show_no_mercy

Cyrus the Great is called "Christ" at Isaiah 45:1
Saul is called "Christ" at 1 Sam 12:3
David is called "Christ" in 2 Chronicles 6:42
David and his descendents are called "Christ" at Psalm 18:50

Josephus doesn't refer to any of these people as "christ", yet he supposedly does so for the Jesus of Christianity. Without any explanation.

ApostateAbe

All of those passages are Hebrew. Are you referring to the Septuagint or what?

show_no_mercy

"Christ" is a Greek word, so obviously it wouldn't be in a Hebrew text. The LXX was being used by Jews since its translation c. 280 BCE until the beginning of the 2nd century CE.

ApostateAbe

1) Josephus avoids using the term "χριστος", not for HB material he cites, not for messianic pretenders of the 1st c. not for Vespasian.

I am thinking that in Greek-speaking culture of 90 CE, which until Christianity almost completely lacked the Jewish concept of a messiah, the Christians had monopolized the term, "χριστος," and to use that title to refer to anyone except Jesus would mislead the readers. That is my tentative explanation, and it can be disproved by finding any non-Christian who used the title, "χριστος," to refer to anyone but Jesus.

2) Josephus doesn't favor λεγομενος.

You are right that Josephus seems to use the other word for, "called," much more frequently to refer to people. He used a variation of the same phrase, however, to refer to Ananus, in the same passage where James and Jesus are mentioned. My tentative guess for this one is that λεγομενος is a little more derogatory than καλουμενος, so he uses the former verb for people he thinks do not deserve the name (Josephus had bad feelings for Ananus according to the passage). It might be comparable to the way English speakers use the words, "called" versus "named." That tentative explanation can be disproved by finding a place where Josephus uses the word, "λεγομενος," for someone that he has good feelings toward.

3) Non-standard word order favors recent reference to Jesus, but there isn't such a recent reference.

I don't know what you mean with this one, so go ahead and explain yourself.

4) Normal reference to a Jew is through the father. Maybe the father was unknown, but use of anything other than father is unexpected and therefore somewhat problematical. Besides, the father of the messiah indicates the lineage of the person. Unknown father becomes a big problem for a messianic claimant.

Greek speakers would use whatever title best identifies the person. Normally, that would be the son of the father. For James, it would be the brother of Jesus.

ApostateAbe

OK, well, in the LXX, 2 Chronicles 6:42 uses the word, "Kurios," for "anointed." 1 Samuel 12:3 uses the word, "mashiyach." So does Isaiah 45:1. And so does Psalm 18:50.

spin

The translators of the LXX used it for Cyrus (Isa 45:1). It is used frequently in the LXX. Yours is a non-response. Try again.

I didn't want an explanation. I can generate ad hoc explanations myself. I wanted you to consider it without your a priori commitments. And your explanation is as ad hoc as ignorance can make it.

One expects "James the brother of Jesus called christ" as the plain form of the statement. However, here we have "the brother of Jesus called christ James by name". Putting Jesus first is grammatically acceptable in the case where Jesus had recently been mentioned or he was such a famous person, one could introduce James through Jesus. However, he hadn't recently been mentioned and there is nothing to suggest that this Jesus was exceptionally famous. The word order in the context is inappropriate.

Josephus wasn't Greek. Stop the ad hoc obfuscation and consider the issue. The book of Acts shows that your conjecture about James isn't correct. Try again.

The individual issues you might find ad hoc justifications for, but the fact that all of these problems occur in this one phrase requires you to deal with a species of consilience. This has all the earmarks of an anomalous text and of you inventing excuses.


spin

show_no_mercy

Nope.

κύριε ὁ θεός μὴ ἀποστρέψῃς τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ χριστοῦ σου μνήσθητι τὰ ἐλέη Δαυιδ τοῦ δούλου σου

Nope

ἰδοὺ ἐγώ ἀποκρίθητε κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐνώπιον κυρίου καὶ ἐνώπιον χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ μόσχον τίνος εἴληφα ἢ ὄνον τίνος εἴληφα ἢ τίνα κατεδυνάστευσα ὑμῶν ἢ τίνα ἐξεπίεσα ἢ ἐκ χειρὸς τίνος εἴληφα ἐξίλασμα καὶ ὑπόδημα ἀποκρίθητε κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ καὶ ἀποδώσω ὑμῖν

Nope

οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῷ χριστῷ μου Κύρῳ οὗ ἐκράτησα τῆς δεξιᾶς ἐπακοῦσαι ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ ἔθνη καὶ ἰσχὺν βασιλέων διαρρήξω ἀνοίξω ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ θύρας καὶ πόλεις οὐ συγκλεισθήσονται

Nope

μεγαλύνων τὰς σωτηρίας τοῦ βασιλέως αὐτοῦ καὶ ποιῶν ἔλεος τῷ χριστῷ αὐτοῦ τῷ Δαυιδ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ ἕως αἰῶνος

ApostateAbe

show_no_mercy, looks like you are right, sorry about that. I am done with spin, so I can spend more time talking with you. I was using an online version of the Septuagint that gave me Hebrew when I asked for a Greek Septuagint, but I should have known better. It is established that the Septuagint writers used the word, "Christ," as a translation of, "anointed."

To figure out why Josephus would use the word, "Christ," to refer only to Jesus, I think that it may be useful to think of the circumstances of Josephus and his audience. His Greek-speaking audience is unfamiliar with Judaism, and the only time they have ever heard the word, "Christ," is to refer to Jesus in the religion of Christianity. Christians hijacked the title, "Christ," and it would mislead the readers for Josephus to refer to any other character with the same title. The writers of the Septuagint, living before Christianity, did not have that problem. If I am not mistaken, Josephus avoids using any sort of title that would be equivalent to "Christ" anytime it would otherwise be proper. So, maybe he just didn't have another title available, since Christians stole the only good title.

spamandham

Without the 'called Christ', it's true there is no backward reference to another Jesus. But there is a forward reference which follows in the same paragraph to Jesus the son of other high priest Damneus. I don't know if Josephus ever uses such forward references. Does anyone else following this know?

avi

Where, kind sir, is the evidence that points to the existence of Christianity in 90CE?
So far as I am aware, our earliest manuscripts, of Paul's letters, dates from the third century (P46). I think that P45 is the earliest version of Mark, and also dates from third century.

The "patristic" evidence, of very questionable historical value, in view of numerous documented instances of forgery, is even more recent.

Monuments? Coins? Excavations? Roman historians' manuscripts? All of them, so far as I am aware, exclusively relegated to the bin marked "interpolation", "fraud", or "suspicious".

Josephus??? Sure not.

avi