tanya

It may well be the case, that we will be unable to reconcile this debate, between these two worthy opponents. Thanks to both of you, for helping us (at least, me) to better understand the issues here.

I have also found aa5874's comments to be right on target, and I appreciate Earl's and David's input too.

In my opinion, one I understand is not widely shared on this forum, Josephus did not write about Jesus. In my opinion, the few phrases containing the word Jesus, such as that quoted above by spin, represent interpolations. Accordingly, it makes little sense, from my point of view to argue about this or that nuance of that bit of text, which I view as utter trash, to begin with. The trash does not become more endearing, with our enthusiastic elaboration of its most intimate details.

I acknowledge that maryhelena, among many, many others, has disputed my contention that this passage, ostensibly by Josephus, represents utter fraud, as an interpolation, and I cannot fault her for this. I would attempt to present the following, in my defense, i.e. an explanation of WHY I believe that this assertion regarding Josephus' presumed reference to Jesus, represents a simple forgery.

Here are seven, famous, first century CE, authors who wrote about Herakles, but failed to mention Jesus:

1. Philo of Alexandria 20BCE-50CE; Jewish historian, 'On the Embassy to Gaius': XII (86) "But I suppose you imitated Hercules in your unwearied labours and your incessant displays of valour and virtue;"
2. Seneca 4 BCE-65CE, "Hercules Furens", a tragedy.
3. Plutarch 46-120CE; Greek historian: An account of Hercules' life is missing from our extant copy of "Lives", as are Plutarch's accounts of Augustus, Claudius, and Nero, among the dozen men mentioned by Plutarch, but whose biographies are no longer in our possession.
4. Apollonius of Tyana, middle to late first century; Gnostic Society, Section 16, letter to Musonius:
"If you still believe that Hercules once rescued Theseus from Hades, write what you would have."
5. Pliny the elder: 23 CE to 79 CE. Natural History 5.3:
"this was the site of the palace of Antaeus and the scene of his combat with Hercules, ..."
6. Decimus Juvenalis late first, early second century; Roman poet;
Satire I: 51--> "Should I do better to tell tales about Hercules, ...."
7. Marcus Martialis 40CE to 104CE, Roman, epigram 4.44, written in 91CE: "here was a place where Hercules left his name."

Any one of these guys could have written something, anything at all, about Jesus, yet, none of them did so. WHY? Hint: It was not because they were frightened of writing about mythical creatures, ergo: my fascination with their respective reference to Herakles.

I think the reason for their failure to mention Jesus is obvious. These seven authors could not write about Jesus, because he did not yet exist, in the middle and late first century, when they were writing. That all of these famous authors DID WRITE about Herakles, is, from my point of view, confirmation that authors of that era were perfectly content writing about mythical creatures, so, it is not the Jesus story per se, that prevents their mentioning Jesus. It is simpler than that (Einstein). They could not write about Jesus, for they had never heard of him.

As far as I am concerned, the last nail has been pounded in place, the coffin lid is shut, on this question of whether or not Josephus wrote the disputed passage, cited by spin above. None of these 7 authors, all contemporary with Josephus, mentioned Jesus, (despite citing Hercules, in some fashion.)

What is so special, so particular, about Josephus, that he (who also wrote about Herakles) alone, in contrast to the other 7 giants of his age, would mention Jesus in his writings? Nothing.

maryhelena

What is so special about Josephus?


my bolding

(also consider:
Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus: Rebecca Gray (or via: amazon.co.uk))

With Josephus (or whoever is writing under that name) we are dealing with someone living during the early years of christianity. Someone interested in dreams and interpretations of the OT. Why should one give Josephus short change and yet accept the NT figure of 'Paul' as being relevant?

Josephus was as capable of using midrash, dreams, OT interpretations, as any NT writer. His work has continually been used by the JC historicists as support for their assumptions. Those of us who are ahistoricists/mythicists understand the gospel JC to not be a historical figure. (however we have, individually, come to that conclusion). If JC is a figurative figure - then Josephus is not supporting a historical JC - on the contrary - Josephus is supporting the figurative gospel JC and his pseudo-historical storyboard.

One cannot take Josephus at face value, at purely a literal reading - i.e. Josephus says so - therefore it is so. We are dealing, both with Josephus, and the gospel writers, with a highly sophisticated attempt to retell Jewish/Hasmonean history via allegory, symbolism, numerology, OT midrash and interpretations and mythology. A retelling of that history, under the nose of Rome, not only to place value upon that history - but to take the value they did find within that history to another level. No longer a material earthly kingdom but a spiritual/intellectual 'kingdom'. A new intellectual comprehension for a wider world view.

