Steven Carr

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2507/full

Vermes writes 'Moreover, the church fathers, Origen (185-254) and Eusebius (260-340), not only attest to the existence of the passage, but also assert that Josephus saw in the fall of Jerusalem divine punishment for the murder of James. Unfortunately, no surviving Josephus manuscript contains such a statement and its authenticity is doubtful. '

So how do they attest to the existence of the passage from Antiquties 20, when no surviving Josephus manuscript contains such a statement?

I did like Vermes claim about Antiq. 20 'It lacks New Testament parallels that might have inspired a forger.'

I think this means that there is a bit of Matthew 1:16 in the passage, suitably changed to make it grammatically correct.

And, of course, Vermes never explains why killing Christians enraged Jews , or why a certain 'Jesus' was made High Priest in place of the deposed Ananus.



I guess if James the brother of Jesus was killed, then justice demanded that somebody called Jesus was made High Priest.

I also liked Vermes on Ant.18.

'He was the Christ" is a common Christian interpolator's confession of the messianic status of Jesus. Nevertheless, the original text must have contained the epithet, "Christ", to account for the later statement about "the tribe of the Christians" named after the founder. The most likely original version read, "He was called the Christ", as Josephus puts it in the James passage. '

Just how circular is this reasoning?

Vermes 'Furthermore, a Christian interpolator would be presumed to use phrases borrowed from the New Testament such as "mighty deeds" or "signs" instead of the neutral "paradoxical deeds". The term "paradoxical" is found only once in the New Testament on the lips of uncommitted witnesses of a Gospel miracle (Lk 5:26). '

You just have to laugh, don't you? Vermes actually thinks a Christian interpolator would never have put on the lips of a Jew like Josephus a phrase used in the New Testament as coming from 'uncommitted witnesses'.

Just how bad does mainstream Biblical scholarship have to get before they get embarrassed by their reasoning?

neilgodfrey

I'm still looking for someone who can explain to me how and why a Pharisee Jew like Josephus would speak in neutral terms about a man some of his fellow Jews, and Greeks, were worshipping as a God.

I'm also looking for someone to explain why in this one instance Josephus suddenly forgets that his habit has been to get very cross with any individual or group who thought to change the old traditions of the Jews, and even blames them for part responsibility for the demise of his nation.

(Did he believe Jesus was actually teaching Jews and Greeks to keep the Jewish laws? If so, why didn't he say so -- in every other case I can think of Josephus always remembered to explain the content of any sect's or individual's particular teachings.)

Maybe all the Christians to whom Paul wrote in Rome had been bumped off in Nero's persecutions and only the Pharisaically inclined ones were left in the time of Josephus. And these Christians probably avoided negative attention from Josephus by burning Paul's letter to Romans and scrapping the "Jesus is God" doctrine.

I've archived these and other questions awaiting the day I uncover the missing book that explains them all.




Neil

Doug Shaver

As long as it's mainstream, what is there to be embarrassed about? Anyone who questions the reasoning is out of the mainstream (by definition), and if they're out of the mainstream, it's OK to just ignore them.

Steven Carr

Geza Vermes writes about possible interpolations in Josephus about Jesus

'Furthermore, a Christian interpolator would be presumed to use phrases borrowed from the New Testament such as "mighty deeds" or "signs" instead of the neutral "paradoxical deeds". '

This is nonsense. Why would Christian interpolators be limited to words found in the New Testament?

Vermes lines us the sort of persons Josephus is paralleling Jesus to

'Both "wise man" and "performer of paradoxical deeds" take us to plain Josephus territory. Great biblical and post-biblical characters like the priest Ezra, the miracle-worker Honi-Onias (Hame'agel, the circle-maker), and the Pharisaic leader Samaias are regularly portrayed as "just men" and John is called a "good man". More specifically, the legendary King Solomon and the Prophet Daniel carry the title of "wise man", and the miracle-working prophet Elisha is said to have performed "paradoxical deeds". The notion of a paradox is commonly used by Josephus in relation to extraordinary events caused by God (the manna or the burning bush) and to miracles performed by Moses (Ant. 3:37-38) and by the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9:182).'

Oh yes, Vermes actually thinks Josephus likened a crucified rebel to Daniel, Elisha, Elijah, Moses and Ezra, and that by doing this 'Josephus plays the role of a neutral witness.'

This is sheer rubbish, confirming that mainstream Biblical scholarship is broken.

robto

This is an easy one: Christians were originally Jews. In fact, in James's day, the term "Christian" hadn't even been invented yet. And even though it was obviously in use by Josephus's time, he still considers James an important Jewish leader.

