Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-10-2013, 11:22 AM

Bernard

Surely you can recognize it would be next to impossible to have the parallels between Luke and Josephus without some sort of dependance of the two if only from a common source.

aa5874 · 03-10-2013, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to aa,

Quote:

1. The crucifixion of Three Jews where one survived is in the Gospels and also in the Life of Flavius Josephus composed c 100 CE.

2. Joseph asked the Roman governor for the body of Jesus in the Gospels---Josephus asked Titus that his acquaintances be taken from their crosses in the Life of Flavius Josephus composed c 100 CE.

3. The followers of Jesus were poor and some were Fishermen or mariners from Galilee in the Gospels---Jesus the son of Sapphias had a band of poor people and mariners from Galilee in the Life of Flavius Josephus composed c 100 CE.

4. John the Baptist is mentioned in the Gospels--John the Baptist is mentioned in Antiquities of the Jews composed c 93 CE.

5. The execution of John the Baptist by Herod is in the Gospels--- the execution of John the Baptist is also found in Antiquities of the Jews composed c 93 CE.

6. The marriage of Herod to his brother's wife is in the Gospels---a similar story is found in "Antiquities of the Jews" composed c 93 CE.

7. Caiaphas the high Priest is found in the Gospels--Caiaphas the High Priest is in "Antiquities of the Jews composed c 93 CE.

8. The Taxing of Cyrenius is in gLuke--the Taxing of Cyrenius is found in Antiquities of the Jews composed c 93 CE

9. The death of Herod is found in Acts of the Apostles--the death of Herod is found in Antiquities of the Jews composed c 93 CE.

10. A character called the Apostle James whose brother was Jesus is in Galatians--a character called James whose brother was Jesus is in "Antiquities of the Jews" composed c 93 CE.

For points 1 & 2, there are similarities but differences also. You make it sound one story is a carbon copy of the other. For example, in one story, the three died on their cross but one will resurrect. In the other story, the three are extracted from their cross still alive, but two will die later.

For point 3, that only proves that 'Jesus' was a common name then. Certainly the Jesus of the gospels did not do what that other Jesus did.

For points 4, 5, 6 & 10, why do you think the gospelers had to get all their information from Josephus complete works?

For point 7, Caiaphas is not in gMark, and gLuke has two high priests during Jesus' last year, Caiaphas & Annas. Only gMatthew gets it right: Caiaphas and only him.
However in 'Antiquities' it is very clear that Caiaphas was only the high priest then (Caiaphas in not in 'Wars').
That's a point I made: if "Luke" had 'Antiquities', he/she could not have made that mistake. Another (and better) example here

For point 8, the taxing in question under Cyrenius (with Judas of Galilee revolt) is also in 'Wars', which I am certain "Luke" had.

For point 9, I agree, but there are big differences between the two renditions.

Cordially, Bernard

You use 'Wars of the Jews' by Josephus to make claims that the authors of Gospels knew of it.

You claim that authors of the NT did NOT know of "Antiquities of the Jews" but knew of "Wars of the Jews" by mere observation.

You seem to think that ONLY you can make observations.

It will be seen rather easily that your observations are Myopic and extremely limited

I have merely EXPOSED your Errors.

ALL authors of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were AWARE of Antiquities of the Jews c 93 CE and even the LATER Biography of Flavius Josephus composed c 100 CE.

The High Priest Caiaphas is found ONLY in Antiquities of the Jews c 93 CE.

The Crucifixion of Three Jews where ONLY ONE survived is found ONLY in the Biography of Josephus composed c 100 CE.

Now, I am not finished yet.

The authors of the Gospel also were AWARE of writings LATER than Josephus.

They were AWARE of Tacitus Histories and Suetonius Life of Vespasian composed c 115 CE.

It was Vespasian who was claimed to have made the Blind to See with Spit and healed the Lame with a touch.

Tacitus' Histories 4

Quote:

One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity.

This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity.

He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle.

Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot.

Mark 8:23 KJV

Quote:

And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.

In the Gospels the Jesus character EMULATED the miracles of Vespasian who was considered an actual documented prophesied Messianic ruler based on Hebrew Scripture.

Tacitus Histories 5

Quote:

. Some few put a fearful meaning on these events, but in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.

These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be brought even by disasters to believe the truth.

All writings in the Canon were composed AFTER c 115 CE.

maryhelena · 03-10-2013, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Bernard

Surely you can recognize it would be next to impossible to have the parallels between Luke and Josephus without some sort of dependance of the two if only from a common source.

Without Josephus the NT story remains a story. With Josephus, that NT story is given a veneer of historicity. The Josephan writer has provided the 'history' that enables the NT story to be viewed as history. The NT story has won the historical lotto via Josephus; it is the Josephan writer that is pulling the strings here....the strings that enable those NT figures to dance and sing their song....

High time, methinks for the ahistoricists to cut those strings....

