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.
That suggest that the Greek may be different and Josephus is saying what other people said about Jesus...
A point I made on many occasions. Even if both James and the TF were kosher, we know that Joe had no first-hand knowledge of any historical Jesus (he wasn't born); we know he didn't believe in any 'Christ' (he was Jewish). It could be argued that, rather than giving us actual recorded history, he was simply repeating what he had heard from other sources...such as Christians.
A point I made on many occasions. Even if both James and the TF were kosher, we know that Joe had no first-hand knowledge of any historical Jesus (he wasn't born); we know he didn't believe in any 'Christ' (he was Jewish). It could be argued that, rather than giving us actual recorded history, he was simply repeating what he had heard from other sources...such as Christians.
Quite possible, and that seems to be supported by the way it's translated, but a check of the Greek will halp, maybe.
You are planning to discuss Tacitus? Tacitus is the one historical source I am inclined to credit, apart from possibly Suetonius (if his "Chreshtus" is indeed Jesus) and Josephus on James, at least.
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!
The translation of Josephus is 'Jesus, who was called Christ" and Origen: brother of Jesus who is called Christ.
That suggest that the Greek may be different and Josephus is saying what other people said about Jesus and Origen is saying what people (his people - Christians) now say about him, and thus may not be quoting Josephus.
.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Josephus was a practicing Jew and would not have called Jesus the Christ as he did not believe the Messiah had come. Well Josephus did not call Jesus the Christ Josephus said , who was called the Christ. Big, big difference. Josephus was reporting that others called Jesus the Christ.
A point I made on many occasions. Even if both James and the TF were kosher, we know that Joe had no first-hand knowledge of any historical Jesus (he wasn't born); we know he didn't believe in any 'Christ' (he was Jewish). It could be argued that, rather than giving us actual recorded history, he was simply repeating what he had heard from other sources...such as Christians.
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.
I have found a Greek version of Origen which I can do my best with.
One small point I note
so he (High Priest Ananus) assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others,(Josephus)
And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice [C] that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, [D] wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, [E1] said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. [F] And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, [B2] he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; [E2] and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James. (Origen)
The translation of Josephus is 'Jesus, who was called Christ" and Origen: brother of Jesus who is called Christ.
That suggest that the Greek may be different and Josephus is saying what other people said about Jesus and Origen is saying what people (his people - Christians) now say about him, and thus may not be quoting Josephus.
I won't argue that any further until we can compare the Greek, which I will have to do tomorrow as it is 1.30 AM..unless my eyes are playing me up gain.
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.
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!
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.
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...
Ya don't suppose the Romans had some records of this Jesus character now do ya.
LOL! Now you're clutching at straws. Why aren't you in church anyway.
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.
