EarlDoherty

While it's certainly possible that some pagan account of Jesus' death could have existed which placed it earlier in Tiberius' reign, this hardly guarantees historicity for such an event. And the account certainly could not have been found in a more 'genuine' version of Josephus' TF. Eusebius refers to the account as "recent" and he styles it a "forgery" which would not be the language he would use for Josephus. In fact, the reference is likely the infamous "Memoranda" of Maximinus in 311, which Eusebius disparages elsewhere and which his fully-invented TF helped serve as an answer to.

The very fluidity of the dating would in fact speak to a lack of reliable tradition as to when Jesus had died, a situation more likely in a non-HJ context, especially as the creed adopted in the later 2nd century declared (on the basis of the Gospels, of course) that Jesus had died 'under Pontius Pilate'.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Heaven help me Earl - after all these years - and you have never got to grips with what I am trying to do. I've been an ahistoricist for close on 30 years - reading anything I write in a way that I might be looking for support for a historical gospel JC is mind blowing...

Well, now, wherever Eusebius came across the wonder-worker story, he had no trouble thinking he knew better than did Josephus - by deciding he would 'correct' the Josephan lack of the story...I've no trouble assigning authorship of this wonder-doer story elsewhere (it's a story that precedes the birth details that Josephus gives for himself, around 37 c.e.) so if Josephus did include it in an earlier version of War he was simply repeating a story that had it's source elsewhere than his imagination. Note that Tertullian says that the name 'Christian' arose in the days of Augustus - long before the birth of Josephus.
Earl, Earl - I'm an ahistoricist/mythicist - there is no historical gospel crucified JC in my thinking - whatsoever.

EarlDoherty

Well, you're right about one thing, maryhelena. I have never understood what you are about, or what you are trying to say. More often than not, I simply can't get a grip on your thought processes.

Sorry.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

No, worry - each to his/her own - it's the goal that is important - a better understanding of early christian origins. :wave:

TedM

There are those that believe (not just suppose) that there are some decent arguments that support the partial TF theory. Christopher Price wrote an interesting article on Bedes site that provides a number of evidences for partial, which by implication can also be seen as against complete silence..

TedM

What I mean is something along the lines of what Vork has given me, which I am still processing. What I don't mean is unsupported generalizations about what people would have done.


Um, I don't see that at all. The existence of the 'tribe' to the present, if that was even something Josephus had written, was obvious and needed no support from Josephus. The argument that miracles or the resurrection belief was the reason for the continuation of the cult was also an obvious belief that required no support from Josephus. Unless there is evidence that Christian opponents were saying something that an appeal to the 'authentic TF' would have countered, then what good is that to the Christians?


If you can point to evidence that someone familiar with Josephus was countering the idea that prominent Jews weren't responsible for Jesus' death, I see no reason to look for an expectation that they would specifically reference Josephus. Where's the argument you are implying needed that kind of support?


First, I will bring up the 'called Christ' reference. It obviously was in whatever Origen was reading, and it is reasonable that he also used that to conclude that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. However, if he had written 'called Christ' it is most reasonable to believe that he explained that reference in another place. Of course it is another matter entirely as to whether Josephus or another non-Christian inserted those two words. If someone else inserted it then I wouldn't expect a passage of explanation, as it could have been a margin entry.

To address your question, I am still thinking about it. I think it would be understandable for him to not bring up a negative passage had it existed and if it added no new ideas. The passage on John was neutral, and the passage on James was positive by inference (his justice). A negative passage, perhaps quite short--perhaps one that fits the context much better of a discussion of temple-related indiscretions, would create no motivation for comment that I can see.

yalla

maryhelena
Are you familiar with this and is it relevant to the theme of your comment?
By Melito of Sardis
[copied from this thread, http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...=129024&page=2 post #12 of Joe Wallack]


From the apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.61

"For the race of the pious is now persecuted in a way contrary to all precedent, being harassed by a new kind of edicts62 everywhere in Asia. For unblushing informers, and such as are greedy of other men's goods, taking occasion from the orders issued, carry on their robbery without any disguise, plundering of their property night and day those who are guilty of no wrong.

If these proceedings take place at thy bidding,63 well and good.64 For a just sovereign will never take unjust measures; and we, on our part, gladly accept the honour of such a death. This request only we present to thee, that thou wouldst first of all examine for thyself into the behaviour of these reputed agents of so much strife, and then come to a just decision as to whether they merit death and punishment, or deserve to live in safety and quiet. But if, on the contrary, it shall turn out that this measure, and this new sort of command, which it would be unbecoming to employ even against barbarian foemen, do not proceed from thee, then all the more do we entreat thee not to leave us thus exposed to the spoliation of the populace.

