot of time telling us about Judas the Galilean and ultimately blames him for the Jewish-Roman War. Yet, he never tells us what happened to Judas the Galilean. This seems an inexplicable omission. We may consider that if Eusebius replaced Judas the Galilean with Jesus in the passage, we have the reasons 1) why Christians did not mention the passage and 2) why Josephus (at least after Eusebius' interpolation) no longer tells us of what happened to Judas the Galilean. With this hypothesis, two great mysteries are cleared up in one stroke.

This is what Josephus says about Judas in book 18 (chapter 1):

Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, (1) of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, (2) a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein
filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.

In War 2.8, Josephus has told us about Judas, the Galilean:

Quote:

a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders.

Note the terms: "teacher," "they would set about great exploits," and "men received what they said with pleasure." This matches closely the TF.

"for he was a doer of wonderful works [great exploits], a teacher [This man was a teacher] of such men as receive the truth with pleasure [men received what they said with pleasure]"

Some interesting circumstantial evidence that the figure originally mentioned was Judas the Galilean is perhaps provided by Eusebius himself in his Theophania. After quoting the TF, Eusebius says:

45. If therefore, as (this) author attests of Him, He was the doer of wonderful works, and that He made His Disciples,--not only the twelve Apostles, or the seventy Disciples, but also attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles; it is clear, that He possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind. For, How could He have otherwise attached to Himself the many, both of the Jews and Gentiles, unless He had made use of miracles and astonishing deeds, and of doctrines (till then) unknown ? The Book of the Acts of the Apostles also attests, that there were many thousands of the Jews, who were persuaded that He was that Christ of God, who had been preached of by the Prophets. It is also on record, that there was a great Church of Christ at Jerusalem; which had been collected from among the Jews, even to the times of its reduction by Hadrian.

Note first how Eusebius describes Jesus "possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind" This is close to Josephus' description of Judas in War, "not at all like the rest of those their leaders."

Thus we have Josephus describing Judas and Eusebius destroying Jesus in the TF and the following paragraph in very similar terms:

Josephus Describing Judas in Antiquities and Wars	Eusebius Describing Jesus in Theophania in TF and following passage
1. teacher	teacher
2. not at all like the rest of those their leaders	possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind
3. they would set about great exploits	he was a doer of wonderful works
4. men received what they said with pleasure	such men as receive the truth with pleasure
5. this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal	[used]doctrines (till then) unknown
6. who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein	attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles

Eusebius begins by emphasizing in Theophania that Jesus attracted both Jews and Gentiles. This is apparently to distinguish him from Judas who just attracted Jews. However, after backing this up with a reference to Acts, he immediately contradicts this idea by saying:

Quote:

there were many thousands of the Jews, who were persuaded that He was that Christ of God, who had been preached of by the Prophets. It is also on record, that there was a great Church of Christ at Jerusalem; which had been collected from among the Jews, even to the times of its reduction by Hadrian.

The gospels and acts don't really show that Jesus drew thousands of Gentile followers to him. The conversion of the gentiles comes long after he is dead. However, if we imagine Eusebius replacing a description of Judas' life and death in the passage with one of Jesus, we can suggest that he wanted to distinguish him from the zealot leader, Judas, so he adds the Greek followers in the passage.

Eusebius is really concerned to answer Hierocle's charges against Jesus being a selfish and evil magician. Inserting this passage into Josephus allows him to call Josephus as a witness for the divine goodness of Jesus the magician. Josephus, of course, wanted only to show how the selfish and evil Judas met his end, although the cult Judas started continued at Jerusalem.

Note also that the writer of Acts also wanted to distinguish Jesus from Judas:

"After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered."

