Jesus, Paul and Josephus

[Leucius Charinus]

A long quote from Thomas Brodie on NT Paul: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

A wonderful retelling of what can best be described as a light bulb moment, a star burst, realization, enlightenment. A moment in time from which there is no going back.

...[trimmed]...

Like Hebrew narrative, the epistles are reticent. And composite. And repetitive. And, standing out from the list: like Hebrew narrative, the epistles are historicized fiction.

Historicized fiction.

A mass of data had suddenly fallen into place.

What hit me was that the entire narrative regarding Paul, everything the
thirteen epistles say about him or imply-about his life, his work and travels,
his character, his sending and receiving of letters, his readers and his
relationship to them-all of that was historicized fiction. It was fiction,
meaning that the figure of Paul was a work of imagination, but this figure had
been historicized-presented in a way that made it look like history, history like, 'fiction made to resemble the uncertainties of life in history' (Alter \98\ : 27)

Yes the "real Paul" speaks to us from his letter exchange with Seneca. Hence we are in no manner dealing with any form of a "Divine Institute". Unfortunately, rather, we are dealing with a conspiratorial fabrication of the Church Industry. Peter and the Twelve will eventually join Moses and Jesus and Paul in that inauspicious genre of fiction.

So, with his "He was made from nothing existing", was Arius of Alexandria a whistle-blower?

[maryhelena]

A long quote from Thomas Brodie on NT Paul: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

A wonderful retelling of what can best be described as a light bulb moment, a star burst, realization, enlightenment. A moment in time from which there is no going back.

...[trimmed]...

Like Hebrew narrative, the epistles are reticent. And composite. And repetitive. And, standing out from the list: like Hebrew narrative, the epistles are historicized fiction.

Historicized fiction.

A mass of data had suddenly fallen into place.

What hit me was that the entire narrative regarding Paul, everything the
thirteen epistles say about him or imply-about his life, his work and travels,
his character, his sending and receiving of letters, his readers and his
relationship to them-all of that was historicized fiction. It was fiction,
meaning that the figure of Paul was a work of imagination, but this figure had
been historicized-presented in a way that made it look like history, history like, 'fiction made to resemble the uncertainties of life in history' (Alter \98\ : 27)

Yes the "real Paul" speaks to us from his letter exchange with Seneca. Hence we are in no manner dealing with any form of a "Divine Institute". Unfortunately, rather, we are dealing with a conspiratorial fabrication of the Church Industry. Peter and the Twelve will eventually join Moses and Jesus and Paul in that inauspicious genre of fiction.

So, with his "He was made from nothing existing", was Arius of Alexandria a whistle-blower?

Early 'church fathers' are not my interest at all. That they believed that a story that is 'historicist fiction' was history was perhaps inevitable. The Hasmonean past would fade, be clouded over, as time passed. Not knowing, not being taught, that history would result in the story's history - and philosophical insights from that history - would be lost. No excuses today - research into the past is a full blown scholarly profession - and google is at the ready to ease the road back in time.

Yes, place the 12 alongside Jesus and Paul.....and don't forget that arch heretic Marcion.....

Thomas Brodie made an interesting observation regarding Bauer: ''When Bauer reached his conclusion he had nowhere to go; he eventually abandoned academic life..''. Sadly, Thomas Brodie has been prevented from publishing. Intellectually, where is he today? Has he decided there is nowhere to go - once the NT figures of Jesus and Paul are deemed to be 'historicised fiction'. ?

The only place to go is to history. To Hasmonean/Jewish history during the time of Roman control and occupation of Judaea - the historical time period in which the 'historicised fiction' gospel story is set down. (perhaps political allegory is a better view - thus allowing the NT writers to be free of charges of conspiracy. )

History of Roman control and occupation of Judaea - for that one has to face Josephus. The third man in this NT story. The man who NT historicists believe has given the 'historicized fiction' a gold stamp of history. The man who saved the day. But to assume that that is what Josephus has done is to discredit the man not celebrate him as a NT savior. One man's words are only evidence of what he said - what he said or wrote has to be historically evidenced. Consequently, the TF can neither be used for Jesus historicity - nor used to support mythicist theories. What the TF does do is place Josephus in the dock. What is the purpose of the TF - what is Josephus doing with it. What was his role in early christian history ?

That I would maintain is the place to go if research into early christian origins is to move forward - it's the place to go..... Josephus.

One can debate and argue over all the words in NT documents - one can debate Marcion until kingdom come - but words are the easy part. One reads them and one makes a judgement call. After all - did not someone say that Christianity is the mother of heretics. One can play any tune on these words and make some interesting melodies. But at some stage the music must stop and allow the echo of history to be heard.

