How do you think they'll ruin . . .
2022.01.19 12:52 manginthestonedog How do you think they'll ruin . . .
. . .Rhuarc? There's little chance that they'll leave a wise, competent, likable, generally admirable male authority figure unchanged, and zero chance any changes will be for the better; how will they fuck his character up? Taking bets now:
- Eliminate him entirely. The Taardad will be an anarcho-syndicalist commune, or their sole leader will be a Wise One, never mind the millenia-old taboo against Wise Ones fighting. (Or 1.1: he'll be killed ignominiously soon after his first appearance.)
- Weaken him as a leader. Have people constantly second-guess and undermine his authority as a war leader and have him unable to stop it.
- Trash his competence. Either 3.1) he'll be physically weak, outmatched by an ordinary Maiden of the Spear, or 3.2) he'll be arrogant and overconfident in his decidedly mediocre abilities, aka the Agelmar treatment.
- Make him uxorious. Instead of a loving and mutually respectful marital relationship in which spouses don't interfere with each others' responsibilities, he'll defer to Amys and/or Lian in everything.
- Make him cowardly and infirm of purpose. Instead of the Car'a'carn's first and most steadfast supporter, he'll vacillate and openly express doubts.
(6. Not so much a change to his character: if they appear at all, Amys and Lian will be married to each other as well as to him.)
I'm betting on 6 for certain, and honestly I wouldn't object; it's not a huge or unjustified change. After that, I'd bet on 3.1, 2, and 1.1, in that order.
submitted by manginthestonedog
to whitecloaks [link] [comments]
2022.01.19 12:52 functional45training Any CS students that know if they’d allow me to take Discrete Math (CS2120) at a Community College, kinda like a reverse transfer?
submitted by functional45training to UVA [link] [comments]
2022.01.19 12:52 Aquifersou 🎁1x WL SPOT GIVEAWAY🎥🎬💵 for the first 1000 people to join the DIVAZ PUNKZ Discord. UPVOTE ⬆️ + DROP YOUR SOL WALLET 🔥 CHECK COMMENTS 👇
2022.01.19 12:52 PersonWithMagicPower How do I get into/learn about baseball so my dad and I can bond over it. Where do I start?
TLDR; My dad is obsessed with baseball and has no one to watch or geek out about it with. I want to learn about it so we can spend time doing something he loves, but i don’t know where to begin and I have limited free time to learn. ———————
Hi! So, my dad lives and breathes baseball. The best days of the year for him = the first day of spring training and draft day for his fantasy team. Since my brother moved across the country he doesn’t have anyone here to watch games or nerd out about it with. He’s 68 so he’s no spring chicken and I want to spend as much time with him doing something he loves.
Even without this shared interest we’re pretty good buds. We go to major and minor league games multiple times a season but I only have a very basic idea of what’s going on (and tbh its kind of boring when you have no investment). I understand how you play the game and that’s about it lol. He’s always talking about RBIs and players etc and I have no idea what he’s talking about. It seems like there’s so much to know that I just have no idea where to begin.
I’m (29f) a working single mom with an almost 3 year old, so I don’t have a lot of time to pick through endless forums (at least not without an inkling of what I’m looking for). It’s also something my dad wants to share with my son, which means it will probably be a big part of my his life at some point too. So obviously that gives me another reason to get into it!
If you’ve made it this far, thanks for reading. I appreciate any help I can get!
submitted by PersonWithMagicPower to baseball [link] [comments]
2022.01.19 12:52 Bry2013 Not even Phil can stop it.
2022.01.19 12:52 piecewisemusic Happy to share this Late Night Chill playlist containing mellow/electronic music which I listen to while studying & going for an evening run. Would love to hear your thoughts :)
2022.01.19 12:52 spinning_carousel Let's overtake from right side to be faster cuz rules are anyway for idiots only 🤦♂️
2022.01.19 12:52 Extension-Line-9380 Upvote if you like Spider-Man No Way Home!!
submitted by Extension-Line-9380 to FreeKarma4You [link] [comments]
2022.01.19 12:52 Zacblan A piece that me and me girlfriend did together she did hers on the right zora who is a ranger/sorcerer with ice magic. Mine is the left erdim who is a duel wielding fighter with a dark past. This is the beginning to a legendary adventure and wonder. Instagram @zackblan and @yukisenshiwolf.
2022.01.19 12:52 legitbread Dart Zone Tomahawk 60! After months of busy-ness, I finally managed to talk about this blaster and many more in my latest vid (link in comments) :)
2022.01.19 12:52 BohrBrainz The Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum: An Independent Secondhand Account of Jesus Outside of the Bible
Josephus wrote a very important passage of Jesus, something that was later labeled by Christians as the Testimonium Flavianum ("the testimony of Flavius Josephus"). Yet, many people seem to think that Josephus couldn't made written at least some of it. However, everything Josephus writes in understandable within a Josephan context rather than a Christian one, and the burden of proof is on the person asserting an interpolation, as with any. I will be arguing that the whole passage is authentic. I will first go over each line in the Testimonium and demonstrate that the language is very typical of Josephus (and thus was probably written by him), and in many cases not typical of Christians (I will also go over counter-objections to the more objectionable parts of the Jesus passage in Josephus and show why they are lacking). Then I will go over more general reasons to think that Josephus wrote about Jesus in Ant. 18. After this, I will show why Josephus' report indirectly supports the existence of over 500 people having claimed to have seen the risen Jesus bodily. Lastly, I will go over why Josephus likely at least knew some of the very "principal men" who handed Jesus over to Pilate, and why Josephus' report is based off if their information (which would make him a secondhand source) and is thus independent from Christian claims. Or, even if Josephus heard a Christian report, he confirmed it with these "principal men" (either option is equally likely).
