Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-26-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

A significant clue is given by Origen's commentary on Josephus. Origen was an early church father who lived in the third century. His documents survive with the following commentary on what Josephus believed about Jesus (source):

"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ..."

Origen claims that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, even though the modern versions of the Testimonium Flavianum say that Josephus did believe Jesus to be the Christ.

Therefore, it can be reasoned that the works of Josephus contained writings about Jesus saying that he was not the Christ. There would be no good reason for Christians to forge the writings of Josephus having him say that Jesus was not the Christ. It can be therefore reasoned that Josephus originally wrote about Jesus.

This does not prove that Jesus existed as a human. It only proves that Josephus knew about the character of Jesus, and it should not be claimed that Josephus was used as a source for the gospels.

The passage from Origen does not prove that Josephus knew about the character called Jesus Christ, it only contradicted the "TF". But, Josephus himself contradicted the "TF" in "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4, when he claimed that the Jews expected a Messianic figure, a ruler of the habitable earth, at around 70 CE, according to Jewish scripture, and this is supported by Tacitus in "Histories" 5.13, and Suetonius in "Vespasian" 4.

Josephus in all his writings did not write about any Messianic figure called Jesus who was expected by the Jews or Jewish scripture, at or about 33 CE, who was to become ruler of the known world.
And there is also Philo of Alexander whose extants writings support Josephus, since there is nothing at all about Jesus Christ as the Logos, the Messiah, the Son of God or even a prophet, absolutely nothing. And Philo lived and wrote when Jesus Christ was thought to have lived.

ApostateAbe · 01-26-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

A significant clue is given by Origen's commentary on Josephus. Origen was an early church father who lived in the third century. His documents survive with the following commentary on what Josephus believed about Jesus (source):

"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ..."

Origen claims that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, even though the modern versions of the Testimonium Flavianum say that Josephus did believe Jesus to be the Christ.

Therefore, it can be reasoned that the works of Josephus contained writings about Jesus saying that he was not the Christ. There would be no good reason for Christians to forge the writings of Josephus having him say that Jesus was not the Christ. It can be therefore reasoned that Josephus originally wrote about Jesus.

This does not prove that Jesus existed as a human. It only proves that Josephus knew about the character of Jesus, and it should not be claimed that Josephus was used as a source for the gospels.

The passage from Origen does not prove that Josephus knew about the character called Jesus Christ, it only contradicted the "TF". But, Josephus himself contradicted the "TF" in "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4, when he claimed that the Jews expected a Messianic figure, a ruler of the habitable earth, at around 70 CE, according to Jewish scripture, and this is supported by Tacitus in "Histories" 5.13, and Suetonius in "Vespasian" 4.

Josephus in all his writings did not write about any Messianic figure called Jesus who was expected by the Jews or Jewish scripture, at or about 33 CE, who was to become ruler of the known world.
And there is also Philo of Alexander whose extants writings support Josephus, since there is nothing at all about Jesus Christ as the Logos, the Messiah, the Son of God or even a prophet, absolutely nothing. And Philo lived and wrote when Jesus Christ was thought to have lived.

OK, so what do you think of my argument then? I am trying to discern the connection between what you are saying and what I am saying.

aa5874 · 01-26-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, so what do you think of my argument then? I am trying to discern the connection between what you are saying and what I am saying.

Your argument with respect to the "TF" and the passage from Origen is completely flawed. Two opposing statements are not proof of each other, partially or wholly.

For example, the statements "Jesus is Christ" and "Jesus is not Christ" do not inherently prove that Jesus, Christ or Jesus Christ must exist, since if Jesus and Christ do not exist, the statement "Jesus is not Christ" can still be true.

ApostateAbe · 01-26-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, so what do you think of my argument then? I am trying to discern the connection between what you are saying and what I am saying.

Your argument with respect to the "TF" and the passage from Origen is completely flawed. Two opposing statements are not proof of each other, partially or wholly.

For example, the statements "Jesus is Christ" and "Jesus is not Christ" do not inherently prove that Jesus, Christ or Jesus Christ must exist, since if Jesus and Christ do not exist, the statement "Jesus is not Christ" can still be true.

I know you need to take a little more time to examine what I wrote in the OP. I explicitly said at the end that it is not evidence that Jesus existed. You don't have to, but I would like the two of us to communicate better.

