Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 07-20-2012, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The HJ position on Ant 20 and the TF is fundamentally flawed. For starters, Ant 20 depends on the very phrase that causes problems in the TF:

18.3.3:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.

20.9.1:

and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...

Since Josephus was unlikely to have called Jesus "the Christ" the passage in 18.3.3 is suspect. That, in itself, weakens support for the phrase in 20.9.1 which requires an introduction of Jesus as the Christ.

Further, the entire context of 20.9.1 makes no sense if the person killed was a famous follower, indeed the brother and possibly authoritorial heir, to Jesus.

Read further:

...and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: 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...

The execution of the leader of persecuted sect is hardly likely to have caused consternation amongst the "most equitable of citizens." It is more likely that this entire story relates to the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, mentioned later in the passage. Contextually, it makes more sense that the "James" mentioned here was a Jewish leader, possibly a rival of Albinus, whose brother was subsequently made the high priest. It makes far less sense that this passage is about a Christian pillar.

Whether or not Carrier is a mythicist is irrelevant to the authenticity of the mentions of Jesus in Josephus.

Yeah, that is a great debate. I just have a little problem with anyone claiming this is anything but a mythicist angle. It is 100% a mythicist point made by almost nobody but mythicists. You can argue with Chaucer about whether or not it is truly unlikely that Josephus would have described Jesus with "called Christ." Good luck.

what is the "this" in your statement?

Is it a mythicist position that "He was the Christ" in 18.3.3 is unlikely to have been written by Josephus?

J.P. Meier, not a mythicist, argues for the exclusion of this phrase.

If you disagree that 20.9.1's reference to Jesus called Christ depends on "He was the Christ" in 18.3.3, I think you are wrong.

Whether or not this is a "mythicist angle," it is pretty clear that the context of 20.9.1 has nothing to do with a Christian leader, but someone involved in high priest politics, most likely the brother of Jesus ben Damneus, not Jesus called Christ.

By the way, the scholarly consensus on 20.9.1 is based on the qualifier "called," and usually does not (show me an argument that does!) interact with the context of the entire passage. There are many problems with the view that this James is "James the Just" who was said to be the brother of Jesus.

aa5874 · 07-20-2012, 08:42 AM

Again, the Greek word "Χριστός" has MORE than one meaning--either Christ or the ANOINTED

We MUST understand the context of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

Χριστός means ANOINTED--Not Messianic ruler in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 because Josephus ALREADY wrote in a EARLIER composition that Vespasian was the PROPHESIED Messianic ruler found in Hebrew Scripture.

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4

Quote:

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea...

Jesus in Antiquities of the the Jews was called the Anointed, the high priest, the Son of Damneus.

Chaucer · 10-01-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yeah, that is a great debate. I just have a little problem with anyone claiming this is anything but a mythicist angle. It is 100% a mythicist point made by almost nobody but mythicists. You can argue with Chaucer about whether or not it is truly unlikely that Josephus would have described Jesus with "called Christ." Good luck.

what is the "this" in your statement?

Is it a mythicist position that "He was the Christ" in 18.3.3 is unlikely to have been written by Josephus?

J.P. Meier, not a mythicist, argues for the exclusion of this phrase.

If you disagree that 20.9.1's reference to Jesus called Christ depends on "He was the Christ" in 18.3.3, I think you are wrong.

Whether or not this is a "mythicist angle," it is pretty clear that the context of 20.9.1 has nothing to do with a Christian leader, but someone involved in high priest politics, most likely the brother of Jesus ben Damneus, not Jesus called Christ.

By the way, the scholarly consensus on 20.9.1 is based on the qualifier "called," and usually does not (show me an argument that does!) interact with the context of the entire passage. There are many problems with the view that this James is "James the Just" who was said to be the brother of Jesus.

In Antiqs. 20, it reads "the one called Christ", not "He was the Christ". Big difference.

Even "He was the Christ" is a textual variant in Antiqs. 18, not Antiqs 20. The earliest version of the words here in 18 are found in a Syriac fragment, where instead of "He was the Christ", we have an explicit reference to others who merely claim that "accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah".

Chaucer

Clivedurdle · 10-01-2012, 11:53 AM

I think it is talking about an anointed high priest Jesus son of Damneus, who had a brother James. Nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

And I would love to see a serious discussion about how often the word anointed was used then....

aa5874 · 10-01-2012, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

In Antiqs. 20, it reads "the one called Christ", not "He was the Christ". Big difference.