The Testimonium Flavianum
Now about this time comes Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of remarkable deeds, a teacher of persons who welcome the truth with pleasure, and he won not only many Jews, but also many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. On his indictment by the principal men among us, and having been condemned to the cross by Pilate, those who had loved him at first did not yield, for he appeared to them having the third day restored to life, for the divine prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. - Antiquities 18.3.3.
Much scholarship has been written on this passage. However, despite claims to the contrary, there is a broad consensus that the majority of the passage is authentic to Josephus. Paula Fredriksen, a Jewish scholar, for example says in her book Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999):
"Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by a Christian scribe."
However, even the few so-called Christian additions can be understandable within a Josephan context without positing a speculative interpolation hypothesis (see the "Line by Line Analysis"), and more and more scholars are recognizing this.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ A Line-by-Line Analysis of the Testimonium Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς ("Now about this time comes Jesus").
To reference a few Josephan texts that use the similar introductory clause (Γίνεται δὲ, "now . . . comes") for other sentences of his, including mentions of seditionists and disturbances, see e.g., Ant.
18:310; 20:118. Gary J. Goldberg points out
that "Γίνεται δὲ is found twenty-nine times at the beginnings of sentences in his works" (Goldberg, 2021, pp. 9). Goldberg also points out that κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον "is a very common phrase throughout his works" (ibid.
, 10). Goldberg cites, for example, Ant.
13.46, 17.19, 18.39, 80. So the introduction seems very Josephan - language typical of Josephus. σοφὸς ἀνήρ ("wise man").
Josephus says that Jesus was a sophos aner
(“wise man”), which commonly refers to prophets in Josephus' writings. Gary J. Goldberg writes that "it is well established that Josephus avoids using ‘prophet’ for persons who lived after the biblical era" (ibid.
, 11). The phrase also always refers to someone with unusual powers in Josephan writings (e.g., Solomon, Daniel, an Egyptian Seer). This probably implies that Jesus did supernatural deeds of some kind. The phrase is also quite Josephan
8.53; 10.37; Apion
1.236), used many times by him, even though it is not used many times in other Greco-Roman writers. Geza Vermes, a Jewish scholar, writes (2009)
: "the phrase “wise man” has no New Testament parallels in reference to Jesus and falls far short of an honorific title that a Christian forger would choose to describe the divine Christ. Note that in Paul “wise man” has a pejorative connotation (1 Cor 1:18-31) and in a saying of Jesus “the wise” are unfavorably compared to “babes” (Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21)." This suggests an authentic nucleus of a passage about Jesus in the original TF. εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή ("if indeed one should call him a man").
While many if not most scholars (though by no means all) take the reference to "if indeed one should call him a man" in Josephus as a later interpolation by a Christian scribe, recent research has convinced me that the clause is Josephan.
For example, consider the following Greek of J.W.
3.391 (noted by Gary J. Goldberg) where Josephus writes: "whether one should say by fortune"
- "εἴτε ὑπὸ τύχης χρὴ λέγειν" [the highlighted are where the parallels are present].
7:417 says: "whether one should say by strength of purpose." The Greek is also similar to what is present in Ant.
18.3.3. So, this verse appears to be written in Josephan
language. To add to Goldberg's evidence though, I would add that the word εἴγε ("if indeed...") is stylistically Josephan vis-à-vis Antiquities 17-20
, with most uses of this word occurring this section of Antiquities.
There are authors who use it a lot (orators and in dialogues, such as Plato, also Aesop, but others who have it hardly at all or never — Homer, Sophocles, Socrates). Moreover, an interesting point is that εἴ γε is most often written thus, though the copyists who created the minuscule texts in some cases contracted it as εἴγε for some reason. My simple point is that this is at home in Josephus. The more interesting point, indeed, is that both are most heavily concentrated in Ant. 17-20
(6 of the 8 in Antiquities
). Lastly, another point I would like to add is that Josephus being hesitant in calling Jesus a man, "for"
(γὰρ) he was a doer of miracles I think makes more sense than most constructions (what sense does it make to say that Jesus was a wise man "for" being a doer of miracles, as most constructions have it?). The most common counter-objection to the clause being Josephan is that it implies that Jesus was divine. In the modern world, not taking a side on Jesus’s status would seem practically like apostasy from Judaism, but in the first century this was not true. In antiquity one finds philosophers, magicians, leaders and so on referred to as being more than men. We must be careful not to project the modern Christian world onto Josephus’s environment. Even within the books of Josephus himself, Moses, for example, was considered a “wonderful and divine man” (cf. Ag. Apion
1:279), Isaiah was a “wonderful and divine prophet” in Ant.
