Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Oberon]

People did not travel much, that's why itinerant preachers went from town to town.

Even simple farmers travelled for large celebrations. Also, although many people in villages rarely travelled, news was spread by people who did. And within 20 years of Jesus' death, there were several christian congregations in various cities, all communicating with each other. News had ways of gettin around, even to little villages, and certainly to Jerusalem, where the "head" of the Jesus sect initially was. If Jesus never existed, never travelled around galilee and was never executed in Jerusalem, Josephus and Mark's audience would know this. So would Paul. The early Jews and christians interacted a lot. We know this from later jewish sources as well as roman sources. We know that a mere 30 or so years after Jesus' death, christians were being blamed for Nero's fire. So this sect was well known in the very places where Jesus was said to have preached, gathered crowds, and died. Yet somehow, all the gospels were copied and transmitted better and faster than any other work from antiquity. There is no way to explain this unless people thought it contained truth. Had Jesus never existed, there is no way to explain how so many christian communities preserved such texts while the events described were so recent. Everyone would have known that it never happened.

Perhaps Mark was initially rejected by most people.

Then it wouldn't have survived. More than 90% of everything written in the classical and late hellenistic period perished. Yet the gospels are better attested to (meaning we have more physical ancient texts and more quotations of them in other texts) then ANY OTHER literature from the entire classical and late antique period.

Paul saw God in a vision and that was that, that's what convinced him, he had no facts to check.

He did. He moved around in the same places that Jesus was said to move around. Moreoever, he stayed with peter for days and days learning the tradition.

Followers had to take Paul's word for the fact that he communicated through revelations, visions, and ancient scripture, otherwise no facts necessary.

No, they didn't. There were other eyewitnesses (and later disciples of eyewitnesses) to check with. Even the late first and early 2nd century writer Papias spoke to eyewitnesses and to their disciples. Luke was active among the circles of eyewitnesses. The author of John was a disciple of a disciple of Jesus.

We have no record of a skeptic converting to Christianity in the 1st century

Completely false. Paul was a skeptic, and began (by his own admission, and as recorded in acts) not only as a skeptic but as a persecutor of the church. Acts also records other conversions. Josephus states that Jesus attracted followers.

Skeptics have never been the target audience, only believers in myth and magic need apply.

Again, such "myth and magic" are in all of ancient history. Do you believe that Augustus Caesar was a myth? After all, his biography states that he was born of a god. Obviously, only "believers in myth and magic" would believe that this emperor ever lived.

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon, read a real history book and learn why certain Christian literature survived all these years and why so much other literature perished.

 

[dogsgod]

The target audience for Christianity was not the skeptical, nor the educated elite. Paul admits, "not many who are wise in the flesh are called, nor many who are great or noble" 1 Corinthians 1:26. James writes, "did not God choose them that are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom?" And "do not the rich oppress you, and drag you into the courts?" James 2:5-6 The only way one could learn of Christianity was from other Christians and so difficult to check the facts. Honestly, how could anyone outside of a given town ever know what took place in that town?

Christianity was obscure and insignificant until the 4th century.

Paul did not visit any places at all connected to Jesus, not Nazareth, (it didn't exist), not Calvary, not a birthplace, absolutely none of the places Christians now consider holy, nor did he mention Pilate, Mary, or any names connected with Jesus other than Peter, James and John, who were later recast as dimwitted disciples by the author of the gospel fiction, Mark.

 

[logician]

The target audience for Christianity was not the skeptical, nor the educated elite. Paul admits, "not many who are wise in the flesh are called, nor many who are great or noble" 1 Corinthians 1:26. James writes, "did not God choose them that are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom?" And "do not the rich oppress you, and drag you into the courts?" James 2:5-6 The only way one could learn of Christianity was from other Christians and so difficult to check the facts. Honestly, how could anyone outside of a given town ever know what took place in that town?

Christianity was obscure and insignificant until the 4th century.

