Tercel

Peter,
I agree that there are other possibilities. However a negative TF would seem to me to be the most likely. It would also explain the reason it has been interpolated.

Tercel

You confuse my actions with my logical judgement. I will always try to be nice to people and caring and loving, I see it as part of my Christian duty. Equally I will always use logical judgement to analyse what you say, I see that as part of being rational. I see no contradiction between logically regarding your arguments as utter crap and your willingness to learn as being about zero, and liking you for who you are and being nice.
So please don't confuse what I say with what I feel as it may (as it is here) be reflecting my rational judgement on matters of logical argument, not my personal feelings.

Look, even Rodahi's getting fed up with you. Now Rodahi's hardly biased in favour of Christianity. In fact past experience leads me to consider Rodahi one of the more biased skeptics here. He is currently getting annoyed at you... what does that tell you?
Peter Kirby's had a lengthy discussion with you explaining carefully why you are wrong. Like Rodahi, Peter is not exactly unbiased himself, yet even he seems to think your argument mostly nonsense... what does that tell you?
Bede and I, who have both dealt with our fair share of biased skeptic over the years can only express amazement when confronted with some of the things you say.

Again you confuse insults with my logical opinion as to the value of your arguments.

About what? I'm not desperate to have Peter share my view on anything.

By well written I did not mean that his English was good, but that his argument was good. By saying you had bashed it, I meant purely that you were attacking it not that your attack had succeeded. There were no compliments to your argument contained in what I said, implied or otherwise.

God Bless.

Tercel

Righto, the next installment that I just know you've all been waiting for!
An argument from silence... bad.
So, tell me, who was James and what was he doing? Doherty I believe argues that when Paul refers to James as the brother of the Lord he really is refering to James' title as head of the Christian brotherhood. Do you agree with this assessment, that James was the head of the early Christian Church? If so, how believable do you find it that Josephus, a Jew who lived during this time, and a Jewish historian did not know this? No matter what hypothesis one accepts regarding James (assuming you agree he existed) Josephus should have a reasonable knowledge of him.

Well that gives us two alternatives: That either Josephus did write about James the Just and how calamities befell them because of his death and this has been edited out of our MSS, or, that Origen is getting Josephus' reference on the subject confused with another historian who alledges this.
The first possibility seems extremely bad for your case. The second possibility seems neutral.

Why? That is what all the Christians called him, certainly. Josephus may not have viewed James in quite the same way, since James was the leader of the Christians.
But, I'll accept for the sake of argument that Josephus did know him as James the Just and for his righteousness.

No. Josephus introduces James via his brother. Why do you think that is? Who was Josephus writing for? Answer: Gentiles, Romans etc who would <strong>certainly</strong> have never have heard of James, but who would <strong>quite possibly</strong> have heard of Jesus Christ. Josephus, quite naturally, introduces the new character by alluding to his relationship via a figure already known to his readers.

Again, this is explained perfectly if Josephus thought his readers likely to have prior knowledge of a "Jesus called Christ". Even if Jesus was non-historical, Josephus' readers may well have met Christians and have heard of Jesus or Christ.
Thus we have every reason to assume that Josephus may have believed his readers already aware of Jesus (or more probably being aware of "Christus") and hence introduced James via Jesus. Of course Tacitus seems to think Christus is the actual name of Jesus, and if we take his view as being the standard pagan thought, then it is immediately obvious why Josephus - knowing that Jesus' name was Jesus - still thought it necessary to add that he was also called "Christ", so that his readers would get it.

Imagine you are Josephus and writing this passage. You know: 1. James was the brother of Jesus. 2. Most of your readers know of Jesus as "Christ". 3. None of them know James.
What do you write? Answer: Introduce James via Jesus, noting that Jesus is also called Christ.

Good that Earl agrees with me on this bit.

Explained above. It is not a detailed profile of every minor character at all. It is a 5 or so word introduction about who the person being executed in this passage is.

Because his readers were familar with Christ, but not James.

Why?

Well of course. He's trying to alledge that the Emperor is the Messiah remember. He's hardly going to shoot himself in the foot by dwelling at length on how others disagree with his assessment.

This is quite ironic. The argument here amounts to saying that Josephus shouldn't have written about Jesus and therefore we are justified in believing he didn't. Yet the next thing you Jmythers do is, having argued that Josephus didn't write about Jesus, is turn around and proclaim that since Josephus didn't write about Jesus it implies Jesus didn't exist. Which is utterly illogical.
Introducing the featuring character in a passage by way of a few introductory words using a name familar to the readers is not "forcing" any issue.

Most likely, seems to be the possibility that Origen is getting Josephus' account confused with some other account he has read by a different author and has taken snippets from what he read in each. Since the words "Jesus called Christ" are found in the relevant Josephus passage, it seems pretty clear which parts of Origen's quote were coming from what. Alternatively Origen could simply be misinterpreting Josephus, especially if he is quoting Josephus from memory, this could be the case.
Peter Kirby writes in his essay on Josephus:
"Other scholars, such as Steve Mason, think that the reference derives from Origen misreading Josephus. I can see how that could happen. One might interpret the whole of Josephus as seeking the causes for the war. Maybe Origen just needed a scapegoat for his polemic. Josephus fit the bill."
A far enough assessment IMO.
On the other hand is of course the possibility that the text of Josephus really said in Origen's time what he said it did. Now that would not be helpful to your case.

Of course he did record his own superstitious beliefs. He didn't mind writing about why Vespasian was the messiah and how he fulfilled prophesies when it suited. I agree with this line of argument though, Josephus is unlikely to have written this.

Finally, an argument of my own, for the authenticity of Ant 20.
4. <strong>The unlikelihood of it being an interpolation</strong>
The phrasing of Ant 20 is extremely neutral. It is not "Jesus the Christ", or "Jesus who was the Christ", it's not even "Jesus Christ" which would not be out of place in the mouth of many non-Christians today. It is "Jesus called/so-called/alleged Christ". That is at best a neutral phrase, and at worst a quite negative phrase. In all of early Christian literature it is only found once in the mouth of a believer and that is in a narrative when relating factual information, not making a claim about Jesus' status. It is found several times in the mouth of non-believers. Conclusion: The phrase is not in any way a positive one, it is a neutral or negative one.
If Ant 20 has been interpolated, I think we all to agree that a Christian that must have done it. Nobody else would interpolate information about Jesus into a work. Yet my argument is that a Christian would not interpolate these words.
Another thought experiment: You a Christian and you are copying Josephus' works. You're a bit miffed that he doesn't mention your great Lord and Saviour. Annoyed at this you decide you'll fix things by adding in a reference to the great Jesus Christ the Son of God. Which is more probable? 1) That you add in an extremely neutral statement that could quite posssibly be taken as meaning that you didn't accept Jesus as the Christ
2) You add in a very clear statement on just how great Jesus was.

We've got two other examples of interpolations about Jesus in the works of Josephus. In the TF, the interpolator states straight out "He was the Christ". There are several other equally clearly Christian statements about Jesus in the TF that clearly no one but a believing Christian could write.
In a slavonic copy of Josephus' Jewish Wars, a Christian copist has apparently decided that Josephus not mentioning Jesus was not good enough and has inserted a long and rambly section elaborating at length on the greatness of Jesus.
Both interpolations are quite clearly Christian in origin because they contain very clear statements of belief. And that is of course what we expect from an interpolation. If a Christian is zealous enough to object to Josephus not mentioning Jesus they are not going to muck around and add in 5 words or so in a neutral tone that there existed Jesus who some people called Christ. They're going to do the job properly and let us know exactly what they think of Jesus.

Also mentioning James as the brother of Jesus is not paralleled in Christian literature. When James is referred to in relation to Jesus it is as being either the "Lord's brother" or the "Saviour's brother". Hence again, a Christian seems unlikely to have written this.

Vorkosigan

Also mentioning James as the brother of Jesus is not paralleled in Christian literature. When James is referred to in relation to Jesus it is as being either the "Lord's brother" or the "Saviour's brother". Hence again, a Christian seems unlikely to have written this.

Hey, we're discussing the Antiquities 20 reference now in another thread. Stop in an say hello.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Tercel,
Since I started this thread with the objective of debating with Bede, and after Bede's cop-out and your hostile vituperation and patronising tone, this thread has been sullied after being aborted. There is a lot of bad "blood" and negative emotions flowing here it mars any meaningful, objective discussion .

From your recent posts, you sound like you have "latched" on the debate. If you are serious, I suggest you start a new thread including all that is here that is relevant for discussion and we can start discussing on a serious note. Otherwise I am supremely confident that people here can further the debate and overlook the muck that is at the start of this thread without me. I am not comfortable participating in a thread that portrays me as some kind of idiot who is being "tolerated".

I also have great difficulty understanding how someone who believes its a "logical position" to say I assert rubbish turn around and be interested in participating ANY kind of debate that involves me.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Tercel

Hence Bede's refusal to participate.
I participate on the basis that 1. Other people than you read these threads. 2. I extremely naively hope that you might change your position due to my discussing it with you.

lcb

I too have some difficulty understanding the motivation of proseltyzing atheists.i suppose theists have some logical basis, especially evangelical ones...but athieists seems a strange thing here. i suppose if they are on a mission to prevent the u.s. from becoming a puritanical theocracy...but the way our culture is sliding down the cesspool that hardly seems likely...

Vorkosigan

What cesspool? Our culture is great, except for the reich-wing Christians spreading hate and intolerance. We have a few problems, like too many guns, and no national health care program, and our belligerent and intransigent foreign policy, but volunteerism is at a long-time high, our university system is the best in the world, women are much better treated than almost any other country (except for laws about childbearing leave and similar), people remain friendly, open and sincere, the economy is robust and creative, people have the freedom to make individual choices, (though I can see some improvements that still need to be made in areas like rights for gays)...but overall, the US is doing well.

Icb, this is a site for atheists, so of course we advocate atheism here. Few of us prosyletize in the wider world; it's a good way to suffer some discriminatory act. Also, comments like "cesspool" reveal your fundie viewpoint, you really should be more careful...

lcb

what is a "fundie"?

Bede

That's a term of abuse used against anyone who doesn't share the worldview of the abusor. Usually applied to a theist with right of centre politics or indeed any new theist on these boards. It stands for fundamentalist.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>