Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 07-08-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Actually, as it stands, it does. It is only the Agapius version that qualifies it as a third-person report.

IIUC some scholars (Eisler and Thackeray according to Meier) have argued that EPhANH GAR AUTOIS ... in the standard text of Josephus is possibly to be understood as indirect discourse, ie as a statement of what the disciples claimed, not of what Josephus himself thinks happened.

Andrew Criddle

Alf · 07-10-2006, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

No, the prima facie case is that they are all referring to the same individual. Evidence is required to argue for exceptions against this conclusion.

Do you have a particular reference in mind or are you blindly firing a shotgun hoping to hit something?

Who says? If I see a reference to "a king" (a title) some place and "a king" some other place I do NOT assume prima facie that they refer to the same king.

For names that MIGHT be a reasonable approach even though more than one person have the same name we rarely find famous people with exactly the same names - often they have at least a nickname or some other thing that distinguish them and so people will use that to keep them separate. However, for titles - and christ is a title - the idea that only one person have that title is ridiculous - to assume prima facie that all references to that title is to the same individual appear completely odd to me.

The default assumption must be that they do not necessarily refer to the same individual unless you have some indication that they do. So, I ask again - where is that indication, that evidence, that they do in fact refer to the same individual?

Alf

Amaleq13 · 07-10-2006, 09:30 AM

Alf,

Despite my request that you be more specific, you have continued to write in vague generalities.

Please specifically identify a particular text you believe should be understood as referring to some "other" Christ?

post tenebras lux · 07-10-2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

I usually worry about being blindsided when I have a blind spot.

No, that's different. If I'm failing to see the elephant in the living room - that's due to a blindspot. If I'm so busy concentrating on what (or who) is in front of me such that someone can quietly walk up behind me and whack me behind my ear - then I've been blindsided.

aa5874 had already said: I was of the understanding that Josephus' text about Jesus were interpolated.
To which Amaleq13 replied: That is certainly true of the longer reference but the short reference is widely considered genuine. To my knowledge most attempts to reconstruct the former include the reference to "called Christ" and the latter has it as well.*

So we had already discounted the longer Josephus and were looking at the shorter Josephus - only for you to try to justify the shorter Josephus by use of the longer Josephus. Hence my feeling of being blindsided.

Quote:

The claim is not bold. Why would you think so?

Well, for starters, and as I mentioned: how do you define a 'Josephan scholar'? If you can't define the terms you are using in your own claim then, yes, I think your claim is bold.

Quote:

I'm not asking you to "buy" an argument from authority. I'm just asking you to evidence some awareness of what the authorities are saying.

But what do the authorities say? That is also what I asked you to clarify, hence my: what version of the partially interpolated hypothesis do you go with? i.e. could you kindly post here what you think that passage originally was, as written by Josephus.

Given that, as Mythra has pointed out (475), there is no need for anything to have been there prior to the interpolation, I find it hard to give credit to people who try to claim 'oh no, but this phrase isn't interpolated'. Stephen, what is your current best guess of the words and phrases that Josephus originally put between:
So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.
and
About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome.
?

You claim that 'Yet the tribe of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared even to this day.' is genuine whilst - using the same claim from authority - Amaleq13 claims that 'called Christ' is genuine (see * above), so I suppose that both those phrases should be there, but what else do you have to put between ' ... this sedition' and 'About the same time ... ' that would make sense?

Refering back to your original claim that 'Yet the tribe of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared even to this day.' is genuine: could you be so kind as to confirm that the word christian was used (i.e. whether Josephus used the (bastard) Greco-Roman neologism or if he used proper greek)? Thanks.

ETA: an i.e. to my i.e.: i.e did Josephus just add '-ianos'?

Quote:

"Witness" as a technical term does not mean "eyewitness" but "someone who conveys evidence, direct or indirect, to critical historians." Obviously, the interpolations do not constitute the witness of the first-century Josephus.

OK. Perhaps using 'reference' instead of 'witness' would be clearer.

Quote:

Unless you're positing a double interpolation hypothesis (both Tacitus and Josephus), the date of the oldest manuscript witness to Tacitus is hardly relevant. Tacitus himself is pre-Eusebian.

Stephen Carlson

But the alleged Tacitus quote also stinks. As I had mentioned, it only turns up circa 1100, correct? From looking at the copying errors, scholars surmise that it was copied from a fifth century manuscript (i.e. post-Eusebian), correct? But it is an almost word for word copy of the Chronicle or Sacred History by Sulpicius Severus, which was written circa 405, correct? Except that St. Suplicius didn't make the victims christians (which, given that he was a holy man, ref. his sainthood, would be a bit odd if he had copied it from Tacitus).

