mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 2:51 am
Hear hear!
An interesting thread and proposition, Mary Helena
But should we really go over the TF again? Or even let our research be distorted by Josephus?
I'm not interested in the pro and con of the TF - re language. It's there - whatever words may be added or deleted. The whole-cloth interpolation has not gained acceptance by Josephan scholars - as far as I'm aware...
My interest is in understanding early christian origins. I don't think interpretations of the gospel story - or Pauline theology/philosophy - is going to achieve that goal without going to ground zero - history as far as it can be determined. For that - as my above quote pointed out -
''The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus.''
Hence my primary focus is Josephus - as yours is Thomas. I've long been 'after' Josephus - attempting to put him (or whoever is writing under that name) in the dock. As I said above - Josephus is the elephant in the room.
We shouldn't compare apples to oranges: if we go by a text in its original form, from the original MS, in the original language, then that has a very high value of objectivity, factuality.
If we then compare that to Josephus, the very least we should do is to take the original MS in question, in the original language, and cite its date and provenance - so that we can compare like for like
Roger Pearse has interesting data on the frequency in which Josephus is mentioned by the Patristics and related
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 2:51 am
Hear hear!
An interesting thread and proposition, Mary Helena
But should we really go over the TF again? Or even let our research be distorted by Josephus?
I'm not interested in the pro and con of the TF - re language. It's there - whatever words may be added or deleted. The whole-cloth interpolation has not gained acceptance by Josephan scholars - as far as I'm aware...
My interest is in understanding early christian origins. I don't think interpretations of the gospel story - or Pauline theology/philosophy - is going to achieve that goal without going to ground zero - history as far as it can be determined. For that - as my above quote pointed out -
''The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus.''
Hence my primary focus is Josephus - as yours is Thomas. I've long been 'after' Josephus - attempting to put him (or whoever is writing under that name) in the dock. As I said above - Josephus is the elephant in the room.
We shouldn't compare apples to oranges: if we go by a text in its original form, from the original MS, in the original language, then that has a very high value of objectivity, factuality.
If we then compare that to Josephus, the very least we should do is to take the original MS in question, in the original language, and cite its date and provenance - so that we can compare like for like
Roger Pearse has interesting data on the frequency in which Josephus is mentioned by the Patristics and related
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 2:51 am
Hear hear!
An interesting thread and proposition, Mary Helena
But should we really go over the TF again? Or even let our research be distorted by Josephus?
I'm not interested in the pro and con of the TF - re language. It's there - whatever words may be added or deleted. The whole-cloth interpolation has not gained acceptance by Josephan scholars - as far as I'm aware...
My interest is in understanding early christian origins. I don't think interpretations of the gospel story - or Pauline theology/philosophy - is going to achieve that goal without going to ground zero - history as far as it can be determined. For that - as my above quote pointed out -
''The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus.''
Hence my primary focus is Josephus - as yours is Thomas. I've long been 'after' Josephus - attempting to put him (or whoever is writing under that name) in the dock. As I said above - Josephus is the elephant in the room.
We shouldn't compare apples to oranges: if we go by a text in its original form, from the original MS, in the original language, then that has a very high value of objectivity, factuality.
If we then compare that to Josephus, the very least we should do is to take the original MS in question, in the original language, and cite its date and provenance - so that we can compare like for like
Roger Pearse has interesting data on the frequency in which Josephus is mentioned by the Patristics and related
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 2:51 am
Hear hear!
An interesting thread and proposition, Mary Helena
But should we really go over the TF again? Or even let our research be distorted by Josephus?
I'm not interested in the pro and con of the TF - re language. It's there - whatever words may be added or deleted. The whole-cloth interpolation has not gained acceptance by Josephan scholars - as far as I'm aware...
My interest is in understanding early christian origins. I don't think interpretations of the gospel story - or Pauline theology/philosophy - is going to achieve that goal without going to ground zero - history as far as it can be determined. For that - as my above quote pointed out -
''The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus.''
Hence my primary focus is Josephus - as yours is Thomas. I've long been 'after' Josephus - attempting to put him (or whoever is writing under that name) in the dock. As I said above - Josephus is the elephant in the room.
We shouldn't compare apples to oranges: if we go by a text in its original form, from the original MS, in the original language, then that has a very high value of objectivity, factuality.
If we then compare that to Josephus, the very least we should do is to take the original MS in question, in the original language, and cite its date and provenance - so that we can compare like for like
Roger Pearse has interesting data on the frequency in which Josephus is mentioned by the Patristics and related
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 2:51 am
Hear hear!
An interesting thread and proposition, Mary Helena
But should we really go over the TF again? Or even let our research be distorted by Josephus?
I'm not interested in the pro and con of the TF - re language. It's there - whatever words may be added or deleted. The whole-cloth interpolation has not gained acceptance by Josephan scholars - as far as I'm aware...
My interest is in understanding early christian origins. I don't think interpretations of the gospel story - or Pauline theology/philosophy - is going to achieve that goal without going to ground zero - history as far as it can be determined. For that - as my above quote pointed out -
''The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus.''
Hence my primary focus is Josephus - as yours is Thomas. I've long been 'after' Josephus - attempting to put him (or whoever is writing under that name) in the dock. As I said above - Josephus is the elephant in the room.
