Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

quote:

---

The fact is there is no independent corroborating historical evidence of the existence of a Jesus Christ outside of the bible. All future mentions of this character are tied the gospels. Nowhere else in the historical record does this person exist. The character is as much a myth as Prester John and William Tell.

---

I was reading a multi-volume historical set recently, and after covering the fall of the Manichean Kingdom (762-843) in East Turkestan (ethnic Uyghur), a comment was made that this was almost certainly the historical kernel for the Prester John legend.The irony was that Prester John was seen as "orthodox".And he was seen as contemporary (not from a fallen kingdom from centuries ago) .But Paul is different.Paul's life is dated by scholars/historians to the EXACT same time as Jesus (plus he lived almost 4 full decades longer), and his extant Christian writings date as early as 50-52 (I Thessalonians), as the same historians will broadly agree.

Care to provide sources and actual data, rather than just assertion.
Prester John was a myth, doesn't matter where the idea came from he was a myth.
Paul was not an eyewitness to any Jesus character and never claimed to. He does not even treat the Jesus if his teachings as a historical character.

It isn't exactly a heavy lift to show that Paul was born before 20 A.D., and that he wrote EXISTING LETTERS as a Christian.Paul lived during the time of Jesus and his family, apostles, etc.He was a contemporary.Prester John, on the other hand, was just a vague rumor. An orthodox king who ruled a kingdom in the midst of a mass of non-Christian territory. (Armenia did exist btw. But it was much closer to Palestine than was where the land PT was supposed to have lived and ruled in. The Prester John story gave Crusaders hope for powerful allies to fund crusades.)

quote:

---

He does not even treat the Jesus if his teachings as a historical character.

---

Paul did not see Jesus during his life.But he communicated with people who actually LIVED WITH HIM.Paul communicated with James (bro of Jesus).And most historians do find the Josephus text to be a non-Christian witness to both James and Jesus, especially the part that describes James' death.(Your claims are crank stuff)

No and no. There is no evidence of this. Paul makes comments of brother of Jesus, but this probably meant like it does in some churches now. Where people are brother and sister in Christ. Also, just because people make a claim it does not make it true. There is no corroborating evidence of this meeting or that this James had a brother who was Jesus Christ. No they do not. How can someone be witness to something that happened before they were born? Even if it is original Josephus and not an interpolation, it is just Josephus relaying stories. Unlike the vast majority of Josephus the jesus parts have no corroboration. Josephus is not and cannot be used as evidence of the historicity of the jesus christ character.
There is no contemporary, first hand evidence for the existence of this character. Paul, in all personas, never talks about the actual life of the character or that there was a historical existence

James, brother of Jesus "who is called Christ", died 61 or 62, in Jerusalem.(Josephus is one major source and he said what I have in quotes)Just a few years before the revolt that Josephus covered (and which the histories of the period are based).

I put JOSEPHUS WHO IS CALLED CHRIST into google.Here is a link supporting his type of argumentsThe brother of Jesus called Christ: another Eusebian footprint in Josephus? – Vridar(There are two references to Jesus CHRIST in Josephus, and Theodoric was thinking of the more controversial one, which was a reference to Jesus during his life in the 20s or possibly the early 30s. The one I was referring to was a description of James' death in the early 60s. This site above attacks the less controversial 60s event w/ the reference to Jesus)My take on this site and its argument.First:This vridar site seems ignorant of the fact that Josephus' first language was Hebrew/Aramaic (Jospehus had to have help translating his work into Greek), which is forgivable since all we have extant today is Greek and Latin.Second:This whole "Christ" issue might not be such a big thing if one understands that written gospels (like the Greek Mark and Matthew) already existed by 93 A.D., WHEN Josephus wrote. Why would Jospehus need to explain something that could have begun to be understood by educated readers by his time?(Nevermind the original Hebrew text Jospephus wrote with the likely awareness among his HEBREW AUDIENCE which also would have allowed Jospehus to take into his consideration the possibility that certain minor historical details would have been understood by certain people though EVER MORE annotations would have helped a much larger audience understand every last microscopic detail)

Josephus had no first hand knowledge of Jesus or a brother James. There is no corroborating information for anything in the works of Josephus about Jesus or James.I am not confused, I just require standards to be followed for all historical claims.

What are your sources?

