Peter Kirby

NOGO writes: No it isn't.

Is too. There is no evidence that Jews ever used 'christos' as a title. There is evidence that Christians used 'christos'. The term is a Christian convention. What is at issue is whether Jews such as Josephus would have known of its significance and would have gone out of their way to say that Jesus was not the Messiah.

NOGO writes: Unless you are saying that Josephus did not see the link between "Christos" and "anointed one". If you believe that Josephus was smart enough to see that link then Josephus knew that the Gentile world was calling Jesus the anointed one. For him to just go along with this and not refute it is very unlikely.

Josephus was smart. He knew that he didn't have to waste time proving to his Roman patrons that a Galilean hillbilly was not the chosen one of G-d.

NOGO writes: You have a way with words, Peter.

Shucks, ya reckon?

NOGO writes: Let's take an example. The Jehovah's witnesses consider Russell as God's eight(?) messenger. An accademic may say, while speaking of this sect, "Russell called God's messenger" BUT a Baptist fundamentalist preacher would puke while saying such a statement. He would probably say something like "Russell whom the JW erroneously call God's messenger" and would probably add more. Now multiply the title by 10 in importance and you see how Josephus would react to such a claim.

Where is the evidence that Christianity was a live option in the world of Josephus? Josephus is at a safe emotional distance from Christianity, and in this way Josephus is closer to the academic than to the Baptist fundamentalist preacher. I mean, Christianity was ridiculous and insignificant.

NOGO writes:

am not suggesting that Josephus should have used just "Jesus" without qualifying the name. I would have expected that Josephus acknowledge the "Chirstos" convention but qualify it. Something like this.

Jesus, the one Christians believe to be the "Christos", the chosen one of God.

This is worse, if only for the reason that the modifier 'the chosen one of God' is ambiguous and could be thought to point back to Jesus, which would be a grievous error. The only substantial difference here is that the people who call Jesus 'christos' are identified - they are called Christians. I do not demand that Josephus be so patronizing.

NOGO writes: Followed, perhaps, by reasons for Jewish rejection of this "Christos".

What is evident need not be proven. It would be obvious to Josephus and his audience that Jesus was not the chosen one of God.

best,
Peter Kirby

Radcliffe Emerson

I'll have to get the names. I know one is a Methodist seminary, because I know a former Methodist minister who graduated from it. I'll get the name from him.

Peter Kirby

Pilate probably did not speak Greek.

Says who?

best,
Peter Kirby

FunkyRes

Any seminary that teaches intentional deceipt is (in my opinion) not worthy of being a seminary, and if they teach deceipt, can you trust anything they teach as true- including that it is all myth?

NOGO

There is your trouble. You equate 'called christos' to 'alleged to be christos'.

This is what I said a few posts back

Now you are saying that these two things are the same. "alleged to be" and "called" are definitely not the same. "Alleged to be" is what I would have expected Josephus to write.

NOGO

Does the US ambassador to Japan speak Japanese?
He may but it is not usually the case.

Usually people like Pilate are upper class people quite close the establishment. These people are usually highly nationalists and a safe bet for the emperor.

While many cultured people in Rome spoke Greek, Pilate was basically a soldier and so it is reasonable to believe that he did not speak Greek.

I did say "probably" and I maintain that.

Why do you think that he did?

NOGO

Please explain to me how one does "not really follow the convention" but "only acknowledges its existence".

Radcliffe Emerson

The Earlham School of Religion and the Illinois Wesleyan University are a couple of them.

FunkyRes

Pilot may have spoken greek, but it is doubtful that what he is recorded as saying in the Bible was spoken in Greek.

I don't think Rome used greek for that kind of stuff, and the region was largely aramaic speaking if I remember correctly (I know they were a hundred years earlier)

Peter Kirby

I wrote: 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.

NOGO writes: There is your trouble. You equate 'called christos' to 'alleged to be christos'.


My quote was cut off. That's ok. I indicated that these can both be represented with the same Greek words (specifically, Iesou tou legomenou Christou). I agree that there are nuances between the English 'called christos' and the English 'alleged to be christos'. But 'alleged' is not mutually exclusive of 'called', and both English phrases can be represented with the same Greek phrase.

NOGO writes: Now you are saying that these two things are the same.

Not quite; I said that they are similar and that they can be represented with the same Greek words.

NOGO writes: "alleged to be" and "called" are definitely not the same. "Alleged to be" is what I would have expected Josephus to write.

But Josephus did not write in English. Josephus wrote in Greek.
NOGO writes: Does the US ambassador to Japan speak Japanese?

I dunno. Maybe he should.

My question was, "Says who?" I thought maybe you had read this somewhere. It's ok if you forgot the source; it happens to me sometimes too.

NOGO writes: While many cultured people in Rome spoke Greek, Pilate was basically a soldier and so it is reasonable to believe that he did not speak Greek.

Why is that reasonable? Greek was not just the language of cultured people. It was the 'universal' language inherited from the Hellenistic age, especially in the Roman East. It was used in trade, and even some official documents were translated into Greek. Inscriptions and epitaphs have been found in Greek. While Latin would be a Roman's first tongue, learning Greek would as natural as a person in Canada learning English. Now, all this does not prove that Pilate knew Greek. I am not the one making a claim like "Pilate was basically a soldier and so it is reasonable to believe that he did not speak Greek."

NOGO writes: Why do you think that he did?

I questioned you about your statement. It is not on me to produce proof of the contrary.

NOGO writes: Please explain to me how one does "not really follow the convention" but "only acknowledges its existence".

Josephus would have followed the convention if he wrote 'Jesus Christ'. Josephus only acknowledges its existence if he wrote 'Iesou tou legomenou Christou'.

best,
Peter Kirby