Ben C Smith

I did not mean any unfairness. What I meant by Origen and the interpolater is identical to what I had meant by the phrase in Josephus and Origen. Sorry to have been unclear.

Ben.

Phlox Pyros

I'm not sure I see a big difference there, but ok. Josephus was reporting "what the name was", not necessarily that he believed Jesus was the Christ.

Why do you ask about a verb? Here is the text.

legomenos

Apn 2:48

και γαρ τριτος πτολεμαιος ο λεγομενος Ευεργετης

As I mentioned, Josephus was not writing a religious text. In addition, he surrendered to the Romans. He doesn't seem to have had quite the same level of religious zealotry as many others of his time. I, personally, do not believe that he would have seen it necessary to "correct" a title by which Jesus was called.

I don't think it is necessary to say "Your personal thoughts on the matter...". Place it on the ideas, not the person and it might come across a little better. I, of course, could say the same of the the opposite position being espoused, that it is possibly an anachronistic personal view of how Josephus should have reacted when putting down the title "Christ"...

I don't think it is necessarily a "flippant" use of "Christ" merely to note that someone was referred to as such. As I mention earlier in this post, even though Josephus had been trained in the laws of Judaism, I'm not sure that many of his collegues would have viewed him as all that religious after surrendering to the Romans. Josephus, in referring to a supposedly messianic prophecy, calls it abiguous and says that the Jews of his day were wrong, that the prophecy referred to Vespasian. That doesn't seem like such a Jewish thing to do, either. Should that reference also be removed as some kind of interpolation favoring the Romans based on the religousness being ascribed to Josephus?

Phlox Pyros

John 19:13

...εις τοπον λεγομενον λιθοστρωτον Εβραιστι δε Γαββαθα.

Here is fairly good usage example of something being called one thing but being known as another.

The place was called "stone pavement", but in Hebrew "Gabbatha" (ie. a "raised place" or an "elevation").

spin

I have spelt out now numerous times the Jewish religious attitudes towards breaking the law, ie they didn't willingly break them. This includes notions such as misuse of the religio-technical term christos/messiah. The term has a specific meaning, which I have given often enough. The use of christ in "Jesus called christ", working on the assumption that this Jesus did not fit the prerequisites of messiahship, could not be seen as anything but blasphemous by his Jewish readers -- and the text was just as much an apology for Josephus himself as for the Jews in general.

It is one thing to crap on about fulfilling some unstated prophecy -- where exactly did the prophecy that Josephus used for Vespasian BJ 6.5.4 come from?? It's another to commit the equivalent of blasphemy.

Josephus excuses his act of surrendering to Vespasian along religious grounds. (See BJ 3.8.3ff) Josephus claims to have prophecied that Vespasian was (=would be) Caesar BJ 3.8.9.

What would ever make you think that for Vespasian Josephus meant anything but a secular ruler?? His way of describing the prophesy seemed secular to be: arxei ths oikoumenhs "will be first in the world", or ioudaias autokratoros, "ruler of the Jews". What eschatological signs are there in this?? Right, none.


spin

Phlox Pyros

Can you point out this law specifically about the misuse of christos and/or meshiach, please? I am not familiar with it.

What is this fascination with excrement, anyway? Can't there be a discussion without this nonsense?

Most likely the "Balaam prophecy" in Numbers..."a star shall come out of Jacob and a scepter will rise out of Israel. It shall crush the foreheads of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be dispossessed."

He refers to the prophecy as ambiguous and discounts the views of the Jews around him. He takes a prophecy that many Jews thought to refer to the coming "messiah" and applies it to a Roman oppressor.

Alright, so he didn't believe in the messianic prophecies that were current in his time. So, if he could take such a prophecy and apply it to his Roman conqueror with ease, why not simply mention Jesus was called Christ? Again, the texts that you point out in support of the censoring of the title Christ are religious texts, where one might expect tighter reigns on language. Josephus was not writing such a text, and in fact one might come away from Josephus' texts with the impression that he must have been something of a liberal Jew and Roman sympathizer.

It just seems quite probable to me that he could have written "called Christ". It seems that we simply see the evidence differently, so we may not be able to procede further.

rlogan

In response to the direct question why Jesus is not mentioned in JW whereas he is mentioned in the forged TF you wrote:

and further asserted, in response to the comment that JW has plenty of history aside from specific war material:


Josephus mentions many individuals having nothing to do with starting rebellions and who did not participate in the war. I gave you my favorite one, named Jesus. There are plenty more.

Obviously, Jesus did not need to have anything to do with the Jewish War to be mentioned by Josephus. Jesus does not need to start rebellions or be violent.

So you have not answered the question why Jesus wasn't mentioned in JW.

