Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Oberon]

What else is not explicit is that they were called Christians due to the weather in Antioch.

Thanks for the contribution. It is not simply a matter of not explicitly connecting the title "christians" to Paul and Barnabas. I have shown that the greek makes this statement a sidebar, deliberately UNconnected from Paul and Barnabas. Additionally, even if we posit a connection, if anything Barnabas is the leader, not Paul.

 

[Ben Masada]

At best it was within the year Paul, Barnabas and the other brothers were preaching. At worst it was some time within the rule of Claudius Caesar who seem to have ruled for 13 years. I suspect it was very early on. I lean toward the first year (the whole year they were preaching) because that's what Acts alludes to. We can only go by how these scriptures are presenting themselves.

Acts 11:26 KJV
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.


Ok...So looking at this word "and" in all the bibles at my fingertips..the word is (te) in greek. You're learned in Greek. Basically when I look this word up I'm presented with the definition....;

1) not only ... but also
2) both ... and
3) as ... so
a primary particle (enclitic) of connection or addition; both or also (properly, as correlation of 2532):--also, and, both, even, then, whether Often used in composition, usually as the latter participle.



".....And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people so the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.


There are a few translations out there that are rendered that way or similar. Giving the casual reader of this supposed history book reason to believe that (while in Antioch for a whole year they were preaching, during the rule of Claudius Caesar, the disciples were first declared Christians).

Is there anything more clear than that? Only someone with a hidden agenda would deny all these facts.

 

[dogsgod]

Is there anything more clear than that? Only someone with a hidden agenda would deny all these facts.

Hidden?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Is there anything more clear than that? Only someone with a hidden agenda would deny all these facts.

Again, I suspect they were called Christians during the year he was in Antioch. I can't say for a certainty that he is the "main" reason for them receiving the title but I think he is a contributing factor for them being branded with the title. Here's an interesting tidbit of info I found....

http://andrasik.oldpaths.net/English/Paul-Chart.pdf

If the chart is correct then...yes....in Antioch is where they ALL were called christians during the year Paul, Barnabas and the brothers were preaching. Acts 11:25 -30 is very short so it would appear that Paul and Barnabas were trustworthy (had proven themselves).

 

[Oberon]

Is there anything more clear than that? Only someone with a hidden agenda would deny all these facts.

Or someone who can read greek. You are taking advice on greek syntax from a lexicon.

 

[Oberon]

Again, I suspect they were called Christians during the year he was in Antioch. I can't say for a certainty that he is the "main" reason for them receiving the title but I think he is a contributing factor for them being branded with the title.

Only there is nothing on which to base this. Even if we link the calling of the disciples "christian" to the stay of Paul and Barnabas, Barnabas was the leader, the one in charge. If anyone was responsible, it would be he, not Paul.

But, as I pointed out, your use of a lexicon rather than a greek grammar (see, e.g. Smyth, or for particles specifcally Denniston) has mislead you.

The use of te in Acts disconnects the clause where the disciples are first called christians in Antioch from the arrival of Paul and Barnabas, it does not connect it.

Furthermore, even if we connect Paul's visit to this name, we are still left with the fact that Acts has disciples prior to Paul preaching the risen christ.

So either we reject Acts as historically useful, in which case the part about Antioch being the origin of the title "christians" should be rejected as well, or we don't, in which case Acts clearly has people before Paul preaching the risen christ.

What any historian worth his or her salt would not do is what Ben does: simply pick and choose which part we regard as "historical" based on what we want to be.

 

[dogsgod]

Regardless of whether Acts is reliable as historical or not, it reads as if the Christians were first called Christians in Antioch due to Paul's teachings while he was there.

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon

That's curious. What's the connection between Acts 12.2 being an interpolation and a mythic Jesus? I didn't know there was one but perhaps you can enlighten us.

Still curious.

 

[Oberon]

Regardless of whether Acts is reliable as historical or not, it reads as if the Christians were first called Christians in Antioch due to Paul's teachings while he was there.

In other words, when you want to extract something from acts you think supports your view, you will, an you will reject the rest. Nice historical methodology.

For actual historians, however, this doesn't do it.

Moreoever, for those who actually know greek, your theory on Paul sort of falls apart.

Still curious.

