SO if I finally read something, and I conclude that I grokk the Author, then I can determine What History was?? No: just because I think smthg doesn't make it true (=History). Or are you claiming that as your own superpower, smthg unique to you?For me, the whole TF thing is legit because I finally read Josephus myself and I know what author I’m dealing with.
When I taught English in Eastern Europe (a generation ago), I encountered this level of irrationality quite often. How could they be so excellent in math & science? Words fail.
Evidence is required. Or a logical time-frame, for a working hypothesis. You build an argument for plausibility based upon period sources and archaeology (i.e. what've been found), not on fleeting, unmoored 'beliefs of your mind.' I'm also entitled to my own weird speculations -- god save me from believing my own bullshit, though.
Your whole market-thesis follows, shockingly oblivious and consumed by hubris. "Early Christian authors are people from the world of mass content, just like me" is a statement divorced from reality -- I mean, the movable-type Printing Press began ~1440 AD (1350 yrs later) but the first mass-produced book was only ~185 copies. Someone cannot even imagine actual book production c.90 AD, such as it was, to make these wild, spurious claims. Au contraire!
Start here:
Atticus is described by Cicero as an exemplary Roman, just and honorable, scholarly and generous to his friends. Originally from Athens, the man who came to be known to history by his cognomen Atticus rose to prominence by employing an enormous staff of librarii, or copying slaves. According to Cicero’s letters, he was successful enough in his trade to allow his friends, namely Cicero, to use the services of his slaves free of charge. However, most Roman booksellers were not so charitable with the authors whose works they sold, as evidenced by the remarks of the very same authors on the way their books were sold. Even Horace, viewed by many classicists as a softer writer, described booksellers as pimps and his works as prostitutes, saying that his poems were “on the game, all tarted up with the cosmetics of Sosius & Co.” The ire which poets such as Horace directed at the booksellers was largely baseless, however, as successful authors enjoyed lives of luxury courtesy of their wealthy patrons. However, Horace’s metaphor still holds true for the relationship between shop owners and their librarii. As the slaves labored without pay with bent backs and cramped hands, vendors such as Atticus charged the same amount it took to feed a family of four for a year at a time for a high-quality copy of 500 lines.
... the clearest differences between ancient book production and the modern literary economy lie in the target audience of the works produced, and the human effect of the production of the works themselves. Due to the high cost of papyrus, the high profit margins of the booksellers, and the literary culture of the time, scrolls in antiquity were exclusively created for the wealthy. Well-documented in both primary sources and secondary analysis, the private readings held by both authors and their patrons were decadent affairs intended to support the prestige and social standing of the host. As stated above, the cost of a high-quality work equated the cost of feeding a family of four for a year, so the possession of even a modest collection of literary works was an extravagance only the most upper-class Romans could afford.
In 90 AD, books were not common; they were quite rare and extremely expensive. They were NOT "mass-produced" for yokels, the Good Slaves. A book was unknown, circulated by reputation sloooooooowly, and then became popular/known/referenced decades later (not years.) In fact, assuming the Testimonium Flavianum was written 94 AD, it was not securely referenced by any other writer until Eusebius in 324 AD: 230 years later. Absolutely nothing supports the claim the TF was "popular" before then: wiki tells us "it is not until Jerome's De Viris Illustribus (c. AD 392) that the passage from Josephus is referenced again, even though the Testimonium's reference to Jesus would seem appropriate in the works of many intervening patristic authors." To imagine the wild popularity for the TF in the 1st, 2nd or even 3rd Cs -- what you insist -- is otherwise baseless, utterly bizarre.
Accept reality as it was. UNLIKE our mass-produced culture of the instant, in Roman days the popularity of a book title grew very very slowly: over about 30-60 years. To instigate your fabulous chain of events, just No: there's no way that Josephus/TF could have been the ground-breaking, singular source for the entire Xian movement and without the attention of (i.e. evidence in) any Patristic Authors until ~300 AD.
Your "History" isn't; the idea is incontrovertibly illogical, sorry.
Statistics: Posted by billd89 — Tue May 28, 2024 12:21 pm