Duvduv

If we throw Tacitus into the mix we add to the ludicrous claims of "historians." The followers of Christus in Judea were called Christians by the populace but not because they called themselves by that name in Antioch or anywhere else. And within a mere 30 years after Pilate, their "center" became Rome. Pilate is not described as having any conflict with Jews but with this group of followers of Christus, which is found nowhere.
And of course there is the matter of the fire in Rome in 64 CE, for which no blame is mentioned by Tacitus.

In any event, how on earth could the emerging Christian movement have expected to attract new followers in the 4th century if they even so much as hinted that their religion as presented was just recently invented?? Antiquity prior to the destruction of the Jewish Temple of at least 250 years earlier and the implications of the Bar Kochba fiasco was the only backdrop useful for them through the Jews' rejection of Jesus.

Grog

No, as I have said elsewhere, Josephus is relying on oral tellings of this story (I am making a distinction here between 'oral tradition' and 'oral tellings'). I say "tellings" because this incident has occurred very shortly before the writing down of the story. In fact, Josephus likely has heard it first or second hand (assuming this incident actually happened). The term "oral tradition" incorporates structures and institutions that I do not think could have developed around the story of Jesus ben Ananias between 66 CE when he is first reported with his prophecy and the writing of the story in the mid-70's. Consider: Jesus ben Ananias is said to have died in 73 or so (see maryhelena's post), and Wars is written in 75. The interlude is very short.

I should also clarify that when I say gMark used Josephus, I do not mean he necessarily had Josephus in front of him. I mean he was aware of the structure, sequence and specific details of this story as preserved by Josephus. Wars is the governing text behind Mark's story of the passion. Mark does not have the LXX open in front of him either, he is using passages mostly from memory. My argument for dependence is that recent "oral tellings" or recountings of a story are unlikely to preserve the specific structure, sequence and details that we see in both Wars and gMark.

dog-on

Hmmm, I think you are not getting my point.

For example:

If the author of Mark heard an 'Oral Telling' of the story of Jesus ben Ananias that happened to be quite similar in sequence and detail to Josephus' hearing of an 'Oral Telling' of the same story, albeit from different 'Oral Telling' sources, then what?

maryhelena

Josephus is using two time periods in his Jesus ben Ananias story.

1. the 4 year period.
2. the 7 years and 5 months period.

Josephus infers that it is at the siege of Jerusalem that Jesus ben Ananias was killed i.e. 70 c.e. - which is 4 years before the war began.

If, as I suggested in that other post, Josephus is using an interpretation of Daniel. ch.9 - then he is running those 7 years from 66 c.e. (4 years prior to 70 c.e.) until 73 c.e. With the death of Jesus ben Ananias in 70 c.e., in the middle of the week, the middle of the 7 years.

This, of course, creates a problem re Jesus ben Ananias preaching 'Woe' for 7 years - in the Daniel scenario he is only preaching for 4 years before being killed. The Daniel 7 year interpretation runs on to 73 c.e. - where Josephus has placed Masada. (This dating has, I believe been questioned - can't remember by who - that its more probable that Masada was prior to Jerusalem.....Maybe Josephus, in his historical reconstructions - and interpretations of Daniel ch. 9 - needed a grand slam at the end of this 7 year period - hence moved Masada out of its historical time slot.....?)

However, all that said re an interpretation of Daniel - it is perhaps more interesting to run those 7 years backwards from 70 c.e. - back to around 62/63 c.e. That's the time period for the Roman procurator Albinus - and the Josephan story re the death of James. Thus 7 years between the death of James and the death of Jesus ben Ananias.

And the death of James - 100 years from the execution of the last king and high priest of the Jews, Antigonus - by Marc Antony in 37 b.c.

That's the Josephan story here - the history of Antigonus, mocked and flogged and killed by the Romans, in 37 b.c. Replayed by Josephus, using the madman Jesus ben Ananias at the 70 c.e. destruction of the Jewish temple. Philo did a similar thing re the madman Carabbas and Agrippa I. It's the mocking and flogging of a Jewish King that is the underlying issue in both Josephus and Philo's use of madmen (Rome would be the historical madman in Jewish eyes....) - and the gospel JC story. Irony as the medium of remembering Jewish/Hasmonean history - under the very eyes of Rome....

Duvduv

How can we be confident of anything Josephus claims on his own when in fact he was simply a commissioned government writer sponsored to say what the regime would approve of??!

maryhelena

Maybe he learned the art of doublespeak -

Duvduv

He definitely wanted to prove the greatness of his people's resistance to the Romans despite his own service to the Romans by inventing the story of Massada which he could always claim happened during his own lifetime.

la70119

Probably the second and possibly the latter. I have provided evidence.

You made the assertion. Now prove it.

Oral tradition: the problem is, gMatthew, gLuke and even gJohn are dependent upon gMark. This speaks to an oral tradition that never was, or was stamped out by the Romans.

Paul's version having taken hold: where oh where is the external evidence for that? First mention of Christians other than the TF forgery is Pliny, Epistles X.96,97 in 110 CE. Where is the internal evidence? As aa has clearly demonstrated, gMark has the lowest Christology, then gMatthew and gLuke, then gJohn, finally the Epistles of Paul with the highest Christology.

Duvduv

On the matter of interpolations of Christians (Eusebius?) into Philo's writing, see my posting #7163594 / #17 in the thread Nobody will ever find the Essenes.

aa5874

It is most laughable that writings are claimed to be interpolated without interpolations.