Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 12-21-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

If Josephus was being used by Christians as a proof text, a simple "brother of Jesus called the Christ" is sufficient to make the point. Don't you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I don't think it is consistent with human nature. Too much temptation to use it to further your cause, if you are willing to deceptively change the text.

Human nature is not invariably stupid. We know that the TF contains at least some interpolation precisely because the forger was foolish enough to attribute opinions to Josephus that no Jew would have held. Even a majority of conservative Christian apologists admit that much. We have no reason to suppose that all Christian copyists of that time would have been that foolish.

Doug Shaver · 12-21-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I don't buy an obvious deceit without saying more to further one's cause.

You don't further your cause by making your deceit obvious.

spin · 12-21-2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

If the rest of your post had any substance to it, I would most assuredly respond to it.

There is nothing assured about that statement.

spin

Ben C Smith · 12-21-2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

If the rest of your post had any substance to it, I would most assuredly respond to it.

There is nothing assured about that statement.

Well, with all that out of the way, on with more important stuff: Which do you prefer, spin, football (soccer), American football, or rugby?

Ben.

TedM · 12-21-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am dealing with the TF as it is represented, and it appears to be either a forgery or an interpolation after my research. Again, according to Josephus, the Christ was expected by the Jews and their wise men sometime around 70CE, therefore the Christ could not be dead already,30 years before, as stated in the TF.

You keep talking as if when Josephus refers to a person as being called Christ that Josephus himself believes such a person is the Christ.

Quote:

Your assumptions and guesses about what may have been in the TF cannot be confirmed in any way, so, they are of no real value.

True. It is what I think is a possibility that accounts for the James reference as we see it. But, I certainly can never prove it.

Quote:

Josephus did not refer to Judas the Galilean as the expected Messiah in any of his entire writings at any time. "Wars of the Jews" 2.8, "...This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect..."

Josephus did not refer to any Egyptian as the expected Messiah in any of his writings at any time.
"Wars of the Jews' 2.13, "But there was an Egyptian false prophet, that did the Jews more mischief......."

This link is of the opinion that the men Josephus is writing about clearly were Messiah claimants. Does that mean Josephus thought they were the Messiah? Not any more than if he said one of them were "called the Christ".
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah...aimants04.html

Your original point was that Josephus wouldn't call Jesus "Christ" in the James passage since a Christ wasn't expected at that point. I've said he didn't necessarily call Jesus "Christ" in that passage. Rather, he said OTHERS, called him Christ. Also, that OTHERS did expect a Christ prior to 70 AD, which is why it was ok for them to call their leader Christ. Therefore your objections to the James passage are not relevant even if the TF is a complete forgery.

Does that make more sense?

ted

TedM · 12-21-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I don't buy an obvious deceit without saying more to further one's cause.

You don't further your cause by making your deceit obvious.

I don't think furthering the cause would have made the deceit any more obvious.

Quote:

Human nature is not invariably stupid. We know that the TF contains at least some interpolation precisely because the forger was foolish enough to attribute opinions to Josephus that no Jew would have held. Even a majority of conservative Christian apologists admit that much. We have no reason to suppose that all Christian copyists of that time would have been that foolish.

If there was some need to show that Jesus had really walked this earth, he certainly could have said more than in this passage without attributing to Josephus opinions that he never would have had. Most reasonable would have been some kind of reference to James' declaration that Jesus had been "the Door" to salvation, or some such thing, as the reason he was stoned.

ted

Ben C Smith · 12-21-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Josephus does this. In this same twentieth book of the Antiquities Josephus himself uses adelphonymic references to identify Herod the brother of the deceased Agrippa 20.1.3 §15; refer also to 20.5.2 §104); Felix the brother of Pallas (20.7.1 §137); Germanicus the brother of Caesar (20.8.1 §148); and Aaron the brother of Moses (20.10.1 §225).

But weren't these mentions for clarification--ie the reader would know these "brothers", from history or a prior mention? If so, the same reason would probably apply here.

Yes, and I think Josephus knew his Roman readership would know who Christ was. Tacitus writes that the crowd knew who the Christians were under Nero, and he calls the founder Christ; Paul writes to a church in Rome; Pliny speaks of Christ. Christ is how the Roman world knew Jesus, so Josephus explained Jesus with the more common name, Christ.

Quote:

But Josephus knew what "Christ" meant. This takes the label way beyond that of a nickname in his own mind.

But called makes it a nickname. He also says that Antiochus was called god by the Greeks, and Josephus knew who God was just as surely as he knew what the messiah was supposed to be.

Quote:

Would it make sense to make only a brief reference and with no explanation to a person who was given the title of Messiah by some people, even if the readers didn't know much about that?

If his readers read only Greek, he was not saying anything about the title messiah. He was saying that Jesus was called Christ, which is a fact. Tacitus called him Christ; Pliny called him Christ. Christ is just how this person was known to the Roman world.

Ben.

TedM · 12-21-2007, 02:27 PM

[QUOTE=Ben C Smith;5048360]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Would it make sense to make only a brief reference and with no explanation to a person who was given the title of Messiah by some people, even if the readers didn't know much about that?

If his readers read only Greek, he was not saying anything about the title messiah. He was saying that Jesus was called Christ, which is a fact. Tacitus called him Christ; Pliny called him Christ. Christ is just how this person was known to the Roman world.

Ben.

I guess my point was that it is a very distinctive title. So much so that it would have been strange to reference the person without saying anything about him. Tacitus and Pliny said more about him. I would expect a Jewish historian to do the same, and would consider it a bit strange to not do so, no matter who his audience is.

ted

aa5874 · 12-21-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Yes, and I think Josephus knew his Roman readership would know who Christ was. Tacitus writes that the crowd knew who the Christians were under Nero, and he calls the founder Christ; Paul writes to a church in Rome; Pliny speaks of Christ. Christ is how the Roman world knew Jesus, so Josephus explained Jesus with the more common name, Christ.

Tacitus never mentioned Jesus at all in Annals 15.44. And the word "Christians" does not inherently mean "followers of Jesus" And Tacitus never mentioned that Christus was crucified, or how he actually died.

Pliny never mentioned Jesus in his letters to Trajan, and the word "Christians", in the Pliny letters, cannot be assumed to mean followers of Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Christ is how the Roman world knew Jesus...

Your statement appears to be in error, there are no known direct reference to Jesus as Christ by Roman non-apologetic writers in the first century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

If his readers read only Greek, he was not saying anything about the title messiah. He was saying that Jesus was called Christ, which is a fact. Tacitus called him Christ; Pliny called him Christ. Christ is just how this person was known to the Roman world.

Ben.

The word "Jesus" is not found in Annals with respect to Christus. The word "Jesus" is not found in the Pliny letters in reference to "Christians".
Your opinion has no factual basis, there are no references whatsoever to any Jesus in Annals or the Pliny letters.

Ben C Smith · 12-21-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Tacitus writes that the crowd knew who the Christians were under Nero, and he calls the founder Christ.

Tacitus never mentioned Jesus at all in Annals 15.44. And the word "Christians" does not inherently mean "followers of Jesus".

Correct. Just as I said.

Quote:

Your statement appears to be in error, there are no known direct reference to Jesus as Christ by Roman non-apologetic writers in the first century.

There are references to Christ that are clearly to the same individual called Jesus in other sources. That is what I meant, and it was obvious. That the Romans did not call this figure Jesus is precisely my point; they called him Christ.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.