post tenebras lux

Hmm, very odd. So the first case of this neologism was christianos and no other cases of the '-ianos' ending in greek are known until well after Josephus. Thanks a lot Andrew. As a follow up, do you happen to know when in the second century these other groups started 'copying' the christians' use of the '-ianos' ending?

To S.C.Carlson: amongst 'the majority of Josephan scholars' is Josephus famous for he use of neologisms, especially - as would appear to be being claimed here - the very first known use of a whole new category of neologisms? (even if we were to accept - for the sake of argument - that the uses of the '-ianos' ending in Mark, Acts and Peter predate Josephus, these works would have been totally unknown to the intended audience of Josephus and, of course, Josephus betrays no sign of ever having read Mark, Acts or Peter).

And now to get back to where we were before Stephen caused me to :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: and then to :banghead: by trying to use the longer josephus as supporting evidence for the shorter josephus.

So (in reference to the shorter josephus) :
The snippet in question is so short as to be meaningless unless Josephus had explained who this 'jesus called christ' character was elsewhere, which he didn't. Unless, of course, this 'jesus called christ' figure was so famous as to not need an explanation. Except that if he was so famous what possible reason could there be for Josephus not to have written about him? The only reason I can think of is an ineffable reason, which is the same excuse that HJers fall back on to explain Paul's silences, apparent lack of knowledge of, and contradictions, etc.

Who was the intended audience for Josephus and his writings? How could the phrase 'Jesus called Christ' be understandable to them if Josephus never explains who he is? On the other hand, to a pious scribe, either interpolating the phrase or mistakenly including a marginal gloss, the phrase would be fully understandable.

gnosis92

If Jesus was famous enough to understand the reference what reason would there be for Josepheus to write more about Jesus? Why should Josepheus write more about Jesus if he is writing primarily about the fall of Jersuelum? Seems the sort of excuses MJ'ers fall back on.

As for Paul's relative silence, the reason that Paul was seemingly silent was that he was writing occassional letters devoted to specific issues raised by the congregations he started -- hardly "ineffable" reason

gnosis92

There are historians who argue the longer passage is partially authentic. While I am no expert in this sort of thing, this link shows that a computer analysis the original text can be recovered, and it clearly identified a historical Jesus

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm

" 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. "

post tenebras lux

Cannot? How can 'cannot' be squared with the fact that the pre-passage part flows seemlessly into the post-passage part?

Where's the join? :huh:

Alf

You are shifting the burden of proof here.

Bingo. Provide that evidence which you claim exist and it is my turn. Since you haven't done so and instead only claimed that it is and we shuld prima facie assume it is so I see no reason to provide any evidence to counter your mere assertion.

Actually it is. You are assume that all references refer to the same individual - that is a bunch of assumptions - one for each reference. My assumption is that they do not necessarily refer to the same person - they might but it would have to be shown before we can assume so. This is clearly the stance with the fewest assumptions.

The early church fathers of course assumed that all references referred to the same person and it is reasonable to assume that writings by them were done under the assumption that they all assumed or took for granted that "christ" was one specific individual. The point is that 1) We are also talking about extra biblical references and there we cannot make the same assumption and 2) The church fathers could be mistaken. If they heard a story about a guy who cured a blind man - miracle workes were a dime a dozen back in those days - they would bluntly assume that this man must have been Jesus or if not Jesus he was a fake. We cannot allow ourselves to make those same assumptions and so there is the possibility that the early church fathers etc were mistaken in their assumptions.

No. First, we do not "know" that one individual was referred to in this way. We know that some early writers referred to a "christ" and christians bluntly assume that they all refer to the same or else to some fake imposter. They do this because their religion tells them that there is only one who is the genuine article.

In fact we also know that at the early times there were other christs referred to. Paul indicates that he talks about the christ who were crucified and not some other christ. Paul obviously assumed that only one christ was crucified and the gospels make the same assumption. However, there is no clear evidence that these two were the same and certainly no evidence that there were no others around - indeed there is evidence there were others around. To then bluntly assume that all references then refer to one and the same individual appear to be risky business to me.

Of course, this is also a matter of problem of identity. Like the teenage girl who fall in love with a pop idol and then shortly after divoce because she found that he was something different that what she had imagined him to be. So, she married this image in her mind but found she was married with a real person who was not at all what she imagined in her mind. Yet, clearly in this case they are in a sense the same person. She clearly refer to the same person when she conjure up her image of that person in her mind as she does when she referred to the person she came to know in person.

So, who is the real Jesus? Is it Jesus as the believer belives him to be or is it the guy running around in Palestine region and getting himself crucified (assuming he existed) or is it some totally different individual? Christians have an idol image of Jesus very similar to the idol image that teenage girls have of their pop idols and I am fairly certain that many of them wouldn't even like the real Jesus if they actually met him. He would not at all be what they expected him to be but who's fault is that? It is of course the believer who has put im on a pedestal and made an idol a super-human image of him that is not at all anything like a real historic person would ever be.

So, if you say "Jesus exists" which Jesus do you mean? Do you mean the real historic person (assuming he existed) or do you mean the idol that christians has formed from him?

This question is even more important today but it was also relevant for the early church fathers and Paul etc. When Paul talks about "christ", which "christ" does he talk about? The writings does not indicate a living breathing human running around in Palestine region, instead it appears he is talking about some idol - some Jesus Christ Superstar. Ditto for the gospel writers although Matthew and Luke talk about his birth and thus tries to put some human element to this superstar idol they have made of him.

So, even if there was a real Jesus running around in Palestine, it is not in any reasonable sense the same as the one described in the gospels or which Paul speak of. It is like having a die-hard Beatles fan write a biography of Paul McCartney where he turns Paul McCartney into some sort of super human and if you then let the real actual Paul McCartney read this "biography" he would say "this book is not about me, it is about some other Paul that only lives in the imagination of the author of the book".

So tell me again how possibly those references can refer to the same individual - what does it even mean "same" in this context?

The point is that you have to provide that evidence that they do in fact refer to the same person first.

That is not the stance with the fewest assumptions. It is the one with the most assumptions.

True, I can agree that you can make a case that the refrerence to "Jesus" in Luke iis presumably the same as "Jesus" in Mark. Because Luke contain several parts of Mark with corrections and additions.

However, the gospel of John appear to be some other Jesus even though there are also common references and the gospel of Matthew appear to contradict the gospel of Luke concerning how and when Jesus was born so it is not reasonable to bluntly assume that they are the same.

It appears that the gospels have gathered together a bunch of stories, some conflicting with other stories and tried to tie them all up to the same individual.

This means that even within one gospel and although the author probably understood the references as references to the same individual it might not be so. For example the author of a gospel may have heard some story about some guy turning water into wine and assuming it was genuine would think that it must have been Jesus because only Jesus can do genuine miracles. From some other person he heard how some guy walked on water and again applying the same logic - it must have been Jesus because only Jesus can perform genuine miracles - everyone else is fake.

It is easy to see how these stories then do NOT necessarily refer to the same Jesus even if the gospel author intended and believed they did.

The Jesus reference in Paul may have been later interpolations. We do know he referred to a person as "Christ" and further identified him as "one crucified".

The atoning sacrifice is linked with the crucifiction. There were others who people also believed had been crucified in order to atone for man's sin. It was a common theme in many religions of the day.

Thus, it is only the "christ" and "crucified" which Paul clearly link together and appearantly believe uniquely identify "christ".

Subsequent references within gospels may have originally referred to some other but that doesn't really matter. Christians today read them as referring to the same as Paul and that is what matters to them.

Extra biblical references is another matter. When it is non-christians describing christian belief then yes we can assume they refer to the same "christ" as the christians refer to.

However, Josephus is a completely different category and it would be a grave error to bluntly assume that he would refer to the same christ as the christians refer to. Here I would expect more evidence before I were to jump to such a conclusion. Such evidence is simply not present.

Hmm.. that would be my message to you.

You claim there is evidence that they all refer to the same and really the one that is most interesting here is Josephus' reference compared with Paul or gospels. Do you have ANY evidence that Josephus' christ is the same as the gospel christ?

I don't see how you can have a case if you do not.

And that would be to not jump to conclusions by making unsubstantiated assumptions such as all references refer to the same individual.

Alf

post tenebras lux

The reference we're talking about is in Antiquities, not in The Jewish Wars.

Um, you did know that Josephus wrote more than one opus didn't you? And that he did in fact talk about several other messiah claimants of the period, as well as John the Baptist (for example).This is probably not the thread to discuss the silences of Paul, but out of curiousity: which of Paul's letters do you think are authentic and which - if any - do you think are pseudepigraphical?

Alf

I found this web page interesting. However, there was one question nagging at the back of my head which the page never answered.

Josephus is usually careful in telling from where he get various information. Yet, if one is to belive the web page writer, in this particular instance he chooses to just skip that - why? Why doesn't he elaborate on who told him this information, from where did he get it, from which early christian proselytizing paper did he extract this information?

Has a later interpolator removed that section perhaps?

Alf

Amaleq13

No, you are continuing to be confused about the proper placement of the burden.

You make a claim and I have to provide evidence? That is "shifting the burden" in a nutshell, amigo.

I'm starting to suspect you don't understand what "prima facie" means just as I'm starting to question your knowledge of the relevant material. I'm assuming basic familiarity on your part with that evidence and the prima facie explanation follows from that. The next step would be to offer an alternate explanation for that evidence (ie your multiple Christs theory).

Nice try but it is a single assumption. The notion of multiple Christs and multiple religious movements focused upon them, however, would appear to require a new assumption for each alleged reference to someone else. Until you bother to get specific in your claim, a more specific response is somewhat difficult.

When Pliny refers to "Christians" and the worship or rejection of "Christ", why should we not assume he is talking about a continuation of beliefs like Paul's?

The question of whether every story attributed to Jesus was really about Jesus is a completely different issue than whether there were multiple Christ/Jesus figuring centrally in different belief systems.

When do you get around to supporting that "possibility" with evidence?

As I've already mentioned, we do know this from Paul. Why are you ignoring him?

We only know of one group that was called "Christian" and only one man who was called "Christ". Unless and until someone (I'm not going to name any names ) provides evidence that the most obvious conclusion (ie the prima facie case) is mistaken, there appears to be no good reason to abandon it.

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor 8:6, KJV emphasis mine)

Given that Paul makes it clear that there is only one "Lord Jesus Christ", the passage you mention would appear to be referring to different teachings about the same figure. More specifically, he is probably referring to Judaizers claiming that full conversion was required.

It means they are all referring to the same crucified figure who was identified as "Jesus" and/or "Christ" and was central to Paul's faith. The Gospel authors wrote their stories about this figure and the earliest pagan references were to those who continued to focus their religious faith on this same figure.

On first appearances, the Gospel attributed to John seems to represent different beliefs about the same figure depicted in the other Gospels. When you read conflicting stories in different newspapers about a man called "President Bush", do you assume there are multiple fellows called this or do you assume they are referring to the same fellow?

Um, right. How does this help your claim of multiple individuals?

Stories about some unidentified "miracle-worker" or "wisdom-teacher" that are attributed to Jesus do not constitute evidence for your claim of multiple men called "Christ" or "Jesus".

Let me guess, the burden is upon me to prove that all of the 206 references to "Jesus" in Paul's letters are genuine?

For example?

Just a sample of the passages you will need to explain:

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Roman 5:11, KJV)

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.(Romans 10:9, KJV)

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.(1 Cor 2:2, KJV)

You indicated the opposite earlier in this same post!!

"The point is that 1) We are also talking about extra biblical references and there we cannot make the same assumption..."

With regard to the identified assumption, I clearly agree. You need to reread my comments on Josephus more carefully.

Given, as I indicated from the start, a reduced Testimonium and the short reference? The connection is as reasonable as it is obvious. He describes a man named "Jesus" as a teacher of wisdom and performer of "surprising feats" who was unjustly crucified by Pilate but whose followers continued to venerate even after his death. Oh, and he had a brother named "James".

Who else could he have been describing?

Wait, let me guess. I have to prove there were no other men by that name who matched that description?

andrewcriddle

Just to clarify Herodians in Mark with the '-ianos' ending is earlier than Josephus on the normal dating of Mark.

Various gnostic groups seem to have had names with the '-ianos' ending from the early 2nd century

(Speculating and IMHO Christians may have originated in Rome in the 60's as a Latin word used by Nero's people for the group they were persecuting. It was then transliterated into Greek and would have been meaningful to Greek speakers in Rome from say 70 CE onward. )

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Are we not agreed there were several xianities around the med? My history text books say that.

Is it not an assumption to assume a big bang one Jesus in Palestine?

Why should not similar ideas about messiahs - remember heroes, saviours, etc are generic concepts - evolve in slightly different but similar milieu?

Is it not a later propaganda move to construct a one christ? The lack of unity of xianity is probably very strong evidence that there is actually no black hole at the centre of this particular galaxy.

Is that a true or false statement?