Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Oberon]

There's no evidence of anyone paying attention to the gospels in the first century.

Wrong. There is plenty of both direct and indirect evidence.

Indirect: Virtually all texts written in the ancient world perished. Some we are very fortunate to have, more or less by accident, because they happen to be thrown away in a way which preserved them. Many of our texts survived by luck of the draw. In other words, it takes quite a bit for texts to have survived the period surrounding Jesus. Even well known authors like Euripides, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Plutarch, and so forth, have very few texts surviving of their works, and they are all very late.

Yet for the gospels, we have an ENORMOUS amount of textual attestation. We have fragments dating as early as the early 2nd century (p52), which (for virtually any other text) is unheard of. And this period was during Christian persecution, so it wasn't as if they survived because of christian domination. The only possible explanation for the wealth of textual data is that the gospels were copied and copied and copied from the first. Texts so well attested to HAD to have been. There is simply no other explanation.

Direct: we also have direct evidence that the texts were of great importance in the first century. First, Mark was used by Matthew and Luke, and therefore at least Mark was widely known in christian circles very early. Additionally, we have evidence outside of the gospels. This comes from quotations or references to the gospels (primarily from extra-canonical literature and the so-called "apostolic fathers," but also from the epistles in the NT) from the the first century into the early second. On the evidence outside the NT for early and widespread reading of the gospels, even in the first century, see the list of references and quotations of the gospels pp. 39-74 in Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

 

[dogsgod]

Aside from the authors themselves for crying out loud. There is no evidence that anyone paid any attention to these gospels in the first century. There is no direct attestation to a gospel until Justin Martyr, writing about 150CE.

 

[Oberon]

Aside from the authors themselves for crying out loud.

Yet that is evidence. After all, if Mark were so obscure, two other early christian authors could hardly have been familiar with it.

There is no evidence that anyone paid any attention to these gospels in the first century. There is no direct attestation to a gospel until Justin Martyr, writing about 150CE.

1. You are failing to deal with the survival of the texts, with the wealth of attestation we have.
2. What's more, you are wrong about the use of the gospels prior to Justin Martyr. For example, we have Clement of Rome writing 95-6 CE (see, e.g. Hagnar, Donald A. "The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome." Supplements to Novum Testamentum 34, 1973)..

 

[dogsgod]

Yet that is evidence. After all, if Mark were so obscure, two other early christian authors could hardly have been familiar with it.



1. You are failing to deal with the survival of the texts, with the wealth of attestation we have.
2. What's more, you are wrong about the use of the gospels prior to Justin Martyr. For example, we have Clement of Rome writing 95-6 CE (see, e.g. Hagnar, Donald A. "The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome." Supplements to Novum Testamentum 34, 1973)..

The wealth of attestation we have? Name one attestation to the gospels prior to Martyr. Prove me wrong.

 

[Oberon]

I will answer the question you MEANT to ask (in the quote below) first:

There are several references to the gospels prior to Justin. First, Matthew and Luke both attest to Mark. But we also have several references outside the NT:

1. Clement of Rome (95-6), who quotes Matthew and Luke in 8.2 Additionally, he references the parable of the sower (Mk. 9:42, Mt 18:6-7, and Luk 17:1-2) in his commentary on Paul's letter to the corinthians.
2. Ignatius of Antioch (died c. 110 and active and writing in the first century) quotes mostly Paul, but also occasionally the gospels (mainly John). For example, in the version of Jesus' baptism found only in Matthew, Ignatius states that Jesus said he must be baptised by John "so that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him." (cf. Matt. 3.15). Additionally, Smyrn. 3.1-2 is possibly a reference to Lk 24.39, but this is not certain. Far more frequent references to John are found throughout his writings than to the synoptics.
3.The didache (first half of 2nd century) quotes Matthew.
4. Papias (c. 70 CE to 140) does not quote the gospels, but actually names them. He tells us about the composition of Matthew and Mark.
5. Polycarp, active in first and second centuries, quotes Matthew and Luke, as well as the OT and several epistles.

There are a few other works which MIGHT show an awareness of the gospels from prior to Justin, but they may also simply be going off of oral tradition. At the least they contain similar words and actions of Jesus as are found in the gospels.

The wealth of attestation we have? Name one attestation to the gospels prior to Martyr. Prove me wrong.

Wealth of attestation refers to actual texts. I will repeat:
Indirect: Virtually all texts written in the ancient world perished. Some we are very fortunate to have, more or less by accident, because they happen to be thrown away in a way which preserved them. Many of our texts survived by luck of the draw. In other words, it takes quite a bit for texts to have survived the period surrounding Jesus. Even well known authors like Euripides, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Plutarch, and so forth, have very few texts surviving of their works, and they are all very late.

Yet for the gospels, we have an ENORMOUS amount of textual attestation. We have fragments dating as early as the early 2nd century (p52), which (for virtually any other text) is unheard of. And this period was during Christian persecution, so it wasn't as if they survived because of christian domination. The only possible explanation for the wealth of textual data is that the gospels were copied and copied and copied from the first. Texts so well attested to HAD to have been. There is simply no other explanation.

 

[dogsgod]

"Clement of Rome (95-6), who quotes Matthew and Luke in 8.2"




1Clem 8:2
Yea and the Master of the universe Himself spake concerning
repentance with an oath:



Where do we find this in Matthew and Luke?

 

[Oberon]

Where do we find this in Matthew and Luke?

My mistake. I meant 13.1-2:

"Let us especially remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ which he spake when teaching gentleness and long-suffering, for he spake thus:
13:2 Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you."

Professor Metzger, THE textual critic of the 20th century, states the following on this passage (again, Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: It's Origin, Development, and Signficance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987, but see also Hagnar, Donald A. "The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome." Supplements to Novum Testamentum 34, 1973):

In xiii. 2 CLement puts together a cento of phrases, some of which are found in Matthew and Luke, others of which have no parallels in the four gospels....[quotes the text above]...These phrases appear to come from Matt. v 7; vi. 14-15; vii1-2, 12, Luke vi. 31, 36-8...p.41

Additionally, we have 46. 7-8 and perhaps 24.5. Metzger again:

The other reference to Jesus' teaching occurs in xlvi. 7-8...[quotes passage]...Here one recalls the words of Jesus found in Mark ix.42; Matt. xviii. 6-7; and Luke xvii.1-2, but there is no parallel to the clauses about offending and perverting the elect. Obviously, Clement has knowledge of a tradition that preserves the words of Jesus...In addition to these two direct references to Jesus' words, Clement's epistle contains one or two other instances of possible allusions to the Synoptic tradition. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these is the use he makes in xxiv.5 of imagery from the parable of the sower (Matt. xii.3; Mark iv. 3; Luke viii.5)...But whether he is depending on a written gospel of on oral tradition is difficult to decide."
p.42

And again, there are other references I mentioned above, from Matthew and Luke's use of Mark (which alone shows that Mark was widespread almost as soon as it was written, as Matthew and Luke were writing less than 2 decades later), to Papias' discussion (70 CE -140 CE), who actually names the gospels of Matthew and Mark, to Polycarb (c. 70 - 150), who quotes the gospels (e.g. 7.2 "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" from Matt. 26.41).

 

[dogsgod]

2 clement was written in the year 140-160CE, probably 150CE. Im looking for an attestation prior to 150CE, preferably from the 1st century.

Second Epistle of Clement

Though the first external references to this work date to the fourth century, most modern scholars believe that Second Clement is actually a sermon written around 140 - 160 CE by an anonymous author—one who was neither the author of 1 Clement nor Clement of Rome. Nonetheless, scholars still generally refer to the work by its traditional name "Second Clement". wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I#cite_note-18








see also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I#cite_note-18
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2clement.html


alsohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I#cite_note-18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I#cite_note-18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I#cite_note-18
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/clement_romanus_letter2.htm

 

[Oberon]

2 clement was written in the year 140-160CE

I didn't say anything about 2 Clement. You know what roman numerals are, don't you? "In xiii. 2 CLement puts together a cento of phrases..." This is 13.2 of 1 Clement, written in the 1st century.

 

[Ben Masada]

This sentence makes no sense.

Why, because you cannot answer it? Figures!

Completely false. There are opinions that are based on research,

On research of what, of other people's opinions?

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.

Do you mean texts of other people's opinions? That's what they are.

You should really try sentences that actually make sense.

Of course! You are frustrated that I cought you in your own trap. Everyone here has noticed that only the books you read are authentic. Authentic opinions. But only opinions all the same. There is nothing new under the sun. Everything is built on opinions of people long gone.

 

[Oberon]

Why, because you cannot answer it? Figures!

No, because it isn't english. The grammar and syntax are wrong.

On research of what, of other people's opinions?

No. Based on reading the relevant texts in original languages, as well as previous scholarship from which knowledge about ALL subjects is built. There is no text or event in history that is completely isolated. All texts are products of cultures and times, and all events occur within particular cultures and times. In order to understand the NT, and the historical Jesus, it is necessary to read all the relevant primary texts, not to mention previous scholarship of people who have already done that and come to certain conclusions.

This is true of any field, history, psychology, linguistics, biology, etc. People build off of the research and investigations of other experts who have gone before.

In Jesus research, this means being able to read not only the NT and OT in their original languages, but also all the other relevant texts (philo, josephus, the apocryphal literature, classical and hellenistic literature, etc). That allows one to be familiar not only with the culture whence came the NT texts, but also the nature of the texts themselves. And, additionally, it is important to read the research and inquiry of those experts who have gone before. They also studied the necessary data, and have come to conclusions based of that data. By reading previous scholarship, one comes in contact with the discoveries and ideas of other informed people.

You have neither read the relevant primary texts, nor scholarship, nor is your methodology in approaching these texts remotely valid.

Do you mean texts of other people's opinions? That's what they are.

No, I mean the primary texts (the NT, Josephus, hebrew scriptures, intertestamental literature, qumran documents, Philo, classical and hellenistic histories, and so on). How can you possibly understand cultures and texts 2000 years old without having studied the cultures and texts?

Of course! You are frustrated that I cought you in your own trap.

No, I just mean your sentences aren't proper english. Spelling mistakes are one thing, but often enough your grammar and syntax is remarkably poor. Not that this is your fault. I imagine english isn't your first language, and your english is certainly better than my german and french.

 

[logician]

Again, and I reiterate, there is no proof whatsoever that a "historical" Jesus existed. By this I mean nobody can point to a specific man with a specific name and some other specifics (like exact dates of birth and death, friends or associates that were also recorded historically, etc.). The best the Jesus apologists can do is say that "some" man fitting some of the stories of the NT may have existed based upon stories recorded much after said man's life and time. This is not "proof", but conjecture, and thus not historical.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Most of Jesus' life and teachings are not based on the OT.

Yes..."most" of it is.....

 

[dogsgod]

1 Clement 13:2 Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you."

[SIZE=+1]


[/SIZE]No doubt there is similarity of such sentiments to some of the Sermon on the Mount and in other places as well, but these words and the sequence isn't even close to being identical to any Gospel passage, if they were, Oberon no doubt would have laid them out for us. Scholars such as R. M. Grant (The Apostolic Fathers, vol.1: An Introduction, p.40) admits that Clement’s source is probably oral. (Grant appeals to Helmut Koester, who is generally regarded as the leading authority on the subject of the Fathers’ dependence on oral tradition rather than on written Gospels: see his Ancient Christian Gospels, p.14-20.) Clement's knowledge of any of the Gospels has never been satisfactorily demonstrated.

 

[Oberon]

Again, and I reiterate, there is no proof whatsoever that a "historical" Jesus existed.

Again, I reiterate, there is no proof thant ANYONE in history existed. Proof is not a part of science or history but logic and math. However, Jesus' existence is the only plausible explanation for our sources.

By this I mean nobody can point to a specific man with a specific name

This from someone who said that Jesus' existance is in doubt because he had no last name, when last names (as we think of them) were virtually non existant.

We can point to a specific man. Jesus of Nazareth called Christ. The early christians (and, incidently, Josephus) identified Jesus by his messianic title. Others by place of origin. So we can absolutely point to a specific Jesus. You don't appear to understand how names worked in the ancient world. Yes, many, many people had the same name. That's why identifiers like Christ and "of Nazareth" distinguished them.

(like exact dates of birth and death, friends or associates that were also recorded historically, etc.).

We know by name plenty of his followers. But let's look at your criteria:

1. Exact dates of birth: for the vast majority of historical people of the ancient world (e.g. Paul, Euripides, Solon of Athens, Pythagoras, Papias, Ireneus, etc).
2. Paul, Josephus, and the gospels all name family and followers of Jesus.

The best the Jesus apologists can do is say that "some" man fitting some of the stories of the NT may have existed based upon stories recorded much after said man's life and time.

30 years is not "much after" Jesus' mission. Mark was while eyewitnesses still lived, Q is even earlier, and Paul was Jesus' contemporary.

This is not "proof", but conjecture, and thus not historical.

Once more you show a complete lack of understanding of historical methodology and studies. There is never proof. It is always about the best explanation for the data. Jesus' existance is the only plausible explanation.

 

[Oberon]

Yes..."most" of it is.....

Wrong. There are many allusions or quotes from the OT in the gospels. But the OT had no pharisees or sadducees, or scribes, or crucifixion, or the symbolic choosing of 12 disciples, most of the miracles and healings, and so on

Also, many of the beliefs in the NT (such as resurrection of the dead) are not present in the OT, although some are in jewish literature OUTSIDE of sciptures. Finally, although Jesus often quotes scripture, most of what he says has no parallel in the OT. The list goes on.

 

[Oberon]

No doubt there is similarity of such sentiments to some of the Sermon on the Mount and in other places as well, but these words and the sequence isn't even close to being identical to any Gospel passage

First, you forgot the other passage I cited from 1 Clement. As for the rest, I will address it below.


,

if they were, Oberon no doubt would have laid them out for us

I did:

My mistake. I meant 13.1-2:

"Let us especially remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ which he spake when teaching gentleness and long-suffering, for he spake thus:
13:2 Show mercy, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kindly affectioned, so shall kindness be showed unto you; with whatsover measure ye measure, with the same shall it be measured unto you."

Scholars such as R. M. Grant (The Apostolic Fathers, vol.1: An Introduction, p.40) admits that Clement’s source is probably oral.

Some scholar's do indeed argue this.

Grant appeals to Helmut Koester, who is generally regarded as the leading authority on the subject of the Fathers’ dependence on oral tradition rather than on written Gospels

On oral tradition in 1 Clement, see point #3

This is absolutely false. He is not in anyway the leading authority in this subject. Koester's specialty has always been gnosticism and extra-canonical texts. This is not to say he is in anyway ignorant of 1 Clement and other early christian literatue; he is well acquainted with them and scholarship about them. But he is in no way the "leading authority."

Now for refutations:

First, 1 Clement was not the only example I gave. The earliest references to Mark are Matthew and Luke, two authors from different communities who independently had access to mark, less than 2 decades after it was written. Others I already mentioned.

As for 1 Clement, there are a few possible explanations:

1. As many argue (probably a consensus, but there are many who disagree), 1 Clement shows awareness of the gospels. His quotes are sometimes almost exact, but there is a lot that isn't. However, Matthew and Luke knew Mark, but changed a great deal of his gospel. It was common in christian lliterature, even in the centuries where the gospels and christianity dominated, for christian authors to quote the gospels inexactly, or combine them, or alter them. This happened for a few reasons: First, they often quoted from memory, and so were inexact. Second, rather than just quote a passage found in Matthew and Luke, or in all they synoptics, they would combine them into a similar but altered version (due to the combining). Third, often enough the exact quote did not fit will into the text, and was altered so that it could.

2. 1 Clement was not aware of any of our gospels, but rather quoted sayings of Jesus from other texts based on the gospels. But this would mean that THOSE texts, prior to 1 Clement (and thefore 1st century) knew the gospels.

3. 1 Clement relied on oral tradition (as you suggested). If this is the case though, it is an indicator of GREATER reliability of the gospels, because it show a controlled oral tradition in the christian communities. If 1 Clement used an oral source independent of the gospels, but his quotes were often very close to the gospels, this means that the oral tradition in the Jesus sect was controlled enough that a guy living in the end of the first century knew teachings of Jesus through oral transmission which are also found in earlier texts. In other words, if 1 Clement has access to a reliable oral tradition concerning Jesus in c. 95-6 CE, how much more accurate would the oral tradition be for Mark, writing c. 70 CE?

Any way you look at it, 1 Clement supports the historical Jesus. If he was aware of the gospels as many or most scholars believe, than he adds to my point about the widespread usage of the gospels almost as soon as the were written. The same is true if he relied on a text which used the gospels. If, however, he relied on oral tradition, than Jesus' teachings could be reliably transmitted 60 years after Jesus' mission.

 

[dogsgod]

"First, 1 Clement was not the only example I gave."

In time I will get to the others, in the meantime, some of us have to work for a living.

 

[Oberon]

In time I will get to the others, in the meantime, some of us have to work for a living.

I guess I'm lucky. Both my work in grad school and my career allow a great deal of access to the internet.

But this response hardly answers my last post. As outlined in my last post, you have two options: Either 1 Clement shows knowledge of the gospels or of another earlier text which does, or it clearly shows that the oral tradition of the Jesus sect had a controlled and largely reliable oral tradition. This in turn means that the gospels, using oral tradition either directly or indirectly (Mark and John completely, Matthew and Luke possibly with Q, M, and L.) were more than capable of preserving Jesus' sayings/teachings and so forth.

 

[dogsgod]

An attestation is a direct reference, one that tells us that a person has a copy of a specified text in front of them. Justin refers to memoirs of the apostles, and judging by what he quotes he had a form of Matthew. They weren't yet known as gospels and had yet to be assigned names at the time of Justin Martyr's writing, about 150CE.

Looking back on my posts I exaggerate. There was some that knew of the gospels, they weren't totally ignored except by virtually all the epistle writers. Not until the end of the second century do they have much of an impact on Christianity as a whole.