ApostateAbe

No, it is the established fact. Review the OP.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, I suppose that would count. I suppose, at the very least, we can conclude that Person A "existed" in the same nature of existence as Person A's brother.

aa5874

"Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is a blatant forgery.

The very Church denied that James the apostle had a human brother called Jesus Christ.

How in the world can you show that James the Just had a human brother called Jesus Christ when the very Church has NO RECORDS of what you say?

ApostateAbe, you are wasting time.

Where are you going to get your records to show James the apostle had a human brother called Jesus Christ?

Reality Check

The records of Christian writers show that James the apostle had NO human brother called Jesus Christ.

The Fragments of PapiasJerome's De Viris Illustribus Reality Check

"Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 does not name the parents of James or Jesus.

ApostateAbe where are you going to get your records to show that Jesus who was called Christ was HJ and that he had a brother called James?

Who was HJ?

Are you not claiming that HJ was NOT Christ but an obscure apocalyptic preacher? Why are you using forgeries about a WELL-KNOWN Messiah to support some other OBSCURE character?

Who was called Christ before the Fall of the Jewish Temple by the Jews when the very Jews EXPECTED the Prophesied Messiah at around 70 CE?

"Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is a blatant forgery.

Josephus "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4 , Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" and Tacitus Histories 5 have ALL CONFIRMED that the Jews used Hebrew Scripture and expected the CHRIST or Messiah at around 70 CE.

andrewcriddle

If James was a nuisance whom Ananus wanted disposed of, then, in order to preserve any show of legality, Ananus would have to convene a court to try him on capital charges.

(In any society with some sort of rule of law, quite expensive proceedings are generally necessary in order to deal with intrinsically rather unimportant people who make trouble. )

Ananus presumably tried James et al by Sadducaic law, which other groups, eg the Pharisees, apparently regarded as lacking in safeguards for the accused. If others felt that James had been executed without a fair trial then they would have reason to protest about the precedent even if they lacked sympathy for and interest in James himself.

(In the modern world, people who care about due process protest about unfair trials of marginal and unsympathetic people.)

Andrew Criddle

spin

I'm sorry, Andrew, but this is empty speculation based on negative press regarding Sadducean positions. There is no clear surviving Sadducean literature from which you can make substantive claims. You don't even know if Sadducean law was in operation at the time. You merely have confused biblical notions of the Sadducees along with the obviously erroneous material in Josephus.

If Sadducean views were those of major priestly positions at least espoused before the fall of the Hasmoneans, then the Dead Sea Scrolls represent temple views closely related to angels, ie Josephus is off the wall; the DSS are also apocalyptic with some form of messianism, causing problems to Josephus's potted story of his Sadducees. Our sources on the Sadducee views are not trustworthy.

Josephus's count of the death of James is so lacking in content, that one can do nothing more than speculate about it. There seems to be no way to enter further into the story other than through speculation and retrojection.

As Doctor McCoy so frequently said, "he's dead, Jim."

Toto

Some posts concerning Abe's methodology have been split off here, along with other posts that are off topic from the subject of James the Brother of Jesus in Josephus.

TedM

2 questions:

1. Does Josephus in any of his writings discuss the razing of the temple and - if so - does he discuss who did it why or opinions among the people regarding the blame?


2.What is wrong with this scenario?:

First, In the original text Josephus made reference to the razing of the temple and connected it to rising unrest among the people resulting from what had been done to James. Let us not forget that there was disapproval with the killing of James and Josephus seemed sympathetic to that viewpoint, referring to them as 'most equitable': ... but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done

Then, Jews or Romans, unsympathetic to this seeming pro-Christian viewpoint removed the passage sometime after Origen made his comments.

Would not this explain the early reference by Origen and the removal without requiring us to believe that earlier Christians before Origen had interpolated in a section that was interpolated out (removed) when Christian influence would have been even greater?

Doug Shaver

Wrong question.

The right question is: Why believe?

ApostateAbe

It is basically shorthand for, "accept the probability." You bring up an objection that is very common among evolutionists in the Creation v. Evolution debate--it is not that we "believe" in evolution, but that we "accept" the theory as a probable scientific explanation. I never saw so much of a distinction, and they most certainly do "believe" it, but whatever.

Toto

Scientists have many reasons to believe or accept the probability that evolution happened.

You have not presented any strong reasons to think that Josephus described James' brother as "called Christ," using a phrase from the gospels.