'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

[archibald]

Research into early christian origins requires that Jewish history - as far as it can be ascertained - be the primary focus of research.

Where would you go for that?

Well...one could start by looking at the Hasmonean and Herodian coins......that way one could be pretty confident that one is dealing with historical figures. Existence is primary - if one wants to build a theory about any figure in the NT or Josephus - first establish historicity or one simply ends up blowing in the wind along with Unterbrink and Lena Einhorn...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean_coinage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodian_coinage

And then where would you go?

[maryhelena]

Research into early christian origins requires that Jewish history - as far as it can be ascertained - be the primary focus of research.

Where would you go for that?

Well...one could start by looking at the Hasmonean and Herodian coins......that way one could be pretty confident that one is dealing with historical figures. Existence is primary - if one wants to build a theory about any figure in the NT or Josephus - first establish historicity or one simply ends up blowing in the wind along with Unterbrink and Lena Einhorn...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean_coinage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodian_coinage

And then where would you go?

Basically, anywhere....

Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. For Hasmonean/Jewish history Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative. Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative – and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The point of the story narrative is to build a picture, a profile, of how that person was preceived by the author of the story. Whether or not the story narrative is a true reflection of the historical person is of secondary concern. It's the perception of the historical person in the eyes of the narrative writer that becomes of interest - particularly so in a search for early chrisstian origins. Yes, the author's perception can be filled with emblishments etc - but that's par for the course with how people react to those they esteem.....we like to give our heroes the accolades their achievements merit.

[MrMacSon]

I am wondering though, how much 'history' about 1st C Judea can be obtained from those sources¹, by which I mean in relation to the 'facts' of what happened in that time and place. For that, wouldn't we first need descriptive accounts, which we might then try to interpret (often using sources such as the ones you link to)?

¹ From what sources? the Mishnah²? or the Tosefta²? or both²?

(or from Brodie or Price?)

² I think Schäfer, Segal, Barker³, and others may help. As might Brodie's (i) The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (New Testament Monographs) Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd (2006) ISBN 1905048661 and (ii) Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery Sheffield Phoenix Press (September 2012) ISBN 190753458X, and some of Prices works.

³ http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 040#p80040

[archibald]

Basically, anywhere....

Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. For Hasmonean/Jewish history Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative. Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative – and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The point of the story narrative is to build a picture, a profile, of how that person was preceived by the author of the story. Whether or not the story narrative is a true reflection of the historical person is of secondary concern. It's the perception of the historical person in the eyes of the narrative writer that becomes of interest - particularly so in a search for early chrisstian origins. Yes, the author's perception can be filled with emblishments etc - but that's par for the course with how people react to those they esteem.....we like to give our heroes the accolades their achievements merit.

So......where did "There is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean" come from then?

[maryhelena]

Basically, anywhere....

Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. For Hasmonean/Jewish history Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative. Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative – and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The point of the story narrative is to build a picture, a profile, of how that person was preceived by the author of the story. Whether or not the story narrative is a true reflection of the historical person is of secondary concern. It's the perception of the historical person in the eyes of the narrative writer that becomes of interest - particularly so in a search for early chrisstian origins. Yes, the author's perception can be filled with emblishments etc - but that's par for the course with how people react to those they esteem.....we like to give our heroes the accolades their achievements merit.

So......where did "There is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean" come from then?

I've not seen any historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean. If you have that historical evidence then why not present it.

[archibald]

I've not seen any historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean. If you have that historical evidence then why not present it.

It's in Josephus.

[maryhelena]

I've not seen any historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean. If you have that historical evidence then why not present it.

It's in Josephus.

Josephus has a story, a narrative, about a figure called Judas the Galilean. The jump from a figure in a narrative to historicity for that figure can't be made by special pleading....no blank cheques for gospel writers....or Josephus..

[archibald]

Josephus has a story, a narrative, about a figure called Judas the Galilean. The jump from a figure in a narrative to historicity for that figure can't be made by special pleading....no blank cheques for gospel writers....or Josephus..

Ok. If you ever get to justifying saying there is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean, get back to me. Cheers.

[maryhelena]

Josephus has a story, a narrative, about a figure called Judas the Galilean. The jump from a figure in a narrative to historicity for that figure can't be made by special pleading....no blank cheques for gospel writers....or Josephus..

Ok. If you ever get to justifying saying there is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean, get back to me. Cheers.

Well...I take that response as admission that you have no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean.....

[Ben C. Smith]

Now I do think that Judas the Galilean of War 2.118, who "was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of their leaders," is the same as Judas, a Gaulonite from the city of Gamala in Ant 18.4 & 9, but called Judas the Galilean in 18.23, said to have been the author, in conjunction with a Pharisee Sadduc, of the "fourth sect of Jewish philosophy." Based on the description of the woes that Josephus says this philosophy brought upon the nation by changing the way the "laws of their fathers" were interpreted, they are probably the ancient Jewish analogue to modern radical Islam of the Bin Laden, Taliban or ISIL variety.

IIUC, Gamala (= Gamla) resided within Gaulonitis, which lay east of the Jordan and of Lake Tiberias: a region now known as the Golan Heights.

What I am wondering is this: if Judas could accurately be called "a Gaulonite," one "from the city of Gamala," might his other moniker, "the Galilean," perhaps be related to the Galileans whom Hegesippus, Eusebius, and Justin Martyr call a sect and whom Epictetus paints in colors similar to those in which Christians are sometimes painted? IOW, if Gamala in Gaulonitis accounts for Judas' demonym, might not "Galilean" be the sect of which he was (possibly) a (founding) member? (Bear in mind that "sect" and "rebel group" can be perfectly synonymous in highly charged religious contexts.)