FunkyRes

Hi-
Sorry if this has been covered.

There would not be too much need for Paul to mention the virgin birth, that was associated with Jewish prophecy which the Gentiles that Paul went to would not have been too familiar with.

Also, in Greek mythology the gods would sometimes have children with mortals, and I think paul may have wanted to avoid opening up the possibility of mixing greek mythology with christ.

Finally, in the letters he was writing, he was writing to churches- those who were already believers that Jesus was the Messiah.

The virgin birth would not have had a lot of impact in that respect.

As far as Paul seeing the resurrection as spiritual opposed to physical- I don't get that impression at all.

With respect to Jesus and wealth- he may not have been wealthy, but a very wealthy man requested his body.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: FunkyRes ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Tercel
Intensity,
I think we need to get Eisler's position sorted.
....I would suggest Eisler has probably been ambiguously translated here.
...
Hopefully that's clear, so continuing:
It is very clear. Thank you.

Which part that has "the christ"? If you are referring to the part of the Testimonium that says "He was the Christ", then I agree: It's an interpolation. That's what Eisler argues, and I agree.
Me too.
Frankly I couldn't give two figs about the Testimonium. It's clear to me that there was a passage on Jesus by Josphus there, which has been subsequently modified by Christian copiers. (Which is what Eisler appears to argue too) You disagree
No, I do NOT disagree, clearly, there is a misunderstanding here and I hope my position is now clear.

What I am intereted in arguing is the Ant 20 reference to "Jesus who was called Christ".
Okay sir.
At which point you've already lost me. How do we know what Josephus did and didn't know about James???
This is what Earl says:
"The possibility that Josephus knew virtually nothing else about James is suggested by the fact that he never tells us anything (outside the disputed phrase) beyond the fact and basic manner of his death. (Note the difference between this and the long, detailed—and somewhat contradictory—account in Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius!) Josephus does not even attach the common cognomen “the Just” to James, something which a Christian copyist would have felt no necessity to remove."
How on earth does Doherty demonstrate this??
As above. In addition, James, in his epistles, DOES NOT refer to himself as the brother of Jesus - why? For example, the letter ascribed to James starts:
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. . ."

Earl Doherty adds:
Few believe that James the Just actually wrote this letter, but if a later Christian is writing it in his name, or even if only adding this ascription, common sense dictates that he would have identified James as the brother of the Lord Jesus if he had in fact been so, not simply as his servant. A similar void has been left by the writer of the epistle of Jude. (Few likewise ascribe this letter to the actual Jude, whoever he was.) It opens:

"Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. . ."

And he adds : Now if James is Jesus' sibling, and Jude is James' brother, then this makes Jude the brother of Jesus, and so he appears in Mark 6. So now we have two Christian authors who write letters in the name of supposed blood brothers of Jesus, neither one of whom makes such an identification. How likely is this?

Bear in mind also that "The term "brother" (adelphos) appears throughout Paul's letters, and was a common designation Christians gave each other. In 1 Corinthians 1:1 Sosthenes is called adelphos, as is Timothy in Colossians 1:1. Neither of them, nor the 500+ "brothers" who received a vision of the spiritual Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:6, are being designated as siblings of Jesus or anyone else. "Brothers in the Lord" (ton adelphon en kurio) appears in Philippians 1:14 (the NEB translates it "our fellow-Christians"). "

(As Peter Kirby pointed out, other places Josephus uses this word he means "alleged".) How exactly is it "foolhardy and polemical" for Josephus to mention in passage Jesus the alleged Christ?
Polemical because the idea that Jesus was indeed the messiah had not yet been widely accepted and was hotly in dispute.
Foolhardy because it would have inflamed the Romans for two reasons: They could have seen it as an assent to christians to continue believing that Jesus indeed was indeed the christ (James was killed for telling christians that christ will come back). Foolhardy because it would have set him up against fellow Jews as they could have seen it as a betrayal - the chasm between Judaism and christianity was widening at the time and the two were highly polarised. I believe the reference to Jesus that would've been approved by fellow Jews at that time would be to represent him as a charlatan, a deceiver etc NOT as the messiah.
Maybe its for this reason that some(Kirby?) say he could have used the derogatory term "so-called" and not "called".

So when are we getting to the real evidence against Ant 20 being genuine? Is there any real evidence, other than wishing it to be an interpolation?
Lets start with what I have provided.

If they are authentic quotations eh? Am I being accused of lying here?
You could be using a source that is not reliable. But NO, I am not hinting that you are lying. I dont suspect you of being capable of that.

Peter Kirby

Maybe its for this reason that some(Kirby?) say he could have used the derogatory term "so-called" and not "called".

Na, that's accepted as a possibility because of philological facts; Josephus elsewhere uses the Greek phrase to mean 'so called' or 'alleged'.

However, it's not necessary. I don't think saying 'called' implies assent. That is silly.

best,
Peter Kirby

NOGO

Under normal circumstances we all agree with you,
saying "called" does not imply assent.

When everything else is neutral then "called" is quite neutral as well.

However there is nothing neutral about calling Jesus, who was executed as a common criminal, the anointed one of God. Particularly when the same people who call him that also claim that he is the Son of God if not God himself.

