Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 07-15-2010, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Cool. I think that model may be similar to the one favored by Toto. You say you didn't need to make up anything. Maybe you ought to claim that you don't need to make up as much as the other competing models. Even your model requires at least some sort of invention of historical phenomena--inventive writers and myth-makers and myths at the source of Christianity. Any model requires invention of some sort, even the Biblicist Christian model.

No, I really don't need to add anything at all to the evidence we have. Texts require writers, kinda by default.

The OT and other available literature and philosophies provide all the necessary bits and pieces in order for some pious fellows to craft their theological allegories. This, especially considering the most likely possibility that Jesus Christ was grokked from the scriptures in the first place.

What, in Mark for instance, leads you to believe that the author meant his story to be read as history and not as allegory?

In my view, considering the nature of Mark's story, it would seem more likely that the intent was in fact religious allegory and not history, if you wish to go with the most likely probability based on the actual evidence.

OK, it seems to be an interesting theory, and I don't really want to continue my line of criticism of it in this thread. It does deserve plenty of attention, though. Maybe you could start a new thread laying out many of the details, if you haven't done so already. I would love to be a part of that.

bacht · 07-15-2010, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

So, it led me to wonder why JtB is accepted as a human, but not Jesus, and I have tentatively concluded that it is primarily because Josephus describes JtB as much like an entirely normal and expected founder of a normal and expected cult. Josephus does not mention miracles being associated with JtB, unlike the gospels, Pauline epistles and the Testimonium Flavianum (the Christian-interpolated passage in Josephus about Jesus), which are all of the earliest "witnesses" to Jesus. So, skepticism about the existence of JtB would have to accompany skepticism about almost anyone in history.

...

The purpose of my thought experiment is to challenge the idea that miracle stories from religious adherents about a historical someone significantly undercut the likelihood that such a someone existed as a historical human being. It seems to be more a matter of anti-religious reactionism than about finding the best explanations. Am I wrong? Why?

The first mentions of Christ leave no doubt about his supernatural character (Son of God, having the name above every name etc). John is always presented as an ordinary man or prophet. It's almost apples and oranges [btw Paul never mentions him, he only shows up in the gospels and Acts]

Then there are all the supposed public acts of Jesus that no-one remembered. John is only claimed to have operated at the Jordan.

If you want another perspective on John try the Nag Hammadi material, there are some texts from his followers. It's mostly gnostic mumbo-jumbo but John is never elevated above the level of a reincarnation of Seth or Adam (the "Standing One").

aa5874 · 07-15-2010, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

....Since Origen attested that Josephus both wrote about Jesus and that Josephus believed that Jesus was not the Christ, we can be certain that the original Testimonium Flavianum stated something more germane about Jesus, including Josephus's opinion that he was not the Christ.....

"Origen" does NOT attest that Josephus wrote about Jesus.

It is the complete OPPOSITE.

In "Against Celsus", "Origen" made claims about Josephus that CANNOT be found in his writings. In effect, "Origen" does NOT help to attest anything about Jesus in the writings of Josephus.

"Origen" claimed Josephus did not believe Jesus was Christ. In AJ 18.3.3 it is claimed Jesus was the Christ.

'Origen" claimed the calamities of the Jews was because of the death of James the Just but no such information can be found in the writings of Josephus in AJ 20.9.1.

"Origen" CONTRADICTS AJ 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

maryhelena · 07-15-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

In Dave31's thread that I shamelessly hijacked into a rhetorical war over John the Baptist, maryhelena said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Abe, all this back and forth re John the Baptist and the 'embarrassment' of his baptism of Jesus - is truly mind-blogging. You have not established whether your main dog in this particular 'fight' - John the Baptist - is a historical figure. And, no, relying upon Josephus will not do that. Josephus is not a simple, straight forward, historical writing. Josephus is writing 'salvation' history - an interpretation of, in this case, the history of the Herodian period. Thus, historical facts mingled with an interpretation of those facts as they relate to his own prophetic interests. Don't be short-sighted here and think you can trump any argument re John the Baptist with a quote from Josephus. You cannot do that. Josephus can be viewed as backup for the pseudo-historical gospel storyline instead of as proof positive that the gospel storyline is historical. Big difference.

I don't think that maryhelena represents the mythicists nor the normalskeptics on the matter of whether or not John the Baptist (JtB) existed. Almost all of us seem to accept that JtB very probably existed as a historical human person. So, it led me to wonder why JtB is accepted as a human, but not Jesus, and I have tentatively concluded that it is primarily because Josephus describes JtB as much like an entirely normal and expected founder of a normal and expected cult. Josephus does not mention miracles being associated with JtB, unlike the gospels, Pauline epistles and the Testimonium Flavianum (the Christian-interpolated passage in Josephus about Jesus), which are all of the earliest "witnesses" to Jesus. So, skepticism about the existence of JtB would have to accompany skepticism about almost anyone in history.

To review, here is Josephus's description of JtB:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

If all we had was what Josephus writes about John the Baptist in Antiquities - and we had some reason to believe that Josephus is simply a historian - then all well and good. If there is no other source to collaborate Josephus, then we have a choice. Either take Josephus on his own word re John the Baptist - or put the matter aside with a question mark over it.

Why not trust Josephus to have been recording history?

Firstly, by his own admission, he is not simply a historian.

Quote:

War Book 111 ch.V111 sect. 3

“...he called to mind the dreams which he had dreamed in the night-time, whereby God had signified to him beforehand both the future calamities of the Jews, and the event that concerned the Roman Emperors. Now Josephus was able to give shrewd conjectures about the interpretations of such dreams as have been ambiguously delivered by God. Moreover, he was not unacquainted with the prophecies contained in the sacred books, as being a priest himself, and of the posterity of priests; and just then he is in ecstasy; and setting before him the tremendous images of the dreams he had lately had, ......he put up a secret prayer to God”....

Secondly, the picture of John the Baptist that he paints is contradictory. A man of god who is on a mission to baptize people in some purity context, to come to god and be righteous - is also a man that Herod fears will mount a rebellion! A pacifist and a revolutionary all rolled into one.

Thus, on a straightforward reading of Josephus on John the Baptist - questions can be raised.

However, we don’t only have Antiquities - a work that was published around 93/94 ce. One could get around this problem by dating all the gospels after this date. But I don’t think the scholarly consensus (for what its worth) would go along with that. So, we have at least Mark and Matthew written prior to Antiquities. Which raises the possibility that Josephus could have had some knowledge of the gospel storyline re John the Baptist - albeit a storyline with no revolutionary threat. The gospel of Luke is dated later - possibly around the time of Antiquities. The gospel storyline re John the Baptist is not without OT influences.

Quote:

John the Baptist and Old Testament prophecy

There are several passages within the Old Testament which are interpreted by Christians as being prophetic of John the Baptist in this role. These include a passage in the Book of Malachi 3:1 that refers to a prophet who would prepare the way of the Lord:
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. — Malachi 3:1[36]
and also at the end of the next chapter in Malachi 4:5-6 where it says,

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

The Jews of Jesus' day expected Elijah to come before the Messiah; indeed, some modern Jews continue to await Elijah's coming as well, as in the Cup of Elijah the Prophet in the Passover Seder. This is why the disciples ask Jesus in Matthew 17:10, 'Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?.' The disciples are then told by Jesus that Elijah came in the person of John the Baptist,

Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. — Matt. 17:11-13

The John the Baptist connection to the gospel Jesus figure is seen as prophetic ie - related to the OT. Additional to the above, the birth story of John the Baptist, with his elderly parents Zechariah and Elizabeth, is reminiscent of Abraham, Sarah and Isaac, Elkanah, Hannah and Samuel.

The beheading scenario is taking recent history from the end of the Hasmonean period and using it to develop the gospel storyline re a forerunner for Jesus. The Hasmonean, Antigonus, being the last Jewish king of the Jews.

Quote:

Antigonus II Mattathias

Antigonus was handed over by Herod to the Romans for execution in 37 BC, after a short reign of three years during which he had led a fierce struggle of the people for independence against the Romans and Romanizers such as Herod.

Antigonus II Mattathias was the only anointed King of the Jews (messiah) historically recorded to have been scourged and crucified by the Romans. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a stake and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[2] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king"

On top of all this we have the dating given for the death of John the Baptist in Antiquites. A dating that causes problems for the gospel Jesus chronology ie Antiquities can be read that John the Baptist was still alive after the supposed dead of the gospel Jesus in 30/33 ce.

And last, but certainly not least, there is Slavonic Josephus with its baptiser character doing the rounds prior to the end of the rule by Archelaus in 6 ce - and this character having no connection with the Jesus character within Slavonic Josephus - as in Antiquities.