Yes, of course, this approach to Josephus presents many problems. Perhaps it is time to face them.

Duvduv

What is deeply suspicious about this is that if Josephus was a rabbinic Jew and followed the Hebrew Scriptures, then he knew that prophecy ended with Malachi and that no named prophets could be identified in his Antiquities after Malachi, and yet lo and behold he viewed himself with latter day prophecy. Makes no sense. Something is missing here. Or added here.

Toto

Rabbinic_Judaism is dated to the 6th century CE, a bit after Josephus. :huh:

EarlDoherty

This tells me nothing, and I don’t see what connection there would be to my specific point. It’s just evasion.

Oh? It wouldn’t matter that some of Josephus’ readers—considering that there must have been many of them who were not familiar with the ins and outs of Jewish messianism, or had only vaguely heard the term—could very well misunderstand this as Josephus acknowledging or allowing for the possibility that this Jesus WAS the Messiah, which would at the very least cause confusion in their minds over Josephus' (apparently well-known) declaration that Vespasian was the Messiah? Don’t be ridiculous. More evasion.

And the business about someone in the 30s suggesting Josephus could have chosen to refer to his Jesus as the one crucified by Pilate is all empty fluff, as far as I can see. Just what point do you think you are making? Sounds like you’re trying to tread water and stay afloat.

More treading water, and almost incoherent. If the phrase is found almost half a dozen times in the NT how is it foreign? How many times was Matt 1:16 altered, and why did that "foreign" phrase survive in the received text?

This is a counter-argument? Now you’re really sinking.

If Josephus nowhere else in this monumental work mentioned Jesus, that would tend to indicate he knew nothing about him, or regarded him as insignificant if he happened to have heard the name. How, then, would he have been in a position to identify the Ant. 20 James this way? Why, if the figure of Jesus was so obscure to him, would he assume that his readers would know more or regard him more highly and thus could make sense of a simple “called Christ” as a means of understanding who James was? You really don’t think things through, do you? It’s just shoot from the hip, with a gun full of blanks. Sorry, but noise doesn’t make a good substitute for actual ammunition.

Umm, the indication that Origen didn’t mention the Antiquities 20 reference is because he didn’t. (I realize that’s a complex idea.) His mere mention of the phrase “brother of Jesus called Christ” is in a context which cannot possibly have been found in Antiquities 20, and there is no record of any such “the killing of James was the reason for the fall of Jerusalem” in Ant. 20. It wouldn’t have worked there under any circumstances because it would be in contradiction to what Josephus says about Ananus’ execution of “James”. And as I’ve pointed out, Origen gives us the opposite word order to what you claim was in Ant. 20, so how does that follow?

And what form of logic do you use in saying that I deny Origen referred to Antiquities 20 on the basis that Josephus would never have written what Origen says he did about James and the fall of Jerusalem? That’s an utter non-sequitur. Nor am I claiming that Josephus did not write “brother of Jesus called Christ” in Ant. 20 because he could not have written what Origen imputes to him. It’s not the phrase he could not have written, it’s the very idea that the murder of James caused God to punish the Jews by having the Romans destroy city and temple.

But if we DO have that phrase in a context which is virtually certain to be not Josephus’ product, it becomes a Christian interpolated phrase, which casts a pall of interpolation over its later occurrence in Ant. 20 (by later I mean later attested to, in Eusebius). The very fact that Origen is not led to also mention a very similar phrase, as well as the very subject of James death, as being present in Ant. 20 is a good indicator he knew of no such other reference. Certainly Eusebius was led to place the two references side by side, the one from Origen, the other in Ant. 20. Why not Origen? Because there was no such reference existing at that time in Ant. 20.

This is sophomoric. So now we’re reduced to ludicrous analogies (as far as I know, no one ever suggested that Josephus’ original reference was to me), and the perennially lame apologetic whine that I make claims simply because they’re inconvenient to my preferred thesis. Embarrassing.

You really don’t think things through, do you? So no one with familial connections was ever executed by the authorities in the ancient world? Besides, would you have to regard this “James” as a vagrant or a pauper, one without familial connections? In that case, why would prominent Jews have been so incensed by his execution that they would agitate to have the high priest removed? Doesn’t that indicate that “James” DID have connections, even if he might have been only a junior member of the family?

