IamJoseph

This seems to reflect the position of Saul of Tarsus, a 3rd generation Greek Jew, who's writings are ascribed as the beginner of christianity. However, this too cannot be evidenced, as we have no contemporary writings, and thus these could have also been written by Europe, which disdained all Hebrew beliefs and could not shake off 1000s of years of Hellenism. Paul obviously negated [fullfilled] the Hebrew laws because no European would accept the stringent dietary laws and forbiddence of image worship - this has historical precedence of numerous wars between the Jews with the Greeks and Romans.

The subsequent stories and depictions of Jesus, can also be safely decided is European and not Jewish in any manner - and that Europe accepted these stories and premises with no questions asked, aside from the fact they had no choice: the medevial church contnued Rome's heresy decrees even more fastediously - millions were genocided and persecuted for not adhering, and made as third class citizens with no hope for a normal life! I doubt one Jesus can be blamed for this.

I don't see anything wrong in all this, as each peoples can only choose a path which suits their culture and nature. The bad part is that both Christianity and Islam also had to align their beliefs conditional to Jews being the bad guys - else their entire belief falls. While this has been a problem for Jews, in the long term view it is more bad for Christianity and Islam, who must now face the enigma that both their charges are in mutually exclusive contradictions - making their very existence subject to scapegoating Israel - such is their fear of confronting their own chaos inflicted upon humanity.

Whatever can all this have in the belief of a Creator - or the truth will set us free? :huh:

spamandham

...yet they were willing to abandon their promiscuous ways and take on the burden of Christian asceticism. Is it really more difficult to abstain from pork and image worship than to abstain from sex?

razlyubleno

Do you think maybe that the main group of people who converted to Christianity were already inclined to asceticism? What makes you think that the promiscuous people didn't simply not convert at all?

razly

maryhelena

The argument that the TF is an interpolation- and possibly done by Eusebius looks to have some merit - although Biblical scholars still want to retain some of the less Christian wording..

The James passage in Josephus is usually viewed as being from Josephus - but, again, the use of the word Christ perhaps indicates another interpolation.

In other words, however much mythicists try to discredit these two passages, biblical scholars insist on holding on to them in some limited version.

Surely, then, if there is ever going to be headway regarding these two passages in Josephus, headway regarding the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person, it is not some specific words of Josephus that need to be argued over, specific words that are deemed to be the big issue over Josephus, but his overall credibility as a historical source.

The reliability of Josephus as a historian has been questioned in modern times:

His assertion regarding the re-naming of Bethsaida to Julius - that it was re-named after the Emperor’ daughter Julia has been discredited by those working on the Bethsaida archaeological site. The re-naming was to honour Julia, the wife of Augustus, mother of Tiberius. (who died in 29 CE).

Regarding the siege of Gamla, a siege at which Josephus places Agrippa 11 - there is no evidence of human remains, although Josephus says thousands died there.

Regarding the siege of Jotapata - at which Josephus is taken prisoner and gives his prophecy regarding Vespasian - there is no outside of Josephus evidence for this siege. (Wikipedia)

Even with his internal dating, regarding the Jerusalem Temple, Josephus has made errors:
Counting 1130 years from 960 BC, the year given (Wikipedia) for Solomon’s Temple, until 70 CE = 1030 years. Hence Josephus is out by 100 years on this dating. (counting from 7 years earlier, the time it took to build the temple, results in Josephus being 93 years out in his dating...)

Josephus makes his 639 years a bit more obscure:

Counting 639 years from the degree of Cyrus in 538/7 BC they would run to 101/102 CE - which is way past Jerusalem’ destruction in 70 CE.

Counted from the re-dedication of the temple under Ezra in 516/515 BC this number of years would run to 123 CE - again, way past 70 CE.

Josephus a bad historian here? Or did he simply not have accurate data?

Or, is it a case of, once again, Josephus (or whoever) playing the numbers game.

Is Josephus, by making his dating here unhistorical, indicating that he is not dealing with actual history but with prophetic history? The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple seen not simply as historical events but seen through the eyes of prophetic interpretation. Is Josephus, or whoever, making some reference to Daniel ch.9? Perhaps the indication is that 1130 minus 639 = 491 years - or in simple terms - 490 years of Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy.

The point of all this is that the historical work of Josephus is not above question on a purely historical basis. There are elements of prophetic and numerical symbolism involved. Consequently, any attempt to use Josephus as historical evidence for something or another - especially for something so fundamental, and critical, for Christianity, as a claimed historical Jesus, is, in actuality, like using astrology as a basis for astronomy.....

The assumption that Josephus was a historical person, and that he was Jewish, is an assumption that really does need to be challenged. Left standing, this assumption will continue to befuddle any attempt at a historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings.

The only way to ‘fight’ against Josephus and his reference to Jesus is to acknowledge that, yes indeed, Josephus made reference to Jesus - but from evidence within his writing, Josephus is dealing with prophetic history, dealing with a prophetic interpretation of history. Hence, his referencing Jesus, and his brother James, is simply on a par with the gospel story line of a mythological messiah. It is no more proof for a historical Jesus of Nazareth than the gospel story line. Josephus and the gospel writers are brothers in arms not sworn enemies.

In seeking to use Josephus as proof for a historical Jesus of Nazareth, the historical camp is reduced to cherry picking within the text of Josephus. There is much in Josephus to indicate that he is interested in prophetic interpretation of history and is using numerical symbolism. It falls to the mythicist camp to consider the whole picture of Josephus and not get bogged down with textual criticism.

razlyubleno

I really don't think scholars put so many eggs in the Josephan basket. The case for the historical Jesus seems largely based on inference, and, to some extent, a lack of imagination. A couple of disputed passages in the work of a Jewish aristocrat who routinely played loose with the truth, are hardly very important to the historical Jesus camp. Those passages have been made fun of for a very long time now, by both sides.

razly

maryhelena

I agree with you re the lack of imagination in the historical Jesus Camp.....

By all accounts though, Josephus has not been put to rest! The reference to Rachel Havrelock being a case in point. And to top it all she was co-host on a Discovery Channel documentary, “Who Was Jesus”.

On another forum I read, the James passage in Josephus is continually being trotted out - by an atheist to boot - as historical evidence for Jesus.....

razlyubleno

The problem with Discovery/History Channel type stuff, is they never have enough time to do the subject justice... the scholars just trot out their conclusions and don't explain the assumptions they're making.

I remember watching this documentary a long time ago, I think was called "Who Wrote the Bible?" And I just ground my teeth the whole way through. A scholar would come on and say, "Hi, the Pentateuch was written by four different people, called J, E, P, and D. Bye!" ... I couldn't help but think that the only people who would understand it, are people who already knew the scholarship. Honestly, who's idea was it to make a documentary about such an overwhelmingly broad subject? It was only ever going to be shallow.

Simple fact is, mainstream presentations of scholarship are cheesy, disjointed, and simple-minded. I hate them. Passionately. But I'm not sure of the extent to which they represent anything meaningful; they just seem like flash-in-the-pan stuff to me. People will talk about it. Some will remember it too, believe every word of it even; but such people are insanely gullible, and kind of bring it on themselves... I'm having trouble mustering the will to care.

I'm starting to think that BC&H is the only forum that matters. On another forum quite recently, I put several holes in some guy's contorted linguistic argument for Jesus surviving the crucifixion. But, my quoting Greek anywhere but here seems a quick way to end a conversation (that's right, he made a linguistic argument without quoting any Greek... apparently I broke the unspoken rule). So, I now think that this is where all the smart people hang out, which is why there's a void everywhere else on the net. Those other places are dead to me. I mean, where else can you get 300+ replies in a thread about Jesus mythicism?

razly

Solo

Thanks, Toto. A debate developed on whether there could be a historical figure behind the gospel Jesus, when spamandham asserted that he was highly improbably a wandering preacher and a son of a country carpenter, given that the first believers were middle strata of urban dwellers (which btw I would say was highly likely). I do not believe that the social milieu of the cultic origins and spread of the beliefs had much to do with the social descriptors of Jesus of Nazareth, and if they did it, they likely reflect traditions about a specific individual (ie given the difficulty they create for the later assertions of his Davidic pedigree).

I think that Stark is onto something if he says that the new cults rise as a social support replacement niche. This almost certainly was the case with Christianity, and specifically Paul's groups. There is ample evidence in the canon that the Jesus cults arose in response to social ostracism of people believed to be mentally ill (i.e. mad, possessed, in their 'inner rooms', etc).

Jiri

maryhelena

Yes, this forum is great. In the short while I've been here I've seen nothing but respectful interchange between people. My own posts may well be seen by some as 'alternative' but nevertheless no one has told me to go away......

I've not seen the thread to which you referred - just had a look and see it relates to Earl Doherty's book - so will give it a look over. Some years back I did send some ideas of mine to Earl - to which he made a reply on his website. I later 'met' him online on the JesusMysteries yahoogroup. I had a bit of an interchange with him there - probably frustrated him! However, I think he is missing the point re the Jesus of Nazareth mythology - he prefers to think of gospel fiction and Paul' Cosmic Christ.

A few points taken from various exchanges with Earl Doherty on the JesusMysteries list - from around January 2001.

aa5874

But, the amout of information in the canon is of little consequence since it is that very information that is being questioned. Even if it is assumed Jesus cults were composed of people who were mental, the history of the character called the son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ cannot be found anywhere outside of the writings of those who may have been ill.