Toto

If documents from the century before Jesus existed were preserved, and we think that they were saved at a point in time after he existed, then what would your explanation be for the fact that there are no documents from the time of Jesus? It can't be that all of the pieces of paper from that time have rotted away, because they haven't.

We've all been through that exercise, and your position has not prevailed.

You have to take into consideration that Christians from the 4th century on tended to preserve any documents that mentioned Jesus. They preserved Josephus because of the (probably falsified) mentions of Jesus, and because he described the destruction of Jerusalem in gory detail, which Christians interpreted as God's judgment on the Jews for rejecting Jesus. They did not preserve other histories of the time that failed to mention Jesus.

If a historical Jesus existed, he was too insignficant to be noticed by any of the Jewish, Greek, or Roman commentators of the day.

Rick Van Vliet

Hi Bacht,

Thanks for the thoughtful and perceptive reply.

In Antiquities, Josephus doesn't just elevate the Fourth Way to a philosophy, he calls it the equal of the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes. And the Zealots (and Sicarri) are genetically and philosophically related to Judas the Galilean that started the Fourth Way....

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, p.123

"There is genealogical continuity from Judas of Galilee in 6C.E., to
Simon and Judas between 46 and 48C.E., and on to Menahem and
Eleazar between 66 and 73 C.E. There is functional continuity as
learned teachers between Judas and Menahem, and possibly with the
others as well. There is ideological continuity concerning "no Lord
but God" between Judas, Eleazar, and some of the Sicarri who escaped
to Alexandria before Masada fell. The speech of Eleazar in Jewish
War
7.323 mentions "neither to serve the Romans nor any other save God"
and in 7.418-419 the Sicarri, delivered over to the Romans by the
Alexandrian Jews refuse under every torture "to call Caesar lord."
There is not, however, despite and against Josephus himself, any
operational continuity between Judas and the Sicarri. Judas of
Galilee most likely, advocated passive resistance. His sons, Judas
and Simon may or may not have already turned to violence. The
Sicarri certainly did..."

....

Judas, (also called James) and Simon (Peter?), sons of Judas of Galilee, presumed leaders of the Fourth Way in Jerusalem in 48CE?

And of course, "Simon the Zealot" a disciple, presumed to be different than Simon Peter. And Judas Is-Sacarri the disciple perhaps slandered because it's the same Judas nicknamed the Twin, the brother of Jesus, and author of a rather inconvenient Gospel. Kinda like Pagel's idea that John's "doubting Thomas" was to refute the non-superstitious Gospel of Judas Thomas the Twin.

And all, Judas the Galilean, the various' Judas', James, Simons, Menaheims Eleszars, John the Baptists and Jesus of Nazareths, never mentioned in the Jewish War, which in Antiquities, he blames most of them for.

We can read Josephus against himself, and there was a big coverup of anything to do with the Fourth Way, which probably includes John the Baptist, James, and followers of the Way of Jesus.

I don't rule out Josephus, Paul and Mark sat down around a table in Rome and plotted it.

Rick Van Vliet

Bad luck. Nothing important enough to put in sealed jars, hidden in obscure caves, in the desert.

I mean, putting aside the Strawman argument where the Strawman said no paper from anywhere other than the time and place of Jesus survived.

The elementary point continuing to be that there isn't any paper about Jesus from the time and place of Jesus, because there isn't any paper about anyone from the time and place of Jesus.

And the writings of the Jewish commentators of the day, from the time and place of Jesus are? Hint: If they don't exist, not like they can be expected to comment.

Rick Van Vliet

"You have to take into consideration that Christians from the 4th century on tended to preserve any documents that mentioned Jesus."

The physical copies of the Greek Gospel of Thomas are from the late second century, written in the mid first century, and never passed though the hands of Christians. There was no established Christian dogma, although it was forming.

bacht

I agree that Mark was likely the foundational narrative, and the other evangelists copied and modified his basic story. I follow the usual dating of the epistles as earlier than the gospels, but there are other reconstructions proposed in this forum. The relationship between "authentic" Paul and Acts could be complex.

It's certainly not accidental that Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot were included among the disciples. The big question remains: what exactly was Mark trying to tell us? I prefer to see his story as allegory or commentary on the tragedy of the first revolt or the bar-Kochba war. otoh if Mark was concerned about Roman disapproval he may have presented his zealots as nice Jewish boys on a holy mission, a kind of sanitized Josephus.

Joe Wallack has created a very interesting series about Mark, you might want to check out his contributions here.

Toto

How can you say that they never passed through the hands of Christians? Are you defining "Christians" as only the very orthodox?

And how can you be sure that it was written as early as the mid first century? Scholarly opinion is quite divided, but dating gThomas to the mid first century does not seem to have any evidence behind it, and is based on the assumption that the saying came from a historical Jesus.

Doug Shaver

I don't recall seeing that argument being made anywhere. Have you got a citation for it?

aa5874

This is just all baseless speculation.

Which one of the Pauls would you speculate that sat down with Josephus.

And which anonymous writer sat around a table with Josephus.

Relying on speculation, it can't be ruled out that gMark was written by John or the author of gJohn was Paul and Tacitus or Pliny the Elder wrote the Epistle to the Romans in the NT Canon.

andrewcriddle

James Robinson edited the Nag Hammadi documents (which include Thomas), I am not aware of a Robinson involved in the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Andrew Criddle

Rick Van Vliet

Because it doesn't contain the word "Christ" point out anything the Christians got their hands on that didn't. Or resurrection, or judgment day, or virgin birth, or miracles, or supernatural beings, or anything whatsoever from Paul.

For brevity on the dueling scholars thing, there are no Fullbright Scholars, no Guggenheim Fellows that say it was late. Secular agnostic scholars, it's overwhelming. I've already stated the basic reasons why it's first century. Did you miss them?