Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Ben Masada]

We can also look at what happened at the moment jesus supposedly died. There was a huge earthquake, the temple curtain was ripped in two, graves split open and the dead awoke and walked around town. This would have been note worthy to every single historian living at the time. It would have at least been written down by others and the story passed on, right? the Jews themselves would have been obligated to document the tearing the temple curtain as that would have been a very significant event. Nope, just a few gospels.

Nope! Just one gospel. To say a few gospels you are being too generous or careless by giving the chance of two witnesses. The guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew was the only one with that tale, which if it had been true, Josephus would have known and reported.

 

[dogsgod]

Interesting, for someone who argued that Acts 12:2, which IS explicitly connected with the larger plot of acts, is an interpolation, simply because it doesn't fit into his preconceived notions about a "mythic" Jesus.

That's curious. What's the connection between Acts 12.2 being an interpolation and a mythic Jesus? I didn't know there was one but perhaps you can enlighten us.

 

[Oberon]

How much longer do you need to be beaten with a cane to see tha's not a magic wand? Give up man, you can hardly stand on your four.

It's funny because you don't know what your talking about.


Ben: Paul created Christianity! Before that they were just "nazarenes." Acts says so!
Me: Actually, Acts never connects Paul with the creation of christianity. And Acts explicitly states that apostles before Paul preached the risen messiah.
Ben: Then why did they get along so well with the jews prior to Paul? Explain the contradiction.
Me: But they didn't! Acts records disciples being arrested, Stephen being executed, all before Paul.
Ben: Those are all wrong. And once we remove all the passages which interfere with my theory, then I am right!
Me:

 

[Oberon]

That's curious. What's the connection between Acts 12.2 being an interpolation and a mythic Jesus? I didn't know there was one but perhaps you can enlighten us.

You apparently (or deliberately) missed the point. You are argued that there IS a connection between Paul and the name christians, based on Acts. Yet there is no explicit connection. In fact, the clause is disconnected causally and temporally from the rest of the passage. There is no indication of when they were first called christians. It is almost like a sidebar where the author, after discussing Antioch, notes that "by the way, this was where they were first called christians" but doesn't give us any further information as to why, when, or whatever. Just where.

Yet somehow you are capable of seeing a connection here, where the clause is LESS connected with the overall chapter and passage, but perfectly capable of positing interpolation in Acts 12:2, which is far more connected in more ways.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's funny because you don't know what your talking about.
Me: Actually, Acts never connects Paul with the creation of christianity. And Acts explicitly states that apostles before Paul preached the risen messiah.

Connection with the creation of christianity...yes.....soley responsible for the creation of the cult......No...

 

[Oberon]

Connection with the creation of christianity...yes.....soley responsible for the creation of the cult......No...

Fair enough, let me clarify: Acts does not explicitly connect the followers of Jesus being called christians with Paul, and Acts also depicts followers of Jesus declaring that he was the resurrected messiah prior to Paul.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm currently reading a book that asserts Christianity was created by the Flavian emperors... that the gospels were nothing more than a satire of Titus' military campaign... and that the character Jesus was a typological figure resembling Titus.

This book asserts that when Josephus was taken captive by Rome, he became loyal to Rome... and claimed that Judaism's messianic prophecies foresaw not a Jewish Messiah, but Vespasian, whom Josephus predicted would become the "lord of all mankind."

Josephus was rewarded for this by being adopted by Emperor Vespasian, thus becoming "Flavius Josephus" (Didn't the name Flavius seem odd to anyone else, that Josephus should be called Flavius?)

"Once the city had been destroyed, Josephus took up residence within the Flavian court at Rome, where he enjoyed the patronage of Vespasian and the subsequent Flavian emperors, Titus and Domitian. It was while he was living in Rome that Josephus wrote his two major works, War of the Jews, a description of the 66-73 C.E. war between the Romans and the Jews, and Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jewish people."

The author also states in the first chapter of his book: "I believe that the New Testament and the works of Josephus survived because they were both created and promulgated by Rome. This work presents evidence indicating that the Gospels were created by Titus Flavius, the second of the three Flavian emperors. Titus created the religion for two reasons, the most obvious being to act as a theological barrier against the spread of the militant messianic Judaism of Judea to other provinces."


The other reason was to fool the world, including the Jews who stubbornly refused to revere Caesar as lord, into worshiping Caesar as their lord and savior.


The book is called Caesar's Messiah. I'm nearly a third into this book... and so far, so good.
​

 

[Oberon]

I'm currently reading a book that asserts Christianity was created by the Flavian emperors​

​

I would stop now, and continue with actual scholarship instead.

 

[Poisonshady313]

[/left]


I would stop now, and continue with actual scholarship instead.

