Peter Kirby

NOGO writes:

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.

I guess my point is that the use of the term 'christos' is a Christian convention. There is no record of it as a Jewish convention. Moreover, Josephus does not really follow the convention; he only acknowledges its existence with the phrase 'called' or 'so called'. It is quite possible that no reader in the Greco-Roman world would have known who Josephus meant unless the term 'christos' was mentioned.

NOGO writes: Upon what evidence is this estimate based?

This is one of the interesting tidbits that you read and then forget the source. If anything turns up in my reading, I will post it here.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

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

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.
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.

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.
Whether or not they have been blown out of proportion is a moot point. What is unanimous however is that Christians, as opposed to Judaists, regard Jesus as the messiah.

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.
The question of representing Jesus as the messiah was a secondary concern to the interpolators. Their primary concern was to establish a historical Jesus. This refutes the idea that a xstian interpolator could NOT have been content with so non-commital a phrase. Josephus was their best shot at "history" because he was writing as a historian.

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..."

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
Tacitus shows there was someone called Christus. However, his anachronistic use of the word "procurator" has made his passage questionable.
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): "
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.

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.

Tercel
This statement is false because Origen twice quotes from the Ant 20 passage, as I demonstrated.
No you have not. He doesn't quote from it. He talks about Josephus writings. And there is clear evidence of interpolation. I provided Robert Eislers quote. You did not respond to that. My argument therefore stands unrefuted.
You also avoided this:

If you have Origens text, could you please post us what he says in - Matthew X, XVII please
Its a request.

Lack of comprehension is not an argument.

It says that Jesus got called Christ, not that he was the Christ
calling someone the christ is tantamount to regarding him and making him the christ. Whether or not he was actually the christ is a question that only God can know.

Peter Kirby
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.
This is argument from ignorance. 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.

Tercel

He talks about Josephus' writings and while doing so uses exactly the same phrase as Josephus uses, that's generally known as quoting.

All you have given is a quote from Eisler which doesn't say what you seem to think it does, plus a paragraph of reasons which I found pretty incomprehensible and wish you would explain more clearly.

I did respond to that.
I think you're taking Eisler's quote to mean that Origen says Josephus doesn't refer to Jesus. What Eisler means is that Origen tells us that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ, ie Josephus wasn't a Christian.

Huh? My original post had both the passages Eisler is referring to in it.
Oh well, here it is again with the relevant part in bold:

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though <strong>he did not accept Jesus as Christ</strong>, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.
Origen - Matthew X, XVII

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, <strong>although not believing in Jesus as the Christ</strong>, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth - that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ) - the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.
Origen, - Against Celsus I, XLVII

Josephus is not calling Jesus "Christ" in Ant 20, only saying that some other people were calling him Christ.

Ted Hoffman

Tercel
He talks about Josephus' writings and while doing so uses exactly the same phrase as Josephus uses, that's generally known as quoting.
Oh, I love it when I squeeze someone through the door of reason.
He did not even paraphrase. That he used "exactly the same phrase" is purely coincidental.

All you have given is a quote from Eisler which doesn't say what you seem to think it does
You did not say that it doesn't say what I said it does. For the record <a href="http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/eisler.htm" target="_blank">Eislers page</a> says: "
Origen (died c. 254), 'the greatest and most conscientious scholar of the ancient Church,; makes it quite clear, in two different passages [5], that in his text of the Antiquities Josephus did not represent Jesus as the Christ. "
This makes it clear that Origen said that Josephus did NOT represent Jesus as the christ. Therefore the part that has "the christ" is an interpolation.


