Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Try telling a story to one person, let them tell somebody else, and it goes thru 10 other people back to you. The story will bear no resemblance to the one you told.

So much for "oral tradition".

So much for your view of oral tradition, one which you've managed to fabricate without the slightest recourse to scholarship. You do nothing but broadcast your prejudices. It's actually rather sad.

 

[Oberon]

Try telling a story to one person, let them tell somebody else, and it goes thru 10 other people back to you. The story will bear no resemblance to the one you told.

Probably not. But how accurate a model for orality in the Jesus tradition is such a process? What if we change it, to make it more akin to models of orality in rabbinic circles, or in other situations and cultures similar to the Jesus sect?

After all, the oral tradition was not "a story" told once and then passed along the grapevine. It was a series of disconnected oral accounts, TAUGHT to followers, by those who were considered knowlegable in the tradition.

Not a single story, but a number of sayings and such repeated again and again to followers, not simply passed along by anyone and everyone.

 

[Ben Masada]

And knowing oral traditions, what people actually said back in the day when Jesus Christ came down and walked the earth.

I am telling you; the man is out of this world.

 

[Ben Masada]

It does usually help when one wants to understand what is written in the NT. Certainly being able to read greek is a more useful tool than your standard methodology: pick and choose which parts to believe according to preconceived notions, conflate different accounts, and when all else fails, just make things up.

That' spirit is back again.

 

[Ben Masada]

Try telling a story to one person, let them tell somebody else, and it goes thru 10 other people back to you. The story will bear no resemblance to the one you told.

So much for "oral tradition".

Right Logician, it is like a snowball. It starts very small on the top of the mountain. But when it gets on the bottom it is giagantic.

 

[Oberon]

Right Logician, it is like a snowball. It starts very small on the top of the mountain. But when it gets on the bottom it is giagantic.

Interesting. You claim on the one hand that the oral traditions behind the gospels are unreliable, although they are seperated from the events described by a few decades at most, while on the other hand you defend texts based on oral traditions which are seperated by centuries from the events and so forth contained in them(mishnah and talmudim). So basically oral tradition

as long as it was written by Jews, it's enough.

, even when this oral tradition was handed down over centuries. But if it is oral tradition handed down from one or two generations, not many centuries as with the mishnah and talmudim, then it becomes "a gigantic snowball" of inaccuracy.

 

[logician]

Right Logician, it is like a snowball. It starts very small on the top of the mountain. But when it gets on the bottom it is giagantic.

The point being that for historical purposes, only WRITTEN RECORDS have any real meaning, and even then only if they can be substantiated by secondary or more sources, and can be proven NOT to be forgeries. Such is NOT the case in any of the very few so-called historical accounts of the suppose Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The point being that for historical purposes, only WRITTEN RECORDS have any real meaning, ...

That's silly (and expected).

 

[dogsgod]

Of course a written record has any real meaning since we have no way of knowing what an oral record consisted of. There's no way of testing the validity of oral records, no one can possibly know what was said unless it's recorded. We can see how the written record changes in about 25 years by reading Mark thru Luke and John, so just imagine how much an oral tradition changes. Granted, the gospels are allegorical fictions so changes were made to suit the intended audience, but oral tradition would change for much the same reasons, and with no way of checking if a written record does not exists.

 

[Oberon]

Of course a written record has any real meaning since we have no way of knowing what an oral record consisted of.

Not true. There are several methods, both internal (as in in the texts which record oral traditions) and external (as in texts which describe the processes of oral transmission within a given community, sect, academy, etc).

There's no way of testing the validity of oral records, no one can possibly know what was said unless it's recorded.

And, in the case of Jesus' teachings, they were.

We can see how the written record changes in about 25 years by reading Mark thru Luke and John, so just imagine how much an oral tradition changes.