Quote:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm

1. Now at that time a man went about among the Jews in strange garments; for he had put pelts on his body everywhere where it was not covered with his own hair;
2. indeed to look at he was like a wild man.
3. He came to the Jews and summoned them to freedom, saying: "God hath sent me, that I may show you the way of the Law, wherein ye may free yourselves from many holders of power.
4. And there will be no mortal ruling over you, only the Highest who hath sent me."
5. And when the people had heard this, they were joyful. And there went after him all Judæa, that lies in the region round Jerusalem.
6. And he did nothing else to them save that he plunged them into the stream of the Jordan and dismissed them, instructing them that they should cease from evil works, and [promising] that there would [then] be given them a ruler who would set them free and subject to them all that is not in submission; but no one of whom we speak (?), would himself be subjected.
7. Some reviled, but others got faith.
8. And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then.
9. And to this he made answer and spake: "I am pure; [for] the Spirit of God hath led me on, and [I live on] cane and roots and tree-food.
10. But when they threatened to put him to torture if he would not cease from those words and deeds, he nevertheless said: "It is meet for you [rather] to cease from your heinous works and cleave unto the Lord your God."
11. And there rose up in anger Simon, an Essæan by extraction, a scribe, and he spake: "We read every day the divine books.
12. But thou, only now come from the forest like a wild animal,—thou darest in sooth to teach us and to mislead the people with thy reprobate words."
13. And he rushed forward to do him bodily violence.
14. But he, rebuking them, spake: "I will not disclose to you the mystery which dwelleth in you, for ye have not desired it.
15. Thereby an untold calamity is come upon you, and because of yourselves."
16. And when he had thus spoken, he went forth to the other side of the Jordan; and while no one durst rebuke him, that one did what [he had done] also heretofore.

Note here that the baptiser has a confrontation with Simon, an Essene. Slavonic Josephus has (as Josephus has in Antiquities) given ‘life’ to Philo’s Essenes. A philosophical idea that has no historical reality within a Jewish context. (as Rachel Elior has stated...)

And, finally a footnote: Slavonic Josephus gives its baptiser character a prophetic role:

Quote:

While Philip was [still] in possession of his dominion, he saw a dream,—how an eagle tore out both his eyes. And he summoned all his wise men. But when each interpreted the dream differently, there came to him suddenly, without being summoned, that man of whom we have previously written, that he went about in skins of animals and cleansed the people in the waters of the Jordan.. And he spake: "Give ear to the word of the Lord,—the dream which thou hast seen. The eagle—that is thy venality; because that bird is violent and rapacious. And that sin will take away thy eyes which are thy dominion and thy wife." And when he had thus spoken, Philip died before evening and his dominion was given to Agrippa.

Add all that up - and the possibility that John the Baptist was a historical figure is zero.

(Just as a side issue - there is an interesting point here re Philip and the bird, the eagle. A very similar storyline in Antiquities re Agrippa, the brother of Herodias. He sees a bird, an owl, a prediction is made - and, later, just prior to his death, he sees the owl again...)

ApostateAbe · 07-15-2010, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

So, it led me to wonder why JtB is accepted as a human, but not Jesus, and I have tentatively concluded that it is primarily because Josephus describes JtB as much like an entirely normal and expected founder of a normal and expected cult. Josephus does not mention miracles being associated with JtB, unlike the gospels, Pauline epistles and the Testimonium Flavianum (the Christian-interpolated passage in Josephus about Jesus), which are all of the earliest "witnesses" to Jesus. So, skepticism about the existence of JtB would have to accompany skepticism about almost anyone in history.

...

The purpose of my thought experiment is to challenge the idea that miracle stories from religious adherents about a historical someone significantly undercut the likelihood that such a someone existed as a historical human being. It seems to be more a matter of anti-religious reactionism than about finding the best explanations. Am I wrong? Why?

The first mentions of Christ leave no doubt about his supernatural character (Son of God, having the name above every name etc). John is always presented as an ordinary man or prophet. It's almost apples and oranges [btw Paul never mentions him, he only shows up in the gospels and Acts]

Then there are all the supposed public acts of Jesus that no-one remembered. John is only claimed to have operated at the Jordan.

If you want another perspective on John try the Nag Hammadi material, there are some texts from his followers. It's mostly gnostic mumbo-jumbo but John is never elevated above the level of a reincarnation of Seth or Adam (the "Standing One").

OK, so for you the thought experiment would be that Josephus reports that the followers of JtB believed JtB to be the essence of the Archangel Gabriel. The gospels also portray JtB to be ordinarily human, though he is tied into a miracle story, so we would need the gospels claiming essentially the same thing, that JtB is the essence of Gabriel. So, add one line to Josephus: "...he is said to be the essence of Gabriel." And, another line to each of the gospels: "...there was a man, John the Baptist, who was conceived by the Archangel Gabriel..." Are we now much more uncertain that JtB was historical?

bacht · 07-15-2010, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, so for you the thought experiment would be that Josephus reports that the followers of JtB believed JtB to be the essence of the Archangel Gabriel. The gospels also portray JtB to be ordinarily human, though he is tied into a miracle story, so we would need the gospels claiming essentially the same thing, that JtB is the essence of Gabriel. So, add one line to Josephus: "...he is said to be the essence of Gabriel." And, another line to each of the gospels: "...there was a man, John the Baptist, who was conceived by the Archangel Gabriel..." Are we now much more uncertain that JtB was historical?

