Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[dogsgod]

John already takes care of the translation for what Messiah means at the beginning of his gospel: John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.KJV

A further translation of the meaning for the same word in 4:25 would be redundant so he's not repeating himself when quoting the woman at the well nor anywhere else within his gospel. This is not another explanation for the meaning, he's already explained that. "Called Christ" is a Christian phrase that is repeated twice in Matthew, and in John.

Matthew put the words into Pilate's mouth twice:

1. Matthew 27:17
   Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, "Whom will ye that I release unto you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?"
   
   
2. Matthew 27:22
   Pilate said unto them, "What shall I do then with Jesus, who is called Christ?" They all said unto him, "Let him be crucified!"
   
   

 

[dogsgod]

Pilate was speaking to a Jewish audience, yet Matthew has him say, "called Christ," which is entirely Greek. It appears "called Christ" appealed to believers in Matthew's circles as well as John's.

 

[Oberon]

John already takes care of the translation for what Messiah means at the beginning of his gospel: John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.KJV

And then he repeats it. Oh my goodness no! You what I said by stating that John couldn't have made the same point twice? What are you talking about!?!? He does this throughout his work!!!?

Pilate was speaking to a Jewish audience, yet Matthew has him say, "called Christ," which is entirely Greek. It appears "called Christ" appealed to believers in Matthew's circles as well as John's.

Stop to think before you come out with this stuff. Matthew reports a account of a non-jew and non-christian speaking about Jesus. In the account, he doesn't act christian (suprise suprise). His account is also entirely in greek. There is no translation, no parenthetical aside. Pilate does not say "Jesus the messiah" or even "Jesus called the messiah" but rather "called the christ." John, speaking to a christian audience, but not a greek speaking one, HAS an aside. He says "the messiah" and then makes sure (yes, by repeating himself, as he does many times) that messiah means christ. Again, the sentence makes no sense otherwise.

 

[Tristesse]

Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

Here is a secular account from Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (37 CE - 95 CE):

"About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, who did good deeds and whose virtues were recognized. And many Jews and people of other nations became his disciples.
Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. However, those who became his disciples preached his doctrine. They related that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Perhaps he was the Messiah in
connection with whom the prophets foretold wonders." (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XVIII 3.2)

I have read this passage in Josephus, as well as the charge of it being a forgery interpolated by the Church. But I don't see anything in the quotation of Josephus to compromise or contradict the Scriptures. Therefore, I am ready to accept it as legitimate.

Jesus was indeed a wise and virtuous Jew. By the time Josephus wrote this, many Christians would be talking about Jesus as such, and probably two or three of the gospels were out.

As we can see, Josephus left out to mention the Hellenistic part preached about Jesus by Christians. And with regards to Pilate, Josephus did charge him with having been the one who condemned Jesus to the cross, and not the Jews, whom the NT is only too ready to accuse.

Regarding resurrection, there is no indication in Josephus. He says that those who related to him, obviously Christians, would say that Jesus appeared three days after his crucifixion. To appear alive after one's crucifixion is no evidence that he had died and much less resurrected.

And for being the Messiah, he uses the term "perhaps" based on the word of Christians who would preach about him as such. But Messiah in the Christian sense and not Jewish. The Christian idea about the Messiah pales before the Jewish concept of the one.

Ben

Well, considering josephus was born after the "events" of jesus' life took place, anything he has to say on the subject is hearsay.

 

[Oberon]

Well, considering josephus was born after the "events" of jesus' life took place, anything he has to say on the subject is hearsay.

Being hearsay doesn't preclude accuracy. Moreover, what he was saying on the subject was very general statements. Plenty of people who were alive while Jesus was would be around for Josephus to get far more information.

Moreover, he was alive for the trial of James, the brother of Jesus.

 

[dogsgod]

Hearsay is not admissible as evidence in a court of law as it is unreliable.

 

[Oberon]

Hearsay is not admissible as evidence in a court of law as it is unreliable.

You've obviously never studied criminal law. There are many, many, exceptions to the hearsay rule.

And we aren't in a court of law. We have Josephus, whose short summary contains nothing that hearsay would be problem for. And as for the trial of James, again, he was alive.

 

[dogsgod]

You've obviously never studied criminal law. There are many, many, exceptions to the hearsay rule.

And we aren't in a court of law. We have Josephus, whose short summary contains nothing that hearsay would be problem for. And as for the trial of James, again, he was alive.

That this James is the brother of Jesus is questionable and most unlikely. One would think that the Acts of the Apostles would reflect that notion of Jesus' brother as religious leader. We have no idea where Josephus would have got this dubious information if he wrote it at all.

 

[Oberon]

That this James is the brother of Jesus is questionable and most unlikely.

I know, it doesn't fit well into your theory, but that is easy enough to explain. Your theory is wrong.

One would think that the Acts of the Apostles would reflect that notion of Jesus' brother as religious leader.

Again you mistake the purpose of stating "brother of Jesus" or "brother of the lord." It isn't something the authors do just for the sake of it, or because it is true. It is done to distinguish people, as too many people had the same name. Josephus needs to do it, because his audience may very well not know which James is being discussed. The gospels identify James when discussing Jesus' family. Paul in a passage where he doesn't say much about James, so he needs to ensure his readers no who he is talking about.

However, the James of Acts is quite well known. Acts was written to christians. The context makes it fairly clear that the James in acts was the familiar early leader of the jesus sect.

We have Josephus, Paul, and the gospels all discussing James, Jesus' brother. You point to one source which doesn't explicitly state he was, and claim that is some kind of evidence? It isn't even an argumentum ex silentio, because we DO have multiple sources calling James Jesus' brother. It is simply pointing to a source that doesn't and saying "see? all the other sources are wrong because this source doesn't explicitly say something." It is even worse than an argumentum ex silentio.

We have no idea where Josephus would have got this dubious information if he wrote it at all.

Such is the way with ancient histories. They didn't come with bibliographies. Sorry to disappoint. However, the context was a trial, concerning a well known Jewish priest in Jewish circles, familiar to Josephus. It occured during his life. Hardly dubious.

 

[dogsgod]

So, nothing in Acts, nothing in the gospels, except one mere mention of a brother named James when Jesus disowns his family. Paul refers to a James as "brother of the Lord" and the dubious Josephus reference solidifies this.

 

[dogsgod]

However, the James of Acts is quite well known. Acts was written to christians. The context makes it fairly clear that the James in acts was the familiar early leader of the jesus sect.

In other words, there's nothing whatsoever in Acts to support the notion that Jesus' brother became a religious leader.

 

[dogsgod]

We have Josephus, Paul, and the gospels all discussing James, Jesus' brother. You point to one source which doesn't explicitly state he was, and claim that is some kind of evidence? It isn't even an argumentum ex silentio, because we DO have multiple sources calling James Jesus' brother.

For the umpteenth time, yes Jesus had a brother named James according to the gospels Mark and Matthew. I've made that clear a million, zillion times. What is unexplained is Jesus' brother becoming a religious leader. There's nothing in the gospels nor Acts that suggests this, in other words, it's not even included in the mythology. That leaves us with Paul. If Paul is referring to Jesus' brother when he calls him the Lord's brother, then that leaves us scratching our heads because that comes out of nowhere. How do we explain that?

 

[Oberon]

What is unexplained is Jesus' brother becoming a religious leader. There's nothing in the gospels nor Acts that suggests this, in other words, it's not even included in the mythology.

Jesus' brother was not a big figure until after the gospels took place. And he does feature in acts. However, Luke felt no need to distinguish him from other people with the same name. That is what you keep failing to grasp. If I am writing a newletter that will be delivered to everyone in my rather small company, and I use the president of the company's first name in the context which makes it clear who I am talking about, I don't have to use his last name. Everyone knows who I am talking about.

Likewise, Acts describes James as a leader in the early christian community. He is not writing (as josephus was) to non-christians, but to christians. James was well known enough even to be known outside of christian circles. Luke apparently felt no need to explain who this James was, because it was obvious.

That leaves us with Paul. If Paul is referring to Jesus' brother when he calls him the Lord's brother, then that leaves us scratching our heads because that comes out of nowhere. How do we explain that?

We explain it be realizing that Paul was writing letters. He isn't writing a history of the church. Nor was he writing to people unfamiliar with James, or the Jesus tradition. However, in this letter, he isn't really saying much about James. If he just said "I didn't see anyone except james" there is not context to determine which james. So he adds the kin identifier (a standard) in order to distinguish.

Furthermore, we are not left only with Paul, nor even with christian sources. We also have Josephus.

 

[dogsgod]

Jesus' brother was not a big figure until after the gospels took place. And he does feature in acts. However, Luke felt no need to distinguish him from other people with the same name. That is what you keep failing to grasp. If I am writing a newletter that will be delivered to everyone in my rather small company, and I use the president of the company's first name in the context which makes it clear who I am talking about, I don't have to use his last name. Everyone knows who I am talking about.

Likewise, Acts describes James as a leader in the early christian community. He is not writing (as josephus was) to non-christians, but to christians. James was well known enough even to be known outside of christian circles. Luke apparently felt no need to explain who this James was, because it was obvious.




We explain it be realizing that Paul was writing letters. He isn't writing a history of the church. Nor was he writing to people unfamiliar with James, or the Jesus tradition. However, in this letter, he isn't really saying much about James. If he just said "I didn't see anyone except james" there is not context to determine which james. So he adds the kin identifier (a standard) in order to distinguish.

Furthermore, we are not left only with Paul, nor even with christian sources. We also have Josephus.

In other words, we can't explain it. I thought as much.

 

[Oberon]

In other words, we can't explain it. I thought as much.

By all means, repeat a mindless mantra if that helps you, rather than address the argument.

 

[logician]

There's nothing in Acts that really can be proven to be other than fiction.

 

[Oberon]

There's nothing in Acts that really can be proven to be other than fiction.

That's true. Of course, nothing in history can be proven, even in recent history. In fact, even science does not speak in terms of proof. The question is, is Acts LIKELY to reflect history? The truth is that acts is a pretty good piece of ancient history. It is the second volume of a two volume historical piece by the author of luke. The first chronicals the life of Jesus, the second the earliest history of the church. What is more important is that the author was actually around during much of the second part, and actually present for some parts.

 

[dogsgod]

That's true. Of course, nothing in history can be proven, even in recent history. In fact, even science does not speak in terms of proof. The question is, is Acts LIKELY to reflect history? The truth is that acts is a pretty good piece of ancient history. It is the second volume of a two volume historical piece by the author of luke. The first chronicals the life of Jesus, the second the earliest history of the church. What is more important is that the author was actually around during much of the second part, and actually present for some parts.

Yet somehow fails to mention that Jesus' brother became a religious leader of a Christian community. Heck, he doesn't even so much as mention his name in Luke or Acts.

 

[dogsgod]

By all means, repeat a mindless mantra if that helps you, rather than address the argument.

I presented the argument, it's you that failed to give anything other than an incredibly feeble explanation as to why there's nothing in the gospels or Acts that suggests Jesus' brother became a religious leader. Well, well, well. Where's all that scholarship when you need to answer a simple question?

 

[dogsgod]

Jesus' brother was not a big figure until after the gospels took place. And he does feature in acts. However, Luke felt no need to distinguish him from other people with the same name. That is what you keep failing to grasp. If I am writing a newletter that will be delivered to everyone in my rather small company, and I use the president of the company's first name in the context which makes it clear who I am talking about, I don't have to use his last name. Everyone knows who I am talking about.

That's all very sweet but Acts is confusing because there's no explanation as to whom this James is that is being referred to after reading that James was killed.

Likewise, Acts describes James as a leader in the early christian community.

No he doesn't. He doesn't write a word about Jesus' brother being a religious leader. Not one word.

He is not writing (as josephus was) to non-christians, but to christians. James was well known enough even to be known outside of christian circles. Luke apparently felt no need to explain who this James was, because it was obvious.

This is far too silly to even comment on.