Interim, provisional, general view, from one

[StephenGoranson]

[....]

[gryan]

...I was away from academia for twelve years, before going to grad school to study history of Judaism, history of Christianity, art and archaeology (including digging at Sepphoris). During those 12 away years I wrote and had accepted two articles in Revue de Qumran—as an unaffiliated, amateur person, from out of the blue.

Interesting experiences! Thanks for sharing.

On a side note, I googled "digging at Sepphoris" and found this:
http://www.centuryone.org/sepphoris-site.html
The mosaics remind me of those I've seen from Antioch which are on display at Baltimore Museum of Art:
https://artbmadevsite.org/collections/antioch.html

[billd89]

“Josephus, by the 90s CE was aware of Christians."
Yebbut. I don't think 'Jesus Christianity' was a big deal in 90 AD. We shouldn't assume it was well-known.

Organized Temple Judaism had collapsed - 'what comes next?' is an obvious question from historians - but I cannot begin to fathom how a real Jew felt about the Jewish War/annihilation. I don't believe Josephus knew the Jesus cult was taking over in 200 years; it's simply wrong to ascribe great import back into the minds of contemporaries, anachronistically.

To me, it's awfully suspicious a contemporary would coincidentally highlight 3 individuals (who had only recently 'made history') among how many other known players of the day who did not? Sure, winners write history, but it isn't necessarily the truth of what happened. The history of Josephus - like everything else copied and recopied - was likely tampered with: recensions, additions, etc. by later scribes who wanted to validate their own claims.

I suppose:
By the 90s CE, Josephus was well aware of the growing Chrestiani.
By the 90s CE, Josephus probably heard about a (this) nascent sect of messianic partisans.
By the 90s CE, Josephus possibly knew of John the Apostle, James & Jesus.

[billd89]

I do sometimes—general observation here—get a sense from some here of much grievance. Sometimes fairly labelled hate. Against academics, scholars, and others. No wonder many avoid.

On a global community internet forum -of presumably normal adults!- I first noticed the extraordinary viciousness afforded by anonymity circa 1999. Do we agree that 'Internet Psychopathy' has exploded in the last 15 years or so? Given the nationwide violence in the USA during 2020 - largely fueled by social media - I think this deeper antisocial phenomenon has already made the viral leap into real life behavior and social mayhem. Maybe it was inevitable. I could be wrong, that's just my two cents.

In the early days of the internet, the Unabomber Case (1995) was a precursor: a harbinger. 25years later? The civis is broken; disorder is worsening. Grievance? Have zip-ties, ready for the flashmob!

[gryan]

It is, or at least should (?) be here, well known, that some dispute that Josephus wrote about John, James, and Jesus. And others affirm.
And my sentence--the main part actually--included “Josephus, by the 90s CE was aware of Christians."

The Josephas scholar of highest repute that I know of is Steve Mason, and I know of him only because of hearing him speak in his appearances three times on Harmonic Athiest:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Harmoni ... e&ie=UTF-8

Stephen Goranson: I'm curious if you are familiar with Steve Mason's writings,and if you are more or less in sync with his views on Josephus vis a vis early Chritianity and the NT writings.

[mlinssen]

The Josephas scholar of highest repute that I know of is Steve Mason, and I know of him only because of hearing him speak in his appearances three times on Harmonic Athiest:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Harmoni ... e&ie=UTF-8

Stephen Goranson: I'm curious if you are familiar with Steve Mason's writings,and if you are more or less in sync with his views on Josephus vis a vis early Chritianity and the NT writings.

Mason is an amazing scholar, and his work is meticulous. Very accessible yet well wrought at the same time. His work on Josephus is grand, and his translation of him spectacular.
His site is public and accessible to all, and just recently moved to Italy

PACE

http://pace.hypervisions.it/york/york/texts.htm

Much impressed

[neilgodfrey]

n. g. didn’t like my phrase, “explain away.” Is he to be my before-posting police editor? I do not comment on every sentence posted here that I find questionable in tone, grammar, or matters of fact. Who has the time, and to what end would such be?

I do sometimes—general observation here—get a sense from some here of much grievance. Sometimes fairly labelled hate. Against academics, scholars, and others. No wonder many avoid.

Dear Stephen old friend. Let's pretend we are each the nicest blokes imaginable and great buddies to have a drink with and write here from that assumption. No harm can come of it.

If you re-read my criticism of your phrase "explain away" -- in both comments -- you will, I trust, see no indication that I criticized your tone, your grammar or your facts. Since we are here to engage in intellectual discussion of ideas of interest to us, I did think it appropriate for me to point out what I saw as a very common informal logical fallacy being applied to a detail in historical sources of interest to me.

As a good friend I believe it is quite appropriate, even an act of responsibility, to share that observation with you. God knows I have written many fallacies myself in my arguments over the years and no doubt still do, though I try to be aware of them and avoid them.

Such fallacies are being pointed out all the time among scholars in cordial and professional exchanges. Unfortunately some scholars get most indignant when errors are pointed out by others, but we are not all perfect.

Your tone? No, I did not address that. Your grammar? No, not that either. Your statements of fact? Nope, I had no interest in addressing any of those, either, because to do so would have required a discussion of historical method which probably is best reserved in another thread.

Now, on your other point about "much grievance". I don't believe you have a crystal ball or can in any other way read minds. So I return to my opening point:

Let's pretend .... (as per above).

We then may no longer see as "much grievance" in places we currently think we do, but instead "much interest in trying to get things right" and a willingness to debate and engage or simply toss into the ring new ideas.

Always very willing to discuss historical methods in a cordial spirit with a good friend. We have not hit it off till how -- let's try. Yes?

[Giuseppe]

I haven’t read everything (I do read), but I have encountered no plausible explanation (some of them properly considered conspiracy theories) that Christianity came totally after Josephus.

It depends from the weight you assign to the relation between the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the crucifixion and resurrection of an entire people in 70 CE. If the first is designed someway to allegorize the second, then a rational person would like to have clear evidence of Christians before the 70 CE.

Even more so when you see in the Passion Story a lot of references to Genesis 1, for example, the darkness, the tree of good and evil (=the two thieves), etc. A new world is created (After the 70?).

Even more so when Josephus says that the trees were not sufficient to crucify the Zealots.

[StephenGoranson]

by neilgodfrey, Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:55 am:
“Dear Stephen. Let’s pretend….” [etc.]
***
--Color me skeptical.

[neilgodfrey]

by neilgodfrey, Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:55 am:
“Dear Stephen. Let’s pretend….” [etc.]
***
--Color me skeptical.

Why so sceptical, Stephen? What have you got to lose?