Ted Hoffman

Back to Sojourners' post:
One suspicious aspect of the reference to Jesus is that it comes first in the text, that is, the passage reads: “(Ananus) brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, James by name, together with some others . . .” Now why would Josephus think to place the Jesus idea before the James one?
The placement of Jesus before James makes the statement almost incomprehensible one actually needs to read it twice to pick out James (the one the statment addresses) from Jesus and "the christ".
Its disjointed, staccato nature is symptomatic of tampering because the jumbled nature of the statement is not consistent with the flow of a continuous thought that a writer would be expected to have while writing.
Two
Concerning the phrase ...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,
Earl Doherty posits: "if, for the sake of argument, one postulates that Jesus did not exist, could not Josephus have identified his James in some other way?"
What are the possibilities that Josephus ( a devout Jew) could have used the christian phrase "called the christ"? To a non-christian audience?
The phrase is said to be christian because, besides Christians (as opposed to Jews) recognising Jesus as the messiah(the christ), it is also found in the Gospels for example John 4: 25 :..I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
And Matthew 1:16 "...husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Given the evident presence of interpolation in the TF, isn't it possible that this passage too, was interpolated especially given its "christian" expression?

Earl Doherty has refuted the possible counterargument that if it was a christian insertion, it would have been longer by stating "Even a naive copyist would have recognized the limitations he faced. In a tightly-packed account of James’ death and its repercussions on Ananus, there would have been no scope for an extended digression about Jesus".

Three
If Josephus knew nothing about James, could he have inserted this extra info concerning James in that passage?

Now, lets address the question, what did Josephus know about James?

Earl Doherty argues: "The possibility that Josephus knew virtually nothing else about James is suggested by the fact that he never tells us anything (outside the disputed phrase) beyond the fact and basic manner of his death. (Note the difference between this and the long, detailed—and somewhat contradictory—account in Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius!) Josephus does not even attach the common cognomen “the Just” to James, something which a Christian copyist would have felt no necessity to remove. (Yes, the fact that the postulated interpolator did not himself insert James’ common nickname, which presumably would have been known to him, could perhaps be appealed to by dissenters. But it’s a minor point, and might be explained by saying that the words used of James by Josephus—see next—wouldn’t have accommodated sticking in “the Just” too well.)"

Doherty adds: "If Josephus did know nothing more, then he would have been forced to introduce James with no identifying enlargement. He would have used some equivalent to “a certain James” or “someone named James.” Now, what in fact do we find in the Greek? The actual words referring directly to James are: Iakobos onoma autoi. Translations render this “James by name” or “whose name was James” or “a man named James” (the last by Crossan). But such a phrase, or something close to it, could have stood perfectly well on its own (with a slight change in form), and had the reference to a brother Jesus added to it by a Christian interpolator."

And he rewrites the passage thus:
He Concludes:
"Not only does this make good sense, it does not jar within the context of the passage. It would hardly have offended Josephus’ own or his readers’ sensibilities. The passage is not about James (much less about Jesus). It is about the high priest Ananus and his fate. Ananus was deposed because he had executed “a man named James and certain others,” an act which incensed some of the moderates among the influential Jews. The reader didn’t have to know anything further about those who had been stoned, especially if Josephus couldn’t provide it. Or, Josephus may have known something more about this James, but chose not to insert such information into an already loaded passage because he didn’t think that his readers needed to be given that information. Remember that he is primarily writing for a gentile audience who would not have required a detailed picture of every minor character they met along the way. "

Refute these three "objections" Sojourner and reclaim your "solid ground".

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

godfry n. glad

With regards to the Book XX reputed cite of James as the brother of Jesus, called the Christ, Intensity has cited Earl Doherty, in part, and I selected this from that cite:

Along with the arguments from Earl that Intensity has provided, I'd like to emphasize this point.

Remember, we've already dismissed the "He was the Christ" from the interpolated (or redacted) TF as being spurious. That leaves this passing mention of James being the brother of Jesus, called the Christ. This is the ONLY mention of Christ or the Christ concept in any direct fashion in all of the Josephean corpus. Why in the world would Josephus, an apologist of the Jewish faith to the Roman world, introduce a potentially incendiary term into a text written for a primarily Grecophonic Roman and _gentile_ audience _without_ a description of what the intensely Jewish term means? Even if his audience _might_ have had an inkling of the meaning of the term, why would he have even suggested that others thought this Jesus could have been a world-conquering savior of the Jewish people? Would it not fly in the face of Josephus' allusion that Vespasian was the true messiah? (JW 5.4.3) Would not Roman readers have wondered why some would have thought this Jesus might have been on par with Vespasian or Titus?

