Reliable history in the Bible

I think that deserves a 24-hour suspension, Dr. B, for completely derailing the topic.

O.k., you`re forgiven this once.

Thank you so much sir(?).Not sure I understood the thread as it was but have recently renewed my interest in Assyia's role versus ancient Israel. That was the connection which interested me in this thread in the first place.Seems to me the prophet Elijah was in the employ of a major empire; one which was content to interfere in both the Israeli and Syrian governments.

quote:

---

"And the LORD said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael [to be] king over Syria: And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint [to be] king over Israel:" 1 Kings 19:15,16

---

Elijah is instructed to interfere with warring nations at the highest level of government. Not the sort of thing I think my "God" would be inclined to do, given that he is supposed to be a peace loving soul.Then there is the matter of who could get away with such action. We are aware that both Necho of Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon took down and set up kings of Israel (and/or Judah). This we accept as inevitable. An emperor (a king of kings) does that sort of thing. Itinerate preachers wandering through the desert do not do that sort of thing.Earlier in his career (as spokesman for the emperor) Elijah had orchestrated the murder of 450 dignitaries purportedly in the employ of Jezebel, queen of Israel, and daughter of a Phoenician king. Subsequently, Elijah ran for his life when the queen threatened him with the same fate. He ran and hid in a cave. The LORD (or his agent {Gk. angel-}) caught up with him there, and persuaded him to go back to work. Later we find him setting up (and by inference: taking down) kings in two separate countries which are at war with each other (and continued at war with each other for a hundred years).What sort of monarch puts up with that shi* from a meddling itinerate preacher working both sides of the fence?NONE. That's what sort.But from an Imperial Ambassador? The most interesting thing in all this, from my perspective, is the inference that "the LORD," in this case at least, appears to refer to an emperor: perhaps of the Assyrian empire; possibly of the Egyptian; clearly someone at odds with Phoenicia. Consider this in light of the fact that KURIE was a term applied to Alexander (during the era when Jews translated their holy scripture to Greek) and you have a very suggestive thought which tends to a revision of the nature and character of Jehovah himself. (He is called "a man" on more than one occasion you know)How this plays to the historicity of the scripture I can only speculate, with great anticipation of major philisophic coup.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Here is a very interesting link.I cant paste the Testimonium Flavianum because it uses an odd highlighting format code that wont past.But the highlighting makes the critically disputed sections stand out.Its the first thing in the link.http://www.geocities.com/...k2000/Jesus_pages/HistJesus3.htmAfter the Josephus quotes, here are some snips"The Testimony of Josphus is the most important extra Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus, owing to the fact that he is our most authoritative source for events of the first century in Palestine. For this reason, sketpics are adimate about denying the authenticity of the two passages in which Joephus mentions Jesus. Often one will hear skeptics entone some statment to the effect that, "no serious scholar accepts that passage," or "all real scholars know that it was made up." Often they don't even bother with the notion that the passage was "tweeked" to include Christian sentiments. They blythly accept the idea that the whole thing was made up and Josephus never mentioned Jesus at all. It is far from the truth that most scholars agree with that. In fact most scholars now days agree that there is a core passage mentioning Jesus, but that it was added to with christian phrases such as "if it be lawful to call him a man," and the like.Even the major atheist amature scholar of the secular web, Jeff Lowder, agrees that the passage is genuine, at least in its core."In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. " He quotes Louis Feldman as saying that the authenticity of the James passage in Jospehus "has been almost universally acknowledged."(Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.)As to the major passage, the "TF," Most scholars agree that it at least has a core of authenticity, but has been reworked. Thus most scholars agree that Jospheus does at least mention someone named Jesus of Nazerath who probably give rise to the Christian movment. According to Louis H. Feldman in "The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question" in Christological Perspectives, Robert F. Berkey and Sarah A. Edwards (New York: Pilgrim, 1982) there are liberal scholars who leave the entire passage intact! (e.g. A.M. Dubarle, the French scholar). Feldman's count: 4 scholars regard as completely genuine, 6 mostly genuine; 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.[ Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. P. 684-91]"There is alot of neat information in the rest of this link.I do find this interesting because 100 years ago, there werent any secular scholars who accepted the Josephus references as anything but fraudulent Christian editing.Wikipedia covers that angle IIRC.Wikipedia described it as something like one of the greatest scholarly turn-arounds in history.

