
Dave Allen’s path to the reconstruction of TF led through Jesus the Zealot, proposed by SGF Brandon, developed by Fernando Burmejo-Rubio and commercially used by Reza Aslan.
Over time, Dave focused on the literature itself by Josephus.
Dave paid particular attention to the literary constructs used by Josephus, who did everything to make his stories more attractive. Among other things, by artificially dramatizing the described situations, by using heroes from Tanakh when describing the characters he wrote about.
What surprises me most are the statements that Josephus, as a religious Jew, could not have written “it was believed that he was Christ.”
Why couldn’t Josephus write it? After all, it’s just the opinion of others, quoted by him as part of a supposedly true account. In addition, such a strong statement adds drama to this rather boring fragment. A simple literary trick intended for a general audience.
Who did Josephus write for – a general audience. This can be seen with every word you read. Here we have a layer of political correctness covering the desire to convey exciting stories.
Josephus is, above all, an author-showman who wants to leave his mark. People are supposed to read it first and foremost. He supports the narrator non-stop. The content has to be attractive. If the facts weren’t attractive, so much the worse for the facts. Hence the prefigurations used by Josephus. An author who will sell everything he can: himself, his intimacy, his faith, his unbelief, historical and invented tradition.
It adapts to the listener.
In times of Jewish defeat, he brings to the market inspirational stories with a double meaning – his Sign Prophets are, on the one hand, criticized by him. At the same time, they are exalted as those who dared to oppose the Romans, injustice, and the established order.
The word Christ was mentioned next to one of the described heroes and that was the WORD.
People wanted to hear, above all, about Christ.
There wasn’t much of it and the storytellers had to think about it.
One said that Christ appeared to some Paul, whose letters he happened to have with him and that he could read something. A good, traditional idea to supplement the story with the adventures of a new hero.
Another began to expand the figure of Christ with pieces from Josephus, the LXX, romances and popular literature in which there were plenty of empty tombs, resurrections and healings. Classically calling by name – myth. Such myths were created about rulers: they were good at governing, taxes were low, and they won battles. Back then they had proud nicknames like Soter.
And here is a hero for those who have had little success in life and a new offer of something better for them.
Simple and beautiful. This is the hardest thing to come up with. The songs are written by the authors of the lyrics and music. Hits are created from songs by producers. Ask Rick Rubin..
If someone finds a manuscript without TF, we can talk about its authenticity. Now it’s just a speculative beauty show.
Well done Dave..
BTW.
The biggest mistake in biblical research is the assumption that the heterogeneous texts known to us were based on lost homogeneous texts. There is no way to prove this without physical evidence. The assumption that the lyrics were created by the band of ghostwriters and redactors does not need any evidence. See statistics of gospels and letters.

What surprises me most are the statements that Josephus, as a religious Jew, could not have written “it was believed that he was Christ.” Why couldn’t Josephus write it? After all, it’s just the opinion of others, quoted by him as part of a supposedly true account.
But is that what he is alleged to have written?
I see, “ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν”, and it doesn’t look like it is related as an opinion of others.

Josephus writes as you quote. But his own reaction to his own words is nothing – there is no visible personal excitement about this fact. For me “ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν” is legit but most reconstructions question it. Josephus is, above all, a writer and what matters is the effect achieved.

Yeah, reconstructions question it because it is beyond bizarre for a Jew to casually state as fact that Jesus was the Messiah.
They reject it because there is no conceivable way a man who lived and died a Jew would casually confess, almost as obiter dicta, Jesus’ as the Christ. Thus it is taken as an obvious, artless Christian interpolation.
Wasn’t that reasoning precisely the reasoning you started by objecting to?

Poetry never lies, but poets are notorious liars. They can sacrifice a lot for their work. Dave brought Josephus’ writings to my attention. You can immediately see a creative historian writing “to comfort the aching hearts.” The same as Henryk Sienkiewicz or Heinrich Graetz. We were great but we lost. We lost but we were still great.
Christ is legit. Licentia Poetica.
I’m not very smart – it takes me a while to come to the right conclusions.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
