Tercel

No. I meant what I said: James the brother of Jesus. The same guy as the Ossary debate's over.
His death is not recorded in the NT. But it is by the Jewish Historian Josephus in his Antiquities c93AD. And also recorded by several later Church writers who seem to be relying on Josephus for the most part.

Mageth

And in Antiquities 20.9.1 it says:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; 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, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

It doesn't say that James was killed for teaching the resurrection, only for breaking the law. Nor does it say that James was given a chance to repent of his faith and refused, choosing to die instead.

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Kosh

Of course, since that "who was called Christ" is believed to be a later xian interpolation, you don't even know that it was "that" Jesus' brother who Josephus was talking about (as Jesus was quite a common name).

So it seems you don't even have that apostles death to speak of....

MortalWombat

So common that Josephus mentions more than 20 of them.

Bobzammel

Just wondering, doesn't one of the Gospels close with Jesus telling Peter that he would be a martyr? It doesn't say the exact method, of course....
Interestingly, the Romans probably did not have a huge problem with Christians. Although Nero was not quite sane, his apparent persecution of Christians has been greatly exagerrated.

Steven Carr

Matthew 28:17 seems to cast doubt on the faith of the eyewitnesses. Paul is not impressed by them, and only names 3. Where were the others? (I know, an argument from silence, but early Christian writers had good reasons to write of the fidelity of the apostles, but even the writer of Acts seems to know nothing about what happened to them)

Perhaps you could name an anti-Christian writer of the first century. To use your words (There were enough around), it should be easy to do.

Your argument from silence is much worse than mine, as the early Christians had good reason to airbrush out from history recantations, while the
total lack of mentions in Acts and Paul and the reference in Matthew to the Apostles doubts is very telling.

Tercel

"Believed", by some people yes. Evidenced in the slightest? No: The words appear in every manuscript copy of Josephus we have and every quote of the passage we have. Unsuprisingly those who suggest the passage is an "interpolation" do so because they believe (or at least advance the hypothesis) that Jesus never existed and thus must explain away this evidence. Numerous scholars past and present have found nothing wrong with this passage.

~shrug~ What does it matter what I have? I'm not out to prove anything. -My belief hardly depends on what I can prove or not about the resurrection from historical considerations. I was simply answering the question that was asked, if you disagree with my answer - tough bickies, I think you're wrong and am sure enough not to care that you disagree.

Which is yet another reason in favour of "brother of Jesus" not being an interpolation: It seems likely that Josephus would clarify to his readers what James he was talking about given there were a few of them around.

Tercel

Yeah John and 2 Peter both have references to Peter's death. It's generally thought that they were written after he died (which evidence suggests probably happened in the 60s in Rome, Paul likewise).

Tercel

Yes I know and I know and we've been through this argument before many a time.

Eg this 11 page thread:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000192&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000192&p=</a>
(Since it was easter, I caved in and gave an argument for the Resurrection, inspired by a brilliant essay on the death of James that Layman had recently written)

Since I actually went to the trouble of finding that, I suppose I can quote some relevant stuff for the benefit of people like Mageth (and since I did actually go to the trouble of writing those posts in the first place! -Warning though: Responses will likely be replied to with cut and pastes from other past posts of mine from the above thread since I really can't be bothered writing it out all again).

-------------------------------------------------
An extract from a post by me on March 27, 2002 from page 4 of the above linked thread:

The gospels seem to imply that during Jesus’ ministry, Jesus was rejected by his family and they did not believe his teachings and thought he was crazy. Many an atheist has used this to try and suggest that Jesus was insane - hence solving the old “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” trilemma. Yet, after Jesus’ death and alleged resurrection, Jesus’ family are apparently believers, and Jesus’s brother -James- is an apostle (ie he has seen the resurrected Jesus) and a prominent Church leader. Not only had James apparently seen the resurrected Jesus, but it apparently converted him.

Paul mentions James as a witness to the Resurrection in Corinthians 15:3-7
“I passed on to you what I received, which is of the greatest importance: that Christ died for our sins, as written in the Scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life three days later, as written in the Scriptures; that he appeared to Peter and then to all twelve apostles. Then he appeared to more than five hundred of his followers at once, most of whom are still alive, although some have died. Then he appeared to James and afterwards to all the apostles.”

When Paul visits Jerusalem in Acts, James is portrayed as the leader of (or at least one of the leading figures in) the Jerusalem Church. See Acts 15 and 21. Paul also notes in Galations that he met the apostle “James, the Lord’s brother” in Jerusalem (1:19) and that “James, Peter and John” seemed to be the leaders of the Jerusalem Church (2:8). Josephus also indicates that Jesus had Jewish followers after his death, and that James was the leader of the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem.

“It seems clear that James, and probably most members of his Church, continued to maintain faith in Jesus and to follow the law, including Temple worship. Despite this, it appears that they suffered from persecution from the Jewish authorities. Acts records that Peter and John, two other leaders in the Jerusalem Church, were arrested and whipped for their refusal to recant their belief in Jesus. Paul records that he inflicted much persecution on the church before his conversion. Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Church survived and James was its leader for close to 30 years.” -Layman

Acts records the first persecution of the Christians as follows:
“Peter and John were still speaking to the people when... some Sadducees arrived. They were annoyed because the two apostles were teaching people that Jesus had risen from death, which proved that the dead will rise to life. So they arrested them...” Acts 4:1-3
One of the major differences between the Sadducees and the other Jewish religious groups was that the Sadducees taught that the dead would not rise to life again. Thus they were understandably upset by the Christian claims that Jesus rose from the dead.
The Sadducees clearly never got over this. Acts records that when Paul is later arrested in Jerusalem:
“[Paul] called out... ‘I am on trial here because of the hope I have that the dead will rise to life!’
As soon as he said this, the Pharisees and Sadducees started to quarrel, and the group was divided... the shouting became louder... The argument became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces. So he ordered his soldiers to go down into the group, get Paul away from them, and take him into the fort.” Acts 23:7-10

The Sadducees would have liked nothing better than to destroy the Christians completely because they preached the resurrection. However, the Romans maintained strict control and the Sadducees had insufficient legal powers of their own to do anything worthwhile against the Christians. The Roman governors had made clear that further persecution of the Christians would not be tolerated, so the Sadducees could do nothing but sit and gnash their teeth while their teachings were continually undermined by the Christians.

That is, until 62 AD. In 62 AD, Festus the Roman governor died suddenly. There was a short interlude without a Roman governor while a new one was appointed and travelled from Rome. The high priest at the time was a Sadducee. The chance was there and he took it.

Josephus was a Jewish Historian who’s major work is called the Jewish Antiquities and was written c94AD. He had previously been a Pharisee but was not a Christian.
He relates the story as follows:

That the Sadducees were eager to kill James and those with him (no doubt other Christians) can only be because James taught the Resurrection.
Was James a liar? He apparently didn’t buy into Jesus’ ministry before his death, yet after Jesus’ death we find James teaching that Jesus was resurrected, and leading the Jerusalem Church. What could bring about this dramatic change? The most obvious explanation would seem to be that James believed he had seen Jesus resurrected. -That, as Paul put it “He appeared to James”.

Tercel

I don't see that it says anything that the story of Thomas in John doesn't also tell us.

What do you mean "where were the others"? Where were the others when what? According to Paul in 1 Cor 15, all twelve apostles saw Jesus (is he supposed to tell us the names of each one?).

The writer of acts simply seems to be intending to record Paul's life. What the writer knew about the other apostles I don't see as we can say for sure. But if they were a gentile companion of Paul, as seems likely, it seems unlikely they would know an extensive amount about what the Jewish Apostles were doing in Judea or elsewhere (eg India, if stories about Thomas are to be believed). The only time the writer seems to show great interest in the other Apostles is incidentally when they bump into the hero of the story, Paul.

I was thinking of people like Celsus. First century eh, and you have the nerve to claim you are using my words after demanding that?
An interesting challenge... I suppose that depends on what you consider "anti-Christian writer" to mean exactly. I would suggest Josephus - on the basis that the most widely accepted reconstructions of Ant 18.3.3 have a rather anti-christian tone.