bfniii

help me understand this statement. are you saying that Jesus' life did not correspond to the Jewish Messianic prophecies?

let's say that someone, like eusebius, did alter the text. all of the people who had read and become familiar with the original would know that the text had been altered. how would someone like eusebius be able to get away with it? is there evidence in other contemporary historical documents that says "i have studied the original and this version has been altered"? if the antiquities were written around 93 and eusebius was born around 260, that means people had at least 160 years to become familiar with and study the work. it seems unlikely that any one person attempting to translate the work would be able to alter the original without having the credibility of the alteration questioned.

the_cave

I'm not talking about the James passage here. I'm only referring to the passage at hand.

But if he never actually refered to Jesus as Christ (or even to Jesus at all), but only to "Christians", this is no longer a problem.

No, I'm considering possibilities. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I had to choose, I would say that he does not describe Jesus as the Christ, but only mentions Christians.

Carlson has made the case for me on his blog (BTW, Carlson himself notes that Meier already came up with the idea--but rejected it. So it's fair to say that it's Carlson's proposal.)

But I certainly can put up a series of competing conjectures--supported or unsupported--when all I'm doing is displaying the different possibilities that haven't yet been explicitly rejected. And now I have explained which one of those possibilities I favor.

I'm aware of this (because I actually have read your previous posts on the subject!) First of all, the death of this "tribe"'s teacher could be numbered among the calamities. Secondly, the mention of this teacher is rather brief, and comes after two passages about separate calamities, so one could refer back to them in the sense of "Returning now to the list of calamities (after my brief aside)..." It's perfectly natural rhetoric.

Like I said, either the death of this tribe's teacher, or simply the previous two passages.

And neither section 2 nor 5 begin with any chronological markers! And that proves: nothing.

Yes, I propose it works either because it is so brief, or because it is another calamity. I would say the former is more likely than the latter.

However, I am in fact fair-minded (whether you think so or not), and I think its brevity is the main strike against it. I don't know why this isn't ususally discussed. Josephus does have similarly brief passages, but they are rare. It's not proof against it, but it should be taken into consideration.

[quote]But he could simply have used it in a descriptive sense. "He was called "The Anointed" [the subtext being: and isn't that weird!] It wouldn't be unusual if this Jesus were the only person at that time who bore the title (and in fact, after 70 and before 132, he was!) Furthermore, what if "Christ" were not originally used as an exact equivalent of "Messiah"? Maybe we're looking at a very early stage of Christianity here. There are a number of possibilities.

Maybe--in which case, I have just outlined reasons why Josephus may have used the title. On the other hand, maybe Josephus didn't bother to call Jesus "Christ"--he merely implied that was his title when mentioning that the Christians were named from him. All I'm saying is, it's plausible.

Why do you think this? I'm perfectly willing to admit the entire thing is an interpolation. But there remains evidence that it isn't. I'm not sure there will ever be evidence to sway the decision entirely one way or another.

andrewcriddle

The version of the TF given by Agapius (the Arabic Version) probably ultimately goes back to the same Syriac tradition as that quoted by Michael the Syrian in the 12th century.

However Michael's version is much closer to the standard TF differing only in two points where it basically agrees with the Arabic version. a/ it has 'he was believed to be the Messiah' rather than 'he was the Messiah' b/ it adds 'and he died' after the account of Jesus being crucified by Pilate.

Hence the points where Agapius differs from both the standard TF and Michael are probably late modification which can be ignored as evidence for the original TF.

As to the agreements against the standard TF between the Arabic version of Agapius and the version of Michael; b/ is almost certainly a result of disputes between Christians and Muslims about whether Jesus really died, a/ however where Agapius has 'he was perhaps the Messiah' appears related to other early versions of the TF such as Jerome's which has 'he was believed to be Christ'.

Hence the Arabic version tells us little about the original form of the TF and comes from a Syriac tradition in which Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History was readily available in Syriac translation.

However it does add to the evidence that the bald statement 'he was the Christ' is not the reading of the original form of the TF.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Only mentioning "Christians" and not "Jesus" would be consistent with Tacitus and Pliny. However, "tribe of Christians" would constitute a unique use of "tribe" by Josephus since, IIRC, there is no other example of it being applied to a religious movement. That we have "tribe of Christians" suggests to me that it is yet another interpolation that borrows an actual word Josephus uses elsewhere. I think this can be said of just about all of the statements remaining in the "reduced" TF and consideration of the other uses of the terms, IMO, points toward Christian redaction. For example, when one considers who else Josephus calls a "wise man", one is forced to conclude he either considered Jesus to be in the league of Solomon or that a Christian has attempted to use Josephan vocabulary to describe him. IMO, the latter is the more reasonable option.

Vivisector

Cheers, Spin. No apologist here - not Christian, anyway - but a couple of points/questions. I don't think I see anyone proposing that Josephus considered Jesus to be "Christ." It seems that a better question might be, is it possible that Josephus has written of a "Jesus called Christ" because that's exactly how some (not Josephus) referred to him? If so, Josephus would simply be reporting a title/association that was in currency, rather than endorsing the title/association. Or, very possibly, I've misunderstood your meaning.


Good point; as written and placed, the TF doesn't seem to fit the flow very well at all, and continuity would not be interrupted at all if it were omitted. Even though this is where I would insert the passage if I were going to perpetrate a pious fraud, I'm not sure that the issue of context is decisive. If a different version of the TF originally occupied this space, then there might be no issue of context (especially if it mentioned another tumult/calamity). Of course, there's no direct evidence for a more original TF, but there is direct evidence that something is where it is.

All true. However, perhaps (a) Jesus was the only person Josephus wrote about who actually was referred to as Christ and (b) it didn't suit Josephus's purpose to elaborate on the concept of the Christ to his audience. In fact, I can see how it might have been embarrassing or uncomfortable for him to have said, "Yes, you Romans kicked our asses, and you da man for now, but we still believe this Christ guy is on his way to settle all accounts. Now let me tell you what we Jews believe about this Christ guy ..." It seems to me that this is exactly what he would have had to do to contrast a false Christ with any concept of a Christ that Josephus might have had.

Vivisector

I think you're right, that it's way too short. If you look at Josephus's treatment of similar individuals (Theudas and the Egyptian, for example), it seems they showed up on his radar only because of a calamity or tumult involving gullible Jews. I'm still a long way from having a tenable hypothesis here, but right now, I'm thinking an original TF would have included some sort of disturbance that ended badly for Jesus but that ultimately cleared the way for James to carry on the movement (a Jewish movement, I might add) - right under the noses of those involved in Jesus's death - up until the time they could rid themselves of James as well.

Doggone it, you gave away the ending!

Notsri

I like this point a lot, Vivisector. The NT gospels usually, though not always, use Christ in the titular sense, equivalent to "the Messiah," whereas the epistles, particularly the Pauline ones, often employ it as a name, in the manner you refer to. Like I said, though, the same usage is sometimes found in the gospels: e.g., Matt. 27:22, where Pilate refers to "Jesus who is called Christ." Obviously this was no profession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah on Pilate's part. In any event, Tacitus calls him Christ, as does Pliny the Younger, and likely Suetonius as well, none of whom were Christian, needless to say.

I think this is probably the most problematic point for maintaining any degree of authenticity. I haven't studied this subject too much, so I'm curious to know how the average apologist gets around this. I did notice, though, that 18.3.4, like 18.3.3, begins with the standard "about this time," except "also" is found in sec. 4, which seems to presuppose the material from sec. 3. In other words Josephus comments on the tumult Pilate instigated in sec. 2, then he digresses in sec. 3 to write about Jesus, who lived roughly "about this time," then he resumes in sec. 4 with "about this time also" such-and-such occurred.

I think this is another great point. Josephus can refer to Jesus as "Christ" (not "the" Christ), the name by which the Gentile readers knew him, for the very fact that Josephus never explains the messianic concept anywhere else in his works. He's not then yoked with the burden of expatiating on Jesus any further, so as to distance this person called "Christ" from the messianic conception held by Jews. And again, there is ample evidence that Christ was not always used with reference to Jesus as a title, so Josephus would simply be adopting the same practice here.

Vivisector

Continuing on the_cave's point about brevity, I thought it would be interesting to see how Origen used Josephus in the case of John the Baptist.

Origen wrote,

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. (Against Celsus, I.47)

From Josephus:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. (Ant. 18.5.2)

And my point would be: Josephus seems, in this case, to have said everything that Origen said he did, substantially just as Origen reported, and then some. What's omitted is also interesting, namely John's message and favorable commentary.

Vivisector

Blue: substantially exact agreement
Green: common reference.
Red: Appears in Origen, but not in Josephus.

According to Origen, Josephus had this to say about James:

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. (Against Celsus, I.47)

and also

... these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. (Comm. Matt., X.17).

Whereas Josephus had this to say:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; 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; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.� (Ant. 20.9.1)

The situation with John the Baptist is now reversed: Origen reports more information than currently exists in Josephus; this information reflects well on James and could have been viewed (in fact, it was, by Origen) by early Christians as deflecting Jesus's rightful credit onto James.

My conclusions:

1. The copy of Josephus available to Origen contained at least as much as Origen reported and (in the example of John the Baptist) possibly more. In other words, Josephan material is missing.
2. The character of the missing material was favorable to James and likely included a belief, held among at least some of the Jews, that the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple were due to the manner of James's death (see Ant. 18.5.2 for a parallel involving John the Baptist).

One could also say:

3. There is no prima facie textual reason to doubt that Josephus referred to Jesus as the brother of James, "called Christ," and to reject the surviving reading in this regard.

spin

All beside the point that Josephus avoided the use of the term xristos which you are intend to avoid in your analysis, despite whether you accept it or not.

While you're playing what-if games, you can what-if anything you like. But you can't what-if no reference to xristos and remove the source of the "so named from him", for you make this phrase meaningless.

Then as I indicated yuo aren't dealing with the full text: they were called Christians after Jesus. Yeah, I'm sure that makes sense to you.

Sorry, but I get the impression that if so, it must have come out the same way it went in.

Who is this tribe to our devout Jew, Josephus? It's obviously not the Jews, yet the second calamity happened to the Jews, just like the first one before the TF. Consider who's writing, not the conclusion you want.

Rubbish. You have to stick in a parenthesis to give this a guise of false naturalness. We already know what conclusion you want.

Let me recommend that you read up on discourse analysis. It's quite an important field in linguistics. It's about how communications fit together and work to deliver the desired meaning. It doesn't refer to the last thing said when the last thing said doesn't relate and it doesn't insert something in between when it interrupts the discourse linkages.

You wouldn't know if it were brief or not, if genuine. You've got no argument at all. You are still what-iffing, because you know what your conclusion is and you are trying to get the data to fit it but you can't, hence what-iffing.

Yeah, right.

It's only brief because some of the text had to go. It's as long as you'd have it because some of the text had to stay.

The image I used last time on this arbitrary choosing of what you want to keep, is like dropping a sandwich on a dirty floor, then picking the sandwich up and removing all the visible traces. The problem is that you wouldn't really eat the sandwich -- well, most people wouldn't.

Once again, as I have pointed out that out of the 40 odd uses of xristos in the LXX, not one of them made it into the AJ. Josephus never refers to a xristos anywhere but in the TF and the James passage with its mention of Jesus. The devout Jew Josephus is not going to throw away a reference to the xristos to the Romans who don't know what the term means, when the devout Jew isn't a Christian and would have to explain the idea of the xristos to the Romans because it didn't mean "ointment" as the term meant outside Judaic contexts.

The LXX uses xristos over 40 times and it plainly means the anointed.

Does this incoherence need a response? Maybe it's this and then again maybe it's that. Sounds like a song lyric about someone who can't make up their mind what to say, but they have their minds made up, right??

I see not one single piece of evidence to take the passage seriously.

1) It ruins the discourse of the general context.
2) It uses xristos which certainly would have been strange to his audience and would certainly have been strange for a devout Jew.
3) It very conveniently contains the basic kerygma.
4) It is not known by any father until the time of Eusebius who does use some of the phraseology found in it.
5) The only way one can save bits of the passage is through the arbitrary "oh this bit doesn't need to go -- let's keep it."

It's dead, Jim. "There are only so many ways you can say it."


spin