Skeptical

No problem, I have been away for several days myself. As I said, I think the evidence is scant on both sides of the question, but there are a few things I think would have to be accounted for in order to make a solid case for a mythical Jesus:

1) Paul's visit to the "apostles" in Jeruselem, Paul had a decidedly inclusive view of the term "apostle", but still seems to see "the twelve" as of separate importance (he references them when talking of "appearances")

2) The references by both Paul and Josephus to James as the brother of Jesus. I've stated why I think Paul's reference refers to kinsip earlier in this thread. The Josephus reference has been debated, but I agree with Peter Kirby's assessment of its authenticity. (not the TF, only the reference to James)

3) Despite obvious similarities between Mystery religion mythology and christian mythology, it seems to be indisputable that early in the christian movement (1st or very early 2nd) there was a wide belief that Jesus was a real person.

If Paul was one of the chief proponents of early Christianity, and it is admitted that Paul seems uninterested in an earthly Jesus, whence came the widespread belief? If we posit that the belief that Jesus was a real person was not widespread in Paul's time, how do we account for it's appearance in the 20-30 years between Paul's letters and Mark? we can theorize how this belief could have taken hold, but without positive evidence for a particular theory, it seems far simpler to assume that Jesus did exist, however mythologized he became after his death.

Ted Hoffman

Peter,
As you have correctly observed, we were getting bogged down with petty disputes. In this regard, I will focus on my arguments against authenticity.
My argument is triple pronged:
1. That Josephus could not have referred to Jesus as "called Christ"
2. That Josephus could not have referred to James as the brother of Jesus
3. Incongruity objection

1. That Josephus could not have referred to Jesus as "called Christ"

• a) The presence of the phrase "called the Christ" makes sense if he was referring to a subject he had addressed earlier. Given that this was a gentile audience, who were likely to be ignorant of the meaning of the term, they would have been distracted into asking "called by who", "why was he called Christ" or "what does Christ mean?" Introducing a new term to an unclear subject without elaborating on its meaning or significance to the readers would have served to distract the audience by raising questions. The presence of this phrase would only be fitting if antiquities 18 were authentic and extant then, because if that were the case the readers would not have all these questions concerning who Christ was or what Christ meant. Given that Antiquities 18 has been accepted as an interpolation, the phrase called Christ is inappropriate and sticks out like a sore thumb in the passage and renders it almost incoherent.
• b) "Called the Christ" presents a Christian view (even though it might not imply assent) and is thus biased and NOT neutral (because it begs the question "called by who?"). It goes without saying that Jesus was called Christ by Christians at that time and the idea that Jesus was called christ was not so ubiquitous in mid first century, in fact most of the Jews are known to have considered Jesus as an imposter. It's also known that during the first century the Jews and Christians were greatly polarized over the question about whether or not Jesus was the messiah. Given Josephus' Jewish ness, it is very likely that Josephus would have sought to use a neutral term regarding Jesus (due to the dramatic and contentious nature of the issue), if he felt compelled to elaborate on who he was. There could have been many neutral expressions, a ready one, which Earl Doherty suggests is "the one who was crucified by Pontius Pilate".
  Besided the term appearing in the NT three times, that Matthew also used the term called Christ in referring to Jesus in the NT also suggests that it was a term Christians used to refer to their "Lord", unless it can be argued that Matthew felt a need to be neutral concerning Jesus' stature in Matthew 1:16.
  As James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, p. 92f, says:
  
  
  Quote:

  It appears likely that Josephus referred to Jesus, but certainly not in the form preserved in the Greek manuscripts."(p. 94). "Behind the Christian interpolations or redactions is a tradition that derives from Josephus. The Jewish historian did apparently refer to Jesus of Nazareth." (p. 96). "The Greek recension, minus the Christian interpolations, reveals how a first-century Jew probably categorized Jesus: He was a rebellious person and disturber of the elusive peace; but he was also a wise person who performed 'surprising', perhaps even wonderful works, and was followed by many Jews and Gentiles. The Arabic version [of Josephus] provides textual justification for excising the Christian passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in "Antiquities 18", but certainly not in such favorable terms." (p. 98)

  The argument that Josephus was not writing for a Jewish audience but a gentile and therefore did not care for the sensibilities of the Jews one only makes sense if Josephus was a renegade Jew. In any case, at the time, Christians were very few. Why would Josephus then, have chosen to share with the readers the opinion of a minority group? More importantly what are the chances that Josephus would have chosen to present the view of a minority group who he differed with?

