Tristan Scott

Of course it does, but had the name Jesus been mentioned by these guys in the context of a figure these people worshipped, who allegedly was born of a virgin, who allegedly could make monkeys fly out of his ass, it wouldn't have made his existence any more plausable. IOW Jesus' existence isn't going to be found from the writings of historians who are just parroting what the followers are saying.

If they were to give specific historic referrence to the person that would be one thing, but all they are doing is reporting on the followers.

aa5874

The absence of the name Jesus creates two major problems.

1. The absence of the name Jesus by secular writers diminishes his historicity up to or around 110 CE

2. The absence of the name Jesus diminishes the theory that people did believe in a character called Jesus real or imagined (heavenly), upto or around 110 CE.

Chaucer

That's misleading. In Antiq. 20, which has not fallen under the same cloud Antiq. 18 has, Josephus refers to Jesus as one who is called Christ by some. He makes no claim that Jesus is the Christ. A big difference.

Chaucer

aa5874

Well if Josephus wrote Jesus was called "Christ" then Jesus, as found in AJ 20.9.1, was probably simply called "anointed." and had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus the God/man Messiah who resurrected on the third day according to AJ 18.3.3

King David was also called Christ (anointed).

Chaucer

Fair enough. I have no problem with that. Since I'm one of those who does see some odd problems with Antiq. 18, I've never seen any difficulty with supposing that Antiq. 20 was originally written by Josephus in its only known form, and written with no intention of directing the reader back to any prior reference at all. "Christ", as you rightly point out, was a term that could be taken straightforwardly as "anointed", and since I don't feel that Josephus was endeavoring to provide any gloss on that term at all, I'm comfortable with his having left it up to each reader to derive any significance each reader might choose from that term. A comparable example might be the occasional use, say, of the term the "Gipper" for Ronald Reagan. A 21st-century reader might or might not know why Reagan was sometimes termed the "Gipper", but I can conceive of a 21st-century historian, in some thumbnail sketch, mentioning "Gipper" as a term sometimes applied to Reagan, without bothering to explain why <shrug>.

Cheers,

Chaucer

spin

You know the whole tradition behind "the Gipper" and Reagan. What about Jesus and "the Christos" -- what does Josephus tell you? Nothing. A christian statement in Josephus is not strange seeing as the text was preserved by christians and especially as you see problems with AJ 18, which suggests christian scribal intervention. (I've gone into the issue of AJ 20's o legomenos christos in the other thread.)


spin

Chaucer

Actually, I've now encountered at least two young adults this decade who have casually referred to Reagan as the Gipper, without knowing why he got called that! -- and it hasn't even bothered them that they just don't know why!

True story.

Cheers,

Chaucer

spin

And a deflection.

Josephus knows exactly what the term means and has avoided throughout his work... oh, sorry, except for Jesus of course. I've got some wonderful real estate at the bottom of Puget Sound I'm sure I can interest you in.


spin

Chaucer

Absolutely not a deflection, and candidly, I take very great exception to that. It goes to the very heart of how Josephus expected his readers to view the James passage at Antiq. 20 (see http://www.freeratio.org//showthread...=271751&page=3).

Sincerely,

Chaucer

spin

Perhaps you should either cite the whole relevant material here, or link to the specific post you had in mind. My browser probably shows a different number of posts per page so the page you point me to is no use to you.

Perhaps you might have responded to the first part of the material you didn't cite. You don't seem to be considering commentators or audience.


spin