And one way to do that is to go with modern scholarship that is saying that Josephus is a prophetic historian. The Josephan writer is a writer interested in the history of the Jewish people from a prophetic/OT viewpoint - and the retelling, rewriting, of that history through a prophetic lens. Jewish history alongside pseudo-history, alongside prophetic interpretations of Jewish history.

The real question here is what part did the Josephan writer play in the developing history, and writings, of early christianity. That is the question that raises its head once the above points, in aa's post, are put on the table. It is the fundamental relevant question here - and neglecting it is what is preventing any forward movement in the JC historicist/ahistoricist debate.

Bernard Muller · 03-10-2013, 11:54 AM

to Jake,

Quote:

This is important so I will reiterate it. If the text of Annals 15.44 as we have it now is authentic, it had been in possession of the Catholic church and studiously preserved for over 1,000 years before being copied at Monte Cassino. Yet not a single church reference was made to this text existing in the writings of Tacitus up before the extant manuscript was supposed to be copied. No mention of the text at the time it was supposed to be copied, and no mention for a couple of centuries after that.

So where was this manuscript between the 11th and 15th centuries? It appeared mysteriously from a maze of potential master forgers and Catholic apologists. No one can even say how it was taken away from Monte Cassino!

Supposedly, Boccaccio acquired it by illicit means, and upon his death left it to a monastery in Florence. The elusive document then turns up in the hands of Niccolo Niccoli, who allegedly sent it to Poggio Bracciolini for inspection. Bracciolini then gave a document back to Niccolo, who subsequently died in 1437, and the mysterious document passed to the Medici's where it is today, in the Laurentian library in Florence, where it is number 68.2. Every citation of Tacitus Annals 15:44 comes from this single document and copies made from it.

You make it sound that Boccaccio "discovered" only Tacitus Annals 15.44. Actually he (or Strada) found six books of Annals (11 to 16).
BTW, other parts of Annals (books 1 to 6) were discovered even later (1508).

Annals 15.44 is certainly not pro-Christian and that would explain the so-called silences.
"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874 · 03-10-2013, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Bernard

Surely you can recognize it would be next to impossible to have the parallels between Luke and Josephus without some sort of dependance of the two if only from a common source.

Without Josephus the NT story remains a story. With Josephus, that NT story is given a veneer of historicity. The Josephan writer has provided the 'history' that enables the NT story to be viewed as history. The NT story has won the historical lotto via Josephus; it is the Josephan writer that is pulling the strings here....the strings that enable those NT figures to dance and sing their song....

High time, methinks for the ahistoricists to cut those strings....

And one way to do that is to go with modern scholarship that is saying that Josephus is a prophetic historian. The Josephan writer is a writer interested in the history of the Jewish people from a prophetic/OT viewpoint - and the retelling, rewriting, of that history through a prophetic lens. Jewish history alongside pseudo-history, alongside prophetic interpretations of Jewish history.

The real question here is what part did the Josephan writer play in the developing history, and writings, of early christianity. That is the question that raises its head once the above points, in aa's post, are put on the table. It is the fundamental relevant question here - and neglecting it is what is preventing any forward movement in the JC historicist/ahistoricist debate.

Your statement is wholly erroneous. Josephus claimed the Messianic ruler based on Hebrew Scripture was Vespasian--Never Jesus.

It is mind boggling that you would accuse Josephus of prophecies about the history of christianity when no such thing is in the writings of the Entire WORKS of Josephus

Josephus' Wars of the Jews 6.5.4[/u]

Quote:

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. ..

Bernard Muller · 03-10-2013, 12:24 PM

Quote:

You use 'Wars of the Jews' by Josephus to make claims that the authors of Gospels knew of it.
You claim that authors of the NT did NOT know of "Antiquities of the Jews" but knew of "Wars of the Jews" by mere observation.

I explained that here

For the spitting in the eyes, that might have been a common procedure for healers. Or "Mark" heard about what Vespasian did in Alexandria and had Jesus used the same.
And expecting a Messiah to come was widely believed then among Jews.

Cordially, Bernard

ficino · 03-10-2013, 12:48 PM

@jakejonesiv and aa5874: when I reread Tacitus' Ann. 15.44, before you made your replies to my question, it rang as possibly interpolated, an impression I had not had years ago on earlier readings. I just got through reading an article by Eric Laupot (U. Alabama) in Vigiliae Christianae 54.3 (2000), 233-47: "Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the 'Christiani' and the Nazoreans." If you have access to JSTOR you can get it electronically there. Fascinating!

Laupot argues that Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2.30.6-7 (you refer to this, aa), is from the lost book 5 of Tacitus' Histories. It talks about the Roman staff w/ Titus debating whether or not to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem. They decide to do so because they want to extirpate the 'Christiani.' Laupot argues that this is a latinization of the Hebrew name of an anti-Roman, messianic group that claimed some tie to the Davidic kingly line and that put a big premium on the Temple - clearly, NOT Pauline cultists. Laupot also thinks that the same group are the people referred to in Annales 15.44 - i.e. he doesn't think that passage is a Christianizing interpolation but rather a reference to a wholly different group of people, militant Jewish "messianics" who were trying to oust Rome from their homeland. Laupot does a lot with the Roman generals' metaphor of "root and branch" and sees the term Nazorean (various spellings) NOT as a reference to Nazareth but to this group's claim to be the "branch" of the Davidic root.