2. That Josephus could not have referred to James as the brother of Jesus

• The fact that Josephus does not write anything on James other than his manner of death suggests that he knew nothing else about James. As I have argued before, James righteousness preceded him and most who knew him knew him as "James The Just" as both Eusebius and Origen call him. Even Origen underlines that Joephus said that the righteousness of James was so great that when he died, the Jews believed the calamities befell them because of the death of James.
  
  If Josephus knew something little about James, it is likely that he would have known James for his righteousness (ie as James the Just) but the passage would have us believe that Josephus knew Jesus' brother who only happened to be called James (ie he knew Jesus had a brother called James). (contrast this with James' brother who was called Jesus).
  Besides, the inappropriate placement of the words "a brother of Jesus called the christ" before the name of James makes it appear as if Josephus is about to dwell on Jesus, then only later does he say that Jesus' brother was James. This greatly reduces the coherence of the passage and is a sign that the passage had been tampered with. As Crossan suggested "a man named James" could have served the purpose. It is very unlikely that Josephus could have felt compelled to introduce James kinship to Jesus plus what Jesus was called by other people in a passage addressing Ananas' fate where James was not even the main character.
• c) As Earl Doherty argues, Josephus was writing to a gentile audience who would not have required a detailed profile of every minor character. Including Jesus relationship to James and what a minor group of Jews called Jesus is unwarranted and questionable.
• d) The disjointed and icongruous structure of the passage to accomodate "the brother of Jesus, the one called the Christ" is evidence of tampering. Why would Josephus place Jesus before James? yet Jesus brotherhood would have been included only to make James identity clearer? This is questionable.
  
  In addition, from Josephus' writings, he appears reticent about the question of christ and the messianic expectaions of the Jews and does not describe the ethos and the drama that it entailed, and when he does (in The Jewish War), it is in a very cursory fashion. It is therefore surprising that he would introduce the subject when it is unnecessary and in such an a manner that would appear like he was "forcing" the issue.

3. Incongruity objection

• a) As Origen states, in Matthew 10.17, Josephus too believed the calamities that befell the Jews were due to what they did to James. But how can this be so yet Josephus narrates in Antiquities 20 that it was Ananas who killed James against the wishes of the Jews? Could Josephus have held two conflicting views concerning the same issue? Would Origen have had a "confused" recollection concerning what Josephus wrote?
• b) Given that Josephus was writing for a largely Roman audience, and that the Romans were the ones who had destroyed Jerusalem, wouln't Josephus have been misreporting the true events by attributing the fall of Jerusalem to Gods punishment as opposed to Roman conquest? Would he have attributed the fall of Jerusalem to Gods wrath given that as Earl Doherty says, in Jewish War 3.5.8, Josephus said his purposes in writing was "to deter others who may be tempted to revolt"
  There is no reason to believe that Josephus as a historian, had the impertinence to take the Liberty to record his own(superstitious) beliefs and NOT record the correct history of the events that actually took place.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Peter
Here is my refutation of your arguments for authenticity.
Your first argument was:

