Josephus on Jesus

[Jayhawker Soule]

A decade ago Kirby wrote:

But assuming that at least the shorter reference is authentic, what can we conclude from this? It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact.

and I continue to maintain that this and Acts is more than sufficient grounds for the presumption of historicity (but not, of course, divinity) simply on the basis of abductive reasoning.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Jay, did you know that many - if not most - NT scholars doubt the historical value of Acts? Some consider it all to be a fabrication... it seems to me that it is easier for scholars to weed out a little historical information from the Gospels than it is to do so from Acts.

It's unclear to me from you post if you're taking a position on this or accepting Acts as of historical value based on something else.

 

[fallingblood]

A decade ago Kirby wrote:and I continue to maintain that this and Acts is more than sufficient grounds for the presumption of historicity (but not, of course, divinity) simply on the basis of abductive reasoning.

I would say that just Josephus, and even just the shorter passage, would be sufficient.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's unclear to me from you post if you're taking a position on this or accepting Acts as of historical value based on something else.

I view Acts as self-serving narrative but one well grounded in the conditions of the time. I see no reason presume that the Jerusalem sect was a total fabrication nor that there was not some sense in which Paul (an outsider) was competing with that sect for authority.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I view Acts as self-serving narrative but one well grounded in the conditions of the time. I see no reason presume that the Jerusalem sect was a total fabrication nor that there was not some sense in which Paul (an outsider) was competing with that sect for authority.

I agree. The difficulty is teasing out the Jerusalem sect that was created in the image of the author of Acts and the one that actually existed. And if we do that, what would we have? -- a Jerusalem sect made in our image?

That's the problem that I have with the historical Jesus mania. Jesus is encased in at least four different theologies, and to seperate out the historical Jesus from the theologies that encase him is to create something else entirely. The theology is what gave birth to Jesus as he is represented in the Gospels and to divorce him from that is just too clinical and artifical.

The same with Acts, IMHO. The Jerusalem sect is encased in whatever philosophy of ancient history that the author embraced, the theology of Acts, and however these ideas are wrapped up in the epic novel format.

I know that I'm preaching to the chior here...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But, whether we're dealing with Acts or Galatians 2, we're still left with with the Jerusalem sect, and one portrayed in a manner far more problematic than one would expect from a self-serving fabrication. Such sects typically evolve around charismatic religious leaders and, especially given Josephus, there is zero reason to insist that Yeshua did not serve that role.

The Mythical Jesus 'hysteria' is little more than agenda-driven nonsense.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But, whether we're dealing with Acts or Galatians 2, we're still left with with the Jerusalem sect, and one portrayed in a manner far more problematic than one would expect from a self-serving fabrication. Such sects typically evolve around charismatic religious leaders and, especially given Josephus, there is zero reason to insist that Yeshua did not serve that role.

The Mythical Jesus 'hysteria' is little more than agenda-driven nonsense.

Oh, I agree on all counts.

 

[sojourner]

Even Jesus Seminar people admit the limited scope of what their work yields. It has rendered some scholarship with regard to what might be authentic quotations, but in the end, all they have really done is -- as A_E says -- divorce Jesus from the theological milieu in which he was probably entrenched. And I have to ask myself: Can a person be completely divorced from her/his environment and remain who (s)he is?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Even Jesus Seminar people admit the limited scope of what their work yields. It has rendered some scholarship with regard to what might be authentic quotations, but in the end, all they have really done is -- as A_E says -- divorce Jesus from the theological milieu in which he was probably entrenched. And I have to ask myself: Can a person be completely divorced from her/his environment and remain who (s)he is?

When I see that, I think cultural mileu - a real environment - not the abstract theologies that Jesus is suspended in.

That's what I think is the Jesus seminar's greatest failure: they are unable to develop a reliable tool that can seperate Jesus from the theological cacoon --- they can't isolate him and study him... they have no subject (!!).

 

[ForeverFaithful]

The Mythical Jesus 'hysteria' is little more than agenda-driven nonsense.

OH thank you!!!!! Here in Canada we have a renowned Author who has everyone singing that tune.

It was funny my grade 10 Canadian history teacher was convinced a figurative Jesus was more realistic and even more meaningful. Yet the non-believer World History teacher told me the Christ myth story was non-sense, same with the Classical Civilization teacher. I think a literal Christ is just as meaningful, if not more! It's easy to say the story of Christ is spiritual, but it means more when the person of Christ is!

