Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[Pragmatist]

I can almost see him slowly going insane as he minutely picks through all of those tiny fragments, can't you?

I've done it.

You've done what, picked through the tiny fragments, or gone slowly insane while you did it?

You have me an disadvantage here. The comments you are responding to were deleted shortly after I posted them. I thought they were too tendentious, unsupported by sound arguments, and motivated by a desire to blindly attack rather than an intelligent attempt to respond to arguments (how is that different from my other posts, you're probably thinking).

Mainly, I am trying to avoid stooping to the level of those experts who, when questioned in any way by outsiders, respond with snide witticisms, instead of arguments. The "insanity" theme wasn't developed properly; I was forcing the arguments to conform to the theme, instead of allowing the theme to emerge naturally from the arguments.

I try to keep an open mind, but I'm not going to sacrifice all of my own thought and opinions to the arbitrary veto power of experts and specialists. If an expert tells me I'm wrong, and gives me a reason I can understand, then I will change my mind. But I'm not going to change anything based on his mere say-so. The fact that he is a expert, and that fact alone, does not impress me.

I am suspicious of experts and specialists. When you enlarge a newspaper still, then enlarge the enlargement, you rapidly reach a point where the overall image disappears in an incoherent mass of dots. I know that this can happen to experts; when they ignore something obvious that has been smacking them in the face all along.

I'd like to know what the scholarly consensus is on this problem.

That it isn't a problem.

Perhaps you misunderstand my use of the word, "problem." I don't mean some paradigm shattering anomaly that invalidates every assumption of modern scholarship, or anything so radical and apocalyptic. All I mean by a problem is a fact in need of explanation. I'm not saying that it is impossible to explain this "anomaly" within the framework of conventional historiography. But it does cry out for explanation.

Also, I am not saying that the answer must be certain and dogmatic. I am well aware that historiography deals with probabilities, not certitudes. But surely there has been inquiry into this problem, and I'd like to know what is considered the most probable explanation.

We have two basic facts. One, Jospehus' silence on Jesus and John the baptist in De Bello Iudaico.

Two, his comments on this same subject in Antiquitates Judaicae.

There is an obvious conflict between these two facts. We already suspect that Josephus knows something about the subject, because of his attention to Galilee in the build up to the war. The second fact confirms our suspicions: he did know something about Jesus and John the baptist, but he held his tongue for twenty years. What changed in that twenty year gap between De Bello and Antiquitates? Surely the activities of Jesus and John the baptist are directly relevant to his overall subject in De Bello, right? Why this silence?

Any number of reasons. For example, John the Baptist continued to have followers after his death. Yet Josephus doesn't mention him or his followers in De Bello Iudaico. He does, however, in Antiquitates Judaicae. This is also where he mentions Jesus.

You quote the bare facts back at me, with the titles of Jospehus' work now dressed up in fancy Latin. How does that answer anything? I am already aware of this fact: hence the problem!

Why not read some scholarship on the subject and see?

I am reluctant to do so. Your books sound a little boring: some timid scholar desperately trying to avoid a transgression against the scholarly "consensus." I want something more radical, more challenging. You almost admit that your own authors are boring compared to Gibbon:

It lacks the novel-like magesterial narrative of Gibbon...

In other words, snooze city. Goldsworthy, right? I'm sure his facts are all accurate. However, it's how he solves the problems posed by those facts, that's the important thing. Maybe, like you, he can't even perceive that there is a problem.

I really wonder about you guys. I draw a plain inference (literacy rates) from two well known facts (printing, vernacular literature), and this triggers an avalanche of sneers and giggles. I am given contemptuous reminders of my ignorance of literacy rates in Arabic, as if this is relevant to a discussion concerning Gibbon (English literature in the 18th century). Sinister motives are inferred on my part: I am some woman-hating reactionary, because I "worship" one of those completely irrelevant old, dead, white guys.

and the fact that it is from 1776 actually works to its advantage for this purpose, because it is written at a higher literary level than the pop literature of today

Making it less accessible to most.

