Two New Articles on Testimonium Flavianum

[spin]

As you seem to be back on topic from here...

I'm saying that Eusebius (EH 2.23.20) unlike today's pundits saw no direct relationship between what Origen "cited" from Josephus and AJ 20.200, which Eusebius cited immediately after the Origen passage. And Eusebius cited Origen as Josephus! For him they were separate texts.

This is a weak argument. We can see from where the confusion stems and why Eusebius saw it as a different text. Tellingly, Eusebius also quotes Hegesippus directly above Origen, so we might conclude that he did not see the passage as coming from that source either.

I can't see the logic in much of this. What confusion are you referring to here and how did you decide on confusion? The last sentence doesn't really seem related to the previous two other than there is some sort of attempt to draw a parallel.

Origen's own confusion and use of paraphrase has simply thrown off Eusebius. This has no bearing on whether or not Origen was aware of the James reference in AJ.

What you and every boy and his dog [ha!] are hoping for is that, although he got the substance from Hegesippus, he got the one literal phrase "James the Just who was the brother of Jesus called christ James by name" from Josephus.

And I'm puzzled by your claim that Origen's first attempt (in Comm.Matt.) is somehow "closer to AJ XX". Is this because the phrase you cling to doesn't have the epithet for James or is there some content to your claim I don't see??

I could ask why you chose to highlight the later Contra Celsum wording rather than the earlier Comm.Matt equivalent.

It was what Eusebius cited. The Comm.Matt doesn't help get to anything from Josephus either.

I would guess that's because it fits your argument better.

It doesn't change the problem, so this is only refractoriness. Most pundits who opine on AJ 20.200 conveniently cut smaller to make the phrasing seem more Josephan (omitting the reference to James because it shows a different syntax), but not too small as to make it Matthean ("Jesus called christ"). There is no scholarship in this sort of process. It is just arbitrary manipulation for desired outcome.

Once again, Origen is obviously paraphrasing and he's also embellishing as time goes by.

And I agree.

It's apparent that he is at least trying to get the wording close because, if you read through the entire section in Comm.Matt, you see how he goes on quoting all mentions of the "Bretheren of Jesus" that are known to him. He quotes Matthew, he quotes Galatians, he quotes Jude, and he basically quotes Josephus, which he's possibly harmonized with Hegesippus.

This is of no consequence, given that thrice Origen has cited material from Josephus he wrongly claims that it involves the fall of Jerusalem on account of the death of James. He clearly doesn't have a copy of Josephus at hand, which sets this apart from the biblical references. You have provided no reason think his confusion regarding what Josephus might have said could not have come from confusing Josephus with Hegesippus rather than conflating the two separate writers.

The idea that Origen concocted the epithet for James himself, using Matthew, holds no weight in this context. Everywhere else in the the text, Origen merely refers to "James" or "Jesus/Jesus Christ."

You don't have a significant sample. In CC the epithet was used twice and James mentioned outside of those contexts another four times, as a rough count. Your no weight argument has no weight. Clearly once Origen had constructed the report about the death of James being the cause of the fall of Jerusalem with its "brother of Jesus called christ"—a conflation of Hegesippus with Mt 1:16, not strange as it was part of his Matt commentary—all he did was an ancient version of cutting and pasting from Comm.Matt to CC. You admit a Hegesippus connection. All that was needed is the phrase from Matt. Later he hones it adding "the Just". Hegesippus gave "brother of the lord"; Matthew gave "Jesus called christ"; combined yields "the brother ofJesus called christ". That's quite a simple process.

You've added nothing to the mix to show me why you "find [Jesus in AJ 20.200] probably authentic". You already admit Origen was recollecting and doing so wrongly. He is no help to your authentic finding, as he cannot be shown to be a witness. That leaves you to deal with the fact that Josephus, an apologist for mainstream Jewish ideas and of priestly stock, avoided the religiously charged term "christ" which is used over 40 times in the LXX, yet unexpectly uses it as an epithet to describe Jesus who is mentioned purely as a means of indicating which James in passing was executed. You trenchantly hold your opinion on the veracity of AJ 20.200 on the flimsiest of justification.

[MattMorales]

I can't see the logic in much of this. What confusion are you referring to here and how did you decide on confusion? The last sentence doesn't really seem related to the previous two other than there is some sort of attempt to draw a parallel.

We are taking that Origen was actually citing Hegesippus when he talks about the temple's destruction being justice for James, but Eusebius could not detect this. Thus, the argument from Eusebius is a wash. If he could not recognize that the connecting of the temple's fall and James' death came from Hegesippus, why should we expect him to recognize Origen's embellished paraphrase of the Antiquities XX?

