Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

[Ulan]

Toe stub number 2.

So, in other words you don't know and/or care to know about history. Let alone the main causes of the Jewish War but you do know one thing, that the murder of James the Just had nothing do to with it, even if Josephus took the time to write them down.

Oh, I know and I care. But why should I dance after your whistle? It's you who isn't interested in history as we have established here. It's you who has chosen to ignore the source material. This whole "James" episode is presented by Josephus as resolved, as you can easily read in his text.

This is just pure weasel logic you try to pull off here. You got caught in some false bullshit you believe about history, and you are now just using more bullshit to make your original point. You still haven't admitted that you were wrong. I don't expect you to ever do it, because you are not really interested in an honest discussion.

In the end, you are the mythicist here.

[iskander]

The cause of the war was the fighting between the Samarians and the Judeans : the Judeans burn the Samarian villages nearest to Judea ( war 2.234-35), and Cumanus took the cavalry wing of Sebastenes and after arming the Samarians went out after the Judeans.
Steve Mason , A history of the Jewish War


Who were the Samaritans?


The Aryeh Kaplan Anthology

[John T]

So, in other words you don't know and/or care to know about history. Let alone the main causes of the Jewish War but you do know one thing, that the murder of James the Just had nothing do to with it, even if Josephus took the time to write them down

So you 'know' that the Jewish War was caused by the death of James the Just? How do you know that?

Toe stub number 3.

Nope. I never said the murder of James the Just was the cause of the Jewish War.
I said that Josephus cited several examples for the causes of the Jewish War.
In past threads, DC Hinley and I have listed a few of those causes quoting from Josephus in the Wars of the Jews and The Antiquities of the Jews.

What I did was point out that the historian Eusebius quoted Joesphus as saying that the murder of the bother of Jesus was a key reason for the Jewish War. "these things happened to the Jews to avenge [the murder of] James the Just, who was the brother of him that is called Christ, and who the Jews had slain, notwithstanding his pre-eminent justice." Bk2, chapter 23, (20).

My point is the mythicists are not interested in the causes of the Jewish War or history for that matter but only in denying that Josephus made any reference to the existence of Jesus. In other words, mythicists are not interested in preserving history but erasing all traces of Jesus in history and by extension that would include his brother James.

John T

[Secret Alias]

That's not what you were saying previously.

[MrMacSon]

My point is the mythicists are not interested in the causes of the Jewish War, or history for that matter, but only in denying that Josephus made any reference to the existence of Jesus. In other words, mythicists are not interested in preserving history but erasing all traces of Jesus in history and by extension that would include his brother James.
.

'Mythicism' and "Historicism' are about whether Jesus of Nazareth existed in the early 1st century in Galilee, etc, largely as described in the Gospels.

He is supposed to have been dead for a couple of decades before the first Jewish War. So, you seem to be hand-waving and more interested in issues other than the historicity of Jesus. You have avoided the posts I made in recent days in answer to your other 'points'.

[John T]

That's not what you were saying previously.

Perhaps you jumped to conclusions out of your bias agenda?
Just a thought.

John T

[hakeem]

....What I did was point out that the historian Eusebius quoted Joesphus as saying that the murder of the bother of Jesus was a key reason for the Jewish War. "these things happened to the Jews to avenge [the murder of] James the Just, who was the brother of him that is called Christ, and who the Jews had slain, notwithstanding his pre-eminent justice." Bk2, chapter 23, (20).

The author of Church History did not quote Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 because there is no person called James the Just and no claim that things happened to the Jews to avenge his murder in the writings of Josephus.

The author of Church History fabricated or repeated inventions about Josephus like their fabrication of the authors of NT books.

Virtually everything in Church History about the dating, authorship and chronology of NT books have been rejected by Scholars almost universally and all events with Jesus did not happen.

[John T]

The author of Church History did not quote Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 because there is no person called James the Just and no claim that things happened to the Jews to avenge his murder in the writings of Josephus. Virtually everything in Church History about the dating, authorship and chronology of NT books have been rejected by Scholars almost universally and all events with Jesus did not happen.

Toe stub number 4.

You are both right and wrong at the same time.

Right in that Eusebius did not quote (edit) Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 regarding James the Just. Wrong because Eusebius was quoting Josephus from another known work, which is not extant. Please take the time to actually read what Eusebius wrote and not take the word of Mythicist web-site or book. * [The italics are an edit (11/14/2017) because I muddled the grammar badly and is intended for clarity, not that my position has changed.]

As far as, almost all scholars reject the New Testament as history, well I got some magic beans you should buy.

hakeem fell for a common ploy used by Mythicists who are not really interested in history but only in dismissing history regarding Jesus.

John T

[Paul the Uncertain]

John T

Wrong because Eusebius never claimed he was but rather that he is quoting Josephus from another known work, which is not extant.

In II.23.20 of his Church History, Eusebius doesn't say he's quoting anybody when he gives a fair description of what were in fact Origen's views, namely that

Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says that 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.

Immediately thereafter, in II.23.21, Eusebius introduces a purported direct quotation with suitable words (modern punctuation for direct quotation being unavailable to Eusebius):

And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words:

What follows that introduction is what we read today as the received version of Antiquities 20.9.1.

Eusebius doesn't claim to offer us a glimpse of a now-lost work of Josephus. He aligns himself with Origen, and can substantiate that Josephus at least wrote something about some James, whom Eusebius is satisified is James the Just.

What we don't know is whether Eusebius' copy of Antiquities actually used Matthew's Gospel formula to refer to James' brother Jesus, or whether Eusebius took Origen's word for what the correct designation of James' Jesus was supposed to be, even if Eusebius' own copy said "ben Damneus" or "ben Gamaliel," to name two other Jesuses in the same story arc.

On an earlier point, I was amused to read your

In other words, mythicists are not interested in preserving history but erasing all traces of Jesus in history and by extension that would include his brother James.

There are no traces to erase nor history to preserve. Tricked up Josephus is all there is from anywhere near the right time outside of the Jesus movement's own devotional and adminisitrative literature.

[John T]

You [John T] have avoided the posts I made in recent days in answer to your other 'points'.

Do you have something specific in mind that has been left unanswered by other posts on this thread?

V/R

John T