The Historical Jesus III

[Leumas]

And I wonder why there are infinitely more discrepancies around the very few accounts of the so-called virgin birth and the post-Resurrection zombie walks than there are around the sayings that gMatt./gLuke -- and gMark -- and gThomas -- and 1 Corinthians -- all have in common. It couldn't be that those parallel sayings emerged just a teensy weensy bit earlier, could it?

Nah...........

So by your logic Jesus was definitely a blasphemer.

Have a look at all these "parallel sayings" and "common" stuff that is shared by gMark, gMatthew and gLuke who all say that Jesus admitted that he was the SON OF GOD and that he will sit on a THRONE IN HEAVEN on the RIGHT HAND SIDE OF YHWH.

Utter blasphemy according to the laws of Moses in the Torah and the religious top leaders of the Jewish people at the time agreed fully.

So Yeshua could not have ever been a Rabbi... no Rabbi would think he is the son of god and HAS THE KEYS TO HEAVEN.

Mark 14:61-64

• 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
• 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
• 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Matthew 26:63-66

• 26:63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
• 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
• 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Luke 22:69-71

• 22:69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
• 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
• 22:71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Here again we have parallel and common stuff where Yeshua the Rabbi presumes to forgive sins in total blasphemy against YHWH's laws in the Torah.

Mark 2:5- 12

• 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
• 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
• 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
• ...
• 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
• 2:12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

Matthew 9:2-7

• 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
• 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
• ...
• 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
• 9:7 And he arose, and departed to his house.

Notice this little tidbit upon which the WHOLE OF CATHOLICISM is based... do you think Yeshua the Rabbi would have BLESSED Peter the blasphemer and promised him the KEYS TO HEAVEN?

Matthew 16:15-19

• 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
• 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
• 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
• 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
• 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Here is another tidbit upon which Christianity is FOUNDED .... do you think Yeshua the Rabbi would have told people that there are THREE Gods of which he is one?

Matthew 28:18-20

• 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
• 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
• 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

[maximara]

That's right. And, despite Pliny the Younger discovering that the Christians bound themselves by oath to not commit fraud, theft, adultery, etc, he still put them to death if they didn't stop being Christians.

As I mentioned before Romans made other religions and cults illegal with memebership in such cults punishable by death.

The Bacchanals were declared illegal in 186 BCE because according to Livy "there was nothing wicked, nothing flagitious, that had not been practiced among them" Being a member of this pagan cult was also a death penalty ( The Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus, 186 BCE )

Pliny in Natural History 30.4. reported that under Tiberius Druids as well as their diviners and physicians were made illegal: "It is beyond calculation how great is the debt owed to the Romans, who swept away the monstrous rites, in which to kill a man was the highest religious duty and for him to be eaten a passport to health." Given Druids were believed to practice human sacrifice being a member of this group also likely carried the death penalty.

If a religion repeatedly caused problems (like Bacchanals) or was supposedly performing immortal acts (Druids supposedly practiced human sacrifice) the Romans would outlaw it and kill supposed members of said religion.

So Christians were not the only ones being put to death for maintaining their faith; the Roman did this with certain pagan cults as well.

 

[Craig B]

Let me show you the PROCESS of CHERRY PICKING and illogic that you are utilizing but applied to my TALL TALE.

• London is a real city.
• Taxi Cabs are real things in London.
• The Bodleian is a real tall building in Oxford.
• Pembroke College is real.
• The Dining Hall in Pembroke is real.
• Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is real.
• Windsor Castle is real.
• The Queen does very often reside in Windsor for a fact.

So it seems there are OODLES of REAL FACTS in the above story.

OK... we cannot really accept a rocket powered cab nor that someone can travel by fire place flumes also it is very unlikely that a normal person can in fact be granted a breakfast in Windsor with the Queen.

So let's see what the "core truth" of the story must have been.

When I was in London last year I took a rocket powered Taxi Cab and he took me from a train from Paddington train station London to Oxford in 5 130 minutes and while I was in Oxford I climbed to the top of the Bodleian and flew in a helicopter all the way to Pembroke College and landed on their Quad and then I had dinner in their dining hall with actors who acted the parts of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes in well known TV shows and afterwards I used the fire place there to go to Windsor where I met Queen Elizabeth for breakfast.​

There you are... it can be SUPPOSED that that is more likely to be the truthful real story.

Now any NORMAL person might miss all the ILLOGIC of the SUPPOSITIONS and CHERRY PICKING and AMENDMENTS that were made to the tall tale to make the fable fit reality according to the wishful thinking of the NEW FABRICATORS of the NEW TALL TALE.

