|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#2841 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
It would appear that the region was called Judea [Judaea] in the 1st century.
Philo in "On Embassy to Gaius" referred to Judea. On Embasyy to Gaius
Quote:
Antiquities of the Jews18.3
Quote:
Life of Vespasian
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2842 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
|
Actually Jesus (supposedly) did have another name which goes back to at least the 4th century CE and perhaps earlier in the Talmud: Jesus ben Perachiah. But there are problems...huge problems.
From Evidence...: erhaps surprisingly, some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, a collection of Jewish civil and religious law, including commentaries on the Torah, as evidence for the existence of Jesus. They claim that a man called "Yeshu" in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, as documented by Gerald Massey, Christians themselves have claimed that this is actually a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia who lived at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. Epiphanius, in his 4th century Panarion 29, expressly states "For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival. Until he came the rulers were anointed priests, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander [Jannaeus], a ruler of priestly and kingly stock."[93][94] Abraham ben Daud of the 12th century writes "The Jewish history-writers say that Joshua ben Perachiah was the teacher of Yeshu ha-Notzri [the Nazarene], according to which the latter lived in the day of King Janni [Jannaeus]; the history-writers of the other nations, however, say that he was born in the days of Herod and was hanged in the days of his son Archelaus. This is a great difference, a difference of more than 110 years."[95] And regardless of how one interprets the name "Yeshu", the Palestinian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 5th century CE, and the Babylonian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 6th century CE, at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. In other words, even if it does refer to Jesus, it is even more recent than the gospels and even less useful as an eyewitness reference as is true of Epiphanius or the Toledot Yeshu and the second century gospel that Price cites as a third source that also put Jesus in this time frame is only slightly more useful. A handful of people point to the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls as the source for the Talmud Jesus but there is not much on the Teacher of Righteousness available to the non scholar to confirm such a connection. Furthermore Richard A. Freund writes "The difference of opinion over the positioning of the Teacher of Righteousness leads me to conclude that perhaps all of these researchers are correct. A Teacher of Righteousness did lead the group in the second century BCE when it was established. Another Teacher of Righteousness led the sect in the first century BCE and finally another Teacher emerged in the first century CE."[96] |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2843 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
|
The problem here is linguist drift. From Josephus on Rationalwiki:
"Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[24] [24] The Anointed One, Or The Ointment? - Here, χριστος doesn't mean "anointed", it means the substance that does the anointing! Or something that is rubbed on. In other words, χριστος means something like "ointment", not "anointed one". ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2844 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2845 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
|
The reference was provided. Here is the text:
"The Greek word Χριστος (Christos) is how "anointed one" is rendered in the LXX and the NT. But is it an actual translation of the Hebrew "messiah" (מְשִׁיח :: anointed)? The verb "to anoint" is χρίω (chrio) in Greek. I made an earlier post that listed all of the times that Josephus uses that word. It is about 10 times. Many times, Josephus uses "anointed" but he never uses the word χριστος to describe this. Some varieties he uses are χρισαμενος (part sg aor mid masc nom), χρίει (verb 3rd sg pres ind act), χρισατες (part sg aor act masc nom attic epic ionic). Granted, these are all varieties of verb forms of the word. So what would "one who is anointed" be like in Greek? Would it be χριστος? Euripides, "Hippolytus" 486: Φαίδρα πότερα δὲ χριστὸν ἢ ποτὸν τὸ φάρμακον; Phaedra This drug, is it an ointment or a potion? Aeschylus, "Prometheus Bound" 479-480: Προμηθεύς ...οὔτε βρώσιμον, οὐ χριστόν, οὐδὲ πιστόν, ἀλλὰ φαρμάκων χρεία... Prometheus ...no healing food, no ointment, nor any drink—but for lack of medicine... Here, χριστος doesn't mean "anointed", it means the substance that does the anointing! Or something that is rubbed on. In other words, χριστος means something like "ointment", not "anointed one". So why would the translators of the LXX confuse "one who is anointed" with "that which is used to anoint"? This had to have been done multiple times, since χριστος is written all throughout the LXX. This adds more confusion to the two mentions of "christ" in Josephus. Why would Josephus mention - to his Greek and Roman audience - that some guy was called "the ointment" without explanation? This, also, is why people laughed at the nonsensical name "Christian". This would probably be translated as "those who are like ointment"." |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2846 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
|
It is simply absurd to suggest that every translator of the Greek word χριστὸς were confused for hundreds of years.
Examine 1 Samuel in Greek Septuagint where there are multiple references to χριστὸς which is translated as anointed. https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/gree...book=9&page=26 1 Sam. 16.6
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Septuagint 1 Sam. 26.16
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|