Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Every serious and ecstatically beautiful reconstruction should have its own graphic visualization. I envied Zuntz and the researchers of the synoptic problem for their diagrams and therefore I created the following sketch called "The Development of Christian Content".
The reconstruction perfectly explains why such diverse content developed in the 2nd century. Paulinism, Gnosticism, orthodoxy, heresy started almost simultaneously. Because the generic message common to everyone from TF was modest: Jesus, the messiah, crucified, risen. But it was enough.....
As usual, the winners were those who knew they wanted to win. They demonstrated the best analytical skills when it comes to the mass consumer product market and organizational skills in creating task-oriented structures.
One thing is sad - sellers of mass products do not buy them themselves. They simply create, package, advertise and sell these products.

Is this a historicist paradigm?

The only difference between a historicist paradigm and the your scenario is that in the traditional historicist case the Josephus's TF was not necessary, while in the your scenario the decisive impulse was just given by the knowledge of the TF.

Why?

Was the reason the chronological dating of that crucified Jesus (40 years before the destruction of the temple)? But then there was already in existence a movement expecting only this detail (the short chronicle about someone who was crucified 40 years before the 70) in order to organize itself around a simple dogmatic...

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 10:52 pm Is this a historicist paradigm?

The only difference between a historicist paradigm and the your scenario is that in the traditional historicist case the Josephus's TF was not necessary, while in the your scenario the decisive impulse was just given by the knowledge of the TF.

Why?

Was the reason the chronological dating of that crucified Jesus (40 years before the destruction of the temple)? But then there was already in existence a movement expecting only this detail (the short chronicle about someone who was crucified 40 years before the 70) in order to organize itself around a simple dogmatic...

This is just a reconstruction of content development. There was no prior Joshua cult and it all started with TF exclusively. A forgotten story from the past (65 years before) is the only source.
There were messianic expectations in the public consciousness. God will send someone. Messianic expectations were exploited by some usurpers, either in Rome or Jerusalem, and their local initiatives ended in their death and oblivion.
Then came the uprising and destruction of the Temple. Flavius ​​wrote books and recalled these characters. He resurrected them in his texts. Most often he wrote negatively about them, but about Jesus he wrote that he was the Messiah.
Remember that Ant Josephus' book is a mixture of gossip, biblical stories, anecdotes, historical accounts mixed together.
The audience liked this mix

JarekS wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 12:47 ambut about Jesus he wrote that he was the Messiah.

it seems quasi a self-confutation.

Really, the beauty of the your scenario is that it explains why there was a so abyssal silence about Jesus and in the whiletime why the his historicity was never denied by Pagans (even if it was denied by Christians).

The weakness is the defence "till the bitter end" of the partial authenticity of the TF. I am expecting the Bermejo-Rubio's reply to Chrissy Hansen's article 'A negative Testimonium?' in order to see who is more right between their two.

In whiletime, none denier of the entire TF is going to answer to the Thackeray's argument, which is in my view the extreme last defence of the TF.

Really, the beauty of the your scenario is that it explains why there was a so abyssal silence about Jesus ...
Yes exactly. Late dating of the real beginning of the movement (post 95CE) and fully invented Christian past from 30 CE to 97/100CE (gospel stories, narrative of Pauline Corpus).
..... the whiletime why the his historicity was never denied by Pagans.
Yeap!

When you write:


...can you detect who was the earliest author who was interested about the Josephian 'Jesus' mentioned in the original TF?

The author of a first draft of what will become our gospels?
The author of a first 'epistle'?
The author of a revelation?

I can't answer this question. I assume that the first was some apocalyptic revelation - someone's own idea for intriguing,scary content independent of others. Apocalyptic content never gets old.
The Gospels (all) and Pauline Corpus are examples of comprehensive aggregated content - a later stage of content development. *Ev and Pauline Corpus was the best content chosen from much bigger existing repository.

I improved the drawing taking into account Giuseppe's insightful conclusion.

Is there an "abysmal" silence about Jesus? Can we quantify the silence about Jesus as "abysmal" without knowing who Jesus was? The underlining assumption for an abysmal silence is that the historical Jesus was the Gospel Jesus. No-one here AFAIK thinks that the historical Jesus, if he existed, was the Gospel Jesus. So how do we conclude that the silence is "abysmal"?

Let's start with the reasonable assumption that the Gospels were fictions built from the Old Testament. The Gospels were written from about 70s to the early Second Century. One wouldn't expect Gospel details in pre-Gospel writings. So, what exactly is the absymal silence?

On the other hand, if the Pauline epistles were written in the Second Century and after the Gospels, then there is indeed an abysmal silence. But that has nothing to do with the historical Jesus.

Why do you write 'abysmal' if 'abyssal' licet ?

If Jesus was mentioned only by Josephus and never by the Christians (before Josephus), then yes, there is an abyssal silence.

If Jesus was mentioned not even by Josephus but only by Christians, then yes, there is an abyssal silence (since even a tiny Lilliputian rebel as Theudas was mentioned by Josephus).