Did Jesus exist, Part II

It appears from the Book of Acts that the term "Christians" was used earlier than the reign of Nero:

quote:

---

Acts 11:26-28 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

---

The prophecy was for the days of Claudius who ruled BEFORE Nero. Therefore they were called "Christians" both before and during the reign of Nero. The mention of the name "Christians" refers to a time either before or about the time this prophecy was given. Claudius ruled from 41 to 54, Nero from 54 to 68:Roman Britain - OrganisationThis message has been edited by Faith, 01-11-2006 04:35 PM

The site was put up by Lfen, who asked Robin to comment on it. I believe it should be dismissed as beyond deserving consideration.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-11-2006 04:47 PM

Let us examine the passage from Josephus minus the later additions (according to my author): My author argues that this is probably genuine. He quotes another scholar who calls the tone "fairly neutral--even purposely ambigious."This, he claims, is the typical style of Josephus.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-11-2006 03:43 PM

Mystery religions?, did you bother to read the page i linked?
Budhism was pretty wide spread over the middle east infact a popular story in christianity comes from buddhas life
You can ignore that other reiigions had effect on the teachings of people in the middle east, but you wouldn't be very truthful
{ABE: off topic i guess lol}This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-11-2006 05:32 PM

Yes I read it, skimmed it anyway, but I'd read tons of that sort of stuff before I became a Christian. The similarities claimed are very slight and forced, and the differences are enormous. And yes it is off topic.

Ooops. Too sarcastic so I censored myself.Suffice it to say I think the quote is convincing.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-11-2006 05:39 PM

It's still positive - it calls Jesus a "wise man" and that he was a "teacher of those who accept the truth gladly". It can be read as saying that the crucifixion was undeserved. It's so positive that if it were genuine I would expect that one of the early Christian writers would have mentioned it if it were the actual text.It is also so positive that it suggests that the author is at least sympathetic to Christianity - which makes it surprising that Jsoephus did not write more about Christianity.In my view it is more likely that the whole passage is an interprolation or it was so negative that Christian writers were loathe to refer to it.g

Can you give an example of Josephus' being very very negative about something? Maybe he's just a judicious sort of fellow who likes to get along with everybody. He spent his time currying favor with the Caesars anyway, and would have no particular reason to stand on his Pharisaical beliefs to them, since they wouldn't be in a position to appreciate them. His history is a celebration of the Jews after all. Far better to present a generous view of all things Jewish, including a Jewish pretender to be the Messiah.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-11-2006 05:50 PM

Yes, Peter Kirby gave both sides of the arguement. That was one side. The other side had

quote:

---

# Wells states, "The words have the character of a brief marginal gloss, later incorporated innocently into the text. Josephus probably wrote of the death of a Jewish Jerusalem leader called James, and a Christian reader thought the reference must be to James the brother of the Lord who, according to Christian tradition, led the Jerusalem Chruch about the time in question. This reader accordingly noted in the margin: 'James = the brother of Jesus, him called Christ' (cf. the wording of Mt. 1:16: 'Jesus, him called Christ') and a later copyist took this note as belonging to the text and incorporated it. Other interpolations are known to have originated in precisely such a way." (p. 11) Doherty elaborates: "If he [Josephus] knew nothing else about James or chose to say nothing more, he would simply have used some equivalent to 'a certain James' or 'someone named James.' And what in fact do we find in the Greek? The 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.' Such a phrase could have stood perfectly well on its own (with a slight cahnge in grammatical form), and had the reference to a brother Jesus added to it by a Christian interpolator." (pp. 216-217) While these observations do not prove that the reference was interpolated, they do indicate the possibility of the interpolation hypothesis.

---

and

quote:

---

# Doherty argues: "Why would Josephus think to make the Jesus idea paramount, placing it before the James one? James is the character that brought about Ananus' downfall, while mention of Jesus is supposed to be an identifying afterthought. It would have been much more natural for Josephus to say something like: '(Ananus) brought before them a man named James, who was the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ . . .' On the other hand, if the phrase is the product of a Christian scribe, it may be understandable that he, consciously or unconsciously, would have given the reference to Jesus pride of place." (p. 217)

​

This argument is weak. The fact that "the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ" is placed first, in the accusative, does not mean that the reference to Jesus is given some kind of "pride of place." It is simply one grammatically correct way of identifying James.

​

# Steven Carr supplies a reason for doubting the authenticity of the reference to Jesus:

​

How does Josephus refer back to people he has previously mentioned in those days when books had no indexes? Here he is going back two books, so readers will need more than a casual reference.

​

Judas of Galilee was first mentioned in 'Wars of the Jews' Book 2 Section 118 'Under his administration, it was that a certain Galilean , whose name was Judas , prevailed with his countrymen to revolt ; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans , and would, after God , submit to mortal men as their lords.'

