Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Secret Alias »

“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by hakeem »

The reference to supposed writings of Hegesippus in Church History 2 also shows that James the Just in Christian writings is not James the anointed in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

Church History 2.23.18.
And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ.

And immediately Vespasian besieged them.

19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement...........this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.


The siege of Jerusalem under Vespasian happened c 70 CE and it is claimed this event was immediately after the death of James the Just.

It is claimed Hegesippus is in agreement with Clement in Church History 2 and in the preface to the Recognitions James the Just was alive after the death of Peter or up to at least c 67-68 CE.

The Preface Recognitions
The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter , and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching......
James the Just is not James called the anointed [Christos] by Josephus.

James the anointed was stoned c 61-62 CE immediately before the time Albinus was governor of Judea.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John2 »

hakeem wrote:
The siege of Jerusalem under Vespasian happened c 70 CE and it is claimed this event was immediately after the death of James the Just.
The word that Hegesippus uses for "immediately" (eutheos) can mean "after this" and not necessarily only "right after this," and broadly speaking this is true for what Hegesippus says above because Vespasian did besiege them after James was killed.

As Hoogterp, for example, notes:
Looking at the Louw-Nida Lexicon, it describes the words eutheos and euthus as describing "a point of time immediately subsequent to the previous point of time (the actual interval of time differs appreciably, depending on the nature of the events and the manner in which the sequence is interpreted by the writer)."

https://books.google.com/books?id=e-m0A ... ly&f=false
I get the impression that Hegesippus is just being succinct, which is in keeping with his account of James generally, which covers multiple years in a fairly brief account, especially considering that Hegesippus wrote five books on church history.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by neilgodfrey »

John T wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:36 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:27 pm
John T wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:49 pm 2. Did Josephus write that one of the main causes of the war was due to the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, Yes or No?
Eusebius wrote that Josephus said that the death of James was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem; (not "one of the main causes of the war" itself).
Toe stub number 7.

Actually you still got it wrong. It was Hegesippus not Josephus that said the immediate siege of Jerusalem was due to the murder of James the Just. Book 2 chapter 23 (19).

John T
My god, John T, you don't even read what Eusebius wrote (that I was referencing!), not even when I quoted it for you, which I will do so again:

Eusebius, chapter 23:
19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement.515 James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.
20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,516 “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”
Stop stubbing your toe all the time. You're embarrassing yourself.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Charles Wilson »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:44 pm I guess that's a yes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Masada
There is too much to quote so I'll quote these 2 paragraphs because I can:

"290 Caesar's Messiah

"When Josephus ends the war on the day following Passover in
73 C.E., he unifies the two "principles" that Christianity was based
on — Exodus and the Book of Daniel. Only the day Josephus records
for the conclusion of the siege of Masada would simultaneously
complete the seven-year week that concludes the prophecies of
Daniel and the end of the symbolic forty-year "wandering" of Chris-
tianity after the resurrection of Jesus. Such a miraculous occurrence
could not happen by chance and supports the theory that Josephus
has falsified history to show that Christianity was God's replacement
for Judaism. Notice that the technique the authors of Christianity
used is consistent throughout. Simon and John are transformed into
Christian Apostles. The story of the Passover and Exodus becomes
the first forty years of Christianity. Titus becomes the Messiah.

"One must admire the craftsmanship of the intellectuals who
produced the works of Josephus and the New Testament. Though
the method they used, the fusing of Daniel's prophecies with a new
forty-year Exodus, was utterly preposterous from both a historical
and a theological perspective, with it they were able to neatly
remove from history a religious movement that opposed them mili-
tarily and replace it with one aligned to their interests. In doing so,
they were able to conform history to theology to such an extent that
one movement ended and the other came forth on the same day. "

More if necessary.

Best,

CW
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by hakeem »

John2 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:16 pm hakeem wrote:
The siege of Jerusalem under Vespasian happened c 70 CE and it is claimed this event was immediately after the death of James the Just.
The word that Hegesippus uses for "immediately" (eutheos) can mean "after this" and not necessarily only "right after this," and broadly speaking this is true for what Hegesippus says above because Vespasian did besiege them after James was killed.

As Hoogterp, for example, notes:
Looking at the Louw-Nida Lexicon, it describes the words eutheos and euthus as describing "a point of time immediately subsequent to the previous point of time (the actual interval of time differs appreciably, depending on the nature of the events and the manner in which the sequence is interpreted by the writer)."

https://books.google.com/books?id=e-m0A ... ly&f=false
I get the impression that Hegesippus is just being succinct, which is in keeping with his account of James generally, which covers multiple years in a fairly brief account, especially considering that Hegesippus wrote five books on church history.
You forget that Christian writings claim Peter was killed in the 14th year of Nero.

You forget that it is claimed that Hegesippus and Clememt are in agreement in Church History 2.23.

De Viris Illustribus
Simon Peter...... pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord....
Preface to the Recognitions
The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching...
In Christian writings James must have died after or around c 67-68 CE which would imply that the siege of Jerusalem at c 70 CE would be considered an immediate event.

Hegesippus and Clement are in agreement.