What historical evidence do we have for Nero fiddling, the Great Fire, and his then persecuting the christians to deflect attention from himself (other than Tacitus)? :huh:

andrewcriddle · 07-10-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

But the alleged Tacitus quote also stinks. As I had mentioned, it only turns up circa 1100, correct? From looking at the copying errors, scholars surmise that it was copied from a fifth century manuscript (i.e. post-Eusebian), correct? But it is an almost word for word copy of the Chronicle or Sacred History by Sulpicius Severus, which was written circa 405, correct? Except that St. Suplicius didn't make the victims christians (which, given that he was a holy man, ref. his sainthood, would be a bit odd if he had copied it from Tacitus).

Sulpicius Severus says

Quote:

IN the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at Antium.
But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor,
and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the
charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the
accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were
accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were
invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by
being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a
few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night.
In this way, cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians

Original Latin

Quote:

Interea abundante iam Christianorum multitudine accidit ut Roma incendio conflagraret, Nerone apud Antium constituto. sed opinio omnium invidiam incendii in principem retorquebat, credebaturque imperator gloriam innovandae urbis quaesisse. neque ulla re Nero efficiebat, quin ab eo iussum incendium putaretur. igitur vertit invidiam in Christianos, actaeque in innoxios crudelissimae quaestiones; quin et novae mortes excogitatae, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, multi crucibus affixi aut flamma usti, plerique in id reservati, ut cum defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. hoc initio in Christianos saeviri coeptum.

ie Sulpicius Severus quite unambiguously makes the Christians the victims of Nero's cruelty.

Andrew Criddle

post tenebras lux · 07-11-2006, 02:19 AM

Thanks Andrew, my mistake.

Does anyone know when the neologism of adding that latin '-ianos' ending to greek words is first confirmed to have appeared, and what the first use of it was?

Alf · 07-11-2006, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Alf,

Despite my request that you be more specific, you have continued to write in vague generalities.

Please specifically identify a particular text you believe should be understood as referring to some "other" Christ?

Why is that? There are numerous references to "christ" or "chrestus" or whatever for example and references in Josephus if it is genuine etc.

The default or prima facie attitude should be that they all refer to someone who at the time was known as "christ" - not necessarily the same individual. It is possible that they all refer to the same individual but that must be shown. So, there is no point in me picking any particular reference. The default is that ALL OF THEM refer to potentially different individual. If you can show that two of them refer to the same individual then hooray you have managed to identify that one individual is referred to by both. Then you can move on to the next reference etc and see if you can show that it too is the same as the other two you found etc. Once you have gone through all of them and shown this to be the case for all references - can you make the claim that they all refer to the same individual. Until then you have NO EVIDENCE for your case.

Simply shifting the burden of proof doesn't cut it.

Alf

Amaleq13 · 07-11-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alf

Why is that?

I'm asking for a specific example to determine if there is any merit to your claim. Your reluctance to do so is as perplexing as it is unhelpful. Frankly, I do not expect you to be able to offer a very convincing case when specifics are considered. I suspect that the best you will obtain is a few examples that can be argued as possibly referring to some other figure but I doubt you will be able to provide any evidence suggesting such a figure existed or was even believed to exist.

Quote:

The default or prima facie attitude should be that they all refer to someone who at the time was known as "christ" - not necessarily the same individual.

Why should we ignore that there is only evidence that one particular individual was known as "Christ"?

The default or prima facie case is the explanation that appears to address the evidence with the fewest assumptions and that is clearly not the notion that more than one individual has been referred to in the same way by different authors.

Where do the early church fathers address the unavoidable confusion that would arise from multiple individuals called "Christ"?

Quote:

It is possible that they all refer to the same individual but that must be shown.

We know that one individual was referred to in this way and we have no evidence that any other individual was referred to in this way. The burden is clearly upon anyone who wishes to assert that a given reference was actually to someone else.

Quote:

So, there is no point in me picking any particular reference.

Again, the point would be to determine if there is any merit to your claim. This is crucial for any vague claim lacking in specifics.

The prima facie case is that every subsequent reference to an individual called "Christ" is to the same individual that Paul identifies as "Christ".

Quote:

The default is that ALL OF THEM refer to potentially different individual.

By what logic does this become the default? Paul identifies an individual as "Jesus" and "Christ". Subsequent authors refer to an individual as "Christ" and "Jesus". If all are also identified as the Son of God and/or a victim of crucifixion and/or an atoning sacrifice for the sins of all who believe, the default is clearly that they are all referring to the same individual unless compelling evidence is presented to suggest otherwise.