I said that Josephus chronologically placed James' death in 61-62 A.D., then Theodoric responded, saying, "What are your sources?"He is saying that standard acceptance of the extant Greek Josephus text is wrong, I assume.(I will quote it after I get done quoting Theodoric)Then Theodoric said:

quote:

---

Josephus had no first hand knowledge of Jesus or a brother James. There is no corroborating information for anything in the works of Josephus about Jesus or James.

​

I am not confused, I just require standards to be followed for all historical claims.

---

First of all, "corroborating information", I assume, means that you want a second non-Christian souce from the first century, or else the Josephus text will be thrown out.Josephus lived in Jerusalem in the early 60s, exactly when James died.(The Acts of the Apostles places James in Jerusalem as late as 57/58)Theodoric made this comment earlier:

quote:

---

How can someone be witness to something that happened before they were born? Even if it is original Josephus and not an interpolation, it is just Josephus relaying stories.

---

He got 2 people to agree with him.Here I quote the the Josephus text, in which Josephus covered an event that happened while Josephus lived in the very city it happened.The text is used from this series of articles (I will respond to the site's arguments later)The brother of Jesus called Christ: another Eusebian footprint in Josephus? – VridarBrother of Jesus called Christ / 2 – Vridar

quote:

---

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator.

​

But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus.

​

Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests.

​

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority].

​

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

​

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; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.

​

Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

---

The most relevant part is:"brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:"This is the extant Greek text that we all have today.This site neglects to mention that Josephus originally wrote the text in Aramaic, which I would rate as unforgivable, considering the argument (lifted from Earl Doherty) it uses to cast the text's authenticity in doubt (claiming textual insertions into parts of it anyway).Here is a work that defends the text against later Christian editing

quote:

---

Shattering the Christ Myth
By James Patrick Holding

​

p.47

​

The evidence for the authenticity of the entire passage is overwhelming. As Steve Mason points out, it fits well "into both the larger and smaller contexts of Ant. 20." 83 Much of the language is typical not only of Josephus, but of the unique word-choices he employs beginning in this chapter and not before. 84 We may also note the emphasis of the passage. It does not focus on Jesus or even James, but on Ananus the high priest. There is no praise for James or Jesus. This is not what we would expect if this were an interpolation. 85

​

Additionally, Josephus' account of the stoning of James is quite different than the account given by the second-century church chronicler Hegesippus, who has James being thrown from the roof of the Temple and clubbed to death. 86 This would be an unlikely move for an interpolator seeking to insert a Christian tradition that was widespread at the time. All told, the evidence for the genuineness of the passage is overwhelming.

​

In light of this evidence, skeptics have become less ambitious. Rather than challenge the entire section as an interpolation, they concede that most of it is suthentic but that the phrase, "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ" has been assed by a motivated or careless Christian scribe. 87 Thus, the passage originally referred to an unidentified "James," but did not associate him with Jesus or Christianity. This attempt to maintain a passage consistent with the Jesus Myth is unpersuasive.

​

Several features of the reference to "brother of Jesus the Christ" make it very unlikely that a later Christian scribe would have added it. First, the designation of James as the "brother of Jesus" contrasts with Christian practice of referring to him as the "brother of the Lord" or "brother of the Savior." Galatians 1:19 refers to James as "the brother of the Lord," showing much more respect. I Cor. 9:5 refers to "the brothers of the Lord and Cephas," referring to Jesus with heightened respect, but not Cephas (Peter). Nowhere in the New Testament is James referred to as the "brother of Jesus." Later Christian writings similarly adopt more elevated language when referring to James' relationship with Jesus. Hegesippus refers to "James, the brother of the Lord", "a cousin of the Lord", and "the brothers of the Savior." 88 In short, the passage "squares neither with New Testament nor with early patristic usage." 89 While we would expect a Jewish author to identify James as the "brother of Jesus" it would be against the grain for a Christian to do so.90

​

An often overlooked argument for authenticity is that at the time the alleged interpolation would have been added, Christians were downplaying, not emphasizing, James' familial relationship with Jesus. According to Alice Whealey, "...already by the mid to late second century, there mere fact that Jesus had brothers or even half-brothers was becoming highly problematic in Christian circles." 91 As she points out, early Christian writings such as the Protoevangelium of James, the Gospel of Peter, and the works of Origen, Hegesippus, and Jerome were stressing Mary's perpetual virginity and deemphasizing Jesus' familial relationship to James. 92 Accordingly, a second or third century Christian interpolator would not have been inclined to stress that James was the brother of Jesus, much less to add an interpolation to highlight that fact.

---

The book then responds to Earl Doherty (though Doherty actually uses another major argument, which can be seen in the second link above, and this book neglects to cover it, but I will respond after I get done wuoting this book)

quote:

---

p. 48

​

The Case Against Authenticity

​

Arguments that seek to cast doubt on the reference to "the brother of the so-called Christ" are few and unpersuasive. Earl Doherty argues that the phrase is not genuine because although James is the subject of the sentence, Jesus is named before him. But this is a misleading line of argument, because whichever name appears first, Josephus mentions James first as "the brother." In any event, a better explanation for the sequence of the names is that Josephus referred to Jesus' name first because he was the better known of the two figures and therefore was a point of reference. James was a very common name for the time. In order to distinguish this James from any number of other individuals names James, Josephus refers to the better know brother. Josephus' audience was largely non-Jewish and would have been better acquainted with the founder of Christianity.

​

p. 49

​

Another argument raised by Jesus Myth proponents is that the passages' failure to explain the meaning of the term "Christ" reveals a Christian hand because Josephus would have taken care to explain the purportedly unfamiliar term to his pagan audience. According to this argument, only Christians and Jews would know without explanation what the term "Christ" meant. 96 This argument lacks force, however, because Josephus does not appear to use "Christ" as a term of art to reflect messianic perspectives about Jesus. Rather, he uses it as a name or title with which Jesus is associated in the mind of Josephus' audience. There is ample evidence that Romans knew that the founder of the sect of Christians was known as "Christ", even if they did not know the origins of the word itself.

​

Seutonius wrote about a disturbance caused by Christus in Rome in 49 A.D. that many scholars believe is a reference to followers of Christ. (The Lifetime of Claudius 25.4) Seutonius is supposed to have confused Christus with the popular Greek name Chrestus. We have already noted previously references in Tacitus and Pliny which indicate familiarity with the designation. Clearly, therefore, Josephus identified Jesus by reference to the title or name by which his audience knew him. Given his reluctance to discuss Jewish messianic expectations in depth, Josephus likely felt that a reference to that title or name without elaboration on its messianic connotations was sufficient for his audience.

​

What Can We Learn About Jesus from Josephus?

​

How Would Josephus Have Learned About Jesus? Having concluded that Josephus originally referred to Jesus, would he have been in a place to offer any reliable information about him? According to leading New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders, " by the standards of the day, [Josephus] was a very good historian, and for some parts of his historical narratives he had excellent sources." Having lived in Judaea and Galilee, Josephus would have been in an excellent position to learn from Jewish sources about the early Christians and Jesus. According to Josephus' own writings, he was in Jerusalem at the time that James the brother of Jesus was killed. Additionally, Josephus - living as a member of the imperial family in Rome - would have had access to Roman records. That he possessed information about other religious sects, such as the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Saducees, and a similar historical figure in John the Baptist, is undisputed. That he had similar access to such traditions about Christians and their founder is very likely.

​

....
p. 50

​

Furthermore, it would be unlikely that Josephus would uncritically accept the word of a few members of a strange offshoot of Judaism if Josephus has heard nothing of Jesus or Christians while he lived in Palestine for so many years. This is especially true of his reference to Jesus' brother James, because Josephus was in Jerusalem at the time of James' death.

---

Now Doherty has another argument (perhaps his strongest).He argues that the Christian quotations, of Josephus' book 20, were different, before the time of Eusebius.Origen quoted from the Josephus book 20, during a commentary on Matthew"

quote:

---

These things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.