What do you mean by accessible: plain, ugly prose for the barely literate? If that's what the books you've recommended read like, you can count me out. Now, if you could offer something on the level of Gershom Scholem, or even better, Henry Adams...

The subject is interesting and has wide ramifications. An imaginative author ought to be able to make it spell-binding (and still maintain scholarly discipline, of course).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If an expert tells me I'm wrong, and gives me a reason I can understand, then I will change my mind.

Right. That's why the discussion about Gibbon stopped ages ago.

The fact that he is a expert, and that fact alone, does not impress me.

Unless it's Gibbon, because somebody told you something about him a while ago.

I am suspicious of experts and specialists.

Unless it's Gibbon.

I know that this can happen to experts

With the exception of Gibbon.

We have two basic facts. One, Jospehus' silence on Jesus and John the baptist in De Bello Iudaico.

Two, his comments on this same subject in Antiquitates Judaicae.

There is an obvious conflict between these two facts.

Which disappears entirely when you realize (gasp) that the texts are about two different things. Josephus apparently didn't find Jesus' or John's little movements relevant to his discussion about the Jewish war.

Your books sound a little boring

If you want to be entertained, read a novel. If you want to learn history but it has to be entertaining, here you are: The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Roman Empire

I want something more radical, more challenging.

How about The Da Vinci Code?

You almost admit that your own authors are boring compared to Gibbon

Yep. And that's nothing. You should read my books in mathematics, linguistics, physics, etc. Why didn't Don Ringe have more plot, better characters, etc., in his From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic? Hundreds and hundreds of pages on sound changes instead of a gripping story. And would you believe that neither Complex Valued Nonlinear Adaptive Filters: Noncicularity, Widely Linear and Neural Models NOR Geometric and Algebraic Topological Methods in Quantum Mechanics had a single plot twist? Not one. Not even any real character development. I don't know how these authors stay in business.

An imaginative author ought to be able to make it spell-binding (and still maintain scholarly discipline, of course).

Not just spell-binding. It has to be written in near-shakespearean quality prose as well. Stick with Gibbon.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A suggestion: let's take a break from this orgy of Gibbonphilia and clearly reference Gibbon's position on Paul as Roman citizen.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A suggestion: let's take a break from this orgy of Gibbonphilia and clearly reference Gibbon's position on Paul as Roman citizen.

I don't think that Gibbon commented on Paul's citizenship - for or against.

 

[Pragmatist]

The Gibbon thing has always been a distraction. But I can't be solely blamed for feeding into this tangent. For every defense of Gibbon I have mounted, there was another attack forthcoming. It takes two to argue.

I should have dropped the Gibbon defense a long time ago, as soon as it was agreed that the persecution of pre-Constantinian Christianity by Rome is an exaggerated myth. If the fact is agreed to, then who cares if the source is attacked? I quoted Gibbon to support my argument. I thought the myth of persecution would be disputed, and Gibbon would lend it weight. It actually turned out to be a massive liability, because in the eyes of modern scholarship Gibbon is hopelessly out of date. There is no way to defend Gibbon to a scholar, I am beginning to see (no approach that you guys will accept, anyway).

I am a little too touchy about literature that I like, and a little too enthusiastic in its defense. I will even formally admit that I lost the tangential sub-argument: Gibbon is not an authority in modern historical scholarship, and he probably shouldn't be (not in this field, anyway; if we're talking the aesthetic appreciation of literature, then maybe).

Now that I think about it, I probably fed into this useless tangent because of a lack of ideas on my own part, and simple frustration. Because once I have gained consent to the proposition that massive state persecution of early Christians is a myth, the question then becomes, what do you do with what has been gained? Once in possession of a common fact that we can all agree on, how should it be utilized? Unable to think of the practical "how," I might have been subconsciously grateful for a diversionary argument about an almost completely unrelated matter (Gibbon).

To me, it is significant that persecution is massively exaggerated. It suggests that Christianity is not an alien ideology to Rome, because this ideology was allowed to spread throughout the empire without suffering any special persecution or interference. I found it difficult to think of way to express this in an acceptable form, even before the Gibbon affair. Now, I am convinced that nothing I say will ever be accepted, and that insights from the more vernacular end of the spectrum will never be even jokingly entertained by the specialists and experts at the other end.

And really, why should you guys listen to me? I certainly have nothing to tell you about the historical scholarship on the subject. The fact that I would cite Gibbon in an argument with students of historical scholarship proves that I know nothing about historical scholarship. That's called bringing a knife to a gunfight! On the other hand, I have nothing to learn from you guys, except the number of ways that a person can be insulted for not being a historical scholar. Scholars, when challenged by non-expert opinion, may offer a cursory defense: a quote or two, a list of books. If you question them further, they respond with indigent surprise. There are cryptic suggestions that you are too ignorant to even ask such questions, let alone deserve an answer. Most of your questions are left unanswered, leaving you alone to wonder whether you have framed them poorly or if there is some conceptual problem with the question itself. It has been very discouraging.

Here is a particular example of how truly barren this exchange has been:

We have two basic facts. One, Jospehus' silence on Jesus and John the baptist in De Bello Iudaico.

Two, his comments on this same subject in Antiquitates Judaicae.

There is an obvious conflict between these two facts.

Which disappears entirely when you realize (gasp) that the texts are about two different things. Josephus apparently didn't find Jesus' or John's little movements relevant to his discussion about the Jewish war.

I can't help it, I have to try: how is Jesus and John not relevant to a discussion of the Jewish war? Jesus was an important historical figure in Palestine in the 40's, right, particularly in Galilee? The Jewish war was fought a mere 20 or 30 years later, and the Galilee region was the main battle ground. De Bello Iudaico details the build-up to war in the decades preceding it. The main cause of the war, as Jospehus paints it, was religious. A very potent religious fanaticism began to build in the 40's (Josephus calls them "robbers" and "those who seek innovations") in the exact same region where Jesus began to establish his cult. Was the Galilee area swarming with so many messianic religious figures at this time that an important figure like Jesus does not even deserve a mention?

But why do I bother? I know that an important scholar like you can't be bothered to explain themselves. I'm sure my questions don't make sense, anyway.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I can't help it, I have to try: how is Jesus and John not relevant to a discussion of the Jewish war? Jesus was an important historical figure in Palestine in the 40's, right, particularly in Galilee?

He is an important historical figure. The question is how important he actually was in the 40s, or the 50s, or 60s, and if so whether or not this importance had much relevance in terms of the first Jewish/Roman war. In his massive treatment of the events leading up to the war, and the war itself, Josephus barely discusses sectarian issues/movements within Judaism, and what he does say at times conflicts with his other writings. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Jesus movement was pretty big ~70 CE. If they didn't involve themselves in the war, influence any important events relating to it, influence the wider populace, etc., then why would Josephus mention them? In other words, what is your basis for thinking we should find references to Jesus or his followers in Josephus' account of the Jewish war?

The main cause of the war, as Jospehus paints it, was religious. A very potent religious fanaticism began to build in the 40's (Josephus calls them "robbers" and "those who seek innovations") in the exact same region where Jesus began to establish his cult.

This is misleading or inaccurate on almost every point. First, where does Josephus equate "those who seek innovations" (τό νεωτερίζο&#957 with robbers/bandits? The period was a time of tumult, but not every insurrection was one by bandits, nor was every group of bandits religiously motivated. And finally, what does this have to do with how Jesus gathered a following? Or John?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Gibbon thing has always been a distraction. But I can't be solely blamed for feeding into this tangent.

Of course you can -- and you can certainly be 'blamed' for continuing to do so.

So tell us: what are the compelling argument(s) for (or against) Paul as Roman citizen?

 

[Pragmatist]

He is an important historical figure. The question is how important he actually was in the 40s, or the 50s, or 60s, and if so whether or not this importance had much relevance in terms of the first Jewish/Roman war. In his massive treatment of the events leading up to the war, and the war itself, Josephus barely discusses sectarian issues/movements within Judaism, and what he does say at times conflicts with his other writings. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Jesus movement was pretty big ~70 CE. If they didn't involve themselves in the war, influence any important events relating to it, influence the wider populace, etc., then why would Josephus mention them? In other words, what is your basis for thinking we should find references to Jesus or his followers in Josephus' account of the Jewish war?

This makes sense. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but at least I can make sense of the criticism: Jesus is important now, but is he important enough at the time to come to the attention of Josephus?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Jesus movement was pretty big ~70 CE. If they didn't involve themselves in the war, influence any important events relating to it, influence the wider populace, etc., then why would Josephus mention them?

I can't guess the popularity of this movement, and I would expect this to be exactly the kind of question that more modern historiography could help us out with (an area where one would like more solid information, but in which the surviving texts only tell us so much). I would really like to know the scholarly consensus on this. How fast did the Jesus movement take off, and where did it take root? We know there were thriving Christian communities in places Corinth by 70 AD, from the letters of Paul. But, what was the state of the movement in Palestine, and in particular, the Galilee region?

If the Christians were established in Galilee at all, then they were involved in the war in some way. The Galilee area was the main theater of war, and no one who lived in this region could have failed to have been effected (unless we are to doubt Josephus on the scale of destruction). As to what exact role they played in these events, our primary sources are silent, so we are forced to speculate.

I find this comment a little troubling:

In his massive treatment of the events leading up to the war, and the war itself, Josephus barely discusses sectarian issues/movements within Judaism, and what he does say at times conflicts with his other writings.

It is misleading to say that Josephus "barely discusses sectarian issues/movements within Judaism" in De Bello Iudaico. One of the main roots of the war, according to Josephus, was the agitation caused by sectarian movements in Palestine (particularly in Galilee). They didn't want to accept temple-gifts from unclean gentiles. They couldn't stand for the Herodian overlord to even look at the sacrifices, so they built a wall to obstruct his view. They chaffed at having the chief priest subject to approval from the Rome-sanctioned authorities. Messianic excitement was raging throughout the region. It would be impossible to produce a treatment of this war without treating the religious component.

In other words, what is your basis for thinking we should find references to Jesus or his followers in Josephus' account of the Jewish war?

I base my thinking on speculative assumptions, with no solid grounding in historical scholarship, of course.

I'm not kidding. I don't know anything solid about Jesus and his movement in these early years, except what the NT tells me. You are well aware of my ignorance of historical scholarship. The NT is most untrustworthy as a source of historical facts. Paul's letters are the most solid thing in there, and they tell us next to nothing about Jesus as a historical figure.

The absence of Jesus from De Bello Iudaico is disconcerting, because in this book, Josephus seems particularly interested in unorthodox religious movements of the relevant time frame, and especially in the Galilee region:

"These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty." (Wars, 2:259)

It embarrasses me to have to quote this, and it is supremely annoying that you make me look up source material that I know you are more familiar with than me. You know as well as I that these kinds of religious nuts are a preoccupation of Josephus in the Wars as well as in the Antiquities. Why leave out this one religious nut: Jesus?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are well aware of my ignorance of historical scholarship. The NT is most untrustworthy as a source of historical facts.

It is most appropriate that these two sentences are together.

You know as well as I that these kinds of religious nuts are a preoccupation of Josephus in the Wars as well as in the Antiquities. Why leave out this one religious nut: Jesus?

Jesus was not historically significant to Josephus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If the Christians were established in Galilee at all, then they were involved in the war in some way. The Galilee area was the main theater of war, and no one who lived in this region could have failed to have been effected (unless we are to doubt Josephus on the scale of destruction).

There are a few things to consider here:

1) Most importantly, we have Christian writings from this time period

2) Galilee was not the main theater of the war

3)

 

[Pragmatist]

The main cause of the war, as Jospehus paints it, was religious. A very potent religious fanaticism began to build in the 40's (Josephus calls them "robbers" and "those who seek innovations") in the exact same region where Jesus began to establish his cult.

