Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ummm, no. In order to make a valid Argument from Silence you need to actually show that there should be no silence. So you have to make a strong argument that the Ante-Nicean Patristics should have mentioned this passage in some context, but did not. You're not making that case.
Okay, so please show us these places where Ante-Nicean writers should have discussed this passage. Simply declaring this to be so isn't making an argument.
And there's your second problem - no it wasn't "more 'available' in antiquity". Quite the opposite. Before printing, most books were vastly less "available" than they are now or have been since Gutenberg. In a period where a book like Antiquities took months of labour to produce one single copy, it was barely "available" at all. Which means if we look at the evidence for which Ante-Nicean Patristics even had access to the Antiquities we find that barely any of them did. Even if we're extremely generous it seems just five of them may have had access to a copy:
(i) Methodius, On the Resurrection, (II.18) – Methodius cites Josephus on the destruction of the Temple, though whether he’s referring to Antiquities or the Jewish War is unclear.
(ii) Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, (I.21) – Clement makes an argument about the antiquity of Jewish thought and gives calculations of the years back to Moses based mainly on the Jewish War, but which Hardwick and Whealey argue probably also contains elements from Antiquities.
(iii) Irenaean fragments XXXII.53 – This cites Josephus talking about Moses. Whealey thinks this is based on Antiquities Bk II, but it’s hard to see how Irenaeus could also have read the later books of Antiquities, given that he was under the impression Jesus had been crucified in the reign of Claudius, whereas Josephus specifically says in Bk XVIII that Pilate was removed during the reign of Tiberius. So he may have been basing this on a second hand reference or only had access to the earlier books of the work.
(iv) Anatolius of Alexandria, Pascal Canon, 3 – Writing on the dating of Passover, Anatolius makes a general reference to evidence from Josephus and Philo, though it’s hard to tell from it if he has actually read either or which Josephan work he’s referring to.
(v) Origen, Contra Celsus I.6, I.47, IV.11 and Commentary on Matthew X.17, all of which clearly reference Antiquities.
Of these, the only writer that gives us any definite indication of having actually read the relevant section of Antiquities is Origen. And Origen speaks twice of how Josephus “did not accept Jesus as Messiah”, which indicates that the version of Josephus he read did contain something like the reference to Jesus in Antiquities XVIII before it had been added to - he can hardly make an explicit statement about Josephus not accepting Jesus as the Messiah if Josephus didn't mention Jesus at all.
See above. You have to do a lot more than just "suggest" this - you need to actually make an argument. First you have to demonstrate that a given Patristic writer had access to Antiquities in the first place, which as I've just shown you is going to be hard. Then you need to give a context in which they would need to cite this passage if all it said was that Jesus existed and got executed. I can't think of any context that any of these writers would need to mention Josephus saying this, but if you can go ahead and do so.
If you can't, of course, your argument from silence just collapsed. So, over you to.
That's not true at all. If we take out the most obviously Christian elements we are left with an account very similar to Josephus' account of John the Baptist - a wise man taught good things but then got removed by Jewish enemies and executed. Though in this case by Pilate. He's just been telling about troubles the Jews had in the prefecture of Pilate and now he tells us about how this Pilate killed a wise teacher. It fits without any problem. It's also the logical place where we'd expect a non-Christian to mention an event involving Pilate. Whereas a Christian would be more likely to insert an account of Jesus after the account of John the Baptist, in keeping with the sequence in the gospels. Yet in Antiquities the mention of the Baptist comes later, in the context of anecdotes about Herod Antipas.
What I don't think much of is that other guy who just frantically Googles around until he finds something or other than seems to agree with his position and then parrots it mindlessly as though this is making some kind of devastating argument. Using online resources thoughtfully is fine, though doing so just to be blurting some kind of response is idiotic.
Since you do so in your next post, let's look at them now:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he
was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth
gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the
accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had
first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to
life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about
him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before
God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to
death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem
Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some
of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body.
They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then
some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they
did not see Jesus.”
- Luke 24:19
The elements which are the same in both summaries are (i) he was called Jesus, (ii) he was a prophet/teacher, (iii) the Jewish leaders had some role in his arrest, (iv) he was crucified. That's it. And all of these things are elements that we'd expect if someone summarised the story of Jesus.
