Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:59 am In my view, Josephus and Hegesippus are talking about two different things only with respect to timing. Josephus tells us what happened to James before he was delivered over to be stoned (i.e., his trial and sentencing) and leaves it at that (beyond saying that people were upset about it and Ananus lost his job), and Hegesippus tells us what happened to James after he was delivered over to be stoned.
Again, there is nothing about clubbing James to death in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
There is no person called James the Just or James the brother of the Lord in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
There is no person called the Lord Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1
Jesus called the anointed [Christ] was alive up to 63 CE in the time of Nero in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
James the brother of Jesus called the anointed was alive up to 61-62 CE in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

James the Just [ James the Lord's brother] in Christian writing is not even claimed to be the actual brother of Jesus born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost.
James the Just [ James the Lord's brother] in Christian writing was alive years after James in AJ 20.9.1 was delivered to be stoned.

The Apocalypse of James
It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially.
De Viris Illustribus
James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord


James the Just [the Lord's brother] and Jesus of Nazareth were fabricated.
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:
Again, there is nothing about clubbing James to death in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
Josephus doesn't describe James' stoning and thus doesn't provide any details about what happened to James, but he and the Talmud do say that servants of the high priests (including those of the family of Ananus, the priest who sentenced the James in Josephus to death) went around beating people with impunity during this time, which is in keeping with Hegesippus' account and it's not implausible to suppose that it could have happened to the James in Josephus.
There is no person called James the Just or James the brother of the Lord in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1. There is no person called the Lord Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
Those terms were used by Christians and Josephus was not a Christian. Josephus' account as we have it calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," and that sounds like the Christian James to me (all the more so given their similar manner of death).

[/quote]Jesus called the anointed [Christ] was alive up to 63 CE in the time of Nero in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
James the brother of Jesus called the anointed was alive up to 61-62 CE in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.[/quote]

If you see the "Jesus, who was called Christ" and had a brother named James who was stoned to death as being Jesus ben Damneus then I suppose this could be a valid argument, but for me it doesn't work because I see him as being the Christian James.
James the Just [ James the Lord's brother] in Christian writing is not even claimed to be the actual brother of Jesus born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost.
I suppose it depends on what Christian writings you mean. Hegesippus says in EH 2.23 that:
James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day.
And in EH 3.11 it says that "the Lord" is Jesus and that he had other relatives "according to the flesh":
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.


And in EH 3.16 that:
Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Judas, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus ... But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord ... These things are related by Hegesippus.
Hegesippus does not qualify James' status as an actual "brother of the Lord" (i.e., Jesus) in any way and doesn't say anything about Jesus being conceived by the Holy Ghost.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
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: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:37 am
Josephus doesn't describe James' stoning and thus doesn't provide any details about what happened to James, but he and the Talmud do say that servants of the high priests (including those of the family of Ananus, the priest who sentenced the James in Josephus to death) went around beating people with impunity during this time, which is in keeping with Hegesippus' account and it's not implausible to suppose that it could have happened to the James in Josephus.
Again, there is nothing about clubbing James to death in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1. Stories about the character called Jesus of Nazareth are all manufactured--they are not historical. The Jesus called Christ in Christian writings never ever existed. Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 has nothing about the character called Jesus of Nazareth called Christ. Hegesippus is not even a witness to events in the time of Nero.
John2 wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:37 am
Those terms were used by Christians and Josephus was not a Christian. Josephus' account as we have it calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," and that sounds like the Christian James to me (all the more so given their similar manner of death).
There was never ever any person named Jesus of Nazareth who lived in the time of Pilate as described in Christian writings. Jesus of Nazareth called Christ was fabricated. The character called Jesus the anointed [Christos] in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 was alive up to c 63.
John2 wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:37 am If you see the "Jesus, who was called Christ" and had a brother named James who was stoned to death as being Jesus ben Damneus then I suppose this could be a valid argument, but for me it doesn't work because I see him as being the Christian James.
If it was claimed in AJ 20.9.1 that James was called a Christian or bishop of the Jerusalem Church and that Jesus was from Nazareth or lived in the time of Pilate then perhaps you would have a valid argument.

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.

Church History 1.3.7.
And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed under the influence of the divine Spirit, and thus constituted, as it were, typical Christs.
John2 wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:37 am I suppose it depends on what Christian writings you mean. Hegesippus says in EH 2.23 that:
James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day.
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.
John2 wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:37 amAnd in EH 3.11 it says that "the Lord" is Jesus and that he had other relatives "according to the flesh"...
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.

EH2.1. 2.
Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” as the account of the holy Gospels shows.
John2 wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:37 am Hegesippus does not qualify James' status as an actual "brother of the Lord" (i.e., Jesus) in any way and doesn't say anything about Jesus being conceived by the Holy Ghost.
In EH 2. it is claimed Hegesippus wrote that Jesus resurrected.