This is misleading or inaccurate on almost every point. First, where does Josephus equate "those who seek innovations" (τό νεωτερίζο&#957 with robbers/bandits? The period was a time of tumult, but not every insurrection was one by bandits, nor was every group of bandits religiously motivated. And finally, what does this have to do with how Jesus gathered a following? Or John?

I think you exaggerate. Not being an expert, I'm sure that my statements are misleading or inaccurate in some ways, but on "almost every point"?

First of all, I can agree in the abstract that there is some distinction between outright bandits and religiously motivated revolutionaries. But, in the concrete, Josephus does not rigorously follow this distinction.

What about the Sicarii? These guys certainly seem to be religiously motivated. Check out 7.417-18 of the Jewish War.

"[...their] courage, or whether we ought to call it madness, or hardiness in their opinions, everybody was amazed at. For when all sorts of torments and vexations of their bodies that could be devised were made use of to them, they could not get anyone of them to comply so far as to confess, or seem to confess, that Caesar was their lord; but they preserved their own opinion, in spite of all the distress they were brought to, as if they received these torments and the fire itself with bodies insensible of pain, and with a soul that in a manner rejoiced under them."

The very image of a religious fanatic being happily martyred for his faith. And yet, what about this comment from 20.186 of the Antiquities?

"And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous."

Here's a passage (20.167-168), in which we are told how robbers, also called impostors and deceivers, lead people out into the wilderness to see signs and wonders from God.

"These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God..."

Unmistakable religious motives are obvious here. By the way, "these works that were done" involve killing people at public festivals with concealed daggers, so they must be Sicarii, because this is the characteristic assassination technique of this particular bunch of nuts.

I found a book review on line when I googled the words Sicarii and Josephus:

"Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2010.09.47"; "Mark Andrew Brighton, The Sicarii in Josephus's Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations. Early Judaism and Its Literature 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009"; "Reviewed by Dmitry Bratkin, St Petersburg State University" Sounds kind of scholarly, right? This work is said to be revised from an earlier one published by University of California (Irvine). Sounds reputable.

This article gave me the four explicit references to Sicarii in the first six chapters of The Jewish Wars, and numerous other references in chapter seven. There are also a series of implicit references from the first six chapters (2.117-8; 2.408; 2.433-48; 2.652-54; 4.503-8). Now, I suppose these passages in which the Sicarii are only implied are subject to argument. The author's justifications are not given in the review. I scaned the references. My best guess is that these are considered references to Sicarii because they also contain other references: Masada; people associated with the movement like Simon, Judas, Menahem; certain characteristic attitudes, like that found in 2.118: "... [they] said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords."

Check out 4.652:

"But as for the Acrabbene toparchy, Simon, the son of Gioras, got a great number of those that were fond of innovations together, and betook himself to ravage the country; nor did he only harass the rich men’s houses, but tormented their bodies, and appeared openly and beforehand to affect tyranny in his government..."

So the Sicarii, who were robbers, associate closely with those who were fond of innovations.

Not every group of bandits had religious motivations, but many did. Particularly in the Galilee region. We have the resistance against the census in the first decade, led by someone named by Judas. His "sons," James and Simon were executed in the fifth decade. Menahem was stirring up trouble in the seventh decade. Right in the middle of this, another religious leader named Jesus started gathering followers in the Galilee region, and he even took thousands of them out into the wilderness to witness the miraculous signs of their impending freedom, just like the "robbers" excoriated by Josephus. Jesus fits right in there. The subject is directly relevant to The Jewish Wars, and seems to have been purposefully omitted from the narrative. Why is it absent?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I found a book review on line when I googled the words Sicarii and Josephus:

"Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2010.09.47"; "Mark Andrew Brighton, The Sicarii in Josephus's Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations. Early Judaism and Its Literature 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009"; "Reviewed by Dmitry Bratkin, St Petersburg State University" Sounds kind of scholarly, right? This work is said to be revised from an earlier one published by University of California (Irvine). Sounds reputable.