Since we don't have the account of Judas' death in Josephus now. We may assume that the writer of Acts (circa 180 CE) got his information from Josephus and this was part of the section that Eusebius' TF replaced. Eusebius wanted to show Jesus as the real Messiah so he replaced the last line of Judas' followers being scattered with the line "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

If we assume that Acts quotes from Josephus than, we have a seventh coincidence in terminology between Josephus and Eusebius:

Josephus Describing Judas in Antiquities and Wars	Eusebius Describing Jesus in Theophania in TF and following passage
1. teacher	teacher
2. not at all like the rest of those their leaders	possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind
3. they would set about great exploits	he was a doer of wonderful works
4. men received what they said with pleasure	such men as receive the truth with pleasure
5. this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal	[used]doctrines (till then) unknown
6. who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein	attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles
7 he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered.	condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

A possible argument in support of a historical Jesus is that Josephus had written an entirely different passage which was hostile in place of the TF. Some arguments in favor of that are as follows:

1. Josephus was known to not be a Christian. Origen, who was familiar with the Antiquities was one of the first church fathers to explicity say so.

2. He was negative/hostile in his writings about revolutionaries like Judas the Galilean and the Egyptian prophet.

3. The placement of the passage could be seen as highly appropriate:

Para 1: Pilate secretly sent Caesar's effigies to Jerusalem, which the Jews strongly opposed because it transgressed their laws. Pilate relented.

Para 2: Pilate's use of sacred temple money in a way that displeased the Jews. A protest ensued and Pilate ordered military action. Many men were slain which was beyond what Pilate had ordered.

Para 3: The TF

Para 4: This seeming diversion discussed the misuse of the most holy part of the temple of Isis, which involved deception toward a very rich and virtuous, yet gullible woman(Pauline). Tiberius, the Roman Emperor ordered the crucifixion of the priests of the temple, and the demolition of the temple.

Para 5: Discusses the misuse-by a Jewish man who had been banished to Rome from his own country-of funds he persuaded a woman to send to the temple in Jerusalem, and subsequent banishment of 4000 Jews from Rome by the Roman Emperor Tiberius.

Para 3, the position of the current TF, is an ideal place for a paragraph about Jesus' crucifixion (approved by both Romans and Jews) for 'desecrating' the temple in Jerusalem via turning over the tables of money changers, as told in all four gospels:

*Pilate is involved in the first 2. Tiberius is involved in the last 2

*The bad character in the first 2 was Pilate. The bad character in the last two were individuals presumably both Jewish.

*All 4 paragraphs are about desecration of sacred ground. The last 3 are about desecrating a temple. Two of those were about desecrating the Jewish temple.

*The two about desecrating the Jewish temple were money-related. The first was about the misuse of temple money by Pilate. The last was about the misuse of money directed to the temple by a bad Jewish man.

IF I WERE JOSEPHUS and I was looking for a place to insert the story about Jesus being crucified by Pilate at the request of Jews who were offended by Jesus' 'desecration' of the temple by overthrowing the money changers, I would have chosen the exact spot that we find the TF.

Keep in mind that a negative TF could be a simple as the following:

Quote:

Now there was about this time one named Jesus, called Christ by his followers, whose act of sedition caused great anxiety among the people. During passover he desecrated the temple by overturning tables in opposition to his false accusation regarding the misuse of temple funds by the priests. Jewish leaders brought him before Pilate, who had him crucified."

An objection to the hostile TF hypothesis is the lack of witness by church fathers. Doherty has commented on this:

Quote:

And yet, the startling fact is that during the first two centuries when such a passage is claimed to have existed in all manuscripts of the Antiquities of the Jews, not a single Christian commentator refers to it in any surviving work.

This includes Justin (mid-2nd century), Irenaeus and Theophilus of Antioch (late 2nd century), Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria (turn of 3rd century), Origen and Hippolytus (early 3rd century), Cyprian (mid-3rd century) Lactantius and Arnobius (late 3rd century)....

Their very oeuvres also demonstrate that a Testimonium which might have been hostile would similarly have compelled a reaction of defense and rebuttal, so that the claim that these writers were silent on account of a perceived animosity toward Jesus by Josephus fails to work either.

I'd like to hear any comments about that here. Which church fathers writings that we have should we expect to see commentary on a negative TF, and where in their writings would we see it?

I might add that I'm not sure why we would expect to see any early commentary on a passage that only confirms the raw facts spelled out in the gospels. Maybe there is a reason to though..that's why I'm asking.

TedM · 07-10-2011, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi TedM,

I think this is an excellent analysis of why there was probably something there that was highly negative about somebody, but Doherty's objection remain valid if it was Jesus.

