Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Kurt31416]

"What is resolved is you have no idea what "consensus" means or how scholarship works."

Back to the ad-hominem. Gotta start right out with that.

You're plenty bright enough to present your ideas without talking about your or my personal failings. Give it a shot.

I keep turning the cheek here Dave, even though I think it came from Paul, not Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

Why is it hard to imagine someone could be persecuted, including losing their job, for saying the genuine Jesus isn't in the Christian Bible? Someone's teaching that to the students at a religious college and no one might complain and make trouble? The bishop listed as a supporter of a late Thomas would keep his job if he openly argued the opposite?

I love Christians, but plenty of Jerry Falwells left out there.

It depends on the college or university. If you are teaching at a VERY christian college, it stands to reason. But if you are, you know that before you take the job. These places make faculty swear that Jesus is their personal savior. They aren't really known for their research or scholarship.

The top universities in Germany, France, England, and America, however, with reputations for producing scholarship in NT research do not fire people for not believing in Jesus. Plenty of experts in this field aren't christian, and even a catholic priest like Meier has written critical works on the gospels and on Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

You're plenty bright enough to present your ideas without talking about your or my personal failings. Give it a shot.

Impossible not to refer to your lack of knowledge. I gave you a list of scholars who have produced academic publications on the late date of thomas. In return, you say that Funk has a lot of awards. This means zippo. It isn't how consensus or scholarship works.

I keep turning the cheek here Dave, even though I think it came from Paul, not Jesus.

Why do you keep calling me Dave? Do I know you?

 

[Oberon]

List of publications by N. T. Wright: N.T Wright: Publications and Broadcasts

Sort of dwarfs Funks, don't you think?

As for degrees, more of those too:

Education

(i) University of Oxford: Exeter College (from 1975, Merton College):

2000 D.D. (published work submitted, principally The New Testament and the People of God, The Climax of the Covenant and Jesus and the Victory of God)
1981 D.Phil. (Thesis topic: ‘The Messiah and the People of God: A Study in Pauline Theology with Particular Reference to the Argument of the Epistle to the Romans’; supervisor: Prof. G.B. Caird)
1975 M.A.
1973 B.A. (1st class Honours), Theology; Denyer and Johnson Prize (shared) for top first class of year; College Prize
1971 B.A. (1st class Honours), Literae Humaniores; College Prize

And look! More honors:



Honours

2007 Honorary Doctor of Divinity, Durham University (forthcoming)
2006 Honorary Doctor of Divinity, Wycliffe College, Toronto
2006 Honorary Doctor of Divinity, Nashotah House
2004 Honorary Fellow, Merton College, Oxford
2003 Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, Gordon College, Massachusetts
2003 Honorary Fellow, Downing College, Cambridge
2001 Honorary Doctor of Divinity, Aberdeen University

 

[Kurt31416]

It depends on the college or university...

Good, steady progress. So, are you counting the vote of those in those universities that would lose their job for saying so? And surely you agree the Bishop you use as a reference would lose his job.

 

[Kurt31416]

"Impossible not to refer to your lack of knowledge."

Yeah, me and those Senior Fullbright Scholars, and Gugenheim Fellows.

Well, I tried to turn the other cheek Dave, and we both know I did, so never ever claim otherwise.

You have to resort to ad-hominem because you are too flat stupid to keep up. On the historical Jesus or mathematical physics.

How's them apples, pal?

 

[Kurt31416]

It Stands Resolved:

• Scholars that argue for an early Thomas have academic honors vastly exceeding those that argue the opposite.
• The Jesus Seminar says members were persecuted, including losing their jobs, for being members.
• Some universities will fire a professor for saying Thomas was earlier.
• Some of those scholars with the vastly superior academic honors even think it's possible the twin brother of Jesus, Judas Thomas actually wrote Thomas.
• David admits he can't present his position without resorting to ad-hominem.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Kurt31416]

And yeah, if "Biblical scholarship" in your mind, isn't the Fullbright Senior Scholars and Guggehheim Fellows, it's that bishop and billy-bob's Sunday Chapel and Truck Stop preacher, you can have it.

I'll stick to the guys that get good grades in school.

 

[Oberon]

Good, steady progress. So, are you counting the vote of those in those universities that would lose their job for saying so? And surely you agree the Bishop you use as a reference would lose his job.

