Skeptical

Thanks for that info Peter, I was not aware of this information regarding Tacitus' quote (I missed Richards review), and I do think its important, even though I have never really thought the Jesus myth theory was correct.

To intensity:
My problem with the idea that Jesus was completely mythical is that we must assume that Paul is completely making things up when he says he visited the disciples within a few years after his conversion. I don't think one can make an argument that within about 20 years of the supposed death of Jesus disciples appeared out of nowhere with not even a real person to serve as a grounding point.

What Paul's particular conception of Jesus was is, of course, a completely different question.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

NOGO

I am curious can you give me the reference.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptical:
[QB]My problem with the idea that Jesus was completely mythical is that we must assume that Paul is completely making things up when he says he visited the disciples within a few years after his conversion. I don't think one can make an argument that within about 20 years of the supposed death of Jesus disciples appeared out of nowhere with not even a real person to serve as a grounding point.[/b]

Why not? the mythical case is more complex than this. First, in Doherty's and Ellegaard's view, Paul is working with already established communities around the Med Basin. "Christianity" is a late name for a group that called itself in its early incarnation, the Church of God. This group had a belief in a savior figure who had died at some unspecified past time. It was messianic, it was evangelistic. Of course such a group would have apostles. It's important to note that on this view Jesus was not executed under Pilate; this is later legendary accretion. Look at Paul -- is he aware of the death of Jesus under Pilate, or even that his death is recent?

My understanding is this:
Where Ellegaard and Doherty differ is that in Ellegaard's view, Jesus is an outgrowth of the Teacher of Righteousness. Paul and the other Christian missionaries, but especially Paul, developed and promulgated the idea that the ToR really was the messianic savior of Judiasm. They developed these ideas through allegorical readings of scripture that were common in the different religious communities of the time, each with its own version of the texts, holding different texts sacred, and with different interpretations. Paul "discovered" this by reading the 'scripture,' as he says repeatedly in his letters. Paul then forces this messianic view onto a pre-existing set of communities, the Church of God, whom Ellegaard identifies with the Essenes, or a related group, the Theraputae, whom Philo says were widespread in the Diaspora, who already revered the ToR as the FOunder Figure of their religion. In both Doherty's and Ellegaard's view, the gospels are later pro-Roman fictions.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

NOGO writes: I am curious can you give me the reference.

Sure, one reference has already been mentioned in this thread. This is what R. T. France says in his book:

"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)'."

There you go!

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

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

You mean hapax legomena? That sounds valid. Why not quote your sources or provide some links?

However, it's not necessary. I don't think saying 'called' implies assent. That is silly
Silly? So its not probable that some Jews could have interpreted the phrase to imply Josephus regarded Jesus as the messiah?
Okay.
And perhaps something that a Christian copyist would have naturally included if this were an interpolation of some kind?
No way! A christian interpolator would not include "the Just" when referring to James. Because (1)christians would want Jews to appear to suffer for killing Jesus, NOT for killing James (the passage in question was saying that Jews suffered(were punished by God) for killing James).(2) "All Glory to Jesus" concept would be undermined to represent James as the Just.

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.
Not true. One can link James to christianity (the noisy and unruly nature of the early christians) without mentioning Jesus. Or mention Jesus without mentioning "the christ". Earl Doherty has explained this and even provided a more sensible and somprehensible variation of the phrase. As I have explained earlier, the insertion of "Jesus so called christ" at the beginning of the clause makes the meaning of the sentense unclear (a clear sign of tampering).

The phrase absolutely does not imply assent.
How about "Jesus of Nazareth" instead of Jesus "called the christ"?

How do you know why James was killed?

There was Hegesippus, a second century Christian who lived in the Roman city Aelia Capitolina who related the story that:
James was known as the "Just" by the people, and frequently worshiped in the Temple.
Jewish authorities wanted James to calm down people who were excited that Jesus will return soon.
james instead told the people that Jesus will return soon.
The Jewish leaders, in their anger, had him killed.

I am sure you can get the link somewhere.

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.
I am not accusing Origen of interpolating or of being a "shoddy" scholar.
Its a fact that he was a christian.
Only that, as a christian, a historical quotation that had people referring to Jesus as the christ would have served his faith better therefore he quoted from Josephus.

My point stands that christos had become a nickname for Jesus
Change of subject noted and on whether Jesus had been nicknamed christos, well, that depends on what you understand by the name/title christos.