​

Josephus refers to him again in Book 2 Section 433 as follows '"In the meantime one Manahem, the son of Judas , that was called the Galilean (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Quirinius , that after God they were subject to the Romans )" - considerable detail is included.

​

In Wars, Book 7 Section 533 we read about Judas again - "... Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews , as we have formerly related , not to submit to the taxation when Quirinius was sent into Judea to make one; ...' . So a change of book causes Josephus to say 'as formerly related'.

​

Judas was also in Antiquities 18 'Yet was there one Judas , a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt , who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty'.

​

Josephus referred back to Judas in Antiquities 20 'the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Quirinius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have shown in a foregoing book .'

​

So Josephus usually put in detail and when he referred back from Ant. 20 to Ant. 18, he reminded the reader that it was in a different book. None of these factors apply to Josephus's reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20. A Christian interpolator would naturally need not need to supply such detailed back-references. His readers would know exactly who Jesus called the Christ was.

​

This argument is also weak. It presumes that the reference in 20.9.1 was intended to be a cross-reference to an earlier place. However, Josephus may not have intended this identification to serve as a reference to an earlier passage. The plausibility of such an identification without any earlier reference is established from the similar example in Wars of the Jews 2.247 (see above).

---

And a number of other arguements that cast doubt on the authticity of the phrase 'Jesus, the one called christ"

He comments that the arguments are weak, which they are. But it would help a lot if you would provide links. It's hard to figure out what you are referring to.

Well, that is not what is found at Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question.Peter kirby did both sides of the stories, and gives really good arugments that antiquites 18 is an insertion. Even many conservative
scholars admit it is at least modified.Since that is case, what evidence is there that it existed before the 4th century?

Robin,There is the NT plus the few citations from Josephus and Tacitus. Faith accepts the witness of the NT as per church doctrine.I also pointed you towards the yahoo group JesusMysteries which focus exclusively on the early centuries of Christianity and what was going on largely based on the writings of Church Fathers such as Polycarp and Ingatius. It's dense textual analysis looking to see if they cite or seem to know, or quote, or even plagiarize from the Gospels.There is the official church story which the devout tend to believe without questioning and the skeptical like myself pretty much doubt unless prodded to question largely because I had to read Augustine once for a class and some of the early fathers and the prospect of having to read that kind of stuff again bores me solid.I'll put this forth as my opinion and impression because as far as I can tell it would take a lot of digging in musty scholarship for me to say I knew much of this. It's based on my common sense, what I know of history and the way people, societies, and religious hierarchies work.There was lots of intrigue, in fighting and politics going on in those early centuries. It's pretty clear that many early Christians didn't think of Jesus as a man of flesh. There have been some Christians here and as I understand the Jehovah Witnesses don't accept the notion of the trinity. Well that belief was in those times also.The winners of these political struggles wrote the history and often destroyed competing versions. The outcome of the struggle and Constantine's making Christianity the state religion has huge historical impact until right now and for a long time to come.What I am suggesting is that there is lot more going on and the doubts about Josephus and Tacitus point to this vast struggle to define the religion. Because of the dominance of the church there is not a lot of popular works written that study this history skeptically. I think most of the analysis is conducted in journals.I think Doherty's mythicist position is possible but it's not provable. Lots of people Jews and Greek were thinking apocalyptically. There was a lot of religious ferment going on. It was only when the Church became the state and Christian intolerance lead to vigorous suppression of competing beliefs did the variety of that time disappear. It's hard getting a picture of that time and the NT offers a very limited one sided picture.Jesus was a common name. And there were more than one Messiah in that time period. I think the origins of Christianity will always be shrouded because the documentation just doesn't exist. It doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed. Christianity exists. That much we know. And others will argue if it was genuine why wasn't it quoted centuries earlier? They suspect that it is probably a Christian addition. And that's about all we can say. It probably .... and you takes yer choice.lfen

I would think it would matter to Christians. But apparently, some do not feel that way. If Jesus did not exist, then Christ is a concept or sentiment or a slogan.If Jesus didn't exist, then somebody made that story up. Who made up such a story?It's much more reasonable to think that someone corresponding to Jesus existed and was executed, that he was a remarkable person about whom legends accumulated.

Well, I'm about 60/40 with you on that. Still, I'm 40 per cent tantalized by Doherty's almost compelling case that Paul was talking exclusively about a mystical metaphysical Christ.There were for certain a number of messiahs executed by the Romans. Palestine gave them all kinds of grief. There is also the visits of Buddhist missionaries to that area at about that time. It was a time of extraordinary tumult.lfen

Somebody claimed this but I don't remember any evidence for it. Can you provide some?{abe: Never mind, off topic.}This message has been edited by Faith, 01-12-2006 01:06 AM