And to further pursue your line of reasoning, if this James was head of the Christian group in Jerusalem, brother to a man who had been executed as a rebel within living memory, one who had given rise to a despised sect and ran roughshod over prized Jewish traditions, why would those Jews “skilled in the Law” have been so incensed at James’ stoning they would get the high priest dumped? The Christian James would probably have been seen as guilty of the charge of violating the law and deserving of such punishment.

Get a life, Legion. It’s no wonder spin runs rings around you.

Earl Doherty

stephan huller

I don't think these arguments or any arguments for that matter to help sort out the truth. Arguing just makes people inflexible. It can't be denied that legomenos is commonly used to mean 'so-called' and thus becomes a statement of something less than factual. Sextus Empiricus uses the word that way. Nevertheless the word order is strange in Josephus and it seems to match the even more peculiar use in Matthew with legomenos in respect to Jesus. I think one can argue that the same person was responsible for both references.

Notice that the genealogy of Jesus wasn't part of Matthew when Tatian composed the Diatessaron. I am not even sure if Irenaeus makes reference to the conflicting genealogies. The first reference I have seen to the section is Julius Africanus at the beginning of the third century. I could be wrong if there is an early reference but I think we can be safe to say that the genealogy was added to Matthew.

I think there are problems with Josephus which go beyond the Jesus reference. To limit the discussion to legomenos is a mistake. It goes hand and hand with the strange use in Matthew. One isn't more or less strange than the other. They are both strange for different reasons.

Duvduv

The sealing of the Tanach was with the prophet Malachi at the beginning of the second Temple period. This is the end of Tanach. There were never any prophets thereafter. Therefore it would only act to ruin rather than enhance the reputation of Josephus if he were to claim prophetic powers in the first century which were not even attributed by Judaism to any of the sages of the first century.

If you want to start a new thread on rabbinic Judaism you can. Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and the other rabbis of the mishnah, those who were students of Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai lived in the first and second century.

stephan huller

Irenaeus makes reference to the genealogy in Luke in AH 3.22:

Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.

stephan huller

I don't think Irenaeus's Matthew had the genealogy:

For Matthew the apostle -- knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven,(2) and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself, from the worship of stones, so that those who were not a people were made a people, and she beloved who was not beloved(3) -- declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ, said to those who were boasting of their relationship [to Abraham] according to the flesh, but who had their mind tinged and stuffed with all manner of evil, preaching that repentance which should call them back from their evil doings, said, "O generation of vipers, who hath shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham [to our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."(4) He preached to them, therefore, the repentance from wickedness, but he did not declare to them another God, besides Him who made the promise to Abraham; he, the forerunner of Christ, of whom Matthew again says, and Luke likewise, "For this is he that was spoken of from the Lord by the prophet, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough into smooth ways; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."

and again

For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for(10) the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;"(11) and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity;(12) for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel.

and again

And Matthew, too, recognising one and the same Jesus Christ, exhibiting his generation as a man from the Virgin,(4) even as God did promise David that He would raise up from the fruit of his body an eternal King, having made the same promise to Abraham a long time previously, says: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham"(5) Then, that he might free our mind from suspicion regarding Joseph, he says: "But the birth of Christ(6) was on this wise. When His mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Then, when Joseph had it in contemplation to put Mary away, since she proved with child, [Matthew tells us of] the angel of God standing by him, and saying: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins. Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet: Behold. a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, God with us;" clearly signifying that both the promise made to the fathers had been accomplished, that the Son of God was born of a virgin, and that He Himself was Christ the Saviour whom the prophets had foretold; not, as these men assert, that Jesus was He who was born of Mary, but that Christ was He who descended from above. Matthew might certainly have said, "Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise;" but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing the corrupters [of the truth], and guarding by anticipation against their deceit, says by Matthew, "But the birth of Christ was on this wise;" and that He is Emmanuel, lest perchance we might consider Him as a mere man: for "not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but by the will of God was the Word made flesh;"(1) and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same.

The text of Matthew in the hands of Irenaeus jumped from Matt 1:1 to Matthew 1:18 (where the Diatessaron begins). Has this been noticed before?

stephan huller

Also he seems to repeat the charge against the Ebionites. In other words, the Ebionites that he knew had a text which contained the virgin birth but no mention is made of the genealogy. When did the genealogy get added? With Julius Africanus. Clement knows about the virgin birth I have never seen him reference 1:2 - 1:17. Origen accepts the material but probably on the authority (and influence) of Julius Africanus. Origen apparently attached mystical significance to the genealogy.