dogsgod wrote:

Stein wrote:

dogsgod wrote:


So a bunch of "Q" sayings were later tossed into an existing gospel story convincing you that the Jesus who preached "Q" was killed by a Roman execution because that's how the story goes. We can now see how these gospels evolved and yet some still believe these things went down as they were presented. Your Occam's razor would suggest that we have a gospel put together by drawing from various sources in order to provide a story. Evidence suggests that there are people that are convinced that these gospels reflect actual events.

Including eyewitnesses like Josephus who saw Jesus's brother killed by stoning.

Stein

Josephus was an eyewitness? That's news.

He was already a grown man living right in Jerusalem when James was stoned. His social circle were the very priestly families who were caught up in the whole controversy of Ananus's hugger-mugger trial of James without the proper authorities in attendance. This has already been pointed out various times in this thread.

Stein

Stein wrote:

dogsgod wrote:

Stein wrote:

Including eyewitnesses like Josephus who saw Jesus's brother killed by stoning.

Stein

Josephus was an eyewitness? That's news.

He was already a grown man living right in Jerusalem when James was stoned. His social circle were the very priestly families who were caught up in the whole controversy of Ananus's hugger-mugger trial of James without the proper authorities in attendance. This has already been pointed out various times in this thread.

Stein

This discussion forum is your source that Josephus was an eyewitness?

dogsgod wrote:

Stein wrote:

dogsgod wrote:

Josephus was an eyewitness? That's news.

He was already a grown man living right in Jerusalem when James was stoned. His social circle were the very priestly families who were caught up in the whole controversy of Ananus's hugger-mugger trial of James without the proper authorities in attendance. This has already been pointed out various times in this thread.

Stein

This discussion forum is your source that Josephus was an eyewitness?

No, certain short biographies of Josephus that I've read here and there -- at least half a dozen in a few modern encyclopedias and history books and elsewhere -- from way before the time that there was even an Internet. From all these biographies, it is quite evident that Josephus was already an alert grown citizen right in Jerusalem when James was stoned and also a member of the priestly families to boot. So Josephus's Antiq. XX is describing something he personally lived through. I don't need the Internet to tell me that.

Stein

Stein wrote:

dogsgod wrote:

Stein wrote:

He was already a grown man living right in Jerusalem when James was stoned. His social circle were the very priestly families who were caught up in the whole controversy of Ananus's hugger-mugger trial of James without the proper authorities in attendance. This has already been pointed out various times in this thread.

Stein

This discussion forum is your source that Josephus was an eyewitness?

No, certain short biographies of Josephus that I've read here and there -- at least half a dozen in a few modern encyclopedias and history books and elsewhere -- from way before the time that there was even an Internet. From all these biographies, it is quite evident that Josephus was already an alert grown citizen right in Jerusalem when James was stoned and also a member of the priestly families to boot. So Josephus's Antiq. XX is describing something he personally lived through. I don't need the Internet to tell me that.

Stein

As long as you're convinced, that's the main thing. All the Christians missed it, so it's a good thing that Josephus was paying attention and wrote it all down thirty years after he supposedly witnessed the brother of Jesus being executed, if "the one called Christ" is not a passed on belief or an interpolation.

dogsgod wrote:

Stein wrote:

dogsgod wrote:
This discussion forum is your source that Josephus was an eyewitness?

No, certain short biographies of Josephus that I've read here and there -- at least half a dozen in a few modern encyclopedias and history books and elsewhere -- from way before the time that there was even an Internet. From all these biographies, it is quite evident that Josephus was already an alert grown citizen right in Jerusalem when James was stoned and also a member of the priestly families to boot. So Josephus's Antiq. XX is describing something he personally lived through. I don't need the Internet to tell me that.

Stein

As long as you're convinced, that's the main thing. All the Christians missed it, so it's a good thing that Josephus was paying attention and wrote it all down thirty years after he supposedly witnessed the brother of Jesus being executed, if "the one called Christ" is not a passed on belief or an interpolation.

I've heard that one before. It won't fly. If it's an interpolation, then the three -- three -- pre-Constantine citations in Origen have to all be interpolations too(!) -- which doesn't fit with the principle of Occam's Razor. Furthermore, I'm not the issue and being convinced is beside the point. There is plain evidence that Josephus was an adult citizen in Jerusalem and part of the same priestly circle that were roiled by Ananus's high-handed lynching of James, not because of James but because Ananus's actions were illegal. Your argument then is with the plain evidence that all modern secular historians accept as clearly showing Josephus to be an alert adult citizen in Jerusalem at the time that James was stoned.

