Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[dogsgod]

Ignatius is the only one that indirectly gets information from the gospels that are distinctly known to derive from the gospels in that he actually names names in relation to a Jesus storyline, such as Pilate and Mary. He's the first to give us an indication that one knows of this story. One person in the first quarter of the second century. Wow. There's no doubt practicing Christians much like the early apostles, the epistle writers, and their followers of a sky god, but the gospel storyline doesn't seem to catch on until much later.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Burton Mack (Who Wrote the New Testament?, p. 240-1):

The prayer of thanksgiving (eucharist) for the community meal in chapters 9 and 10 are also significant. That is because they do not contain any reference to the death of Jesus. Accustomed as we are to the memorial supper of the Christ cult and the stories of the last supper in the synoptic gospels, it has been very difficult to imagine early Christians taking meals together for any reason other than to celebrate the death of Jesus according to the Christ myth. But here in the Didache a very formalistic set of prayers is assigned to the cup and the breaking of bread without the slightest association with the death and resurrection of Jesus. The prayers of thanksgiving are for the food and drink God created for all people and the special, "spiritual" food and drink that Christians have because of Jesus. Drinking the cup symbolizes the knowledge these people have that they and Jesus are the "Holy Vine of David," which means that they "belong to Israel." Eating the bread symbolizes the knowledge these people have of the life and immortality they enjoy by belonging to the kingdom of God made known to them by Jesus, God's child. And it is serious business. No one is allowed to "eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord's name" (Did. 9:5). We thus have to imagine a highly self-conscious network of congregations that thought of themselves as Christians, had developed a full complement of rituals, had much in common with other Christian groups of centrist persuasions, but continued to cultivate their roots in a Jesus movement where enlightenment ethics made much more sense than the worship of Jesus as the crucified Christ and risen son of God.​

Mack states on the provenance of the Didache (op. cit., pp. 241-242): "It is not unthinkable that both the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew stem from the same or closely related communities, though at slightly different times in their histories. . . it would be easy to imagine a social location in some district of southern Syria or northern Palestine where a small group of congregations had formed."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jonathan Draper (Gospel Perspectives, v. 5, p. 269):


Since it was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople and published by P. Bryennios in 1883, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles has continued to be one of the most disputed of early Christian texts. It has been depicted by scholars as anything between the original of the Apostolic Decree (c. 50 AD) and a late archaising fiction of the early third century. It bears no date itself, nor does it make reference to any datable external event, yet the picture of the Church which it presents could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the Church's order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented by the NT, while at the same time posing questions for many traditional interpretations of this first period of the Church's life.

 

[dogsgod]

"while at the same time posing questions for many traditional interpretations of this first period of the Church's life."

And we all know what those traditional interpretations are.

 

[Oberon]

John S. Kloppenborg Verbin comments on the Didache (Excavating Q, pp. 134-135):​

The Didache, an early second-century Christian composition, is also clearly composite, consisting of a "Two Ways" section (chaps. 1-6), a liturgical manual (7-10), instructions on the reception of traveling prophets (11-15), and a brief apocalypse (16). Marked divergences in style and content as well as the presence of doublets and obvious interpolations make plain the fact that the Didache was not cut from whole cloth. The dominant view today is that the document was composed on the basis of several independent, preredactional units which were assembled by either one or two redactors (Neiderwimmer 1989:64-70, ET 1998:42-52). Comparison of the "Two Ways" section with several other "Two Ways" documents suggests that Didache 1-6 is itself the result of multistage editing. The document began with rather haphazard organization (cf. Barnabas 18-20), but was reorganized in a source common to the Didache, the Doctrina apostolorum, and the Apostolic Church Order and supplemented by a sapiental meditation on minor and major transgressions (3.1-6) (Kloppenborg 1995c). In addition to this "Two Ways" section it is also possible to discern the presence of a mini-apocalypse related to someo f the materials that eventually found their way into Matthew 24-25 (Kloppenborg 1979).​

The most obvious insertion in the Didache is a catena of sayings of Jesus (1.3-6) which interrupts the continuity between 1.1-2 and 2.2. The same hand that added 1.3b-6 (and the transitional phrase in 2.1) appears also to be responsible for a transition in 6.2-3 and for the introduction to the apocalypse (16.1-2), which like 1.3b-2.1 Christianizes the earlier document by affixing sayings designed to evoke the sayings of Jesus. It seems clear, then, that the composition history of the Didache involves at least two originally independent documents (Did. 1.1-2; 2.2-6.1; and Did. 16.3-8) which were combined with other materials by an editor into a church manual, and "Christianized" by the interpolation of sayings of Jesus.​

What is the point of any of the above? At least relevant to the quotations of Matt. in the Didache 8.2 and 9.5?

 

[Oberon]

Ignatius is the only one that indirectly gets information from the gospels that are distinctly known to derive from the gospels in that he actually names names in relation to a Jesus storyline, such as Pilate and Mary. He's the first to give us an indication that one knows of this story. One person in the first quarter of the second century. Wow. There's no doubt practicing Christians much like the early apostles, the epistle writers, and their followers of a sky god, but the gospel storyline doesn't seem to catch on until much later.

Ignatius died 110 C.E. He was around for some time in the first century, and clearly familiar with the gospels. There is one first century source for you.

Mark writes his gospel c. 70 CE. Matthew, less than two decades later, from a seperate community, time, and place, clearly knows Mark. So does Luke, shortly later. Clearly, the first gospel was well known in christian circles. 2 other first century sources.

1 Clement either was familiar with the gospels, or the oral Jesus tradition was so well preserved that it virtually verbatim sayings of Jesus could be found at the close of the century as were found in earlier texts.

Then we have Polycarp, active in first and second centuries.

Moreover, I have already quoted the Didache quoting Matthew, which regarded as a late first or early 2nd century text.

Finally, we even have a piece of the gospel of John in the first half of the 2nd century.

That is more attestation than for ANY ancient text. The kind of attestation for the gospels, both textual and literary references, is UNHEARD of in the ancient world. And it begins in almost as soon after Mark was written.

So much for your "the gospels were not read in the first century" theory. It is contradicted in any number of ways.

 

[dogsgod]

As I stated, if you wish to include the gospel writers themselves as attestations to the gospels then go ahead, score a huge victory for yourself.

The wide range of sayings as it became traditional to attributed to a Jesus could just as well be from Proverbs, the Psalms, Genesis and other OT books as from Matthew or Luke.

Ignatius wrote of Jesus on his way to his martyrdom, about 118CE. He is the only one that is aware of at least some of the gospel storyline as it relates to an earthly Jesus. He's the first person to name Pilate and Mary outside of NT writers themselves. He doesn't represent most Christians in this regard, in fact he appears to be the exception.

 

[Oberon]

As I stated, if you wish to include the gospel writers themselves as attestations to the gospels then go ahead, score a huge victory for yourself.

It is a victory. If Mark was "virtually unknown" as you suggest, two independent authors from two different communities and times could hardly be familiar with him. Yet they were. Ergo, Mark was widespread almost as soon as it was written. Which alone collapses your baseless assertion about Mark's obscurity in the first century.

The wide range of sayings traditionally attributed to a Jesus could just as well be from Proverbs, the Psalms, Genesis and other OT books as from Matthew or Luke.

Wrong. Some have NO equivelants in the OT, and the few that do are clearly not, which you could see from the discussion in the source I gave you.

Ignatius wrote of Jesus on his way to his martyrdom, about 118CE.

From Metzger, THE textual critic of the 20th century and one of the greatest NT scholars as well:

"Nothing is known of his [Ignatius'] life except his journey under armed guard under the Emperor Trajan about A. D. 110. " from the book already cited, p. 43.

Ignatius was a primarily first century figure. He was probably alive when Matthew and Luke were written. In any event the man clearly attests to first century knowledge of the gospels, even if his literary corpus dates to just after the first century.

He is the only one that is aware of at least some of the gospel storyline as it relates to an earthly Jesus.

Who cares about story line? This is a question about awareness of the gospels. Mark's gospel is attested to by Matthew as early as 15 years or so after it was written.

And the gospels themselves were known by 1 Clement, Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius, and the author of the Didache, which is again more references for any other text from the ancient world PERIOD. Which again means your theory about the gospels being unkown is COMPLETELY false. Matthew and Luke ALONE mean that the story of Jesus (and Mark) was well known in the first century, even without Paul and the others.

He doesn't represent most Christians in this regard, in fact he appears to be the exception.

Wrong. First, Tacitus, a NON-christian, knew that Jesus was said to have been executed by Pilate, at the beginning of the 2nd century. So the story was so wide-spread by the turn of the 2nd century, that even a roman historian like Tacitus knew it.

Of course you are hardly familiar with early christian texts, so the your ignorance here isn't suprising. Paul knew details of the story. Matthew and Luke knew Mark. The other early christian authors almost ALL reference the gospels.

 

[dogsgod]

"Wrong. Some have NO equivelants in the OT, and the few that do are clearly not, which you could see from the discussion in the source I gave you."



Tell me you can't see the contradiction.

 

[dogsgod]

I didn't mention Tacitus due to the problems regarding its authenticity.

 

[Oberon]

Tell me you can't see the contradiction.

If the OT has a particular wording, and every other text which quotes this passage has a certain wording, and Matthew has a wording found ONLY in Matthew, and then a apostolic father uses the same reference, with wording found ONLY in Matthew, then it isn't likely to be from the NT.

