Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Poor Josephus. He is made to bear such a burden of evidence for the sake of Jesus. Socrates’ burden on the other hand is very light. People who knew Socrates wrote about him and we can read their accounts today. Some of these people tell us they were his students and devoted followers. Another was … Continue reading “Socrates, Jesus and the broken reed of Josephus”
Continuing from my previous two posts my little roll on Jesus Not A Myth by “anti-mythicist” A. D. Howell Smith (1942). . . . I love reading those book reviews that introduce me to the arguments under review. I have read many worthless reviews that pique my interest in their subjects despite their efforts to … Continue reading “How they used to debate the evidence of Josephus for the historical Jesus”
It is easy for both historicists and mythicists to to descend to shallow proof-texting when arguing over the significance of Paul’s reference to James, the brother of the Lord, as evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I am not attempting here in this post to cover all the arguments. I only want to address the … Continue reading “Applying Sound Historical Methodology to “James the Brother of the Lord””
Much ado is made of this phrase about “Jesus who is called Christ” — that second reference in Josephus to Jesus. Many hang a lot of weight on it and even say it is the clinching evidence that proves Josephus knew of and spoke about Jesus in more detail elsewhere. By identifying James here as … Continue reading “That ‘brother of Jesus who is called Christ’ storm in Josephus’s teacup”
Whenever someone says Josephus is evidence for Jesus, a misperception of the facts is at work. The fact is that people express opinions about the evidence we read in Josephus. It is someone’s opinion that what is found in Josephus can or should be interpreted as a reference to the historical Jesus. There is no clear evidence … Continue reading “What they used to say about Josephus as evidence for Jesus”
Continued from “The Brother of Jesus called Christ”: another Eusebian footprint in Josephus? . . . . (arguing reasons to believe the “called Christ” reference in book 20 of Antiquities by Josephus was not original to Josephus) Writing his commentary on Matthew around the 220’s, and in reference to James, Origen gives us our first … Continue reading “Brother of Jesus called Christ / 2”
There are several reasons for thinking the Jesus reference in Book 18 of Antiquities by Jewish historian Josephus is a forgery (or at least related to a marginal gloss imported into the main text by a copyist), and most would agree that it is at least a partial forgery. Those who think that Josephus made … Continue reading ““The brother of Jesus called Christ”: another Eusebian footprint in Josephus?”
The following time line of the evidence for Josephus’s mention of Jesus (The Testimonium Flavianum) was prompted as part of my preparation to address the discussion by Eddy and Boyd in The Jesus Legend. I will save my comments on how this timeline reflects on their evaluation of the evidence of Josephus till I next … Continue reading “The Jesus reference in Josephus: its ad hoc doctoring and various manuscript lines”
There are two passages in Josephus that refer to Jesus Christ. The first one in Book 18 of his “Antiquities of the Jews” is widely known as the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) (=the testimony of Flavius Josephus). Another, in Book 20, is a briefer reference but it is cited in major works as authentic to Josephus, … Continue reading “That other suspect entry in Josephus”
Continuing from https://vridar.org/2023/10/01/a-dialog-with-chatgpt-on-christian-origins/ Me: What, if anything, changes, if we introduce the need for independent corroboration? ChatGPT: The requirement for independent corroboration significantly tightens the standards for historical verification. If historians strictly demand independent sources to corroborate each event or claim, it can add more confidence to their conclusions but also presents challenges: Higher Confidence … Continue reading “Continuing Dialog with ChatGPT — historical methods”
Theological Explanation of the Gospels Die theologische Erklärung der Evangelien by Bruno Bauer 1852 II. Strauss’ tradition hypothesis. Topic headings in the text below are my additions to Bauer’s text. 68 The proposition that language is the man and the word is the thing remains valid even when the language of a point of view … Continue reading “BRUNO BAUER: Theological Explanation of the Gospels – II. Strauss’s tradition hypothesis”
125 8. The Composition of Acts of the Apostles Let us especially keep in mind the parallelism of Peter and Paul, then the undeniable testimonies that speak for the fact that the miracles of both apostles are intentionally and with full consciousness copied from the miracle reports of the Gospels, finally the artistic machinery that … Continue reading “8. The Composition of Acts of the Apostles”
183 IV. The House of Flavia and Judaism. I. The Invasion of the West by the East. Rome was not able to enjoy its power, at its peak, with a joyful heart. In the rising and setting of the sun, there were images of terror and danger that it did not feel capable of facing … Continue reading “BRUNO BAUER: Christ and the Caesars – IV. The House of Flavia and Judaism”
Note the historicizing imagination at work…. We find this same phenomenon with Chateaubriand. He writes at the beginning of the fifth part of his Itinerary from Paris to Jerusalem: On October 10, early in the morning, I left Jerusalem through the Ephraim Gate, always accompanied by my trusted Ali, with the aim of examining the … Continue reading “The Gospels as Figurative Narratives (Charbonnel continued)”