Vorkosigan

It matters because, unless there is a reference to resurrection, this is not an example of a spiritual resurrection propounded by Jews.

OK.

Also, it is not clear that the ancient concept of 'spirit' was the disembodied non-physical spook of Descartes. According to some, the ancients saw the 'spirit' as being made up of fine particles of matter.

Good point.

Ted Hoffman

Peter Kirby,
I am enjoying this discussion immensely. However I find the use of the term "dude" a bit derogatory. I am sure your arguments would still retail their thrust even if you dropped the use of that term.

I wrote: Which Eusebian quotation are you referring to?

and you provided some excellent quotes.

But what I meant was, they could NOT use the term "the just" when referring to James death and the suffering of the Jews that allegedly resulted. My point was that the christians would have been more willing to ascribe all the "glory" and credit to Jesus and none to James.
But I am willing to drop this point. I don't think its very significant. You have argued your position well.

That is wrong, or at least undemonstrated. Knowledge that James was the brother of Jesus called Christ would not have been extraordinary for someone who was in Jerusalem at the time.
My argument is simple: anyone would have known James first as James the Just, then later as James the brother of Jesus. Because his being Just was more pervasive than his relation to christ.
So, for Josephus to refer to him as brother of Jesus and NOT as "the just" is, at the very least, odd.

I have no idea why you think that the account of Hegesippus is historically credible.
Why don't you? Because he was only quoted by Eusebius?

IntenSity writes: I would think he was first "James the Just", then "James brother of Jesus" later.

Peter Kirby: This is undemonstrated. "James the Just" is not a name found in the New Testament, although "James the brother of the Lord" is.

Origen says concerning Josephus "...And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, 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

and he also adds "...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

Its clear that at least Origen (and by extension Josephus) identified James first for his righteousness, then later, as a brother of Christ.

Who would know where Nazareth was? If people knew anything at all about Jesus, they would have known that he was called Christ.
If people knew anything about a historical Jesus, they would have known where he came from.

The phrase of Josephus certainly would not have inflamed the Jews. Do you mean the Jewish Christians? The Christians were totally insignificant at the time of Josephus. Josephus would not be concerned about their sensibilities. As for the Romans, I don't know what underlying implication you speak of.
I mean Jews who embraced Judaism, Josephus being one of them.

Paul does not identify James as 'the Just'. Yet Paul claims to have met James. This proves that one who does not identify James as 'the Just' could have known a little bit about James. At least enough to identify James as a brother as Paul did.
Its clear that there are at least five Jameses and as catholic Encyclopaedia says: "The name "James" in the New Testament is borne by several: (1) James, the son of Zebedee, Apostle, brother of John, Apostle; also called "James the Greater." (2) James, the son of Alpheus, Apostle: Matt., x, 3; Mark, iii, 18; Luke, vi, 15; Acts, i, 13. (3) James, the brother of the Lord: Matt., xiii, 55; Mark, vi, 3; Gal., i, 19. Without a shadow of doubt, he must be identified with the James of Gal., ii, 2, 9; Acts, xii, 17; xv, 13 sqq.; xxi, 18; I Cor., xv, 7. (4) James, the son of Mary, brother of Joseph (or Joses): Mark, xv, 40 (where he is called ò mikros "the little", not the "less", as in the D.V., nor the "lesser"); Matt., xxvii, 56; probably the son of Cleophas or Clopas: John, xix, 25, where "Maria Cleophæ" is generally translated "Mary the wife of Cleophas", as married women are commonly distinguished by the addition of their husband's name. (5) James, the brother of Jude: Jude, i, 1. Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the "Judas Jacobi", the "brother of James" (Luke vi, 16; Acts, i, 13), called thus because his brother James was beter known than himself in the primitive Church. "

At the very best, the identity of James as brother of Jesus is disputed.

I do not believe that this epistle was writen by James.
Irrespective of that, whoever wrote it(Jude?) did not regard James as the brother of Jesus.

The term by which Jesus was called is relevant because it identifies Jesus to the reader...
In the context of the passage(s) where it appears, its irrelevant because what Jesus was called by others was not the subject of the passage. James brother of Jesus would suffice because the main subject is James death for example. However, James brother of Jesus called the Christ is going too far and amounts to digression.

What arguments have I rejected?
That it was not a necessary insertion (as I have argued above) and was kind of polemical etc.

I wrote: But the most-well known way to identify Jesus would have been through the 'Christ' thingy.
I know what you have written and I understand what you mean. All I am saying is that whether or NOT Jesus could only be identified by the christ thingy is arguable and contestable.

In Acts 22 paul says:I answered, 'Tell me, Lord, who you are.' 'I am Jesus of Nazareth,' he said, 'whom you are persecuting.' My companions saw the light, but did not hear the voice that spoke to me…"
He does not call himself Jesus Christ. Or Jesus so-called Christ.

As American Atheits site says "Before Jesus could be given a biography, he had to receive a name. Actually, he received several names and, as we shall see, all of his names were really titles. Thus, the name Jesus of Nazareth originally was not a name at all, but rather a title meaning (The) Savior, (The) Branch. In Hebrew this would have been Yeshua‘ Netser. The word Yeshua‘ means 'savior,' and Netser means 'sprout,' 'shoot,' or 'branch' - a reference to Isaiah 11:1, which was thought to predict a messiah (lit., 'anointed one') of the line of Jesse (King David's father): "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots…"

IntenSity wrote: Huh, huh. Just like that?

Peter responded: Just like that. Cool, huh?

Yeah cool. But we are not here for coolness now are we?

I'm inclined to give primacy to Josephus' account.
So we have to sort to "pick and choose" methodology do we?

Origen didn't like the fact that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ." Origen would have known that this is the Jewish stance, but that does not mean that Origen would have been happy about it
It does NOT mean he would be unhappy about it either. I am inclined to believe that he would have accepted that (Judaists NoT accepting Jesus as Christ) as a fact of life and not deal with it by choosing to be unhappy about it.
But its a minor issue anyway and I am willing to drop it because I can see you are resorting to a circular argument.

It is textual evidence, so it points to the fact that Josephus wrote the passage.
That Josephus wrote the passage was NOT in dispute. You are subverting the argument and changing the subject. What were in dispute were certain words in the passage(s).

You had claimed that Jews were anticipating the christos. That christos was a nickname is relevant because it implies that Jews did not associate their hopes with the term christos.
As a separate argument, Yes I did.

The Vespasian thingy is relevant because it shows that Josephus did not identify a person as christos even when Josephus thought that person was the one from Israel who would rule the world as predicted by Jewish oracles.
This is valuable information but it wasn't what we were discussing. To bring it into the discussion was to change the subject.

It could have been either a nickname or a status to Christians. It would have been a nickname to those outside the Christian movement such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger.
Good argument, evidence please.

I am saying that the significance of the references to iesou tou legomenou christou in the New Testament have been misunderstood by those who wish to show that it is Christian phraseology. In the New Testament, the phrase is put on the lips of Pilate and the Samaritan woman as well as in Matthew's geneaology. It does not appear often enough to be considered Christian phraseology, and where it does appear it is often attributed to non-Christians. The phrase contains no theological affirmation and would not have been restricted to Christians. This does not mean that a Christian would have found it impossible to write, but a non-Christian could easily have written iesou tou legomenou christou.
How often does it need to appear in the bible in order to be considered Christian phraseology?
My contention is, so long as it can be demonstrated that it appears in the bible, then it can be argued that its traceable to the bible.

