Giuseppe wrote:
The Egyptian is the more famous messiah lived under Claudius.
It is true that Josephus does not say exactly when "the Egyptian" arrives at the Mount of Olives, for his final battle, only that it happens when Felix is procurator (52-59/60 CE). In both War and Antiquities, however, he writes about this event after he writes about Nero being Emperor.
On the other hand, we don't know for how long "the Egyptian" had been active before then.
The Egyptian is the more famous messiah lived under Claudius.
Care to support your assertion with historical evidence regarding the Egyptain?
If you can't do that, as I know very well that you cannot, then perhaps you could rephrase your statement to something like this:
The Egyptian is the more famous Josephan story about a messiah living under Claudius.
Yes, the Egyptian might have lived under Claudius but you have no way to establish that he did. Historicity for any figure in any text requires evidence, historical evidence.
It's just not good enough, for any search for early christian origins, to assume historicity for any figure in any text. One may as well assume historicity for Jesus living under Pilate and be done with a historical inquiry....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
maryhelena wrote:
... Historicity for any figure in any text requires evidence, historical evidence.
What is required in contemporaneous information -ie. primary sources- that could be considered as evidence or considered likely to be suitable evidence.
maryhelena wrote:
It's just not good enough, for any search for early christian origins, to assume historicity for any figure in any text.
Information from a chronicler like Josephus deserves some consideration. Sure he has a certain 'bent', but he's all we've got for a lot of things. And he was writing as 'a contemporary' in those mid 1st century times.
This is a bit over-the-top -
maryhelena wrote:
One may as well assume historicity for Jesus living under Pilate and be done with a historical inquiry
maryhelena wrote:
... Historicity for any figure in any text requires evidence, historical evidence.
What is required in contemporaneous information -ie. primary sources- that could be considered as evidence or considered to be evidence.
maryhelena wrote:
It's just not good enough, for any search for early christian origins, to assume historicity for any figure in any text.
Information from a chronicler like Josephus deserves some consideration: Sure he has a certain 'bent'. But he's all we've got for a lot of things. And he was writing as 'a contemporary' in those mid-century times.
Indeed, give Josephus some consideration. But taking his writings as 'gospel' is a step too far.....Especially so when attempts are being made to understand early christian origins. Assumptions of historicity are not enough to challenge the Jesus historicists.
This is a bit over-the-top -
maryhelena wrote:
One may as well assume historicity for Jesus living under Pilate and be done with a historical inquiry
Well - that's a common enough position is it not. Millions of Christians hold to it....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
To Maryhelena:
More conspirators are involved in a conspiracy, major is the risk that some outsider realizes their intentions.
The best situation for a conspirationist theory explaining the origins of Christianity would one where only "Mark" (author) knows the truth about the real identity of his Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
maryhelena wrote:
... taking [Josephus's] writings as 'gospel' is a step too far.....Especially so when attempts are being made to understand early christian origins. Assumptions of historicity are not enough to challenge the Jesus historicists.
In that quote, our first sentence is disingenuous when the current issue of the Egyptian is part of the significant issue of the time-shift of several blocks of information set ~50 AD/CE in Josephus's writings to the earlier time period in the gospels (and the TF in Antiquities shows a definitely a relationship with the Emmaus narrative of Luke to be gospel too). Moreover, your second sentence is a non-sequitur with respect to your first. And it seems to be spurious on it's own.
maryhelena wrote:
... taking [Josephus's] writings as 'gospel' is a step too far.....Especially so when attempts are being made to understand early christian origins. Assumptions of historicity are not enough to challenge the Jesus historicists.
In that quote, our first sentence is disingenuous when the current issue of the Egyptian is part of the significant issue of the time-shift of several blocks of information set ~50 AD/CE in Josephus's writings to the earlier time period in the gospels (and there is the TF in Antiquities shows a definitely a relationship between the Emmaus narrative of Luke). Moreover, your second sentence is a non-sequitur with respect to your first. And it seems to be spurious on it's own.
OK - I'll ask you to provide historical evidence for the existence of the Egyptian in the Josephus story.
Without that historical evidence all you are playing at is musical chairs - around and around you go linking part of this story with that part of another story....Get down to basics here - there is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of the Egyptian. Assume all you want but don't think your assumptions will prevent the Jesus historicists marching all the way to the bank of public - and scholarly - opinion.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
OK - I'll ask you to provide historical evidence for the existence of the Egyptian in the Josephus story.
Without that historical evidence all you are playing at is musical chairs - around and around you go linking part of this story with that part of another story....Get down to basics here - there is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of the Egyptian. Assume all you want but don't think your assumptions will prevent the Jesus historicists marching all the way to the bank of public - and scholarly - opinion.
Wait, are you saying everything in Josephus that's not attested to by archaeology or coins should be rejected as ahistorical? (that's most of first century palestinian history!)
Or are you saying everything that's in Josephus and not seconded by Tacitus, or Philo, or ... ?
How about everything that's in Josephus and in the New Testament (such as "the Egyptian")?
I'm not sure I understand. What's history to you?
OK - I'll ask you to provide historical evidence for the existence of the Egyptian in the Josephus story.
Without that historical evidence all you are playing at is musical chairs - around and around you go linking part of this story with that part of another story....Get down to basics here - there is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of the Egyptian. Assume all you want but don't think your assumptions will prevent the Jesus historicists marching all the way to the bank of public - and scholarly - opinion.
Wait, are you saying everything in Josephus that's not attested to by archaeology or coins should be rejected as ahistorical? (that's most of first century palestinian history!)
Or are you saying everything that's in Josephus and not seconded by Tacitus, or Philo, or ... ?
How about everything that's in Josephus and in the New Testament (such as "the Egyptian")?
I'm not sure I understand. What's history to you?
What I am saying is this: If one wants to use Josephus for research into early christianity then one must establish historicity for whatever aspect of his work that one seeks to utilize. There is no point in assuming historicity for a figure in Josephus if one's aim is to counter the assertion of the Jesus historicists. One assumption vs another assumption leads nowhere.
History to me? Hard historical facts that demonstrate historicity for any individual figure. Yes, history often requires a narrative, a story, in it's retelling. But a story without a linkage to historical individuals is just that - a story. Obviously, millions of people lived in the past - but they are not historical without historical evidence for their existence. (Yep, that's an old mantra of 'spin' - but a valuable one to keep in mind when trying to research early christian origins.)
So - bottom line for me - assumptions of historicity do not cut it for research into early christian origins.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
To maryhelena:
"The Egyptian" is present in Josephus War, in Josephus Antiquities, and in the Acts of the Apostles of the New Testament.
What do you want? A coin with his name on it? A tombstone?
