the_cave

No, it doesn't. Part of the problem is the translation currently being used--the passage (as I have gathered) is actually ambiguous, and may originally have been somewhat mocking in tone. Vivisector, you might want to compare different translations, to determine which "purple" parts are complimentary and which ones might not be. Read Van Voorst's discussion of it, for example (in "Jesus Outside the New Testament.")

[edited to add: or read Toto's message!]

the_cave

And it looks like Eisler's suggesting that Josephus actually used "Messiah", not "Christ"?

Though I feel this version would suffer more from spin's discourse analysis protest...

Yep. Freely admit this.

It does make a certain amount of sense...

Vivisector

To Toto, I agree that what - if anything - was written could be something none of us would easily recognize. Eisler's reconstruction is a candidate, for sure - it would most certainly merit an almost total overhaul, and it does preserve the elements (in a way) that Origen reported. I still think it's missing some material, though, mainly some clarification of the disturbances and what brought him into conflict with the Jewish leadership.

To the_cave, thank you for the recommendation. One book leads to three, three lead to eight, etc. But it's obviously time to expand the library a little more in the direction you suggested, and I appreciate the tip.

Amaleq13

No problem. I am puzzled, however, about some of the details you include in your outline. I don't understand the basis for even suspecting that Josephus would know many of the details you included. Based on what you concluded earlier, I was expecting more of a "bare bones" text. For example, I see no reason to suspect Josephus knew of or would feel compelled to write about Galilean followers. That aside, I think the biggest problem with your "reconstruction" is that the Jesus depicted in it would be someone that Josephus would have condemned rather than hold up as an example of Pilate's evil cruelty. Josephus condemned the entire rebellion movement as the ultimate reason that Jerusalem fell. My first impression of your hasty speculation is that it seems to have more in common with the Gospel stories than Josephus.

I don't know of any evidence that would support such a "maybe" and the existing evidence suggests otherwise. James the Just appears to have had an established reputation prior to and independent of any involvement with Christianity. Pliny and Tacitus don't seem to have even known the name "Jesus".

It accurately describes their statements. They never use the name but, instead, use "Christ/Christus" as though it was the name of the founder.

Yet neither of them make any mention of the central teaching of Paul, i.e. that Christ rose from the dead.

The context is "Horrible Things Pilate Did" so depicting him having a false prophet executed doesn't make sense and depicting him executing a rebel doesn't make sense.

I had thought you were suggesting a James reference was part of the original TF.

Amaleq13

I explained above why it certainly does. Eisler's reconstruction makes no sense within the context of Josephus listing horrible things Pilate has done to the Jews.

the_cave

Well, as I said, it could be an aside--or else, maybe he thinks that a) the Messianists themselves were a calamity, or b) the crucifixion was a calamity. I think he could think b) even if he weren't trying to praise either this teacher or his followers.

But I think that overall, the passage does seem a little out of place, simply because it doesn't really follow the pattern of the rest. He tends to introduce a long story and end it with the persecution of a large group of people.

Now, maybe the original passage did end with a description of the disappearance of this teacher's followers--and has been changed to insist that they're still around! But this is just an idea.

Vivisector

Cheers again, Amaleq. My basis for the part about the followers would be that, IIRC, (a) Josephus grew up in Jerusalem, (b) he served as a general in Galilee (either of which could have provided him with this information), and (c) it seems natural background.
I'm not sure. I had neutral thoughts when I jotted down those elements, but my wording could have led one to get a different impression. I don't think Josephus would have been particularly approving of Jesus. If Josephus were writing negatively about Jesus, though, a ruckus that turned violent as a result of Roman intervention might have constituted a "calamity" for Josephus.
I certainly wasn't consciously using any NT info that I'd consider reasonably plausible as background; however, I do believe James has gotten a raw deal out of the entire exchange and that he was much more prominent in early Christianity than is acknowledged. I'm also trying not to let this influence me unduly in this regard.
If you're referring to Josephus minus any form of the TF, then you're right, but then again, the form - if any - of the TF is one of the issues here (unless I've totally forgotten the original issues )! But you're right about James the Just, whom I don't think was in any form a Christian in currently accepted terminology.
I took a *very* quick look at Ignatius, who uses Christ just as it were Jesus's last name. However, I also looked at Justin's First Apology, and he seems to have used "Christ" alone on many (half?) occasions. I should have looked at Paul's seven epistles. In any event, even Christians referred to him merely as Christ; if we had only a few surviving works of such folks, then we might have concluded that even they didn't connect Christ to Jesus! Given the scarcity of secular references to Jesus/Christ, I don't think we can say that they knew *nothing* about the connection.
I would weight this more heavily if, in either case, the context demanded it. In the case of Pliny's letter, I don't see that the context demands it. It seems presumed that both he and Trajan know all they think they need to know about the Christians' beliefs. Tacitus mentions a pernicious or destructive superstition but chooses not to elaborate, as if this backwards group of people are undeserving of serious consideration.
Again, I think that Roman soldiers violently settling a Jewish dispute could have qualified as horrible to Josephus, or at least served as yet another example of how Pilate dealt with the Jews.
At the moment, yes, I am, but I'm not married to the idea just yet.

As always, a pleasure to exchange, and I appreciate your recognition that these are fairly unrefined notions.

rlogan

The Tacitus passage has been discussed here before. The same argument applies. Once you accept that the Christians made forgeries to create a false history - and that they indeed destroyed documents contrary to canon - then the only question is how extensive their meddling was. Tacitus is also likely a forgery.


Proving a negative is beyond my abilities.

When can we prove that there were Christians? And when we say the term "Christian" - do we mean those that came before the invention of Jesus?


I don;t really understand your argument about Josephus. If it wasn't about a man, then there can't be a passage.

spin

Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush...

We have hammered the Tacitus testimonial here and people shut up. And we have hammered the TF and people shut up. And then Tacitus comes back because of short attention spans. Ans then Josephus comes back and those people with short attention spans then bring up Tacitus in conjunction with Josephus. You might think it's fine to chase your tail around and around.

The facts are that the Tacitus testimony

1) interrupts the passage it's in attempting to fit itself in;
2) uses stylistics that are not Tacitean;
3) uses phrases that Tacitus uses nowhere else;
4) applies the wrong rank to Pilate, changing Pilate's social status (highly improbable);
5) assumes that the populace knows what Christians were specifically at the time referred to;
6) assumes that Nero's soldiers could individuate these Christians;
7) goes into gory detail about martyrdom as would appeal to Christians;
8) ends up with Romans having sympathy for these nsaty Christians;
9) isn't cited by those early fathers who knew Tacitus and weren't afraid to use him; and
10) doesn't surface in church circles until Sulpicius Severus, some centuries after Tacitus.

Talking about the bonfire of the vanities.

So now here we are dealing with the TF by using a text whose veracity is just as under question. The methodology may appeal to some but it seems to me to be ludicrous.

And of course we note the perennial ploy by the_cave: if... could..., therefore... would... if... perhaps... seems... might... mightn't...

Ground control to the_cave,
there's something wrong
can you hear me, the_cave?

Another interesting ploy, citing Doherty, who means nothing to me, Christ may have meant something else. When you have problems with meanings of words, try redefining. Somebody'll believe you.

Then again, Josephus mightn't have used the term... so Mr Arbitrary has absolutely nothing to justify all this running around, chasing his tail.

Always coming back to the mask of considering the pros and cons. This is utter subterfuge. There is no consideration of the cons displayed in such response at all other than to delineate what can be held onto when there is no specific con to mean that he has to give it up.

He's willing to abandon the reference to "Christ" and then again he's willing to abandon "Jesus", yet this group called "Christians" is somehow named after this unnamed "founder". The conclusion is plain, any road, no matter how wild or far-fetched will do to maintain some Christian content in this obviously spurious passage.

The logic is, ok you can show me that three quarters of the passage is discredited, but you can't show me that the rest is.

You have shown no way of knowing if the germs in the fly specks were now off the bread. Eat up. Most people would throw it out.

I don't know about Doherty, but anointing was performed on high priests and kings, God's chosen in this world.

No, you haven't made up your mind. And I don't expect you to stop protesting that you haven't.

spin

On Viv's reading of Contra Celsus...

The translator of this passage, in trying to make clear the original thought of the writer has inserted a number of commas and dashes. Some of these help to separate the main thought from the additional thoughts. If we work on the notion that the main thought represents some reflection on Josephus's original text.

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless -being, although against his will, not far from the truth- that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. (Against Celsus, I.47).

Here is the fundamental idea that Origen supplies:

Now this writer, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, says nevertheless that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just. (Against Celsus, I.47).

* First parenthetical information Origen tells his reader: Josephus didn't believe "in Jesus as the Christ" (unlike Origen's readers)

* Second parenthetical information Origen tells his reader: Josephus got the reason for the calamities wrong -- it was because "they put to death Christ"

* Third parenthetical information Origen tells his reader: Josephus wasn't "far from the truth" (when he attributes the cause to James)

* Fourth parenthetical information Origen tells his reader: he explains who James was and expands on the deeds of the Jews.

As far as this goes we have dealt with the material which Origen added for his audience's sake. He wasn't falsifying anything, but merely making what happened clear from a Christian point of view to his readers. He never claimed that all his comments related directly to what Josephus wrote. Nevertheless, much of the material in this passage, that which I specified as parenthetical, does not directly relate to what Josephus wrote.

There remains still one problem which I can't deal with: Origen has the idea that Josephus seems to think the death of James was the cause of the ensuing calamities. I can find no such indication in Josephus which would support this.


spin