Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-27-2004, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

One more point. Josephus wrote in Hebrew. How could he write in Hebrew that the "christians" were named after "christ"? As a far as I know, in Hebrew, it was never "messianists" derived from messiah, but a word derived from NTSR...

While it is true that the War was first written in Hebrew (some think Aramaic) and then translated into Greek, I'm not so sure that that was the process for the Antiquities, which address the Romans in the text itself. He makes mention in his preface of having translated the historical works directly out of the Hebrew as Greek translations didn't exist at the time of composition. If it was, and I'm not 100% convinced that it wasn't, then your logic would be correct.

spin

GakuseiDon · 04-28-2004, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In the TF every scholar rejects the bald statement "he was the Christ", o xristos outos hn. Yet, without the forementioning of xristos, there is nothing to hang the phrase "Christians, so named from him", twn xristianwn apo toude wnomasmenon, named after whom, Jesus? No, it must be the now eliminated Christ. (Besides, in the same sentence the use of "tribe", fulon, does not reflect Josephus's usage.)

So, no, Josephus doesn't use the word "Christian".

Yes, the scholars reject "he was the Christ", but don't some allow for "he was called the Christ"? And that would still allow the word "Christian", and tie in to Josephus's other reference ("the so-called Christ") neatly.

Quote:

In the TF xristos is not used as a name, but as a description which carries a definite article. Hence, if it were original to the text, the common understanding of the phrase would be "he was the ointment".

I'm not trying to argue so much as understand your point. For the previous 50 years, from the time of Paul, Christians had been referring to "Jesus Christ". So, hypothetically, even if they were referring to Jesus Christ as "Jesus the ointment" (maybe like a gangster, or a WWF wrestler?) so what? That's the name they had been using (check Romans 1 if you don't believe me) for the last two generations.

What would you expect Josephus to call Him, if everyone else had been using "Jesus the Christ" for the last 50 years? (I must be missing something, because your point is so nonsensical).

Quote:

The TF has already fallen. There are just too many counts against it. I posted the information about the common significance of xristos as it was a sure fire end to the rumblings about the James passage. Being such a small part of the text, there isn't too much to go on to establish its veracity. People like Bernard are prepared to complain about phrase structures that are clearly not from Josephus, but it dealing with the real significance of xristos terminates the discussion. It simply doesn't mean to the audience of Josephus's text what xians would like it to mean.

Heck, how many Christians today regard "Christ" as Jesus's surname, so Mary would be "Mrs Christ"?

Quote:

(To see this, just refer to the entry for xristos in Liddell and Scott.) The only people to whom the term xristos would have significance are Greek speaking xians (and Jews) who knew and used the term in their religious context. This means that the references to xristos were not written by Josephus, but probably by a xian, as he alone would appreciate the significance of the term. We have to wait twenty years for Pliny the Younger to talk about xians to Trajan.

Again, this makes no sense at all. Why would it matter to Josephus if it had significance to anyone? He was using a name that no doubt he got from Christians. What did Paul call Jesus? What did the Christians call Him? What did Pliny call Him? I honestly can't see what your point is.

Amaleq13 · 04-28-2004, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Yes, the scholars reject "he was the Christ", but don't some allow for "he was called the Christ"? And that would still allow the word "Christian", and tie in to Josephus's other reference ("the so-called Christ") neatly.

The absence of an explanation of the term would still be a problem. IIRC, Bernard's response is that Josephus' audience can be assumed to have been sufficiently familiar with Christians and the meaning of the term to make explanation unnecessary. I don't think the letters we have where Roman rulers are discussing Christians supports that assumption. They never even use the name "Jesus" or the concept that "Christ" = "Jewish Messiah" but refer only to Christians as a group who they believe got their name from a guy or they refer to the guy as "Chrestus".

Quote:

For the previous 50 years, from the time of Paul, Christians had been referring to "Jesus Christ".

Among Christians. As we can see from the Roman letters, the name "Jesus" does not appear to have made it out to non-believers.

Quote:

What would you expect Josephus to call Him, if everyone else had been using "Jesus the Christ" for the last 50 years? (I must be missing something, because your point is so nonsensical).

I would expect Josephus to identify James by the most widely known identifier (ie the Just) or by referring directly to his reputation. I would not expect him to choose to identify James by an association with an executed criminal's nickname. This seems especially unlikely if that nickname carried with it such a religiously/politically charged connotation among Jews.

Even if we had good reason to assume Josephus would choose to identify James by his relationship to Jesus (and we certainly do not), it is not credible to suggest he would do so by way of such an inherently problematic nickname without explanation or apology.

GakuseiDon · 04-28-2004, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The absence of an explanation of the term would still be a problem. IIRC, Bernard's response is that Josephus' audience can be assumed to have been sufficiently familiar with Christians and the meaning of the term to make explanation unnecessary. I don't think the letters we have where Roman rulers are discussing Christians supports that assumption. They never even use the name "Jesus" or the concept that "Christ" = "Jewish Messiah" but refer only to Christians as a group who they believe got their name from a guy or they refer to the guy as "Chrestus".

So Josephus's audience either understood the origin of the term or they weren't interested. It makes sense to me. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger were both happy talking about a "Christus" without knowing the meaning of the term. "He was called Christ" seems to work well. We talk about the apostle Peter without referring to its meaning or to his real name.

Quote:

I would expect Josephus to identify James by the most widely known identifier (ie the Just) or by referring directly to his reputation. I would not expect him to choose to identify James by an association with an executed criminal's nickname. This seems especially unlikely if that nickname carried with it such a religiously/politically charged connotation among Jews.

Why? If the nickname was true, why not put it in?

Quote:

Even if we had good reason to assume Josephus would choose to identify James by his relationship to Jesus (and we certainly do not), it is not credible to suggest he would do so by way of such an inherently problematic nickname without explanation or apology.

... which would be the TF.

Amaleq13 · 04-28-2004, 07:57 AM

[QUOTE=GakuseiDon]So Josephus's audience either understood the origin of the term or they weren't interested. It makes sense to me. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger were both happy talking about a "Christus" without knowing the meaning of the term. "He was called Christ" seems to work well. We talk about the apostle Peter without referring to its meaning or to his real name.

Quote:

If the nickname was true, why not put it in?

The post to which this question was addressed answers the question:

"I would expect Josephus to identify James by the most widely known identifier (ie the Just) or by referring directly to his reputation."

Quote:

... which would be the TF.

Appealing to an interpolation to support the authenticity of a different disputed passage is not a very powerful argument.

The short reference must stand or fall on its own and it clearly cannot accomplish the former.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.