Ted Hoffman

Emerson
I used to have the writings by Josephus, and read those passages. What I'm not sure these scholars tell people in those comments though is Josephus writes about several people named Jesus, not just one. Jesus was a fairly common name in that part of the world during that period.
he (whoever "he" is) added "...called the Christ". That sealed the question of ambiguity.

Another thing they say is the Romans did not allow crucified victims to be removed from the cross for several days, they certainly wouldn't allow a Jew to remove a body to bury it before the Sabbath.
Exceptions were made for crucified victims belonging to wealthy families, but all evidence uncovered so far points to Jesus being a peasant, with no wealth at all.
Evidence also shows some people survived the resurrection (is it in Josephus, wars of the Jews?), and common sense tells un that a man who can go 40 days without food and stuck a decapitated ear back to the head effortlessly and raised the dead could have survived crucifiction even more. In any case, his legs werent even broken and he did not spend the night on the cross.

Tercel

Um Intensity, you keep saying that "Origen... does not mention this passage or any other passage in Josephus that mentions Christ."
For your information, Origen quotes Ant 20.9.1 twice.

Origen lived in a time when Christians were still a persecuted minority. So the idea that the Christians had doctored this Josephus passage by Origen's time is rather laughable. (so please don't bother arguing it)

Doherty's comments on the passage you have quoted look extremely dodgy to me. The phrase used by Josephus in Ant. 20 is hardly a Christian phrase. (I see Doherty has very wierd ideas of what constitutes a "Christian phrase")
The exact same greek words are used of Jesus by Pilate (who certainly was not a Christian) in Matthew 27:17,22. Generally translations of Josephus render the passage "Jesus who is called Christ", or "Jesus the so-called Christ", neither of which is particularly Christian at all. Most all the Bible translations I looked at for Matthew 27 go with "Jesus, who is called Christ".
That is not a Christian phrase. Christian phrases are: "Jesus Christ", "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus the Christ".

Frankly it looks to me like Ant 20 is obviously authentic. Any Christian interpolator worth his salt would at least put Jesus was the Christ or one of the others mentioned above. Who would go to the trouble of altering a passage to put in a reference to the great and wonderful Jesus, only to put in an extremely neutral statement that he was called Christ?? I see absolutely zippo way this could possibly be a Christian interpolation.

And back to the first point, if Josephus didn't write it, how the hell did it get into Origen's copy of Josephus??

Peter Kirby

I have heard it suggested that the insidious reference was inserted as early as the second century. I am just thinking one thing - Origen was a scholar and a textual critic, living in the greatest city of the Roman East with the largest library in the world. Couldn't Origen have checked more than one copy, particularly one that was preserved by pagans? It is not like Origen was turned on by what he read in Josephus here.

best,
Peter Kirby

Sojourner553

(Change of plans: I stayed in town afterall)

I was in a hurry when I wrote the last post. This was one of the passages that I wanted you to notice in the link I gave you:

"An account of James also exists by Hegesippus, a second century Christian who lived in the Roman city Aelia Capitolina,(which was built upon the site of Jerusalem after it was destroyed by the Romans.) In this account, James was known as the "Just" by the people, and frequently worshiped in the Temple. When the Jewish authorities approached James to calm down the people's expectation that Jesus' return was imminent, James instead inflamed their hopes by saying he believed Jesus would indeed return soon. The Jewish leaders, in their anger, had him killed."


This also explains James' crime: the local Jewish and Roman leaders' fear of sedition or arousing revolutionary activity. Afterall these passions were around decades before it lead up to the Jewish revolt of 66 CE.

Regarding if James was referred to in the NT, I thought you would see this paragraph:

"Within his letter to the Galatians (1:19) Paul refers to the three "pillars" of the Jerusalem church--"James, Cephas [or Peter], and John"."

"Peter and John are of course important characters throughout the gospel stories and in the book of Acts. However James is NOT! Only Paul identifies him in the New Testament. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul writes that James is "the Lord's brother"-i.e., the brother of Jesus. (The relevant verses read: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother." (1:18-19).

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JERCHRIS.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JERCHRIS.TXT</a>

Albinius of course was governor of Judaea, who was appointed by Nero. I didn't think you needed me to find that one.

I had also given you the source on Origen that he wrote that Josephus wrote on Jesus, but expressed surprise that Josephus did not believe Jesus was divine.


------------------------------------------
Actually I was disappointed by your outbursts of emotion. I see this so often when my debaters are trying to sidestep or avoid my points.

I did not see you address my main issue: Why are there so many embarrassing details of Jesus in the gospel stories that are in direct opposition to the dogma of the Catholic Church? (I gave examples earlier.)

I get lots of anger and denunciation; no facts/details to respond to my challenge/test for accuracy.

May I remind you of Popper's falsification test: IE, if one really wants to test the validity of their proposition (here that Jesus is 100% fiction), one must not only look at evidence that it is true; but must also test for any evidence that the counter position (Jesus is not 100% fiction) is false. That is, one must actively evaluate; and attempt to prove their contra-proposition is FALSE. Only if they cannot DISPROVE this latter; can they conclude their reasoning is based on rational, scientific principles, as opposed to an ideology.

Sojourner

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

May I remind you of Popper’s falsification test: IE, if one really wants to test the validity of their proposition (here that Jesus is 100% fiction), one must not only look at evidence that it is true; but must also test it for any evidence that the counter position (Jesus is not 100% fiction) is false. That is, one must actively evaluate – and attempt to prove their contra-proposition is FALSE. Only if they cannot DISPROVE this latter – can they conclude their reasoning is based on rational, scientific principles, as opposed to an ideology.

Sojourner

Popper's view was actually meant to serve more as a demarcation between science and non-science. Nowadays philosophers tend to see scientific hypothesis testing as occurring in bundles; one result against may indicate a serious problem somewhere, but many against indicates the idea is wrong. Thus, even if you came up with one tough problem for Intensity, it would not destroy his case. Several would.

I do not find this dissimilarity criterion you're proposing altogether convincing. It assumes that where the story of the gospel legends conflicts with Catholic dogma the gospels must have truth, but this is of course not necessarily the case. Preservation of certain events may reflect accidents of history, or the fact that they were too-well known to get rid of, or that Catholic Doctrine had many sources and at least some early ones may not have been in conflict with a particular text, or that the event/saying in question was rewritten to cover an even more damning event/saying. The only way to get a bead on Jesus is with a multiplicity of historical vectors, but apparently they have been lost, and all we have is the legend.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Tercel
Um Intensity, you keep saying that "Origen... does not mention this passage or any other passage in Josephus that mentions Christ."
For your information, Origen quotes Ant 20.9.1 twice.
What you have posted, DOES NOT have Origen quoting the TF, but has Origen saying although Josephus did not accept Jesus as the messiah, he nevertheless wrote in the Antiquities of the Jews that the Jews suffered because of what they had done to James. The words ...the brother of Jesus who is called Christ are clearly an interpolation. Because It has been demonstrated that (1)Josephus did not know much about James (2) That as (a) A jew and as (b) a Jew writing for a Roman audience, it would have been foolhardy and polemical for him(Josephus) to include the words "the christ" in the passage. If Josephus did not include the words "the christ", Origen could not have included them either. And even while examining Origens' inclusion of those words, its clear that they too, are an interpolation.

If you have Origens text, could you please post us what he says in - Matthew X, XVII please? I don't happen to have the book myself.

Furthermore, Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus says "Origen ,'the greatest and most conscientious scholar of the ancient Church,; makes it quite clear, in two different passages (Matthew X, XVII should be one of them?), that in his text of the Antiquities Josephus did not represent Jesus as the Christ".

Doherty's comments on the passage you have quoted look extremely dodgy to me.
That is a very strong argument you have made right there.

The phrase used by Josephus in Ant. 20 is hardly a Christian phrase. (I see Doherty has very wierd ideas of what constitutes a "Christian phrase")
Its christian (as opposed to Jewish or Roman) because (1) it represents Jesus as the Christ(messiah) and (2) it is found in the bible numerous times.

The exact same greek words are used of Jesus by Pilate (who certainly was not a Christian) in Matthew 27:17,22. Generally translations of Josephus render the passage "Jesus who is called Christ", or "Jesus the so-called Christ", neither of which is particularly Christian at all. Most all the Bible translations I looked at for Matthew 27 go with "Jesus, who is called Christ".
And that is as it appears in the versions of antiquities that are being peddled. In any case Jerome did not represent Jesus as the Christ in his version of antiquities. Thus evidence of tampering.
That is not a Christian phrase. Christian phrases are: "Jesus Christ", "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus the Christ".
Quibble on with syntactical nuances.

Frankly it looks to me like Ant 20 is obviously authentic
Is this an argument? Appeal to personal credulity?

Any Christian interpolator worth his salt would at least put Jesus was the Christ or one of the others mentioned above. Who would go to the trouble of altering a passage to put in a reference to the great and wonderful Jesus, only to put in an extremely neutral statement that he was called Christ?? I see absolutely zippo way this could possibly be a Christian interpolation.

Huh, huh. Why would the early church fathers quote it if it were so neutral? You want to make us laugh?

And back to the first point, if Josephus didn't write it, how the hell did it get into Origen's copy of Josephus??
Huh huh, that easy: Eusebius (who died about C.E. 361) told the scribes to alter what Origen (circa C.E. 185-254) had written. Pure and simple.

And PeterKirby asks a good question above. Think about it sir.

NOGO

"Jesus, who is called Christ".

Christ is not a name but a title. Literally it means the anointed one. The anointed one was also King. What this means is that in Jesus' time calling someone the anointed one can get him and you in a lot of trouble. It was a one way ticket to rebelion.

Question: would a Jew such as Josephus make a staement such as "Jesus, who is called Christ"?

I say no and here is why.

Knowing what the term means and implies Josephus would have said something like this.

"Jesus, who some believed to be the Christ."

Why? Because there were many "christs" and there were even more would-be christs. So one must assume that Josephus knew many people who were called "anointed one" of God. Historically there was David, Solomon, Gideon, Jehu etc. There must have been also many would-be christs who ended up dead.

For Josephus to say "Jesus, who was called Christ" means that Josephus acknowledged that Jesus was actually the true "anointed one" of God. This is of course impossible. Therefore this was not written by Josephus.

One last point on "was called Christ".
Was called by whom? Ans: Christians.
But were Christians already in large enough numbers for Josephus to say "was called" without specifying which minority of people did the calling.

This smells F O R G E R Y.

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner,
Im Glad U stayed.
"An account of James also exists by Hegesippus, a second century Christian who lived in the Roman city Aelia Capitolina,(which was built upon the site of Jerusalem after it was destroyed by the Romans.) In this account, James was known as the "Just" by the people, and frequently worshiped in the Temple. When the Jewish authorities approached James to calm down the people's expectation that Jesus' return was imminent, James instead inflamed their hopes by saying he believed Jesus would indeed return soon. The Jewish leaders, in their anger, had him killed."

This passage tells us (1) There was Hegesippus, a second century Christian who lived in the Roman city Aelia Capitolina who related the story.
(2) James was known as the "Just" by the people, and frequently worshiped in the Temple.
(3) Jewish authorities wanted James to calm down people who were excited that Jesus will return soon.
(4) james instead told the people that Jesus will return soon.
(5) The Jewish leaders, in their anger, had him killed.

At the very best, this passage tells us that there were some people in the 2nd century who believed that Jesus would come back.
Even today, diehard christians believe Jesus will come back. Of course they never saw Jesus.

My question is, what does that prove that is of relevance here?

Has evidence of existence of a belief constitute evidence of factuality of that belief?

I must point out that however strong our beliefs are, that does not, in itself guarantee us the correctness of those beliefs. That applies to the people in the 2nd century who believed christ will come again.

This also explains James' crime: the local Jewish and Roman leaders' fear of sedition or arousing revolutionary activity. Afterall these passions were around decades before it lead up to the Jewish revolt of 66 CE.
In East Africa, the Maji-Maji rebels in Tanzania (1905-07) believed that magic water from river Rufiji could liquefy German bullets Kinjeketile Ngwale, their leader(magician), had to be killed by the Germans after the bloodiest Revolt by the maji-maji rebellion.

I am sure there are other parallels in history.
My point being, false beliefs cant be ignored if you want to keep suppressed people in check.

And, you deftly ducked the question *Is he (the same James) the one killed by Herod in Acts 12:1-2?
Again.
You have provided other verses and prevaricated. You have equivocated by saying "...However James is NOT! Only Paul identifies him ...". Not what? Important? fallacy of missing arguments. You have also changed the subject. Whether or Not James is important is irrelevant. What I wanted to know is whether or NOT its the same James.

Actually I was disappointed by your outbursts of emotion. I see this so often when my debaters are trying to sidestep or avoid my points.
Please repost any posting I have made that contains an outburst of emotion and explain why, in your view, it constitutes an outburst of emotion. Otherwise I demand an apology.

I did not see you address my main issue: Why are there so many embarrassing details of Jesus in the gospel stories that are in direct opposition to the dogma of the Catholic Church? (I gave examples earlier.)
You have not explained whether or not they were embarrasing to the specific evangelists who wrote them.
Secondly, whether or not they are embarrasing is opinion, NOT fact. Isn't the fact that Jesus was born of woman embarrasing?
Thirdly, the embarrasment criterion fails because its applying 20th Century thinking back to the 1st century.
On what basis do you decide that an event was embarrasing? Why is being baptised more embarrasing than washing peoples feet?

I get lots of anger and denunciation; no facts/details to respond to my challenge/test for accuracy.
You are being insincere. We have had no anger. If you choose to imagine that, its your prerogative, but its not of relevance to this discussion. We are not discussing peoples emotions here and they remain of NO relevance. Please stick to the subject.

Quoting Poppers falsification test adds no new material to this discussion. Its when you start using it in this discussion that you will have made it meaningful.

NOGO

Nonsense. All words found in the Gospels are Christian words.
Pilate probably did not speak Greek.
The disciples definitely did not speak Greek.
So how could they report 40 to 50 years later exactly what Pilate said?

In any case it is hearsay and therefore unreliable and cannot be used as evidence.

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

Pure myth, no more validity to these stories than the Greek or Roman gods myths.