hakeem wrote:Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1` does not refer to Christians or NT Jesus of Nazareth once the "TF" is a late forgery in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3. If Josephus wanted to write about NT Jesus he would have done so in the 18th book his Antiquities when he mentioned John the Baptist and Pilate the Governor of Judea.
Bernard Muller wrote:Here, Jesus is just named for identifying Jame, I don't see why, at that conjecture, Josephus should mentioned Christians and "of Nazareth". And that Jesus is not any Jesus. He is the the one called Christ.
Jews called many persons Christ [the anointed]. Jewish Kings and High Priest were called "Christ" [the anointed]. The Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was alive in the time of Albinus. It is documented that there was an High Priest by the name of Jesus in the time of Nero.
Bernard Muller wrote:With Ant.18.3.3 being a forgery, it is obvious Josephus had no desire to write about Jesus. Josephus was not a Christian, that would explain it.
You have only contradicted yourself. If Josephus did not want to write about NT Jesus then he did not in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
hakeem wrote:The character called Jesus in the 20th book of Josephus' Antiquities lived in the time of Nero when Albinus was Governor.
Bernard Mueller wrote: That's not what Jews 20.9.1 says. James was alive during the time of Nero and Festus (not Albinus). That does not mean that his brother lived at that time also.
Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does not say Jesus called Christ was dead. It states that Jesus was made High Priest by Albinus.
Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1
Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
It is documented that Jews called their High Priest by the title of Christ.
Eusebius Church History 1.3.7.
And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed under the influence of the divine Spirit, and thus constituted, as it were, typical Christs.
Bernard Muller wrote: For example, in Ant. book XX, ch 8, section 1, we have:
Germanicus, the brother of Caesar[Claudius]
Germanicus was long dead (19 CE) when Claudius was emperor (41-54 CE).
I am extremely happy that you mention Germanicus in Ant. XX ch.8 and that he was already dead in the time of Albinus.
But, you forgot to tell me that it was Josephus who stated Gemanicus was dead in the very same Antiquities 18.2.5.
Antiquities of the Jews 18.2.5p
So the senate made a decree that Germanicus should be sent to settle the affairs of the East, fortune hereby taking a proper opportunity for depriving him of his life; for when he had been in the East, and settled all affairs there, his life was taken away by the poison which Piso gave him, as hath been related elsewhere
There is no mention in any writings of Josephus that Jesus called Christ was dead but that Jesus was made High Priest under Albinus.
hakeem wrote:The very NT states that many will come claiming to be Christ
Your explanation does not make sense.
hakeem wrote:Justin Martyr claimed there were people in the 1st century before the time of Nero who were called Christians but were not believers in the NT Jesus stories.
Bernard Mueller wrote: Dialogue whith Trypho, ch. XXXV
And Trypho said, "I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence." And I replied, "The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and stedfast in the hope announced by Him.
So according to Justin, those Christians are guilty of not teaching Jesus' doctrines. That does not mean these Christians rejected the gospels Jesus' stories.
Again, thanks for quoting Justin's Dialogue with Trypho XXXV.
You forgot to mention the very next passage.
Justin has destroyed you.
Dialogue with Trypho
'There shall be schisms and heresies.' And, 'Beware of false prophets, who shall come to you clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.' And, 'Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the faithful.'
There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin.
(For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him. Yet they style themselves Christians...
hakeem wrote:In Sacred History, Sulpitius Severus quotes a passage similar to Tacitus' Annals 15.44 and the phrase " Christus, from whom the name had its origin" is missing.
Sulpitius Severus Sacred History 2 .29
And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent
Bernard Muller wrote: Why do you expect that Severus (c. 363 – c. 425) to repeat everything written by Tacitus, including the origins of the word "Christian"?
BTW, Severus has 'Christianos' in the Latin of Sacred History 2 .29
Why do you expect Josephus and Tacitus to write about Christ when they were not even Christians?
I expected Christians to write that Tacitus mentioned their Christ in their Sacred History but they could not. There was none.
By the way, The Vaticanus Codex written before "Sacred History" has CHREISTIANOS in Acts 11.26.
hakeem wrote:Also, it is a fact that in the extant copy of Tacitus' Annals the word ChrEstianos was manipulated into ChrIstianos.
Bernard Mueller wrote: From Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[16] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown. It is impossible today to say who altered the letter e into an i. In Suetonius' Nero 16.2, 'christiani', however, seems to be the original reading".[17] Since the alteration became known it has given rise to debates among scholars as to whether Tacitus deliberately used the term "Chrestians", or if a scribe made an error during the Middle Ages.[18][19] It has been stated that both the terms Christians and Chrestians had at times been used by the general population in Rome to refer to early Christians.[20]
However, Tacitus used "Christus" instead of "Chrestus".
I have already shown you that Tacitus' Annals did not contain the word Christus or Chrestus when Sulpitius Severus quoted the passage in Sacred History 2.29.
Christus was inserted later and ChrEstianos changed to ChrIstianos as confirmed under utra-violet light.
If ChrIstianos and ChrEstianos were used interchangeably then there would be no need to change the E to an I.
hakeem wrote:]In addition, Tacitus also wrote in his Histories 5.13 that the Jews expected their Messianic ruler at around cc 66 CE or at the time of the Jewish War against the Romans .
Bernard Mueller wrote:Jesus, as the Messiah (King of the Jew), dead but resurrected and saved in heaven, and expected to come back to be the earthly ruling Messiah, was believed after 30 CE by a small number of Jews.
That would not prevent many Jews to expect a Messiah to come around 66 CE in order to defeat those nasty Romans.
What small number are you talking about?? You have resorted to inventing your own stories about Jesus. Christian writers stated that there were thousands of Jews who believed Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and that the supposed Paul and others were evangelizing Spain, Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, Thessalonica and Galatia long before the War of the Jews.
hakeem wrote:Tacitus's Annals 15.44 is a confirmed forgery using Christian and non-apologetic writings.
Bernard Mueller wrote:That's a theory with very few adepts. And of course, any Mythicist would want to eliminate this passage from Annals.
You mean Sulpitius Severus was a Mythicist? Historicists can't even get Christians to write about their own Christ in their History.
It is not only Severus in Sacred History who knew nothing about Tacitus mentioning Christ but also Eusebius when he wrote the History of the Church.
And even worse Tertullian, referring to the Histories of Cornelius Tacitus does not use Annals to argue against Marcion to prove his Christ was a figure of history and not a phantom.