I can do that for you:

He wasn't mentioned in either one until Christians inserted fake passages in AJ.

Glad to help.

:wave:

andrewcriddle

I'm doubtful if Origen is conflating Josephus and Hegesippus.

A/ IIUC Origen never explicitly claims knowledge of Hegesippus' work
B/ There does not appear to be the indirect evidence of knowledge of
Hegesippus in Origen that we find for example in Irenaeus.
C/ The fact that the Christian Hegesippus regards Jesus as the Christ is hardly surprising. He does not however call James the brother of Jesus or the brother of Christ or use 'Jesus called Christ' (He calls James the brother of the Lord)
D/ IMHO it is quite possible for Origen to have (mis)understood Josephus as attributing the fall of Jerusalem to the execution of James without needing the help of Hegesippus. The killing of James is one of a number of misdeeds (including such things as liturgical irregularities involving the Levites) which Josephus holds as having some responsibility for the fall of Jerusalem. For Josephus the death of James is clearly a minor part of this list of transgressions but for a Christian reader of Josephus the text would quite likely be (mis)understood otherwise.



It is of course possible that a vague knowledge of Christianity was present in pagan circles c 110-120 CE to a much greater extent than in c 95CE but I don't see it as prima facie more likely than the alternative.

FWIW If one accepts that Nero did persecute Christians in the 60's (which I'm aware you are sceptical about) then some vague general knowledge of Christianity in Rome from the 60's onward would seem probable.
IMO you're backdating the post 135 CE Jewish sensitivity about Messianic claims back into the time of Josephus. I think this requires justification.


Unless one claims that John 9:22 actually describes the situation in the mid 1st century CE then the NT implies that hostilities between early Jewish believers in Jesus as Christ and other Jews, required more than the bare claim that Jesus was the Messiah. Other issues (about the Temple about the Law about the Jewish leadership) were involved in such hostilities.

Andrew Criddle

jjramsey

True, but as mithy73 pointed out, what he mentions before talking about the Jewish War itself is "history leading up to the Jewish War itself" (and strangely enough, answered his own question. ). It is not a work that covers the history of Judea and Galilee in general. Short-term rebellions, misgovernment, etc., arguably lead up to that war, but it does not follow that Jesus was part of that. Even if one argues that Josephus was less than focused and mentioned some history that was irrelevant to the Jewish War, it does not follow that Jesus would have to be one of those irrelevant bits that he mentions. For your argument from silence to work, you need to show that Josephus should have mentioned Jesus in Jewish War, but didn't.

That slightly vague statement is true. However, if I were to rewrite the statement as,

then the appropriate response would be, "Perhaps, but it would help if he did have something to do with it."

rlogan

That's right. True.

So quit trying to turn the tables with straw men and the pretense that you still have some kind of argument that supports your original assertion.

You stated that jesus is not mentioned in JW because:

I have done nothing but falsify the implied premise here by supplying evidence that there is plenty of material in JW not having to do with the war per se. As well as people not directly relevant.

Have I stated anything else for you to pretend to argue with? No. So just knock it off, please. Quote me directly as I am for you if you are going to pretend to argue with something I've said.


*yawn* Straw man. Who argued this? Nobody.

Who argued that? Nobody.

We are dealing here with YOUR assertion quoted above- not ones you wish I had made.


You certainly are not addressing any argument I made.


I know you really want me to take the bait and pretend this began as me asserting Jesus HAD to be mentioned in JW.

But instead I will take on your direct statement here:


You don't know what the Christians had to do with the Jewish War. So you can't claim "Jesus" was an "irrelevant bit". Can you please supply me with any evidence whatsoever about the role of the Christians in the Jewish War? Neutral? On the side of the Jews? The Romans?

Did they just suck their thumbs during the war? You basing that on some Christian document?

Whether Christians were neutral, pro-Roman, or pro-Jewish in the war, it is relevant. And you can't get away with pretending Christians and Jesus are not defacto the same thing for purposes of this argument.

You are just talking through your hat with the "just so" story that essentially the Christians must have been an "irrelevant bit", and moreover an "irrelevant bit" that Josephus would choose to not write about when he chooses to write about other irrelevant bits.

Phlox Pyros

Here's a little information:

Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.5.3)

"Furthermore, the members of the Jerusalem church, by means of an oracle given by revelation to acceptable persons there, were ordered to leave the City before the war {ie. of 70 A.D.} began and settle in a town in Peraea called Pella. To Pella those who believed in Christ migrated from Jerusalem; and as if holy men had utterly abandoned the royal metropolis of the Jews and the entire Jewish land, the judgement of God at last overtook them for their abominable crimes against Christ and His aposltes, completely blotting out that wicked generation from among men."