Wallener

Those strike me as pretty serious reaches. We know he wasn't king because we know who the kings were . We also have a pretty good idea how Jewish law was promulgated at that time, and lectures on hillsides was not part of the standard procedure.

There was a great deal of turnover in the Judean ruling class in the years immediately preceeding the Great Exile, much of it caused by numerous political assassinations (including that of Josiah's own father.) Given the amount of text dedicated to Josiah's life in Kings, the description of his death is suspiciously terse. That said, the passage doesn't claim Jews killed their "wise king".

Steven Carr

Or that the Jews lost a kingdom in 70 AD?

Or that they were not scattered throughout every country before 70AD?

andrewcriddle

Strictly speaking you're right and IIUC this is a somewhat stronger point in the original Syriac. (IIUC the translation I posted earlier is somewhat of a paraphrase at this point to render the implicit reference to the 'wise king's death explicit 'Or the Jews by the death of their wise king because from that same time their kingdom was taken away?' is literally 'Or the Jews of their wise king because from that same time their kingdom was taken away?' )

However the passage is introduced by 'For what else have we to say, when wise men are forcibly dragged by the hands of tyrants, and their wisdom is taken captive by calumny, and they are oppressed in their intelligence without defence?' and goes on to speak of the deaths of Pythagoras and Socrates at the hands of their own people and the subsequent suffering of the Samians (who killed Pythagoras) the Athenians (who killed Socrates) and the Jews (who did something to their 'Wise King'). From the parallels the Jews must be being held responsible for the death of their 'Wise King' although I agree that this is not explicitly stated in so many words.

(As to Josiah: the passage starts with Pythagoras and moves on to the later Socrates which suggests that they are in chronological order and the 'Wise King' who comes third is more recent than Socrates which would rule out Josiah.)

Andrew Criddle

Iasion

Greetings steph,

Well,
I meant that it is a late response to Christian beliefs, not actual historical evidence.

Lucian's focus on ridiculing the Christians, with a mention (un-named) of Jesus - argues he is merely answering later Christian beliefs.


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Absolutely.
There is much evidence for an esoteric Christ.

Not so clear what this would actually MEAN :-)

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings andrew,

Thanks for your informative comments,

I was always sceptical of Mara's letter,
and I see I'm not alone :-)

Iasion

Seekeraftertruth

Didn't see these links in the thread....might help....but the general thrust is that he didn't exist and is simply a mythologized character. There WERE a number of people NAMED Jesus in that time period, but not the "Biblical Jesus."
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

Another thing that indicates the whole "Biblical text" (Gospels) was a figment of the "church's imagination" (or SOMEBODY'S imagination, anyway) is the late date for all the Gospels....70 A.D. to around 100 A.D., or from 40 - 70 years AFTER Jesus was supposedly crucified/resurrected. (Which is a crock to begin with....sort of violates a few laws of physics, chemistry and biology. But then, if you're a "Christian," you're not gonna let "facts" interfere with your belief.....after all, who needs facts?)

Wallener

The quote you posted starts with the poisoning of Socrates and moves backwards to the burning of Pythagoras. The ordering of Socrates -> Pythagoras -> "Wise King" is in fact stated three distinct times in the passage you offered. Your argument would seem to support the even-earlier date of Josiah...

EowyntheBrave

As of this day, there is No Historical Proof of Jesus, Sorry. The Christians cite Josephus, but that has been proven to be an Apology. To explain in laymans terms, the text about Jesus was inserted hundreds of years later to back up Church Doctrine.

We know that Julius Ceasar existed because of the WEALTH of current accounts. (Many by Ceasars own hand , Documenting for one, the Druidic Celts practices.) There are many historical records, of the period, that document his rise, Emperial reign, and death. Gaius Julius Ceasar was A REAL PERSON hence the term Ceasar,Tsar, Kaiser, Etc.

There were many Roman writers in Palestine at the time of "Christ" and no one mentions "Jesus of Nazereth". If he was so GREAT why do the Choniclers fail to mention HIM. Josephus DOES mention John the Baptist, and states that his execution was politically based rather than morally based.
.
I am sorry to squash your "Faith based History".

But my dear, this is an opportunity to shed the Mythology and live as a Rational Human. Trust me, we are more kind and forgiving than any "Christian"

Eowyn The Brave

Iasion

Greetings Eowyn,

Most of which probably spelled his name correctly.
:-)

Iasion