How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco 208 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  peacefulpete

  Reading the Josephus quote in context you will see the political struggles revolve around the High priesthood. Jesus who was named as the "anointed" is a clear reference to the Jesus named as High Priest just a few lines below. Christ is a loaded translation that to modern Christian ears can only mean THE Christ. IOW , I also feel the passage is perfectly authentic, it is not however referring to the Jesus of the Gospels.

  I'm not really trying to convince you of this, just sharing with someone who sems to have an interest.

  There is a lot to this topic and so much of what is assumed is actually supposition or tradition.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, (who was named the (annointed) Christ,) whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

  2. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  peacefulpete, but in the passage you refer to Joseph does not say Jesus was the anointed or "was the Christ" or "was Christ", but instead Joseph says "... Jesus, who was called Christ ..." I and a number of scholar believe he says that way because he (a non-Christian Jew) did not believe that Jesus (the one that Christians believed was the son of God) was the foretold Messiah/Christ, but only someone whom some people called the Christ. If Josephus was speaking of the Jewish high priest (someone who obviously received an official anointing) in that passage then he would have no difficulty in directly calling him an anointed one, since all of the Jewish high priests received an anointing as a priest.

  You are the only person whose words I have read of saying that passage of about " ... Jesus, who was called Christ ..." was about the Jewish high priest instead. None of the biblical scholars and historical scholars whose words about that passage I have read attribute it to being about the one you say it is about (or even say it might possibly about such), likewise for other highly credible sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica. [If Earl J. Doherty also gave the explanation you gave, then I was not aware of it.] Likewise when I listened to NT scholars and historical scholars in documentaries on TV talking about that passage I did not hear any of them give the explanation you gave.

  Can you provide a scholarly source which states your interpretation of that passage as not being about the Jesus whom Christians believe is Christ/Messiah and the son of God? But perhaps you are first person to come up with the idea and perhaps you correct, but thus far to me that idea is incorrect, even though I think you are right that Josephus does mention the high priest a few lines below. I used to have a hardcover book copy of a popular English translation of the writing of Josephus but after reading parts of it and photocopying parts of it, I resold the book.

  Update: After I made this post (prior to making this update) I noticed that you made a post which quotes several lines of what Josephus wrote, including "... and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest ...." But I now notice an additional problem with your reasoning on this matter.

  Notice that your quote of Josephus says "... Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest." Notice that in those words it indicates that Jesus, the son of Damneus became high priest (and thus became annointed) at least three months after the events about "... the brother of Jesus, (who was named the (annointed) Christ,) whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law ..." As a result the Jesus, the son of Damneus (who became high priest) was a different Jesus than "... the brother of Jesus, (who was named the (annointed) Christ,) whose name was James"! I have read and heard biblical scholars say that the Jesus who was a high priest (including the one you mention) was not the one referred to as "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ...".
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Correction: In the first paragraph of my prior post where I say " I and a number of scholar believe he says that way because he (a non-Christian Jew) did not believe ..." I should have said " I and a number of scholars believe he says it that way because he (a non-Christian Jew) did not believe ...".
  

  Major Correction: The last two sentences of my prior post (in the Update section) should be replaced with the following.

  'As a result, the Jesus, the son of Damneus (who became high priest) was a different Jesus than the one mentioned in the phrase "... the brother of Jesus, (who was named the (annointed) Christ,) whose name was James ..."! I have read and heard biblical scholars say that the Jesus who was a high priest (the one you mention) was not the one referred to as "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ...". This strengthens the case that the Jesus of the phrase "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ... " was the one whom Christians call the Christ and the son of God.
• 

  peacefulpete

  No, I didn't originate that understanding. As to the history of this simpler explanation, forgive me but I've seen it many times. I do think Carrier brought it up recently again. The simple explanation is generally the one to be disproven. It's just not the popular one with Christians trying to prove historicity that gets all the attention. The line "who was called/named the anointed" is an interrupter phrase for identification of the James he was then speaking about. ("You know that James, the brother of the High Priest") The following lines clarify when and how Jesus received his High Priesthood. Think about the context, it makes no sense at all to be referring to a Christian. It was all about a power struggle between rivals for the priesthood. Just before the passage I posted above, this describes the situation.

  8. About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. And now arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem; each of which got them a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations about them, and became leaders to them; and when they struggled together, they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice......
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Peacefulpete I am not offended by what you wrote, though I was shocked about some of it (and maybe somewhat scared by it since it would mean a number of my strong beliefs need to be greatly revised, again).
  

  Perhaps Richard Carrier did mention the idea you which mentioned. I haven't read a lot of what Carrier wrote in promotion of the Christ myth concept. I have read however that Bart D. Ehrman (who is no longer a Christian and who now identifies as being an agnostic atheist) says that the Jesus of of the phrase "... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ... " was the Jesus Christ of the NT scriptures.
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  Regarding the appropriateness of saying, (who was named or "called" the anointed). It doesn't seem out of place for me, but if you do, maybe the single word was interpolated to easier make the passage appear to be about the Jesus of the Gospels. There are many such examples in Josephus as you doubtless know. Recall it was Christians alone that held the collection. Any way you look at it, it's a very tenuous thread to support the claim that the Jesus in the Gospels was in Josephus.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I like Erhman for his popularizing of critical scholarship but he has a blind spot regarding the historical Jesus discussion. He really was terribly disappointing in his debates (and book) with Carrier. Carrier can be a pill sometimes, I see him as one of those minds, as we say 'on the spectrum'. His mind is very sharp but people skills are nil. He was asked to investigate the topic, he came into it with no prejudices and dedicated a couple years to it. I don't always agree but I have yet seen anyone actually demonstrate the flaw in his logic. (tho he has many detractors who claim to).

  To sum my thoughts, even if it was firmly established there was an historical Jesus, this passage in Josephus still would not be about him in my mind.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  You might be correct regarding the idea of the word "called" being an interpolation by Christians.

  Other than the passage which you quoted about James and Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest, is there a historical source which definitely says that Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest had a brother named Jesus?
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  I don't believe we have anything else regarding this High Priest.

  In his paper Carrier wrote his analysis of the section:

  Ananus was persecuting his rival [Jesus, son of Damneus] for office by attacking his brother, and the authorities achieved justice by punishing Ananus, and redressed his offense by giving the office to his enemy, the very man whose brother he had killed.