1. Origen refers to Josephus in identifying James as "the brother of Jesus called Christ," first in the Commentary on Matthew and twice later in Contra Celsus. The evidence shows that Origen's copy had the phrase in Josephus. As a matter of fact, this is the earliest quoted phrase in the entire twenty book Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus. This is textual evidence of the highest order. Unless there are strong reasons for believing that the phrase is interpolated, we are justified in accepting it as part of Josephus.
This is a very strong argument. But the reliability of Origens' testimony is critical to its validity since he is being used to corroborate the claim that the "phrases" are authentic to Josephus. Can we rely on Origen to tell us exactly what Josephus wrote while what Origen says directly conflicts with what Josephus wrote?
Origen tells us three times (Commentary on Matthew 10:17, Against Celsus 1.47, and Against Celsus 2.13) that Josephus believed the "calamities" befell the Jews because of their "hand" in the death of James, YET Josephus in Antiquities 20 clearly says that it was Ananas who killed James against the wishes of the Jews. Could Josephus as an eyewitness historian have interpreted the result of Roman conquest as punishment from God for something the Jews did not do as he makes clear in Antiquities 20?
Are there any chances that Origen might have confused Josephus' sentiments with someone elses while he was grinding his religious axe?

In the face of this stark contradiction between what Origen says and what Antiquities 20 says, can we rely on Origen's testimony? In my view, Origen can not be relied upon to provide us with an accurate account concerning what Josephus wrote on James' and Jesus or their relationship. Therefore the presence of the phrases in Origens' testimonies cannot be held up as evidence that the phrases existed in Josephus' writings. For all we know, it could be a coincidence there is some similarity since there is a glaring contradiction and lack of consistency when juxtaposing what Origen claims Josephus wrote and what Josephus actually wrote. Maybe Josephus' recollection concerning what Josephus wrote was impaired thus NOT reliable.

&lt;end of counter-argument&gt;

&lt;postscript to first counter-argument - feel free to ignore&gt;

It is incumbent upon those advocating for Origens testimony to explain away the conflict between what Origen says and Josephus passage in Antiquities 20. If being apologetic about this incongruence involves the impertinence of speculating about missing references and NOT present evidence, then that reduces the argument to special pleading. In the absence of evidence, it is my opinion that we should withhold judgement. Nobody is holding a gun over our heads over this.
&lt;end of postscript&gt;

2. Neither the hypothesis of deliberate insertion or marginal gloss provide a good explanation of the facts, while the hypothesis of authenticity works quite well because it makes sense that Josephus might identify James through his better-known brother and identify Jesus through his most common cognomen.

About "providing a good explanation", the statement addresses an argument I did NOT make (the marginal gloss argument) BUT it implies that you admit something needs to be explained (what you call "the facts"). Do you then admit that there is a problem with the passage and there is need for an explanation?
Doesn't the fact that Antiquities 20 fits well with Antiquities 18 in place offer a possibility that they were both interpolated since without Antiquities 18 Antiquities 20 appears problematic?
My arguments against authenticity address the second part of this argument.

2A. The hypothesis of deliberate insertion does not make sense because, contrary to certain baseless assertions, the phrase does not contain any theological affirmation or christological assent. Since the matter of the existence of Jesus does not seem to have been disputed in antiquity, and because nobody quotes from 20.200 to prove the existence of Jesus or the Messiahship of Jesus, the phrase does not make sense as a deliberate falsification of the text.
I have deftly dropped "assent". Now I am arguing that it amounted to presenting a "christian view" Christians at that time were (a) a minority group and (b) Josephus did not agree with them concerning Jesus' messianic claims. What are the chances he could have chosen to present their view regarding Jesus?

Motive of the people who could have done the insertion is not critical to the argument. As critical skeptics, we need motive of supposed interpolators. Its enough to establish that interpolation is likely to have taken place. The job of christian apologists is to explain away the incongruities but if there is an available explanation for skeptics, the better.

2B. The hypothesis of a marginal gloss, which was later incorporated into the text, is also not a very good explanation. A search of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, the extracanonical writings, and the New Testament will produce no instance in which James is identified as "the brother of Jesus" (let alone "the brother of Jesus called Christ"). It is thus not likely to be a phrase to come naturally from a Christian pen when identifying James.

Marginall gloss again, thus not needy of my defence.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>