– B. Ehrman, Univ. of No. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Because of Don Barker’s comment above, I have high expectations about this read. // When I worked on my nonfiction book, Historical Accuracy, I stopped at the year 100 C.E. I did have a book about Akiva/Akiba to see why Akiva/Akiba was impressed with Bar Kokhba. // The gospels and Acts may not have been in final form at 100 C.E. or at least one or some of them may not have been in final form. Marcion’s Evangelikon and Apostolikon was not in final form at or before 100 C.E.
Jason BeDuhn
We know
the name of the individual responsible for the first New Testament
the circumstances of his work in compiling it
and even a date that relates to his momentous decision to establish a textual foundation for the fledgling Christian communities of his time: 144 C.E.
More than that, we actually know the bulk of the content of this First New Testament.
p. 3
That’s interesting. … But you have made it a den of thieves/bandits/rebels/insurrectionists.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
The turning over the tables by Jesus because he was shocked to see money changers makes no sense.
Since the age of 12, Jesus would have known money changers were at the Temple.
So, who really was shocked to see the temple had become a den of bandits/rebels/insurrectionists?
Answer: Jesus of Gamala, high priest, later killed with another high priest.
= = =
How could Josephus really be talking about more than one person when there was a Jesus of Galilee who abused Roman diplomats and fought the land and sea battles of Galilee and then another Jesus of Gamala/Gamla of Galilee?
Josephus does not narrate the death of Jesus of Galilee at the Battle of Galilee.
Ah, so Jesus escapes to Jerusalem and there he is shocked to find out what has become of the Temple.
I’ve said there was no historical Jesus of 27-33 C.E. So, now we take away the historicity of Holy Week. As BeDuhn says, when Mark wrote the table-turning verses, he was really recalling the high priest, Jesus of Gamla/Galilee, who had just told his followers
[after losing the battle of Galilee] not one stone will remain of this Temple [ because we’ve heard it has become a fortress for insurrectionists against Rome ].
Jesus was shocked to have finally witnessed the sacrilege of fortress first hand; and, he was devastated.
Reason for Video: The video speaks of the dating of Luke-Acts and that it sacrificed historical accuracy (something of interest to me) for the sake of Christian unity in the second century
Video: How the early church united with a fake history
YouTube Channel: Glen & Grace | Faith Uncovered
Steefen said
Since the age of 12, Jesus would have known money changers were at the Temple.
So, who really was shocked to see the temple had become a den of bandits/rebels/insurrectionists?
Based on what do you have Jesus visiting the Temple at 12? A gospel.
But according to the same gospel, Jesus of Nazareth was definitely not a High Priest.
So if you are willing to believe that the information in the gospel is not correct, on what basis do you believe that Jesus visited the Temple at 12?
Also, why do you believe that Jesus was shocked and surprised to find out about the money changers in the Temple? Outrage is possible without surprise. He could have been outraged when he hypothetically saw them sometime as a child when his poor workman’s family could afford to go to Jerusalem, but was not in a position to do anything about it.
It appears you are begging the question, building the conclusion into the argument via your premises rather than basing the conclusion on evidence presented.
Question about Post #3
Steefen:
Although the exact wording I quoted does not appear in BeDuhn’s published book, the underlying concept — that Mark’s use of “den of robbers” could resonate with language referring to rebels or bandits in the period around the Jewish revolt — is indeed discussed in NT scholarship.
Maybe I had more than one book on my desk at 1am in the morning, 3 years ago. It appears, I saw the quote somewhere because I didn’t come up with the follow-up comments on my own:
This saying recalls the brigands who during the war [The Jewish Civil War, included] occupied the temple and made it their fortress.
I had published my book by Oct 21, 2022 and that citation wasn’t in my book. I probably would have used it to support the gospels backdating to the late 20s/early 30s–Jesus saw brigands in the Temple during the Jewish Civil War and Jewish Revolt not during the time of Pontius Pilate.
Please delete Comment 3.
Bruce:
Based on what do you have Jesus visiting the Temple at 12?
Steefen:
See: Luke 2: 41-52
Bruce:
Gos. of Luke does not call Jesus a high priest.
Steefen:
Josephus says Jesus was a high priest–Jesus of Gamla/Gamala, Golan Heights, 6 miles east of the Sea of Galilee.
The high priest would have been sad and shocked to see what had become of the Temple.
Steefen said
Bruce:
Gos. of Luke does not call Jesus a high priest.
Steefen:
Josephus says Jesus was a high priest–Jesus of Gamla/Gamala, Golan Heights, 6 miles east of the Sea of Galilee.
The high priest would have been sad and shocked to see what had become of the Temple.
Josephus saying that there was a high priest named Joshua in Aramaic is not the same as Josephus saying that the Joshua in Aramaic of the “Jesus Movement” that we are talking about here was a high priest.
After all, Joshua was a common name. This is like saying that everyone named “Robert” in the second half of the 20th century are the same person, so that RFK was assasinated because six or more people named Robert were serial killers responsible for the death of a hundred or more people.
To be sure, the anonymous letter to the Hebrews does indeed have the Yeshu’ that Josephus arguably said was “known as the Annointed”, and has him as a high priest, but it is, cleverly, a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, not a high priest of the 2nd Temple under Roman rule.
Bruce:
Josephus saying that there was a high priest named Joshua in Aramaic is not the same as
Josephus saying that the Joshua in Aramaic of the “Jesus Movement” that we are talking about here was a high priest.
Steefen:
Jesus is a composite character.
In the TF, Josephus mentions the Jesus of the gospels.
Did the gospels use anything else in the works of Josephus when it created the character of historical fiction?
Did the gospels use the miracles of Vespasian?
Did the gospels use the rebel leader Jesus the Galilean?
Did the gospels use the high priest Jesus?
High Priests:
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **, 63
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **, 63
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **)
Ananus and Jesus returned to the Temple during the Jewish Revolt and were killed by the Idumeans.
I’m using the possibility that Joshua ben Gamla may have been in Gamla for a while before returning to Jerusalem to see what had become of the Temple.
Wikipedia:
In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth (James the Just).[2] This occurred after a large number of Jews complained and petitioned the king. Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.
Maybe it was Jesus son of Damneus who turned over the tables.
Jesus or Joshua could have been the original Jesus/Joshua who tried to clear the temple of rebels.
Steefen said
Bruce:
Josephus saying that there was a high priest named Joshua in Aramaic is not the same as
Josephus saying that the Joshua in Aramaic of the “Jesus Movement” that we are talking about here was a high priest.
Steefen:
Jesus is a composite character.
Is this a premise or a conclusion?
The Jesus of Nazareth of the gospels is evidently not a composite character created by Josephus, if the elements of the composite that you present are presented by Josephus as distinct individuals.
If a conclusion, what specifically is the evidence that the Jesus of the Jesus movement is, strictly speaking, a composite character, as opposed to a historical character that has been embellished?
Because all to often when I encounter a claim along these lines, the argument involves a false dichotomy, saying that the answer must be A because it is not E, tacitly or on shaky foundations omitting the also plausible answers of B, C and D along the way.
Bruce:
Premise:
if the elements of the composite that you present are presented by Josephus as distinct individuals,
Conclusion:
Jesus of Nazareth of the gospels is evidently not a composite character created by Josephus
Steefen:
You do agree that writers can build a character.
You do agree that writers can build a character from biographical facts of one person.
You do agree that writers can build a character from biographical facts of more than one person.
You do agree that writers can build a character from biographical facts of one person and the writer’s imagination.
You do agree that writers can build a character from biographical facts of one person and from characters in known epics.
You do agree that the synoptic gospels do not include the resurrection of Lazarus.
You do agree that the author of the Gospel of John wrote a gospel not with the goal of being historically accurate but to be philosophical and theological.
You do agree that Josephus wrote an account of Vespasian curing a lame man and curing a blind man.
You do agree that the Synoptic Gospels contain accounts of the biblical Jesus curing a lame man and curing a blind man.
You do agree that Josephus wrote about a rebel leader in Galilee whose army fought the Battle of Galilee.
War of the Jews, Book 3, Chapter 9, Section 7, Line 450, what was the name of the person who met the Roman diplomat named Valerian? Answer: Jesus son of Shaphat, the principal head of a band of robbers.
The connection of lestes in the temple, connecting the cleansing of the temple to the Jewish civil war, is quite fascinating.
It is. I think the First Revolt is a definite subtext to Mark. The Temple is practically a character in the book in the second half of the gospel. This makes sense of the dating around 70ish and my supposition that the author is a diaspora Jew rather than a gentile (he said, grinding his Markan axe).
You do agree…
I agree that the character of the Jesus of the gospels is partly based on knowledge of a historical Galilean apocalyptic prophet who lived in the early decades of the First century CE.
You do agree that the author of the Gospel of John wrote a gospel not with the goal of being historically accurate but to be philosophical and theological.