No person ever resurrected who was dead for at least three days.

EH 2.23.9.
On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one's coming to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on account of James.
Jesus the Christ who resurrected was manufactured.

Jesus the Christ who resurrected in all Christian writings is non-historical.
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:
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.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Peter Kirby »

John2 wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:46 am 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.
As long as this kind of thing is prevalent, this whole field is going nowhere fast. :thumbdown:

You have lots of company, though, when it comes to people who love excuses and love this kind of rationalizing to preserve assumptions.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
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:
Again, there is nothing about clubbing James to death in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
Josephus doesn't say anything about what happened to James after he was delivered over to be stoned. This is like saying that there is nothing in Ant. 20.9.1 about James being pushed off of a platform, therefore he can't be James the Just. But we can surmise that this James at least could have been pushed off of a platform because it is part of the procedure for stoning in Rabbinic Judaism. And it is not implausible that he was beaten with a club too, because Josephus and the Talmud say that this was done to people by servants of the high priests with impunity during this time, including those of the family of the priest who sentenced James to death (whoever you think he was).

Your argument is like saying that because Josephus doesn't say anything about what kind of clothes James wore, how long his hair was or if he was vegetarian, he can't be James the Just.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John2 »

Peter wrote:
As long as this kind of thing is prevalent, this whole field is going nowhere fast. :thumbdown:

You have lots of company, though, when it comes to people who love excuses and love this kind of rationalizing to preserve assumptions.
Who is this addressed to, Peter?
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 »

Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:42 pm
John2 wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:46 am 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.
As long as this kind of thing is prevalent, this whole field is going nowhere fast. :thumbdown:

You have lots of company, though, when it comes to people who love excuses and love this kind of rationalizing to preserve assumptions.
LIWC analysis on
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.
Analytic thinking in this passage: 59.75%
Confidence level of the author: 63.34%

"it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that Josephus' James could have been clubbed" -- that line, the whole ballast of the argument, is the killer: analytic process = 5.53%

It's entirely speculative, seizing any detail that can be imagined as a possible prop for any fancy one likes to believe.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
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: Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:04 am And the chutzpah of hypocrisy award goes to neilgodfrey for ...."I trust you will find no hypocrisy in my response"….neilgodfrey :lol:

John T, if this was a matter of life and death I'd go through each of those quotations and demonstrate they were in fact attempting to cope with your gratuitous insults.

Now let's try again, shall we:

Here is the comment you are responding to, John T:
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:04 pm
John T wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:36 am
"his writings" = Plural.

Josephus is being cited from more than once source and not just Antiquities.
By this logic Eusebius is quoting a line that Josephus wrote more than once in different writings. In other words, at least once in a work by Josephus now lost to us and in a passage since removed from Antiquities, or in two works now lost to us . . . .

I think twenty books making up Antiquities constitutes a plural, no? But then maybe Eusebius meant that Josephus wrote that line in several of those books, or also in Wars -- and in every case it just happened to have since been lost?!

Alternatively, we could get a better grasp of what was understood by the expression translated as "these writings".

John T, why don't you try to be nice? Why all the "childish name calling" (that you say you deplore in others) and hostile sarcasm and put-downs? Why not try to be civil?
Now kindly identify for me where I was lacking civility or engaging in sarcasm or put-down. If you are going to be giving tit for tat then please do so and don't engage in groundless projection of your own abusive manner.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John2 »

Look how much more detailed Josephus is about the death of Jesus ben Ananias in War 6.5.3 compared to James:
But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.
And Onias the Righteous in Ant. 14.2.1:
Now there was one, whose name was Onias, a righteous man be was, and beloved of God, who, in a certain drought, had prayed to God to put an end to the intense heat, and whose prayers God had heard, and had sent them rain. This man had hid himself, because he saw that this sedition would last a great while. However, they brought him to the Jewish camp, and desired, that as by his prayers he had once put an end to the drought, so he would in like manner make imprecations on Aristobulus and those of his faction. And when, upon his refusal, and the excuses that he made, he was still by the multitude compelled to speak, he stood up in the midst of them, and said, "O God, the King of the whole world! since those that stand now with me are thy people, and those that are besieged are also thy priests, I beseech thee, that thou wilt neither hearken to the prayers of those against these, nor bring to effect what these pray against those." Whereupon such wicked Jews as stood about him, as soon as he had made this prayer, stoned him to death.
James in Ant. 20.9.1:
... so he [Ananus] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned ...
That's all Josephus has to say about James. We don't know if this James was a righteous man or made a prayer or ended droughts or if he ate meat or what he did for a living or what exactly he was charged with or what exactly happened when he was stoned. This is because the James passage is more about what happened to Ananus:
... 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.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply