teamonger

Most scholars seem to think the "Testimonium" passage was a doctored original, that Josephus did indeed mention Jesus in perhaps a negative light. That appears to be why Origen would say Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ". Origen was also aware of the shorter passage which identified James and Jesus as brothers.

As Paul's letters were only aimed at prior converts, it makes sense that he would only be known in Christian circles which Josephus did not frequent.

It's also possible that Josephus knew more about Jesus and Paul than he lets on. At the time he was writing, Christianity was likely a hot-button issue. Perhaps he mostly steered clear of it, so as not to piss off his patrons.
t

LogicandReason

All good assumptions...can you steer me to the Origen quotes?

teamonger

Origen's comment that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ was in two places: Against Celsusi:47, and Commentary on Matthew x:17. Geza Vermes suggests Origen would have no way of making this statement unless Josephus had made some negative comment about Jesus.

The shorter passage by Josephus mentioning James as "brother of Jesus called the Christ" was mentioned in several places by Origen. Nearly all scholars accept it as authentic, as Origen's time was long before the church was in power to doctor it up.
t

show_no_mercy

It's not only his letters that I'm concerned about, but his Acts (pun intended ). A Jew that was charged with attempting to teach other Jews to relinquish Mosaic law I think should have caught Josephus' eye, as well as the supposed resurrections and the thousands of converts described in Acts.

Obviously, Acts could just be overblown propaganda about relatively minor events.

That's entirely possible.

gurugeorge

Bingo, bearing in mind the lack of archaeological evidence for the early period, we must surely be talking about a very small movement until something like the early 200s. We're talking a few thousand at most, with numbers in the hundreds only in the major urban centres. That's the fundamental sociological backdrop of all this, all theories have to fit in with that.

Taking the Testimonium as a total fabrication, none of this was big enough to register on Josephus' horizon. It was small beer, one of hundreds of pullulating cults, that did nothing so notable as to cause the Romans to clamp down on it, or kill its leaders.

I think we've got to reckon that this is the sort of movement that "Paul" was a leader in.

(Note that it seems to be common for religious leaders to exaggerate the size of their movement in their propaganda to the external world - like a bird puffing out its feathers to seem bigger.)

aa5874

Lack of archaeological evidence and lack of credible written information does NOT necessarily indicate that we MUST be talking about a very small movement, it may be that there was no movement in the 1st century or that there was NO Jesus believers before the death of Nero.

Remember it is always true that Absence is the evidence for Absence, or Nothing is the evidence for Nothing, and Silence is the evidence for Silence.

Bingo. We have absence, nothing, and silence on an early movement, no archaeological or credible written information, coupled with fraud or forgery, it is therefore reasonable to consider or conclude that there was no early movement before the death of Nero.

To say that we MUST be talking about a small movement because there is NO evidence is neither bingo nor logical.

LogicandReason

Thanks t

LogicandReason

Suetonius gives us some details about Nero blaming "Christians" for the fires of Rome. We know that this was written in the 2nd century and not by an eye witness...but does this not say that "Christians" existed in Rome during the 60's and that the groups was large enough for Nero to defer the blame onto them?

aa5874

The word "Christ" meaning "anointed" preceeded Jesus believers by hundreds of years. It was not necessary to be a Jesus believer to be a "Christian" or to be called a "Christian".

"Christ" is just a title that can be assigned to anyone or can be self-proclaimed.

The word "anointed" is found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Samuel and other books of the Hebrew Bible.

It would appear, based on Suetonius and Tacitus, that only Jews were called Christians, the anointed ones. Theses writers, Suetonius and Tacitus did not ever mention that non-Jews were Christians up to the time of Nero.

Up to the end of the 2nd century, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras were called Christians, anointed, without ever making any reference to Jesus at all.

gurugeorge

Needless to say I disagree, I think there is enough literary evidence to suggest there were Christians, but there's no point in rehashing all that here.