davidmartin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 3:56 am
maryhelena wrote: ↑Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:54 am
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:06 am
Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:41 amThe OP's concern is justified, and not the easiest objection to answer decisively, but I don't see a knock-out punch in it.
I don't think the OP is framing it as a "knock-out punch". Even should (say) Dr Carrier's mythicist theory win the day, it is still a mystery that would be worth examining. Under historicity theories, the lack of mention of Gospel Jesus details in the epistles and Second Century apologists could be considered as big a mystery.
It's not like studies on the origin of Christianity would come to a stop if ahistoricity wins the day. It may well offer a shot in the arm for further studies.
Indeed - the ahistoricity position is not the end of the issue, it's not the answer to questions related to the origin of early christianity. It's only the beginning of the search. Jesus from outer space - celestial Jesus historicized as gospel Jesus - that's all mystical or spiritual stuff. If, as is generally understood, christianity has roots in Jewish/OT theology or philosophy - then an earthly, an historical, component to the gospel story is fundamental. Yes, christianity has focused on the spiritual aspects of it's theology but if it's early christian origins that is of interest - then it's the Jewish root that pushed up those spiritual branches that needs to be uncovered. In other words - some deep digging into the trenches of Hasmonean/Jewish history is in order.
the problem with that is whoever does the digging gets to frame Jewish history however they wish and it's possible to present almost any picture of it. this is a very complicated area. today we live in an era of deconstruction. it would be very hard to characterize our era any particular way, how can you when everything is open to question? i think that the ancient world went through it's own period of deconstruction and trying to dig out conclusions is automatically suspect as being more to do with today's world than the ancient one. so assembling an argument from small pieces seems more likely to succeed than trying to extrapolate one from a broader picture which is painted by the framer of it
And lets not forget the possibility of reconstruction. Deconstruction or reconstruction of early Hasmonean/Herodian history is not a reason to just give up. If deconstruction or reconstruction of Hasmonean/Herodian history has been used by the Josephan writer - then it's all system go for taking Josephus to the cleaners. Some good advise from James McLaren:
It is evident that the narrative of events contained in Josephus's texts should not be taken at face value. The interpretative framework as outlined indicates that to distinguish between the comments and the narration of events is not possible. It is not simply a matter of dismissing Josephus's interpretations, nor a matter of working out which version of an event is accurate. The interpretative process is more fundamental: it controls the entire choice of subject matter and, therefore, the overall picture that is being conveyed. We must now contend with the possibility that although we can make conclusions and observations regarding what Josephus narrates, what we can conclude is, in itself, the product of an interpretation. In other words, the picture being used to understand the first century CE in Judaea may not necessarily provide the reader with a 'full' or 'balanced' representation of what was happening in the territory. In effect, our major resource for examining the period is itself a constructed picture.
James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times ? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE. page 67
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 the official guided tour of the site. Josephus takes us to the various locations he deems are the highlights. Our excitement at entering the site, therefore, is balanced by the requirement of Josephus that he shows us the official tour. It is time we leave the official tour party. We have been given access to the site by Josephus but to ensure that 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 programme 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. pages 294-295
Indeed, we may never know exact details of the years leading up to the beginning of christianity. The point, however, is that we strive to develop a narrative that has some explanatory power. That requires that we keeping digging through the reconstruction of Hasmonean/Herodian history that, re Josephus, has become the official version. In other words - digging requires that we seek to get underneath the 'official' Josephan deconstruction/reconstruction narrative.