Nope, it's relevant
Moot does NOT mean irrelevant: it means "debatable" or "arguable" ie NOT an established fact therefore not really valuable for argumentation.

And I will go out on a limb and say there is no evidence that christos is a theological affirmation in Pliny the Younger!
Huh huh, I don't believe that will be necessary. On looking back at Josephus and Jesus, Josephus saying Jesus was "so-called" christ would be like an American writer living in Afhganistan (post sept 11) and referring to Osama as "so-called terrorist".

Assuming that there were interpolators here and that we can read their minds, of course.
Oh come on Peter, are you arguing that Josephus' passage was NOT interpolated?
This is something that has been dealt with at various levels. The TF is one huge footprint the interpolators left.

This is totally anachronistic. Neither the phrase nor the concept of "historical Jesus" existed in antiquity.
I am talking about Eusebius. Still anachronistic?

we have absolutely no evidence that the mere existence of Jesus was in dispute in antiquity
Not among the masses(christians) perharps.

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?
Funny question. Please tell me what you mean by antiquity - 1st Century, 2nd 5th? Specify then sit back.

Origen does not quote a TF. So, it is not accurate to speak of Origen's version of the TF.
No, he doesnt quote it like we do today, but he talks about it and even mentions some exact words in it, doesn't he?

Also, note that Jerome was writing in Latin. There are a number of possibilities here.
The possibilities are endless and "possibilities" really arent useful. Probabilities are, unless speculation is your cup of chocolate.
Anyway, which TF are you most comfortable with -Jeromes?

Richard Carrier's review of Doherty has been well-received even if it has not been well-read. Carrier writes:
I read Carriers argument. He says his work is unpublished and provides no support for the claims he makes so I do NOT find it compelling or reliable. Besides, he doesnt refure Doherty's idea: he just introduces another possibility.

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?
Yes that is what I 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.
This is what I meant. Chrestus sounds like a name, NOT a title.

We are dealing with probabilities, not possibilities. Lots of things are possible. Not everything is probable.
Okay, replace possible with 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.
Are you agreeing with me that there is no evidence that Jesus was the only one known as the messiah?

This is not logical. Do you contend that the Christ worshipped by these Christians was not known as Jesus?
I do.

If not, and I hope not, then who is the other person who is known as the Christ?
The Christ that was the Logos you are aware of the Logos aren't you? Christ did not have to be physical (ie flesh and blood Jesus in order to die and resurrect) Doherty has argued this in his book, but we can go over it.

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.
The theological sense is the only sense as regards the messiah. We are discussing religion - you want to bring in history?

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.
Huh, huh.

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.
I am sorry that you have doubts.

Ted Hoffman

Skeptical
To intensity:
My problem with the idea that Jesus was completely mythical is that we must assume that Paul is completely making things up when he says he visited the disciples within a few years after his conversion.
I would really appreciate it if you quoted exactly which verse you are referring to are you talking about Apollos, Epheus, Luke, Peter?

Pauls conception of "apostleship" did NOT entail being a physical company of Jesus. He considered himself an apostle.
As Earl Doherty says "In 1 Corinthians 9:1 Paul asks plaintively: “Am I not an apostle? Did I not see Jesus our Lord?” It would seem that for Paul the mark of the true apostle is the reception of the proper visionary revelation and authority from God. In 2 Corinthians 10 to 12, Paul defends his apostleship and compares himself to unnamed rivals (they are not from the Jerusalem group) who are competing for the Corinthians’ allegiance: “Someone is convinced, is he, that he belongs to Christ? Let him think again, and reflect that we belong to Christ as much as he does” (10:7). And he goes on in 11:4 to reveal the source of all these competing messages and claims to legitimacy:

For if someone comes who proclaims another Jesus . . . if you receive a spirit different from the spirit already given to you, or a gospel different from the gospel you have already accepted . . .
Paul operates in a world of perceived revelation from God, populated by self-appointed apostles who learn about the Christ, and formulate their own interpretations of him, through the Spirit. "


Paul expounded a wider meaning of the word "apostle," in Paul's letters. It includes those who have seen the risen Christ, and were commissioned by Him to establish churches (1 Cor. 15:10) and appoint others as apostles like James, who was not of the original twelve (Gal. 1:19). As pioneers, apostles engaged in the work of preaching the Gospel to the lost as they travelled and planted churches; thus, exposed to extraordinary dangers and extreme suffering. Because of extreme persecution, they are primary targets for attack (1 Cor. 4:9-13; 2 Cor. 1:5-7; Rom. 8:17). "

I would like to tackle Pauls visiting of the disciples when you provide the exact verse(s) you are referring to.