I know. I own it. Would you like to know what Brighton concludes? "The Sicarii are most clearly connected to stasis, a major theme of War. Now it must be admitted that the Sicarii are not the only characters in War associated with stasis. The Zealots, the tyrants, and the various bandit gangs are also associated with stasis. If we were to draw a distinction between the Sicarii and these other rebel groups, we might suggest that while the latter fight also against the Romans, the Sicarii are shown to fight exclusively against their own people." (p. 141).

For Josephus, they are a rhetorical device. But Brighton does address questions concerning the historical Sicarii (rather than simply Josephus' depiction, rendered problematic by his rhetorical usage and the aims of his work). Brighton does not connect them with Josephus' nebulous "Fourth Philosophy" but rather concludes "It would seem precarious to insist that the Sicarii were a historically identifiable, card-carrying, banner-waving group during or after the war...if were were to construct a historical image of the Sicarii on the basis of the narrative of War, we might suggest the identity of a modern "terrorist" as an analogy...The labal sicarii first came into use among the Jews to describe terrorist activities in Jerusalem: swift and stealthy acts of violence directed by Jews against their own countrymen. The method of violence distinguished the bandit gangs so that Josephus could call them "bandits in a different form." This activity eventually solidified against Jews in Jerusalem who supported Rome, and these nameless Sicarii were identified thus not only by their terrorist activities but also by their targets." (p.149).

To label them as a sepcific group who identified themselves as such is problematic, at least in many ways (as Brighton acknowledges), and to suggest they represent a religious sect (and therefore to argue that Josephus does discuss Jewish sects extensively such that he should have mentioned Jesus and John) is to merge various groups, titles, and terms Josephus uses in ways he doesn't intend them to be and there is no good evidence for them to be.

Not every group of bandits had religious motivations, but many did.

The issue isn't whether groups of bandits had or did not have religious motivations. The issue (at least the one which motivated this bit about Josephus and the Sicarii) is whether or not we would expect Josephus to mention Jesus in Wars. I said he doesn't talk much at all about the various sects in Wars and you disagreed. To support this, you have pointed to passages which don't talk about Jewish sects. So how is that supporting your view that we should expect Josephus to say something about the Jesus sect?

 

[Pragmatist]

I know. I own it. Would you like to know what Brighton concludes? [...]

Yes, yes. Almost exactly the same quotes were included in the article.

To label them as a sepcific group who identified themselves as such is problematic, at least in many ways (as Brighton acknowledges), and to suggest they represent a religious sect (and therefore to argue that Josephus does discuss Jewish sects extensively such that he should have mentioned Jesus and John) is to merge various groups, titles, and terms Josephus uses in ways he doesn't intend them to be and there is no good evidence for them to be.

Strawhorse alert! When did I ever "label them as a sepcific group who identified themselves as such"? I didn't say they "represent[ed] a religious sect," but I do assert that the people Jospehus calls Sicarii had religious motivations. Modern Islamic terrorists have religious motivations; they "represent" many different sects and movements. Perhaps the Jesus movement had its Sicarii element. It's hard to tell from Josephus.

The issue isn't whether groups of bandits had or did not have religious motivations. The issue (at least the one which motivated this bit about Josephus and the Sicarii) is whether or not we would expect Josephus to mention Jesus in Wars. I said he doesn't talk much at all about the various sects in Wars and you disagreed. To support this, you have pointed to passages which don't talk about Jewish sects. So how is that supporting your view that we should expect Josephus to say something about the Jesus sect?

When did I say anything about particular sects? Why are you twisting my argument?

The issue isn't the religious motives of particular groups of bandits. The issue is the motivations of the "bandits/robbers" in general. There seems to be a heavy religious component. Josephus names a number of these robbers: James, Simon, Judas, Menahem. I'm sure each one had their own particular "sect." How were these sects connected to the Jesus sect? We'll never know from Josephus.

Let's try this from a different angle. How popular was the Jesus movement in this period? The Jewish War seems to be very interested in the religious mania which gripped Palestine in the decades preceding the revolt. If the Jesus movement had any significant popular appeal, Josephus would have mentioned it. He covers this region at this time in some detail.

