Books on Josephus and Eusebius

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6331
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Books on Josephus and Eusebius

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:59 pm

The experts in the seminar highly recommended Eusebius and Empire: Constructing Church and Rome in the Ecclesiastical History by James Corke-Webster (it's pricey; if you want to read it, try inter-library loaning it through your local public). I would also recommend Andrew Carriker’s The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea.

... for Josephus’s accounts of the (supposed) mass suicides at Masada and Gamla in each case he names two eyewitnesses (in both cases women) and describes their credentials, usually a marker of a reliable method. But modern historians now suspect he made these sources up; and their accounts (see Making History: Josephus And Historical Method [also $$$]). But this still illustrates Josephus knew what the standards were and was trying to trick his readers into thinking he had met them. The masses were often gullible. But the educated elites reading books like this typically were not. But if one were inclined to need to believe his stories, Josephus provided adequate cover for doing so.

Indeed, like Eusebius, Josephus was very much composing propaganda (see, eg., Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric, & the Herod Narratives and Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography); he just was better at it, and more typically honest about it. A lot of his history checks out; it has corroboration and reliable sourcing. Nicolaus of Damascus, for example, really did exist and really did compose an eyewitness account of Herod, and Josephus is unlikely to have gotten away with lying much about its contents ... https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/17358

Eusebius and Empire: Constructing Church and Rome in the Ecclesiastical History, 2019, -

Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, written in the early fourth century, continues to serve as our primary gateway to a crucial three hundred year period: the rise of early Christianity under the Roman Empire. In this volume, James Corke-Webster undertakes the first systematic study considering the History in the light of its fourth-century circumstances as well as its author's personal history, intellectual commitments, and literary abilities. He argues that the Ecclesiastical History is not simply an attempt to record the past history of Christianity, but a sophisticated mission statement that uses events and individuals from that past to mould a new vision of Christianity tailored to Eusebius' fourth-century context. He presents elite Graeco-Roman Christians with a picture of their faith that smooths off its rough edges and misrepresents its size, extent, nature, and relationship to Rome. Ultimately, Eusebius suggests that Christianity was - and always had been - the Empire's natural heir.


The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, 2003, -

This volume reconstructs the contents of the library in Roman Palestine of Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 265-339) by examining Eusebius' major works, the Ecclesiastical History, Chronicon, Preparation for the Gospel, and Life of Constantine. After surveying the history of the library from its origins as an ecclesiastical archive and its true foundation by Origen of Alexandria to its disappearance in the seventh century, it discusses how Eusebius used his sources and then examines what specific works were available in the library in chapters devoted to philosophical works, poetry and rhetoric, histories, Jewish and Christian works, and contemporary documents. The book ends with a useful list of the contents of the library.


Making History: Josephus And Historical Method, 2006, -

The encounter between interpretation and history in the writings of Josephus provides the conceptual framework for this collection of essays. The contributions in this volume, which were presented at an international colloquium entitled "Josephus: Interpretation and History" held in Dublin in 2004, are united, not by a single view of Josephus, but by the question of historical method, both ancient and modern. These essays take up aspects of a problem basic to all researchers who would use Josephus for historical purposes, namely: What is the relationship between narratives and history? Organized thematically, the volume reflects a critical engagement with the texts of Josephus, other literary texts, case studies of particular events, and material remains.



Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric, & the Herod Narratives, 2006, -

The book examines the parallel accounts of the rise, reign and fall of King Herod of Judea in the works of Flavius Josephus: Bellum Judaicum 1.204-673 and Antiquitates Judaicae 14-17. The main questions considered here concern the very existence of two separate accounts of the same historical period, the significant rhetorical differences between them, and the ways in which Josephus portrays two different images of the same man: Herod of Judea.

Also under consideration here are literary and historiographical questions regarding the structure of the narratives, the implementation of rhetorical tools, the historian’s authorial voice, and the relations with earlier sources and other examples of Jewish, Greek and Roman historiography.

The two Herod narratives clearly demonstrate Josephus’ meticulous implementation of rhetorical tools and dramatic devices, mostly influenced by Greek historiography. A few Roman echoes and a deeper level of Jewish assumptions appear as well. Josephus’ careful composition and highly charged rhetoric is here explained by using the modern theory of narratology. Reading the Herod narratives in light of narratological concepts like focalization, order and the narrator’s voice reveals new angles for understanding Josephus’ method as a historian and new insights concerning the image of Herod and the rhetorical means used by Josephus in portraying him.


Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography, 1992, -

For centuries scholars have recognized the apologetic character of the Hellenistic Jewish historians, Josephos, and Luke-Acts; they have not, however, adequately addressed their possible relationships to each other and to their wider cultures. In this first full systematic effort to set these authors within the framework of Greco-Roman traditions, Professor Sterling has used genre criticism as a method for locating a distinct tradition of historical writing, apologetic historiography.

Apologetic historiography is the story of a subgroup of people which deliberately Hellenizes the traditions of the group in an effort to provide a self-definition within the context of the larger world. It arose as a result of a dialectic relationship with Greek ethnography. This work traces the evolution of this tradition through three major eras of eastern Mediterranean history spanning six hundred years: the Persian, the Greek, and the Roman.


User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6331
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Books on Josephus and Eusebius

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:51 pm

There is of course Steve Mason's book, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd edition, 2002 (Amazon has it dated 2012).

Chance Bonar has published an essay, 'Herod the Great Intermediary: A Common Portrayal of Herod in Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities', in which he discusses aspects of both Mason's Josephus & the New Testament and Landau's, Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric, and the Herod Narratives, which I posted an excerpt of here and which DCHindley commented on below.

There's also Mason's 2016 A History of the Jewish War, AD 66-74 and his "What Josephus Says about Essenes in his Judean War,” in Stephen G. Wilson and Michel Desjardins, eds., Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000), 434-467.

Neil Godfrey has recently posted a web-article about A History of the Jewish War, AD 66-74 as What Caused the Jewish War of 66-73 c.e. -

A significant early first century event was Samaria, Judea, and Idumea being incorporated into the province of Syria after Augustus's removal of Archaelus as ethnarch in 6 a.d./c.e., and those regions then being administered from Caesarea. (Mason argues that Judea was not a Roman province in Herod's time but was an ethnic region of southern Syria [with the whole of] Syria itself was a Roman province. Judea did not become a Roman province until after the Jewish War.)
With the removal of Archelaus the armed forces that were the means of maintaining order lost their large Jewish component and became predominantly Samarian. In other words, with Caesarea now the administrative centre, a Samarian force was set over the Judean population.

With Archelaus’ removal and Jerusalem’s loss of status, Samarians wasted no time in testing the new situation. At Passover in the spring of A.D. 7 or 8, while . . . an auxiliary cohort was supposedly watching Jerusalem, Samarians entered the temple precinct at night and scattered human bones in the colonnades and Court of Nations. Because this defilement rendered the sacred precinct unusable, the priests had to evacuate everyone, purify the site (perhaps losing the major festival that year), and institute better security measures. This may be the origin of the office of temple commandant/general (στρατηγός) and guards who reported to him on temple-mount activities. . . . In this case the auxiliary garrison at the very least turned a blind eye, if they did not facilitate the Samarian raid (Ant. 18.29—30). The first prefect in Caesarea . . . was recalled to Rome “shortly after” (18.31).

This episode contains the main ingredients of the next six decades of conflict: simmering Samarian-Judaean antagonism, (arguably) a pro-Samarian auxiliary, and the risk that an equestrian governor would either go native with his troops or be insufficiently sensitive to Judaean interests. But in this case, higher Roman authorities intervened and the incident blew over.

(Mason, 264 f.

