Chris Weimer

Yes, indeed. Sadly, we often don't have enough evidence, due to a lack of manuscripts, to figure out who did what where.

Phlox Pyros

That's fair. I did jump the gun and probably flew off the handle as well (my nickname isn't for nothing, though I try to keep it in check most of the time ).

All of spin's "fly xxxx" talk and emotional tone was just over-the-top, unreasonable, and definitely not conducive to good discourse. He usually overstates his case and bullies those who disagree with him. That's that. And I'll say that from a review of the rules, his initial post does break the forum rules, and I'd think about pointing all of the rules his post broke, but I imagine it will simply be ignored (so there's not much point). If spin's "evidence" was actually worthwhile, he wouldn't need all the emotional zingers (that are forbidden by the forum rules anyways...). Evidence is worthless when someone begins to claim a higher knowledge and claims that everything else is "fly xxxx". Whatever. That's all I've got to say. I'll try to get down from my high horse now.

P.S. - No, I'm not mad, just irritated and expressing that I think that spin gets away with murder and rarely gets called on it.

jjramsey

If I read Kirby right, what Origen said was that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

Ben C Smith

That is correct. From Against Celsus 1.47:

...καιτοι γε απιστων τω Ιησου ως Χριστω....

...although not believing in Jesus as the Christ....

Origen repeats the claim that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ in his commentary on Matthew (Pines has 1.17, Theissen 10.17; I have not yet looked it up for myself):

....τον Ιησουν ημων ου καταδεξαμενος ειναι Χριστον.

...[Josephus] not having accepted our Jesus to be the Christ.

This text is taken from Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications, page 65. Refer also to Gerd Theissen, The Historical Jesus, page 68.

The reference in Antiquities 20.9.1 §200, then...:

...τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω....

...the brother of Jesus, called Christ, James [or Jacob] by name....

...cannot be construed as contradicting Origen, since Origen is saying that Josephus himself did not believe in Jesus as the Christ, while Josephus is saying that Jesus was called Christ, not that he was in fact the Christ.

Chris, you agreed with Stephen and me elsewhere on this; you must have forgotten. Happens to the best of us.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

I did and I revaluated my thoughts on the matter. It still doesn't add up. First of all, that Origen says that Josephus does not believe Jesus would out the title of Christ with legemonos - like it would in Christian sources (Mt. 1.16). Furthermore, why would he bother calling Jesus the Christ or even mentioning the title if he gave that title to Vespasian without mentioning Christos at all? And do we really expect Josephus to introduce such a religiously charged terminology (especially when writing this as an apology to Rome) and not explain it? The passage is very unJosephan.

spin

The analogy about the piece of bread that was dropped on the floor should have been plain. Your hurt performance seems to be post hoc justification of ad hominem. You plainly broke the rules, as I cited them, by making several personal attacks. You were just flaming and you won't make amends. The rules say nothing about analogies involving fly shit or advice to read the f*cking archives.


spin

Phlox Pyros

Insanus omnis furere credit ceteros

Pace

Apikorus

Visne scire quod credam? Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere.

Chris Weimer

Sapiens tibi regulas per Latinam circumvenire? Ne puto sic.

Chris Weimer

Ita! Vidi hic in Memphide! Vivat Rex!