However, intelligent logical reasonable people who are not DESPERATE to construe some ACCEPTABLE factual story out of what is OBVIOUSLY A LOAD OF CLAPTRAP might just say

The story is obviously a pile of hogwash.

It is doubtful that you were even in England at all last year.

It is a waste of time to even listen to your laughably fabricated tomfoolery.​

Could the "core truth" be that I went to England last year ?

Why do you EVEN CARE? My story is pure and utter poppycock regardless of any possible supposed likely tortuously construed "core lies or truths"!

Please examine this. It explains why some Gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material, and the means by which this may be discerned.

 

[maximara]

Despite the fact that the WHOLE POINT OF CHRISTIANITY is that he was the SON OF GOD who was conceived when the SECOND God (out of THREE) called the Holy Poltergeist committed adultery and impregnated a 13 years old married little girl and made a cuckold out of poor Joseph?

That is NOT true. Not all versions of Christianity believed in the above.

One sect "represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles." (Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 26 paragraph 1)

Moreover some scholars suspect that that the birth story in Luke was added later with our Luke 3:1 being how Luke really began.

 

[Craig B]

... Here is another tidbit upon which Christianity is FOUNDED .... do you think Yeshua the Rabbi would have told people that there are THREE Gods of which he is one?

Matthew 28:18-20

• 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
• 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
• 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

You are disingenuously cherry picking. Here is the passage more fully.

28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

So I'm presented with a Jesus who rises from the dead and manifests himself on a mountain where he is worshipped (though some doubt, as well they might!) and then he spouts self exalting nonsense, and what do you do? You cite only the words (omitting their absurd context) and what you ask ask us is, would a Rabbi talk like that? As if there were no other teensy weensy problems about the plausibility of the whole episode.

Well no, he wouldn't talk like that. And he wouldn't get out of his tomb and be worshipped on a mountain either. Yes you're right; Rabbis don't do that stuff.

 

[IanS]

You know, the double standard used by so many mythers, including DeJudge, boggles the imagination. We DO have independent informants with their own sources, like Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15, which are non-apologetics that plainly confirm a normal non-supernatural Yeshua who was nothing but a simple human rabbi who was nailed by the Romans, period.

Yet mythers conveniently dismiss those independent non-apologetics as somehow based on hearsay while still jumping up and down excitedly about tertiary apologetic sources like Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc., of no independent documentary level at all. Mytherism is such an obviously crooked racket.

Stone

They (e.g. Josephus, who is your own example) were not independent informants for what they say about Jesus, or about anyone called "James" being his actual family brother.

There is absolutely no indication how Josephus, writing at the end of the 1st century, could have personally known about anything that ever happened in the lifetime of Jesus, inc. whether Jesus ever confirmed that anyone called "James" was his actual family bother. Josephus was not even born at that time and could not himself possibly know any such thing ... it would be physically impossible.

What authors like Josephus and Tacitus might have heard about beliefs in Jesus, inc. beliefs about who "James" was supposed to be, could only have come to them from what other people at the time had said about their Jesus beliefs. But unfortunately none of those authors, neither Josephus, nor Tacitus nor any of them, ever so much as mention anyone who had informed them about Jesus.

So we do not actually know where they got their information from. But what we do know is that the only known earlier source of any mention of Jesus and any suggestion at all that anyone called "James" was his brother, came from the letters and gospels of the bible! The bible is the only known source from which authors like Josephus and Tacitus could have possibly got any beliefs at all about Jesus and his claimed family.

As far as anyone can honestly tell - all mention of anything whatsoever to do with Jesus (inc. any "brother" named James) comes originally from the bible.

And that's apart from the fact that even if the above was not the case (and it unarguably IS the case, as a matter of known and universally agreed "fact"), we do not actually know if Josephus (or Tacitus) ever wrote a single word about Jesus or about anyone named James as his believed brother, because we don't have a single word that he ever wrote!

Instead what we have are copies apparently written by Christians themselves a whopping and quite ridiculous 1000 years after Josephus, Tacitus, Jesus, James, Paul and the rest of them had all died! And that is far, far, faaaaar too late to be credible in any way at all for what minimal hearsay may or may not have ever been included by Christians themselves over 1000 years later.

If people less completely biased, deluded and uncomprehending than Stein or CraigB are reading this, and still think that authors like Josephus who apparently lived c.37 AD to 100 AD, might have themselves somehow known that James was indeed the brother of a Jesus figure who supposedly lived from circa. 7-2 BC to c.30-33 AD, they should ask themselves how Josephus might have heard about people and events from a time before he himself was even born ...

