Kishkumen wrote:Calculus Crusader wrote:Also, I would expect a pensioned encomiast/historian of the Flavians who lived in Rome to know Roman administration, especially concerning his homeland, quite well.
Then, you are expecting way too much, and you are probably wrong. The question is whether he would know the conditions of the administration of Judea decades before he wrote. His connection with the Flavians doesn't do that much to bolster his credibility where such knowledge is concerned. It is like expecting Suetonius to get things right simply because he had been one of Hadrian's secretaries before he was dismissed. Often Suetonius was wrong, but he was both a Roman and very close to the court of Hadrian. You simply can't expect that Josephus got it right for the reasons you suggest.
Josephus wrote later in the first century but he was born shortly after Jesus Christ was crucified (and resurrected). Moreover, he was a prominent Jew who was chosen as part of an embassy to Nero and later as a general of the revolutionary forces. Finally, with the Flavians as his patrons, he would have had access to the Acta Senatus.
Calculus Crusader wrote:I'm not sure that you can entirely rule out such an approach in Judea.
Do you have anything more compelling than "can't rule it out"?
No.
Calculus Crusader wrote:No, they are crackpots.
Yes, that would be so easy for you. But there is really nothing wrong with testing assumptions about historical data generated in antiquity. In fact, those who put such questions to the test, instead of merely assuming they are facts, do their historian colleagues a real service.
I guess there is no harm in asking the question. There is, however, something very wrong with clinging to erroneous claims. See below.
Calculus Crusader wrote:He [i.e., Bob Price] is a fairly amiable guy (or at least that was my experience with him) but a crackpot nonetheless.
I really like Bob. And, frankly, I'll take his expertise over yours any day of the week. But then, I think there is a distinct difference between those who are daring with a serious purpose and those who are merely crackpots.
I attribute that to a lack of sound judgment. In our debate, Bob Price claimed that Irenaeus had a tradition that Jesus lived into the reign of Claudius. I had never heard such a thing before and I said I'd have to look into it. When I did, I quickly found out that his claim was disingenuous. Here is what Irenaeus actually wrote (well, the English translation of what he actually wrote):
Irenaeus wrote:1. I have shown that the number thirty fails them in every respect; too few Æons, as they represent them, being at one time found within the Pleroma, and then again too many [to correspond with that number]. There are not, therefore, thirty Æons, nor did the Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old, for this reason, that He might show forth the thirty silent Æons of their system, otherwise they must first of all separate and eject [the Saviour] Himself from the Pleroma of all. Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they endeavour to establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, “To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution”), being truly blind, inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words.
...
4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God —infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,” the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.
5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus,] they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,” when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their Æons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma;
Obviously, either someone before him or Irenaeus himself has engaged in some remarkably dumb exegesis to arrive at an age of about fifty for Jesus; there is no "tradition" here and it was disingenuous for Bob Price to suggest otherwise. Not only that, but the way Bob Price worded his claim was disingenuous, i.e., "lived into the reign of Claudius" because it suggests that the "tradition" includes some historical detail, which is does not.
More to come...
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxiii.html