Stein

Stein wrote:

dogsgod wrote:

Stein wrote:

No, certain short biographies of Josephus that I've read here and there -- at least half a dozen in a few modern encyclopedias and history books and elsewhere -- from way before the time that there was even an Internet. From all these biographies, it is quite evident that Josephus was already an alert grown citizen right in Jerusalem when James was stoned and also a member of the priestly families to boot. So Josephus's Antiq. XX is describing something he personally lived through. I don't need the Internet to tell me that.

Stein

As long as you're convinced, that's the main thing. All the Christians missed it, so it's a good thing that Josephus was paying attention and wrote it all down thirty years after he supposedly witnessed the brother of Jesus being executed, if "the one called Christ" is not a passed on belief or an interpolation.

I've heard that one before. It won't fly. If it's an interpolation, then the three -- three -- pre-Constantine citations in Origen have to all be interpolations too(!) -- which doesn't fit with the principle of Occam's Razor. Furthermore, I'm not the issue and being convinced is beside the point. There is plain evidence that Josephus was an adult citizen in Jerusalem and part of the same priestly circle that were roiled by Ananus's high-handed lynching of James, not because of James but because Ananus's actions were illegal. Your argument then is with the plain evidence that all modern secular historians accept as clearly showing Josephus to be an alert adult citizen in Jerusalem at the time that James was stoned.

Stein

There's no problem with a James, brother of Jesus being executed, but was he the brother of the Jesus in question? All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus which in turn leaves the question wide open.

dogsgod wrote:

Stein wrote:

dogsgod wrote:


As long as you're convinced, that's the main thing. All the Christians missed it, so it's a good thing that Josephus was paying attention and wrote it all down thirty years after he supposedly witnessed the brother of Jesus being executed, if "the one called Christ" is not a passed on belief or an interpolation.

I've heard that one before. It won't fly. If it's an interpolation, then the three -- three -- pre-Constantine citations in Origen have to all be interpolations too(!) -- which doesn't fit with the principle of Occam's Razor. Furthermore, I'm not the issue and being convinced is beside the point. There is plain evidence that Josephus was an adult citizen in Jerusalem and part of the same priestly circle that were roiled by Ananus's high-handed lynching of James, not because of James but because Ananus's actions were illegal. Your argument then is with the plain evidence that all modern secular historians accept as clearly showing Josephus to be an alert adult citizen in Jerusalem at the time that James was stoned.

Stein

There's no problem with a James, brother of Jesus being executed, but was he the brother of the Jesus in question? All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus which in turn leaves the question wide open.

And so it goes, 'round and 'round and 'round. This thread is becoming the Web's own special version of Sartre's NO EXIT.

Stein

Stein wrote:

dogsgod wrote:



There's no problem with a James, brother of Jesus being executed, but was he the brother of the Jesus in question? All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus which in turn leaves the question wide open.

And so it goes, 'round and 'round and 'round. This thread is becoming the Web's own special version of Sartre's NO EXIT.

Stein

If you say so.

While Stein takes part in his kermess, once again the reference to Jesus in AJ 20.200 is leaned on by those who have nothing better. Let's briefly look at the issue.

We know this about Josephus:

• His history is an apology for the Jews and he was a believer in the Jewish religion.
• He has omitted every use of christ from his Septuagint source.
• He doesn't use the inverted word order "the brother/father of X named Y" anywhere other than when he has either just mentioned X or X is a well-known figure found elsewhere in his text.

We know this about AJ.20

• It is the only place that is accepted as a reference to christ and it is conveniently used for Jesus, who could not fulfill the Jewish notion of Messiah that Josephus had available.
• There is no textual justification of the word order "the brother of Jesus called christ named James"

The word order is unaccountably disturbed and the text unaccountable features a reference to the messiah. The text is problematical. The ingenuous response comes but word order is not a big hurdle and if Jesus was referred to by the title christ, then obviously Josephus would use it. The first response is the equivalent of admitting the linguistic issue is beyond the respondent, while the second indicates the respondent wasn't paying attention.

It seems that the only thing that those who claim it is original can see is that the four Greek words for "brother of Jesus called christ" are the same as what is in AJ 20:200. Origen also includes the epithet "the Just" to James's name, which was not found in AJ 20, but was found in Hegesippus. Origen's full statement is "James the Just brother of Jesus called christ", while AJ 20 has "the brother of Jesus called christ named James", not particularly that similar. It doesn't matter that three of the four Greek words were already in use in Mt 1:16, "Jesus called christ". All it needed was for Origen, while writing his commentary on Matt, to decide that he would not use Hegesippus's "the lord's brother", but rather substitute the Matthean "Jesus called christ" for "lord". Depending on the four words to be the only ones derived from Josephus is deperate.