---

Then he quoted Josephus' book 20, in Book 1 of his Contra Celsus

quote:

---

these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)

---

Again, Origen quotes the Josephus passage, in Book 2 or Contra Celsus.

quote:

---

Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ

---

Doherty makes a lot of the word order which mentions "James the Just" before "brother of Jesus".The argument of Doherty gets laid out in part 2 of this 2 part series.Brother of Jesus called Christ / 2 – VridarThe site (repeating Doherty's argument) notices that Origen mixes up the text of Josephus and Hegesippus' annotated references to Josephus book 20.It goes on to say that the pre-Eusebian citations were all different.It traces them all to Hegesippus (late second century), and it seems to assume that Origen completely ignored actual texts of Josephus which LACKED ANY REFERENCE TO "CALLED CHRIST", but had the older word order of "JAMES" before "Jesus". (with "THE JUST" after James absent of course, as it is in all Josephus texts today anyway).The argument is that (pre 300 A.D.) existing texts of Josephus lacked the "called Christ" part (plus had James mentioned first THEN "brother of Jesus" came second in the syntax) BUT ALL PRE-300 A.D. QUOTATIONS, OF BOOK 20, WE HAVE TODAY ARE ORIGEN'S QUOTATIONS OF HEGESIPPUS (who corrupted Josephus's text in his reference in his Memoirs, and the Memoirs of Hegesippus are what Origin was quoting NOT JOSEPHUS though Hegesippus presents his own text as a representation of Jospehus and Origin presents his text as Josephus' actual text)Eusebius then made the original insertion into an actual Josephus manuscript (thus creating a new NEVER BEFORE SEEN EDITION).Doherty, and the vridar site, show us quotes from Eusebius, who FIRST quotes Hegesippius (with the original word order), then he immediately quotes (from what Doherty claims was Eusebius' own new edition!) the actual (albeit edited) Josephus text from book 20.(and naturally, Doherty says the "called Christ" part was never in any pre-Eusebius version of Josephus, just in the Memoirs of Hegesippus and Origin's use of Hegesippus' Memoirs)My take:The fact that Hegesippus knew Aramaic (he said he read the Aramaic Matthew) and probably wrote his Greek Memoirs using his own free paraphrase (or quote) of Josephus' Aramaic text isn't considered.(Origen lived in Alexandria, which had a big Jewish library and the famous library, which aspired to have every copy of every book ever written, and one that pagan Greeks maintained. There could have been many Greek translations of Josephus.)Why not just make a big deal of every paraphrase or free quotation in every text instead of just this one?Eusebius only knew Greek. He had a text that we only saw quoted by Origen. Origen was known to have multiple textual variants of MANY MANY TEXTS. He was known for making critical editions of texts.Anyway, Doherty says that "brother of Jesus, , James by name" was the original part in the (Eusebius originating) Josephus text, except the older Hegesippus/Origen order - with James coming first in the syntax - was more accurate.He admits that a James, brother of Jesus was in the text. (without the "called Christ" part)So we still have the dreaded "James BROTHER of Jesus" in an original non-Christian 1st century text.But Doherty gets aroundd this by saying that the "Jesus" was actually the very Jesus, son of Damnæus who was appointed high priest after (the killer of James) Ananus got removed.In that case:Why doesn't Josephus say James was son of Damnaeus, but only mentions his relationship to (this) Jesus, his brother?(I suppose that part would have been taken out by Eusebius)Hegesippus made it all up (around 180), and Origen (220) lifted the story (and its attribution to Josephus) from Hegesippus. But the textual critic Origen somehow failed to notice that these changes were contrary to the other Josephus manuscripts? Or he was just so interested in evidence to make his argument? (an anti-Semitic argument saying the murder of James brought a curse on Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem).Eusebius had to change the Josephus texts because it was such a great theme or because he liked the reference to Jesus and James?A change from 350 A.D.I would ask why the John the Baptist coverage in Josephus was absent any Christian insertions.To European Orthodox Christians (Eusebius was more of an Arius supporter, but otherwise he was Roman Catholic/ Eastern Orthodox) John was far more important to the Jesus story than James was. John was a relative (cousin of Jesus) according to the Gospel of Luke and he had a conception just months apart.No lines were added there.No references to Peter, who was very important.But this change (by Eusebius) to Josephus' text was made so that Hegesippus' story could have credibility? Hegesippus was that important? James was really so loved by Orthodox Christians? His being a "brother" was really so desirable, too? And don't forget that Hegesippus was one who testified that James was a vegetarian. That really appealed to European Christians (I'm being sarcastic). (Eusebius attacked the intellect of the Jewish Christian Ebionites, whom he saw as heretics)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This will be my last reply to you as I do not debate with dishonest debaters or people that make it personal. Your actual statement that I wanted additional sources for is below.. You make a claim that there are more sources. Yes cannot supply them.
You are a dishonest debater. Absolutely nothing you say in your long diatribe actually addressess my post at all. You have no sources that corroborate your claims for what Josephus says and means.

