Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Ben Masada]

Ah, the old christian conspiracy again, Reds under the bed and all that rubbish. You’re at it again Ben, you take the little pieces from any writings that titillate the taste buds of your mind then reject the rest as rubbish.

These are your words Ben, "Here is a secular account from Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (37 CE - 95 CE):"


Because the great Ben Masada does not recall reading the passage in “Josephus Jewish Antiquities,” (xx.9) where it is said, “The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” met his death after the death of the procurator ‘Porcius Festus,’ yet before ‘Lucceius Albinus took office (Antiquities 20: 9) are we then to believe, simply because you don't recall having ever read this passage, that this was not recorded by Josephus?

Josephus then goes on to say that the high priest ‘Ananus ben Ananus’ took advantage of this lack of imperial oversight to assemble a Sanhedrin who condemned James “on the charge of breaking the law,” then had him executed by stoning. Josephus reports that Ananus’ act was widely viewed as little more than judicial murder.

quote=Ben Masada; What are you trying to make of a Jewish Court, the facsimile of a Taliban trial? By Sword: Nah mate, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian of 37 CE - 95 CE did that.

Yes, sorry, I remember now. But Josephus was quoting a Christian source, when he referred to James, the brother of Jesus "who was called Christ," by Christians. No one else would call Jesus, Christ, because the idea had started with Paul about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Then, again I remember also to have read at the footnote that the quotation was claimed by several Scholars to have been an interpolated forgery by the Church.

Then, I insist on defending that the Sanhedrin would never deliberate on a case to be executed from a day to another. Then, there is still another point to be considered. Some Scholars defend that they had to send Jesus to the Roman authorities because Israel had lost the scepter of jurisdition which would give the Sanhedrin the power to condemn anyone because Rome was the one with that power. Now, all of a sudden the Sanhedrin had acquired that power back to execute Stephen, James and others. How do you explain this contradiction?

 

[Oberon]

Yes, sorry, I remember now. But Josephus was quoting a Christian source, when he referred to James, the brother of Jesus "who was called Christ," by Christians. No one else would call Jesus, Christ, because the idea had started with Paul about 30 years after Jesus had been gone.

Another fine example of your methodology. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that Josephus was quoting a christian source. Morever, he didn't say Jesus WAS the christ (like as Christian would have) or Jesus Christ (like a christian would have) he said "Jesus, the one called Christ." This isn't evidence he used christian sources, it is simply evidence that Josephus was involved enough in Jewish circles to know the origins and movements of the Jesus sect which grew out of 1st century judaism. Moreover, Paul was a late comer to the movement. He wasn't the first to proclaim Jesus as the messiah.

Then, again I remember also to have read at the footnote that the quotation was claimed by several Scholars to have been an interpolated forgery by the Church.

Then your memory is faulty. This passage is almost univerally regarded as genuine by scholars.

 

[Ben Masada]

Another fine example of your methodology. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that Josephus was quoting a christian source. Morever, he didn't say Jesus WAS the christ (like as Christian would have) or Jesus Christ (like a christian would have) he said "Jesus, the one called Christ." This isn't evidence he used christian sources, it is simply evidence that Josephus was involved enough in Jewish circles to know the origins and movements of the Jesus sect which grew out of 1st century judaism. Moreover, Paul was a late comer to the movement. He wasn't the first to proclaim Jesus as the messiah.



Then your memory is faulty. This passage is almost univerally regarded as genuine by scholars.

Your memory has failed you too because you cannot prove that Christianity grew up of First Century Judaism. The Sect that became a branch of Judaism was the Sect of the Nazarenes, followers of Jesus. Christians grew up of Paul's preaching about Jesus as Christ. Read Acts 11:26. That's when the disciples were first called Christians. They did not exist before then.

 

[Oberon]

Your memory has failed you too because you cannot prove that Christianity grew up of First Century Judaism. The Sect that became a branch of Judaism was the Sect of the Nazarenes, followers of Jesus. Christians grew up of Paul's preaching about Jesus as Christ. Read Acts 11:26. That's when the disciples were first called Christians. They did not exist before then.

They weren't called christians before then. But then, Paul never refers to himself as christian either. Jesus was Jewish, and sect began as a Jewish sect preaching Jesus as a Jewish messiah. This did not begin with Paul, but before him.

 

[Ben Masada]

They weren't called christians before then. But then, Paul never refers to himself as christian either. Jesus was Jewish, and sect began as a Jewish sect preaching Jesus as a Jewish messiah. This did not begin with Paul, but before him.

Paul did not have to call himself a Christian. It was obvious. And you are mistaken to say that the Sect of the Nazarenes preached about Jesus as Messiah.

The headquarters of the Sect of the Nazarenes was in Jerusalem. And according to Acts 9:31, they were growing and multiplying in peace, as in getting along pretty well with mainstream Judaism.

About 30 years later, Paul showed up in Jerusalem preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. Within 15 days only, he had caused such an uproar among the local Jews that they wanted to kill him for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem.

How come! What were the Apostles preaching in Jerusalem all that time to get along well with the local Jews? Obviously, nothing according to the gospel of Paul. Not that Jesus was Messiah, son of God, or that he had resurrected. One does not have to be a genius to figure that Paul had fabricated a whole Christology about Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

Paul did not have to call himself a Christian. It was obvious. And you are mistaken to say that the Sect of the Nazarenes preached about Jesus as Messiah.

The headquarters of the Sect of the Nazarenes was in Jerusalem. And according to Acts 9:31, they were growing and multiplying in peace, as in getting along pretty well with mainstream Judaism.

About 30 years later, Paul showed up in Jerusalem preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. Within 15 days only, he had caused such an uproar among the local Jews that they wanted to kill him for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem.

How come! What were the Apostles preaching in Jerusalem all that time to get along well with the local Jews? Obviously, nothing according to the gospel of Paul. Not that Jesus was Messiah, son of God, or that he had resurrected. One does not have to be a genius to figure that Paul had fabricated a whole Christology about Jesus.

30 years later? This is ridiculous. Paul was a follower of the Jesus sect within a few years of Jesus' death. I also like how you quote acts when you think it supports you. Luke wrote Acts, and according to Acts the earliest followers of Jesus all preached that he was the messiah and resurrected. As long as you are spouting nonsense, at least be consistent. Don't try to use Acts to support you one minute, and then disregard everything in it the next.

As for Paul not calling himself a christian, he also didn't refer to any other people as christians either. He wrote to several communities, but never uses the word christian. Why? There were no christians at this time. Paul, like other early members of the Jesus sect, believed that they were following the resurrected Jewish messiah.

 

[S-word]

Another fine example of your methodology. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that Josephus was quoting a christian source. Morever, he didn't say Jesus WAS the christ (like as Christian would have) or Jesus Christ (like a christian would have) he said "Jesus, the one called Christ." This isn't evidence he used christian sources, it is simply evidence that Josephus was involved enough in Jewish circles to know the origins and movements of the Jesus sect which grew out of 1st century judaism. Moreover, Paul was a late comer to the movement. He wasn't the first to proclaim Jesus as the messiah.

Then your memory is faulty. This passage is almost univerally regarded as genuine by scholars.

Well said Oberon, that saves me having to respond to Ben, Thanks mate.

 

[dogsgod]

One can deny that "called Christ" was not Christian but we can see uses of it in the Christian literature. Three times in Matthew, and once in John, and elsewhere such as by Justin. Matthew even alters his source, Mark, when putting the preferred words into Pilate's mouth, not once, but twice. The argument that Pilate was not a Christian can only cause one to chuckle. Most of the English language Bibles translate as "called Christ," it's a preferred Christian term and appears to have been since the time of Matthew's writing.

 

[dogsgod]

Interesting that defenders of the status quo have to jump up and down insisting that Paul's "Lord's brother" means Jesus' literal brother and that "called Christ" is not Christian although we find its use in the gospels. Defenders of the status quo have to twist themselves into a pretzel.

 

[Oberon]

One can deny that "called Christ" was not Christian but we can see uses of it in the Christian literature.

We also see PLENTY of examples in christian literature various people denying that Jesus was the messiah/christ. Does that mean that denying that Jesus was the messiah was christian? Or that the sources occasionally record non-christian responses to christianity?

Three times in Matthew, and once in John, and elsewhere such as by Justin.

Yes, and I already addressed this. John doesn't actually say this. He says "I know the Messiah is coming" and then in a parenthetical sidebar tells his greek-speaking audience that "messiah" means "christ."

The fact that Pilate is recorded as saying "the one called christ" should hardly be suprising. He wasn't christian. Plenty of figures in the gospels say things that aren't christian. The argument that "its in the gospels, therefore it is christian" is incredibly simply and naive, as the gospels contain many incidences of opponents of Jesus coming in contact with him and his followers.

it's a preferred Christian term and appears to have been since the time of Matthew's writing.

"preferred christian term!!?" Hundreds of references to Jesus within early christian literature, and a small handful either written to pagans or of quotes put in the mouth of a non-believe somehow becomes "preferred"!!!??

Right. The truth is, from the various epistles, the gospels, acts, the patristic authors, and so on, we have hundreds and hundreds of mentions of Jesus. He is usually called Jesus Christ or the Lord. In fact, the Jewish significance of the title "christ" seems to be lost early on as "christ" became the equivalent of a last name of Jesus.

"Jesus, the one called Christ" in Josephus is anything but a christian title.

 

[S-word]

Interesting that defenders of the status quo have to jump up and down insisting that Paul's "Lord's brother" means Jesus' literal brother and that "called Christ" is not Christian although we find its use in the gospels. Defenders of the status quo have to twist themselves into a pretzel.

Are you insinuating that James is not the younger of Marys three biological sons? Jesus the elder, having been sired by Joseph the Levite from Cyprus who was the son of Marys Father Heli from the tribe of Levi, see Luke 3: 23. Joseph was her second son, who was the biological child of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who had no sexual relations with Mary until she had birthed her fist born son Jesus, with James, being the younger of her three biological sons, who was sired by Cleophas=Alphaeus the father of Simeon and Thomas Didymus Jude, who were the step sons of Mary. Simeon was to inherit the Episopal Throne of the church of the circumcision, after the death of his half brother James the younger of Marys three sons.

Cleophas is an abreviation of Cleopatros, which is the Masculine form of the name Cleopatra, which was a common name in Macedonia from where came Mark Antony the father of Cleopatras twins, "Cleopatra Selena" and "Alexandria Helios". Cleopatra was also the name of the young wife of Herod the Great whose son was Philip from Bethsaida, but that's another story.

 

[dogsgod]

We also see PLENTY of examples in christian literature various people denying that Jesus was the messiah/christ. Does that mean that denying that Jesus was the messiah was christian? Or that the sources occasionally record non-christian responses to christianity?

Red herring.

Yes, and I already addressed this. John doesn't actually say this. He says "I know the Messiah is coming" and then in a parenthetical sidebar tells his greek-speaking audience that "messiah" means "christ."

Translators disagree with you.

New International Version (©1984)
The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."New American Standard Bible (©1995)
The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us."
International Standard Version (©2008)
The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming, who is being called 'Christ'. When that person comes, he will explain everything."
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
The woman said to him, "I know that the Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will tell us everything." ([Messiah] is the one called [Christ].)
King James Bible
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
American King James Version
The woman said to him, I know that Messias comes, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
American Standard Version
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things.
Bible in Basic English
The woman said to him, I am certain that the Messiah, who is named Christ, is coming; when he comes he will make all things clear to us.
Douay-Rheims Bible
The woman saith to him: I know that the Messias cometh (who is called Christ); therefore, when he is come, he will tell us all things.
Darby Bible Translation
The woman says to him, I know that Messias is coming, who is called Christ; when he comes he will tell us all things.
English Revised Version
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (which is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things.
Webster's Bible Translation
The woman saith to him, I know that Messiah cometh, who is called Christ; when he is come, he will tell us all things.
Weymouth New Testament
"I know," replied the woman, "that Messiah is coming--'the Christ,' as He is called. When He has come, He will tell us everything."
World English Bible
The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah comes," (he who is called Christ). "When he has come, he will declare to us all things."
Young's Literal Translation
The woman saith to him, 'I have known that Messiah doth come, who is called Christ, when that one may come, he will tell us all things;'

The fact that Pilate is recorded as saying "the one called christ" should hardly be suprising. He wasn't christian.

Stop it, it was funny the first time, now it's just silly.

Plenty of figures in the gospels say things that aren't christian. The argument that "its in the gospels, therefore it is christian" is incredibly simply and naive, as the gospels contain many incidences of opponents of Jesus coming in contact with him and his followers.

Red herring. It's part of the Christian literature, get over it.

"preferred christian term!!?" Hundreds of references to Jesus within early christian literature, and a small handful either written to pagans or of quotes put in the mouth of a non-believe somehow becomes "preferred"!!!??

Matthew preferred those words over the words of his source, the ones that Mark put into Pilate's mouth.

Right. The truth is, from the various epistles, the gospels, acts, the patristic authors, and so on, we have hundreds and hundreds of mentions of Jesus. He is usually called Jesus Christ or the Lord. In fact, the Jewish significance of the title "christ" seems to be lost early on as "christ" became the equivalent of a last name of Jesus.

"Jesus, the one called Christ" in Josephus is anything but a christian title.

Deny it all you like, it appears in the gospels more than once.

 

[Oberon]

Red herring.

Hardly. You are trying to say that because a particular line exists in a few places in christian literature, it must be christian. Yet plenty of anti-christian lines exist within christian literature, because it records anti-christian sentiments. It is a ridiculous argument. I can point to hundreds of christian lines where Jesus is mentioned or referred to, and you refer to less than a dozen, all in particular circumstances, not typical christological references.

Translators disagree with you.

Thankfully, I can read greek. And you are wrong, they don't disagree. Why do you think so many put the line in parenthesis? The fact that the line can mean "called christ" is because that is one way to refer to "translated as". John transliterates the Hebrew word for messiah. He doesn't say "the one called the messiah." He says "I know that the messiah (called Christ) is coming." This line makes no sense interpreted as you want, because messiah means christ. They are the same word in two different languages. John, in an attempt to make this clear to his audience, puts a parenthetical note that this is what messiah means. This is why many translations have PARAGRAPHS.

Stop it, it was funny the first time, now it's just silly. Red herring. It's part of the Christian literature, get over it.

Yes, and so are countless anti-christian lines, sentiments, creeds, etc. The fact that it exists in christian literature does not make it christian. You might as well claim that Celsus was a christian.

Pilate says "called Christ" because he can hardly be depicted as saying "jesus the messiah" now can he? To argue otherwise is just one more example of your pitiful attempts to turn every line, even ones which blatantly contradict you, into evidence to support you, when you can't ignore them.

Pilate isn't christian. He says "jesus called christ." Josephus isn't christian. He says "Jesus called christ." Simple deduction: it isn't a christian way of referring to Jesus.

Matthew preferred those words over the words of his source, the ones that Mark put into Pilate's mouth.

1) Matthew did not only have Mark as a source
2) Mark has King of the Jews. For many, this is EXACTLY what the messiah was supposed to be.
3) The fact that Matthew has placed different word on Pilate's lips (especially given they refer to a similar title) is not at all suprising. What would be MORE suprising is if Matthew had Pilate say "Jesus, the messiah/christ." Pilate wasn't Jewish, and he wasn't christian. So instead Matthew has him say "Jesus, called the messiah/christ."

Deny it all you like, it appears in the gospels more than once.

SO WHAT? Jesus is said to be blaspheming and worse in the gospels "more than once." The point is CONTEXT. In almost every reference to Jesus in early christian literatures, nobody says "Jesus called christ." HE WAS CHRIST to them! The few execeptions are SPECIFIC contexts where this is more appropriate. For example, on the lips of pilate or when a letter is written to pagans and states "we call him the christ." You try to take a few examples out of context and make them work for you, but they prove the reverse, because

1) they are contrasted against the VASTLY more prevalent examples in christian literature and
2) they are occur in SPECIFIC contexts where this is to be expected.

Nice try.

 

[dogsgod]

Thankfully, I can read greek. And you are wrong, they don't disagree. Why do you think so many put the line in parenthesis? The fact that the line can mean "called christ" is because that is one way to refer to "translated as". John transliterates the Hebrew word for messiah. He doesn't say "the one called the messiah." He says "I know that the messiah (called Christ) is coming." This line makes no sense interpreted as you want, because messiah means christ. They are the same word in two different languages. John, in an attempt to make this clear to his audience, puts a parenthetical note that this is what messiah means. This is why many translations have PARAGRAPHS.

All the more reason to believe it is used in Christian circles because otherwise its use is totally redundant since Messiah was already referred to. The Samaritan woman at the well presumably spoke Aramaic so only one word would have sufficed for either reference, but the author deemed it necessary to include "called Christ" in addition to Messiah. The phrase "called Christ" used in Matthew and John makes it all the more suspicious when read in Josephus.

 

[McBell]

opcorn:

 

[Oberon]

All the more reason to believe it is used in Christian circles because otherwise its use is totally redundant since Messiah was already referred to. The Samaritan woman at the well presumably spoke Aramaic so only one word would have sufficed for either reference, but the author deemed it necessary to include "called Christ" in addition to Messiah. The phrase "called Christ" used in Matthew and John makes it all the more suspicious when read in Josephus.

This is too funny. John didn't write the gospel to the samaritan woman. He wrote it to a greek audience, many of whom were unfamiliar with Aramiac or Hebrew. So, he included the parenthetical aside to alert his readers that this is what "messiah" meant.

I can't BELIEVE you actually use the language of the samaritan woman as an argument for why the author of John felt it necessary to explain what the word she used meant.

 

[dogsgod]

This is too funny. John didn't write the gospel to the samaritan woman. He wrote it to a greek audience, many of whom were unfamiliar with Aramiac or Hebrew. So, he included the parenthetical aside to alert his readers that this is what "messiah" meant.

I can't BELIEVE you actually use the language of the samaritan woman as an argument for why the author of John felt it necessary to explain what the word she used meant.

The point is, what she said merely had to be translated into either Messiah or Christ. "Called Christ" obviously had significance within John's circle of believers.

 

[Oberon]

The point is, what she said merely had to be translated into either Messiah or Christ. "Called Christ" obviously had significance within John's circle of believers.

Again, absurd. The word "christ" (christos) means "anointed" in greek just like the hebrew word messiah does in hebrew. THEY ARE THE SAME WORD IN TWO LANGUAGES! However, not all of John's audience KNEW Hebrew. So he makes a point of saying that the Hebrew word means the same thing as the greek Christos.

Otherwise, the sentence really reads "The woman said, "I know that anointed" (called anointed) "is coming. " Doesn't make sense does it? But then we realize that "messiah" is anointed in hebrew, and christ in greek, that many early christians didn't know hebrew or aramiac (even many jews spoke only greek) so John translates the term.

To use this translation by John as evidence that "called christ" is christian is laughable.

 

[dogsgod]

Again, absurd. The word "christ" (christos) means "anointed" in greek just like the hebrew word messiah does in hebrew. THEY ARE THE SAME WORD IN TWO LANGUAGES!

Yes they are the same word which is precisely why I stated that the Aramaic could have been translated into one or the other. Using caps is considered shouting on a discussion forum. Get a grip of yourself.

However, not all of John's audience KNEW Hebrew. So he makes a point of saying that the Hebrew word means the same thing as the greek Christos.

Otherwise, the sentence really reads "The woman said, "I know that anointed" (called anointed) "is coming. " Doesn't make sense does it? But then we realize that "messiah" is anointed in hebrew, and christ in greek, that many early christians didn't know hebrew or aramiac (even many jews spoke only greek) so John translates the term.

To use this translation by John as evidence that "called christ" is christian is laughable.

The only thing that's laughable here is your grasp of plain English.

 

[Oberon]

Yes they are the same word which is precisely why I stated that the Aramaic could have been translated into one or the other.

How is this so difficult for you? John uses a hebrew word. In a parenthetical aside, he explains to his audience what this word means. He doesn't say "called Jesus" as a typical christian address, but to explain what messiah means. Otherwise, the passage makes NO sense.

Get a grip of yourself.

My apologies. Dealing with completely idiotic arguments again and again and again by someone who isn't familiar with the field, the sources, the period, or the scholarship, but nonetheless continues to lecture me about the meaning a passage he can only read in translation is a bit frustrating.

The only thing that's laughable here is your grasp of plain English.

Only John wasn't written in english. It was written in greek. The passage contains a hebrew word transliterated, and then translated into greek. Your reading makes no sense, because it ignores this, and a hopeless attempt to defend the position that saying "jesus called christ" is christian, despite the fact that christians didn't think he was "called christ" they thought he WAS christ.