Worse still, if "christ" were original to the text, the term wouldn't have meant anything sensible to the reader, for the term in ordinary Greek meant "ointment" and the word is not defined or qualified in the text, so the unexplained use of it would have been incomprehensible, "Jesus called ointment". The term "christ" only had significance within a Judeo-christian context.

Hegesippus, Origen and Eusebius

We can trace the trajectory of understanding regarding the phrase "the brother of Jesus called christ named James" in the church fathers. Hegesippus knows about "the brother of the lord James" who is "called the Just" and tells the story of his death, relating it to the fall of Jerusalem. (Eusebius EH 2.23.4ff.) (The name Hegesippus has been confused with Josephus.)

Origen, who has apparently read Hegesippus, relates the same fact that the death of "James the Just the brother of Jesus called christ" (note the change in nomenclature) is the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. Origen, previously talking about John the Baptist in AJ 18, moves on to talk about James from Josephus whereas his source seems to be Hegesippus (the name confused with Josephus). Interestingly, Josephus knows nothing about the death this James causing the fall of Jerusalem: he attributes that to the death of Ananus in BJ 4.318. Origen first uses the James description in his commentary on Matthew, where he also found the phrase "Jesus called christ", a worthy substitute for "the lord" in Hegesippus's own borrowed phrase, "the brother of the lord James".

Eusebius, who collected the Hegesippus quotation in his EH 2.23, cites along with it the Origen passage about James, but attributes it to Josephus, as a separate passage from AJ 20.200 which he also cites, unable to see that Origen was supposedly referring to the same passage. Eusebius has simply assumed that Origen was quoting a passage from Josephus! And that passage is different from the one he knew.

Origen did not cite from AJ 20:200, despite those who claim that "the brother of the lord James" must have come from Josephus. Origen doesn't know anything about Josephus's discourse. The simplest explanation of the evidence is that he got his information from Hegesippus and later confused it with Josephus, hence the unreferenced use after a comment about JtB found in AJ 18, which Origen had known about. Origen is no direct help for us in understanding the reference to James in AJ 20:200, but he helps us see the trajectory for how mention of Jesus could have crept into AJ 20.200. As Eusebius wrongly took Origen's passage to have really been written by Josephus, any scribe could have made the same mistake and found the reference to James in AJ 20 missing the reference seen in Origen and added a marginal note "the brother of Jesus called christ" because of Origen. It then was incorporated in the next copy by the scribe thinking it was an omission.

spin wrote:
Origen, who has apparently read Hegesippus, relates the same fact that the death of "James the Just the brother of Jesus called christ" (note the change in nomenclature) is the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. Origen, previously talking about John the Baptist in AJ 18, moves on to talk about James from Josephus whereas his source seems to be Hegesippus (the name confused with Josephus). Interestingly, Josephus knows nothing about the death this James causing the fall of Jerusalem: he attributes that to the death of Ananus in BJ 4.318. Origen first uses the James description in his commentary on Matthew, where he also found the phrase "Jesus called christ", a worthy substitute for "the lord" in Hegesippus's own borrowed phrase, "the brother of the lord James".

And BTW, it just so happens that precisely because Hegesippus also happens to mention the death of James, that can be seen as corroboration of the Josephus account of James's death in the first place.

Stein

Stein wrote:

spin wrote:
Origen, who has apparently read Hegesippus, relates the same fact that the death of "James the Just the brother of Jesus called christ" (note the change in nomenclature) is the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. Origen, previously talking about John the Baptist in AJ 18, moves on to talk about James from Josephus whereas his source seems to be Hegesippus (the name confused with Josephus). Interestingly, Josephus knows nothing about the death this James causing the fall of Jerusalem: he attributes that to the death of Ananus in BJ 4.318. Origen first uses the James description in his commentary on Matthew, where he also found the phrase "Jesus called christ", a worthy substitute for "the lord" in Hegesippus's own borrowed phrase, "the brother of the lord James".

And BTW, it just so happens that precisely because Hegesippus also happens to mention the death of James, that can be seen as corroboration of the Josephus account of James's death in the first place.