I'm not sure yet if Doherty's objection regarding the lack of witnesses is valid, but I find your theory interesting and full of some insightful observations. Comments below..

Quote:

However, if the wonder-worker was somebody other than Jesus than there would be no need to expect Christians to mention him.

Agree.

Quote:

We should consider that Josephus spends a lot of time telling us about Judas the Galilean and ultimately blames him for the Jewish-Roman War. Yet, he never tells us what happened to Judas the Galilean.

True. Not sure I agree it is inexplicable though.

Quote:

Note the terms: "teacher," "they would set about great exploits," and "men received what they said with pleasure." This matches closely the TF.

"teacher" is generic, "great exploits" refers to aggressive acts of follows toward Rome (I think), and "men received what they said with pleasure" is specific but perhaps a favorite Josephus phrase. I'm paying attention but not too impressed yet...

Quote:

Note first how Eusebius describes Jesus "possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind" This is close to Josephus' description of Judas in War, "not at all like the rest of those their leaders."

ok, not bad, but not sure this is an unusual way for Josephus to talk about people who gain followings..

"5. this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal " vs "[used]doctrines (till then) unknown"

pretty good.

"6. who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles"

Quote:

The conversion of the gentiles comes long after he is dead. However, if we imagine Eusebius replacing a description of Judas' life and death in the passage with one of Jesus, we can suggest that he wanted to distinguish him from the zealot leader, Judas, so he adds the Greek followers in the passage.

He also might say that just because he likes the way it sounds. He doesn't need inspiration from a Judas passage here.

Quote:

Since we don't have the account of Judas' death in Josephus now. We may assume that the writer of Acts (circa 180 CE) got his information from Josephus and this was part of the section that Eusebius' TF replaced. Eusebius wanted to show Jesus as the real Messiah so he replaced the last line of Judas' followers being scattered with the line "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Interesting possibility.

Some problems I have with the idea that Josephus originally had a negative paragraph about Judas are as follows:

1. Timing: Judas' revolt was around 6CE, as it was census-related, and while we don't know when he died, Josephus doesn't reference Pilate or Tiberius, so it doesn't fit in well with the chronology of the section the TF is in.

2. The lack of connection to the temple or money.

Those two things ARE present in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' arrest and crucifixion.

So, overall, while you have noticed some interesting things, I have some doubts. But, appreciate your thoughts.

Ted

PhilosopherJay · 07-10-2011, 09:10 PM

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Note this in Antiquities (20:5)

Quote:

1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, (9) persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.

2. Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified.

The revolt started in the time of the census of Quirinus 6 CE. Obviously, it could not have ended at that time because Josephus tells us that Judas' philosophy led to the war in 67 CE. Here, he tells us that two sons of Judas, Simon and James were crucified around 46 CE. Simon and James, just happens to be the names of the two leading apostles of Jesus. Simon is, of course, the original name of Peter, or rather, Peter is Jesus' nickname for Simon.
Mark identifies a Simon and James as brothers of Jesus. (6.3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon,)

It should be noted that Jesus calls his lead disciple "Simon," all seven times in the gospels that he directly addresses and names him.

Quote:

Mark 14.37And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?

Matthew 17.25 He said, "Yes." And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?"

Matthew 16.17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 16.18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Luke 7.40 And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "What is it, Teacher?" 7.41 " A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 7.42 When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?" 7.43 Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly."

Luke 22.31 " Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 22.32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." 22.33 And he said to him, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death." 22.34 He said, "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me."

John 1.42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).

John 21.15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 21.16 A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 21.17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?"

This indicates that Simon was the actual name of the disciple and only later did was he identified with Peter or Cephas with a retrograded story of Jesus renaming Simon, Peter.

In any case, we know that James and Simon, the two sons of Judas was killed in 46 CE.

The writer of Luke's Acts 95.34-37) says this about Judas the Galilean:

Quote:

34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36“For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37“After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered

It seems that the writer of Acts was looking at Antiquities and misread the material. This is the most logical explanation for why, he places Theudas (died 44-46 CE) just before Judas the Galilean. He had read the part about Judas being in the time of the census and he had read the part where Theudas gets killed just before the sons of Judas the Galilean. He forgot that it was the sons of Judas who got killed just after Theudas and remembered it as Judas himself getting killed just after Theudas.

