spin

This was what you were supposed to pick up on, but your selective vision problem skipped over it.

With a straight face you can palm this piece of christian doctoring off as Josephus.

Get it yet? Josephus is supposed to know things that neither the gospel writers nor the Acts writers give any inkling of knowing. This makes your statement ("His writing reflected the belief that was common among Christians of the time.") ludicrous.


spin

ApostateAbe

OK, sorry. Normally, I skip over points that are expressed with a passive-aggressive sarcasm. Nothing against you.

I don't find it such a ridiculous idea that Josephus reports on some Christian myths that are not found in the book of Acts. Christianity was sufficiently diverse at the time that some groups of Christians would believe things that the canonical writers did not. Moreover, the passage of Josephus shows no sign of interpolation. It is unlikely that an interpolator would settle on "called Christ." It matches the viewpoint of Josephus, not the viewpoint of the known interpolation as seen in the Testimonium Flavianum: "He was the Christ."

David Deas

I always found the declaration of Josephus' alleged neutral tone a bit arbitrary. One might argue just as convincingly that "called (the) Christ" contains somewhat of a possessive note.

spin

You were the one trying to tell us all that Paul knows that this James is the brother of Jesus, but now are you saying that Paul's christians have forgotten the fact??

Mt 1:16, Ιησους ο λεγομενος Χριστος, you can't get more mainstream christian than that. The trajectory I would propose is that, once this James was recognized as the brother of Jesus, a marginal note "the brother of Jesus" (with Mt 1:16 in mind) was written annotating this reference to James and a later scribe included it, thinking it was an omission. The process goes:

1. original text: "one named James and certain others"
2. marginal note: "brother of Jesus called christ"
3. new conflation: "the brother of Jesus called christ named James and certain others"

There is nothing particularly Josephan about the phrase. Josephus doesn't use λεγομενος frequently for people, tending to use (επι)καλουμενος instead. It's funny that your best attestation for James being the brother of Jesus is a questionable phrase from Josephus. That should caution you.


spin

aa5874

Josephus mentioned numerous persons with the name Jesus. It is not even remotely possible to link Jesus called the Christ in 20.9.1 to James of the NT when an early Church writer claimed James the Apostle or Bishop of Jerusalem was not the son of the supposed mother of Jesus.

No where in 20.9.1 did Josephus introduce James as a Bishop of a Christian Church in Jerusalem or claimed that James was an apostle of a deified man.

It simply cannot be that any person called the Christ must be Jesus of Nazareth or that no other person named Jesus could have been called the Christ.

The very NT and historical sources of antiquity clearly show that your assumption is flawed.

Even if there was an actual Jesus called Christ during the time of Pilate, there could have been a Jesus called Christ around the time of Abinus at about 30 years after Jesus of Nazareth. There was a Simon called Christ or Messiah after the time of Pilate and Albinus or around 133 CE.

And, Jesus, based on the NT, claimed many will come in his name, CHRIST, and shall decieve many.

Mr 13:6 - Jesus of the NT demands that you must do some research before it can be claimed that any or every one called Christ is Jesus Christ of the NT.

1. Papias demostrated that James the bishop of Jerusalem could not be the brother of Jesus.

2. Josephus mentioned many persons called Jesus.

3. In Josephus there is no description of James and that he was a bishop of a non-Jewish Church.

4. In the NT, Jesus claimed there would be many deceivers who would be called Christ.

5. There was a Simon who was called Christ after Jesus.

It cannot be claimed that the Jesus called Christ in AJ 20.9.1 was Jesus of the NT.

judge

You cant say whether it is or is not. You may be right but you cant tell us that you are right, as you would like to.
As ususal you insist on turning your maybes into certainties

Again you cant say you are correct here,as you have done. You cant say that you know this is the only reason.

neilgodfrey

Try telling that to every Jesus historicist who uses Galatians 1:19 to "prove" Jesus was historical, and insists on the strength of this verse that the mythicist argument is a non-starter.

ApostateAbe

It is justified to treat certainties like they really are certainties.

judge

What do I care about Jesus historicists though?
Who, in this thread is insisting that?

If it is wrong for fundamentalists to do so how much more for alleged "freethinkers" to do so? At least many fundamentalists will admit they are biased.

ApostateAbe

"You were the one trying to tell us all that Paul knows that this James is the brother of Jesus, but now are you saying that Paul's christians have forgotten the fact??"

No. They just didn't write it down. Some Christians apparently developed myths about James that were noteworthy, and other Christians did not.

I don't have any access to the original Greek renditions of the writings of Josephus, so I can't really argue with you on λεγομενος versus (επι)καλουμενος. Do you think there is a good reason that Josephus would use (επι)καλουμενο instead of λεγομενος? I ask because I take context much more seriously than the pattern of usage.