Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 07-13-2012, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No I am arguing that it follows a pattern which suggests the material associated with Joisephus was written by synergoi in the second century.

<snip>

And that's the tune that many a mythicists sings too......interpolation or some helpers fixing Josephus to suit what position they want to hold. Don't think that position is going to fly.......

Stephan, Josephus has to be examined on his own terms - we have what we have - and we have to try and understand what we have. Any theory that is going to rest upon interpolation or later additions to the Josephan text - is a futile theory. It's dealing with the Josephan material we do have that is relevant - not cherry-picking it.

Yes, some of it is history and some of it pseudo-history (prophetic or 'salvation' type interpretations). But to discard the pseudo-history as being nonsense or irrelevant is perhaps to miss its function - it is evidence that historical interpretations are in play and are being used for some purpose or another. It's motive we should be looking for with the pseudo-history - not laying charges of interpolation or historical incompetence upon the Josephan writer.

stephan huller · 07-13-2012, 06:16 AM

In case you find it difficult to continue reading my 'faked' review of this other manuscript that I somehow managed to post on Bob's website here are some highlights:

Quote:

The book is very, very fascinating, just the sort of thing I relish for its ability to force us to throw the puzzle pieces up in the air and let them fall into new configurations. A new paradigm.

Quote:

And the result of linking Luke 16 with John 8, making Father Abraham the warden of Hell is striking! Wow!

And this is stuff I wrote when I didn't know what I was talking about. I could send you reviews of my work by a number of other scholars too - J Harold Ellens, David Trobisch, Birger Pearson and countless other. But I don't think that is necessary for me to make the case that it is unlikely that the first century Joseph the Jew actually believed that Felix used a magician to get a non-existent Jewish princess to fall in love with him.

stephan huller · 07-13-2012, 06:25 AM

Oh and BTW I am cited in two recent articles -

Tjitze Baarda ‘And they thought that the time of his decease…had come’ [TA XXIV:5–6]* New Testament Studies July 2012 58 : pp 453-461 Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688512000100 (About DOI) Published online: June 2012

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=8601456

Some other article I forget now by an respected Italian scholar on Mark that came out earlier this year

and this published article on the throne and my interpretation of it in the Journal of Coptic Studies. http://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content...rl=article.php

But who's counting.

stephan huller · 07-13-2012, 06:34 AM

The other scholar is Ilaria Ramelli of the Catholic University of Milan. I couldn't find it doing a Google scholar search but it just came to me. I don't think its been published yet. I have an advanced copy of the article.

Juststeve · 07-13-2012, 07:18 AM

Would someone please explain how we know that "Acts got its information about Felix and Drusilla the Jewish princess from Josephus? Could it not just as well have been the case that Josephus and Acts learned the story independently from either the same third source, or from different sources that agreed, or that the story was simply part of the popular culture at the time. Stories about the Risen Elvis abound but we really can't conclude that they all arise from the same source.

Steve

stephan huller · 07-13-2012, 07:41 AM

I mean these are the 'facts' according to people who post things at sites like this. regular scholarship doesnt share this view

maryhelena · 07-13-2012, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Are you denying that it's your book?

With respect to Mary Helena's constant reference to a book I wrote over four years ago. Yes, I believe that it is likely that the Christian remembrance of saint Mark has something to do with the Jewish king Marcus Julius Agrippa. Please shoot me. I must be crazy. There can't be any reason whatsoever that I hold this position that I never mention at this forum other than I am trying to sell a book by never mentioning the theory.

The only reason that Mary Helena brings this up is that she has any even stupider theory about Herodian rulers and the gospel. I only hesitate to mention this because - and here is the worst thing about this forum - there are people here like Mary Helena who pick fights with people like myself, Earl Doherty and others - for the sole purpose of introducing her own ideas which no one wants to talk about.

I have not mentioned my own personal beliefs about the two Marks. I was asked to write about this subject. If you would like to have an intelligent discussion about this topic and why we should or shouldn't accept the idea that someone named Mark was responsible for the starting or restarting of the three oldest surviving monotheisms (Judaism, Samaritanism, Christianity) by my guest - start a separate thread and I will take up that issue.

Stephan, the difference between my approach and yours is that I put all my cards on the table. This thread that you started, a thread questioning the Josephan account regarding a daughter of Agrippa I, does have, because of your published views, a connection to those published views. The OP is connected to your position on Agrippa I. Without putting that basic position of yours on the table, so to speak, the OP, in referencing only the daughter of Agrippa I, is a bit like the position of some mythicists that just want to talk about Paul - and leave the gospel JC story hanging....Josephus was as well able to make up stories about historical figures as was the gospel writers. Stories about historical people do not equate to denying their historicity.

That is the point I was intent upon making.

stephan huller · 07-13-2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

the difference between my approach and yours is that I put all my cards on the table.

But the assumption buried in this statement is that everyone operates in the same manner at this forum - i.e. to further an 'agenda' or some pre-existing 'theory' regarding early Christianity. I am currently working on a book related to same sex unions in early Christianity. There is absolutely no connection between this topic and the book I wrote previous. I just write about stuff I get interested in. When the book gets published I would theoretically have a motivation to help my publisher sell copies of the book. But it's been years since that last book. If you see me making the case that Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Alexandria were lovers you will know I am a partisan just like you.

mountainman · 07-13-2012, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But the important thing I am trying to show here is that this wasn't simply added to a first century original. This was fundamental enough (and earlier enough) that the author of Acts took it as credible history (or tried to make it so by including in another 'first century' text = Acts). My feeling is that the early Catholics were trying to reshape history with all these 'first century' witnesses.

How early were these early Catholics if they edited a 2nd century Josephus?

stephan huller · 07-13-2012, 09:11 PM

Let's start with the clearest reference to a second century Josephus:

Quote:

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus (= 147 CE) there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.

Of others (i.e. the chronology of Josephus has ended and another chronology has begun) counting from Inachus and Moses to the death of Commodus, some say there were three thousand one hundred and forty-two years; and others, two thousand eight hundred and thirty-one years.

So when you ask when did the Christian writings start, the answer is - after that (= 147 CE + 1) ...

There are other references in Eusebius, Epiphanius etc which show that Josephus/Hegesippus was composed in this year.

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

07-13-2012, 06:25 AM	#63
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Oh and BTW I am cited in two recent articles - Tjitze Baarda ‘And they thought that the time of his decease…had come’ [TA XXIV:5–6]* New Testament Studies July 2012 58 : pp 453-461 Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688512000100 (About DOI) Published online: June 2012 http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=8601456 Some other article I forget now by an respected Italian scholar on Mark that came out earlier this year and this published article on the throne and my interpretation of it in the Journal of Coptic Studies. http://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content...rl=article.php But who's counting.

07-13-2012, 06:34 AM	#64
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The other scholar is Ilaria Ramelli of the Catholic University of Milan. I couldn't find it doing a Google scholar search but it just came to me. I don't think its been published yet. I have an advanced copy of the article.

07-13-2012, 07:18 AM	#65
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Would someone please explain how we know that "Acts got its information about Felix and Drusilla the Jewish princess from Josephus? Could it not just as well have been the case that Josephus and Acts learned the story independently from either the same third source, or from different sources that agreed, or that the story was simply part of the popular culture at the time. Stories about the Risen Elvis abound but we really can't conclude that they all arise from the same source. Steve

07-13-2012, 07:41 AM	#66
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I mean these are the 'facts' according to people who post things at sites like this. regular scholarship doesnt share this view

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.