Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 07-16-2012, 03:28 PM

Not necessarily. We have a caricature of what the Marcionites believed and there is much variation between the Marcion of Irenaeus (= Tertullian), Hippolytus (= Philosophumena) and the eastern tradition. Marcion is even accused of being too Jewish and attracting too many Jewish proselytes. We should never act as if we know everything.

There is also a complexity here that deserves to be noted. The Jews may well have been punished for not accepting Jesus but does that mean that the same 'Jewish Christians' argued for a wholly separate religion? I think not.

The important thing is not to jump to conclusions. You kept demanding answers to 'questions' that you had, none of which had anything to do with whether or not the History of the Jews by Flavius Josephus of 147 CE actually existed or not. Scholarship works in cycles. One discovery is fitted with others and slowly we arrive at the right answer. The important thing is to start off with the facts and facts are that Clement and Epiphanius used a five book History of the Jews (later dubbed a hypomnemata) which was understood to have been written by Flavius Josephus (= Hegesippus) in 147 CE.

The 'normal' text of Josephus that we know so well and trust only appears with any certainty in the fourth century.

stephan huller · 07-16-2012, 03:36 PM

Another very important point which should be considered. If our text of Josephus existed since the beginning why does Irenaeus think Jesus was crucified under Claudius? This is yet another powerful argument in favor of a different 'Josephus' known to second and third century Christians.

In case you are not aware of this, the Testimonium Flavianum appears in Book 18:

Quote:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The very next sentence mentions a contemporary event at Rome:

Quote:

About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs.

The narrative continues down until the Emperor of that time is named - it is Tiberius rather than Claudius as Irenaeus would have it:

Quote:

So he discovered the fact to the emperor; whereupon Tiberius inquired into the matter thoroughly by examining the priests about it, and ordered them to be crucified, as well as Ide, who was the occasion of their perdition, and who had contrived the whole matter, which was so injurious to the woman. He also demolished the temple of Isis, and gave order that her statue should be thrown into the river Tiber; while he only banished Mundus, but did no more to him, because he supposed that what crime he had committed was done out of the passion of love. And these were the circumstances which concerned the temple of Isis, and the injuries occasioned by her priests. I now return to the relation of what happened about this time to the Jews at Rome, as I formerly told you I would.

Most scholars acknowledge Irenaeus uses Hegesippus's Roman bishops list in Book Three. Why doesn't Irenaeus know that Jesus was actually crucified under Tiberius? Indeed the ultimate paradox is revealed in the surviving fragments associated with Irenaeus where he cites Josephus by name. From Roger Pearse's page on this: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/jo...#anf01-64.htm:

Quote:

Josephus says, that when Moses had been brought up in the royal palaces, he was chosen as general against the Ethiopians; and having proved victorious, obtained in marriage the daughter of that king, since indeed, out of her affection for him, she delivered the city up to him.[Fragments from the lost writings of Irenaeus: XXXII.53]

Note: Whealey says this is derived from Antiquities 2.238-253. But Irenaeus can hardly have read book 18 of Antiquities, and in particular Ant. 18:89 which specifies that Pilate was removed in the closing years of Tiberius, as he asserts that Pilate crucified Jesus under Claudius (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 74).

The solution here could be (a) Irenaeus had a different book of 'Josephus' - like Clement - (b) one that had no reference to Jesus or (c) one that had a different reference to the dating of Jesus's crucifixion. Whatever way, it strengthens the case for great variation in the early texts of Josephus.

stephan huller · 07-16-2012, 03:51 PM

Let's see if all the information from Irenaeus appears in our text of Antiquities:

Quote:

Josephus says, that when Moses had been brought up in the royal palaces, he was chosen as general against the Ethiopians; and having proved victorious, obtained in marriage the daughter of that king, since indeed, out of her affection for him, she delivered the city up to him.

Here is what is written in Antiquities:

Quote:

MOSES, therefore, when he was born, and brought up in the foregoing manner, and came to the age of maturity, made his virtue manifest to the Egyptians; and showed that he was born for the bringing them down, and raising the Israelites. And the occasion he laid hold of was this: - The Ethiopians, who are next neighbors to the Egyptians, made an inroad into their country, which they seized upon, and carried off the effects of the Egyptians, who, in their rage, fought against them, and revenged the affronts they had received from them; but being overcome in battle, some of them were slain, and the rest ran away in a shameful manner, and by that means saved themselves; whereupon the Ethiopians followed after them in the pursuit, and thinking that it would be a mark of cowardice if they did not subdue all Egypt, they went on to subdue the rest with greater vehemence; and when they had tasted the sweets of the country, they never left off the prosecution of the war: and as the nearest parts had not courage enough at first to fight with them, they proceeded as far as Memphis, and the sea itself, while not one of the cities was able to oppose them. The Egyptians, under this sad oppression, betook themselves to their oracles and prophecies; and when God had given them this counsel, to make use of Moses the Hebrew, and take his assistance, the king commanded his daughter to produce him, that he might be the general of their army. Upon which, when she had made him swear he would do him no harm, she delivered him to the king, and supposed his assistance would be of great advantage to them. She withal reproached the priest, who, when they had before admonished the Egyptians to kill him, was not ashamed now to own their want of his help.

