The Evil One

Daniel was not written in 970 BC. You're way out. Not that this affects your argument one way or the other, but it displays an alarming ignorance of the documents. Hint: look at the dates of the events that Daniel describes as having already occurred at time of writing.

azuresky

Hopefully you'll be able to find this.

Kosh

At the risk of resurecting a dead end thread....

Just to make a point. I'm about to begin writing a history of World War
II, based on the stories my Grandpa has told me. Of course, he was
in the pacific, and he's only recounting the European stuff based on what
others have told him.

Oh yeah, and he's almost 80, in a nursing home, and is having quite a few
memory/brain problems.

So... am I writing a contemporary account of World War II? Hmm?
Would you consider the result to be accurate without question?

azuresky

Well, while I'm waiting for the rest of the crew to arrive, I guess I can start typing why I am convinced of Christ's existence.

Let's begin with a look at Josephus. I will be utilizing the book "Josephus and the New Testament" by Steve Mason to a very large degree, but I also may occasionally reference "The Historical Jesus" by Gary Habermas, "The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels" by editors Joel B. Green, Scot McNight, I. Howard Marshall, as well as a brief article by Paul Maier in "Eusebius, The Church History."

It is unusual for me to include lengthy quotes in my posts from various scholars and commentators, but in this case I'm going to make an exception. Here is what Steve Mason (a secular scholar) relates about "James, the Brother of Jesus" in Antiquities 20:200.

"The only other figure from within the early Christian tradition mentioned by Josephus is James, the brother of Jesus. He says very little about this man, but the fact that he mentions him incidentally is strong support for the authenticity of the passage. No copyist has tried to turn this passage into a religious confession of any sort. In fact, the passage is not about James; it is about some other issues that Josephus is developing in Ant. 20."

"Josephus mentions James near the end of the Antiquities, while discussing political events in Judea of the mid-60s C.E..."

Mason, on pages 238-239 of his book, then proceeds to relate how well the passage mentioning James and Jesus fits into the overall context of Antiquities 20.

Mason also explains "that much of the language is typically Josephan, and some of it fits with word-choices that appear only in Ant. 20 and the following "Life," but not before. The phrase 'convened a council,' for example occurs only here and at Ant.20.216; Life 236, 368. 'Without [his] consent,' similarly, occurs here and at Ant.20.2; Life 309. The word for en route is here and at Ant.20.113; Life 157, though also Ant. 14.226. It has been widely observed that Josephus's writing style changes in the last book of the Antiquities and continues in the Life. This passage reflects some of the new language he prefers--language that seems to be more his own, in contrast to his imitations of great authors, such as Thucydides in Ant. 17-19. Although some scholars have doubted the authenticity of this passage that mentions James in Josephus, there is no reason to question it on the basis of language and style."

"So the story is not really about James, but about the decline of the high priesthood before the fall of Jerusalem and about this allegedly nasty specimen named Ananus. There is no trial worth mentioning...and the defenders are as good as dead...we would like to know what James was charged with, but Josephus emphasizes precisely the shakiness of Ananus's legal basis. In effect, he 'brought some sort of criminal charges,' and quickly got rid of these men."

"...the mention of James along with a few nameless others is only his [Josephus's] usual technique of giving a human face to groups of people."

"Second, if we ask 'why James?' the answer seems to lie in the construction of the passage. Josephus does not name him as 'James' in the first instance, but rather as 'the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ. The easiest explanation of this construction is that he has recently mentioned 'Jesus the so-called Christ,' so that it is now economical to mention his brother as a quick example of those Ananus killed. Since our text of the Ant. does have a passage on Jesus in 18.63-64, and that passage appears to have been altered in our texts, that is the most likely place for Josephus to have mentioned Jesus. And we have a clue as to what he actually said about Jesus there: not simply "the Christ," as our manuscripts read, but rather "the so-called Christ." That would make much better sense coming from Josephus."

"It is highly likely that Josephus knows a great deal more about this episode than he bothers to mention, quite possibly including the names of Ananus's other victims. Josephus was an adult in Jerusalem at the time of the incident and a member of the upper class. Since it was a major event, resulting in the change of high priest, he must have known some details. But neither he nor his envisaged audience in Rome has any particular interest in the fate of the victims. He wants rather to demonstrate Ananus's character. He offers James's name only because he has a link in the preceding narrative with Jesus, and so he can easily refer to him as an example."

Well, Mason goes on to say much more about the James passage in his book, but I'm getting tired of typing. I would recommend "Josephus and the New Testament" to anyone interested in discovering the current state of Josephan scholarship, as well as the various reasons why the majority of scholars accept the James passage in its entirety.

I'll write about the other mention of Jesus in the Antiquities in the near future.

Javaman

I am of the opinion that it is unknowable whether or not a man named Yeshua/Jesus existed who gave rise to the doctrine of Christianity. There is plenty to doubt his existance but not enough (for me) to be certain that he did not exisit. There is plenty of controversy around Josephus' Antiquities as you well know.

azuresky

I respect that you have an open mind about the existence of Jesus. It seems to me that you feel it is more likely that Christ did not exist based on the evidence, however, but you're certainly welcome to your opinion. I'm not interested in conquering "opponents" or winning debates--I would rather simply collaborate with atheists and others to edge a little closer to the truth. Happy debating to us both!

Javaman

azuresky, in the interest of fostering a 'debate', I suggest you re-read this thread and address some of the questions posed to you. BTW, I have an open mind about everything... except beets. Still waiting on some evidence of any god, yours or otherwise.

Edited to add:
I lean neither toward Jesus' existance or non-existance. I say simply that it is unknowable. I will add, though, that should Jesus have existed, his description in the gospels leaves much doubt as to the accuracy of said depictions.

Toto

The reference to Jesus in Josephus Ant. is a very shaky basis for your belief in a historicl Jesus. It is a single reference in a document that has demonstrable interpolations and forged parts.

The passage was most recently discussed in detail in this thread:

Jesus called Christ in Josephus AJ 20.9.1

edited to add: if you think you have anything to add to the discussion of either passage in Josephus, please add to existing threads or start a new thread devoted to that question, instead of hiding the question at the end of a long thread devoted to the general question of Jesus' existence.

azuresky

My first piece of evidence was Antiquities 20.200. It would seem to me that this passage establishes the historical existence of Jesus and his brother James--most scholars familiar with Josephus agree with me.

I also must admit that I do not share an open mind toward beets (we can't be perfect).

I'll deliver more evidence soon.

azuresky

You wrote: The reference to Jesus in Antiquities is a very shaky basis for your belief in a historical Jesus...

I believe Steve Mason has already demonstrated thoroughly that in the passage concerning James and Jesus "there is no reason to question it on the basis of language and style."

Also, I do not plan to stick on the topic of Josephus for very long--I will then move on to other ancient authors, early creeds, etc.