It was what Eusebius cited. The Comm.Matt doesn't help get to anything from Josephus either.

Why focus on only Eusebius then, when the question is whether Origen knew the Antiquities XX reference? This is just a tactic to muddy the waters, which would be unnecessary if you had that much confidence in your argument below.

It doesn't change the problem, so this is only refractoriness. Most pundits who opine on AJ 20.200 conveniently cut smaller to make the phrasing seem more Josephan (omitting the reference to James because it shows a different syntax), but not too small as to make it Matthean ("Jesus called christ"). There is no scholarship in this sort of process. It is just arbitrary manipulation for desired outcome.

Yes, it is a very small reference, but that we find "the brother of Jesus, called Christ," nowhere but in Josephus and in reference to Josephus is evidence, no matter how you spin it. That you have labelled the scholars who have found the passage characteristic of Josephus as not "cmpletely [sic] honest" is a serious charge, and as I keep saying, you need to provide a full treatment of the syntax evidence in this case. I am not qualified in Greek to pass an assessment and this I freely admit.

And I agree.

Finally, some common ground!

This is of no consequence, given that thrice Origen has cited material from Josephus he wrongly claims that it involves the fall of Jerusalem on account of the death of James. He clearly doesn't have a copy of Josephus at hand, which sets this apart from the biblical references. You have provided no reason think his confusion regarding what Josephus might have said could not have come from confusing Josephus with Hegesippus rather than conflating the two separate writers.

Hegesippus nowhere uses that epithet for James. Origen uses a variation of it only three times and only when citing Josephus as a source.

You don't have a significant sample. In CC the epithet was used twice and James mentioned outside of those contexts another four times, as a rough count. Your no weight argument has no weight. Clearly once Origen had constructed the report about the death of James being the cause of the fall of Jerusalem with its "brother of Jesus called christ"—a conflation of Hegesippus with Mt 1:16, not strange as it was part of his Matt commentary—all he did was an ancient version of cutting and pasting from Comm.Matt to CC. You admit a Hegesippus connection. All that was needed is the phrase from Matt. Later he hones it adding "the Just". Hegesippus gave "brother of the lord"; Matthew gave "Jesus called christ"; combined yields "the brother ofJesus called christ". That's quite a simple process.

Not as simple as Origen remembering an actual reference to James in Josephus. Nowhere else in all the references to Jesus does Origen say that he was merely "called Christ." Do you not see the problem here? Unless you are suggesting that Origen is purposefully inventing what Josephus would have said...

You've added nothing to the mix to show me why you "find [Jesus in AJ 20.200] probably authentic". You already admit Origen was recollecting and doing so wrongly. He is no help to your authentic finding, as he cannot be shown to be a witness. That leaves you to deal with the fact that Josephus, an apologist for mainstream Jewish ideas and of priestly stock, avoided the religiously charged term "christ" which is used over 40 times in the LXX, yet unexpectly uses it as an epithet to describe Jesus who is mentioned purely as a means of indicating which James in passing was executed. You trenchantly hold your opinion on the veracity of AJ 20.200 on the flimsiest of justification.

We honestly do not know how prominent the terms "messiah" and "christ" were to describe a liberator of Israel in the first century. Josephus does not even use it in description of Vespasian (to whom Josephus reveals the controversial part of the idea: the prophecy that a world ruler would arise from Israel), nor do we have evidence that Bar Kokhba used it. Most of the so called "messianic prophecies" in the LXX do not even use the term. To say that someone was nicknamed "annointed" would not be controversial unless they did know the prophetic connotations, which Josephus does not provide. We also know that many Christians vehemently denied that Christ's kingdom was of this world, and thus, even if we are to grant the term some status, "annointed" need not carry with it the inference of political subversiveness.

[spin]

I can't see the logic in much of this. What confusion are you referring to here and how did you decide on confusion? The last sentence doesn't really seem related to the previous two other than there is some sort of attempt to draw a parallel.

We are taking that Origen was actually citing Hegesippus

No, we are not. We had both made it clear that Origen was working from memory. (Your claim is that he was working from Hegesippus re James but somehow got the single phrase "brother of Jesus called christ" from Josephus.) We don't expect Eusebius to detect a citation from Hegesippus. We do expect him to recognize that single phrase in both Origen and Josephus and say "aha" as those modern pundits so perceptively do.

when he talks about the temple's destruction being justice for James, but Eusebius could not detect this. Thus, the argument from Eusebius is a wash. If he could not recognize that the connecting of the temple's fall and James' death came from Hegesippus, why should we expect him to recognize Origen's embellished paraphrase of the Antiquities XX?

It was what Eusebius cited. The Comm.Matt doesn't help get to anything from Josephus either.

Why focus on only Eusebius then, when the question is whether Origen knew the Antiquities XX reference? This is just a tactic to muddy the waters, which would be unnecessary if you had that much confidence in your argument below.

Stop trying to eke out grievances. I moved on to deal directly with Comm.Matt. to head off this nonsense. Concentrate.

It doesn't change the problem, so this is only refractoriness. Most pundits who opine on AJ 20.200 conveniently cut smaller to make the phrasing seem more Josephan (omitting the reference to James because it shows a different syntax), but not too small as to make it Matthean ("Jesus called christ"). There is no scholarship in this sort of process. It is just arbitrary manipulation for desired outcome.

Yes, it is a very small reference, but that we find "the brother of Jesus, called Christ," nowhere but in Josephus and in reference to Josephus is evidence, no matter how you spin it.

You somehow missed out on the discussion of arbitrariness. It's the goldilocks principle: not too much and not too little and we can get what we want. Arbitrary is the correct word for how this stuff is arrived at.

That you have labelled the scholars who have found the passage characteristic of Josephus as not "cmpletely [sic] honest" is a serious charge, and as I keep saying, you need to provide a full treatment of the syntax evidence in this case.

Why don't you do what Tim O'Neill did, ie got counsel from some of those scholars?

I am not qualified in Greek to pass an assessment and this I freely admit.

And I agree.

Finally, some common ground!

This is of no consequence, given that thrice Origen has cited material from Josephus he wrongly claims that it involves the fall of Jerusalem on account of the death of James. He clearly doesn't have a copy of Josephus at hand, which sets this apart from the biblical references. You have provided no reason think his confusion regarding what Josephus might have said could not have come from confusing Josephus with Hegesippus rather than conflating the two separate writers.

Hegesippus nowhere uses that epithet for James. Origen uses a variation of it only three times and only when citing Josephus as a source.

You need to read the whole post you are responding to. You argue against the response to your complaint here below.

You don't have a significant sample. In CC the epithet was used twice and James mentioned outside of those contexts another four times, as a rough count. Your no weight argument has no weight. Clearly once Origen had constructed the report about the death of James being the cause of the fall of Jerusalem with its "brother of Jesus called christ"—a conflation of Hegesippus with Mt 1:16, not strange as it was part of his Matt commentary—all he did was an ancient version of cutting and pasting from Comm.Matt to CC. You admit a Hegesippus connection. All that was needed is the phrase from Matt. Later he hones it adding "the Just". Hegesippus gave "brother of the lord"; Matthew gave "Jesus called christ"; combined yields "the brother ofJesus called christ". That's quite a simple process.

Not as simple as Origen remembering an actual reference to James in Josephus.

I.e. working from recollection of Hegesippus and conflating that with a part of the phrase from current AJ 20.200 is some how to you simpler, ie inadvertently using two separate sources is simpler than just using Hegesippus. Origen already had "Jesus called christ" in the text he is commenting on.

Nowhere else in all the references to Jesus does Origen say that he was merely "called Christ." Do you not see the problem here? Unless you are suggesting that Origen is purposefully inventing what Josephus would have said...

You've added nothing to the mix to show me why you "find [Jesus in AJ 20.200] probably authentic". You already admit Origen was recollecting and doing so wrongly. He is no help to your authentic finding, as he cannot be shown to be a witness. That leaves you to deal with the fact that Josephus, an apologist for mainstream Jewish ideas and of priestly stock, avoided the religiously charged term "christ" which is used over 40 times in the LXX, yet unexpectly uses it as an epithet to describe Jesus who is mentioned purely as a means of indicating which James in passing was executed. You trenchantly hold your opinion on the veracity of AJ 20.200 on the flimsiest of justification.

We honestly do not know how prominent the terms "messiah" and "christ" were to describe a liberator of Israel in the first century.

We do know that none of the LXX uses of χριστος are to be found in Josephus's epitome and the only time AJ uses the term is in the suspect cases of the TF and AJ 20.200. And as you point out...

Josephus does not even use it in description of Vespasian (to whom Josephus reveals the controversial part of the idea--the prophecy that a world ruler would arise from Israel); nor do we have evidence that Bar Kokhba used it. Most of the so called "messianic prophecies" in the LXX do not even use the term.

I'm not talking about prophecies. I'm talking about 40 LXX references to someone referred to as "anointed" (χριστος), usually priests or kings (eg 1 Sam 24:6 cf. AJ 6.284; 1 Sam 26:9 cf. AJ 6.312). None of those uses are to be found in Josephus.

To say that someone was nicknamed "annointed" would not be controversial unless they did know the prophetic connotations, which Josephus does not provide. We also know that many Christians vehemently denied that Christ's kingdom was of this world, and thus, even if we are to grant the term some status, "annointed" need not carry with it the inference of political subversiveness.

We know in ordinary Greek it just meant ointment (ie that which is spread on), but to our priestly Josephus the term must have been clear in its Jewish implications. There are two reasons for his not using the term: 1) it carried theological implications for any Jew, implications that Josephus clearly avoids (that would press the wrong buttons in his Jewish apology), not even using the term for Vespasian, and 2) to avoid the ridiculous understanding for non-Jews there would need to be an explanation in describing Jesus as being "called christ"—after all an apology needs to be intelligible to its readers.

It's not a coincidence that in a christian preserved work the only use of χριστος found refers to Jesus.

[MattMorales]

I can't see the logic in much of this. What confusion are you referring to here and how did you decide on confusion? The last sentence doesn't really seem related to the previous two other than there is some sort of attempt to draw a parallel.

We are taking that Origen was actually citing Hegesippus

No, we are not. We had both made it clear that Origen was working from memory. (Your claim is that he was working from Hegesippus re James but somehow got the single phrase "brother of Jesus called christ" from Josephus.) We don't expect Eusebius to detect a citation from Hegesippus. We do expect him to recognize that single phrase in both Origen and Josephus and say "aha" as those modern pundits so perceptively do.

Why would Eusebius feel the need to make a connection with AJ XX if he just assumed that Josephus used the same phrase elsewhere in a passage he couldn't find? And why are we arguing from Eusebius' opinion again? Are we to use this unreliable author merely where convenient for our arguments? Of course Eusebius will count them as separate without much thought, because he wants to have more passages that make his point!

when he talks about the temple's destruction being justice for James, but Eusebius could not detect this. Thus, the argument from Eusebius is a wash. If he could not recognize that the connecting of the temple's fall and James' death came from Hegesippus, why should we expect him to recognize Origen's embellished paraphrase of the Antiquities XX?

It was what Eusebius cited. The Comm.Matt doesn't help get to anything from Josephus either.

Why focus on only Eusebius then, when the question is whether Origen knew the Antiquities XX reference? This is just a tactic to muddy the waters, which would be unnecessary if you had that much confidence in your argument below.

Stop trying to eke out grievances. I moved on to deal directly with Comm.Matt. to head off this nonsense. Concentrate.

Oh, knock it off with the condescension. Focus would come naturally if you would just drop the Eusebius bologna and reference a single passage at a time, rather than jumping to later paraphrases, which you believe help bolster your tired argument.

It doesn't change the problem, so this is only refractoriness. Most pundits who opine on AJ 20.200 conveniently cut smaller to make the phrasing seem more Josephan (omitting the reference to James because it shows a different syntax), but not too small as to make it Matthean ("Jesus called christ"). There is no scholarship in this sort of process. It is just arbitrary manipulation for desired outcome.

Yes, it is a very small reference, but that we find "the brother of Jesus, called Christ," nowhere but in Josephus and in reference to Josephus is evidence, no matter how you spin it.

You somehow missed out on the discussion of arbitrariness. It's the goldilocks principle: not too much and not too little and we can get what we want. Arbitrary is the correct word for how this stuff is arrived at.

Yet somehow the same description for James ended up in AJ XX, except placed before his name. If you cannot acknowledge the glaring similarities between the two, then I cannot help you. It is either a remarkable coincidence or the interpolator was working off Origen, which then ceases to make it arbitrary.

That you have labelled the scholars who have found the passage characteristic of Josephus as not "cmpletely [sic] honest" is a serious charge, and as I keep saying, you need to provide a full treatment of the syntax evidence in this case.

Why don't you do what Tim O'Neill did, ie got counsel from some of those scholars?

This advances the discussion how? Out of interest, I continuously ask you to produce a fuller treatment of your research. Yet you seem more interested in going tit for tat.

I am not qualified in Greek to pass an assessment and this I freely admit.

And I agree.

Finally, some common ground!

This is of no consequence, given that thrice Origen has cited material from Josephus he wrongly claims that it involves the fall of Jerusalem on account of the death of James. He clearly doesn't have a copy of Josephus at hand, which sets this apart from the biblical references. You have provided no reason think his confusion regarding what Josephus might have said could not have come from confusing Josephus with Hegesippus rather than conflating the two separate writers.

Hegesippus nowhere uses that epithet for James. Origen uses a variation of it only three times and only when citing Josephus as a source.

You need to read the whole post you are responding to. You argue against the response to your complaint here below.

Perhaps you would be less confused if you actually tried listening and reflecting for once. You brought up Hegesippus as Origen's sole source for the James reference. I replied that is unlikely. Further, to bring in Matthew's use of "called Christ" (as you suggest below) into this specific context, where that verse is nowhere in sight, is in your own words, arbitrary.

You don't have a significant sample. In CC the epithet was used twice and James mentioned outside of those contexts another four times, as a rough count. Your no weight argument has no weight. Clearly once Origen had constructed the report about the death of James being the cause of the fall of Jerusalem with its "brother of Jesus called christ"—a conflation of Hegesippus with Mt 1:16, not strange as it was part of his Matt commentary—all he did was an ancient version of cutting and pasting from Comm.Matt to CC. You admit a Hegesippus connection. All that was needed is the phrase from Matt. Later he hones it adding "the Just". Hegesippus gave "brother of the lord"; Matthew gave "Jesus called christ"; combined yields "the brother ofJesus called christ". That's quite a simple process.

Not as simple as Origen remembering an actual reference to James in Josephus.

I.e. working from recollection of Hegesippus and conflating that with a part of the phrase from current AJ 20.200 is some how to you simpler, ie inadvertently using two separate sources is simpler than just using Hegesippus. Origen already had "Jesus called christ" in the text he is commenting on.

Either way, it's a conflation of two texts. You also have not shared what you believe Origen's motivations were, if he authored the James epithet. Why does he only here use "called Christ?"

Nowhere else in all the references to Jesus does Origen say that he was merely "called Christ." Do you not see the problem here? Unless you are suggesting that Origen is purposefully inventing what Josephus would have said...

You've added nothing to the mix to show me why you "find [Jesus in AJ 20.200] probably authentic". You already admit Origen was recollecting and doing so wrongly. He is no help to your authentic finding, as he cannot be shown to be a witness. That leaves you to deal with the fact that Josephus, an apologist for mainstream Jewish ideas and of priestly stock, avoided the religiously charged term "christ" which is used over 40 times in the LXX, yet unexpectly uses it as an epithet to describe Jesus who is mentioned purely as a means of indicating which James in passing was executed. You trenchantly hold your opinion on the veracity of AJ 20.200 on the flimsiest of justification.

We honestly do not know how prominent the terms "messiah" and "christ" were to describe a liberator of Israel in the first century.

We do know that none of the LXX uses of χριστος are to be found in Josephus's epitome and the only time AJ uses the term is in the suspect cases of the TF and AJ 20.200. And as you point out...

Josephus does not even use it in description of Vespasian (to whom Josephus reveals the controversial part of the idea--the prophecy that a world ruler would arise from Israel); nor do we have evidence that Bar Kokhba used it. Most of the so called "messianic prophecies" in the LXX do not even use the term.

I'm not talking about prophecies. I'm talking about 40 LXX references to someone referred to as "anointed" (χριστος), usually priests or kings (eg 1 Sam 24:6 cf. AJ 6.284; 1 Sam 26:9 cf. AJ 6.312). None of those uses are to be found in Josephus.

If Josephus did mention a man who was known above all others as "Christ," it would make sense to downplay the connection to any LXX king/ruler. Using the term to describe an obscure Jewish prophet, whose followers did not partake in rebellion (that we know of and the NT certainly discourages it) is harmless unless one connects it to a context. As others have argued, Paul has transformed the title "Christ" into more of a name by this period in time, although it still carried theological significance for those in the know.

To say that someone was nicknamed "annointed" would not be controversial unless they did know the prophetic connotations, which Josephus does not provide. We also know that many Christians vehemently denied that Christ's kingdom was of this world, and thus, even if we are to grant the term some status, "annointed" need not carry with it the inference of political subversiveness.

We know in ordinary Greek it just meant ointment (ie that which is spread on), but to our priestly Josephus the term must have been clear in its Jewish implications. There are two reasons for his not using the term: 1) it carried theological implications for any Jew, implications that Josephus clearly avoids (that would press the wrong buttons in his Jewish apology), not even using the term for Vespasian, and 2) to avoid the ridiculous understanding for non-Jews there would need to be an explanation in describing Jesus as being "called christ"—after all an apology needs to be intelligible to its readers.