10:35, Samuel "became like God in appearance" (Ant. 6:333), etc. I also don't think we shouldn't be too worried about Josephus' tone vis-à-vis this clause. In addition to what was pointed out above vis-à-vis tone, Josephus was a complex writer, who had no single agenda. He often changed his appraisals of individuals between his Jewish War
, because of the works’ different issues (Herod and family, Ananus II, Simon son of Gamaliel). AND even when discussing the same person (e.g., Saul, Gaius Caligula, Nero) he can say ‘positive’ things while being generally critical. He’s not a robot, who holds simple views of things. In addition, I don't see why Josephus would have been so negative personally about Jesus (even if he presents Jesus with a negative tinge to his Roman audience). Consider Josephus' mention of the fate of Jesus’ brother James: he and others were executed by the rather savage Sadducee Ananus II, in a brief moment when there was no Procurator. Josephus does not imply that he would have followed James when he nevertheless points out that all the fair-minded people thought that Ananus had behaved illegally and immorally in executing James. So I don’t see why Josephus should have been totally
hostile towards the figure of Jesus, whom he describes chiefly as a wise Judaean teacher of virtue (not as crucified son of God, etc.), especially since James was the brother of Jesus, and Josephus didn't seem to have a negative view of him.
Anyway, I think this clause is Josephan
, and Josephus being hesitant in calling Jesus a man, "for"
(γὰρ) he was a doer of miracles implies that the claimed miracles of Jesus' day were of the variety or kind reported independently in the Gospels and their sources. Healing people born blind ("never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind" - Jn. 9:32), raising the dead, etc. Your more typical miracles claimed in antiquity wouldn't seem to do justice to Josephus' language. For the authenticity of the clause, see: Gary J. Goldberg (2021, pp. 11-12); Ulrich Victor, "Das Testimonium Flavianum Ein authentischer Text des Josephus
," Novum Testamentum
, 2010, pp. 81; Fernando Bermejo-Rubio," Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a 'Neutral' Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64," Journal for the Study of Judaism
45 (2014), pp. 344-345; George H. Van Kooten, "Why Did Paul include an exegesis of Moses’ shining face (Exod 34) in 2 Cor 3?," in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity
(Brill, 2007), pp. 177-178; Alice Whealey, "Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum," in Josephus und das Neue Testament
, Mohr Siebeck, 2007, pp. 78-80. Steve Mason is also open to it being authentic. ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής ("for he was a doer of startling deeds").
The words "παραδόξων έργων" (startling, remarkable or paradoxical deeds) often refers to activity of divine or supernatural elements in Josephus' writings (e.g., Ant.
2.223, 267, 285, 295, 345, 347; 3.1, 14, 30, 38; 5.28, 125; 6.171; 9.14, 58, 60, 182; 10.28, 235; 13.282; 15.379; Ag. Ap
. 2.114). The present tense is also of note here, for the comparison with Elisha is most revealing, and he is also depicted as being a doer of miracles. So Josephus here is saying that Jesus did what we would call miracles, especially in light of the context. It also has a level of neutrality to it. While "doer of surprising deeds" is also quite Eusebian, and so has been taken as evidence he authored this part of the TF, Eusebius seems to have adopted the phrase from Josephus, because the earliest uses of this phrase are in preliminaries to his citations of the Testimonium
(cf. Dem. Ev.
3; Hist. Eccl.
1). Additionally, as Alice Whealey 2007 (pp. 80) points out, Eusebius never even used or pointed out/highlighted this part of the passage in his works for Jesus' miracles. He only quotes it and adopts the language as his own without ever highlighting that it came from Josephus. Eusebius also highlights many other portions of Josephus' works, especially the Jewish War
in his anti-Jewish rhetoric. Regarding the Arabic version, Alice Whealey argues here
that “Michael’s Testimonium is more authentic than Agapius’ Testimonium, and it is more authentic than the textus receptus
in reading that Jesus was ‘thought to be the Messiah’” (2008, pp. 573). Whealey also argues that both Michael and Agapius was reliant upon Eusebius. διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων ("a teacher of persons who receive the truth with pleasure").
This passage affirms Jesus as a teacher. For strong Josephan parallels to ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων, see: "ἡδονῇ δεχόμενον
τοὺς λόγους" (Ant.
τὴν ἱκετείαν ἡδονῇ
18:70); "ἡδονῇ δεχομένου
τὴν Τιβερίου τελευτὴν" (Ant.
18:236); "ἡδονῇ δεχόμενοι
τὸν ὄλεθρον αὐτοῦ" (Ant.
19:127); "τῶν βουλευτῶν ἡδονῇ δεχομένων
19:185). All of these occurrences are in Antiquities 17-19, which surrounds the TF. The word διδάσκαλος is also a common word in Josephus' writings. While some try and take τἀληθῆ as having been doctored and changed from a more derogatory term, that is just speculation. The term for "truth" in the Greek was typically aletheia
, but τἀληθῆ ("true things") is Josephan in style (he sticks an adjective with a definitive article - avoided by most authors), using it up to 14 times. This clause does seem to have a negative tinge to it through the use of the word "ἡδονῇ," especially since Eusebius changes the text to "those who revere the truth." It's difficult to see how a Christian interpolator would have chosen the word ἡδονῇ to include in his passage, because it has strongly negative connotations in all uses in the NT: Luke 8:14; James 4:1, 3; Titus 3:3; 2 Peter 2:13 (ἡδονὴν). Tibor Grull
(2020, pp. 19), Bermejo-Rubio
(2014 pp. 354, n. 130), and Graham Twelftree (1999, pp. 305) rule out a whole-sale interpolation of the TF from this alone. The phrase "who receive . . . with pleasure" is a very distinctive Josephan
phrase in Antiquities 17-19, because all eight occurrences of the phrase occur in this part of Antiquities
. πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο ("He won not only many Jews, but also many of the Greeks").
