FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-29-2007, 05:29 AM   #111
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: .
Posts: 1,014
Default

Personally I can't decide between the 1) and 3) I posted before, the fact that this is such a brief mention with no real background information,rather typical of Suetonius at times unfortunately ,means that it is hard to make a definitive statement one way or the other.
These two are more likely in my opinion than the 2) but then again this is not completely impossible either.
Lucretius is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 05:42 AM   #112
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,706
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post
One more thing here against angelo atheist:

In Greek, before and even during the Septuagint, christos did not mean messiah, but "ointment, oil". This is how its found in Euripides, Aeschylus, and Theocritus, the latter writing during the third century BCE.

It is only, as far as I can see, in Jewish and later Christian contexts (the LXX and the NT) that christos is used as a translation for mashiakh, Hebrew for "anointed", not "messiah". The Graeco-Roman religion did not have a clear concept for "anointed one" corresponding to the Judaean version.

Therefore Suetonius would not have called just anyone a "messiah", and if the word Christus is used, it has to refer to someone in the Jewish/Christian community would gave the appellation to someone. Josephus points to only one person out of the many messiahs who bore the title Christus.
Yes, but how many scholars today take Josephus's reference to Jesus as the messiah seriously? Or his description ''if indeed one might call him a man'' as reliable? The Greek translation of ''anointed one'' is Christos, as far as I understand it.
angelo is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 06:58 AM   #113
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
Default

No less weight (indeed, far more) attaches to the testimonies of Suetonius and Tacitus, which can hardly be dismissed as interpolated falsifications, as the critics would suggest. The passage in Suetonius displays an ignorance of the circumstances which would be impossible where Christians were concerned, and that in Tacitus manifests decided enmity and scorn towards them. The Christians at that time were not in the habit of falsifying things so subtly; their falsifications were crude affairs and always included fulsome praise of their own cause, just as, on the other hand, they simply burned all books hostile to Christianity (Cod. Theodos. I tit. I, 1,3), thus eliminating, no doubt, much that would have been significant and illuminating. Moreover, Christians then would not have been greatly interested in merely providing evidence that Christ really existed; they did not have to prove his existence to the critics—for such sophisticated critics did not exist at the time. These accounts do not have the 'feel' of forgeries, neither of Christian nor of Jewish provenance, for, just as Christians would have falsified things in their own way, so would the Jews have done in theirs. But we do not find so much as a mention of the terms in which Jews always spoke of Christ; it all sounds exactly as the Romans, with their particular interest in the matter, would have discussed it, and no doubt did discuss it. What Jew, what Christian would have been able to speak in such an unmistakably Tacitean style as we find in this passage from the Annals! According to Suetonius, in his life of Claudius (c.25), the latter "banished from Rome"—in the year 51—"the Jews who were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus." (The author of this statement seems to think that Christ lived in Rome in the reign of Claudius; the form "Chrestus" for Christus occurs frequently, as does "Chrestiani" for Christiani.) In Annals XV,44 Tacitus writes, in connection with the great fire caused by Nero in the year 64: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a deadly superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but also in the City, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world meet and become popular."--Brunner, Our Christ
No Robots is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 07:03 AM   #114
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
Yes, but how many scholars today take Josephus's reference to Jesus as the messiah seriously?
They usually add something like "was called", paralleling Jerome's quotation of the passage.

Quote:
Or his description ''if indeed one might call him a man'' as reliable?
This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion...why'd you bring it up?

Quote:
The Greek translation of ''anointed one'' is Christos, as far as I understand it.
Did you even bother reading what I wrote?
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 07:04 AM   #115
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucretius View Post
Personally I can't decide between the 1) and 3) I posted before, the fact that this is such a brief mention with no real background information,rather typical of Suetonius at times unfortunately ,means that it is hard to make a definitive statement one way or the other.
These two are more likely in my opinion than the 2) but then again this is not completely impossible either.
Nor do we have to make a definitive statement as of now anyway. It can be used as it is. Why the urge for some sort of dogma to be developed here?
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 01:46 AM   #116
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,706
Default

[QUOTE=Chris Weimer;4824724]
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
Yes, but how many scholars today take Josephus's reference to Jesus as the messiah seriously?
They usually add something like "was called", paralleling Jerome's quotation of the passage.


This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion...why'd you bring it up?

Quote:
The Greek translation of ''anointed one'' is Christos, as far as I understand it.
Quote:
Did you even bother reading what I wrote?
I'm only trying to point out that the writings of Josephus concerning Jesus cannot be trusted. They, as you probably know, were hijacked by the later church fathers, who were desperate to find evidence of their god/man outside of the gospels.
angelo is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 04:09 AM   #117
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: .
Posts: 1,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucretius View Post
Personally I can't decide between the 1) and 3) I posted before, the fact that this is such a brief mention with no real background information,rather typical of Suetonius at times unfortunately ,means that it is hard to make a definitive statement one way or the other.
These two are more likely in my opinion than the 2) but then again this is not completely impossible either.
Nor do we have to make a definitive statement as of now anyway. It can be used as it is. Why the urge for some sort of dogma to be developed here?
In fact I do not wish to be "dogmatic" about this at all, I apologise if it reads that way .
I was merely pointing out that this one short phrase cannot really be used by either side of any HJ versus MJ argument .
Lucretius is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 10:06 AM   #118
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion...why'd you bring it up?
It does have bearing on the discussion. Your question was logically equivalent to "have you stopped beating your wife". It's a trick question. Now, you probably didn't do that on purpose, but you did nonetheless. So I fixed it for you. Add "called" and it gains momentous support.

Quote:
I'm only trying to point out that the writings of Josephus concerning Jesus cannot be trusted. They, as you probably know, were hijacked by the later church fathers, who were desperate to find evidence of their god/man outside of the gospels.
Is that true? Evidence?
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 09-30-2007, 10:07 AM   #119
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucretius View Post
I was merely pointing out that this one short phrase cannot really be used by either side of any HJ versus MJ argument .
It cannot be used in the HJ/MJ debate, but it can be used by both sides.
Chris Weimer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:48 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.