The Historical Jesus II

Status
Not open for further replies.
The evidence from antiquity for a Myth Jesus is overwhelming.

Jesus of Nazareth never had any real existence.

Based on the existing manuscripts, Codices and writings of antiquity the Jesus story and cult began AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple [after c 70 CE] when it was propagated that the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple was because the JEWS Killed the Son of Their own God and that the same Jesus would soon appear for the second time.

Multiple Apologetic writers from the 2nd century and later did claim that the Killing of Jesus, the Son of God, was the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

In fact, it was claimed in Apologetic writings that it was prophesied by the Prophet Daniel that the Jewish Temple would Fall AFTER the advent of the Jewish Messiah.

Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews, also claimed that the Prophet Daniel predicted the Fall of the Temple by the Romans.

It is extremely easy to deduce that the Jewish Temple FIRST Fell BEFORE it was claimed the Messiah had come.

The Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE was the supposed SIGN that the Messiah had already come.

Essentially, if the Jewish Temple never fell there would be no claim of the advent of the Jewish Messiah.

1. In Antiquities of the Jews 10 attributed to Josephus composed c 93-94 CE
In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.

All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel...

Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" also claim the Prophets Daniel and Hosea foretold of the second coming.


2.Justin's Dialogue with Trypho
O Trypho," said I, "some have reference to the first advent of Christ, in which He is preached as inglorious, obscure, and of mortal appearance: but others had reference to His second advent, when He shall appear in glory and above the clouds; and your nation shall see and know Him whom they have pierced, as Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, and Daniel, foretold..



3. Irenaeus' Against Heresies 5.25
To this purpose Daniel says again: "And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously."[/u][/b]


4. Tertullian's "Answer to the Jews"
Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation.

For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.”

And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel....

5. Origen's Against Celsus
The prophecy also regarding Antichrist is stated in the book of Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire the words as truly divine and prophetic; for in them are mentioned the things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the times of Daniel, and continuing to the destruction of the world.

Jesus the Son of God in gMark was preaching the Prophecies found in the book of Daniel.


6. Mark 1
Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying , The time is fulfilled , and the kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye , and believe the gospel.

7. Mark 13:14 KJV
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand ,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity do show that the Jesus story and cult originated AFTER the Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE.

Essentially, the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE was supposed to be the FIRST PRIMARY Sign that the Jewish Messiah had already come.

The Entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically bogus.

NO one preached Jesus Christ crucified and raised from the BEFORE c 70 CE or since 37-41 CE.

The Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE--STORIES of Jesus were invented in the 2nd century or later---then the Pauline Corpus. no earlier than c 180 CE.
 
Last edited:
OK Dejudge, perhaps you can explain for your readers why Josephus talks of so many "Deceivers" as he calls the Messianic pretenders who brought about so many of his country's woes? These people were followers of the "Star Prophecy" which was about a great leader who would emerge and free the land of their oppressors. Weren't these the people that were fighting the Romans in the war which led to the fall of the Temple? Else why was there a war?
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-1.html

NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews.

Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it.

Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men.

This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.

So who were these "Zealots" who brought about the destruction by Rome, and what were they fighting for?

What was this "Fourth Philosophy" which was kicked off by "Judas and Sadduc" at the time of the census of Cyrenius and which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple?

How can you argue that this OT prophecy only came into play after the war was over?

Who was Theudas?
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-5.html

NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government...

Why was he trying to lead people across the Jordan? Why was that a problem?
 