I don't know why. I already explained it. You are fully capable of making the connection between a side comment in acts, which is not connected to the rest of the passage concering Paul and Barnabas, yet when it comes to Acts 12:2, which is fully connected to the larger contect and the passage it is contained, you have no problem positing interpolation. This despite the fact you are alone among every expert, textual critics and all others, despite the fact you can't even read the actual text.

Bias much?

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon, just answer the question;


What's the connection between Acts 12.2 being an interpolation and a mythic Jesus?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Only there is nothing on which to base this. Even if we link the calling of the disciples "christian" to the stay of Paul and Barnabas, Barnabas was the leader, the one in charge. If anyone was responsible, it would be he, not Paul.

Regardless. The use of the (They) in the verse does not show who is the greater or lesser. The writer simply coveys that Barnabas goes to get Paul...probably for reasons Ben pointed out. He brings Paul to Antioch and as "they" taught many, Paul is definitely a contributing factor to all of them being called "christians"...

But, as I pointed out, your use of a lexicon rather than a greek grammar (see, e.g. Smyth, or for particles specifcally Denniston) has mislead you.

Then ALL are mislead because this is what is taught and how it is translated to those across the world who don't read greek.


Douay Rheims
11:26 And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians.


(If memory serves me correct....I think the Douay Rheims is or was a version widely used by the Catholic Church - maybe not exclusive). If so then we have one of or THE largest denomination of christians under the impression Antioch, the whole year Paul was there, he and the rest of the brethren were at some point called christians.


Weymouth New Testament
11:26 He succeeded, and brought him to Antioch; and for a whole year they attended the meetings of the Church, and taught a large number of people. And it was in Antioch that the disciples first received the name of 'Christians.

Young's Literal Translation
11:26 and having found him, he brought him to Antioch, and it came to pass that they a whole year did assemble together in the assembly, and taught a great multitude, the disciples also were divinely called first in Antioch Christians.

New International Reader's Version
He found him there. Then he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church. They taught large numbers of people. At Antioch the believers were called Christians for the first time.


Wycliffe New Testament
and when he had found him, he led to Antioch. And all a year they lived there in the church, and taught much people, so that the disciples were named first at Antioch christian men


Now you say there is nothing to base this on but this is the impression every bible reader gets and is taught by that verse.

The use of te in Acts disconnects the clause where the disciples are first called christians in Antioch from the arrival of Paul and Barnabas, it does not connect it.

Then tell the churches and bible professors to stop teaching it that way to their students.

People's New Testament
11:26 A whole year. A.D. 44; they continued the work with great success.
The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. The Jews called them Nazarenes (Ac 24:5) or Galileans (Ac 2:7). They called themselves disciples (Ac 6:1, etc.), brethren (Ac 6:3, etc.) saints (Ac 9:13,32,41 26:10). The new term was probably bestowed by the Gentiles in the great city, in default of any other name that seemed appropriate. Here was the first great Gentile church. Outsiders could see that they were not Jews nor pagans, hence they called them after their Lord, just as the first disciples of Plato were called Platonists, and those of Epicurus, Epicureans. The designation Christians occurs only twice elsewhere in the New Testament (Ac 26:28 1Pe 4:16), and in both places its use is ascribed to those out of the church; yet it was accepted as honoring the Lord.


Wesley's Notes
11:26 And the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch - Here it was that they first received this standing appellation. They were before termed Nazarenes and Galileans.


So....Paul is a contributing factor to them being called Christians. This probably explains the exchange between him and Agrippa in Acts 26:28


Acts 26:28

Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

If we are going off of the "Historian" (Josephus) then we get the sense that the whole year they were in Antioch preaching and teaching they, at some point that year, were called christians. This was during the reign of Claudius Caesar and right before he had the (Acts 26:28) conversation with Agrippa.

As I indicated earlier by use of the time line chart this is on point. Josephus seems to indicate the death of Agrippa around 44 AD. The time in Antioch, the conversation with Agrippa and the subsequent death of Agrippa appears to have happen in a very short amount of time......

Agrippa I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Furthermore, even if we connect Paul's visit to this name, we are still left with the fact that Acts has disciples prior to Paul preaching the risen christ.

Means nothing. They were, as some have pointed out, known as Nazarenes or followers of the way....Some have suggested that the term "christian" was probably meant in a derogatory way by the unbelievers..(not sure on that one).

So either we reject Acts as historically useful, in which case the part about Antioch being the origin of the title "christians" should be rejected as well, or we don't, in which case Acts clearly has people before Paul preaching the risen christ.

But preaching a risen christ does not mean they "had" to call them christians. Why would they? If it was originally meant in a derogatory way then we can't assume that everyone would have just been going around referring to them as such but it was in Antioch, after preaching for a whole year, they were called christians...Paul included...because at this point...he was included.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon, just answer the question;


What's the connection between Acts 12.2 being an interpolation and a mythic Jesus?

I never made such a connection, so I don't know why you keep asking. I made a connection between your willingness to posit an interpolation in Acts 12.2 (because such an interpolation would help your theory that there wasn't a James the brother of Jesus in Acts), when this line is very connected to the passage, and at the same time look at a line which is so UNconnected, and not only forget all about interpolation (not that I argue the line is, of course), but here you read in acausal and temporal connection to the passage which is absent.

 

[Oberon]

Regardless. The use of the (They) in the verse does not show who is the greater or lesser.

There is no "they" in the greek. It is added to make it more comprehensible.

Moreover, that isn't what shows who is greater or lesser. What shows this is the use of the verb "led" in greek (commonly used to describe the leading of animals by a master). Paul and Barnabas don't "go together" after Barnabas finds Paul. Paul is led their by barnabas, with a greek verb that clearly shows who is in charge.

Moreoever, we know from Acts that Barnabas has seniority over Paul, that it was barnabas who introduced Paul to the leaders of the sect, and that everywhere Barnabas has more authority.

He brings Paul to Antioch and as "they" taught many, Paul is definitely a contributing factor to all of them being called "christians"...

There is no "they" in the greek.

(If memory serves me correct....I think the Douay Rheims is or was a version widely used by the Catholic Church - maybe not exclusive). If so then we have one of or THE largest denomination of christians under the impression Antioch, the whole year Paul was there, he and the rest of the brethren were at some point called christians.

1. The catholics used an ancient latin translations for centuries long after most people couldn't read it.
2. The catholics, until quite recently, discouraged members from reading the bible. The idea was that only people who studied it (catholic priests) were capable of understanding the subtleties and whatnot, and so they thought that this "educated elite" should be responsible for teaching the bible to members (rather than members reading the bible themselves).

Then ALL are mislead because this is what is taught and how it is translated to those across the world who don't read greek.


Now you say there is nothing to base this on but this is the impression every bible reader gets and is taught by that verse.

First of all, why do you think so many people who are truly interested in understanding the NT learn greek? It is because no translation is perfect. Something is going to be lost or added in order to make sense in english.

Let me give you an example: english has FOUR different past tenses (not including the pluperfect for this example): the emphatic, simple, continous, and perfect (I did jump, I jumped, I was jumping, and I have jumped). German has two (Ich sprang and Ich bin gesprungen), and they both mean the same thing (one is more common in speech, the other in writing, but the have pretty much the same meaning).

Which means every time a translator is rendering an english past tense into german, s/he has one choice (two, really, but they mean the same thing) for four different english tenses.

Something is going to be lost in translation, because german doesn't possess the subtleties of the english past tense.

Now, german is a modern language closely related to english. Imagine the problems with an ancient language NOT nearly as close to english.

Much more is going to be lost in translation, including such subtleties as the difference between kai, de, and te.

Then tell the churches and bible professors to stop teaching it that way to their students.

Bible professors read greek and are capable of explaining such differences to students. As for churches, well, most churches rely on translation for both the priests/clergy/etc and members. And things are always lost in translation.

Outsiders could see that they were not Jews nor pagans, hence they called them after their Lord, just as the first disciples of Plato were called Platonists, and those of Epicurus, Epicureans.

This isn't entirely accurate. For one thing, various Jewish sects were also called different names (Sadducees, Pharisees, etc). There is nothing to indicate that the gentiles who gave the sect the name "christians" didn't think of these as another jewish sect.

The designation Christians occurs only twice elsewhere in the New Testament (Ac 26:28 1Pe 4:16), and in both places its use is ascribed to those out of the church; yet it was accepted as honoring the Lord.