I agree that you’re making a distinction that the ancients would not have made so absolutely. Genre as such did not exist for them and their literary borders were much more porous than ours.
You do agree that Josephus wrote about a rebel leader in Galilee whose army fought the Battle of Galilee.
War of the Jews, Book 3, Chapter 9, Section 7, Line 450, what was the name of the person who met the Roman diplomat named Valerian? Answer: Jesus son of Shaphat, the principal head of a band of robbers.
I agree that the connection you’re making is much more apparent than real.
Steefen said
You do agree that Josephus wrote about a rebel leader in Galilee whose army fought the Battle of Galilee.
War of the Jews, Book 3, Chapter 9, Section 7, Line 450, what was the name of the person who met the Roman diplomat named Valerian? Answer: Jesus son of Shaphat, the principal head of a band of robbers.
I agree that Josephus wrote about a rebel leader in Galilee, Joshua son of Shaphat. It doesn’t really matter why he wrote about him, when the only connection that you clearly elucidate is that he had a common given name that also happened to be the given name of an apocalyptic preacher from the Galilee, the man who may be referred to in an early Talmud as Rabbi Joshua ben Pantera.
As for the long litany of what authors can possibly do, that’s not evidence that that is what Josephus did. Where is your evidence for the claim you made, that Josephus, despite describing them as different people, was creating a composite character.
Sure an author can create a composite character, but if an author has a William Smith and a William Jones in the same story, and nothing that the author writes indicates that one is the alter ego of the other, then it’s evident that those characters are not a single composite character, “William”, but rather two different characters who happen to have the same given name.
Stephen:
You do agree that the author of the Gospel of John wrote a gospel not with the goal of being historically accurate but to be philosophical and theological.
I agree that you’re making a distinction that the ancients would not have made so absolutely. Genre as such did not exist for them and their literary borders were much more porous than ours.
Steefen:
If I change the sentence, that would be more agreeable?
You do agree that the author of the Gospel of John wrote a gospel not with the goal of being historically accurate. The author also wanted to add philosophical and theological elements.
Steefen said
Your position is that the biblical Jesus’ biography is totally unique, not one thing in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John came from somewhere else.
Anonymous gospel writers had that much integrity.
I say no to both statements. You say yes to both statements.
That would be a false dichotomy. My position is I haven’t seen anything you have said that makes a case that the passages from the Synoptic Gospels or the Gospel of John came from everywhere you are claiming they came from. When you are saying, …
I’m using the possibility that Joshua ben Gamla may have been in Gamla for a while before returning to Jerusalem to see what had become of the Temple.
… it appears to me that what you are using that possibility for is to make an idle speculation with no supporting evidence, akin to many of the youtube videos you drop into the forum. Where is the evidence that Josephus’ dear friend Joshua ben Gamla, serving for a year and a bit as high priest, reputedly due to a bribe offered by his extremely wealth wife, killed by the Zealots during the first Jewish-Roman war when they took control of Jerusalem, has been used as part of a fictional character “Joshua of Nazareth” which appears in a work of fiction and is based on multiple real world people?
Steefen said
Your position is that the biblical Jesus’ biography is totally unique, not one thing in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John came from somewhere else.
Anonymous gospel writers had that much integrity.
I say no to both statements. You say yes to both statements.
Bruce:
My position is I haven’t seen anything you have said that makes a case that the passages from the Synoptic Gospels or the Gospel of John came from everywhere you are claiming they came from.
Steefen:
I answered the two questions as No. You do not answer the two questions:
Is your position that the biblical Jesus’ biography is totally unique, not one thing in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John came from somewhere else?
Anonymous gospel writers had that much integrity?
Bruce:
Where is the evidence that Joshua ben Gamla has been used as part of a fictional character, “Joshua of Nazareth?”
Steefen:
You cannot solve a mystery?
No one can solve a mystery?
There is no more evidence after more than 2,000 years and your liking is: let the biblical account stand as is.
= = =
I’m more interested in Jesus son of Shaphat who lost the Battle of Galilee. He would have likely been crucified.
The high priest was slain by the Idumeans. (15 years ago I made a video about it.)
So, instead of just saying:
Jesus was a false prophet because the Son of Man’s Kingdom of God did not materialize before people living in 30 to 33 CE died.
What would have Jesus, the Savior done during the attack on Legio Xii Fulminata, the Jewish Civil War, and the Jewish Revolt?
= = =
As he would have run into trouble delivering the glory of the Kingdom of Righteousness, would his position be similar to Jesus son of Shaphat or high priest Jesus of Gamla?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)