Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And a cross -check is that the 'predictions' follow in a rather oracular way the history of the Selucids, their wars with Ptolemaic Egypt and their interference in Judea, including the 'cutting off if the messiah' which is now thought to refer to the removal of Onias the high priest by Antiochus Epiphanes, who looted the temple treasure, proscribed the Jewish religion and set up his statue in the Temple. This 'Abomination of desolation' is particularly interesting as the intention by Gaus (Caligula) to set up his own statue in the Temple at Jerusalem might have been seen as the history of the Maccabean revolt repeating itself - but against the Romans, rather than the Greeks. And it is in this context that the revolts of the time and the throwing up of various messianic figures - including John the Baptist and Jesus - should be seen.
Ok I had a read through Josephus, and you are right in that Archelaus deposed Joazar after he returned from Rome to Judea. But that seems to be the only time he did so. The Jewish war doesn't seem to deal with the appointment of High priests, so I don't see a conflict there, unless there are some backflashes in the chapters about Roman Judea.
Trans if Archelaus deposed Joazar after he returned from Rome to Judea (and I agree Josephus says this) and it is the only time Archelaus did so; what do you do with where Josephus says he deposed Joazar BEFORE he went to Rome?
Quote:
So it looks to me as though Joazar is appointed by Archelaus (or perhaps Herod) and is then replaced by his brother Eleazar, who was soon replaced by Ben Sie. The dating is not made clear, but is during the time 4 BC, when Archelaus became ruler of Judea to 6 Ad when he was deposed and Judea became a Roman province.
I might guess that Archelaus returned when Varus had put down the revolts, then dismissed Joazar (as you said) and Eleazar and Ben Sie followed in short order. Vipsanianus was governor of Syria from 1 Bc so I suppose the revolts were done and dusted by then, Archelaus was back and had dismissed Joazar, and Eleazar and appointed Ben Sie.
I would agree that this took place around 3 or 4 BC.
Quote:
To answer your question, it was these revolts that Archelaus accused Joazar of being involved in.
I would agree again. However you have not dealt with Archelaus deposing Joazar BEFORE he went to Rome.
Quote:
Just how Joazar got the job back I don't know, but perhaps the Jewish war or some other record says that he was deposed when Archelaus was removed from the throne. The point is that there till only seems to be two terms as High Priest for Joazar and nothing to show that Josephus is getting anything wrong.
Comments?
How indeed did Joazar get his job back, not once but twice, according to Josephus.
Josephus states Archelaus deposed Joazar BEFORE he went to Rome.
Then what? I guess sometime while Archelaus was in Rome for, lets say 4 months, Joazar got his job back somehow.( highly unlikely) During this 4 month period of time Joazar takes part in the sedition's and when Archelaus returns to Judea he deposes Joazar again for sedition.
Then miracle of miracles (do you believe in miracles) Joazar get his job back again just so Cyranius can depose him again in AD/6.
I just don't buy it.
So then;that makes 3 times Josephus states Joazar was deposed.
Once by Archelaus BEFORE he went to Rome.
Once by Archelaus AFTER he returned to Judea.
And once by Cyranius in AD/6
And like I have said before Trans, (which you have not commented on) I find it highly unlikely that Archelaus would confer the priesthood again on Joazar after taking it away from him for sedition/treason.
And all this when Josephus only ever mentions ONCE that the priesthood was given to Joazar, and that in the days of Herod the great.
Not to be disrespectful, but "Who cares?" All they need to be is "Spiritually Credible."
True. That is why to me it does not matter if the gospels are historically accurate or not. However because I have always liked history I want to see if the gospels are historically accurate or not. More to the point I want to see if Luke is historically accurate as he being a historian I hold to a much higher standard then Mathew and Mark who wrote what they had heard or what had been passed down to them from others via oral traditions.