Years ago,shortly before I joined, Kapyong wrote the definitive posts on the historicity of Jesus and the dearth of evidence that supported the existence of Jesus Christ. There is no sense in reinventing the wheel. Here are those two posts.
Message 7
Message 8Here is what he posted about Josephus.

quote:

---

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to acknowledge anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot Terbesar
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But,
its COULD be actual evidence for Jesus. late, corrupt, but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Even Josephus mentions a Jesus Christ, it is very late and probably influenced by Christian writings that now form parts of the bible. It is not firsthand and there is no corroboration. It would not be evidence for Jesus Christ but solely that there were writings of a Jesus Christ. Very different things. If Josephus is the evidence for a Jesus Christ that people want to rely on, the evidence is very slim indeed.The second post by Kapyong shows the utter wasteland of evidence for a historical Jesus.

quote:

---

How Likely was a mention of Jesus?
The issue is really HOW LIKELY they would be to mention Jesus.
Factors which increase the expectation that Jesus would be mentioned in a work include :
* a large work (i.e. one which has large index of names)
* a work on an issue somehow related to Jesus or the Gospel events,
* a work whose genre tends to frequently mention or allude to many subjects and people,
I have thus classified these writers into broad categories -
* writers who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (5),
* writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (4,3),
* writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus (2,1, or even 0.5),
* writers who WOULDN'T have mentioned Jesus (0)
I have given each writer a WEIGHT out of 5 as indicated.
As well as -
* writers CLAIMED to mention Jesus.
Of course, one writer who didn't mention Jesus means nothing.
But,
when DOZENS of writers from the period in question fail to mention anything about Jesus (or the the Gospel events or actors), this argues against historicity.
The argument is sometimes made that these writers could not possibly have mentioned Jesus - because he was a minor figure and unrelated to the issues at hand.
This assumes that no such writer ever mentions a minor figure in passing, that they never make an aside about other events or figures who are not specially related to the subject.
Of course, this is not true, as the evidence below shows that many of the writers mentioned make many references to many other minor figures and often make excurses about other subjects and events and people.
I have included astronomers on the list who might have mentioned the Star of Bethlehem and/or the darkness at the crucifixion - if they had heard of them. This is a lesser issue then the existence of Jesus, and I have rated such writers as 0.5.
Summary of Results
The results of my current classifications is:
1 writer who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Philo.)
3 writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Seneca, Plutarch, Justus.)
31 writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus.
(20 writers who could not be expected to.
6 writers claimed to mention Jesus, but disputed or suspect.)

---

He used to have a page that showed all of this laid out to help visualize everything. Alas, that link went dead a long time ago

You managed to save a good part of it, so, thank you.I hope this starts a fight.I'm going to hell aren't I.

quote:

---

This will be my last reply to you as I do not debate with dishonest debaters or people that make it personal.

---

Glad you aren't getting personal.I salute you.I said this:

quote:

---

I said that Josephus chronologically placed James' death in 61-62 A.D., then Theodoric responded, saying, "What are your sources?"
He is saying that standard acceptance of the extant Greek Josephus text is wrong, I assume.

---

Theodoric immediately responded:

quote:

---

Your actual statement that I wanted additional sources for is below..

​

quote:

---

James, brother of Jesus "who is called Christ", died 61 or 62, in Jerusalem.
(Josephus is one major source and he said what I have in quotes)

---

​

You make a claim that there are more sources. Yes cannot supply them.
You are a dishonest debater. Absolutely nothing you say in your long diatribe actually addressess my post at all. You have no sources that corroborate your claims for what Josephus says and means.

---

Again, I commend you for taking the high road.(see your post 1658 and - trust me - it isn't too far back)(My big hint will be to tell you that it is the one right before my deadfully awful post 1659)But to the actual issue, I will just say that Josephus lived from 37 to 100 (or perhaps later).He wrote his the Antiquities 94 A.D.(actually his Jewish War was written in Aramaic around 71-73 and translated to Greek in 75, but the Antiquities might never have been in Aramaic)Hegesippus is often stated to have been writing 150-180. Hegesippus mentioned Josephus and James' death. He has a quotation (plus alot of commentary) that isn't in our extant versions of Josephus today.It seems there were different manuscripts of Josephus, with an additional line (that we don't have today).Eusebius said this:

quote:

