Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 »

DCHindley wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:55 pm
Origen, in several places, relates that he was aware of traditions that Josephus had himself said that the death of James the Just was the cause of the destruction of the city. Origen, Against Celsus 1.47b-d:
b) Now he [Josephus] himself, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put Christ to death, who was a prophet, nevertheless says, being albeit against his will not far from the truth, that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ, the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.

This is also repeated in Against Celsus 2.13, and his Commentary On Matthew 13.55. However, none of these seem to reference anything about the nature of his death by throwing from a high place or dispatch by a club.

DCH
Finally, a historian enters the debate. Thanks DCH.

I always intended to get to Contr. Cels. 1.47 but I couldn't even get the mythicists to look up/let alone understand Eusebius, Book 2 chapter 23.

Let's proceed, shall we?

1. Origen is quoting from Josephus (source unknown) and comments that Josephus missed the deeper cause for the destruction of the temple. Although Josephus attributes it to the murder of James the Just, Origen says it was actually the death of Christ that caused the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Even though Origen does not source his quote from Josephus it is authentic to Origen.

2. Origen referencing the 18th book of Antiquities is pointing out that although Josephus did not believe in Christ, unwittingly Josephus acknowledges the existence of Jesus by confirming the compatriots of Jesus, that is, John the Baptist and James the Just.

3. Origen does not claim that Josephus wrote details in book 18 on the manner/method of death of James the Just in book 18. Instead he points out that Josephus acknowledges such a righteous well known man existed and by extension, therefore Jesus existed.

4. Origen writes as if this additional source by Josephus regarding James the Just is still readily available to Celsus and Ambrosius.

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Bernard Muller »

I am not sure the depiction of Ananus, son of Ananus, in Josephus' Ant. 20, 20 is so negative:
But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he 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
Being bold is not necessarily bad and the Greek word for "insolent" is better translated by "venturous", that is not careful, prudent, conformist.
The Saduccees generally, not Ananus in particular, are said to be very rigid in judging offenders.
And Ananus is said he thought he had the proper opportunity (Ananus thought wrong, as we learned later) to use his influence to charge James & others and have the sanhedrim to judge them.

Sure, Ananus did break a civil law (assembling the sanhedrim of judges without the Roman governor's consent) but he might have thought, since there was no governor in place yet, that was OK to proceed as he did.
And Ananus was removed from the high priesthood as a punishment, but not because he killed people (the charge and the judgment were legit), but because calling the assembly of the sanhadrim of judges.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
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 »

John T

It is not a matter of a 'historian' entering the debate but the difficulties inherent in Josephus. The only thing that Yosippon does (I am not sure whether it is because it is written in Hebrew that it has this effect) is that it emphasizes that Ananus's death is related to the prophesy of weeks as laid out in Daniel. In fact, as I've noted many times before, Josephus's 'history' is really (strangely) an argument that the destruction of Jerusalem is a fulfillment of the prophesy of weeks. It might not be explicit but he leaves enough clues that 'the author who knows' - the gnostic, the one who was in on the secret, immediately sees it. This cannot be ignored.

Admittedly I did a bad job in my book trying to decipher that. But the underlying point is still correct. Jewish exegesis of Daniel (as well as Christian exegesis for that matter) is obsessed with 'decoding' the manner in which the destruction was the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 - 27. Josephus's 'history' - if you want to call it that - is similarly rooted in this obsession. That's why Justus's objection or the objection embodied in Justus's history which disagreed with Josephus is so important. I don't think that we can naively accept Josephus as 'history' when it is clear that attribution of Ananus's death as the cause of the destruction is just a reflection of Daniel 9:26. The gospel represents the same problem. It can't be naive taken to be 'history' either.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Giuseppe »

John T wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:16 am

1. Origen is quoting from Josephus (source unknown) and comments that Josephus missed the deeper cause for the destruction of the temple.
The evidence that Origen wasn't quoting from a source unknown of Josephus:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1540#p35189
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
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 9:46 am Josephus's 'history' is really (strangely) an argument that the destruction of Jerusalem is a fulfillment of the prophesy of weeks...
SA --

I don't write this with mischief in mind or to irritate you.

Atwill finds that the dates ending at Masada (from memory, my copy of Caesar's Messiah is hiding in a box in a Storage Room...) have been manipulated to show what you state.

CW

PS: If my memory is incorrect here, I'll gladly delete this.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John2 »

John T wrote:
Origen is quoting from Josephus (source unknown) and comments that Josephus missed the deeper cause for the destruction of the temple. Although Josephus attributes it to the murder of James the Just, Origen says it was actually the death of Christ that caused the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Even though Origen does not source his quote from Josephus it is authentic to Origen.
While I do think the James in Ant. 20 is James the Just (and don't see any conflict between it and Hegesippus' account, as I discussed in another thread recently), regarding Origen's reference to the cause of the fall of Jerusalem, I lean towards the idea that he either misheard or misunderstood Josephus' account of Ananus in War 4.5.2:
I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man ...


While I think Doherty makes a good point that it could be due to Josephus saying that Vespasian was the Messiah, I think the above passage could be why Origen thought that Josephus also did not believe that Jesus was Christ, because it goes on to say that Ananus was associated with a Jesus who was "inferior to him upon the comparison":
Jesus was also joined with him [Ananus]; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men's case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.
In any event, why would Josephus say that the destruction of Jerusalem was due to the death of Ananus and James?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
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 »

Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:21 pm
Atwill finds that the dates ending at Masada (from memory, my copy of Caesar's Messiah is hiding in a box in a Storage Room...) have been manipulated to show what you state.
The dates in Jospehus's account of the first Roman-Jewish War?
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 »

.
Hegesippus supposed account in Commentaries bk 5, recounted by Eusebius, seems to have been the first to call James "the Just" -

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


Eusebius, again (in Church History bk II, chap 1, 3), recounted Clement of Alexandria wroting in his Hypotyposes bk 6 -

"For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."

But then, in the very next section, Eusebius says that, in Hypotyposes bk 7, Clement of Alexandria stated things differently -

.
"The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge (gnōsin) to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. "

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm



eta: Eusebius also records that Clement of Alexandria related -

"This James, whom the people of old called the Just because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the record tells us, to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church." HE IV.22.8

Other epithets are "James the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just," [Schaff], and "James the Righteous."

The Gospel of Thomas (in the Nag Hammadi library) relates after Jesus' resurrection and before his Ascension -
[a/the disciple/s] "We are aware that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?"

Jesus said to them, "No matter where you come [from] it is to James the Just that you shall go, for whose sake heaven and earth have come to exist."

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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 »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:54 pm
Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:21 pm
Atwill finds that the dates ending at Masada (from memory, my copy of Caesar's Messiah is hiding in a box in a Storage Room...) have been manipulated to show what you state.
The dates in Jospehus's account of the first Roman-Jewish War?
Yes, I believe so.
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 »

If Masada can be demonstrated to have been dated to 73 CE by Josephus then yes Charles
“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
Post Reply