Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 09-09-2009, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It seems more likely that Photius is paraphrasing Josephus here than that he has a different text.

Andrew Criddle

So Christians would change Josephus to make it more theologically acceptable to them?

Photius is quite openly giving brief epitomes of Josephus and lots of other texts. Word-for-word accuracy is not implied or appropriate.

This is at least a little different from rewriting a text one is supposedly copying in full.

Andrew Criddle

show_no_mercy · 09-09-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Why are you still using this poor argument? The title "christ" was used wherever there were Greek speaking Jews. There are probably a hundred instances where someone is titled "christ" in the LXX.

Those are not applied to contemporaries. James was a contemporary.

Chaucer

So there were no Greek speaking Jews during the time period of James

Chaucer · 09-09-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Those are not applied to contemporaries. James was a contemporary.

Chaucer

So there were no Greek speaking Jews during the time period of James

The Greek-speaking Jews did not generally apply that term to any contemporaries. The one exception was this fringe group who viewed James's dotty though well-meaning brother that way. Since there were dozens of Jesuses but only one contemporary who had acquired the name "Christ" from however small a minority, it was easier to call that eccentric "Christ".

Chaucer

Toto · 09-09-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...
The Greek-speaking Jews did not generally apply that term to any contemporaries. The one exception was this fringe group who viewed James's dotty though well-meaning brother that way. Since there were dozens of Jesuses but only one contemporary who had acquired the name "Christ" from however small a minority, it was easier to call that eccentric "Christ".

Chaucer

Do you have any evidence at all for this assertion? Even Christian sources?

Was Bar Kochba known as the Messiah a/k/a Christ? Or does he not count for some reason?

How do you account for this passage?

Quote:

And I, Peter, asked "Explain to me concerning the fig tree and how we should perceive it. Fig tress sprout every year. We don’t understand the parable." And the Master answered, "Don’t you understand that the fig tree is the house of Israel? Just as a man planted a fig tree in his garden and it brought forth no fruit for many years. He said to the gardener ‘Uproot the tree that our land may not be unfruitful for us.’ And the gardener said to God, ‘We your servants wish to clear it of weeds, dig around it and water it. And then if it does not bear fruit we will immediately remove its roots from the garden and plant another in its place." Have you not grasped that the fig tree is the house of Israel? Truly I say to you when its boughs have sprouted at the end, then shall the deceiving Christs come, and awaken hope saying ‘I am the Christ, who am now come into the world.’ And when they see the wickedness of their deeds they shall turn away after them and deny him to whom our fathers gave praise, the first Christ whom they crucified and thereby sinned exceedingly. But this deceiver is not the Christ. …

show_no_mercy · 09-09-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

So there were no Greek speaking Jews during the time period of James

The Greek-speaking Jews did not generally apply that term to any contemporaries. The one exception was this fringe group who viewed James's dotty though well-meaning brother that way. Since there were dozens of Jesuses but only one contemporary who had acquired the name "Christ" from however small a minority, it was easier to call that eccentric "Christ".

Chaucer

So not only were there no Greek speaking Jews in the 1st centurty, there were also no messiah claimants in the 1st century.

Right.

jakejonesiv · 09-09-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

You always make a valid point.

However, it is more that just a substituion on Photius of "brother of the Lord" for "brother of Jesus." The text, as it now stands in Josephus Antiquities 20.9.1 is a bit awkward.

It reads, "and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others." The text really should be about James, who was being brought to trial. It leads with Jesus, then indicates which Jesus (called the Christ) and only then gets to the real subject, James. The tail is wagging the dog. The author of the current text seems to place much more importance on Jesus than the person facing trial, indicating a Christian interpolation.

Compare that with Photius "... and accused James, the brother of the Lord, and others with him"

So we have "James, the brother of the Lord" compared with "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." The former seems more original. I also agree that Zindler has made a valid point.

As you pointed out, Photius did not hesitate to use the "Lord Jesus Christ." Why then would Photius drop both Jesus and Christ if it was in his text? If he had wanted to indicate something more reverent surely he would have used the phrase, "the Lord Jesus Christ."

I think what has happened is that a Christian scribe, read in Antiquites 20.9.1 a reference to "James the Just" who was previously unassociated with Jesus Christ. Josephus had written "James, brother of the Lord." This James had been an extemely righteous man in the service of Yahweh. The Christian scribe, under the influence of the belief that Jesus is Lord, made so bold as to insert his savior's name into the Josephean text. The temptation was irrestible, because another Jesus was already mentioned in the same section! Surely, a good Christian can be excused for clearing up this ambiguity. This is quite understandable.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

One problem is the extreme reluctance of Josephus to use Lord (Kurios) as a Greek equivalent of God/Yahweh. If Josephus had meant what Zindler suggests he meant, then he would probably have said Brother of God (Theos). Remember Josephus is writing for non-Jewish readers who would be simply confused if Josephus wrote James the Brother of the Lord meaning James the Brother of Yahweh (which seems an unlikely title anyway).