It's not a coincidence that in a christian preserved work the only use of χριστος found refers to Jesus.

Are the coins minted by Bar Kokhba Christian-preserved?

Josephus shares the star prophecy with Vespasian and also relates the accounts of many embarrassing "innovators." We have no reason to believe he chose to hide the title, "Christ," unless there was a first century Jew famous for that moniker whom Josephus himself may have mentioned. To put it simply: Josephus connects Vespasian to the Star Prophecy. Josephus (imo) connects Jesus to the name/title "Christ." However, Josephus never connects the title "Christ" to the Star Prophecy or a ruler of Israel.

[spin]

I can't see the logic in much of this. What confusion are you referring to here and how did you decide on confusion? The last sentence doesn't really seem related to the previous two other than there is some sort of attempt to draw a parallel.

We are taking that Origen was actually citing Hegesippus

No, we are not. We had both made it clear that Origen was working from memory. (Your claim is that he was working from Hegesippus re James but somehow got the single phrase "brother of Jesus called christ" from Josephus.) We don't expect Eusebius to detect a citation from Hegesippus. We do expect him to recognize that single phrase in both Origen and Josephus and say "aha" as those modern pundits so perceptively do.

Why would Eusebius feel the need to make a connection with AJ XX if he just assumed that Josephus used the same phrase elsewhere in a passage he couldn't find?

That's such a good question, you should ask the pundits why they feel that they have to assume Origen refers to AJ 20.200. Clearly Origen is note citing it or paraphrasing it. APparently he got nothing from Josephus other than a phrase he could have constructed himself from material he already had, ie Hegesippus and Mt 1:16.

And why are we arguing from Eusebius' opinion again? Are we to use this unreliable author merely where convenient for our arguments?

It's his native language and he knows his sources.

Of course Eusebius will count them as separate without much thought, because he wants to have more passages that make his point!

Such speculation is just wasting time.

It was what Eusebius cited. The Comm.Matt doesn't help get to anything from Josephus either.

Why focus on only Eusebius then, when the question is whether Origen knew the Antiquities XX reference? This is just a tactic to muddy the waters, which would be unnecessary if you had that much confidence in your argument below.

Stop trying to eke out grievances. I moved on to deal directly with Comm.Matt. to head off this nonsense. Concentrate.

Oh, knock it off with the condescension. Focus would come naturally if you would just drop the Eusebius bologna and reference a single passage at a time, rather than jumping to later paraphrases, which you believe help bolster your tired argument.

Still peddling this faux grievance. There is little difference for you in what you want to attribute to Josephus. Each of Origen's uses boils down to "James [the Just] brother of Jesus called christ". Note that he is happy enough to modify his original formulation. So again, stop the song and dance: you are just splitting hairs. It is to no avail.

It doesn't change the problem, so this is only refractoriness. Most pundits who opine on AJ 20.200 conveniently cut smaller to make the phrasing seem more Josephan (omitting the reference to James because it shows a different syntax), but not too small as to make it Matthean ("Jesus called christ"). There is no scholarship in this sort of process. It is just arbitrary manipulation for desired outcome.

Yes, it is a very small reference, but that we find "the brother of Jesus, called Christ," nowhere but in Josephus and in reference to Josephus is evidence, no matter how you spin it.

You somehow missed out on the discussion of arbitrariness. It's the goldilocks principle: not too much and not too little and we can get what we want. Arbitrary is the correct word for how this stuff is arrived at.

Yet somehow the same description for James ended up in AJ XX, except placed before his name.

That is a fact that should help you out of your slavishness.

If you cannot acknowledge the glaring similarities between the two, then I cannot help you. It is either a remarkable coincidence or the interpolator was working off Origen, which then ceases to make it arbitrary.

You cannot see that you are fudging the data to suit your predetermined conclusion.

That you have labelled the scholars who have found the passage characteristic of Josephus as not "cmpletely [sic] honest" is a serious charge, and as I keep saying, you need to provide a full treatment of the syntax evidence in this case.

Why don't you do what Tim O'Neill did, ie got counsel from some of those scholars?

This advances the discussion how?

You are trying to sell the line that you are incompetent. I'm suggesting an out.

Out of interest, I continuously ask you to produce a fuller treatment of your research. Yet you seem more interested in going tit for tat.

FYI, I have better things to do than your bidding. I have been dealing with a matter that is for me far more important, which many here know: the literary history of terms Nazareth/Nazara/Nazarene/Nazorean.

I am not qualified in Greek to pass an assessment and this I freely admit.

And I agree.

Finally, some common ground!

This is of no consequence, given that thrice Origen has cited material from Josephus he wrongly claims that it involves the fall of Jerusalem on account of the death of James. He clearly doesn't have a copy of Josephus at hand, which sets this apart from the biblical references. You have provided no reason think his confusion regarding what Josephus might have said could not have come from confusing Josephus with Hegesippus rather than conflating the two separate writers.

Hegesippus nowhere uses that epithet for James. Origen uses a variation of it only three times and only when citing Josephus as a source.

You need to read the whole post you are responding to. You argue against the response to your complaint here below.[/quote]

Perhaps you would be less confused

Riffing on the name of the smiley rather than responding. Deep.

if you actually tried listening and reflecting for once. You brought up Hegesippus as Origen's sole source for the James reference. I replied that is unlikely. Further, to bring in Matthew's use of "called Christ" (as you suggest below) into this specific context, where that verse is nowhere in sight, is in your own words, arbitrary.

You're still not focusing. The phrase is part of Origen's literary cultural background. It's not from some text that he is working from poor memory to reclaim, as you would have him struggling with AJ 20.200.

You don't have a significant sample. In CC the epithet was used twice and James mentioned outside of those contexts another four times, as a rough count. Your no weight argument has no weight. Clearly once Origen had constructed the report about the death of James being the cause of the fall of Jerusalem with its "brother of Jesus called christ"—a conflation of Hegesippus with Mt 1:16, not strange as it was part of his Matt commentary—all he did was an ancient version of cutting and pasting from Comm.Matt to CC. You admit a Hegesippus connection. All that was needed is the phrase from Matt. Later he hones it adding "the Just". Hegesippus gave "brother of the lord"; Matthew gave "Jesus called christ"; combined yields "the brother ofJesus called christ". That's quite a simple process.

Not as simple as Origen remembering an actual reference to James in Josephus.

I.e. working from recollection of Hegesippus and conflating that with a part of the phrase from current AJ 20.200 is some how to you simpler, ie inadvertently using two separate sources is simpler than just using Hegesippus. Origen already had "Jesus called christ" in the text he is commenting on.

Either way, it's a conflation of two texts. You also have not shared what you believe Origen's motivations were, if he authored the James epithet. Why does he only here use "called Christ?"

The full phrase that interests you was first used in his Comm.Matt. and Matt is where the phrase "Jesus called christ" is found. Origen had already used "James the brother of the Lord". Substituting "Jesus called christ" for "the Lord" would be necessary variatio.

Josephus does not even use it in description of Vespasian (to whom Josephus reveals the controversial part of the idea--the prophecy that a world ruler would arise from Israel); nor do we have evidence that Bar Kokhba used it. Most of the so called "messianic prophecies" in the LXX do not even use the term.

I'm not talking about prophecies. I'm talking about 40 LXX references to someone referred to as "anointed" (χριστος), usually priests or kings (eg 1 Sam 24:6 cf. AJ 6.284; 1 Sam 26:9 cf. AJ 6.312). None of those uses are to be found in Josephus.

If Josephus did mention a man who was known above all others as "Christ," it would make sense to downplay the connection to any LXX king/ruler. Using the term to describe an obscure Jewish prophet, whose followers did not partake in rebellion (that we know of and the NT certainly discourages it) is harmless unless one connects it to a context. As others have argued, Paul has transformed the title "Christ" into more of a name by this period in time, although it still carried theological significance for those in the know.

I do wish Peter hadn't removed my favorite ROTFLMAO smiley. It would be just so appropriate here.

Josephus didn't use any of the LXX exemplars of christos and avoided the use of the term in order to use it for Jesus!! Do you do stand up anywhere?

We get the unknown Galilean rabbi who is so well known that lots of people knew him and knew him not by his town of origin as was the common practice, but by the epithet "messiah", so Josephus uses the epithet unexplained, knowing that this Jesus wasn't the christ.

To say that someone was nicknamed "annointed" would not be controversial unless they did know the prophetic connotations, which Josephus does not provide. We also know that many Christians vehemently denied that Christ's kingdom was of this world, and thus, even if we are to grant the term some status, "annointed" need not carry with it the inference of political subversiveness.

We know in ordinary Greek it just meant ointment (ie that which is spread on), but to our priestly Josephus the term must have been clear in its Jewish implications. There are two reasons for his not using the term: 1) it carried theological implications for any Jew, implications that Josephus clearly avoids (that would press the wrong buttons in his Jewish apology), not even using the term for Vespasian, and 2) to avoid the ridiculous understanding for non-Jews there would need to be an explanation in describing Jesus as being "called christ"—after all an apology needs to be intelligible to its readers.

It's not a coincidence that in a christian preserved work the only use of χριστος found refers to Jesus.

Are the coins minted by Bar Kokhba Christian-preserved?

The following doesn't deal with what you are attempting to comment on:

Josephus shares the star prophecy with Vespasian and also relates the accounts of many embarrassing "innovators." We have no reason to believe he chose to hide the title, "Christ," unless there was a first century Jew famous for that moniker whom Josephus himself may have mentioned. To put it simply: Josephus connects Vespasian to the Star Prophecy. Josephus (imo) connects Jesus to the name/title "Christ." However, Josephus never connects the title "Christ" to the Star Prophecy or a ruler of Israel.

Because he doesn't use the term anywhere. Oh, except if you believe he wrote either the TF or "brother of Jesus called christ"... you know, for some guy who obviously wasn't the christ, being dead or disappeared or whatever.

It's not a coincidence that in a christian preserved work the only use of χριστος found refers to Jesus.

MattMorales, it seems to me as if you are still in neutral and not engaging in this discussion. Your guileless approach to the Jewish apologist Josephus is unfortunate; you are an accomplice to the arbitrary manipulation of data so that one ends up with a suitable phrase from Origen to fit the current state of AJ 20.200; and you seem incapable of showing why you think "the brother of Jesus called christ" was probably penned by Josephus.

I'll get back to what I should be doing. Thanks for the waltz.

[DCHindley]

[MattMorales]

Yet another spin post lacking any substance, but filled with emoticons and immature language. I am apparently not engaging in the discussion unless I agree with your desperate line of argumentation. From what I've seen here, that's all you can do: argue. You don't want to put in the hard work to present your supposed research in any coherent fashion even when you make the claim to have found a hitherto neglected detail regarding the syntax. It seems that you are the one who lacks focus and concentration.

Your last flatulent diatribe on Josephus' use of "christos" is just another example of the obtuse brand of logic you practice. Actually, you have this one in common with certain mythicists. We are not talking about an unknown Galilean rabbi by the time AJ is written. "Christianity" as a cult was rapidly expanding throughout the empire. It's probably the one thing besides the Jewish War itself we could expect an educated Roman citizen to have heard of. And the Roman sources we have, disputed or not, all use "Christos/Chrestos" in reference to this movement's founder.

Be well, spin. Let us hope your next project produces more tangible results than your work on the Antiquities.

[MrMacSon]

... We are not talking about an unknown Galilean rabbi by the time AJ is written.

Yes. We. Are.

"Christianity" as a cult was rapidly expanding throughout the empire.

What basis do you have for saying this? for the 1st C?

There were dozens of cults at that time: Gnostics; Zoroastrianism, 4-6 versions of Judaism, etc.

[Christianity]'s probably the one thing besides the Jewish War itself we could expect an educated Roman citizen to have heard of.

What basis do you have for saying this? for the 1st C?

And the Roman sources we have, disputed or not, all use "Christos/Chrestos" in reference to this movement's founder.

But hardly any reference to Jesus: the vague Josephean references to Jesus are hardly confirmatory.

[ficino]

On the old board, I can't remember his name now - aa5468? Anyway, he used to insist that early references to Christos/Chrestus can't be taken on first face as references to "the Jesus cult." E.g. the passages in Pliny's letters cannot be assumed to refer to "the Jesus cult." At first I was surprised, because I always just assumed that Christ = Jesus. But that's a point at issue. We may not have other obvious candidates, but we don't know that "Christ" is Jesus of Nazareth in pagan sources of the 1st cent. and early 2nd cent, do we?

[MrMacSon]

... early references to Christos/Chrestus can't be taken on first face as references to "the Jesus cult" eg. the passages in Pliny's letters cannot be assumed to refer to "the Jesus cult." ... we don't know that "Christ" is Jesus of Nazareth in pagan sources of the 1st cent. and early 2nd cent, do we?

we don't know that "Christ" is Jesus of Nazareth in non-pagan sources of the 1st cent. and early 2nd cent, either.

It seems to me we have gone from the Greek adjectives χριστός (Latin; Christus/Christos) and Χρήστος (Latin; Chrestus); based on the root-word/verb χριω (rub on, anoint), to them becoming a noun meaning messiah, or similar.

High Priests and Jewish Kings were literally rubbed with oil; ie. anointed