gnosis92

These

Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians Galatians
Philippians First Thessalonians
Philemon

with Colossians being a toss-up.

Ephesians timothy 1 2 titus are psuedo

would you like 2 start a new thread, what paul says about jesus?

while i agree with ga well sand doherty that the psuedo were not written by paul, they were written in the first or second century by people who believed in a historical jesus, coming from a pauline tradition.

S.C.Carlson

I suppose I ought to answer this before it gets too stale.

Since most Josephan scholars hold to the partial interpolation hypothesis, one can only be blindsided on this point if the widely held views of Josephan scholars are in one's blindspot.

A bold claim is a claim that is both specific and unlikely to be true. Now your complaint is that my statement is vague. So what it is: bold or wishy-washy? I'm willing to change my opinion in response to evidence but you have yet to cite a single Josephan scholar that contradicts my statement about the status quaestionis.

If you want to know what the authorities say, read the authorities. You have not (yet?) stated that you don't know who the Josephan scholars are, though the previously attempted characterization of Josephan scholars as "Christian apologists" seems to not be aware how many of the Josephan scholars are Jewish.

At any rate, your question would be relevant if there is a partial-interpolation position supposing that the portion of the Testimonium I quoted for you is one of the partial interpolations.

I had said a little while ago that my views are "under construction." In the space of a couple days to a week, they still are. But I'm not asking you to be be aware of my views, just aware of what the contemporary scholarship on Josephus is saying.

I see the problem: two different people are making different claims about what Josephan scholars are saying, and you don't know who's right. But since you haven't said that you don't who the Josephan scholars are, I invite you to check our assertions by rereading them.

You ask as if whether Josephus would ever use or coin the word Christian is somehow a live dispute among Josephus scholars...

Noted.

Andrew Criddle has already graciously posted the text of Severus, whose version is considerably more pro-Christian than Tacitus's. Unless Severus too is interpolated (a triple interpolation hypothesis!), his is not the source of the current wording of the Tacitus quote.

:huh: There's no Nero fiddling in the Tacitus quote, and I don't recall making any assertion on its historicity one way or another.

Stephen Carlson

Alf

No.

You claim that all references to christ refer to the same person. I am simply saying "Not so fast". How is that a claim?

For one, I don't have a multiple christs theory. I am simply saying it is premature to jump to the conclusion that there is only one christ in circulation at the time. Indeed there is evidence that there were more than one if one is to read Paul's statement that he is talking about the christ crucified - so presumably there were others who were not crucified. Also, presumably, Paul appear to have believed that only his christ was crucified.

No, it is multiple assumptions - one for each reference. For every reference you assume that it refer to the same as the previous references you have encountered.

We might - but it is an assumption and it is a different assumption from assuming that Josephus' reference to "christ" (if genuine) refer to the same individual.

It is not one single assumption, it is a set of multiple assumptions.

Yet it is fundamentally the same issue - the issue of identity, who a specific reference refer to.

When do you start to provide any evidence for your claims?

No, we know from paul that as far as Paul knew there was one individual referred to as "christ" and we also know that he appearantly beliveed there were oothers. He did say that he was talking about the christ crucified - not some other christ. There were therefore presumably other christs in circulation and he wanted to tell people to ignore those others.

Why are you ignoring him?

Then why did Paul say that he was talking about the christ crucified? Like if I said I am talking about the President Jimmy Carter so as to distinguish him from the truck driver Jimmy Carter.

1. This is a statement of faith and even though there were other christs Paul obviously had no faith in them. He therefore intentionally ignored them in this statement and stated that there is only one christ.

It cannot be evidence that there is only one christ and that all references to christ everywhere necessarily refer to the same individual.

Again, yes, Paul stated that there is only one christ that he accepted as "lord" and "real christ". This is a vastly different stat4ement from stating that there is only one individual referred to as "christ". The statement simply does not say what you want it to say.

Now, this is where you are jumping to conclusions. Read again what you quoted from Paul.

President Bush is for all practical purposes a name. Also, only one individual is president of USA at any given time so even if they were to refer to only "president" we might still assume they refer to the same individual if the references are from the same time period over which there was only one president.

None of those apply to Jesus' case.

It means that it is premature for us to presume that it really was one single individual even if the gospel writers believed it was or tried to make a case that there was only one.