Quote:

Simply shifting the burden of proof doesn't cut it.

I agree and neither does merely repeating unsubstantiated and generalized speculations. Stop trying to get me to do your homework and put some effort into supporting your assertion.

Until you do so, I'll stick with the more parsimonious solution. :wave:

andrewcriddle · 07-11-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Thanks Andrew, my mistake.

Does anyone know when the neologism of adding that latin '-ianos' ending to greek words is first confirmed to have appeared, and what the first use of it was?

Christian may be the earliest example unless Herodian as in Mark 3:6 is earlier. (This depends on whether Herodian as a term for followers of Herod goes back to the ministry of Jesus or whether it is a word Mark originated.)

According to Acts 11:26 the word Christian goes back to Antioch c 40 CE.

This may not be historically accurate and the word Christian quite likely originates some time after 50 CE. It is witnessed in Greek by Acts, 1 Peter, the TF (if authentic) and the letters of Ignatius so almost certainly originates before 100 CE.

In the 2nd century CE various groups are given names in Greek constructed by adding '-ianos' to the name of their leader or founder.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 07-11-2006, 12:25 PM

Christ Almighty! Or Almighty oily One!

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

Quote:

Christ is the English representation of the Greek word Χριστός (Christos). The Christian religion takes its name from Christ, as a title given to Jesus of Nazareth, always capitalized as a singularly descriptive title meaning literally The Anointed One. The word Χριστός has been used since pre-Christian times to translate the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (Maš�*aḥ). In English translations of the New Testament, the Greek Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos), and related phrases, are almost invariably translated Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus, leading to the common, though inaccurate, perception that Christ was the last name of Jesus of Nazareth. The part of Christian theology focusing on the identity, life, teachings and works of Jesus, is known as Christology.

The spelling Christ in English dates from the 17th century, when, in the spirit of the enlightenment, spellings of certain words were changed to fit their Greek or Latin origins. Prior to this, in Old and Middle English, the word was spelled Crist, the i being pronounced either as a long e, preserved in the names of churches such as St Katherine Cree, or as a short i, preserved in the modern pronunciation of Christmas.

The term appears in English and most European languages owing to the Greek usage of it in the New Testament as a description for Jesus. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, it was used to translate into Greek the Hebrew Mashiach (Messiah), meaning "[one who is] anointed". While many Christian writers claim that this term implied a match to the criteria of being anointed that Jewish tradition had given to their predicted future saviour, some argue that there is no "saviour" concept, as suggested in Christianity, in the Jewish tradition. The "anointed" one more closely means 'high priest', 'leader', or even 'ruler'.

The Greek term is cognate with Chrism, meaning perfumed oil; in fact Christ in classical Greek usage could mean covered in oil, and is thus a literal and accurate translation of Messiah. The Greek term is thought to derive from the Proto-Indo-European root of ghrei-, which in Germanic languages, such as English, mutated into gris- and grim-. Hence the English words grisly, grim, grime, and grease, are thought to be cognate with Christ, though these terms came to have a negative connotation, where the Greek word had a positive connotation. In French, the Greek term, in ordinary usage, mutated first to Cresme and then to Creme, due to the loss of certain 's' usages in French, which was loaned into English as Cream. The word was used by extension in Hellenic and Jewish contexts to refer to the office, role or status of the person, not to their actually having oil on their body, as a strict reading of the etymology might imply.

According to Tom Harpur, a former professor of Theology at the University of Toronto who denies the historicity of Jesus, the Christian usage of the term Christ derives from Egypt. Harpur has argued that the application of the term Christ to Jesus derives from the Egyptian use of the term Karast (covered in embalming oil) to describe Horus, who Harpur also alleges that much of the descriptions of Jesus are copied from. Karast is a false cognate to Christ, and Harpur has alleged that this co-incidence was the reason that Christians chose this appelation of Horus rather than any other, since in Jewish circles, Christ readily brings to mind the Jewish belief in a Messiah.
[edit]

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

07-10-2006, 09:30 AM	#483
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Alf, Despite my request that you be more specific, you have continued to write in vague generalities. Please specifically identify a particular text you believe should be understood as referring to some "other" Christ?

07-11-2006, 02:19 AM	#486
post tenebras lux Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Republic and Canton of Geneva Posts: 5,756	Thanks Andrew, my mistake. Does anyone know when the neologism of adding that latin '-ianos' ending to greek words is first confirmed to have appeared, and what the first use of it was?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.