This, added to what Intensity has already brought to the fore reinforces my supposition that the James cite is also a later interpolation.

godfry n. glad

Ron Garrett

(So you're a Jesus myther. Does that make your wife a Jesus mythus? Sorry. Bad seminarian joke.)

With the sheer commonality of the name Yeshua, and the plethora of would be wise men running around the area I'd almost have to concede that there must have been some guy some where, if not several dozen named Yeshua that stirred up a following sometime between 150BCE and 40CE.

I can certainly concede that the messianic construction built around the character is entirely and intenntionally mythical echoes of Moses and David, but whoever concocted the tales may have had a real person or stories about a real person in mind. It would seem so in that there are story elements that harm the case for Jesus as Messiah that are being explained away, i.e. how can he be the Messiah since he's from Galilee? I grant one can create alternative explanations, but I always like the simple ones, like Mary got pregnant from having sex with someone, Jesus wasn't really from the line of David and that's why the geneologies conflict, Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem so the bogus census was invented, etc. If it's all a fiction then why not eliminate the parts that spark catcalls?.

NOGO

I tend to agree with you. I can't get very excited about whether there really was a Jesus. More important questions for me are

Did Jesus start Christianity or was his story picked up along the way and reformulated?

Some scholars insist that Jesus was not the "anointed one of God" to free the Jews from the Romans yet they ended up with the name Christians and not Jesusians.

Ted Hoffman

Ron Garret,
If it's all a fiction then why not eliminate the parts that spark catcalls?.

Even on examining the story of Robin Hood (of Sherwood forest?), one can find here or there a few items that are not consistent with reality or history. But that is unnecessary because we know the story is not a real story. This knowledge saves us the futility and inanity of attacking a myth.

So determining whether or not the Jesus story is a myth, is "bigger" than taking it apart. You only need take it apart if you accept its historicity but dispute its claims.
I must note however, that making internal criticism can contribute to damaging the veracity of the story hence propagate the idea that its either unreliable or a complete fabrication (a myth). But then again, a poorly told story with a lot of embellishments could still be about a historical being. Demonstrating poor story-telling and flaws in the authors' claims might just prove that the story was written by the wrong people, NOT that the events narrated never took place.

Thats when we step out of the bible. And what do we find?

The answer, as they say, is history.

Sojourner553

Hi Intensity,

First let me say, I do enjoy this discussion with you this time!

Regarding your:

“Oh God, I am aghast that you have posted the testimonium flavianum. For the record, let me demonstrate why it is unacceptable as evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus.”

I can counter all your points. I had already agreed there was tampering. The reason why early Christians would not have been so very eager to quote Josephus was that his matter of fact reporting showed Jesus WAS an ordinary person (ie the tampering to say Josephus believed he was the Christ was added later.) The reason why many contemporaries didn’t write on Jesus was that he was truly a minor character who operated in the backwoods. Josephus writes on him because he is a local Jew and he is writing detailed histories of the region. The Greeks would have not heard of him until much later.

You seemed to gloss over these facts that didn’t fit into your theory. Try again...

My point was never that it is impossible that Jesus was all fiction – just that with the existing evidence a strong case can also be made for a historical person around whom myths were added (a large number of them from the mystery religions.)

Actually my strongest reason for believing there was a historical person – is that there were some events reported in the gospels that were later embarrassing and even opposite to church doctrine.

For example:

(1) Jesus was known to live in Nazareth, but the OT had the messiah born in Bethleham. So the gospel writers Luke and Matthew had to invent childhood stories that Jesus was born in Bethleham (where he could point to OT predictions) but lived in Nazareth. Luke and Matthew have completely different versions of how Jesus got to Nazareth.

Historically, Nazareth was in Galilee which was considered a more backward region of the country, unlike the more metropolitan Jerusalem. So there would be no incentive to "invent" a person here.

Matthew was so determined to find a verse that the messiah would live in Galilee that he INVENTED a verse.

That is, after Matthew described how Jesus left Egypt to go to Nazareth, he states this was done:

"to fulfill the words spoken through the prophets: 'He shall be called a
Nazarene'".

Scholars have vainly searched to find any such reference in the Old Testament.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GOSPEL.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GOSPEL.TXT</a>

(2) It doesn’t make sense that Jesus’ family is reported as not believing in his powers (especially after the “miraculous birth&#8221 :

*When Jesus is informed that his mother and brothers are looking for him,
he replies, "Who are my brother and my brothers?" Then turning to
his followers, he says, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whosoever
does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Mark 3:31-5)


"'Where does he get all this? What is this wisdom that he has been given--
and what about these marvelous things that he can do? He's only the
carpenter, Mary's son, the brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon; and his
sisters are living here with us!'

"And they were deeply offended with him. But Jesus said to them, 'No
prophet goes unmoored--except in his native town or with his own relations
or in his own home!'

"And he could do nothing miraculous there apart from laying his hands on a
few sick people and healing them; their lack of faith astonished him."
(Mark 6:2-6)


The best explanation I have heard of the above is that the Greek faction of Christians was trying to discredit the Jewish faction (run by Jesus’ brother James)

BTW to answer where James is mentioned in the gospels – you can try this:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JERCHRIS.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JERCHRIS.TXT</a>

(3) There are other examples too. The Catholic church has found it very embarrassing in doctrine to explain Jesus’ friendliness to women, and his opposition to the wealthy (like the verse that it is easier for a man to go through the eye of a needle than a wealthy man to go to heaven.&#8221 It is these revolutionary styled phrases the Catholic church has condemned over and over (their interpretation of course)

Why does Jesus call himself always the “Son of Man” while it is others who call him the “Son of God”. The verses of the Trinity appear to be latter interpolations, etc, etc.

-------------------------------------------------

from <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

I'm going to be off for awhile, but will check back several days later.

Sojourner

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner,
I am disapointed that you did not answer a direct question I asked you: whether it is the same James in the NT verse I cited.
I can conjecture that you could not afford to say yes because it would have turned your whole assertion upside down.

...I had already agreed there was tampering.
I am glad you agree that therefore the TF is inadmissible as evidence.

The reason why early Christians would not have been so very eager to quote Josephus was that his matter of fact reporting showed Jesus WAS an ordinary person (ie the tampering to say Josephus believed he was the Christ was added later.)
Blatant speculation! Are you providing your opinion as evidence?
Which early christians? 100 AD? 200 AD?
If he was an ordinary person, why was he cricified? Why would he draw the gentiles to him if he was an ordinary person?

reason why many contemporaries didn’t write on Jesus was that he was truly a minor character who operated in the backwoods.
Operating in the backwoods? Like whipping the money-changers out of the temple? Like walking around with a 12 man army? Like transforming little food to feed thousands? Like turning water to wine?
If he was an ordinary person, how ordinary was he, he had a wife and kids? Why was he killed?
What happened to his body? How do we even know he lived in Nazareth if we dont accept some of the things the evangelists are saying?

Josephus writes on him because he is a local Jew and he is writing detailed histories of the region.
Why should an ordinary person be included in the history of that region? On what basis could Josephus have mentioned him? - Because he was ordinary? Was he the only ordinary person at that time?

You seemed to gloss over these facts that didn’t fit into your theory
Your speculations do not amount to facts at all.

with the existing evidence a strong case can also be made for a historical person around whom myths were added (a large number of them from the mystery religions.)
And what is this existing evidence? Please cite the evidence.

Actually my strongest reason for believing there was a historical person – is that there were some events reported in the gospels that were later embarrassing and even opposite to church doctrine.
We have been over this pick and choose theology before. Vorkosigan asked you how you know whether Mark found the JBap thing embarrasing - you provided no coherent response. Its your "modern" opinion that they are embarrasing.
Someone else can choose to pick some sections and construct a heavenly Jesus to counter your historical one and it will be perfectly valid. Thats why we neet to peer outside the NT.

Your other posts simply serve to enforce my argument that the historical Jesus story was comp-letely fabricated by the evangelists to fit the OT prophesies.

If you have an argument, sit down, formulate it and bring it here. Posting links makes very poor argumentation, unless they are your own, and unless they are very relevant.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sojourner553:
[QB]

Then I applaud Mark McFall for a great site.
My point again was that there are both Jewish and atheist scholars who think Josephus' writings does present evidence there was a historical personnage named Jesus.

I used to have the writings by Josephus, and read those passages. What I'm not sure these scholars tell people in those comments though is Josephus writes about several people named Jesus, not just one. Jesus was a fairly common name in that part of the world during that period.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

Concerning the physical resurrection, scholars say that Paul's writings indicate Paul's view of the resurrection was spiritual, not physical. Paul also displayed no knowledge whatsoever of virgin birth stories, indicating both the resurrection and v.b. stories emerged later in the century as writers embellished the original stories.
I think the human Jesus actually existed, but I think the miracle, v.b., resurrection stories emerged as myth years after he was killed.
Another thing they say is the Romans did not allow crucified victims to be removed from the cross for several days, they certainly wouldn't allow a Jew to remove a body to bury it before the Sabbath.
Exceptions were made for crucified victims belonging to wealthy families, but all evidence uncovered so far points to Jesus being a peasant, with no wealth at all.

Radcliffe Emerson

As I recall also, the Josephus writings mention several different people at the time who were believed to be messiahs. He says people performed magic tricks, fooling the crowds, etc.
The findings at Masada indicated the people there expected more than one Messiah too, so perhaps Josephus was mostly amused when he wrote (or didn't write, based on the opinion) passages about Jesus being called the Christ.