Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 01-21-2007, 08:29 PM

Thanks Ben,

Okay, let us eliminate the phrase "their laws" as being part of the argument. Instead, let us ask why Josephus does not give us the name of the wicked man involved? He gives us the names of the Roman woman involved and even tells us the name of her husband. Yet for some reason, we do not get the name of the man involved. We also do not get the laws that he overstepped nor the men who accused him. When we compare this to the amount of information that Josephus gives concerning the expulsion of the Isis Cult members in the previous paragraph, it seems quite strange.

While it is hard to understand why Josephus would not know or wish to hide the man's identity, it is easy to see why Eusebius would hide it. How embarasssing for Christians would it be to have Josephus mention Simon Magus but not Jesus Christ in his history?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Hi, Jay. From the department of things spin thought he would never hear me say... spin is correct.

Here is the Greek and a fairly literal translation of my own:

Ην ανηρ Ιουδαιος, φυγας μεν της αυτου κατηγορια τε παραβασεων νομων τινων και δεει τιμωριας της επ αυτοις....

There was a Jewish man, a fugitive of his own [land] by an accusation of the overstepping of certain laws and by fear of vengeance for the same....

The word τινων is in the genitive case because it serves as an adjective here, modifying νομων, which is an objective genitive after παραβασεων. It is the grammar of the phrase that requires the genitive here, not any desire to insert the possessive their (Greek αυτων).

Ben.

mountainman · 01-22-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

While it is hard to understand why Josephus would not know or wish to hide the man's identity, it is easy to see why Eusebius would hide it. How embarasssing for Christians would it be to have Josephus mention Simon Magus but not Jesus Christ in his history?

Here is an interesting and perhaps relevant quote:

"Eusebius certainly had in mind Jewish-Hellenistic historiography,
as exemplified for him and for us by Flavius Josephus. In Josephus
he found the emphasis on the past, the apologetic tone, the
doctrinal digression, the display (though not so lavish) of documents:
above all there was the idea a nation which is different
from ordinary pagan nations. Jewish historiography emphatically
underlined the importance of the remote past in comparison
with recent times and the importance of cult in comparison
with politics."

-- Arnaldo Momigliano,
Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century

driver8 · 01-23-2007, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ideologist

I've been asking you this same question every time you bring up Josephus; please answer;

Why would Jesus be notable enough to warrant mention by Josephus? If we assume that the numbers of Christians in the Acts is somewhat exaggerated (which is an entirely reasonable suggestion) then Jesus would not be an eminently notable figure, any more than the other messianic groups that existed in the region at the time. It was only a hundred years later, after it had time to build, that it was large enough to warrant attention (and at which point it did warrant attention, from numerous historians).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the significance of Josephus' writings is in large part this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Josephus

Quote:

Josephus (37 – shortly after 100 AD/CE)[1], who became known, in his capacity as a Roman citizen, as Flavius Josephus[2], was a 1st-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.

Josephus, who introduced himself in Greek as "Iosepos (Ιώσηπος), son of Matthias, an ethnic Hebrew, a priest from Jerusalem" [3], fought the Romans in the First Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 as a Jewish military leader in Galilee. After the Jewish garrison of Yodfat was taken under siege, the Romans invaded, killed thousands, and the remaining survivors who had managed to elude the forces committed suicide. However, in circumstances that are somewhat unclear (see also Josephus problem), Josephus surrendered to the Roman forces invading Galilee in July 67. He became a prisoner and provided the Romans with intelligence on the ongoing revolt. The Roman forces were led by Flavius Vespasian and his son Titus, both subsequently Roman emperors. In 69 Josephus was released (cf. War IV.622-629) and according to Josephus' own account, he appears to have played some role as a negotiator with the defenders in the Siege of Jerusalem in 70.

So, Josephus is born in 37 to a priest in Jerusalem. His father should have directly witnessed the critical events of Jesus' life, would have been intensely interested in them, and would have undoubtedly reported them to his son. Where are these stories? This is the most damning silence I can imagine, or did I miss something?

aa5874 · 01-24-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driver8

So, Josephus is born in 37 to a priest in Jerusalem. His father should have directly witnessed the critical events of Jesus' life, would have been intensely interested in them, and would have undoubtedly reported them to his son. Where are these stories? This is the most damning silence I can imagine, or did I miss something?

The silence is definitely deafening, bearing in mind that the father of Josephus was alive when he compiled, at least 'The life of Flavius Josephus'.

Steve Weiss · 02-01-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driver8

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the significance of Josephus' writings is in large part this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Josephus

So, Josephus is born in 37 to a priest in Jerusalem. His father should have directly witnessed the critical events of Jesus' life, would have been intensely interested in them, and would have undoubtedly reported them to his son. Where are these stories? This is the most damning silence I can imagine, or did I miss something?

It is common knowledge among biblical scholars that the scant reference in Josephus to a Jesus is a forgery added after Josephus's death by Christian apologists. This fact is apparent because there are no contempory references to Josephus's writing in which he recognizes a Jesus Christ. The entire bible, old and new, is a work of fiction, in any case, written as a propaganda piece to further the political agenda of weak and ignorant Semitic clans.

jakejonesiv · 02-01-2007, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driver8

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the significance of Josephus' writings is in large part this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Josephus

So, Josephus is born in 37 to a priest in Jerusalem. His father should have directly witnessed the critical events of Jesus' life, would have been intensely interested in them, and would have undoubtedly reported them to his son. Where are these stories? This is the most damning silence I can imagine, or did I miss something?

This argument appears to be very strong, one I have not seen before. How do supporters of HJ respond? Is it Lights Out?

Jake Jones IV

P.S. I guess true believers could say that Josephus got the TF from his father!

Omigod, I bet this ends up on Turkel's web site.

andrewcriddle · 02-01-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

This argument appears to be very strong, one I have not seen before. How do supporters of HJ respond? Is it Lights Out?

Jake Jones IV

P.S. I guess true believers could say that Josephus got the TF from his father!

Omigod, I bet this ends up on Turkel's web site.

According to the synoptic gospels at least, the main area of the activity of Jesus was Galilee, a priest in Jerusalem would only have known about it if he made deliberate enquiries.

If the TF is Mostly authentic Josephus has a basic knowledge of what happened in Jerusalem during the last week of the life of Jesus. IMO we would not necessarily expect much more.

Andrew Criddle

driver8 · 02-01-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

According to the synoptic gospels at least, the main area of the activity of Jesus was Galilee, a priest in Jerusalem would only have known about it if he made deliberate enquiries.

If the TF is Mostly authentic Josephus has a basic knowledge of what happened in Jerusalem during the last week of the life of Jesus. IMO we would not necessarily expect much more.

Andrew Criddle

It seems to me that there were significant events in Jesus' life that may have taken place in Jerusalem as well.

Regardless, given Josephus' family history, it may be enlightening to review these known versions of the TF and consider which might be most authentic, if indeed any of it is, and how the changes might have occurred. The least embellished, or perhaps most reduced, is that of Agapius.

Your comment that we would not expect more may indeed be more illuminating than you intended. I find the almost off-handed references to wonderful works, divine prophets and ten thousand other wonderful things quite difficult to accept at face value. I would expect either no mention of these things or much much more detail than the equivalent of a diary entry that "God stopped by the house today."

The statement that "the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" also seems to be written from a greater passage of time than were it originally part of the Antiquities. I have trouble reconciling any of this, and the implications of forgery are quite serious.

Quote:

Textus receptus
The English translation by William Whiston reads:
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 Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

the Eusebius quote by Jerome in his De viris illustribus:
In this same time was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him man. For he was a worker of wonderful miracles, and a teacher of those who freely receive the truth. He had very many adherents also, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and was believed to be Christ, and when through the envy of our chief men Pilate had crucified him, nevertheless those who had loved him at first continued to the end, for he appeared to them the third day alive. Many things both these and other wonderful things are in the songs of the prophets who prophesied concerning him and the sect of Christians, so named from him, exists to the present day.

The quote from Arabic history by Agapius:
For he [i.e. Josephus] says in the treatises that he has written on the governance [i.e. Antiquities] of the Jews:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

The quote from the Syrian Chronicle of Michael the Syrian
The writer Josephus also says in his work on the institutions [i.e. Antiquities] of the Jews: In these times there was a wise man named Jesus, if it be fitting for us to call him a man. For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of truth. Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples. He was thought to be the Messiah. But not according to the testimony of the principal [men] of [our] nation. Because of this, Pilate condemned him to the cross, and he died. For those who had loved him did not cease to love him. He appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvelous things [as these]. And the people of the Christians, named after him, have not disappeared till [this] day.

Amaleq13 · 02-01-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

It is common knowledge among biblical scholars that the scant reference in Josephus to a Jesus is a forgery added after Josephus's death by Christian apologists.

This is not accurate.

It is generally accepted by most biblical scholars that the extant longer reference to Jesus (ie TF) is the result of Christian tampering with an original genuine reference assumed to have existed previously. The short reference to Jesus is generally accepted as genuine.

Johann_Kaspar · 02-01-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

This is not accurate.

It is generally accepted by most biblical scholars that the extant longer reference to Jesus (ie TF) is the result of Christian tampering with an original genuine reference assumed to have existed previously. The short reference to Jesus is generally accepted as genuine.

True, but it tells us nothing about what Josephus wrote or did not write. Only opinions, and xian biased opinions.

Moreover, Josephus did not know about any "passion" story some sixty years after the supposed "facts".

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.