Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 05-10-2012, 04:56 PM

It's actually laughable that you have no notarized sworn affidavit about Philo's writing. Were you there when he wrote it? Is his writing more sacrosanct than the Torah itself??

Grog · 05-10-2012, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Hmmm, I think you are not getting my point.

For example:

If the author of Mark heard an 'Oral Telling' of the story of Jesus ben Ananias that happened to be quite similar in sequence and detail to Josephus' hearing of an 'Oral Telling' of the same story, albeit from different 'Oral Telling' sources, then what?

I answered this question already. I don't believe these similarities occurred due to oral tellings. I think that is a possibility, but not as likely as GMark's direct dependence on Wars. Feel free to disagree, but at least give reasons.

Grog · 05-10-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How can we be confident of anything Josephus claims on his own when in fact he was simply a commissioned government writer sponsored to say what the regime would approve of??!

My argument does not depend on the veracity of Josephus' recounting of the Jesus ben Ananias incident. It only matters that he wrote it, not that it really happened.

Grog · 05-10-2012, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Josephus is using two time periods in his Jesus ben Ananias story.

1. the 4 year period.
2. the 7 years and 5 months period.

Josephus infers that it is at the siege of Jerusalem that Jesus ben Ananias was killed i.e. 70 c.e. - which is 4 years before the war began.

If, as I suggested in that other post, Josephus is using an interpretation of Daniel. ch.9 - then he is running those 7 years from 66 c.e. (4 years prior to 70 c.e.) until 73 c.e. With the death of Jesus ben Ananias in 70 c.e., in the middle of the week, the middle of the 7 years.

This, of course, creates a problem re Jesus ben Ananias preaching 'Woe' for 7 years - in the Daniel scenario he is only preaching for 4 years before being killed. The Daniel 7 year interpretation runs on to 73 c.e. - where Josephus has placed Masada. (This dating has, I believe been questioned - can't remember by who - that its more probable that Masada was prior to Jerusalem.....Maybe Josephus, in his historical reconstructions - and interpretations of Daniel ch. 9 - needed a grand slam at the end of this 7 year period - hence moved Masada out of its historical time slot.....?)

However, all that said re an interpretation of Daniel - it is perhaps more interesting to run those 7 years backwards from 70 c.e. - back to around 62/63 c.e. That's the time period for the Roman procurator Albinus - and the Josephan story re the death of James. Thus 7 years between the death of James and the death of Jesus ben Ananias.

And the death of James - 100 years from the execution of the last king and high priest of the Jews, Antigonus - by Marc Antony in 37 b.c.

That's the Josephan story here - the history of Antigonus, mocked and flogged and killed by the Romans, in 37 b.c. Replayed by Josephus, using the madman Jesus ben Ananias at the 70 c.e. destruction of the Jewish temple. Philo did a similar thing re the madman Carabbas and Agrippa I. It's the mocking and flogging of a Jewish King that is the underlying issue in both Josephus and Philo's use of madmen (Rome would be the historical madman in Jewish eyes....) - and the gospel JC story. Irony as the medium of remembering Jewish/Hasmonean history - under the very eyes of Rome....

Good points, but does not address my point that gmark appears to be dependent on Wars 6.5.3

aa5874 · 05-10-2012, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It's actually laughable that you have no notarized sworn affidavit about Philo's writing. Were you there when he wrote it? Is his writing more sacrosanct than the Torah itself??

Well, since you knew in advance that you really have NO notarized sworn affidavit about Philo's writing why in the world are you inventing all sorts of unsubstantiated claims???

Please, just go and get a notarized sworn affidavit BEFORE you make anymore statements about the writings of Philo.

You were NOT there when the works attributed to Philo were composed.

You want people to get notarized sworn affidavits while you invent from imagination.

aa5874 · 05-10-2012, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Consider: Jesus ben Ananias is said to have died in 73 or so (see maryhelena's post), and Wars is written in 75. The interlude is very short.

Josephus is using two time periods in his Jesus ben Ananias story.

1. the 4 year period.
2. the 7 years and 5 months period.

Josephus infers that it is at the siege of Jerusalem that Jesus ben Ananias was killed i.e. 70 c.e. - which is 4 years before the war began.

If, as I suggested in that other post, Josephus is using an interpretation of Daniel. ch.9 - then he is running those 7 years from 66 c.e. (4 years prior to 70 c.e.) until 73 c.e. With the death of Jesus ben Ananias in 70 c.e., in the middle of the week, the middle of the 7 years.

This, of course, creates a problem re Jesus ben Ananias preaching 'Woe' for 7 years - in the Daniel scenario he is only preaching for 4 years before being killed. The Daniel 7 year interpretation runs on to 73 c.e. - where Josephus has placed Masada. (This dating has, I believe been questioned - can't remember by who - that its more probable that Masada was prior to Jerusalem.....Maybe Josephus, in his historical reconstructions - and interpretations of Daniel ch. 9 - needed a grand slam at the end of this 7 year period - hence moved Masada out of its historical time slot.....?)

However, all that said re an interpretation of Daniel - it is perhaps more interesting to run those 7 years backwards from 70 c.e. - back to around 62/63 c.e. That's the time period for the Roman procurator Albinus - and the Josephan story re the death of James. Thus 7 years between the death of James and the death of Jesus ben Ananias.

And the death of James - 100 years from the execution of the last king and high priest of the Jews, Antigonus - by Marc Antony in 37 b.c.