That is why I do not care if there are differences between Luke and Matthew and Mark. Matthew wrote from oral traditions and those tradition might not have been totally accurate; while Luke being a historian would have looked into the history of things and wrote what he did according to the history of things in order to set straight the record. In other word Luke (and he indicates as much) might have wrote his gospel to set straight any errors that where in Mathew and Mark. That is why I have maintained that each author stands or falls by themselves and the synoptic fashion of looking at the gospels which is used by Christians and atheists alike is misleading to the history of things. The Christians use the synoptic to say see the gospels are historically accurate and the atheist use the synoptic to say see the gospels are not historically accurate. In other word both the Christians and atheists, because of the synoptic, believe that if they can show that there is agreement or disagreement (depending on what each believe) either trust in the whole of what is said or throw out the whole of what is said. It is IMO idiotic from a historical perspective to do that.
Lets just take Josephus for example. I have already showed Josephus is all over the map concerning Joazar. Now if I did what everyone seems to do with the gospels to Josephus I could easily say because of this that the whole of what Josephus says must be thrown out as he cannot even agree with himself. However that would be doing to Josephus exactly what everyone does with the synoptic s.
So where would that leave us historically? Are we then to say we have nothing historically that can be proven?
For me I look at the history of things, both secular and christian, giving both parties a fair reading and see if they can be reconciled. I am actually doing my best to set the historical record straight via the whole (everything I can find written, secular or christian) while other seem intent on trying to prove the gospel records are wrong or the secular records are wrong. IMO that is not a historical approach to things.
Not to be disrespectful, but "Who cares?" All they need to be is "Spiritually Credible."
Not to be dismissive, we care. Now bugger off Respectfully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Trans if Archelaus deposed Joazar after he returned from Rome to Judea (and I agree Josephus says this) and it is the only time Archelaus did so; what do you do with where Josephus says he deposed Joazar BEFORE he went to Rome?
I would agree that this took place around 3 or 4 BC.
I would agree again. However you have not dealt with Archelaus deposing Joazar BEFORE he went to Rome.
How indeed did Joazar get his job back, not once but twice, according to Josephus.
Josephus states Archelaus deposed Joazar BEFORE he went to Rome.
Then what? I guess sometime while Archelaus was in Rome for, lets say 4 months, Joazar got his job back somehow.( highly unlikely) During this 4 month period of time Joazar takes part in the sedition's and when Archelaus returns to Judea he deposes Joazar again for sedition.
Then miracle of miracles (do you believe in miracles) Joazar get his job back again just so Cyranius can depose him again in AD/6.
I just don't buy it.
So then;that makes 3 times Josephus states Joazar was deposed.
Once by Archelaus BEFORE he went to Rome.
Once by Archelaus AFTER he returned to Judea.
And once by Cyranius in AD/6
And like I have said before Trans, (which you have not commented on) I find it highly unlikely that Archelaus would confer the priesthood again on Joazar after taking it away from him for sedition/treason.
And all this when Josephus only ever mentions ONCE that the priesthood was given to Joazar, and that in the days of Herod the great.
I dealt with this extensively on the Historical Jesus thread.
(1) Joazar was deposed only Once before Archelaus went to Rome. You are confusing him with Herod sacking Matthias.
(2) he does seem to have been restored so the Romans could get rid of him. That it seems improbable to you is nothing like enough reason to say Josephus was wrong, and, if he could be right about twice, why not three times? I can think of a very good explanation, if required, but in fact it isn't.
(3) and if he was wrong - so what? I am still waiting for an answer. I know what it is - where faith comes under pressure Evidence must be thrown in the bin, even if it means claiming to have won arguments that you didn't.
(4) double standards. Assuming we agree that Joazar was deposed only after Archelaus left for Rome, then your attempt to discard Josephus in favour of Luke (don't tell me that isn't what this is about) is based on the very thin case of your doubts that two terms of office are credible - even if Josephus says so.
Well, old chum, I find a Roman census tax in Herodian Judea and Galilee even more dubious -and Josephus doesn't mention it. so by your standards, we should discard that argument while still discussing Joazar's re-appointment. But we don't do we. We still have you appealing to Luke 'correcting' Matthew (which of course makes Matthew wrong) and 'oral tradition' as excuses for trying to make his account work. In fact old sprune, the only reason his nativity is not the most unworkable of the two is because Matthew's is even worse.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-02-2016 at 07:03 AM..