... and the answer to that is; the only known earlier mention of Jesus and any claimed brothers of Jesus, comes from the letters and gospels of the bible. E.g., from Paul’s letters, supposedly (according to all HJ posters here and according to all bible scholars) written circa.50-60 AD, in which “Paul” says in one never again repeated remark “other apostles saw I none ... except James ... the lords brother”. IOW - that belief that Jesus had a brother called “James” actually came from that one single remark in Paul’s letter. And that, according even to all bible scholars, is the first ever mention of any suggestion that anyone called “James” was “the lords brother”.

IOW - as far as anyone can honestly know, Josephus could not have been an independent source for anything he ever said about Jesus (inc ever saying that James was the brother of Jesus). Because Josephus was not even born until after Jesus had died, and the actual only known earlier known source was apparently Paul’s letter with that one single never again repeated remark ... and where that same James apparently wrote his own gospel without even claiming to have ever met Jesus let alone being any family brother of Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

If people less completely biased, deluded and uncomprehending than Stein or CraigB are reading this, and still think that authors like Josephus who apparently lived c.37 AD to 100 AD, might have themselves somehow known that James was indeed the brother of a Jesus figure who supposedly lived from circa. 7-2 BC to c.30-33 AD, they should ask themselves how Josephus might have heard about people and events from a time before he himself was even born ...

I'm sure you didn't mean to write that. It makes biased, deluded and uncomprehending me laugh out loud. Because Josephus must have had some way of finding out things that happened before he was born. He really must. He wrote a book about People and Events From A Time Before I Myself Was Even Born, more commonly known as Antiquities of the Jews

 

[GDon]

There is absolutely no indication how Josephus, writing at the end of the 1st century, could have personally known about anything that ever happened in the lifetime of Jesus, inc. whether Jesus ever confirmed that anyone called "James" was his actual family bother. Josephus was not even born at that time and could not himself possibly know any such thing ... it would be physically impossible.

Josephus would have been around the age of 25 when James was killed (dated to around 62 CE). Josephus was from an aristocratic family, and even in his early 20s was involved in the politics of his time, travelling to negotiate with Emperor Nero for the release of Jewish priests.

So Josephus was a young adult, involved in the political world of his time, when James was killed, causing a political ruckus.

But what we do know is that the only known earlier source of any mention of Jesus and any suggestion at all that anyone called "James" was his brother, came from the letters and gospels of the bible!

Yes, the Gospel of Mark, generally dated to the 70s CE, mentions a James who is the brother of Jesus. Did the author of gMark get this from Paul? If not, it is an independent source (and at least an interesting coincidence). If so, then it helps us to understand what Paul meant.

E.g., from Paul’s letters, supposedly (according to all HJ posters here and according to all bible scholars) written circa.50-60 AD, in which “Paul” says in one never again repeated remark “other apostles saw I none ... except James ... the lords brother”. IOW - that belief that Jesus had a brother called “James” actually came from that one single remark in Paul’s letter. And that, according even to all bible scholars, is the first ever mention of any suggestion that anyone called “James” was “the lords brother”.

Yes, Paul, writing around 50-60 CE, seems to refer to a James, brother of Jesus (if that is who is meant by 'the Lord'). Paul seems to have met James around 50 CE, though it's hard to determine precise dates. Not likely that Paul got this from gMark, nor Josephus!

IOW - as far as anyone can honestly know, Josephus could not have been an independent source for anything he ever said about Jesus (inc ever saying that James was the brother of Jesus). Because Josephus was not even born until after Jesus had died, and the actual only known earlier known source was apparently Paul’s letter with that one single never again repeated remark

Josephus was a young adult when the James he refers to was killed. There is no need to assume that he could only have heard about this James being killed from Christians. And if he really did hear that James was called 'the brother of Jesus called Christ', then that is reasonably strong evidence that there was a historical Jesus Christ. It also lends strength to support the interpretation of Paul's mention of the same person.

These are all First Century sources. The dates match. The facts match. The sources appear to be independent. Assuming the references are genuine, I can't see any reason why you can't get a historical Jesus who had a brother called James as the most parsimonious explanation from the above items. Wouldn't you agree, assuming the references above are genuine and not interpolations?

 

[IanS]

I'm sure you didn't mean to write that. It makes biased, deluded and uncomprehending me laugh out loud. Because Josephus must have had some way of finding out things that happened before he was born. He really must. He wrote a book about People and Events From A Time Before I Myself Was Even Born, more commonly known as Antiquities of the Jews

Yes, I did meant to write that.

What I have said, is that Josephus himself did not know about Jesus or about James as any family brother confirmed by Jesus, as his own (Josephus's own) personal knowledge. He was not even alive at the time!

As far as we can honestly tell, Josephus could only have been relying upon what other earlier people had said about Jesus and/or "James".

And the only known earlier original source for any mention of Jesus or of James being "the lords bother", was Paul's letter and then the gospels (with the gospels claimed as being later than Paul's original mention of "James, the lords brother").

If you are claiming that we should believe that Josephus had once himself believed that someone called "James" was the "lords brother", then it is a "fact" (according to all bible scholars) that the only known earlier source for that statement was Paul's letter. So IOW ... what Josephus ever said about Jesus, and whatever he may have said about anyone called "James" being his brother, is only known from Paul's letters as the actual source.

IOW - the only known earlier source from which Josephus could have believed that “James” was the “lords brother”, was not Josephus himself, but the letters of Paul.

And that's apart from the fact that we have no such thing ever written by Josephus anyway! What we actually have is only what Christian copyists themselves wrote 1000 years later!

 

[Craig B]

Yes, I did meant to write that.

What I have said, is that Josephus himself did not know about Jesus or about James as any family brother confirmed by Jesus, as his own (Josephus's own) personal knowledge. He was not even alive at the time!

As far as we can honestly tell, Josephus could only have been relying upon what other earlier people had said about Jesus and/or "James".

And the only known earlier original source for any mention of Jesus or of James being "the lords bother", was Paul's letter and then the gospels (with the gospels claimed as being later than Paul's original mention of "James, the lords brother").

If you are claiming that we should believe that Josephus had once himself believed that someone called "James" was the "lords brother", then it is a "fact" (according to all bible scholars) that the only known earlier source for that statement was Paul's letter. So IOW ... what Josephus ever said about Jesus, and whatever he may have said about anyone called "James" being his brother, is only known from Paul's letters as the actual source.

IOW - the only known earlier source from which Josephus could have believed that “James” was the “lords brother”, was not Josephus himself, but the letters of Paul.

And that's apart from the fact that we have no such thing ever written by Josephus anyway! What we actually have is only what Christian copyists themselves wrote 1000 years later!

I see. Because we now know a source, that is the only source. Do you mean that? As if the gospels' only source was Paul, anyway.

And of course the later Christian copyists are our only extant manuscript source for most ancient books. So they are all later fabrications; Caesar, the lot. We've been through all this before, and I have no stomach for a repetition of the experience.

 

[IanS]

Originally Posted by IanS
There is absolutely no indication how Josephus, writing at the end of the 1st century, could have personally known about anything that ever happened in the lifetime of Jesus, inc. whether Jesus ever confirmed that anyone called "James" was his actual family bother. Josephus was not even born at that time and could not himself possibly know any such thing ... it would be physically impossible.


Josephus would have been around the age of 25 when James was killed (dated to around 62 CE).

Josephus was from an aristocratic family, and even in his early 20s was involved in the politics of his time, travelling to negotiate with Emperor Nero for the release of Jewish priests.

So Josephus was a young adult, involved in the political world of his time, when James was killed, causing a political ruckus.

It's quite irrelevant what age Josephus was when James was said to have died.

What is relevant is only what you can produce as the source of Josephus knowing or believing that "James" was the family brother of Jesus!!

Where is your source for what you claim Josephus had cited as his source of knowing that anyone called "James" was the brother of Jesus? Where did Josephus get that idea from?

The only known earlier source for that claim is the bible and Paul's letter!

And that is apart from the fact that we do not know if Josephus ever wrote any such thing about James anyway! Instead all we have is what Christian copyists themselves wrote 1000 years later!

Originally Posted by IanS
But what we do know is that the only known earlier source of any mention of Jesus and any suggestion at all that anyone called "James" was his brother, came from the letters and gospels of the bible!


Yes, the Gospel of Mark, generally dated to the 70s CE, mentions a James who is the brother of Jesus. Did the author of gMark get this from Paul? If not, it is an independent source (and at least an interesting coincidence). If so, then it helps us to understand what Paul meant.

Well if you accept, as HJ posters here have insisted (and all bible scholars insist) that Paul's letter pre-dated the gospel of Mark, then please show where the anonymous copyist author of g-Mark ever got that idea from, except from what you yourself claim had already been written decades earlier by Paul!

Paul's letter is the earliest only known original primary source for that never again repeated single remark saying "save James, the lords brother"!.

Originally Posted by IanS
E.g., from Paul’s letters, supposedly (according to all HJ posters here and according to all bible scholars) written circa.50-60 AD, in which “Paul” says in one never again repeated remark “other apostles saw I none ... except James ... the lords brother”. IOW - that belief that Jesus had a brother called “James” actually came from that one single remark in Paul’s letter. And that, according even to all bible scholars, is the first ever mention of any suggestion that anyone called “James” was “the lords brother”.


Yes, Paul, writing around 50-60 CE, seems to refer to a James, brother of Jesus (if that is who is meant by 'the Lord'). Paul seems to have met James around 50 CE, though it's hard to determine precise dates. Not likely that Paul got this from gMark, nor Josephus!

Paul’s letter does not merely “seem” to refer to “save James, the lords brother”. That is what the only known earliest copy (P46 circa 200AD) actually says! Isn’t it !?

And, exactly! If Paul wrote that circa 50-60AD, then his remark “save James, the lords brother”, is the earliest known primary source for a claim that “the lord” had a brother called “James”.

Any later gospel writers make zero mention of where they could have got any such idea, except for that which had already been written by Paul!!

Originally Posted by IanS
IOW - as far as anyone can honestly know, Josephus could not have been an independent source for anything he ever said about Jesus (inc ever saying that James was the brother of Jesus). Because Josephus was not even born until after Jesus had died, and the actual only known earlier known source was apparently Paul’s letter with that one single never again repeated remark


Josephus was a young adult when the James he refers to was killed. There is no need to assume that he could only have heard about this James being killed from Christians. And if he really did hear that James was called 'the brother of Jesus called Christ', then that is reasonably strong evidence that there was a historical Jesus Christ. It also lends strength to support the interpretation of Paul's mention of the same person.

Yes there most certainly is a need to assume point out that he could only have heard about this James being killed from Christians Josephus gives no indication at all of ever having met James or of anyone who ever told him that James was the “lords brother” ... except for the only known earlier source of that claim which comes from Paul’s much earlier written letter!

And no, it’s certainly not any evidence at all that there was a historical Jesus. It is only evidence that by 1000AD and later, Christian copyists were writing to say in copies of Josephus’s work, that “James” was said to be “the lords brother”

And no, it does not at all lend “strength to support the interpretation of Paul's mention of the same person”. The mention in 11th cent. Christian copies of Josephus, only tells you that by the 11th century Christian copyists included a brief qualifying remark to claim that “James” was said to be “the lords brother”, and that comes 1000 years after it was apparently first said by Paul!

These are all First Century sources. The dates match. The facts match. The sources appear to be independent. Assuming the references are genuine, I can't see any reason why you can't get a historical Jesus who had a brother called James as the most parsimonious explanation from the above items. Wouldn't you agree, assuming the references above are genuine and not interpolations?

No they are most definitely not first century sources at all! None of them are first century! The writing in Josephus for example is not known until Christian copying apparently dated to the 11th century and later!! And even Paul’s letter is not known until about circa.200 AD in P46.

And no, Josephus and the gospel writers are most definitely not independent sources for any mention of Jesus or James. If you make that claim then you MUST show where those authors personally obtained their knowledge of Jesus and of anyone called “James” being his brother! ... where is your source that shows where Josephus ever got any knowledge about Jesus or James?

On the compete contrary, if your own dates are correct with Paul’s letters pre-dating the gospels, then what can be shown according to your own dating is that Paul’s letters are the original and only known primary source for the belief that “James” was “the lords brother”.

 

[IanS]

I see. Because we now know a source, that is the only source. Do you mean that? As if the gospels' only source was Paul, anyway.

Can you name any earlier source than Paul's letters and then after that the gospels?

If you cannot do that, then as far as anyone can honestly tell, those letters and gospels are the only known source from which later writers like Josephus, could possibly have obtained any idea at all about Jesus (inc. who his brothers might have been)!

That would not be true, providing authors like Josephus had told us who their other actual sources were. But they very definitely do no such thing!

And of course the later Christian copyists are our only extant manuscript source for most ancient books. So they are all later fabrications; Caesar, the lot. We've been through all this before, and I have no stomach for a repetition of the experience.

If you are talking about 1000 years after Josephus had died, and the Christian copies produced in his name (and ditto re. Tacitus), then the entirety of what was produced under names like Josephus and Tacitus does not at all need to be just "fabrication" by later Christian copyists writing a whopping 1000+ years after all the original authors had died ...

... all that needed to have been very slightly altered in just few short words, was the ultra brief mention that Josephus and Tacitus were said to have originally written about Jesus.

And that doubt re. later Christian alterations, arises because it is apparently an indisputable fact, agreed even by the most Christian of bible scholars and theologians, that those later Christian writers were indeed quite often in the habit of altering such references to Jesus and the bible.

 

[tsig]

Please examine this. It explains why some Gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material, and the means by which this may be discerned.

From the link:

at and why of Jesus' mission."[54] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[74] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent.[75][76][77] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[75][77][78]

You are aware that 'Jesus died for me' is a major dogma of the Christian religion so far from being embarrassed by the crucifixion they trumpet it?


The baptism was the open handing off of the cult from John to Jesus so they were proud of it.


The 'criterion of embarrassment' depends on knowing what the apostles thought and should be an embarrassment to anyone who tries to use it.

 

[maximara]

Josephus was a young adult when the James he refers to was killed. There is no need to assume that he could only have heard about this James being killed from Christians. And if he really did hear that James was called 'the brother of Jesus called Christ', then that is reasonably strong evidence that there was a historical Jesus Christ. It also lends strength to support the interpretation of Paul's mention of the same person.

These are all First Century sources. The dates match. The facts match. The sources appear to be independent. Assuming the references are genuine, I can't see any reason why you can't get a historical Jesus who had a brother called James as the most parsimonious explanation from the above items. Wouldn't you agree, assuming the references above are genuine and not interpolations?

Except they are NOT First Century sources but copies of copies of copies with the version we have being centuries after the first version was supposedly written down.

Papyrus 46 is 150-250 CE with 95% confidence interval and some have suggested as far back as the 19th century that the James bother of the Lord in Paul was a gloss that was later woven into the text. Even in English the structure is odd:

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

The second passage reads like an after thought... or a kludgy way to add something that wasn't there to begin with.


Our oldest complete versions of Mark all date from the 4th century and NONE of them mention James the Lord's brother as an apostle! Here is Mark's first list of apostles (Mark 3:16-19):

Simon he surnamed Peter;

James the son of Zebedee
John the brother of James

(he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder)

Andrew

Philip

Bartholomew

Matthew

Thomas

James the son of Alphaeus
Thaddaeus

Simon the Canaanite

Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him

In fact, James, son of Alphaeus has a c62 CE death date which near as I can tell stems from Saint Jerome proposing James, son of Alphaeus was the "James, the brother of the Lord" referenced by Paul with 'brother' actually meaning 'cousin'. But Mark doesn't identify James, son of Alphaeus as being the same James mentioned before and actually has Jesus state "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."

So here we seen another try to make things fit hand waving based on unsupported assumptions based on religious dogma rather then what the texts actually say.


The Josephus reference has problems as here is what Origen says about the passage he is referencing:

"this writer" (Josephus) ... "in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple" ... "says nevertheless" ... "that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)". This point is repeated in Against Celsus 2.13 where Origen states "But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God."


Note that the Josephus passage regarding James brother of Jesus who was called Christ does NOT connect the death of this James with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, or any other disaster despite Origen stating twice that the passage he is referring to does.

 

[maximara]

Please examine this. It explains why some Gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material, and the means by which this may be discerned.

The link is the dreaded Criterion of embarrassment BS. Anybody that spends more then five minutes with Western mythology knows this is a load of garbage.

I mean look at the Odyssey where Odysseus' crew all compete for the IQ less then a bag of rocks award which you also see with Jesus' disciples.

Then you have Osiris who in some versions of the myth is tricked by Set by a method simpler then that seen in an EC comic making Osiris on par with Odysseus crew in the 'my brain don't work too well' department. I mean it is an embarrassment to admit that your god has the Captain Hook problem only instead of his hand it is the Family Jewels that is in the belly of some crocodile and his wife had to make him a new pair (you could make a really obvious crass joke here as why Horus had to get revenge rather Osiris himself but it is so obvious we'll skip it).

I should mention that if you really look at Greek and Roman mythology you have the heroes themselves doing something jaw droppingly stupid and getting punished for it. And some of these these stumblebums were revered as gods. Then you have the incidents that happened to some of them. Take Heracles and Omphale for example. There you have a hero being forced to wear women's clothes and do woman's work by a woman because said hero had lost his temper and had killed somebody.

These stories are trying to a portray moral or doctrinal or symbolic truth and if doing that required the characters in the story to have all the brains of a rock or for the character to be degraded in some manner then so be it.

 

[dejudge]

Josephus would have been around the age of 25 when James was killed (dated to around 62 CE). Josephus was from an aristocratic family, and even in his early 20s was involved in the politics of his time, travelling to negotiate with Emperor Nero for the release of Jewish priests.

It is most fascinating that Bible believing Christians would give the impression that their fellow Christian brothers of antiquity lied when they claimed THEIR Jesus had NO brother called James the Apostle.

Chrysostom was a Christian of antiquity who admitted the Pauline Jesus had NO brother called James the Apostle.

You very well know that Multiple of your Christians writers of antiquity DENIED the Jesus had a brother James the Apostle.

In fact, Galatians 1.19 does not even mention the name Jesus.

As a Christian you should at least admit that Galatians 1.19 has the Nomina Sacra for God.

In Galatians 1.19, James the Apostle was called the brother of the LORD GOD.

Your post show how desperate Christians are with the blatant propaganda that Galatians 1.19 mentions Jesus when it does NOT.

Anyone who is familiar with Koine Greek and the Nomina Sacra will EASILY recognise that Galatians 1.19 is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

See the Sinaticus Codex. "του κυ" is the Nomina Sacra for the LORD God of the Jews.

Sinaiticus Galatians 1.19.......αποϲτολων ουκ ιδον ει μη ϊακωβο τον αδελφον του κυ α δε γραφω ϋμι....

How much longer can you promote the known established Chinese Whispers?

Even in the Papyri 46, the name Jesus is NOT found in Galatians 1.19.

It is most amazing that you would make claims about the Christian Bible that are known to fallacious.

Galatians 1.19 mentions the LORD GOD of the Jews--NOT Obscure HJ.

Please, stop the Chinese Whispers.

 

[IanS]

I see. Because we now know a source, that is the only source. Do you mean that? As if the gospels' only source was Paul, anyway.

It's the only KNOWN source.

The only known original, first, or primary source for the belief that someone called James was the family brother of Jesus, is Paul's letter (circa 50-60 AD, according to all bible scholars and according to all HJ posters here).

That is the first (earliest) original mention of James as the "brother of the lord".

Against that factual evidence of Paul’s letter, which actually exists as a 200 AD copy called P46, you wish instead to speculate without any evidence at all, that Josephus might have got his James information from Roman records, even though you have no such Roman records saying any such thing, and even though Josephus says no such thing about where he got any belief about James!

Well that is entirely un-evidenced speculation on your part. And that is utterly worthless ... anyone in the world could speculate that Josephus might have got his beliefs from absolutely anyone or absolutely anywhere! That's totally 100% redundant worthless self-interested speculation.

But we do not have to speculate like that. Because we do in fact already have a very well known earlier source. And it's the letter of Paul which had already (before Josephus had written single word about anything), said that "James was "the lords brother"!

So Paul's earlier letter is certainly a source for that later belief that James was a brother of Jesus. In fact Paul's letter is the only known primary original or first source for any mention at all of anyone called James being "the lords brother".

And of course the later Christian copyists are our only extant manuscript source for most ancient books. So they are all later fabrications; Caesar, the lot. We've been through all this before, and I have no stomach for a repetition of the experience.

No, they are not "all later fabrications", and nobody here has ever said any such thing.

But what has been said, not by me, but by all bible scholars, is that later Christian copyists were known to be in the habit of altering things that were said about Jesus. That is apparently a known "fact", according to all bible scholars, theologians and all Christian writers. They all accept that later copyists were certainly in the habit of altering passages about Jesus, wherever they later came to believe that the passage should be changed!

And all it requires is for just a few words to be deleted, or added or altered in the most minimal way, in order to entirely change the meaning of what was said in the very brief passages that authors like Josephus ever wrote about Jesus or anyone called James.

To repeat that - it only needs the most tiny alteration, even just a single word added or removed, to entirely change what the passage had originally said. And we are talking about what eventually appeared after 1000+ years of such Christian copying!

 

[Mcreal]

And [Jesus] had brothers living in Galilee: James, Judas, Simeon, and Joses. And unnamed sisters. And his mother and his brothers thought he had gone nuts, in Mark 3.

... the Gospel of Mark, generally dated to the 70s CE, mentions a James who is the brother of Jesus. Did the author of gMark get this from Paul? If not, it is an independent source (and at least an interesting coincidence). If so, then it helps us to understand what Paul meant.

Except there are different James in different chapters of Mark

Mark 1
19 Then he went a little further, and saw James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; these too were in their boat, repairing their nets; 20 all at once he called them, and they, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, turned aside after him.​

Jesus also had a brother John in Mark 3:17, and Mark 5:37.

But not in Mark 6:3 nor in Mark 15:40.

James is the son of Alpheus in Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, and Acts 1:13.

James is the son of Mary, brother of Joseph (or Joses) in Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:56. There, James is probably the son of Cleophas or Clopas (John 19:25) where "Maria Cleophæ" is generally translated "Mary the wife of Cleophas", as married women are commonly distinguished by the addition of their husband's name.

So, the various James had different siblings, and different fathers.

Yes, Paul, writing around 50-60 CE, seems to refer to a James, brother of Jesus (if that is who is meant by 'the Lord'). Paul seems to have met James around 50 CE, though it's hard to determine precise dates. Not likely that Paul got this from gMark, nor Josephus!

Which James?

Josephus was a young adult when the James he refers to was killed. There is no need to assume that he could only have heard about this James being killed from Christians. And if he really did hear that James was called 'the brother of Jesus called Christ', then that is reasonably strong evidence that there was a historical Jesus Christ.

Everybody wanted to be a brother??

It also lends strength to support the interpretation of Paul's mention of the same person.

"the Lord" giveth, "the Lord" taketh

These are all First Century sources. The dates match. The facts match. The sources appear to be independent.

They are sources for several James; with different parents, and different brothers??

The James appear to be independent.

Assuming the references are genuine, I can't see any reason why you can't get a historical Jesus who had a brother called James as the most parsimonious explanation from the above items. Wouldn't you agree, assuming the references above are genuine and not interpolations?

 

[Mcreal]

We DO have independent "informants" with their own sources, like Antiqs. 20 and Annals 15, which are non-apologetics that plainly "confirm" a normal non-supernatural Yeshua ...

Annals 15 derives from a single manuscript found in a monastery at Monte Cassino in the 14th C.

This MS is written in the difficult Beneventan hand. It was written at Monte Cassino, perhaps during the abbacy of Richer (1038-55AD). It derives from an ancestor written in Rustic Capitals, as it contains errors of transcription natural to that bookhand. There is some evidence that it was copied only once in about ten centuries, and that this copy was made from an original in rustic capitals of the 5th century or earlier,⁸ but other scholars believe that it was copied via at least one intermediate copy written in a minuscule hand.⁹
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/

8. E.A. LOWE, The Unique Manuscript of Tacitus' Histories, Casinensia, Monte Cassino, 1929, vol. I pp. 257-272. (Ref. from Oliver). (Not checked)

9. C.W. MENDELL and S.A. IVES, Rycks's Manuscript of Tacitus, American Journal of Philology 72 (1951), pp.337-345.

Revilo P. OLIVER, "The First Medicean MS of Tacitus and the Titulature of Ancient Books", Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 82 (1951), pp.232-261. (Checked)

Annals 15.44 refers to Nero (Emperor from 54 AD to 68 AD), then earlier Emperor Tiberius (Emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD), then the later Nero again

Annals 15.44

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, but as of hatred against mankind.

Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car."

Now Jay Raskins has suggested it would be more chronologically consistent if the reference to Tiberius (Emperor 14 AD to 37 AD) was actually a substitution for Nero (Emperor 54 to 68 AD) and, by applying other texts such as Antiquities of the Jews 20.8.10, which also refers to Porcius Festus as procurator (as does Antiquities 20.8.9, & 20.8.11; & 20.9.1), one can make a case for interpolation of Tiberius for Nero, and for interpolation of Pilate for Festus.

Antiquities 20.8.9 and 20.8.10

9. Now when Porcius Festus was sent as successor to Felix by Nero ...

10 Upon Festus’s coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

So, the original could very well have been

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus Portius Festus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."​

Tertullian's Ad Nationes also records a difference is styles between Tiberius and Nero -

Ad Nationes CHAP. VII.
This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor. If that prince was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure; if he was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country

Such a difference in style also raises issues of veracity of the narrative about "the crucifixion of Jesus" by Pontius Pilate under Tiberius.

Furthermore, the reference to Christus concurs somewhat with Seutonius's reference to Nero's predecessor Claudius having issues with a Chrestus (not necessarily the same one, but it shows a theme) -

"And Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

Seutonius, The Life of Claudius 25.4, in The Lives of the Caesars

 

[Craig B]

Except there are different James in different chapters of Mark ...

There are diffent Jameses in the circle of my acquaintances.

So, the various James had different siblings, and different fathers.

That is true also of the various Jameses in the circle of my acquaintances.

They are sources for several James; with different parents, and different brothers??

Yes. we've been through the different parents and siblings bit. I don't know why you find that noteworthy. It was a common name.

The James appear to be independent.

That is true also of the various Jameses in the circle of my acquaintances.