the_cave

Well, no, actually, I came up with a couple of reasons why he may have only used it once. I'll try to repeat them below.

If the Tacitus passage is based off Josephus, it seems there was no reference either to Jesus or to Jesus-as-Christ. (In other words, he may not have mentioned the name "Jesus".)

The meaning seems clear--it was named from him. Therefore, he was called "Christ" (whether Josephus himself actually calls him that or not.) This isn't an obvious reading, but it's not completely unobvious, either.

I said I didn't even think that "Jesus" needed to be in the original passage at all (since it's not in the Tacitus passage.)

Why? Am I missing something?

Since Josephus is writing about the Jews, these "Christians" would also have to be Jews (as would their crucified teacher.)

How could it be a guise of false naturalness? If it reads naturally, it reads naturally. We use paranthetical statements when speaking and writing all the time.

Again, we use paranthetical statements all the time.

I beg your pardon? Where do you get off saying this?

Do you dispute that it's a brief passage? If not, how am I wrong?

Spin, I'm using the data from Tacitus. And as I explicitly state, I am not arriving at any conclusions.

Why are you so sarcastic? I've said openly that I'm happy to admit it's an interpolation. I'm merely weighing the pros and cons. Why is there something wrong with that?

No, I'd say it's brief either way. It's even briefer with the edits that the Tacitus passage would seem to reflect.

And I commented at the time that if the dirty bits were removed, it would be perfectly edible. But to argue further about the sandwich would be ridiculous, so I won't.

I happen to think the mention with regard to James is an interpolation, but I note that Vivisector just came to the opposite conclusion.

Well, if you say so. It seems like a plausible point, and I'd say this counts as evidence against its authenticity.

Yes, in the LXX it means Messiah, but I'm speaking of the popular usage by groups such as the early Christians. Wasn't it Doherty himself who suggested "Anointed" didn't have to mean "Messiah"?

No, I haven't made my mind up. I have said this quite plainly. Is there something wrong with not making one's mind up?

That's fine. I accept that you don't take the passage seriously.

rlogan

Oh, I think that some are a little weary of re-visiting the same question.

One of the questions, the_Cave, that ought to be considered is this:

Once one has accepted interpolation in part then one has already established that the Christians cannot be trusted for the remainder.

Instead of lending weight to a reduced entry, given all of the other data it lends weight to a complete lack of credibility.

I don't like to use analogies, so I won't.

The Christians "doctored" it. We know why - to create a false history. There is a very good reason why there is no entry in contemporary documents for Jesus and the Christians. And there is a good reason why the Christians cling so tightly to Josephus.

Because they don't have anything else.

bfniii

and how did the Christians do this without anyone at the time knowing that the passage had been altered? is there a contemporary historical document by a Christian opponent that supports your claim? something that says "i have studied the original and (insert name) clearly modified the original"?

gregor

bfnii

There were no fax machines, no copy machines, and the number of copies of Antiquities can only be speculated. I doubt there were any investigative reporters who were looking for changes in texts.

Yet, we still have proof of an interpolation in the comment from an early writer and a later writer on supposedly the same text.

Origen relys on Josephus as much as possible to support a HJ. Origen states that Joe does not think Jesus the messiah. We have Eusebius writing later and addressing the same Josephus passage noting that Joe acknowledged Jesus was the messiah. Something obviously was added to Joe between the two commentaries.

Vivisector

Blue: exact or very close agreement.
Green: common reference.
Red: appears in Origen but not Josephus.
Purple: High-value TF material unused by Origen.

Origen reports that Josephus had this to say regarding Jesus:

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).

The extant TF reads:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

I've put aside Origen's Comm. Matt. and Josephus's Ant. 20.9.1 because they contain nothing on Jesus except his association with "Christ" and James.

From Origen/Josephus on John, one can conclude that Josephus wrote everything Origen said he did. Origen's account is shorter; he didn't waste papyrus extolling the virtues of John.

From Origen/Josephus on James, I think we begin to see Christian redaction. I conclude that Josephus originally connected James with the fall of Jerusalem, and that Origen reported it because he saw a way he could spin it to conform to Christian doctrine and reflect favorably on Jesus. However, Origen didn't find it helpful (as with John) to elaborate on any of James's positive attributes that Josephus might have reported and omitted this material from an originally longer reading. Over time (perhaps to combat a persistent strain of "Jewish Christianity" patterned after James's traditions), Christian scribes ultimately found it most helpful to remove the connection between James and the fall of Jerusalem as well as any other positive commentary on James.

Now we have the Origen vs. Josephus on the TF and the apparent principles that (a) if Origen said Josephus wrote it, then Josephus wrote it, (b) if it did or could be made to reflect well on Jesus, then Origen reported it, and (c) if it reflected well on someone else at Jesus's expense, Christians removed it. Taking the Blue, Green and Red material in Origen and comparing it to the TF, we find that the TF contains all of it except for the single red "prophet." Principle (a) suggests that Josephus indeed wrote these things, but what to do about "prophet?" I need another principle here, but it's well demonstrated: (d) Christians omitted or reworded material that originally reflected poorly or inadequately on Jesus. This brings us to the purple material in Josephus, material would seem to have been obviously useful to Origen, especially in Against Celsus. The best explanation to me seems to be the simplest one: Josephus didn't write it. Who did? Christians, in accordance with the principle that (e) Christians inserted material favorable to their views into extant documents. This is another well-documented principle with evidence in the "New Testament" itself and consistent with reports from Celsus himself (as per Origen).