It means that even if there were multilpe individuals, the gospel writers would still portray it as one single individual. Thus, the fact that they do portray it as one single individual means zip.

Neither is it evidence against. However, it does indicate that we would be jumping to conclusions and assume too much if we bluntly assume there is only one.

Well, you make the claim that they are genuine if I am to understand you corrrectly.

Let me guess. You believe it is my burden to prove it for you?

As far as I know it was a popular idea in various platonic circles.

What is there to explain? Paul obviously thought that the christ he believed in was the only "real" christ. Any other was fake. In what manner will that prove that all references to "christ" biblical and extra biblical all refer to that same christ?

Worse, if Paul meet someone in Jerusalem who actually saw the real Jesus at the sermon of the mount and Paul started to talk about his idolized christ who were not even close to the bloke who stood on the mountain and hold his sermon. In what manner would that guy make the connection that it was he Paul talked about? If he got convinced that Paul was right he would probably forget about the real Jesus and instead worship the Jesus Paul talked about. In what manner can then a reference to "christ" refer to the same individual when the same individual is not himself anymore? How is your claim even suposed to remotely make sense?

The problem is a problem of identity. When a die-hard fan of Bruce Willis make a statement about Bruce Willis and it is so idolized that the real Bruce Willis do not recognize himself in the description. In what way do the reference then actually refer to Bruce Willis? Yes, we can assume they are the "same" as the christan references because they only copy what the christians said.

However, there are two points. One is that they cannot be the "same" if the christian references themselves are not the "same"? It is different interpretations of the word "same" going around here.

Secondly, Extra biblical references that are not simply reporting what christians say but real genuine references would of course be a different matter. Granted, we do not know of any such though. If the Josephus refernece is genuine I believed it was but it appears that that too is simply a report of what christians believed and so similar to all other non-christian reports of the early times.

Probably also ignore the obvious interpolations. Also, it is possible that Josephus simply reported what christians at that time believed and it was not his own belief.

There are indications that TF originally started with "They reported...".

Alf

post tenebras lux

I don't mean to appear rude, but just to clarify: earliest non-christian use of the '-ianos' ending in greek.

One doesn't have to be a total FJ conspiracy theorist to wish to have outside confirmation of things, and thus not to have to rely upon (circular?) arguments concerning the datings of early christian writing.

As for Nero: did he really persecute the christians?

Plus, why would the romans take a greek word without translating it before adding their own latin ending? :huh: Oh, except that they didn't, instead: they took a greek word untranslated (let me guess - they thought it was a real name, right?) but then chopped the last two letters off before adding their own latin ending. :huh: Does that make sense to you?

post tenebras lux

Hi Gnosis, I'm not going to get sidetracked into discussing Paul before we deal with Josephus.

You provided a link to work done by a certain G. J. Goldberg, and you even quoted him: "For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator. "

I queried his use of 'cannot' and I still do. Would you be so kind as to clarify? Do you stand by that quote and can you defend it?

I read his article on the Jo-Luke connection (which is the basis of his 'cannot' claim) and found it profoundly unconvincing. So I did a google search on "G. J. Goldberg, Ph. D." and the only hits were his own site and this: 'by "independent scholar" G. J. Goldberg (Ph.D. in Physics, autodidact in Greek and Josephus).' on PaleoJudaica.com.

Is this correct, does he have no formal training in statistics, greek or Josephus?

Amaleq13

Actually, my assertion was there is no evidence that anyone was ever called "Christ" as though it was their name except Jesus.

You responded by insisting there was no evidence that all references are to the same individual.

I responded by pointing out that the prima facie explanation of all early Christian references to "Jesus" and "Christ" is that they are to the same individual central to Paul's expressed beliefs but I asked if you could provide a specific example that might be argued to refer to someone else.

Since that time, you have avoided answering that rather reasonable question by requesting that I review the entire body of Christian literature in order to establish that each and every reference is to the same individual and by confusing where the burden of proof belongs as well as the meaning of prima facie.

If you were to choose a specific example, we could each offer arguments for identifying the referenced individual. You could even create a thread to host it.

I agree. You've got unsubstantiated speculation that appears to be contrary to the prima facie explanation of the evidence.

