Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

schillingklaus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 7:21 am Even after removing the patristic interpolations, FJ wrote midrash, not history.

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 8:51 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 6:44 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 6:10 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 5:47 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 5:24 am

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?

See what I mean?

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!

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:02 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 8:51 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 6:44 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 6:10 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 5:47 am

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?

See what I mean?

So a time-shift. As far as I'm aware Josephus died in his bed sometime after 93/94 c. e. The ground zero for the Gospel Jesus story is the time of Tiberias. Thus a 60 year time-shift between the Jesus story and the death of Josephus. And of course no Crucifixion. A necessary elements for the Resurrection story. Similar time-shifts have been proposed. The Egyptian and Jesus ben Saphat. Neither of which contain a Crucifixion or a Roman execution of a King of the Jews.

I would suggest, that if a time-shift is being entertained as a method or tool for interpretation of the gospel story, it would be more fruitful to move the time-shift the other way. Go back 70 years from 33 c.e and one does arrive at a Roman execution of a King of the Jews in 37 b. c. Cassius Dio saying Antigonus was bound to a cross. The historical event of a Roman execution of a King of the Jews, by Marc Antony, I would suggest, has more relevance for the Gospel Crucifixion story than either Josephus, the Egyptian or Jesus ben Saphat.

And since there is no historical evidence for the Josephan figures of the Egyptian or Jesus ben Sapath..... and historicity of Josephus can be questioned........ that leaves the historical figure of Antigonus as a role model for the Gospel Jesus Crucifixion story. A 70th year anniversary/rememberence of a Hasmonean/Jewish tragedy.

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:34 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:02 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 8:51 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 6:44 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 6:10 am

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?

See what I mean?

So a time-shift. As far as I'm aware Josephus died in his bed sometime after 93/94 c. e. The ground zero for the Gospel Jesus story is the time of Tiberias. Thus a 60 year time-shift between the Jesus story and the death of Josephus. And of course no Crucifixion. A necessary elements for the Resurrection story. Similar time-shifts have been proposed. The Egyptian and Jesus ben Saphat. Neither of which contain a Crucifixion or a Roman execution of a King of the Jews.

I would suggest, that if a time-shift is being entertained as a method or tool for interpretation of the gospel story, it would be more fruitful to move the time-shift the other way. Go back 70 years from 33 c.e and one does arrive at a Roman execution of a King of the Jews in 37 b. c. Cassius Dio saying Antigonus was bound to a cross. The historical event of a Roman execution of a King of the Jews, by Marc Antony, I would suggest, has more relevance for the Gospel Crucifixion story than either Josephus, the Egyptian or Jesus ben Saphat.

And since there is no historical evidence for the Josephan figures of the Egyptian or Jesus ben Sapath..... and historicity of Josephus can be questioned........ that leaves the historical figure of Antigonus as a role model for the Gospel Jesus Crucifixion story. A 70th year anniversary/rememberence of a Hasmonean/Jewish tragedy.

Ok, if Antigonus is being referred to then why "IC"? What does IC stand for?

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:12 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:34 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:02 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 8:51 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 6:44 am

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?

See what I mean?

So a time-shift. As far as I'm aware Josephus died in his bed sometime after 93/94 c. e. The ground zero for the Gospel Jesus story is the time of Tiberias. Thus a 60 year time-shift between the Jesus story and the death of Josephus. And of course no Crucifixion. A necessary elements for the Resurrection story. Similar time-shifts have been proposed. The Egyptian and Jesus ben Saphat. Neither of which contain a Crucifixion or a Roman execution of a King of the Jews.

I would suggest, that if a time-shift is being entertained as a method or tool for interpretation of the gospel story, it would be more fruitful to move the time-shift the other way. Go back 70 years from 33 c.e and one does arrive at a Roman execution of a King of the Jews in 37 b. c. Cassius Dio saying Antigonus was bound to a cross. The historical event of a Roman execution of a King of the Jews, by Marc Antony, I would suggest, has more relevance for the Gospel Crucifixion story than either Josephus, the Egyptian or Jesus ben Saphat.

And since there is no historical evidence for the Josephan figures of the Egyptian or Jesus ben Sapath..... and historicity of Josephus can be questioned........ that leaves the historical figure of Antigonus as a role model for the Gospel Jesus Crucifixion story. A 70th year anniversary/rememberence of a Hasmonean/Jewish tragedy.

Ok, if Antigonus is being referred to then why "IC"? What does IC stand for?

IC..... First and last letter of name Jesus in Greek. (correct me if I have that wrong). Jesus is the name given to a literary figure. Antigonus the name of a historical figure. The Crucifixion story of the literary Jesus figure reflects the Roman execution of a historical King of the Jews. (the zealot element that some scholars discern in the gospel story). Reflection not equation.......as we today reflect upon our own tragedies. Or the end of them..... The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month is yearly remembered in the UK. (as well as many other past historical days..). Judaea was still under Roman occupation 70 years after the execution of Antigonus..... not a time to openly be remembering a Roman execution of a Jewish King. But that the gospel writers chose to place their Jesus Crucifixion story in the time of Tiberius and Pilate - 70 years after that tragic event. - would indicate that they saw some relevance in that history for dating their story........ That they were not playing close eyes pin tail on donkey.

