davewhite04 said:
Truth be known? Christianity was borrowed!
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
I have to admit that I believe that the quotation by Josephus, especially the "if he shall be called a man" seems contrived. But evidence from other writers before Eusebius and the Arabic copy support that Josephus did, indeed, mention Jesus, though perhaps not altogether endorsing him. But quotation concerning James seems valid and is supported by Christian tradition.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Medicine Woman said:
How do you know this?
Thanks
Dave
…. The first passage and the most famous, is called the Testimonium Flavium. It is widely acknowledged by scholars, both secular and apologetic, as a later Christian interpolation, … The most glaring problem with the Testimonium Flavium, as it is called, is that the paragraph is entirely absent from the passage in a quotation from the work which comes to us from Bishop Origen, which is the earliest copy of that passage we have. There are also some clear stylistic and grammatical problems with that passage as well.
The second passage in Josephus is a very brief mention: "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."
1) A common but uncertain objection to the veracity of this passage is the claim that it would be unusual for a first century Jewish writer to refer to anyone as "Christ" ("Messiah") – especially without some sort of prior explanation or introduction to the character.
2) Because he was writing at the end of the first century, at a time when the schism between Judaism and Christianity was becoming very deep and very emotional on both sides, it's unlikely that he would have committed this blasphemy by even acknowledging that some Jews referred to Jesus as the Christ.
3) Even more damning is that Hegesipus, a Christian Jew who wrote a history of the church in AD 170, wrote that James, the brother of Jesus, was killed in a riot, not by sentence of the Sanhedrin, and Clement, as quoted by Eusebius, confirms this.
4) A further objection comes from the translation of the words "who was called Christ". Some commentators insist the original Greek says "him called Christ" - exactly the same formation used to describe Jesus throughout the New Testament and in other Christian writings [we]. (Apologetic writers, however, deny that this usage would be unusual for Josephus [tk].)
Here’s an interesting passage that I think we can agree, as written, is authentic and quite straight forward. In the second century pagan Celsus wrote:
from:
Did Josephus mention Jesus Christ? and
The Case Against 'The Case for Christ' A study in Christian apologetics
Maybe we'll never know.
The second passage in Josephus is a very brief mention: "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."
1) A common but uncertain objection to the veracity of this passage is the claim that it would be unusual for a first century Jewish writer to refer to anyone as "Christ" ("Messiah") – especially without some sort of prior explanation or introduction to the character.
2) Because he was writing at the end of the first century, at a time when the schism between Judaism and Christianity was becoming very deep and very emotional on both sides, it's unlikely that he would have committed this blasphemy by even acknowledging that some Jews referred to Jesus as the Christ.
3) Even more damning is that Hegesipus, a Christian Jew who wrote a history of the church in AD 170, wrote that James, the brother of Jesus, was killed in a riot, not by sentence of the Sanhedrin, and Clement, as quoted by Eusebius, confirms this.
4) A further objection comes from the translation of the words "who was called Christ". Some commentators insist the original Greek says "him called Christ" - exactly the same formation used to describe Jesus throughout the New Testament and in other Christian writings [we]. (Apologetic writers, however, deny that this usage would be unusual for Josephus [tk].)
Here’s an interesting passage that I think we can agree, as written, is authentic and quite straight forward. In the second century pagan Celsus wrote:
from:
Did Josephus mention Jesus Christ? and
The Case Against 'The Case for Christ' A study in Christian apologetics
VERSUS
Maybe we'll never know.
From the above website:Jenyar said:
Arguments for authenticity
Found in all surviving manuscripts
Quoted in full by Eusebius,
Arguments against authenticity
c. 324 CE Writers earlier than Eusebius do not cite the passage; Origen states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.
Maybe I'm missing something but the statement in red appears to supersede the statement in green. Regardless, How does the Red statement gel with the first statement in Green? If writings earlier do not contain the statment then it was probably added.
I'd like to make an amenrdment
Quoted in full by Eusebius, should be moved from the Arguments for authenticity section over to the Arguments against authenticity given Eusebius's reputation.
Here's a quote from Eusebius
'We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.'
(Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).
