Ted Hoffman

Skeptical
My apologies, I was referring to Gal. 1:15-24
Thank you. There is no word "Disciple". That is what I wanted to confirm
From KJV Galatians 1:18 "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's 1brother."

Your argument crumbles to fine ash because:
(1) Pauls meaning of the word apostle (ie being in physical presence of Jesus not necessary)
(2) James does Not refer to Jesus as his brother in the epistle of James. Or anywhere else.
(3) The use of the word brother in NT does not entail blood-relation.

So, your argument can NOT stand.

In any case, it seems clear that there was a movement in Jeruselem prior to Paul that he viewed as worthy of visiting.
Of course there was a movement. Even Paul, who did not see blood-and flesh Jesus believed in him. Innana also came down to earth, died, spent three days in hell and got resurrected without assuming a human form. And she was worshiped.
The people were worshipping Christ The Logos

Skeptical

Well, I don't think it's that cut and dried.

(1) As I said, I think Paul saw the "apostles" as separate from "the twelve" but equal in status. For Paul, the only real importance seems to have been faith in the spiritual Jesus. For example, he says "James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars" (Gal. 2:9), indicating to me that they had some sort of place of prominence. Elsewhere he makes reference to "the twelve" which seems to indicate a core group of believers set apart from the other "apostles".

(2) My understanding is that the epistle of James is generally thought to be a psuedigraph. (check out <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html)" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html)</a> I don't think we have any genunine writings authored by James.

(3) Yes, I've seen this argument. The problem is that although the term "brother" may not necessarily signify a kinship every time its used, the way Paul uses it when referring to "james, the lord's brother" in Gal. seems to indicate it is a designator to identify which James he is speaking about. In the 8 letters of Paul that are generally agreed to be genuine, I can only find the use of the term "the lord's brother" the single time in Gal. 1:19. He variously uses terms like "our brother" (I Thes. Phil., Coll., I Cor.), "my brother" (Phill., I. Cor.), "thy brother" (Rom.), "his brothers" (Rom.) and "beloved brother" (Col.). The phrase "the lord's brother" doesn't seem to be a common phrase used by Paul. Additionally, since Paul has already indicated he was visiting "apostles", it seems superfluous to include the "lord's brother" designation if he was merely indicating that James was one of the generic "brothers" he refers to in other contexts listed above. For these reasons I believe the designation in Gal. does indicate kinship.


I don't think you can make the assertion that they were worshipping "christ the logos" without positive evidence to support that position. I also don't think such evidence exists so to simply state its true seems to speculate beyond what the evidence allows.

Its possible that the movement was not centered around a historical figure, but it's undeniable that the idea took a place of prominence sometime in the 1st century or at most the very early 2nd. When it took prominence and how are speculative, but it still seems to me that the simplest explanation is that there was a historical core. However, we will probably never know with any degree of accuracy what elements of the tradition are historical and which mythology.

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

Peter Kirby

IntenSity writes: Which Eusebian quotation are you referring to?

H.E. 2.1.2. "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."

Eusebius also refers to other Christians referring to James as 'the Just'.

H.E. 2.1.3. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."

IntenSity writes: I have explained why. You have cited Eusebius as an example without citing any sources, so much for explanatory power.

The citations are above. They show that a Christian would not balk at calling James 'the Just'.

IntenSity writes: Yes that is my opinion.

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.

IntenSity writes: My reason is, in the Ananas' incident by Hegesippus , James only came in because he was the one called to quiet the hysterical christians NOT because he was Jesus' brother.

I have no idea why you think that the account of Hegesippus is historically credible.

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

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

IntenSity writes: And to Josephus, I would expect him to identify Jesus as Jesus of Nazareth, NOT "Jesus called Christ".

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

IntenSity writes: About probabilities, I believe citing Jesus' name without telling readers what other people called Jesus has more explanatory power, is less polemical (on hindsight) and parsimonious and even plausible compared to having "so-called" christ. Which could inflame the Jews (for its derogatory conotation) or rile the Romans for the underlying implication.

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.

IntenSity writes: More importantly, almost all the authors who wrote about James identified him as "the Just". Josephus does not. Meaning he did not know James as much.

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.

IntenSity writes: Besides, in the epistle of James, James does Not identify Jesus as his blood brother.

I do not believe that this epistle was writen by James.

IntenSity writes: so-called christ is unclear because it raises questions:
So-called by who?
Why did they call him Christ? Why did others not call him Christ?
It is irrelevant what Jesus was called by others.

