aa5874

Is it not maryhelena who is spreading propaganda about Josephus in this thread? I have demonstrated that your claim about Josephus is completely erroneous.

Philo did DATE his Essenes.

Before you make another bogus claim about Josephus perhaps you should contact your source and make them know that there are MASSIVE holes in their story.

maryhelena

Well, perhaps I missed something - what date would that be that Philo gave to his Essenes?

Josephus dated his Essenes

Judas the Essene: 104/103 BC.
Ant.13, book 11, par 2.

Judas, ‘who never missed the truth in his predictions”, predicted the death of Antigonus = who was killed in 104/103 BC.

Menahem the Essene: 34 BC
Ant.15, book 10, par 5.

Menahem, “who had the foreknowledge of future events given him by God”, made a prophecy concerning Herod the Great, that he would rule another 30 years. Herod dies in 4 b.c. - 30 years back to the prophecy in 34 b.c.

Simon the Essene: 6 CE.
Ant. 18, book 13, par 2.

Simon “a man of the sect of the Essenes, desired to speak his mind freely, and said, that the vision denoted a change in the affairs of Archelaus, and that not for the better...” Archelaus had a dream of 10 ears of corn. His rule ended 6 CE after 10 years of rule.

John the Essene: 67 CE.
War book 2, ch. 20, par 4.

John, a general appointed to “the toparchy of Thamma, Lydda was also added to his portion, and Joppa and Emmaus”. This being prior to the fall at Jotapata in 67 CE when Josephus was taken prisoner.

aa5874

I thought I was bad in English.

Do you see the present tense of the verb "to be"?

Do you see the words "there is"?

So, as Philo was writing these words can be found Now, Philo lived during the time of the Emperor Gaius and he reigned from c 37-41 CE.

In Philo's opinion there was about 4000 Essenes in his time or as he was writing "Every Good Man Is Free".

Philo: EVERY GOOD MAN IS FREE Philo DATED his Essenes to his own lifetime.

I suggest you contact your sources immediately.

maryhelena

So, we have an opinion of Philo that there were 4000 Essenes in Palestine and Syria during his lifetime.... Opinions are plenty - historical evidence something else altogether. And within ones own lifetime - that's a grand way to date something - how about Essenes being in Palestine and Syria within the lifetime of others besides Philo?

aa5874 - you don't have a date from Philo re his Essenes - you have his whole lifetime, all his opinions, all his ideas, all his philosophical ideals.....All you have done here is date Philo - you have not provided evidence from Philo that he dated his Essenes.

I have provided evidence from the writing of Josephus that he dated some of his Essenes.

spin

I guess we can forget about 26-36 CE then.

This might be functional for fundies, but the body of Lk talks of the 15th year of Tiberius and the fact that Jesus was about 30, so the census was obviously a fuck-up. These two gospels are fundamentally on the same page.

Josephus is prima facae evidence. The material prior to the war discussion deals in detail with Roman-Parthian relations from the Judean perspective. It's fortunate that we have Roman perspectives on the issue, otherwise you might want to jettison that. The detailed accuracy of Josephan information has frequently proven useful, enough to have gained a status that should require you to base dispute over his veracity on evidence. I have put this position to you before and you have not responded. You just try this sort of thing:

It's obvious why there is no other witness to the war. Who else deals in such detail with Judean affairs? If Josephus had proven grossly unreliable in what he said that was verifiable, then you could brush aside what he says that doesn't cover the material. As things are you are ignoring his track record and want everything in his text to be covered by other sources otherwise you will reject the material, but I doubt you would ever try that approach with, say, Tacitus. You have only displayed tendentious reasons for wanting to reject the Josephus material.

So what? Does it somehow change your attempt to repudiate his JtB data on thin air?

How does one know that Josephus ever used Philo's material on the Essenes?

"...[click, whirrr]..."

Dunno. You wanna argue a case?