The same is true of "nazarenes." Both "nazarenes" and "christians" are names derived by outsiders from the way christians spoke of their founder.

So....Paul is a contributing factor to them being called Christians.

1. You are still making this connection based on a translation. The greek doesn't.
2. Barnabas is clearly the leader of the two.
3. The greek doesn't say "they taught."
4. Disciples prior to Paul preached the risen messiah according to Acts.
5. Nazarenes, like christians, comes from the way the sect spoke about their founder.

Acts 26:28

Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

This isn't explained by interpreting Acts as stating Paul had something to do with the title christians. If agrippa knew of the title, that's what he would have said.

If we are going off of the "Historian" (Josephus) then we get the sense that the whole year they were in Antioch preaching and teaching they, at some point that year, were called christians.

Josephus never mentions Paul, so if we are going off of him we get nothing about this.

As I indicated earlier by use of the time line chart this is on point. Josephus seems to indicate the death of Agrippa around 44 AD. The time in Antioch, the conversation with Agrippa and the subsequent death of Agrippa appears to have happen in a very short amount of time......

Not that short. Paul converted within a few years. By 44 AD, he had probably left Antioch years before. Moreover, we have no idea whether Agrippa really used the word "christians." The author of acts wasn't there, and as is usual in ancient history, rather than simply describe a known event, a dialogue is introduced that is largely (if not completely) made up.

Means nothing.

Not true. The reason for this whole issue is Ben's attempt to see Paul as the founder of christianity. However, if his one piece of evidence points to Barnabas as more important, and also shows that disciples prior to Paul were preaching the risen messiah, than even if there is a connection between the stay of Barnabas and Paul and the title christians, this makes the name no different than "nazarenes." Both are names derived from the founder, and neither would make Paul this founder.

But preaching a risen christ does not mean they "had" to call them christians. Why would they?

Because like nazarenes, christianos is a name derived from the way the christians spoke about Jesus (the nazarene, the christ, the messiah.)

If it was originally meant in a derogatory way

There is no reason to think this, other than the fact that most outsideres probably used all titles of christians with disdain.

then we can't assume that everyone would have just been going around referring to them as such but it was in Antioch, after preaching for a whole year, they were called christians...Paul included...because at this point...he was included

Again, no connection between Paul's stay and the name. The other mentions it as an aside. And your "paul included" is again problematic in the greek. No "they." It is assumed simply because they were both there, and because we cannot render the greek into english without putting some pronoun there.

EDIT:

Another example of problems with translation.

The gospel of John starts out: Εν αρχῃ ἦν ο Λόγος/en arche en ho logos.

The greek word ho logos is almost universally translated at "the word." (in the beginning was the word).

Yet there is a problem: logos almost NEVER means "a word." rhema is more commonly used to mean a single word. The most common meaning of logos is a speech, story, account, narrative, etc. It is almost identical in meaning to the greek mythos.

However, both of these words (mythos and logos) also have specialized meanings. Logos became a term in philosophy which means a "divine ordering principle" of sorts.

So when John uses the word logos, he clearly does not meant just "word." He means more the "divine thought" or "divine reason" of god (i.e. Jesus prior to becoming flesh).

Yet almost no translation makes this at all clear. They almost all say "word." Why?

Well, mainly because we possess no word in the english language which will get across the meaning of logos here. More importantly, even if we go the route of some translators, and say something like "divine word" we have a problem. This gets us closer to this particular use of logos, but further away from what logos means.

The point is, again, that translations are all imperfect. Moreover, they tend to use each other (which is why they almost all use word in John 1:1). In other words, you cannot really use a translation if you really want to understand something as nuanced as the connection between clauses.

 

[dogsgod]

I never made such a connection, so I don't know why you keep asking. I made a connection between your willingness to posit an interpolation in Acts 12.2 (because such an interpolation would help your theory that there wasn't a James the brother of Jesus in Acts), when this line is very connected to the passage, and at the same time look at a line which is so UNconnected, and not only forget all about interpolation (not that I argue the line is, of course), but here you read in acausal and temporal connection to the passage which is absent.

There is no James, the brother of Jesus in Acts, it's not a theory regardless of the interpolation. In fact, the only thing we can be certain about is that the James referred to in Acts is not the brother of Jesus. It would be preposterous for the author to bring another character into the story without introducing him, especially the brother of Jesus.

 

[dogsgod]

Originally Posted by Oberon
Interesting, for someone who argued that Acts 12:2, which IS explicitly connected with the larger plot of acts, is an interpolation, simply because it doesn't fit into his preconceived notions about a "mythic" Jesus.






Originally Posted by dogsgod
Oberon, just answer the question;


What's the connection between Acts 12.2 being an interpolation and a mythic Jesus?

I never made such a connection, so I don't know why you keep asking.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon, just answer the question;


What's the connection between Acts 12.2 being an interpolation and a mythic Jesus?

The connection was your interpretation that Acts says nothing about James a brother of Jesus. This brother figure, as Prices states, is very inconvenient for any "mythicist argument." So naturally, you have tried (and failed) to find ways around the near universal acceptance of the reference by Josephus as genuine and Paul's clear statement that James was a literal kin.

Act 12.2 shows that after one James dies, another important one is still around. This is inconvenient for you, because it shows that this James was important, and is also not distinguished (and therefore could easily be the brother James), so you (and only you, no expert has ever agreed with you) posited an interpolation, based off of the fact that in translations the line could be removed and the passage still make sense (a horrible approach to textual criticism), yet Acts 12.2 clearly fits into the passage.

Then when we have another line, which is totally disconnected from the passage, you not only forget your basis for arguing interpolation (i.e. can the passage be read without the line), you are now reading a causal and temporal connection into the line.

Bias much?

 

[dogsgod]

The connection was your interpretation that Acts says nothing about James a brother of Jesus. This brother figure, as Prices states, is very inconvenient for any "mythicist argument."

This is why you can't be trusted to present anything truthfully. You've taken Price's quote completely out of context to support your notions. Price concluded in that same article that James was just as elusive as an historical Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

This is why you can't be trusted to present anything truthfully. You've taken Price's quote completely out of context to support your notions. Price concluded in that same article that James was just as elusive as an historical Jesus.

I didn't take it out of context. I said exactly what Price said. Then Price goes on to conclude that the "brothers of the lord" were not actual brothers.

Except he gives no evidence for this, because there is none. There is no indication anywhere of some followers of Jesus referred to as brothers of the lord. None of the twelve, or Paul, or really any known followers other than James are ever referred to as brothers of Jesus.

Moreover, it doesn't explain Josephus.

In short, Price's conclusion is reached simply by ignoring all the evidence, and restating his initial position. He doesn't deal with the evidence. He just ignores it. Some scholar.

 

[dogsgod]

I didn't take it out of context. I said exactly what Price said. Then Price goes on to conclude that the "brothers of the lord" were not actual brothers.

Imagine our shock.

Except he gives no evidence for this, because there is none. There is no indication anywhere of some followers of Jesus referred to as brothers of the lord. None of the twelve, or Paul, or really any known followers other than James are ever referred to as brothers of Jesus.

The "brother of Jesus." Really?

Moreover, it doesn't explain Josephus.

In short, Price's conclusion is reached simply by ignoring all the evidence, and restating his initial position. He doesn't deal with the evidence. He just ignores it. Some scholar.

All that evidence, my, my, my.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There is no "they" in the greek. It is added to make it more comprehensible.

Oops!...My bad. Yes there is no they there. I think I found a (they) in a version I was reading. Looking at the greek that word does not really appear. They render (autos) as (they) in the verse.

1. You are still making this connection based on a translation. The greek doesn't.
2. Barnabas is clearly the leader of the two.
3. The greek doesn't say "they taught."
4. Disciples prior to Paul preached the risen messiah according to Acts.
5. Nazarenes, like christians, comes from the way the sect spoke about their founder.

I see, sort of, what you're getting at. One of the things I notice is the difference between (Disciple) and (Apostle). Looking at Acts 11:26 I posit....there were disciples but Paul wasn't one. He would probably be referred to as an Apostle as we see about time we get to Romans 1:1

The author of acts wasn't there, and as is usual in ancient history, rather than simply describe a known event, a dialogue is introduced that is largely (if not completely) made up.

Not a problem here. I tend to think this of the whole claim made by Luke of Paul on his way to Damascus.