An interpolation of the Ant. 20.200 passage did not occur after the second century because Origen refers to the passage.
What is this, are you arguing that Origen could not have referred to an interpolated passage? That he was choosing only those that were not interpolated?

We CAN NOT tell, from Origens' reference, about the true nature or status of the passage now can we? Because he does NOT quote it directly and in full.
In any case, the passage is NOT in dispute, its some words in the passage. Thats why some have attempted to reconstruct it.

That's insulting
I am sorry that it came out that way. I had no intention of insulting you.

Thank you for providing Van Vorsts argument. You claimed you had provided it earlier but I simply cannot remember. Anyway, his main thrust is: "But if these passages are indicative of wider usage outside the New Testament, "called Christ" tends to come form non-Christians and is not at all typical of Christian usage. Christians would not be inclined to use a neutral or descriptive term like "called Christ"; for them, Jesus is (the) Christ."

Which boils down to: christians use it in the NT and non-christians use it outside the NT. If the christians wouldn't use it because its so neutral, why use it within the NT?

Even if his argument were based on facts, it still would not be logical and at best, it would just indicate that there is a missing piece of the puzzle. His inclusion of the blind mans' "called Jesus" is indicative of a man clutching at straws.

Josephus would not care about inflaming Christians, as Christians were not a part of the audience of Josephus.
So he was writing with reckless abandon with all cares thrown to the winds?

Josephus was no more worried about inflaming Jews than were Tacitus or Pliny the Younger, who blatantly refer to Jesus as 'Christus'. The words inbetween are not useless: they show precisely that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, as Origen says.
I agree. My argument is, why tell readers what Jesus was called by a few mad people? (for example Epictetus c. 100-130 referred to the Galileans/ early christians as disposed to madness)

Even if the reference to Jesus in Antiquities was inserted by interpolators, these interpolators were not the same people
This is a quibble Peter.

Origen's silence on the TF can be taken as evidence.
One man's silence can now be used to make an argument from silence?

What makes you think that Origen was using the TF at all
I did NOT say Origen was using the TF. ie he could have been using interpolated work other than the TF. The James brother of Jesus was the one I was referring to. You are basically arguing that Only the TF is spurious. I am arguing that its NOT the only one thats interpolated but even the James Brother of Jesus passage(I havent memorised the numbers).

do you know that Josephus did not refer to James as the brother of Jesus?
I have argued this. You have rejected the arguments I made. We can let it rest.

You had said that there was a concern to "establish a historical Jesus." I replied that this is anachronistic because "historical Jesus" is an Enlightenment concept. This means that it is not accurate to speak of ancient Christians as having a concern to establish a historical Jesus.
You argued this very well and I conceded that their motive would not have been to construct a historical Jesus.

About the "procurator" thing.
You argue that:
1. Tobin does NOT provide sources indicating the title was changed from prefect to procurator
2. Carrier argued that Pilate could have been both procurator and a prefect.
3. As a politician(a senator?), Tacitus would have had easy access to the Acta Diurna and the Acta Senatus, therefore Tobin is wrong in saying Tacitus said he lacked access to the data.
4. If a persecution of Christians was undertaken by Domitian, there would have been a document stating the status of Christianity as a religio prava. This document would have contained information such as the identity of the reputed founder.

I will have to get bak to you on 1 2 and 3. About 4, what do you mean "reputed founder" Jesus? Are you saying it would have been impossible to mention Jesus without mentioning Pilate?

Ted Hoffman

Skeptical
IMO, we would need more documents that could reliably be traced to before circa 30CE that were pretty clear that there was a movement in Judea worshipping a "logos christ" figure. I am not aware that such documents exist, but if we have such documents I would be more than happy to hear about them.
So you werent referring to the bible to base your argument that the people were worshipping a blood-and flesh Jesus?

Okay, so less than 30CE?
B4 30 CE, I believe christianity DID NOT exist in the form that it is known today. It started as a small sect based on the death and ressurection of an allegorical figure which was later given an earthly manifestation by the Gospels.
Christianity, as it manifested itself decades later(after the death of christ), was a Pauline or hellenistic concept.
Well, to illustrate "proof of concept", the Sumerians worshipped the goddess Innana, who also came down to earth and died on earth and went down to hell and resurrected from hell after three days. She never died physically. Egyptian god Osisis also died for her people and was a son of God. The people who worshipped needed NO evidence of a physical Osiris or Innana in order for them to believe.
This is the same concept that was in place for the "Galileans" as the early christians were called.

Why would the Christians then need a physical christ in order to believe?

As Earl Doherty says: "Why did only one writer, and that probably well into the second century (see Part One), decide to compose a history of the origin and growth of the early church? No other writer so much as mentions Pentecost, that collective visitation of the Spirit to the apostles which, according to Acts, started the whole missionary movement. But if instead this movement was a widespread diverse one, something uncoordinated and competitive (as Paul's letters suggest), expressing a variety of doctrine within the broad religious inspiration of the time, it is easier to understand how one group, seeking to impose the missing unity and give itself authority, could create its own unique picture of Christianity's beginnings."

it still seems to me that the simplest explanation is that there was a historical core
Why is the "simplest" more appealing?Occams razor or appeal to path of least resistance?

I dont think its simple to accept that a man was born without a sperm from a man, or that a man could turn water into wine, or that a man can rise from the dead.

Peter Kirby

IntenSity writes: I am enjoying this discussion immensely. However I find the use of the term "dude" a bit derogatory. I am sure your arguments would still retail their thrust even if you dropped the use of that term.

I used the word once. Those who know me in real life can testify that I use the word with friendly connotations. But I won't use it anymore here. Oh well, it's too bad, as the only reason that my arguments are perceived as having thrust is because of my Jedi-like manipulation of the brain through the use of the word 'dude' on a subliminal level.

IntenSity writes: My argument is simple: anyone would have known James first as James the Just, then later as James the brother of Jesus. Because his being Just was more pervasive than his relation to christ.
So, for Josephus to refer to him as brother of Jesus and NOT as "the just" is, at the very least, odd.

But there is no evidence that James was surnamed 'the Just' in the first century. The earliest attestation for this appelation comes from Hegesippus in the second half of the second century. It does not occur in the New Testament, for example. Your argument may be simple, but it is wrong.

IntenSity writes: Why don't you? Because he was only quoted by Eusebius?

I use something that I like to call the Hundred Year Rule. If a document was written more than one hundred years after the supposed event, it is not to be simply trusted unless there are exculpating circumstances, such as knowledge that this account depends on first hand testimony.

I think that Eusebius quoted Hegesippus accurately.

IntenSity writes: Its clear that at least Origen (and by extension Josephus) identified James first for his righteousness, then later, as a brother of Christ.

You ignored the point that "James the Just" does not appear in the New Testament, although "James the brother of the Lord" does. This shows that a person could refer to James as a brother (without also referring to James as the Just) and also suggests that 'the Just' is a 2nd century convention.

IntenSity writes: If people knew anything about a historical Jesus, they would have known where he came from.

This is manifestly not true. For example, Ignatius of Antioch knows of a historical Jesus but does not say anything about where Jesus came from. It is possible that Ignatius knew without saying, but the evidence does not support the notion that Jesus was everywhere identified as "of Nazareth."

Besides, it doesn't matter very much if people would know the location of the birth of Jesus. That does not prevent Josephus from identifying Jesus through his most common cognomen, which would also have been known by those who knew of his birthplace.

IntenSity writes: I mean Jews who embraced Judaism, Josephus being one of them.

Explain why the phrase of Josephus would have inflamed Jews who embraced Judaism. Also, explain what the "underlying implication" of the phrase would be to Romans.

