Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 02-18-2006, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Had a few too many beers that night, eh Chris?

Er...It happens. :P

Tharmas · 02-19-2006, 02:51 PM

If I may jump into this interesting discussion with a question I have always wondered about...When one says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

(3) If Luke used Josephus, then Josephus is an independent, non-Christian source for Jesus, but Luke is post-93...

I wonder why this wouldn't or couldn't be phrased, "If Luke used Josephus, then Josephus is an independent, non-Christian source for the existence of Mark, or of a Pauline or other early Christian sect, but Luke is post-93..."

My point is one of historical parsimony and careful wording. We already assume the existence of documents including Gospels and Epsitles from the NT canon, and the existence of Christian communities and traditions, from the time of the TF.

I don't see why we would need to make a leap and assume that Josephus is referencing anything else. Yet I often see this assumption made. What is it I am missing?

yalla · 02-20-2006, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

I'm not sure how much I can add. My goal is to get the whole Tacitus-Josephus angle peer-reviewed and published to see what scholars do with it. Olson's dissertation is in this area, so he's still working on it.

My tentative conclusions are as follows:

(1) Some form of the TF is original to Josephus, possibly along the lines of the Agapius version but conceivably more negative to Christianity.

(2) The Tacitus bit is not an interpolation. Tacitus had access to Josephus's works in the imperial library. Although he generally did not use him and prefered other source, the reason he used Josephus to discuss Jesus is because it was his only source to do so. I doubt that Tacitus interviewed Christians for the information.

(3) There is probably some relationship between Luke and Josephus, but I have not decided how that goes. If Luke used Josephus, then Josephus is an independent, non-Christian source for Jesus, but Luke is post-93. If Josephus used Luke, then Luke is pre-93 and there is no independent, non-Christian source left for Jesus (since Tacitus used Josephus, too).

(4) Suetonius and perhaps the imperial records only really know of Nero's persecution of the "Chrestians." It is Tacitus who links the Chrestians to Christ, which Suetonius botched by calling him "Chrestus." (Tacitus could well be right, but he is the first of our sources to make that linkage explicit.)

Stephen

Sorry Stephen I don't follow the logic of [3] above.
If the author of Luke used Josephus how does that equate to Josephus being an independent source for JC?
Only if you accept the validity of the TF does Josephus offer an independent source for JC.
Is that correct?
And I am unaware of the author of Luke displaying specific knowledge of the TF...?
So, presuming no direct authorLuke/TF link I don't see Josephus being a source for non-JC material providing independent verification of JC.
Am I missing something here?
cheers
yalla

Chris Weimer · 02-20-2006, 02:49 AM

yalla - There was a flurry of posts here not too long ago addressing this argument. I even linked to Stephen's blogpost about it in the OP.

Here is where most of the big stuff went down, and later here. I thought there was another thread, but I guess those are it.

yalla · 02-20-2006, 03:45 AM

Ta Chris, back when I've read them
yalla

I'm back..just read the first link and hope I've grasped the essentials.
Can I ignore the Tacitus connection?

If so, then apart from the usual discussion about the TF and James in Josephus, I still fail to see how "Luke" using Josephus for other non-JC sort of background material, makes Josephus an independent source for JC.

I think Vork got it right in post #42 when he said that the [later] forger of the TF used "Luke" as his inspiration.

Take out James and the TF from Josephus and what has he got re JC [not background but directly relevant to Christianity/JC] that shows an independent knowledge of JC?
Whether or not authorLuke used Josephus?

If I'm being dense just tell me and I'll spend a LOT of time on it.
But I just can't see Joe being independently a witness to JC etc. if the TF and James is considered gloss/forgery.
cheers
yalla

Chris Weimer · 02-20-2006, 04:45 AM

The problem is - I don't think we can ignore the Josephus-Tacitus connection. I think it needs to be fully examined and then decided upon instead of outright dismissing it. But then again, even if Tacitus turns out to be unrelated, I still don't think it's healthy to posit a Luke -> Josephus relationship since most of the materials are usually the other way around.

yalla · 02-20-2006, 05:10 AM

I have no problem with Josephus being used by "Luke" post 93 probably early to mid 2C.

I have no problem with someone, later, using Christian writings in general and perhaps "Luke" in particular [with a little of "Matthew"'s "so-called whatever"] to create the TF in Josephus.

I reckon the James bit in Josephus is a gloss and that the James in question was 'son of Damneus' whoever.

The Tacitus connection is a mystery to me at this stage, either T and J or T and L.
Is a Tacitus connection to any of the 2 others necessary to justify the statement that Josephus may be an independent witness to JC?
If so, do I need to carefully read that thread? I didn't see anything the first time.
If not, what constitutes the basis for suggesting Josephus, minus TF/James, as a witness to JC?
Am I getting warmer?

S.C.Carlson · 02-20-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tharmas

I don't see why we would need to make a leap and assume that Josephus is referencing anything else. Yet I often see this assumption made. What is it I am missing?

You're not missing anything. Josephus is an indirect source, and it is important to figure out where he got information from. The undisputed Paulines don't mention Pontius Pilate, so they're out. On the premise that the James, the brother of Jesus called Christ, is genuine (virtually forced if we're talking about a partially authentic Testimonium), then Josephus's source about Christianity is more closely connected to Jerusalem than Mark (who has a polemic against Jesus's family).

Though it is good idea to check whether Josephus got his information from Mark or Paul's letters, it does not otherwise have a lot going for it.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson · 02-20-2006, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Sorry Stephen I don't follow the logic of [3] above.
If the author of Luke used Josephus how does that equate to Josephus being an independent source for JC?
Only if you accept the validity of the TF does Josephus offer an independent source for JC.
Is that correct?

Correct. That's my (1) of my list of (tentative) conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

And I am unaware of the author of Luke displaying specific knowledge of the TF...?

So, presuming no direct authorLuke/TF link I don't see Josephus being a source for non-JC material providing independent verification of JC.
Am I missing something here?

There is evidence suggestive of some kind of a connection between Luke and Josephus outside of the Testimonium (e.g. Steve Mason), though it is still a minority view among scholars. This actually strengthen's Goldberg's case, that there is a literary relationship between Luke's Road to Emmaus account and the Testimonium.

Stephen

Amaleq13 · 02-20-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

On the premise that the James, the brother of Jesus called Christ, is genuine (virtually forced if we're talking about a partially authentic Testimonium)...

What precludes the possibility of the "short reference" as a marginal gloss/interpolation with a partially authentic Testimonium?

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

02-20-2006, 02:49 AM	#14
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	yalla - There was a flurry of posts here not too long ago addressing this argument. I even linked to Stephen's blogpost about it in the OP. Here is where most of the big stuff went down, and later here. I thought there was another thread, but I guess those are it.

02-20-2006, 03:45 AM	#15
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Ta Chris, back when I've read them yalla I'm back..just read the first link and hope I've grasped the essentials. Can I ignore the Tacitus connection? If so, then apart from the usual discussion about the TF and James in Josephus, I still fail to see how "Luke" using Josephus for other non-JC sort of background material, makes Josephus an independent source for JC. I think Vork got it right in post #42 when he said that the [later] forger of the TF used "Luke" as his inspiration. Take out James and the TF from Josephus and what has he got re JC [not background but directly relevant to Christianity/JC] that shows an independent knowledge of JC? Whether or not authorLuke used Josephus? If I'm being dense just tell me and I'll spend a LOT of time on it. But I just can't see Joe being independently a witness to JC etc. if the TF and James is considered gloss/forgery. cheers yalla

02-20-2006, 04:45 AM	#16
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	The problem is - I don't think we can ignore the Josephus-Tacitus connection. I think it needs to be fully examined and then decided upon instead of outright dismissing it. But then again, even if Tacitus turns out to be unrelated, I still don't think it's healthy to posit a Luke -> Josephus relationship since most of the materials are usually the other way around.

02-20-2006, 05:10 AM	#17
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	I have no problem with Josephus being used by "Luke" post 93 probably early to mid 2C. I have no problem with someone, later, using Christian writings in general and perhaps "Luke" in particular [with a little of "Matthew"'s "so-called whatever"] to create the TF in Josephus. I reckon the James bit in Josephus is a gloss and that the James in question was 'son of Damneus' whoever. The Tacitus connection is a mystery to me at this stage, either T and J or T and L. Is a Tacitus connection to any of the 2 others necessary to justify the statement that Josephus may be an independent witness to JC? If so, do I need to carefully read that thread? I didn't see anything the first time. If not, what constitutes the basis for suggesting Josephus, minus TF/James, as a witness to JC? Am I getting warmer?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.