It would be premature if one were to do so without becoming familiar with the evidence. One might obtain that familiarity by focusing on a specific example.

How did you determine that Paul wasn't simply differentiating between Jesus and the traditional messianic expectations?

They are both conclusions following from the evidence. If you have no evidence of another miracle-working, wisdom-teaching, Pilate-crucified, called-Christ, fellow by the name "Jesus", you've been wasting everybody's time pretending to have a point.

Unless you have evidence that the stories were originally attributed to a different guy named "Jesus" or called "Christ", they are wholly irrelevant to your claim.

Right after you choose to focus on a specific example you believe should be understood to refer to someone other than Jesus. You've sort of done this with Josephus but that doesn't appear to be working out well for you. Wanna pick another one?

No, we know that he believed there were people teaching something wrong about Jesus. The interpretation you prefer (as did I at one time) appears to require that this single passage be taken in isolation and out of the context of the entirety of Paul's efforts.

That single fact differentiates Jesus from all other messianic contenders as well as all traditional messianic expectations. One need only search www.biblegateway.com for "crucified" to see how Paul made this concept central to his expressed theology.

It doesn't have to constitute evidence against your claim. It is sufficient that it does not constitute support for it since that leaves your claim unsubstantiated.

The notion that some of the stories attributed to Jesus were originally attributed to someone else does absolutely nothing to support your contention that there were other men called "Christ".

I accept them as genuine unless given good reason to think otherwise. Do you have any such "good reason" to consider all 206 references in Paul's letters as interpolations or is that just another unsubstantiated speculative possibility?

You need to provide support only if you want your speculative possibility to be taken seriously.

That isn't an example. Do you know of one or is this yet another unsubstantiated speculation?

It is the most obvious (ie prima facie) explanation. Someone might suggest that there was another Bruce Willis and that it was that guy the fan was describing but the burden would be upon that "someone" to establish that there was good reason to suspect that another Bruce Willis existed. Otherwise, the rational conclusion would be that the fan was simply being hyperbolic in describing the object of his devotion and that this was the one and only Bruce Willis.

I don't doubt this at all.

Now that you have clarified that you aren't talking about non-Christian references, perhaps you would be willing to offer a specific Christian text that you believe can be argued to refer to someone other than Jesus? Or you could start working on the evidence indicating all 206 references to Jesus in Paul's letters are interpolations.

Take your time, I'm going to Hawaii for ten days. :wave:

S.C.Carlson

I don't quite see what you're getting at with the "chopped the last two letter off" bit. Are you stating that "Christusianus" instead of "Christianus" would have been the proper way to do it?

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Given the state of preservation of ancient writings it is perilous to assume that the first attested use of a particular word is also its first-ever use.
No one is claiming that Josephus read Mark, Acts, or Peter or that he invented the term. These sources, together with Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny etc., means that the term "Christian" was already in common usage for a certain religious sect by the turn of the first century.

Actually, the evidence constitutes the portions of the longer passage that most Josephan scholars have concluded is genuine.

Except for the genuine parts of Josephus, Ant. Jud. 18.63-64 according to most Josephan scholars.

All this speculation is unnecessary in light of the genuine parts of Josephus, Ant. Jud. 18.63-64, according to most Josephan scholars.

However, Josephus already explained who Jesus is in the genuine parts of AJ 18.63-64, according to most Josephan scholars.

Stephen Carlson

andrewcriddle

There are various usages of Christian in Latin pagan writings from the very early 2nd century on (Pliny Tacitus Suetonius). The earliest surviving non-Christian Greek surce other than Josephus is probably Lucian's Life of Peregrinus Proteus around 170 CE.
Apart from Christian sources the existing texts of Suetonius (In his Life of Nero) and Tacitus claim he did.
Stephen has already commented on this. My Latin is too poor to say more than that IMHO Christianos is perfectly possible as a Latin derivative of Christus

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Amaleq, I am very puzzled by your assertion that the term christ was only used about jesus when i easily find a source stating the term christ is found pre christian times.

What have I missed? If it is a generic term, surely the burden of proof is on you to show it is being used uniquely and why that might be. Where did you get this idea from? It is of course a theological and doctrinal statement...

Surely multiple christs is the starting point, especially as Josephus describes several!

Did capital letters exist then?