The Josephan TF and Marcion

[lsayre]

The reason why Acts has Paul go to Rome in the flesh is to explain away how Marcion 'effectively' (as well as originally) brought him to Rome. And to push back the timeline for Paul in Rome. And to thereby usurp ownership of Paul and diminish the roll of (and significance of) Marcion.

[GakuseiDon]

One can argue for maybe 'some' Greeks/Gentiles were followers of the gospel Jesus. However, when it comes to 'many' Greeks/Gentiles that were won over by the wise man Jesus - problems do arise. Did these 'many' Greeks/Gentiles become circumcised Jews?

Since neither you nor I consider the Gospels to be literal historical accounts, those problems don't arise for us. Anyway, I'm not addressing the historical accuracy of the story, only whether the Gospels support the TF comment. And I'd argue that they clearly do.

The TF:

For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race...

gLuke:

... a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases...

Nope, Marcion and his intellectual non-Jewish Jesus allows for a philosophical view of those early first century days. No civil war but an intellectual 'war' was what Marcionism was about.

That passage in Luke does appear to be part of Marcion's Gospel as well, fwiw.

[maryhelena]

One can argue for maybe 'some' Greeks/Gentiles were followers of the gospel Jesus. However, when it comes to 'many' Greeks/Gentiles that were won over by the wise man Jesus - problems do arise. Did these 'many' Greeks/Gentiles become circumcised Jews?

Since neither you nor I consider the Gospels to be literal historical accounts, those problems don't arise for us.

So, if the gospel accounts are not history - arguing over how many, if any, Greeks/Gentiles were won over by gospel Jesus - is of no relevance to the history of early first century Judea. Historical reality would suggest no such thing happened - no large numbers of Greeks/Gentiles are know to have been circumcised as Jewish believers in the early first century.

Anyway, I'm not addressing the historical accuracy of the story, only whether the Gospels support the TF comment. And I'd argue that they clearly do.

The TF:

For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race...

gLuke:

... a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases...

That does not support the TF and it's 'many Greeks' were won over. The multitude of people - does not stipulate they were Greeks/Gentiles just because they came from Tyre and Sidon. Jesus says words to the effect that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Yes he made exceptions (re healing the Canaanite woman) but exceptions don't prove the rule. In this case, the mission of Jesus was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That there were exceptions indicates that the ideas of Marcionism were running alongside that primary rule of only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Nope, Marcion and his intellectual non-Jewish Jesus allows for a philosophical view of those early first century days. No civil war but an intellectual 'war' was what Marcionism was about.

That passage in Luke does appear to be part of Marcion's Gospel as well, fwiw.

Marcion's teaching was regarding a non-Jewish christ/messiah figure. Consequently, reading the gLuke verse in Marcion's version of GLuke literarily is to run counter to Marcion's position i.e. his non-Jewish Jesus takes no interest in neither flesh and blood Jews nor flesh and blood Greeks/Gentiles. It's a philosophical rather than a literal reading of Greeks/Gentiles. What value would Marcion possibly find in the idea, or the prospect, of flesh and blood Jews and flesh and blood Greeks/Gentiles being won over by a Jewish messiah figure. That Marcion kept a copy of gLuke (minus the birth narrative) would suggest that he viewed the Jesus story via a philosophical lens not a literal, a historical lens.

That's the issue is it not - interpretation. Many a fine tune is played on the interpretation fiddle. James McLaren voiced concerns over reading Josephus - concerns that apply just as much to interpretations of the gospel story.

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 6

[GakuseiDon]

The TF:

For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race...

gLuke:

... a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases...

That does not support the TF and it's 'many Greeks' were won over. The multitude of people - does not stipulate they were Greeks/Gentiles just because they came from Tyre and Sidon.

Not stipulate, but at least suggests strongly. Tyre and Sidon were Gentile cities. It is at least a reasonable assumption.

Jesus says words to the effect that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Yes he made exceptions (re healing the Canaanite woman) but exceptions don't prove the rule.

The healing of the daughter of the Canaanite woman (in gMark, she is called a 'Greek') happened while Jesus was in the Tyre and Sidon area. From gMatthew 15:

Mat 15:21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Even though Jesus's mission was to the lost sheep of Israel, he was recognised by non-Jewish people like the Canaanite woman and the centurion, both of whom are described as having 'great faith'.

In gLuke 2:32, Jesus is called "a light for revelation to the Gentiles". That would seem to fit with the idea that the latter Luke 6 has Jesus attracting Gentile followers from the area of Tyre and Sidon.

In this case, the mission of Jesus was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That there were exceptions indicates that the ideas of Marcionism were running alongside that primary rule of only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

(1) Jesus's mission was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and (2) he was recognised by non-Jewish people like the Canaanite woman and the centurion and attracted a large non-Jewish following from the region of Tyre and Sidon -- those are not contradictory positions. (Again, I'm not saying those were historical facts!)

[maryhelena]

The TF:

For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race...

gLuke:

... a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases...

That does not support the TF and it's 'many Greeks' were won over. The multitude of people - does not stipulate they were Greeks/Gentiles just because they came from Tyre and Sidon.

Not stipulate, but at least suggests strongly. Tyre and Sidon were Gentile cities. It is at least a reasonable assumption.

OK - a reasonable assumption that the gospel story indicates some exceptions to Jesus being sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Jesus says words to the effect that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Yes he made exceptions (re healing the Canaanite woman) but exceptions don't prove the rule.

The healing of the daughter of the Canaanite woman (in gMark, she is called a 'Greek') happened while Jesus was in the Tyre and Sidon area. From gMatthew 15:

OK

Mat 15:21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Even though Jesus's mission was to the lost sheep of Israel, he was recognised by non-Jewish people like the Canaanite woman and the centurion, both of whom are described as having 'great faith'..

Agreed - some exceptions to the 'sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel'.

In gLuke 2:32, Jesus is called "a light for revelation to the Gentiles". That would seem to fit with the idea that the latter Luke 6 has Jesus attracting Gentile followers from the area of Tyre and Sidon.

The idea - and the reality during the Pilate timeline - two very different things.

In this case, the mission of Jesus was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That there were exceptions indicates that the ideas of Marcionism were running alongside that primary rule of only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

(1) Jesus's mission was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and (2) he was recognised by non-Jewish people like the Canaanite woman and the centurion and attracted a large non-Jewish following from the region of Tyre and Sidon -- those are not contradictory positions. (Again, I'm not saying those were historical facts!)

OK - no historical facts just a gospel story. Consequently, those using the TF to argue for a historical Jesus - a Jesus who the TF says - won over many Jews and many Greeks/Gentiles - are simply wasting their time. All the TF is doing is repeating the gospel story (albeit with the assumption that the gospel exceptions have turned into the 'many' Greek/Gentiles who were won over by Jesus during the Pilate timeline.)

So - what now for the Jesus historicists and their misuse of the Josephan TF ?

To be fair here - the mythicists/ahistoricists are no better. Their misuse is their dismissal of a core Josephan TF.

It's not a case of taking Josephus on his word or a case of outright dismissal of his words. The issue is to face Josephus - to, as Daniel Schwartz said in a quote I recently posted, - to learn more about Josephus. And in the case of the TF - to learn why a Jewish writer has included three references to gospel figures, Jesus, John and James - figures from a literary gospel story. Why a Jewish writer would have enabled the Lukan writer to write his gospel - a gospel necessitating that Pilate be dated to 26 c.e. - thereby creating ambiguity or controversy over his 19 c.e. and 26 c.e. dates.