Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 01-30-2010, 10:19 PM

Hi aa5874,

I tend to agree that the speech is entirely self-serving. It is the speech he probably wishes he had made at the time.

Still, he could have chosen to write this speech in any number of ways. It seems that this is a pretty orthodox speech, just saying that Jews should trust in God and not in armed warfare. He uses Jewish history to prove it.
It resembles Stephen's speech in Acts in this way, but is entirely opposite to it in that it does not blame the mass of Jews for their historical problems.
The important thing is that Josephus sees the mass of Jews as correctly adhering to the laws of Moses. It is only those few zealous (and messianic, i.e. Christian Jews,) who try to innovate who are the source of the trouble and must be restrained. This interpretation supports a conclusion that the TF is antithetical to Josephus' thought in the Jewish Wars.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

....This speech is obviously not anti-Jewish in any way. It is simply reminding the zealots, foreigners (Idumeans) and innovators that Jews have been successful by depending on God, rather than fighting wars......

But, was not Josephus himself actually fighting with the Jews against the Romans? So, how can he claim that it was better to depend on God?

It would appear that if Josephus was not captured that he would not have written such a speech. Josephus would still be killing or trying to kill Romans, and most likely would not have remembered or depended on God until the Romans were all dead.

It would appear that if the Jews had the upper hand in the War, Josephus may have happily and personally killed Vespasian and Titus if the opportunity did arise.

Josephus' written speech may have just been a fancy POW recantation or one of a traitor trying to secure his own life. After all Josephus wrote the speech after he was a POW.

Camio · 02-09-2010, 07:40 AM

As promised, I'm back with some more details on Bardet's thesis. I will use the proceedings of a conference held in Jerusalem on July 1998, which was organized by the French Biblical and Archeological School. Bardet's paper is 33-page long.

Here are some additional information and sources:

1. "Christ" as a name

Around 70 CE, the word "christos" had lost its messianist meaning inside the pharisian community to which Josephus belonged. For Etienne Nodet (Revue Biblique, Jésus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe, 92, 1985, p. 321-348), it was just a nickname.
Moreover, Roman readers would have had no idea of the religious meaning of the term. For Charles Guignebert (Revue d'Histoire des religions, 94, 1926, p. 217) : "Christus, for Pliny, as well as for Tacitus and Suetonius, was nothing but a last name."

spin seems adamant that such an interpretation is impossible:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The text is clear when it says "he was the christ". There is no equivocation here. There is no undercutting of the significance. This is bald acceptance of the fact that he was the christ

I don't know Greek, so I can't judge by myself, but I find it hard to believe that mainstream scholars (Nodet and Geoltrain, who supports Bardet, are high-ranked scholars in France) could propose a totally stupid interpretation. I mean, is it really impossible or "just" far-fetched?

In French for example, I could say "he was the spin", making reference to an individual's nickname, and the sentence would be correct. Does the Greek syntax of the TF forbid such an interpretation?

More to come later.

Roger Pearse · 02-09-2010, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

As promised, I'm back with some more details on Bardet's thesis. I will use the proceedings of a conference held in Jerusalem on July 1998, which was organized by the French Biblical and Archeological School. Bardet's paper is 33-page long.

Here are some additional information and sources:

1. "Christ" as a name

Around 70 CE, the word "christos" had lost its messianist meaning inside the pharisian community to which Josephus belonged. For Etienne Nodet (Revue Biblique, Jésus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe, 92, 1985, p. 321-348), it was just a nickname.
Moreover, Roman readers would have had no idea of the religious meaning of the term. For Charles Guignebert (Revue d'Histoire des religions, 94, 1926, p. 217) : "Christus, for Pliny, as well as for Tacitus and Suetonius, was nothing but a last name."

spin seems adamant that such an interpretation is impossible:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The text is clear when it says "he was the christ". There is no equivocation here. There is no undercutting of the significance. This is bald acceptance of the fact that he was the christ

I don't know Greek, so I can't judge by myself, but I find it hard to believe that mainstream scholars (Nodet and Geoltrain, who supports Bardet, are high-ranked scholars in France) could propose a totally stupid interpretation. I mean, is it really impossible or "just" far-fetched?