Stein

As long as you ignore what spin explained, which is what I was hinting at when I stated that all three of Origen's citations appear in a context that is not known from Josephus' passages. You don't seem to understand that or just plain well choose to ignore it. The only problem for you is that it isn't ignored by everyone.

Stein wrote:

spin wrote:
Origen, who has apparently read Hegesippus, relates the same fact that the death of "James the Just the brother of Jesus called christ" (note the change in nomenclature) is the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. Origen, previously talking about John the Baptist in AJ 18, moves on to talk about James from Josephus whereas his source seems to be Hegesippus (the name confused with Josephus). Interestingly, Josephus knows nothing about the death this James causing the fall of Jerusalem: he attributes that to the death of Ananus in BJ 4.318. Origen first uses the James description in his commentary on Matthew, where he also found the phrase "Jesus called christ", a worthy substitute for "the lord" in Hegesippus's own borrowed phrase, "the brother of the lord James".

And BTW, it just so happens that precisely because Hegesippus also happens to mention the death of James, that can be seen as corroboration of the Josephus account of James's death in the first place.

The account of James's death doesn't need corroboration. The phrase "the brother of Jesus called christ named James" does in the context it is found in AJ 20.200. Hegesippus doesn't corroborate the content of AJ 20, knowing nothing of Ananus in the context, nor about Albinus or any of the other content. Hegesippus makes a good source for Origen but has little in common with AJ 20.200. Hegesippus makes a good candidate for Origen's material on the death of James. Origen shows no substantive sign of ever having read AJ 20. He can mention book 18 regarding JtB, but not book 20. That's convenient.

I'll leave you to your desperation.

Stein wrote:

I've read numerous arguments against the authenticity of the second Josephus reference, Antiq. XX. I find none of those arguments against it compelling, and I find that many of them violate the principle of Occam's Razor. Until I find an argument that doesn't violate it, I find it more likely that Antiq. XX is authentic than that it isn't....

Over 1500 years ago Christian writers claimed "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 was authentic but that Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost.

Authenticity is IRRELEVANT to the described nature of Jesus.

Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome were Christian writers that implied that "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 was authentic and that Jesus was GOD INCARNATE and FATHERED by the Holy Ghost of God.

And, even further, Jesus believers of antiquity and up now do NOT worship Men as Gods so it DEFIES Occam's Razor that Jesus in the NT Jesus was publicly KNOWN and considered a man who had ZERO ability to save mankind from Sin and yet worshiped as a God in order to provide SALVATION through his death and resurrection on the THIRD day.

It is LEAST likely that the Jesus cult began as a publicly KNOWN LIE but far more likely that Jesus was BELIEVED to be a Child of a Holy Ghost and the CREATOR as described in the NT.

Occam's razor destroys HJ.

Jesus was just a MYTH fable like all the other Myth fables of antiquity that ancient people believed were true.

We know that Christians of antiquity BELIEVED Marcion's Phantom, without birth and flesh, was a "figure of history" and WORSHIPED the PHANTOM as the Son of a God that came down from heaven to Capernaum.

Occam's razor supports Myth Jesus.

.

Stein wrote:..... the notion that there was a strictly human Jesus who preached many of the things found in "Q" and who was killed stone-dead by a Roman execution as a result of those preachings appears to be more likely historical than not...

"Q" is HYPOTHETICAL. No document has been EVER found that is called "Q". You are arguing about the "historical Jesus" from SILENCE and your IMAGINATION.

Please , show me "Q" or cease making statements that cannot be corroborated.

spin wrote:

Stein wrote:

spin wrote:
Origen, who has apparently read Hegesippus, relates the same fact that the death of "James the Just the brother of Jesus called christ" (note the change in nomenclature) is the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. Origen, previously talking about John the Baptist in AJ 18, moves on to talk about James from Josephus whereas his source seems to be Hegesippus (the name confused with Josephus). Interestingly, Josephus knows nothing about the death this James causing the fall of Jerusalem: he attributes that to the death of Ananus in BJ 4.318. Origen first uses the James description in his commentary on Matthew, where he also found the phrase "Jesus called christ", a worthy substitute for "the lord" in Hegesippus's own borrowed phrase, "the brother of the lord James".

And BTW, it just so happens that precisely because Hegesippus also happens to mention the death of James, that can be seen as corroboration of the Josephus account of James's death in the first place.