That these followers in the TF "accept the truth gladly" could be negative, though this is not necessarily the case. The word “gladly” (hedone
– “with pleasure”) seems Josephan
(see e.g., Ant.
17:329; 18:6, 59, 70, 236; 19:127, 185). The Greek construction πολλοὺς μὲν . . . πολλοὺς δὲ also seems Josephan
in style (e.g., J.W.
1:146, 322, 383, 2:49, 177, 341, 4:643, 5:562; Ant.
7:194; 15:296; 20:98). For example, Ant.
15:296 says: "many [πολλοὺς μὲν] of his allies in the war as well as many [πολλοὺς δὲ] of the neighboring populations." The report of Jesus gathering Greek followers in his life time could be a blunder that Josephus made based on an inference from the Christians of his day. But Josephus actually implies in his passage that Jesus gathered more Jewish followers than gentile when one follows the Greek closely (πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο), which in Josephus' day was not actually true (Paul for example had to grapple with the lack of Jewish converts as early as the 50s in Romans 9-11). Tibor Grull (2020) writes: "Ebben a megfogalmazásban van egy árnyalatnyikülönbség, amely arra utal, hogy Jézus több zsidót, mint görögöt nyert meg" = "There is a difference in nuance in this wording that suggests that Jesus won more Jews than Greeks" (2020, pp. 19). Tibor than argues that the note is Josephan
and accurate on pp. 19-20. Scholarship that says that Jesus didn't intend to preach to any gentiles should be at least nuanced given Josephus' note, but that's another rabbit hole. As for tone, the word ἐπηγάγετο in Josephus' writings is mostly used positively (66 times) over negatively (30 times). Meanwhile, while the word ἐπηγάγετο occurs twice in the NT, it is used negatively both times (Acts 5:28; 2 Peter 2:1), which points against a later Christian addition. Eusebius omits this word and replaces it with "σεβομένων." ὁ χριστὸς οὖτος ἦν ("he was the Christ").
Everything about this clause can be explained in Josephan terms and an interpolation has no evidence whatsoever. First, Josephus' use of the past tense - "was" - points against a Christian interpolation for this clause, because Christians didn't say Jesus was
the Messiah, but that he is
the Messiah. Second, Gary J. Goldberg points to the Josephan style of οὖτος ἦν, used all over his writings. He writes that: "Examples are Ant. 20.179, ‘This was Phabi’s son’ (Φαβεῖ παῖς οὗτος ἦν
); Ant. 2.229 (Ἁβράμου δὲ οὗτος ἦν
) . . . Ant. 19.301, ‘This was the ruler of Syria’ (ἡγεμὼν δὲ τῆς Συρίας οὗτος ἦν
); Ant. 17.16, 18.240, 20.81; and War 2.450; 6.305, 7.216" (Gary J. Goldberg 2021
, pp. 17). Third, Josephus later on in the Testimonium
says that Christians were called after Jesus. But this would only make sense if "Christ" was mentioned in the Testimonium
. Fourth, ho Christos
seems to have been a nickname of sorts, not a Messianic title. It is not saying that Josephus thought that Jesus was the Messiah. Christos was a name, as Tacitus attests to. And using the definite article (ho Christos
) shouldn't be compared with Christian texts, but rather other Josephan texts. Josephus uses the definite article before someone's name sometimes (e.g., "The Demetrios" ὁ Δημήτριος, Ant. 12.103 and 12.107). As Gary J. Goldberg points out,
This practice shows Josephus would have no problem with copying the article from Emmaus while allowing the tf phrase to be understood as ‘This was Christos’, in which he calls on the reader’s recognition of the name. (Goldberg 2021, pp. 17)
The omissions of Christ from LXX sources are not weighty for this clause being a total addition, because by this time the word "Christos" was so bound up with this recent figure named Jesus that he probably couldn't avoid the word here. Another objection goes: if Josephus said Jesus was called the Christ, to his Roman audience, it would have meant something like "He was that who is smeared" or something. But this would make no sense to Josephus' audience, as per the argument. But plenty of people had weird names and nicknames in antiquity and no one had a problem with it. For example, Cicero's name meant "chickpea." Josephus saying that Jesus was the Christ also served to distinguish this Jesus from the 20 something other Jesus' in his works. Regarding Origen and is claim that Josephus didn't believe him to be the Messiah, despite the use of ho Christos which would mean "the Messiah" in a Christian context. However, Origen may have known that Josephus from his usage of the definite article before some names and the use of the past tense, plus the fact that Josephus seems to indicate that he was an un-believing Jewish person elsewhere, AND the fact that the passage that Origen relies on a passage that only says that Jesus was called the Christ could have all lead Origen (and also Jerome) to conclude that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus as Christ, despite being "close to the truth," as Origen says. Plus, Jerome translation makes little sense:
‘He had many Judeans and gentiles as his followers and was believed to be [credebatur esse] Christus.’