Here are the elements that the textus receptus of Josephus has that gLuke doesn't: (i) he performed "paradoxical deeds", (ii) he was wise, (iii) he had both Jewish and Greek followers, (iv) he was condemned by Pilate, (v) he appeared after his death, (vi) this was foretold by the prophets.
And here are the elements which are in gLuke but not in the textus receptus of Josephus: (i) he was from Nazareth, (ii) women were central to what happened after his death, (iii) they found his tomb empty, (iv) they saw angels who said he was alive, (v) others found the tomb empty as well and (vi) he did not appear to them.
So the actual overlaps are few and not exactly distinctive. And there are multiple elements in the gLuke passage that you'd expect to find in the Josephan passage if it was derived from gLuke, but which aren't there.
As evidence that the Josephan passage derives from this gLuke passage, this is not very convincing stuff. That there was a mention of Jesus in Josephus that simply had a couple of theological elements added to it fits the evidence better.
But he doesn't "blame the Jews" and nor does he say "the Jews really were responsible for Jesus being executed". He says that it happened at the instigation of some Jewish leaders but he makes it clear Jesus suffered a Roman execution by the Roman prefect. And this is an entirely plausible scenario.
I don't follow this at all. Healing Pilate's wife? What?
"Bible scholars"? I made no reference to "Bible scholars". I said "Josephan scholars". Most of them are Jews and have no dog in any fights about Jesus. As I said, the majority view of Josephan scholars is that the passage is partially authentic.
I'm afraid you are going to have an even more difficult time trying to argue the James passage is spurious, because the evidence against that is even more clear.
Note" Origen- "Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),"
This pretty much says that the Flavian testament wasn't there as Origen pretty cleary says that Josephus does not say what the Flavian testament says. Therefore this is pretty compelling evidence is wasn't there when Origen read it. It does of course make a good case for the reference to James s the brother of Jesus being genuine. I shall have to consider whether the 'Christ reference works.Quote:
"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine" (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:47)
I have only so far found Eusebius quoting Origen, and I must check Hegesippus to see whether he confirms James being stoned.
I'll get back to you on your other point. But I must forst apologize for the Pilate's wife passage, which must be a slavonic fragment addition whichIi confused with what was in the Josephus we generally have.
One other point I must put is where the burden of proof lies. The thread and debate or discussion is about whether there was an actual Jesus. With the tacit question of whether it was the Gospel Jesus or just a non -divine Jewish reforming Rabbi, or a failed messiah. It is convenient to be able to point to the gospel account as Proof. So it is then down to the skeptics and doubters to give reasons why they don't consider the gospels reliable. Now the burden of proof changes because if they can come up with good reasons not to accept them as reliable, there is nothing the believers can do, unless they can produce persuasive reasons why they SHOULD accept the gospels as reliable. Which is what Bible apologetics is really about.
So we then get extra Biblical source referred to in support of the Gospel Jesus. One by one they are refuted as evidence of anything. The believers may say they prove Jesus, never mind the arguments, but that doesn't do a thing to persuade skepticism. Do you see where this leaves the Josephus passage? If skeptics can give some good reasons why they doubt its authenticity, that is all the need. The Bible side ned to do better than come up with excuses or far - fetched explanations. They need to give good reasons why we must accept the passage as genuine or they fail. If they can come up with good reasons why it is authentic, of course the doubters fail.
So do you see that while you can give a decent explanation for an apparent similarity between Josephus and Luke, that does not disprove the similarity.
I'll leave that there but will get back later. and one thing I'll do is recap the reasons to doubt the Flavian testament and your refutations and see which ones you didn't refute. One or to as i recall. Meanwhile I'll let you explain Origen, which looks pretty damning to me.
I was only making my argument for Jesus based only on the histories of a man named Jesus who some called the Christ. I left my bias at the door. You can't seem to be able to do that, so cannot understand how others can.
So you also believe in Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad?...