What do you know about the author and his scholarship to judge it as being something other than actual scholarship?

Aside from your personal opinion that the claim just sounds too outrageous.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm currently reading a book that asserts Christianity was created by the Flavian emperors... that the gospels were nothing more than a satire of Titus' military campaign... and that the character Jesus was a typological figure resembling Titus.

This book asserts that when Josephus was taken captive by Rome, he became loyal to Rome... and claimed that Judaism's messianic prophecies foresaw not a Jewish Messiah, but Vespasian, whom Josephus predicted would become the "lord of all mankind."

Josephus was rewarded for this by being adopted by Emperor Vespasian, thus becoming "Flavius Josephus" (Didn't the name Flavius seem odd to anyone else, that Josephus should be called Flavius?)

"Once the city had been destroyed, Josephus took up residence within the Flavian court at Rome, where he enjoyed the patronage of Vespasian and the subsequent Flavian emperors, Titus and Domitian. It was while he was living in Rome that Josephus wrote his two major works, War of the Jews, a description of the 66-73 C.E. war between the Romans and the Jews, and Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jewish people."

The author also states in the first chapter of his book: "I believe that the New Testament and the works of Josephus survived because they were both created and promulgated by Rome. This work presents evidence indicating that the Gospels were created by Titus Flavius, the second of the three Flavian emperors. Titus created the religion for two reasons, the most obvious being to act as a theological barrier against the spread of the militant messianic Judaism of Judea to other provinces."


The other reason was to fool the world, including the Jews who stubbornly refused to revere Caesar as lord, into worshiping Caesar as their lord and savior.


The book is called Caesar's Messiah. I'm nearly a third into this book... and so far, so good.
​

Interesting....... I have a chart of sayings by the biblical Yeshua that seem to match up from sayings from the OT. It's as if the writers of the gospels created the character (Yeshua) right out of the OT. Sprinkle in a little mythic god/man here and there and now you have what appears to be an actual person....not to mention...the followers of the cult spreading their message to those unsuspecting gentiles who weren't believers and had probably never heard of this Yeshua....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Fair enough, let me clarify: Acts does not explicitly connect the followers of Jesus being called christians with Paul, and Acts also depicts followers of Jesus declaring that he was the resurrected messiah prior to Paul.

No problem..

But Acts does not give any information that Paul wasn't there. For all we can tell, Barnabas goes to get him, he and the others were there the whole year preaching their message (and) there is when (they) were called christians. By the end of chapter 11 you get the sense Paul and Barnabas were trustworthy and vital to the mission. It also said that this was in the day of (Claudius Caesar)......and I think he ruled for thirteen years.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Interesting....... I have a chart of sayings by the biblical Yeshua that seem to match up from sayings from the OT. It's as if the writers of the gospels created the character (Yeshua) right out of the OT. Sprinkle in a little mythic god/man here and there and now you have what appears to be an actual person....not to mention...the followers of the cult spreading their message to those unsuspecting gentiles who weren't believers and had probably never heard of this Yeshua....

A passage from the book's first chapter:

Rome attempted not to replace the gods of its provinces but to absorb them. By the end of the first century Rome had accumulated so many foreign gods that virtually every day of the year celebrated some divinity. Roman citizens were encouraged to give offerings to all these gods as a way of maintaining the Pax Deorum, the "peace of the gods," a condition that the Caesars saw as beneficial to the empire.
The Romans also used religion as a tool to assist them in conquest. The leader of the Roman army, the consul, was a religious leader capable of communicating with the gods. The Romans developed a specific ritual for inducing the gods of their enemies to defect to Rome. In this particular ritual, the devotio, a Roman soldier sacrificed himself to all the gods, including those of the enemy. In this way the Romans sought to neutralize their opponents' divine assistance.
Thus, when Rome went to war with the Zealots in Judea it had a long tradition of absorbing the religions of its opponents. If Romans did invent Christianity, it would have been yet another example of neutralizing an enemy's religion by making it their own, rather than fighting against it. Rome would simply have transformed the militant Judaism of first-century Judea into a pacifist religion, to more easily absorb it into the empire.
In any event, it is certain that the Caesars did attempt to control Judaism. From Julius Caesar on, the Roman emperor claimed personal authority over the religion and selected its high priests.

Caius Julius Caesar, imperator and high priest, and dictator sendeth greeting... I will that Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander, and his children . . . have the high priesthood of
the Jews for ever .. . and if at any time hereafter there arise any questions about the Jewish customs, I will that he determine the same . . .
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18, 3, 93

Roman emperors appointed all the high priests recorded within the New Testament from a restricted circle of families who were allied to Rome. By selecting the individual who would determine any issue of "Jewish customs," the Caesars were managing Jewish theology for their own self-interest. Of course, what other way would a Caesar have managed a religion?
Rome exercised control over the religion in a way that was unique in the history of its provincial governments. Rome micromanaged Second Temple Judaism to the extent of even determining when its priests could wear their holy vestments.