It would have made little sense to a Greco-Roman audience to say that Jesus (which was his name) was believed to be another name (Christos), so it probably is not correct. As Gary J. Goldberg writes,
The meaning of Christos to the average Roman reader of Josephus in the 90s ce might be gleaned from Tacitus, writing some two decades later (Ann. 15.44), which indicates then Josephus’s readers would have been aware that the Christians had been named after a real person in Judea, Christos. (ibid., 16
'It’s also hard to know what part of Josephus’s works Origen read, if any. He had some things wrong, such as Josephus blaming the fall of Jerusalem on the execution of James. Possibly Origen was just working from someone else’s notes. Origen’s and Jerome's statements are just too sketchy to draw conclusions. καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου ("And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross").
Josephus attests in the involvement of the Jewish authorities in Jesus' death. The words "first men" or "principal men" (a stock Josephan expression for the ruling class) are used almost two dozen times in Josephus' writings (e.g., Ant.
16:367; 17:7, 81, 342; 18:7, 30, 98-99, 121, 376; Vita
56, 169, 266) and so Josephan
in of itself, and so speaks against being a Christian interpolation. Likewise for the words "among us," which is used 50 times in Josephus' writings. Also, the phrase σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος in the TF parallels σταυρῷ προσηλῶσαι in J.W.
2:308. See Ant.
18:306; 19:133 for the use of the word ἔνδειξις. οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες ("those who had loved him at first did not yield").
Tibor Grüll writes in his 2020 article (linked above): "A παύειν használata igen gyakori ebben a nyelvtani környezetben Josephusnál" = "the use of παύειν is very common in this grammatical context in Josephus" (pp. 24) and is Josephan
. The usage of παύομαι without an object parallels an episode about Pilate right before the Jesus passage in Ant.
18:58 (μὴ παυσάμενοι θορυβεῖν), 62 (οὕτω παύεται ἡ στάσις). In addition, the adverbial τὸ πρῶτον (in the phrase "οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες" in the TF) is very Josephan
18:30, 40, 82, 278) and οἱ ἀγαπήσαντες also has a close parallel in J.W.
1:171. A minor point, notice how Josephus says that the followers ‘loved’ and not worshiped, as in Pliny’s letter to Trajan. This verb for "love" is used 75 times in his works, and "at first" is used 49 times in Josephus' works. ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων ("For he appeared to them having a third day alive again, the holy prophets having foretold these things and many other marvels about him").
More and more scholars are at least considering parts of this sentence as being authentic. In support of this, first
of all, are the words "having a third day...," as Josephus has it, does not match the Christian story since it implies that three days already passed, as opposed to "on the third day" (which Eusebius changes it to) in the inclusive ancient way of counting days. Second,
the phrase "having a third day" is rare in not only the NT, but other Greco-Roman writers in general. However, the phrase "having X days" (with "days" as the object of ἔχω) is very at home with Josephus, appearing in e.g., Ant.
2.72; 3.290; 5.327; 7.1; 9.223; 14.96. Third,
the phrase ἄλλα μυρία is Josephan (see e.g., Ant.
2:361). Fourth, Tibor Grüll
notes that the words ζῶντα… πάλιν that are used in e.g., Ant.
8:326-327, strongly parallels the Testimonium
(these words are used in the same way), even if the words in Ant.
8 are not right next to each other (2020, pp. 25). Fifth,
some sort of mention of the resurrection to Jesus' followers in some way "provides a better explanation for the fact that, as the text asserts, the Christians continued to remain attached to Jesus" (Bermejo-Rubio 2014
, pp. 354, n. 90). Sixth,
Josephus avoids the typical resurrection verbs such as egeiro
, used especially in the New Testament, in keeping with Josephus elsewhere. Seventh,
there is little to no evidence for an interpolation in the textus receptus
. While the Greek construction present seems to imply that the author actually believed Jesus rose from the dead and the prophecy connection, there are tons of places where Josephus appears to agree with things that elsewhere he rejects, most obviously giving plausible speeches to characters he doesn’t like. It is possible that if Josephus wrote something about the resurrection and prophets, there was an oratio obliqua
(cf. Rubio) that was removed much like the word "called" in the Christ clause, as argued above, but that's more speculative here. The better response is that everything Josephus writes in the Antiquities
is from someone else’s report, and so saying that the resurrection was "reportedly said" or something like that would have gone without saying here. εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον ("even to now still, the breed of the Christians named from this fellow did not expire")
. Josephus' seems to express surprise in the Christian existence when he says, "even to now still," and early Christians who quote it change it. No early Christian referred to themselves as a "tribe," pointing once again to an authentic nucleus. Meanwhile, Josephus does use it elsewhere to refer to a distinct group of people/beings (which is what the Greek means), such as in J.W.
2.374, 79, 97; 3:354; 7:327; Ant.
2:306. There is also an interesting link with this episode and Ant.