So Moses, at the persuasion both of Thermuthis and the king himself, cheerfully undertook the business: and the sacred scribes of both nations were glad; those of the Egyptians, that they should at once overcome their enemies by his valor, and that by the same piece of management Moses would be slain; but those of the Hebrews, that they should escape from the Egyptians, because Moses was to be their general. But Moses prevented the enemies, and took and led his army before those enemies were apprized of his attacking them; for he did not march by the river, but by land, where he gave a wonderful demonstration of his sagacity; for when the ground was difficult to be passed over, because of the multitude of serpents, (which it produces in vast numbers, and, indeed, is singular in some of those productions, which other countries do not breed, and yet such as are worse than others in power and mischief, and an unusual fierceness of sight, some of which ascend out of the ground unseen, and also fly in the air, and so come upon men at unawares, and do them a mischief,) Moses invented a wonderful stratagem to preserve the army safe, and without hurt; for he made baskets, like unto arks, of sedge, and filled them with ibes, and carried them along with them; which animal is the greatest enemy to serpents imaginable, for they fly from them when they come near them; and as they fly they are caught and devoured by them, as if it were done by the harts; but the ibes are tame creatures, and only enemies to the serpentine kind: but about these ibes I say no more at present, since the Greeks themselves are not unacquainted with this sort of bird. As soon, therefore, as Moses was come to the land which was the breeder of these serpents, he let loose the ibes, and by their means repelled the serpentine kind, and used them for his assistants before the army came upon that ground. When he had therefore proceeded thus on his journey, he came upon the Ethiopians before they expected him; and, joining battle with them, he beat them, and deprived them of the hopes they had of success against the Egyptians, and went on in overthrowing their cities, and indeed made a great slaughter of these Ethiopians. Now when the Egyptian army had once tasted of this prosperous success, by the means of Moses, they did not slacken their diligence, insomuch that the Ethiopians were in danger of being reduced to slavery, and all sorts of destruction; and at length they retired to Saba, which was a royal city of Ethiopia, which Cambyses afterwards named Mero, after the name of his own sister. The place was to be besieged with very great difficulty, since it was both encompassed by the Nile quite round, and the other rivers, Astapus and Astaboras, made it a very difficult thing for such as attempted to pass over them; for the city was situate in a retired place, and was inhabited after the manner of an island, being encompassed with a strong wall, and having the rivers to guard them from their enemies, and having great ramparts between the wall and the rivers, insomuch, that when the waters come with the greatest violence, it can never be drowned; which ramparts make it next to impossible for even such as are gotten over the rivers to take the city. However, while Moses was uneasy at the army's lying idle, (for the enemies durst not come to a battle,) this accident happened: - Tharbis was the daughter of the king of the Ethiopians: she happened to see Moses as he led the army near the walls, and fought with great courage; and admiring the subtility of his undertakings, and believing him to be the author of the Egyptians' success, when they had before despaired of recovering their liberty, and to be the occasion of the great danger the Ethiopians were in, when they had before boasted of their great achievements, she fell deeply in love with him; and upon the prevalency of that passion, sent to him the most faithful of all her servants to discourse with him about their marriage. He thereupon accepted the offer, on condition she would procure the delivering up of the city; and gave her the assurance of an oath to take her to his wife; and that when he had once taken possession of the city, he would not break his oath to her. No sooner was the agreement made, but it took effect immediately; and when Moses had cut off the Ethiopians, he gave thanks to God, and consummated his marriage, and led the Egyptians back to their own land.

Yes it appears to be the same story. This interesting though because I wonder if the idea of Moses being married to a black woman has something to do with Zipporah. In the Samaritan tradition of the Biblical Text, Moses was only married to one woman, Zipporah. When Moses first began his ministry to deliver the Sons of Israel out of Egypt, Zipporah was at the side of Moses with their two sons, travelling with him. The situation that developed along the way, in Exodus 4:24-26 created a dilemma in which Moses sent her back to her father, which is confirmed in Exodus 18:2. Both the SP and the MT contain the same story that Zipporah is returned to Moses by Jethro (Zipporah’s father) while they are encamped in the wilderness (Exodus 18:2), yet the SP is more cohesive contextually due to the earlier text in which Zipporah was sent away due to her heathen religious practices, according to the SP.