IntenSity writes: At the very best, the identity of James as brother of Jesus is disputed.

Paul attests that there was one James who was known as the brother of the Lord.

IntenSity writes: Irrespective of that, whoever wrote it(Jude?) did not regard James as the brother of Jesus.

Why would you think that Jude wrote it? Or do you think that I think that Jude wrote it?

The epistle refers to James in the first line as "a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." This is not a statement that James was not the brother of Jesus, although it is also not a statement that James was the brother of Jesus. There's no way to tell from this reference. The way in which James is identified could be interpreted variously. It could be, as Doherty would have it, an indication that the tradition of James as the brother of Jesus had not yet caught on. Or it could be, as others suggest, an indication that the early church suppressed the memory of James as the brother of Jesus. Or it could be that it is the earliest trace of the view that the mother of Jesus was a perpetual virgin and so that Jesus had no brothers. Or it could be that we are over-analyzing the first verse of this epistle.

IntenSity writes: In the context of the passage(s) where it appears, its irrelevant because what Jesus was called by others was not the subject of the passage. James brother of Jesus would suffice because the main subject is James death for example. However, James brother of Jesus called the Christ is going too far and amounts to digression.

Three words amount to a digression? That is ridiculous. Bear in mind that there were over a dozen blokes named Jesus mentioned by Josephus, so the very brief identification provided by Josephus is helpful to the reader.

IntenSity writes: That it was not a necessary insertion (as I have argued above) and was kind of polemical etc.

I maintain that the phrase adds identifying information because it obviously does. I reject the unsound arguments that Josephus would not have provided identifying information. Although Josephus would not have been struck down by Zeus for failing to identify James, that does not mean that an identification was not useful. The identification that Josephus provides is factually correct, and moreover Josephus would not have been concerned about Christian sensibilities, as Christians were not a part of his audience.

IntenSity writes: I know what you have written and I understand what you mean. All I am saying is that whether or NOT Jesus could only be identified by the christ thingy is arguable and contestable.

Apparently, you do not understand exactly what I mean. I said that the most-well known way to identify Jesus would have been through the 'Christ' thingy. I did not say that this was absolutely the only way. I wrote: "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: So we have to sort to "pick and choose" methodology do we?

Goodness gracious, not the dreaded "pick and choose" methodology! Actually, I think that all intelligent historians use a "pick and choose" methodology; it is part and parcel with being critical. Fundamentalists protest at any salad bar approach, but we do not have to follow their lead. Otherwise, we would have to believe that Caesar was descended from the gods and other nonsense, or we would have to discard valuable accounts for the life of Caesar.

In this case, I am using the Hundred Year Rule that I have already indicated. Hegesippus wrote in the second half of the second century; Josephus wrote in the second half of the first century. So, I am inclined to give priority to the account of Josephus. I think that all good historians would agree with that.

IntenSity writes: But its a minor issue anyway and I am willing to drop it because I can see you are resorting to a circular argument.

I have seen accusations of circular argumentation bandied about without any evidence and even without any understanding of what constitutes a circular argument. So, I ask you to support your accusation. Please spell out the argument that you think I am making in terms of premises and a conclusion, and then show that my conclusion is contained in my premises. Otherwise, your accusations of circular argumentation are entirely baseless and fabricated.

I wrote: It is textual evidence, so it points to the fact that Josephus wrote the passage.

IntenSity writes: That Josephus wrote the passage was NOT in dispute. You are subverting the argument and changing the subject. What were in dispute were certain words in the passage(s).

OK, my statement had the meaning that the passage as it stands with the words in question was written by Josephus as shown by the textual evidence by Origen, which is in fact the earliest attestation to a phrase of Josephus (iesou tou legomenou christou) that is available.

I wrote: The Vespasian thingy is relevant because it shows that Josephus did not identify a person as christos even when Josephus thought that person was the one from Israel who would rule the world as predicted by Jewish oracles.

IntenSity writes: This is valuable information but it wasn't what we were discussing. To bring it into the discussion was to change the subject.

We were talking about the meaning of christos in antiquity, particularly in Josephus, and the authenticity of the phrase referring to Jesus in Josephus. We were talking about whether Josephus would associate christos with the expected liberator from Judea. I brought it into the discussion because I thought it was relevant, not to change the subject. There are many ways in which I could have tried to change the subject, but this was not one.

I wrote: It could have been either a nickname or a status to Christians. It would have been a nickname to those outside the Christian movement such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger.

IntenSity writes: Good argument, evidence please.

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." - Tacitus, Annals 15.44

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so." - Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96

I write: How often does it need to appear in the bible in order to be considered Christian phraseology?

How about twice in locations where the author or a Christian person is speaking? I don't count occasions in which the words are put on the lips of non-Christians; regardless of whether or not the non-Christians used the phrase, this shows that Christians thought that this was the kind of phrase that would be used by non-Christians. So, if anything, these passages can be taken as evidence that the phrase was used by non-Christians. The single reference in Matthew's genealogy shows that the phrase could be used by Christians, but this does not make it exclusively Christian terminology.

IntenSity writes: My contention is, so long as it can be demonstrated that it appears in the bible, then it can be argued that its traceable to the bible.

Of course, Christians and non-Christians can use the same phrase, especially if it is one without theological affirmations such as iesou tou legomenou christoou. Also, expressions can be changed: as I pointed out, there is no phrase like this found in the second century, even though this is the period in which an interpolation would have to have been made.

I wrote: An interpolation of the Ant. 20.200 passage did not occur after the second century because Origen refers to the passage.

IntenSity writes: What is this, are you arguing that Origen could not have referred to an interpolated passage? That he was choosing only those that were not interpolated?

I said that an interpolation had to take place in the second century because Origen refers to the phrase in the passage. It is within the realm of possibility that Origen's copy of Josephus had already been interpolated, but if it was that interpolation took place before Origen (i.e., in the second century).

IntenSity writes: We CAN NOT tell, from Origens' reference, about the true nature or status of the passage now can we? Because he does NOT quote it directly and in full.

Origen does consistently use the phrase iesou tou legomenou christou when talking about the reference of Josephus to James. Origen does not use this phrase elsewhere. This shows that Origen knew of a copy of Josephus with the phrase that is in question.

IntenSity writes: In any case, the passage is NOT in dispute, its some words in the passage. Thats why some have attempted to reconstruct it.

Are we still talking about Ant. 20.200? Those who regard the phrase as genuine don't have to reconstruct anything. Those who dispute its authenticity do not make reconstructions; they simply strike the phrase. Also, do not be deceived into thinking that there is a serious dispute over the authenticity of the phrsae in the scholarly literature. The phrase is accepted as genuine by atheists such as Morton Smith (Jesus the Magician) and R. Joseph Hoffman (Jesus: Outside the Gospels). The ones who dispute its authenticity are primarily Jesus Myth proponents, for obvious motives.

IntenSity writes: Thank you for providing Van Vorsts argument. You claimed you had provided it earlier but I simply cannot remember.

Look on page 3 for the item posted July 13, 2002 01:23 PM. You can search for 'Van Voorst'.

IntenSity writes: Which boils down to: christians use it in the NT and non-christians use it outside the NT. If the christians wouldn't use it because its so neutral, why use it within the NT?

Twice when used in the New Testament, the phrase is attributed to non-Christians: the Samaritan woman and Pilate. The obvious reason for the use of it in these cases is that Christians thought of this as a way in which non-Christians would refer to Jesus. The one interesting case is the genealogy of Matthew; there, one could speculate that the author was a Jewish Christian (to whom the phrase would be more natural) and that the 'called the Christ' part was tacked on at the end of a list of personal names (as Van Voorst suggests). In any case, as I have already said, the phrase could have been used by both Christians and non-Christians.

