Julian

You assume that Chris speaks for all the moderators on II? How very odd...

Julian

spin

Your Mohammed Ali statement was correct in what it said.

That's part of it. You leave out the fact that Josephus was a Jew who knew what the term messiah/christ meant and how it should be used.

Could Josephus have attributed the divine name to some other reference?

So, beside the fact that Χριστος was a translation of a Jewish technical/religious term which Josephus as a member of a priestly family was aware of with all its implications, you realise that the term for a Roman audience would have been too obscure. You are correct, but the implication is that you should accept that its use for Jesus becomes just that much more incredible.

You're back to playing without the full deck. You fail to deal with the implications of the term "messiah" to a Jew of Josephus's era.

Not taboo. It had its right place and this was clearly not one of them. According to Origen, he did not believe Jesus was christ. You don't use the term for someone who, if Josephus knew about him, obviously didn't qualify.

Perhaps you didn't notice the phrase "Jewish messiah". You might think about what a non sequitur is before using the term. Why did Jews change Simon's surname from "bar Kochba" (star) to "bar Kosiba" (liar)?

Rubbish. This is the sleight of hand that doesn't work. This is where people usually sneak in a "so-" before the "called". The word doesn't bear that wriggle. When Simon is called Peter in Mt 4:18, it means nothing less than that is how he was called. There is no question regarding the surnaming. The taxman was called (λεγομενον) Matthew. This is a normal way to say how something or some was named. It seems usually to be a factual statement. For Josephus to use the term Χριστος outside its religio-technical collocation as a matter of fact doesn't make sense.

I don't believe you. I find it odd that you do.

Once more you are refusing to consider who was speaking and what he was supposed to have said.

Try reading it again. Bald assertions of 'non sequitur' usually call for me to get some crayons to help you out. Here it is again annotated just for you:

It's called entailment.

So you think that although he knows nothing else of what Josephus actually wrote in the passage he just happened to get this phrase directly from Josephus word for word?? How do you separate what Origen said from what Josephus said? Is Josephus actually cited anywhere in Origen's comment and how would you know?

Much of what Origen wrote was unnecessary. This is not a rational argument.

He says that Josephus said, "that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the just".

Do you know something about the age of the manuscripts of Josephus that I don't?

I have no problem with that. My problem is that you cannot show that Origen had any direct acquaintance with the text he is referring to.

Dis he confuse Josephus with Hegesippus or did he take Hegesippus on his word, without ever looking at Josephus? (And what did Hegesippus actually say, anyway? Hmm?)

Come now, Ben C. You're not arguing here. A christian priest who knew his literature never conflated his phrases from different sources, say Matt and Paul? I guess Mark never conflated his Hebrew prophecies either. Origen just happens to get it right only with this phrase. This is a wild leap of faith on your part.

You're right. It would make no sense for him to have done so, though it makes eminent sense for Origen to have used it in his writings.

I'm impressed that you actually believe this. I suppose that you also transform Suetonius's Chrestus into Christus as well. After all it was Jesus's surname, wasn't it? You believe that this HJ, who we are told died having been abandoned by his followers who just didn't get it, had gone from oblivion to bearing the surname, not just the title, "christ" in such a widespread manner that by the time of Josephus even he was acquainted with it. I have this superb banana plantation in Alaska you might be interested in buying. You'll have your money back in no time.

This is irrelevant to the James passage. You seem to be flitting between it and the even more laughable TF. (Do you really believe that Josephus wrote o christos outos hn? Ha, ha. That's the place where the connection is made.) A Roman readership would have known christos to mean "ointment". Josephus would have known the importance of the term and not used it. His "Jewish Antiquities" was a defence of Jewish culture and heritage. The subject was meaningful enough for him to compose it. It is usually referred to as an apologetic history. It was done because Josephus was a Jew who was a part of that culture and heritage. I don't see you understanding that. Remember, no pork, no work or fighting on the sabbath, adherence to priestly purity (for the Pharisee at least, as Josephus professes to be), avoidance of the use of the divine name (and abbreviate names to do so). It was/is a practice based religion. Language was important and the Jewish messiah was not something to take in vain. It makes no sense that Josephus would flippantly use the term christos.


spin

rlogan

Well, I can try to be more diplomatic, Chris, but I don't see this as gratuitous name-calling.

