Steefen said
Justus of Tiberias who learned Greek in order to write his history. Josephus speaks about this literate Galilean in Life of Flavius Josephus.Could he really write a history of without writing about one of the most famous men of Galilee?
Assuming he existed, it depends on how important he considered him to be. It would be suspicious if he wrote about John, but not Jesus. He did not mention Jesus in one of his works (now lost), according to Photios, who had access to it. But that is hardly surprising, given the topic of that work.
gmatthews said
Why should he have mentioned Jesus?
The Photios-card is frequently played by mythicists. The reason is that Justus, as a Galilean writer of the same generation as Josephus, ought to know something about Jesus. The work available to Photios was about a now lost chronicle of the kings of Israel from the time of Moses to Agrippa II, whose topic would not invite to write about Jesus. So if he wrote about Jesus in some other work, we shall never know, unless a manuscript turns up.
gmatthews said
I often ask questions that I already know the answer to, I just wanted to see Steefen’s reason to get the conversation started.
I got it. But while waiting for an elaborated argument, I think there are three possibilities: a) Justus wrote something hostile to or inconvenient for Christian faith b) something neutral c) something favourable. Only in the last case we should have expected later Christian references to it, or attempts to preserve it. It is then more likely than not that he never wrote anything favourable.
gavriel said
Steefen said
Justus of Tiberias who learned Greek in order to write his history. Josephus speaks about this literate Galilean in Life of Flavius Josephus.Could he really write a history of without writing about one of the most famous men of Galilee?
Assuming he existed, it depends on how important he considered him to be. It would be suspicious if he wrote about John, but not Jesus. He did not mention Jesus in one of his works (now lost), according to Photios, who had access to it. But that is hardly surprising, given the topic of that work.
I’m a writer who represents the perspective that Jesus was a composite of elements. The biblical Jesus being at least a composite of three people did NOT exist because the biographer’s subject exists when that person is just one person but when more than one biography is compiled into a character, that character is not historical.
In the case of Jesus the at least three people who are components of the biblical Jesus appear in Josephus’ accounts; therefore, Justus of Tiberias could easily have included some of the same Jesus-figures as Josephus did.
Your next point:
Photios I (** you do not have permission to see this link ** as St. Photios the Great.
Photios is widely regarded as the most powerful and influential Patriarch of Constantinople since ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The most important of the works of Photios is his renowned ** you do not have permission to see this link ** or Myriobiblon, a collection of extracts and abridgements of 280 volumes of classical authors (usually cited as Codices), the originals of which are now to a great extent lost. The work is especially rich in extracts from historical writers.
# # #
About what is Photios’s Justus of Tiberias’ extract/s?
gavriel said
gmatthews said
Why should he have mentioned Jesus?The Photios-card is frequently played by mythicists. The reason is that Justus, as a Galilean writer of the same generation as Josephus, ought to know something about Jesus. The work available to Photios was about a now lost chronicle of the kings of Israel from the time of Moses to Agrippa II, whose topic would not invite to write about Jesus. So if he wrote about Jesus in some other work, we shall never know, unless a manuscript turns up.
Did he write about Queen Helena (her gifts to the Temple) and with King Izates, feeding 5,000, a multiple of times during the famine of the year 47–foreign royalty in Israel (reason for mention. Izates is an input to the Jesus of the canonical gospels)?
gavriel said
gmatthews said
I often ask questions that I already know the answer to, I just wanted to see Steefen’s reason to get the conversation started.I got it. But while waiting for an elaborated argument, I think there are three possibilities: a) Justus wrote something hostile to or inconvenient for Christian faith b) something neutral c) something favourable. Only in the last case we should have expected later Christian references to it, or attempts to preserve it. It is then more likely than not that he never wrote anything favourable.
Josephus did not write anything favorable about Christianity either. See my video:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen said
Could he really write a history of without writing about one of the most famous men of Galilee?
The implication of your question is that Justus SHOULD have written something about “one of the most famous men of Galilee”. I’m asking you why you think he should have. Just because they were from the area of Galilee you think Justus should have written about Jesus, but there could be any number of reasons why he wouldn’t have. You sound like you’re exasperated that it didn’t happen. Maybe Jesus just wasn’t all that big of a deal.