IntenSity writes: His inclusion of the blind mans' "called Jesus" is indicative of a man clutching at straws.

That's mighty ironic! Van Voorst is the one who criticizes Telftree for appealing to the "called Jesus" reference. By your own lights, the folks on your side are clutching at straws.

Van Voorst wrote: "Twelftree, 'Jesus in Jewish Traditions,' 300, argues from these instances that 'called Christ' is 'a construction Christians used when speaking of Jesus' and therefore an indication that this passage is not genuine. He also cites John 9:11, but there the phrase is 'called Jesus' and so does not apply to this issue."

I wrote: Josephus would not care about inflaming Christians, as Christians were not a part of the audience of Josephus.

IntenSity writes: So he was writing with reckless abandon with all cares thrown to the winds?

Nope, I said that Josephus wouldn't care about Christian sensibilities. This does not mean that Josephus wrote with reckless abandon, of course.

IntenSity writes: I agree. My argument is, why tell readers what Jesus was called by a few mad people?

Because readers would have recognized the name by which Christians called Jesus. As I indicated, Tacitus and Pliny use 'Christus' without hesitation, suggesting that this was the best known appelation.

I wrote: 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.

IntenSity writes: This is a quibble Peter.

It is not a quibble. You had claimed that Origen was using an interpolated Josephus. This would be true if the interpolators of the 18th and 20th books were the same people, or if it were otherwise known that the reference in the 20th book were an interpolation. This has not been demonstrated, so we cannot say that Origen had an interpolated Josephus.

IntenSity writes: One man's silence can now be used to make an argument from silence?

Sometimes it can, if it meets two other criteria of an argument from silence: a strong presumption that the author would have known about the event if it happened and a strong presumption that the author would have written about it if he had known about it. But the argument from silence with regards to the TF is no limited to Origen; there are also Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others.

IntenSity writes: I did NOT say Origen was using the TF.

You said, "He did not have to use the TF only." This lent itself to misinterpretation.

IntenSity writes: ie he could have been using interpolated work other than the TF. The James brother of Jesus was the one I was referring to. You are basically arguing that Only the TF is spurious. I am arguing that its NOT the only one thats interpolated but even the James Brother of Jesus passage(I havent memorised the numbers).

You have provided no evidence for the belief that the phrase in the 20.200 passage has been interpolated.

I wrote: do you know that Josephus did not refer to James as the brother of Jesus?

IntenSity writes: I have argued this. You have rejected the arguments I made. We can let it rest.

But this is what the whole discussion has been about here; whether or not Josephus wrote the phrase in the 20.200 passage. What arguments have you made that this phrase was interpolated? The argument that Josephus would not have known that James was the brother of Jesus? What?

IntenSity writes: You argued this very well and I conceded that their motive would not have been to construct a historical Jesus.

OK, thanks. So what is the motive of the alleged interpolators?

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

I wrote: 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.

Were you going to provide a quote showing that someone appealed to the reference in Ant. 20.200 to prove the existence of Jesus?

Or perhaps you concede that the mere existence of Jesus was not an issue back then?

IntenSity summarizes me: Tobin does NOT provide sources indicating the title was changed from prefect to procurator

This is true; Tobin offers no sources in the quote you gave.

IntenSity summarizes me: Carrier argued that Pilate could have been both procurator and a prefect.

This is Carrier's position, which he promises to elaborate upon in a future article. I look forward to reading it.

IntenSity summarizes me: As a politician(a senator?), Tacitus would have had easy access to the Acta Diurna and the Acta Senatus,

This is true. Tacitus was consul and proconsul at other times.

IntenSity summarizes me: therefore Tobin is wrong in saying Tacitus said he lacked access to the data.

Tobin may have in mind this passage, Hist. 4.40: "Junius Mauricus asked Cæsar [not the emperor -ed.] to give the Senate access to the Imperial registers, from which they might learn what impeachments the several informers had proposed. Cæsar answered, that in a matter of such importance the Emperor [Domitian -ed.] must be consulted."

In this passage, Tacitus does indeed indicate that the emperor's permission was necessary in order to consult the imperial archives; in this case, permission was granted. However, the Acta Diurna and Acta Senatus did not require special permission from the emperor. It is perhaps in these records that Tacitus or a servant found a document related to Christianity.

IntenSity writes: If a persecution of Christians was undertaken by Domitian, there would have been a document stating the status of Christianity as a religio prava. This document would have contained information such as the identity of the reputed founder.

I owe this argument to Ed Tyler.

IntenSity writes: About 4, what do you mean "reputed founder" Jesus?

I mean that most people thought of Jesus as being the founder of Christianity.

IntenSity writes: Are you saying it would have been impossible to mention Jesus without mentioning Pilate?

No, but a document on Christianity's status as religio prava would be very likely to note the ignominious crucifixion of its alleged founder as well as its recent origin in this crucified sophist.

best,
Peter Kirby

Skeptical

I think the evidence is thin all around. All we have within the first 20-30 years of the supposed death of Jesus are Paul's letters and I don't think we can obtain a clear picture of the early movement from his letters alone. My point was that if all we have to work with is Paul, any argument about what the character and nature of the Jesus movement was around 30Ce is going to involve a _lot_ of speculation, far more than what the little evidence we have will support.

I don't disagree that in principle this is possible, however to make the argument that this was, in fact, the case I think you have to have positive evidence. Without positive evidence it's just speculative. As far as I know, we do not have anything about the movement in Jeruselem prior to Paul.


I agree that there are plenty of examples of prior mythological stories that were applied to Jesus. This does not mean that there was no Jesus, only that a lot of mythological lore was later piled on to him.

They wouldn't _need_ one, but at some point that belief gained prominence and was one of the main factors that helped its growth. When and how this happened we can only guess.

None of the legendary accretion means there was no historical figure. I also think that most of the early members of the movement probably thought the "end was near", so not much need for a history. Paul seemed to think so and the belief is certainly seen in Mark and Mat.

Because I believe that in the absence of evidence regarding the early movement and the ubiquitous nature of the late 1st/early 2nd century belief in an earthly Jesus, one has to jump through less hoops to explain the latter belief. So yes, I think using Occhams razor is appropriate.

Your arguing about the Jesus legends, which I do not believe. One can reject the legends and still believe there was some figure in Galillee named Jesus.

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Peter Kirby
I used the word once. Those who know me in real life can testify that I use the word with friendly connotations. But I won't use it anymore here.
Thank you

Oh well, it's too bad, as the only reason that my arguments are perceived as having thrust is because of my Jedi-like manipulation of the brain through the use of the word 'dude' on a subliminal level.
Says who?

But there is no evidence that James was surnamed 'the Just' in the first century. The earliest attestation for this appelation comes from Hegesippus in the second half of the second century. It does not occur in the New Testament, for example. Your argument may be simple, but it is wrong.
1. You say Hegesippus is NO evidence
2. You say James was NOT called "the Just" in the first century.
First century or NOT, thats another story. All I need to indicate is that James was known as James the Just:
Check out this:
"FIRST, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, who, as has been shown was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the Apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen was one. He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose. And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name, which belongs to the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of victory. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem." (Philip Schaff, Ed., "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,2nd Series," Vol 1., "The Church History of Eusebius," pp. 133-4)
The quote is found <a href="http://sxws.com/charis/peter2.htm" target="_blank">here</a>

In the 20th century
<a href="http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/just.htm" target="_blank">This site of orthodox christians</a> says: "It was the Jews who called this bishop of the Church "Just"!
And the site has the heading St. James the Just (62 AD).
Many christians (christian sites) refer to James as James the Just.
So I would say that his "Justness" preceded his being the brother of Christ.

