TedM wrote:
If it was 50% unnamed, 50% named then its a coin flip and it wouldn't matter, but if it was ununusal to not name such an individual then having 2 of them show up in very similar stories unnamed greatly increases the likelihood that they are the same person.
There you see the ones he has picked out as "the main ones" :
"Messianic claimants
Although we cannot be certain whether a person in Antiquity was indeed called a Messiah (and by whom), the list of messianic claimants in modern literature seems endless. At the moment, it seems a common idea that ancient Judea and Galilee were crowded with Messiahs. It may have been so, but we simply cannot know. The main problem is that our most important source, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, felt a strong dislike for messianism and knew that the Romans shared this dislike. Consequently, he refused to use the title, except for Jesus of Nazareth. Modern scholars, however, suspect that several people mentioned by Josephus were in fact called Messiah, but it is of course tricky to try to know it better than the ancients. The following men, however, are likely candidates.
1. Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE)
2. Simon of Peraea (4 BCE)
3. Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE)
4. Judas, the Galilean (6 CE)
5. John the Baptist (c.28 CE)
6. Jesus of Nazareth (c.30 CE)
7. The Samaritan prophet (36 CE)
8. King Herod Agrippa (44 CE)
9. Theudas (45 CE)
10. The Egyptian prophet (52-58 CE)
11. An anonymous prophet (59 CE)
12. Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE)
13. John of Gischala (67-70 CE)
14. Vespasian (67 CE)
15. Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE)
16. Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE)
17. Lukuas (115 CE)
18. Simon ben Kosiba (132-135)
19. Moses of Crete (448)"
Number 11. is the one under Festus, that we have already mentioned. Number 7 is the Samaritan Prophet under Pilate. The only other one who doesn't have a name on this list is "the Egyptian."
But you can tell that these people have read very little. This slavish devotion to Josephus 'as if' this is the limit of things that happened in antiquity. It's ridiculous. When the ancients talk about Justus and his lost Chronicle the general point is that it was nothing like Josephus. So again there are all these recorded stories that were never preserved. On top of that Josephus and Justus together likely only covered a fraction of things, events, personalities that took place in the late Second Commonwealth period. Hence the folly of trying to use Josephus to 'decode' the gospel.
The perspective of the gospel writer likely was not the same as either Josephus or Justus. Hence his 'cipher' (if there was one) might not be 'decoded' by a look through Josephus.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias wrote:
Josephus and Justus together likely only covered a fraction of things, events, personalities that took place in the late Second Commonwealth period.
That's^ beside the point, Stephan. That does not mean people should not try to dissect Josephus.
The perspective of the gospel writer likely was not the same as either Josephus or Justus..
Secret Alias wrote:But you can tell that these people have read very little. This slavish devotion to Josephus 'as if' this is the limit of things that happened in antiquity. It's ridiculous. When the ancients talk about Justus and his lost Chronicle the general point is that it was nothing like Josephus. So again there are all these recorded stories that were never preserved. On top of that Josephus and Justus together likely only covered a fraction of things, events, personalities that took place in the late Second Commonwealth period. Hence the folly of trying to use Josephus to 'decode' the gospel.
The perspective of the gospel writer likely was not the same as either Josephus or Justus. Hence his 'cipher' (if there was one) might not be 'decoded' by a look through Josephus.
The war of the Jews is just that: a prosaic, relentless and worthless account of battles ,rebellions and intrigues among the royalty and aristocrats.
The story in the book of Mark is the story of an ordinary religious man preaching a religious message that will find favour with God . This man is now credited with having started Christianity , and Josephus cannot help with the identification of this man.
That does not mean people should not try to dissect Josephus.
I mean, people can do what they want to do. You can try to connect gospel personalities to modern political personalities - Mary is Hillary Clinton. Pilate is Trump. Jesus is Obama. It's lots of fun.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
You can also equate gospel characters with popular musicians from the 20th century, celebrity chefs, famous dictators. There are lots of ways to pass time doing all of these things.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias wrote:
"We live in the modern age where individual 'citizens' (non-academic types) have all the resources available to the academics hidden away in libraries. I don't see why that means that rigorous questioning of hypotheses is off limits or why we shouldn't cross examine hypotheses the way academic theses are questioned."
3 out of 19, so it is not probable that a description of messiah claimant of these times would be nameless. This INCREASES the odds that the two unnamed messianic claimants in the story including the Mount of Olives are one and the same.
Lena Einhorn wrote:
TedM wrote:
If it was 50% unnamed, 50% named then its a coin flip and it wouldn't matter, but if it was ununusal to not name such an individual then having 2 of them show up in very similar stories unnamed greatly increases the likelihood that they are the same person.
There you see the ones he has picked out as "the main ones" :
"Messianic claimants
Although we cannot be certain whether a person in Antiquity was indeed called a Messiah (and by whom), the list of messianic claimants in modern literature seems endless. At the moment, it seems a common idea that ancient Judea and Galilee were crowded with Messiahs. It may have been so, but we simply cannot know. The main problem is that our most important source, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, felt a strong dislike for messianism and knew that the Romans shared this dislike. Consequently, he refused to use the title, except for Jesus of Nazareth. Modern scholars, however, suspect that several people mentioned by Josephus were in fact called Messiah, but it is of course tricky to try to know it better than the ancients. The following men, however, are likely candidates.
1. Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE)
2. Simon of Peraea (4 BCE)
3. Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE)
4. Judas, the Galilean (6 CE)
5. John the Baptist (c.28 CE)
6. Jesus of Nazareth (c.30 CE)
7. The Samaritan prophet (36 CE)
8. King Herod Agrippa (44 CE)
9. Theudas (45 CE)
10. The Egyptian prophet (52-58 CE)
11. An anonymous prophet (59 CE)
12. Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE)
13. John of Gischala (67-70 CE)
14. Vespasian (67 CE)
15. Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE)
16. Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE)
17. Lukuas (115 CE)
18. Simon ben Kosiba (132-135)
19. Moses of Crete (448)"
Number 11. is the one under Festus, that we have already mentioned. Number 7 is the Samaritan Prophet under Pilate. The only other one who doesn't have a name on this list is "the Egyptian."
Secret Alias wrote:But you can tell that these people have read very little. This slavish devotion to Josephus 'as if' this is the limit of things that happened in antiquity. It's ridiculous. When the ancients talk about Justus and his lost Chronicle the general point is that it was nothing like Josephus. So again there are all these recorded stories that were never preserved. On top of that Josephus and Justus together likely only covered a fraction of things, events, personalities that took place in the late Second Commonwealth period. Hence the folly of trying to use Josephus to 'decode' the gospel.
The perspective of the gospel writer likely was not the same as either Josephus or Justus. Hence his 'cipher' (if there was one) might not be 'decoded' by a look through Josephus.
Or, conversely, it might be. What a strange commentary.
I'm not a big fan of pattern-finding, hidden clues, etc as a method for explaining things that are by their nature lacking a lot of evidence but that doesn't mean it is useless. What if the Slavonic Josephus story named his Egyptian "the Egyptian called Jesus"? Wouldn't that be significant? What if the Egyptian was said to be crucified and raised on the third day? Wouldn't that matter? Sometimes the clues are strong enough individually or collectively to be considered very meaningful in the way evidence is to be interpreted and understood.
Last edited by TedM on Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
TedM wrote:
3 out of 19, so it is not probable that a description of messiah claimant of these times would be nameless. This inceases the odds that the two unnamed messianic claimants in the story including the Mount of Olives are one and the same.
It also raises the questions of whether they were deliberately left nameless by (i) the author (Josephus), or (ii) by a redactor of Josephus's texts.
eta -
The main problem is that our most important source, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, felt a strong dislike for messianism and knew that the Romans shared this dislike.