Pilate can be discussed at length but a brief summary of Mason’s view is that he was recalled to Rome from Judea after Samarians complained of his repeated cruelty towards them.

Whether he was a nice man we do not know, but his coins and behaviour seem designed not to offend Judaean law and custom. Pilate was eventually removed in 37 because of Samarian complaints about routine brutality toward them. The legate L. Vitellius, who sent him packing, was evidently solicitous of Jerusalem, visiting regularly at Passover and dispensing favours in recognition of warm loyalty. Mason, 583)


Around the year 50 CE Samarian-Judean tensions again broke into violence (from p. 271):
  • An [Samarian] auxiliary soldier’s provocative insults to Passover pilgrims in the temple court incites Judaean youths to rock-throwing, which gives the soldiers a pretext to react with force.
  • In a search for Judaean bandits in the Judaean countryside after a Judaean robbery, an auxiliary soldier finds a copy of the Torah and burns it.
  • One or more Galileans travelling to Jerusalem is/are killed in Samaria near modem Jenin (Ginae).

The last-mentioned “incident” becomes a microcosmic image of the later events that led to the final outbreak of war with Rome:
  • Judeans plead with the Roman governor to punish the Samarian murderers;
  • The Roman governor was believed to have done nothing in response;
  • Judeans take “justice” into their own hands and burn Samarian villages neighbouring Judea;
  • Meanwhile, Jerusalem elders plead with their people to stop attacking Samarians lest Rome intervenes against them;
  • The Roman governor responds by leading the Samarian auxiliary force against the Judeans . . . .

Mason concludes that had Judaean vigilantism against Samarians … escalated as it would a decade later ... . ‘the Jewish revolt against Rome’ could have begun there and then in the early 50s:

In that case it would have been clear that the war arose from regional aggravations. (Mason, 272)

[But] What changed was Nero’s coming of age and his throwing off the advisors and tutors of his youth.

But once he reached maturity around 59/60 and shed his overseers by various means, Nero took a much-discussed turn. He became increasingly obsessed with art and revenue, the need for the latter exacerbated as his government weakened through fire, fear, and intrigue. In the early 60s he sent Lucceius Albinus and then Gessius Florus with a mandate to transfer as much money as possible to the imperial treasury. (Mason, 584)



Caesarea was a flashpoint, Mason writes. It was the home of the Samarian dominated auxiliary forces and the centre of the imperial cult. The Judeans were a minority there, and both prosperous and increasingly vulnerable, especially with Nero’s reported contempt for Judeans and with Florus now entering to collect as much gold and silver as possible.

When Nero dispatched Gessius Floras to Caesarea in 64 [as procurator], the elements of a perfect storm were gathering. Florus’ mandate for ruthless revenue collection from Jerusalem’s temple with its world-famous wealth … made the nightmare scenario a reality. Judaeans now faced an auxiliary army itching to have free rein against them, with little constraint from the equestrian prefect if they resisted his efforts to seize temple funds, which they would inevitably do (War 2.277—344). Florus appears to have fully exploited the existing hatreds to intimidate and silence Judaeans or worse. (Mason, 275)

The Judeans in Caesarea desperately begged Rome to allow Caesarea to be recognized as a Judean city. But Nero flatly denied their request. Nero had no patience for Judean complaints about the Samarian force dominating and apparently showing unjust bias against them.

To protect the temple younger priests, ignoring the advice of their elders and the Pharisees, used the temple force to prevent all foreign access to the temple. This act broke with the custom of the temple having allowed sacrifices by all ethnic groups.

The new governor, Cestius, is barraged with complaints about Florus, but Florus tells him that it is the Judeans who are in revolt against Roman authority.

Josephus is most outraged that Florus went so far as to not only crucify commoner Judeans but even Judeans of his high social rank, even Roman citizens!