When you raise the stakes like this then "called" is just too neutral a response coming from an opponent of the Christian movement.

In this matter Josephus cannot be seen as a neutral historian.

Peter Kirby

NOGO writes: However there is nothing neutral about calling Jesus, who was executed as a common criminal, the anointed one of God.

Let's be clear. Josephus does not call Jesus 'the anointed one of God'. Josephus does not call Jesus christos, even. Josephus says that Jesus is 'called christos' or 'alleged to be christos', which are really quite similar statements, which is why they can both be represented with the same Greek words. Jesus was called christos, that's a fact, and that's how he was best known.

NOGO writes: When you raise the stakes like this then "called" is just too neutral a response coming from an opponent of the Christian movement.

We can still say unambiguously that the response of Josephus does not imply assent. That is still silly. But Josephus is just using the most obvious way to indicate the identity of this Jesus, and he is not making a theological affirmation. If he were talking about Christianity, maybe things would be different. Josephus is talking about why Ananus got deposed as high priest.

best,
Peter Kirby

Radcliffe Emerson

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FunkyRes:
[QB]
As far as Paul seeing the resurrection as spiritual opposed to physical- I don't get that impression at all.

Scholars and people who make their primary living studying this stuff get that impression, and I've talked to ministers who admitted to me that they are taught in the official seminaries that this stuff is myth!
They're usually given the standard line: Don't say to your congregations it's myth, they don't want to hear that.

Peter Kirby

IntenSity writes:

This is what Earl says:
"The possibility that Josephus knew virtually nothing else about James is suggested by the fact that he never tells us anything (outside the disputed phrase) beyond the fact and basic manner of his death. (Note the difference between this and the long, detailed—and somewhat contradictory—account in Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius!) Josephus does not even attach the common cognomen “the Just” to James, something which a Christian copyist would have felt no necessity to remove."

And perhaps something that a Christian copyist would have naturally included if this were an interpolation of some kind?

If Josephus knew anything about James, it would be his connection to a movement initiated by the Jesus known as Christ. Josephus was in Jerusalem at the time, so this would not be extraordinary knowledge.

IntenSity writes: They could have seen it as an assent to christians to continue believing that Jesus indeed was indeed the christ

The phrase absolutely does not imply assent.

IntenSity writes: James was killed for telling christians that christ will come back

How do you know why James was killed?

IntenSity writes: I believe the reference to Jesus that would've been approved by fellow Jews at that time would be to represent him as a charlatan, a deceiver etc NOT as the messiah.

Josephus does not represent Jesus as the Messiah. That honor is reserved for Vespasian. And besides, there is no known case of 1st c. pagans having knowledge that 'christos' means Messiah - or non-Christian Jews for that matter. It is a name like 'Unabomber', novel and associated with one person.

best,
Peter Kirby

Jayhawker Soule

Too neutral? Who made up that rule? You presume to know what Josephus would not say based on how you assume Josephus would necessarily react given the claims of yet another messianic cult. This frankly seems more akin to clairvoyance than argument.

Peter Kirby

Hi IntenSity,

IntenSity wrote: Ah, thats simple: Origen was a christian then and chose what served his faith best.

I don't believe that. Origen wasn't exactly thrilled by what he read in Josephus. To Origen, the passage testified to Josephus' unbelief. Origen laments that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ." Kind of discredits the idea that the phrase implies assent. As I said, Origen was a scholar and a textual critic, living in the greatest city of the Roman East with the largest library in the world. Not only would Origen have been able to check more than one copy, and more than one pagan copy at that, but I doubt that Christians were the ones preserving Josephus at this time. Christians were still a relatively small part of the Roman Empire. I would think that Origen's reference to Josephus is textual evidence of the highest order and ought to be accepted unless we have strong evidence to the contrary.

IntenSity writes: False analogy Peter. Sidharta gave birth to the idea of Buddha himself. But with Jesus, Jews anticipated the messiah even b4 Jesus was born. When a man claimed to be the messiah, some disputed it because he did not meet all the requirements(given by the prophets). They became Judaists. Bahai's and Judaists can explain to you why Jesus did not qualify to be the messiah. Those who embraced Judaism (like Josephus) did not regard Jesus as the messiah.

My point stands that christos had become a nickname for Jesus. Furthermore, I agree that Josephus did not regard Jesus as the one from Israel who would rule the world as predicted by Jewish oracles; that man is Vespasian. Josephus regarded Jesus as one alleged to be christos, which is a different thing entirely. Moreover, there is no evidence that Josephus and other Jews associated their hopes with the Greek term Christos. This can perhaps be seen from the fact that Josephus does not apply the term Christos to Vespasian when saying that Vespasian fulfilled the oracles.

IntenSity writes: Whether or not they have been blown out of proportion is a moot point.

Nope, it's relevant. First, I wouldn't take things on authority from people who blow things out of proportion. Second, if it is not clear that this is exclusively Christian phraseology, it is not clear that this is an interpolation.

IntenSity writes: What is unanimous however is that Christians, as opposed to Judaists, regard Jesus as the messiah.

And the phrase does not imply that Josephus regarded Jesus as the messiah. The phrase implies only that Josephus knew that some called Jesus 'christos'. That would include Gentile Christians as well as Gentile pagans such as Pliny the Younger. And I will go out on a limb and say there is no evidence that christos is a theological affirmation in Pliny the Younger!

IntenSity writes: The question of representing Jesus as the messiah was a secondary concern to the interpolators.

Assuming that there were interpolators here and that we can read their minds, of course.

IntenSity writes: Their primary concern was to establish a historical Jesus.

This is totally anachronistic. Neither the phrase nor the concept of "historical Jesus" existed in antiquity. That is an Enlightenment idea inspired by Enlightenment concerns. Moreover, we have absolutely no evidence that the mere existence of Jesus was in dispute in antiquity, let alone that there was a concern to forge passages showing such mere existence. Mere existence would have been accepted by the euhemerism of the age and would not have made a person into a Christian.

IntenSity writes: This refutes the idea that a xstian interpolator could NOT have been content with so non-commital a phrase.

Oh, and if this was such a big concern, where is the Christian writer in antiquity who was content with the phrase and quoted it to show the mere existence of Jesus?

IntenSity writes: And then again, it depends whose version of TF you are referring to: Jeromes? Origens? Because each of those early church fathers had their own "version". For example Jerome says "...believed to be the christ..."

Origen does not quote a TF. So, it is not accurate to speak of Origen's version of the TF.

Also, note that Jerome was writing in Latin. There are a number of possibilities here. For one, it could be that Jerome had a textual tradition that went behind Eusebius, who had a corrupted edition that made the statement into a theological confession (this could be the case independent of the authenticity of the TF). For another, this could be the inattentive reading of the translator from Greek to Latin who saw "'The Messiah' is this man" and thought to translate this phrase (with the particle) as indicating that the man was called the Messiah. For a third, either the translator or Jerome could have realized that Josephus would not have believed Jesus to be the Messiah and made a text-critical correction.

IntenSity writes: Tacitus shows there was someone called Christus.

I agree that Tacitus is prima facie evidence.

IntenSity writes: However, his anachronistic use of the word "procurator" has made his passage questionable.

Richard Carrier's review of Doherty has been well-received even if it has not been well-read. Carrier writes:

IntenSity writes: Whether or NOT christus translated to Christ, is not so obvious to me for example in the Catholic online encyclopaedia "It has been noted that Suetonius considered Chrestus
(christ) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "

I am having trouble parsing the above. Do you mean that Christus may not always translate to Christos because the Catholic Encyclopedia notes a passage where Chrestus is thought to mean Christ? If so, what's the logic in that? If not, what do you mean?

I take issue with those who assume that the reference in Suetonius refers to Christ, as I know that Chrestus is a suitable Greek name.

IntenSity writes: Whether or NOT Jesus was the only person referred to as "Christ" is a moot point and there is no evidence for that. The version of christianity that became the orthodoxy is known to have burnt and destroyed all other documents that were claimed to be "heresies". Maybe they had other "christs"? Thats very possible.

We are dealing with probabilities, not possibilities. Lots of things are possible. Not everything is probable.

The Christians were not the only ones who preserved literature from antiquity. Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Talmud have not passed through Christian hands. They are enormous corpora of Jewish literature. However, they do not identify any person as being christos.

IntenSity: Pliny the Younger talks of christians and Christ. He does not mention Jesus. So your argument that Jesus was the only person known as the Christ is contestable and is not a fact.

This is not logical. Do you contend that the Christ worshipped by these Christians was not known as Jesus? If not, and I hope not, then who is the other person who is known as the Christ?

IntenSity writes: calling someone the christ is tantamount to regarding him and making him the christ.

First, even if someone did call Jesus the christ, that does not mean that the person regards Jesus as the Messiah in a theological sense. Tacitus calls Jesus 'Christus' without hesitation but would be loathe to equate this usage with acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah.

Second, Tercel said, "It says that Jesus got called Christ, not that he was the Christ." And this is correct. Jesus was called 'christ'. That's a fact. Recognizing that some people call Jesus 'christ' is not tantamount to making him the Messiah.

IntenSity writes: This is argument from ignorance.

More accurately, it is an argument from silence. As a newly converted Jesus Myther, you should bone up on those arguments from silence. They are quite popular.

IntenSity writes: It has been argued by Earl Doherty among others that lots of documents were destroyed once christinity caught the eye of the Roman emperor (Constantine I believe) and it was elevated to orthodoxy status. Any other "versions" were squashed.

I doubt that there was anything in those heretical Christian documents that were destroyed that say anything about a person other than Jesus being the Christ. If you want to do so, you can make an argument for that. Where we might expect a different person to be called Christ is in Jewish literature: in the Dead Sea Scrolls that have preserved intact, in the voluminous Talmud that has been preserved by Jews, or perhaps in Josephus where he declares Vespasian to be the man from the East chosen by God to rule the world as predicted in the Jewish oracles. But nobody else is called by the Greek christos. It's almost a conspiracy of silence.

best,
Peter Kirby

FunkyRes

What official seminaries do you speak of?