Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 03-05-2010, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I would certainly take it seriously if it didn't read, "called Christ," but instead, "was the Christ." There is a chance that I would take it seriously if the Testimonium Flavianum reads, "He was called the Christ." There is a chance that I would take it seriously if the writings of Josephus completely lacked the variations of λεγομένου, and there is a bit less of a chance but still a chance that I would take it seriously if the writings of Josephus lacked the variations of λεγομένου when referring to people. And I most certainly would take it seriously if an early citation of the passage contradicts it, much like we find with the Testimonium Flavianum.

Please answer my question: what will it take for you to consider the question of the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

I didn't ask you to change the wording of the phrase (it's too late for that) or the available evidence.

I asked you about the issue as is. Why isn't the reference to "χριστος" a guaranteed christian interpolation? Do you know of any texts not talking about Jesus that use this expressly Jewish/christian usage of "χριστος"? Why would you think that Josephus would use the term when he has plainly avoided it? Given that there is nothing expressly Josephan about the phrase and no apparent reason for its contorted nature, why won't you consider the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

spin

Sorry that I misunderstood your question. You want me to tell you what it would take for me to consider the veracity of the phrase without changing the available evidence. Really, spin? Ideally, my opinion depends on the evidence. When the set of evidence changes, that is when my opinion should change. My opinion does not depend on whether or not you or anyone else can manufacture an ad hoc set of weak excuses for why I should not accept the most probable implication of the evidence.

ApostateAbe · 03-05-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

This is what I mean when I say that interpolation should be a proposition of last resort. You can see possibilities for interpolations almost everywhere, and you can shape your speculations about interpolations around your own arbitrary theory, but it should be much preferable to choose the theory that best fits the evidence, with the least number of head scratchers and unlikely speculations.

Abe, let's look at this again. Here is the Origen quote:

Now, is there a direct quote from Josephus in this reference?

Let's have a look:

I don't see where Origen has directly quoted from Josephus, in the Josephus passage itself. I do see that Origen specifically says that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ, but again, where does Josephus actually say that?

So where does the phrase Jesus, who was called Christ, actually come from and would it have been something familiar to Origen, though likely unfamiliar to Josephus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew

16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ

My point is simply that a later scribe mistook Origen's phrase as having actually appeared in Josephus, at some point, and subsequently added the phrase to his version of Josephus. A gloss, let's say.

No nefarious scheme, a simple misunderstanding.

OK, here is the fuller passage of Josephus:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

And here is that passage from Origen again:

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the 'Antiquities of the Jews' in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

Origen wrote, "though he did not accept Jesus as Christ," because that was what was in the Testimonium Flavianum before the editing and interpolation. There is a line in the TF that reads, "He was the Christ." The original reading was likely to be, "He was not the Christ." Christians reversed the meaning because they did not want to propagate blasphemy.

Origen read more from the passage of James in Josephus than what is actually contained in it. Only one Jew suffered for the death of James, according to Josephus; but, according to Origen, many had suffered. Origen was engaged in a religious debate at the time of his writing, and debaters are liable to do such a thing.

The phrase, "called Christ," is a neutral writing. It is found one time in Christian canon at the end of the geneology of Matthew and another time when Pontius Pilate speaks to the crowd. An interpolator is unlikely to use it, judging from the passage that we know for sure to be an interpolation, but Josephus is more likely to use the phrase. He used the same root word for "called" earlier in the same passage: "who was also himself called Ananus."

How do you think the passage may have originally read before the interpolation? James and Jesus were both common names, so you can't just leave out, "called Christ." It was an identifying phrase.

dog-on · 03-05-2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Abe, let's look at this again. Here is the Origen quote:

Now, is there a direct quote from Josephus in this reference?

Let's have a look:

I don't see where Origen has directly quoted from Josephus, in the Josephus passage itself. I do see that Origen specifically says that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ, but again, where does Josephus actually say that?

So where does the phrase Jesus, who was called Christ, actually come from and would it have been something familiar to Origen, though likely unfamiliar to Josephus?

My point is simply that a later scribe mistook Origen's phrase as having actually appeared in Josephus, at some point, and subsequently added the phrase to his version of Josephus. A gloss, let's say.

No nefarious scheme, a simple misunderstanding.

OK, here is the fuller passage of Josephus:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

And here is that passage from Origen again:

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the 'Antiquities of the Jews' in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

Origen wrote, "though he did not accept Jesus as Christ," because that was what was in the Testimonium Flavianum before the editing and interpolation. There is a line in the TF that reads, "He was the Christ." The original reading was likely to be, "He was not the Christ." Christians reversed the meaning because they did not want to propagate blasphemy.

Origen read more from the passage of James in Josephus than what is actually contained in it. Only one Jew suffered for the death of James, according to Josephus; but, according to Origen, many had suffered. Origen was engaged in a religious debate at the time of his writing, and debaters are liable to do such a thing.

The phrase, "called Christ," is a neutral writing. It is found one time in Christian canon at the end of the geneology of Matthew and another time when Pontius Pilate speaks to the crowd. An interpolator is unlikely to use it, judging from the passage that we know for sure to be an interpolation, but Josephus is more likely to use the phrase. He used the same root word for "called" earlier in the same passage: "who was also himself called Ananus."

How do you think the passage may have originally read before the interpolation? James and Jesus were both common names, so you can't just leave out, "called Christ." It was an identifying phrase.

Wow, so much for head scratching here Abe!

You really believe that this explanation is less convoluted than a simple gloss?

Isn't it more likely that Origen, seeing the reference to the death of a certain James, with the name Jesus so close at hand, mistakenly assumed that this was the James of Christian legend?

show_no_mercy · 03-05-2010, 09:12 AM

Of course, Abe still has not explained why the only two times that Josephus uses the word "Christ" are the two times he just so happens to be describing the Jesus of Christianity.

Until he's addressed this, his entire argument is moot. Think about Josephus' audience. Would non-Jewish Greeks and Romans have known what the hell the significance of a "christ" is, and why it was important that Jesus was (or was not, according to Abe's version of the TF) this "christ"?

The simplest explanation is interpolation by Christian scribes. It requires no other ad hoc reasoning to explain anything else. If Josephus didn't mention anyone called "christ", then Origen's comment still makes sense - that Josephus didn't accept Jesus as the Christ. Origen would then simply assume that a James who was a breaker of the law (which is Christianity's claim to fame) was a Christian and thus Jesus' brother.

ApostateAbe · 03-05-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, here is the fuller passage of Josephus:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

And here is that passage from Origen again:

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the 'Antiquities of the Jews' in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

Origen wrote, "though he did not accept Jesus as Christ," because that was what was in the Testimonium Flavianum before the editing and interpolation. There is a line in the TF that reads, "He was the Christ." The original reading was likely to be, "He was not the Christ." Christians reversed the meaning because they did not want to propagate blasphemy.

Origen read more from the passage of James in Josephus than what is actually contained in it. Only one Jew suffered for the death of James, according to Josephus; but, according to Origen, many had suffered. Origen was engaged in a religious debate at the time of his writing, and debaters are liable to do such a thing.

The phrase, "called Christ," is a neutral writing. It is found one time in Christian canon at the end of the geneology of Matthew and another time when Pontius Pilate speaks to the crowd. An interpolator is unlikely to use it, judging from the passage that we know for sure to be an interpolation, but Josephus is more likely to use the phrase. He used the same root word for "called" earlier in the same passage: "who was also himself called Ananus."

How do you think the passage may have originally read before the interpolation? James and Jesus were both common names, so you can't just leave out, "called Christ." It was an identifying phrase.

Wow, so much for head scratching here Abe!

You really believe that this explanation is less convoluted than a simple gloss?

Isn't it more likely that Origen, seeing the reference to the death of a certain James, with the name Jesus so close at hand, mistakenly assumed that this was the James of Christian legend?

You really believe that this explanation is less convoluted than a simple gloss?

They are the explanations that best follow from ordinary expectations, so yeah.

Isn't it more likely that Origen, seeing the reference to the death of a certain James, with the name Jesus so close at hand, mistakenly assumed that this was the James of Christian legend?

And then someone changed Josephus to make it fit with Origen? No, because it is not an explanation that follows easily from ordinary expectations.

dog-on · 03-05-2010, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Wow, so much for head scratching here Abe!

You really believe that this explanation is less convoluted than a simple gloss?

Isn't it more likely that Origen, seeing the reference to the death of a certain James, with the name Jesus so close at hand, mistakenly assumed that this was the James of Christian legend?

You really believe that this explanation is less convoluted than a simple gloss?

They are the explanations that best follow from ordinary expectations, so yeah.

Isn't it more likely that Origen, seeing the reference to the death of a certain James, with the name Jesus so close at hand, mistakenly assumed that this was the James of Christian legend?

And then someone changed Josephus to make it fit with Origen? No, because it is not an explanation that follows easily from ordinary expectations.

You believe that the TF is also original to Josephus?

ApostateAbe · 03-05-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Of course, Abe still has not explained why the only two times that Josephus uses the word "Christ" are the two times he just so happens to be describing the Jesus of Christianity.

Until he's addressed this, his entire argument is moot. Think about Josephus' audience. Would non-Jewish Greeks and Romans have known what the hell the significance of a "christ" is, and why it was important that Jesus was (or was not, according to Abe's version of the TF) this "christ"?

The simplest explanation is interpolation by Christian scribes. It requires no other ad hoc reasoning to explain anything else. If Josephus didn't mention anyone called "christ", then Origen's comment still makes sense - that Josephus didn't accept Jesus as the Christ. Origen would then simply assume that a James who was a breaker of the law (which is Christianity's claim to fame) was a Christian and thus Jesus' brother.

Until I address that the entire argument is moot? As if your argument is so darned powerful? I am thinking that the Greek title, "Χριστοῦ," was somewhat unique to Jesus of Christianity.

aa5874 · 03-05-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Toto, it is about what theory requires us to metaphorically stand on our heads the least. The chain of reasoning so far has been that Galatians 1:19 could possibly refer to a religious metaphorical brother, except that Josephus refers to James as a literal brother. Wait a minute, Josephus could have been interpolated, except that it only moves the source of the meaning onto the interpolator, who wrote between 90 CE and 240 CE, the time Origen wrote about the citation of James by Josephus. Wait a minute, Josephus could have been interpolated to fit the mistaken views of Origen. That, or Origen may have been interpolated to align with Josephus.

The abundance of evidence in Galatians 1 alone clearly shows that the Pauline writer is dealing with a Divine entity.

Interpolations are actually irrelevant right now since it cannot be proven or demonstrated that Galatians 1 was not written by the same author.

The Galatians 1 Jesus was described as the Son of God, who was raised from the dead.

The Galatians 1 writer claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man, was NOT taught his gospel by man, that his gospel was not from man, but from the revelations of Jesus Christ.

The abundance of evidence clearly demonstrate that the Galatians 1 Jesus was DIVINE.

ApostateAbe, you are just wasting time. The abundance of evidence flies in your face.

Quote:

1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead).. .....

ApostateAbe · 03-05-2010, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You really believe that this explanation is less convoluted than a simple gloss?

They are the explanations that best follow from ordinary expectations, so yeah.

Isn't it more likely that Origen, seeing the reference to the death of a certain James, with the name Jesus so close at hand, mistakenly assumed that this was the James of Christian legend?

And then someone changed Josephus to make it fit with Origen? No, because it is not an explanation that follows easily from ordinary expectations.

You believe that the TF is also original to Josephus?

Not really. It is likely to be partially authentic, given the citation of Origen. But, Josephus had an opinion that was contrary to what is presently contained in it.

spin · 03-05-2010, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Please answer my question: what will it take for you to consider the question of the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

I didn't ask you to change the wording of the phrase (it's too late for that) or the available evidence.

I asked you about the issue as is. Why isn't the reference to "χριστος" a guaranteed christian interpolation? Do you know of any texts not talking about Jesus that use this expressly Jewish/christian usage of "χριστος"? Why would you think that Josephus would use the term when he has plainly avoided it? Given that there is nothing expressly Josephan about the phrase and no apparent reason for its contorted nature, why won't you consider the veracity of the "brother of Jesus called christ" in AJ 20.200 seriously?

Sorry that I misunderstood your question. You want me to tell you what it would take for me to consider the veracity of the phrase without changing the available evidence. Really, spin? Ideally, my opinion depends on the evidence. When the set of evidence changes, that is when my opinion should change. My opinion does not depend on whether or not you or anyone else can manufacture an ad hoc set of weak excuses for why I should not accept the most probable implication of the evidence.

No. I'm fucking asking you what is necessary for you to put your brain into gear and consider the text with its problems.

I've provided you with an analysis in an effort to get you to actually think about the text you blindly cite. But you stick your head in the sand or wave your hands about with facile claims of ad hoc this or that. What is ad hoc in the list of problems with "the brother of Jesus called christ James by name"? Have you checked out any of the issues?? Obviously not. Your analysis has just not been forthcoming. You haven't considered the evidence (hand-waving doesn't count), so I don't really see what your opinion is based on. You didn't even understand the question I asked you on the matter.

Do consider the four points that have been presented to you and, if you don't understand them, ask for an explanation. Then you can give a more reasoned response.

spin

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

03-05-2010, 09:12 AM	#74
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Of course, Abe still has not explained why the only two times that Josephus uses the word "Christ" are the two times he just so happens to be describing the Jesus of Christianity. Until he's addressed this, his entire argument is moot. Think about Josephus' audience. Would non-Jewish Greeks and Romans have known what the hell the significance of a "christ" is, and why it was important that Jesus was (or was not, according to Abe's version of the TF) this "christ"? The simplest explanation is interpolation by Christian scribes. It requires no other ad hoc reasoning to explain anything else. If Josephus didn't mention anyone called "christ", then Origen's comment still makes sense - that Josephus didn't accept Jesus as the Christ. Origen would then simply assume that a James who was a breaker of the law (which is Christianity's claim to fame) was a Christian and thus Jesus' brother.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.