Conclusions:

1. Josephus wrote something about Jesus, and this "something" included his being regarded as a prophet (by himself, others or both) and his death as a result of a conspiracy.
2. Based on my conclusion regarding James yesterday, I think Josephus included the phrase "called Christ" and let it stand at that, without an exposition on why Josephus did not consider Jesus to be the Christ. (a change in my position since an earlier discussion with Amaleq13, because of the possible embarrassment to Josephus in contrasting Jesus with the accepted notion of "Christ.")
3. Christians interpolated the purple material in Josephus.
4. What Josephus originally wrote appeared at the location of the TF. Yes, this is where I'd put it if I were choose a place to insert a total fabrication, but it's also where I'd put it if I were Josephus reporting on events that occurred at this time.

More speculative:

5. Josephus probably wrote considerably more (a larger passage than the extant TF) than Origen said he did, but the character of the additional material wasn't helpful to Origen's arguments.
6. Placement and context suggest that Josephus associated Jesus with a "tumult" or "calamity" (e.g., Theudas and the Egyptian) of such a nature that Christians found it expedient to remove the references to it, from which follows
7. Most reconstructions of the TF are too short and too kind to Jesus.

While it would be interesting to speculate on what Josephus might have written here to see if it explains anything about the "James Movement" and how he was able to set up shop in the very location where his brother was killed, that seems best left for another day. :wave:

Amaleq13

Since you're in such a speculative mood, why not offer an admittedly highly speculative suggestion as to how the original might have read?

One of the most fundamental problems I have with the above conclusions is that it just makes no sense to me for Josephus to feel it necessary to identify James by way of his lesser-known brother. Tacitus and Pliny, who had direct contact with Christians, appear to have had no knowledge of the name "Jesus". The context of the passage requires that the victim be portrayed favorably but that seems to me to conflict with connecting James to the Christians. By all accounts, they were not a respected group in Rome. Identifying him as a just man who was unjustly executed would have been more than sufficient.

Vivisector

Just when I've nearly exhausted my creative juices, someone asks me *this!* I've done some thinking about it, but by no stretch enough to put together a candidate just yet. If I can defer for a while, I would speculate it contained elements of the following:

1. There was this guy, Jesus called Christ, who attracted quite a following of Galileans (maybe others) who thought he was some kind of prophet.
2. Maybe something about his teachings; something that would have set him against the Temple "Establishment," but by no means "Christian" - perhaps something along the lines of a very conservative Judaism (evangelistic Essenism?) flirting with insurrectionism, and accusing the Establishment of being in bed with the Romans, too Hellenistic.
3. Jesus and his Galilean home boys bring their show to Jerusalem and begin agitating against the Establishment. Maybe they cause a ruckus in the temple, Romans step in, lots of people get hurt, even killed.
4. Jesus is in very deep doodoo, because he's tagged as the ringleader, and Pilate selects him for supreme punishment, perhaps with other key players. If the Establishment isn't complicit, they certainly approve. Pilate threatens the Establishment not to let this sort of thing happen again.
5. Jesus pays the price for the error of his ways, but some elements of his teaching remain popular. James continues the tradition (but minus the incendiary rhetoric), becomes popular in his own right, operates out of the Temple. Some of these guys are still hanging around.

One hasty idea, anyway - please don't ask me to tattoo it on my chest!

But maybe *Jesus* was the better known of the two, as the founder of a movement of which James (not Peter, not Paul, etc.) was the acknowledged successor!

I honestly don't know about this, though I think "no knowledge" is too strong. Josephus was closer in time and space to the events than Tacitus or Pliny and he was also writing as a historian. If there were a genuine historical association between Jesus and Christ, I would expect more for Josephus to report it than for Tacitus or Pliny. Tacitus wrote as a historian, but was further removed in time or space. He may have known relatively little about the new movement, and what he did know might have been a reflection of the Pauline branch. Ditto for Pliny.

I'm not sure I understand you on this point, so if I haven't addressed it, I'll try. Speculation is hard on old guys!

andrewcriddle

One possible explanation for the way James is identified is that the TF (in some form) is authentic and that Josephus is identifying the James in question as the brother of the Jesus he (Josephus) mentioned a few books earlier in the 'Antiquities'.

Although Christian writers apparently read Josephus as regarding James as a righteous man not deserving death, I'm not sure if that is Josephus's main point. His main criticism of Ananus seems to be for him sentencing people to death without due process, rather than any very strong sympathy by Josephus for Ananus's victims as such.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

If you want speculation, Eisler's reconstruction makes as much sense as any:

But if you're going to speculate this way, it's also possible that the section referred to some other messianic claimant, now lost to history.

The main point in favor of this reconstruction is that Christians would have been sure to do something about it - either eliminate it or rewrite it in highly favorable terms such as the version we now have.

the_cave

That's why I'm addressing Carlson's argument from Tacitus. (However, I'd like to point out the obvious--that Tacitus could have been the source for the original interpolation.)

And why is that? Are you claiming that there were no Christians?