[Leucius Charinus]

Early 'church fathers' are not my interest at all. That they believed that a story that is 'historicist fiction' was history was perhaps inevitable

///

Yes, place the 12 alongside Jesus and Paul.....and don't forget that arch heretic Marcion..... ;)

Yes add Marcion and Papias. I think we also need to place the early church fathers alongside that crew. I have little faith in their historical existence prior to the C14 dates.

Thomas Brodie made an interesting observation regarding Bauer: ''When Bauer reached his conclusion he had nowhere to go; he eventually abandoned academic life..''. Sadly, Thomas Brodie has been prevented from publishing. Intellectually, where is he today? Has he decided there is nowhere to go - once the NT figures of Jesus and Paul are deemed to be 'historicised fiction'. ?

My favorite summary of Bruno Bauer's ideas is this:

• the writer of Mark's gospel was "an Italian, at home both in Rome and Alexandria"; that of Matthew's gospel "a Roman, nourished by the spirit of Seneca"; Christianity is essentially "Stoicism triumphant in a Jewish garb."

The only place to go is to history. To Hasmonean/Jewish history during the time of Roman control and occupation of Judaea - the historical time period in which the 'historicised fiction' gospel story is set down. (perhaps political allegory is a better view - thus allowing the NT writers to be free of charges of conspiracy. )

History of Roman control and occupation of Judaea - for that one has to face Josephus. The third man in this NT story. The man who NT historicists believe has given the 'historicized fiction' a gold stamp of history. The man who saved the day. But to assume that that is what Josephus has done is to discredit the man not celebrate him as a NT savior. One man's words are only evidence of what he said - what he said or wrote has to be historically evidenced. Consequently, the TF can neither be used for Jesus historicity - nor used to support mythicist theories. What the TF does do is place Josephus in the dock. What is the purpose of the TF - what is Josephus doing with it. What was his role in early christian history ?

That I would maintain is the place to go if research into early christian origins is to move forward - it's the place to go..... Josephus.

My favorite quote about Josephus is this:

• "New discoveries are not likely to disprove the obvious conclusion that neither II Maccabees, nor Philo, nor Josephus were ever reabsorbed into the Jewish tradition. They remained operative only in Christian learning. II Maccabees, in spirit if not in form, is behind the Christian Acta Martyrum. Philo's conception of history is related to that of Lactantius' De Mortibus Persecutorum. More generally, Philo is the predecessor of the Christian Platonists. Finally, Josephus is one of the writers without whom Eusebius would not have been able to invent Ecclesiastical History."
  
  p.27, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Arnaldo Momigliano, University of California Press, 1990

One can debate and argue over all the words in NT documents - one can debate Marcion until kingdom come - but words are the easy part. One reads them and one makes a judgement call. After all - did not someone say that Christianity is the mother of heretics.

Photius wrote the following about the books written by that pernicious heretic Leucius Charinus:

• In a word, his books contain a vast amount of childish, incredible, ill-devised, lying, silly, self-contradictory, impious, and ungodly statements, so that one would not be far wrong in calling them the source and mother of all heresy.
  
  https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phot ... ca.htm#114

One can play any tune on these words and make some interesting melodies. But at some stage the music must stop and allow the echo of history to be heard.

The archeological echo of early Christian history is silent. Radiocarbon C14 of Christian literature is echoing back only from the later centuries. What can you hear in the echo of history? I'm drawing a blank.

[maryhelena]

Early 'church fathers' are not my interest at all. That they believed that a story that is 'historicist fiction' was history was perhaps inevitable

///

Yes, place the 12 alongside Jesus and Paul.....and don't forget that arch heretic Marcion.....

Yes add Marcion and Papias. I think we also need to place the early church fathers alongside that crew. I have little faith in their historical existence prior to the C14 dates.

Thomas Brodie made an interesting observation regarding Bauer: ''When Bauer reached his conclusion he had nowhere to go; he eventually abandoned academic life..''. Sadly, Thomas Brodie has been prevented from publishing. Intellectually, where is he today? Has he decided there is nowhere to go - once the NT figures of Jesus and Paul are deemed to be 'historicised fiction'. ?

My favorite summary of Bruno Bauer's ideas is this:

• the writer of Mark's gospel was "an Italian, at home both in Rome and Alexandria"; that of Matthew's gospel "a Roman, nourished by the spirit of Seneca"; Christianity is essentially "Stoicism triumphant in a Jewish garb."

