Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 04-25-2012, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Now its Paul's fault there is not enough "originals"??

"One time, at band-camp ..."

I think the 12 is purely mythical

he probably had his inner circle though, I dont think traveling around preaching and healing for dinner scraps would support more then a small handful.

all we know about pauls persecution of this sect is from paul, hell it could be allegory for I murdered the original apostles so I could get my roman version out

Adam · 04-25-2012, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

ok. well, you have to let me think about this.

Or you could, anyway.

Try this idea: The apocalyptic was a later addition to the JC storyboard. An addition post 70 c.e. So, in that case, yes, the Jesus ben Ananias apocalyptic model was backdated on to the gospel JC story. However, consider a Jesus story without the apocalyptic element. Remove what is, to some NT scholars, the defining characteristic of the gospel JC figure - that he was an apocalyptic prophet - and maybe we have cleared the search field, for early christian origins, of some 'rubble'....

Keep in mind that the wonder-doer story in Slavonic Josephus does not have this figure as an apocalyptic prophet....

In other words: The Jesus story had an update after 70 c.e. Thus, dating that gospel JC story via the update is to shortchange ones search for early christian origins.

OK, mh, our paths finally cross. You're saying what I said in my Post #8 in this thread:
" By my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread I have derived that the earliest texts about Jesus did not mention apocalypticism much."

maryhelena · 04-25-2012, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

ok. well, you have to let me think about this.

Or you could, anyway.

Try this idea: The apocalyptic was a later addition to the JC storyboard. An addition post 70 c.e. So, in that case, yes, the Jesus ben Ananias apocalyptic model was backdated on to the gospel JC story. However, consider a Jesus story without the apocalyptic element. Remove what is, to some NT scholars, the defining characteristic of the gospel JC figure - that he was an apocalyptic prophet - and maybe we have cleared the search field, for early christian origins, of some 'rubble'....

Keep in mind that the wonder-doer story in Slavonic Josephus does not have this figure as an apocalyptic prophet....

In other words: The Jesus story had an update after 70 c.e. Thus, dating that gospel JC story via the update is to shortchange ones search for early christian origins.

OK, mh, our paths finally cross. You're saying what I said in my Post #8 in this thread:
" By my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread I have derived that the earliest texts about Jesus did not mention apocalypticism much."

I've not read a word you have posted.....be that as it may....I'm an ahistoricist/mythicist and don't give the time of day to the JC historicists arguments...Sorry about that - I've far more interesting things to think about....:wave:

Anyway - good for you if you have realized that the apocalyptic element in the JC storyboard is a later addition - post 70 c.e.

Adam · 04-25-2012, 11:41 PM

Except that I thought you were saying that the Slavonic Josephus leaves out the apocalypticism after 70 CE made it obsolete. No, I'm saying that the end-of-the-world interpretation extant in early Christianity from 38 CE onwards shaped the texts that got merged into our canonical gospels before 70 CE. Had the final form come after 70 CE then the apocalypticism would have been recast to apply to the Fall of Jerusalem.

aa5874 · 04-26-2012, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Anyway - good for you if you have realized that the apocalyptic element in the JC storyboard is a later addition - post 70 c.e.

The apocalyptic element in the Jesus stories are found in the earlier versions. The author of gJohn did not include the Apocalyptic elements in his story.

There is no prediction for the Fall of the Temple, or the so-called failed prophecies in gJohn.

andrewcriddle · 04-26-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IMO use of Josephus by Mark is unlikely.

However since we are discussing possible use of the Jewish Wars this would not require a date in the 2nd century. (Use of the published version of Antiquities would require a 2nd century date.

Andrew Criddle

Could you elaborate on why find it unlikely? If you could, please consider Wheedon's case authoritive here, not my musings on something I noticed while reading Josephus.

I agree that Mark's use of Josephus would not upset the traditional timeline, too much. 80's would be reasonable, 90's perhaps more so. AA did make a case for use of Antiquities, though I think it is a weaker case.

I'm afraid I haven't read Wheedon.

One of my reasons for doubting influence of Josephus on Mark here, is that the most striking resemblance, (apart from both stories being about controversial religious figures in trouble with the authorities), is that both chatacters are called Jesus. But, assuming the traditional dating of Paul, this seems to be just coincidence.

Andrew Criddle

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

04-25-2012, 11:41 PM	#44
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Except that I thought you were saying that the Slavonic Josephus leaves out the apocalypticism after 70 CE made it obsolete. No, I'm saying that the end-of-the-world interpretation extant in early Christianity from 38 CE onwards shaped the texts that got merged into our canonical gospels before 70 CE. Had the final form come after 70 CE then the apocalypticism would have been recast to apply to the Fall of Jerusalem.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.