aa5874

You want me to RUN with your imagination when I have DIRECT evidence from Pliny the Magistrate and Lawyer who lived in Rome up to c 110 CE!!!!

NEVER in a Million years.

Duvduv

What was the rationale for the so-called heresiologists of official Christianity to spend so much time talking about their enemies and describing the ideologies of their opponents, whether it be Trypho, Celsus, Marcion or whoever? Especially since such discussions would only of interest to the literate segment of the Christian population rather than the masses. Was the presentation of the views of their "opponents" sort of a strawman for argumentation purposes only?

In other words, why should anyone care what Trypho or Celsus thought about anything at all, whether the cross was made of chocolate or whether Jesus was an alien from another galaxy? If the heresiologists represented official knowledge and truth, why should they care what anyone else had to think?!

maryhelena

icardfacepalm:

la70119

Exactly... the earliest source would be the passages in Slavonic Josephus, then it would be the information supplied by Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis and other early church writers who are ignorant of the NT "Gospel" story.

Problem is, as I have shown before, the Slavonic Josephus passages about Jesus are almost certainly forgeries and the other writings date from after 110 CE.

We may be going up a blind alley here; the 4th Century church historians did not want people to question the party line. Thing is, they may have been thorough enough to erase what actually happened, yet were NOT thorough enough to eradicate knowledge about how Christians worshipped in the early and mid-2nd Centure CE. Which means once control by the Catholic Church was relaxed, people were free to investigate and question the official party line. And question it they did.

maryhelena

But you have not shown Slavonic Josephus, i.e. the wonder-doer story it contains, to be a forgery.

From your earlier quote from Mead: (post #42 above)

The issue with Slavonic Josephus is not an issue of forgery. It's that on face value it's storyline contradicts the gospel storyline - or specifically the gospel storyline of gLuke. The Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer story, crucified under Pilate, requires an earlier crucifixion date than one resulting from the 15th year of Tiberius. The birth narrative in Slavonic Josephus is dated somewhere around the 15th year of Herod the Great - about 25 b.c. It's figure of an anointed one born around that time would mean that such a figure would be not yet 50 years old (gJohn) in the 7th year of Tiberius - when Eusebius records that the Acts of Pilate have a crucifixion in 21 c.e. That is the issue with Slavonic Josephus - it requires an early crucifixion dating. gLuke comes along and sets down the crucifixion of his Jesus figure sometime around or after the 15th year of Tiberius. That's the problem with Slavonic Josephus - but it's only a problem for JC historicists not a problem for the ahistorists.

The dating structure for the wonder-doer story is 25 b.c. to 21 c.e. - a storyline that eventually gets a *Jesus* update via gLuke. It is this story and it's dating that is the background to the remarks by Melito and Tertullian that the Christian philosophy was alive and kicking during the reign of Augustus (d.14 c.e.)

Josephus is ambiguous re dating Pilate and suggestions have been made that his rule was earlier than 26 c.e. - from 19 c.e.

Daniel Schwartz has a chapter on Pilate’s appointment in his book: “Studies in the Jewish background of Christianity: Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office (or via: amazon.co.uk)

aa5874

The author, and dating of Salvonic Josephus are unknown so that will be a Big problem for you.

maryhelena

And gMark? That's a storyline that sets down a crucifixion during the rule of Pilate - thus supporting the storyline in Slavonic Josephus of a crucifixion during the rule of Pilate - anywhere between 19 c.e. and 36 c.e. See the study by Daniel Schwartz referenced above re dating Pilate. Check out gJohn and it's Jesus figure being not yet 50 years old prior to crucifixion. Keep in mind that, once upon a time, gLuke was not available to squash those early rumors/stories of a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius.

maryhelena

la70119

Whether we are dealing with the wonder-doer story within Slavonic Josephus or the gospel stories of JC - we are dealing with stories, dealing with pseudo-history or salvation history. However much these stories develop or change their dating structure - history is not static - these stories, as pseudo-history, have to contain some reflection of history if they are to get past "Go". Now, we can say that the history that was chosen is just arbitrary - like close your eyes and pin that tail on the donkey.

Or, we can consider the chosen dating structure; the obvious and the suggested (gLuke's 70 years from Lysanias of Abilene in 40 b.c. to the 15th year of Tiberius) as having some relevance for the story writers. Two columns - history on one side and pseudo-history on the other. In the history column goes the 37 b.c. date for the death of Antigonus - via the Roman, Marc Antony. In the other column goes how this history has been re-told in different dating contexts. However, always keep in mind that whatever dating the storyteller has chosen to set down the pseudo-history version of this historical event - it's the historical event of 37 b.c. that is primary. Re-telling it as pseudo-history in 21 c.e. or 29/31 c.e. or 36 c.e. demonstrates a moving story (or more correctly a developing intellectual philosophy) and does not change the historical fact that 37 b.c. and the scouring of Antigonus on a stake/cross was fundamental to the creation of the JC pseudo-history crucifixion story.

Before the pseudo-history took shape the history of Antigonus was relevant in and of itself. A history that is dated to the time of Augustus - 63 b.c. to 14 c.e. Antigonus himself probably being born sometime during the last years of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 b.c. - Antigonus taken prisoner to Rome in 63 b.c. and probably not a child - he later escaped).

In looking for ground zero re early or proto-christianity - the death of Antigonus in 37 b.c., the last King and High Priest of the Jews, could well be the trigger that set in motion a rethink, on the part of the Hasmoneans, re their future prospects. Their literal, earthly, kingdom no more - what was the road forward for them?

la70119

Maryhelen, please. :banghead: The lines in question within Slavonic Josephus most certainly DO identify the wonder worker AS JESUS. These same lines, together with the ones about John the Baptist, do NOT show up in the Greek version of Josephus, translated by William Whiston.

And that's not all. Now why would Josephus include this in, say, an Aramaic edition, to find its way into the Old Slavonic centuries later, but not in the known Greek? It makes no sense!

And you forgot this:

A non-Christian Jewish person certainly would have the MOTIVE to forge this. After all, Josephus defected over to the Romans after 38 out of 40 of his troop had been killed in a mass suicide pact. And he went on to proclaim Vespasian the world ruler who would come out of Judaea predicted by an old prophecy!

And yet a non-Christian Jew could NOT have written memes about this SAME Jesus that would find its way later into Justin Martyr, Ireaneus, Melito of Sardis, even the gospels and even the "Testimonium Flavianum"?

You HAVE it BACKWARDS. If this is NOT a forgery; if it WAS written by Josephus, if it can be PROVEN that an Aeculapeian wonder-worker got crucified by the Jews with the permission of Pontius Pilate, then we have LOST THE BATTLE, AND WITH IT THE WAR.

The HJers would congratulate themselves and the rest of us would have to EAT CROW.

maryhelena

Oh, my - so it's not only the historicists that want to dump the wonder-doer story in Slavonic Josephus - it's ahistoricts also (well at least one of them....)

Please re-read my posts a little more carefully. I don't think you will find anywhere that I ever suggest that the wonder-doer of Slavonic Josephus or the gospel JC are historical figures. Stories, pseudo-history, salvation history. I've been an ahistorict/mythcist for 30 years - so no worries that I'll be supporting a historical gospel JC in anything I write.

But, history is another matter - and that history takes one back to Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews. Killed by Roman hands in 37 b.c. Ahistoricts/mythicst should be on their guard not to run away from history. Any ahistoricist/mythicist theory that neglects history is heading for the dustbin.

Yes, the JC historicists are beating the history drum; their mistake is not in upholding the relevance of history for the gospel story - their mistake is in their insistence that the figure of the gospel JC is historical.