The Gospel of the Hebrews, the second century’s most prominent manuscript, not only displays various Gnostic concepts, but also parallels notions expressed in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

For a full rundown of Gnostic manuscripts see –

http://www.gnosis.org/library/cac.htm

Gnosticism, as for orthodox Christianity, of course incorporates many mythica and spiritual elements [ . . . ]

And
Gnosticsm comprised many diverse strands, rendering demands for some single simplistic explanation innately pointless. I already mentioned the Gospel of the Hebrews, and even ignoring the mass of other early writings, even the early Gospel of Peter displays docetic elements, Christ a spirit, with only an apparent body - the Gospel of Mark, partly drawn therefrom, doesn’t even pretend to be anything more but allegorical. And I’m really not interested in penning some long screed about the Gnostic thought world inhabited by Paul and the early Christian faith, one replete with Jewish elements adapted to the cosmology prevailing at that time, Philo’s “heavenly man’ concept merely an intermediate stage. [ . . . ]
here are some more links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gnosticism

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

Thanks for opening up these vistas, DougW.
I'm still slowly getting my head around the implications of the presence of the Sator Square in Pompeii and rereading a curious book I found in Athens Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power edited by Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6576.html

From the introduction
[ . . . ]we have transcendent mysticism as well as chthonic howling, but telling them apart is sometimes difficult;the more closely these texts are actually read, the harder it is to maintain any distinction between piety and sorcery [ . . .]

Meyer points outs
Larger shifts in cultural milieu can also help us understand an interest in more private rituals as opposed to participation in public rituals. During the Hellenistic period there was a great breakdown in the authority of the city-states, accompanied in a decline in the ceremonial forms of worship around which social identities cohered.People became citizens of a much larger world [ . . . ]Private associations and small cultic practices throughout the late antique world with great mobility.

I think this social context also provides us with an explanation of why early Christian literature is neither history nor honest fiction but rather occupies a place in that fluid realm of hagiography or narrative theology.


...the Gospel of Mark, partly drawn therefrom, doesn’t even pretend to be anything more but allegorical.

Is there anything from the canonical literature which can be taken as "anything more but allegorical"?

Here's another take on that all-too-familiar cleansing of the Temple scene*
http://vridar.org/2014/06/09/jesus-cleansing-of-the-temple-rationalizing-a-miracle/#more-52256
And even though Roman troops were watching from the Antonia Fortress, as were the priests, we presume, from the Temple steps, Jesus left the scene without a scratch. It’s as if you went to an NFL game in the Meadowlands and single-handedly cleared the parking lot of all tailgaters, turning over their barbecues, and dumping out their beer. If you got past the first group alive, it would be astonishing. If you finished the task unscathed and managed to keep from getting arrested, that would be a miracle.

Strauss cites the unusual features of the story, including the fact that the gospels normally depict Jesus as avoiding public displays and violent outbursts. Hence, “it is not easy either to reconcile this conduct with his usual aversion to everything revolutionary, or to explain the omission of his enemies to use it as an accusation against him.” (p. 402) By the time of the trial before the Sanhedrin, it would appear everyone had forgotten the demonstration at the Temple.
http://vridar.org/2014/06/09/jesus-cleansing-of-the-temple-rationalizing-a-miracle/#more-52256

Enough of early morning musings.
Time to make some decent coffee and read some solid scholarship as an antidote to the insubstantial mirages of the early Christian world.



*
El Greco's vision of that scene can be seen here
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wDO1XIg9u...600/christ.money+changers+temple.el+greco.jpg
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
I think this social context also provides us with an explanation of why early Christian literature is neither history nor honest fiction but rather occupies a place in that fluid realm of hagiography or narrative theology.
...and narrative iconography.
 
:p

Seriously, however, I think one of the stronger cases - if hardly employed - for a more purely literary Jesus is the iconography of nearly every subject within the narrative.

If not for a character, then the preference of icon over actual has at the least rendered any possible concept of "Historical Jesus" entirely futile; yet more concerning, such attempt negates the value of the icons within and to whom such were of value.

In some ways, the Historical Jesus pursuit is a social whitewash which ignores recognition of cultural belonging in exchange for a convenience of attempting chronology in some fixed manner relevant to the inquiring cultural view instead.
 
Last edited:
The Jesus story and cult originated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity which means Entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically bogus.