No, we can see a great deal of consistency. You continually fail to grasp the point that the oral Jesus tradition was not a "gospel/life" (i.e. a full narrative of Jesus' mission) like the gospels were. The oral traditions consisted of various independent aphorisms, parables, short narratives, etc. The gospels wove this into a single long narrative bioi of sorts, and in doing so arranged and redacted the oral tradition in ways which both made it fit better into the gospel and to suit the authors purposes. However, with the exception of John and Thomas (who seem to have gone beyond redacting to more creating) the early gospels were pretty faithful in recording the oral tradition.

You can not compare, e.g. Matthew and Luke, to determine a lack of reliability in the oral transmission by examining contradictions in timelines or places or who was present in a particular part of a shared piece of the tradition. This is a literary approach to a text and has no bearing on reconstructing oral stages or "nuggets" behind the texts.

Granted, the gospels are allegorical fictions

At least according to websites you find.

but oral tradition would change for much the same reasons, and with no way of checking if a written record does not exists.

Tell me, which journals or studies have you read in orality at all, let alone orality specific to early christian transmission of the Jesus tradition? I would imagine the answer is nothing. If so, you are hardly in a position to say in what way or why or how quickly oral accounts change in any given community and in any given oral genre.

 

[dogsgod]

Not true. There are several methods, both internal (as in in the texts which record oral traditions) and external (as in texts which describe the processes of oral transmission within a given community, sect, academy, etc).




And, in the case of Jesus' teachings, they were.

All we know is that some people collected sayings and teachings by making a list of them and attributing them to a Jesus. This tradition carried on over a long period of time, possibly centuries depending on how Q and Thomas are dated. Nothing suggests that these sayings came from one person. Some are of a Greek cynic sage type, some are Jewish, and some from Thomas may be of a far eastern influence.

No, we can see a great deal of consistency. You continually fail to grasp the point that the oral Jesus tradition was not a "gospel/life" (i.e. a full narrative of Jesus' mission) like the gospels were. The oral traditions consisted of various independent aphorisms, parables, short narratives, etc. The gospels wove this into a single long narrative bioi of sorts, and in doing so arranged and redacted the oral tradition in ways which both made it fit better into the gospel and to suit the authors purposes. However, with the exception of John and Thomas (who seem to have gone beyond redacting to more creating) the early gospels were pretty faithful in recording the oral tradition.

You can not compare, e.g. Matthew and Luke, to determine a lack of reliability in the oral transmission by examining contradictions in timelines or places or who was present in a particular part of a shared piece of the tradition. This is a literary approach to a text and has no bearing on reconstructing oral stages or "nuggets" behind the texts.

Sure, some of the story derives from various oral traditions that were put together to form a new story. Much is also midrash. Whatever the case, we can see how the story changes within the written record as this story was copied, altered, and added to.

At least according to websites you find.


Tell me, which journals or studies have you read in orality at all, let alone orality specific to early christian transmission of the Jesus tradition? I would imagine the answer is nothing. If so, you are hardly in a position to say in what way or why or how quickly oral accounts change in any given community and in any given oral genre.

I'm not making claims as to know what people said back then, that's for you to pretend to know.

 

[Oberon]

All we know is that some people collected sayings and teachings by making a list of them and attributing them to a Jesus.

No, that is all you know. And the reason for this is your stubborn avoidance of actual scholarship, relying instead on websites like jesuspuzzle (a horrible source, as I showed quite recently when you made claims about Dionysus turning water into wine in Seneca based on jesuspuzzle.com, except that never happened).

Those few scholars in relevant fields you have read (e.g. Crossan) disagree.

This tradition carried on over a long period of time, possibly centuries depending on how Q and Thomas are dated.

Impossible.

1. Paul, writing in the 50s and 60s, but converted much earlier, knew Jesus' brother, so "centuries" is out of the question.
2. Josephus, in a passage that is almost universaly accepted by scholars in various relevant fields, also knew of Jesus' brother (which again makes "centuries" impossible.
3. Numerous studies have been conducted comparing the gospels with other ancient texts which fall into historical genres. It is clear that the gospels ARE histories of sorts. See, e.g.

