Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Oberon]

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.

Yes, something is indeed. It's called histories vs. letters. The word mathetes (disciple) means a follower. In the gospels, Jesus has followers, because they take place while Jesus is still living. The epistles are not biographies of Jesus, nor are they describing previous events. Jesus has died, and therefore CAN'T have mathetes in the way the word is used. Rather, the epistle authors use other terms. However, the gospel authors DO use the word apostle.

Paul claims that apostles are appointed by God

No, he doesn't. He claims HE was appointed an apostle by God.

at no time does Paul ever have to contend with Peter

He does contend with peter.

The appointment of disciples by Jesus is an invention of Mark.

Yet Paul specifically talks about "the twelve." Why? If apostles were just anyone who claims to be appointed by God, why are there a specific twelve, and why is Peter seen as a chief? The answer is clear from the gospels.

And contrary to your ridiculous assertion that one shouldn't read Paul in light of the gospels (as is standard historical practice in all areas of history, i.e. to use different sources to verify or understand other sources), the gospel biographies of Jesus not only give us plenty of details lacking from the epistles and Josephus, but also confirm details found in both (e.g. Jesus' brother, the twelve, Peter's position, Jesus' teaching on divorce, and so forth).

 

[dogsgod]

Paul tells us that Peter was an apostle appointed by God. Paul never had to contend with Peter claiming to be appointed by Jesus and why would he after making it clear that they were both appointed by God.

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon actually answered his own edited version of my quote rather than address what I actually stated. Posts 700 & 701.

dogsgod- "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."

Oberon editing dogsgod's quote- "at no time does Paul ever have to contend with Peter"

Oberon's reply- "He does contend with peter."

 

[Oberon]

Paul tells us that Peter was an apostle appointed by God.

Where?

Paul never had to contend with Peter claiming to be appointed by Jesus and why would he after making it clear that they were both appointed by God.

Why would Paul claim to be "last and least of the apostles" if apostles were not appointed by Jesus? After all, there were christians after Paul. Why was Peter the leader? Who were "the twelve?"

dogsgod- "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."

You completely miss the point. Paul was contending with Peter. Why would he go out of his way to show that Peter had more authority by being a follower of Jesus himself? His whole point was to show that, even though he wasn't a follower of Jesus while he lived, he was still a valid apostle because he was appointed by god. According to you, even though he was contending with Peter, he should somewhere say that Peter was a follower of the living Jesus and therefore had more authority. Completely ridiculous. Paul downplays the significance of the followers of the "living" Jesus, because he wasn't one.

In the end, we have the following:

1. There is more biographical and historical data written about Jesus than virtually every single person from ancient history, including emporers.
2. Paul clearly knew that Jesus was "earthly." He knew his teachings, knew his brother, knew he was crucified, and so forth.
3. Numerous comparisons with the gospels and graeco-roman biography reveal that the gospels fit into the genre of ancient history.
4. Studies of orality in Jesus' day and culture reveal that Jesus' teachings were, for the most part, accurately transmitted.
5. Josephus knew of Jesus and was around for his brother's trial
6. Luke was an active member of the early christian community, and knew eyewitnesses.
7. John also knew an eyewitness.
8. There is no precedent of a mythic founder of a religion who is nailed down to a historical place and time within a lifetime of the myth. Myths always occur in the distant past.
9. If the gospels were pure fiction, they would never have survived as they did, as even the early christians wouldn't have paid anymore attention to them than to other literature, because (if dogsgod is correct) they didn't believe in an earthly Jesus.
10. The gospels are not "stories" in the way myths are. Unlike myths and other stories, the overall narrative of the gospels is artificial, while the details (sayings and such) are oral tradition
11. The question of whether Jesus actually existed has been asked by experts for over 200 years. There is overwhelming evidence, and virtually every single expert with relevant degrees (from all religious backgrounds) knows that Jesus existed.
12. The people in this and other threads who doubt Jesus' existence (like dogsgod) are neither historians nor familiar with the texts or relevant scholarship.

 

[dogsgod]

Peter and Paul's apostleship appointed by God:

Galatians 26As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,just as Peter had been to the Jews.8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

And here Paul claims that what he himself passes on is of of first importance, so much for playing second fiddle to anyone.


1 Corinthians 153For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

 

[Oberon]

God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

I see nothing here about Peter being appointed by God. Paul only says that God was involved in Peter's ministry. He does not say Peter was appointed by god. In fact, the greek participle ἐνεργήσας means more to be involved in. It certainly doesn't say Peter was appointed by God.

9James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship

And here we see that Paul, despite his claim that "god appointed him," had to be allowed what authority he had by actual disciples of Jesus. It was Peter and John, disciples of the living jesus, who gave Paul "the right hand of fellowship."

And here Paul claims that what he himself passes on is of of first importance, so much for playing second fiddle to anyone.

Once again your inability to read the greek hampers you ability to comment intelligently on this. He does not say that what he passes on is of first importance. He says "what I recieved" (using the verb common for receiving oral traditions) is of first importance.
παρέδωκα γαρ υμιν εν πρώτοις, ὃ και παρέλαβον/for I pass on to you as first, what also I recieved.

He says nothing about "not playing second fiddle." In fact, he explicitly says that what he is passing on he got from others. It is important, yes, but it not because it is from Paul, because Paul explicitly says he got it from other people. Just like he states he spent days and days with peter receiving the oral Jesus tradition.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Again indicative of a lack of knowledge for our textual record. Jesus, a nobody from the "hick" town of nazareth, has more written about him within a few years than many emperors, let alone most of the elite of greece and rome.

Hey Oberon, when are you finally going to admit what the majority of us are already very aware of? It isn't that ppl are denying a historical Jesus per se which is what you are claiming to be defending. So you can't blame anyone for questioning what it is you are really fighting for here.

 

[dogsgod]

Paul receives from his visions, revelations, and from how he interprets ancient scripture, he does not receive anything from other people, he states that in no uncertain terms, I've provided his words many times, and he most certainly does not claim that "he spent days and days with peter receiving the oral Jesus tradition." That's a ludicrous distortion, just like everything else you distort with your very own unique brand of translations.

 

[dogsgod]

New International Version -Galatians 1Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.

Oberon's Version- Galatians 1- "he spent days and days with Peter receiving the oral Jesus tradition."


Now, tell us again who it is that is biased, who it is that has preconceived notions about Paul and this Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Ben Masada]

There is a big difference between the informed opinion of people who have studied a particular topic in depth, and that of people who haven't. Your opinion is based primarily on reading into the few sources you have read, and occasionally referencing obscure books or books full of errors.

There is no such a thing as an authentic topic in depth. What do you know? You were not there. Your opinion is based on the opinions of others. Everything is nothing but private opinion.

And, while I have read extensively in this field, I don't consider myself an "expert" because I don't yet have a PhD. However, I can refer to many works BY experts, while so far to support your view of Josephus you have cited one book so obscure it can't be found in most university libraries, and another one from over a century ago.

Whose opinions do you have been reading extensively? All you do is to work on other people's opinions. Get a hold on yourself and stop cheating against your own self.

Which is exactly why the study of history takes training, in order for experts to be able to sort through the data and plausibly reconstruct the past.

Yes, it takes training to look for the truth that you will never find among the opinions of other people.

I guess this means you don't have any actual scholarly citations to back your views.

And what you have deserves no credibility because it could very well not having been true. Do you understand what I mean, or you are just looking for someone to agree with you?

 

[Troublemane]

Hmmm i guess if we are going to "plausibly" re-construct the past it will always be subjective. Susceptible to opinion and projections/beliefs about what life was like back then. The only way to be objective would be to travel back in time to see it, which I dont really think is possible.

My question is, if its the message of Jesus thats really what's most important, why is it so important for people to prove he was a real, historical person? I think its clear he was, but, moreover, why try to insist that the gospel stories are accurate to the letter, when its so blatantly obvious they don;t even agree with each other? So, why persist in the idea that Jesus was exactly as described therein, and also that the epistles, etc. are all part of some unified movement or "plan of god"?

How is this belief in the inerrancy of the NT got to do with the message of Jesus?

 

[Oberon]

It isn't that ppl are denying a historical Jesus per se which is what you are claiming to be defending.

Dogsgod and logician are absolutely denything that. Both posit that Jesus was a complete myth, and Dirty Penguin isn't far behind.

 

[dogsgod]

Paul's Christ may stem from a human figure in his past, or distant past, as to when is uncertain. There may also have been a Galilean ministry during the 70's. Mark may be combining the Jesus ministry with the Christ cult making it appear as one by stringing together bits of oral tradition, anecdotes, and sayings to form a story line. Later gospel writers embellished upon his work. There may have been a number of Jesus movements and Christ cults throughout Asia Minor, but no one has shown how they funnel down to one founder.

 

[Oberon]

Paul receives from his visions, revelations, and from how he interprets ancient scripture

Only he uses the greek verb for recieving oral tradition and the verb for passing it on.

he states that in no uncertain terms, I've provided his words many times,

And each time you have failed to acknowledge what every NT expert knows: unlike Peter and others, with whom Paul is contending, Paul did not know Jesus while he was alive. He did not receive Jesus' teachings from Jesus himself, unlike Peter et al. So he has every reason to downplay the significance of knowing the living Jesus.

and he most certainly does not claim

that "he spent days and days with peter receiving the oral Jesus tradition." That's a ludicrous distortion, just like everything else you distort with your very own unique brand of translations.

First, a look at the passage:

Gal . 1:18 epeita meta ete tria anelthon eis Hierosoluma historesai Kephan kai epemeina pros auton hemera dekapente/ and after three years I went up to Jerusalem to inquire into Kephas and remained with him for 15 days.

Now, the word often translated as acquainted is the verbal form of the word "history." It means more than "to be acquainted" (which is normally gignosko or some other verb).

Let's look at what experts say:

"It is very notable that in Galatians, even in the context of Paul's strong concern to maintain the independence of his apostleship from Jerusalem, he admits that three years after his call to be an apostle he did visit Jerusalem and spent to weeks with Peter (Gal 1:18). Two weeks of conversation with Peter... is a lot of conversation. As C. H. Dodd memorably put it, "we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather. " We should rather presume that Paul was becoming thoroughly informed of the Jesus traditions as formulated by the Twelve, learning them from the leader of the Twelve, Peter." p. 266

Professor and NT expert Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

"On the other hand, Paul would surely have used the two weeks he spent in Peter’s company… to fill out his knowledge of Jesus and of the traditions of Jesus’ mission and teaching from Jesus’ leading disciple (Gal. 1:18)." p. 181

Professor and NT expert J. D. G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered.

"The expression ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν [historai kephan] gives us a hint as to why Paul wished to meet the one who was the leader of Jesus' disciples and Apostles. As KILPARTRICK has shown, it seems to mean "to get information from Cephas."...In Gal. 1-2 Paul is eager to stress his equality with Peter and the other Apostles. It is therefore in his interests to avoid giving his opponents an unfair advantage by dwelling on precisely what he did during his fortnight with Peter in Jerusalem...Paul does not go up to Jerusalem to Peter, "the Rock", merely in order to talk about the weather (Dodd)...It can be little doubt that during this time the word of Christ "was between them." pp. 297-98.

From Professor and NT expert Birger Gerhardsson's academic work Memory and Manuscript.

Now, tell us again who it is that is biased, who it is that has preconceived notions about Paul and this Jesus of Nazareth

Well, one of us can read the greek, one of us can cite academic sources on this passage, so the answer is you.

 

[Oberon]

There is no such a thing as an authentic topic in depth.

This sentence makes no sense.

What do you know? You were not there. Your opinion is based on the opinions of others. Everything is nothing but private opinion.

Completely false. There are opinions that are based on research, and then there are opinions like yours, someone who hasn't read most of the relevant texts, hasn't studied any of the relevant topics, and can't even read the languages the texts were written in.

Whose opinions do you have been reading extensively?

All you do is to work on other people's opinions. Get a hold on yourself and stop cheating against your own self.

You should really try sentences that actually make sense.

 

[dogsgod]

These presumptions that Peter informed Paul of Jesus' traditions are already based on the prior assumption that an earthly Jesus existed and appointed Peter as a disciple. They do not in and of themselves lead us to the conclusion that Peter knew an earthly Jesus. Surely you must see the difference and the circular reasoning involved here. They could simply have exchanged their own experiences regarding the visions they both received of their risen Christ, and or how they interpret scripture, or how their messages are received and passed on to their followers. In other words, they could very well have talked about the very things that Paul writes about, that is in itself an assumption, but it's not very much of an assumption, and it's not based on any prior beliefs either way regarding the existence of Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

These presumptions that Peter informed Paul of Jesus' traditions are already based on the prior assumption that an earthly Jesus existed and appointed Peter as a disciple.

Wrong. It isn't a "prior assumption." It is one of the most thoroughly researched questions in history. In fact, Dunn, who I quoted, examines this question once again in his book, despite the fact that over 200 years of research into this question always comes back with the same answer: there is more evidence for Jesus' existance than for just about anyone from ancient history.

They do not in and of themselves lead us to the conclusion that Peter knew an earthly Jesus.

Luckily, once more, the analysis of Gal. 1:18 does not "assume" peter knew an earthly Jesus. Research into the genre and nature of the gospels, sociology of religion, Josephus, and much more make it clear that Jesus did.

Surely you must see the difference and the circular reasoning involved here.

It is only "circular" because you are completely unfamiliar with the research.

They could simply have exchanged their own experiences regarding the visions they both received of their risen Christ

Wrong, for a number of reasons, even limited just to Paul, and not even including other hisorical Jesus research:

1. The verb historai does not mean "exchange ideas" or "have a conversation." It means "inquire into." In other words, the exchange is one way. Paul is getting information from Peter, but giving none in return. For 15 days. If there was no earthly Jesus, and all apostles were self-appointed, there is no reason for such a conversation. Paul doesn't have any reason to inquire into Peter, because he can "receive" what ever he wants from his mythical christ.
2. Paul also distinguishes Jesus' teachings on divorce from his own. If there were never any earthly Jesus, there is no need to do so. All teachings of jesus would be received through revelation, and Paul could claim they are all from the mythic christ. Yet he clearly distinguishes his teaching from Jesus'.
3. Paul DOES refer to an earthly Jesus, who died, who had a last supper, and who was betrayed. He also knew Jesus' brother.

In other words, they could very well have talked about the very things that Paul writes about

Again, they were not only talking for 15 days (quite a conversation), this was not a back and forth. If you were correct, and Paul and Peter were both self-appointed apostles of a Jesus who never lived, then there would be no reason for such a one-sided conversation where Paul spends 15 days learning from Peter, but Peter spends no time learning from Paul. If all of Paul's understanding of Jesus comes from revelation from a mythic Christ, than there is no need to have such extensive teaching from Peter.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Dogsgod and logician are absolutely denything that. Both posit that Jesus was a complete myth, and Dirty Penguin isn't far behind.

So? WHAT IS IT that makes you care whether they believe in a historical Jesus or not?

I guess I am more curious to know why you deny your religious beliefs and yet you expect them to believe something that you can't prove definitively. (for the record, I am not denying the historical Jesus). It matters so much to you for a reason. It is a curious thing to watch you fight so hard and yet deny any religious attachment. :yes:

 

[Oberon]

So? WHAT IS IT that makes you care whether they believe in a historical Jesus or not?

I could care less what they believe. They haven't done the research, so it is clear their beliefs are based on what they want to believe, not on evidence. I don't think for a moment that I will convince them of anything, anymore than I could convince a christian that Jesus never resurrected.

What I care about is truth and accuracy. I've spent over 10 years studying history, and a good part of that has been devoted to studying history related to the NT. It annoys me when bad information is presented by people who don't know what they are talking about on a forum where others might think it is good information. I don't care whether the bad information is about Jesus or proto-indo-european or Wicca or case theory or cognitive psychology. It happens that Jesus, however (being of far more relevance to most people) is much more discussed here than whether transitivity was at one time not feature of PIE, or any number of other things I have studied. So I am far more involved on discussions about Jesus than on other topics I have studied, because it comes up far more frequently.

The bottom line, however, I that attempt to provide good sources and information about topics I know about, especially so that those who do not know about these topics don't think that what, for example, dogsgod has to say on the historical Jesus has merit. I would hope that someone would do the same for subjects I don't know about. I think preventing or trying to prevent bad information from going unchecked on an educational forum is worth the effort.

I guess I am more curious to know why you deny your religious beliefs and yet you expect them to believe something that you can't prove definitively.

I can't understand why people constantly talk about "proof." You can't prove evolution or gravity either. Science is concerned with theories. History is concerned with probabilities and plausibilities. Proof is for logic and math. The fact that Jesus was a historical figure is the only plausible way to account for the evidence.

It is a curious thing to watch you fight so hard and yet deny any religious attachment.

I fought just as hard when it came to a debate on global warming. And again against the idea that we can "prove" morality. And again against the idea that Lucifer was actually a part of the old testament. I spend more time on the historical Jesus because this is my specialty, and what I have studied the most. However, it is hardly the only time I seek to correct bad information, or debate a topic when I disagree. I will do it whenever I feel I am sufficiently informed on a subject. It just so happens that Jesus comes up far more frequently on a religious forums than classical syntax or whatever else I have studied.

 

[IF_u_knew]

I can't understand why people constantly talk about "proof." You can't prove evolution or gravity either. Science is concerned with theories. History is concerned with probabilities and plausibilities. Proof is for logic and math. The fact that Jesus was a historical figure is the only plausible way to account for the evidence.

What the hell are you talking about when you say one can't prove gravity and evolution?

Oberon, take an object in your hand and let go of it. Gravity thus proved. Now, to find a baby and watch them as they learn and grow. Evolution proved. I don't understand your way of *?thinking?*.