mountainman

Have you no comment at all concerning the references found
in Philo's description of the essenic traditions which were old
and established at the time Philo wrote (ie: the wisdom sayings
were around BCE). There is a collection of 60 of these sayings
gathered here:

The first four of 60 examples:

Philo says, "It is our first duty to seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness;" so the Essenes believed and taught.
"Seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all else shall be added (Matt. vi 33; Luke xii. 31.)

Philo says, "They abjured all amusements, all elegances, and all pleasures of the senses. "Forsake the world and the things thereof."
The Essenes say, "Lay up nothing on earth, but fix your mind solely on heaven."
"Lay not up treasures on earth," &c.

"The Essenes, having laid aside all the anxieties of life," says Philo, "and leaving society, they make their residence in solitary wilds and in gardens."
"They wander in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth." (Heb. xi. 38.)



1) Ammianus Marcellinus' Res Gestae: Books 1 to 13

Only the books 14 to 31 are extant. Would the earlier books have
reported the existence of christianity in the history of the Roman
empire prior to the rise of Constantine? And what did the obituary
of Constantine written by Ammianus, actually say about the life
of the supreme imperial mafia thug dictator?



2) Emperor Julian's "Against the Galilaeans": Books 1, 2 and 3.

We dont know what Julian actually wrote about the fabrication.
We know that his writings were turning many people away from
the "christian regime" according to the bishop Cyril, and that
they were finally destroyed. We only know of that which Julian
wrote which was selected for refutation by Cyril, for only this
refutation of Julian by Cyril remains. We do know however, from
the admission from Cyril himslef, that he "omitted invectives against
Christ and such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians."

Ideologist

I don't have my evidence on-hand; I'll try to get it tomorrow.

Bethlehem is the birthplace of David. If we say that the Jewish practice is to register by tribe (which is suggested somewhat allegorically in Moses' census of Exodus) then it would make some sense in that regard.

Property.

I've not noticed that Joseph is stated to have no property in Bethlehem in Luke; in fact, I've seen some suggest that the opposite is possible (ie. that he did have property).

And Luke 2:7 reads;
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

And while it is certainly suggestive of the fact that Joseph does not own a house in Jerusalem (requiring them to be in the manger and whatnot) that's hardly proof.

I'd first point you to a document from Egypt about 100 years later (documents are, of course, sparse);

Now, clearly the practices of Egypt 100 years later are not necessarily those of Judaea, but it lends credence to the idea that people might need to return to a certain area.

pharoah

Pointing to a story that you yourself admit could be an allegory hardly constitutes proof of 1st century Jewish practices. I could just as easily point to the story of God punishing the Israelites for David's census as evidence against such a census. What you need is a primary source from the time period in question or failing that, any evidence that Jews conducted tribal censuses anytime after the 1st century, as that would constitute probative evidence in favor of an ongoing practice. Do you have any such evidence?

Some may suggest that, but what evidence do they have other than wishful thinking?

According to Luke, Joseph and company go to the temple 8 days later to get Jesus circumcised, and after that they return to Nazareth. At no point does he ever mention Joseph going to a home in Bethlehem. Why would he take a an exhausted mother and a newborn baby so soon on an arduous journey back to Nazareth when he owned property in Bethlehem? :huh:

I'm afraid that this quote doesn't help you. Nowhere does it say that people had to go the home of their ancestors. It's basically saying that travelers and migrant workers need to return to their present home. On the contrary, the Luke story has people leaving their home to go elsewhere.


No, the practices of Egypt contradict the Luke story.

ynquirer

Josephus’ silence on Christians in his autobiography when he speaks of “the sects among us” is interesting, but no proof against Jesus‘ historicity.

In Autobiography 2 the wording is tôn par’hêmin haireseôn, which means: “the sects that divide us.” Haireseis stands for “sect.” The word is used again in the same paragraph: têi Phairesaiôn hairesei, as meaning “the sect of the Pharisees.” Together with these, the Sadducees, the Essens and one Banous are specifically mentioned. Certainly, not the Christians.

There is, however, no place in Autobiography 2 for the Christians, as the writer quite clearly says - in the TF - that the Christians were a “tribe” (phulon), not a “sect.”

Josephus makes use of the word phulon most frequently in reference to the Twelve Tribes of Israel. After the ten tribes that inhabited the northern kingdom were taken to Niniveh, and subsequently disappeared forever, the remaining tribes of Judah and Benjamin suffered captivity in Babylon to be finally freed by King Cyrus of Persia. From then onward, together with them in Palestine were the Samaritans, who are said to be apechthanomenoi têi te Iouda phulêi kai têi Beniamitidi, that is, “hated by the tribe of Judah and that of Benjamin” (AJ 11.4.3).