I don't think one can make an argument that within about 20 years of the supposed death of Jesus disciples appeared out of nowhere with not even a real person to serve as a grounding point.
The Sumerians believed Innana came down to earth, died, went to hell and after three days and three nights, she was resurrected. She did not have to be "flesh and blood" in order for her resurrection to be meaningful. This can be used as "proof of concept" when providing similar analogies for examining christs death and resurrection. The same concept applied in Christianity. Christ died beyond the realms of the earth. Of course this is Christ Logos. "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God" John 1?

Which books did Jesus' disciples write? Why did they take so long after Christs death before "coming out"?

In any case, Thomas doubted him, Judas betrayed him, Peter denied him three times and the rest scattered during the time of reckoning. Christ had to carry his cross alone, he had to suffer the insult and humiliation alone. It seems their faith in Jesus wasnt that strong after all. And then 20 years later they surface? Oh please. Do you know how long 20 years is in the memory of a comminity?

They deserted him so much that a fictitious character in the name of Joseph of Arimathea had to bury their Lord (a man who was not even a disciple!). If they were his disciples, how come they never bothered to visit Christs tomb? Did they not know their Lord was buried in a Tomb? Wasn't the empty tomb useful as evidence of Christs bodily resurrection?

Peter Kirby

IntenSity writes: You mean hapax legomena?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines hapax legomena as "A word or form that occurs only once in the recorded corpus of a given language." I am not sure of the relevance in this context.

IntenSity writes: That sounds valid. Why not quote your sources or provide some links?

I think that NOGO asked the same question. I point to this quote from R. T. France:

"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)'."
IntenSity writes: Silly? So its not probable that some Jews could have interpreted the phrase to imply Josephus regarded Jesus as the messiah?
Okay.

Excellent, we are on the same wavelength here.

IntenSity writes: No way! A christian interpolator would not include "the Just" when referring to James. Because (1)christians would want Jews to appear to suffer for killing Jesus, NOT for killing James (the passage in question was saying that Jews suffered(were punished by God) for killing James).(2) "All Glory to Jesus" concept would be undermined to represent James as the Just.

But Christians such as Eusebius were happy enough to identify James as 'the Just'. So I don't believe that these would be serious problems.

I wrote: 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: Not true.

So, is it your opinion that Josephus would not know that James was the brother of Jesus called Chirst? That was the issue touched upon above.

IntenSity writes: One can link James to christianity (the noisy and unruly nature of the early christians) without mentioning Jesus. Or mention Jesus without mentioning "the christ".

I acknowledge that Josephus could have chosen more than one way to identify Jesus. This does not imply that Josephus did not identify Jesus in the way that Josephus did.

IntenSity writes: Earl Doherty has explained this and even provided a more sensible and somprehensible variation of the phrase. As I have explained earlier, the insertion of "Jesus so called christ" at the beginning of the clause makes the meaning of the sentense unclear (a clear sign of tampering).

Not true at all. The phrase adds identifying information and in this way makes the sentence more clear.

IntenSity writes: How about "Jesus of Nazareth" instead of Jesus "called the christ"?
Neither phrase implies assent. But the most-well known way to identify Jesus would have been through the 'Christ' thingy.

IntenSity writes: There was Hegesippus, a second century Christian who lived in the Roman city Aelia Capitolina who related the story that:
James was known as the "Just" by the people, and frequently worshiped in the Temple.
Jewish authorities wanted James to calm down people who were excited that Jesus will return soon.
james instead told the people that Jesus will return soon.
The Jewish leaders, in their anger, had him killed.

I am sure you can get the link somewhere.

Dude, these are second century xian legends!

IntenSity writes: I am not accusing Origen of interpolating or of being a "shoddy" scholar.
Its a fact that he was a christian.
Only that, as a christian, a historical quotation that had people referring to Jesus as the christ would have served his faith better therefore he quoted from Josephus.
As I said, Origen didn't like what he read in Josephus very much. That is why Origen states that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ." And the point remains that a quote from Origen is textual support of the highest order that ought to be accepted unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.

IntenSity had written: 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.
I replied: 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: Change of subject noted

I did not change the subject. I noted that Jews did not associate their hopes with the Greek word Christos. This is pertinent to the idea that Jews expected the Christos. Also, I noted that Josephus did not regard Jesus as the Messiah but rather as one called Christos.
IntenSity writes: and on whether Jesus had been nicknamed christos, well, that depends on what you understand by the name/title christos.
I mean the Greek appelation for Jesus that means literally 'wetted one'. What else could I understand by christos?
IntenSity writes: Moot does NOT mean irrelevant: it means "debatable" or "arguable" ie NOT an established fact therefore not really valuable for argumentation.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines 'moot' as having at least two senses:

So, an interpretation of 'moot' as 'irrelevant' is not out of line. But, I still state that the idea that iesou tou legomenou christou is Christian phraseology has been blown out of proportion. It does not occur in the second century, which is the time in which the interpolation would have been made. Van Voorst was quoted on why the references in the New Testament do not have the significance with which they are sometimes attributed.
IntenSity writes: On looking back at Josephus and Jesus, Josephus saying Jesus was "so-called" christ would be like an American writer living in Afhganistan (post sept 11) and referring to Osama as "so-called terrorist".
Please explain this example. Surely, an American writer would have believed Osama to be an actual terrorist. However, surely you would argue that Josephus would believe Jesus not to be an actual Christ. So, aren't these opposing examples: one in which the person actually believes the title applies (the American thinks Osama a terrorist), and one in which the person actually believes that the title does not apply (Josephus who thinks Jesus not to be the Christ)?
IntenSity had written: The question of representing Jesus as the messiah was a secondary concern to the interpolators.

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

IntenSity writes: Oh come on Peter, are you arguing that Josephus' passage was NOT interpolated?
This is something that has been dealt with at various levels. The TF is one huge footprint the interpolators left.
This whole time we have been talking about the passage in Antiquities 20.200. I said interpolators here under the presumption that you were thinking of interpolators in the twentieth book. Even if the reference to Jesus in Antiquities was inserted by interpolators, these interpolators were not the same people as those who interpolated the Testimonium Flavianum, if Origen's silence on the TF can be taken as evidence. But, in any case, I do not take it as demonstrated that the twentieth chapter of Antiquities has been interpolated. I certainly do not believe that we can read the minds of these imagined interpolators.
IntenSity: I am talking about Eusebius. Still anachronistic?

Eusebius does not use the phrase or concept of "historical Jesus." The concept is one that is played off against the Christ of faith and says that one has to peel back the layers and peer back into the past to get a glimpse of the man who started it all. Not at all a natural way of thinking to an orthodox believer but rather to an Enlightenment-era thinker.

IntenSity writes: Not among the masses(christians) perharps.
The masses at the time of Origen were still pagan, and under Eusebius there were still very large numbers of pagans. But we have absolutely no evidence that the mere existence of Jesus was disputed by intelligentsia or critics. If you dispute this, you may produce a quote in which an ancient writer expresses doubt about the existence of Jesus, or in which a Christian apologist refutes the accusation that Jesus did not exist.
I wrote: 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: Funny question. Please tell me what you mean by antiquity - 1st Century, 2nd 5th? Specify then sit back.

I'm not joking. Anything earlier than the 9th century will do. Just be sure to check that the phrase was quoted to show the existence of Jesus.
IntenSity writes: No, he doesnt quote it like we do today, but he talks about it and even mentions some exact words in it, doesn't he?
No.

IntenSity writes: The possibilities are endless and "possibilities" really arent useful. Probabilities are, unless speculation is your cup of chocolate.
Anyway, which TF are you most comfortable with -Jeromes?

I do not believe that any TF is authentic to Josephus. I do not know whether Jerome's Credabatur esse Christus is older than the rendition of Eusebius. However, I do not believe that the possibilities are endless. If they are, you should have no difficulty pointing out a couple other possibilities. I think that they are useful in this case in showing how it could have come to be that Jerome rendered the TF in the way that he did.

IntenSity writes: I read Carriers argument. He says his work is unpublished and provides no support for the claims he makes so I do NOT find it compelling or reliable. Besides, he doesnt refure Doherty's idea: he just introduces another possibility.
The idea is not original to Doherty; it is at least as old as Wells. Carrier's claim that Tacitus employed variatio is correct. Carrier claims to have thoroughly investigated the matter, but that is not enough to convince you or me. I do not know whether the office was both a prefecture and a procuratorship. However, I do know that you, Doherty, and Wells have claimed that the word choice of Tacitus is anachronistic. Thus, I think it is up to the claimaints to demonstrate their claims.

I wrote: 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?

IntenSity writes: Yes that is what I mean.

As I asked, what's the logic in that?

Christus translates to Christos because Christus is the Latin form of the Greek Christos and because there is no other Greek word with which to render Christus. The opinions of the Catholic Encyclopedia on the meaning of Chrestus, with which I do not agree, have no relevance.

IntenSity writes: This is what I meant. Chrestus sounds like a name, NOT a title.

And what does this have to do with the meaning of Christus? And what does any of this have to do with the authenticity of the reference to Iesou tou legomenou christou in Ant. 20.200?
I wrote: 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 writes: Are you agreeing with me that there is no evidence that Jesus was the only one known as the messiah?

No. I have no idea how you got that impression. I said that there is no evidence that anyone other than Jesus was identified as christos in antiquity. Which is, by my way of thinking, rather the opposite thing as saying that other people were identified as christos in antiquity.

IntenSity writes: The Christ that was the Logos you are aware of the Logos aren't you? Christ did not have to be physical (ie flesh and blood Jesus in order to die and resurrect) Doherty has argued this in his book, but we can go over it.
You had written: "So your argument that Jesus was the only person known as the Christ is contestable and is not a fact." But the Logos is not a person or alleged person in the same physical sense as the alleged Jesus. In any text in which both the Logos and Jesus are named, they are identified.

I am trying to understand the context of this sub-argument. I had stated that Jesus would have been the only person known to Josephus as having been called christos. I think that this point stands. I don't think that Josephus would have understood the Logos concept, if he even knew of such, as another person known as christos.
But, in any case, I do not buy into your assumptions. I am not aware of any instance of an ancient Jew understanding resurrection in a non-physical sense. If you could produce an example of such, I would be fascinated.

I wrote: 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.

IntenSity writes: The theological sense is the only sense as regards the messiah. We are discussing religion - you want to bring in history?
I expanded on my statement by writing, "Tacitus calls Jesus 'Christus' without hesitation but would be loathe to equate this usage with acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah." I mean simply that Christ can be used like Buddha, as a referent that has a theological etymology but which can be used without metaphysical baggage.

I went on to write: 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.
I wrote: 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.
IntenSity writes: I am sorry that you have doubts.
At least I won't go to hell for my doubts on this matter! It's doubting that has made me a doubter, naturally enough. But I really don't see the sense in claiming that heretical Christian documents say that someone other than Jesus was the Christ. As I said, you can make an argument for that if you want.
best,
Peter Kirby

Skeptical

I agree that Paul is very vague on any details of Jesus's life and does not "ground" him in a particular place and time. I also think that a lot of things in Paul's letters smacks of gnosticism and/or mystery religion ideaology. I also think that there is evidence that his view of the "resurrection" was not physical in the sense we normally think of. The way he doesn't differentiate between his "appearance" and that of the other apostles in I Cort. 15:5-8 for example. It also seems clear that Paul did not believe a resurrected body was physical in the traditional sense as he portrays in I Cor. 15:35-44.

I also have to agree with Doherty that he seems disinterested in an earthly Jesus. However, Paul seems to be aware of certain broad ideas about the stories around the death of Jesus such as the cross, the 3 days in the grave and being "raised". Yes, I understand that Paul makes repeated references to "the scriptures" and says he received his creed "from no man", but I think Paul is a little contradictory in some of the things he says as well. I also have a hard time believing that he went to talk with the other apostles only to dictate a creed to them that he pretty much invented. It's possible, but it seems a little far fetched.

I have not read Ellegard, though I have read Doherty, so I can't really comment on Ellegards work. However, the general ideas seem to involve a lot of speculation. Doesn't mean they're not correct, only that the evidence we do have is pretty sparse. To this point in my studies of christian origins, I am coming to the conclusion that we will probably never know with any degree of certainty what really occured during the period from 30-100CE. There's just too much mythology to sort through. I think overall it's just simpler to assume there was a core figure named Jesus who probably said some things about the "kingdom of god" and performed healings and had a few followers. Beyond that I don't think there's much we can know that isn't speculative.

