Layman

You are lying. I never said that "sophia" was regarded as man's wisdom and not God's.

If Paul used it to refer to Jesus I would have included it. Or added it after being informed of my omission.

I'll look more into the pleasure comment. But you have not yet found "wise man" used as a christological title.

I do not. It's a fair point.

"generally" is not the same thing as always.

I said nothing about gaurantees. Nor did I only rely on "one Christian." I gave several citations about the wisdom of men being used in a negative context.

It's also the last argument of the bunch. I admit it's nothing more than suggestive.

Layman

I did not say that there was necessarily something "untoward" about the phrase. I said it's more likely a Christian would prefer the declarative rather than the tenatitve.

And it is erroneous to call this "a well used" Christian phrase. Far from it.

Matthew specifically places it in the mouths of unbelievers. Did you check your references? 27:17 has Pilate uttering the phrase: "So when the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, 'Whom do you want me to relesae for you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" 27:22 has Pilate ask the crowd, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?"

In John, it is used by the Samaritan woman at the well. She does not use it as a term to describe Jesus. Moreover, she is simply noting that it is another name for the Messiah.

It would seem from these two Christian authors that the phrase was considered to be used by non-Christians. Pilate was hardly declaring that Jesus was the Messiah?

Again, according to Van Voorst: "But if these passages are indicative of wider usage outside the New Testament, "called Christ" tends to come form non-Christians and is not at all typical of Christian usage. Christians would not be inclined to use a neutral or descriptive term like "called Christ"; for them, Jesus is (the) Christ."

Perhaps most important, however, is this observation by Peter Kirby:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tml#authentic2

So the point remains. A Christian who was inventing the TF from scratch would hardly go through the trouble only to note that Jesus was "called" Christ. This is much more likely to be used by a nonChristian--a point Matthew provides further support for.

And, of course, Meier's reconstruction drops the phrase altogether. But you have offered nothing to change my conclusion that it was original to the text.

Amaleq13

Sure, if you are thinking in terms of "extremely unlikely" and "highly improbable". What makes you think the Jewish opinion of Jesus was so positive?

The clear implication is that Jesus is innocent. Josephus learned from Roman records that Pilate had falsely executed an innocent man accused by "leading" Jews?

So this conflict didn't exist in Josephus' time? The Jews referred to Jesus as a "a wise man" and "a doer of startling deeds"?

Not if the passage is inauthentic. Its credibility, as your sources acknowledge, is dependent upon an authentic reduced Testimonium.

What, specifically, makes that an "odd" admission?

Layman

I do not know what all Jews thought of Jesus. But I've explained several times in this thread that there is evidence that many Jews had a positive image of Jesus. And much of the core passage is tentative, especially regarding his miracles.

Innocent of what? Josephus expresses a high opinion of John the Baptist, but places little blame on Herod for executing him as a threat to public order.

The controversy grew worse over history, yes. But I doubt Josephus waited until 90 CE to learn about Jesus. It's more likely he learned about him while he was in Palestine. Especially as Josephus was in Jerusalem when James was martyred.

No it is not. The academic community almost universally accepts the Book 20 reference as completely authentic.

Well, he notes that Paul was a Pharisee and that Paul persecuted the Church. He also notes how often Pharisees clashed with Jesus. Paul provides indirect support for this by his conflict with the Jewish Christians who appeared so zealous for the law.

Amaleq13

Actually, all you've done is repeat the same assertion in different ways:
The problem is there is no portrayal of the public being "positively disposed" toward James in Josephus. The "most equitable of the citizens" are not depicted as complaining that James was innocent. They report Ananus for assembling a sanhedrin without permission. This is neither evidence of a positive Jewish opinion of James or Jesus.

Oh, now it is "tentative"? In your original essay, it is "neutral". You quote Vermes who considers it "fairly sympathetic". Calling him a "wise man" seems a bit more positive than "neutral" or even "fairly sympathetic".

When and how did you determine this reference to be "tentative"?

So this conflict [Jews vs Christians] didn't exist in Josephus' time?

What is your evidence for this?

Its credibility, as your sources acknowledge, is dependent upon an authentic reduced Testimonium

Here are your sources on the subject:

"Josephus does not feel that he must stop to explain who this Jesus is; he is presumed to be the known fixed point that helps locate James on the map. None of this would make any sense to Josephus' audience, which is basically Gentile, unless Josephus had previously introduced and explained something about him." (Meier, A Marginal Jew, Volume 1, p.62)

"If . . . Josephus referred to James as being 'the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,' without much ado, we have to assume that in an earlier passage he had already told his readers about Jesus himself." (Paul Winter, "Josephus on Jesus and James," in History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. Emil Schurer, Edinburgh, 1973, page 432).

There is nothing "odd" about admitting that your former enemies have converted to your beliefs.

Amaleq13

How, exactly, does this example of a Christian placing this phrase in the mouth of an unbeliever make it less likely that a Christian did the same thing with Josephus?

spin

Don't worry. He's still trying to do his job using secondary sources.

You're right though, although Mt 1:16 is straight from the gospel writer's pen, umm stylus, umm. I suppose that Mt 1:16 should be read "...Jesus, the so called Christ". Yeah, sure.

Then of course we can add that while Josephus might use the form,

x brother of y

he doesn't seem to use

the brother of y (...) x

well except in AJ 20.9.1. Note how far the real subject of the sentence, James, is separated from the discourse flow:

the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ, James by name

Gospel phrase with awkward syntax: glaring interpolation. Old apologetics.


spin

rlogan

That's why I should just lurk on these ones. Duh.

Amaleq13

Exactly. The only similar constructions Muller can provide all involve father-son relationships (http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html):
I have questioned before whether it is legitimate to consider these as other examples of the odd construction because of the different relationship. It seems to me to be natural to refer to the father first if only because of the temporal relationship. You are known by who your father was.

Muller even includes, on a different subject, a "brother" reference in Josephus where the expected order is given:

CX

Gentleman,

I've noted several instances of somewhat inciteful rhetoric and personally directed comments in this thread. Let's try to keep it civil and attack argument, not people, with a minimum of hyperbole and sarcasm.

Thanks,

CX - BC&H Moderator