Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 9:07 pm

JarekS wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 10:25 amYou really don’t need much. Someone read this story publicly. A listener asked, “Tell us more about this Jesus.” The narrator replied, “I don’t know anything else.” “Then find out more,” the audience replied. This is how it is in this business of creators creating for fame and applause.

That's right. And where would they go for valid information about the Christ assuming an originally largely unknown Jesus? The Old Testament.

LXX with all errors in translation

Tacitus, in Annals 15.44, "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace."

Suetonius, 16.2: "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

The Christianos Graffito: viewtopic.php?p=166309#p166309

This indicates, adequately for me at least, that Christians were around in the 60s (Nero) and pre-79 (Vesuvius).

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 4:13 pm Tacitus, in Annals 15.44, "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace."

Suetonius, 16.2: "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

The Christianos Graffito: viewtopic.php?p=166309#p166309

This indicates, adequately for me at least, that Christians were around in the 60s (Nero) and pre-79 (Vesuvius).

I don't see a problem here. I know these testimonies and the history of graffiti.

I showed the history of Christianity based on the figure of the historical Jesus. I am not dealing here with the origins of possible sectarian movements, which today we cannot say that they knew such a figure. A number of researchers postulate pre-Christian Jesus as a divine mediator, a divine being who was the object of worship of various sects. What exactly was the object of worship of these sects is difficult to determine. The works of William B Smith, Robert Wipper deal with these matters. I don't.

I also asked here whether the source of Josephus was some real story or an invented tradition. Ultimate question(ha!). Did Jesus exist or not? There is only one source: a Jewish pseudo-historian with great writing imagination.

In my opinion, Josephus was a bit carried away by his own creativity as a writer who wanted to deliver an exciting story. Bold and shocking claims were needed to add a dose of drama to this story. It turned out a little different than he expected.

I still maintain the thesis that the Christianity we know, with the historical Jesus, began with Josephus. I claim that it was a source for early Christian writers - the authors of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus.
The sectarian movement is characterized by great instability - various ideas appear and sooner or later they run out. Sects collapse when, at the initial stage, they are unable to gather and maintain an appropriate number of followers.

Christianity with the historical Jesus succeeded because it produced a lot of attractive content in a short time. The second century was an explosion of Christian creation in literature. The distances of 10-15 years between the canonical gospels assumed by biblical scholars are reconstruction ideas detached from real life. In this market, hit and run applies and time to market is crucial. The second reason for Christianity's success was the rapid transition to a professionally organized structure with a division of tasks. Marcion's legacy.

JarekS wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 8:09 pm I still maintain the thesis that the Christianity we know, with the historical Jesus, began with Josephus.

Not one bit of what you're saying seems likely at all.

JarekS wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 8:09 pm
I still maintain the thesis that the Christianity we know, with the historical Jesus, began with Josephus.

Josephus wrote Antiquities around 94 c.e. However, he places the TF in a historical context of 19 c.e. (the death of Germanicus in 19 c.e. plus the expelling of Jews from Rome under Tiberius in 19 c.e.) Logically, if, as you seem to think, that Josephus wrote about a historical Jesus in the TF, then followers of this historical Jesus figure were active prior to and post 19 c.e.

As to whether Josephus was actually writing about a historical Jesus in the TF - well, that is an issue that has not been historically verified.

It is surely mistaken to take what Josephus writes as 'gospel', that everything he writes must be taken as historical evidence. Particularly, so when one is basing ones theory of christianity upon words one reads in his writing.

For instance: Masada:


Unless you can provide historical evidence (i.e. non-Josephan) for your historical TF Jesus - then, I'm afraid all you are doing is blowing in the wind....

Fair enough...
To be continued.

Maryhelena:TF is in every manuscript we have. TF fits into the literary construct of folk heroes called Sign Prophets described by Josephus. Each of them has a common feature - they oppose the system and some religious prefiguration based on Tanakh is added to their actions. And at the same time, everyone is a little different, unique in their own way. Christ is not a society-wide title requiring general acceptance. Some people call someone Christ and others condemn and ridicule it. Josephus' story may have been invented by him as an element of a writing convention intended to increase the attractiveness of the text. Or it may be a historically true story, based on some oral tradition known to Josephus.
It seems reasonable that in the 1st century there were sectarian trends in Hellenistic Judaism using the religious figure of Christ known from the Jewish and Greek traditions (LXX). It is difficult to say who these Christs were due to the lack of written evidence. Jesus of Nazareth of the evangelists and the Risen Jesus of Paul are creations that supplement the fragmentary information about the hero described by Josephus.

Only a question: the TF reconstructed by Dave Allen misses at all the name 'Jesus' but has the phrase 'he was believed the Messiah' or something of similar.

Why can't the Samaritan Impostor slain by Pilate function in the same way?

He also fits the minimalistic requisites for your theory:

• killed by Pilate

• considered the Taheb (the Samaritan Messiah son of Joseph)

• unnamed prophet

• the Jew Josephus is satisfied for the his punition

JarekS wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 12:35 pm;

Josephus' story may have been invented by him as an element of a writing convention intended to increase the attractiveness of the text.

An invented story by Josephus - hence no basis for using it in support of a historical Jesus.

Or it may be a historically true story, based on some oral tradition known to Josephus.

An historically true story based on oral tradition - is so - then others could also make use of such an historical story and would have no reason to wait upon the Josephan TF before they put their own version/interpretation on papyrus.

Jesus of Nazareth of the evangelists and the Risen Jesus of Paul are creations that supplement the fragmentary information about the hero described by Josephus.

So it's back to the Josephan TF for you......

Yet, if, for example, the Lukan writer was following the Josephan TF (with its 19 c.e. context) then why did this writer place his Jesus birth narrative in 6 c.e. ? Luke's Jesus would only be about 13/14 years old when hung on Calvary's cross. Or did Luke read the TF as a literary construct - and simply decided to give the story a new setting under Quirinus in 6 c.e. A story development rather than an outdated repeat performance. After all, who uses Windows XP when Windows 11 is available.