For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians;65 and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire. For from that time the Roman power has risen to greatness and splendour. To this power thou hast succeeded as the much desired66 possessor; and such shalt thou continue, together with thy son,67 if thou protect that philosophy which has grown up with thy empire, and which took its rise with Augustus; to which also thy more recent ancestors paid honour, along with the other religions prevailing in the empire. A very strong proof, moreover, that it was for good that the system we profess came to prevail at the same time that the empire of such happy commencement was established, is this-that ever since the reign of Augustus nothing untoward has happened; but, on the contrary, everything has contributed to the splendour and renown of the empire, in accordance with the devout wishes68 of all. Nero and Domitian alone of all the emperors, imposed upon by certain calumniators, have cared to bring any impeachment against our doctrines. They, too, are the source from which it has happened that the lying slanders on those who profess them have, in consequence of the senseless habit which prevails of taking things on hearsay, flowed down to our own times.69 But the course which they in their ignorance pursued was set aside by thy pious progenitors, who frequently and in many instances rebuked by their rescripts70 those who dared to set on foot any hostilities against them. It appears, for example, that thy grandfather Adrian wrote, among others, to Fundanus, the proconsul then in charge of the government of Asia. Thy father, too, when thou thyself wast associated with him71 in the administration of the empire, wrote to the cities, forbidding them to take any measures adverse to us: among the rest to the people of Larissa, and of Thessalonica, and of Athens, and, in short, to all the Greeks. And as regards thyself, seeing that thy sentiments respecting the Christians72 are not only the same as theirs, but even much more generous and wise, we are the more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we ask of thee."

maryhelena

Hi, Ted

You want a negative TF? OK, here it is. Negative from a Eusebius perspective - seeing that he chose to cherry-pick the positive bits and leave out the 'negative' bits - the multitude following the wonder-doer wanted him to cut down the Romans and rule over them......The wonder-doer declines but the Jewish leaders take fright and go running to Pilate - who finds no fault with the wonder-doer and lets him go. Pilate, on a second appeal, with a bribe, lets the teachers of the Law have their way - and allows the wonder-doer to be crucified.

With this prospect of the people wanting the wonder-doer to rule over them - the teachers of the Law and the high priest had much to worry about. Rome being able to put down any disturbance. Thus, in the context of Antiquities book 18 - with it’s disturbance over the Roman standards and the thousands that protested over the water issue - the prospect of a further uprising, disturbance, by a multitude clamouring for the wonder-doer to rule over them - would be enough to cause fear for the Jewish leaders.

That’s it, your negative TF. What we have, courtesy of Euisbuis, is the cleaned up version of the wonder-doer story - looking completely out of place contextually (not date wise) in a chapter dealing with Roman attitudes to disturbances caused by their Jewish subjects. If Rome is going to be heavy handed over legitimate grievances - then any rebellion agitation is going to achieve swift punishment.

my bolding

Early followers of the wonder-doer wanting him to cut the Romans down to size - hardly stuff that Euesbius would care to set up as the standard for those christians seeking a heavenly kingdom....

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

There is something very odd about the passage you cited. If we look at what Origen is responding to, we see that the statement on Josephus, John the Baptist and James the Just is completely alien to the argument that Origen makes just prior and just after.


At the end of 46, Origen makes the argument that the Jew in Celsus should understand that the sending of the Holy Ghost is in fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah. At the beginning of 48, Origen argues that the Jew in Celsus should understand that the opening of the heavens was recorded in Ezekial and Isaiah.

In other words, Origen is arguing that the Jew character in Celsus is a poor representation of a Jew, because a Jew would understand the the opening of the heavens and the dove coming down from heaven is based on Jewish scripture. Thus we have

1. Argument against a specific statement in Celsus using Hebrew Scriptures as evidence
2. Two arguments involving John the baptist and James the Just having nothing to do with anything Celsus has said. But about controversial passages in Josephus.
3. Continuation of the argument against the specific statement in Celsus using Hebrew Scriptures as evidence that we find in 1.

Passage 47 is a complete interruption of the argument that Origen is making. While Origen is talking about John the Baptist in paragraph 46, he is not talking about the the testimony of Josephus which is what paragraph 47 is about.

Imagine reading in a Newspaper article:

1. President Obama proposed a deal on raising the debt ceiling
2. He offered to cut spending in certain programs
3. President Obama is from Kenya
4. In return Republicans would agree to tax hikes on wealthy Americans.

We would immediately see #3 as an interpolation.
This is structured the same way.

Why should we assume that Eusebius would interpolate the works of Josephus, but hesitate to interpolate other works?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

andrewcriddle

Acts 5:37 Seems to imply that the author of Acts linked the death of Judas to the defeat of his movement.

Andrew Criddle