Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

All alternate TF proposals, Meier's included, miss the context and thematic thread that ties together all of the episodes in Antiquities (particularly books 18-20).

The TF, however reconstructed, does not explain how Jesus or his followers has anything to do with “the history of the Jews”, or their relevance to any of the themes that are elsewhere fleshed out in all the narratives of Josephus.

When Josephus tells readers about Judas and Sadduc, or Theudas or “that Egyptian” (both in Book 20), or any of the other Jewish trouble-makers or Jewish notables in Book 18, in every single case Josephus is discussing the workings of God and the natural outcomes of adhering to or violating the laws and nature of God. Sometimes gentiles are the heroes or villains, but the Jews are always centre stage because of their special contribution to the human race -- that is, their most noble of philosophies and laws that originated with Moses.

The TF is about Jesus and Christians for their own sakes. That is unlike any other anecdote of Josephus. (I have discussed each of the anecdotes related by Josephus in Books 18-20 in a series of posts, particularly this one, demonstrating this, I think.)

The TF is different from these other anecdotes in that it tells us about Jesus in a self-contained bubble. He did this, he did that, he was treated this way, and some thought this about him, and here we see his followers around us today.

There is no connection with the demise or suffering of the Jewish people. Nor is there any relevance to the piety of the Jews in the way they courageously or nobly adhered to their customs of their fathers.

It does not even work as a "footnote" equivalent. It is incomprehensible that Josephus could have written such a piece, given that everywhere else he is demonstrating to his readers the piety of his own race and peers in opposing or suffering at the hands of Pilate. They don’t just suffer from Pilate, but they suffer because of their loyalty to Moses who taught them look to the Divine Nature.

Or when Josephus writes to find fault with leaders, it is to demonstrate that their sins are the violation of the ancestral customs of the Jews. It makes no sense to think he would write "neutrally" about a person whose followers parted company with Moses.

The only way we can excuse such a portrayal is to imagine that all the Christians, both Jew and Greek, known to Josephus in Rome and "throughout the word" were anti-Pauline "Judaizers". So much for the epistles of Paul and Clement.

Discussed this in much detail beginning here.

As for the James passage, the best explanation I have seen for this is Doherty's view that most of us here are familiar with I am sure, but which is also summarized here.

Neil

Originally Posted by David Deas

I guess what I'm trying to do here is understand how they finish their arguement.

Originally Posted by DCHindley

This has been kicked around here and academic lists such as Crosstalk2 (aka Xtalk) for a while. I think Steve Mason sides, although cautiously, on the side of authenticity of the James reference in Ant. 20:200, although he is open to the idea that the phrase "Jesus the so-called Christ" is a scribal interpolation. While Meier will always come to a safe, uncontroversial conclusion, but does review a lot of alternate positions along the way. I always check his endnotes for an annotated bibliography and his opinion about their relative worth to the question at hand.

In the Septuagint, CRISTOS is found numerous times, but in all cases, except for the instances in Daniel (which I think are references to the high priests in the time of Antiochus IV) and the Odes and Psalms of Solomon (where they refer to Jesus Christ), it clearly refers to either the people of Israel or to the anointed king.*

If the reference to "Jesus the so-called christ" in Ant 20:200 is authentic, it probably does not refer to the Jesus Christ of the Christians. In Josephus' works the term CRISTOS, besides the TF in Ant. 18:63, is only used in Ant. 20:200 (of Jame's brother Jesus) and as an allusion to stucco on Solomon's temple (Ant. 8:137). Unlike the Septuagint translation, Josephus avoids using this term directly.

I have suggested in the past that the anointed ones of Daniel are in fact Cyrus the Great (CRISTOU HGOUMENOU, 9:25) and Menelaus (CRISMA, 9:26), and I think this may also be the position of some professional critics.

What we have kicked around here is the idea that James was brother of a Jesus "who is called anointed [i.e., this Jesus would then be either a former high priest or member of one of the high priestly families]." Perhaps what the most righteous objected to was the fact that this Ananus dared charge and execute a member of a rival high priestly family.