The author of Acts wants to say that Judas' men were scattered and nothing came of them. But, Josephus belies that by saying Judas was responsible for the War starting in 67 CE.

It seems most probable that Judas was killed some time between 6 CE when his revolution started and 46 CE when his sons were crucified. The fact that his sons were crucified would suggest that he too was crucified. Why should the father receive any better treatment than his sons? If anything, because he started the movement, he should get worse.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi TedM,

I think this is an excellent analysis of why there was probably something there that was highly negative about somebody, but Doherty's objection remain valid if it was Jesus.

I'm not sure yet if Doherty's objection regarding the lack of witnesses is valid, but I find your theory interesting and full of some insightful observations. Comments below..

Agree.

True. Not sure I agree it is inexplicable though.

"teacher" is generic, "great exploits" refers to aggressive acts of follows toward Rome (I think), and "men received what they said with pleasure" is specific but perhaps a favorite Josephus phrase. I'm paying attention but not too impressed yet...

ok, not bad, but not sure this is an unusual way for Josephus to talk about people who gain followings..

"5. this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal " vs "[used]doctrines (till then) unknown"

pretty good.

"6. who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles"

He also might say that just because he likes the way it sounds. He doesn't need inspiration from a Judas passage here.

Quote:

Since we don't have the account of Judas' death in Josephus now. We may assume that the writer of Acts (circa 180 CE) got his information from Josephus and this was part of the section that Eusebius' TF replaced. Eusebius wanted to show Jesus as the real Messiah so he replaced the last line of Judas' followers being scattered with the line "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Interesting possibility.

Some problems I have with the idea that Josephus originally had a negative paragraph about Judas are as follows:

1. Timing: Judas' revolt was around 6CE, as it was census-related, and while we don't know when he died, Josephus doesn't reference Pilate or Tiberius, so it doesn't fit in well with the chronology of the section the TF is in.

2. The lack of connection to the temple or money.

Those two things ARE present in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' arrest and crucifixion.

So, overall, while you have noticed some interesting things, I have some doubts. But, appreciate your thoughts.

Ted

TedM · 07-10-2011, 11:04 PM

Thanks Jay. Those are some very interesting observations. To summarize:

Judas, the Galilean, may have been the subject of Para 3 in Antiquities 18 because Joseph never elsewhere says when or how he died, although we can assume from his writings that it was anytime between 6CE and 46CE, and may have been by crucifixion--in the same manner as his sons (James and Simon). Josephus mentions Judas and the Zealot movement several times, and indicates his disgust with the movement and his opinion that their nationalism was responsible for the many sufferings of the Jews at the hand of the Romans. His strong feelings would lead us to believe he wrote more about Judas.

Jesus, the Galilean, was not mentioned by Josephus (perhaps because he never existed). But the Para 3 was similar enough to the gospel Jesus that a later Christian interpolator changed the contents to something like what we have today for the TF.

I can't help but wonder why or how the gospel Jesus in Mark could have been derived from that. Why was Jesus not more militant, or nationalistic? Why 'Jesus' instead of 'Judas'? Why have Judas be the betrayer? How could the Zealots only be referenced one time (3:18--which names one of his disciples as Simon the Zealot)? Do you have some opinions about those kinds of things?

Thanks.

jgoodguy · 07-10-2011, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Thanks Jay. Those are some very interesting observations. To summarize:

Judas, the Galilean, may have been the subject of Para 3 in Antiquities 18 because Joseph never elsewhere says when or how he died, although we can assume from his writings that it was anytime between 6CE and 46CE, and may have been by crucifixion--in the same manner as his sons (James and Simon). Josephus mentions Judas and the Zealot movement several times, and indicates his disgust with the movement and his opinion that their nationalism was responsible for the many sufferings of the Jews at the hand of the Romans. His strong feelings would lead us to believe he wrote more about Judas.

Jesus, the Galilean, was not mentioned by Josephus (perhaps because he never existed). But the Para 3 was similar enough to the gospel Jesus that a later Christian interpolator changed the contents to something like what we have today for the TF.