The New Testament in Its Literary Environment by David Aune
What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography by Robert Burridge
Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst by Dirk Frickenschmidt
"Genre for Q and a Socio-Cultural Context for Q: Comparing Sorts fo Similarities with Sets of Differences" Journal for the Study of the New Testament by F. G. Downing

4. Mark composed is narrative out of various independent oral traditions probably a little less than 40 years after Jesus. He was alive far earlier than that, meaning that his access to eyewitnesses could have been considerable. Certainly, by the time he wrote his gospel, eyewitnesses were still living who could have contradicted all of it. Instead, it was copied and distributed among the early christian communities, and the central one was in Jerusalem, where christians were still living who could have said "wait a minute, this never happened!" Yet this did not happen, despite the fact that Mark nails Jesus' life down to a specific time and place.
5. The author of Luke/Acts was active in the early church, and certainly knew eyewitnesses. He too nails Jesus' activities to a particular time and place.
6. Papias and Polycarp both discuss their talks with the eyewitnesses, who actually knew Jesus.

I could go on, but the point is that although it is highly probable none of our accounts are from eyewitnesses, we have plenty of evidence to indicate that disciples of the eyewitnesses left us with a historical record of Jesus which places him in first century palestine.

Nothing suggests that these sayings came from one person.

It is likely that certain sayings were attributed to Jesus after his death. However, studies into the control of oral transmission in the sect make such occurances rare.

Sure, some of the story derives from various oral traditions that were put together to form a new story.

Again, you are missing the point. The "various oral traditions" were not a bunch of stories put which were subsequently put together. Most of them were a particular teaching or parable Jesus told (probably many times) which his disciples then taught to new converts.

Much is also midrash.

You don't even know what midrash is.

Whatever the case, we can see how the story changes within the written record as this story was copied, altered, and added to.

The "story" is not the oral tradition. The oral tradition has been turned into bioi by the gospel authors.

I'm not making claims as to know what people said back then, that's for you to pretend to know.

Rather, you are making claims about how orality worked in Jesus' day, knowing nothing about the subject.

 

[dogsgod]

No, that is all you know. And the reason for this is your stubborn avoidance of actual scholarship, relying instead on websites like jesuspuzzle (a horrible source, as I showed quite recently when you made claims about Dionysus turning water into wine in Seneca based on jesuspuzzle.com, except that never happened).

Those few scholars in relevant fields you have read (e.g. Crossan) disagree.



Impossible.

1. Paul, writing in the 50s and 60s, but converted much earlier, knew Jesus' brother, so "centuries" is out of the question.
2. Josephus, in a passage that is almost universaly accepted by scholars in various relevant fields, also knew of Jesus' brother (which again makes "centuries" impossible.
3. Numerous studies have been conducted comparing the gospels with other ancient texts which fall into historical genres. It is clear that the gospels ARE histories of sorts. See, e.g.

4. Mark composed is narrative out of various independent oral traditions probably a little less than 40 years after Jesus. He was alive far earlier than that, meaning that his access to eyewitnesses could have been considerable. Certainly, by the time he wrote his gospel, eyewitnesses were still living who could have contradicted all of it. Instead, it was copied and distributed among the early christian communities, and the central one was in Jerusalem, where christians were still living who could have said "wait a minute, this never happened!" Yet this did not happen, despite the fact that Mark nails Jesus' life down to a specific time and place.
5. The author of Luke/Acts was active in the early church, and certainly knew eyewitnesses. He too nails Jesus' activities to a particular time and place.

Puleeeese. Luke copied Mark. This is insanity.

6. Papias and Polycarp both discuss their talks with the eyewitnesses, who actually knew Jesus.


I could go on, but the point is that although it is highly probable none of our accounts are from eyewitnesses, we have plenty of evidence to indicate that disciples of the eyewitnesses left us with a historical record of Jesus which places him in first century palestine.