In French for example, I could say "he was the spin", making reference to an individual's nickname, and the sentence would be correct. Does the Greek syntax of the TF forbid such an interpretation?

More to come later.

Spin is adamant on almost everything he says. But you should pay no attention to his claim, unless he can produce some evidence for it. I wouldn't accept his assertion; and quite how the Greek comes into the matter I do not see.

show_no_mercy · 02-09-2010, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

As promised, I'm back with some more details on Bardet's thesis. I will use the proceedings of a conference held in Jerusalem on July 1998, which was organized by the French Biblical and Archeological School. Bardet's paper is 33-page long.

Here are some additional information and sources:

1. "Christ" as a name

Around 70 CE, the word "christos" had lost its messianist meaning inside the pharisian community to which Josephus belonged. For Etienne Nodet (Revue Biblique, Jésus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe, 92, 1985, p. 321-348), it was just a nickname.
Moreover, Roman readers would have had no idea of the religious meaning of the term. For Charles Guignebert (Revue d'Histoire des religions, 94, 1926, p. 217) : "Christus, for Pliny, as well as for Tacitus and Suetonius, was nothing but a last name."

No, Chrestus was a common [nick]name - the difference between the two nouns being one iota (χρηστος ["chrestos"; useful] vs χριστος [anointed one]). It's unlikely that Josephus would have called someone "anointed one" when he makes the connection between anointing and Jewish leadership numerous times in Antiquities (3.8.3; 6.5.4; 6.8.1; 7.14.5; 7.14.10-11; 9.6.1; 9.7.2; 19.4.1) prior to both the TF and the snippet about James' brother called "anointed one".

Josephus also uses χρηστος multiple times in Antiquities. There's also some debate whether Tacitus and Pliny wrote "Chrestus" instead of "Christus".

Also note that if Josephus belonged to the Pharisees, he couldn't possibly have any love for someone who called the Pharisees hypocrites, a brood of vipers (Matt 23) or sons of the devil (John 8:44).

Roger Pearse · 02-10-2010, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Julian’s position is rather close to what Earl Doherty has contended for recently.

No, it wasn't.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin · 02-10-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

As promised, I'm back with some more details on Bardet's thesis. I will use the proceedings of a conference held in Jerusalem on July 1998, which was organized by the French Biblical and Archeological School. Bardet's paper is 33-page long.

Here are some additional information and sources:

1. "Christ" as a name

Around 70 CE, the word "christos" had lost its messianist meaning inside the pharisian community to which Josephus belonged. For Etienne Nodet (Revue Biblique, Jésus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josèphe, 92, 1985, p. 321-348), it was just a nickname.

I'd love to see actual evidence from Nodet on this claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

Moreover, Roman readers would have had no idea of the religious meaning of the term. For Charles Guignebert (Revue d'Histoire des religions, 94, 1926, p. 217) : "Christus, for Pliny, as well as for Tacitus and Suetonius, was nothing but a last name."

Romans didn't have last names. They had a cognomen. But, accepting that to a Roman audience Christus may have only been a name, it has no bearing on its hypothetical usage by Josephus, given that Josephus uses none of the dozens of mentions of χριστος in the LXX, nor does he refer to any of the other messianic claimants as χριστος, nor even to Vespasian, who he claims is the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

spin seems adamant that such an interpretation is impossible:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The text is clear when it says "he was the christ". There is no equivocation here. There is no undercutting of the significance. This is bald acceptance of the fact that he was the christ

I don't know Greek, so I can't judge by myself, but I find it hard to believe that mainstream scholars (Nodet and Geoltrain, who supports Bardet, are high-ranked scholars in France) could propose a totally stupid interpretation. I mean, is it really impossible or "just" far-fetched?

In French for example, I could say "he was the spin", making reference to an individual's nickname, and the sentence would be correct. Does the Greek syntax of the TF forbid such an interpretation?

More to come later.

The notion of the messiah was an integral part of the Jewish religion at the time and reached a climax under Simeon bar Kochba about which the memory of Akiba was chastised in the Jerusalem Talmud (Taanit chapter 4:5 page 68d) when it was said that grass would grow through his cheeks and still the son of David will not come.

Justin in the middle of the 2nd c. has his Trypho (in Contra Trypho chapter 32) say, "this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."

The messiah was a hot topic to Jews of the era. Attempts to underplay its significance from the pen of a devout Jew of a priestly family are merely tendentious.

spin

Camio · 02-11-2010, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'd love to see actual evidence from Nodet on this claim.

OK, I'll stop beating around the bush and get Bardet's book so that we can have a full picture of his thesis and arguments(*). That said, his 33-page article worried me a bit: lots of psychological considerations on the supposed state of mind of christian monks and forgers. I don't know how persuasive such arguments can be to settle the question.

(*) After I finish Doherty's Neither God Nor Man, i.e. in a more or less distant future considering the size of the beast...

ynquirer · 02-12-2010, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Josephus uses none of the dozens of mentions of χριστος in the LXX, nor does he refer to any of the other messianic claimants as χριστος, nor even to Vespasian, who he claims is the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies.

Bearing in mind that the sole gentile to be called ‘messiah’ in the Tanakh and ‘christos’ (χριστος) in the LXX is Cyrus the Persian, just because he made it possible the restoration of the Temple – previously destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar – it would have been quite a sarcasm so to call Vespasian, under whose rule the Temple was destroyed for the second time.

Therefore, Vespasian’s parallel is Nebuchadnezzar rather than Vespasian. And while speaking on the best terms of Nebuchadnezzar, as Josephus himself does of Vespasian, the Book of Daniel is extremely careful not to call the Babylonian king a ‘messiah’/‘christos’. So is Josephus as regard the Roman Emperor.

Quote:

The messiah was a hot topic to Jews of the era. Attempts to underplay its significance from the pen of a devout Jew of a priestly family are merely tendentious.

This is boring. The theory that Josephus was a devout/pious Jew spends no real mind on the issue.

When was he so devout? In his youth, when he joined the Pharisees? In his adulthood, when he commanded the rebellious army in Galilee? When he induced his comrades to commit suicide only to surrender with dishonor? When he addressed the garrison of Jerusalem to spread defeatism? When he lived in Rome under three emperors’ protection, being a friend to them and more likely than not paying due homage to their official deity while writing Antiquities of the Jews? The sole truth is that he was a turncoat however a good historian, and that he wrote mainly as a self justification – and possibly as an agent of Roman propaganda.

:boohoo:

Johnny Skeptic · 02-12-2010, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The messiah was a hot topic to Jews of the era. Attempts to underplay its significance from the pen of a devout Jew of a priestly family are merely tendentious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

This is boring. The theory that Josephus was a devout/pious Jew spends no real mind on the issue.

In your opinion, did Josephus believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and performed many miracles in many places?

Johnny Skeptic · 02-12-2010, 10:00 AM

Following is some of what Archarya S has to say about the "Testimonium Flavianum":

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archarya S

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE. In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"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, 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." (Whitson, 379)

This surprisingly brief and simplistic passage constitutes the "best proof" of Jesus's existence in the entire ancient non-Christian library comprising the works of dozens of historians, writers, philosophers, politicians and others who never mentioned the great sage and wonderworker Jesus Christ, even though they lived contemporaneously with or shortly after the Christian savior's purported advent.

Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (CE), which tries to hedge its bet about the Josephus passage, is nevertheless forced to admit: "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." In the same entry, CE also confirms that Josephus's writings were used extensively by the early Christian fathers, such as Jerome, Ambrose and Chrystostom; nevertheless, as noted, except for Jerome, they never mention the TF.

Archarya S has a lot more to say about the "Testimonium Flavianum" in the article.

Regarding "This surprisingly brief and simplistic passage," if Josephus actually believed that Jesus "was a doer of wonderful works," "was [the] Christ," and that Jesus taught "the truth," surely he would have written much more about Jesus than he did, and not as simplistically as he did. The passage appears to be more apologetic than historical, which suggests Christian interpolations.

Josephus was a historian. It is doubtful that any topic would have been more attractive to an ancient historian, or a modern historian for that matter, than writing about a local, contemporary, unique worker of miracles, who was not just a miracle worker, but also "the Christ"?

If Josephus believed that Jesus was the Son of God, and that believers would enjoy a comfortable eternal life in heaven, it is quite odd that he devoted the vast majority of his writing career to writing about secular history.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.