andrewcriddle

IMO Toto is formally correct in the sense that Josephus in Antiquities 20 is reporting, in effect, that James and/or his associates claimed that he was the brother of Jesus called Christ.

This is not independent evidence as to the actual biological relationship of Jesus and James.

However, it would seem unlikely that James and/or his associates would have alleged that Jesus was James' brother if Jesus had never existed.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Why would it have necessarily have been James or his associates who alleged that James was the brother of Jesus - as opposed to later Christians?

andrewcriddle

That's possible I suppose, but we're referring to something happening in Jerusalem in 62 CE. Depending on precisely when Josephus left for Rome on a diplomatic mission, he could have been an eye (and ear) witness to the events leading to James' death.

Andrew Criddle

Solitary Man

This presupposes that James was an actual "Christian".

Edited: I see what you're saying. However, I didn't say that Josephus himself was the independent witness, but there is an independent Jewish witness. By all accounts, James would still be Jewish here, the thing called Christianity not having been defined quite yet. Anything else is just arguing by semantics.

Toto

But this does not answer why Josephus, a presumably devout Jew, writing 30 years later, would refer to Jesus as "called Christ," assuming he wrote those words. He presumably did not believe that Jesus deserved the title. So if he is reporting the alleged title, he might also be reporting the alleged brother.

But I find it hard to believe that Josephus wrote those words as they stand.

Ben C Smith

Because his Roman readers (according to Tacitus, Pliny, Paul and others) knew this figure as Christ; they treated the title as if it were his actual name.

Ben.

Solitary Man

Arguments from incredulity are hardly valid, being fallacious in nature. Do you have anything better than your "presumptions" and personal feelings? And what Ben said.

Species8472

I have read it multiple times.

When you remove all the miraculous bull added to the story of Jesus, the base character were quite common at his time.

But wandering teachers and radicals with fantastic claims were recorded by Josephus, thus my argument that the person Jesus may very well have lived. The exaggerations of his character in the gospels are not enough to disprove him having been alive, all it does is prove the authors did a fair bit of creative editing. Which, if you read again, was the whole point of my first counterargument. Your initial claim is unfounded.

mountainman

Or there was a retrospective conflation of two Greek terms christos and chrestos by the same Roman party who promulgated the title as the supreme religious title of the empire. When (C14) did this happen? Was it 325 CE?


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

The fiction was fist published by Constantine. We know that.

It then took over 100 years to bury the fact that it was just another lavish construction project by this specific emperor. The business it generated for the custodial tenure of the tax-exempt bishoprics and basilicas, etc, etc, etc was not to be set aside. Hundreds died in one day in the streets of Rome when two mafia bosses battled over who was to be the next "pontifex maximus" (it was very very big business).

People flooded to the deserts to escape the top-down emperor cult. See Pachomius and the Tall Brothers. But it was no use. See people like Cyril prevailed against Julian and against 4th and 5th century reporters of FICTION, such as Nestorius. The true history - that christian history commenced with Constantine - was buried as a "conspracy of the Greeks" in the words of Cyril. Our (ahem) history was vetted and written by the 4th and 5th century christian "victors".


Best wishes,


Pete
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/