Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[dogsgod]

Again, as the semantics of the word aren't important here. It is the construction.

Let me use an example from english. The word "have" can mean possess, or it can be used as an auxiliary to form the perfect tense (e.g. I have climbed). A dictionary would not be sufficient to give us the meaning of an english sentence with "have."

If the sentence was "I have a dog" then the possessive sense is clear. If it is "I have gone" then it is clearly an auxiliary.

In other words, the construction is what is important to determine meaning.

In the relevant passage, the construction prohibits the metaphor.

"A dictionary would not be sufficient to give us the meaning of an english sentence with "have.""

Yes, it would:


Have, from merriam-webster

transitive verb 1 a : to hold or maintain as a possession, privilege, or entitlement <they have a new car> <I have my rights> b : to hold in one's use, service, regard, or at one's disposal <the group will have enough tickets for everyone> <we don't have time to stay> c : to hold, include, or contain as a part or whole <the car has power brakes> <April has 30 days>
2 : to feel obligation in regard to &#8212;usually used with an infinitive with to<we have things to do><have a deadline to meet>
3 : to stand in a certain relationship to <has three fine children> <we will have the wind at our backs>
4 a : to acquire or get possession of : obtain <these shoes are the best to be had> b : receive <had news> c : accept; specifically : to accept in marriage d : to copulate with
5 a : to be marked or characterized by (a quality, attribute, or faculty) <both have red hair> <has a way with words> b : exhibit, show <had the gall to refuse> c : use, exercise <have mercy on us>
6 a : to experience especially by submitting to, undergoing, or suffering <I have a cold> b : to make the effort to perform (an action) or engage in (an activity) <have a look at that cut> c : to entertain in the mind <have an opinion>
7 a : to cause or command to do something &#8212;used with the infinitive without to<have the children stay> b : to cause to be in a certain place or state <has people around at all times>
8 : allow <we'll have no more of that>
9 : to be competent in <has only a little French> 10 a : to hold in a position of disadvantage or certain defeat <we have him now> b : to take advantage of : trick, fool <been had by a partner> 11 : bear 2a <have a baby> 12 : to partake of <have dinner> <have a piece> 13 : bribe, suborn <can be had for a price>verbal auxiliary 1 &#8212;used with the past participle to form the present perfect, past perfect, or future perfect <has gone home><had already eaten><will have finished dinner by then>
2 : to be compelled, obliged, or required &#8212;used with an infinitive with to or to alone <we had to go><do what you have to><it has to be said>
&#8212; had better or had best : would be wise to
&#8212; have at : to go at or deal with : attack
&#8212; have coming : to deserve or merit what one gets, benefits by, or suffers <he had that coming>
&#8212; have done : finish, stop
&#8212; have done with : to bring to an end : have no further concern with <let us have done with name-calling>
&#8212; have had it 1 : to have had or have done all one is going to be allowed to
2 : to have experienced, endured, or suffered all one can
&#8212; have it : assert, claim <rumor has it that he was drunk>
&#8212; have it in for : to intend to do harm to
&#8212; have it out : to settle a matter of contention by discussion or a fight
&#8212; have none of : to refuse to have anything to do with
&#8212; have one's eye on 1 a : to look at b : to watch constantly and attentively
2 : to have as an objective
&#8212; have to do with 1 : to deal with <the story has to do with real people &#8212; Alice M. Jordan>
2 : to have a specified relationship with or effect on <the size of the brain has nothing to do with intelligence &#8212; Ruth Benedict>











.

 

[Oberon]

It's not important in the example I gave. In English it's all the same. James, brother of the Lord can be taken to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, literally, spiritually, metaphorically, etc.

Again, it IS important in greek. In English, we have last names. There is no need for the formula used by Paul and Josephus and in all of greek literature.

Again, what is unique to the Greek?

The fact that they need alternative methods to identify people. There wasn't much diversity with names. And no last names. So various methods were employed to identify one person from the next. One of these is the formula employed by Paul and Josephus. "X the Y of Z." It is a syntactic formula which uses kin to differentiate one "james" from all the others. English has no need to do this, so it any "brother" reference can be metaphorical. Greek HAD such a need, so it can't.

All this pertains to the English as well

No, it doesn't. We have last names. And we have a far more diverse range of first names. So we have no formulas to identify people the way greek and latin did.

Could it not be a title to identify him as the leader of a brotherhood?

No. Because the formula is used to differentiate him from other people named James. Moreover, the metaphor of brotherhood employed in Paul and elsewhere in greek literature never uses this formula.

I have never come across this problem before, can you provide an online reference?