Later on, the Samaritans are said to consist tôn apostatôn Ioudaiôn êthnous, that is, “of apostates from the Jewish nation” (AJ 11.8.6). (While Iuoda phulê means the tribe of Judah, Ioudaiôn ethnos means the nation of the Jews, which had together the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.) Now, when asked by Alexander the Great whether they were Jews, the Samaritans answered they were Hebrews. When asked again, they answered they were not Jews.

According to this geopolitical framework, the Samaritans were Hebrews though not Jews. Josephus never says that the Samaritans were a “tribe.” He hesitates as to whether the Samaritans were a tribe, when he opposes them to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in AJ 11.4.3, or a nation, when he opposes them to the whole nation of the Jews in AJ 11.8.6. In any case, the Hebrews included both the Jews and the Samaritans.

On the other hand, the Christians are said to be a “tribe.” They, of course, fell short of being a nation that could compare with either the Jews or the Samaritans. Yet, it is clear enough that they compared with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and even to the Samaritans - in the opposition of the latter to the former two; in a sense, the Christians might be said by Josephus to be apostates of the Jews likewise the Samaritans were. Therefore, the Christians are deemed to be Hebrews, but neither Jews nor Samaritans.

As a conclusion, there is no room for the Christians to be mentioned in Autobiography 2, exactly for the same reason as there is no room for the Samaritans to be mentioned either. Never did Josephus disclose the least desire to break with Judaism - divided into Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and minor sects. When he speaks of “the sects that divide us,” us clearly implies the Jews.

Amaleq13

Thanks.

Does this response mean you have no evidence that such a "local custom" actually existed at the time in question?

The words "indicate" and "suggest" are synonyms so you apparently don't disagree.

The fact remains that the author of Luke gives a different reason for Joseph to make the journey. That, alone, argues against his ownership of property and the poor accommodations they are depicted as settling for really leaves nothing to support one's speculations about such a possibility.

I'm as aware of this document as I am the misuse of it by apologists. It argues against the requirements described by the author of Luke.

The fact remains that the author of Luke clearly does not describe or even suggest that Joseph owned property in Bethlehem but, instead, suggests by the poor accommodations they settled for that he had none.

aa5874

I think you have completely missed the point.

The writings of Josephus covered the history of the Jews and that of his life, up to about 93 CE. His writings covered a wide range of issues, including politics, wars, religion, marital affairs, his own military experience, geography of the region and even the terrain of certain areas.
Josephus wrote about living in Galilee, travelling to Rome, meeting people of different religious persuasions and even mention the conversion of persons to the Jewish religion and about their reluctance to become circumcised, (see book 20 ch2 'Antiquities of the Jews'). Josephus, himself, wrote that he was a Pharisee and acquainted with the other 'religious groups, sects'.

Now taking the wide coverage of issues of the writings of Josephus, he never mentions any confrontation of the Pharisees with followers of a group, sect or tribe whose leader was called the Messiah. Josephus, the Pharisee, did not write about any 'house to house' persecution, prosecution or killing of any followers whose leader was called Jesus the Christ. Josephus, although he wrote about miraculous events, he did not write about any followers of the Messiah that did a single miracle, Josephus did not write about the notorius Pharisee, Saul or his conversion.

Flavius Josephus has, in his writings, virtually destroyed the credibilty of the book called 'Acts'.

Is it possible that a Jew that lived in Galilee, organised military operations in Galilee, was in command of thousands of fighters, built infrastructure in the area, travelled throught the region, even escaped assasination attempts, and a Pharisee, did not come into contact with the many thousands of followers of the new 'heresy' of the Messiah that challenged the doctrine of the Pharisees?

I s it possible that these thousands of followers had no impact whatsoever on Josephus' works, the Wars of the Jews, the Antiquities of the Jews and The Life of Flavius Josephus?

Malachi151

Don't forget Justus (who lived in Galilee) and Philo!

S.C.Carlson

Not true. In Antiquities 20, Josephus wrote about the killing of James the brother Jesus called Christ.

Malachi151

This is an obvious interpolation.

ynquirer

That's right.

Josephus topics are War of the Jews and Antiquities of the Jews. The Christians, not being Jews, were tangent to his topics.

Besides AJ 20.9.1, Josephus makes another neat reference to the Christians in AJ 18.3.3. The point of my previous comment is that the use of phulon (=a "tribe") lends presumption of autheticity to the whole TF, or at least to a part of it.