As a bishop, I have no idea. As a professor no. And as for those universities, as I said they tell you in advance what you have to believe. Nobody who doesn't believe joins their staff, nor is allowed to.

Yeah, me and those Senior Fullbright Scholars, and Gugenheim Fellows.

You aren't a scholar.

Well, I tried to turn the other cheek Dave, and we both know I did, so never ever claim otherwise.

Why do you keep calling me Dave?

You have to resort to ad-hominem because you are too flat stupid to keep up. On the historical Jesus or mathematical physics.

Mathematical physics? very funny.

It Stands Resolved:

By you. You resolve for yourself all you want.

Scholars that argue for an early Thomas have academic honors vastly exceeding those that argue the opposite.

Now I gave you a list crentials of someone with more degrees, honors, and publications, and you still aren't backing off this claim, huh?

The Jesus Seminar says members were persecuted, including losing their jobs, for being members.

Still waiting for the source on this.

Some universities will fire a professor for saying Thomas was earlier.

Yes. This is true. But who cares? These universities tend not to contribute much to critical scholarship or science

Some of those scholars with the vastly superior academic honors even think it's possible the twin brother of Jesus, Judas Thomas actually wrote Thomas.

So far, all you have to back this claim is a comment made by one scholar that it is possible that part of thomas may go back to Judas Thomas. You have yet to refer to a single academic publication to back this claim.

David admits he can't present his position without resorting to ad-hominem.

Ad hominem doen't need a dash. It is the preposition ad plus the accusative of homo.

Did I miss anything?

Yes. In the real world of scholarship, nobody lists a bunch of awards and faculty positions to back an argument. Even a grad student can write to a peer-reviewed academic journal. Scholarship is accepted on the basis of peer-review by other leaders in the field. The fact is, Funk could have six times the degrees he does, that wouldn't change the fact that neither he nor the Jesus seminar represents NT scholarship. They don't even represent American NT scholarship, let alone the rest of the world. The truth stands, and I can give a list of actual publications on the subject, all by academics writing for scholarly journals or publishers, to back me up, as opposed to listing one guy's degrees or awards.

And yeah, if "Biblical scholarship" in your mind, isn't the Fullbright Senior Scholars and Guggehheim Fellows, it's that bishop and billy-bob's Sunday Chapel and Truck Stop preacher, you can have it

Biblical scholarship is much more than Fullbright or Guggenhheim or the Jesus seminar. There are lots of journals, societies, fellowships, etc. in this field. All of the dozen or so guys I listed earlier have their share of degrees and awards, and as I showed, at least some of them have more than Funk. Doesn't matter. What matters is where the consensus of scholarship is and why. I can give you the relevant bibliographies. And you can dismiss N.T. Wright for being christian all you want. But neither Funk nor the Jesus seminar has ever claimed to be unbiased. In fact, the seminar had expressed political views from the outset.

 

[Kurt31416]

As a bishop, I have no idea. As a professor no. And as for those universities, as I said they tell you in advance what you have to believe. Nobody who doesn't believe joins their staff, nor is allowed to..

You already agreed to the obvious, that at some universities, you would be fired for saying Thomas was older and more genuine than the Bible.

You aren't a scholar..

Yeah, and you're a moron. A repetitive one. A mindless, follower of religious dogma.

By you. You resolve for yourself all you want..

Oh we've exposed some real gaps in your knowledge alright. That's clear.

Still waiting for the source on this..

Well you finally admits you're ignorant of it, like all the rest... Sure, I'll go fetch it and type part of it in, all you had to do is ask...

"Critical scholarship is regularly under attack by conservative Christian groups. At least one Fellow of the Jesus Seminar lost his academic post as a result of his membership in the group. Others hae been forced to withdraw as a consequence of institutional pressure. Latter day inquisitors among Southern Baptist and Lutheran groups ave gone witch hunting for scholars who did not pass their litmus tests. Public attack on members of the Seminar is commonplace, coming especiallly from those who lack academic credentials."
The Five Gospels, p. 35

How does it feel to walk in the footsteps of the Inquisition?

Yes. In the real world of scholarship, nobody lists a bunch of awards and faculty positions to back an argument.

