aa5874

What!!!! Are YOU NOT dealing with Antiquities of the Jews attributed to Josephus?

Well I am dealing with Antiquities of the Jews, too.

Did NOT Origen describe the birth of Jesus Christ? I am telling you that based on Origen, Jesus Christ in Josephus was NOT human and could NOT have actually lived in Nazareth.

You need a source for the man/woman of antiquity who lived in Nazareth.

Look at the excerpt of YOUR post.

In order for Jesus of Nazareth to have LIVED in Nazareth he had to be a figure of history.

Now, based on Origen, who claimed that "Antiquities of the Jews" was authentic, Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost.

Origen in "Against Celsus"2.13
Origen in "Against Celsus" 1.32
It is extremely IMPORTANT to understand that Origen argued AGAINST Celsus who claimed Jesus was just an ordinary man.

Now, where are the arguments AGAINST Josephus if he ALSO claimed Jesus was an ordinary man in "Antiquities of the Jews"?

It is CLEAR Jesus was NOT known as an ordinary man in "Antiquities of the Jews".

Jesus of Nazareth most likely was NOT known to have been in Nazareth as an ordinary man.

TedM

aa, as I said, your post has nothing to do with my post. Please stay on topic.

beallen041

This seems to me to be strong evidence that someone in the 2nd century thought the Jesus story was made up. It's interesting also to note the confirming testimony of Trypho in his dialog with Justin chap. 8.

In addition, modern authors have stated that the ancients didn't believe in the text as a historical source.

TedM

Very weak evidence IMO. First, he doesn't say anyone was making this charge. It could very well have been a literary device. Second, the verse is referring to a particular event--the transfiguration. It is not referring to his existence.

What Trypho means in his earlier statement is that the Messiah has been created by the Christians: He is saying that the "Christ" has not come in Jesus, but that Christians have made Jesus a Christ for themselves, and if the true Messiah was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown. Trypho is accusing the Christians of identifying Jesus as Christ, but is not accusing them of making up a man of history.

Trypho IMO doesn't dispute the claim that Jesus had lived. He also writes:

beallen041

I don't have to believe Superman existed to point out that his story shows him dying or that he is weakened by Kryptonite. I simply analyze the story. If I also mention that Superman is invented and call it a groundless story, that states what I think about its overall veracity.

aa5874

You mean Jesus transfigured WITHOUT existing or was NOT believed to have existed during the transfiguration?

By the way when Jesus transfigured in the Gospels did he RE-TRANSFIGURE back?

Trypho was merely REPEATING Justin's version of the Jesus story.

But, Trypho even told Justin that his version of the Jesus story was like the Myth fable of the Greeks.

"Dialogue with Trypho" It is CLEAR that Trypho did NOT know of a character called Jesus Christ in "Dialogue with Trypho"

TedM

I think you may want to look at Trypho more closely. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think knowledgeable folks claim that Trypho didn't believe Jesus had walked the earth.

TedM

I wonder what he means by a 'groundless report'? I took it as a report of his resurrection leading to the 'creation/invention' of Jesus as being the Messiah. If that is the correct interpretation then it would not follow that Trypho was questioning Jesus' historicity, but rather the Christians response to a claim (or many claims perhaps) made about Jesus.

The action of inventing a Christ AFTER accepting a report about him just doesn't sound to me like they invented his existence--because he would have had to exist in order for the report to have been about him.

Perhaps you have read this differently than I. Not arguing really, just trying to understand that passage a bit better.

GakuseiDon

Doherty's take on this, for what it's worth. From p. 491 of his "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man":

Trypho himself may be a literary invention, but Justin puts into his mouth (8:6) an intriguing accusation, one which must have represented some prevalent current opinion: "But Christ——if he has indeed been born, and exists anywhere——is unknown . . . And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves . . . " (This passage is discussed at length in Appendix 12 [p.696].) Trypho also expresses the opinion that the incarnation is incredible, and even Justin (Apology 13) admits that "sober-minded men" are of the opinion that "Christians are mad to give a crucified man second place to God."

In Appendix 12, Doherty writes (emphasis in original):

Behind Trypho's words may lie some kind of Jewish objection. Now, there are certainly places in the Dialogue where Trypho voices objections which clearly envision an historical man whom Christians have turned into a divine Messiah... But the passage in chapter 8, quoted above, does not do the same, and we have to ask whether behind it might lie something which could encompass a denial of Jesus' historicity--even though Justin does not make use of it that way.

The key phrase is, "you invent a Christ for yourselves" (Christon heautois tina anaplassete). This is broad and unspecific language. It could reflect a current accusation by some Jews that "You have invented your Messiah," lock, stock and humanity. If the phrase is taken by Justin from Jewish parlance of the day and referred to Jesus (Eddy and Boyd suggest that Trypho is "simply denying that Jesus is the Christ") one wonders why he could not have said that, why it would not have been more specific such as: "You have taken a (crucified) man and turned him into the Messiah." Instead, "invented a Messiah" could well convey that the Jesus of Nazareth which constitutes that Messiah has been invented. On what has this invention been based? On "accepting a false (foolish, unfounded) report" (mataian akoen paradexamenoi). Thus, in reproducing such a Jewish opinion in a more or less accurate phrasing... Justin may be echoing a Jewish denial of the historical Jesus, even if he himself does not take it, or use it in the Dialogue, in that way.

Doherty also believes that a close reading of Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho" suggests that Justin originally converted to a Christianity that had no historical Jesus at its core (around 130 CE), and it is only later that Justin started to believe that there was a historical Jesus.

andrewcriddle

The passage in Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History is basing its claim on Pliny's account of his encounter with early Christians, particularly the use of the word immodicam, extravagant, to describe the Christian "superstition".

This may be making too much out of Pliny's language, particularly given the footnote accepting that immodicam could be understood rather differently.

Pliny seems clearly to be saying that he regarded Christianity as nonsense, it is much less clear that he was regarding it as a hoax. (And I'm not sure where the idea of Christianity being contrary to history can be found in Pliny. It feels anachronistic.)

Andrew Criddle