hakeem wrote:
Again, there is nothing about clubbing James to death in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
There is no stoning of James there either. Josephus says only that James was
delivered over to be stoned and doesn't give any details about what happened.
And given that he does say that servants of the high priests beat people with impunity during this time, and that the Talmud says that this included the servants of the family of the priest who sentenced James to death, it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that Josephus' James could have been clubbed in the manner that Hegesippus' James was.
The James in AJ 20.9.1 must have been the brother of the high priest Jesus who would be called anointed [Christos]. High Priest were called the anointed [Christos] by Jews.
Yes, all high priests were "Christs," but which one named Jesus is Josephus referring to? Josephus mentions Jesus ben Damneus by name twice and alludes to him once, and in those cases he is called "Jesus, son of Damneus" and "the high priest" and never "Christ." And why would anyone call
him Christ (who served less than a year) in contradistinction to any other high priest, like, for instance, Jesus ben Gamaliel, who Josephus says replaced Jesus ben Damneus in Ant. 20.9.4 and served as high priest for almost twice as long and was highly regarded by Josephus and Rabbinic Judaism even after he had served. As his Wikipedia page notes:
The Talmud states; "Joshua b. Gamala came and ordained that teachers of young children should be appointed in each district and each town, and that children should enter school at the age of six or seven." He is therefore
regarded as the founder of the institution of formal Jewish education.
Although no longer High Priest, Yehoshua
remained one of the leaders of Jerusalem ... Josephus reports that Yehoshua
was an "intimate friend," who reported a plot to replace Josephus as general of Galilee to Josephus' father. Because his father wrote to him of the plot, Josephus was able to resist it.
Yehoshua
attempted peaceably to prevent the fanatic and pugnacious Idumeans from entering Jerusalem during the Zealot Temple Siege. After they had come into possession of the city, these fanatics took bloody vengeance on him, by executing him, as well as Ananus, as traitors to their country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_ben_Gamla
That's a lot more than what is said by anyone about Jesus ben Damneus. All his Wikipedia page says about his career is that he replaced Ananus and served less than a year.
Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus (James the Just). Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus
So if any "Jesus" in Ant. 20 besides the Christian Jesus is meant by "Jesus, who is called Christ," I would pick Jesus ben Gamaliel over Jesus ben Damneus because he stands out a lot more.
Another thing going against the idea that Josephus' "Christ" is Jesus ben Damneus for me is that Josephus goes on to say in Ant. 20.9.2 that the father of the priest who sentenced James to death went on to become friends with Jesus ben Damneus and Albinus (the governor who replaced his son Ananus) by giving them gifts, which sounds to me more like someone who is trying to say "no hard feelings" and keep their finger on the levers of power (and which is in keeping with the wealth and power of the house of Hanan, as Stern, for example, discusses on pages 606-607 here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=DPzZT ... us&f=false) rather than someone trying to make amends (through gifts!) for his son having just sentenced Jesus' ben Damneus' brother James to death.
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.
hakeem wrote:
If James was called the Just by all then the James in AJ 20.9.1 was not James the Just. The supposed Josephus did not call James the Just in AJ 20.9.1 ...
In EH it is stated that Jesus was born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost. Jesus was manufactured. Jesus in EH could not have had any relatives.
The conception, birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus were fabricated.
Eusebius' Church history says a lot of things, but as far as Hegesippus is concerned, I don't see any indication that he believed in the virgin birth (which is something that I agree with you is manufactured, along with the resurrection and ascension). Hegesippus appears to me to have been a Jewish Christian of the sort that believed that Jesus had a normal human birth.
As far as Hegesippus saying James was called the Just by all, I haven't checked the Greek, but on the face of it I would suggest that he is either being hyperbolic or referring to all Christians.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.