Great Quote from the author of this mess!
LETS see what else has Eusebius got caught out in:
1)
Josephus wrote in Antiquities Book 19 Section 346 'But as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger (Greek 'Angelos') of ill tidings...' Eusebius in his History (2.10) omits the words 'boubona - epi schoiniou tinos' (ie an owl on a certain rope) and retains only the 'angelos' or messenger. As it stands in Eusebius, the 'quote' of Josephus appears to support Acts 12:23 which mentions an 'angelos', but naturally does not say this messenger was an owl
2)
Eusebius is the first person to say that Josephus referred to 'the tribe of Christians' . Eusebius also said Tertullian referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not. Eusebius also said Trajan referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not.
If you have a problem with the table you should take it up with the author who proposed the disitinctions.Michael said:
Feldman probably arranged it that way because all the surviving copies contain the passage in question. Therefore the objection that "writers earlier than Eusebius do no quote the passage" is essentially an argument from silence - more specifically, Origen's silence. Yet Origen's conclusion does not preclude the possibility that Josephus at least mentioned Jesus, even if it wasn't exactly as Eseubius reported it. So the Question is now, what did the TF look like before Eusebius quoted it.
So we have established that perhaps Eusebius wasn't always an accurate copyist/translator (although he was credited to be one on most occasions) and might have ommitted some words. Does this establish what Josephus had written before Eusebius got to it? No. Even without the possible interpolations the passage still gives evidence that Jesus was considered a historical figure.
And you have to disregard Eusebius' entire track record to make such a slanderous statement. Consider the following footnote (108-109) of the passage at CCEL:
Lightfoot, who defends his honesty, gives an explanation which appears to me sufficiently satisfactory. He says: "Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod Agrippa's death was already in some texts of Josephus. The manner in which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this unjust charge." And in a note he adds: "It is not the substitution of an angel for an owl, as the case is not uncommonly stated. The result is produced mainly by the omission of some words in the text of Josephus ... A scribe unacquainted with Latin would stumble over ton boubwna, which had a wholly different meaning and seems never to have been used of an owl in Greek; and he would alter the text in order to extract some sense out of it.
You mean they didn't use the words exactly as Eusebius used them. But both referred to Christians. What did Eusebius gain by adding "the tribe of" to their texts, which would no doubt be read by others?
_____________________________________
I looked up the relevant passages at CCEL:
4 These things are recorded by Tertullian... In his apology for the Christians, which was written by him in the Latin language, and has been translated into Greek*, he writes as follows:
"... 6 Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine. But the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the Christians." [Apology ch.5]
- History, Book II ch.2
* footnote: The translation of Tertullian's Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as may be seen from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted in Bk. II. chap. 25, §4. For the mistakes, however, of course not Eusebius himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held responsible."... 6 Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine. But the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the Christians." [Apology ch.5]
- History, Book II ch.2
2 In reply to this Trajan made the following decree: that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished.
3 We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above**. The translation runs as follows: "And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden. For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity, he was confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice, he had found no impiety in them."
- History, Book III ch. 33
** footnote: Mentioned in Bk.II ch.2. The present passage is rendered, on the whole, with considerable fidelity; much more accurately than in the two cases noticed in the previous book.3 We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above**. The translation runs as follows: "And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden. For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity, he was confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice, he had found no impiety in them."
- History, Book III ch. 33
I don't know if I'm missing something, but certainly the words in red seems to be direct quotations (that apart from being poor translations, mentions no "tribe"), while the words in blue are Eusebius' own words, employing his characteristic device? Again, if Eusebius quoted them correctly in these passages, what could he possibly gain by adding the words "the tribe of" elsewhere?
Last edited:
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
TF has been pretty much discussed to death. A good starting point for evaluating those discussions is, in my opinion, Kirby's excellent EarlyChristianWritings and, in particular, Kirby's own Testimonium Flavianum. As can be seen, even the Catholic Encyclopedia is forced to admit that "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations.". That, and the whole issue of The Credibillity of Josephus suggest that the Testimonium Flavianum proves very little except, perhaps, the willingness of early NT redactors to massage the text for the greater glory of the Lord.
Josephus hardly counts as an "early NT redactor". I have consulted both Kirby's Christianity sites, but he has either no knowledge or no comment about the possible Josephus-Luke connection proposed by Goldberg.CA said:
*************davewhite04 said:
M*W: Dave, don't waste time concerning yourself as to how I know this, spend your time being concerned why YOU don't know it.
That's a fallacy (Huhh...I believe...Medicine Woman said:
)...How can you tell that Christianity was related to that? People in Israel didn't know there was something in the other side of the ocean! All that you are doing is to assume that those crucifixions were related, that they were all stories. But you don't get that they are not necessarily related. You cannot relate something from the "New World" when people in the "Old World" didn't even know of the existence of the "New World"...! :bugeye:
*************TruthSeeker said:That's a fallacy (Huhh...I believe...
How can you tell that Christianity was related to that? People in Israel didn't know there was something in the other side of the ocean! All that you are doing is to assume that those crucifixions were related, that they were all stories. But you don't get that they are not necessarily related. You cannot relate something from the "New World" when people in the "Old World" didn't even know of the existence of the "New World"...! :bugeye:
M*W: This was from a cited reference. Christianity was "borrowed" from earlier virgin born dying demigod religions.
It makes NO difference that the Middle Eastern peoples didn't know what was going on in Mexico or South America, because TODAY WE KNOW what we think may have happened along the timeline of the Earth's civilizations.
The referenced citation did not indicate that the different civilizations know what the rest of the world was doing at the time. That's silly, as far as communications were then, it would have been impossible.
Why do the people of Alaska (Eskimos) and the Incas of Peru have Asian-like slanted eyes? Because archeologists found donut-like rocks that were carved and used as anchors back in China, and were found along the entire western coast of the Americas. None of these people knew they had that connection either.
What need does Christianity need of outside, pagan sources to develop a story of Christ? The whole idea of Christ is clearly portrayed in the Old Testament(Isaiah 7:14 predicts a virgin birth; Psalm 22, a death on a cross; Resurrection and Ascension, Psalm 49:15; etc. The themes of the NT are in the OT, these books, the Old Testament, were written as far back as 2000 B.C. and as late as 400 B.C.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
I'm convinced that neither of us have a clue as to what you're talking about. Where did I suggest that Josephus was an early NT redactor?Jenyar said:
M.W. wrote;
The worst of all was Paul. I believe if there is an antichrist, Paul is it.
-------------
Paul was the Apostle God used to bring His Word from the shadows and types of the Old Testament to the real spiritual meaning of those types in the New Testament.
His doctrine was flawless, given to him by God and thats what the churches let slip away from them over the centuries that had to be restored in this day in order for Christ to return.
The "restoration of all things", refers to the restoration of the doctrine of Christ that Paul had in the early church.
The worst of all was Paul. I believe if there is an antichrist, Paul is it.
-------------
Paul was the Apostle God used to bring His Word from the shadows and types of the Old Testament to the real spiritual meaning of those types in the New Testament.
His doctrine was flawless, given to him by God and thats what the churches let slip away from them over the centuries that had to be restored in this day in order for Christ to return.
The "restoration of all things", refers to the restoration of the doctrine of Christ that Paul had in the early church.
Then, maybe there IS some connection, but you cannot say that they were intended! For Christianity to be borrowed, they would have to copy from another religion, isn't that right? Unless you are using the word "borrowed" in another sense...?Medicine Woman said:
*************TruthSeeker said:Then, maybe there IS some connection, but you cannot say that they were intended! For Christianity to be borrowed, they would have to copy from another religion, isn't that right? Unless you are using the word "borrowed" in another sense...?
M*W: Christianity was BORROWED from earlier non-Christian religions. I used the word "BORROWED" exactly as it is meant--taken from another source or sources. In other words, there is NOTHING ORIGINAL about Christianity. Therefore, Christianity doesn't exist in and of itself, so that makes it a FALSE RELIGION! Is there any part of this you don't understand?
Yes. How could it be borrowed if there was no connection with other earlier religions?Medicine Woman said: