Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gregg · 01-15-2003, 12:33 AM

An announcement:

I've made the decision to withdraw from these debates about MJ vs. HJ until such time as I'm able to do more research and be more confident of my facts. I am simply making too many basic errors in my posts. There are others here who are much better equipped to argue for the mythicist case than I am, so for the time being I leave it in their capable hands.

Gregg

godfry n. glad · 01-15-2003, 07:46 AM

Bede did opine:

Quote:

While I think Josephus did say something about Jesus and the Ant 22 reference is genuine, I have some sympathy for Artemus's view in that the particular reconstructions are worthless as historical evidence. We cannot learn anything much from them except what the reconstructor (honestly) thinks Josephus said.

I keep wondering about this claim that "the Ant 22 reference is genuine." What sort of evidence is there to support the authenticity of the Ant 22 reference?

godfry n. glad

Peter Kirby · 01-15-2003, 07:49 AM

And where did those two extra books of the Antiquities come from? Last I knew there were twenty. Another find by Lemaire?

best,
Peter Kirby

godfry n. glad · 01-15-2003, 08:13 AM

Heh... Yeah... I thought the reference was 20.200....

Perhaps Bede can enlighten us as to the added books to Antiquities of the Jews?

godfry n. glad

01-15-2003, 09:31 AM

Whoops, it is Ant 20, not ant number 22 which I narrowly avoided treading on in the garden this morning...

godfrey, the Ant 20 reference in discussed at length on Peter's site and I have nothing much to add.

B

01-20-2003, 02:17 AM

Quote:

I'm not sure I understand this, Bede. Doesn't that mean that you would also have to consider the Bible worthless as historical evidence? The Greek text that underlies most modern translations is an eclectic one (i.e. pick and choose according to various scholarly methodologies).

Hi Haran,

Sorry I missed this. I would suggest that we do consider that the additional end of GMark is useless as historical evidence too even though there is much of value historically in the Bible. I am not convinced that the reconstructions of the TF are firm enough to supply useful historical evidence but this does not invalidate the rest of Josephus or the Bible all of which must be examined on their own terms.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

godfry n. glad · 01-21-2003, 01:48 PM

Excuse me, but I'm still wondering why it is that Josephus would have included a term (Christos) that, from my understanding, would have been incendiary to Roman authorities. Indeed, from Horsley's works, I am given to understand that Josephus actively avoided using messianic terminology, even so far as to avoid using messianic titles in reference to Vespasian, whom Josephus, in _JW_, selects as the true figure of Jewish oracles that predicted the rise of a world ruler from Judea.

Given that he would not refer to other "pretenders" as "called the Christ", I'm left wondering why it would be included as a passing descriptor in the narrative about the perfidity of Ananus. And then, after introducing the value-laden term, fails to either define it or explain it. Just why is it that this brother of James, one Jesus, is referred to as "the unguent" or "the lineament"?

Then, while in agreement with the arguments that the phrase used most likely was NOT introduced by Christian interpolators, as was argued in Peter's presentation, I don't see how this might exclude non-Christian copyists (and...I'm guessing that the earliest copyists of Josephus' works would NOT have been Christians, but might have been interested in things Judeaic, and the increase in worshippers of this crucified savior) who, in the process of the increasing claims and counterclaims swirling around the nascent Christian movement during the second century, might have annotated the margin with the equivalent of "...brother of Jesus, called the Christ?," only to have the marginal note later erroneously taken as definitive and included in the text.

Is there an explanation I've missed that dimisses this?

godfry n. glad

Peter Kirby · 01-21-2003, 03:05 PM

What is the evidence concerning the use of the Greek term XRISTOS in Jewish literature other than Josephus?

best,
Peter Kirby

godfry n. glad · 01-21-2003, 03:17 PM

Good question. Is Josephus "Jewish literature" or "Greek literature"? Or, something else entirely (like Roman literature written for Grecophones about Judea and Jews)?