The term by which Jesus was called is relevant because it identifies Jesus to the reader. Would Josephus have to say that Christians called Jesus 'Christ'? As I said, I do not demand that Josephus be patronizing, nor do I expect Josephus to launch a digression on the Christians in a section on the deposition of Ananus.

IntenSity writes: But this is a moot point and I can see you have rejected the arguments concerning this.

What arguments have I rejected?

I wrote: But the most-well known way to identify Jesus would have been through the 'Christ' thingy.

IntenSity writes: As you have said "Surely, an American writer would have believed Osama to be an actual terrorist. ". That's the mirror turned to yourself. Think about it.

No, explain it to me.

I wrote: Dude, these are second century xian legends!

IntenSity writes: Huh, huh. Just like that?

Just like that. Cool, huh?

IntenSity writes: Anyway, what did you expect me to say?

I don't expect you to follow the account of Hegesippus.

IntenSity writes: he was killed by Herod as narrated in Acts?

You're confused. That James is supposed to be James, the Son of Zebedee. "He had James, the brother of John, killed by the sword" (Acts 12:2). James the brother of Jesus appears alive and well in Acts 15:13.

IntenSity writes: How do YOU believe he died?

I'm inclined to give primacy to Josephus' account.

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

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.

IntenSity writes: Fallacy of missing arguments. Accepted as what? As proof that Josephus identified Jesus as "so called Christ"? as authentic? as proof that Josephus knew more about James than the allegation that he was the brother of Jesus?
Accepted as proof of existence of a historical Jesus?

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

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

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. 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: So now its "anointed one" - a position - NOT a nickname? (do you appreciate the difference in meaning between a nickname and a name for denoting status?) You gotta make up your mind Peter - a nickname or a status?

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

Chrestus is indeed a Greek name that can mean 'the good' or 'the useful'. Christus is a Latin transliteration of the Greek christos, which means 'the wetted one' and only by hermeneutics can carry the theological baggage implicit in 'the Messiah'.

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

Everyone likes the little pregnant story. 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.

I wrote: It [Jesus who is called Christ] does not occur in the second century, which is the time in which the interpolation would have been made.

IntenSity writes: Please provide your trenchant reason why interpolation could NOT have been done after the second century and name the texts you are referring to (the ones that could NOT be interpolated after 2nd Centuty).

An interpolation of the Ant. 20.200 passage did not occur after the second century because Origen refers to the passage. As to the Christian documents of the second century that do not use the phrase 'Jesus called Christ', they are legion: they include Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, the Epistula Apostolorum, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. It does not matter that these Christian documents may contain interpolations; it would remain true that these documents do not use the phrase 'Jesus called Christ'.

I wrote: Van Voorst was quoted on why the references in the New Testament do not have the significance with which they are sometimes attributed.

IntenSity writes: And you cannot remember his explanation?

That's insulting. Did you forget? One could easily just look back a little to find the quote. Let me refresh your memory.

----
For the few occurences of the phrase "called Christ" in the New Testament, see Matt 1:16 (Matthew's genealogy, where it breaks the long pattern of only personal names); Matt 27:17, 22 (by Pontius Pilate); John 4:25 (by the Samaritan woman). 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. 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.
----

IntenSity writes: Josephus too would inflame fellow Jews (Christians) when he uses the derogatory term "so-called".
At the same time, he might inflame fellow Judaists, who might misread him to be referring to Jesus as Christ (I am sure the people then would not play semantic games like you and I have done here) and at the time, Christianity and Judaism were highly polarised. Putting the title Christ next to Jesus (with some useless words between them) would have incurred the wrath of the Judaism community.

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

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

Josephus says that Jesus was called Christ. Big deal. He was called Christ.

I wrote: This whole time we have been talking about the passage in Antiquities 20.200. I said interpolators here under the presumption that you were thinking of interpolators in the twentieth book. Even if the reference to Jesus in Antiquities was inserted by interpolators, these interpolators were not the same people as those who interpolated the Testimonium Flavianum, if Origen's silence on the TF can be taken as evidence.

IntenSity writes: Origen referred to James as the brother of Jesus and he was talking about what Josephus wrote. That meant he was using interpolated work. He did not have to use the TF only.

What makes you think that Origen was using the TF at all? How do you know that Origen was using interpolated work; do you know that Josephus did not refer to James as the brother of Jesus? As I indicated, if there were interpolators in the twentieth book, they were not the same people as the interpolators in the eighteenth book.