Josephus was a gossip-monger. Look at the tattle-tales he spreads of relatively minor characters of that time. You think he would only report a few lines on the Messiah, the Anointed one, the savior expected by all Jews under Roman oppression? For all his defection to the Roman way of life, sucking up to Titus for release of his friends, he still started life as a rebel and a Jew.

Sigh, seriously please go to a real website, geocities is the scum of the web.most of the claims made about josphus are not quite what this site is claiming, nore are they anywhere close to what historians say josphus, the lines are still hotly debated and questioned about thier authantisityfor one thing the claimed text says jesus "the christ" well josphus was a jew, why would he consider jesus to be the messiah?
josphus is pointing out that a man named jesus existed in passing, who like so many others was claimed to be the messiah, not that he wasand that thing about jeff lowder is misleading jeff says he agrees witht he guy for using it as evidence of some person named jesus, but not the whole thing as it is claim on ths sitewho ever wrote this site is confusing the two passages, the TF is claimed to be accepted as authentic, at least the parts that wrn't added and jeff considers them a retelling of history about christians theres a lot of information alone on this snip that twists what jeff says well yes thought evolves as we learn things, jesus may have been a real person, but not one historian outside of people trying to prove thier beliefs, considers jesus the person to be equal to saying everything in the NT happened as was written, namely noone says jesus existing makes him the christ or the son of god

But none of that addresses the question of whether or not Jesus really existed. It is akin to saying that many people know the story of King Arthur.Josephus is merely saying that "Here is what people say...".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Right. It's important for us to remember that Josephus wasn't even born until 4 to 8 years after Jesus died. I mean sure, I could write a story based on what I've heard about Kennedy, but in a world without much literacy, no newspapers or media, that's pretty sketchy.Off topic, but interesting - it's quite possible, even likely, that most of us on this board are direct descendants of Josephus, so we're talking about our GGGGG...GGgreat grandfather.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

.... I would be FAR more concerned with what L. Feldman has to say on the issue.Brill has a commentary series on Josephus, and books 1-4 are commented on by from Feldman,and perhaps more(I dont know, I only have the paperback of the Book 1-4 commentary,all are under single cover).Feldman is the top of his field.And he isnt a Christian(not that I would discriminate against a scholar for their views,its their skills that I appreciate).Next issue....Does it prove the NT Gospels?No, but it sure does prove that shortly after Christ died (2 generations at most), people already had beliefs that seemed to indicate the events happened(though it isnt overwhelming evidence alone).Were 2 generations at most (and infact Josephus would have access to people who lived while Christ did)enough time for myths to be created over a man?It just becomes more evidence that nay-saying people must make excuses about in-order to maintain thir ability to ignore.

ReverendDG Again, I would pay more attention to the parts that document what Feldman has said.Feldman is actually quite good at parsing what scholars believe exactly(it seems he is the only one to take a mini-survey , though if you email him he will tell you that he hasnt ever taken a massive "head-count" but feeels that around 80% accept the TF as authentic Josephus comments in-part).The debate is around TF and the website (I linked to) is very much aware of that.At the time, 10% of the 40 scholars believed it (the TF) to be 100% authentic Josephus words.That is amazing considering how extreme the statement would be.

This is essentially the point made by G. A. Wells.Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.

