Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 07-08-2011, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

That is because we don't expect Christians to use the phrase "called Christ" when writing from their own explicit perspective.

Wait a minute. Mt 1.16 is written from a Christan perspective. It uses "called Christ". So we can expect a Christian to write like that, don't we?

Not really. Expectations are built by patterns, not a single data point. Like I said, there are 54 uses of the phrase, "Christ," in the gospels to describe Jesus. Three of them are the phrase, "called Christ," and two of those three are the imagined perspective of an outsider. The data point matches your theory, and the pattern matches mine. Not that you can't put forward a possibility on that single data point--entire preposterous theories of ancient history are often built on them. But, the issue is which hypothesis is probable, not what is merely possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Wait, so if we have an interpolation, all other interpolations must sound exactly the same? If chapter 21 in the gospel of John doesn't sound like the Pericopa adulterae, then it isn't a later addition!

If you have a good argument for an interpolation of Antiquities 20, then of course the misfitting of "called Christ" to a known interpolation of Josephus isn't a problem--maybe it was a second differently-thinking interpolator using a different tactic. Here is the problem: you need evidence, and the prima facie evidence as it stands is against you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Suetonius does no such thing.

There is, of course, speculation that Suetonius's "Chrestus" doesn't actually refer to Jesus Christ, but, again, the prima facie evidence is against it, and you can not treat that speculation as fact. Nor can you brush aside Tacitus and Pliny. Remember that the point is that "Christ" or some variation was a well-known nickname for Jesus among Greek-speakers at roughly the time of Josephus, which fully explains why Josephus used the phrase, "called Christ," for Jesus and only Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

Again, why not accept that Josephus actually wrote that? What is so improbable about that?

I don't think that it's especially improbable, but I think the passage is suspect, since we know Christians tampered with Josephus and there are some valid arguments that cast doubt on the passage (e.g. Josephus seems to avoid to talk about the messiah, but here it is, and it's calling Jesus Christ).

Very well, cheers.

ApostateAbe · 07-08-2011, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Moving the goal posts, are you?

I would not expect Josephus to identify James by his brother, and the language in that section is already convoluted. I suspect the section originally read James the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus.

But assuming that Josephus wanted to identify James by his brother the failed pretender, I would not expect the language to be Jesus called Christ. Perhaps it would be Jesus the crucified, or Jesus the Mamzer, son of Pantera.

If we had any actual examples of Jews discussing Jesus from that era, we might know more.

Toto, to clarify, I am not asking you to consider, in my proposed hypothetical to you, other possibilities of who this "James" or who this "Jesus" actually was. If you find the phrase, "called Christ," improbable for Josephus, then you need to propose a more probable alternative phrasing, which does not mean going in a circle to your conclusions and bringing in new proposals of who "James" or "Jesus" may actually be. Instead, I am asking you to argue using the method of reductio ad absurdum--how does "called Christ" not make sense within the standard model of Josephus, and what would be a considerably more likely alternative phrasing of Josephus within the bounds of the standard model?

Out of your set of proposed alternatives, only one of them would be relevant--"Jesus the crucified." There is a combination of problems: (1) James and Jesus were both common male names, (2) crucifixion was a common punishment, and (3) as I have discussed with hjalti, there were NOT so many men names "Jesus" who were known by the nickname, "Christ," but multiple external evidence shows us that Jesus popularly had that nickname among Greek speakers in the same rough time period as the writing of Josephus. So, the established model stands as more probable.

beallen041 · 07-08-2011, 09:14 PM

Abe, it's not clear to me where you are on James, so can I ask some basic questions about what you think of James just so I can understand where you are coming from? Sorry if you have already dealt with this elsewhere:

1. Was James a Christian?

2. If he was, why was he a candidate for the job of high priest in Josephus?

3. If he wasn't, why is he an authority for Paul in Galatians?

4. When was James born (roughly)?

ApostateAbe · 07-08-2011, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

Abe, it's not clear to me where you are on James, so can I ask some basic questions about what you think of James just so I can understand where you are coming from? Sorry if you have already dealt with this elsewhere:

No worries, cheers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

1. Was James a Christian?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

2. If he was, why was he a candidate for the job of high priest in Josephus?

I see no reason to think that James was a candidate for high priest either in Josephus nor anywhere else, and I don't even know how anyone would get that idea (not that there isn't such evidence, but I just don't know where the argument comes from).

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

3. If he wasn't, why is he an authority for Paul in Galatians?

James was certainly a respected religious leader among Christians, of whom Paul was one, but I don't think he would be respected by anyone outside of the Christian religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

4. When was James born (roughly)?

Your guess is as good as mine, I suppose. ~5 BCE? ~10 CE?

aa5874 · 07-08-2011, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There is, of course, speculation that Suetonius's "Chrestus" doesn't actually refer to Jesus Christ, but, again, the prima facie evidence is against it, and you can not treat that speculation as fact. Nor can you brush aside Tacitus and Pliny. Remember that the point is that "Christ" or some variation was a well-known nickname for Jesus among Greek-speakers at roughly the time of Josephus, which fully explains why Josephus used the phrase, "called Christ," for Jesus and only Jesus...

The gospel of gMark and gMatthew destroy any claim that Jesus was called Christ by the Jews.

We have the EVIDENCE in the very NT.

Matthew 16:20 -

Quote:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Mark 8

Quote:

...And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

If we allow people like ApostaeAbe to make the same erroneos claims day after day we won't get anywhere.

The Synoptics have established that "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is a forgery.

Origen's statement in his writings established that "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 has been manipulated.

The very writings of Josephus "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4, Suetonius "Life of Vespasian and Tacitus Histories 5 show that "Antiquities of the Jews" is a forgery.

That is the HARSH reality.

We cannot keep going around in circles. There was no such thing as a nicknamed Messiah.

beallen041 · 07-08-2011, 10:59 PM

Abe, thanks for your responses. They are very helpful. So, if James was a Christian, do you think that he was part of a persecution of Christians by the Jews just prior the the first Jewish War? If this is the case, what do you think of Jerome's quotation of Hegesippus when he says:

"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees."

Do you think this James was a nazirite, or from Nazareth, or both?

What Christians would have been allowed in the Holy of Holies? This is why I think he may have been a high priest, as even regular Jews were not allowed in the Holy of Holies as far as I can tell.

Toto · 07-09-2011, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
Toto, to clarify, I am not asking you to consider, in my proposed hypothetical to you, other possibilities of who this "James" or who this "Jesus" actually was. If you find the phrase, "called Christ," improbable for Josephus, then you need to propose a more probable alternative phrasing, which does not mean going in a circle to your conclusions and bringing in new proposals of who "James" or "Jesus" may actually be. Instead, I am asking you to argue using the method of reductio ad absurdum--how does "called Christ" not make sense within the standard model of Josephus, and what would be a considerably more likely alternative phrasing of Josephus within the bounds of the standard model?

I'm not following this.

If you leave out "called Christ" the passage in Josephus makes sense, which supports the idea of interpolation. It's a simple solution.

Many consider it unlikely that Josephus would casually refer to someone like Jesus as "Christ." I have given you some more likely phrases if Josephus had intended to refer to James as the brother of Jesus. He didn't use those phrases.

I have no idea what you mean by an alternative phrasing within the bounds of the standard model. There's no model here.

Quote:

... there were NOT so many men names "Jesus" who were known by the nickname, "Christ," but multiple external evidence shows us that Jesus popularly had that nickname among Greek speakers in the same rough time period as the writing of Josephus.....

Multiple external evidence, such as?

There is little actual evidence for non-Christian Greek speakers knowing about Jesus Christ at the end of the first century. Tacitus refers only to Christus. Pliny refers to Christians singing hymns to Christ as a god, but doesn't know anything about Jesus. Suetonius refers to an agitator among the Jews called Chrestus in Rome in the first century, but it takes a lot of duct tape to connect this figure to Jesus of Nazareth. I conclude from this that Romans knew something about Christians and connected the religion with Christ, but knew nothing much about Jesus. Only Christians seem to connect Jesus and Christ.

andrewcriddle · 07-09-2011, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm sorry, Andrew, but this is empty speculation based on negative press regarding Sadducean positions. There is no clear surviving Sadducean literature from which you can make substantive claims. You don't even know if Sadducean law was in operation at the time. You merely have confused biblical notions of the Sadducees along with the obviously erroneous material in Josephus.

If Sadducean views were those of major priestly positions at least espoused before the fall of the Hasmoneans, then the Dead Sea Scrolls represent temple views closely related to angels, ie Josephus is off the wall; the DSS are also apocalyptic with some form of messianism, causing problems to Josephus's potted story of his Sadducees. Our sources on the Sadducee views are not trustworthy.

Josephus's count of the death of James is so lacking in content, that one can do nothing more than speculate about it. There seems to be no way to enter further into the story other than through speculation and retrojection.

As Doctor McCoy so frequently said, "he's dead, Jim."

Hi Spin

As a point about the Historical Sadducees you may be right. However if we are asking whether the account of James in Josephus is something Josephus would find plausible, then this passage may be relevant josephus/ant-13

Quote:

Now there was one Jonathan, a very great friend of Hyrcanus's, but of the sect of the Sadducees, whose notions are quite contrary to those of the Pharisees. He told Hyrcanus that Eleazar had cast such a reproach upon him, according to the common sentiments of all the Pharisees, and that this would be made manifest if he would but ask them the question, What punishment they thought this man deserved? for that he might depend upon it, that the reproach was not laid on him with their approbation, if they were for punishing him as his crime deserved. So the Pharisees made answer, that he deserved stripes and bonds, but that it did not seem right to punish reproaches with death. And indeed the Pharisees, even upon other occasions, are not apt to be severe in punishments. At this gentle sentence, Hyrcanus was very angry, and thought that this man reproached him by their approbation. It was this Jonathan who chiefly irritated him, and influenced him so far, that he made him leave the party of the Pharisees, and abolish the decrees they had imposed on the people, and to punish those that observed them. From this source arose that hatred which he and his sons met with from the multitude: but of these matters we shall speak hereafter. What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side. But about these two sects, and that of the Essens, I have treated accurately in the second book of Jewish affairs.

This does indicate that Josephus thought that the Sadducees were harsher in criminal proceedings than the Pharisees.

Andrew Criddle

ApostateAbe · 07-09-2011, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

Abe, thanks for your responses. They are very helpful. So, if James was a Christian, do you think that he was part of a persecution of Christians by the Jews just prior the the first Jewish War? If this is the case, what do you think of Jerome's quotation of Hegesippus when he says:

"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees."

Do you think this James was a nazirite, or from Nazareth, or both?

What Christians would have been allowed in the Holy of Holies? This is why I think he may have been a high priest, as even regular Jews were not allowed in the Holy of Holies as far as I can tell.

OK. That account of James would not be contemporary but would be from at least a century afterward, so I wouldn't grant it too much historical reliability. I suppose there is nothing implausible about James being a nazirite, and I would give it even odds. Regardless, he was also from Nazareth for sure, so, yes, both. I think it is implausible that he would have been allowed in the Holy of Holies, and that myth does not pass the criterion of dissimilarity (recent thread on the criterion of dissimilarity here: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=304085).

ApostateAbe · 07-09-2011, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
Toto, to clarify, I am not asking you to consider, in my proposed hypothetical to you, other possibilities of who this "James" or who this "Jesus" actually was. If you find the phrase, "called Christ," improbable for Josephus, then you need to propose a more probable alternative phrasing, which does not mean going in a circle to your conclusions and bringing in new proposals of who "James" or "Jesus" may actually be. Instead, I am asking you to argue using the method of reductio ad absurdum--how does "called Christ" not make sense within the standard model of Josephus, and what would be a considerably more likely alternative phrasing of Josephus within the bounds of the standard model?

I'm not following this.

If you leave out "called Christ" the passage in Josephus makes sense, which supports the idea of interpolation. It's a simple solution.

It is not a simple solution. If "called Christ" is simply omitted, then it would be, "brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and some others." It leaves "Jesus" unidentified until later in the text, it would be an implausible way for Josephus to write (James and Jesus were both common names), and it would make much more sense for "Jesus" to be identified the first time, not the second time, as that is an universally-accepted rule of chroniclers. If Jesus was identified the first time as "the son of Damneus," then it would mean that Jesus was identified with that title twice within the same short passage, and it is redundant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Many consider it unlikely that Josephus would casually refer to someone like Jesus as "Christ." I have given you some more likely phrases if Josephus had intended to refer to James as the brother of Jesus. He didn't use those phrases.

I have no idea what you mean by an alternative phrasing within the bounds of the standard model. There's no model here.

I think you know what I mean, and you are dodging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

... there were NOT so many men names "Jesus" who were known by the nickname, "Christ," but multiple external evidence shows us that Jesus popularly had that nickname among Greek speakers in the same rough time period as the writing of Josephus.....

Multiple external evidence, such as?

There is little actual evidence for non-Christian Greek speakers knowing about Jesus Christ at the end of the first century. Tacitus refers only to Christus. Pliny refers to Christians singing hymns to Christ as a god, but doesn't know anything about Jesus. Suetonius refers to an agitator among the Jews called Chrestus in Rome in the first century, but it takes a lot of duct tape to connect this figure to Jesus of Nazareth. I conclude from this that Romans knew something about Christians and connected the religion with Christ, but knew nothing much about Jesus. Only Christians seem to connect Jesus and Christ.

You can plausibly explain five similar sets of evidences with only one unified explanation, or you can explain five similar sets of evidences with five different unrelated explanations. Maybe you have good reasons for those five different pigeonholes in this case, but I would like to know if you think that the principle of "explanatory scope" ("...must imply a greater variety of observation statements") is something that you value. You said before that "probability is subjective," and I would like to know if you really mean it.

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

07-08-2011, 09:14 PM	#83
beallen041 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: S. Nevada Posts: 45	Abe, it's not clear to me where you are on James, so can I ask some basic questions about what you think of James just so I can understand where you are coming from? Sorry if you have already dealt with this elsewhere: 1. Was James a Christian? 2. If he was, why was he a candidate for the job of high priest in Josephus? 3. If he wasn't, why is he an authority for Paul in Galatians? 4. When was James born (roughly)?

07-08-2011, 10:59 PM	#86
beallen041 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: S. Nevada Posts: 45	Abe, thanks for your responses. They are very helpful. So, if James was a Christian, do you think that he was part of a persecution of Christians by the Jews just prior the the first Jewish War? If this is the case, what do you think of Jerome's quotation of Hegesippus when he says: "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees." Do you think this James was a nazirite, or from Nazareth, or both? What Christians would have been allowed in the Holy of Holies? This is why I think he may have been a high priest, as even regular Jews were not allowed in the Holy of Holies as far as I can tell.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.