No...other than that words have meanings and 'multitude' is considered to be a lot, just like in your Bible where the Christian man god is described as preaching to multitudes of people, you assume, quite rationally, it means that there were a lot of people present rather than just 20.
Nah, he was actually preaching to just 50 or so...
You were arguing for the existence of an itinerant, rebel rabbi nobody that shot his mouth off and was executed, died and was seen no more. What was the point in that when you don't believe in such a person at all. You actually believe he was a miracle doing, divine son of the Hebrew war go Yahweh who was executed, came back to life and now lives in 'heaven'.
It's like an atheist arguing that he was the miracle doing, divine son of the Hebrew war god Yahweh, when what he actually believe is that he was an itinerant, rebel rabbi nobody that shot his mouth off and was executed, died and was seen no more. WTF!! It's a pointless argument!
Your daft. I argued that a man lived who some called the Christ and was crucified, that's it.
You however cannot separate your own bias from the discussion. Quit blaming others for your own short comings.
Not once in this whole thread have I ever brought up anything other then what I said I was talking about, but every time I turned around YOU kept putting in all the other stuff. GET IT, IT WAS YOU, NOT ME.
No...other than that words have meanings and 'multitude' is considered to be a lot, just like in your Bible where the Christian man god is described as preaching to multitudes of people, you assume, quite rationally, it means that there were a lot of people present rather than just 20.
According to the definition Richard provided it also means a crowd, which can be as little as 3.
Ever hear threes a crowd.
But like I thought no proof, just what you want it to mean
I must apologize for my misstypes in my previous post. I was rushing with one eye on the clock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimONeill
Ummm, no. In order to make a valid Argument from Silence you need to actually show that there should be no silence. So you have to make a strong argument that the Ante-Nicean Patristics should have mentioned this passage in some context, but did not. You're not making that case.
Okay, so please show us these places where Ante-Nicean writers should have discussed this passage. Simply declaring this to be so isn't making an argument.
And there's your second problem - no it wasn't "more 'available' in antiquity". Quite the opposite. Before printing, most books were vastly less "available" than they are now or have been since Gutenberg. In a period where a book like Antiquities took months of labour to produce one single copy, it was barely "available" at all. Which means if we look at the evidence for which Ante-Nicean Patristics even had access to the Antiquities we find that barely any of them did. Even if we're extremely generous it seems just five of them may have had access to a copy:
(i) Methodius, On the Resurrection, (II.18) – Methodius cites Josephus on the destruction of the Temple, though whether he’s referring to Antiquities or the Jewish War is unclear.
(ii) Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, (I.21) – Clement makes an argument about the antiquity of Jewish thought and gives calculations of the years back to Moses based mainly on the Jewish War, but which Hardwick and Whealey argue probably also contains elements from Antiquities.
(iii) Irenaean fragments XXXII.53 – This cites Josephus talking about Moses. Whealey thinks this is based on Antiquities Bk II, but it’s hard to see how Irenaeus could also have read the later books of Antiquities, given that he was under the impression Jesus had been crucified in the reign of Claudius, whereas Josephus specifically says in Bk XVIII that Pilate was removed during the reign of Tiberius. So he may have been basing this on a second hand reference or only had access to the earlier books of the work.
(iv) Anatolius of Alexandria, Pascal Canon, 3 – Writing on the dating of Passover, Anatolius makes a general reference to evidence from Josephus and Philo, though it’s hard to tell from it if he has actually read either or which Josephan work he’s referring to.
(v) Origen, Contra Celsus I.6, I.47, IV.11 and Commentary on Matthew X.17, all of which clearly reference Antiquities.
Of these, the only writer that gives us any definite indication of having actually read the relevant section of Antiquities is Origen. And Origen speaks twice of how Josephus “did not accept Jesus as Messiah”, which indicates that the version of Josephus he read did contain something like the reference to Jesus in Antiquities XVIII before it had been added to - he can hardly make an explicit statement about Josephus not accepting Jesus as the Messiah if Josephus didn't mention Jesus at all.
I did notice that your Origen reference (the others I agree don't help either way) looked to me like it argued against the Josephus passage rather than for it. After looking it up and posting it in the previous post, it looks even more like it. I may be missing something as you'd think the skeptics would have picked up on something like that.
I think that Origen could say that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ (Messiah) without a reference in antiquities, firstly because as a Jew (and his writings show he remained one) he wouldn't, and secondly I recall perhaps in his biographical notes, it is recorded that he recognized Vespasian as the Messiah and the Flavian family, rather than any Jew, which includes Jesus. That seems to me to remove any problems with Origen seeing Josephus in the 3rd but not seeing the Flavian testament. Though I agree it looks like he did see the reference to James, not to mention the Baptist.
The point is really that the Testament attests to the gospel Jesus rather than just the Baptist or indeed James, who (as observing Jews, even messianic ones) are no problem for the Gospel skeptic. But The Flavian testament is support for the Gospel Jesus. It is already known (as I sure you won't dispute) that the "He was the Christ" is an addition, as Josephus couldn't have believed that.
if that is spurious what more? as I argue above, The three prophetic days looks dubiously Christian, and I do not accept your argument that it is relevant to the thread of Josephus' narration because it is nothing to do with the misfortunes of the Jews or the impending war. Indeed if Josephus had written it he would have explained how it was part of the narrative. This has only one connection - Pilate. And that, I suggest, only means that the forger thought that the right place to slot his potted biography in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimONeill
,...
See above. You have to do a lot more than just "suggest" this - you need to actually make an argument. First you have to demonstrate that a given Patristic writer had access to Antiquities in the first place, which as I've just shown you is going to be hard. Then you need to give a context in which they would need to cite this passage if all it said was that Jesus existed and got executed. I can't think of any context that any of these writers would need to mention Josephus saying this, but if you can go ahead and do so.
If you can't, of course, your argument from silence just collapsed. So, over you to.
As I argued, all I need is a good reason to doubt the Flavian testament and the argument succeeds, if you can't do better than excuses. I do as it happens think that you made a decent case that Josephus wasn't available, especially as Origen does refer to it even though the Testament section doesn't seem to have been there. I'll see what you say on that before I go on, but clealy, if the passage does look forged, then the dubious passages and the similarity to Luke look more than just coincidental.
I noted that the account of the stoning of James is in both Josephus and Hegesippus (according to Eusebius the historian) and the only possiible problem is that the stoning seems to have followed a fall from a tower which did not kill him (Hegesippus) and a stoning of him and some others after a trial of sorts, and no messing about. I want to track down though how firm is the 'The Christ' gloss. If it looks a later christian gloss, then the story could be about another James altogether, even if he did have a brother Jesus. Note than the Procurator on arrival made a Jesus High priest. I could well imagine that, annoyed at the stoning of James without his permission, he made the brother, Jesus, High priest. If that looks likely, that completely does for Gospel support.
But we shall have to consider. It is just an hypothesis. I'll get back on the other points you made and a summary of points for and against, but a chocolate cookie and coffee claim my attention.
P.s It does seem that I was confused with the Slavonic Josephus.
this is a long passage reminiscent of the Testimonium in its opening lines, but thereafter expanding on Jesus’ ministry in a way that has little of the Gospel flavor and virtually none of its details. Here is the full text [note 19]:
IV. The Ministry, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus.
1. At that time also a man came forward, if even it is fitting to call him a man [simply]. 2. His nature as well as his form were a man’s; but his showing forth was more than [that] of a man. 3. His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power. 4. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man [simply]. 5. But again, looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel.
6. And all that he wrought through some kind of invisible power, he wrought by word and command. 7. Some said of him, that our first Lawgiver has risen from the dead and shows forth many cures and arts. 8. But others supposed [less definitely] that he is sent by God. 9. Now he opposed himself in much to the Law and did not observe the Sabbath according to ancestral custom. 10. Yet, on the other hand, he did nothing reprehensible nor any crime; but by word solely he effected everything. 11. And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings. 12. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands.
13. Now it was his custom often to stop on the Mount of Olives facing the city. 14. And there also he avouched his cures to the people. 15. And there gathered themselves to him of servants a hundred and fifty, but of the folk a multitude. 16. But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us. 17. But that one scorned it.
18. And thereafter, when knowledge of it came to the Jewish leaders, they gathered together with the High-priest and spake: “We are powerless and weak to withstand the Romans. 19. But as withal the bow is bent, we will go and tell Pilate what we have heard, and we will be without distress, lest if he hear it from others, we be robbed of our substance and ourselves be put to the sword and our children ruined.” 20. And they went and told it to Pilate.
21. And he [Pilate] sent and had many of the people cut down. 22. And he had that wonder-doer brought up. And when he had instituted a trial concerning him, he perceived that he is a doer of good, but not an evildoer, nor a revolutionary, nor one who aimed at power, and set him free. 23. He had, you should know, healed his dying wife. 24. And he went to his accustomed place and wrought his accustomed works. 25. And as again more folk gathered themselves together round him, then did he win glory through his works more than all.
26. The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. 27. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose. 28. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.
Your daft. I argued that a man lived who some called the Christ and was crucified, that's it.
I suggest you read the thread again because somewhere you said that: (paraphrasing)
...Historians agree that someone called Christ existed and was crucified. That is the man that is recorded in the Gospels.
Well no chap...the 'Jesus' that is recorded in the gospels is not the 'Jesus' that historians believe existed. The Jesus that historians are referring to is an itinerant rebel rabbi with no supernatural characteristics. The Jesus of the gospels is the divine son of a god.
I noted that the account of the stoning of James is in both Josephus and Hegesippus (according to Eusebius the historian) and the only possiible problem is that the stoning seems to have followed a fall from a tower which did not kill him (Hegesippus) and a stoning of him and some others after a trial of sorts, and no messing about. I want to track down though how firm is the 'The Christ' gloss. If it looks a later christian gloss, then the story could be about another James altogether, even if he did have a brother Jesus. Note than the Procurator on arrival made a Jesus High priest. I could well imagine that, annoyed at the stoning of James without his permission, he made the brother, Jesus, High priest. If that looks likely, that completely does for Gospel support.
Which is an argument is offered here. The accounts don't match which would suggest that it's not the same James.
1. A later interpolation.
2. a simple reference to a high priest.
Again, I draw your attention to a few important facts that lead me to conclude that the reference is nothing to do with your Bible Jesus.
a. - the reference clearly states that this Jesus was made high priest by Agrippa. Was your Bible Jesus ever made a high priest by Agrippa...NO!
b. - the rest of the text of this passage we find that the Jews were so angry about the stoning of James that they they demanded that King Agrippa fire Ananus. Why would the Jews be angered over the killing of a Christian, since Christians were seen as heathens by the Jews?
c. -the passage doesn't agree with any other account of 'James the Just' (who was allegedly the brother of BibleJesus) regarding how he died.
d. - Origen states "this writer" (Josephus)… "in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple"… "says nevertheless"… "that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)".
This point is repeated in Against Celsus 2.13 where Origen states "But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God."
Note that the Josephus passage does NOT connect the death of this James with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, or any other disaster despite Origen stating twice that the passage he (Origen) is referring to does.
e. - as late as 1846 the phrasing was "Jesus, who was Christ" rather than "he who was called Christ". That alone indicates that Josephus didn't write those words for the reasons I have already mentioned and that the Church forgers were up to no good.
f. - the James of Josephus died ca. 62 CE by just stoning while Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition all had James the Just the brother of BibleJesus) dying ca. 70 CE by being thrown from a battlement, stoned, and finally clubbed to death by passing laundrymen. In fact, Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History, Book III, ch. 11 clearly writes "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed..." but there are seven years and four High Priests between these two events if the Josephus passage is genuine so either we have one of the wonkiest definition of "immediately followed" in the history of the world or these are two different James...
g. the later interpretation is supported by Rufinus of Aquileia in the 4th century who states that "James the Lord's brother was informed of the death of Peter". St Peter died c64, two years AFTER the James in Josephus' passage had died. If the James in the Josephus passage was actually James The Just, brother of BibleJesus, perhaps you could explain just how he could have been informed of the death of Peter when he had been dead for two years?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your daft. I argued that a man lived who some called the Christ and was crucified, that's it.
