Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 07-08-2011, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Scientists have many reasons to believe or accept the probability that evolution happened.

You have not presented any strong reasons to think that Josephus described James' brother as "called Christ," using a phrase from the gospels.

Josephus wrote it because that is what is in the extant texts of Josephus and it is attested very early on by Origen, before the interpolation of the Testimonium Flavianum ever occurred. The language matches what would be expected of Josephus ("...called Christ..."), but not what would be expected of a Christian interpolator ("He is the Christ"). Unique proposals of interpolation to make a certain conclusion work (or not work) is a sure sign of ad hoc, and, if you want to rewrite the direct evidence in your favor, then the burden is on you to show how interpolation is probable and not just slightly possible, or else you should accept that your position of having no conclusions is basically in the same league of empirical inquiry as postmodernist skepticism about everything.

PhilosopherJay · 07-08-2011, 10:06 AM

Hi Ted M.,

Josephus does talk about the burning of the Temple in Wars, Book VI.

He blames it on the zealots:

Quote:

3. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident,

Although he seems to says that it was fated to happen and says that the Jews brought it upon themselves.

Quote:

4. Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square."

The only specific killing he sites in connection to the burning is the killing of Jesus Ananus. However, this is more of a sign than a reason for the destruction of the temple:

Quote:

6:5.3.. But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

In regards to your scenario,

it seems difficult to imagine why the Romans or Jews would care what Josephus wrote. The rewriting of Josephus only makes sense as part of a debate within the Christian hierarchy.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
`

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

According to these three uses of Josephus as a proof text for the historicity of Jesus, Josephus blamed the burning of the temple on the killing of James. Unfortunately we have nothing like that in our current copies of Josephus. It doesn't prove the existence of Jesus or James, but proves that Christians made attempts at forgery in Josephus before the TF.

2 questions:

1. Does Josephus in any of his writings discuss the razing of the temple and - if so - does he discuss who did it why or opinions among the people regarding the blame?

2.What is wrong with this scenario?:

First, In the original text Josephus made reference to the razing of the temple and connected it to rising unrest among the people resulting from what had been done to James. Let us not forget that there was disapproval with the killing of James and Josephus seemed sympathetic to that viewpoint, referring to them as 'most equitable': ... but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done

Then, Jews or Romans, unsympathetic to this seeming pro-Christian viewpoint removed the passage sometime after Origen made his comments.

Would not this explain the early reference by Origen and the removal without requiring us to believe that earlier Christians before Origen had interpolated in a section that was interpolated out (removed) when Christian influence would have been even greater?

Toto · 07-08-2011, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Scientists have many reasons to believe or accept the probability that evolution happened.

You have not presented any strong reasons to think that Josephus described James' brother as "called Christ," using a phrase from the gospels.

Josephus wrote it because that is what is in the extant texts of Josephus and it is attested very early on by Origen, before the interpolation of the Testimonium Flavianum ever occurred.

People have just spent a lot of time demonstrating that Origen does not attest to Ant 20.

Quote:

The language matches what would be expected of Josephus ("...called Christ..."), but not what would be expected of a Christian interpolator ("He is the Christ").

The language matches language in the gospels. Why would Josephus be expected to use this language? Where does he ever use the term Christ?

Quote:

Unique proposals of interpolation to make a certain conclusion work (or not work) is a sure sign of ad hoc, and, if you want to rewrite the direct evidence in your favor, then the burden is on you to show how interpolation is probable and not just slightly possible, or else you should accept that your position of having no conclusions is basically in the same league of empirical inquiry as postmodernist skepticism about everything.

Once again, probability is subjective. The case looks good to me.

aa5874 · 07-08-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...Josephus wrote it because that is what is in the extant texts of Josephus and it is attested very early on by Origen, before the interpolation of the Testimonium Flavianum ever occurred. The language matches what would be expected of Josephus ("...called Christ..."), but not what would be expected of a Christian interpolator ("He is the Christ").....

Your assertion makes very little sense.

If some one carries out a forgery of even a person's signature it must be expected that the forgery will at least look visually alike.

It must be EXPECTED that if "Antiquities of the Jews" was interpolated that the person carrying out the forgery will use the very same style and words of Josephus.

It is just most ridiculous to think an interpolator would write in such a manner that the forgery is easily detected.

Please examine, "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3, another forgery, and you will see that the interpolator used similar words and writing style of Josephus.

To suggest that an interpolator could not have written the words "who was called Christ" is just remarkably illogical.

ApostateAbe · 07-08-2011, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Josephus wrote it because that is what is in the extant texts of Josephus and it is attested very early on by Origen, before the interpolation of the Testimonium Flavianum ever occurred.

People have just spent a lot of time demonstrating that Origen does not attest to Ant 20.

Oh, right, Origen attests to a lost part of Josephus that also said that there was a James who was the brother of Jesus called Christ, and that lost portion of the text was also interpolated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The language matches language in the gospels. Why would Josephus be expected to use this language? Where does he ever use the term Christ?

It was written in 92 CE, already 25 years after Christians were blamed for the fire of Rome, when Christianity had grown into a well-known religion among Greek speakers, and the title of "Christ" was popularly associated with Jesus and Jesus alone. The gospel of Matthew used the language as he thought would be expected of someone speaking neutrally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Unique proposals of interpolation to make a certain conclusion work (or not work) is a sure sign of ad hoc, and, if you want to rewrite the direct evidence in your favor, then the burden is on you to show how interpolation is probable and not just slightly possible, or else you should accept that your position of having no conclusions is basically in the same league of empirical inquiry as postmodernist skepticism about everything.

Once again, probability is subjective. The case looks good to me.

You just kinda embraced the accusation that your perspective is postmodernist. Well, I guess you can have the last word.

Toto · 07-08-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

People have just spent a lot of time demonstrating that Origen does not attest to Ant 20.

Oh, right, Origen attests to a lost part of Josephus that also said that there was a James who was the brother of Jesus called Christ, and that lost portion of the text was also interpolated.

Or Origen was confused and quoted Hegesippus. This doesn't make Origen a reliable source.

Quote:

It was written in 92 CE, already 25 years after Christians were blamed for the fire of Rome, when Christianity had grown into a well-known religion among Greek speakers, and the title of "Christ" was popularly associated with Jesus and Jesus alone. The gospel of Matthew used the language as he thought would be expected of someone speaking neutrally.

Christians or Chrestians? Christianity was not so well known, perhaps because it was an underground superstitio, and where Greek speakers did know about it, they didn't always know what Christ referred to.

And why should Josephus be neutral about a blasphemer like Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Once again, probability is subjective. The case looks good to me.

You just kinda embraced the accusation that your perspective is postmodernist. Well, I guess you can have the last word.

I don't think you know what all those words mean.

aa5874 · 07-08-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... The gospel of Matthew used the language as he thought would be expected of someone speaking neutrally....

The Gospel of Matthew does also suggest that "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is a forgery.

In gMatthew, the Jews did NOT call Jesus the Christ and the supposed Jesus did NOT want the Jews or any man to know he was Jesus Christ.

Up to the 16th chapter of gMatthew, Jesus did NOT even tell his disciples he was Christ.

It is clear that Jesus was NOT really interested in being called Christ in gMatthew.

And, it is also clear Jesus did NOT start a religion using the name Christ.

In gMatthew 16.14, the Jews called Jesus, John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

And after Jesus FOUND out that he was NOT called the Christ by the Jews he commanded that the disciples tell NO JEW, NO ROMAN, NO MAN that he was Jesus Christ in gMatthew 16.20

In gMatthew, the Jews did NOT know:

1. That Christ was born.

2. When Christ was born.

3. Where Christ was born.

4. That Christ was STILL alive after Herod killed the children of Judea.

5. Where Christ lived.

6. What Christ did.

7. That Christ predicted the Fall of the Temple

8. That they crucified the Christ.

9. That Christ was raised from the dead.

"Antiquities of the Jews" is a forgery based on gMatthew since AFTER King Herod supposedly killed the children of Judea, the Jews did NOT know that the Christ could have been still alive.

TedM · 07-08-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In regards to your scenario,

it seems difficult to imagine why the Romans or Jews would care what Josephus wrote. The rewriting of Josephus only makes sense as part of a debate within the Christian hierarchy.

That seems counter intuitive to me since he wrote about both Romans and Jews. Also still question the ability for Christians to interpolate within 50-75 years of the writing..

Thanks for your response regarding Josephus' views/coments about the temple razing.

hjalti · 07-08-2011, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The language matches what would be expected of Josephus ("...called Christ..."), but not what would be expected of a Christian interpolator ("He is the Christ").

Yep, a Christian would clearly not use "...called Christ..."

Toto · 07-08-2011, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In regards to your scenario,

it seems difficult to imagine why the Romans or Jews would care what Josephus wrote. The rewriting of Josephus only makes sense as part of a debate within the Christian hierarchy.

That seems counter intuitive to me since he wrote about both Romans and Jews.

Josephus wrote about Jews for Romans, but Jews regarded him as a turncoat and a traitor, and he doesn't seem to have held much interest for pagan Romans. But Christians read him intensely, as he wrote the only available history of the area that Jesus supposedly lived in.

Quote:

Also still question the ability for Christians to interpolate within 50-75 years of the writing..

Documents were copied routinely, and any time you make a copy, you have the ability to interpolate.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.