It is likely that certain sayings were attributed to Jesus after his death. However, studies into the control of oral transmission in the sect make such occurances rare.




Again, you are missing the point. The "various oral traditions" were not a bunch of stories put which were subsequently put together. Most of them were a particular teaching or parable Jesus told (probably many times) which his disciples then taught to new converts.


You don't even know what midrash is.



The "story" is not the oral tradition. The oral tradition has been turned into bioi by the gospel authors.



Rather, you are making claims about how orality worked in Jesus' day, knowing nothing about the subject.

Hello, there were no eye witnesses. Knock, knock, is anybody there? Religious texts are not historical accounts, HELLO.

 

[Oberon]

Puleeeese. Luke copied Mark. This is insanity.

Luke used Mark (and probably Q). He did not copy. And, had you ever studied ancient history, you would know this is a common practice. If a collection of the oral tradition had already been made, there is no reason for Luke not to use it, despite knowing eyewitnesses himself (and he alone wrote Acts, copying no one). So he took Mark, and added to it parts of the tradition he felt Mark should have put in, and redacted it to fit his purposes.

This doesn't change the fact that Mark wrote while at the very least those in the Jerusalem jesus community could have pointed out none of it happened. And we know from Paul's epistles and other extra-canonical texts that these communities actually COMMUNICATED with each other. If Mark was merely writing fiction, and there were people living who would have known this never happened, Mark would never have survived. Instead, it was copied and copied and copied and distributed to many christian communities

Hello, there were no eye witnesses. Knock, knock, is anybody there? Religious texts are not historical accounts, HELLO.

In the ancient world they can be. I give you a list of academic works comparing the gospels to ancient texts which were part of the genre of history. You, having studied neither ancient history nor the early christianity or really anything of use, then make claims you can't back up.

We have several texts which give us an idea of the structure of oral transmission in the Jesus sect and the existence of eyewitnesses is also attested by multiple texts (Paul, Luke, Papias, and Polycarp at the very least)

 

[dogsgod]

The people at the time knew they were religious texts rather than accounts of actual events. Believers that viewed these mythologies as actual accounts came much later and there's no reason to trust your view of history anymore than your view of early Christianity. No this story is not a history text by any stretch and neither is any other uncorroborated storied account considered historical. It's one and the same basic story retold and rewritten, and yes, Matthew and Luke copied Mark almost word for word, that's why they are called synoptic, they are the same story, not corroboration, Hello. If there were eyewitnesses we'd have very different stories, but we don't. There were no eye witnesses.

 

[Oberon]

The people at the time knew they were religious texts rather than accounts of actual events.

Not true.

1. If they were never intended to be taken as anything other than myth, they would hardly survive as they did. Most religious texts did not. Yet we have very, very early copies or pieces of copies of the texts, indicating that from the beginning they were treated as something other than just religious stories.
2. The early church fathers, some of whom personally knew Jesus' disciples, show an awareness of these texts and of the person of Jesus as a historical person.
3. Paul knew Jesus brother, and Josephus at least knew of him, meaning that Jesus' was considered well known enough even in the first century (not long after his death) to be used as a kin identifier for James in Josephus.
4. As I said, these texts do not resemble mythic texts. I cited for you a number of studies which go into this issue in great detail. Rather, they resemble ancient biography
5. Mythic religious texts do not posit founders who lived only a few years ago, within living memory. They place their founders in some time long past, so it is impossible to prove false. Jesus is placed in a specific time and place.

Believers that viewed these mythologies as actual accounts came much later

What evidence do you have for this? None.

and there's no reason to trust your view of history anymore than your view of early Christianity.

Actually, given the fact that I have studied it a great deal, and you know nothing about it, that is a pretty good reason. But you don't have to trust me. You could read virtually any scholar in a relevant field, and although you would get different answers to various issues, they would all (with one exception, two if you count classical studies), regardless of religious persuasion, tell you we have LOTS of evidence attesting to Jesus' historicity. Which is why virtually every single mythicist promoter are laypersons.

No this story is not a history text by any stretch and neither is any other uncorroborated storied account considered historical.

Here again we have you opinion backed up with zero study of ancient history.

It's one and the same basic story retold and rewritten, and yes, Matthew and Luke copied Mark almost word for word

Then what is Q? Or M? or L?

that's why they are called synoptic, they are the same story

synoptic comes from the greek and means "seen together" in that these three agree more with each other than with John. It does not meant Matthew and Luke copied Mark, although they both probably used him.

If there were eyewitnesses we'd have very different stories, but we don't. There were no eye witnesses.

How so? If the eyewitnesses all agreed on what happened, the stories would be very similar? What a foolish argument.

And again, the fact that Luke used Mark and Q (oral or written) does not mean he did not have access to the tradition from eyewitnesses (which he states in Luke, and in Acts he is presents at certain points). Copying someone else's text wouldn't be considered bad form. If Luke wanted to write a bio of Jesus, it makes perfect sense that he would begin with one already circulating, and add to it what he thought was important.

Moreover, Paul too met and learned from the eyewitnesses (Peter and James Jesus' brother, among others). And although he occasionally alludes to or explicitly cites Jesus' teachings which he received, he was not interested in a 'life" of Jesus and so barely touched on it.

 

[logician]

The people at the time knew they were religious texts rather than accounts of actual events. Believers that viewed these mythologies as actual accounts came much later and there's no reason to trust your view of history anymore than your view of early Christianity. No this story is not a history text by any stretch and neither is any other uncorroborated storied account considered historical. It's one and the same basic story retold and rewritten, and yes, Matthew and Luke copied Mark almost word for word, that's why they are called synoptic, they are the same story, not corroboration, Hello. If there were eyewitnesses we'd have very different stories, but we don't. There were no eye witnesses.

Of course there were eyewitnesses, the 3 wise men, shepareds, the sheep and camels at the manger, they all saw the birth of Jesus, didn't they?

 

[Oberon]

Of course there were eyewitnesses, the 3 wise men, shepareds, the sheep and camels at the manger, they all saw the birth of Jesus, didn't they?

For one whose name is derived from "logic" you seem to display a distinct lack of it. If you merely approached the issue logically, and were only interested in the truth (as far as we can know) why is it you have read so little on the subject from people who might actually know what they are talking about? There are plenty of non-christian scholars in NT studies. Can you cite even 5 whose works you have read?

This thread began, and is concerned with, Josephus' references to Jesus. This is important, as Josephus is a non-christian historian living close to Jesus' day. There are two references to Jesus. The longer is widely agreed to have been altered. However, it is also widely believed to have a core which Josephus actually wrote, and which concerns Jesus. One of the most important works on this matter was written by G. Vermes (a non-christian) who points out how most of the longer passage is typical Josephus (typical vocabulary and syntax).

As for the shorter reference to Jesus by Josephus, virtually no scholar in any relevant field doubts that it is from Josephus. And Josephus was alive when that event took place.

You (and dogsgod) cling to your mythicist position despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite the fact that out of hundreds and hundreds of scholars in relevant fields, and centuries of critical inquiry into the NT, one can count on a one hand the number of experts who buy into the mythicist position.

Now, is your position one deduced from logic, or bias?

 

[logician]

It's also interesting that Pilate and Herod were eyewitnesses of the supposed trial, but wrote nothing about or had nobody write about the events.

 

[Oberon]

It's also interesting that Pilate and Herod were eyewitnesses of the supposed trial, but wrote nothing about or had nobody write about the events.

Its interesting that you make that assertion. Only a small percentage of what was written survived. Had you actually studied ancient history, you would know this.