Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
05-20-2003, 03:51 PM | #21 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
This James Tabor?
He's written something on the TF, but he does not seem to have discussed the Antiquities reference to James. |
05-20-2003, 04:05 PM | #22 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Quote:
Quote:
Psalms of Solomon 18:6 [First Century B.C.]. "May God cleanse Israel against the day of mercy and blessing, Against the day of choice when He bringeth back His anointed [Messiah]." 4 Ezra 7:28-30 [Late First Century A.D.]. "For my son the Messiah shall be revealed to those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. And after these years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath." 2 Baruch 29:3 [Early Second Century A.D.]. "And it shall come to pass when all is accomplished that was to come to pass in those parts, that the Messiah shall then begin to be revealed." Thus, to suggest that Josephus used "Christos" and applied it to Jesus only as a name and nothing more is not supported by any evidence and is disconfirmed by what evidence we do have for the Jewish concept of a Messiah. I don't blame Bede for suggesting it; I once held to a similar idea, but it depends critically on the absence of references to a "Christ" or "Messiah" in Jewish literature, when there are in fact such references, so Josephus would not have regarded it as being a simple nickname or something of that sort. best, Peter Kirby |
||
05-20-2003, 05:45 PM | #23 | ||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The argument concerning the implication of an earlier passage is twofold: (a) it can be argued that Josephus didn't write Ant. 18.3.3 -- which of course opens up a whole 'nuther can of worms -- and (b) Josephus is not likely to have referred back two books without giving some kind of indication to the reader that this is what he was doing -- and this latter argument can be discussed without getting into the TF. Steven Carr explains that such a cross-reference as it is in the text as it stands would be unusual: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
best, Peter Kirby |
||||||||||
05-20-2003, 09:10 PM | #24 | |||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Naturally anything we say isn't necessarily so. I never claimed omniscience. I'm just an amateur pea in a very large pod. Quote:
Is Josephus as favorable to Pharisees in War? Well in Antiquities Josephus is somewhat favorable. 1). Josephus switched views during the time difference for whatever reason (Pharisees came into power?) or 2) some Pharisee(s) may have reworked parts of his text. Can you demonstrate the veracity of number one over number two? In defense of proposition number two I cite Meier (indirectly) in regards toLife. Quote:
People are capable of making idiotic blunders like this but we can say Josephus made such an error or an interpolator fudged things up in an attempt to make Josephus look like a Pharisee his whole life. Josephus studied all the prominent schools and came out a Pharisee when his earlier work is not altogether favourable to Pharisees. This is called invent an interpolation and it is pure sophistry. I see it as no different than the arguments being presented here for the Antiquities 20 reference which is neutral, not creedal. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Birth of Christianity, p. 14. Crossan: “In that text he says that Jesus “was called the Christ.” That is a neutral, not a creedal statement. It is possible, therefore, but not much more, that he had used a similar expression in the opening phrases of his earlier mention of Jesus in 18.63-64 and that Christian interpolation had changed “He was called the Christ into the confessional assertion “He was the Christ.” Maybe, at best. Back to presumption and my favorite mantra. Or maybe not…. But I would also say that your arguments create a little self-friction to the point of competing against one another. Meier disagrees with Crossan above (see Marginal v. 1 pp 60-61) and thinks “Christ” should not be reconstructed anywhere in the TF as it would interrupt the flow. Moreover, a glancing reference to the name Christ or Christians without any detailed explanation, is exactly what we would expect from Josephus, who has no desire to highlight messianic figure or expectations among the Jews.” Why is your theory more compelling than this one? A and B work against one another. Joseph does not take care to explain the term for the very same reason that he is not motivated to use the term elsewhere or elaborate on the expectations among the Jews. Yet maybe his readers heard of “Christians” would have been familiar with the term Christ? For the 20 reference it seems best to assume that Josephus figured his readers had enough knowledge to know of Jesus, the so called Christ to be able to identify which James he was talking about. In defense of Bede’s suggestion Josephus called them Christians and says they were named after him does he not? At any rate it may not be unprecedented even if Meier is correct and Crossan incorrect. As I do not know Greek I am not sure if the connection is there or not (but I suspect it is) would they be able to (Jo’s readers) correlate Christians and so called Christ? Even if not can it be argued that Jo’s Gentile readers had not heard of Christians? Personally, I think that the shorter reference, if authentic, does strongly argue for the latter. I am convinced that they are almost a package deal. But neither absolutely requires the other. This is history, not physics. We are dealing with people, not protons. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Most scholars seem to think it is natural for Josephus to explain unknown names for his readers. This does not require an explanation but it makes it a priori, more likely. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Vinnie |
|||||||||||||||||
05-20-2003, 09:20 PM | #25 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Walsall, UK
Posts: 1,490
|
Quote:
Quote:
I believe that Tabor's analysis is both fair and valid. |
||
05-20-2003, 10:10 PM | #27 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
|
Quote:
Arguments from authority can be valid as long as the authority is an authority and represents scholarly autheority rather than the view of one man. But authory does not take precedence over and can be controverted by valid evidence and argumentation to the contrary. It should be obvious that the major participants of this thread are beyond "Scholar X believes claim z to be true so it probably is." In this context you have only coined a new fallacy in relation to the great Josephus debate: appeal to Tabor. Quote:
Quote:
But I wonder if Tabor accepts the historicity of "Christ" or of Jesus" Quote:
Quote:
As Lowder says, if anything, Mcdowell coincidentally has the correct conclusions regarding Josephus. Vinnie |
|||||
05-20-2003, 10:15 PM | #28 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
|
E, let me also suggest a weblink for you:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html See the first article by PK. Vinnie |
05-20-2003, 10:24 PM | #29 | ||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Walsall, UK
Posts: 1,490
|
Quote:
Quote:
So yes, Toto is right (for once); Tabor does not discuss the James reference. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you see any problems here? I certainly don't. Quote:
Really, I don't believe this issue is as complicated as you are trying to make it. There's no need to mystify the TF into something that can only be understood by an Oxford don. This is not the Turin Shroud, Vinnie. Quote:
|
||||||||
05-20-2003, 10:27 PM | #30 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Walsall, UK
Posts: 1,490
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|