Peter Kirby

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

Did you really grok the point I made? You may be as surprised as I was to learn that it shows clearly the baselessness of interpolation claims in this instance.

NOGO writes: 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.

Oh, don't be ridiculous. This is like me saying "Siddharta who is called Buddha" without believing that he is the Enlightened one. For that matter, I have often called him Buddha straight up, as Buddha has become his nickname just as much as Christ has become a nickname for Jesus. Doesn't make me a Buddhist Christian atheist.

Also, we have been bullied into thinking dogmatically that the phrase ought to be translated neutrally as "Jesus who is called Christ." The reports that this is Christian phraseology have been blown out of all proportion. Van Voorst writes:

----
For the few occurences of the phrase "called Christ" in the New Testament, see Matt 1:16 (Matthew's genealogy, where it breaks the long pattern of only personal names); Matt 27:17, 22 (by Pontius Pilate); John 4:25 (by the Samaritan woman). Twelftree, "Jesus in Jewish Traditions," 300, argues from these instances that "called Christ" is "a construction Christians used when speaking of Jesus" and therefore an indication that this passage is not genuine. He also cites John 9:11, but there the phrase is "called Jesus" and so does not apply to this issue. But if these passages are indicative of wider usage outside the New Testament, "called Christ" tends to come form non-Christians and is not at all typical of Christian usage. Christians would not be inclined to use a neutral or descriptive term like "called Christ"; for them, Jesus is (the) Christ.
----

R. T. France writes:

----
Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 211, points out that the same phrase occurs in Matthew 1:16, and therefore must be translated 'called' rather than (derogatorily) 'so-called'. But Jospephus' usage should be determeined from Josephus, not from Matthew. The Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus translates legomenos as 'so-called' or 'alleged', and refers to an example of Josephus, Contra Apionem II 34, where he speaks of Alexandria as Apion's birthplace 'not birthplace, but alleged (birthplace)'. Even if legomenos does not carry this dismissive tone in our passage, it is hardly conceivable that a Christian interpolator could have been content with so non-commital a phrase.
----

Finally, for the strongest argument against authenticity, the issue of hapax legomena, it is not as strong as it first seems. For, in the Hellenistic world, there is no person other than Jesus who had been known by the term 'Christ', which was indeed used as a proper name by Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. Thus, it does not seem unlikely that Josephus would point out the most common cognomen of Jesus, which is 'Christ'. It is no more odd than a hostile source referring to Gautama as Buddha, his most well-known appelation, even if it contains religious implications taken literally.

NOGO writes: This smells F O R G E R Y.

Last I checked, there is no way to detect forgery with your nose. You have to use your brain.

best,
Peter Kirby

Tercel

I noticed. The TF is in Ant 18.3.3, but Josephus gives a second reference in Ant 20.9.1 to James the brother of "Jesus the so-called Christ".
You said:
"Origen... does not mention this passage or any other passage in Josephus that mentions Christ."
This statement is false because Origen twice quotes from the Ant 20 passage, as I demonstrated.

I hope I'm not the only one who's got absolutely no idea what you mean here...

It says that Jesus got called Christ, not that he was the Christ. And the Christians used the same language as everyone else, just because something is found in the NT does not make it a "Christian phrase" or give Christians exclusive right to that phrase over Jews or Romans.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

NOGO

Were there many Buddhas? I don't know enough about buddism to assess whether your analogy is correct.
The point here is that Christ means anointed one which is usually associated with the King of Israel.
No Jew would simply say "so and so called the anointed one". It is not a question of calling but one of being.

So the question is not whether you would say "Siddharta who is called Buddha" but whether an Hindu would say it. (provided that the analogy is valid)

Yes, but Tacitus and Pliny the Younger were not Jews. They had no understanding of Jewish culture and tradition. Josephus was Jewish and would not have made this mistake.
You seemed to have missed my point. Let me try again.
For the Jews the anointed one was God's elect to save His people from oppression.
Josephus being a Pharisee would not have allowed a minor Jewish sect to appropriate this very important title as a name of one of its leaders.

I can't be clearer than that.

Well, so far I have used my nose to post. I am giving my brain a rest. It shows, right?