Another easy one: they weren't. Josephus was writing around 90 AD, worshipping Jesus as God doesn't show up until the very latest NT writings. Josephus likely knew of Christians who had ideas like those of Luke and Matthew: Jesus was an exalted servant of God, not a god himself.

Steven Carr

So Josephus considered James to be a Christian, and an important Jewish leader,what with his declaring a crucified criminal to be the Messiah?


Josephus might well have been familiar with Matthew 'When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.'

I guess Josephus knew Christians were worshipping Jesus as an exalted servant of God, who had all authority in heaven and on earth. No hint of idolatry there!

show_no_mercy

James was an important Jewish leader for the Jews who did not worship Jesus as some sort of pagan god. Jesus being god or nearly co-equal with god is strictly Pauline/Johannine christology. Funny word, that word "christ"; Josephus only seems to use it when refering to the Jesus of Christianity. Why didn't he use that word for Vespasian, who he argued was the messiah foretold in scripture?

Probably because the instances in Josephus of the word "christ" are all interpolations by later Christians.

ApostateAbe

The argument about "paradoxical deeds," it seems to be a good one. It is something that we would expect of either a neutral author or an opponent, not a Christian. Of course, yes, it could have come from a Christian. Anything is possible in historical scholarship, and so someone who is committed to a theory will believe just about anything. But, like I keep saying, what should matter is probability.

I don't agree with the author's proposition that the original phrase of Jesus was, "He was called the Christ." For one thing, that would not be enough to motivate a Christian interpolation. Secondly, even though the phrasing may seem neutral to us, it seems too deferential for Josephus. Thirdly, it would fail to explain why Origen wrote that Josephus believed that Jesus was not the Christ. A more likely original phrasing is, "He was not the Christ." Christian copyists hated to propagate a blasphemy, so they simply took out the word, "not."

neilgodfrey

Add that pre-Pauline hymn in Philippians that said Christ had been equal with God before he was even exalted; and Paul's teaching that this non-god was also Lord of all things including both the dead and the living (Romans 9:5; 14:9); the very image and glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7); one often indistinguishable from the indwelling Spirit of God in Paul's writings, and one to whom Jewish Christians prayed (what generation of such christians do we read of in Pliny?).

If by the year 90 when Josephus wrote Christians were defined by Jews as an upright sect who upheld the traditional ways and followed one they believed to be the sort of Messiah that an orthodox Jew could write about respectfully -- then, well, I think we have a lot of new questions to ask about the literature of the new testament, . . . . -- And also explain how such a reputable Jewish outfit with the esteem of a Josephus could suddenly within a generation become a persecuted sect claiming a new god (if you don't think Christians worshiped Jesus before this time). . . .

And if we even accept the passage in Josephus about James as being about a Christian persecution, then we must also accept it as further evidence that the Jews had Christians in such high regard that they would by no means let an isolated injustice against one of them go unpunished. -- How to explain ANY persecution of Christians if Josephus' testimony in either places is to be taken as valid? Surely the minim could never have included Christians if we embrace the testimony of Josephus in these passages . . . .

Fundamentalists who want John's gospel written by an eyewitness of Jesus would no doubt find a sensible way to square this view of Christ with that of the Christians known to Josephus.

In their desperation to cling to evidence of a first century Jew speaking "neutrally" and even positively about Christ, the only bit of first century extra biblical evidence they can ever hope to have, they seem to momentarily go into a dreamlike world where only a select few of their other constructs and understandings about early Christianity still exist.

robto

Sorry, I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.


Let me see if I've got this straight - you're saying Josephus MIGHT have known Matthew's gospel (do you have any evidence of this?), and if so, he MIGHT have reacted negatively to a couple of verses in it, and therefore he DEFINITELY couldn't have written about James as he did. Is that it?

Since the whole argument hinges on what Josephus "should" have said about those with theologies different from his, let's look at what he actually wrote about some of those people.

Your own recent thread quotes Josephus on JtB - someone who advocated a cleansing apart from the official Temple ritual, which is a radical departure from orthodox Judaism. How does Josephus evaluate JtB: positively, neutrally, or negatively? Or, is this yet another Christian interpolation?

What about Josephus's opinion of the Sadducees? They denied the resurrection of the dead, which the Pharisees accepted. Does this huge theological gap lead Josephus to evaluate them negatively? Or do we have to do with a rare Sadducean interpolation here?

Basically what I'm asking is this: you have a very definite opinion about what Josephus ought to have written about James and the Christians. What evidence do you have for this opinion?