https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3n ... q&f=false
Richard Carrier: Jesus from Outer Space..
In the chapter -
A Plausible Jesus Is Not Necessarily a Probable Jesus - Carrier sets out his argument against Fernando Bermejo-Rubio and a ‘
’group in academia, defenders of the view that Jesus was a revolutionary, a member of the Judean ‘’zealot party’
Carrier does this by reinterpreting gospel texts used by the proponents of the revolutionary theory. The result being one interpretation verse another interpretation. A merry-go-around of competing theories. A surprising argument for a historian, such as Carrier, to make.
But if progress is to be made in the search for early chrisitian origins then history has to take a primary role. It’s not good enough for Carrier to assert: ‘
’There just isn’t any way to confidently get history out of the Gospels. Even if any is in there we can’t tell what’’. In the face of the Gospel challenge, Carrier so it seems, prefers to take a pass card.
Not so Fernando Bermejo-Rubio. He is aware of an inherent problem with his seditious Jesus theory. He has attempted to address it. In doing so he has challenged the work of the historian James S. McLaren. McLaren maintains that Judas the Galilean and the 4th philosophy are not historical. Thus casting a dark shadow over the theory of Fernando Bermejo-Rubio; his theory needs seditionists and revolutionaries during the consensus gospel time frame.
Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire
edited by John M.G. Barclay
Constructing Judaean History in the Diaspora. Josephus’s Account of Judas.
James McLaren
This study shows that we can no longer assume that this Judas presented by Josephus is an historical figure who engaged in some activity in 6 CE. It is not simply a case of claiming that Josephus may have exaggerated the account of Judas’s career and its impact by adjusting a few details here and there. Rather, Josephus’s apologetic has constructed Judas, making him a vital part of the explanation of what happened in Judaea in 66-70 CE. Who he was, what he did and what he advocated, if anything at all, need to be established afresh, outside the framework provided in War and Antiquities. (108:)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9 ... n&f=false
See also Vridar
https://vridar.org/2016/04/05/did-jos ... nst-rome/
So……two scholars taking the historical approach to Judean history. A history fundamental to the gospel story and hence to the origins of early Christianity. And yet, we have the main advocate of the mythicist theory nowhere to be seen in this debate.
Are Judas the Galilean and the “Fourth
Philosophy” Mere Concoctions?
The Limits of Josephus’ Inventiveness
FERNANDO BERMEJO-RUBIO
It has been sometimes argued, however, that both Judas and the Fourth Philosophy were not historical realities, but merely inventions of Josephus. According to James McLaren, they would have been created by the apologetic interests of the historian, who moved backward in time sixty years the ideology of resistance to Roman rule which in 66 caused the Jewish War (with the active involvement of Josephus himself), as a means of exonerating himself and the priesthood of any responsibility. Such a proposal is indeed intriguing. Given that Josephus is the only source mentioning a “Fourth Philosophy,” and that the often tendentious nature of his work is all too obvious, the hypothesis according to which Josephus invented the movement is not wholly unreasonable at first sight, and should be carefully evaluated. Was the Fourth Philosophy a real thing or rather a mere fabrication? Since a clear answer to this question is extremely relevant for the history of first-century Judaism, and given that I do not know any serious examination of such a proposal, the aim of this article is to survey the claim that Judas and the Fourth Philosophy were invented by Josephus, and to provide a full explanation to why this contention is ultimately unconvincing
This article is not uploaded to academic edu but will automatically download pdf from this link.
Download Download PDF - Scripta Classica Israelica
Methinks Fernando Bermejo-Rubio needs to go back to the drawing board. He needs to move his seditious 'Jesus' back beyond the consensus gospel time frame - all the way back to when the Hasmoneans challenged, rebelled, were seditious and revolutionary against the power of Rome. It is the memory of those days that the gospel writers saw fit to include in their literary, composite, Jesus figure.
-------------------------------------------
The first century CE is like an ancient monument. It is a place of interest with riches that the visitor wants to stand among, their ambience to imbibe. Unfortunately, access to the site is limited to one point of entry. Most of the sources only provide a mere glimpse of the site. The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus. The problem is that, once inside, we are offered an ‘official’ guided tour of the site. Josephus takes us to the various locations that he deems are the highlights. Our excitement at entering the site, therefore, is balanced by the requirements of Josephus that he shows us the official tour. It is time we left the official tour party. We have been given access to the site by Josephus but to ensure we are able to explore its contents in detail we must stand apart from him. As such, our visit to the site may take more time than the official tour program allows. But who wants to stay on a tour that does not let you stop and take your own pictures?
James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE.
Full marks to historian James McLaren
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats