aa5874

There is one word that cannot be found anywhere in the works of Josephus, once the TF is regarded as a forgery, and it is the word "Christ".

Now it would be quite unusual for Josephus to mention such a significant figure only once and without saying why he was called Christ.

The Jews expected a Messiah and it would seem that only Josephus knew when he came. Philo a contemporary of the so-called Messiah missed him conmpletely although he mentioned Pilate.

The passage in 20.9.1, in my opinion, should have read before the forgery, ".......and brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and some others."

The obvious forgery or interpolation are the words "who was called Christ

Chaucer

A term that was only current in native Palestinian Judaic culture. So naturally it would only be applied to some native son -- in this case, an obscure carpenter who became the object of a lot of hagiography after his death. The reason why Josephus only uses the term in reference to James's somewhat dotty brother is because he was the only contemporary to whom the natives ever applied the Christ term in the first place. It would have been insulting to apply the term to anyone else, most of all to some Roman, who undoubtedly -- if he knew the term at all -- would have viewed the title with contempt.

Chaucer

Chaucer

All of what you say may well be so, but JakeJonesIV was talking only to word order, pure and simple; and since there are these other additional examples of such word order -- WHATEVER THEIR CONTEXT -- they need to be addressed one way or another before glibly jumping to the conclusion that the word order in Antiq. 20 is automatically unique and so automatically not originally Josephus. Maybe some can claim that these passages are different from Antiq. 20 because of antecedents considerations. But one can NOT claim that Antiq. 20 is unique with respect to word order. And that is the -- ERRONEOUS -- claim that JakeJonesIV was (implicitly) making in his posting. Well, that claim is wrong.

Chaucer

spin

[]

aa5874

But, the word Messiah transliterated as Christ in Greek, as found in Daniel 9, preceded the supposed Jesus by hundreds of years. King David was called Christ hundreds of years before in Hebrew Scriptures. And the Messiah was not going to be a carpenter, the Messiah was a killer for God or a defender of the Jews.

In the NT, JESUS did not even curse the Roman Emperor or attempt to kill any Roman soldiers. Simon Bar Cocheba had to do some of those things or encouraged others to destroy the Romans.

Why would Josephus call Jesus the brother of James the Messiah? What did he do to the Romans and when?


There is certainly not one thing in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 that show that the brother of James was a carpenter and lived during the time of Pilate, or was dead before his brother was stoned.

Please show me what is found in Antiquities of the Jews not what you assume.

Who was the father of the Lord, the brother of James, in the NT? No-one knows, except the Holy Ghost of God.

Who was the father or mother of Jesus the brother of James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1?

What did this Christ do in Josephus? Absolutely nothing.

That Christ was a forgery.

spin

Is he not correct when he points out that the word order is "a bit awkward"? That's a layperson's way of saying that the syntax is marked in some way.

He pointed out the marked syntax and did not talk about other contexts. This is merely you projecting your opinions.

Is the following not correct?

Do you have any doubts here? It is awkward. The real subject has been deferred. More interest is shown in Jesus than James.
The only complaint one can have is that "indicating" may be seen as too strong given the data. The rest of this post is bleating.


spin

(And who claimed that?)

show_no_mercy

Why are you still using this poor argument? The title "christ" was used wherever there were Greek speaking Jews. There are probably a hundred instances where someone is titled "christ" in the LXX.

Chaucer

But it doesn't matter how Josephus on his own might term Jesus. Josephus's likes and dislikes are not the point here. What matters is what the man in the (Palestinian) street had come to call Jesus. To identify Jesus, Josephus simply applies his most familiar title, regardless of prior usage.

Chaucer

Chaucer

So? Shak[e]speare is awkward sometimes when he uses a noun as a verb. But he does it in more than one place, so it's evidently authorial. The same is clearly the case here.

Exactly what I said. He didn't talk about contexts at all. In fact, YOU did. So I addressed contexts here because I was addressing YOU. You know, a typical tactic you have, I've noticed, is compelling your opponent to waste time belaboring the obvious.

How is this any different from the objection you already make at the top of this posting? My reply is the same: "So? Shak[e]speare is awkward sometimes when he uses a noun as a verb. But he does it in more than one place, so it's evidently authorial. The same is clearly the case here."

Well................THANK YOU!

I really think that that question was already addressed in what I previously said =======>

Chaucer

Chaucer

Those are not applied to contemporaries. James was a contemporary.

Chaucer