1. Gospels have to deal with him.
2. Josephus has to deal with him.
3. Acts has to deal with his followers.

spin

maryhelena

So who is playing take your pick now?
The 6 ce census a 'fuck-up'. When we don't like something we just chuck it out.....
No mention of the Aretas and Antipas war in War - so at that time when War was written, Josephus had no interest in the Aretas and Antipas war - a war that saw the destruction of the army of Antipas. Did people just start remembering the John the Baptist connection to the defeat of the army of Antipas only after 90 ce - and not when Josephus was writing War. If the claimed events of 36 ce were not important when Josephus is writing War - how come 20 or so years later this long forgotten event somehow becomes relevant...
One would think that the victor in the war, Aretas, might leave some record of his victory....

Well, if Philo's material was available - and Josephus was interested in sources - they why would he not use it....

I take it then that you have no historical evidence for John the Baptist. I take it that you are prepared to accept a literal reading of Josephus. I see no reason, in this instance, in the case of John the Baptist, to assume that Josephus is referencing a historical figure.

aa5874

It seems that you do NOT understand English.

You appear not to understand what is meant by the present tense.

When Philo wrote it is reference to the PRESENT conditions at the time of writing.

It was not necessary for Philo to name any Essenes.

When I say there is a number of Democrats in the USA and that there are about 70 million in my opinion then I have dated Democrats to my lifetime.

stephan huller

Hi Spin

I didn't want to get mixed in with Mary Helena's struggles for obvious reasons but I noticed that you ended your last post with the statement that:


We're friendlier now so I don't want to take issue with everything that you say. The point is that the gospels didn't 'have to deal' with John the Baptist. As we read in the conclusion to the Gospel of John that many other stories could have been included but weren't (I subscribe to Trobisch's understanding that the lines appear to the 'set' of four gospels rather than just John). The Catholic editor of the NT canon CHOSE to include John the Baptist narratives.

The Marcionites at least chose not to include the earliest if not all John the Baptist references. I have also shown recently that the earliest Christian references to Josephus are specifically to an overtly counterfeit Christianized text. That John the Baptist appears there would follow the logic of his appearances throughout the NT material (gospels and Acts). Catholics had an interest in promoting the existence of this figure unknown outside their orbit.

Peace

spin

What has John got to do with the christian religion? He has nothing to do with the inner salvation story. Baptism isn't essential to christianity. It's dubious whether the apocalyptic baptism of John has anything to do with christianity in itself at all. Yet christianity has taken up baptism and converted it into a different beast, now being a mere fossil, pledging babies to the faith.

John has nothing to do with christian theology yet he is there in the gospels. A fait accompli.

...A conclusion that is itself an addition.

The earliest preserved reference, Origen, I couldn't call counterfeit. Poor scholarship for the time, maybe. I don't think Origen ever read Josephus's works. (I've dealt with Origen's materials here and here.) When Origen talks of "the writings of Flavius Josephus concerning the ancientness [αρχαιοτητος] of the Jews, in two [books]", ie Contra Apion, he knows of the existence of more than one work by Josephus, as he has already referred to a work in 20 books, ie the Antiquities [αρχαιολογιας].

It is poor scribal workmanship to confuse marginalia with omissions as it seems with the comment about James (ie "the brother of Jesus called christ"), not a matter of counterfeiting. The later TF is more of a candidate. Obviously Origen could have used the TF, but it almost certainly wasn't available to him.

This doesn't deal with the conflict between the gospel data and that of Josephus. I have heard this basic conjecture many times. It doesn't seem to take notice of what is actually in Josephus.


spin

Solo

4) The Clementine Recognitions have to deal with him/them
5) French Jesuit missionaries in 1500's have to deal with 'Nasoreans' of John (Nasoraij d'Yahya) they discover in Iraq-al-Arabi marshes and in Persian Khuzestan. Imagine their perplex in learning that John was from Nazareth too ! (i.e. Jesus of Nazareth, in Acts, Matthew (2:23) and John (19:19) is the rendering of Ἰησους ο Ναζωραιος).

Jiri