One of the Apologetic sources to mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus is Tertullian.

There are at least 33 writings attributed to Tertullian including "Against Marcion".

An Apologetic writer sated that the Works under the name of Tertullian are APOCRYPHA.

http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

Every single writing of antiquity which mentions Paul as a figure of history and the Pauline Corpus is historically bogus.


Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Corpus, 2 Peter, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement of Rome , Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and others are themselves interpolated, forgeries or false attribution.


Paul in the NT, the Hebrew of Hebrew, the Pharisee of the Tribe of Benjamin NEVER had any real existence.

Paul and the Pauline Corpus were invented to historicize the fiction story of the Resurrection of the Son of God in the fables called Gospels.
 
Dejudge, I have no idea who you are responding to.

I think he might be responding to me, but I can't be sure. I was asking him about why there even was a war between The Jewish people and Rome. What kind of thinking led to the war, who were the ring-leaders etc, but he just goes on about things that happened after the destruction of Jerusalem, he can't seem to bring himself to talk about what might have been going on in Judea/Palestine before the war. I even linked to Josephus to give him a few hints.

Oh well...
 
:p

Seriously, however, I think one of the stronger cases - if hardly employed - for a more purely literary Jesus is the iconography of nearly every subject within the narrative.

If not for a character, then the preference of icon over actual has at the least rendered any possible concept of "Historical Jesus" entirely futile; yet more concerning, such attempt negates the value of the icons within and to whom such were of value.

In some ways, the Historical Jesus pursuit is a social whitewash which ignores recognition of cultural belonging in exchange for a convenience of attempting chronology in some fixed manner relevant to the inquiring cultural view instead.


Perhaps that's a bit strong, comparing the HJ pursuit to a social whitewash.

Still, the vexing question of how to determine what, if anything, has an historical basis in the NT literature has provoked strong reactions from writers observing the HJ proponents' reasoning.
Here's an example from Vridar, posted in 2012 about Ehrman's Apocalyptic Prophet for a New Millennium
Look at Ehrman’s explanation at the conclusion of his discussion pointing out the mythical nature of the narratives of the birth and death of Jesus:

My examples, then, have to do with accounts about Jesus that appear to be contradictory in some of their details. Let me stress that my point is not that the basic events that are narrated didn’t happen. Since these particular accounts deal with the birth of Jesus and his death, I think we can assume they are historically accurate in the most general terms: Jesus was born and he did die! My point, though, is that the Gospel writers have given us accounts that are contradictory in their details. These contradictions make it impossible for us to think that the stories are completely accurate. (p. 32)

Oh dear! Stories of angels appearing and virgin births and the day turning to night at the full-moon are not “completely accurate”? But since they are about a birth and a death and people are born and do die . . . . “I think we can assume they are historically accurate in the most general terms”!!!??
http://vridar.org/2012/03/25/histor...history-bart-ehrmans-history-as-a-case-study/

There's a lively discussion in the comments section, too.

What do I get from this?
I get the impression searching out the historical bases for the NT literature is an excellent excuse for learning about a fascinating epoch in our history, the 1st century.
 
Perhaps that's a bit strong, comparing the HJ pursuit to a social whitewash.

Still, the vexing question of how to determine what, if anything, has an historical basis in the NT literature has provoked strong reactions from writers observing the HJ proponents' reasoning.

Differences of opinion make horse races. :D

Because of the cultural significance of christianity this subject has generated hundreds and thousands of persons to invest a lot of thought and effort into trying to turn the meagre evidence into a persuasive theory.

We certainly wouldn't get as much mileage arguing about the existence or no-existence of Boudicca!

Here's an example from Vridar, posted in 2012 about Ehrman's Apocalyptic Prophet for a New Millennium

http://vridar.org/2012/03/25/histor...history-bart-ehrmans-history-as-a-case-study/

There's a lively discussion in the comments section, too.

What do I get from this?