If it was just another bunch of Sicarii-style extremists, that might help explain the silence. But, if Jesus was anything like what Paul later taught in his name, then that would have been truly notable. Pay your taxes? Your rulers are appointed by God? If that gained even 1,000 followers within ten years of Jesus execution, then it deserves a mention.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If that gained even 1,000 followers within ten years of Jesus execution, then it deserves a mention.

Well, does anyone think that this happened??

I don't think that early "Christianity" grew that fast. Remember, Paul's ministry started more than a decade after Jesus's death, and it wasn't mentioned by the Romans until Pliny, about 100CE.

A rouge group of even 1000 Christians would not be historically significant, and could be easily overlooked by Josephus, whose focus is clearly elsewhere. Furthermore, the earliest Christian documents were just starting to circulate when Josephus was writing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When did I say anything about particular sects? Why are you twisting my argument?

It is misleading to say that Josephus "barely discusses sectarian issues/movements within Judaism" in De Bello Iudaico. One of the main roots of the war, according to Josephus, was the agitation caused by sectarian movements in Palestine (particularly in Galilee).

That's why.

The issue isn't the religious motives of particular groups of bandits. The issue is the motivations of the "bandits/robbers" in general.

No, the issue is whether or not we have any reason to expect Josephus to talk about the Jesus sect/movement, and I don't see how bandits fit into this. If you are arguing that there was a widespread religiously motivated discontent with Roman occupation (and I would agree), then why would Josephus need to single out the followers of Jesus unless they stood out in some particular way from any number of other groups/sects/etc.?

But, if Jesus was anything like what Paul later taught in his name, then that would have been truly notable.

The issue isn't whether is is notable but why, where, and how it would have fit in with this particular work by Josephus.

 

[gnostic]

We have moved from Gibbon to Josephus.

Josephus is only reasonably reliable in the history department. from 1st century BCE to his own century (1st century CE). I don't trust him as a reliable source beyond the 1st century BCE.

Josephus write of nothing about Paul or about Paul's Roman citizenship.

However, because of his friendship with Titus, the future emperor of Rome and his own Jewish aristocratic background, he would know far more about the Jewish and Roman politics and Roman-Jewish history than the gospel writers - Matthew and Luke.

Josephus did write about John the Baptist and about James brother of Jesus, but nothing about the Jesus' movement.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Josephus is only reasonably reliable in the history department. from 1st century BCE to his own century (1st century CE). I don't trust him as a reliable source beyond the 1st century BCE.

Yes, suddenly Josephus is unreliable after 1CE.

Brilliant.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, suddenly Josephus is unreliable after 1CE.

Sorry, but i didn't write "1 CE"; I wrote 1st "century" CE.

When I wrote that Josephus was unreliable - "beyond the 1st century BCE", I really meant "BEFORE the 1st century BCE".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sorry, but i didn't write "1 CE"; I wrote 1st "century" CE.

When I wrote that Josephus was unreliable - "beyond the 1st century BCE", I really meant "BEFORE the 1st century BCE".

 

[Pragmatist]

I've been mulling it over, and I think I better evacuate this argument with the utmost urgency. It isn't that I have been won over to your point of view; it is my own utter impotence to construct an argument that could win you guys over to my side.

But, my side is chaotic mush. I know what Paul taught, because I can read it with my own eyes, but who knows what Jesus actually taught? Therefore, who knows how his original message has been distorted and perverted by people like Paul or the Gospel-authors? I can't even pretend fluency with these questions, and so I deal from a position of weakness. You guys claim knowledge of historical scholarship, and therefore are intoxicated by the sense of your own certainty. I am offended by this smug sense of self-satisfied certainty, but am unable to effectively respond to it, because of my ignorance. I may not know who or what Jesus really was, but you guys definitely know, and you know that you know (smug son of a...)

But all this is sour grapes. I have not contributed in any meaningful way to this argument, I have to admit. I have not made my points effectively, and I dragged us down many blind alleys on a perfect goose chase. Why? Because I was completely outplayed by people more knowledgeable than myself, and because of the weakness of my own arguments.

Thanks for all responses to my own pseudo-arguments, but especially for those that showed patience and respect.