The account of James's death doesn't need corroboration. The phrase "the brother of Jesus called christ named James" does in the context it is found in AJ 20.200. Hegesippus doesn't corroborate the content of AJ 20, knowing nothing of Ananus in the context, nor about Albinus or any of the other content. Hegesippus makes a good source for Origen but has little in common with AJ 20.200. Hegesippus makes a good candidate for Origen's material on the death of James. Origen shows no substantive sign of ever having read AJ 20. He can mention book 18 regarding JtB, but not book 20. That's convenient.

I'll leave you to your desperation.

None of this matters to people whose minds are made up.

PeterI wrote:
You seem willing to denigrate ancient sources for Jesus...

Ancient sources are the whole problem. Well, not the whole problem. If some people weren't desperate for Meat Jesus, this whole shebang would be more trouble than it was worth.

I understand the need that Xians feel, since their Truth is about Jeebus being fully god and fully man. But atheists? Truth?

Then again, this whole 'respect for ancient sources' leaves a few stones unturned.

Cito di Pense wrote:But atheists? Truth?

Atheists for a real historical Jesus.

The HJ argument is extremely weak.

It has already been shown that authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 has ZERO effect on the nature of Jesus as described in the NT.

Origen, Eusebius and Origen all implied that "Antiquities of the Jews" was authentic and STILL claimed Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost.

Examine "Against Celsus"1 by Origen.

......let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost..... that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage........ it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus.....

It is clear that the claim of authenticity is IRRELEVANT to the described nature of Jesus in the NT. The Church considered that "Antiquities of the Jews" was AUTHENTIC and that Jesus was a CHILD of a Holy Ghost.

The myth of the historical Jesus

The historical Jesus is not a refection of events of 2000 years ago, but of relatively recent cultural developments. This is not to say that the Jesus of christian literature never existed, but that the recent attempts to historicize the figure is not the result of historical research. The historical Jesus was born of the fruits of the Enlightenment, the period which saw the rise of historical research and the origin of modern scientific thought. Until relatively recently there was no need to subject Jesus to historical research: earlier histories were merely the effort to tell the story of the past, based on the literature handed down. They used a hermeneutic (dealing with literary interpretation) process. Christian literature was just one of those bodies of written resources handed down. It did as well as any other written sources if not better, as it had been preserved in the higher strictures of the scribal process and there were many more exemplars preserved to show the quality of the traditions.

The notion of a historical Jesus was not available before the development of historiographical methodologies from the Enlightenment onwards. To talk of people in the ancient past who believed in the historical Jesus is an anachronism. They may have believed that Jesus was real, but they did not have any notion of historical methodology to convert that belief into history as we know the term.

As our culture changed to reflect the necessities of science and education, theologians took on board the effects of these changes, which involved the application of more modern historiographical principles to their analyses of christian literature. This led to the search for Jesus based on a semblance of historical methodology, the "historical" Jesus from the late 19th century. There had been manifestations of more methodical analyses of christian literature before then but they were not labelled as historical before Schweitzer chronicled the evolution of the idea that ended up in the title of his book "The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede". (This line of investigation was taken to its logical conclusion by Rudolf Bultmann, who could not find any history in the gospels, a rather unsatisfactory conclusion for most, a conclusion which stimulated a redefinition of the quest which, still involving the assumption of the reality of Jesus, sought more fruitful avenues to continue.)

The notion of the historical Jesus was born at the beginning of the 20th century. It is the result of a cultural development that saw a rise in education standards at the core of which were paedagogical versions of scientific methods. A developing universal education with the standards of science at its heart fostered the development of understanding the christian religion in terms of history and reason overlaying the faith on which the religion rests.

Paradoxically the historical Jesus is not about the past so much as about modern cultural needs. Institutions need a historical and scientific basis, hence the absorption of a certain modicum of modern scientific rigor into the theological approach of the more rational fringes of the religion. Ordinary people with ordinary modern educations cannot but think scientifically to some degree. Some semblance of evidence is required for any conclusion. Jesus is no exception. For most it is sufficient to think that the bible supplies the evidence. But at the forefront of Jesus research the standards are higher. The bible is the starting point of critical research rather than the font of knowledge. Functional criteria were developed with which to massage history out of the biblical literature, criteria that are hermeneutic rather than historical. They tend to reify (or create reality out of ideas) rather than uncover a past reality.

The net result of these developments is the invention of a modern cultural phenomenon, the Historical Jesus, a reflection not of the past but of modern thought. As a shared cultural phenomenon rather than a reflection of reality, the Historical Jesus is a modern myth.

spin wrote:.... As a shared cultural phenomenon rather than a reflection of reality, the Historical Jesus is a modern myth.

The historical Jesus is indeed Myth but are you still agnostic?