I get the impression searching out the historical bases for the NT literature is an excellent excuse for learning about a fascinating epoch in our history, the 1st century.

I agree - it is an interesting period of history.
 
We have writings attributed to contemporary 1st century non-Apologetic authors and writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger and none of them mention Jesus of Nazareth or that Jesus of Nazareth predicted the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Josephus, in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, admitted it was Jesus the Son of Ananus who predicted an imminent calamity in Jerusalem.

Josephus lived in Galilee and did not acknowledge any character called Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God by Jews and people of the Roman Empire or believed to the prophesied Messianic ruler of the Jews.

Effectively, the Entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically bogus.

Paul, the Pharisee, the Hebrew of Hebrews of the tribe of Benjamin NEVER had any real existence and NEVER wrote letters to Churches of a Jesus cult.

When one examines the Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles it would appear that the Jesus cult was expanding a phenomenal rate with thousands of converts even on a daily basis long before the Fall of the Temple.

Before the conversion of Paul in Acts there were at least 8000 converts in Jerusalem in a matter of days.


1. Acts 2:41 KJV-----Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

2. Acts 4:4 KJV-----Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed ; and the number of the men was about five thousand.


3. Acts 21:20 KJV----And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest , brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law.

4. 13 Epistles to supposed Churches all over the Roman Empire were attributed to Paul.

5. At least three stories of Jesus of Nazareth were attributed to supposed authors called Matthew, Mark and Luke BEFORE c 70 CE.

6. The DSS, Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius wrote NOTHING of Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples or Paul.

7. The Jews expected their Prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler Up to c 66-70 CE and later c 133 CE in the time Simon Barchocheba.

The evidence adds up.

The Entire NT, including the Entire Pauline Corpus, is historically bogus, riddled with fiction, forgeries, false attribution, discrepancies, contradictions and events which did not happen.

All supposed early writings which claimed Paul is a figure of history and that he wrote Epistles to Churches are themselves forgeries or falsely attributed writings.

Paul and the Entire Pauline Corpus were unknown up to at least c 180 CE.
 
The Entire early history of the supposed Jesus cult Church pre 70 CE is bogus.

Examine "Church History" attributed to Eusebius.

Church History 6.25.
4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.

5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter....

6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts.

Last of all that by John.


Now examine Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist"? page 181-182.

It is also true that we do not know who wrote the Gospels............They were not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Amazingly, Apologetic writers and the very Roman Church have NO idea and established history of who wrote a single story of Jesus and have NO idea when they were written.

The Gospels in the Canon of the very Church are APOCRYPHA.

The Gospels in the Canon are NOT Genuine.

In fact, ALL writings called Gospels are NOT genuine.

How is it that NO-ONE in antiquity knew of a Genuine Gospel in or out the Canon?

Where did the Gospels come from?

They did NOT come from or originate with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Why did the Roman Church or Apologetic writers INVENT fake 1st century pre 70 CE authors for the Gospels?

The answer is extremely easy to deduce.

The Gospels in the Canon were COPIED from 2nd century or later sources and then BACK-DATED under the names of Fake authors--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John under the pretense that they were disciples and followers of the Jesus cult since the time of Tiberius to Nero.

It appears that it was the so-called HERETICS who INVENTED the stories called Gospels.

The so-called HERETICS did NOT copy Matthew, Mark, Luke and John--those authors NEVER existed.

It is the complete REVERSE.

The Gospels of the so-called HERETICS were MUTILATED [MODIFIED] and then falsely attributed to Fake pre 70 CE authors.

Multiple Apologetic writers admit that people in Egypt or taught in Egypt knew stories of Jesus which were similar to the Canonised Gospels.

The real authors of the Jesus stories may be Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Basilides, and others.

See Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, Irenaeus' "Against Heresies", Tertullian's "Prescription Against the Heretics" and Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies".

The Gospels MOST LIKELY originated with the so-called the Heretics since Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were FAKES.