Another question would be: "How did contemporary Roman readers of Josephus' works interpret the term 'Christos'?"

What evidence is there that Roman readers would have understood the reference? How was the term "christos" used in Koine Greek?

godfry n. glad

Haran · 01-22-2003, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Bede
Sorry I missed this.

No problem.

Quote:

I would suggest that we do consider that the additional end of GMark is useless as historical evidence too even though there is much of value historically in the Bible. I am not convinced that the reconstructions of the TF are firm enough to supply useful historical evidence but this does not invalidate the rest of Josephus or the Bible all of which must be examined on their own terms.

I thought there were good scholars who saw the ending of Mark as valid historical evidence, though added (or found and added) later.

I just can't bring myself to say that these things are useless. I tend to lean toward Meier's reconstruction. I think he did an excellent job of analysis. Doesn't Steve Mason think that there is a kernel of truth there as well (I think I heard him say so in the sound files from the SBL meeting in Toronto).

Oh well. Everyone has his own opinion, I suppose.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-15-2003, 12:33 AM	#31
Gregg Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,877	An announcement: I've made the decision to withdraw from these debates about MJ vs. HJ until such time as I'm able to do more research and be more confident of my facts. I am simply making too many basic errors in my posts. There are others here who are much better equipped to argue for the mythicist case than I am, so for the time being I leave it in their capable hands. Gregg

01-15-2003, 07:49 AM	#33
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	And where did those two extra books of the Antiquities come from? Last I knew there were twenty. Another find by Lemaire? best, Peter Kirby

01-15-2003, 08:13 AM	#34
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Heh... Yeah... I thought the reference was 20.200.... Perhaps Bede can enlighten us as to the added books to Antiquities of the Jews? godfry n. glad

01-15-2003, 09:31 AM	#35
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Whoops, it is Ant 20, not ant number 22 which I narrowly avoided treading on in the garden this morning... godfrey, the Ant 20 reference in discussed at length on Peter's site and I have nothing much to add. B

01-21-2003, 01:48 PM	#37
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Excuse me, but I'm still wondering why it is that Josephus would have included a term (Christos) that, from my understanding, would have been incendiary to Roman authorities. Indeed, from Horsley's works, I am given to understand that Josephus actively avoided using messianic terminology, even so far as to avoid using messianic titles in reference to Vespasian, whom Josephus, in _JW_, selects as the true figure of Jewish oracles that predicted the rise of a world ruler from Judea. Given that he would not refer to other "pretenders" as "called the Christ", I'm left wondering why it would be included as a passing descriptor in the narrative about the perfidity of Ananus. And then, after introducing the value-laden term, fails to either define it or explain it. Just why is it that this brother of James, one Jesus, is referred to as "the unguent" or "the lineament"? Then, while in agreement with the arguments that the phrase used most likely was NOT introduced by Christian interpolators, as was argued in Peter's presentation, I don't see how this might exclude non-Christian copyists (and...I'm guessing that the earliest copyists of Josephus' works would NOT have been Christians, but might have been interested in things Judeaic, and the increase in worshippers of this crucified savior) who, in the process of the increasing claims and counterclaims swirling around the nascent Christian movement during the second century, might have annotated the margin with the equivalent of "...brother of Jesus, called the Christ?," only to have the marginal note later erroneously taken as definitive and included in the text. Is there an explanation I've missed that dimisses this? godfry n. glad

01-21-2003, 03:05 PM	#38
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	What is the evidence concerning the use of the Greek term XRISTOS in Jewish literature other than Josephus? best, Peter Kirby

01-21-2003, 03:17 PM	#39
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Good question. Is Josephus "Jewish literature" or "Greek literature"? Or, something else entirely (like Roman literature written for Grecophones about Judea and Jews)? Another question would be: "How did contemporary Roman readers of Josephus' works interpret the term 'Christos'?" What evidence is there that Roman readers would have understood the reference? How was the term "christos" used in Koine Greek? godfry n. glad

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.