Bernard Muller

Amaleq13 wrote:
Come on, Bernard. You cannot extrapolate a general knowledge of Jesus or the meaning of "Christ" from Tacitus' description of Nero's alleged persecution. He appears ignorant of the name "Jesus" and considers "Chrestus" (I believe he spells it with an "e") his name rather than a theologically significant title.

Well, Josephus might have been more informed than Tacitus about the real name, Jesus, with the so-called title, Christ. After all, Josephus was a priest in Jerusalem when James was executed. And Josephus, as a Jew, would be more inclined to know more about a sect which started from Judaism.
Tacitus wrote in Latin, and I think he had 'Christus', as for Pliny the Younger. However Suetonius had 'Chrestus', but it is not certain it is referring to 'Christ'.
Maybe those Romans thought that Christ/Christus was the name (rather than Jesus) of the guy who started the Christians.
Buddha is not the real name ("Siddhartha") of the one who allegedly started Buddhism, but a title ("The Enlightened"). But I think few Westerners know that.

Amaleq13 wrote:
There is nothing here to suggest that Josephus' short reference wouldn't require an explanation. It is precisely this sort of ignorance that suggests to me that Josephus would have felt it necessary to provide more than a passing reference.

I provided some examples to spin in my earlier post, showing a previous reference was not necessary, that Josephus did without them in other instances. I also mentioned that, if an earlier reference was existing (like a TF in Ant.18), then we would expect more than a passing reference, something like Jesus/Christ was described before. Josephus did that for Judas of Galilee, in his two main books.

Amaleq13 wrote:
That Tacitus fails to repeat this reference when he discusses Nero in his earlier work unfortunately leaves open the possibility of interpolation.

Josephus did not mention some items in 'Wars', as compared with what shows in the overlapping chapters in 'Antiquities'. The John the Baptist segment is one example. I do not know about Tacitus, but the same may apply.
Suetonius also mentioned briefly that Nero dealt harshly with the Christians.

Amaleq13 wrote:
I think you greatly overestimate Roman familiarity with the Jewish concept of the Messiah. Hearing "christ", they hear "anointed" and immediately think of the Jewish faith?

I do not think the Romans had to know about Messianic concept. They only needed to know about a Jew called Christ or Christus (connected to the Christians). And the persecution of Nero made sure the Romans were aware of Christians.
I cannot see any literate Romans reading "Jesus, who was called wrestler" or "Jesus, the so-called wrestler".

Best regards, Bernard.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13 wrote:
The first thing I notice is that none of the examples include references to brothers. Wasn't placing a reference to the father before the son kind of a tradition? These don't really help establish that the phrasing of the short reference is not unusual. Examples of other "brother first" references would.

I did not say it was a word to word exact parallel, but the pattern is here. As far as son/brother, it just happened James' brother, the so-called Christ, was better known than the father. It may just be Josephus did not know the name of the father, period.

Amaleq13 wrote:
Origen, attributing this same belief to Josephus with a reference to Jesus, takes the time to point out what should have been apparent to Hegesippus (i.e. that Jesus' death was more likely the reason). As Doherty points out, it is quite strange, within the context of an historical Jesus, that such a belief would arise amoung Christians.

The interpolator of the now disappeared passage may have been inspired by Hegesippus, and then he used the mention of James & his martyrdom in Ant.20, as a basis for his interpolation.
It would have been too abrupt to say the future miseries suffered by the Jews were caused by Jesus' crucifixion, because there was no mention of it in 'Antiquities'. But James sent to death by a Sadducee was in Ant.20. So the miseries could be said to be godly revenge of James' execution ...

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

Do you realize what you just argued? The anti-Jewish Christian who interpolated the TF had Josephus call the Jews--the one the crucified this anti-Jeiwsh Christian's Lord and savior--men of the highest standing among us. I find that rather difficult to swallow.

You are seeing it as another Christian attempt to "make Jews responsible" but this actually portrays the Jews who did this positively and Jewish involvement in Jesus' death occurs all over the record ranging from Paul (1 Thess 2:14-15 = not an interpolation!) throughout the Gospels and in Josephus. It is an historical fact! Revisionists need to revise this embarrassing nonsense out of their little bag of tricks.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Yes, it was really stupid of him. But then, writing in the fourth century, he never thought the passage would be read critically by more objective thinkers than himself.

The record is fraudulent, as we already know. The Passion is a fiction and no data in it is trustworthy. The Gospels are riffs on the OT written long after Jesus' death, and Paul has no idea how or where Jesus died. 1 Thess 2:14-16 is either partially or fully an interpolation, since it contains a probable reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, among other things.

Until you come up with some way to separate the factual from the fictional, Vinnie, you are simply speculating without ground, like all HJ scholars.

Vorkosigan

spin

Whoops.


spin

Amaleq13

I agree that, assuming an historical Jesus, we have good reason to suspect that Josephus would have known about him. If I remember correctly, his father was a priest in Jerusalem during the alleged events described in the Gospels. I would imagine the spectacle of the Temple disturbance might have been quite the hot topic around the table. In fact, I would expect it to be the most remarkable thing about Jesus he would recall and I would also expect him to mention it any time he mentioned Jesus. While I agree that we could reasonably expect Josephus to be aware of Jesus, this is not the point of my criticism of your claim. We do not have a similarly reasonable expectation of his audience nor do we have any reason to assume that Josephus would think otherwise. It does not seem reasonable to assume he would use a term entirely unique to his works and likely unfamiliar with his audience without elaboration. This suspicion can only be heightened when we note that a similar, earlier phrase had been interpolated into Josephus but subsequently removed.

Quote:

Maybe those Romans thought that Christ/Christus was the name (rather than Jesus) of the guy who started the Christians.

Thanks for the correction re: Chrestus/Christus. Your statement above appears to support my contention. This is an example of why it is not reasonable to suggest Josephus would assume the Romans to be more knowledgeable about the term "Christ". Just as you would feel compelled to correct someone who referred to "Buddha" as a name, we would expect Josephus to attempt to provide more information about what "Christ" actually meant.

Quote:

...if an earlier reference was existing (like a TF in Ant.18), then we would expect more than a passing reference, something like Jesus/Christ was described before. Josephus did that for Judas of Galilee, in his two main books.

Perhaps you would have this expectation but I would have the exact opposite. Given that a genuine earlier, longer reference existed, I wouldn't expect Josephus to offer more. A single example to the contrary doesn't constitute a pattern. I am aware of several examples from Josephus where he provides little elaboration in referencing a newly introduced character. None of them, however, involve the use of such a theologically and politically charged words like "christ". It is the inclusion of that term, unique in all of his works, that seems to me to require more information.

I wrote:
That Tacitus fails to repeat this reference when he discusses Nero in his earlier work unfortunately leaves open the possibility of interpolation.

Bernard replied:

Quote:

Josephus did not mention some items in 'Wars', as compared with what shows in the overlapping chapters in 'Antiquities'.

I believe most of those can be understood within the context of his differing audiences. I do not think the absence of a repetition of the Jesus references falls into that category.

Quote:

The John the Baptist segment is one example.

The Baptist had followers even after his death. Perhaps this is an examples of what I am claiming. There is no reason to assume that Josephus wasn't a popular target for other religious sects. I don't consider the absence of a repetition of the reference to be primary evidence, only consistent.

Quote:

Suetonius also mentioned briefly that Nero dealt harshly with the Christians.

He says they were punished but the "how" and "why" are not given. Elsewhere, he blames the fire entirely on Nero. None of this is sufficient to carry the claim that Josephus would have considered his audience sufficiently familiar with the term "Christ" to use it without explanation.

Quote:

I do not think the Romans had to know about Messianic concept. They only needed to know about a Jew called Christ or Christus (connected to the Christians).

Neither Tacitus nor Suetonius support this contention. The former doesn't refer to the founder as a Jew nor to the Christians as a sect of Judaism. In Suetonius, only "Chrestus" is connected to the Jews. He is not connected the the later mentioned "Christians" nor are they connected to the Jews.

Quote:

And the persecution of Nero made sure the Romans were aware of Christians.

What persecution? Suetonius only says they were "punished" and he offers no support of Tacitus' connection with the fire. Even if we assume they were persecuted, why should we assume that Josephus' audience was knowledgeable about the particulars for every persecuted group?

The earliest extra-biblical references to Christianity make it clear that very little was known by the Romans about their actual beliefs except that seemed to worship a figure called "Christ" as a god and refused to pay homage to the Roman deities. The latter is the reason they were persecuted. This does not suggest the kind of familiarity you are assuming.

Amaleq13

I think you missed my point. I'm not suggesting it is significant that there is no reference to James' father. I'm pointing out that your examples were only of father/son relationships and I don't see anything unexpected about the reference to the father coming first.

In addition, I think you make another point that is more consistent with this passage being an interpolation. Even if we assume the short reference to be genuine, Josephus obviously spends more time discussing James. The evidence from our early Christian sources (e.g.Hegesippus and Origen) seems to confirm the notion that James had the greater reputation. What sense does it make to refer to him with a reference to his virtually unknown and ignomiously executed brother?

Quote:

The interpolator of the now disappeared passage may have been inspired by Hegesippus, and then he used the mention of James & his martyrdom in Ant.20, as a basis for his interpolation.

That would be more credible if we had evidence that the story about James in Ant.20 included a reference to Jesus prior to the 10th century. Photius seems to have had "Lord" rather than "Jesus" which clearly suggests the phrase was still being tampered with. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any good reason to, instead, conclude that the Jesus reference in the original interpolation was reinserted into the text where another reference to a "James" existed. It is a second-hand interpolation.

Quote:

It would have been too abrupt to say the future miseries suffered by the Jews were caused by Jesus' crucifixion, because there was no mention of it in 'Antiquities'. But James sent to death by a Sadducee was in Ant.20. So the miseries could be said to be godly revenge of James' execution ...

Despite the fact that Josephus elsewhere makes it clear that he blamed the miseries on the rebellion movement begun with Judas the Galilean? I don't think that is credible.

Vinnie

More apologetics from the Jesus skeptics *yawn*

I actually have to drop this one argument though. A lurker who wishes to remain anonymous dropped me an email and explained a most obvious and glaring problem with my argument. I am surprised no one esle caught it. I find it quite embarrassing that I missed it myself

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

The most glaring problem is that you keep ignoring everyone else. Anything concrete anyone writes, Vinnie, you just ignore. For example, the Table of Contents that does not list the TF. The presence of a seam. And of course, the fact that it recounts a story that is essentially fictional.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Looking back, Scumdog's initial post is where it all went wrong. The paucity of external evidence is actually the weakest argument for the non-existence of Junior. It confirms what we already know from the internal evidence of the documentary traditions of early Christianity. In my view, the strongest arguments lie rather in the way the gospels were composed, by constructing events out of the OT, the obvious fictionality of so many events of Jesus' life, and in the widespread silence on the gospel fantasies among the early Church writers.

The fundamental weakness of the Christian case may be demonstrated simply by the unstinting effort that is put into defending the TF and the "brother of" reference in Josephus. Without those two references, there are no outside vectors at all on Jesus.

Additionally, it should be noted that "Did Jesus Exist?" (is there a real person down there somewhere?) and "Did the Jesus of the Gospels Exist?" are different questions, which may be answered differently. My $0.02 is that the former is probable while the latter is highly improbable.

Vorkosigan