Toto · 01-26-2008, 08:03 PM

"Jesus is the Christ" seems to be a formulaic statement of Christian dogma. I don't see that you can read that much into it in terms of implications as to what Josephus knew about a human named Jesus.

ApostateAbe · 01-26-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

"Jesus is the Christ" seems to be a formulaic statement of Christian dogma. I don't see that you can read that much into it in terms of implications as to what Josephus knew about a human named Jesus.

That point, all by itself, would not mean much, but it does count for something. Is Origen likely to report that Josephus rejected Jesus as the Christ if Josephus did not explicitly say so? Maybe, but probably not. And is it likely that Christians would insert a passage about Jesus that was entirely invented rather than just partially revised? One option is more likely than the other.

Minimalist · 01-26-2008, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

A Byzantine bishop's commentary is the sole reference we have to Justus of Tiberias' history of the same time period. He said something like "this writer did not know Christ."

Do you interpret that to mean that Justus wrote something like "I don't believe in Christ?" It is more likely that he did not mention him at all.

Josephus' work contains references to about 25 different "Jesuses" (it was a very common name.) Suppose he didn't consider any of them "the Christ". Would you expect him to write, "Jesus, son of Ananus....who was not The Christ." Or, "Jesus, son of Damnaeus...he wasn't The Christ, either." Or,
Jesus, son of Gamaliel...nope, he still wasn't The Christ."

If there was some recognizable reference to the Jesus of Nazareth story as it had evolved by Origen's time in the original work, I expect he would have fallen all over himself using it.

I don't see any good reason for a confusion of Jesuses. Origen was not a dumbass, and Josephus was probably speaking of the Jesus that was important to the Christians of his time. That Jesus, as far as I know, was the only Jesus significantly claimed to be the Christ.

If Origen wasn't a dumbass then he would have used a Josephan reference. He did not use such a reference. I also don't think that Origen was a dumbass.

I think Eusebius was a forger.

ApostateAbe · 01-26-2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I don't see any good reason for a confusion of Jesuses. Origen was not a dumbass, and Josephus was probably speaking of the Jesus that was important to the Christians of his time. That Jesus, as far as I know, was the only Jesus significantly claimed to be the Christ.

If Origen wasn't a dumbass then he would have used a Josephan reference. He did not use such a reference. I also don't think that Origen was a dumbass.

I think Eusebius was a forger.

Josephan reference? Which Joseph do you mean and why?

Toto · 01-27-2008, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... Is Origen likely to report that Josephus rejected Jesus as the Christ if Josephus did not explicitly say so?

Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian. That means that he did not accept Jesus as Christ. That's all Origin needed.

Quote:

And is it likely that Christians would insert a passage about Jesus that was entirely invented rather than just partially revised? One option is more likely than the other.

Once you admit, as you have to, that the TF passage has been tampered with, you have to admit that you don't know how it read originally. It might have mentioned Jesus, in an unflattering light. It might have mentioned some other person. Or the whole passage might have been inserted. There is no way of saying that one option is more likely.

GakuseiDon · 01-27-2008, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It's possible, but then Origen may have derived Josephus's belief that Jesus was not the Christ from Josephus's implication that Vespasian was the predicted Christ (though IIRC he didn't use that term), predicted by a star that stood over Jerusalem for a year.

That is possible, I suppose. I think what counts the most is what is probable. The argument would require that Origen did a thorough study of Josephus to determine who Josephus believed to be the Christ, and it is simply more likely that Josephus denied Jesus being the Christ explicitly. The phrase of the Testimonium Flavianum, "He was the Christ," seems significant to me, because it would be only a deletion of one word away from "He was not the Christ," which would fit very elegantly with Origen's account.

I agree that it looks like Origen had some reason to conclude that Josephus didn't regard Jesus as the Christ, and that possibly it was due to some form of the TF being in there. It's just I'm not sure how you can get from "possibly" to "probably".

I doubt that Josephus would have written "He was not the Christ", at least so bluntly. It simply would have been assumed. For example, I'm not aware that any Christians today writing about David Koch need to state "He was not the Messiah", unless directly addressing claims by his followers that he was. I can't think of a reason why Josephus would address such a comment to his Roman readers.

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

01-26-2008, 08:03 PM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	"Jesus is the Christ" seems to be a formulaic statement of Christian dogma. I don't see that you can read that much into it in terms of implications as to what Josephus knew about a human named Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.