I rhink that it is beign overly-skeptical to deny that there was some person behind the Biblical figure of Jesus. How closely the real person was a match for the Biblical stories is hard to say. There's no real doubt that the Gospels are highly partisan, and that there was significant time for legend-making between the events ansd the time they were written. It's all but certain that the Gospels include exaggerations and even fictions.

yes maybe from somewhere that isn't so mangled i'd like to see some info from him then, rather than from somewhere i don't have trust in yes that is true, what he produces is more important than why, but i like cross examaning his stuff before accepting it which events though? that there was a guy named jesus who died on a cross? and he had a brother named james? i would agree that kernel may have happened, but thats barely any of the NTtheres no indication he knew anyone from that time, the two lines in no way indicate this, he could have just heard about jesus through hear-say, i mean even the line about james is only in passing, like "so-and-so brother of so-and-so died in blablah blah"
why do you think he knew anyone who knew him? the TF reads like a factoid.and how does the fact that people started to believe in jesus in two generations indicate anything? we have stories about santa that didn't exist one generation ago, that people think have always existed
its amazing to me how blind people can be, i mean really? people came up with alagators in the sewers 20 years ago and they never existed, but people believe it!
i mean hell in kansas, people believe an old church is a spot satan will show up on halloweeen, called stulli mean come on, people will believe anything, yet you are amazed how fast myths can spring up? the evidence is miniscue compared to the lack of evidence, at least 95% of the claims made about the historic jesus is wrong or distorted, the TF and the james line are the only ones that are debated, the rest is eather flat out lies or distortions of what the author meant, which is eather about christians or about what they believe not what they believe is truebtw i'm not ignoring it, i have read it all and can plainly see most of it wrong

yes the TF is considered authentic, i never denied it, but parts of it are not considered authentic, the stuff about jesus, was in the context of history, jesus was a man, a great teacher, had followers, and was exucuted by pilate sometime before josphus lived.but most historians know that jophus was first a jew, then a scholor, so no he would never call jesus the christ, he would consider it mimim of him to do so, and worthy of death, i mean josphus even says jesus was the christ! he wouldn't do that he was trying to keep the peace and make jews less of a targetheres an interesting thing:Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).
the lines considered by texual historians is in capsheres an arabic version of the same text:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wondersthe arabic verion seems more like how a historian might write it, theres no oponion in that one, and it seems logical to me, the other one sounds like an envangelical wrote it, which flavus was not one more than likely they didn't have more than one exmaple of it, most of them came from christian priests from the 3-4 century and were exagerated and incompletethe arabic text helps though, it does show that a person named jesus with followers, who was a great teacher existed and was cruxified.
does that mean he was the messiah or son of god or did all the things the NT says or was born of a virgin or died on passover?no, it does not, infact it makes him a man, nothing more, with a bunch of myths sucked from other religions glued to himedit:i reread the page again, the author of that site makes misleading and flatout wrong statements of most skeptics, most skeptics, who know a damn thing about josphus wouldn't say its all made up or wrong. they would say as i have that, he wouldn't call jesus the messiah or christ, or any of that junk, he would say people thought he was the messiahskeptics who don't bother to do research on the texts or read what is considered true or not might consider them both frauds, but they arn't doing it because of the text, but just plain not wanting it to be true, but not every is like thati've read everything on this i can and most if not all historians consider the lines true for the most part with christian editing later, just like a lot of textsEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

The Jesus character could be a literary device by which the Jewish struggle for autonomy may be told in sympathetic terms.It is possible that the story combines the collective character and experience of many young men; many would-be Saviours acted out in the name of one character; thus enriching the story and broadening its appeal. It is that much more glamorous that his name is Joshua (Greek - 'iesus) the glorious General who once kicked butt all over the promised land; killing off the enemies of Israel and their women, and their old men, and their little boys, and their ... errrr ... (psst: save the little girls for Jehovah). Yes, the "Prince of Peace" is named for a zenophobic, womanizing, genocidal maniac. But that's OK. He won't actually start killing non-Jews till next time.One may think the old man is off his rocker here but consider the bonafide mission of Christ: to renew the kingdom (i.e. the soverignty).

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -