maryhelena

Here is another way to view Josephus and his mention of James, the brother of JC. Josephus is a prophetic historian and as such is viewing history through a prophetic lens, ie history goes in cycles, nothing new under the sun, what goes around comes around etc. Whatever happened in 63 c.e. Josephus has used it, or simply taken advantage of a situation, and replayed the historical tape of 37/36 b.c., albeit with new names. As a historian, and in particular a prophetic historian and also having a Hasmonean ancestry, his interest in the 100 year anniversary of the events of 37/36 b.c. would be considerable.

High Priests, 37/36 b.c, appointed by Herod the Great	High Priests, 62/63 c.e, appointed by Agrippa II
Ananelus 37/36 b.c. (removed)	Joseph Cabi ben Simon,(removed) 62/63 c.e
Aristobulus III drowned, (plot of Herod the Great) brother of Mariamne I, 36 b.c.	Ananus ben Ananus 63 c.e.(removed) 3 month rule, James stoned, brother of JC
Ananelus (restored) 36-30 b.c.	Joshua (Jesus), son of Damneus 63 c.e.

History repeats itself - 3 high priests in one year; a plot to drown Aristobulus; Ananus and his unlawful Sanhedrin assembly that allowed the stoning of James and some others; Aristobulus only 17 years old, Ananus a young high priest. Indeed, the storyline in 63 ce does not have the high priest killed - but it has him removed and the ‘stand-in’ James gets stoned to death.

The Josephan interest in a 100 year historical time period was probably the basis of his prediction re Vespasian. 31 b.c. and the Battle of Actium to the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty with the rule of Vespasian in 69 c.e. and the Flavian dynasty.

The 100 years ending in 63 c.e. with it's link to the events of 37 b.c. and the end of the Hasmonean rule - would raise hopes that the end of the Herodian rule would soon come about - which it was to do 7 years later with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e.

(I've no clue re why 100 year periods were of interest to Josephus - but the point is that, for whatever reason, he liked working with numbers.... One can also consider the war Josephus has recorded between Herod Antipas with Aretes in 36/37 ce - 100 years since Pompey and the entering the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem temple in 63 b.c. )

Doug Shaver

Those multiple attestations are not independent, and the sources do not include Paul.

Paul did not say that James was Jesus' brother. Any argument that he did has to beg the question.

Doug Shaver

You are welcome to your own opinion as to how thorough it was, but in terms of logical rigor it was laughable.

beallen041

When do you think 1 Thess was written?

Also, why doesn't Paul use words or phrases like "return" or "come again" in the quoted passage or elsewhere?

aa5874

"Paul" called Jesus the Messiah, the Messianic ruler, who had a name above every name and that every knee on EARTH, even the Deified Emperor of Rome, should bow before the name of Jesus and call him Lord.

ApostateAbe is not talking about the Pauline Jesus, God's own Son who was raised from the dead on the THIRD day.

ApostateAbe is talking about some unknown OBSCURE historical guy whom he speculates was an apocalyptic preacher.

The Pauline Jesus was not an apocalyptic preacher.

The Pauline Jesus was the END of the LAW and without his resurrection on the THIRD day there would have been NO Salvation, No remission of Sins, and the Christian Faith would be meaningless.

ApostateAbe

According to Ehrman, the epistle is usually dated to 49 CE.

Also, why doesn't Paul use words or phrases like "return" or "come again" in the quoted passage or elsewhere?

I think that is a good question. Though I suppose it is still possible that Paul believed that Jesus would return to Earth much like in the gospels, Paul's particular variation of the apocalyptic model seems to involve the kingdom of God being in heaven. Jesus wouldn't return to earth, but he would remain in heaven and summon the Christians away from earth at the given time. That is just my own speculative hypothesis.

beallen041

Abe, none of this seems logical to me. Why would Paul in 49 CE be concerned about Christians who had died? This was (on the HJ timeline) only 19 years after the crucifixion. Dale Martin and others who I have heard talk about this issue state that anxiety about the failure of the parousia to occur didn't happen until after 70 CE ... more than twenty-one years after your theoretical composition of 1 Thess.

Additionally the text of 1 Thess 4, with Jesus descending from heaven, seems to invalidate your admittedly speculative, hypothesis.

ApostateAbe

That is all correct, and I think in order to understand it you need to get into the probable mindset of someone living within Paul's time. Christians living today have an established model of the kingdom of God and heaven as a place you go after you die. But, Jesus' apocalyptic prophecies concerned events that would happen while his followers were still living (Mark 9:1). In the traditional Jewish view of the afterlife, there was no life, only death, and that's the end of one's existence. "Sheol" was just another word for the grave. It wouldn't seem to make sense for those who are dead to enjoy the kingdom of god, unless Jesus predicted the resurrection of the dead, and he probably did not (why would he?). That was a later theological development after Christians had died, reflected in Paul.
You are right, and I don't know how I missed that. So, I suppose that establishes the conclusion that Paul did believe that Jesus would go from heaven to earth at the apocalypse, and the solution to the problem can be developed if we can find other passages where Paul predicts that transit of Jesus. I really would expect that Paul would use a word like "return" if there are many other times that Paul discusses such a thing, but, if this is the only such passage, then maybe it isn't a big problem and the omitting of the phrase in that single data point is merely coincidental and arbitrary.

beallen041

So, there is at least one other work of Paul discusses such a thing:

1 Cor 11 and 15

Yet it seems on standard historical Jesus belief that any of the epistles should, when they mention Jesus coming, include the concept of a second coming or return. To my knowledge this concept is only found in the gospel of John.

So here are other epistle mentions of the parousia that don't include the concept of return or second coming:

1 Tim 6, 2 Tim 4, 1 John 3, Col 3, 2 Thess 1-2, 2 Peter 3, Revelation 2 and other locations in Revelation.

It's odd to me that none of these include the concept of return or a second coming.

ApostateAbe

OK. I think it really would be a problem for passages that specifically describe Jesus' transit from heaven to Earth, not just the parousia generally. I would expect Paul to use the word "return" or "come again" at least some of the time. Some of those passages describe merely what Jesus will do when he is already on earth, without explicitly mentioning the transit, and we would not strongly expect Paul to use a word like "return."