DCH

*CRIW (to touch on the surface: to rub or anoint with scented unguents) Exod. 28:41; 29:2, 7, 29, 36; 30:26, 30, 32; 40:9f, 13; Lev. 4:3; 6:13; 7:36; 8:11f; 16:32; Num. 6:15; 7:1, 10, 84, 88; 35:25; Deut. 28:40; Jda. 9:8, 15; Jdg. 9:8, 15; 1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 11:15; 15:1, 17; 16:3, 12f; 2 Sam. 1:21; 2:4, 7; 5:3, 17; 12:7; 19:11; 1 Ki. 1:34, 39, 45; 5:15; 19:15f; 2 Ki. 9:3, 6, 12; 11:12; 23:30; 1 Chr. 11:3; 14:8; 29:22; 2 Chr. 23:11; 36:1; Jdt. 10:3; Ps. 26:1; 44:8; 88:21; 151:4; Sir. 45:15; 46:13; 48:8; Hos. 8:10; Amos 6:6; Isa. 25:6; 61:1; Jer. 22:14; Ezek. 16:9; 43:3; Dan. (Theodotion) 9:24

CRISTOS (to be rubbed on, of persons, anointed) Lev. 4:5, 16; 6:15; 21:10, 12; 1 Sam. 2:10, 35; 12:3, 5; 16:6; 24:7, 11; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam. 1:14, 16; 2:5; 19:22; 22:51; 23:1; 1 Chr. 16:22; 2 Chr. 6:42; 22:7; 2 Ma. 1:10; Ps. 2:2; 17:51; 19:7; 27:8; 83:10; 88:39, 52; 104:15; 131:10, 17; Odes 3:10; 4:13; 14:14, 27; Sir. 46:19; Ps. Sol. 17:32; 18:1, 5, 7; Amos 4:13; Hab. 3:13; Isa. 45:1; Lam. 4:20; Dan. (Lxx) 9:26; Dan. (Theodotion) 9:25

CRISMA (anything smeared on, esp. a scented unguent, whitewash, stucco) Exod. 29:7; 30:25; 35:12, 19; 40:9, 15; Sir. 38:30; Dan. (Lxx) 9:26; Dan. (Theodotion) 9:26

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

They don't really finish it. What you have discovered is the ultimate circularity of the entire historicist case. It requires an assumption of historicity to make Josephus evidence for historicity. If Josephus, of all non-Christian sources, is the best evidence there is, and if Josephus is questionable, then historicity is in serious trouble. Therefore, at least one of the Josephan references must be unquestionable, and they can't get even one without assuming that some part of the other is unquestionable.

Originally Posted by David Deas

They say 20.9 has to be a back citation to 18.3 because "the ointment" is nonsense to a gentile audience. But even in their reconstructions of 18.3, no place is this "ointment" nonsense suitably addressed. That's where I'm struggling.

Originally Posted by David Deas

The challenge I'm having difficulty with when analyzing their arguments is that, for the most part, these hypothetical reconstructions do not address the issue of the term "Christ" being undefined for Josephus' audience. The term nevertheless remains undefined even in their reconstructions. To a Greek audience, 20.9 would read "Jesus called (the) ointment", or "Jesus (the) said ointment", "Jesus (the) aforementioned ointment". This nonsensical literary quagmire is the reason for the alleged back citation in the first place. So it is expected that in scholarly reconstructions Josephus someplace explains the term to his audience. However, we do not typically find that to be the case (no doubt partially because they're relying on 'trim down methods' to edit an already existing passage).

In some literature that may have escaped my gaze, perhaps it might have been argued that the term is implicitly defined? How can that be? If it is taken into consideration that Josephus himself would have understood the Messiah to be a figure similar to Vespasian rather than a crucified preacher, the description of the term "Christ" is also not implicitly defined by Josephus in any of these reconstructed back citations.

What is the scholarly rebuttal to, or position on this?

References:

Jesus in Josephus: A modest proposal. By: Meier, John P., Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Jan 1990, Vol. 52, Issue 1.

Jesus Outside the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2000) -- Robert Van Voorst.

Josephus, the Bible, and History (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1989) -- Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata.

Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1987) -- Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata.

Originally Posted by spamandham

Considering all the Jewish messianic bothers going on in the 1st century, I'm betting that the Jewish Josephus and his audience were fully aware of the Jewish 'Christ' concept.

Originally Posted by David Deas

Louis H. Feldman writes:

That, indeed, Josephus did say something about Jesus is indicated, above all, by the passage - the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged - about James, who is termed the brother of "the aforementioned Christ."-- Louis H. Feldman

Originally Posted by David Deas

[
I don't mean to be rude, but what you have submitted here is irrelevant on account of the fact that scholarship apparently recognizes that "called (the) Christ" was not very intelligible to Josephus' audience. I'm trying to analyze *their* arguments and conclusions. Not yours.