Paul did not visit any places at all connected to Jesus, not Nazareth, (it didn't exist), not Calvary, not a birthplace, absolutely none of the places Christians now consider holy, nor did he mention Pilate, Mary, or any names connected with Jesus other than Peter, James and John, who were later recast as dimwitted disciples by the author of the gospel fiction, Mark.

Maybe that's because there never was any real Jesus for Paul to have heard of.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon, read a real history book and learn why certain Christian literature survived all theses years and why so much other literature perished.

You mean like the junk you dig up on the internet? One of us has actually studied this topic, and it isn't you.

We have texts, or pieces of texts, which date to when christianity was a persecuted religion. The only way this would be possible is if they were widely transmitted even before christianity became a major religion.

Furthermore, if your ridiculous theory is correct, and the early christians like paul did not believe in an earthly Jesus, they would have no use for gospels like Mark. The gospel "lives" of Jesus clearly place him in a specific time and place, unlike any other myths, and were written when plenty could contradict them. If the early christians did not believe in an earthly christ, there would be no reason to copy and transmit these gospels.

The reason the gospels survive is because they matched oral traditions circulating from eyewitnesses of Jesus' mission. From Paul, Luke, Papias, Polycarp, and John, we know that the structure of the early christian communities valued above all the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses.

The target audience for Christianity was not the skeptical, nor the educated elite.

Only the educated elite could read. Paul's comment about "not many of you are wise" was for who his letters were being read to. But an educated elite had to be there to read the letters in the first place.

Christianity was obscure and insignificant until the 4th century.

You have no idea what you are talking about. They were well known enough for Nero to blame the fire on them in the 1st centuries. Roman historians of the early 2nd century were acquainted with them. We have actual christian texts dating from the 2nd century. Josephus knew of Jesus and his followers in the first century. Paul's letters, in the middle of the first century, were addressed to a variety of christian communities, in many places. And so forth. There is plenty of data from a variety of sources to suggest a growing community of christians.

Also, if (as you suggest) christianity was minor until the fourth century, then none of the texts would have survived. For any ancient text to survive, many, many, many copies must be made, because over 90% would perish.

Paul did not visit any places at all connected to Jesus, not Nazareth, (it didn't exist)

Nazareth did exist, and we have archaeological evidence of it, and Paul visited Jerusalem.

or any names connected with Jesus other than Peter, James and John, who were later recast as dimwitted disciples by the author of the gospel fiction, Mark.

He mentions two James, one being Jesus' brother. Also, Mark's gospel is not "fiction" as this genre did not exist. It was a type of biography. Furthermore, Peter, James, and John were the central figures in the early christian community, not to mention members of the 12, so the fact that he discusses them says a great deal.

Maybe that's because there never was any real Jesus for Paul to have heard of.

Yet, somehow, Paul discusses Jesus' last supper. He quotes his teaching on divorce. He talks about Jesus' brother. And he was a contemporary of Jesus. He was a Jew, a Judaean, like Jesus was, frequenting the same places. So not only was he well aware of Jesus, he actually knew those who knew Jesus, not to mention Jesus' relatives.

 

[logician]

anyone outside of a given town ever know what took place in that town?

Christianity was obscure and insignificant until the 4th century.

.

Which gave anyone with a particular axe to grind plenty of time to forge documents, rewrite documents, make up documents, trash documents, or otherwise create a version of Christianity to their own liking, which the literalists most certainly did.
And nobody was around recording who did all this chicanery.

 

[dogsgod]

Paul practiced a 'Lord's Super' and a later unknown author of Mark included the ritual into his narration turning it into the 'Last Super.' It's a natural progression that we can see develop since it was Paul that wrote of this ritual first. Paul's Lord's Super was not connected to a Passover dinner as in Mark's story.

 

[dogsgod]

Which gave anyone with a particular axe to grind plenty of time to forge documents, rewrite documents, make up documents, trash documents, or otherwise create a version of Christianity to their own liking, which the literalists most certainly did.
And nobody was around recording who did all this chicanery.

Plenty of time and the penalty of death for those that had differing views.

