Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chaucer · 07-18-2012, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Josephus isn't calling Jesus the Christ. The great unwashed are, half of them probably ignorant of the reason for the nickname. Josephus is just reporting. Why is that so hard to get?

Chaucer

Please, people here know Greek. The Greek word "Χριστός" is an AMBIGUOUS word which may mean the "ANOINTED" or "Christ".

Jesus in Antiquities 20 could NOT be the prophesied Messianic ruler because in an EARLIER writing "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4 Josephus claimed VESPASIAN was the Prophesied Messianic ruler based on Hebrew Scripture and this is corroborated by Suetonius Life of Vespasian and Tacitus Histories 5.

You're sounding hysterical. Focus. Josephus has nothing to do with calling Jesus the Christ. Josephus is reporting on a convict who's acquired that nickname from the great unwashed. Josephus's own preference for Vespasian or for the man in the moon is irrelevant here.

Chaucer

Toto · 07-18-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The HJ position on Ant 20 and the TF is fundamentally flawed. For starters, Ant 20 depends on the very phrase that causes problems in the TF:

18.3.3:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.

20.9.1:

and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...

Since Josephus was unlikely to have called Jesus "the Christ" the passage in 18.3.3 is suspect.

Josephus isn't calling Jesus the Christ. The great unwashed are, half of them probably ignorant of the reason for the nickname. Josephus is just reporting. Why is that so hard to get?

Chaucer

Josephus gives no indication that he is just reporting. Your interpretation gives every evidence that you are forcing the text to fit your own ideas.

EarlDoherty · 07-18-2012, 09:42 AM

If even we today have trouble "getting" what Josephus had in mind, Chaucer (except for people like you who "get it" according to your own imposed preference), how would Josephus have expected his readers--who knew a lot less about what a "xristos" was than we do--to "get it"?

Josephus was not an idiot. He would have known full well how his brief reference to a Christ could have been misunderstood or simply met with blank stares by many of his readers, especially without any reference to it in Ant. 18. Was he 'reporting'--and called by whom? Romans? Jews? Fiji islanders? Was he being denigrating ('so-called')? Was he personally subscribing to Jesus as the Christ (as Matthew and John were by exactly the same phrase)? Did he not realize he could be seen as contradicting his Jewish War statement that Vespasian was the Christ?

Even we can't answer all those questions with any surety. How would he expect his Roman readers to understand what he was saying?

Get it?

Get with it.

Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 07-18-2012, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

You're sounding hysterical. Focus. Josephus has nothing to do with calling Jesus the Christ. Josephus is reporting on a convict who's acquired that nickname from the great unwashed. Josephus's own preference for Vespasian or for the man in the moon is irrelevant here.

Chaucer

Please, you are wasting time with your INVENTIONS. Ehrman claimed HJ of Nazareth was Scarcely known.

Please, you very well know that the Greek word Χριστός also means the Anointed.

Jesus the ANOINTED Priest was WELL-KNOWN in Antiquities of the Jews 20. He was Anointed High Priest and the Son of Damneus.

There was a Jewish Tradition to ANOINT Priests.

Leviticus 4:3 KJV

Quote:

If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring..... a young bullock...

Leviticus 4:5 KJV

Quote:

And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation..

Numbers 3 KJV

Quote:

3 These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests which were anointed , whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office...

There is NO evidence whatsoever in Antiquities 20 that Jesus the Anointed was dead.

There is NO statement of the age of JAMES in Antiquities 20.

Please, HJers are DESPERATE. Ehrman Blew a Massive Hole in the HJ argument when he ADMITTED there are Genuine problems with the study of the life of the Historical Jesus.

Jesus in Antiquities 20 was ANOINTED High Priest the Son of Damneus and Vespasian was the Propheised Messianic ruler in Hebrew Scripture that made the Blind See with SPIT and the Lame walk.

Obscure HJ of Nazareth is a modern Invention and is NOT documented in any source of antiquity--ZERO-NIL--NONE.

DCHindley · 07-18-2012, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Carrier contends that
"The "him called Christ" makes most sense as a margin note by a later scribe copying the text, inserted by error in a paragraph about Jesus son of Damneus."

Richard Carrier. "Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (Winter 2012).

Reference here and at various other places on the web.

It looks as though that journal dates their seasonal issues not by calendar season but by the year of publication. The "Winter" issue will come out in Dec 2012 at the start of winter. Weird.

DCH

Toto · 07-18-2012, 12:57 PM

I think their winter starts later in the year - they are only up to Vol 20:2

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/

Quote:

Volume 20, 2012

Volume 20, Number 2, Summer 2012
Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 2012

ApostateAbe · 07-18-2012, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Carrier is squarely in the mythicist camp, the position on Ant. 20 is squarely in the mythicist interest, and almost nobody has the position except for mythicists. Yes, it is the MJ angle. I wish Carrier the best of luck.

The HJ position on Ant 20 and the TF is fundamentally flawed. For starters, Ant 20 depends on the very phrase that causes problems in the TF:

18.3.3:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.

20.9.1:

and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...

Since Josephus was unlikely to have called Jesus "the Christ" the passage in 18.3.3 is suspect. That, in itself, weakens support for the phrase in 20.9.1 which requires an introduction of Jesus as the Christ.

Further, the entire context of 20.9.1 makes no sense if the person killed was a famous follower, indeed the brother and possibly authoritorial heir, to Jesus.

Read further:

...and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done...

The execution of the leader of persecuted sect is hardly likely to have caused consternation amongst the "most equitable of citizens." It is more likely that this entire story relates to the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, mentioned later in the passage. Contextually, it makes more sense that the "James" mentioned here was a Jewish leader, possibly a rival of Albinus, whose brother was subsequently made the high priest. It makes far less sense that this passage is about a Christian pillar.

Whether or not Carrier is a mythicist is irrelevant to the authenticity of the mentions of Jesus in Josephus.

Yeah, that is a great debate. I just have a little problem with anyone claiming this is anything but a mythicist angle. It is 100% a mythicist point made by almost nobody but mythicists. You can argue with Chaucer about whether or not it is truly unlikely that Josephus would have described Jesus with "called Christ." Good luck.

Toto · 07-18-2012, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... You can argue with Chaucer about whether or not it is truly unlikely that Josephus would have described Jesus with "called Christ." Good luck.

I already had that argument with Legion. I kept pointing out that "called Christ" was in the gospels. He did some amazing Olympic quality gymnastics to show that a phrase written by Christian writers in the gospels was not likely to have been written by a Christian editor of Josephus.

I must get back into training to compete.

aa5874 · 07-18-2012, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yeah, that is a great debate. I just have a little problem with anyone claiming this is anything but a mythicist angle. It is 100% a mythicist point made by almost nobody but mythicists. You can argue with Chaucer about whether or not it is truly unlikely that Josephus would have described Jesus with "called Christ." Good luck.

So what about people who have the HJ angle??? In antiquity, people who used Antiquities of the Jews 20 claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Origen used Antiquities of the Jews and claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.
Against Celsus

Quote:

.... let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage.

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

ApostateAbe · 07-19-2012, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... You can argue with Chaucer about whether or not it is truly unlikely that Josephus would have described Jesus with "called Christ." Good luck.

I already had that argument with Legion. I kept pointing out that "called Christ" was in the gospels. He did some amazing Olympic quality gymnastics to show that a phrase written by Christian writers in the gospels was not likely to have been written by a Christian editor of Josephus.

I must get back into training to compete.

Good luck.

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

07-18-2012, 09:42 AM	#23
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	If even we today have trouble "getting" what Josephus had in mind, Chaucer (except for people like you who "get it" according to your own imposed preference), how would Josephus have expected his readers--who knew a lot less about what a "xristos" was than we do--to "get it"? Josephus was not an idiot. He would have known full well how his brief reference to a Christ could have been misunderstood or simply met with blank stares by many of his readers, especially without any reference to it in Ant. 18. Was he 'reporting'--and called by whom? Romans? Jews? Fiji islanders? Was he being denigrating ('so-called')? Was he personally subscribing to Jesus as the Christ (as Matthew and John were by exactly the same phrase)? Did he not realize he could be seen as contradicting his Jewish War statement that Vespasian was the Christ? Even we can't answer all those questions with any surety. How would he expect his Roman readers to understand what he was saying? Get it? Get with it. Earl Doherty

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.