I can't help but wonder why or how the gospel Jesus in Mark could have been derived from that. Why was Jesus not more militant, or nationalistic? Why 'Jesus' instead of 'Judas'? Why have Judas be the betrayer? How could the Zealots only be referenced one time (3:18--which names one of his disciples as Simon the Zealot)? Do you have some opinions about those kinds of things?

Thanks.

Whu? Survival and distancing the orthodox/Gentile Christianity from the Jewish revolt.

Assume a nationalistic Jewish Christianity and a pro Roman Gentile one. The nationalist one joins the revolt and get whacked. The Gentile one demonized the Jewish one to distance them from the unlawful rebels so that the Romans would not whack them.

TedM · 07-11-2011, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Whu? Survival and distancing the orthodox/Gentile Christianity from the Jewish revolt.

Assume a nationalistic Jewish Christianity and a pro Roman Gentile one. The nationalist one joins the revolt and get whacked. The Gentile one demonized the Jewish one to distance them from the unlawful rebels so that the Romans would not whack them.

If both are Christianities, what do they believe in common--that Judas the Galilean was raised from the dead? Not a single Christian reference to their leader Judas survived? Was Paul a Zealot? Lots of unanswered questions here. will check back tomorrow..Why is this Judas the Galilean any more historical than Jesus the Galilean?

maryhelena · 07-11-2011, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Whu? Survival and distancing the orthodox/Gentile Christianity from the Jewish revolt.

Assume a nationalistic Jewish Christianity and a pro Roman Gentile one. The nationalist one joins the revolt and get whacked. The Gentile one demonized the Jewish one to distance them from the unlawful rebels so that the Romans would not whack them.

If both are Christianities, what do they believe in common--that Judas the Galilean was raised from the dead? Not a single Christian reference to their leader Judas survived? Was Paul a Zealot? Lots of unanswered questions here. will check back tomorrow..Why is this Judas the Galilean any more historical than Jesus the Galilean?

"Why is this Judas the Galilean any more historical than Jesus the Galilean?"

Why indeed.....

If it's early christian history we are after - then we have to start dealing with history, with historical figures that have left some evidence of their existence behind. Judas the Galilean is a story in Josephus - that's it.

We will never get to ground zero re early christian origins if we are going to base any reconstruction upon a maybe historical figure - maybe just will not do. For after all, maybe Jesus the Galilean was also historical...and simply got himself immortalized with mythological dressing :huh:

footnote:

70 years back from 6 c.e. is around 63 b.c. At that time Antigonus got himself captured and taken as prisoner to Rome - a few years later he escaped and got back to Judea - to continue his 'rebellion' against the Romans....All Josephus is doing with Judas the Galilean is re-running the historical tape of the Hasmonean Antigonus....

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

07-10-2011, 03:21 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	When you are a pericope about adultery, and you are found in a couple of different gospels, it is clear that you are a later addition to the text. When you are a paragraph about Jesus, and you are found in a couple of different works of Josephus, it is clear you must have been there all along. Vorkosigan

07-10-2011, 11:04 PM	#7
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	Thanks Jay. Those are some very interesting observations. To summarize: Judas, the Galilean, may have been the subject of Para 3 in Antiquities 18 because Joseph never elsewhere says when or how he died, although we can assume from his writings that it was anytime between 6CE and 46CE, and may have been by crucifixion--in the same manner as his sons (James and Simon). Josephus mentions Judas and the Zealot movement several times, and indicates his disgust with the movement and his opinion that their nationalism was responsible for the many sufferings of the Jews at the hand of the Romans. His strong feelings would lead us to believe he wrote more about Judas. Jesus, the Galilean, was not mentioned by Josephus (perhaps because he never existed). But the Para 3 was similar enough to the gospel Jesus that a later Christian interpolator changed the contents to something like what we have today for the TF. I can't help but wonder why or how the gospel Jesus in Mark could have been derived from that. Why was Jesus not more militant, or nationalistic? Why 'Jesus' instead of 'Judas'? Why have Judas be the betrayer? How could the Zealots only be referenced one time (3:18--which names one of his disciples as Simon the Zealot)? Do you have some opinions about those kinds of things? Thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.