So the people of Judea were outraged both against the new burdens Florus was ruthlessly imposing and the Samarian auxiliary force acting on his behalf. They petitioned king Agrippa to send an embassy to Nero to demand the removal of Florus and to demonstrate that Jerusalem was not at war with Rome. Agrippa refused, apparently believing action would backfire.

as an aside, wikipedia citing Joesphus says Florus was Greek and favoured the Greeks in Caesarea, and things like a Hellenist sacrificing birds on top of an earthenware container at the entrance of the synagogue, which rendered the building ritually unclean; so there may have been more than just a Jewish v Samaritan v Jewish dynamic going on (or Josephus did not represent the full story for whatever reason

.....

Nero lost confidence in his governor Cestius and the king Agrippa to solve the problem so sent the general Vespasian to restore order by a display of punishment for violence against Rome’s agents and forces.

As soon as Vespasian arrived in Syria (early in 67), nearly the entire region welcomed him and Agrippa II, declaring their peaceful intentions. Delegates came from Judaean Sepphoris on behalf of Galilee, Tiberias among the king’s dependencies, the Decapolis cities, Samaria, and the coastal towns. Even before Titus had arrived with his legion, his father enjoyed nearly complete territorial control. Any potential regional war was largely over in principle at this point. As his army ranged undisturbed across Galilee, Samaria, and the coastal plain to Caesarea, many or most villagers deserted their homes in droves from fear. Many were afraid to risk falling into the legionaries’ hands. Vespasian allowed his army a measure of display violence, now to include demonstrable vengeance for Cestius’ losses. Judaean land and property suffered terribly, but because people had time to flee – to Sepphoris, King Agrippa’s territories beyond Vespasian’s purview, or points farther east — relatively few lives were lost. (Mason, 586)


As Vespasian moved south to Caesarea (winter 67/68), the pattern of preemptive submissions continued ... Jerusalem had already become a haven for refugees, including some such as John who could not or would not surrender. The ruling elite could not simply capitulate, and they faced a serious dilemma. Along with the perils they faced in the city for any perception of betrayal, their reception by Vespasian was not a given. They had much explaining to do.

While the city leaders were making their plans, the arrival of more armed factions made their handwringing superfluous. An emerging coalition of Disciples (Zealots) appealed to Idumaeans, who had a complicated relationship with Jerusalem, to defend the temple. The Idumaeans answered the call and murdered the chief-priestly leaders. Along with the other newcomers they dramatically changed the city’s profile. From A.D. 68 onward, Jerusalem was in the hands of factions, mainly from elsewhere, who could not easily turn back.

Vespasian’s nearly immediate domination of southern Syria makes it difficult to accept either that a province of Judaea revolted or that the wartime coins reveal an independent rebel state from 66 to 70 (Chapters 4, 7). From the spring of 68 at the latest, only the walled city of Jerusalem and its agricultural hinterland were not under direct Roman control. (Mason, 587)

continues
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6331
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Books on Josephus and Eusebius

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:18 pm

Nathan Thiel, The Use of the Term “Galileans” in the Writings of Flavius Josephus Revisited, Jewish Quarterly Review (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press) Vol 110, No. 2, Spring 2020, pp. 221-244

Abstract

Among the central players of Josephus’s autobiography are those he refers to as “the Galileans.” Patronized by their one-time general as a restive and emotional mob ready to ignite at the slightest indignation, “the Galileans” are of vital importance to Josephus’s imagined success as general of the Jewish forces in Galilee. Josephus’s condescension toward “the Galileans,” strange as it is, is compounded by the fact that he regularly contrasts them with the inhabitants of Galilee’s major cities, principally Sepphoris, Tiberias, and Gabara. This essay revisits the curious presentation of “the Galileans” in Josephus’s writings, picking up an inchoate suggestion of Shaye Cohen of a Galilean ethnos. I argue that Josephus does indeed view “the Galileans” as an ethnos of their own, distinguishable from the Jews of Galilee, who mainly reside in the region’s urban centers. That is, the term “Galileans” in Josephus’s works functions first as a marker of ethnic belonging and so is not equivalent to “an inhabitant of Galilee” tout court. Josephus’s presentation of “the Galileans,” moreover, is colored by an ethnic prejudice that essentializes a few traits and makes them foils for the virtues of Josephus and the Jews. The introduction to “the Galileans” in his Jewish War (J.W. 3.42), which portrays them as “pugnacious from infancy,” converges with their characterization in Life, written some two decades later. I briefly consider the historical implications that follow from this reevaluation of “the Galileans” in Josephus.


