Freethought & Rationalism Archive

01-22-2007, 01:41 PM

Greetings,

Well,
this is what had me confused :

Quote:

"[Justus] wrote two preserved works, a history of the Jewish War of 66-70 and a chronicle of the Jewish people from Moses to the death of Agrippa II in 100 CE"

Did Justus write two preserved works?

I thought he wrote one work, not preserved.

Iasion

Malachi151 · 01-22-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Greetings,

Well,
this is what had me confused :

Did Justus write two preserved works?

I thought he wrote one work, not preserved.

Iasion

I'm pretty sure that's right. I don't have to look into it at the moment, but if its wrong please let me know. I'll investigate myself later, but I was sure that these were preserved, though not translated into English.

Toto · 01-22-2007, 02:19 PM

Justus in Jewish Enc. - wrote two major works. His work is mentioned in surviving texts, but has not survived itself beyond a few fragments. It appears that Dio Cassius may have used him as a source.

Malachi may be thinking of this from Photius on Justus (emphasis supplied):

Quote:

[Justus] 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. .... 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. His father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go free. 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.

So we have some idea of what he wrote, and can be reasonably sure that he did not mention Jesus Christ.

Malachi151 · 01-22-2007, 02:34 PM

Well, I need to change this then. I was under the impression that we had the whole works, but we don't, so I need to make that clear. Still, the point is not changed much.

Malachi151 · 02-05-2007, 03:43 PM

Now I have the rough draft of my follow-up article up, which focuses more on Paul and Jewish apocalyptic literature.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...h_followup.htm

Atheos · 02-05-2007, 10:08 PM

I have not finished the article yet but am enjoying it. I did want to make one comment about a statement made early in the article:

Quote:

It is important to note that we have one, and only one, source of information about the life of Jesus and that is the Christian Gospels. The Gospels are the sole source of information about this figure; everything that we "know" about "him" depends on these sources.

Considering the many other "gospels" that were excluded from the Christian canon (The gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Peter, the infancy gospels, etc), I'm inclined to disagree with this statement. The canonical books reflect only the accepted beliefs of the people who were involved in the canonization process. The other books have additional information. What one chooses to do with that information is a different story.

Malachi151 · 02-06-2007, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

I have not finished the article yet but am enjoying it. I did want to make one comment about a statement made early in the article:
Considering the many other "gospels" that were excluded from the Christian canon (The gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Peter, the infancy gospels, etc), I'm inclined to disagree with this statement. The canonical books reflect only the accepted beliefs of the people who were involved in the canonization process. The other books have additional information. What one chooses to do with that information is a different story.

GThomas is a sayings Gospels only and has no narrative, thus it doesn't really tell us anything about his life, though one could probably glean a little bit.

The other Gospels, that come after the 4 canonical ones I would agree with the Church that they certainly are spurious.

The could of other short ones that are possibly (though I doubt it) pre-Mark are small and have nothing more than passion narratives that are similar to Mark.

Be sure to read part II, which I don't have a link to on my website yet:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...h_followup.htm

Ben C Smith · 02-06-2007, 07:09 AM

Saying that there is only one source (singular), to wit, the Christian gospels (plural), has a whiff of tendentiousness about it.

Ben.

gstafleu · 02-06-2007, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Saying that there is only one source (singular), to wit, the Christian gospels (plural), has a whiff of tendentiousness about it.

So, considering just the four canonicals, how many sources would you say there are...

?

Gerard Stafleu

Atheos · 02-06-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

GThomas is a sayings Gospels only and has no narrative, thus it doesn't really tell us anything about his life, though one could probably glean a little bit.

The other Gospels, that come after the 4 canonical ones I would agree with the Church that they certainly are spurious.

The could of other short ones that are possibly (though I doubt it) pre-Mark are small and have nothing more than passion narratives that are similar to Mark.

Be sure to read part II, which I don't have a link to on my website yet:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...h_followup.htm

I'm curious. By what standard do you consider the "other" gospels spurious? If you believe Jesus was originally just a mythical figure anyway then none of the gospels are telling you what "really" happened. All of them are perspectives on a myth.

Since nobody knows who actually wrote any of the various gospels available and the even the four canonical gospels are often in disagreement about key points regarding this mythical figure, why would you dismiss some of the ancient texts that at least say something about what at least some people believed about this figure and accept others? If it was all just made up then one version deserves to be told as well as another. Am I missing something here?

Still haven't finished the first article yet. Having to read it during breaks in the action. Great stuff!

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

01-22-2007, 02:34 PM	#24
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Well, I need to change this then. I was under the impression that we had the whole works, but we don't, so I need to make that clear. Still, the point is not changed much.

02-05-2007, 03:43 PM	#25
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Now I have the rough draft of my follow-up article up, which focuses more on Paul and Jewish apocalyptic literature. http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...h_followup.htm

02-06-2007, 07:09 AM	#28
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	Saying that there is only one source (singular), to wit, the Christian gospels (plural), has a whiff of tendentiousness about it. Ben.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.