If Laupot is right, he adds weight to the thesis that modern Christians can't use Tacitus in support of their claims that their religion has an early 1st-century history. He goes on to suggest that after these militant-Jewish "christiani" were uprooted by the Romans in 70-72, the Pauline types moved into the vacuum and took over the name. So Laupot seems to accept a historical Paul.

If Laupot's "Nazoreans/christiani" were in Rome at the time of Nero and were persecuted as a source of evil and sedition, sort of reminds me of Al Quaida groups in Europe now. The topic also reminds me of reports in the media in the last few years of textual evidence from 1st cent. CE Palestine suggesting that some Jews then believed that a kingly messiah would die and rise again. I forget where this was reported.

Bernard Muller · 03-10-2013, 01:30 PM

To Stephan Huller,

Quote:

Bernard
Surely you can recognize it would be next to impossible to have the parallels between Luke and Josephus without some sort of dependance of the two if only from a common source.

Of course. The actual facts will do. And these reported with all kind of distortions along several lines. Then add to the mix the biases of "Luke" and Josephus. That would explain the differences.
Cordially, Bernard

Toto · 03-10-2013, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

@jakejonesiv and aa5874: when I reread Tacitus' Ann. 15.44, before you made your replies to my question, it rang as possibly interpolated, an impression I had not had years ago on earlier readings. I just got through reading an article by Eric Laupot (U. Alabama) in Vigiliae Christianae 54.3 (2000), 233-47: "Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the 'Christiani' and the Nazoreans." If you have access to JSTOR you can get it electronically there. Fascinating!

....

Is this the same article on the infidels.org site?

Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the Christiani and the Nazoreans (2000)

ficino · 03-10-2013, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

@jakejonesiv and aa5874: when I reread Tacitus' Ann. 15.44, before you made your replies to my question, it rang as possibly interpolated, an impression I had not had years ago on earlier readings. I just got through reading an article by Eric Laupot (U. Alabama) in Vigiliae Christianae 54.3 (2000), 233-47: "Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the 'Christiani' and the Nazoreans." If you have access to JSTOR you can get it electronically there. Fascinating!

....

Is this the same article on the infidels.org site?

Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the Christiani and the Nazoreans (2000)

Yes, it is. I hadn't seen it there!

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

03-10-2013, 11:22 AM	#321
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Bernard Surely you can recognize it would be next to impossible to have the parallels between Luke and Josephus without some sort of dependance of the two if only from a common source.

03-10-2013, 12:48 PM	#327
ficino Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York Posts: 252	@jakejonesiv and aa5874: when I reread Tacitus' Ann. 15.44, before you made your replies to my question, it rang as possibly interpolated, an impression I had not had years ago on earlier readings. I just got through reading an article by Eric Laupot (U. Alabama) in Vigiliae Christianae 54.3 (2000), 233-47: "Tacitus' Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the 'Christiani' and the Nazoreans." If you have access to JSTOR you can get it electronically there. Fascinating! Laupot argues that Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2.30.6-7 (you refer to this, aa), is from the lost book 5 of Tacitus' Histories. It talks about the Roman staff w/ Titus debating whether or not to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem. They decide to do so because they want to extirpate the 'Christiani.' Laupot argues that this is a latinization of the Hebrew name of an anti-Roman, messianic group that claimed some tie to the Davidic kingly line and that put a big premium on the Temple - clearly, NOT Pauline cultists. Laupot also thinks that the same group are the people referred to in Annales 15.44 - i.e. he doesn't think that passage is a Christianizing interpolation but rather a reference to a wholly different group of people, militant Jewish "messianics" who were trying to oust Rome from their homeland. Laupot does a lot with the Roman generals' metaphor of "root and branch" and sees the term Nazorean (various spellings) NOT as a reference to Nazareth but to this group's claim to be the "branch" of the Davidic root. If Laupot is right, he adds weight to the thesis that modern Christians can't use Tacitus in support of their claims that their religion has an early 1st-century history. He goes on to suggest that after these militant-Jewish "christiani" were uprooted by the Romans in 70-72, the Pauline types moved into the vacuum and took over the name. So Laupot seems to accept a historical Paul. If Laupot's "Nazoreans/christiani" were in Rome at the time of Nero and were persecuted as a source of evil and sedition, sort of reminds me of Al Quaida groups in Europe now. The topic also reminds me of reports in the media in the last few years of textual evidence from 1st cent. CE Palestine suggesting that some Jews then believed that a kingly messiah would die and rise again. I forget where this was reported.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.