If I was betting I'd put my money on John being more historical than Jesus. John does seem to fit into the general madness of 1st C Palestine, maybe as some sort of prophet or ex-Qumranite. It doesn't seem unlikely that, in the midst of rampant messianic speculation, someone would remember the Malachi prophecy.

otoh Elijah was actually from Israel, not Judah, and fought against the Omrid dynasty (according to Kings). His successor Elishah anointed the usurper Jehu. As such these two prophets could've been heroes to later revolutionary types like the Zealots. This would explain John's execution, if he had come to represent Elijah to the masses. Following this logic the gospel Jesus would then represent Elishah, another subversive.

If J & J did exist and were seen as anti-establishment then later Roman-friendly Christians would have removed the political connotations.

driver8 · 07-15-2010, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

"Origen" does NOT attest that Josephus wrote about Jesus.

It is the complete OPPOSITE.

In "Against Celsus", "Origen" made claims about Josephus that CANNOT be found in his writings. In effect, "Origen" does NOT help to attest anything about Jesus in the writings of Josephus.

"Origen" claimed Josephus did not believe Jesus was Christ. In AJ 18.3.3 it is claimed Jesus was the Christ.

The two statements I bolded seem at odds to me. Anyone see why?

The second statement indicates that Josephus actually had stated an opinion about who Jesus was, i.e. that he was NOT the christ. That's an active position. Origen does therefore, though somewhat indirectly, claim that Jophesus wrote about Jesus or at the least had expressed this opinion.

Ironically, this is the only thing associated with Josephus' writings that actually works for me as being any acknowledgement of a historical Jesus. But, it requires belief in Origen.

ApostateAbe · 07-15-2010, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driver8

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

"Origen" does NOT attest that Josephus wrote about Jesus.

It is the complete OPPOSITE.

In "Against Celsus", "Origen" made claims about Josephus that CANNOT be found in his writings. In effect, "Origen" does NOT help to attest anything about Jesus in the writings of Josephus.

"Origen" claimed Josephus did not believe Jesus was Christ. In AJ 18.3.3 it is claimed Jesus was the Christ.

The two statements I bolded seem at odds to me. Anyone see why?

The second statement indicates that Josephus actually had stated an opinion about who Jesus was, i.e. that he was NOT the christ. That's an active position. Origen does therefore, though somewhat indirectly, claim that Jophesus wrote about Jesus or at the least had expressed this opinion.

Ironically, this is the only thing associated with Josephus' writings that actually works for me as being any acknowledgement of a historical Jesus. But, it requires belief in Origen.

Contradictions and other absurdities are normal and expected for aa5874, and that is why I don't argue with him, and we generally ignore him. I don't know if you have been told this already, but it is something I advise everyone who is new to the BC&H forum--don't argue with aa5874. It would be like arguing with a Magic 8-Ball. Nothing you tell him will change the somewhat-random and disconnected ideas that he has been advocating for years every day.

ApostateAbe · 07-15-2010, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, so for you the thought experiment would be that Josephus reports that the followers of JtB believed JtB to be the essence of the Archangel Gabriel. The gospels also portray JtB to be ordinarily human, though he is tied into a miracle story, so we would need the gospels claiming essentially the same thing, that JtB is the essence of Gabriel. So, add one line to Josephus: "...he is said to be the essence of Gabriel." And, another line to each of the gospels: "...there was a man, John the Baptist, who was conceived by the Archangel Gabriel..." Are we now much more uncertain that JtB was historical?

If I was betting I'd put my money on John being more historical than Jesus. John does seem to fit into the general madness of 1st C Palestine, maybe as some sort of prophet or ex-Qumranite. It doesn't seem unlikely that, in the midst of rampant messianic speculation, someone would remember the Malachi prophecy.

otoh Elijah was actually from Israel, not Judah, and fought against the Omrid dynasty (according to Kings). His successor Elishah anointed the usurper Jehu. As such these two prophets could've been heroes to later revolutionary types like the Zealots. This would explain John's execution, if he had come to represent Elijah to the masses. Following this logic the gospel Jesus would then represent Elishah, another subversive.

If J & J did exist and were seen as anti-establishment then later Roman-friendly Christians would have removed the political connotations.

OK, great. I think that your model is probably much more developed than what would be appropriate for any variation of my thought experiment. Thank you.

show_no_mercy · 07-15-2010, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driver8

Ironically, this is the only thing associated with Josephus' writings that actually works for me as being any acknowledgement of a historical Jesus. But, it requires belief in Origen.

Origen also says that Josephus blamed the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James (assumed to be James the Just). Josephus actually doesn't say this or even imply it; Josephus says that Jerusalem was destroyed when the Zealots stormed Jerusalem and killed Jesus Gamla and Ananias ben Ananias (the guy who ordered the execution of James!).

On one hand, Origen claims that [Josephus claims that] Jerusalem fell because Ananias killed James. On the other hand, Josephus says that Jerusalem fell because the Zealots killed the guy that killed James.

So something's not mixing right in the Kool-Aid.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.