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:45 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:12 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:34 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:02 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 8:51 am

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?

See what I mean?

So a time-shift. As far as I'm aware Josephus died in his bed sometime after 93/94 c. e. The ground zero for the Gospel Jesus story is the time of Tiberias. Thus a 60 year time-shift between the Jesus story and the death of Josephus. And of course no Crucifixion. A necessary elements for the Resurrection story. Similar time-shifts have been proposed. The Egyptian and Jesus ben Saphat. Neither of which contain a Crucifixion or a Roman execution of a King of the Jews.

I would suggest, that if a time-shift is being entertained as a method or tool for interpretation of the gospel story, it would be more fruitful to move the time-shift the other way. Go back 70 years from 33 c.e and one does arrive at a Roman execution of a King of the Jews in 37 b. c. Cassius Dio saying Antigonus was bound to a cross. The historical event of a Roman execution of a King of the Jews, by Marc Antony, I would suggest, has more relevance for the Gospel Crucifixion story than either Josephus, the Egyptian or Jesus ben Saphat.

And since there is no historical evidence for the Josephan figures of the Egyptian or Jesus ben Sapath..... and historicity of Josephus can be questioned........ that leaves the historical figure of Antigonus as a role model for the Gospel Jesus Crucifixion story. A 70th year anniversary/rememberence of a Hasmonean/Jewish tragedy.

Ok, if Antigonus is being referred to then why "IC"? What does IC stand for?

IC..... First and last letter of name Jesus in Greek. (correct me if I have that wrong). Jesus is the name given to a literary figure. Antigonus the name of a historical figure. The Crucifixion story of the literary Jesus figure reflects the Roman execution of a historical King of the Jews. (the zealot element that some scholars discern in the gospel story). Reflection not equation.......as we today reflect upon our own tragedies. Or the end of them..... The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month is yearly remembered in the UK. (as well as many other past historical days..). Judaea was still under Roman occupation 70 years after the execution of Antigonus..... not a time to openly be remembering a Roman execution of a Jewish King. But that the gospel writers chose to place their Jesus Crucifixion story in the time of Tiberius and Pilate - 70 years after that tragic event. - would indicate that they saw some relevance in that history for dating their story........ That they were not playing close eyes pin tail on donkey.

But, how do you know that? The abbreviation IC could stand for John, or Josephus, or Issac, or....... Any Jewish, Greek, or Roman name or noun that begins with a I in Greek.

The "Church Fathers" felt that IC equaled Jesus but, is that what "Mark" actually ment? The writer of "Mark" had a reason to use IC. What was it?

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:47 am BTW, I agree that Antigonus probably really was the model for the IC "Passion" story.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:02 pm

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:45 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:12 am

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:34 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:02 am

So a time-shift. As far as I'm aware Josephus died in his bed sometime after 93/94 c. e. The ground zero for the Gospel Jesus story is the time of Tiberias. Thus a 60 year time-shift between the Jesus story and the death of Josephus. And of course no Crucifixion. A necessary elements for the Resurrection story. Similar time-shifts have been proposed. The Egyptian and Jesus ben Saphat. Neither of which contain a Crucifixion or a Roman execution of a King of the Jews.

I would suggest, that if a time-shift is being entertained as a method or tool for interpretation of the gospel story, it would be more fruitful to move the time-shift the other way. Go back 70 years from 33 c.e and one does arrive at a Roman execution of a King of the Jews in 37 b. c. Cassius Dio saying Antigonus was bound to a cross. The historical event of a Roman execution of a King of the Jews, by Marc Antony, I would suggest, has more relevance for the Gospel Crucifixion story than either Josephus, the Egyptian or Jesus ben Saphat.

And since there is no historical evidence for the Josephan figures of the Egyptian or Jesus ben Sapath..... and historicity of Josephus can be questioned........ that leaves the historical figure of Antigonus as a role model for the Gospel Jesus Crucifixion story. A 70th year anniversary/rememberence of a Hasmonean/Jewish tragedy.

Ok, if Antigonus is being referred to then why "IC"? What does IC stand for?

IC..... First and last letter of name Jesus in Greek. (correct me if I have that wrong). Jesus is the name given to a literary figure. Antigonus the name of a historical figure. The Crucifixion story of the literary Jesus figure reflects the Roman execution of a historical King of the Jews. (the zealot element that some scholars discern in the gospel story). Reflection not equation.......as we today reflect upon our own tragedies. Or the end of them..... The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month is yearly remembered in the UK. (as well as many other past historical days..). Judaea was still under Roman occupation 70 years after the execution of Antigonus..... not a time to openly be remembering a Roman execution of a Jewish King. But that the gospel writers chose to place their Jesus Crucifixion story in the time of Tiberius and Pilate - 70 years after that tragic event. - would indicate that they saw some relevance in that history for dating their story........ That they were not playing close eyes pin tail on donkey.

But, how do you know that? The abbreviation IC could stand for John, or Josephus, or Issac, or....... Any Jewish, Greek, or Roman name or noun that begins with a I in Greek.

The "Church Fathers" felt that IC equaled Jesus but, is that what "Mark" actually ment? The writer of "Mark" had a reason to use IC. What was it?

OK..... Don't know what Mark meant...