18:62, where Pilate puts an end (pauomai
) to the strife over the aqueduct, whereas Jesus' followers do not cease (pauomai
) to follow Jesus after Pilate executed Jesus. Other Josephan language includes "now still" (used 22 times in Antiquities
) and "to now" (e.g., Ant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whole-sale Forgery?
There are many points against a whole-sale forgery regarding the Testimonium.
Here I will give five. First, there is little evidence of Christian meddling with large corpuses of Greek-Jewish works (e.g., 1-4 Maccabees, Philo, Sira, Tobit). For example, despite the Logos
in Philo, a divine being, no where do we find "Jesus" in those passage or any sort of Christian manipulation, even though it would have been very at home for Christian theology, and Christians at least partially of those who preserved it. Certainly, the apocalypses, the testaments, etc, lent themselves for Christian interpolations (the more 'odd stuff'), but there is little to no evidence for this in major corpuses of Greek-Jewish works outside of the TF, or even within Josephus outside of the Jesus passages.
Second, the episode of John the Baptist is farther along in Antiquities 18 and has no obvious connection with the TF. John appears to be an independent person in Josephus, unlike in Christian texts and theology. This points to both the Jesus and the John passages being authentic.
Third, why is the passage so reserved/short? The Testimonium
is around as long as Josephus' passage of an anonymous
prophet recorded in Ant.
20:188. The length thus seems at home with Josephus and not at home with a Christian interpolator who, if he was as audacious as to forge an entire paragraph, could have made it much longer and without the words that were awkward for early Christians.
Fourth, compared with any Christian text of the second to fifth centuries, it is a very bland. Nothing about son of God, savior, coming from God, pre-existence, Trinitarianism, Holy Spirit, atonement, being in Christ, shed blood, gone to heaven, about to return in the clouds, etc. etc. The only real puzzles are ’This man was Christos,' and to a lesser extent the resurrection sentence, especially the prophet's connection with the divine prophets (a rare phrase but found also in Ant.
10). Almost all of it however is very reserved. As J.C. Paget points out: "Where we can be certain of the existence of Christian additions to Josephus as well as glosses, they strike a more aggressively Christian note" (J.C. Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," The Journal of Theological Studies
, 2001, pp. 600).
Fifth, as shown above, the language used in the Testimonium
is at home with Josephus (in that much of the language is pretty specific to Josephus) and contradicts Christian theology or was used negatively in Christian literature, thus making it very unlikely that a Christian would create the whole passage. Besides, it's not like these ancient writers can punch in key phrases of Josephus into computers to discover Josephan language. Ken Olson has recently tried to reignite the hypothesis that Eusebius forged the entire Testimonium
. However, Sabrina Inowlocki writes,
"The old theory that Eusebius forged the passage has been revived (Olson 1999) based on a new linguistic and critical study, but this has not found support among scholars." (Inowlocki, “Josephus and Patristic Literature,” in A Companion to Josephus, Wiley Blackwell 2016, pp. 359)
Alice Whealey likewise says,
"... the overall thesis of fabrication by Eusebius has not been generally accepted in the scholarship." (Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum," in ibid., 2016, pp. 352).
Sixth, the Jesus passage in Antiquities 20 likely implies an early Jesus passage. Alice Whealey writes that the authenticity of this passage (Ant. 20.200) is "accepted by most contemporary scholars" (Alice Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum" in A Companion to Josephus
, Wiley Blackwell, 2016, pp. 353). Steve Mason thus points out:
"The order of his identifiers suggests that he chooses James as representative of the condemned group because he is ‘the brother of the one called [or known as] Christos’, already known to the audience. James’ name comes as an afterthought. This formulation suggests, therefore, that Josephus has mentioned someone ‘known as Christos’, recently enough for his audience might remember. The only plausible candidate is Jesus in Book 18." (Steve N. Mason, "Sources that Mention Jesus from Outside the Circles of Christ-Followers," Jesus-Handbuch (ish), 2017, pp. 12)
So, the authenticity of this passage would mean that there was probably a Jesus passage earlier in Antiquities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 500 Claim in Paul's Letters and Josephus' Notice on Jesus' Resurrection.
Despite a lack of a resurrection verb, Josephus' notice of Jesus rising from the dead implies a bodily resurrection (just like 1 Corinthians 15), since as Goldberg points out on page 25 here
, the words πάλιν ("again") modifies ‘living.' However, Josephus also says that Jesus "appeared" to "them," with the referent of course being the "many" Jewish and the (less but still) "many" gentiles followers Josephus says Jesus gathered in his lifetime. This surely indirectly supports the 500 claim, for 500+ people are "many" people, and it strains credulity to suggest that "many" Jews and "many" gentiles would compromise less than 500 people, especially considering Josephus' use of "many" for other first century preachers and his use of "many" for two different groups of people (the Jews and the gentiles).
