Layman

Considering that Josephus had a low opinion of Pilate and considered most of his deeds to have been unjustified, sure. And Josephus had no problem describing John the Baptist as a "good man" who "urged Jews to exert themselves to virtue" though he was executed by Jewish authorities. Heck, this rather positive description did not prevent Josephus from being almost sympathetic to Herod's execution of John:

"And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret"

Jews and Jewish Christians.

Also remember that Josephus was in Jerusalem when James the brother of Jesus was murdered. And he describes the population of Jerusalem as positively disposed towards James and the others. This seems unlikely if they had a low opinion of his brother.

The negative connotation is not on wisdom, but on "wise man." Wisdom from God is celebrated and venerated, the wisdom of man is foolish. Which is why the Christian scribe felt obliged to clarify "if indeed he can be called a man."

In 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30, the wisdom of man is put in a very negative light. In Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21, "the wise" are compared unfavourably to "babes." Indeed, such a term is not used by Christians in their early literature to describe Jesus. Vermes, op. cit., page 5. This adds yet more weight to the argument for partial authenticity. As Vermes concludes, "no stylistic or historical argument" can be "marshalled against the authenticity" of this phrase. (Ibid).

I've already dealt with the notion that Eusebius himself interpolated the TF. It existed in independent manuscript traditions.

Could you give me the references for Eusebius' references to Tertullian and Trajan?

Another problem with the phrase is that it appears that it is followed by a clarification added later:

"As it stands, the reticence to call Jesus a man seems like a rejoinder to the previous, already flattering statement that he was a wise man. It seems more like a qualification of an existing statement than part of a free creation." (Mason, op. cit., page 171; See also France, op. cit., page 30: "Thus the clause 'if indeed one should call him a man' makes good sense as a Christian response to Josephus' description of Jesus as (merely) a 'wise man', but is hardly the sort of language a Christian would have used if writing from scratch.").

I thought you had a low opinion of Wright's arguments? Do you accept this one was true. Did you not recently just post a piece saying that Wright was wrong because he told his followers to obey civil authority? I believe you did:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ghlight=Wright

In fact, you were quite adamant:

Where does the Bishop of Durham get the idea that early Christians regarded 'God's servants' as 'regents and usurpers'?

Surely Paul is not claiming that empires are being called to account.

Of course, even if Wright were right, what is relevant is how Christians acted to the Romans and whether the Romans thought they were a revolutionary movement bent on the overthrow of the Empire--a point I addressed in the article.

Steven Carr

Jesus was supposedly the very sort of rebel Josephus regarded as responsible for leading Jews astray and causing the destruction of his nation. Rather different from being somebody who urged Jews to virtue. JTB did not, as the Gospels say Jesus did, die as a supposed king of the Jews.

It also seems unlikely if Christians were being persecuted. But please tell which Pharisees like Josephus regarded Jesus as a man of great wisdom, to be ranked with Daniel and Solomon as a 'wise man.'


So you are objecting to the idea that Christians thought of Jesus as fully human?

You compared 'wise man' with Josephus applying the term to Solomon. Which Christians have ever claimed that the wisdom of Solomon was foolishness? Is this really a serious argument? No Christians would compare Jesus to Solomon, because they thought Solomon had foolishness, not wisdom?

It was Christian writers who compared Jesus to Solomon (Matthew 12:42) Why should they shy away from claiming that Jesus was a wise man like Solomon, especially if they add the footnote that Jesus was more than a man?

Jesus himself praises the wisdom of Solomon in Matthew 12. Why was it an insult to be considered a wise person like Solomon?


Not offhand. Not hard for you to find.


Christians were reticent to say that Jesus was fully human?



I do have a low opinion of most of his arguments, but the claim that Christians were apocalyptic seems reasonable to me.

Not that Paul regarded the Emperor as a 'usurper', as Wright claims Paul did, but that Paul regarded the Roman Empire as due to be overthrown.

After all, even people who believe that the Rapture will occur soon and Jesus will return to Earth as Lord, do not regard George Bush as a 'usurper'. Why should it be different 2,000 years ago?

Steven Carr

1 Chronicles 10:15 'I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say'


Why did Paul speak to people whose wisdom he regarded as foolishness?

Matthew 13:54 'And when he was come into his own country , he taught them in their synagogue insomuch that they were astonished , and said , Whence hath this man this wisdom , and these mighty works.'

Chrstians said in their own Gospels that Jesus was a man who had wisdom (sophia), so why would they find it unthinkable to call him a wise man, or to portray as Jew like Josephus thinking of Jesus as the Gospels claimed Jews did?

James 1:5 'If any of you lack wisdom (sophia), let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.'

This is the very same word for wisdom 'sophia' that Layman says has 'pejorative connotations'. How can a gift from God have 'perjorative connotations'?

Surely there was nothing wrong with being a wise man (presumably one of the wise men who Jesus praised for building their houses on rock)

Amaleq13

Layman,


Could you provide the locations for the quotes from Ambrose and Jerome? I don't see the specific locations given anywhere for the quoted passages.


Thanks in advance.

Layman

No. The evidence counts against that. Jesus did not preach revolution and there is no evidence that he did. The Gospels are absent of such evidence. Indeed, as Paula Fredrickson notes, the fact that there was no Roman persecution of Jesus' followers shows that Rome did not consider Jesus a revolutionary. Also, it appears that the martyrdom of James confirms that the Christians had more to fear from Jewish authorities and actually received protection by the Roman authorities.

Actually, it is very similar. Jesus was a wise man who taught those who receive the truth with pleasure. And remember, Josephus tell us explicitly that Herod killed John the Baptist because he feared a public revolt. He may hint at that with Jesus, but does not go nearly so far.

Josephus was not much of a Pharisee. In any event, Acts admits -- against any tendency to show Jewish guilt -- that several Pharisees had actually joined the Jerusalem Church.

I do not think that the use of wise man means Josephus equated Jesus with Daniel and Solomon. He says many other things about them that are not said of Jesus.

And as the public reaction to the death of James the Just shows, it is perhaps likely that many of the Jewish public had a favorable impression of Jesus that was not shared by their leadership.

Of course not. The question is irrelevant.

That is not the argument. Christians did not describe Solomon and Daniel as wise men, Josephus did.

Christians no doubt believed that Solomon's wisdom came from God. But Christians did not call Solomon a wise man, Josephus did.

The text does not compare Jesus and Solomon. It simply calls Jesus a wise man. The term wise man was never used by Christians to refer to Jesus. The wisdom of man was considered foolishness. Thus the term is not likely a Christian invention but a Josephan original.

Can you find it for me?

No, but they would not simply call him a "wise man." As Mason, Meier, and France note, the follow up phrase is best taken as a response to the insufficiency of previous phrase. And it is especially informative that this is the lead off description, where was "he was the Christ" was tagged on near the end. There would be no need for confusion if you were a Christian writing from scratch. You lead off with "he was the Christ."

You have accepted my argument then. And have offered nothing contrary about Roman attitudes of Christians at the time.

Layman

The Greek is different and often translated "sensible men" or "intelligent men."

Matthew attributes these statements to unbelieving Jews. They rejected Jesus, promplting Jesus to say "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."

I am very skeptical that Christians would take to imitating such men.

I did not say that the term wisdom has pejorative connotations. I said the wisdom of men does. Here James is clear that it is God's wisdom, not man's, that a person should seek.

You have yet to offer any instance of Christians using this term to describe Jesus. Much less leading this off as the key description.

Layman

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html provides citations and quotes, as well as later ones.

I am not sure that his are the same as mine. I got mine from The Complete Works of Josephus, Trns. by William Whiston, Appendix One, "The Testimonites of Josephus Concerning Jesus Christ."

I'll try and check it tonight and get back to you.

Steven Carr

Why did Paul think the wisdom of intelligent men was worth having?

But a Christian might well want to portray Jews as having those beliefs, so why not put those words into the mouth of a Jewish historian?

Which Christians have ever claimed that the wisdom of Solomon has perjorative connotaions?

And the word 'sophia' is exactly the same. The one praised by James, the one that Christians said Jesus had (sophia), which is the word that appears in Josephus.

Oh, it has to be the EXACT phrase, before you will accept any parallel between Christians saying Jesus had the wisdom of Solomon, and Christians using a phrase used to describe the wisdom of Solomon. Although , of course, the phrases that Layman says are perjorative in the NT are NOT the phrase used in Josephus.

Luke 2:52 'And Jesus increased in wisdom (sophia) and stature, and in favour with God and man. '

Yet to say Jesus was a wise (sophia) man, is something no Christian could bring himself to utter, as he regarded that as pejorative....

Layman

It's a completely different term and has a different meaning.

Why would a Christian manufacture a reference to Jesus they found to be inadequate? To "frame" Josephus? This makes no sense.

As I have explained, Christians no doubt believed that Solomon's wisdom was from God.

First, James does not describe Jesus as a "wise man." Second, James clearly attributes the wisdom's source as God. Josephus does refer to Jesus as a "wise man" but does not attribute it's source as God.

It was a loaded term, especially as it is ambiguously used here, that a Christian would likely have avoided. Luke clearly saw Jesus as more than a man, as his version of the virgin birth and other narrative elements make clear. Josephus does no such thing. It is far below the Christology of any Christian scribe we can imagine.

But it is a term that Josephus had no problem using and, indeed, he had used it before. That a Christian scribe found it inadequate is beefed up by the addition of the phrase "If indeed he can be called a man." There is evidence that this phrase was not in other manuscript traditions. It is an obvious Christian sentiment whereas "wise man" is not. Thus, this addition is likely independent of and a response to the inadequate attribution that Jesus was a "wise man."

The evidence favors Josephan origin.

rlogan

I'll just weigh in as a novice here and y'all can flatten me. But I've been going through Josephus' works, and I find it pretty striking that he would have such limited material on Jesus.

If I understand the argument correctly in the tract by Christopher Price, a Christian interpolator would have added much more than just a few lines for the son of God. Therefore it must be authentic.

Yet, this argument is defeated by the very thesis in the tract - that of partial interpolation. If we admit to interpolation and also put forward the argument that Christian interpolation would yield copious quantities of fawning adoration then we are forced into a paradox: The interpolation is sparing.

Thus, we falsify the assertion a Christian interpolator would "ladle on the gravy". I think a more cunning strategy is to slip in a reference here and about. A quiet insideous approach as opposed to a grand hostile takover of Josephus.

I wouldn't make too much of the myth school "carrying the water" on the total forgery theory. I think the causality is the reverse. People become mythicists by virtue of the TF looking false as opposed to wanting the TF to be false becasue they are mythicists.

One should not project Christian apologetics methodology onto the rigorous science of the mythicists.