Poohbear said
That’s what I think when I open this blog and start reading the received wisdom.
Then your life has meaning. You are here to guide us back to the true path. Alas, I think though you are going to find that there are reasons why the “received wisdom” is what it is.
Detering wrote a book entitled, The Fabricated Paul.
This is the book’s description:
In theology and church Paul is regarded as the most important and most reliable historial witness to Jesus and early Christianity. This book nevertheless contradicts the common conception and shows that all the Pauline letters are in fact skillful falsifications from the second century.
The author solves the numerous unresolved questions that surround the figure and the writings of Paul until today in convincing and scholarly original ways. At the same time, the reader accompanies him on his breath-taking trip through the mysterious world of Gnosticism and the early Christianities.
Numerous individual observations which have not been considered by theologians until now are brought together to produce an entirely new picture of early Christianity. At the end of the book the puzzle of Paul finds a solution that is as amazing as it is illuminating.
This exciting history of the spuriousness of all the Pauline writings allows the time of earliest Christianity to appear in an entirely new light and invites a critical consideration and new evaluation of presumably certain facts of Christian history.
Finally, Ehrman also refers to Justus of Tiberias,
although he calls him “Justin of Tiberius” (p. 50),
a Jewish historian living and working in the
second half of the first century, who, like
Josephus, wrote a history of the Jewish people in
the first century after Christ. Ehrman mentions
that his books “did not survive”. Whether this
refers to the work of later Christian censors and
book burners, he leaves open. However, he fails
to address the crucial point. Although the writings
of the historian from the immediate
neighbourhood of Jesus’ supposed residence have
indeed been lost, we know at least from a paper
of the Christian Patriarch Photius from
Constantinople (9th century) what was not in it:
“He does not mention the coming of Christ, nor
his deeds, nor the miracles he performed.
= = =
Photios I (Greek: Φώτιος, Phōtios; c. 810/820 – 6 February 893), [a] also spelled Photius[2] (/ˈfoʊʃəs/) or Fotios, was the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople from 858 to 867 and from 877 to 886.[3] He is recognized in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches as Saint Photios the Great.
Photios is widely regarded as the most powerful and influential church leader of Constantinople subsequent to John Chrysostom’s archbishopric around the turn of the fifth century. He is also viewed as the most important intellectual of his time – “the leading light of the ninth-century renaissance”.[4] He was a central figure in both the conversion of the Slavs to Christianity and the Photian schism,[5] and is considered “[t]he great systematic compiler of the Eastern Church, who occupies a similar position to that of Gratian in the West,” and whose “collection in two parts…formed and still forms the classic source of ancient Church Law for the Greek Church.”
Steefen said
Indeed, it would not seem easy for advocates of the existence of a historical Jesus to explain
why a first-century Jewish historian from Galilee forgot the famous man from the
neighboring city in his writings.
Don’t you just love the Clutching at Straws, the Explaining Away.
There’s no shred of proof that General Hannibal existed, yet no publishing industry surrounds him. When Jesus spoke of the “Gentile’s time being fulfilled” (with the Jews taking back Jerusalem) I think he meant when the Gentiles see Him in the same way the Jews did. (That event was 1967 – where are our scholars?)
Truth be told, there is a hint that Jesus existed through writers that never mentioned him. The Jesus account in Josephus is obviously fake. But just read Josephus, he goes into extraordinary detail about life of that time – Herod’s family life occupied half a book, for instance. And there’s John the Baptist. But no Jesus. It’s odd given the events of that time. Here was an entire new branch of Judaism, born in convulsions and with Josephus in the midst of it. This is omission. Had there been no Jesus then this former Pharisee would have been in a supreme position to squelch the Christian movement in the Roman Empire through his historical writings. He didn’t because he couldn’t. So he just ignored Jesus so he wouldn’t have the oxygen of publicity.
Detering wrote a book entitled, The Fabricated Paul.
One of the best articles I’ve read defending the historicity of Paul is by… ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Steefen said
Indeed, it would not seem easy for advocates of the existence of a historical Jesus to explain
why a first-century Jewish historian from Galilee forgot the famous man from the
neighboring city in his writings.
Justus was a Jewish aristocrat from Galilee who apparently wrote both an account of the Jewish revolt and a history of the leaders/rulers/kings of Israel from Moses down to his own day. I say apparently because both works are now lost. Photius might expect Justus to mention Jesus but would he? If Justus was concerned only with the rulership of Israel, entirely possible given his own station, why would he mention a lower class itinerant prophet like Jesus? Did he even mention John the Baptist? It’s clear from Josephus that John was the much more famous figure of the two. The gospels clearly exaggerate Jesus’ renown in his own day. But we have no way of knowing because Justus work is lost. A pity. And not a very good argument.
Bart Ehrman
Jesus existed.
Detering
A Jewish historian from Galilee does not mention him in his writings.
Stephen
That is not a very good argument.
Steefen
He made a point of fact, he did not make an argument.
Stephen
The gospels clearly exaggerate Jesus’ renown in his own day.
If Justus was concerned only with the rulership of Israel, it is entirely possible, given his own station, he had no reason to mention a lower class itinerant prophet like Jesus.
Steefen
The biblical Jesus did not exist. The biblical Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. The Galilean certainly would not include a fictional character in his works of biographies and history.
Your position is that the historical Jesus existed but as an inconsequential prophet who was exaggerated into a world-class figure of the Trinity.
The exaggerated components are fictional, so, the biblical Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction composed of a) an inconsequential prophet and b) some fictional exaggeration.
That is not my position because the composition of the Biblical Jesus has more than two parts.
Josephus
In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1) Josephus refers to the stoning of “James the brother of Jesus” (James the Just) by order of Ananus ben Ananus, a Herodian-era High Priest.
Steefen
Line 200
and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James
Detering
This does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth but rather in an obvious way probably only to that very Jesus, the son of Damnaeus, who is mentioned at line 203, at the end of the passage quoted above as the successor of the younger Annas who was deposed from his office.
“Who was called Christ” may have been an added phrase.
Steefen
Then James would have been the brother of Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.
With Jesus dying no later than AD 33, and James dying in either AD 62 or AD 69, James would not have been referred to as the brother of Jesus Christ because what did the Biblical Jesus Christ do and effect that should have been so memorable from AD 33 to AD 62? James’ brother would have died more than 25 to 28 years earlier. What was the Biblical Jesus’s effect on Jerusalem from AD 33 to AD 62? I can see James being referred to as a brother of a living Jesus, Jesus of Damnaeus.
Josephus does not speak of James as the leader of the Jerusalem Church. Josephus does not speak of James keeping his brother’s name alive by helping Peter with the Jerusalem church.
Stephen said
Then your life has meaning. You are here to guide us back to the true path. Alas, I think though you are going to find that there are reasons why the “received wisdom” is what it is.
The Received Wisdom in our narcissistic and nihilist world comes to us through modernity, particularly Post Modernism of the Foucault and Derrida variety. There is no truth, they opined hopefully. Except of course, the truth of Post Modernism.
Sounds like a contradiction to me. Just like the one where the universe created itself before it existed. Science and philosophy cannot approach ultimate truths – just temporal ones.
Steefen said
Josephus
In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1) Josephus refers to the stoning of “James the brother of Jesus” (James the Just) by order of Ananus ben Ananus, a Herodian-era High Priest.Steefen
Line 200
and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was JamesDetering
This does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth but rather in an obvious way probably only to that very Jesus, the son of Damnaeus, who is mentioned at line 203, at the end of the passage quoted above as the successor of the younger Annas who was deposed from his office.“Who was called Christ” may have been an added phrase.
Steefen
Then James would have been the brother of Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.With Jesus dying no later than AD 33, and James dying in either AD 62 or AD 69, James would not have been referred to as the brother of Jesus Christ because what did the Biblical Jesus Christ do and effect that should have been so memorable from AD 33 to AD 62? James’ brother would have died more than 25 to 28 years earlier. What was the Biblical Jesus’s effect on Jerusalem from AD 33 to AD 62? I can see James being referred to as a brother of a living Jesus, Jesus of Damnaeus.
Josephus does not speak of James as the leader of the Jerusalem Church. Josephus does not speak of James keeping his brother’s name alive by helping Peter with the Jerusalem church.
Josephus was a thorough historian. No detail escape him. Except the rise of Christianity, which in his time was largely a new variant of Judaism. It was sweeping the known world. That Josephus ignored it tells you a lot about himself and Christianity. He could have, more than any other man, helped to stop Christianity in the Roman world by challenging its claims. He couldn’t.
Poohbear opined
The Received Wisdom in our narcissistic and nihilist world comes to us through modernity, particularly Post Modernism of the Foucault and Derrida variety.
Both Foucault and Derrida have their strong critics in the academy, Apropos of nothing I was once part of a symposium on James Joyce that included Derrida and Joyce’s biographer ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Dr Ellman was my teacher and that’s how I got involved. I knew next to nothing about Derrida except he was a big star. His disciples (there’s no other word for it) followed him around everywhere. He would make a pronouncement and they would stop and repeat it back to him and quiver with pleasure. It was amazing to watch.
There is no truth, they opined hopefully. Except of course, the truth of Post Modernism. Sounds like a contradiction to me.
Not exactly. Their “Master Narrative” is that there are no “Master Narratives”. The interesting Post-modernists acknowledge the conflict. After all it’s kind of the point.
Science and philosophy cannot approach ultimate truths – just temporal ones.
Consider the possibility that there are no ultimate truths. Religion can’t seem to even get the temporal ones right. How can it be a guide to the ultimate?
Josephus was a thorough historian. No detail escape him. Except the rise of Christianity, which in his time was largely a new variant of Judaism. It was sweeping the known world. That Josephus ignored it tells you a lot about himself and Christianity. He could have, more than any other man, helped to stop Christianity in the Roman world by challenging its claims. He couldn’t.
Weeell…Josephus experts will tell you he definitely has an agenda and a point of view. When he can be checked he’s not always above a little spin. If we assume the references to Jesus are not spurious then it’s clear he considered John the Baptist to be the more important figure.
Poohbear said
…the rise of Christianity, which in his time was largely a new variant of Judaism. It was sweeping the known world.
I am sincere when I ask, how is <10K people in 100CE to be squared with a sense that it was sweeping the known world? It had only compounded to 5% of the Roman Empire by Constantine. That’s an approx. 4% per annum growth rate.
Although the writings
of the historian from the immediate
neighborhood of Jesus’ supposed residence have
indeed been lost, we know at least from a paper
of the Christian Patriarch Photius from
Constantinople (9th century) what was not in it:
“He does not mention the coming of Christ, nor
his deeds, nor the miracles he performed.
= = =
As well as a history of the war, Justus also wrote a chronicle of the kings of Israel from the time of Moses to Agrippa II, which Photios remarked failed to make any mention of Jesus Christ. [4]
[4] James Carleton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians In Antiquity, page 202, citing Photius’ work Bibliotheke 33 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). ISBN 978-3-16-150312-2
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)