Book 6.5.3 of Wars of the Jews.

[Joseph D. L.]

Josephus also implies that God had removed Himself from the Temple. This is consistent with what he wrote about how God had abandoned Jerusalem and the Temple due to the actions of robbers and the High Priests:

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 [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, 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!"

Very astute of you. I didn't even consider.

Makes you wonder where God is going when he strolls on out of the Temple. Weird that Jesus ben Ananias appears, stage right and on his mark.

[Joseph D. L.]

A cow gave birth to a lamb? Huh. I really didn't see that one coming.

Like you I think these little tidbits make up a potential source for early Christianity ...
Michael Crouch believed that this was just how Josephus understood Christians and their wacky, zany beliefs. Who made who?

• Perhaps Crouch was unwittingly 'putting the horse after the cart'

Could have been. You have to take into consideration Michael's reasoning for thinking as he did. He had said that Christianity began as a logos based religion after the Temple (or to replace the Temple), and Josephus was trying to rationalize their beliefs.

[GakuseiDon]

Makes you wonder where God is going when he strolls on out of the Temple. Weird that Jesus ben Ananias appears, stage right and on his mark.

I suspect that Josephus was implying that God was about to put His weight behind the Roman side, with Vespasian as God's new favorite.

[MrMacSon]

I suspect that Josephus was implying that God was about to put His weight behind the Roman side, with Vespasian as God's new favorite.

• As Josephus himself did, on both points.

[MrMacSon]

You have to take into consideration Michael's reasoning for thinking as he did. He had said that Christianity began as a logos-based religion after the Temple (or to replace the Temple), and Josephus was trying to rationalize their beliefs.

• The first proposition, that "Christianity began as a logos-based religion after the Temple (or to replace the Temple)" seems reasonable.
  
  That Josephus even knew about Christianity, not so much, ie. not so reasonable.

[Joseph D. L.]

I don't follow this logical succession.

Even taking my niche and amateurish observation as possible would mean that, in this hypothetical context, Josephus did know about Christianity, or at least some potential source for what would be Christianity in the future.

But I don't think you're appreciating what Michael was getting at. Basically in a nut shell Josephus was aware of Christian-esque beliefs about logos that foretold the end of Temple sacrifice; and Josephus is rationalizing these beliefs as "signs" that pointed to the Temple destruction.

Is all of this just blind speculation and a grouping around in the dark? You bet. It could all be wrong. But I think to argue in good faith we should recognize the context in which we discuss our respective ideas

[MrMacSon]

Basically, in a nut shell, Josephus was aware of Christian-esque beliefs about logos that foretold the end of Temple sacrifice; and Josephus is rationalizing these beliefs as "signs" that pointed to the Temple destruction.

Is all of this just blind speculation and a grouping around in the dark? You bet. It could all be wrong. But I think to argue in good faith we should recognize the context in which we discuss our respective ideas.

Well, somewhat analogous to how we 'understand' contents of the Pauline letters in light of our knowledge of the canonical gospels, whether subconscious or not, we also 'understand' Josephus in light of Christianity (which, loosely, is probably why his works were so well preserved cf, say, Justus of Tiberias, secretary of King Agrippa II).

Yet I agree, aspects of Josephus's commentaries do align with what became Christianity. As do aspects of Philo of Alexandria's commentaries and exegesis of Hebrew theology. And Josephus was doing theology and exegesis. Ted Weeden thought that Josephus's account of Jesus ben Ann was based on aspects of the book of Jeremiah.

But it was easy for Josephus, after the facts, to portray events before the facts as prophecy, as early Christians seem to have done.

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 [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, 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!"

The rhetoric therein is quite something, especially, "what is still more terrible ..."

[Joseph D. L.]

Indeed. My entire methodology or experiment has been an attempt to disentangle how we think in the context of Christianity so as to get to a purer understanding of it. Maybe I was wrong.

Could Josephus himself be doing the same thing? He is doing something similar with his account of signs? He is as the same time bad mouthing his people while maintaining that these miraculous phenomena were specially given to them. Maybe Josephus and early Christians are caught in the same contextual minutia.