True. That is why to me it does not matter if the gospels are historically accurate or not. However because I have always liked history I want to see if the gospels are historically accurate or not.
True. That is why to me it does not matter if the gospels are historically accurate or not. However because I have always liked history I want to see if the gospels are historically accurate or not. More to the point I want to see if Luke is historically accurate as he being a historian I hold to a much higher standard then Mathew and Mark who wrote what they had heard or what had been passed down to them from others via oral traditions.
That is why I do not care if there are differences between Luke and Matthew and Mark. Matthew wrote from oral traditions and those tradition might not have been totally accurate; while Luke being a historian would have looked into the history of things and wrote what he did according to the history of things in order to set straight the record. In other word Luke (and he indicates as much) might have wrote his gospel to set straight any errors that where in Mathew and Mark. That is why I have maintained that each author stands or falls by themselves and the synoptic fashion of looking at the gospels which is used by Christians and atheists alike is misleading to the history of things. The Christians use the synoptic to say see the gospels are historically accurate and the atheist use the synoptic to say see the gospels are not historically accurate. In other word both the Christians and atheists, because of the synoptic, believe that if they can show that there is agreement or disagreement (depending on what each believe) either trust in the whole of what is said or throw out the whole of what is said. It is IMO idiotic from a historical perspective to do that.
Lets just take Josephus for example. I have already showed Josephus is all over the map concerning Joazar. Now if I did what everyone seems to do with the gospels to Josephus I could easily say because of this that the whole of what Josephus says must be thrown out as he cannot even agree with himself. However that would be doing to Josephus exactly what everyone does with the synoptics.
So where would that leave us historically? Are we then to say we have nothing historically that can be proven?
For me I look at the history of things, both secular and christian, giving both parties a fair reading and see if they can be reconciled. I am actually doing my best to set the historical record straight via the whole (everything I can find written, secular or christian) while other seem intent on trying to prove the gospel records are wrong or the secular records are wrong. IMO that is not a historical approach to things.
That's a good reply to Mystic, who, if he has no interest in the matter, can go to some other thread that interests him.
Now, I won't critique your methods and rationale, but rather give mine. History is important, if anything is, as it tells us who we are. The further back we go, the more mythical the records get, because their purpose was different. This is to deflect any attempt to force on us an insistence of everything in history being reliable. That's why historians argue, yet a consensus comes out and different accounts can be very helpful.
That's why four gospels are handy. The Bible reads like a history, and indeed it is, if a life of Caesar or Alexander is also a history (and you all know what I mean so the practitioners of semantic dickering in the hope of scoring cheap points can save it).
Now Palaeontology and archaeology has pretty much done for the credibility of the O.T, even where it is based on fact. The Paul quote (though I think much misunderstood) hit the nail on the head. "If there is no resurrection, then your faith is in vain.." While the nativity is probably better as an example of made up couple of tales (1) the resurrection, when it went down the tube (as it did) took Christianity with it ( see the 'Fool of a Took clip)
But that isn't enough. There's still Mark and John, even if you toss out Matthew and Luke. That is why showing Gospel unreliability and fabrication doesn't answer all the questions. Understanding and demonstrating that all the gospels had a common origin and what that was tells us about the historical facts, and what is discarded is fiction, does. Or most of them.
At that stage (and even before it ) the 'Faith' excuse can be used, but like all appeals to faith, opting for that rather than the evidence is to opt out of the discussion and stick fingers in ears. What is more common is to fiddle the evidence to fit he faith, and that us what we call 'Lying for Jesus'.
The Nativities are indeed a test case, and we can see here the One shot win set up. If Pneuma can show that Josephus is 'all over the map' it wins the whole argument. Of course, if you lose point after point and win none for gospel credibility 'you do not care'. Faith is what is driving you, and you can't fool me that it is impartial inquiry. Well, that's ok, because I can't deny my preferences in this area. But that doesn't matter. The evidence is what matters, and so far you seem to be losing your arguments and claiming that you won.
Which is why I ask 'so what'. I fact Pneuma old mate, your 'all over the map' claim collapses, and what that means is that you don't have even any bad points for Nativity credibility. I mentioned 'excuses' once or twice. Your line that Luke 'corrects' Matthew is not only disingenuous but dangerous, because it is not only the 'weaving together' of discrepant accounts (1) in a way you would never countenance to reconcile discrepancies in Josephus (nb. google "double standards" - and notably your line 18 of your post.), but - when it gets really serious, has the effect of Luke discrediting all the gospels which it has to correct.
Of course, I know what is really going on. It is smoothing over the massive cracks in the religious edifice with pink apologetics plaster. And I aim to show that cracks are so bit that no amount of plaster will fill them, and what is more with a bit of pushing, the whole edifice falls apart.
p.s appeal to 'Oral traditions' is just the witnesses don't always agree' excuse. And the point is to show that they have to disagree so widely that their credibility is shot either way. But MY point is to show that it isn't oral tradition so much as religious fabrication - and that can be demonstrated.
(1) yep...foopnote this one) and Pneuma has not done a darn thing to make them anything more, including showing Josephus to be 'all over the map'. He has not been shown to contradict himself at all, so far, but the gospels of Matthew and Luke, notably, are indeed all over the map. The conclusions are clear. They are not to be trusted, and their claims not taken as true.
(2) after the event, as important events should have been known to all by the time the first versions of the gospels appeared.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-02-2016 at 07:35 AM..
That's a good reply to Mystic, who, if he has no interest in the matter, can go to some other thread that interests him.
Now, I won't critique your methods and rationale, but rather give mine. History is important, if anything is, as it tells us who we are. The further back we go, the more mythical the records get, because their purpose was different. This is to deflect any attempt to force on us an insistence of everything in history being reliable. That's why historians argue, yet a consensus comes out and different accounts can be very helpful.
That's why four gospels are handy. The Bible reads like a history, and indeed it is, if a life of Caesar or Alexander is also a history (and you all know what I mean so the practitioners of semantic dickering in the hope of scoring cheap points can save it).
Now Palaeontology and archaeology has pretty much done for the credibility of the O.T, even where it is based on fact. The Paul quote (though I think much misunderstood) hit the nail on the head. "If there is no resurrection, then your faith is in vain.." While the nativity is probably better as an example of made up couple of tales (1) the resurrection, when it went down the tube (as it did) took Christianity with it ( see the 'Fool of a Took clip)
But that isn't enough. There's still Mark and John, even if you toss out Matthew and Luke. That is why showing Gospel unreliability and fabrication doesn't answer all the questions. Understanding and demonstrating that all the gospels had a common origin and what that was tells us about the historical facts, and what is discarded is fiction, does. Or most of them.
At that stage (and even before it ) the 'Faith' excuse can be used, but like all appeals to faith, opting for that rather than the evidence is to opt out of the discussion and stick fingers in ears. What is more common is to fiddle the evidence to fit he faith, and that us what we call 'Lying for Jesus'.
The Nativities are indeed a test case, and we can see here the One shot win set up. If Pneuma can show that Josephus is 'all over the map' it wins the whole argument. Of course, if you lose point after point and win none for gospel credibility 'you do not care'. Faith is what is driving you, and you can't fool me that it is impartial inquiry. Well, that's ok, because I can't deny my preferences in this area. But that doesn't matter. The evidence is what matters, and so far you seem to be losing your arguments and claiming that you won.
Which is why I ask 'so what'. I fact Pneuma old mate, your 'all over the map' claim collapses, and what that means is that you don't have even any bad points for Nativity credibility. I mentioned 'excuses' once or twice. Your line that Luke 'corrects' Matthew is not only disingenuous but dangerous, because it is not only the 'weaving together' of discrepant accounts (1) in a way you would never countenance to reconcile discrepancies in Josephus (nb. google "double standards" - and notably your line 18 of your post.), but - when it gets really serious, has the effect of Luke discrediting all the gospels which it has to correct.
Of course, I know what is really going on. It is smoothing over the massive cracks in the religious edifice with pink apologetics plaster. And I aim to show that cracks are so bit that no amount of plaster will fill them, and what is more with a bit of pushing, the whole edifice falls apart.
p.s appeal to 'Oral traditions' is just the witnesses don't always agree' excuse. And the point is to show that they have to disagree so widely that their credibility is shot either way. But MY point is to show that it isn't oral tradition so much as religious fabrication - and that can be demonstrated.
(1) yep...foopnote this one) and Pneuma has not done a darn thing to make them anything more, including showing Josephus to be 'all over the map'. He has not been shown to contradict himself at all, so far, but the gospels of Matthew and Luke, notably, are indeed all over the map. The conclusions are clear. They are not to be trusted, and their claims not taken as true.
(2) after the event, as important events should have been known to all by the time the first versions of the gospels appeared.
Superb stuff as always my old cod-piece. Stand by for gasping, coughing, spluttering and...but....but.....but!
Not to be dismissive, we care. Now bugger off Respectfully.
I dealt with this extensively on the Historical Jesus thread.
(1) Joazar was deposed only Once before Archelaus went to Rome. You are confusing him with Herod sacking Matthias.
Nowhere does Josephus state Archelaus appointed Joazar high priest. Herod the great appointed Joazar high priest after he (Herod the great) deposed Matthias for his part in the eagle statue issue.
Ant.17.6.4
4. But the people, on account of Herod's barbarous temper, and for fear he should be so cruel and to inflict punishment on them, said what was done was done without their approbation, and that it seemed to them that the actors might well be punished for what they had done. But as for Herod, he dealt more mildly with others [of the assembly] but he deprived Matthias of the high priesthood, as in part an occasion of this action, and made Joazar, who was Matthias's wife's brother, high priest in his stead. Now it happened, that during the time of the high priesthood of this Matthias, there was another person made high priest for a single day, that very day which the Jews observed as a fast. The occasion was this: This Matthias the high priest, on the night before that day when the fast was to be celebrated, seemed, in a dream, (7) to have conversation with his wife; and because he could not officiate himself on that account, Joseph, the son of Ellemus, his kinsman, assisted him in that sacred office. But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.
So it is Joazar who Herod the great made high priest in Matthias place. Then after the death of Herod the great the Jews got together and lamented Matthias and those slain by Herod and made a great clamor and desired of Archelaus that he would remove the high priesthood from the one Herod the great had made.
Thus the high priest Archelaus deposed BEFORE he went to Rome was indeed Joazar.
Ant.17.9.1
1. AT this time also it was that some of the Jews got together out of a desire of innovation. They lamented Matthias, and those that were slain with him by Herod, who had not any respect paid them by a funeral mourning, out of the fear men were in of that man; they were those who had been condemned for pulling down the golden eagle. The people made a great clamor and lamentation hereupon, and cast out some reproaches against the king also, as if that tended to alleviate the miseries of the deceased. The people assembled together, and desired of Archelaus, that, in way of revenge on their account, he would inflict punishment on those who had been honored by Herod; and that, in the first and principal place, he would deprive that high priest whom Herod had made, and would choose one more agreeable to the law, and of greater purity, to officiate as high priest.This was granted by Archelaus, although he was mightily offended at their importunity, because he proposed to himself to go to Rome immediately to look after Caesar's determination about him.
Quote:
(2) he does seem to have been restored so the Romans could get rid of him. That it seems improbable to you is nothing like enough reason to say Josephus was wrong, and, if he could be right about twice, why not three times? I can think of a very good explanation, if required, but in fact it isn't.
So you have a good reason for Archelaus to appoint to the high priesthood a traitor. While lets here it.
Quote:
(3) and if he was wrong - so what? I am still waiting for an answer. I know what it is - where faith comes under pressure Evidence must be thrown in the bin, even if it means claiming to have won arguments that you didn't.
I have answer this at least twice so far. Here it is again.
I have said this before. I think Josephus was using 2 (maybe more) different sources to write his histories and wrote what he did thinking the different sources were talking about different rebellions but in actuality they were talking about the SAME rebellion; thus Josephus just got mixed up in what he wrote and made many rebellions out of one or two.
Quote:
(4) double standards. Assuming we agree that Joazar was deposed only after Archelaus left for Rome, then your attempt to discard Josephus in favour of Luke (don't tell me that isn't what this is about) is based on the very thin case of your doubts that two terms of office are credible - even if Josephus says so.
That would be 3 terms and only ONCE does Josephus ever state that the priesthood was conferred on Joazar.
Quote:
Well, old chum, I find a Roman census tax in Herodian Judea and Galilee even more dubious -and Josephus doesn't mention it. so by your standards, we should discard that argument while still discussing Joazar's re-appointment. But we don't do we. We still have you appealing to Luke 'correcting' Matthew (which of course makes Matthew wrong) and 'oral tradition' as excuses for trying to make his account work. In fact old sprune, the only reason his nativity is not the most unworkable of the two is because Matthew's is even worse.
First off you have to get your facts straight. Nowhere does Luke in Luke 2 state anything about a tax. Luke only mentions a registration, but I will get to these points once we have dealt with the Joazar issue.
Trans once I have finished my study on these things I will put together everything and post the results. However I am not ready to do that yet as I still have much to study. Patients my friend and I will get there.
At that stage (and even before it ) the 'Faith' excuse can be used, but like all appeals to faith, opting for that rather than the evidence is to opt out of the discussion and stick fingers in ears. What is more common is to fiddle the evidence to fit he faith, and that us what we call 'Lying for Jesus'.
The Nativities are indeed a test case, and we can see here the One shot win set up. If Pneuma can show that Josephus is 'all over the map' it wins the whole argument. Of course, if you lose point after point and win none for gospel credibility 'you do not care'. Faith is what is driving you, and you can't fool me that it is impartial inquiry. Well, that's ok, because I can't deny my preferences in this area. But that doesn't matter. The evidence is what matters, and so far you seem to be losing your arguments and claiming that you won.
(1) yep...foopnote this one) and Pneuma has not done a darn thing to make them anything more, including showing Josephus to be 'all over the map'. He has not been shown to contradict himself at all, so far, but the gospels of Matthew and Luke, notably, are indeed all over the map. The conclusions are clear. They are not to be trusted, and their claims not taken as true.
Trans I like speaking with you and debating these things; however the last few post all you have done is what amounts to defamation of character. I have told you as plain as I can that I will follow where the evidence leads me, but for some reason ( probably because I am a Christian) you simply do not believe me thinking I am trying to fool you so you start with the defamation as you have done above. I have given you no reason for you to state I am trying to win one for the gospels or it is faith that is driving me.
As a matter of fact Trans I don't even need the gospels to show there was a registration in the days of Herod the great. However because this thread is about the credibility of the gospels then of course I will use them also. They are after all historical records, how accurate they are is up to debate and it is what I am looking into.
If I was only going on faith as you assume do you really think I would put so much effort into the historical side of things? I could just say with Mystic all they need to be is spiritually credible and leave it at that, but I don't and I wont, because whether you believe me or not I am a bit of a history buff so would like to see where that history leads me.
So please try to stay away from the defamation of character assaults and stick with the evidence that I provide. We might disagree with each other on the evidence Trans, heck even historians disagree with each other, but lets do so with a little more respect then you have shown me in the last few post.
And if I have attacked your character I do apologize for it and will also do my best to show you more respect.
As for your footnote, you might want to footnote this.
I am not done with Josephus yet, is he really a credible historian or is he a propagandist for the Roman empire, or is he a little of both. I will see where my study leads me and will post the results when I am done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) Joazar get his job back again just so Cyranius can depose him again in AD/6.
Are the Gospels Historically Credible?
Now bugger off 
) the 'Faith' excuse can be used, but like all appeals to faith, opting for that rather than the evidence is to opt out of the discussion and stick fingers in ears. What is more common is to fiddle the evidence to fit he faith, and that us what we call 'Lying for Jesus'.