User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Books on Josephus and Eusebius

Post by mlinssen » Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:08 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:59 pm
... for Josephus’s accounts of the (supposed) mass suicides at Masada and Gamla in each case he names two eyewitnesses (in both cases women) and describes their credentials, usually a marker of a reliable method. But modern historians now suspect he made these sources up; and their accounts (see Making History: Josephus And Historical Method [also $$$]).
Funny. Reminds me of the Markan ending, where 15:39 would actually be a fine end.
And then the story continues with two witnesses to Jesus' death: Mary and Mary.
Same M&M who witness the burial a few verses later
Same M&M who witness the empty tomb...

Coincidence?

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6331
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Books on Josephus and Eusebius

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:13 am

mlinssen wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:08 pm

Funny. Reminds me of the Markan ending, where 15:39 would actually be a fine end.
And then the story continues with two witnesses to Jesus' death: Mary and Mary.
Same M&M who witness the burial a few verses later
Same M&M who witness the empty tomb...

Coincidence?
.
(I was going to look at the end of Mark 15 and Mark 16 with the same thing in mind).

Do you mean 15.47 (the very end of chapter 15) ? -

.
Then [Joseph] rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.
.


There's also Mark 15:(40-)41, which might even add support to the proposition these tropes in Josephus and Mark are related (though there are three women) -

.
37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.
.


And in terms of then witnessing the end, as in 15.47, and then the new beginning, the resurrection, Mark 16 and it's short ending - vv.1-8 -seems to relate too -

1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Books on Josephus and Eusebius

Post by mlinssen » Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:48 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Tue Nov 24, 2020 1:13 am
mlinssen wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:08 pm

Funny. Reminds me of the Markan ending, where 15:39 would actually be a fine end.
And then the story continues with two witnesses to Jesus' death: Mary and Mary.
Same M&M who witness the burial a few verses later
Same M&M who witness the empty tomb...

Coincidence?
.
(I was going to look at the end of Mark 15 and Mark 16 with the same thing in mind).

Do you mean 15.47 (the very end of chapter 15) ? -

.
Then [Joseph] rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.
.


There's also Mark 15:(40-)41, which might even add support to the proposition these tropes in Josephus and Mark are related (though there are three women) -

.
37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”

40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.
.


And in terms of then witnessing the end, as in 15.47, and then the new beginning, the resurrection, Mark 16 and it's short ending - vv.1-8 -seems to relate too -

1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

It's in one of the threads, it came up a few days ago, Ben and I discussed Mark - it's in the "ending of Mark" I guess, sorry, very lazy today

We agreed that 15:39 would be a nice ending altogether, and that it perhaps once was.
Thence we came to the women witnessing three events. Salome is a bit of a party pooper, yeah, but both Mary's are ... interesting. Such an incredible amount of grand events in so little time, and they, and only they! play the part of official incrowd witnesses. And they're women! for crying out loud LOL

There is a story there, such is for sure. It would fit my theory that Mark mostly wrote his fantastic fiction to make the IS of Thomas shut up, and added the Messiah part - or perhaps that had already been created by word of mouth - while at it

And then Jesus needed to rise from the grave, so 15:40 - 16:8 got added, highly likely by a female. I don't find them fleeing the tomb incriminating at all, but lack all possible nuance and subtleties there

And then the Elvis thing started, with people claiming to have seen Jesus everywhere, and yet again Mark's major plan appeared to not have been successful, they needed to write Jesus out of frigging history for good, so they wrote him into heaven - no credible sightings from there, such is for sure

See?

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6331
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Books on Josephus and Eusebius

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:49 pm

mlinssen wrote:
Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:48 am

It's in one of the threads, it came up a few days ago, Ben and I discussed Mark - it's in the "ending of Mark" I guess, sorry, very lazy today

We agreed that 15:39 would be a nice ending altogether, and that it perhaps once was.
Thence we came to the women witnessing three events. Salome is a bit of a party pooper, yeah, but both Mary's are ... interesting. Such an incredible amount of grand events in so little time, and they, and only they! play the part of official in-crowd witnesses. And they're women! for crying out loud LOL
< . . snip . . >
And then Jesus needed to rise from the grave, so 15:40 - 16:8 got added ...
ah, of course (I had my wires crossed a little, focussing on 15.47 too much: I've since added a ---- line b/w v.39 and v. 40-41 above to demarcate your proposal).

And adding 15:40-41, especially "In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs", which could reflect someone having contemplated and then touching up the story.

And then the Elvis thing started, with people claiming to have seen Jesus everywhere, and yet again Mark's major plan appeared to not have been successful, they needed to write Jesus out of frigging history for good, so they wrote him into heaven - no credible sightings from there, such is for sure

See?
Yep.

There is a story there, such is for sure. It would fit my theory that Mark mostly wrote his fantastic fiction to make the IS of Thomas shut up, and added the Messiah part - or perhaps that had already been created by word of mouth - while at it
I've often wondered if the story of Jesus' crucifixion (+/- other aspects of the gospels) is (are) based on -a response to- the fate of Simon Bar Kosiba / Kokhba, even if by way of satire or sarcasm

Which raises a question for you:
  • could the IS of Thomas be a response to or an account of Simon Bar Kosiba / Kokhba, even if by way of satire, parody, or sarcasm?



eta: I posted this before I saw your post on the other thread -
mlinssen wrote:
Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:42 am
What if we think backwards?

The Temple destroyed - again. And Jerusalem - again. And having to run - again. The Judeans lost everything - again

Fast forward half a century, end of Bar Kochba. Total annihilation

Desperation begets opportunism ...

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Books on Josephus and Eusebius

Post by mlinssen » Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:53 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:49 pm
Which raises a question for you:
  • could the IS of Thomas be a response to or an account of Simon Bar Kosiba / Kokhba, even if by way of satire, parody, or sarcasm?
Could, anything is possible, but the Pharisees form the ulterior post and ante quem: 167 BCE - 73 CE

Kokbha is 6 decades later. Unless someone would want to retrofit events I don't see why Thomas would write this, especially because his story is just suspended in mid air without any more precise indication of time, save for the Roman taxation.
And even if he were, what story is he supposedly telling?

Thomas is purely a text about Seeking in order to Find that there is No Big Fish. His 16 parables form 5 sets of 3, with the parable of the Pearl being the "solitary one" (oh the irony!) instructing on the events and challenges of your Quest

Thomas never was about Jesus, nor could it be

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6331
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Books on Josephus and Eusebius

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:39 pm

Two New Books on the Eusebian Canons

The Eusebian Canon Tables: Ordering Textual Knowledge in Late Antiquity (OUP, 2019) by Michael Crawford


Canones: The Art of Harmony. The Canon Tables of the Four Gospels (de Gruyter, 2020), edited by Alessandro Bausi, Bruno Reudenbach, and Hanna Wimmer.

Also see https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blo ... anons.html

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6331
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Books on Josephus and Eusebius

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:40 pm

mlinssen wrote:
Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:53 am

Thomas is purely a text about Seeking in order to Find that there is No Big Fish. His 16 parables form 5 sets of 3, with the parable of the Pearl being the "solitary one" (oh the irony!) instructing on the events and challenges of your Quest

Thomas never was about Jesus, nor could it be
.
  • Got it.

Post Reply