Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

[maryhelena]

The problem I have with the idea that TF is a forgery (a forgery outside of the whole work being garbage) is that the narrative can be read as supporting the history of the Acti Pilati. Hard to argue that some sort of relationship exists between the two traditions. If the TF author could have plopped the "addition" anywhere why does it work out that nothing in the narrative contradicts a 20 - 21 CE appearance of Jesus. The idea of Jesus being "the Right One" the one who came at the right time fits 20 - 21 CE too. It's a Jubilee year.

.....and 49 years forward is 70 c.e...and 70 years back is 49 b.c. The death by poison of Aristobulus. No need to choose between 19 c.e, 21 c.e or Luke's around 30/33 c.e dating. The Jesus crucifixion story under Pilate is allegory not history. Consequently, the Jesus allegory can be set down in any context I.e. in any context dating that serves as remembrance of Hasmonean history. History involving the deaths of Aristobulus, Alexander, Antigonus and Hyrancus via Roman hands. The Hasmonean dynasty was beheaded, crucified. From that historical tragedy grew the roots of early christianity. An earthly kingdom lost led to the birth of a spiritual or philosophical kingdom.

ok...I'll run now before my own head gets chopped off...






...

[maryhelena]

Goodness, I'm simply astounded at your position - that you would seek to remove the entire TF from Antiquities. Simply astounded. While I have read some of your post to this forum regarding your argument for Eusebius interpolation - this was the first time I read that you would like the entire TF removed from Antiquities. Well, what can one say - best of luck attempting to get such a removal of the TF past Josephan scholars......methinks you would be far better off spending your energy elsewhere.

It would not be too much to say Ken Olson single-handedly changed my TF essay from pro authenticity to against:

"After reading the study of Ken Olson that shows the vocabulary of the Testimonium to be not Josephan but rather Eusebian, I am inclined to regard both references as spurious."
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

You may now react with exaggerated affect to that too.

Exaggeration not needed, Peter.

If you, or anyone else, find Ken Olson's Eusebius theory plausible that's fine by me. After all, all scholars do is offer the results of their research to the public. We are consumers and thus able to pick an choose which flavour of investigation we find of nutritious or intellectual value.

The point I made in the quote you referenced above deals with this statement from Ken Olson:

Ken Olson: I am suggesting a single conjectural emendation that would remove the entire TF from the Antiquities,

here

The issue of the Josephan TF is an ongoing problem - for any scholar to propose it be removed from Antiquities is, to my mind, to claim 'truth', primacy, for that scholar's own theory. As far as I'm aware, the market in TF offerings is still open.....

[rgprice]

I'll ask one last time. Why did the scribes use nomina sacra for Christ but not for Jesus?

Peter's other thread got me thinking, and now I might consider that this proposition could have some merit.

What if there was a passage by Josephus that said Jesus Chrestos, and there were two approaches taken to dealing with it. One was to "correct" Chrestos to Christos and the other was to change Chrestos to XY.

I say this because it could explain why Christos is written with nomina sacra but Jesus is not. If the name Jesus were unambiguous it could be left alone, but with Chrestos there could have been need make a change which is why the scribe decided to use nomina sacra for clarification where clarification wasn't needed for Jesus. Speculative obviously, but it could potentially explain why Christ was written with nomina sacra but Jesus wasn't.

[Ken Olson]

I'll ask one last time. Why did the scribes use nomina sacra for Christ but not for Jesus?

Peter's other thread got me thinking, and now I might consider that this proposition could have some merit.

What if there was a passage by Josephus that said Jesus Chrestos, and there were two approaches taken to dealing with it. One was to "correct" Chrestos to Christos and the other was to change Chrestos to XY.

I say this because it could explain why Christos is written with nomina sacra but Jesus is not. If the name Jesus were unambiguous it could be left alone, but with Chrestos there could have been need make a change which is why the scribe decided to use nomina sacra for clarification where clarification wasn't needed for Jesus. Speculative obviously, but it could potentially explain why Christ was written with nomina sacra but Jesus wasn't.

There is also the word Christians written out in manuscript A.

εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον

still to this day the tribe of the Christians, named after him, has not waned

This would seem to require Christ as an antecedent, not chrestos. You could, of course, add further speculations about how the original text read and has been changed.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

I'll ask one last time. Why did the scribes use nomina sacra for Christ but not for Jesus?

Peter's other thread got me thinking, and now I might consider that this proposition could have some merit.

What if there was a passage by Josephus that said Jesus Chrestos, and there were two approaches taken to dealing with it. One was to "correct" Chrestos to Christos and the other was to change Chrestos to XY.

I say this because it could explain why Christos is written with nomina sacra but Jesus is not. If the name Jesus were unambiguous it could be left alone, but with Chrestos there could have been need make a change which is why the scribe decided to use nomina sacra for clarification where clarification wasn't needed for Jesus. Speculative obviously, but it could potentially explain why Christ was written with nomina sacra but Jesus wasn't.

There is also the word Christians written out in manuscript A.

εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον

still to this day the tribe of the Christians, named after him, has not waned

This would seem to require Christ as an antecedent, not chrestos. You could, of course, add further speculations about how the original text read and has been changed.

Or that Ant 20.200 were authentic, and the TF wasn't.

The idea that the Ant. 20.200 reference was interpolated is also a 'change' and also a 'speculation'.

[Ken Olson]

I'll ask one last time. Why did the scribes use nomina sacra for Christ but not for Jesus?

Peter's other thread got me thinking, and now I might consider that this proposition could have some merit.

What if there was a passage by Josephus that said Jesus Chrestos, and there were two approaches taken to dealing with it. One was to "correct" Chrestos to Christos and the other was to change Chrestos to XY.

I say this because it could explain why Christos is written with nomina sacra but Jesus is not. If the name Jesus were unambiguous it could be left alone, but with Chrestos there could have been need make a change which is why the scribe decided to use nomina sacra for clarification where clarification wasn't needed for Jesus. Speculative obviously, but it could potentially explain why Christ was written with nomina sacra but Jesus wasn't.

There is also the word Christians written out in manuscript A.

εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον

still to this day the tribe of the Christians, named after him, has not waned

This would seem to require Christ as an antecedent, not chrestos. You could, of course, add further speculations about how the original text read and has been changed.

Or that Ant 20.200 were authentic, the TF wasn't.

The idea that the Ant. 20.200 reference was interpolated is also a 'change' and also a 'speculation'.

Peter,

Is this a reminder that I should address your theory that Ant 20.200 originally read chrestus more fully? You appear to be agreeing with me on the inauthenticity of the Testimonium in Ant. 18.63-64, which was the subject of this post.

Your comment seems off topic for what RGPrice was arguing regarding the use of a nomen sacrum in the Testimonium for Christ/Chrestus while writing out the name Jesus -- as well as Christians, which he didn't address.

Is your point just that all theories that don't accept the text as written in the manuscripts regard some degree of speculation about prior alterations? I'm sure that's true, but I don't think it means all proposed speculative changes are equal. Or have I missed your point entirely?

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

Emphasis added:

You appear to be agreeing with me on the inauthenticity of the Testimonium in Ant. 18.63-64, which was the subject of this post.

Your comment seems off topic for what RGPrice was arguing regarding the use of a nomen sacrum in the Testimonium for Christ/Chrestus while writing out the name Jesus -- as well as Christians, which he didn't address.

I read RG Price as referring primarily to the Ant. 20.200 passage with this comment.

This is because you introduced a manuscript of Ant. 20.200 here:

New data, courtesy of Martijn Linssen, who found Ant. 20.200 on page 349v (v=verso, or the reverse side) of manuscript A (p. 684 of the digital library online version):

https://digitallibrary.unicatt.it/vener ... 82800acbda

F128 sup. Ant. 20.200.png

In the fourth and fifth lines of the screenshot you can see:

τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰά
κωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ

the brother (of) Jesus the (one) called Christ, Ja
cob (the) name (to) him

So in the earliest known manuscript of Ant. 20.200, the name Jesus and the title Christ are written out in full - there are no nomina sacra used.