The only thing I think that is clear is that one of the primary reasons for the spread of the christian religion was its appeal to what was said to be a historical figure, somone the masses could identify concretely and emulate. When and how this belief arose is a matter of speculation, but I believe it was one of the key factors that served as a grounding rod for the christian movement in the first few centuries.

Ted Hoffman

Peter Kirby
Okay, not Hapax Legomena. I read your quote from R. T. France. Thanks. That cleared up a lot of questions.

Excellent, we are on the same wavelength here.
So just because I agree with you now, its not silly but excellent? I get your drift.

But Christians such as Eusebius were happy enough to identify James as 'the Just'.
Which Eusebian quotation are you referring to?
So I don't believe that these would be serious problems
I have explained why. You have cited Eusebius as an example without citing any sources, so much for explanatory power.

So, is it your opinion that Josephus would not know that James was the brother of Jesus called Chirst? That was the issue touched upon above.
Yes that is my opinion. My reason is, in the Ananas' incident by Hegesippus , James only came in because he was the one called to quiet the hysterical christians NOT because he was Jesus' brother. Even Josephus could mebtion him because he was "the Just". I would think he was first "James the Just", then "James brother of Jesus" later.
And to Josephus, I would expect him to identify Jesus as Jesus of Nazareth, NOT "Jesus called Christ".

I acknowledge that Josephus could have chosen more than one way to identify Jesus.
Excellent, we are on the same wavelength here.

This does not imply that Josephus did not identify Jesus in the way that Josephus did.
About probabilities, I believe citing Jesus' name without telling readers what other people called Jesus has more explanatory power, is less polemical (on hindsight) and parsimonious and even plausible compared to having "so-called" christ. Which could inflame the Jews (for its derogatory conotation) or rile the Romans for the underlying implication.
More importantly, almost all the authors who wrote about James identified him as "the Just". Josephus does not. Meaning he did not know James as much.
Besides, in the epistle of James, James does Not identify Jesus as his blood brother.

Not true at all. The phrase adds identifying information and in this way makes the sentence more clear.
so-called christ is unclear because it raises questions:
So-called by who?
Why did they call him Christ? Why did others not call him Christ?
It is irrelevant what Jesus was called by others.
But this is a moot point and I can see you have rejected the arguments concerning this.

But the most-well known way to identify Jesus would have been through the 'Christ' thingy.
As you have said "Surely, an American writer would have believed Osama to be an actual terrorist. ". That's the mirror turned to yourself. Think about it.

Dude, these are second century xian legends!
Huh, huh. Just like that? Anyway, what did you expect me to say? he was killed by Herod as narrated in Acts? How do YOU believe he died?

As I said, Origen didn't like what he read in Josephus very much.
Are you telling us that Josephus wrote that he DID not accept Jesus? And that that displeased Origen? Why would Origen be displeased? Didnt he know that by definition Judaism does NOT recognise Jesus as the messiah? Or were he and Josephus close friends?
Its like telling me I will not be happy if my christian friend believes that God exists.
Explain what could have made Origen unhappy.

And the point remains that a quote from Origen is textual support of the highest order that ought to be accepted unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.
Fallacy of missing arguments. Accepted as what? As proof that Josephus identified Jesus as "so called Christ"? as authentic? as proof that Josephus knew more about James than the allegation that he was the brother of Jesus?
Accepted as proof of existence of a historical Jesus?

I did not change the subject
You changed the subject because, you had provided the example of Buddha as an example of someone who founded and whose "status" was not disputed by extension you were arguing that only Jesus was recognised as the messiah(christ) without dispute. I refuted that idea and explained why Siddharta and Buddhism was a false analogy. Then you changed the subject to (1) christos being a nickname for Jesus (as opposed to theological status) and (2) introduced Vespasian (a red herring) into the discussion while the focus was on Josephus (thanks for the info on Vespasian though).

I mean the Greek appelation for Jesus that means literally 'wetted one'. What else could I understand by christos?
So now its "anointed one" - a position - NOT a nickname? (do you appreciate the difference in meaning between a nickname and a name for denoting status?) You gotta make up your mind Peter - a nickname or a status?

Oh by the way, Gordon Stein says ""Chrestus" means 'The Good" in Greek, while "Christus" means "The Messiah." "

So, an interpretation of 'moot' as 'irrelevant' is not out of line
Huh, huh, Okay.

