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.
Suetonius is not writing about Jesus. The time is wrong. In The Life of Claudius 25.4, we find the statement -
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
This is certainly a reference to the expulsion of Jewish Christians from Rome by Claudius. Even if we were to wildly assume that Chrestus means 'Christ' (which it doesn't), the Chrestus of Suetonius was instigating the Jews to riot at the time of Claudius, which would have been 41-54CE, while the historical Jesus was purported to have been crucified around 30CE, so historical Jesus can not be the 'Chrestos' that was stirring up the Jews to riot in Rome in 41-54CE...he was dead!
Yes, but the reference is explained as a half understood reference to a Christian disturbance, which I rather like as it amounts to a Jewish Christian civil disturbance, which would fit the time and, while surprising in Rome, when Paul was just beginning his mission around his own area gentiles - there was no Greek Christianity to speak of at that time - some unrest aimed at Rome by Nazorene Jews at the orders of a spiritual Jesus (which was the only one there was, even for Paul, until a solid -body resurrection was felt necessary sixty or seventy years later, would make a lot of sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
He was stirring them up via the Holy Spirit?...
Yes. That is the only possibility. But....
On the other hand, there was ongoing unrest between Jews and Greeks and Claudius has to legislate about this, so a purely Jewish disturbance and some Jew with a Greco - latin monicker "The Good" is not improbable. Indeed, it is more likely not to be the Nazorenes as Claudius had all the Jews expelled, not just the Nazoeans.
So on balance while I tend to support Tacitus and Josephus on James, I tend to see Josephus on Jesus and Suetpuddingus as not valid evidence for a Jesus.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-04-2016 at 07:02 AM..
That is the exact point I made way back in post 155 when Raf said the main problem I was facing was that Josephus was a practicing Jew and would not have called Jesus the Christ.
Have a look
Yes, I have taken that point on board, and am willing to credit that to Josephus, thogh there are still minor niggling worries. Who, for instance, without any explanation elsewhere, was this 'Jesus called the Christ?' It ought to be the Flavian testament, but that can't be. This is the problem that bothers me more than anything else. There ought to be a description of an historical Jesus, why isn't there?
Aside from that, as i say, it is a question of whether Origen was using the same wording as James (which would surely remove all doubt) or a terms referring more to his own and other Christian view of Jesus, which would still leave room for debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Sorry trans I looked for an hr or so last night and could not find what you are looking for.
However I would have no problem with your understanding of what was said above as it still shows that Josephus said "was called the Christ" and it is why it got the reaction from Origen the way it did.
Ok. I'll try myself as it nags at me, but I'f say thus:
At present it seems that Josephus is really describing what happened to James brother of Jesus and while Origen had to read that...ah. It couldn't have said sons of Damnaeus or he couldn't have confused it with the Gospel James. Thus the Damnaeus case does collapse. And Josephus could hardly have failed to identify james and hid brother by patronym, city or some epithet. And 'Christ' seems probable, whether it was in that form or not.It still seems puzzlingly Christian in tone, but Josephus had t be identifying Jospel James, however he put the epithet.
It is possible that a Christian added the comment to 'clarify' who this James and Jesus was, but I take Tim's point that Josephus wasn't referred to before Origen because it wasn't generally available, let alone in an edited version. One can always think up some far -fetched explanation for how a pious Christian could have deleted 'Sons of Damnaeus' and substituted 'brother of Jesus called the Christ' being careful not to sound too Christian, but I don't like far -fetched explanations. So the simpler explanation - that it is what Josephus wrote - is the one I prefer.
I bet you like that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-04-2016 at 06:54 AM..
Being a practicing Jew Josephus would not likely give any credit at all to what the Christians said. However if memory serve me correct Josephus did spend a lot of time with the powers that be (romans) of his time. Ya don't suppose the Romans had some records of this Jesus character now do ya.
That depends on who the Christians were. Now I think it only too likely that the followers of Jesus, under James, call them 'Galileans', 'Nazoreans', 'Ebionites' (the Poor/Meek) or the 'saints in Jerusalem' or even the 'apostles' if you like, were somewhat in the 'God is our Only Riuler' anti -Romans, zealot element within the Pharisee ambit. And as a general in the Jewish war, Josephus had to hobnob (with some distaste) with the zealots who were in fact spearheading the rebellion. I think it only too likely that he would have heard a lot from the Messianic -Nazorean volunteers.
On the other hand, after the war, when he went over to the Roman side declaring that Vespasian was the Messiah, after all, he could have consulted Roman records and learned (if he wanted) about Pilate's doings, including the army insignia, the beating up of a demonstration, the confiscation of Priestly robes and Temple treasure and the steamrollering of a Samaritan messianic messiah at mount Gezirim, plus the arrest of a messianic pest who smuggled himself into the Temple as a Hoshana procession, damn his cheek, and tried to take the place over. Which is why he was executed, not for some hootamamie "coming on the clouds" blasphemy.
But of course he could have heard all that while he was living there.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-04-2016 at 06:58 AM..
Reason: Trust me to spell it Gerizim. My memory is crap these cays.
Just because he reports what christians at the time were claiming has nothing to do with his being a practicing Jew, he was a historian writing about current events...Otherwise, you can't trust a word he says...
You misunderstood. I am saying he would not give credence to a man named Christ if there was no man and only myth.
For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them. His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, who in an encounter with the first comers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives. [Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.85-87]
It is refreshing to get that from a military history site rather than a "Bible is True" apologetics site.
Yes, I have taken that point on board, and am willing to credit that to Josephus, thogh there are still minor niggling worries. Who, for instance, without any explanation elsewhere, was this 'Jesus called the Christ?' It ought to be the Flavian testament, but that can't be. This is the problem that bothers me more than anything else. There ought to be a description of an historical Jesus, why isn't there?
If the whole countryside was abuzz about Jesus why would Josephus have to give a description of him?
If the whole countryside was abuzz about Jesus why would Josephus have to give a description of him?
If the whole countryside was abuzz then why didn't more people mention him. Why didn'tJustus of Tiberias mention him? Justus was himself a Jew and he wrote a history of the Jews beginning with Moses and extending into his own times, but never mentioned Jesus.
....and note here how all along you have been claiming an itinerant rebel rabbi nobody but now, you are turning him into somebody that the whole countryside was 'abuzz' about. That is exactly what I knew you would do - get us to agree that there was a nobody bum called Jesus - and then turn him into the Jesus of the Gospels. LOL!
IF there was any historical Jesus, he was an itinerant, rebel, rabbi preacher - not the divine son of the Hebrew war go Yahweh. Live with it already!
Last edited by Rafius; 09-04-2016 at 07:23 AM..
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.
