Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

[Secret Alias]

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο: ὁ χρηστὸς οὗτος ἦν.

[Secret Alias]

The use of "ὁ χρηστὸς οὗτος" = "this worthy fellow" is very common in ancient Greek. https://books.google.com/books?id=XI49E ... AF6BAgHEAI Seems to fit the section better than "he was the Christ" out of fucking nowhere. Of course the context is "we are Christians" we know him to be the Christ. Josephus seems to be talking about Jesus's "excellence" throughout. Of course I am an asshole so ignore me.

[Secret Alias]

Another example:

μετὰ ταῦτα τοίνυν, ἐπειδὴ Κηφισόδοτος μὲν ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ στρατηγεῖν, ὑμῖν δ᾽ οὐκ ἐδόκουν καλῶς ἔχειν οὐδὲ δικαίως αἱ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον γραφεῖσαι συνθῆκαι, τὸν μὲν Μιλτοκύθην, τὸν διὰ παντὸς εὔνουν ὑμῖν τοῦ χρόνου, λαβὼν προδοθένθ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ Σμικυθίωνος ὁ χρηστὸς οὗτος Χαρίδημος, οὐκ ὄντος νομίμου τοῖς Θρᾳξὶν ἀλλήλους ἀποκτιννύναι, γνοὺς ὅτι σωθήσεται πρὸς Κερσοβλέπτην ἂν ἀχθῇ, παραδίδωσι Καρδιανοῖς τοῖς ὑμετέροις ἐχθροῖς.

Thereafter, when Cephisodotus had been discharged from his command, and you held the view that the convention made with him was improper and unfair, Miltocythes, who had been consistently well-affected to you, was betrayed by Smicythion, and fell into the hands of our excellent friend. Knowing that the man's life would be spared if he were taken to Cersobleptes,—for killing one another is not customary among the Thracians,—Charidemus handed him over to your enemies the Cardians.

After these things, when Kephisodotus had been relieved of his command, and it did not seem well or justly to you that the agreements made with him should be upheld, this good man, Charidemus, having been betrayed by Smythion, who was always friendly to you, took refuge, knowing that he would be saved, to Kersebleptes, and handed over to the Kardians, your enemies.

I know people work on things their whole life and then someone comes a long and finds the answer. And if that guy is a fucking asshole it makes the pain even greater. But maybe God's a big practical joker. Maybe he likes fools. I don't know but this seems to solve the TF, doesn't it? Maybe it's real or at least was something more credible but mistaken by the Christians. Maybe God has a sense of humor putting a dope like me in among the more erudite.

[John2]

Didn't Jesus and his followers likewise believe that "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" and that it was predicted in the OT? And weren't they likewise "deceived in their determination"? While I'm inclined to think the TF has been tampered with, even as it is, I think it fits what Josephus had said about the "ambiguous oracle."

I'm not sure I'm understanding correctly the intent of the point you're making. I will suggest something, for you to help correct it.

Here's my guess: Josephus doesn't actually avoid entirely the subject of ambiguous oracles about a future king (can we say that much at least?) that were misinterpreted by Jews. Josephus broaches it briefly, to say that these Jews were mistaken because they did not interpret Vespasian as the fulfillment of this ambiguous oracle. The followers of Jesus were, at least originally, among those Jews with this "misunderstanding," thinking there would be a future king from the Jews.

Yes.

Christians had their misunderstanding corrected on their own; they no longer viewed the ambiguous oracles as predicting a future king from their people.

I don't see Christians as ever not viewing Jesus as a future "governor of the habitable earth" (as Josephus puts it), so they still have the same misunderstanding as everyone else (whether Jesus was called "Christ" or "Chrest"). They still think the "governor of the habitable earth" predicted in the OT (which I take to mean "the Messiah") is Jesus.

At that point, Christians were not necessarily a topic to be avoided by Josephus because Christians didn't believe in a coming king from among the Jews, which is to say, they didn't have the mistaken understanding of the ambiguous oracle.

Maybe Josephus had become a Christian by the time he wrote the Antiquities. Vespasian and Titus were dead by then and it was a time when "Jewish ways" were spreading among Roman elites and the difference between Christians and Jews wasn't clear. I'm not saying I believe this, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility and I don't think it would be a big deal if he had.

I don't see what difference it makes who Jews think "the Messiah"/"Christ" was or will be (everyone is wrong on that score in my view). Some thought it was Jesus, others someone else (Josephus wasn't the only Jew who thought it was Vespasian). Various Jews "took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men," including Jesus (who is called a "wise man" and "Christ" in the TF) and his followers.

You consider that the TF was tampered with, but even with what remains, the death of Jesus-called-the-Christ there implicitly proved he was no king-of-the-Jews. A king is not crucified. Therefore, since his followers loved him after his crucifixion, they loved someone other than a claimant to be king. In short, since none of this involves a claimant to be a king in any way, the Christians didn't cross the line where Josephus would have felt the need to be afraid to mention them.

But the TF says that Jesus had "appeared to them alive again the third day," so he either never died or he wasn't dead anymore.

[Peter Kirby]

Didn't Jesus and his followers likewise believe that "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" and that it was predicted in the OT? And weren't they likewise "deceived in their determination"? While I'm inclined to think the TF has been tampered with, even as it is, I think it fits what Josephus had said about the "ambiguous oracle."

I'm not sure I'm understanding correctly the intent of the point you're making. I will suggest something, for you to help correct it.

Here's my guess: Josephus doesn't actually avoid entirely the subject of ambiguous oracles about a future king (can we say that much at least?) that were misinterpreted by Jews. Josephus broaches it briefly, to say that these Jews were mistaken because they did not interpret Vespasian as the fulfillment of this ambiguous oracle. The followers of Jesus were, at least originally, among those Jews with this "misunderstanding," thinking there would be a future king from the Jews.

Yes.

Alright, so I guess your point was that the TF (in some form) is compatible with the statement of Josephus about Vespasian.

I don't think anyone said otherwise in this thread, so it wasn't clear what you were saying and why you were saying it.

Emphasis added:

Maybe Josephus had become a Christian by the time he wrote the Antiquities.

Various Jews "took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men," including Jesus (who is called a "wise man" and "Christ" in the TF) and his followers.

But the TF says that Jesus had "appeared to them alive again the third day," so he either never died or he wasn't dead anymore.

You also seem to allow for a rather expansive view of what in the TF could be from Josephus.

Given the nature of what you were responding to, and given my attempt to decipher what your point was, it seems possible either that (a) you interpreted Ken Olson's post as arguing against the TF -- incorrectly -- or (b) you have interjected with your views, riffing off what was written, even though they were not directly relevant.

To be honest, though, your intent here is still rather opaque to me, even with the clarifications of your most recent post.

[Secret Alias]

ὁ χρηστὸς οὗτος ἦν. = Josephus
ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος ἦν. = Suida http://www.poesialatina.it/_ns/Greek/te ... xicon.html
Οὗτος ἦν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἄγων καὶ φέρων = Paed 1.7.57.1
οὗτος ἦν ὁ ποτὲ βρέφος = Philo
ὁ παῖς οὗτος ἦν = Joseph, Bishop of Methonensis https://books.google.com/books?id=ndU3A ... 22&f=false
ὁ χρόνος οὗτος ἦν https://books.google.com/books?id=reUzA ... 22&f=false
ὁ υἱὸς οὗτος ἦν https://books.google.com/books?id=Ntk_C ... 22&f=false

[John2]

The TF contains the words wise man (as two words) and the passage quoted contains the word wisemen (as one word). So what?

Josephus says that these "wise men" had misunderstood the ambiguous oracle about the "governor of the habitable earth" and he calls Jesus a "wise man" and "Christ" in the TF and that his teachings, crucifixion and re-appearance to his followers were predicted in the OT. It's what many "wise men" did, according to Josephus, and Jesus was no different than the others on that score.

Didn't Jesus and his followers likewise believe that "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" and that it was predicted in the OT? And weren't they likewise "deceived in their determination"? While I'm inclined to think the TF has been tampered with, even as it is, I think it fits what Josephus had said about the "ambiguous oracle."

Yes, Christians might well have believed that the ambiguous oracle applied to Jesus. But Josephus didn't, so what?

But if we assume (for the sake of discussion) that Josephus wrote the TF, then maybe he had become a Christian by the time he wrote the Antiquities. The last living emperor he mentions is Domitian, when "Jewish ways" were spreading among Roman elites and the difference between Christians and Jews wasn't clear (as I mention to Peter above). Maybe Josephus fell out of favor with Domitian for writing the TF and was punished for it like Flavius Clemens and Flavia Domitilla (who are claimed by Christians and Jews).

[John2]

To be honest, though, your intent here is still rather opaque to me, even with the clarifications of your most recent post.

I'm responding in the big picture to what you wrote in the OP (by branching off from something Ken said, sure, but I meant for it to address what you said here as well):

The first argument (from Doherty) is that Josephus avoids the subject and also avoids the term Christ entirely. The second argument (from Mason) is that Christos, whether a term or a name, would not make sense to Greek ears, making it strange to drop it without skipping a beat ...

So, I ask you: if he wrote it, did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrestos?

My point is that I don't see Josephus avoiding the subject of or term Christ, since this is what I take "governor of the habitable earth" to mean and I think the Ant. 20 reference is genuine. Anyone who knew Josephus' Jewish War knew that Jews thought the OT predicted a "governor of the habitable earth," and in the TF, Jesus is called Christ and is said to have been predicted by the OT.

We know from outside sources that Jesus and his followers thought he would become "governor of the habitable earth" (in the form of Daniel's "son of man" figure"). Is it not possible that by c. 90 CE (when the Antiquities were published), Jesus was known as "Christ" to Gentiles? Isn't that what Pliny and Tacitus call him about ten years later? And now we know that the oldest manuscript says Jesus was called "Christ" in Ant. 20 too. And thirty years or so before that, Paul says in Rom. 1:8, "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being proclaimed all over the world."

I can take or leave the TF, but given that I think the reference to "Christ" in Ant. 20 is genuine, it would make sense if Josephus had previously said something about Jesus, and the TF seems no different in kind from what he says about the governor of the habitable earth in the Jewish War. We would just have to suppose that Josephus had become a Christian by the time he wrote the Antiquities, or that he said something about Jesus being "Christ" in the TF and Christians tampered with it.

[lclapshaw]

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

I do not know.

+1 upvote

[maryhelena]

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

Am I reading this correctly - that you want to remove the entire TF from Antiquities ?

I can understand why Jesus historicists would want to retain the TF as it is. I can understand why some mythicists might want to remove it. I don't know what your position is on the historicity of Jesus question - hence I don't know where you are coming at the TF issue from. An interpolation, on its own merits, a particular interest of yours?

Anyway, for what its worth, I think the Jesus historicists position, those who believe the TF supports a historical Jesus, is unfounded. I think that mythicists seeking to remove it or reach for interpolations, are not only mistaken but are throwing away the opportunity to move forward the search for early christian origins

An alternative position is to view the Josephan TF, the James passage and the John the baptizer passage, not as 'official' historical support for the gospel Jesus story but as support for the gospel stories - as allegories - with links to Hasmonean history. In other words - Josephus is offering a key to unlocking the history that lies behind the gospel Jesus story.

For instance:

1) The TF is placed within a context of 19 c.e. That date is 49 years from 30 b.c. - which is the date Josephus has used for the death of Hyrancus - after whose death Herod seeks a meeting with Octavian following the battle of Actium.

2) The John the baptizer passage around 36/37 c.e. That date is around 100 years from 63 b.c. The civil war between two Hasmonean brothers involving Pompey and Aretas III (the army of Aretas III suffering a defeat - Josephus reverses that defeat in his allegory, his replay, in 36/37 c.e.)

3) The James and Jesus passage set around 63 c.e. That date is around 100 years from 37 b.c. A year that saw the end of the Hasmonean dynasty with the Roman execution of it's last King and High Priest, Antigonus. His brother, Alexander, was previously beheaded by order of Pompey, around 47/48 b.c.

These three stories, allegories, in Josephus, are indeed supporting the gospel story. But it's not the gospel story as history that is being supported, it's the gospel allegory that is being supported by Josephus. He has done so by using elements of the gospel story to point right back to the root of that gospel allegory - Hasmonean history.

No christian interpolator would place the TF, the JtB and the Jesus and James stories within the context in which they are found in Antiquities. Only someone with a keen sense of Hasmonean history would be interested in doing so. Hasmonean history, Jewish nationalism, is not something Christians would be interested in - their position is neither Jew nor Greek. Josephus, in contrast, claims descent from the Hasmoneans through his mother. He is therefore prime suspect - and to fail to interrogate him is to give him a blank check - thus allowing all the ink spilled over these three stories to fill more pages than his three short stories - allegories.

*If* questions are necessary regarding Josephus - perhaps only then can the *why* questions be faced.

Crank ? Maybe - but at least this alternative position has it's feet firmly on Jewish ground and not in Greek grammar, Roman conspiracies or outer space illusions.