. . . the Romans took possession of these vestments of the high priest, and had them reposited in a stone-chamber, and seven days before a festival they were delivered to . . .the high priest. . .

In spite of these efforts, Rome's normal policy of absorbing the gods of its provinces did not succeed in Judea. Judaism would not permit its God to be just one among many, and Rome was forced to battle one Jewish insurrection after another. Having failed to control Judaism by naming its high priests, the imperial family would next attempt to control the religion by rewriting its Torah.
I believe they took this step and created the Gospels to initiate a version of Judaism more acceptable to the Empire, a religion that instead of waging war against its enemies would "turn the other cheek."
The theory of a Roman invention of Christianity does not originate with this work. Bruno Bauer, a 19th-century German scholar, believed that Christianity was Rome's attempt to create a mass religion that encouraged slaves to accept their station in life. In our era, Robert Eisenman concluded that the New Testament was the literature of a Judaic messianic movement rewritten with a pro-Roman perspective. This work, however, presents a completely new way of understanding the New Testament.
I will show that the Gospels were created to be understood on two levels. On its surface level they are, of course, a description of the ministry of a miracle-working Messiah who rose from the dead. However, the New Testament was also designed to be understood in another way, which is as a satire of Titus Flavius' military campaign through Judea. The proof of this is simply that Jesus and Titus share parallel experiences at the same locations and in the same sequence. Those parallels are both too exact and too complex to have occurred by chance. That this fact has been overlooked for two millennia represents a blind spot in scholarship as large as it is long.
The Gospels were designed to become apparent as satire as soon as they were read in conjunction with War of the Jews. In fact, the four Gospels and War of the Jews were created as a unified piece of literature whose characters and stories interact. Their interaction gives many of Jesus' sayings a comical meaning and also creates a series of puzzles whose solutions reveal the real identities of the New Testament's characters. Understanding the New Testament's comic level reveals, for example, that the Apostles Simon and John were cruel lampoons of Simon and John, the leaders of the Jewish rebellion.

 

[dogsgod]

Interesting, for someone who argued that Acts 12:2, which IS explicitly connected with the larger plot of acts, is an interpolation, simply because it doesn't fit into his preconceived notions about a "mythic" Jesus.

What's the connection between Acts 12.2 being an interpolation and a mythic Jesus? I didn't know there was one but perhaps you can enlighten us.

 

[Oberon]

But Acts does not give any information that Paul wasn't there. For all we can tell, Barnabas goes to get him, he and the others were there the whole year preaching their message (and) there is when (they) were called christians.

We don't know when they were first called christians. Acts doesn't say.

 

[dogsgod]

Acts may not be explicit, but it does imply that they were first called Christians when Paul was there.

 

[Ben Masada]

It's funny because you don't know what your talking about.


Ben: Paul created Christianity! Before that they were just "nazarenes." Acts says so!
Me: Actually, Acts never connects Paul with the creation of christianity. And Acts explicitly states that apostles before Paul preached the risen messiah.
Ben: Then why did they get along so well with the jews prior to Paul? Explain the contradiction.
Me: But they didn't! Acts records disciples being arrested, Stephen being executed, all before Paul.
Ben: Those are all wrong. And once we remove all the passages which interfere with my theory, then I am right!
Me:

The parrot is back. He must know by heart already

 

[Oberon]

Acts may not be explicit, but it does imply that they were first called Christians when Paul was there.

Not really. Let's analyze the greek, shall we?

και ευρων αυτον ἤγαγεν αυτον εις ᾿Αντιόχειαν/and having found him led/brought him into Antioch

εγένετο δε αυτους ενιαυτον ὅλον συναχθηναι εν τη εκκλησία/ and it came to be [that for] a whole year [they] assembled/gathered with the church.

και διδάξαι ὄχλον ικανόν/ and taught much people [lit. crowd, populous]

χρηματίσαι τε πρώτον εν ᾿Αντιοχεία τους μαθητας Χριστιανούς/ and in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians/

For the convenience of those who don't read greek, I have provided fairly literal translations and broken up all the clauses. Several things to notice:

1. The verb ἤγαγεν in the first line is the aorist 3rd person singular of the verb ago, meaning "I lead, I drive." In fact, it can and was used to refer to farmers driving cattle. In other words, the use of this verb clearly makes Barnabas, not Paul, the one in charge. So, if anybody is to be connected with the disciples being called christians, it would not be Paul, but Barnabas.

2. Nowhere in the passage is Paul singled out apart from Barnabas.

3. Here comes the important part:

The head of the whole passage is the clause with the finite verb (ἤγαγε&#957, i.e. the first clause. All other clauses are subordinate clauses which use the infinitive. However, not all the subordinate clauses are equal. We can see this by how they are linked. The particle de/δε and the even stronger word kai are used to link the second and third clauses together and to the passage. However, the far weaker particle te/τε is used to link the last clause with the passage. In other words, it is far more like an aside. The english "and" used in translations doesn't get this across, because it can be used to translate all three, without indicating the difference. te is not nearly as strong, and is used because the last clause is much more of a "oh and by the way, it so happens that" as opposed to a simple "and then.

In other words, the last clause is not linked in such a way as to easily imply, let alone explicitly state, that it was due to the presence of Paul (or Barnabas or both) that the disciples were first called christians.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We don't know when they were first called christians. Acts doesn't say.

At best it was within the year Paul, Barnabas and the other brothers were preaching. At worst it was some time within the rule of Claudius Caesar who seem to have ruled for 13 years. I suspect it was very early on. I lean toward the first year (the whole year they were preaching) because that's what Acts alludes to. We can only go by how these scriptures are presenting themselves.

Acts 11:26 KJV
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.


Ok...So looking at this word "and" in all the bibles at my fingertips..the word is (te) in greek. You're learned in Greek. Basically when I look this word up I'm presented with the definition....;

1) not only ... but also
2) both ... and
3) as ... so
a primary particle (enclitic) of connection or addition; both or also (properly, as correlation of 2532):--also, and, both, even, then, whether Often used in composition, usually as the latter participle.



".....And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people so the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.


There are a few translations out there that are rendered that way or similar. Giving the casual reader of this supposed history book reason to believe that (while in Antioch for a whole year they were preaching, during the rule of Claudius Caesar, the disciples were first declared Christians).

 

[Oberon]

Ok...So looking at this word "and" in all the bibles at my fingertips..the word is (te) in greek. You're learned in Greek. Basically when I look this word up I'm presented with the definition....

It's not a word, but rather a particle. kai is the greek word for "and." men, de, and te are all particles, and semantically they cannot be seperated from the their clauses (i.e. they have no definition apart from the syntactic construction in which they are placed).

1) not only ... but also
2) both ... and
3) as ... so
a primary particle (enclitic) of connection or addition; both or also (properly, as correlation of 2532):--also, and, both, even, then, whether Often used in composition, usually as the latter participle.

Your problem is that you are using a lexicion for a particle that is dependent on syntactic structures for meaning. For example, the both...and definition comes from the use te...te.

Let's make this more simple. As I said, the word for "and" in greek is kai. However, greek has a number of particles which link clauses together in a variety of ways. One of the most common is the men/de construction, which most commonly means "on the one hand/ on the other." The most common use of te is with another te or with kai to mean "both... and" in constructions like "He both went to the store, and to the movies." That isn't the use here.

We begin with the clause "and having found [him] he brought [him] into Antioch" The next clause begins with egeneto and everything following that is subordinate, as shown by the fact that rather than use finite verbs, they use infinitives. This is because of the impersonal verb egeneto which triggers the use of infinitives in the following clauses.

Most importantly, the clauses are linked not only by the use of infinitives rather than finite verbs, but also by particles and the word kai.

However, these particles do not follow the standard parallisms in your "both... and" or "then... so" constructions.

To look more closely, we see the following order:

de following egeneto links this clause back to the previous one.
Then we have kai and kai. Here is your "both...and" constructions.

So we have:


"And/kai having found him, he brought him into Antioch. And/de it came to be/pass for them, that they both/kai gathered with the church for a whole year, and/kai taught most of the people."

Now, at this point, all your parallisms are complete. The "both...and" construction is used, and you don't need anything else. However, the author wishes to mention one more thing: "and/te it was here that the disciples were first called christians."

There are any number of ways to tie this clause in with the previous ones. The easiest way (short of explicitly saying "because") would be to add another kai. Then the clause would be parallel and directly connected to the previous two. In which case the argument could be made that calling the disciples christians is linked to Paul and Barnabas.

But this isn't what happens. The author adds a te. This particle is the "weakest" connector of all, and given that the author could have put kai if s/he had wanted to link this "causally" but not explicitly with Paul and Barnabas, the use of te is very informative. In this type of construction, it is the greek equivalent of "oh, and just so you know..." In other words, it is an aside, thrown in their as a "by the way" but not linked to what has just happened.

 

[dogsgod]

What else is not explicit is that they were called Christians due to the weather in Antioch.