maryhelena

PUTTING JOSEPHUS IN THE DOCK.

It’s often said, when approaching the gospel JC story, that when it can be observed that earlier, OT, accounts have been used to create that story - that these OT elements need to be put aside as being unhistorical within the context of the JC story. For instance, OT David was born in Bethlehem, therefore, the gospel account of JC being born in Bethlehem, should be considered a reuse, a replay, of that OT detail.

Has Josephus done something similar? Not, in this case, using the OT stories - but reusing past Jewish history in his reconstruction of later Jewish history?

Two books that I have previous quoted from suggest that Josephus was a prophetic prophet. His own work suggests a similar characteristic.

Working from the premise that this is indeed how Josephus saw his historical writing - as “inspired historiography”, I suggest that the following two accounts should be considered in that light: A replaying, a reuse, of past historical events, in his reconstruction of later Jewish history.

1) The killing of Herod the Great's two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus. Sons of the Hasmonean Mariamne.

On the face of it, a father having two sons killed, two sons from a marriage with a very high profile Hasmonean princess; a marriage that could even be viewed as a victor taking from the spoils of war, is like someone throwing to the wind the very thing one has worked hard to obtain. Charges of treason against their father, Herod the Great, are put on the table as evidence of their treachery. And Rome is brought into the picture to give sanction to a father’s cry for blood.

History or pseudo-history?

Historically, the two brothers that were killed by Rome were the Hasmonean brothers. Alexander and Antigonus. Yes, a number of years separate these two killings. However, when rewinding the historical tape such a detail is not the focus. The killing of two brothers by Rome is. Both Hasmonean brothers were fighting against Rome - as the two sons of the Hasmonean Mariamne were so charged of treason against their father, Herod the Great.

If this is indeed a case of Josephus rewinding the historical tape, for reuse in his own historical reconstructions, what relevance would it have for our understanding of Hasmonean and Herodian History? Dating would be a big issue. If Alexander and Aristobulus were not killed at the usual date of 7 b.c. - then dating the birth of their children, especially the children of Aristobulus, cannot be specifically determined.

If Alexander and Aristobulus were not killed in 7 b.c. what happened to them? Written out of Josephan ‘history’? Or did they simply get disinherited from Herod’s will (for whatever reason...) and moved on to Alexandera? Speculation of course - but assuming that they were both killed in 7 b.c. is to take a prophetic historian’s reconstruction of history as being actual history.

2) Salome.

A woman, via Josephus, married to Philip and to the son of Philip’s brother, Aristobulus, son of Herod of Chalice. No children by the first husband and children by the second husband. Is Josephus replaying the historical tape here - the history of Salome Alexandra?

Quote:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...naeus-jonathan Aristobulus died after a reign of one year, and Alexander, as the oldest living brother, had the right not only to the throne but also to Salome, the widow of his deceased brother, who had died childless;

Salome Alexandra

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salome_Alexandra Salome Alexandra's oldest son by Alexander Jannaeus was Hyrcanus II who fought his younger brother Aristobulus II in the 60's BC over the Jewish High Priesthood.

As with the first example of a time gap between the deaths of Alexander and Antigonus, so, likewise, in this example, there is a time gap. Marriage to a son of a brother, rather than in the historical situation of Salome Alexandra, marriage to two brothers. Both marriages, however, following the death of the first husband and a childless marriage.

In this example, a reuse, a replaying of the historical tape of earlier Hasmonean history regarding Salome Alexandra, is being attached, by Josephus, to Philip the Tetrarch. Yes, there is a Salome married to Aristobulus of Chalice - but that this Salome was ever married to Philip the Tetrarch is questionable. Especially so, with gMark and gMatthew - and Slavonic Josephus - stating that it was Herodias that was married to Philip.

Two examples of what could be charged against Josephus if he is put in the dock for telling historical tall tales. However, as a prophetic historian - no charge could be brought. He was on top of his job of retelling, of reusing, of replaying the tape of Hasmonean history; Hasmonean history as a template for his own reconstructions of later Hasmonean and Herodian history.

The gospel writers turned to the OT for their pseudo-historical JC storyboard. Josephus has turned to Hasmonean history for his reconstruction, his pseudo-historical reconstruction of later Hasmonean/Herodian history. Little wonder then that the Josephan Herodian history is problematic - and thus, of course, any attempt at searching for early christian history within that Josephan historical quagmire is very quickly sunk.

aa5874

If the authors of gMark, gMatthew and Slavonic Josephus are the witnesses against Jospehus then your case CANNOT proceed.

Those authors have NOT ever been found or ever positively Identified.

Your case Against Josephus would be IMMEDIATELY thrown out.

1. The Court calls to the Witness Stand the author of gMark--

Your Honor, we have NO witness identified as the author of gMark

2. The Court calls to the Witness Stand the author of gMatthew.

Your Honor we have NO witness Identified as the author of gMatthew.

3. The Court calls to the Witness Stand the author of Slavonic Josephus.

Your Honor we have NO witness Identified as the author of Slavonic Josephus.

The case against Josephus is therefore THROWN out of Court.

maryhelena

aa, did you miss the bit about no charge could be brought against Josephus - he would simply plead he is writing “inspired historiography” and its just us ignoramus folk who don't get his drift?

Yes, one can put a case forward for circumstantial evidence - but even that can't be assured a hearing. So there you go - Josephus and the perfect crime.......no wonder that gospel JC story has survived 2000 years of assumed historicity....:constern01:

steve_bnk

Herodotus I believe was also known as Herodotuus The Liar. The great historian filled in the blanks where needed.

Josephus would have had better communictions on events, but was still severly limited. He would have undoubtedly heard of and then interpreted events.

I don't see how Josephus can be considerd any more reliable than the gosples themselves. That should be obviious considering there was no analog to the detailed chronicalling of events over the last few centuries. Why on Earth would one expect to find modern journalistc/historical lvels of accuracy and be surpreised to find discrepancies?

Your honor, the witness is unresponsive, he's dead.

maryhelena

I don't approach Josephus, re his Hasmonean/Herodian history, or the gospel JC story, as being a pack of lies. I think that would be a very superficial way to go about things. Josephus says he is taking up the mantel of writing where the prophets left off. Now, I don't think anyone is going to support all that the OT prophets wrote as being accurate history. The prophets were interested in 'salvation history'. History with some relevance, some meaning, beyond it's actual appearance. The same with the gospel JC story - 'salvation history' in some form that is perceived by the writers. Once that is the focus of the writing, then, historical objectivity flies out the window.

So, with the Josephan reconstruction of Hasmonean/Herodian history - the question is not about 'lying' - it is about why the Josephan Herodian history is the way it is. It is about why the JC story is the way it is. What was the 'salvation' element perceived by both Josephus and the gospel writers within the time frame of Hasmonean/Herodian history? It's the *why* of it all that we need to find answers for - not throw around charges of 'lying'. The purpose of a salvation reconstruction of history is not lying. It is about writers endeavoring to articulate some meaning, some relevance, they found within a specific historical context.

steve_bnk

That is my point, Josephus was writng as people did not likely lying.

Howthe gospels cam,e to be has been well debated on other threads.There area few of us here who consider it plausible there was an historcal person upon who the tale was spun. Most reject an HJ.

HJ or not, there were Jews claiming to be the messiah. Israel was political on shaky ground.with Rome. Sedition was in the air. An itinerant wandering Jewish rabai preaching doom for Israel would not have been unusual.

Given an historical person you can look at how Mormomism started and grew to get an idea of how the gospels came to be.

The gospels have obvious literary influences from the Greeks. Whatever the real origins of the tale, it would inevetibvaly become embelished over time.

la70119

That's because the authorities of the Church ultimately rejected any HJs for a MJ of their own.

Assuming an HJ crucified by the Romans (or by the Jews with Roman permission) and all of the suspected forgeries not forged, we have the following dates for HJ:

18 CE: Slavonic Josephus, early-on Eusebius
18-36 CE: Tacitus
19 CE: Josephus
21 CE: Acta Pilati
36 CE: Markan tradition (Steve Huller knows this far better than I do)
48-50 CE: Suetonius, Irenaeus

MJ, of course, came of age (about 30) right around when John the Baptist started his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, or 28-29 CE, according to gLuke. He gets crucified one year later, 29-30 CE.

In John, the Jews say to him on the first Passover the following (rough paraphrase): "46 years this temple has been under construction and is still being built and you intend to rebuild it in three days if it gets torn down?" The Herodian temple started construction in 20-19 CE, so 46 minus 19, then add 1 (for no zero year) yields 28 CE. two Passovers later and it's 30 CE and MJ is crucified.

Not all the messiah or prophet figures were proclaiming the destruction of Israel. Most, if anything, were proclaiming Israel's deliverance. And Death to Rome, or at least Romans go home.

Yes, they obviously borrowed from Greek and Roman myths, legends and biographies. Aesculapius, Homer's Odysseus, Prometheus, and the life of Julius Caesar all immediately come to my mind. And don't forget the last Hasmonean King, Antigonus.

aa5874

Mormonism did NOT get started by an itinerant preacher who was worshiped as a God.

There is ZERO claim by the Church that Jesus was of the seed of man. Joseph Smith Sr. is acknowledged as the father of Joseph Smith jr. the founder of the Mormon church.

Some kind of Ghost is acknowledged as the father of NT Jesus. See matthew 1.18-20.

You have PRESUMED that your Jesus did exist. Your PRESUMPTIONS are a waste of time when you are arguing against people who do NOT ACCEPT presumptions.

I reject your presumptions. I don't want to hear what you have imagined.

I need SOURCES, EVIDENCE of antiquity that can support your claim.

I am challenging all UNSUPPORTED claims about Jesus.

The NT as it is found in all EXISTING Codices is a compilation of Myth Fables.

Nothing can be removed or added from the Jesus stories. They are the historical records of the Myth Fables people of antiquity BELIEVED.

Josephus did NOT write about Jesus, the apostles and Paul so have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the NT.

By the way, Josephus composed his works BEFORE the Jesus story was fabricated.

Horatio Parker

If the minimalist position re the OT is correct, history was mythologized for political expediency.

In the case of Josephus, that would be cultivating Rome, Jewish apologetics and creating his own place in Jewish history.

Bernard Muller

to la,
Where does 18 come from for Tacitus? Under Pilate would be 26-36?
For Josephus, in the TF (that I totally reject), that's still would be 26-36
Suetonius (even if that Chrestus is Jesus, a very long shot!) does not say HJ died then.
One version of Acts of Pilate put Jesus' crucifixion in 29CE
I do not know from where Huller get his 36 for the so-called Markan tradition.

if we consider Tiberius was co-emperor a bit more than 2 years before Augustus' death, we could get 27 for gLuke.
And if we take 20, instead of 19, then we get 27 for gJohn.