But Josephus never says he knew Jesus or the he knew anyone who knew Jesus. He simply says that there are these Christians out there who believe in this Jesus fellow--which is not controversial in the least. (What is controversial, however, is the legitimacy of those lines of Jojo's. Many people think they were inserted by Eusebius of Caesarea, the notorious hagiographer/Constantine's panegyrist.)
It remains true that we have NO record, at all, of anyone, not even in the Gospels, who claims to have walked, talked, eaten, with Jesus--or known anyone who walked, talked, eaten, etc. with Jesus. If you ignore the Christian faith's insistence on the historicity of Jesus and look at the evidence in the same way you look at other historical personalities, he comes off as a quasi-mystical sage figure, like Apollonius of Tyana.
For me that takes nothing away from the Jesus message, which, though I'm not a Christian, is still pretty cool (or at least parts of it).![]()
There is plenty of question whether Jesus existed. All those magic acts and widespread agitation and attracting the attention of the Roman and Jewish elite and yet no contemporary bothered to write about it?
'Paul' never even mentioned any of the earthly activities of this figure but refered only to supernatural events. A physical place (Judea) is transformed by the gospels into a Never-Never Land where the writers who are supposedly natives cannot even get basic geography or socio-political settings right.
Not so strange.
Until the destruction of the second temple , it was on the Temple sacerdots that the taboo of cultural purity fell on, while Pharisaic views were various and often etherodox.
Also, being "Roman citizen" did not mean "to worship the Roman Pantheon", but was rather an honorific title that was often granted to (or buyed by) influential citizen.
You must see him more as an intellectual being strongly influence by hellenistic models (and integrated in the upper level society) rather than aclose-minded integralist
The Pharisees believed that the Mosiac Law was more important than the Kohanim and the Temple itself. They were also opposed to foreign influences, such as Hellenism, and definately Roman values with. The elitist Saducees, however, had been receptive to Hellenistic values, as to maintain a solid rapport with their Seleucid and Ptolemy neighbours, and later Roman overlords. This tendency further deepened their animosity to the Pharisees, although both sects had membership of the Sanhedrin.
If anything, the only Jews that would have been granted Roman citizenship, would have been a minority of Hellenized Diaspora Jews, perhaps those in Alexandria, and maybe a few loyalists of the Herodian Dynasty, whose' foreign roots alone would have prevented them from membership of the Temple or the Sanhedrin. The Romans needed a local civil bureaucracy to assist them in governing a native populace, and while the Temple Kohanim might go as far as to levy tribute, they were an ancient and autonomous organ of state that the Romans only tolerated to ensure the Judean people's complicity. The Romans needed local Jewish aristocrats whom were loyal to the Empire first before the Priesthood. And even if Romanized Jewish civil servants were given dispensation from sacrificing to the Emperor's genius or the state gods of Rome, they might still be expected to donate to the temples, if this went in their favour. This priveliged status of Roman citizenship had its share of obligations, which would possibly set them apart from the other Jews, and certainly from the nationalist/populist-leaning Pharisees.
And as for "St Paul", he cannot be both a Pharisee AND a Roman citizen. According the the Jewish Encyclopedia, the theory is presented that he was a "Hellenist", or perhaps a Hellenized Jew. Any road, whosoever wrote in his name must have had a shaky grasp of Judaism and its philosophic distinctions.
As I said I think you are confusing after-the-temple-destruction-Pharisees with before-the-temple-destruction-Pharisees.
In any case, since it seems that the Paul/Saul argument sidetracked the thread, I propose to open a new one on that.
What about Russell Crowe? Doesn't he deserve honorary mention!?![]()
Who probably considered himself a siceliote (sicilian greek) rather than a roman, anywayA farmer in 200 BC Sicily.