Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-09-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

It can be translated "so-called."

Yeah. Jesus the so-called christ (Mt 1:16), Simon the so-called Peter (Mt 4:18), Thomas the so-called Didymus (Jn 11:16), or Jesus the so-called Justus (Col 4:11). :banghead:

spin

graymouser · 05-09-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

At the very least, the lack of an indisputable reference to Jesus in Josephus seems to have little probative value as to his historicity in light of the lack of any reference to Jesus in Jewish writings for another 1000 years when Jesus' historicity was not in dispute. Something else seems to be going on.

One of the first things you have to accept when dealing with ancient history is that we have lost by far the majority of ancient texts. What has come down to us through the ages is preserved by popularity or sheer luck. Thanks to archaeology and close, careful study of the texts we have, we can piece together quite a bit of what really happened, but we don't have a comprehensive documentary record of antiquity. The Bible and the "church fathers" were copied many, many times over. Most of the Jewish writings were probably thrown in the trash to rot, or burned, or copied over because paper was scarce. I can't imagine Jewish works with negative views on Christ being copied over and over by Christian monks; any that existed more likely than not perished along with an unknown wealth of literature of all kinds.

Sheshbazzar · 05-10-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

In the thread on the discovery of Herod's Tomb, one of the
posters asked why didn't Josephus write about Jesus.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=206364&page=2

I suspect the question was rhetorical, and was intended to suggest that Jesus was not an historical figure and the reference to Jesus in Josephus was a later redaction, as it may well be. But it does raise a larger question -- why didn't Judaism write about Jesus? Iindeed, for centuries no reference is made in Jewish texts about Jesus, at a time his historicity was not in question. As near as I can tell the earliest unambiguous mention of Jesus in Jewish texts was by Maimonides in the 12th century.

Now this could have been the result of outside censorship, self-censorship, taboo, or disinterest. But whatever it was, it seems to shed some light on the Josephus references. For instance, one argument that as Christianity rose to political power it strongarmed Jewish scholars to edit out references to Jesus in the Talmud. But if that's the case, why would these same Christian edit in a reference to Jesus in Josephus, especially one that is so unflattering?

At the very least, the lack of an indisputable reference to Jesus in Josephus seems to have little probative value as to his historicity in light of the lack of any reference to Jesus in Jewish writings for another 1000 years when Jesus' historicity was not in dispute. Something else seems to be going on.

Certainly one restraint upon Jewish writers and historians undertaking to write anything about the Galilean that some had alleged to be The Messiah, would be The Torah's injunction;

Quote:

If there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within your gates: then you shall arise, and get yourselves up into the place which YHWH your Elohi shall choose;

And you shall come unto The Priests the Levites, and unto The Judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show you THE SENTENCE OF JUDGMENT:
And you shalt do according to THE SENTENCE, which they of that place which YHWH shall choose shall show you; and you shall observe to do according to all that they inform you:

According to THE SENTENCE OF THE LAW which they shall teach you, and according to THE JUDGMENT which they shall tell you, you shall do: You shalt not decline from THE SENTENCE which they shall show you, [to] the right hand, nor [to] the left.

And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto The Priest that stands to minister there before YHWH your Elohi, or unto The Judge, even that man shall die: and you shalt put away the evil from Israel.

And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
Deut. 17:8-13

The following information given within "The New Testament" clearly indicates that the authorised Jewish Levitical Priesthood had and has judged the matter and the claims, and has rendered a Levitical verdict, one not to be further debated nor questioned, but to be OBEYED by all Jews, at all times, everywhere.

Quote:

But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this Name.
And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. Acts 4:17-18

Quote:

Saying, Did not we straitly command you that you should not teach in this Name? and, behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Acts 5:28

Anyone professing to be "Jewish" or a practitioner of the "Jewish" form of religion, a "Keeper of The Law", is thus informed of the DECISION and SENTENCE of The Levitical Priesthood.
Among the Jews, a person who does presumptuously. , and refuses to abide by the known Decisions, Judgments, and Traditions which were handed down by The Fathers, is one to be "cut off", ie "put to the death", if not literally, then at least figuartvely, banned and shunned, such one is to be permanently accounted as -dead-.
Not much of an encouragement for any early Jewish authors desiring of any approval from their countrymen, to take it upon themselves to be found authoring any writings about that particular individual.

Gamera · 05-10-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

But, since legomenos does not have to bear that connotation, it seems reckless to assume it has to mean so-called and then use that assumption to lead to other conclusions.

Another important point is that this word does not appear in the Testimonium; it appears in the James reference.

I do not think the Greek word (χρη) is intended to raise those questions. It is just an impersonal construction. One could just about as easily translate it as if it is appropriate [or necessary] to call him a man.

I am too. But there seem to be other alterations, as well, even if the whole thing is not forged in its entirety.

Ben.

Assuming it's a later interpolation, then the Jesus-friendly translation makes sense. But if it is genuinely Josephus (and I'm not suggesting it is), it simply doesn't make sense that he has such positive views toward Jesus, and is at odds with Origen's view of Josephus' view of Jesus. Josephus is nothing if not argumentative. If the passage is authentic, the whole tenor seems snide to me, for the reasons I spelled out below. The pieces don't fit together. And thus "so-called" would be the best translation of his tone.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.