---

20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”

---

That was a bogus line, added apparently between 100 and 150 (I guess).It is gone in all extant copies today.My GUESS is that, unlike the Christian writings, Josephus was widely distributed among non-Christians (both Jewish and pagans) and there were more than enough texts to form an accurate critical edition (plus plenty of pagan and Jewish critics to remind interested Christians of the bogus parts).Among Christians, I imagine it was the Jewish Christian circles (as opposed to Orthodox Europeans) who were INITIALLY the main collectors of Josephus manuscripts, due to the references (the original Josephus reference and then the inserted line/lines).European Christians would never have been interested in the plain references to James (61/62 AD), but the (perhaps) added (?) part that described Jesus' life, in an earlier section, surely was what caused Catholics & Orthodox to preserve the Josephus text through the ages. I have read scholars plainly stating that we would not have Josephus text today if not for his (original ? inserted?) reference to Jesus in Book 18 of Antiquities.Book 20 and the "Brother of Jesus, called Christ" was what would have caused Jewish Christians to be interested.(It probably lead to some textual additions, which included tampering with book 20: “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”)(Perhaps the much discussed Book 18 got some tampering too?)Eusebius might have noticed the added lines, one he started to give a crap about having accurate copies of Josephus.Eusebius DID care about accurate Biblical texts.Doherty (I don't mean this as harshly as it sounds) is ignorant if he feels Eusebius somehow encouraged textual fraud. He should also know that scholars almost all say that the major textual variants (sowewhat GENERALLY found in clusters known as "textual families") among Biblical manuscripts (MSS) WERE CREATED EARLY AND NOT LATER.EXAMPLE: Eusebius points out that Mark 16:9-20 isn't likely original. Many amateurs initially think that the changes were made in the fourth century. WRONG. The Mark 16:9-20 TEXT ALMOST CERTAINLY EXISTED IN THE SECOND CENTURY. (Though its popularity exploded sometime in the fourth or perhaps after 400)Changes were made EARLY and not late.Doherty is a bit screwed up if he actually feels that any fourth century group could make major changes to Biblical texts. He even has the audacity to name an individual (Eusebius!) he managed to i.d. as an interpolator. Dear God!He says Eusebius added what we have today in book 20: "Brother of Jesus, called Christ".Eusebius, more likely, IF HE HAD ANY MAJOR ROLE IN JOSEPHUS EDITIONS, was one who attempted to find versions of Josephus from Jewish (not to be confused with Jewish Christians, but actual non-Christian Jews) and pagan collections. He would have helped us get an accurate version. Philo of Alexandria, for example, was free of Christian insertions (there were forgeries of Philo, but Steven Mason points out that the Christian forgeries, of non-Christian histories, were entirely new works, and did not involve tampering with existing historical works)You ask for more sources, Theodoric.Every Biblical document from the first century has James living in Jerusalem AFTER JESUS DIED. (He lived in the Galilee before). As for the Galilee, do you know that Nazareth only had a few hundred people living there? The main town in the Galilee was Sepphoris , with many thousands of people living there. It was 4 miles away, and was on a hill that could be seen from Nazareth. It was probably what gave Jesus the idea for the "City on the Hill" (think Sermon on the Mount and Augustine and Ronald Reagan). Early Rabbinical sources talk about hearing rumours of Jesus in Sepphoris (his father was said to be a Roman soldier Pantera, for example). His family would have lived near there. James is not mentioned though.I can't say that the scholarly acceptance of the extant Josephus reference to a JAMES "brother of Jesus called Christ" is 100% certain. Perhaps there was tampering (early on). But Doherty and his ilk need to lay out a credible reason for us to reject it. One that demonstrates this JESUS MYTH school's claimed brilliance in historical methodology.(There is no Biblical text that requires this simple little reference to James being killed in Jerusalem, so the theological motive seems absent unless there is some good theory on the Jewish Christians desire to tamper with the text to insert James the Just into a historical work)