I looked into the Horus story a bit and began to realize how alternated it had become by peoples agendas, yes many cultures had the children of God stories and even some of them died as martyrs, Even Augustus claimed to be the son of a God, however Paul refutes that in claiming eternity was written on their hearts, many of the early Christian missionaries used those stories to introduce the REAL Christ to them in a way they could understand, plus it was the Zoroastrians (The Magi) who first worshipped Christ if we go by the Gospel account (I realize that part is contested)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please ramble elsewhere.

 

[sojourner]

When I see that, I think cultural mileu - a real environment - not the abstract theologies that Jesus is suspended in.

That's what I think is the Jesus seminar's greatest failure: they are unable to develop a reliable tool that can seperate Jesus from the theological cacoon --- they can't isolate him and study him... they have no subject (!!).

The problem is, in this case, the only environment we have for Jesus is the theological one, since nothing more is written about him. The Jesus Seminar has tried to extrapolate a cultural Jesus with very limited and dubious results. so much so that the historical Jesus becomes almost more a caricature than the mythic Jesus. While I'm a proponent of the Seminar, I'm almost ready to be convinced that it is impossible to really separate Jesus from the theological constructs in which he's suspended.

Looking at it from that perspective, does it, then, really mean that the church (who developed the theologies) is indistinguishable from Jesus?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem is, in this case, the only environment we have for Jesus is the theological one, since nothing more is written about him.

And of course it would be worthless to consider the waning days of the 2nd Temple Period as relevant environment.

 

[sojourner]

And of course it would be worthless to consider the waning days of the 2nd Temple Period as relevant environment.

No, it wouldn't be wothless, except that we don't have any record of what, exactly Jesus did during that time period, apart from the theology that was developed about him, from the perspective of the writers living 1) post 70 c.e. and 2) living during that time period, assuming Q. At this point, any consideration of what Jesus might have done given that environment is speculative -- and more so, IMO, than what we find in the theological record.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

History is very often speculative and accretive.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

History is very often speculative and accretive.

If it wasn't, no historian would have a job.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

... and I continue to maintain that this and Acts is more than sufficient grounds for the presumption of historicity (but not, of course, divinity) simply on the basis of abductive reasoning.

Hi, Jay. I'm pretty sure that Acts is discounted by most biblical scholars. It's what I've heard anyway.

Beyond that, I'd have to know what you mean by "the historicity of Jesus". What sort of Jesus are you talking about exactly? Personally, my best guess is that some preacher may (or may not) have lived around 100BC-50BC, that some kind of very loose oral stories began to be told, that by the time Paul came around, the preacher had grown into a mystical Godman. And that the highstrung Paul freaked out and became not only a believer but an evangelist. And that the gospelers later competed to write and rewrite stories about the preacher's life... each one trying to outwrite the other and even using the other stories as templates (the synoptics).

If that's an historical Jesus in your opinion, then I guess that in your opinion I believe in the historicity of Jesus.

I'll also mention that I had to look up 'abductive reasoning' and learned that it basically means 'guessing.'

Should we guess about the historicity of Jesus? Well, if it pleases us, I guess. So long as we don't take our beliefs too seriously, I see no problem.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'll also mention that I had to look up 'abductive reasoning' and learned that it basically means 'guessing.'

See Abductive Reasoning Inviting your comment was clearly a waste of time. Sorry ...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

See Abductive Reasoning Inviting your comment was clearly a waste of time. Sorry ...

Well, I'll know next time not to take your invitations seriously. Sorry, too.

 

[Desert Snake]

OH thank you!!!!! Here in Canada we have a renowned Author who has everyone singing that tune.

It was funny my grade 10 Canadian history teacher was convinced a figurative Jesus was more realistic and even more meaningful. Yet the non-believer World History teacher told me the Christ myth story was non-sense, same with the Classical Civilization teacher. I think a literal Christ is just as meaningful, if not more! It's easy to say the story of Christ is spiritual, but it means more when the person of Christ is!

I looked into the Horus story a bit and began to realize how alternated it had become by peoples agendas, yes many cultures had the children of God stories and even some of them died as martyrs, Even Augustus claimed to be the son of a God, however Paul refutes that in claiming eternity was written on their hearts, many of the early Christian missionaries used those stories to introduce the REAL Christ to them in a way they could understand, plus it was the Zoroastrians (The Magi) who first worshipped Christ if we go by the Gospel account (I realize that part is contested)

Do you mean the Zoroastrians converted to Christianity? did they leave the Zoroastrian community?