Best,

Ken

And then RG Price followed up with this question, for the first time, here:

So in the earliest known manuscript of Ant. 20.200, the name Jesus and the title Christ are written out in full - there are no nomina sacra used.

That was a fun goose chase

I still wonder why then later scribes decided to use nomina sacra for Christ but not Jesus?

RG Price, in this post, directly related this query to Ant. 20.200 when he quoted you regarding the manuscript of Ant. 20.200.

Then RG Price asked the question "one last time":

I'll ask one last time. Why did the scribes use nomina sacra for Christ but not for Jesus?

Peter's other thread got me thinking, and now I might consider that this proposition could have some merit.

What if there was a passage by Josephus that said Jesus Chrestos, and there were two approaches taken to dealing with it. One was to "correct" Chrestos to Christos and the other was to change Chrestos to XY.

I say this because it could explain why Christos is written with nomina sacra but Jesus is not. If the name Jesus were unambiguous it could be left alone, but with Chrestos there could have been need make a change which is why the scribe decided to use nomina sacra for clarification where clarification wasn't needed for Jesus. Speculative obviously, but it could potentially explain why Christ was written with nomina sacra but Jesus wasn't.

RG Price could have been talking about Ant. 20.200 here also, and I read it that way. The previous context suggests it. I would have to guess about why someone interprets it as a reference to the TF. I understand that the reference to "a passage" may lead someone to think otherwise, but Ant. 20.200 is also "a passage." Perhaps also the reference to "Jesus Chrestos" (without qualification) may make someone think of the TF, but neither passage has this sequence of words. It could also be a contracted reference to the four words found in Ant. 20.200, dropping 'the one called'.

I took RG Price's reference to "this proposition" as a reference to the OP's proposition regarding Ant. 20.200.

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but that's how I read it.

Your post clearly did refer to the TF, and I understood the reference to "further speculations" to call back to the "speculations" about a change to the Ant. 20.200 passage.

Is your point just that all theories that don't accept the text as written in the manuscripts regard some degree of speculation about prior alterations? I'm sure that's true, but I don't think it means all proposed speculative changes are equal.

Of course, I agree with you there.

I guess my point was to call into question our preconceptions about how "speculative" the proposed change of Ant. 20.200 is. At first blush, it may seem significantly speculative. However, I think we would easily come to a conclusion that it is truly no more speculative than the interpolation hypotheses, if we just stopped and thought about it a little in that way. The interpolations hypotheses have become more comfortable and familiar to us, through long exposure, and that would lead us to be less likely to summarize them as just "speculation." Yet I would consider that this term, "speculation," is no less apt of the interpolation hypotheses regarding Ant. 20.200 (compared to the OP's suggestion), and sure, I think just saying it in writing does help us to understand this point.

[Ken Olson]

Emphasis added:

You appear to be agreeing with me on the inauthenticity of the Testimonium in Ant. 18.63-64, which was the subject of this post.

Your comment seems off topic for what RGPrice was arguing regarding the use of a nomen sacrum in the Testimonium for Christ/Chrestus while writing out the name Jesus -- as well as Christians, which he didn't address.

I read RG Price as referring primarily to the Ant. 20.200 passage with this comment.

This is because you introduced a manuscript of Ant. 20.200 here:

I also introduced the same manuscript's text of the Testimonium here:

viewtopic.php?p=165362#p165362

And RG Price commented:

What I do find interesting actually is the fact that the nomina sacrum for Christ is used but not for Jesus. Christians used nomina sarca for both.

If Christ is written using nomina sarca, then why isn't Jesus? I've long dismissed efforts to write a sanitized version of this passage, stating that Josephus wrote something and that later Christians then embellished it. But I can see how the use of nomina sacra for Christ and not Jesus could support such a position.

Here is a reconstruction proposal by Dunn that leaves out Chrsit:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

But the problem here is that "Christians" is still in. To me, any proposal for a "sanitized" version of the passage has to leave out Christ, and if you do then you also need to leave out Christians. Christ is the term that explains why they are called Christians. Furthermore, it seem evident that the term Christians is late, as it doesn't even appear in most NT literature.

And I took this to be the line of argument he was pursuing (though I see he did recognize the Christians issue in this earlier post).

But maybe we need two threads here, because I can see how this would be confusing.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

Emphasis added:

You appear to be agreeing with me on the inauthenticity of the Testimonium in Ant. 18.63-64, which was the subject of this post.

Your comment seems off topic for what RGPrice was arguing regarding the use of a nomen sacrum in the Testimonium for Christ/Chrestus while writing out the name Jesus -- as well as Christians, which he didn't address.

I read RG Price as referring primarily to the Ant. 20.200 passage with this comment.

This is because you introduced a manuscript of Ant. 20.200 here:

I also introduced the same manuscript's text of the Testimonium here:

viewtopic.php?p=165362#p165362

And RG Price commented:

What I do find interesting actually is the fact that the nomina sacrum for Christ is used but not for Jesus. Christians used nomina sarca for both.

If Christ is written using nomina sarca, then why isn't Jesus? I've long dismissed efforts to write a sanitized version of this passage, stating that Josephus wrote something and that later Christians then embellished it. But I can see how the use of nomina sacra for Christ and not Jesus could support such a position.

Here is a reconstruction proposal by Dunn that leaves out Chrsit:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

But the problem here is that "Christians" is still in. To me, any proposal for a "sanitized" version of the passage has to leave out Christ, and if you do then you also need to leave out Christians. Christ is the term that explains why they are called Christians. Furthermore, it seem evident that the term Christians is late, as it doesn't even appear in most NT literature.

And I took this to be the line of argument he was pursuing (though I see he did recognize the Christians issue).

But maybe we need two threads here, because I can see how this would be confusing.

It is indeed confusing. At least one of us is confused.

But I do see better now how you read it (and how the way I read it could have been wrong).

[Peter Kirby]

It may be asked whether there is precedent for the adjustment of a name "Chrestos" to "Christos" (or "Chrestus" to "Christus"). It can be said, of course, that if there were such an example, supported by manuscripts, it would be an example where both forms occur. In order to show the plausibility of the hypothesis of this kind of change in the manuscripts, from the manuscripts, the example must show both forms extant. This shows the plausibility that a correction of this kind occurred. A separate argument, of course, is required to argue for the plausibility that we don't have any extant manuscripts with the original reading.

In other words, this isn't a parallel case. But it is an example of a likely type of correction to be made by Christian scribes. The manuscripts of Suetonius are divided on reading either Chresto or Christo. Margaret Williams, Early Classical Authors on Jesus (2022), p. 103, n. 28.

On the powerful support supplied by the MSS for Chrestus as the original reading, see Jobjorn Boman, ‘Inpulsore Cherestro? Suetonius’ Divus Claudius 25.4 in Sources and Manuscripts’, SBFLA (2011): 355–76, who concludes that the few Christ-spellings that occur most likely are conjectures by Christian scribes or scholars. For Orosius’s Christian makeover of Div. Claud. 25.4, see H. Dixon Slingerland, ‘Suetonius, Claudius 25.4, Acts 18, and Paulus Orosius’ Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII: Dating the Claudian Expulsion(s) of Roman Jews’, JQR 83 (1992): 127–44. Besides quietly substituting Christus for Chrestus, Orosius also introduces the idea that the ‘tumult’ in which the Jews were engaged was caused by their opposition to Christ.

A substitution of this kind is natural for scribes that interpret it as a reference to Jesus Christ.

In terms of a situation where there is no contrary manuscript evidence, but where a discussion still takes place: while a majority of Tacitean scholars view the Annals 15.44 reference to be to Christus, following the manuscript and appreciating the contrast with the vulgar appellation Chrestiani (in the uncorrected manuscript), the suggestion of Chrestus there has also been made, conjecturally. The situation there is not exactly the same because of the reference to Chrestiani (and I'm not saying that I favor the conjectural reading Chrestus), but it shows that the conversation can and does take place about a conjectured original that was corrected to Christus.

Referenced here, for example: Robert Renehan, “Christus or Chrestus in Tacitus?” La Parola del Passato 122 (1968): 368-70. I haven't had a chance to read this one yet.

I came across the reference regarding Suetonius today when reading Margaret Williams, which prompted this post.