Biblical scholarship is much more than Fullbright or Guggenhheim .

Yeah, it's gotta be something other than fancy honors like that, because no one on that pathetic list sure as hell could never get one.

You brought up what the experts think, and you've had your nose rubbed in it.

 

[Oberon]

You already agreed to the obvious, that at some universities, you would be fired for saying Thomas was older and more genuine than the Bible.

You keep ignoring the rest of this. No university other than the ones which only hire confessed christians (who have to prove this prior to taking a faculty position) would fire a professor for joining the jesus seminar.

Yeah, and you're a moron. A repetitive one. A mindless, follower of religious dogma.

I'm agnostic. I don't follow any dogma, but I do have actual scholarship to back me up, not listing the degrees of a single person in a field of literally thousands of scholars writing in multiple languages.

Oh we've exposed some real gaps in your knowledge alright. That's clear.

For example? So far, all you have proven is that you can't back up either claim you made about Thomas.

1) Consensus doesn't mean one guy with however many credentials, nor does it mean the Jesus seminar. It means a majority of experts in this field. So far, you have yet to cite even a single expert outside the Jesus seminar who believes that Thomas predates the synoptics, nor can you say that every member of the Jesus seminar does.

2) So far, backing up your ridiculous claim that Thomas may have been written by Jesus' brother is a single quote by one guy stating that parts of Thomas MAY go back to Jesus' brother. You have yet to cite a single academic publication in defense of this view.

Well you finally admits you're ignorant of it, like all the rest... Sure, I'll go fetch it and type part of it in, all you had to do is ask...

"Critical scholarship is regularly under attack by conservative Christian groups. At least one Fellow of the Jesus Seminar lost his academic post as a result of his membership in the group. Others hae been forced to withdraw as a consequence of institutional pressure. Latter day inquisitors among Southern Baptist and Lutheran groups ave gone witch hunting for scholars who did not pass their litmus tests. Public attack on members of the Seminar is commonplace, coming especiallly from those who lack academic credentials."
The Five Gospels, p. 35

Yes, I have the same book. I was unimpressed by this comment the first time I read it. Not only have had personal experience within academia in this field, I know personally have met and talked with plenty of professors and scholars from a wide variety of universities who have published critical works on Jesus. They are all over the place. The only universities that don't allow critical scholarship on Jesus are the ones which say so from the beginning. The Jesus seminar has always been about publicity.

Yeah, it's gotta be something other than fancy honors like that, because no one on that pathetic list sure as hell could never get one.

You brought up what the experts think, and you've had your nose rubbed in it.

HAHAHAHA! WRONG! Because one of us has multiple experts to back him up. So back to what has been established

1) Wright has more degrees, publications, and awards than Funk
2) A consensus of NT scholarship, from agnostics like Ehrman to christians like Wright, do not believe that Thomas predates the synoptics. In fact, most of the proponents of this view come from a rather small group of american scholars.

 

[Oberon]

Here's a list of actual scholarship you should feel free to check out on your own time. Now, this is only includes those who argue that Thomas is dependent on the synoptics. It does not include the many more (Jeremias, Ehrman, etc) who argue that Thomas is independent but later.

In fact, even many of those in the Jesus seminar who believe that part or most of thomas predates the synoptics do not believe that the document as we have it does. But here is the list. I would start with the article by Tuckett is I were you.

Blomberg, Craig L. “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas.” Perspectives. The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. 177-205.

Chilton, Bruce. “The Gospel According to Thomas as a Souce of Jesus’ Teachings” Gospel Perspectives. The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. 155-75.

Dehandschutter, Boudewijn. “L’Évangile selon Thomas: témoin d’une tradition prélucanienne?” Peeters, 1989.

Dunn, J. D. G. Christianity in the Making (Vol. 1: Jesus Remembered). Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003.

Fieger, Miachael. Das Thomasevangelium. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 22 Münster: Aschendorff, 1991.

Gärtner, Bertil. The Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas. New York: Harber & Brothers, 1961.

Grant, Robert M. Gnosticism and Early Christinity. New York: Harper & Row, 1966

Haechen, Ernst. Die Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums. Berlin: A Töpelmann, 1961.

Meier, J. P. A Marginal Jew (Vol. I: The roots of the Problem). The Anchor B ible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis. The Nature and History of Gnosticism. San Fransisco: Harper & Row, 1987.

Schrage, Wolfgang. Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 29, Berlin, Töpelmann, 1964.

Sevrin, Jean-Marie. “Un groupement de trois paraboles contre les richesses dans l'Evangile selon Thomas EvTh 63, 64, 65” in J. Derlorme (ed.) Les paraboles évangéliques: Perspectives nouvelles (Paris: Cerf, 1989). 425-39

Tuckett, Christopher. “Thomas and the Synoptics.” Novum Testamentum 30 (1988) 132-57.

Turner, H. E. W. “The Gospel of Thomas: Its History, Transmission and Sources,” in Hugh Montefiore and H. E. W. Turner’s Thomas and the Evangilists (Studies in Biblical Theology 35, London: SCM, 1962).

Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

 

[dogsgod]

Well Oberon, what great scholarly minds have come to the unanimous conclusion that it was unnecessary for the author of Luke/Acts to introduce James, the brother of Jesus as a religious leader to his readers, all unnecessary because they just knew, it was just too obvious to either introduce him by name, or to write of his leadership? Bear in mind that the same author wrote an entire gospel on Jesus, with a complete introduction to Jesus, however in the case of James, well it just was not necessary to introduce him by name, or to mention that it was he in the leadership role because, well in his case, unlike Jesus, it was just too well understood, and would be for generations to come, so why write it down when it would be redundant to do so. Such reasoning skills by the greatest of Biblical scholars, I'm so impressed. You must be too, or you wouldn't have shared such wisdom, and insight. So, who are these great scholars, these men of endless credentials that have left us with ordinary minds spellbound?

 

[Oberon]

Well Oberon, what great scholarly minds have come to the unanimous conclusion that it was unnecessary for the author of Luke/Acts to introduce James, the brother of Jesus as a religious leader to his readers, all unnecessary because they just knew, it was just too obvious to either introduce him by name, or to write of his leadership? Bear in mind that the same author wrote an entire gospel on Jesus, with a complete introduction to Jesus, however in the case of James, well it just was not necessary to introduce him by name, or to mention that it was he in the leadership role because, well in his case, unlike Jesus, it was just too well understood, and would be for generations to come, so why write it down when it would be redundant to do so. Such reasoning skills by the greatest of Biblical scholars, I'm so impressed. You must be too, or you wouldn't have shared such wisdom, and insight. So, who are these great scholars, these men of endless credentials that have left us ordinary minds spellbound?

There is no consensus that I am aware of, nor even a great deal of focus, on why Luke never introduces James as the brother of Jesus. There are many possible reasons, from those I have offered to the simple solution that Luke/Acts wasn't all that fond of James, and therefore doesn't want to link him closer to Jesus. This at least would explain why Luke/Acts lists James as a brother of Jude (also a brother of Jesus) but not Jesus himself.

It is also all completely irrelevant for your purposes. You are trying to argue that Jesus was entirely mythical, and that therefore James couldn't actually be his brother. Unfortunately, you have no actual evidence for this claim.

We have three independent sources (at least one of whom knew James personally) that state that James was a brother of Jesus (Paul, Josephus, Mark/Matthew). We have one other source which mentions a James, but doesn't specify that he is the brother of Jesus (Acts). We can't know why. Of course, this same source DOES say that Jesus was historical, and that he had brothers. What we can know is that early and independent sources DO specify that James WAS the brother of Jesus. In fact, this is one of the few places where a non-christian and virtually undisputed text comes in handy, because Josephus, alive while James was, knows of his trial.

 

[dogsgod]

There is no consensus that I am aware of, nor even a great deal of focus, on why Luke never introduces James as the brother of Jesus. There are many possible reasons, from those I have offered to the simple solution that Luke/Acts wasn't all that fond of James, and therefore doesn't want to link him closer to Jesus. This at least would explain why Luke/Acts lists James as a brother of Jude (also a brother of Jesus) but not Jesus himself.

It is also all completely irrelevant for your purposes. You are trying to argue that Jesus was entirely mythical, and that therefore James couldn't actually be his brother. Unfortunately, you have no actual evidence for this claim.