The only place to go is to history. To Hasmonean/Jewish history during the time of Roman control and occupation of Judaea - the historical time period in which the 'historicised fiction' gospel story is set down. (perhaps political allegory is a better view - thus allowing the NT writers to be free of charges of conspiracy. )

History of Roman control and occupation of Judaea - for that one has to face Josephus. The third man in this NT story. The man who NT historicists believe has given the 'historicized fiction' a gold stamp of history. The man who saved the day. But to assume that that is what Josephus has done is to discredit the man not celebrate him as a NT savior. One man's words are only evidence of what he said - what he said or wrote has to be historically evidenced. Consequently, the TF can neither be used for Jesus historicity - nor used to support mythicist theories. What the TF does do is place Josephus in the dock. What is the purpose of the TF - what is Josephus doing with it. What was his role in early christian history ?

That I would maintain is the place to go if research into early christian origins is to move forward - it's the place to go..... Josephus.

My favorite quote about Josephus is this:

• "New discoveries are not likely to disprove the obvious conclusion that neither II Maccabees, nor Philo, nor Josephus were ever reabsorbed into the Jewish tradition. They remained operative only in Christian learning. II Maccabees, in spirit if not in form, is behind the Christian Acta Martyrum. Philo's conception of history is related to that of Lactantius' De Mortibus Persecutorum. More generally, Philo is the predecessor of the Christian Platonists. Finally, Josephus is one of the writers without whom Eusebius would not have been able to invent Ecclesiastical History."
  
  p.27, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Arnaldo Momigliano, University of California Press, 1990

One can debate and argue over all the words in NT documents - one can debate Marcion until kingdom come - but words are the easy part. One reads them and one makes a judgement call. After all - did not someone say that Christianity is the mother of heretics.

Photius wrote the following about the books written by that pernicious heretic Leucius Charinus:

• In a word, his books contain a vast amount of childish, incredible, ill-devised, lying, silly, self-contradictory, impious, and ungodly statements, so that one would not be far wrong in calling them the source and mother of all heresy.
  
  https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phot ... ca.htm#114

One can play any tune on these words and make some interesting melodies. But at some stage the music must stop and allow the echo of history to be heard.

The archeological echo of early Christian history is silent. Radiocarbon C14 of Christian literature is echoing back only from the later centuries. What can you hear in the echo of history? I'm drawing a blank.

Pete - it's Hasmonean/Jewish history that is relevant. That is the history in which the NT story is set. As to christian history - at what time the Hasmonean/Jewish history became silent - I've no date. Actually, I would suggest that making Hasmonean/Jewish history 'silent' was necessary if a Pauline philosophy of neither Jew nor Greek was ever to run - it's not going to do that if Hasmonean nationalism was center stage. A zealot element of the gospel story is seen by some writers - a zealot element sidelined for a prince of peace element. That would suggest that the past historical element of Hasmonean nationalism, it's fight with Rome, had to give way for the Pauline universalism. But the echo of a zealot fight against Rome is an undercurrent in the gospel story.

[mlinssen]

Or one can ignore all the dumb and failed dating attempts and just read what the texts say instead.

So what do the Texts tell us about the Mishmarot Priesthood? If you say, "Nothing of interest to anyone" then you've lost almost everything. There are two important things that happened to change the Trajectories of Judaic and Roman History.
1. The Texts that we have seem to imply that there was a Priestly Set of Stories that were dismembered and rewritten in favor of Rome. A Priest, now nameless, was renamed as a created "Jesus" character.
2. John 1 tells us that this created character was Pre-Existing and that nothing that exists now was created without the Agency of this "Jesus".

"The Jews", as named in John, had no idea as to what was happening to both the people and their Culture.
This isn't a "dumb and failed" but History. To argue otherwise is to continue the Destruction that began over 2000 years ago.
"Was the Historical History of Zakkai important?" Of course, and so is the History that precedes him.
"So it goes..."

Who gives a damn whether they used real stories as a basis to their invented stories? ...but none of them say anything about origins

mlinssen, you really surprise me here. If there were real stories used as a basis for *THEIR* invented stories, then that might be the most important Datum to know of all.

As I've said, "There are Atheists who believe that Jesus was the Son of God, who doesn't exist."

Revelation must be understood metaphysically as van den Bergh van Eysinga does, not historically as Wilson does.

History first, IF POSSIBLE, then maybe Metaphysics, IF HELPFUL.

Roman control and occupation of Judaea; the end of Hasmonean sovereignty - that is the historical tragedy from which the gospel writers - and Josephus - have crafted their stories.

QED.

CW

Dear Charles, what you and everyone else neglects is to first consult the primary texts in their original form and language before jumping to conclusions in entirely unrelated texts far outside these.
You look at the NT, grab a few words and then elaborately detail your pet project texts, and maryhelena does the same.
And so does DeConick, Quispel, and all others who are determined to see what they perceive

And they always manage to do so - and likewise, they utterly fail to be convincing in any way

[maryhelena]

Or one can ignore all the dumb and failed dating attempts and just read what the texts say instead.

So what do the Texts tell us about the Mishmarot Priesthood? If you say, "Nothing of interest to anyone" then you've lost almost everything. There are two important things that happened to change the Trajectories of Judaic and Roman History.
1. The Texts that we have seem to imply that there was a Priestly Set of Stories that were dismembered and rewritten in favor of Rome. A Priest, now nameless, was renamed as a created "Jesus" character.
2. John 1 tells us that this created character was Pre-Existing and that nothing that exists now was created without the Agency of this "Jesus".

"The Jews", as named in John, had no idea as to what was happening to both the people and their Culture.
This isn't a "dumb and failed" but History. To argue otherwise is to continue the Destruction that began over 2000 years ago.
"Was the Historical History of Zakkai important?" Of course, and so is the History that precedes him.
"So it goes..."

Who gives a damn whether they used real stories as a basis to their invented stories? ...but none of them say anything about origins

mlinssen, you really surprise me here. If there were real stories used as a basis for *THEIR* invented stories, then that might be the most important Datum to know of all.

As I've said, "There are Atheists who believe that Jesus was the Son of God, who doesn't exist."

Revelation must be understood metaphysically as van den Bergh van Eysinga does, not historically as Wilson does.

History first, IF POSSIBLE, then maybe Metaphysics, IF HELPFUL.

Roman control and occupation of Judaea; the end of Hasmonean sovereignty - that is the historical tragedy from which the gospel writers - and Josephus - have crafted their stories.

QED.

CW

Dear Charles, what you and everyone else neglects is to first consult the primary texts in their original form and language before jumping to conclusions in entirely unrelated texts far outside these.
You look at the NT, grab a few words and then elaborately detail your pet project texts, and maryhelena does the same.
And so does DeConick, Quispel, and all others who are determined to see what they perceive

And they always manage to do so - and likewise, they utterly fail to be convincing in any way

Goodness - never noticed this board had installed a Grand Inquisitor to settle issues of light and darkness, of heresy and 'truth'.

Can a heresy exist solely on the basis of error? ........True heresy does not draw it's strength solely from error, or else it would be very short-lived. And heresies are by no means short-lived; indeed they seem ineradicable. Why? Because they draw their strength from part of the truth, indeed, as closer examination reveals, from a good deal of the truth.
....................

The question of the relationship between Church and heretics is one that remains with us, because heretics have continued and will continue, because every Christian is potentially not only a heretic, but also an inquisitor.............In view of the horrors of the past, the beginnings of a debate with heresy can only lie in a liberating confession of guilt. The spectacle of burning human torches and countless broken human lives can teach the Church humility and self-awareness.............a turning away not just from the burning of heretics, but from the hatred of heretics, the despising and disregarding of heretics; it is not just the terrible punishments of the Inquisition but the spirit of the Inquisition which made such cruelty possible in the first place, which the Church must set aside.
..............

The road to 'pure doctrine' cannot be driven over corpses.

Hans Kung: The Church.

Wise words from the late Hans Kung. And thanks to Peter Kirby we have a forum that can be home to many heretics.

[Charles Wilson]

Dear Charles, what you and everyone else neglects is to first consult the primary texts in their original form and language before jumping to conclusions in entirely unrelated texts far outside these.

"My God in boots, the Ontological Argument is sound!"

--Bertrand Russell, from his early years as a Philosopher

Mlinssen, your attempt to tar me and maryhelena - esp. maryhelena - is astonishing. I don't matter so much but please read your own criticisms of this Site. You have performed a Great Service with your work with Coptic Thomas and you - esp. YOU - can SEE where the Devious rewrote the Texts to give a New Slant to the New Religion. Your Criticisms of "Outer Space Christianity" et.al. are spot on and I praise you for recognizing this.

You smear with too big a brush, however. There is (finally) some good work being done on the Origins of the NT and there are those who do the work that you do in a different area of Study. Only your work matters?

You look at the NT, grab a few words and then elaborately detail your pet project texts, and maryhelena does the same.
And so does DeConick, Quispel, and all others who are determined to see what they perceive

And SO WHAT? Does Truth matter? Even if the "Truth" is an Analysis of a Literary Section, you may determine Truth-Value and find something to keep.