That's the Josephan story here - the history of Antigonus, mocked and flogged and killed by the Romans, in 37 b.c. Replayed by Josephus, using the madman Jesus ben Ananias at the 70 c.e. destruction of the Jewish temple. Philo did a similar thing re the madman Carabbas and Agrippa I. It's the mocking and flogging of a Jewish King that is the underlying issue in both Josephus and Philo's use of madmen (Rome would be the historical madman in Jewish eyes....) - and the gospel JC story. Irony as the medium of remembering Jewish/Hasmonean history - under the very eyes of Rome....

You are merely PRESUMING. You have NOT provided any corroborative source for your statements.

That is NOT how people do history. I am not interested in your stories that you have invented from your imagination.

I am interested in the written STATEMENTS found in the works attributed to Josephus.

You have NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to support your imaginative stories 1900 years later.

We cannot continue to have people invent all sorts of "prophetic" stories because we will keep on going in circles.

Clearly you are the "prophetic historian"--not Josephus. He did NOT write anything like what you claimed.

Duvduv · 05-10-2012, 07:33 PM

In the context of monotheistic Judaism I don't see where the logos discussion fits at all, and since forgeries are widely suspected in ancient writings of historians there is no reason why this shouldn't be a suspect of a hand that is not Jewish. Unlike you I will not swear that it is an interpolation any more than I would swear the Testimonium in Josephus is an interpolation. But my criteria of context and content make me strongly suspect both. I didn't say the Logos material is explicitly Christian but that it easily contributes to the GJohn typology and is more than helpful.
I take it with a huge grain of salt.
Just like good old Eusebius, Theodore of Mopsustia, John Chrysostom etc.as potential contributors to the Christian theology emerging in the fourth century along with the invention of the Trinity and predominance of the orthodox either from the second century or the fourth.

Grog · 05-10-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In the context of monotheistic Judaism I don't see where the logos discussion fits at all, and since forgeries are widely suspected in ancient writings of historians there is no reason why this shouldn't be a suspect of a hand that is not Jewish. Unlike you I will not swear that it is an interpolation any more than I would swear the Testimonium in Josephus is an interpolation. But my criteria of context and content make me strongly suspect both. I didn't say the Logos material is explicitly Christian but that it easily contributes to the GJohn typology and is more than helpful.
I take it with a huge grain of salt.
Just like good old Eusebius, Theodore of Mopsustia, John Chrysostom etc.as potential contributors to the Christian theology emerging in the fourth century along with the invention of the Trinity and predominance of the orthodox either from the second century or the fourth.

Ok. That's one way of looking at it.

spin · 05-10-2012, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Just like good old Eusebius, Theodore of Mopsustia, John Chrysostom etc.as potential contributors to the Christian theology emerging in the fourth century along with the invention of the Trinity and predominance of the orthodox either from the second century or the fourth.

To call the trinity an invention is to misunderstand the process that brought it to manifestation in the 4th century. There was a tacit binitarianism in the literature for at least a century before the time of Arius. It's just that the nature of how that could be had not been battered out. Trinitarianism is just the same thing as binitarianism with the silliness of the holy spirit to confuse the matter. So the main thing that trinitarianism brings to the table, if you overlook the reification of the holy spirit, is the claim that Jesus is not like essence with god, but the same essence!!! This is development by majority opinion. No active creation required.

Grog · 05-10-2012, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

11. Both die, killed by Rome, with a last loud cry.

Wars-- And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him,

GMark-- With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

[I am going to add this interesting bit as well, even though it is in GMatt, which I think extends the awareness of GMark’s source:

12. Both, in the end, give up the spirit.

Wars-- and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

GMatt-- And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.]

I want to explore this last point I made. I was confused that GMatt had "give up his spirt (ghost)" like Wars 6.5.3, but GMark does not. Below is a break down of the phrases in all 3 versions.

Here is G Mark 15:37 in Greek:

ο δε ιησους αφεις φωνην μεγαλην εξεπνευσεν (breathe out, expire)

And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. (NASB)

Also translated as:

And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.(ASB)

Here is G Matt 27:
ο δε ιησους παλιν κραξας φωνη μεγαλη αφηκεν το πνευμα (spirit)

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. (NASB)

Wars 6.5.3

φθεγγομένην δ᾽ ἔτι τὰς κλῃδόνας ἐκείνας τὴν ψυχὴν ἀφη̂κε. (psyche, life)

and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

Observations:

None of the writers use the same term for what is 'yielded."

All three use the verb αφηκεν, αφεις, ἀφη̂κε. In Mark, however, αφεις refers to the utterance of his cry, while in Josephus and Matthew it refers to the yielding of the soul/psyche and spirit. Interestingly, Mark is sometimes translated to conform to Matthew, even though the translation doesn't seem to be supported. I am not aware of variants to explain this translation. see for example this

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

05-10-2012, 04:56 PM	#61
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	It's actually laughable that you have no notarized sworn affidavit about Philo's writing. Were you there when he wrote it? Is his writing more sacrosanct than the Torah itself??

05-10-2012, 07:33 PM	#67
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	In the context of monotheistic Judaism I don't see where the logos discussion fits at all, and since forgeries are widely suspected in ancient writings of historians there is no reason why this shouldn't be a suspect of a hand that is not Jewish. Unlike you I will not swear that it is an interpolation any more than I would swear the Testimonium in Josephus is an interpolation. But my criteria of context and content make me strongly suspect both. I didn't say the Logos material is explicitly Christian but that it easily contributes to the GJohn typology and is more than helpful. I take it with a huge grain of salt. Just like good old Eusebius, Theodore of Mopsustia, John Chrysostom etc.as potential contributors to the Christian theology emerging in the fourth century along with the invention of the Trinity and predominance of the orthodox either from the second century or the fourth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.