An online reference to what?

 

[Oberon]

Yes, it would:

No, it wouldn't as is evident by your citation. It lists a number of uses of have. We can see from these uses that "have" can be used in multiple ways. However, in particular constructions it CAN'T be used in particular ways. The same is true for adelphos or really any word. Syntactic constructions constrain the semantic restrain of a word.

 

[dogsgod]

Again, it IS important in greek. In English, we have last names. There is no need for the formula used by Paul and Josephus and in all of greek literature.



The fact that they need alternative methods to identify people. There wasn't much diversity with names. And no last names. So various methods were employed to identify one person from the next. One of these is the formula employed by Paul and Josephus. "X the Y of Z." It is a syntactic formula which uses kin to differentiate one "james" from all the others. English has no need to do this, so it any "brother" reference can be metaphorical. Greek HAD such a need, so it can't.



No, it doesn't. We have last names. And we have a far more diverse range of first names. So we have no formulas to identify people the way greek and latin did.



No. Because the formula is used to differentiate him from other people named James. Moreover, the metaphor of brotherhood employed in Paul and elsewhere in greek literature never uses this formula.



An online reference to what?

When do you think the English first made use of last names?

 

[dogsgod]

No, it wouldn't as is evident by your citation. It lists a number of uses of have. We can see from these uses that "have" can be used in multiple ways. However, in particular constructions it CAN'T be used in particular ways. The same is true for adelphos or really any word. Syntactic constructions constrain the semantic restrain of a word.

What does that prove?

 

[Oberon]

When do you think the English first made use of last names?

What difference does this make? It has been a part of english for centuries at least. I am fairly well acquainted with Old English, and these texts did not use last names as we do. I have read a fair amount of middle english, but I suspect that last names were not common during this period.

I don't see what difference it makes in this case, however. The point is that Greek needed the syntactic formula used by Paul and Josephus to identify and differentiate people. A metaphorical usage of this formula would be lost on a greek reader/hearer.

 

[logician]

Anything "written" by Josephus concerning the supposed Christ, or any personages around him, is automatically very suspect, because it cannot be proven that the passages are not forgeries.

 

[dogsgod]

What difference does this make? It has been a part of english for centuries at least. I am fairly well acquainted with Old English, and these texts did not use last names as we do. I have read a fair amount of middle english, but I suspect that last names were not common during this period.

I don't see what difference it makes in this case, however. The point is that Greek needed the syntactic formula used by Paul and Josephus to identify and differentiate people. A metaphorical usage of this formula would be lost on a greek reader/hearer.

What about a title such as that given to a leader of a brotherhood?

 

[Oberon]

Anything "written" by Josephus concerning the supposed Christ, or any personages around him, is automatically very suspect, because it cannot be proven that the passages are not forgeries.

This is so completely wrong it isn't funny. It is only "automatically suspect" to you because you cling to your mythic christ theory. In the real world, nothing in Josephus or any text is "automatically suspect." It is only suspect if we have textual variations or if it looks as if it couldn't have been written by Josephus. Yet the reference to James the brother of Jesus called christ makes perfect sense in Josephus, which is why none of the Josephan experts think it is a forgery.

 

[Oberon]

What about a title such as that given to a leader of a brotherhood?

But it isn't a title. It is a kin identifier. Titles are used differently. If he were "leader of a brotherhood" it would be James, the pillar or leader of the brethren or something like that. Not James, the brother of the Lord.

 

[dogsgod]

So it's impossible even though there are a number of references by Paul to brothers and brethren of the Lord, and so designating a title to their leader as such is the case is out of the question, the Greek can't allow for that? If it's so entirely restricted to kin, wouldn't brother of Jesus be more appropriate? After all, Lord is a title, not a name.

 

[dogsgod]

Besides, Epistles of James and Jude are conspicuously absent of any mention of these figures as being brothers of Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

Besides, Epistles of James and Jude are conspicuously absent of any mention of these figures as being brothers of Jesus.

They are forgeries.

So it's impossible even though there are a number of references by Paul to brothers and brethren of the Lord

The reference by Paul to "brothers of the lord" is also literal brothers. When Paul wants to be metaphorical, he either says "brothers" or "brothers in the lord."

and so designating a title to their leader as such is the case is out of the question, the Greek can't allow for that?

In this formula any metaphor would be lost. The whole point is kin identification.

If it's so entirely restricted to kin, wouldn't brother of Jesus be more appropriate? After all, Lord is a title, not a name.

No, because that is what Paul calls Jesus. The lord. The same way that one could say "X, the son of the emperor" or "Y, the brother of the high priest" or whatever. As long as it is clear who you are talking about, you don't have to use the name.