Dialogue with Trypho
There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin. (For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him.

Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.) Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps that's a bit strong, comparing the HJ pursuit to a social whitewash.
I don't think that it's very strong; it was intended as a reflection of the byproduct of the Historical Jesus pursuit.
The pursuit focuses on the matter of the figure, and from there then considers all information as it is only relevant to that figure.

There have been scores of authors and books cited in this thread, and in many threads of this form, all regarding this Jesus figure.
For exercise of the point, count or name those authors and books cited who inquire or examine the cultural relevance and belonging of these same texts so often cited for either position of the HJ debate.

Whoever the specific and varied peoples were who valued these varying texts; they are lost - we will never know them explicitly; we will only know them possibly in inference, at best.

What do I get from this?
I get the impression searching out the historical bases for the NT literature is an excellent excuse for learning about a fascinating epoch in our history, the 1st century.
Quite so.
 
[ . . . ]We certainly wouldn't get as much mileage arguing about the existence or no-existence of Boudicca! [ . . . ]
O my personal favourite 'hero', Til Eulenspeigel.


[ . . . ] Josephus, in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, admitted it was Jesus the Son of Ananus who predicted an imminent calamity in Jerusalem. [ . . . ]

I hunted out that Josephus reference. Here's the entire passage for the curiousreader:
THE GREAT DISTRESS THE JEWS WERE IN UPON THE CONFLAGRATION OF THE HOLY HOUSE. CONCERNING A FALSE PROPHET, AND THE SIGNS THAT PRECEDED THIS DESTRUCTION.

1. WHILE the holy house was on fire, every thing was plundered that came to hand, and ten thousand of those that were caught were slain; nor was there a commiseration of any age, or any reverence of gravity, but children, and old men, and profane persons, and priests were all slain in the same manner; so that this war went round all sorts of men, and brought them to destruction, and as well those that made supplication for their lives, as those that defended themselves by fighting. The flame was also carried a long way, and made an echo, together with the groans of those that were slain; and because this hill was high, and the works at the temple were very great, one would have thought the whole city had been on fire. Nor can one imagine any thing either greater or more terrible than this noise; for there was at once a shout of the Roman legions, who were marching all together, and a sad clamor of the seditious, who were now surrounded with fire and sword. The people also that were left above were beaten back upon the enemy, and under a great consternation, and made sad moans at the calamity they were under; the multitude also that was in the city joined in this outcry with those that were upon the hill. And besides, many of those that were worn away by the famine, and their mouths almost closed, when they saw the fire of the holy house, they exerted their utmost strength, and brake out into groans and outcries again: Pera (17) did also return the echo, as well as the mountains round about [the city,] and augmented the force of the entire noise. Yet was the misery itself more terrible than this disorder; for one would have thought that the hill itself, on which the temple stood, was seething hot, as full of fire on every part of it, that the blood was larger in quantity than the fire, and those that were slain more in number than those that slew them; for the ground did no where appear visible, for the dead bodies that lay on it; but the soldiers went over heaps of those bodies, as they ran upon such as fled from them. And now it was that the multitude of the robbers were thrust out [of the inner court of the temple by the Romans,] and had much ado to get into the outward court, and from thence into the city, while the remainder of the populace fled into the cloister of that outer court. As for the priests, some of them plucked up from the holy house the spikes (18) that were upon it, with their bases, which were made of lead, and shot them at the Romans instead of darts. But then as they gained nothing by so doing, and as the fire burst out upon them, they retired to the wall that was eight cubits broad, and there they tarried; yet did two of these of eminence among them, who might have saved themselves by going over to the Romans, or have borne up with courage, and taken their fortune with the others, throw themselves into the fire, and were burnt together with the holy house; their names were Meirus the son of Belgas, and Joseph the son of Daleus.