We shouldn't compare apples to oranges: if we go by a text in its original form, from the original MS, in the original language, then that has a very high value of objectivity, factuality.
If we then compare that to Josephus, the very least we should do is to take the original MS in question, in the original language, and cite its date and provenance - so that we can compare like for like
Roger Pearse has interesting data on the frequency in which Josephus is mentioned by the Patristics and related
What's to prevent us from equating IC with Josephus I wonder?
But then what about Paul ?
Jesus, Paul and Josephus - how about The Three Musketeers...... “All for one and one for all, united we stand divided we fall.”
Or how about - the Blessed Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit....
Happy New Year.....
But, there is no Jesus, only IC.
Happy New Year to you too.
No Jesus. No Paul. Josephus ??? Million dollar question - the answer to which could well upend what we have assumed is early christian history. If Josephus is involved - or more probably a Josephan school of intellectuals steeped in Jewish/Hasmonean history - the search for early christian origins would have to be played on a very different pitch. All the theology/philosophy is simply the top dressing. Ground zero is historical realities not intellectual musings. Hence my continuing attempt to bang the drums of history....to search the alleyways and the blood and gore of historical tragedies....Yep, always light at the end of the tunnel - but first the tunnel must be crawled through however deep the mud....
In these 10 citations, there seems to be no reason why the Testimonium would be cited; it is foreign to the purpose of the works in question.
But this misses the point. it doesn't matter if they wouldn't have had reason to cite the TF in the passages in question. The issue is whether they would have cited the the TF anywhere at all if they had known about it. So is Roger's contention then that no church fathers prior to Eusebius knew of the passage at all?
More pertinent would be to identify all of the places where the fathers would have had occasion to cite the TF but failed to do so. Surely, one cannot content that there was no occasion for any church fathers to cite the TF for 300 years. That the passage was never relevant all that time? Come on...
And this while virtually all church fathers cited the execution of Jesus as the cause for the destruction of the Temple. Yet, while they stated that the killing of the messiah was the reason that God chose to punish the Jews and destroy the temple, they never once had occasion to cite the one Jew who recorded the destruction of the Temple and also mentioned the messiah!? Come on!
rgprice wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 7:46 am
From Roger:
In these 10 citations, there seems to be no reason why the Testimonium would be cited; it is foreign to the purpose of the works in question.
But this misses the point. it doesn't matter if they wouldn't have had reason to cite the TF in the passages in question. The issue is whether they would have cited the the TF anywhere at all if they had known about it. So is Roger's contention then that no church fathers prior to Eusebius knew of the passage at all?
More pertinent would be to identify all of the places where the fathers would have had occasion to cite the TF but failed to do so. Surely, one cannot content that there was no occasion for any church fathers to cite the TF for 300 years. That the passage was never relevant all that time? Come on...
And this while virtually all church fathers cited the execution of Jesus as the cause for the destruction of the Temple. Yet, while they stated that the killing of the messiah was the reason that God chose to punish the Jews and destroy the temple, they never once had occasion to cite the one Jew who recorded the destruction of the Temple and also mentioned the messiah!? Come on!
I think what Pearse means to say is that the context of what the FF used from Josephus doesn't firmly establish a desire to "historicise" IS. Had that been the case then the assumption would have been justified that they certainly would have cited from the TF, and them not having done so would have very reasonable justification for the fact that such wasn't extant at the time of their writing
Either way, the TF that we have is way too good to be true
I'm currently translating van Maanen into English, and he had very interesting things to say about Josephus as well, and how Acts has copied from him - and how the reason for the temple destruction gets changed a few times
I'm not interested in the pro and con of the TF - re language. It's there - whatever words may be added or deleted. The whole-cloth interpolation has not gained acceptance by Josephan scholars - as far as I'm aware...
My interest is in understanding early christian origins. I don't think interpretations of the gospel story - or Pauline theology/philosophy - is going to achieve that goal without going to ground zero - history as far as it can be determined. For that - as my above quote pointed out -
''The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus.''
Hence my primary focus is Josephus - as yours is Thomas. I've long been 'after' Josephus - attempting to put him (or whoever is writing under that name) in the dock. As I said above - Josephus is the elephant in the room.
What's to prevent us from equating IC with Josephus I wonder?
But then what about Paul ?
Jesus, Paul and Josephus - how about The Three Musketeers...... “All for one and one for all, united we stand divided we fall.”
Or how about - the Blessed Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit....
Happy New Year.....
But, there is no Jesus, only IC.
Happy New Year to you too.
No Jesus. No Paul. Josephus ??? Million dollar question - the answer to which could well upend what we have assumed is early christian history. If Josephus is involved - or more probably a Josephan school of intellectuals steeped in Jewish/Hasmonean history - the search for early christian origins would have to be played on a very different pitch. All the theology/philosophy is simply the top dressing. Ground zero is historical realities not intellectual musings. Hence my continuing attempt to bang the drums of history....to search the alleyways and the blood and gore of historical tragedies....Yep, always light at the end of the tunnel - but first the tunnel must be crawled through however deep the mud....
But, there is a Paulos, and a Josephus, and an abbreviated name that is now though to be"Jesus". The I in IC could work as"Josephus just as well as for"Jesus" and if "Mark" is using vieled references to Josephus why not just abbreviate Josephus' name as IC?
Happy New Year.....