I would suggest testing the Christ Mythers, and to see if they can come up with any theories that take into context the critical late-first and early second-century formative period in textual development. (and a whole lot more critical events and developments)I find it amazing that Eusebius was treated like some sort of manipulator of secular historical texts (Josephus), considering he attempted to discover as much as he could about early history. I suppose he ignored non-orthodox movements as much as possible, but he seemed to respect Hegesippus as orthodox (indeed he seemed so), and thank God for it, because Hegesippus was just the bridge (we all should be thankful for) between the lost world of Jewish Christianity and the orthodox historians/scholars of the 4th century.I feel Eusebius actually cared for inconvenient historical information; he was the preservator of Hegesippus' history of the Jesus Dynasty. (I find Eusebius more willing to present much of the inconvenient history than the today's extreme Christ Mythers and Fundamentalists alike)From The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature.Cambridge University Press (May 3, 2004)
by Frances Young (Editor),
Professor Lewis Ayres (Editor),
Andrew Louth (Editor),
Augustine Casiday (Assistant)(My quotes start with Paul)(Eusebius' work is HE)

quote:

---

pp. 55-56

​

His letters to the newly founded communities are the oldest Christian writings we have, and appear to have been collected together early; already at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius refers to the ”letters’ of Paul.1 After his first missionary journey with Barnabas, around ad 46, from Antioch to Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia and Galatia, the issue of the inclusion of the Gentiles, and the demands to be placed upon them, implicit already in the account of the Hellenists and Stephen, became critical. There are two differing accounts of the resulting ”Council of Jerusalem’ (c. ad 48/9; Acts 15:1-29 and Gal. 2:1-10). Though both agree that circumcision should not be expected of Gentile converts, Acts further adds that such converts should abstain from food with idolatrous associations and unchastity, while the only further stipulation Paul mentions is to ”remember the poor’. After breaking with Barnabas and Peter, who had refrained from eating with Gentile Christians at Antioch when men from James of Jerusalem arrived representing the ”circumcision party’ (cf. Acts 15:36-40; Gal. 2:11-14), Paul set out with Silas on further missionary journeys, visiting the communities he had previously established and moving out further into Asia, Macedonia and Achaia. It is probably from Corinth, in the late 50s, that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, preparing the way for his coming visit to Jerusalem so that the community there would accept the collections he had gathered on their behalf (Rom. 15:30-2). When he arrived in Jerusalem, he was greeted with hostility and imprisoned by the Romans for his own safety. After further commotions and plots on his life, he was moved to Caesarea for a couple of years, and finally, as a Roman citizen, to Rome itself for trial in the early 60s. According to the writers of the second century, Paul, along with Peter, was martyred under Nero (cf. Eusebius, HE 2.25.5). By the second half of the second century, monuments had already been built for Peter on the Vatican hill, and for Paul on the road to Ostia (HE 2.25.7).

​

As most of the surviving literature is concerned with the development of the Gentile communities, we know relatively little about the Christian community n Jerusalem after the middle of the first century. James, ”the brother of the Lord’, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem after Peter’s departure (Acts 12) until his martyrdom in ad 62 (HE 2.23, citing the second-century church historian Hegesippus). It is possible that the Jewish War of ad 66-70 prompted Christians to leave the area for Asia. According to second-century writers, John, the son of Zebedee, resided in Ephesus, while Philip the apostle, together with his four prophetess daughters, lived in Hierapolis in Phrygia (Irenaeus, AH 3.3.4; HE 3.31.2-5). Also from Asia in the early second century, Papias recorded what he claimed were the oral reports of those who had known the apostles, describing the origin of the Gospels: Mark is said to have been the interpreter of Peter in Rome, setting down accurately, but not in order, everything he remembered concerning the words and actions of the Lord, while Matthew composed his oracles in Hebrew (HE 3.39.15-16). It is possible that Papias also knew the Gospels of Luke and John, and that what are later regarded as the four canonical Gospels were already beginning to circulate together in codex form in Asia at the turn of the second century.2 It is only from the middle of the third century onwards that legends start appearing that identify other apostles as the founders of other Christian communities, such as Mark in connection with Alexandria.3

​

According to Hegesippus, James, the ”brother of the Lord’, was succeeded by Symeon, the ”cousin of the Saviour’, as the head of the Jerusalem community (HE 3.11). This need for a familial relationship to the Lord as a qualification for leadership seems to have continued at Jerusalem (cf. HE 3.20.6), until, as a result of the Bar Kochba rebellion (ad 132-5), Hadrian forbade Jews from entering Jerusalem, which he renamed Aelia Capitolina, and so the succession of the ”bishops of the circumcision’ ceased (HE 4.5.2-3). No substantial information survives concerning the existence of these Jewish Christians thereafter. They had been excluded from the synagogue and subjected to a curse from about ad 85, and were later required by Bar Cochba to recognize his messianic status and to deny Jesus under the pain of execution.4 Accepted neither by their own kinsfolk nor by the increasing body of Gentile Christians, by the end of the second century they were known as a deviant Christian sect, the Ebionites, ”the poor ones’. However, it would be wrong to assume that contact between Jews and Christians ceased completely in the middle of the second century. Interaction between the two groups continued for several centuries, as John Chrysostom’s polemic against those Christians infatuated with Judaism indicates.

---

We know what we know thanks to Eusebius. (HE is his work, Church History)He preserved Hegesippus.(It helped that Hegesippus could be interpreted as blaming gnostics for the killing of Jesus' family, plus he seemed to buy into virgin birth stuff. He was just orthodox enough for his history to make the cut. At least with Eusebius. Eusebius presented the Jesus Family in the least heretical light possible it seemed. He also said the Ebionites mean the "poor ones" then went on to joke that it could signify "the poverty of their intellect". It was a lucky thing that the history was preserved at all, and especially down to our present time).The Christ Mythers, like Doherty, claim Eusebius invented the "brother of Jesus called Christ" around 325, when in fact this 4th century man was responsible for preserving (theologically) difficult histories & texts from centuries previous to him. The methodology of the Doherty school seems to be to attack whatever Christian source he happens to find quoting a text. Eusebius is the first extant source found to quote the minor (to him and almost every other CONTEMPORARY Christian back then), Josephus Antiquities Book XX, James reference, so he gets accused of fraud simply for Doherty's knowledge of the existence of his quotation (ignoring the hundreds of other humans involved in the transmission of Josephus' texts over 2 full centuries previous). This Doherty methodology should be universally condemned. It sucks. He needs to improve by several notches.

I went to those posts and started reading the debate. It was indeed well done and well supported through arguments, but it was not necessarily conclusive. The fact that you remembered it shows that it had an impact on your own beliefs and reasoning. I read the entire topic ... The Existence of Jesus Christ and followed the arguments. (One thing stands out...the members then were more articulate and thorough than we members now ) But this argument hardly settles any issue. I will say that the debate within that topic was a delight to revisit. Thanks for the links. I see that you were schooling GDR even way back in 2010 so you have been down this road before. I suppose that I can concede the argument regarding evidence. What I also see, however, is scholars investing an enormous amount of time and research into this subject. But even if we treat it as a myth, it certainly has some debatable issues regarding ideas and early philosophical beliefs, trends, and worldviews. Sometimes I think that if God existed, He either surely would have given us an infallible roadmap...proof...of His existence and plan. The reason that none has been provided does not lead me not to doubt my beliefs as myth but rather to question the entire concept of why I seek to hold onto these beliefs, why others expend so much energy into debunking them, and dare i say judging the soul and intent of the various participants.What I mean is...what is the character of who I am listening to at the moment?Let's take ringo. He is a likable poster. He mentions his early involvement in churches for 1/3 of his life before he "grew up" and embraced evidence and critical thought. The fact that I accept and approve of his online character goes a long way towards my embracing his worldview.
Consider Faith. Faith exposes a similar worldview as the one which captured and indoctrinated me. One would think, then, that I normally would agree with many of her conclusions. The reason that I do *not* is because I find so many objections to her character. If what she preaches and believes is right, one would expect to see fruit in her life. All I see is an older lady with health problems who is staunchly conservative and who continually listens to only speakers and authors and pundits and Pastors who support her own beliefs. It feeds upon itself. To her credit, she too expends a lot of verbal and written energy into defending her worldview. That speaks volumes. Granted she is bad at producing any evidence.The more energy that one puts into an argument, coupled with efforts at presenting a case, counts something with me. Not that they are correct. Evidence also counts quite a bit, obviously...but evidence (or a well-presented argument) does not by itself draw me towards any conclusions.Kapyong seems to have been quite a character. Too bad I never got to have discussions with him. And finally...you and I, Theodoric. We have had some arguments. You mentioned at times how little you respected my argument and at other times commended me for being honest. Apart from any arguments involving evidence...of which I have none...I can usually expect an honest reaction from you, be it pro or con. And that too counts a lot with me.Edited by Phat, : added explanatory jabberwocky