I use something that I like to call the Hundred Year Rule. If a document was written more than one hundred years after the supposed event, it is not to be simply trusted unless there are exculpating circumstances, such as knowledge that this account depends on first hand testimony.

I think that Eusebius quoted Hegesippus accurately.
Why would someone(Hegesippus) write over 100 years after an event? What would be his/ her motives for doing so? Was he writing something no one has written?

You ignored the point that "James the Just" does not appear in the New Testament, although "James the brother of the Lord" does. This shows that a person could refer to James as a brother (without also referring to James as the Just) and also suggests that 'the Just' is a 2nd century convention.
And we both know what brother means in the NT, don't we?

This is manifestly not true. For example, Ignatius of Antioch knows of a historical Jesus but does not say anything about where Jesus came from. It is possible that Ignatius knew without saying, but the evidence does not support the notion that Jesus was everywhere identified as "of Nazareth."
Is there evidence that Ignatius knew anything historical about Jesus?

Besides, it doesn't matter very much if people would know the location of the birth of Jesus.
Historical people come from some place.

That does not prevent Josephus from identifying Jesus through his most common cognomen, which would also have been known by those who knew of his birthplace.
You are talking about contentious issues as if they have been settled. I guess you are the sole authority on these matters.

Explain why the phrase of Josephus would have inflamed Jews who embraced Judaism.
I have done this as best as I can. we can agree to disagree.

Also, explain what the "underlying implication" of the phrase would be to Romans.
I do not know how the romans regarded the divide between christianity and Judaism vis-a-vis their own religion(s), so I cant really speculate on that.

Paul attests that there was one James who was known as the brother of the Lord
Yes he does that. Is this a counter-argument or a comment?

Why would you think that Jude wrote it? Or do you think that I think that Jude wrote it?
I believe Earl Doherty and others believe Jude wrote it. I could be wrong though.

Three words amount to a digression? That is ridiculous.
Okay. Is this your counter-argument?

Bear in mind that there were over a dozen blokes named Jesus mentioned by Josephus, so the very brief identification provided by Josephus is helpful to the reader.
Except for the theological connotations. And you are claiming monopoly over how the readers thought as they read Josephus' words.

I reject the unsound arguments that Josephus would not have provided identifying information.
This is a strawman

The identification that Josephus provides is factually correct, and moreover Josephus would not have been concerned about Christian sensibilities, as Christians were not a part of his audience.
Are you in Josephus' medulla oblongata or celebral cortex?

Apparently, you do not understand exactly what I mean. I said that the most-well known way to identify Jesus would have been through the 'Christ' thingy. I did not say that this was absolutely the only way. I wrote: "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."
So even when I say I understand, I apparently DO NOT understand? okay. I had no idea you had no mind-reading abilities.
You obviously dont take me seriously Peter. And I think thats unfortunate.

I have seen accusations of circular argumentation bandied about without any evidence and even without any understanding of what constitutes a circular argument
What I meant is that you are making the same argument again and again. Maybe argumentum ad nauseum then?

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." - Tacitus, Annals 15.44

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so." - Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96
In the first, Christus sounds like a name, in the second, Christ is used like a name, NOT a status. In Pliny the Youngers quote, one can substitute the word Christ with Jesus and retain the full meaning.

The single reference in Matthew's genealogy shows that the phrase could be used by Christians, but this does not make it exclusively Christian terminology.
Nobody said "exclusively"; another strawman. It appears in the bible and NOT only in Matthew in reference to Jesus. As to number of times and the exact syntax, its a matter of personal taste.

Also, expressions can be changed: as I pointed out, there is no phrase like this found in the second century, even though this is the period in which an interpolation would have to have been made.
Second century is another issue. Aren't the Gospels dated to have been written in the first century?

Origen does consistently use the phrase iesou tou legomenou christou when talking about the reference of Josephus to James. Origen does not use this phrase elsewhere. This shows that Origen knew of a copy of Josephus with the phrase that is in question.
Prevarication. I asked a direct question.

Are we still talking about Ant. 20.200?
Yes. But remember the phrase "called the christ" is disputed in Josephus' writings
Those who dispute its authenticity do not make reconstructions; they simply strike the phrase.
But for the TF, some have made reconstructions
<a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html" target="_blank">check here</a> for R. Eislers reconstruction.

Look on page 3 for the item posted July 13, 2002 01:23 PM. You can search for 'Van Voorst'.
That wasn't directed at me. That was your discussion with NOGO. You reacted as if I had actually discussed it with you. That was NOT fair on your part to portray me as having a short memory.
Just because I start a thread doesnt mean I scrutinise everything people post. At the time I was locked in a discussion with Tercel.

Twice when used in the New Testament, the phrase is attributed to non-Christians: the Samaritan woman and Pilate.
How about context? Is it in a form that can be considered derogatory?

That's mighty ironic! Van Voorst is the one who criticizes Telftree for appealing to the "called Jesus" reference.
Okay, I overlooked that, I apologise.

By your own lights, the folks on your side are clutching at straws.
Aaah, so we have sides now?

Okay, will have to continue later.

Peter Kirby

IntenSity writes: Says who?

That was a joke, albeit a lame one.

IntenSity writes: 1. You say Hegesippus is NO evidence

Hegesippus is not good evidence for alleged events that took place over a hundred years prior to his writing. I have to apply the Hundred Year Rule.

On the other hand, as a person who rejects the gospels entirely as evidence for Jesus, I have no idea why you have accepted Hegesippus as evidence for the death of James.

2. You say James was NOT called "the Just" in the first century.

We know for certain that there is no extant reference to James as 'the Just' in the first century and that early writers such as Paul found other ways to identify James. We can suppose that James was not called 'the Just' in the first century from this silence, but this would be a less certain supposition than the fact that there is no extant 1st c. reference to James as 'the Just', by the nature of the evidence available.

IntenSity writes:

First century or NOT, thats another story. All I need to indicate is that James was known as James the Just:

That is not enough to establish your claim that James was surnamed 'the Just' before James was known as the brother of Jesus. Indeed, the only way in which I think you could establish this claim would be if you could argue successfully that the historical James was not the brother of Jesus. Because, if James was the brother of Jesus, obviously some people knew that before anyone called James 'the Just'. But I don't think you can argue successfully that James was not the brother of Jesus, although I would be interested in seeing an attempt.

Check out this:
"FIRST, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, who, as has been shown was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the Apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen was one. He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose. And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name, which belongs to the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of victory. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem." (Philip Schaff, Ed., "The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,2nd Series," Vol 1., "The Church History of Eusebius," pp. 133-4)
The quote is found here

I know about this quote. In fact, I have quoted the sentence regarding 'the Just' in this thread in response to you. See the post on page 5 posted on July 18, 2002 02:38 PM.

IntenSity writes:

In the 20th century
This site of orthodox christians says: "It was the Jews who called this bishop of the Church "Just"!
And the site has the heading St. James the Just (62 AD).
Many christians (christian sites) refer to James as James the Just.
So I would say that his "Justness" preceded his being the brother of Christ.

That twentieth century Christians refer to James as 'the Just' tells us absolutely nothing about whether James was first identified as 'the Just' or instead as a brother of the Lord or Jesus. Indeed, the suggestion that 20th century Christian references to James have any relevance whatsoever in determining how first century people identified James is ludicrous.