 

[dogsgod]

Furthermore, if your ridiculous theory is correct, and the early christians like paul did not believe in an earthly Jesus, they would have no use for gospels like Mark. The gospel "lives" of Jesus clearly place him in a specific time and place, unlike any other myths, and were written when plenty could contradict them. If the early christians did not believe in an earthly christ, there would be no reason to copy and transmit these gospels.


Paul and the early Christians had no use for any gospels, they weren't written yet.The 'gospel' Paul refers to is the good news that he receives from reading ancient scripture and visions that he passes on.People had no way of knowing what happened outside their little tribal villages, there were no newspapers, phones, mail services. They simply had to take someone's word for it that a Christ had risen to redeem mankind, believe it and be saved. Notions that people knew the gospels were a true story and therefore accepted them is child's play on so many levels that it's hard to imagine where people come up with this nonsense. No one bothered to check, and as time went by it would have been even more difficult to do so even if people had the means, it's that simple.

 

[dogsgod]

The first known attestation to an actual gospel comes from Justin Martyr, living in Rome around 150CE. He refers to a book of apostles, they weren't known as gospels until many years later. From what he states he may have read from a version of Matthew.

 

[Oberon]

Paul and the early Christians had no use for any gospels, they weren't written yet.

Mark's gospel was probably written while Paul was still alive, and certainly while eyewitnesses were still alive. It was passed around christian communities, the hub of which was Jerusalem where Jesus was said to have died. If Mark was fiction, and the early christians did not believe in a physical christ, Mark's gospel would never have survived.

People had no way of knowing what happened outside their little tribal villages, there were no newspapers, phones, mail services.

Once more you show how little you know of ancient history. Even the smallest towns had interaction with the outside to receive news. And Jerusalem was not a "little village," but it was the site of Jesus' execution, and the hub of the early christian community. If Jesus never existed, Mark's gospel would never have survived, as all the early christians wouldn't have cared about it at all, because according to you, they didn't believe in a physical christ.

Yet it did survive, because the earliest christians, from Paul onward, DID believe (and some knew) the physical Jesus. And Mark's gospel recorded oral traditions passed down from eyewitnesses.

They simply had to take someone's word for it that a Christ had risen to redeem mankind,

No, they didn't. People who were living in Galilee and Jerusalem, or who had visited such places (as was common) would know if such a person never existed. Some Jews did not believe he was the messiah, and others were convinced, but no one questioned whether he existed or not.

Notions that people knew the gospels were a true story and therefore accepted them is child's play

Not "true story" but ancient biography. Augustus Caesar was a real person, yet myths (such as divine birth) grew up around him. Pythagoras was a real person, yet he was said to work wonders and whatnot. Socrates was a real person, yet all of our accounts disagree. Jesus too was a real person, although legends grew up around him. The difference is that for Jesus we have far more and earlier sources than virtually anyone else.

on so many levels that it's hard to imagine where people come up with this nonsense.

Maybe if you actually studied, rather than search through bad websites to confirm your beliefs.

No one bothered to check

They did. Paul, after seeing his vision, made sure to spend many days with Jesus to learn about him. Papias made sure to interview those in a position to know. Josephus, a jewish historian, knew of his brother's trial.

You act like anyone in the ancient world would believe anything they were told. But there is a reason ancient myths take place in a time and place far removed from the telling. That way they can't be contradicted. Jesus' story could easily be contradicted, because it was being told while people still living could say "that never happened."

and as time went by it would have been even more difficult to do so even if people had the means

And exactly what scholarly works have you read on the culture networks and sociology of 1st century palestine? Oh wait... nothing.

 

[dogsgod]

Outside the Gospel of Matthew, there is no mention anywhere in the first hundred years to an appointing of Peter by Jesus as the "rock" on which the church will be built. In passages like 1 Corinthians 9:1f and Galatians 1:17, there is no suggestion that the requirement (or even an advantage) for an accredited apostle has anything to do with having known an historical Jesus. Rather, the mark of the true apostle, Paul consistently tells us, is the reception of the proper revelation and authority from God.Apollos of Alexandria and the Early Christian Apostolate

So where was Matthew getting information from, information that completely contradicts what Paul writes? And why did the author of Matthew contradict Paul? Reading Paul we see tension between himself and the the Jerusalem 'pillars.' If the gospels are allegorical fiction about a Pauline tradition, is Matthew taking the side of Peter? Does Mark favour Paul by portraying the disciples, Peter, James, and John, as a bunch of dimwits that just don't get it?

 

[Oberon]

So where was Matthew getting information from, information that completely contradicts what Paul writes?

Matthew is not the only one who gives priority to Peter. Luke, John, and Mark do as well. As a matter of fact, Paul does too, although he tries to minimize it.

And why did the author of Matthew contradict Paul?

Matthew shows no awareness of Paul. And as for the difference, Paul was at a disadvantage, because unlike Peter, James, John, and so forth, he did not follow Jesus while Jesus was alive. So he emphasized the risen, rather than earthly Jesus. But he still made references to Jesus earthly life and teaching.

If the gospels are allegorical fiction about a Pauline tradition

1. You clearly don't know what allegorical means
2. The gospels do not show any awareness of paul's letters

is Matthew taking the side of Peter?

All of the gospels show Peter as the head disciple.

Does Mark favour Paul by portraying the disciples, Peter, James, and John, as a bunch of dimwits that just don't get it?

From Wrede's messianic secret. It has long been known in NT scholarship that a theme in Mark is the misunderstanding of Jesus by the disciples. But this is a literary device which Mark has imposed on the many oral traditions he records.

 

[dogsgod]

I don't know what epistles you are reading but Paul explains to us in no uncertain terms that God appoints apostles, and that his apostleship and Peter's are the same. Read Galatians 2.


And no, Paul does not lead us to believe that he knew people that knew Jesus.

Galatians1 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

All Paul knows is that his Christ is a risen Christ, a redeemer of mankind, he knows this through his visions and his interpretation of ancient scripture which he in turn preaches to his followers. He was in competition with other self appointed apostles, er cough, apostles appointed by God, and agreed with the Jerusalem group who their respective target audiences would be.

 

[Oberon]

I don't know what epistles you are reading but Paul explains to us in no uncertain terms that God appoints apostles, and that his apostleship and Peter's are the same. Read Galatians 2.

He describes himself as the last one. And he calles Peter and James "pillars," not himself.

And no, Paul does not lead us to believe that he knew people that knew Jesus.

He specifically states he knew Jesus' brother.

Galatians1 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

He says this in order to make his boost his claim of authority. But he also says he spent many days receiving the tradition from peter, using the verbal form of the word "history.

All Paul knows is that his Christ is a risen Christ

No. He mentions Jesus' last supper. He tells us he knows Jesus' brother. He mentions Jesus' teaching on divorce. He knows Jesus died. He concentrates on the "risen christ" only because peter, james, and others actually knew the living christ.

He was in competition with other self appointed apostles

He never calls them "self appointed." He states they were apostles before him. And many of his statements clearly show he knew Jesus was a flesh and blood man prior to his crucifixion.

Jerusalem group who their respective target audiences would be.

Yet we still have Mark's gospel (not to mention the earlier Q, and the other three gospels) which clearly depict a living Jesus. And these gospels were spread around Jerusalem and other areas where Jesus preached or his preaching was known. If, as you suggest, the early christians did not believe in an eartly Jesus, these gospels would have been lost like the vast majority of ancient texts. Instead, there are no texts from ancient history more attested to.

 

[dogsgod]

So Paul was the last apostle, what are we to read into this? Paul provides no evidence or any clues that his risen Christ lived on earth in a recent past of his. Paul's commenting on the Lord's view of marriage is the most paltry of teachings, it hardly suggests he was known as a teacher and when Paul comments on what became Jesus' central core teaching about brotherly love, who does he attribute this teaching as coming from? He receives this from God. Ouch.

No, Paul does not claim to be a self appointed apostle, in his own words Paul claims that his and Peter's apostleship was appointed by God. Ouch again. Further evidence that a recent appointment by Jesus was not a requirement, nor that it factored in at all.

'Brother of the Lord' is consistent with a spiritual brother which is a prevalent theme throughout the epistle writings. Brother and brethren is used many dozens of times in a spiritual sense.

The gospel writings came later and from an unknown author. They differ from the writings of the early Christians, the epistle writers, by introducing a Galilean ministry, and by portraying this Jesus as a teacher and a miracle worker. Peter, James, and John are portrayed as disciples, a term not found in the epistle writings to describe these men. There is nothing to be gained by reading the gospels into Paul or any of the epistle writings that were written prior to the gospels. In fact, it's foolhardy to do so. The epistle writers appear to be unaware of a Galilean ministry.

 

[Oberon]

So Paul was the last apostle, what are we to read into this?

If we are you, we read into anything whatever supports our preconceived views.

Paul provides no evidence or any clues that his risen Christ lived on earth in a recent past of his.

Wrong. He knew Jesus' brother. He tells of Jesus last supper. He tells us of Jesus' commandment on divorce.

Paul's commenting on the Lord's view of marriage is the most paltry of teachings

Paul does not provide many details at all on Jesus' teachings. But that isn't his purpose. However, he DOES tell us that he knew Jesus' brother. Which means that Jesus was Paul's contemporary.

Further evidence that a recent appointment by Jesus was not a requirement, nor that it factored in at all.

No, it isn't. It is evidence that Paul, who was not a follower during Jesus' life, downplayed the importance of being a follower of Jesus during his life, because he was in conflict with Peter.

'Brother of the Lord' is consistent with a spiritual brother

Wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about, in part because you can't read greek. "Brother of X" is NEVER used as a metaphor in paul or anywhere else. Paul never refers to Peter, John, Barnabas, the twelve, and so forth a "brother of the lord." Only James, who Josephus ALSO calls Jesus' brother, as well as the gospels.

Brother and brethren is used many dozens of times in a spiritual sense.

The word adelphoi is not the same as brother of X which is a syntactical unit used for identification by kin. Paul only uses it with James, who is also named Jesus' brother in the gospels and Josephus.

The gospel writings came later and from an unknown author.

Not much later, and plenty of ancient writings come from unknown authors.

They differ from the writings of the early Christians, the epistle writers, by introducing a Galilean ministry

They differ because they are a different genre. They aren't letters, but ancient biographis (lives) of Jesus.

There is nothing to be gained by reading the gospels into Paul or any of the epistle writings that were written prior to the gospels.

What foolishness. This is only true if we accept your view that the gospels are nothing but mythic stories. Only this is patently false for any number of readings, including:

1. Stories and myths in the ancient world "flowed." The gospels are composed of independent sayings and short narratives which each gospel author has placed in an artificial narrative. In ancient myths, it was the details which would differ, while the overall narrative was already in place.

2. If the early christians of Paul's day (who were still around when Mark was written) did not believe in a living Jesus, then the gospels would not have been passed around and copied and transmitted as they were. They would be treated like any other myth. Yet they are THE most attested to documents of the ancient world, even when christianity was a persecuted sect.

The epistle writers appear to be unaware of a Galilean ministry.

Some of the epistles show an awareness of the gospels, because they KNEW the gospels. Even Paul (prior to the gospels) has a few references to the Jesus tradition (the last supper, jesus' teaching on divorce, and of course his crucifixion).

Moreoever, Luke, who wrote acts, was present among the early christians, and knew Paul as well as other early christians. We may not know Luke's name, but from his biographical details in Acts, we know that he was an active member of the early christian church, and knew eyewitnesses.

 

[logician]

So Paul was the last apostle, what are we to read into this? Paul provides no evidence or any clues that his risen Christ lived on earth in a recent past of his. Paul's commenting on the Lord's view of marriage is the most paltry of teachings, it hardly suggests he was known as a teacher and when Paul comments on what became Jesus' central core teaching about brotherly love, who does he attribute this teaching as coming from? He receives this from God. Ouch.

No, Paul does not claim to be a self appointed apostle, in his own words Paul claims that his and Peter's apostleship was appointed by God. Ouch again. Further evidence that a recent appointment by Jesus was not a requirement, nor that it factored in at all.

'Brother of the Lord' is consistent with a spiritual brother which is a prevalent theme throughout the epistle writings. Brother and brethren is used many dozens of times in a spiritual sense.

The gospel writings came later and from an unknown author. They differ from the writings of the early Christians, the epistle writers, by introducing a Galilean ministry, and by portraying this Jesus as a teacher and a miracle worker. Peter, James, and John are portrayed as disciples, a term not found in the epistle writings to describe these men. There is nothing to be gained by reading the gospels into Paul or any of the epistle writings that were written prior to the gospels. In fact, it's foolhardy to do so. The epistle writers appear to be unaware of a Galilean ministry.

Of course, all the books attributed to Paul were not written by one man, unless he was terribly schizophrenic. There were at least 2 writers involved. Likewise, Paul acts like he never heard of an eartly Jesus, and certainly does not use any of the supposed NT teachings as examples for his own teachings. There seems to be 2 versions of Christianity going on here, the NT version, and the Paul version. Somehow the church eventually meshed the 2 together into a morass of confusion and outright misrepresentation. This is what constitutes Christianity today.

 

[Oberon]

Likewise, Paul acts like he never heard of an eartly Jesus

Let's take a look:
In Rom 1:3, Paul talks about Jesus "descended from David according to the flesh." Seems pretty "earthy" to me. Flesh, not spirit.

In 1 Cor. 11:23-25 Paul talks about Jesus' last supper. How does a non-earthly Jesus eat on a night before he is betrayed?

In Gal. 1:19, Paul says that, while staying with Peter, he saw "James, the brother of the lord" using a standard syntactic formula for kin identification. This phrase IS NOT USED except to describe actual kin, and James is also identified as Jesus' brother in Josephus and the Gospels.

Here are three examples from letters which no one doubts Paul wrote, in which it is clear he believes Jesus WAS at one point flesh and blood, and (given that Paul knew Jesus' brother) this was while Paul was around, even though he was not a follower of Jesus.

and certainly does not use any of the supposed NT teachings as examples for his own teachings.

Wrong again.

In 1 Cor. 7:10, Paul says tois de gegamekosin paraggello, ouk ego alla ho kyrios/to the married a command, not I but the lord

In other words, here is a command from Jesus, it is not "his own teaching." This is made particularly clear because shortly after Paul says in 7:12 tois de loipois lego ego ouch ho kyrios/ to the rest I say (I, not the lord). The teaching on divorce is found in all gospels.

Additionally, we have Rom 12:14, 17, where Paul recites a teaching also found on Jesus' lips in Lk 6:27-36, as well as the prohibition against judging, found in Lk (6:37ff) and Rom 14:13.

There seems to be 2 versions of Christianity going on here, the NT version, and the Paul version

1. Paul was writing letters to deal with community issues. He was not writing about Jesus. The gospels were lives/biographies of Jesus. The differences between the gospels and Paul are due to the different genres of the texts.
2. There were many strains of christianity, even presented in the different gospels. Each gospel author put his or her own "spin" on the oral traditions of Jesus' teachings and actions.

 

[dogsgod]

Of course, all the books attributed to Paul were not written by one man, unless he was terribly schizophrenic. There were at least 2 writers involved. Likewise, Paul acts like he never heard of an eartly Jesus, and certainly does not use any of the supposed NT teachings as examples for his own teachings. There seems to be 2 versions of Christianity going on here, the NT version, and the Paul version. Somehow the church eventually meshed the 2 together into a morass of confusion and outright misrepresentation. This is what constitutes Christianity today.

In 300 occurrences disciples appears in the gospels and Acts and yet not once do any of the epistle writers ever refer to or even use the term disciples. Yes, something is definitely going on here. Paul claims that apostles are appointed by God and at no time does Paul ever have to contend with Peter, James, or John declaring that they were appointed as disciples by Jesus himself. The appointment of disciples by Jesus is an invention of Mark.