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

Peter Kirby

NOGO writes: Were there many Buddhas? I don't know enough about buddism to assess whether your analogy is correct.
The point here is that Christ means anointed one which is usually associated with the King of Israel.
No Jew would simply say "so and so called the anointed one". It is not a question of calling but one of being.

But, I know the lit pretty well, and I know one thing: you cannot find one single solitary example of a Jew calling a historical person by the name or title of the Greek christos, with the sole surviving exception of Jesus who is called Christ. In this sense, there was only one person who was called Christ in antiquity.

NOGO writes: Yes, but Tacitus and Pliny the Younger were not Jews. They had no understanding of Jewish culture and tradition.

Tacitus had enough understanding of Jewish culture to deprecate it at some length elsewhere in his works. The Jews back then were a larger segment of the population than they are now; estimates range from 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 of people in the Roman Empire. Judaism was also seen unique, philosophical, and attractive to some with its emphasis on ethics and monotheism. Only Stoicism rivaled Judaism in popularity.

NOGO writes: Josephus was Jewish and would not have made this mistake.
You seemed to have missed my point. Let me try again.
For the Jews the anointed one was God's elect to save His people from oppression.
Josephus being a Pharisee would not have allowed a minor Jewish sect to appropriate this very important title as a name of one of its leaders.

I can't be clearer than that.

You are very clear, but I do not agree. As I said, the Greek title/name christos is not known to have been in use among the Jews. The first recorded application to a person as a name is Jesus. Also, Josephus was writing for the Greco-Roman world and need not have operated with more semitic piety than cosmopolitan sense. Josephus could have understood 'the wetted' as a nickname just like the historian Tacitus or letter writer Pliny. It's not a matter of Josephus allowing the sect to appropriate the title; the title had been appropriated or invented, and Josephus was following convention. Moreover, Josephus does qualify it as 'called' or 'so called', leaving its propriety in doubt and not setting off forgery alarms.

NOGO writes: Well, so far I have used my nose to post. I am giving my brain a rest. It shows, right?

It's ok. I have programmed a bot to handle everything to do with Internet Infidels. I tried feeding it something by Josh McDowell, and it said, "This species is weak. Expect the revolution."

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

It's ok. I have programmed a bot to handle everything to do with Internet Infidels. I tried feeding it something by Josh McDowell, and it said, "This species is weak. Expect the revolution."

ROTFL. I'd love to have a beer with you someday.

Vorkosigan

RyanS2

Peter, I love your writings. Post here more often please! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Concerning Buddhism, the actual tradition relates the same way that the incarnations of Vishnu do, that every so often a Buddha is sent forth to come into the World to restore it from the decay that it is in. You may remember a long time ago that one of Madam Blavatsky's followers, (who broke away from "traditional" Theosophy), found an Indian boy and proclaimed him the next Buddha or Messiah. She raised him to be the Buddha, (or Christ, I forget what she thought he was), but embarrasingly for her, he rejected the title outright and claimed to be a regular human.

After that, he spent his life helping people and being a pretty decent fellow. I've heard some people still think he was a saviour. So yes, there have been several Buddha's, in fact, some Buddhist sects don't even acknowledge the person we call "THE BUDDHA". On Buddhist mandalins you can see near the inner lotus some of the other gods/Buddha's as well.

Peter Kirby

Ya, the thing is that the bot had a thick German accent. I think it was just trying to show off.

Or maybe we should give rights to robots and try to integrate them into our society. If we can teach them how to drink beer instead of worrying about chess openings, everything will be alright.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

You're thinking of <a href="http://www.stayfinder.com/travelguide/india/spiritualindia/india_luminaries_krishnamurthy.asp" target="_blank">Krishnamurthy</a>, who was supposed to be the future leader of the world. He was not a savior, but he functioned as a guru, in that people paid good money to listen to his words of wisdom. His reputation has faded after his death, with a little sex scandal, which seems to be obligatory for Indian gurus.

NOGO

Very good. You see my point and I see yours.
It all hinges on whether Josephus could just follow convention which is so fundamentally contrary to his personal beliefs without letting it show.

Granted he was writting for a Gentile audience.
Granted the convention may have been established in the Greek world.
Granted Jesus was the only Christ in the Greek world.

But Josephus was writing about HIS PEOPLE's history. Hopefully it was to inform the Gentiles and not to just follow their mistaken conventions.

NOGO

Upon what evidence is this estimate based?