One has to keep in mind that, when Paul says that over 500 people claimed to see Jesus at once, he is not the only person claiming this! Almost all scholars are in agreement that 1 Cor. 15:6a is a part of an earlier tradition that he is citing from certain people that dates within 5 years of Jesus' death, which almost all scholars agree to be Peter and James (cf. Gal. 1:18-19). Gal. 1:18-19 says that three years after his conversion, Paul met Peter and James (the brother of Jesus). The aorist infinitive ἱστορῆσαι in Gal 1:18-19 indicates that Paul’s visit has an obvious intent. Indeed, "the Greek verb historeō
. . . is an unusual and strong word. It means to see someone face-to-face in order to make inquiry of the facts. We, in fact, derive our English word “history” from the noun form (historia
) of this stem. It means that Paul went with the purpose of seeing Peter face-to-face and hearing his eyewitness testimony to Jesus directly" (James P. Ware, Paul's Theology in Context
, Eerdmans, 2019, pp. 265). In the later visits, Paul had other agendas and intentions than to gather eyewitness information. So Paul's first visit to Jerusalem is where he was collecting eyewitness information (especially of the risen Christ), and so is prima facie the most likely time in which Paul received the information in 1 Cor. 15:3b-6a, 7, especially since the creed itself originated in Jerusalem. As Kirk R. Macgrager writes: "the linguistic evidence marshaled by Eduard Lohse . . . and Berthold Klappert is overwhelming in favor of the creed’s Jerusalem origin" (Kirk R. Macgrager, "1 Corinthians 15:b-6a, 7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus," JETS 49/2
, 2006, pp. 226). Gerd Lüdemann (a famous Atheist scholar) observes, “even if the tradition came to Paul by way of the community in Antioch, it would only have reproduced what it too had received—from Jerusalem” (Resurrection
, pp. 36). Paul for example says that certain teachings came from that community (Rom. 15:25–27; cf. 1 Cor. 9:11). To add another significant point to Paul having gotten the information from Peter and James during that first visit, the names "Cephas and James," the only two apostles Paul saw during his first visit, are the only people who are named in the tradition(s) of 1 Cor 15:3b-6a, 7! Notice also how Paul, when recounting his trip to Jerusalem, claims to have gathered information from “Cephas” (Gal 1:18), calling him "Cephas and not “Peter,” just like the creed. This all probably not a coincidence, and heavily suggests that the information in 1 Cor 15:3b-6a, 7 came from them during the first visit. So, the 500 claim dates within 5 years of Jesus' death, comes from James and Peter, is repeated by Paul (who implies that his gospel is the same as the others in 1 Cor. 15:11), and the existence of over 500 people who claimed to see Jesus is indirectly but independently corroborated by Josephus. Some of these 500 may have included Junia and Andronicus as mentioned in Romans 16:7 (to be an apostle, one had to actually see the risen Jesus; see 1 Cor. 9:1).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Josephus as an Independent and Secondhand Account?
If anyone would have the easiest chance to know something of Christians and Jesus from outside Christian sources closely related to the events, surely it would be Josephus of Jerusalem. Even though Josephus was born after Jesus' death, Gary J. Goldberg points out (2021, pp. 32) that Josephus grew up in Jerusalem with the same generation of ‘principal men' which Josephus mentions in the Testimonium
(cf. Life of Flavius Josephus
, 9), who would have chiefly been 30-60 years old. Among this group of "principal men" would have Matthias - his own father. Matthias and the other principal men Josephus grew up with are the people whom Josephus got his information regarding pre-70 Judaism according to his book Life
, and is thus the more likely source of information for Jesus of Nazareth
(cf. Fredriksen) and indeed for the other Jewish preachers of first century Palestine. Supporting this is the mention the principal men that Josephus says handed Jesus over to Pilate is said to come from "among us," since as Gary Goldberg points out in his 2021 article (pp. 19), "in historical narrative, Josephus takes care to write in the third person." But here he doesn't, and he combines "principal men" with "among us," which he does nowhere else. If Josephus just wanted to say the "principal men among us" to mean that these principal men came 'among us' in the sense of being Jewish people of his class, Josephus could have used his more common and typical phrase seen in e.g., Ant.
14.165, where Herod's accusers are "the principal ones of the Judaeans." The use of "among us " combined with "principal men" thus likely implies that Josephus knew at least some of these people and got information from them for this episode, making him a secondhand source. Josephus also definitely knew the son of one of the chief priests involved in Jesus' interrogation, Ananias. It is also possible that he heard or also heard about Jesus from the Jewish leaders related to James’ death in the early 60s, when he himself was in Jerusalem and conversant with those involved in disposing Ananias II for his order to stone James. At the very least, even if Josephus did hear from Christians, he confirmed the story with his Jewish peers (as Goldberg argues). Either way, Josephus is probably independent (or confirmed his account with independent sources) for these reasons, in addition to the above,
- Josephus seems to have gotten his sources from non-Christians for every other Jewish preacher in first century Palestine. There is little reason to suppose Jesus was any different, especially since (a) we know that Josephus didn't search after the followers of these preachers he writes about. If he did, how else did he write about e.g., Theudas even though his followers were slain? If we know that Josephus got his information about the other first century Jewish preachers from non-Christians and people who didn't follow these preachers, why would we even think that Josephus got his information from Christians for Jesus? And this leads me to (b) - the main content of Josephus’ remarks doesn't sound like stuff e.g., like what Pliny extracted from Christians by torturing them (singing hymns to Christ as to a god, meeting for meals, etc.), or like much of what’s in early Christian texts.
- Josephus has a couple of points that seem to contradict Christian theology and uses language that an early follower of Jesus wouldn't seemed to have used since it was used negatively in the NT (see the analysis above).