We have three independent sources (at least one of whom knew James personally) that state that James was a brother of Jesus (Paul, Josephus, Mark/Matthew). We have one other source which mentions a James, but doesn't specify that he is the brother of Jesus (Acts). We can't know why. Of course, this same source DOES say that Jesus was historical, and that he had brothers. What we can know is that early and independent sources DO specify that James WAS the brother of Jesus. In fact, this is one of the few places where a non-christian and virtually undisputed text comes in handy, because Josephus, alive while James was, knows of his trial.

So there is no scholarly consensus as to why there is no suggestion in any of the gospels nor in Acts of James, the brother of Jesus, becoming a religious leader? Really?

To suggest Matthew is independent of Mark's reference to James as the brother of Jesus is laughable among the other things you claim. Do you have a clue as to why the synoptic gospels are referred to as the synoptic gospels?

 

[Oberon]

So there is no scholarly consensus as to why there is no suggestion in any of the gospels nor in Acts of James, the brother of Jesus, becoming a religious leader? Really?

As for the gospels, because James wasn't. That explains all of the gospels. It is really that simple. James Jesus' brother did not become important until afterwords. We know this because the gospels record a clear rift between Jesus and his family. However, we also know from Paul and Josephus (and possibly from Acts) that James at least became more important later.

Do you have a clue as to why the synoptic gospels are referred to as the synoptic gospels?

Do you know how to count? I said at least three independent sources: Paul, Josephus, and Mark/Matthew. If I had intended Mark and Matthew to be taken as definitely independent sources I would have said four. Certainly, most scholars would not take them as independent.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

Here is a secular account from Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (37 CE - 95 CE):

"About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, who did good deeds and whose virtues were recognized. And many Jews and people of other nations became his disciples.
Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. However, those who became his disciples preached his doctrine. They related that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Perhaps he was the Messiah in
connection with whom the prophets foretold wonders." (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XVIII 3.2)

I have read this passage in Josephus, as well as the charge of it being a forgery interpolated by the Church. But I don't see anything in the quotation of Josephus to compromise or contradict the Scriptures. Therefore, I am ready to accept it as legitimate.

Jesus was indeed a wise and virtuous Jew. By the time Josephus wrote this, many Christians would be talking about Jesus as such, and probably two or three of the gospels were out.

As we can see, Josephus left out to mention the Hellenistic part preached about Jesus by Christians. And with regards to Pilate, Josephus did charge him with having been the one who condemned Jesus to the cross, and not the Jews, whom the NT is only too ready to accuse.

Regarding resurrection, there is no indication in Josephus. He says that those who related to him, obviously Christians, would say that Jesus appeared three days after his crucifixion. To appear alive after one's crucifixion is no evidence that he had died and much less resurrected.

And for being the Messiah, he uses the term "perhaps" based on the word of Christians who would preach about him as such. But Messiah in the Christian sense and not Jewish. The Christian idea about the Messiah pales before the Jewish concept of the one.

Ben

Even if this account is not an interpolation, (Jury still out on this one), Josephus NEVER met Yeshua. As you have rightly quoted ("They related that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive.").....As we can clearly see..he, like Luke, received his information "who claimed" to be eyewitnesses...

 

[Oberon]

Even if this account is not an interpolation, (Jury still out on this one), Josephus NEVER met Yeshua. As you have rightly quoted ("They related that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive.").....As we can clearly see..he, like Luke, received his information "who claimed" to be eyewitnesses...

True enough. It is almost certain that we don't have any direct eyewitness testimoney. What we have is sometimes certainly 2nd hand (Paul), sometimes probably 2nd hand (much of the gospel tradition), and often unknown.

However, this was par for the course as far as ancient history goes. In fact, it is true for modern history as well. Modern history is often written by culling other sources, some already 2nd hand, or by interviewing eyewitnesses (as was done by Papias or Luke). So while it wouldn't hold up in court, neither would the eyewitness account of a police officer who saw the crime because of the placement of a camera illegally.

 

[dogsgod]

However, this was par for the course as far as ancient history goes.

Then we know less than nothing about ancient history.

 

[Oberon]

Then we know less than nothing about ancient history.

That's one possibility. Or we could take the normal and better approach and simply not trust every word of our sources.