...plus a paragraph of reasons which I found pretty incomprehensible and wish you would explain more clearly.
Ok, I will play along. Let me break it down:

The words ...the brother of Jesus who is called Christ are clearly an interpolation.
Because It has been demonstrated (by Earl Doherty) that:
(1)Josephus did not know much about James
(2) That as (a) A jew and as (b) a Jew writing for a Roman audience, it would have been foolhardy and polemical for him(Josephus) to include the words "the christ" in the passage.
(3) If Josephus did not include the words "the christ", Origen could not have included them either. because Origen was quoting from Josephus, We also know that Origen knew and said that Josephus DID NOT represent Jesus as the Christ. Therefore
(4) its clear that they too, are an interpolation.

Now which part sounds like swahili?

I think you're taking Eisler's quote to mean that Origen says Josephus doesn't refer to Jesus. What Eisler means is that Origen tells us that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ, ie Josephus wasn't a Christian
You are clearly wrong. You would however do well to provide which quote (Eisler's) that you interpreted to mean that.

Huh? My original post had both the passages Eisler is referring to in it.
Oh well, here it is again with the relevant part in bold:
Sorry, I missed the part that mentioned the section.
Ok I Have read your quotations and clearly (if they are authentic quotations), Origen referred to Jesus as the christ. Isn't it still possible that Origen however said that Josephus did NOT represent Jesus as the christ? Is Robert Eisler lying or misrepresenting what Origen said?

Anyway, Orogen was a christian and I believe his testimony fails the bias test for that (religious axe to grind).

Josephus is not calling Jesus "Christ" in Ant 20, only saying that some other people were calling him Christ.
You are right. But the only problem is that phrase "called christ" is in the NT and the apologists are not just referring to what other people called Jesus are they?

NOGO

1. "Christos" is Christian convention?
No it isn't. 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.

2. Josephus does not really follow the convention; he only acknowledges its existence.
You have a way with words, Peter.
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.

3. Which Jesus?
I 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.

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

I have seen this before as well without any evidence provided. It is amazing how things like this get around.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Bede

c. 5 million Jews out of 50 million in the Roman Empire - p243 Keith Hopkins "A World Full of Gods" Phoenix, 2000. Incidently 100AD - 10,000 Christians, 200AD - 200,000 of them, 300AD 5-6 million (p84, op cit). Hopkins wrote a journal article on this very question cited in the book. Also he is a hard core ultra sceptical atheist (as that seems to matter around here).

Yours

Bede

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

NOGO

Thanks for the reference.

Yes it does. Let me guess, when someone makes unproven claims you have no interest in what affiliations, beliefs etc that person may have.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Also he is a hard core ultra sceptical atheist (as that seems to matter around here).

Thanks for the confirmation, Bede. Ellegaard cited unnamed scholars in giving a figure of 5% in his book.

Vorkosigan

Tercel

Intensity,
I think we need to get Eisler's position sorted.
The following is quote of the relevant statements by Eisler from the site you mentioned. (Note that it includes the passage you have previously quoted from Eisler.
So what is Eisler saying here? In bullet form, Eisler's argument runs:[*]Origen says in two different passages that Josephus did not "represent" Jesus as the Christ.[*]Eduard Norden has inferred from this that Origen's copy of Josephus did not mention Jesus at all.[*]Norden's suggestion is unsound and "quite impossible" because Origen states flat out that Josephus rejected Jesus as the Christ, which Origen would not do if Josephus did not mention Jesus.[*]Hence Origen's copy must have contained a reference by Josephus to Jesus which made it clear Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ.[*]The Ant 20 reference of "called the Christ" is not strong enough to be this statement.[*]Eisler's Conclusion: Origen's copy of Josephus contained a TF that was clearly written by a non-Christian.


I think you are getting confused by Eisler's use of the word "represent":
"[Origen] makes it quite clear, in two different passages, that in his text of the Antiquities Josephus did not represent Jesus as the Christ."

It may help to note that these quotes of Eisler are coming from a translation of Eisler's work, not the original language.
You seem to have taken it to mean that Eisler is saying "Origen says Josphus doesn't mention Jesus". If you look at the rest of the above quote from Eisler, you will see that such an interpretation runs contrary to the rest of his argument.
Unfortunately, in the site you referred to on Eisler, he does not state which "two different passage" in the works of Origen he is referring to.

As I stated in my previous post, I believe he is referring to:
"...Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books... said, that these things happened to them [the people] in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.... though he did not accept Jesus as Christ..." Origen - Matthew 10:17

"...in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus... although not believing in Jesus as the Christ... [says] that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)..." Origen - Against Celsus 1:47

In both these passages Origen tells us that Josphus did not accept Jesus as the Christ (ie Josephus wasn't a Christian). I think this is what Eisler is referring to in his statement that Origen twice says Josephus did not "represent" Jesus as the Christ. This is also consistent with the argument Eisler continues to make.
I would suggest Eisler has probably been ambiguously translated here.

Hopefully that's clear, so continuing:
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.
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. Fine whatever, I'm not interested in arguing that.

What I am intereted in arguing is the Ant 20 reference to "Jesus who was called Christ".

At which point you've already lost me. How do we know what Josephus did and didn't know about James???
How on earth does Doherty demonstrate this??


But he doesn't use the words "the Christ".
The passage says:
"the brother of Jesus, (called / who is called / the so-called / the alleged) Christ"
(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?

If I understand correctly Doherty is now arguing that the words "Christ" in Origen's works where Origen quotes Josephus are also interpolations because the Ant 20 passage is an interpolation.
This does not constitute evidence that the Ant 20 passage is an interpolation, and hence is irrelevant for our purposes.

So Doherty really gives two reasons why Ant 20 has been interpolated.
1. The omniscient Doherty knows what Josephus did and didn't know about James and hence can say that Doherty didn't know enough about James to write Ant 20.
2. A mere reference reference to Christ is apparently "foolhardy and polemical" and thus Josephus wouldn't have done it. (!?! Isn't Doherty shooting himself in the foot here? If we know it would have been bad for Josephus to mention Christ to the extent that we can declare with certainty in the face of the textual evidence that Josephus in fact did not mention Christ for this reason, then how the hell can Doherty argue that there are less non-Christian mentions of Jesus than we would expect? (And hence that Jesus didn't exist) There are clearly more references than Doherty expects since Doherty expects zero from Josephus Peter, can you explain this to me?)

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?

I understand it now. Before I'd thought it was so crap that I'd given you the benifit of the doubt that I'd misunderstood Doherty's arguments. Now that you've explained them, I see I didn't.

If they are authentic quotations eh? Am I being accused of lying here?
CCEL have Contra Celsum online and you can find 1:47 here:
<a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-55.htm#P7854_1878740" target="_blank">http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-55.htm#P7854_1878740</a>
And you can check out my quote of Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10:17 at Peter Kirby's site here:
<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-matthew.html" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-matthew.html</a>

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Toto

Why not read what Doherty says instead of misrepresenting him?

<a href="http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm" target="_blank">Chapter 10 of the Jesus Puzzle online</a>

I am unable to recognize the second point in Doherty's writing. Dohery lists 12 points (not 2) and summarizes them at the end of Chapter 10. He bases his ideas on what Josephus' motives were, what the Christian motives were, the implications of the idea the the death of James was the cause of the fall of Jerusalem, as well as the language.

His strongest argument centers around the lost passage referred to by Origin and Eusebius which attributes the fall of Jerusalem to the execution of James. Doherty argues that if Josephus actually believed this, he would have given more details to James. But it is unlikely that he did, since it was only one faction that had James killed, while the moderates then had Ananus removed. Instead, he states that this lost passage must have been a Christian interpolation from a time when Jesus was still regarded as a spiritual being, and the mythology of a Jesus who was crucified by Pilate had not yet been turned into history.

Why don't you go read his argument at the link above? It makes sense as a way of explaining the evidence, although it certainly is not a proof. On the other hand, given the admitted forgeries in Josephus, I think that anyone claiming that a passage is genuine should bear the burden of proof.