- Josephus and Tacitus were contemporaries, fellow historians, and Tacitus' report matches Josephus' pretty well in that there is not much that Tacitus says about Jesus that isn't already in the TF. Josephus was also among the Jewish exiles who moved in the court of Titus, which Tacitus was involved in. So, if Josephus was used by Tacitus as a source for Jesus, this would point to Josephus being independent from Christians, since Tacitus would probably not accept Christian information whether directly or indirectly.
submitted by BohrBrainz
to DebateReligion [link] [comments]
2022.01.19 12:52 dmreif What if Sam continued dating Miguel in season 2?
Basically, what would change in season 2 if, instead of dating Robby, Sam continued dating Miguel (having decided against breaking up with him at the tournament)? What would differ about the season's rivalries? Would this mean Tory dates Robby instead of Miguel? What would change in the school fight?
submitted by dmreif to cobrakai [link] [comments]
2022.01.19 12:52 JustALittleWeird One of the most annoying things about western superhero comics is how often the artist changes. There's something incredible about reading a manga series and seeing just how much the artist improves over the course of fifteen years (Bleach #1 & # 684)
2022.01.19 12:52 piecewisemusic Happy to share this Late Night Chill playlist containing mellow/electronic music which I listen to while studying & going for an evening run. Would love to hear your thoughts :)
2022.01.19 12:52 Lol33ta We're Witnesses by BisBiswas
2022.01.19 12:52 Mynameis__--__ Nokia Joins RE100 As Part of Target to Move to 100% Renewable Electricity by 2025
2022.01.19 12:52 hurtfulproduct DeSantis submits his own redistricting map - trying to breakup congressional districts is South Florida held by black democrats
2022.01.19 12:52 LFGlab Labswap ⚗️ | DeFi | DEX Live on | Stake & Yield Farming Incoming | Organic Grow | Low Market Cap | Huge Potential | 0% Tax fee | $LAB | Don’t miss this rocket🚀
🧬The Labswap ecosystem is expanding!! Our decentralized exchange (DEX) and automated market maker (AMM) Live on! Stake & Yield Farming Launching coming soon!
🧪Our staking and other DeFi features will further increase the demand and reduce the supply, while continuing to enable growth in value through staking and NFTs.
🧫With our yield farm, you will be able to get more benefit from your Labswap. Because our token ($LAB) is not exploitable, we may adopt a dual token mechanism and use an alternative token to make profits.
$LAB is a decentralized finance (DeFi) token that operates on the Binance Smart Chain (BEP-20).
The token was launched with an initial 10B (billions) tokens 0% Tax fee
✅ We are already launched on pancakeswap!
Token symbol: LAB
Maximum supply: 10,000,000,000
Network: Binance Smart Chain \\\BSC\\\
● 60% for Liquidity :. 6,000,000,000
● 10% Marketing :: :. 1,000,000,000
● 10% Ecosystem :. 1,000,000,000
● 15% Exchange Listings :. 1,500,000,000
● 5% for Core Team :. 500,000,000
Don’t miss this moonshot! Join us before FOMO!! 🚀
📲 Twitter: https://twitter.com/labswap_io
🌐 website: https://www.labswap.io
submitted by LFGlab to SatoshiBets [link] [comments]
2022.01.19 12:52 swaineh H: J2525 Handmade x2 W: junk/flux offers/q2525 handmade
submitted by swaineh to Market76 [link] [comments]
2022.01.19 12:52 5ubv3rsion Peppercorn says hello!
2022.01.19 12:52 E121a [For Hire] Audio Engineer, Podcast Editor, Mix Engineer
If you need help with your Audio File/ Podcast/ Youtube/ Radio Commercials/ SFX and Sound Design/ Vocal Tuning and more... please feel free to reach out to me in messages, so I can send you demos based on your field of interest!
With more than 8 years of experience in mixing and 4 years in Post production, Podcast and audio dramas.
Prices are negotiable (both hourly based and project based), Hourly rate starts at 15$/h Please let me know if you need to hear some of my previous projects!
submitted by E121a to forhire [link] [comments]
2022.01.19 12:52 Lonely_Ad3583 Types of people plugging monitor
2022.01.19 12:52 SpongeBob190 In a children's storybook...
2022.01.19 12:52 jasonrodriguez_DT Total War: Warhammer III Slaanesh's Realm cutscenes and "Billy Cool" introduction
2022.01.19 12:52 Parking_Benefit_2721 Should we be saving the dark promos for dormammu?
Every time I get a stack of regular red orbs oh, I'm faced with the Dilemma on what to do with them. The red star system is absolute garbage as we all know but since we can't change that I want to focus on something that we can control. How will use our dark promotional credit. Doctor Doom is still an amazing character let's be clear about that no, but with that said it has to be just a matter of time before they release the grip on teal gear and allow some of us to start entering dark dimension 5. There are a couple arguments to be made with this. On one hand you could use the dark promotional credits to get Doctor Doom another star which would help tremendously even after you get dormammu but he's already pretty good and you know dormammu is going to require a shit ton of them as well. So again I ask, do you think we should use them on Doom or save them for dormammu?
submitted by Parking_Benefit_2721 to MarvelStrikeForce [link] [comments]