James the Just and James the anointed in AJ 20.9.1 are not the same person.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:43 pm

My god, John T, you don't even read what Eusebius wrote (that I was referencing!), not even when I quoted it for you, which I will do so again:

Eusebius, chapter 23:
19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement.515 James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.
20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,516 “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”
Stop stubbing your toe all the time. You're embarrassing yourself.
Now you are just being obstinate.

It is you who has not read what you claimed to have read. Please have someone read it to you out loud and slowly, perhaps you will catch it then.

"These things" = causes for the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.
"his writings" = Plural.

Josephus is being cited from more than once source and not just Antiquities.
Josephus was a respected historian of that time and reports that James the Just existed and by extension Jesus.
Therefore Jesus existed and thus the answer to secret alias' question: Why are historicists so certain that Jesus existed?

Your error is due probably to the reasoning (if you can call it that) of the mythicist. Anyone who admits Jesus existed means they must also believe he is the Son of God. If you don't believe he is the Son of God then that means Jesus did not exist.

Yet, Josephus believed Jesus existed but he did not believe he was Christ.

Now that I put a band-aid on your stub toe you should take a break for a few days before ripping it off.

John T

P.S. If you can't even get that right without losing your temper, I hate to imagine your outrage if I tried to explain to you the difference between historicist and historian. :tomato:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by MrMacSon »

John T wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:36 am Josephus is being cited from more than once source and not just Antiquities.
Huh?

.
20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,516 “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf20 ... xxiv-p53.1

  • 516 This passage is not found in our existing mss. of Josephus, but is given by Origen (Contra Celsum, I. 47), which "shows at any rate that Eusebius did not invent the words"a [lol]. It is probable therefore, that the copies of Josephus used by Origen and Eusebius contained this interpolation, while the copies from which our existing mss. drew were without it.

    It is of course possible, especially since he does not mention the reference in Josephus, that Eusebius quoted these words from Origen. But this does not help matters any, as it still remains as difficult to account for the occurrence of the words in Origen and, even if Eusebius did take the passage from Origen instead of from Josephus himself, we still have no right with Jachmann (ib. p. 40) to accuse him of wilful deception.

    For with his great confidence in Origen, and his unbounded admiration for him, and with his naturally uncritical spirit, he would readily accept as true in all good faith a quotation given by Origen and purporting to be taken from Josephus, even though he could not find it in his own copy of the latter’s works.

a All that shows is that either
  1. The texts of Josephus were being redacted or manipulated; or
  2. Eusebius, or Origen, or their intermediary Pamphilus, or a combination, were making stuff up

John T wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:36 am
Josephus was a respected historian of that time and reports that James the Just existed and by extension Jesus.

Therefore Jesus existed and thus the answer to secret alias' question: Why are historicists so certain that Jesus existed?
Respected enough for his works to be redacted? or be trashed? or be manipulated?

Whether he was 'respected' then is beside the point.

The extant texts Josephean texts do not refer to James the Just. The first text that is supposed to to call James "the Just" is Hegesippus supposed account in Commentaries bk 5, supposedly or dubiously recounted by Eusebius (as I previously outlined here) -

"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed 'the Just' was made head of the Church at Jerusalem."

To say "James the Just existed and by extension Jesus" is simplistic tosh.

We don't know if there was a James the Just or, if there was, who he was.

All we have is embellished accounts by Eusebius.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by MrMacSon »

.
The whole of Eusebius' Church History bk II, chap 23, reads like Eusebius is re-writing history.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John T wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:36 amNow you are just being obstinate.

It is you who has not read what you claimed to have read. Please have someone read it to you out loud and slowly, perhaps you will catch it then.

"These things" = causes for the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.
"his writings" = Plural.

Josephus is being cited from more than once source and not just Antiquities.
Plural? Really? It is probably a mistake on my part even to speak up here, but to be forced to stand by and witness such a spectacle of arrogance is a truly painful experience.

You are relying on an English translation, whereas Eusebius wrote in Greek. Here follows both the Greek and the Loeb translation by Kirsopp Lake. I actually have a potential issue or two with that translation, but not with respect to the word which you have claimed above to be plural:

History of the Church 2.23.20: 20 Ἀμέλει γέ τοι ὁ Ἰώσηπος οὐκ ἀπώκνησεν καὶ τοῦτ̓ ἐγγράφως ἐπιμαρτύρασθαι δἰ ὧν φησιν λέξεων· «Ταῦτα δὲ συμβέβηκεν Ἰουδαίοις κατ̓ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀπέκτειναν.» / Of course Josephus did not shrink from giving written testimony to this as follows: "And these things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, for the Jews killed him in spite of his great righteousness."

The word being translated as "in his writings" in the Schaff series is underlined above. It is the Greek ἐγγράφως, the adverb from ἔγγραφος, and means something like "in written form" — and adverbs are neither singular nor plural.
Your error is due probably to the reasoning (if you can call it that) of the mythicist.
Your error is due probably to the reasoning (if you can call it that) of the buffoon.

Forget stubbing one's toe; to rely on an English translation for the fine grammatical details of wording which was originally rendered in Greek, and to do so with such disdainful haughtiness, is the research equivalent of jumping headlong off a cliff onto an exposed reef surrounded by sharks.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply