Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Oberon]

The "brother of Jesus." Really?

Yes. Josephus, not a christian, uses his name. Paul, a member of the "christ" sect, calls him lord. Same person.

All that evidence, my, my, my.

What evidence? Price nowhere gives any evidence that "brothers of the lord" or "james, brother of the lord" means anything other than a literal brother. He simply hypothesizes that such a group was probably just followers who were called brothers. His only "evidence" for this is that literal brothers don't fit well with a mythical christ. So in order for his view to make any sense, they must not be.

This isn't evidence. It is making the evidence fit your theory, not basing your theory on evidence.

Nowhere in christian literature are random followers called "the brother of Jesus" (or lord). In fact, James is unique here. Other brothers are mentioned (even named) but it is not clear whether any of these became followers. So Price's conclusion is based on his initial assumptions, and not the evidence.

 

[dogsgod]

Yes. Josephus, not a christian, uses his name. Paul, a member of the "christ" sect, calls him lord. Same person.





What evidence? Price nowhere gives any evidence that "brothers of the lord" or "james, brother of the lord" means anything other than a literal brother. He simply hypothesizes that such a group was probably just followers who were called brothers. His only "evidence" for this is that literal brothers don't fit well with a mythical christ. So in order for his view to make any sense, they must not be.

This isn't evidence. It is making the evidence fit your theory, not basing your theory on evidence.

Nowhere in christian literature are random followers called "the brother of Jesus" (or lord). In fact, James is unique here. Other brothers are mentioned (even named) but it is not clear whether any of these became followers. So Price's conclusion is based on his initial assumptions, and not the evidence.

Reading the gospels into Paul, for some it can't be helped. Paul knows nothing of a Galilean ministry, that much is obvious, much less a literal brother of Jesus. Brothers and brethren is used dozens upon dozens of times in the epistles and in Acts with a spiritual intent rather than as a literal blood relative. There's no need for Price to hypothesize when it's so blatantly used in those terms, in fact, there's nothing more obvious. It requires a special education such as yours to dismiss the usage of brothers and brethren as much as is evident in these writings.

 

[Oberon]

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.

autos here does mean more or less "they." Let me explain:

Greek is like latin a number of modern romance languages (not french) in that the subject of a sentence is indicated in the verb itself. In other words, typically, one does not need to say "he said" or "they did" as two different words in these languages. The pronoun "they" or "he" is part of the verb. Blake, in his book on Case theory and systems, calls these "bound pronouns": "any kind of pronominal representation on the verb whether by forms analysable as clitic pronouns or by inflection" (Blake, Barry J. Case 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 197). Now, I personally don't like this designation, because I think it fits better with languages like Hebrew.

The point, however, is that normally the greek wouldn't need "they" here to make it clear that both Paul and Barnabas were involved.

However, as I noted before, the verb egeneto here begins a type of construction known as indirect discourse. Which means that all subsequent verbs are changed from finite verbs (i.e. the ones which give you the "pronoun" in the verb) to their infinitive equivalents (which don't).

This means that the verb "teach" isn't a 3rd person plural (they taught) but rather an infinitive (to teach). Which means that it isn't quite clear who is doing the teaching.

Now, shortly before this, the word autous is used (acc. pl. of autos). In this context, the accusative usually becomes what normally would be the nominative (the subject). So, the greek does say "they gathered with the church." The most likely reading afterwards IS "they taught" but it isn't certain. It could just be barnabas. What is far LESS clear is (again) the connection of their stay and the name "christians." Again, if they author wanted to tie the various clauses together, s/he would have used another kai. The use of te, a far weaker connector, makes this clause an "aside" not connected with the passage in a causal or temporal sense.

 

[Troublemane]

Hey what about that whole thing about Origen (in 240 ad) saying Josephus didnt believe Jesus was the Christ? Then later, when Eusebius quotes Josephus, its essentially the same as the OP.

Its kinda generally accepted (from what ive heard) that the entire Testiment of Josephus was at least altered by later chrsitians (around 324 ad), or even an outright forgery. While Josephus mentioning Jesus makes him an actual historical figure, I think later writeres probably added much to the text like "he was the christ" etc. to josephus' words. Which were probably less glowing (if we believe Origen).

 

[MoonShadow1]

Greeting's,

Is it not facinating how the unique name of Jesus and his life stories continue to represent a relentless golden thread which constantly weaves it's way through a seemingly endless array of world wide religions ??? .............

Just a humble suggestion ........ Would it not be simpler to deduce that due to the fact that no humans for over 2,000 years have physically seen the historical "Flesh & Blood" Jesus of the Holy Bible and other Holy Book's .......... And additionally that the vast majority of modern writings regarding the accuracy of historical accounts of Jesus's life are in essence pure " Postulation" at best due to the vast time gap between events..... That everyone whom displays great concern over this " Raging Debate" which is consuming the multitudes of the human race at this time..... simply make a conscious and unpressured choice at this very moment regarding which Holy Book, Religion, and or denominational version they are most willing to believe and strictly adhere to it...... "Nothing More & Nothing Less".......... No more Spedculation..... No more insanity about who is right or wrong ........ Just choose and go....................................

