Re: Jesus, Paul and Josephus
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:56 am
God! I love this stuff! 
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
HISTORY and Coins |
JOSEPHUS: War (about 75 c.e.) Antiquities: (about 94 c.e.) |
The Gospel Jesus figure |
|---|---|---|
| King Antigonus Mattathias:High Priest of the Jews: Hasmonean Bilingual Coins, Hebrew and Greek…(40-37 b.c.) | Antigonus enters Jerusalem: Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus's ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish. War: Book 1.ch.13 (40 b.c.)........................Antony came in, and told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. War: Book 1.ch.14 (40 b.c.) | John 18.10; Mark 14.47; Matthew 26.51; Luke 22.50. John and Luke specifying right ear, Mark and Matthew have 'ear'. gJohn stating that Peter cut off the ear the High Priest's servant. |
| Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; War: Book 1. ch.17 (37 b.c.).. Herod on his own account, in order to take the government from Antigonus, who was declared all enemy at Rome, and that he might himself be king, according to the decree of the Senate. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16 | gJohn indicates a three year ministy for Jesus. Antigonus ruled for three years. | |
| Then it was that Antigonus, without any regard to his former or to his present fortune, came down from the citadel, and fell at Sosius's feet, who without pitying him at all, upon the change of his condition, laughed at him beyond measure, and called him Antigona. Yet did he not treat him like a woman, or let him go free, but put him into bonds, and kept him in custody.... Sosius ......went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony; then did the axe bring him to his end..War: Book 1.ch.18. . | The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. Jesus flogged: John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:26. JC crucified. Trilinqual sign over cross: Aramaic, Latin and Greek. gJohn 19.19-21. JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other variations: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; THE KING OF THE JEWS; THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. | |
| ... | ...and then .but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16. (Slavonic Josephus has the teachers of the Law giving the money to Pilate...) | Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3 |
| Wikipeda: Josephus states that Mark Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Cassius Dio says that he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[6] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[7] | Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said, when he thus speaks: "Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch, and there to be beheaded. And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a king, as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews so as to receive Herod, whom he had made king in his stead; for by no torments could they he forced to call him king, so great a fondness they had for their former king; so he thought that this dishonorable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus's memory, and at the same time would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod." Thus far Strabo. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1 | Acts: 11:16. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. |
Assuming (a) your historical background Hasmonean reconstruction is valid and also that (b) the NT writers composed theological/historical fiction, then ...maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:45 pm The gospel Jesus story contains illusions to the OT. It also contains illusions to Hasmonean history. While history is a matter of established facts it also needs a narrative in order to retell it's story. The historical figure in this chart is the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. 40 to 37 b.c. While the Josephan narrative might be open to question it is, nevertheless, useful for research into the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Once again, it seems that the gospel writers drew upon a Josephan narrative - and placed their own Jesus narrative around 70 years from the tragic events of 37 b.c.
I'll try to make this a little shorter than usual:Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pmAssuming (a) your historical background Hasmonean reconstruction is valid and also that (b) the NT writers com[;''''''==================]posed theological/historical fiction, then ...maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:45 pm The gospel Jesus story contains illusions to the OT. It also contains illusions to Hasmonean history. While history is a matter of established facts it also needs a narrative in order to retell it's story. The historical figure in this chart is the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. 40 to 37 b.c. While the Josephan narrative might be open to question it is, nevertheless, useful for research into the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Once again, it seems that the gospel writers drew upon a Josephan narrative - and placed their own Jesus narrative around 70 years from the tragic events of 37 b.c.
(1) when did the NT writers fabricate the theological/historical fiction?
(2) who were these fabricators (or in Brodie's terms "this literary school")?
(3) where (or in which scriptoria) was this "fabrication of the Christians" undertaken?
(4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?
(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?
I don't think fabricate is the word to use as that word usually denotes deception. That the gospel story is not history does not mean it's writers chose to deceive. That the gospel story is read as history reveals the readers judgement not the intent of it's writers.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pmAssuming (a) your historical background Hasmonean reconstruction is valid and also that (b) the NT writers composed theological/historical fiction, then ..maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:45 pm The gospel Jesus story contains illusions to the OT. It also contains illusions to Hasmonean history. While history is a matter of established facts it also needs a narrative in order to retell it's story. The historical figure in this chart is the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. 40 to 37 b.c. While the Josephan narrative might be open to question it is, nevertheless, useful for research into the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Once again, it seems that the gospel writers drew upon a Josephan narrative - and placed their own Jesus narrative around 70 years from the tragic events of 37 b.c.
(1) when did the NT writers fabricate the theological/historical fiction?
Again, your use of fabricators does, to my mind, suggest an intent to denigrate the gospel writers. The gospel story, as scholars are aware, had many writers. Writers who added or subtracted to suit their individual goals for the story.
(2) who were these fabricators (or in Brodie's terms "this literary school")?
Again, Pete, I find your use of 'fabrication' a distraction that does not credit the gospel writers with good faith, good intentions, in what they wrote. Where did the gospel story originate ? I would bet on Alexandra.
(3) where (or in which scriptoria) was this "fabrication of the Christians" undertaken?
'wicked' ? Sorry Pete but your attempt to discredit the gospel story and it's writers is unhelpful.
(4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?
If one is interested in understanding the roots of early christian origins, from a Jewish perspective, then questions of Hasmonean/Jewish history are very relevant.
(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?
Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:57 pmVespasian, Titus and Domitian used the Roman army for pacification. I haven't read the book but does it cite any corroborating archeological evidence? My problem with 1st century Christian origins is the void of physical evidence on the one hand, and the proliferation of Christian frauds and forgeries on the other. A 1st century origins is not impossible (for historical or myth or fiction theories) but I have yet to see any compelling evidence that early. Or C14.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pm (4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?
Atwill has it right: The Pacification of the belligerant Jews would come about by a belief in a savior-god loyal to Rome. The Authors of John included undeniable Historical Links to the Interregnum from the Julio-Claudians to the Flavians.
I am generally left with more questions at the end of the day than when I started the day. And this has been going on for a while. So I have never claimed any great degree of certainty. We may never know. But I like to know what the evidence is. Especially physical manuscripts, archeology and the non-Christian literary sources.(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?
They EXPLAIN the Christian Origins,
CW
Be well.
By fabricate I mean to put together or assemble. How many LXX copy paste mappings were assembled? If indeed the NT is a theological/historical fiction without any deception then was it intended to be just a simple and harmless story to get out into circulation and to compete with stories by Homer or other Greek or Roman authors?maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 1:03 amI don't think fabricate is the word to use as that word usually denotes deception. That the gospel story is not history does not mean it's writers chose to deceive. That the gospel story is read as history reveals the readers judgement not the intent of it's writers.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pmAssuming (a) your historical background Hasmonean reconstruction is valid and also that (b) the NT writers composed theological/historical fiction, then ..maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:45 pm The gospel Jesus story contains illusions to the OT. It also contains illusions to Hasmonean history. While history is a matter of established facts it also needs a narrative in order to retell it's story. The historical figure in this chart is the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. 40 to 37 b.c. While the Josephan narrative might be open to question it is, nevertheless, useful for research into the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Once again, it seems that the gospel writers drew upon a Josephan narrative - and placed their own Jesus narrative around 70 years from the tragic events of 37 b.c.
(1) when did the NT writers fabricate the theological/historical fiction?
Do you think the TF is legit and Josephus referenced Jesus? Some people think John the Baptist was also interpolated into Josephus. And isn't James the Just one of the twelve which I thought you were happy to view as fictional along with Jesus and Paul?Since Josephus has referenced a number of gospel figures, Jesus, John the baptizer and James, I would suggest that the gospel story was known pre Antiquities, 93/94 c.e.
Do you think the gospel writers when composing this theological/historical fiction were never thinking about passing it off as history? If that's the case who had the bright idea of passing off the story as history?'wicked' ? Sorry Pete but your attempt to discredit the gospel story and it's writers is unhelpful.(4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?
That's a reasonable motivation. We may never know. There are a great many ideas out there.Perhaps a desire to record their history - a history of Roman occupation and how that Roman occupation led to a reappraisal of their future place in history.
Thanks. Be well.If one is interested in understanding the roots of early christian origins, from a Jewish perspective, then questions of Hasmonean/Jewish history are very relevant.(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?
Josephus makes mention of Jesus and his friends. Josephus has supported the gospel Jesus story - the 'historical fiction' - not providing that story with a historical stamp of approval. I think that a core TF is Josephan.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:40 amBy fabricate I mean to put together or assemble. How many LXX copy paste mappings were assembled? If indeed the NT is a theological/historical fiction without any deception then was it intended to be just a simple and harmless story to get out into circulation and to compete with stories by Homer or other Greek or Roman authors?maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 1:03 amI don't think fabricate is the word to use as that word usually denotes deception. That the gospel story is not history does not mean it's writers chose to deceive. That the gospel story is read as history reveals the readers judgement not the intent of it's writers.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pmAssuming (a) your historical background Hasmonean reconstruction is valid and also that (b) the NT writers composed theological/historical fiction, then ..maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:45 pm The gospel Jesus story contains illusions to the OT. It also contains illusions to Hasmonean history. While history is a matter of established facts it also needs a narrative in order to retell it's story. The historical figure in this chart is the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. 40 to 37 b.c. While the Josephan narrative might be open to question it is, nevertheless, useful for research into the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Once again, it seems that the gospel writers drew upon a Josephan narrative - and placed their own Jesus narrative around 70 years from the tragic events of 37 b.c.
(1) when did the NT writers fabricate the theological/historical fiction?
Do you think the TF is legit and Josephus referenced Jesus? Some people think John the Baptist was also interpolated into Josephus. And isn't James the Just one of the twelve which I thought you were happy to view as fictional along with Jesus and Paul?Since Josephus has referenced a number of gospel figures, Jesus, John the baptizer and James, I would suggest that the gospel story was known pre Antiquities, 93/94 c.e.
Who had the bright idea to pass the story of as history - well, Pete, maybe that's more your field of interest than mine. My point is that when Hasmonean history faded from view and thus unable to be utilized as a means towards understanding the story - then a purely literal, historical, reading of the story became, as it were, the default view. Fault the readers of the story not the writers. I do however think that one of the priorities of the story was to underplay Hasmonean history - nationalism was put to bed - a necessity in view of Roman occupation.Do you think the gospel writers when composing this theological/historical fiction were never thinking about passing it off as history? If that's the case who had the bright idea of passing off the story as history?'wicked' ? Sorry Pete but your attempt to discredit the gospel story and it's writers is unhelpful.(4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?
Josephus is a big deal as far as researching the Jewish roots of early christianity. I think the OP post was probably my first effort in questioning the historicity of Josephus. Maybe you remember that thread of over 12 years ago - Essenes never existed, were a Josephan invention, claims Rachel EliorThat's a reasonable motivation. We may never know. There are a great many ideas out there.Perhaps a desire to record their history - a history of Roman occupation and how that Roman occupation led to a reappraisal of their future place in history.
Thanks. Be well.If one is interested in understanding the roots of early christian origins, from a Jewish perspective, then questions of Hasmonean/Jewish history are very relevant.(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?
Atwill, Caesars Messiah, Intro, p. 10 (Emph. added):Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:06 am Vespasian, Titus and Domitian used the Roman army for pacification. I haven't read the book but does it cite any corroborating archeological evidence?
https://www.amazon.com/Settlement-Histo ... ast_sto_dpMy problem with 1st century Christian origins is the void of physical evidence on the one hand, and the proliferation of Christian frauds and forgeries on the other. A 1st century origins is not impossible (for historical or myth or fiction theories) but I have yet to see any compelling evidence that early. Or C14.
Thank you, LC. I agree with you. We deal with Probabilities, not Certainties. We must remember, however, that "Existence is not a Predicate". When "Jesus" appears and nothing that is came about except through him, "Other Functioning Cultures" need not function anymore.I am generally left with more questions at the end of the day than when I started the day. And this has been going on for a while. So I have never claimed any great degree of certainty. We may never know. But I like to know what the evidence is. Especially physical manuscripts, archeology and the non-Christian literary sources.(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?
They EXPLAIN the Christian Origins,
CW
Be well.