Steefen said
gavriel said
gmatthews said
I often ask questions that I already know the answer to, I just wanted to see Steefen’s reason to get the conversation started.I got it. But while waiting for an elaborated argument, I think there are three possibilities: a) Justus wrote something hostile to or inconvenient for Christian faith b) something neutral c) something favourable. Only in the last case we should have expected later Christian references to it, or attempts to preserve it. It is then more likely than not that he never wrote anything favourable.
Josephus did not write anything favorable about Christianity either. See my video:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Well, that’s debated among scholars. Many thinks the passage had at least a neutral authentic core.
Sorry Steefen but a nearly three hour Youtube video is brutal. (The only thing more brutal would be if it was in 9 minute increments like the old days.)
I’m a writer who represents the perspective that Jesus was a composite of elements. The biblical Jesus being at least a composite of three people did NOT exist because the biographer’s subject exists when that person is just one person but when more than one biography is compiled into a character, that character is not historical.
In the case of Jesus the at least three people who are components of the biblical Jesus appear in Josephus’ accounts; therefore, Justus of Tiberias could easily have included some of the same Jesus-figures as Josephus did.
Well I agree the character portrayed in the gospels is a composite of elements. But one of those elements was probably a historical figure. It is the simplest and least complicated reading of the texts. I take it you don’t approve of Richard Carrier’s Magic Space Jesus. What Carrier does is take the same sources available to everybody else and reinterpret them to suit his fancy. (And add in a little Bayesian razzle-dazzle.) But how is your methodology any different? What new e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e have you discovered to validate your view? Aren’t you simply reinterpreting?
Occam’s Razor my friend. There’s never going to be a world where it’s not just simpler to conclude Paul means James the biological brother of Jesus or where “born of a woman” doesn’t mean the same thing it means now. Josephus’ reference to Jesus probably contains a partial interpolation. We’ll never know for sure but there’s no evidence from his writings that he converted to Christianity which is what you have to believe if it’s not at least a partial interpolation. And if it’s a complete interpolation it’s strangely half-assed and incoherent. (Perhaps it was a complete drunken interpolation.)
…one of the most famous men of Galilee?
Hindsight is always 20/20 is it not? Jesus is famous because some of his disciples left literary remains and his followers founded a major world religion. But how famous was Jesus in his own day? Let’s be generous and say he had a hundred followers. Ask yourself; in this day of instantaneous communications and convenient travel how many ministers do you know who have congregations of a hundred members or less within a hundred miles of where you live? When mythicists wonder why Philo didn’t mention Jesus they’re essentially wondering why ** you do not have permission to see this link ** didn’t write about Pastor Billy Bob at the street corner mission. Hint: it’s not because pastor Billy Bob doesn’t exist!
gavriel said
gmatthews said
Why should he have mentioned Jesus?The Photios-card is frequently played by mythicists. The reason is that Justus, as a Galilean writer of the same generation as Josephus, ought to know something about Jesus. The work available to Photios was about a now lost chronicle of the kings of Israel from the time of Moses to Agrippa II, whose topic would not invite to write about Jesus. So if he wrote about Jesus in some other work, we shall never know, unless a manuscript turns up.
“Chronicle of the kings of Israel from the time of Moses to Agrippa II” doesn’t quite capture Josephus’ criticism of the work. If I recall correctly from Life of Flavius Josephus, Josephus faults Justus for not being as “embedded” as he was. Josephus believes himself to be a better eyewitness than Justus.
gmatthews said
Steefen said
Could he really write a history of without writing about one of the most famous men of Galilee?The implication of your question is that Justus SHOULD have written something about “one of the most famous men of Galilee”. I’m asking you why you think he should have. Just because they were from the area of Galilee you think Justus should have written about Jesus, but there could be any number of reasons why he wouldn’t have. You sound like you’re exasperated that it didn’t happen. Maybe Jesus just wasn’t all that big of a deal.
In my video, I give evidence that components of Jesus were
King Izates, son of Queen Helena who gave iconic pieces of gold to the Temple. Big deal.
King Izates, who along with his mother, saved Judea from famine. Big deal.
King Izates, who was called “only begotten son” by his father. Big deal.
King Izates, whose father was a personal friend of Octavian – Augustus. Big deal. (His father’s wisdom appears in the gospel “store your riches in heaven.”
Stephen said
Sorry Steefen but a nearly three hour Youtube video is brutal. (The only thing more brutal would be if it was in 9 minute increments like the old days.)I’m a writer who represents the perspective that Jesus was a composite of elements. The biblical Jesus being at least a composite of three people did NOT exist because the biographer’s subject exists when that person is just one person but when more than one biography is compiled into a character, that character is not historical.
In the case of Jesus the at least three people who are components of the biblical Jesus appear in Josephus’ accounts; therefore, Justus of Tiberias could easily have included some of the same Jesus-figures as Josephus did.
Well I agree the character portrayed in the gospels is a composite of elements. But one of those elements was probably a historical figure. It is the simplest and least complicated reading of the texts. I take it you don’t approve of Richard Carrier’s Magic Space Jesus. What Carrier does is take the same sources available to everybody else and reinterpret them to suit his fancy. (And add in a little Bayesian razzle-dazzle.) But how is your methodology any different? What new e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e have you discovered to validate your view? Aren’t you simply reinterpreting?
Occam’s Razor my friend. There’s never going to be a world where it’s not just simpler to conclude Paul means James the biological brother of Jesus or where “born of a woman” doesn’t mean the same thing it means now. Josephus’ reference to Jesus probably contains a partial interpolation. We’ll never know for sure but there’s no evidence from his writings that he converted to Christianity which is what you have to believe if it’s not at least a partial interpolation. And if it’s a complete interpolation it’s strangely half-assed and incoherent. (Perhaps it was a complete drunken interpolation.)
…one of the most famous men of Galilee?
Hindsight is always 20/20 is it not? Jesus is famous because some of his disciples left literary remains and his followers founded a major world religion. But how famous was Jesus in his own day? Let’s be generous and say he had a hundred followers. Ask yourself; in this day of instantaneous communications and convenient travel how many ministers do you know who have congregations of a hundred members or less within a hundred miles of where you live? When mythicists wonder why Philo didn’t mention Jesus they’re essentially wondering why ** you do not have permission to see this link ** didn’t write about Pastor Billy Bob at the street corner mission. Hint: it’s not because pastor Billy Bob doesn’t exist!
Stephen,
When I play back my video presentations, I do not watch them in one sitting although I record them in one sitting. The playback for my director’s notes have been going on for about 3 weeks now. When I log into YouTube and go to the video, it is paused where I left off. You can do the same, probably.
gavriel said:
Well, that’s debated among scholars. Many thinks the passage had at least a neutral authentic core.
Steefen:
My presentation needs your thoughtful consideration and response and thoughtful consideration and response by scholars. A librarian asked me to submit my video to departments across the country as a piece for discussion.
Stephen said
Josephus’ reference to Jesus probably contains a partial interpolation. We’ll never know for sure but there’s no evidence from his writings that he converted to Christianity which is what you have to believe if it’s not at least a partial interpolation. And if it’s a complete interpolation it’s strangely half-assed and incoherent. (Perhaps it was a complete drunken interpolation.)…one of the most famous men of Galilee?
Hindsight is always 20/20 is it not?
1. Josephus knew the Jesus story and Paul’s involvement with Jesus’ legacy. We know for sure. The evidence and the reasoning is sound. You speak of partial interpolation on only 1 of 3 passages that deal with the subject! See the video presentation for more information.
2. King Izates, Emperor Vespasian, Emperor Titus, Emperor Domitian are famous enough in his lifetime, not by hindsight.
Steefen said
gavriel said:Well, that’s debated among scholars. Many thinks the passage had at least a neutral authentic core.
Steefen:
My presentation needs your thoughtful consideration and response and thoughtful consideration and response by scholars. A librarian asked me to submit my video to departments across the country as a piece for discussion.
It would help if you could make a condensed, written summary here. The video is way too long. And there is an enormous scholarly literature on TF. My conclusion on TF is that it is the work of at least two hands. Let’s say either Josephus himself , or a pretty skilled forger, who was planning for centuries ahead. The second hand is rather blunt, so he came last and is independent of the possibly primary forger.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)