Roger Pearse

I intended to suggest that we could find reasons to suggest that any given passage had been altered for quite a lot of ancient literature, if we so chose.

Well, I don't want to make a modern opinion -- not mine, not anyone's -- the basis of any analysis of anything. In my humble opinion, it should be data driven.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I think this remark would infallibly lead the unwary to suppose that all ancient literature is unreliably transmitted. I don't see any practical difference between such a conclusion and obscurantism. No doubt you do not mean this; but it is what will be understood.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

Okay, it appears you and I agree that the Cassius Clay analogy, so far as it goes, is apt, that there is on the face of things no contradiction between denying X to be true and saying that it is said (by others understood) that X is true. What you have done is to add another element into the mix, to wit, that Josephus studiously avoids the term in question; the equivalent in my analogy would be that I, the person talking about Cassius Clay, would never, ever describe anybody as best boxer ever.

Fair enough. So the debate on this front comes down to: Would Josephus have said that Jesus was called Christ?

I do not know about you, but I think Josephus, writing for a Roman audience, is trying to avoid confusion amongst his readership, who would surely not have been expected to know what an anointed one, a messiah, really meant to the Jews. It was enough for him to speak of royal pretenders, bandits and brigands, usurpers, and imposters. Those were terms with which his Roman audience would most assuredly be familiar.

Consistently, even when he is tagging Vespasian as the fulfillment of messianic prophecy, he calls him autocrat and the one who would rule the inhabited earth. Again, those were terms with which his Roman readership would be quite familiar. To speak of Vespasian as the anointed one would probably have raised more questions than it answered.

That is how it seems to me, and I am certain you will add any other observations as you see fit.

This statement does not logically hold. Accepting X is one thing, admitting that others accept X quite another. Again, we are back to the argument that Josephus simply would not have used that word; it was taboo to him.

Again false. Jesus purportedly died ignominiously, and Jesus was called the messiah (by Christians).

You are ignoring the force of the key word λεγομενου. That word absolves Josephus of belief in what follows. Josephus can easily say that Jesus was called Christ without himself believing that Jesus was Christ. That is, in fact, precisely why one might use that word, like a responsible journalist uses terms like he reports or she says.

Once more we are back to the argument that Josephus simply could not have penned the word Christ.

A non sequiter.

I agree with you that Origen is commenting as he writes. But, when he gets to brother of Jesus called Christ, I do not hear Origen speaking. Origen has already mentioned Jesus and Christ in the immediate context without qualification; indeed, why should he qualify what his readership most assuredly knows, that Jesus was called the Christ?

To qualify the name Jesus with the title Christ in the early going in Matthew makes perfect sense. To qualify the name Jesus with the title Christ at this point in Against Celsus is unnecessary.

He says that he is indicating what Josephus actually said. And he made a mistake on the cause of the fall of Jerusalem (IMHO he got that part from Hegesippus). But that line, brother of Jesus called Christ, cannot be sitting there by accident. It would be quite a coincidence if, independently, all our extant manuscripts of Josephus have that line at the stoning of James and Origen happens to have that same line at the killing of James, in words that he himself would be unlikely to use with a readership who already knew that Jesus was also called Christ.

It says that James was delivered up to be stoned. Even if you do not wish to read between those lines, I think it is safe to say that Origen did.

Agreed. Relying on memory, he confused Josephus with Hegesippus, I think, who does in fact say what his death triggered.

Unless you want to more strongly commit to the position that someone made the insertion based on what Origen had written you have quite a coincidence to explain. The Matthew 1.16 reference is a chimera in that regard. It lacks brother of, so it cannot explain Origen and Josephus on its own.

As for the burning question of whether or not Josephus would have penned the term Christ, the answer is obvious. In this case there was no reason not to do so. That was in fact what the man was called; it had indeed become more a second name than a title in some regards. A Roman readership would not have to grasp the importance of the title as it appears in Jewish literature; all that was necessary was the connection between Jesus and the hated Christians. The term Christ was the essence of that connection.

Such an explanation may not make sense to you, but it makes eminent sense to me.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

But he does use tribe of the Jews, in Antiquities 14.7.2 §115. Or did I misunderstand your point?

Ben.

Amaleq13

The notion that the thoroughly Jewish Josephus could not have written the clearly Christian Testimonium isn't "data driven"?

rlogan

Josephus specifically writes on sects of the Jews: three of them. (Most extensively on the Essenes). Nothing on Christians.

Going way out on a limb to suggest that Josephus assumes everyone knows who "Christ" is and which "tribe" called him that is bordering on the preposterous when at the same time the Christians aren't even a sect worth writing about anywhere, let alone in the passages pertaining to sects of the Jews.

Apologists (not suggesting you are one) and even their cousins the quasi-historicists are like a bar of soap where in one place Jesus is a threat to the power structure because he's got a following - but on the other hand nobody notices him and that's why there isn't so much as a single line written of him or them by any contemporary source. Can't get a grip on what their model actually is because it slips through your fingers every time you try to pin them down.


It is terribly obvious to me that failing to identify whocalls the mythic Jesus "Christ" is a sign of the meddling post-Josephus Christian hand in the text.

It is plainly religio-gibberish meant to imbue authority, eg "it is said he is called the Christ"...oooh...ahhh...he's the one...the crowd loves him...

If Josephus, the Jew, had referred to a rag-tag, misguided motley crew that thought this plainly non-messiah character was "the" Christ then it would be more beleivable.

But that isn't what Christians did or do. The Christian hand has Jesus as the miracle-working superstar.


It's a pretty poor smokescreen to suggest that any historical passage can be questioned when we are talking specifically about a genre of material pertaining to highly motivated serial fabricators and voodo adherents.

They killed people who disagreed with them when they had the power of the state behind them. But meddle with a text?! Too shocking to even consider!

Chris Weimer

Surely we can evaluate the evidence without resorting to ad hominem, no matter what position you take, eh Bob? These negative stereotypes are worthless in real academia and likewise I'm getting sick of seeing them here. And hell, I think both passages are fake! So please, let's drop the acrimony that you imbue and start dealing with the evidence.

Roger Pearse

No. It is opinion-driven.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Phlox Pyros

Oh, that helps discourse. At least we know what grounds the moderators stand on.

kais

Chris Weimer: "Surely we can evaluate the evidence without resorting to ad hominem, no matter what position you take, eh Bob? These negative stereotypes are worthless in real academia and likewise I'm getting sick of seeing them here....So please, let's drop the acrimony that you imbue and start dealing with the evidence."

Yes, his views are quite clear.