One of our Islamic folks posted a most reasonable thread regarding a similar religious item a few weeks ago that reflected a great deal of wisdom : Believers may inform others about their religion and beliefs and then it is absolutely up to the person to choose..... the believers job is done........ it is left to the person to decide......... bottom line..................

Lets all just make our choices........... practice our beliefs and religions........ and then on one special day all of us will have to face..... we shall know for certain if we were right or wrong......... all speculation on our part will resolve itself.....

Yes....... we most certainly can resolve to peacefully co-exist and bring closure to the speculation game regarding this most profound matter !!!!!!!!!! Thank You M/S 1

 

[Oberon]

Hey what about that whole thing about Origen (in 240 ad) saying Josephus didnt believe Jesus was the Christ? Then later, when Eusebius quotes Josephus, its essentially the same as the OP.

Josephus doesn't call Jesus "the christ" in the reference to James. He says the Jesus is the one called christ. Christians didn't say this. They said "Jesus christ" or "jesus the christ" or "lord."

Its kinda generally accepted (from what ive heard) that the entire Testiment of Josephus was at least altered by later chrsitians (around 324 ad), or even an outright forgery.

No one generally accepts that Jospephus is all altered or forged. However, it is widely accepted that the longer of two references to Jesus by Josphus has been altered. However, it is also widely accepted that Josephus did actually talk about Jesus in this reference.

And it is almost universally accepted that the reference to James, the brother of Jesus, the one called christ, is entirely Josephus.

While Josephus mentioning Jesus makes him an actual historical figure, I think later writeres probably added much to the text like "he was the christ" etc. to josephus' words.

The reference to James doesn't say this, only the longer reference. And it is likely, as you say, that the longer reference was altered.

 

[Oberon]

Just choose and go....................................

Not exactly a good approach to history.

 

[MoonShadow1]

Greeting's Oberon ,

And yet an obedient approach to eternity for some................. Will you make your choice then ? ...... Or continue in speculation ??? Peace be unto you M/S 1

 

[Oberon]

Greeting's,

And yet an obedient approach to eternity for some................. Will you make your choice then ? ...... Or continue in speculation ??? Peace be unto you M/S 1

I'm going to continue in speculation. Faith is something I'm a bit short of.

 

[Ben Masada]

Hidden?

Perhaps camouflaged?

 

[Ben Masada]

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).

I don't think Barnabas had anything to do with the disciples being called Christians FIRST in Antioch. Barnabas had been sent from Jerusalem, where the disciples were not called Christians but Nazarenes. (Acts 24:5) Therefore, the Synagogue of Antioch was a Nazarene Synagogue for Barnabas to be commissioned to it. (Acts 11:22) The disciples would never be called Christians if Barnabas had not decided to go for Paul in Tarsus. Therefore, Paul was the founder of Christianity. And that happened 30 years after Jesus had been gone.

 

[Ben Masada]

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

Who is the lexicon here, Oberon? You are rather making things more embarrassing for you.

 

[Oberon]

Who is the lexicon here, Oberon? You are rather making things more embarrassing for you.

Do you even know what a lexicon is? A lexicon is next to worthless here. You don't know greek. How can you possibly determine the semantic usage of a particle which is dependent on syntax with a lexicon?

 

[logician]

"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"

I thought this was the whole modus operendi of the NT.

 

[dogsgod]

"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"

I thought this was the whole modus operendi of the NT.

No, it's historical fact, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Oberon]

"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"

I thought this was the whole modus operendi of the NT.

In part, yes. In the gospels, an oral tradition of Jesus' sayings is placed in specific contexts which are often made up. The sayings are fairly accurate "recordings" of what Jesus said; the contexts are not, and neither is the overall narrative. Acts, however, is different. The author was present for part of acts, and knew most or all of the people involved in the story. However, there was far less control over the stories of various early Jesus sect missionaries compared to the oral tradition of Jesus himself.

 

[Ben Masada]

Do you even know what a lexicon is? A lexicon is next to worthless here. You don't know greek. How can you possibly determine the semantic usage of a particle which is dependent on syntax with a lexicon?

Well folks, let us all congratulate Oberon for knowing Greek.

 

[dogsgod]

Well folks, let us all congratulate Oberon for knowing Greek.

And knowing oral traditions, what people actually said back in the day when Jesus Christ came down and walked the earth.

 

[Oberon]

Well folks, let us all congratulate Oberon for knowing Greek.

It does usually help when one wants to understand what is written in the NT. Certainly being able to read greek is a more useful tool than your standard methodology: pick and choose which parts to believe according to preconceived notions, conflate different accounts, and when all else fails, just make things up.

 

[logician]

Try telling a story to one person, let them tell somebody else, and it goes thru 10 other people back to you. The story will bear no resemblance to the one you told.

So much for "oral tradition".