IntenSity writes: Why would someone(Hegesippus) write over 100 years after an event?

Hegesippus wrote over 100 years after the death of James because that is when Hegesippus was a church leader. It is not as if Hegesippus waited around for 100 years to pass so that he could write his works after such time. (Not that you believe this either.)

IntenSity writes: What would be his/ her motives for doing so? Was he writing something no one has written?

Hegesippus was recounting the legends that were circulating among Christians of his day.

I wrote: You ignored the point that "James the Just" does not appear in the New Testament, although "James the brother of the Lord" does. This shows that a person could refer to James as a brother (without also referring to James as the Just) and also suggests that 'the Just' is a 2nd century convention.

IntenSity writes: And we both know what brother means in the NT, don't we?

It means much the same as it does today. The word can be used both in the sense of a symbolic family (the brotherhood of man, the brotherhood of monks, the brotherhood of an association) as well as in the sense of a blood brother with a shared parent or parents. Both types of usage can be found in the New Testament: see, for example, Mark 6:3 for a clear literal usage.

However, my point is that a person (such as Paul) could have referred to James in a way other than as 'the Just'. Thus, there is not basis for claiming that Josephus would have necessarily referred to James as 'the Just'.

I wrote: This is manifestly not true. For example, Ignatius of Antioch knows of a historical Jesus but does not say anything about where Jesus came from. It is possible that Ignatius knew without saying, but the evidence does not support the notion that Jesus was everywhere identified as "of Nazareth."

IntenSity writes: Is there evidence that Ignatius knew anything historical about Jesus?

Maybe. That's not quite the issue here. The issue was whether a person would have necessarily known of a Jesus and referred to a Jesus as one who hails from Nazareth. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of Jesus in historical terms, regardless of whether Ignatius had certain knowledge about events in the life of Jesus, yet Ignatius does not mention the birthplace of Jesus. And this shows that a person who is familiar with the concept of an earthly Jesus would not necessarily have referred to Jesus as 'of Nazareth'.

IntenSity writes: Historical people come from some place.

But other people often don't know where that place was. In any case, as I said, it doesn't matter much that people may have known about the alleged birthplace of Jesus. Even if they did, that doesn't mean that Josephus would have had to identify Jesus by his birthplace.

I wrote: That does not prevent Josephus from identifying Jesus through his most common cognomen, which would also have been known by those who knew of his birthplace.

IntenSity writes: You are talking about contentious issues as if they have been settled. I guess you are the sole authority on these matters.

I have not appealed to myself as an authority at all, let alone a sole authority. I find nothing contentious about the idea that people would have known that Jesus was called Christ by Christians. Indeed, dispute on this point would be obtuse, given the nature of early Christianity and the nature of our ancient references to Jesus, Christian and non-Christian, where mention of the appelation of Jesus as Christ is ubiquitous.

I wrote: Explain why the phrase of Josephus would have inflamed Jews who embraced Judaism.

IntenSity writes: I have done this as best as I can. we can agree to disagree.

But you are probably wrong, as there is absolutely no evidence that a single Jew in the history of antiquity had ever been inflamed by the phrase of Josephus in Ant. 20.200. And, further, if there are any Jews in modernity who are offended by this passage, they are a rare breed indeed.

I wrote: Also, explain what the "underlying implication" of the phrase would be to Romans.

IntenSity writes: I do not know how the romans regarded the divide between christianity and Judaism vis-a-vis their own religion(s), so I cant really speculate on that.

You had claimed that the phrase of Josephus could "rile the Romans for the underlying implication." I thought maybe you had some idea about what the "underlying implication" of the phrase was to Romans when you made that statement.

IntenSity wrote: At the very best, the identity of James as brother of Jesus is disputed.

I wrote: Paul attests that there was one James who was known as the brother of the Lord.

IntenSity writes: Yes he does that. Is this a counter-argument or a comment?

The term 'counter-argument' suggests that there was an original argument. But you had made no argument that the identity of James as brother of Jesus is in doubt, only a claim.

My comment points out that, although there were several known by the name of James as you indicated, there was one who was known as the brother of the Lord as Paul attests. This is undoubtedly the same one who is also referred to as the brother of the Lord or as the brother of Jesus in later Christian writings.

IntenSity writes: I believe Earl Doherty and others believe Jude wrote it. I could be wrong though.

Earl Doherty does not say that he believes that Jude wrote it. If he had, I would have noticed it, because that would be an idiosyncratic idea.

I wrote: Three words amount to a digression? That is ridiculous.

IntenSity writes: Okay. Is this your counter-argument?

Again, the term 'counter-argument' presupposes that there was an original argument. But there was only the claim that the phrase in Josephus amounts to a digression.

But that is an unsubstantiated and fantastic claim. In the real world, three words do not constitute a digression. Even six words would not constitue a digression, assuming that you had in mind the entire Greek phrase represented by "the brother of Jesus called the Christ" (ton adelphon Iêsou tou legomenou Christou). You need a sentence or two before you can declare that a digression has been made.

I wrote: Bear in mind that there were over a dozen blokes named Jesus mentioned by Josephus, so the very brief identification provided by Josephus is helpful to the reader.

IntenSity writes: Except for the theological connotations.

Jesus was called Christ. That is a fact, not a theological affirmation.

IntenSity writes: And you are claiming monopoly over how the readers thought as they read Josephus' words.

No.

I wrote: I reject the unsound arguments that Josephus would not have provided identifying information.

IntenSity writes: This is a strawman

Actually, it is the position of Doherty that Josephus provided no identifying information about the James mentioned here. This may not be your position. You may believe that Josephus actually used a different phrase to identify James, although I have not noticed you actually make a claim that Josephus used a different phrase to identify James; I have only noticed you claim that Josephus would have used a different phrase to identify James if he identified James. But, let us consider the idea that Josephus referred to James in another way, such as "James the Just" or "James, son of Joseph" or "James, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth." Please explain why a later scribe would have removed this identifying information and inserted the phrase ton adelphon Iêsou tou legomenou Christou.

I wrote: The identification that Josephus provides is factually correct, and moreover Josephus would not have been concerned about Christian sensibilities, as Christians were not a part of his audience.

IntenSity writes: Are you in Josephus' medulla oblongata or celebral cortex?

I know that Josephus would not have been concerned about Christian sensibilities because Josephus was writing for Roman patrons; Christians did not constitute his audience.

Why do you think that Josephus would have worried about offending Christians?

IntenSity wrote: I know what you have written and I understand what you mean. All I am saying is that whether or NOT Jesus could only be identified by the christ thingy is arguable and contestable.

I wrote: Apparently, you do not understand exactly what I mean. I said that the most-well known way to identify Jesus would have been through the 'Christ' thingy. I did not say that this was absolutely the only way. I wrote: "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: So even when I say I understand, I apparently DO NOT understand? okay. I had no idea you had no mind-reading abilities.

I do not have mind-reading abilities; I have to go by what you have written, and that is why I made my statement with the modifier 'apparently'. I am sure that you have an understanding of what I have written, but that doesn't mean that your understanding is correct. Rather, your understanding as it was expressed in your words is not exactly correct. I explicitly said, "I acknowledge that Josephus could have chosen more than one way to identify Jesus." You wrote, "All I am saying is that whether or NOT Jesus could only be identified by the christ thingy is arguable and contestable." But I did not say that this was the only way in which Jesus could be identified; in fact, I said the opposite in the quote just given.

IntenSity writes: You obviously dont take me seriously Peter. And I think thats unfortunate.

I have taken our discussion seriously.

IntenSity writes: What I meant is that you are making the same argument again and again. Maybe argumentum ad nauseum then?

Argumentum ad nauseum would apply only if it were the case that you had refuted the argument and I had completely failed to take your attempted refutation into account.

IntenSity writes: In the first, Christus sounds like a name, in the second, Christ is used like a name, NOT a status.

My point exactly! My point is that these Hellenistic historians could have used Christus as a name (or nickname) and not a status. My statement was, "It would have been a nickname to those outside the Christian movement such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger." You had called for evidence supporting this -- I supplied it, and you agreed with it. All is good.

IntenSity writes: Nobody said "exclusively"; another strawman.

If it is not exclusively Christian terminology, then there is no basis here for forming an argument that the phrase could not have been written by the non-Christian Josephus.

I wrote: Also, expressions can be changed: as I pointed out, there is no phrase like this found in the second century, even though this is the period in which an interpolation would have to have been made.

IntenSity writes: Second century is another issue. Aren't the Gospels dated to have been written in the first century?

Exactly! So, the Gospels are not evidence that "Jesus called Christ" was a term used by second century Christians. But the second century is when the interpolation would have been made, if there were one. (If you want, we could say 'the second century through the fourth century' -- it doesn't matter for this argument, because there is no reference to "Jesus called Christ" in the third or fourth centuries either, excepting quotes of Josephus.)

IntenSity wrote: We CAN NOT tell, from Origens' reference, about the true nature or status of the passage now can we? Because he does NOT quote it directly and in full.

I wrote: Origen does consistently use the phrase iesou tou legomenou christou when talking about the reference of Josephus to James. Origen does not use this phrase elsewhere. This shows that Origen knew of a copy of Josephus with the phrase that is in question.

IntenSity writes: Prevarication.

"To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate." (The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed.) Please support or rescind your accusation.

IntenSity writes: I asked a direct question.

It appeared to be a rhetorical question, because of the way in which you seem to answer it yourself in saying "Because he does NOT quote it directly and in full."

My answer to the question is that we can tell from the three references in Origen that the passage of Josephus on James included the phrase ton adelphon Iêsou tou legomenou Christou.

My reason for this answer was given above: Origen does consistently use the phrase iesou tou legomenou christou when talking about the reference of Josephus to James. Origen does not use this phrase elsewhere. This shows that Origen knew of a copy of Josephus with the phrase that is in question.

I wrote: Twice when used in the New Testament, the phrase is attributed to non-Christians: the Samaritan woman and Pilate.

IntenSity writes: How about context? Is it in a form that can be considered derogatory?

Maybe, I haven't thought about it. What do you think?

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Peter Kirby
Sorry I missed the part about Van Vorst addressing Twelftree's arguments. My fault. I wasnt keen.

Tacitus and Pliny use 'Christus' without hesitation, suggesting that this was the best known appelation.
Best known appelation after the first century or late first century in Rome by Roman officials. Its is known that Pliny the Younger and Tacitus were close friends who corresponded a lot, thus they were of the same "camp". To name them separately and use their names as if we have two unrelated and independent historians sharing the same view is fallacious because it creates an illusion of widespread usage of the term christus.

Pliny the Younger and Tacitus' letters both show that there was a rowdy, troublesome group of people that worshipped christus and the persecutions they(the worshippers) underwent for this. This is evidence for the existence of the christian faith, NOT of a historical Jesus. Because of this, I would like us to drop this whole argument concerning christus. I am more interested in evidence that can establish existence of a historical Jesus.

It is not a quibble. You had claimed that Origen was using an interpolated Josephus. This would be true if the interpolators of the 18th and 20th books were the same people, or if it were otherwise known that the reference in the 20th book were an interpolation. This has not been demonstrated, so we cannot say that Origen had an interpolated Josephus.
I have argued it as best as I can, if you feel my arguments are unacceptable or weak, its fine. We don't have to revisit this again.

For the last time, I will paste my arguments:
Thats all I have to say. Its in page two of this thread.

You said, "He did not have to use the TF only." This lent itself to misinterpretation.
Okay, I thought it would be obvious he did NOT use the TF only.

OK, thanks. So what is the motive of the alleged interpolators?
The GOHS/charlatan/wizard thing. You explained it. I needn't go over it because I agree.

Were you going to provide a quote showing that someone appealed to the reference in Ant. 20.200 to prove the existence of Jesus?
Something like that

Or perhaps you concede that the mere existence of Jesus was not an issue back then?
I concede.

However, the Acta Diurna and Acta Senatus did not require special permission from the emperor. It is perhaps in these records that Tacitus or a servant found a document related to Christianity.
Sounds plausible. Sources please.

I owe this argument to Ed Tyler
Thanks, I cant seem to find any info about him - book title? How do I establish his authoritativeness?

No, but a document on Christianity's status as religio prava would be very likely to note the ignominious crucifixion of its alleged founder as well as its recent origin in this crucified sophist.
What does religio prava mean? And note that you make that statement assuming that its a fact that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood man and that he belonged to a certain unnamed town/ city, which Ignatius for example does not mention either (my argument is that he, like the early christians, doesnt mention it because he doesnt know it either). Its an assumption you are making, and its likely to be be wrong. Its clear that Historians could talk about christus without mentioning his crucifiction.

On the other hand, as a person who rejects the gospels entirely as evidence for Jesus, I have no idea why you have accepted Hegesippus as evidence for the death of James.
I don't discredit the Gospels solely on their belated writings. Please, don't oversimplify things. It would be gross and misleading to compare the Gospels to Hegesippus for countless reasons which really aren't important now.

But the Hundred Year rule sounds okay as a basis for disallowing "evidence". I however think its not adequate. It needs support like bias, motive, cultural redaction etc.

We know for certain that there is no extant reference to James as 'the Just' in the first century and that early writers such as Paul found other ways to identify James.
This is fine. What would you say if I asked you to tell me how the Jews called James?

Indeed, the only way in which I think you could establish this claim would be if you could argue successfully that the historical James was not the brother of Jesus. Because, if James was the brother of Jesus, obviously some people knew that before anyone called James 'the Just'. But I don't think you can argue successfully that James was not the brother of Jesus, although I would be interested in seeing an attempt.
I have made several attempts. To say I havent doesn't change that. You simply dont agree.
Is there evidence that James identified Jesus as his brother?
Is there an epistle attributed to James? In that epistle, does James identify Jesus as his brother?
Is there a chance that the word brother had a meaning other than blood-brother?

Religious Tolerance.org says I think its dishonest to act like the passage has been accepted as authentic.
Earl Doherty does not say that he believes that Jude wrote it. If he had, I would have noticed it, because that would be an idiosyncratic idea.
Here is Earls quote from readers feedback to "Sean"
I think Earl supports the possibility that Jude wrote the epistle.
I have posted the whole of it so that you can address his arguments.
Later Peter. Gotta run.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Peter
Again, the term 'counter-argument' presupposes that there was an original argument. But there was only the claim that the phrase in Josephus amounts to a digression.
Now I hope you admit there was an argument.

In the real world, three words do not constitute a digression. Even six words would not constitue a digression, assuming that you had in mind the entire Greek phrase represented by "the brother of Jesus called the Christ" (ton adelphon Iêsou tou legomenou Christou). You need a sentence or two before you can declare that a digression has been made.
Qualitative judgements. You preoccupy yourself with personal taste too much.
Introducing new items that can derail the discussion amount to digression. The number of words is irrelevant. Have you ever heard of the word "pithy"?

I wrote: Bear in mind that there were over a dozen blokes named Jesus mentioned by Josephus, so the very brief identification provided by Josephus is helpful to the reader
He was writing to a gentile audience as mentioned above, who probably had no idea what "christ" meant.

I wrote: Except for the theological connotations.
Yor response:
Jesus was called Christ. That is a fact, not a theological affirmation.
I repeat "theological connotations" (which would have opened a can of worms). Unless he wanted to rile the Judaist Jews.

Please explain why a later scribe would have removed this identifying information and inserted the phrase ton adelphon Iêsou tou legomenou Christou.
I have no idea, I can speculate that they (the christian interpolators) wanted to establish Jesus as the Christ (without any equivocations), there was the need to show that James (who started) the Jerusalem church, was a brother to Jesus (or heir) this could be for a number of reasons that are unknown to me (you cant know whats going on in the middle of a dogfight) because, as Paolo Sachi says:

[quote]"From Christian sources, as many as thirteen to fourteen names [of Jewish groups] can be derived. Authors generally supply a series of seven names, but the names in the series do not coincide. The various designations for Jewish groups include Ebionites, Hellenists, Hemerobaptists, Herodians, Essenes, Pharisees, Galileans, Genists, Masbateians, Merists, Nazarenes, Sadducees, Samaritans, and Scribes."[/b]
- Paolo Sacchi, "Recovering Jesus' Formative Background" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (James H. Charlesworth, Ed. - 1992), p. 138

Any of the above groups could have done the interpolation <a href="http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/kingdom.html#Foundation" target="_blank">This site</a> explains the differences between the groups.
Irrespective of the possible motives, it has been established that its an interpolation. Your question is legitimate but its answer is not a necessary condition in order to demonstrate that there was indeed an interpolation. If a house has gone up in flames, it has gone up in flames whether someone had a motive for burning it down or NOT.

James H. Charlesworth, "Jesus Within Judaism", p. 92f, says:

"Josephus probably referred to Jesus, but Christian copyists added editorial comments." "we can be confident that there was a minimal reference to Jesus in "Antiquities" because once the clearly Christian sections are removed, the rest makes good grammatical and historical sense." (p. 93). "some words in Josephus seem authentic to Josephus, because he refers to a man named James as the brother of Jesus...Josephus identifies one person in terms of another; it is logical to expect the latter [Jesus] to have been mentioned already by him [Josephus]. (p. 94). "It appears likely that Josephus referred to Jesus, but certainly not in the form preserved in the Greek manuscripts."(p. 94). "Behind the Christian interpolations or redactions is a tradition that derives from Josephus. The Jewish historian did apparently refer to Jesus of Nazareth." (p. 96). "The Greek recension, minus the Christian interpolations, reveals how a first-century Jew probably categorized Jesus: He was a rebellious person and disturber of the elusive peace; but he was also a wise person who performed 'surprising', perhaps even wonderful works, and was followed by many Jews and Gentiles. The Arabic version [of Josephus] provides textual justification for excising the Christian passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in "Antiquities 18", but certainly not in such favorable terms." (p. 98). This is from <a href="http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/evidence.htm" target="_blank">This site</a>.

By the way, you might find the following phrases interesting because they indicate James was first and foremost identified as "The Just" before being "the brother of Jesus"
In the Gospel of Thomas Logion 12
I wrote: Apparently, you do not understand exactly what I mean. I said that the most-well known way to identify Jesus would have been through the 'Christ' thingy. I did not say that this was absolutely the only way. I wrote: "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."
So we can conclude that as concerns the question about whether Josephus identified Jesus as ths christ, It is a debatable matter? Is that a fair assesment?

I have taken our discussion seriously.
That was NOT in doubt, and my statement did not address how you take this discussion.
But I am glad you do take this discussion seriously. I take you seriously.

Argumentum ad nauseum would apply only if it were the case that you had refuted the argument and I had completely failed to take your attempted refutation into account.
I will let you redress this in your next post

My point exactly!
Okay, you made your point. You are gaining a lot of respect from me, for whatever its worth.

If it is not exclusively Christian terminology, then there is no basis here for forming an argument that the phrase could not have been written by the non-Christian Josephus.
You are comitting the fallacy of undistributed middle (black and white thinking?). It could be christian in origin and another basis would be because its largely found in christian (as opposed to historical or Judaist) writings.

I wrote: Also, expressions can be changed: as I pointed out, there is no phrase like this found in the second century, even though this is the period in which an interpolation would have to have been made.
This 1st and second century argument; perhaps you may want to revise it given we had many christian groups fighting to promote their "creeds"?

It appeared to be a rhetorical question
This question is not Rhetorical sir!

Intensity: We CAN NOT tell, from Origens' reference, about the true nature or status of the passage now can we?

My answer to the question is that we can tell from the three references in Origen that the passage of Josephus on James included the phrase ton adelphon Iêsou tou legomenou Christou.
Now thats a respectable answer. Thank you.
Your reason, which follows shortly after, is sensible and its logical.
But it doesnt bring down the argument that the passage was interpolated.
BUT
Does Origen refer to James elsewhere?

If he does, then your argument stands, I dont need to elaborate on the consequences of the contrary.

Maybe, I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
Lets start with Pilates Matthew 27:
"22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!" "
Tell me, were there many Jesuses due to be crucified (given the audience Pilate was addressing)? If NO, was it necessary to add "called Christ" in that passage?
Its like asking protesters at the white house gate:
"do you want to talk to George Bush called the president?"
More importantly, the phrase IS NOT derogatory.

The Samaritan Woman
"25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." "

Here too, the phrase IS NOT derogatory.

So your argument, that the phrase is used by Gentiles is misleading and adds no new meaning to this discussion, INSTEAD, it shows that christians put the words "called christ" in the mouths of gentiles in the bible.

Therefore IT is a christian phrase, and is NOT derogatory or non-commital.

MORE IMPORTANTLY
Matthew 1:16 "16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. "

This establishes WITHOUT a SHADOW of doubt that "called christ" is a christian phrase, that even the Jewish Christians (Matthew) used when referring to Jesus.

I believe this should seal this whole argument about gentile usage and the term being non-christian.

Ted Hoffman

Peter,
Another argument against the authenticity of the Antiquities 20: from Earl:

That Eusebius wrote in Ecclesiastical History 2.23.21
“Josephus has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, ‘These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called (the) Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.’ ”

He proceeds "Eusebius reproduces the full Antiquities 20.9.1 passage ... and contains no reference to a causal link between James’ death and the fall of Jerusalem. From this, and from the language he uses to introduce the second quote, the inevitable conclusion is that Eusebius’ first quote is from some other passage in Josephus’ writings, one which subsequently disappeared or was removed, since no extant manuscript shows it anywhere. "

Earl continues "In Antiquities 20, Josephus is quite specific in imputing responsibility for the killing of James to Ananus and the clique around him. Indeed, he highlights the anger of the Jewish “moderates” at this act. This makes the phrase “the Jews slew him” hardly in keeping with the actual event, nor with Josephus’ own recorded sentiments about it. And he would hardly envision God punishing the entire Jewish nation for a murder he himself portrays as the responsibility of an upstart high priest, one whom other Jews promptly condemned and had removed"

IOW, Origen and Eusebius could NOT have been referring to the same author, because Josephus could NOT have said the Jews killed James then turn around and say in Antiquities 20 that Ananus killed him. Evidence of tampering.

Of course you have argued for the "lost reference" (Jewish War 6.5.3?) in explaining this incongruity, but that is a very apologetic approach towards the issue, which is not so bad in itself, but there it is.

As a side note, I noticed the stuff about "the James-Jerusalem link - fascinating!"

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>