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,

I am confused by this comment. Didn't Jospehus write, in Antiquities Preface 1:4 write,
"I mean, unless they be taught first of all, that God is the Father and Lord of all things"

Jake

Chaucer · 09-09-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

The Greek-speaking Jews did not generally apply that term to any contemporaries. The one exception was this fringe group who viewed James's dotty though well-meaning brother that way. Since there were dozens of Jesuses but only one contemporary who had acquired the name "Christ" from however small a minority, it was easier to call that eccentric "Christ".

Chaucer

So not only were there no Greek speaking Jews in the 1st centurty, there were also no messiah claimants in the 1st century.

Right.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course, there were Greek-speaking Jews. Jesus was viewed by (some) Greek-speaking Jews and by (some) non-Greek-speaking Jews as a Messiah claimant and (some) Jews started calling him Christ.

Chaucer

spin · 09-09-2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Is he not correct when he points out that the word order is "a bit awkward"?

So? Shak[e]speare is awkward sometimes when he uses a noun as a verb. But he does it in more than one place, so it's evidently authorial. The same is clearly the case here.

If you want to argue cases, please do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Exactly what I said. He didn't talk about contexts at all. In fact, YOU did. So I addressed contexts here because I was addressing YOU. You know, a typical tactic you have, I've noticed, is compelling your opponent to waste time belaboring the obvious.

From his talking about a specific issue, you have gone off on a tangent in which you didn't do your homework. Well, what do you know!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

How is this any different from the objection you already make at the top of this posting? My reply is the same: "So? Shak[e]speare is awkward sometimes when he uses a noun as a verb. But he does it in more than one place, so it's evidently authorial. The same is clearly the case here."

If you want to make an analogy you need to show relevance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Well................THANK YOU!

You're welcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I really think that that question was already addressed in what I previously said =======>

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

==========>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

And that is the -- ERRONEOUS -- claim that JakeJonesIV was (implicitly) making in his posting. Well, that claim is wrong.

Chaucer

Note that little "implicitly" surreptitiously stuck in there for no justifiable reason? As usual Chaucer you're arguing solely on your own opinions. The claim that the claim is wrong is based on nothing.

:wave:

spin

Chaucer · 09-09-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...
The Greek-speaking Jews did not generally apply that term to any contemporaries. The one exception was this fringe group who viewed James's dotty though well-meaning brother that way. Since there were dozens of Jesuses but only one contemporary who had acquired the name "Christ" from however small a minority, it was easier to call that eccentric "Christ".

Chaucer

Do you have any evidence at all for this assertion? Even Christian sources?

Was Bar Kochba known as the Messiah a/k/a Christ? Or does he not count for some reason?

Bar Kochba comes well after Josephus. He's not relevant here. Of course, he got termed Messiah. But James was the only contemporary of Josephus who had a family member with the title "Messiah".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How do you account for this passage?

Quote:

And I, Peter, asked "Explain to me concerning the fig tree and how we should perceive it. Fig tress sprout every year. We don’t understand the parable." And the Master answered, "Don’t you understand that the fig tree is the house of Israel? Just as a man planted a fig tree in his garden and it brought forth no fruit for many years. He said to the gardener ‘Uproot the tree that our land may not be unfruitful for us.’ And the gardener said to God, ‘We your servants wish to clear it of weeds, dig around it and water it. And then if it does not bear fruit we will immediately remove its roots from the garden and plant another in its place." Have you not grasped that the fig tree is the house of Israel? Truly I say to you when its boughs have sprouted at the end, then shall the deceiving Christs come, and awaken hope saying ‘I am the Christ, who am now come into the world.’ And when they see the wickedness of their deeds they shall turn away after them and deny him to whom our fathers gave praise, the first Christ whom they crucified and thereby sinned exceedingly. But this deceiver is not the Christ. …

No one that I'm aware of has ever suggested that this text, either in its Ethiopic or Greek version, is any earlier than 100 c.e. That makes this again of no relevance to Josephus because Josephus is earlier. So again, this too has no bearing on Josephus's writings.

Chaucer

show_no_mercy · 09-09-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

So not only were there no Greek speaking Jews in the 1st centurty, there were also no messiah claimants in the 1st century.

Right.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course, there were Greek-speaking Jews. Jesus was viewed by (some) Greek-speaking Jews and by (some) non-Greek-speaking Jews as a Messiah claimant and (some) Jews started calling him Christ.

Chaucer

I don't think I'm the one being "deliberately obtuse", since I'm not the one implying that the only messiah claimant in the first century was the Jesus of Christianity just to support a spurious argument.

Let's put two and two together:

1. Greek speaking Jews existed in the first century
2. Messiahs, or God's anointed one, would be rendered as christ in Greek
3. The role of the Jewish Messiah is to re-establish the Kingdom of Israel like Cyrus did in Isaiah 45 or Bar-Kochba did in 132 CE.
4. Jewish insurrectionist would be trying to overthrow Roman rule for the sole purpose of re-establishing the Kingdom of Israel; crucifixion is the capital punishment for insurrection
5. A Greek speaking Jew who was an insurrectionist would be a christ-claimant.

Yet you're trying to argue that there were no insurrectionist (i.e. messiah claimants) in the first century.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.