Strong's H563: " אמּר " - "Immar", "Lamb"
Strong's H564: " אמּר " - "Immer", the 16th Mishmarot Service Group

See any difference in these 2 words? No.

What follows from this? Whitehead's Criticism of the Empiricist comes into play here: All the Empiricist sees is "Bee-on-Flower". Leaving the Purpose, the Intentionality of Bee-on-Flower aside is Folly.

I assert that the Word-Play of Hebrew "Lamb" and "Immer, the 16th Mishmarot Group, opens up the NT to the horrific Mischief that the Romans used.
I could be wrong but this isn't Metaphysics and there are Settlements ON THE GROUND that validate the Propositions. You could do a lot worse than starting here and looking at the Priesthood and how it was organized.

"Who was on Duty for the Passover and Feast Week of 4 BCE? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?!??" I would hazard a guess that you don't know - and worse, you don't care.

And they always manage to do so - and likewise, they utterly fail to be convincing in any way

So you say. "This Mlinssen guy. He thinks he has a Pipeline to Truth...WHAT A MORONE..."

Welcome to the Club.

'N by the way...Keep up your good Work. It does have Value

CW

[mlinssen]

Oh my, I get The Big Words thrown at me when I simply ask for some traceability.
Truth doesn't exist, it is just a fancy word for opinion. Facts do exist, and texts are facts in the sense that the words in them are identical for everyone

The content of Thomas is present in the NT, the content of the Tanakh is present in the NT

Hebrew isn't present in the NT, Charles.
Hasmonean history isn't present in the NT, maryhelena

Present the content of your texts and then locate that in the NT, and then your opinions might become convincing arguments - when you substantiate them with verifiable and traceable NT content

That's all

[maryhelena]

Hasmonean history isn't present in the NT, maryhelena

The political context in which the gospel Jesus story is set is Roman control and occupation of Judaea. That Roman control and occupation of Judaea involved the Hasmoneans. Context matters. Taking NT words as though the words used to tell a story are more important than the story they attempt to articulate is foolish. The focus is the story. A focus that can be lost if words become the argument rather than the vehicle of transmission.

Play the word game by all means. I'll continue to study the history the gospel words are attempting to articulate in the Jesus story.

[Charles Wilson]

Oh my, I get The Big Words thrown at me when I simply ask for some traceability.

For well over ten years, i have attempted to provide "Traceabilty" with no "Outer Space Metaphysics". Response? Crickets. In this context, Metaphysics wins. Real, on the ground research from recognized Scholars, especially Elizur and Leibner is not even considered. There exists Lists, matching Mishmarot Groups with Settlements that were found in "Galilean Synagogues". There is History here that directly relates to the NT.

"This is inconvenient. Better to ignore it and not even look at it..."

Truth doesn't exist, it is just a fancy word for opinion.

IS THIS TRUE OR IS THIS YOUR OPINION?

The folly of Kantianism illustrated in one sentence. Kant does not lead to Hegel but to the Empiricists (See also G E Moore) and then to Whitehead's Metaphysics. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations leads to Language in Use, which guides rather subtly to our problems on this Site.
"Traceability" has been on display in stark colors here. See: maryhelena.

Facts do exist, and texts are facts in the sense that the words in them are identical for everyone

Tell me about this "Everyone" you speak of. What is it? How do you know that there are "Others" here and that the words here are "Identical" in meaning to these supposed "Others".

PLEASE!!!

The content of Thomas is present in the NT, the content of the Tanakh is present in the NT

Hebrew isn't present in the NT, Charles.
Hasmonean history isn't present in the NT, maryhelena

John 1: 29 (In Part) (RSV):

"Behold, the Lamb of God..."

1000 years prior to this, the Sumerians had many god names paired with animal names. " 'nmmr-ha'ad" translates as "Panther-of-Haad" which may come to us as "Nimrod". So, how did "Immar-Yah" get into the NT? Is this a Roman term? How about "Soudarion"? How does a Latin Term for "Head Bandages" get into a Greek Text? Don't give me "Loan Word" stories since the words have identical meanings to all, "...the Jew first and then the Greek".

Present the content of your texts and then locate that in the NT, and then your opinions might become convincing arguments - when you substantiate them with verifiable and traceable NT content

That's all

That's what I've been doing for over 10 years now. maryhelena has researched the Hasmoneans and hers is solid Scholarship.
You may dismiss this with a wave of the hand but this is not a refutation, as you yourself are discovering with the visceral reactions against your work.

CW