But, I still state that the idea that iesou tou legomenou christou is Christian phraseology has been blown out of proportion.
This is where the "little pregnant" story comes in. Whats of importance is - whether or NOT its christisn phraseology. Whether or not it has been blown out of proportion is a matter of (personal) taste.
Oh, the "little pregnant" is a funny example I like citing: its the story of the girl who got pregnant, then when her outraged parents confronted her, she said she was just a little pregnant. So you are saying that its a minor issue blown out of proportion? I reiterate that proportion is a matter of taste.
Lets discuss facts, not personal tastes.

It does not occur in the second century, which is the time in which the interpolation would have been made.
Please provide your trenchant reason why interpolation could NOT have been done after the second century and name the texts you are referring to (the ones that could NOT be interpolated after 2nd Centuty).

Van Voorst was quoted on why the references in the New Testament do not have the significance with which they are sometimes attributed.
And you cannot remember his explanation?

IntenSity writes: On looking back at Josephus and Jesus, Josephus saying Jesus was "so-called" christ would be like an American writer living in Afhganistan (post sept 11) and referring to Osama as "so-called terrorist".
Peter: Please explain this example.
The American will end up inflaming Americans. patriotism, betrayal, collaborator etc.
He will also inflame the Arabs or some fundamentalist Muslims who might regard Osama as one fighting for a just cause by referring to Osama as a terrorist.
The Best thing for him to do would be to call Osama, Osama of Afghanistan(assuming there are many Osamas).
Josephus too would inflame fellow Jews (Christians) when he uses the derogatory term "so-called".
At the same time, he might inflame fellow Judaists, who might misread him to be referring to Jesus as Christ (I am sure the people then would not play semantic games like you and I have done here) and at the time, Christianity and Judaism were highly polarised. Putting the title Christ next to Jesus (with some useless words between them) would have incurred the wrath of the Judaism community.

Surely, an American writer would have believed Osama to be an actual terrorist.
In the same way, surely, Josephus, being a Judaism fellow, could not have put the title Christ next to Jesus.

However, surely you would argue that Josephus would believe Jesus not to be an actual Christ. So, aren't these opposing examples: one in which the person actually believes the title applies (the American thinks Osama a terrorist), and one in which the person actually believes that the title does not apply (Josephus who thinks Jesus not to be the Christ)?

The examples involve opposing sides. But they are very fitting and I believe I have made my point.
The whole idea is arguing what one would expect a riter to write considering current political or religious situations and which side we would expect him to belong to and how he would represent someone.

This whole time we have been talking about the passage in Antiquities 20.200. I said interpolators here under the presumption that you were thinking of interpolators in the twentieth book. Even if the reference to Jesus in Antiquities was inserted by interpolators, these interpolators were not the same people as those who interpolated the Testimonium Flavianum, if Origen's silence on the TF can be taken as evidence.
Origen referred to James as the brother of Jesus and he was talking about what Josephus wrote. That meant he was using interpolated work. He did not have to use the TF only.

But, in any case, I do not take it as demonstrated that the twentieth chapter of Antiquities has been interpolated. I certainly do not believe that we can read the minds of these imagined interpolators.
Textual redaction and study of historical texts does not require mind-reading. Its a matter of coming up with explanations. You dont have to read an interpolators mind in order to know some text was interpolated so thats a weak argument you have raised.

Eusebius does not use the phrase or concept of "historical Jesus." The concept is one that is played off against the Christ of faith and says that one has to peel back the layers and peer back into the past to get a glimpse of the man who started it all. Not at all a natural way of thinking to an orthodox believer but rather to an Enlightenment-era thinker.
That Eusebius doesnt use the phrase "historical Jesus" is obvious. And he does not need to. I know this is NOT about TF, but are you in agreement with me that the TF is an interpolation? To expect Eusebius to use the phrase "historical Jesus" is ridiculous;its like expecting someone planting a gun as evidence in someones apartment then expecting him to stick a label on the gun saying "this is the evidence".

But we have absolutely no evidence that the mere existence of Jesus was disputed by intelligentsia or critics. If you dispute this, you may produce a quote in which an ancient writer expresses doubt about the existence of Jesus, or in which a Christian apologist refutes the accusation that Jesus did not exist.
It seems true that his existence was NOT disputed in antiquity. What was disputed was whether his deeds were wizardry, spells, magic etc.

But the question remains, what purpose was the TF supposed to serve? The fact that the insertion is out of context makes one wonder why they inserted it there and why Josephus (a historian and Orthodox jew) if not historicity?

