Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-22-2007, 12:48 PM

[QUOTE=TedM;5049948]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

No. Josephus commanded an army in Galilee.

Thanks for the correction. About.com says:

No doubt he is one we should expect to have written of Jesus.

Quote:

Justus of Tiberias was raised in Galilee, a contemporary of Josephus, who also wrote a history. That history does not survive. However, we have this comment:

Which indicates that Justus was so impressed with his Galilean countryman that he did not make any mention of him whatsoever.

Odd, eh?

Depends. Is Jesus the only Galilean that Justus doesn't mention? Does he mention John the Baptist or Bannus? Does he mention Pilate or Caiaphas?

And is an ancient historian's not mentioning someone really all that odd, let alone proof that that someone didn't play a part in the scheme of events the historian writes about?

Josephus never mentions Hilllel, a prominent Pharisee and founder of an influential Pharisaic "school", even though Josephus was himself a Pharisee. Dio Cassius gives us an account of the Jewish revolt of 132-135, and yet he makes no mention whatsoever of that revolt's leader, Simeon Bar Kosibah/Kochba. Thucidides doesn't mention Socrates even though his focus is Athens in the period in which Socrates lived.

And BTW, Photius wrote in the 9th century CE (his dates are c. 820-886 CE). What text of Justus's Chronicle of the Jewish Kings or his History of the Jewish War do you think he had available at that time? Do we even know that Justus discussed any events that took place in Galilee or Judea prior to the outbreak of the war?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-22-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Brown is a poor example for your thesis. Surely you have a better example?

May I ask how much of Brown you yourself have read?

Is his NT Introduction -- which has been praised by Jewish scholars as well as Protestant and Catholic ones - for its sound scholarship and its probing questions on matters NT among the works of Brown that you have direct experience with?

And as to what an Imprimatur signifies about a work, you are speaking beyond your knowledge.

Jeffrey

stuart shepherd · 12-22-2007, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

IMO there are two traditions concerning the death of Jesus.
The gospels tell the story that Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

But there is another tradition in the New Testament that Jesus was executed by the Jews according to the Law given by God through Moses.

Look at these Scriptures.
Acts 5:30 (King James Version)
30The God of our fathers[the God of the Jews] raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 10:39 (King James Version)
39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they[the Jews] slew and hanged on a tree:

Acts 13:27-29 (King James Version)
27For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

28And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.

29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

IMO, these three Scriptures are saying that Jesus was executed by the Jews, and not by the Romans. That his corpse was displayed on a tree, not on a cross and then he was buried on the day he died before sundown.
This "fits" with Mosaic law as to how a criminal is executed. See the following from the Law.

Deuteronomy 21:21-23 (King James Version)
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

22And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

23His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God; ) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The Apostle Paul seemed to believe that Jesus died according to Jewish law.
Galatians 3:13 (King James Version)
13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

You will notice that Paul quoted from Deut 21:23.BOLDED.

Stuart Shepherd

My understanding is that "tree" and "cross" were used to mean the same thing. I don't think there were two traditions.

ted

Ted,
I don't think that you understood my post.

Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd · 12-22-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

Deuteronomy 21:21-23 (King James Version)

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God; ) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Those Scriptures could not have had anything to do with Jesus since the Old Testament clearly indicates that the messiah would be a GENETIC descendant of David. Jesus was not a GENETIC descendant of David. Matthew says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

At any rate, if God can predict the future, it is obvious that he is not trying to convince people that he can predict the future. If he was, he would have accomplished that long along. For instance, God could have predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur that have occured. By "when," I mean month, day, and year.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Stuart Shepherd

Minimalist · 12-22-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

..

Ok, I found the full quote, and it looks like he did cover the period in which Jesus is said to have lived.

Thanks for bringing this up. It is possible that he wrote unfavorably and later Christians removed what he wrote, but this of course is not provable.

ted

That would be baseless speculation. Most scholars assume that, because he did not write anything about Jesus, Christians did not bother to preserve his work, as it was of no interest.

I agree with Toto on that. I suppose we should be happy that early christian writers did not bother to insert a few Jesus-sightings into Justus' work...as they did with Josephus.

The one that I most expect to have mentioned Jesus, had he existed, is Philo of Alexandria. Philo was a contemporary dying c. 50 AD, a prolific writer, and a commentator on all things Jewish .

Alas....couldn't be bothered mentioning Jesus which says as much to me as the lack of comment by Justus.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-22-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

That makes sense, but would scholars expect Christians to have preserved his work had he made an unflattering reference to Jesus which contradicted the "history" in the gospels?

In that case, you might have found Christian fathers condemning him, as they did the heretics and the unbelieving Jews, especially as he was a Jew.

Finally something we can agree on!

A Christmas Murakle!

Jeffrey

Mythra · 12-22-2007, 03:30 PM

I tried reading some of Philo's stuff - but I found it to be a bunch of pie in the sky theological musings. At any time, in his writings, does he ever come down to earth and talk about people and events during his day? The type of writing where we might expect to see a mention of Jesus of Nazareth?

Minimalist · 12-22-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Depends. Is Jesus the only Galilean that Justus doesn't mention? Does he mention John the Baptist or Bannus? Does he mention Pilate or Caiaphas?

Well, again, we don't really know because the work was lost to us. All we know is what Photius wrote.....just as all we know about Celsus is what Origen wrote.

Josephus did mention John the Baptist but it took a later christian forger to add in "Jesus." At least that "Jesus" who would be recognizable to his followers. There were plenty of Jesuses in Josephus' legitimate writings.

None were THE Jesus, though.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-22-2007, 03:32 PM

If a God exists, one wonders to what extent he intended to use copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans since that would invite needless disputes regarding authorship, interpretations, interpolations, lying, and innocent but inaccurate revelations. I assume that written records AND many personal appearances to everyone in every generation would be much better, that is, assuming that God wants people to believe that he specifically exists, and that he wants people to know what he wants them to do with their lives. Logically, it would be much better for humans for God to DISCOURAGE dissent than it would be for him to INVITE dissent, especially if heaven and hell are at stake. Unfortunately, the Bible writers INVITED dissent, which is to be expected if God did not inspire the writing of the Bible.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-22-2007, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

I tried reading some of Philo's stuff - but I found it to be a bunch of pie in the sky theological musings. At any time, in his writings, does he ever come down to earth and talk about people and events during his day? The type of writing where we might expect to see a mention of Jesus of Nazareth?

I'm not sure why we should expect him to mention Jesus. But he does have at leat one writing that fits the "down to earth" category you mention. It's his Embassy to Gaius.

Jeffrey

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

12-22-2007, 03:30 PM	#47
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	I tried reading some of Philo's stuff - but I found it to be a bunch of pie in the sky theological musings. At any time, in his writings, does he ever come down to earth and talk about people and events during his day? The type of writing where we might expect to see a mention of Jesus of Nazareth?

12-22-2007, 03:32 PM	#49
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	If a God exists, one wonders to what extent he intended to use copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans since that would invite needless disputes regarding authorship, interpretations, interpolations, lying, and innocent but inaccurate revelations. I assume that written records AND many personal appearances to everyone in every generation would be much better, that is, assuming that God wants people to believe that he specifically exists, and that he wants people to know what he wants them to do with their lives. Logically, it would be much better for humans for God to DISCOURAGE dissent than it would be for him to INVITE dissent, especially if heaven and hell are at stake. Unfortunately, the Bible writers INVITED dissent, which is to be expected if God did not inspire the writing of the Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.