DCHindley

Actually, Josephus does indeed use the word CRISTOS in the accusative in Ant 8:137. It is used to describe the material that adorned the exterior of Solomon's temple, which Whiston translated thusly:

but the other part up, to the roof, was plastered over, and, as it were, embroidered with colours and pictures.

That is, the material (which is itself not identified) "annointed" the exterior. We would call the sacred material "stucco."

What the hell is the relevance? The interpolator could NOT have been a stucco tradesman!!!!!!!!. If the passage in 18:63-64 was written by Joesphus, the Christians he refers to MUST be contractors, possibly descendents of the men who plastered Solomon's temple. Just trying to narrow the field. However, the chances are quite high that some Christian were indeed stucco application tradesmen, some perhaps even belonged to a union. Now we have a paradox. If we have two "doxes" then the issue is really what is a "dox!"

Just trying to remove any substance to the thread.

DCH

mountainman

Christos also meant white-washing.

spin

I doubt if you would mention "Jamaica Farewell" when talking about Gay Pride, despite the fact that the first line says "Down the way where the nights are gay."


spin

DCHindley

Sorry Spin,

I just couldn't help but poke fun at the bizarre disconnected way that many posts on FRDB BC&H seem to go.

Not your's, of course, but it seems that many arguments here seem to have little or no point to them, to be nit picks, much ado about nothing.

Still, you did say that Josephus does not use Christos elsewhere, yet he does in 8:137. It just isn't translated "Christ" as if referring to a title.

To be serious about it, we cannot even be absolutely sure that the term as used in Antiquities 20:200 refers to Jesus Christ (used as a title for the divine redeemer role Jesus serves in Christianity), or even to Jesus Messiah (used as a title for a claimant to Jewish kingship), as there is reason to believe that the term refers to the brother of James, one Jesus, having held the office of anointed High Priest (which is actually the meaning of the term when found in Lxx Daniel - referring to variously the High Priests Onias III, Menelaus, and possibly Jason).

So the term CRISTOS and CRISTIANWN in Ant 18 are unique in not being explainable as references to exterior plastering or to an anointed High Priest. If CRISTIANOS ("christ") in 18:63 refers to some High Priest rather than "Jesus Christ", the reference to wonder-working, crucifixion under Pilate and attracting gentiles does not correlate to any HP known from Josephus or other sources, although it is in theory possible such a HP existed and was purposely not mentioned by Josephus. Worse, the term CRISTIANWN ("(those who follow) christ") in 18:64 wouldn't make sense if referring to a HP, but could make sense if referring to Christians as we know them.

So yes, it can be seen as really strange for Josephus to use the term in Ant 18:63 and NOT refer to Jesus Christ of the Christians, and yet not really strange (maybe just plain old strange) for Josephus to have used the term in Ant 8:137 or 20:200 to NOT refer to Jesus Christ of the Christians.

You are right though, in that the context of the Tacitus passage (or the passages in Suetonius or even Pliny) does not suggest a casual use of the term "christ" among "Roman stooges," as if it had some universal meaning. The term, unfortunately, is almost universally assumed to refer to Jesus Christ, the divine redeemer of Christianity, as if Christianity owns the term.

Amen.

DCH

spin

And you try to get some reasonable discussion on the subject and the people who brought it up go to water.

I still think you are being naughty. You know very well -- especially when you capitalize "Christos" -- what is on the table.

[There seems to be just one mention of christos in LXX Daniel. The other Greek representation of MSYX is rendered interestingly as chrisma. And we should be dealing with Yeshua ben Yehozedek (9:25) and Onias III (9:26)]

It took me a while to parse that. You are still confusing the issue by introducing the irrelevant AJ 8.137. Form is not sufficient for content, as I have already pointed out. In both AJ 18.63 & 20.200 christos is a title, both times applied to Jesus, ie the only two times that christos (to avoid quibbling: the title of the Jewish messiah) is used is for a Jesus, the name of the christian central figure of the same title.

Would you like to argue that the AJ 20.200 reference to "the brother of Jesus called christ one James" is not strange in form given its context?


spin