No.
Are you saying that Origen doesnt talk about Josephus.

I do not believe that any TF is authentic to Josephus. I do not know whether Jerome's Credabatur esse Christus is older than the rendition of Eusebius.
Are you vindicating Eusebius or are you saying that Jerome could have used a source "older" than Eusebius'?

The idea is not original to Doherty; it is at least as old as Wells. Carrier's claim that Tacitus employed variatio is correct. Carrier claims to have thoroughly investigated the matter, but that is not enough to convince you or me. I do not know whether the office was both a prefecture and a procuratorship. However, I do know that you, Doherty, and Wells have claimed that the word choice of Tacitus is anachronistic. Thus, I think it is up to the claimaints to demonstrate their claims.
For starters, I will quote from Paul Tobin: ", the title Tacitus gave to Pontius Pilate - procurator - is an anachronism. We know from an inscription discovered in Judea, a dedication of a building by Pilate to Tiberius, that his title was perfect not procurator. In fact, the title of Roman provincial governors was only changed to procurator from the time of Claudius in AD41. Pilate was governor of Judea from AD26 to 37; thus at no time during that tenure could he had held the title ascribed to him by Tacitus. At any rate the archives, as Tacitus himself said, were not available to private individuals , himself included. All the above considerations show that Tacitus was merely echoing popular opinion about Jesus and had no independent source of information. Thus, as a separate historical evidence for Jesus, the passage in the Annals has no value."

Gotta Go now. I will pick up from here

Skeptical

My apologies, I was referring to Gal. 1:15-24. Paul says after 3 years he went to Jeruselem to see Cephas and James "the lord's brother". I realize that it has been argued that "the lord's brother" may just be a spiritual designation and not a physical kinship, but as yet I am not convinced. The language seems to suggest a kinship though I am not conversant in Greek and I have not read the original and accept that I could be wrong on this. In any case, it seems clear that there was a movement in Jeruselem prior to Paul that he viewed as worthy of visiting.

I agree with your assessment of Paul's conception of apostleship, although I do think that it's compatible to think that Paul thought his own apostleship and that of those of his followers was equal to that of Cephas and James, although not the same as theirs. In other words, I think that Paul believed what was important was the spiritual aspect of "christ Jesus" and not whether or not one had actually known Jesus when he was alive. As far as I know, this view is compatible with Paul's letters.


Understood. My only contention would be that at some point fairly early in the Jesus movement, the belief that Jesus was a historical figure was prominent. Exactly when this occured, its origins and who propagated it are probably impossible to determine based on the current evidence we have, we just don't have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

AFAIK, the "original 12" didn't write anything. Probably because they were illiterate. If one accepts that Jesus existed, I think it's also likely that he thought the end of the world would occur within the generation of his followers, and they probably thought this as well. Perhaps these factors account for the time gap between the supposed death of Jesus and the believed date of the origin of the gospels.

I also think its likely that the original movement was pretty small and didn't really require written accounts. Only with the growth of the movement would these have been necessary as the movement gained more followers than the original apostles could effectively preach to personally.

I'm not sure I trust any particular portrayals of individuals and events in the gospels since so much of them are based on particular theological conceptions of whoever wrote them, although I don't doubt that some individuals would certainly have deserted the movement early on. I don't think 20 years is sufficient time for memories of someone to simply be created essentially from whole cloth, although I do think its enough time for considerable mythology to develop.

In general, I don't think we can trust that much of the stories in the gospels are accurate. I agree that the account of JofA was probably mythology, certainly the idea that he would go to Pilate and ask for the body seems ridiculous. My position is that the gospels are probably inaccurate on a lot of details, and the only thing that we can glean from them are general themes, and even those are arguable.

We also can't assume that they're a complete record of anything and it is impossible to fully divorce the mythological accretions and theological viewpoints of particular individuals to ever arrive at what is "real". Many speculations are interesting, but in the end they inevitably take us beyond what the evidence can support without a priori assumptions. As for the early apostles, I don't think the idea of some sort of resurrection was really in doubt among them and I don't think the idea would have been all that strange to the greeks or hellenized jews given the obvious parallels to many mystery religions. Given this, I don't think they would have had to argue for it.

How the early movement viewed this "resurrection" (physical or spiritual) and where/how the beliefs originated are, I think, unanswerable questions.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>