We read afterwards that even Moses’ brother and sister chatted about her (Numbers, 12:1) beauty. The Samaritans translate the word in Numbers 12:1 "Kaashet" as "Beautiful" relating to Zipporah. The Jewish text says she was 'Kushi' (= Ethiopian). Is this the germ of the story that Moses married an Ethiopian princess in Josephus?

Iskander · 07-16-2012, 04:25 PM

Congratulations, you have the stamina of a Marathon runner! Good work

stephan huller · 07-16-2012, 04:53 PM

Strong as a bull, dumb as an ox.

maryhelena · 07-16-2012, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Not necessarily. We have a caricature of what the Marcionites believed and there is much variation between the Marcion of Irenaeus (= Tertullian), Hippolytus (= Philosophumena) and the eastern tradition. Marcion is even accused of being too Jewish and attracting too many Jewish proselytes. We should never act as if we know everything.

There is also a complexity here that deserves to be noted. The Jews may well have been punished for not accepting Jesus but does that mean that the same 'Jewish Christians' argued for a wholly separate religion? I think not.

OK, Stephan, I think I’ve finally got a handle on what is going on here...

You don’t like the Josephan history re Agrippa I. You use the Rabbinic tradition re Agrippa to discredit Josephus. i.e. the Rabbinic tradition mentioning only one Agrippa and you have decided that that one Agrippa is Agrippa II. Your interest in Agrippa II is related to the later dating for this Agrippa. The later dating brings Agrippa II into the time period, which you have adjusted, for Marcion. You believe Marcion is a fictional character - and the real Marcion is actually Agrippa II (Marcus Julius Agrippa). Since the general view on the Marcionites is that their teaching places the Jewish God on a lower level - you question this: In other words, you are attempting to bring the Marcionite teaching back into the Jewish fold; to Judaize Marcion - albeit minus all the Jewish law requirements. That sounds, to my way of thinking, trying to establish an early historical origin/connection for the Frankist Jewish faith. (which, according to your website, you are a descendent of).

Your statement: “The Jews may well have been punished for not accepting Jesus but does that mean that the same 'Jewish Christians' argued for a wholly separate religion? I think not.” That’s what clinched this debate over Josephus for me. You have just labelled Josephus as a Jewish Christian, with a negative connotation. Thus, this mention of “Jewish Christians” relates to those that would have a positive connotation - Jewish Frankist Christians. - Marcionist Christians, albeit of the Stephan Huller type.

Quote:

Marcion Was a Heretic Invented in the Third Century to Gloss Over the Controversies Associated with St Mark in Second Century Palestine

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-in-third.html

The bottom line for me, my friends, is that we can be fairly certain that Justin never wrote an Against Marcion, nor did Irenaeus - despite what the testimony of the present edition of Against Heresies has to say about that. Noe we have Jerome admitting that a great many spurious texts were written in the name of Modestus, thus cast doubt on the 'Against Marcion' associated with the writer. Why is it so unlikely given the forgery, manipulating and editing associated with the Against Heresies tradition that a third century editor was trying to prove that a great number of third century witnesses knew about the existence of a fictitious 'Marcion' the head of the Marcionites?

[T2]Ditch Marcion, substitute Marcus Julius Agrippa (II) as the head of the Marcionities - place the Marcionites, with Agrippa (II), prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. - which requires ditching the conventional dating for Marcion of 85 c.e. - 160 c.e. - which all means that the Marcionite theology needs to be cleaned up re their theory of a good god and an evil god......which means that the new scholarly study on Marcion needs to be discredited....

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....76#post6937976[/T2]

So, Stephan, for all this speculative theorizing to work - you have to ditch Josephus as a first century writer. The Josephan dating for Agrippa I, a figure that Josephus has connected with messianic ideas, is far too early to be connected with Marcion. Thus, Agrippa I cannot suit your theory at all - hence is a hindrance for your messianic speculation.. You need a late messiah figure for the Marcion connection.

Quote:

Marcionites must have been a Jewish messianic sect which accepted the gospel as the new Law of Israel. This understanding was built into the prediction of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy. Furthermore, if I am right that Marcus Julius Agrippa was the historical Mark called “Marcion,” ...

http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...tradition.html

Having theories and speculating is all for the good - it's the consequences of those theories that have to be considered. And in this case - a crusade against Josephus - Stephan, that's a losing battle. The Josephan writings maybe a mix of history and pseudo-history - but that only requires that we are diligent in reading Josephus - it does not mean that we take away from that writer his place in the first century.

That’s it - I’ll leave it all to you now - at least I’ve managed, for my own puzzlement, to arrive at some idea of what your whole anti-Josephus crusade is about.

stephan huller · 07-16-2012, 05:20 PM

Can you stop with this? Its like if I was black and you started each conversation no matter what the subject with "your people really have a good sense of rhythm." Why cant a rose just be a rose. Cant we just talk about the evidence?

Iskander · 07-16-2012, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Strong as a bull, dumb as an ox.

Strong as a Titan and as dazzling as Phoebus Apollo

Phoebus Apollo and his chariot

Duke Leto · 07-16-2012, 08:10 PM

You keep on talking and you still manage to ignore the important questions:

Why did this 147 CE character choose to base his work on a hypomena, why not just write from scratch? If he didn't then why invent Joseph? The fall of Jerusalem was not quite in living memory in 147 CE, but if he published his work publicly, surely the rabbinical community would have got wind of it and objected to the imposture?

Even IF Mr. 147 was just a Jewish Christian living in Alexandria he still would have to have been a historian. Why question the core points of his narrative for the Hasmonean period on?

If Mr. 147 had more elements of Christian history then why did Eusebius delete them entirely? Even if they exposed the unreliability of the Gospels one would think that replacing the passages with ones that did corroborate the Gospel narrative would be the obvious thing to do.

These are the same morons who accepted that Jesus could have two mutually exclusive genealogies and you want me to believe they were subtle enough to try and pass off one of their own chronicles as a Jewish history by removing everything Christian about it?

Duke Leto · 07-16-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Another very important point which should be considered. If our text of Josephus existed since the beginning why does Irenaeus think Jesus was crucified under Claudius? This is yet another powerful argument in favor of a different 'Josephus' known to second and third century Christians.

In case you are not aware of this, the Testimonium Flavianum appears in Book 18:

So? If I recall correctly the Testimonium, if it were interpreted chronologically, would place the execution of Jesus at around the same time as the death of Germanicus.

Irenaeus could simply have been talking about a historical Jesus derived from myth whose dates hadn't been shorn up yet.

It's completely compatible with a 1st Century Josephus corpus that the Testimonium was inserted into in the 4th Century or later.

If I go to 9/11 truther websites they'll disagree violently about who, how and why the towers were destroyed, and they'll no doubt have differing contradictory chronologies of when the decision was taken.

2nd Century stories about Jesus would be no different.

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

07-16-2012, 03:28 PM	#151
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Not necessarily. We have a caricature of what the Marcionites believed and there is much variation between the Marcion of Irenaeus (= Tertullian), Hippolytus (= Philosophumena) and the eastern tradition. Marcion is even accused of being too Jewish and attracting too many Jewish proselytes. We should never act as if we know everything. There is also a complexity here that deserves to be noted. The Jews may well have been punished for not accepting Jesus but does that mean that the same 'Jewish Christians' argued for a wholly separate religion? I think not. The important thing is not to jump to conclusions. You kept demanding answers to 'questions' that you had, none of which had anything to do with whether or not the History of the Jews by Flavius Josephus of 147 CE actually existed or not. Scholarship works in cycles. One discovery is fitted with others and slowly we arrive at the right answer. The important thing is to start off with the facts and facts are that Clement and Epiphanius used a five book History of the Jews (later dubbed a hypomnemata) which was understood to have been written by Flavius Josephus (= Hegesippus) in 147 CE. The 'normal' text of Josephus that we know so well and trust only appears with any certainty in the fourth century.

07-16-2012, 04:25 PM	#154
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Congratulations, you have the stamina of a Marathon runner! Good work

07-16-2012, 04:53 PM	#155
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Strong as a bull, dumb as an ox.

07-16-2012, 05:20 PM	#157
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Can you stop with this? Its like if I was black and you started each conversation no matter what the subject with "your people really have a good sense of rhythm." Why cant a rose just be a rose. Cant we just talk about the evidence?

07-16-2012, 08:10 PM	#159
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	You keep on talking and you still manage to ignore the important questions: Why did this 147 CE character choose to base his work on a hypomena, why not just write from scratch? If he didn't then why invent Joseph? The fall of Jerusalem was not quite in living memory in 147 CE, but if he published his work publicly, surely the rabbinical community would have got wind of it and objected to the imposture? Even IF Mr. 147 was just a Jewish Christian living in Alexandria he still would have to have been a historian. Why question the core points of his narrative for the Hasmonean period on? If Mr. 147 had more elements of Christian history then why did Eusebius delete them entirely? Even if they exposed the unreliability of the Gospels one would think that replacing the passages with ones that did corroborate the Gospel narrative would be the obvious thing to do. These are the same morons who accepted that Jesus could have two mutually exclusive genealogies and you want me to believe they were subtle enough to try and pass off one of their own chronicles as a Jewish history by removing everything Christian about it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.