In this case I provided precisely the evidenciary bases for the statement, among these the wild inconsistency between the unknown Jesus and the superstar Christ rocking the foundations of the temple priesthood.

In the matter at hand we have Josephus, the apologetic Jew, posed as the author of a decidedly Christian hijacking of Jewish belief. An abomination to that creed.

It really is amazing to pose something like this - as if Mother Theresa were a photographer for smut magazines. "Well, if we just show from the waist upward, then she could really have taken the picture..."

If you don't want me to use the word "apologist" then I need a substitute term for defending, excusing, or justifying these sorts of mutually exclusive conditions.

I realize that some use the term pejoritavely, but in sincerity the term also has its place. Such as calling Josephus an apologetic Jew above.

But I will try for moare diplomacy nevertheless.

andrewcriddle

Origen certainly knew the phrase Jesus called Christ but he was even more familiar with the phrase Jesus Christ If he was making explicit what he saw as an implicit reference to the Christian Jesus in Josephus I see no reason why he would say called Christ rather than Christ

Edited to Add One might argue that Origen's claim that Josephus did not regard Jesus as Christ would prevent him paraphrasing Josephus as referring to James the brother of Jesus Christ but this seems to imply that Origen was not openly paraphrasing Josephus but being deliberately misleading, presenting a paraphrase so as to give the impression that it was the exact words of Josephus.James the brother of the Lord is a standard Christian term for James the Just much more common than James the brother of Jesus. IIUC both Origen and Eusebius practically never call James the brother of Jesus unless alluding to the passage in Josephus (Eusebius generally uses the Lord but occasionally Christ)

Photius' summary of Josephus seems almost certainly a reverent Christian paraphrase of what was actually in Photius' manuscript of Josephus.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Photius' comments are generally paraphrases.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

DramaQ

Spin,

IIUC, put simply Josephus would have, at best, said:

“Jesus, whose followers believed him to be (the) Christ“

But never “Jesus called ‘Christ’”.

So like if today, a group of Christians believed the Second Coming had occurred, a Christian reporter might write:

“…Jose, whose followers believe was The Second Coming…”

Rather than “…Jose, called ‘Second Coming’…”.

Especially if he was writing to an audience who had no idea what a "second coming" was.

(And note: the writer, being a good Christian, would probably have to work to hold his tongue against saying anything derisive about what these followers believe…)

andrewcriddle

From the early pagan references to Christianity in Pliny and Tacitus the presumption must be that Josephus' audience likely had some vague idea of Christ as someone who Christians followed but would probably not have known that Christ was originally known as Jesus.

Josephus' use of 'called Christ' as an identifier for Jesus would make sense writing to such an audience.

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

I don't think so. Such a phrase would have not only been out of place in the narrative, but it contradicts everything else Josephus says about the messianic role. Why would he introduce the Christ here but not when he calls Vespasian the messiah?

Phlox Pyros

Josephus did not specifically call Vespasian "the messiah" but stated that the "government of Vespasian" fullfilled a Jewish oracle.

Did Joesphus see this as a messianic prophecy? Did the Jews see this as a messianic prophecy?

DramaQ

I agree. I don't think he would have made the reference at all.

I was trying to get a better handle on Spin's point, which was (I think) that even if he DID make a reference to the Christ it wouldn't have been in a way that way so alien to his belief system.

IOW, using my modern analogy, a devout Christian would at best be uncomfortable saying some cult figure is "called Second Coming" and leave it at that.

Even if he knew that was the only way his audience (vaguely) knew of this figure.

dq