IntenSity writes: Textual redaction and study of historical texts does not require mind-reading. Its a matter of coming up with explanations. You dont have to read an interpolators mind in order to know some text was interpolated so thats a weak argument you have raised.

You do have to know that a text was interpolated in order to know what was going through the head of the interpolator. So far, you have not shown that the passage in the twentieth book has been interpolated.

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

IntenSity writes: That Eusebius doesnt use the phrase "historical Jesus" is obvious. And he does not need to. I know this is NOT about TF, but are you in agreement with me that the TF is an interpolation? To expect Eusebius to use the phrase "historical Jesus" is ridiculous;its like expecting someone planting a gun as evidence in someones apartment then expecting him to stick a label on the gun saying "this is the evidence".

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.

I do not believe that the TF is authentic.

IntenSity writes: It seems true that his existence was NOT disputed in antiquity. What was disputed was whether his deeds were wizardry, spells, magic etc.

Right. I agree. This means that there was no motive for someone to go around forging passages in which historians refer to Jesus as the alleged Christ. Just no motive.

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

Great question. For the answer, we can refer to Eusebius, the first person to quote the passage, regardless of whether or not Eusebius was the person who did the deed. Ken Olson writes:

----
Eusebius' opponents were not denying that Jesus was crucified by the Roman and Jewish authorities; this was probably a main part of their argument that Jesus was a GOHS. Eusebius, however, cleverly inverts this argument. If Jesus had been a deceiver, and his followers had been deceivers, would not self-interest have compelled them to abandon his teachings after they had witnessed the manner of his death at the hands of the authorities? The fact that they did not abandon Jesus after witnessing the punishments he had brought upon himself can only mean that the disciples had recognized some greater than normal virtue in their teacher. This argument is developed at great length in D.E. 3.5, but I shall quote only a part of it here, "Perhaps you will say that the rest were wizards no less than their guide. Yes - but surely they had all seen the end of their teacher, and the death to which He came. Why then after seeing his miserable end did they stand their ground?" (D.E. 111).
----

So the TF was useful to Christians to show that Jesus was not a GOHS with reference to the fact that the TF says that Jesus did astounding deeds as well as the fact that the Christians did not abandon Jesus after his death. The TF served the apologetic purposes of the time, not ours: to show that Jesus was the Son of God, not to show that Jesus merely existed.

IntenSity writes: Are you saying that Origen doesnt talk about Josephus.

Origen talks about Josephus but does not quote a TF.

IntenSity writes: Are you vindicating Eusebius or are you saying that Jerome could have used a source "older" than Eusebius'?

I am not vindicating Eusebius. I do not believe the TF to be authentic. It is only plausible that Jerome's tradition is older than that of Eusebius.

I wrote: The idea is not original to Doherty; it is at least as old as Wells. Carrier's claim that Tacitus employed variatio is correct. Carrier claims to have thoroughly investigated the matter, but that is not enough to convince you or me. I do not know whether the office was both a prefecture and a procuratorship. However, I do know that you, Doherty, and Wells have claimed that the word choice of Tacitus is anachronistic. Thus, I think it is up to the claimaints to demonstrate their claims.

IntenSity writes: For starters, I will quote from Paul Tobin: ", the title Tacitus gave to Pontius Pilate - procurator - is an anachronism. We know from an inscription discovered in Judea, a dedication of a building by Pilate to Tiberius, that his title was perfect not procurator. In fact, the title of Roman provincial governors was only changed to procurator from the time of Claudius in AD41. Pilate was governor of Judea from AD26 to 37; thus at no time during that tenure could he had held the title ascribed to him by Tacitus. At any rate the archives, as Tacitus himself said, were not available to private individuals , himself included. All the above considerations show that Tacitus was merely echoing popular opinion about Jesus and had no independent source of information. Thus, as a separate historical evidence for Jesus, the passage in the Annals has no value."

The inscription does show that Pilate was given the office of prefect. But it does not say that Pilate was not a procurator, and Carrier's idea that Pilate was both procurator and prefect is not ruled out. Tobin does not provide any sources to substantiate the idea that the title of the office was changed from prefect to procurator. In his review of Doherty, Carrier does not provide sources either, but I am not the one staking a claim here. As a politician, Tacitus would have had easy access to the Acta Diurna and the Acta Senatus. 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. Tacitus could have had a servant search the archives on Christianity and turn up such a document. While it would not be unusual if the document were dependent on Christian informants, it would also be usual for such a Roman document to be regarded as accurate unless there are good reasons for disputing its accuracy.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Skeptical
I don't think you can make the assertion that they were worshipping "christ the logos" without positive evidence to support that position. I also don't think such evidence exists so to simply state its true seems to speculate beyond what the evidence allows.
What is this evidence you are referring to now?
And what does the evidence (1)say and (2) allow?

Peter Kirby,
man, this discussion has grown beautiful.
But, in any case, I do not buy into your assumptions. I am not aware of any instance of an ancient Jew understanding resurrection in a non-physical sense. If you could produce an example of such, I would be fascinated.
I believe Paul is an example. From his sayings, we can not deduce that the Christ he refers to was flesh-and blood.

Even Revelation (of St John?)

Gotta run, I be back 2morrow

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.

While I consider Paul's genuine letters to be very important, IMO Paul simply isn't close enough or descriptive enough about the early movement in Judea to be able to definitively say that his personal views regarding Jesus are legion throughout the movement. It seems clear enough that Paul was not concerned with an earthly Jesus, but Paul also doesn't seem too concerned with the other key members of the early movement either. He didn't visit anyone who might have been an original follower of Jesus (if he existed) for 3 years after his conversion, which tells me he had almost no concern for what they might tell him. For Paul, it was faith in the ritual sacrifice and "raising" of Jesus that was important.

At this point, the bottom line for me is that I'm not sure Paul's views can be taken as definitive evidence for the views of the Jesus movement in its earliest stages and I think we just don't have enough evidence to avoid a lot of speculation about what those views may have been and how they originated.

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Peter Kirby

I wrote: But, in any case, I do not buy into your assumptions. I am not aware of any instance of an ancient Jew understanding resurrection in a non-physical sense. If you could produce an example of such, I would be fascinated.

IntenSity writes: I believe Paul is an example. From his sayings, we can not deduce that the Christ he refers to was flesh-and blood.

In order to be an example, there would have to be an argument by which we could deduce that the Christ to which he refers was not flesh and blood. Also, in the context of finding Jewish analogies for such a "spiritual resurrection" belief, appeal to Paul begs the question.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

I wrote: But, in any case, I do not buy into your assumptions. I am not aware of any instance of an ancient Jew understanding resurrection in a non-physical sense. If you could produce an example of such, I would be fascinated.

In the OT, the Witch of Endor calls up the ghost of Samuel. This is certainly a kind of non-physical resurrection, although I doubt it would serve as a model for Jesus! In any case, many Docetic Christians were former Jews. Wouldn't certain strains of Docetic Christianity count? Finally, the gospels themselves, with their emphasis on the physicality of resurrection, beg the question of why they are so adamant.

On the Tacitus question, didn't Meier argue that the abbreviation for prefect and procurator was extremely close, and that Tacitus had simply confused the two in a written record?

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: In the OT, the Witch of Endor calls up the ghost of Samuel. This is certainly a kind of non-physical resurrection, although I doubt it would serve as a model for Jesus!

Does the author call it a resurrection?

Vorkosigan writes: In any case, many Docetic Christians were former Jews. Wouldn't certain strains of Docetic Christianity count? Finally, the gospels themselves, with their emphasis on the physicality of resurrection, beg the question of why they are so adamant.

There may have been Christians who held that Jesus was raised spiritually. But there is no evidence that they got this idea from Jews.

Vorkosigan writes: On the Tacitus question, didn't Meier argue that the abbreviation for prefect and procurator was extremely close, and that Tacitus had simply confused the two in a written record?

I do not know whether Meier has argued this. I do know that Ed Tyler has suggested that a written document contained the abbreviation PR, which could be taken as prefect or procurator. Also, it is possible that this is deliberate archaicizing, either as varatio or as deference to current convention.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

[b]Vorkosigan writes: In the OT, the Witch of Endor calls up the ghost of Samuel. This is certainly a kind of non-physical resurrection, although I doubt it would serve as a model for Jesus!

Does the author call it a resurrection?

Does it matter? The ancient jews believed in ghosts and spirits, so there's no reason that at least the germ of the idea couldn't have been present.

There may have been Christians who held that Jesus was raised spiritually. But there is no evidence that they got this idea from Jews.

I see.

I do not know whether Meier has argued this. I do know that Ed Tyler has suggested that a written document contained the abbreviation PR, which could be taken as prefect or procurator.

Yes, now I remember. It was Ed

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: Does it matter? The ancient jews believed in ghosts and spirits, so there's no reason that at least the germ of the idea couldn't have been present.


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

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.

best,
Peter Kirby