More importantly, we can show you are completely wrong on a number of points:

1. You claimed that Ignatius is unique in giving us information about the Jesus story, rather than just quotes of his teaching, and is therefore abnormal, and not evidence that most christians were familiar with the Jesus story. Yet Tacitus, a primarily first century ROMAN, and NON-christian historian, knew that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. So clearly the STORY itself was known enough to reach Tacitus, let alone Josephus, let alone the actual christians.

2. You claim that the various gospels weren't known in the first century. Yet Mark is clearly known independently by 2 first century authors, Matthew and Luke. Additionally, the gospels are referenced by 1 Clement, the author of the Didache, Polycarp, and Ignatius, who were all active in the fist century. Again, more references than for any text from the ancient world.

3. Then we actually HAVE a scrap of John prior to 150 CE. Unheard of for ancient texts. Clearly the gospels are the BEST attested documents from the hellenist and classical age.

 

[dogsgod]

Christ, I'm debating a cheerleader.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Christ, I'm debating a cheerleader.

Poorly, I might add. You confuse being contentious with being skeptical, often resulting in the shallowest of sophistries. Oberon is wasting his time with you.

 

[Oberon]

Christ, I'm debating a cheerleader.

Weren't you the one with the comment on ad hominem?

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

Hmmm...

And your comment is apt, as you cannot defend your position:

Ignatius is the only one that indirectly gets information from the gospels that are distinctly known to derive from the gospels in that he actually names names in relation to a Jesus storyline, such as Pilate and Mary.

Blatantly wrong. Because, we actually have a NON-Christian source from the Roman Historian Tacitus, born prior to the composition of all the gospels, who (at the very beginning of the 2nd century) knows enough of the Jesus story to know that it was Pilate who executed him. Which means obviously the story of Jesus, as nailed down to a specific place and time, was well known. If a roman historian knew it, certainly the christians all did.

There are no known direct attestations to the gospels until Justin Martyr writes in 150CE. The gospels weren't as wide spread and known early on as some today are led to believe.

Also patently false. First, Mark was well known enough to be attested independently within 30 years of composition by TWO other christian gospel authors alone. We also have numerous other references to the gospels by authors active in the first century:

 

[dogsgod]

Those paltry little phrases here and there only demonstrate, with the exception of Ignatius, that these writers don't make any identifiable link between the Jesus Christ they preach of and worship, with the Jesus of Nazareth that we read of in the Gospels. BTW, you can repeat your same dogmatic beliefs over and over as they do in church as many times as you like, but repeating them doesn't make it so.

 

[dogsgod]

Notice your little chart doesn't show a cross reference connecting the gospels with 1Clement.

 

[Oberon]

Those paltry little phrases here and there only demonstrate, with the exception of Ignatius, that these writers don't make any identifiable link between the Jesus Christ they preach of and worship, with the Jesus of Nazareth that we read of in the Gospels.

How does this make any sense at all? Have you read Polycarp, 1 Clement, and the Didache, in their entirety? I doubt it. Have you even read the relevant chapters in the source I provided? I doubt that too. In other words, your dogmatic assertion that the gospels were unknown until the late 2nd century is shown to be completely and utterly false, and the above is the best you can come up with?

BTW, you can repeat your same dogmatic beliefs over and over as they do in church as many times as you like, but repeating them doesn't make it so.

Funny, as I would say the same to you. I have backed up my claims of the use of the gospels by first century authors by so far four or five academic sources, and I could easily add more. What's more, I have provided you a link to one which goes over all the relevant references in detail. I also know a thing or two about the normal number of textual and literary attestations for ancient texts, so I know how plentiful both our texts of and early references to the gospel are.

You, on the other hand, provide NO such sources. In fact, with few exceptions, you rarely provide academic citataions for any of your views. Your "faith" in the idea that Jesus was only a myth is just as dogmatic and baseless as most christian beliefs.

Notice your little chart doesn't show a cross reference connecting the gospels with 1Clement.

Then you can't read it. Notice the top category on the chart:"Synoptic Tradition." Go across, and you see a + in the 1 Clement Column. In other words, as the book shows, 1 Clement DOES use the synoptic gospels.

 

[dogsgod]

1Clement does not contain anything from the Gospels.

 

[Mister Emu]

1Clement does not contain anything from the Gospels.

1 Clement 13:2:
for thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive,that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness beshowed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you.

Telling me that is not in the gospels?

edit:
Also, look at 1 Clement 46:8:

Remember the words of Jesus our Lord: for He said, Woe unto that man; it were good for him if he had not been born, rather than that at he should offend one of Mine elect. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about him, and be cast into the sea, than that he should pervert one of Mine elect.

While not in the same context as the Gospels(which talks about Judas and children) it uses similar, if not exact, wording...

Finally, and less convincingly, in my opinion, 1 Clem, Matthew, and Mark all quote Isaiah "This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me"... 1 Clem uses the same form as the gospels...

These from the book Oberon provided...

 

[dogsgod]

Thank you Emu, but we've discussed those already.