Even "He was the Christ" is a textual variant in Antiqs. 18, not Antiqs 20. The earliest version of the words here in 18 are found in a Syriac fragment, where instead of "He was the Christ", we have an explicit reference to others who merely claim that "accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah".

Chaucer

What a load of BS. You really are confused.

HJers argue that the Jesus in Josephus is the same Jesus in the Pauline writings while they simultaneously claim Jesus was an Obscure apocalyptic preacher.

HJers also argue that Paul wrote about Jesus Christ BEFORE Josephus.

The HJ argument is horribly contradictory.

In the Pauline writings, including Galatians Jesus is Christ the Son of God.

Galatians 1:1 KJV---Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Galatians 1:3 KJV---Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Galatians 6:18 KJV---Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen . [To the Galatians written from Rome.]

outhouse · 10-01-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I think it is talking about an anointed high priest Jesus son of Damneus, who had a brother James. Nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

And I would love to see a serious discussion about how often the word anointed was used then....

true

context is key for slang

Sheshbazzar · 10-01-2012, 07:25 PM

Lets see...if we use the LXX, or Hellenize the text;

Leviticus 4:3 KJV

Quote:

3. ἐὰν μὲν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ὁ κεχρισμένος ἁμάρτῃ τοῦ τὸν λαὸν ἁμαρτεῖν καὶ προσάξει περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτοῦ ἧς ἥμαρτεν μόσχον ἐκ βοῶν ἄμωμον τῷ κυρίῳ περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτοῦ

3. 'If the Priest that is the 'christ-end' do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring..... a young bullock...'

Leviticus 4:5 KJV

Quote:

5. καὶ λαβὼν ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ χριστὸς ὁ τετελειωμένος τὰς χεῖρας ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ μόσχου καὶ εἰσοίσει αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου

5. 'And the Priest that is the christ shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation..

Numbers 3:3 KJV

Quote:

3.3 ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν υἱῶν Ααρων οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ ἠλειμμένοι οὓς ἐτελείωσαν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν ἱερατεύειν

3. 'These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the Priests which were anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the Priest's office...'

It may be noted that the Greek term and spelling ὁ χριστὸς used in Lev 4:5 is identical to that Greek which is translated as 'Christ' throughout the NT. (ὁ χριστὸς properly 'THE' Christ', not just 'Christ')
Numbers 3:3 uses a different Greek term for anointed.

Josephus writing in Greek, and using Greek terminology would have employed the word χριστὸς 'christ', (christos) but it would have had nothing to do with the 'Christian' usages of the term, and nothing to do with 'the Christ' of the 'Christian' NT.

Josephus was no more reffering to the 'christ' of 'Christianity' than does the text of Leviticus 4:5.

tanya · 10-06-2012, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It may be noted that the Greek term and spelling ὁ χριστὸς used in Lev 4:5 is identical to that Greek which is translated as 'Christ' throughout the NT. (ὁ χριστὸς properly 'THE' Christ', not just 'Christ')
Numbers 3:3 uses a different Greek term for anointed.

Josephus writing in Greek, and using Greek terminology would have employed the word χριστὸς 'christ', (christos) but it would have had nothing to do with the 'Christian' usages of the term, and nothing to do with 'the Christ' of the 'Christian' NT.

Josephus was no more reffering to the 'christ' of 'Christianity' than does the text of Leviticus 4:5.

This should be a sticky, in my opinion. Wonderful post, Shesh, well done.

:notworthy:

Sheshbazzar · 10-06-2012, 07:39 PM

I was drawing on the example verses provided by aa5874.

Actually if anyone cares to check, they will find that The LXX also uses χριστὸς in Lev. 4:16 & 6:15 1 Sam 12:5, 16:6, 24:7 & 11 and Lam 4:20
(given verse numeration is that of The LXX and do not all correspond to KJV verse numbers)

None of these 'christos's' are speaking of the NT's 'Christ'.

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

10-01-2012, 11:53 AM	#34
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I think it is talking about an anointed high priest Jesus son of Damneus, who had a brother James. Nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth. And I would love to see a serious discussion about how often the word anointed was used then....

10-06-2012, 07:39 PM	#39
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	I was drawing on the example verses provided by aa5874. Actually if anyone cares to check, they will find that The LXX also uses χριστὸς in Lev. 4:16 & 6:15 1 Sam 12:5, 16:6, 24:7 & 11 and Lam 4:20 (given verse numeration is that of The LXX and do not all correspond to KJV verse numbers) None of these 'christos's' are speaking of the NT's 'Christ'.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.