If Josphus had said "brother of the lord" than this would be a problem. But that is exactly why Josephus has Jesus, called Christ, not "lord" or Jesus Christ.

 

[dogsgod]

They are forgeries.

All the more reason to try and fathom why anyone writing in James' or Jude's name (pseudonymous), would not introduce them as a brother of Jesus. The whole point of writing in these names is a matter of authority, a brother of Jesus would certainly elevate that, the writer would want to provide these details in order to raise the figures stature in the eyes of the reader. Unbelievable.

 

[Oberon]

All the more reason to try and fathom why anyone writing in James' or Jude's name (pseudonymous), would not introduce them as a brother of Jesus.

Not really. What matters is that Jude was a name known in christian circles. The author of Jude simply copied what is in Acts (Jude, the brother of James).

As for James, who says it was supposed to be James the brother of the Lord?

The whole point of writing in these names is a matter of authority, a brother of Jesus would certainly elevate that

Not at all. The James who WASN'T the brother of Jesus had a greater status. None of the 12 were related to Jesus, the biggest figures in the early church, James, John, and Peter (not to mention Paul and Barnabas) were not related to Jesus.

Moreoever, it is all irrelevent. Paul actually knew James, the brother of Jesus. Josephus knew of his trial, even if he did not know him personally. And Mark/Matthew may or may not have known him, but they knew of him.

 

[dogsgod]

The reference by Paul to "brothers of the lord" is also literal brothers. When Paul wants to be metaphorical, he either says "brothers" or "brothers in the lord."

In this formula any metaphor would be lost. The whole point is kin identification.

We're past the metaphor at this point, I'm now questioning the term as a title.

No, because that is what Paul calls Jesus. The lord. The same way that one could say "X, the son of the emperor" or "Y, the brother of the high priest" or whatever. As long as it is clear who you are talking about, you don't have to use the name.

This argument is weak because Paul refers to the Lord Jesus, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christ, and sometimes simply the Lord, but just as many times, if not more, when he refers to the Lord he is referring to God. So it's not clear. Lord is a title given to God and Christ regardless if Paul refers to Christ as simply Lord on occasion. Brother of Jesus would be clear.

If Josephus had said "brother of the lord" than this would be a problem. But that is exactly why Josephus has Jesus, called Christ, not "lord" or Jesus Christ.

It would be a problem for Josephus but not Paul, that's curious. Why the need to keep referring to Josephus in order to clarify what Paul states if there's no question of clarification in the first place?

 

[Oberon]

We're past the metaphor at this point, I'm now questioning the term as a title.

That still leaves us with kin identification. A title defeats the purpose the same way a metaphor does. Also, Neither Paul nor anyone else uses "Brother of jesus" as a title.

This argument is weak because Paul refers to the Lord Jesus, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christ, and sometimes simply the Lord, but just as many times, if not more, when he refers to the Lord he is referring to God.

Paul mainly uses theos for God. And nobody anywhere ever refers to a brother of YHWH, as a title or in any other sense.

Brother of Jesus would be clear.

So would brother of the Lord. Nobody would possibly imagine that James was the brother of YHWH, nor is this ever a title used. People were the children of God, not his brother.

It would be a problem for Josephus but not Paul, that's curious.

Why? If Josephus called Jesus "lord" than the passage would be an interpolation.

Why the need to keep referring to Josephus in order to clarify what Paul states if there's no question of clarification in the first place?

To demonstrate the same syntax used. My whole point is that this is a formula, which uses kin to identify people. It isn't a title or a metaphor. Paul uses it. Josephus uses it. In fact, it is used all throughout greek literature.

 

[dogsgod]

Not really. What matters is that Jude was a name known in christian circles. The author of Jude simply copied what is in Acts (Jude, the brother of James).

So what you are saying is that Jude is clearly not a brother of Jesus. Jude is named with the disciples in Acts, and we know that none of Jesus' brothers were disciples.

 

[dogsgod]

That still leaves us with kin identification. A title defeats the purpose the same way a metaphor does. Also, Neither Paul nor anyone else uses "Brother of jesus" as a title.

There would be no question of a title if Paul referred to James as the brother of Jesus. The fact remains, Lord is a title, not a name, it's not a name given to kin, yet you argue that this formula is strictly used in the sense that it identifies kin only.

 

[dogsgod]

So would brother of the Lord. Nobody would possibly imagine that James was the brother of YHWH, nor is this ever a title used. People were the children of God, not his brother.

Not to mention the Son of God.