2. And now the Romans, judging that it was in vain to spare what was round about the holy house, burnt all those places, as also the remains of the cloisters and the gates, two excepted; the one on the east side, and the other on the south; both which, however, they burnt afterward. They also burnt down the treasury chambers, in which was an immense quantity of money, and an immense number of garments, and other precious goods there reposited; and, to speak all in a few words, there it was that the entire riches of the Jews were heaped up together, while the rich people had there built themselves chambers [to contain such furniture]. The soldiers also came to the rest of the cloisters that were in the outer [court of the] temple, whither the women and children, and a great mixed multitude of the people, fled, in number about six thousand. But before Caesar had determined any thing about these people, or given the commanders any orders relating to them, the soldiers were in such a rage, that they set that cloister on fire; by which means it came to pass that some of these were destroyed by throwing themselves down headlong, and some were burnt in the cloisters themselves. Nor did any one of them escape with his life. A false prophet (19) was the occasion of these people's destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. Now a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises; for when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such his deliverance.

3. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star (20) resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, (21) [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner (22) [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence." But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

4. Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.
https://www.google.es/search?q=Gree...finition+greek&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

I found Joseph's conclusion most intriguing
However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.
 
I don't think that it's very strong; it was intended as a reflection of the byproduct of the Historical Jesus pursuit.
The pursuit focuses on the matter of the figure, and from there then considers all information as it is only relevant to that figure.

There have been scores of authors and books cited in this thread, and in many threads of this form, all regarding this Jesus figure.
For exercise of the point, count or name those authors and books cited who inquire or examine the cultural relevance and belonging of these same texts so often cited for either position of the HJ debate.

Whoever the specific and varied peoples were who valued these varying texts; they are lost - we will never know them explicitly; we will only know them possibly in inference, at best. [ . . . ]

I can see your point of view, especially in light of a hideously inappropriate remark I made to an Evangelist friend and colleague yesterday:
"What? You can't possibly believe speaking in tongues is anything other than a learned behaviour!"

:(
I'd thought to talk about glossolalia in the context of wonder-workers in general, but to my colleague Acts is the word of God.
Why couldn't I have seen the writing on the wall and made an excuse to leave the table rather than react his thoughts on Pentecost?

So yes, I'll have to go along with the social white-washing figure after all.
And figure out a way to repair the damage done.
 
That's one of the reasons (the primary being that I enjoy the endeavor thoroughly) why I spend my time, not reading all of these named authors of expertise on divining the canonical texts, but instead applying the simple methods of anthropological analysis upon these same texts as well as (deep breath) all of the texts from the era (a task I will never complete in my lifetime).

So far, just working on the four canonical texts, and some correlated texts, has taken a considerable amount of time, and while I feel closely satisfied with the general direction of considerations, I am yet far from seeing the faces of those who found their value - for whom the expressions were directed.

I think these texts remarkably perform wonderfully well as a gateway to an entire array of movements which have yet to come to even a slight understanding but by a small fraction of analysts who admirably sift through the remains daily in an attempt to stitch back together the giant hole of cultural history that has been created out of religious zeal by all bodies subsequent who preferred to create a mythology of a direct lineage from the central figure to their own professions.

I doubt most, even among the array of authors cited in here, could name major trade routes of value to the considerations within the region of the Mediterranean, let alone something far more specific as the nature of religious zeitgeist of Antioch or Galilee within the 2nd c BCE to 2nd c CE time frames.
Nor could most probably answer a rather simple question of why exactly was Galatia of any mention at all? Or why was there an obsession of the Anatolian coastline? Or, why Bethlehem? Why Egypt? Why magi? Why is there an account of infanticide? Why only in Matthew?
Why is Mark formatted in the manner in which it is formatted?
Why does Mark reverse out to Hebrew so perfectly, but clearly stand evident as never having been written in Hebrew?
Why does Mark employ Latin, Greek and Aramaic, and why does it use all of these three with Hebraic prose? Where in the world would this be intelligible and recognized?
It may have the illusion of a silly and simple question, but why does Mark have a short and long form of itself?
Why is John such a disarrayed blend of disjointed form and grammar?
Why do John and Revelation differ on this (though Revelation is still a terrible entry of grammar in its own right), yet share so much in common in theatrical theme and melodrama?
Why is Luke so perfectly written by comparison? Why does it have a near flawless narrative structure, and why does it have such beautiful mastery of Greek sentence; providing nearly the most efficient sentences possible?

Who are these kinds of things of iconic and general value?

Basically, rather than looking for proof of things actually happening, flip it around and ask why were these items put in - who cared for these items to be in there, or could understand them?
For even if the stories were true, during this period in time, it was not uncommon to simply omit content which was not popular, or add that which was - so either way, the questions are applicable.

In this respect, Jesus as an historical consideration is the least meaningful piece of information.
 
Last edited:
...
Why is Mark formatted in the manner in which it is formatted?
Why does Mark reverse out to Hebrew so perfectly, but clearly stand evident as never having been written in Hebrew?
Why does Mark employ Latin, Greek and Aramaic, and why does it use all of these three with Hebraic prose? Where in the world would this be intelligible and recognized?
It may have the illusion of a silly and simple question, but why does Mark have a short and long form of itself?
...

Just on these gMark questions: Do you give any credence to the Church tradition that the Author pieced it together from the sermons of Peter?

Do these questions suggest that the Greek was written by someone translating directly from Aramaic?

IIRC correctly it was Clement who was supposed to have handed down that bit of Church history, do you think it is at all likely to be true?
 
There is a massive amount of apologetic writings and manuscripts about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

The evidence is overwhelming--Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul the Hebrew are ALL Fakes.

Paul the Hebrew claimed he met characters who NEVER had any real existence like Peter, James and the Lord Jesus after he was raised from the dead.

Every single supposed early writing which mention Paul the Hebrew are themselves forgeries or falsely attributed.

The supposed first writer to mention the Pauline Corpus was Irenaeus but his claims about Paul are irreconcilable since Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified around c 50 CE.

Paul the Hebrew could not have preached Christ crucified and resurrected since 37-41 C
when he should have been alive.

Now, an author under the name of Tertullian, supposedly writing late 2nd to 3rd century, gives the impression that he also knew of the Pauline Corpus in "Against Marcion".

However, in the Decretum Gelasianum, it is declared that writings under the name of Tertullian is APOCRYPHA--[Not Genuine].

It must be noted that Eusebius in "Church History" did not acknowledge that Tertullian wrote Against Marcion.

Jerome, in "De Viris Illustribus" claimed Tertullian wrote AGAINST the Church.

In fact, in "Church History" and "De Viris Illustribus" there are at least 9 writings Against Marcion and none are attributed to Tertullian.

It is claimed these authors wrote Against Marcion--- Justin, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Philip, Dionysius, Modestus, Barsadenes, Rhodo and Hippolytus.

Tertullian is MISSING.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" was INVENTED after the end of the 4th century.

In "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian it is claimed the Gospels of John and Matthew came first and then followed by gLuke and Mark.

The author of "Against Marcion" used the WESTERN order.

The WESTERN order of the Gospels is Matthew, John, Luke and Mark.

The earliest recovered and dated Western Order of the Gospels is from the 5th century or later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

There was also another order, the "western order of the gospels", so called because it is typical for the manuscripts which are usually a representative of the Western text-type.

1.Gospel of Matthew
2.Gospel of John
3.Gospel of Luke
4.Gospel of Mark



This order is found in the following manuscripts: Bezae, Monacensis, Washingtonianus, Tischendorfianus IV, Uncial 0234.

The pattern is consistent. Late writings were either forged or falsely attributed to earlier authors.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" was most likely composed AFTER the BEZAE manuscripts.

Passages omitted from the Bezae manuscript of gLuke are also missing in Tertullian's "Against Marcion"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom