You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
There are diffent Jameses in the circle of my acquaintances.
That is true also of the various Jameses in the circle of my acquaintances.
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.
That is true also of the various Jameses in the circle of my acquaintances.
What was Josephus's source for believing that anyone called "James" was the brother of Jesus?
How did Josephus know that anyone named "James" was ever said to be the family brother of Jesus?
Afaik, there is no suggestion at all from Josephus that he himself had ever met anyone called "James". And no indication at all of Josephus saying what his source ever was.
So can you tell us of any earlier source (before the writing of Josephus) that had already made that exact same claim to say that James was the brother of Jesus?
You do know of a prior source don't you! It's Paul's letter isn't it!
That letter was supposed to have been written circa. 50-60 AD (that date is according not only to all bible scholars, but also according to all HJ posters here including YOU!). That is around 40 to 50 years or so before Josephus wrote anything.
But more importantly, Paul's letters are known from P46 dated to circa.200 AD. Whereas the earliest copy of Josephus is apparently 11th century or later. IOW - the mention of James appeared in Paul's letter (P46) a whopping 800 years before we first see it in the earliest extant copies of Josephus!
So Paul's letter is very obviously, and in fact unarguably, a vastly earlier source from which any later writers, such as the copyists who wrote Josephus, could very easily have got the belief that James was a brother of Jesus. That is undeniable isn't it!
Can you name any other earlier or similarly early known source (e.g. in the 1st century), from which an author like Josephus could ever have obtained the idea that anyone called James was a family brother of Jesus?
If you cannot name any other such source, then the inescapable fact of the matter is that the only known source, i.e. the original earliest "source", was in fact the letter of Paul.
I can't follow that at at all. You were saying that various people called James appear in gMark. I'm saying, so what? Among these Jameses one of them is described as a brother of Jesus. That may or may not be authentic, but in any event the existence or otherwise of one James doesn't prevent the existence or otherwise of other people bearing that common name. As you say, they're "independent".You're Jesus H[istorical] Christ ??
In Josephus there are several people called Jesus, but we don't know exactly how many, because one person may be referred to more than once in different contexts. It was a common name too.
Antiquities 20.9.1 is a passage about Ananus's behaviour as High Priest and Albinus's response. James is part of the issue, but his relationship with a Jesus seems out of context, particularly the way Josephus generally writes about people or events.
It hardly seems related to Jesus ben Damneus, though.
The isolated reference to " Jesus, who was called Christ" smacks of interpolation.
It hardly seems related to Jesus ben Damneus, though.
The isolated reference to " Jesus, who was called Christ" smacks of interpolation.
Last edited:
I can't follow that at at all. You were saying that various people called James appear in gMark. I'm saying, so what? Among these Jameses one of them is described as a brother of Jesus. That may or may not be authentic, but in any event the existence or otherwise of one James doesn't prevent the existence or otherwise of other people bearing that common name. As you say, they're "independent".
Your statement is an established fallacy. Authenticity is not directly related to veracity.
There is NO statement that the Apostle James is a brother of Jesus in gMark.
There is ZERO claim in the NT that James the Apostle was the brother of Jesus.
None of the character called James the Apostle is documented as a brother of Jesus in the ENTIRE NT.
Galatians 1.19 does not state that James the Apostle was the brother of Jesus.
Galatians 1.19 does NOT mention or identify an OBSCURE criminal/preacher/rebel/sage/prophet called Jesus.
Galatians 1.19 refers to James the brother of the LORD God of the Jews.
In addition, Christian writers of antiquity have ADMITTED that THE Pauline Jesus had NO brother called James.
Craig B, the evidence of myth Jesus will not magically disappear.
Jesus and Satan were together in the wilderness with angels for FORTY days.
Jesus, Satan and Angels are all myth/fiction characters in gMark.
Mark 1:13 ----And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
Antiquities 20.9.1 is a passage about Ananus's behaviour as High Priest and Albinus's response. James is part of the issue, but his relationship with a Jesus seems out of context, particularly the way Josephus generally writes about people or events.
It hardly seems related to Jesus ben Damneus, though.
The isolated reference to " Jesus, who was called Christ" smacks of interpolation.
Jesus the 'anointed' in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 refers to Jesus the anointed High Priest the son of Damneus.
Jewish High Priests were physically anointed and it is admitted that Jewish High Priests and Kings were called 'anointed'.
The greek word for 'anointed' predated the Jesus story and many Jews were called 'anointed' hundreds of years before the Jesus story was invented.
In addition, a supposed obscure HJ would not be called anointed by Jews when he was NOT anointed as a Jewish High Priest or King.
The supposed scarcely known HJ would not be called anointed AFTER he was executed as a criminal.
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!
Origen, Against Celsus 1.47 -
... Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.
I disagree. I think that "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is independent to the later, single reference to Jesus ben Damneus.Jesus the 'anointed' in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 refers to Jesus the anointed High Priest the son of Damneus.
Origen, Against Celsus 1.47 -
... Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.
GDon knows that the writings attributed to Origen destroy the HJ argument that Jesus was a mere man with a human father.
As a Christian, GDon knows Origen argued AGAINST an historical Jesus, a mere man with a human father.
In fact, writings attributed to Origen specifically stated that the historical Jesus, a mere man with a human father, was an EXPECTED Falsehood INVENTED by people who did not believe the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus by the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.
Origen's Against Celsus 1
....let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost........ It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.
It is most fascinating that even Christians today are promoting the very same Heresies which Origen preached against.
GDon has forgotten that we know the writings of antiquity attributed to Origen.
Origen admitted that Jesus had NO brother called James the Apostle.
Origen's Commentary on Matthew X
---They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.
Even Origen admitted that the Jesus of the Gospels had NO brother called James.
Last edited:
I disagree. I think that "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is independent to the later, single reference to Jesus ben Damneus.
I disagree.
There is no evidence to support what you think.
Telling me what you think without the supporting evidence is of no real value.
Christian writers did admit that Jewish High Priests were called the anointed.
Church History 1 7.
And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed...
Jesus the son of Damneus as High Priest was physically ANOINTED with OIL therefore he would be called Anointed.
It is most obvious that one who was physically Anointed with OIL by the Jews must have been called Anointed.
Only Jesus the High Priest the son of Damneus is qualified to be called Anointed in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
Last edited:
dejudge, it's an unusual reference to someone in a passage otherwise about a few other people. If it was an interpolation, it might as well refer to "called King" or "called Emperor" if the interpolated character was purported to be such.
I think it's coincidence that the theological character is the same name as the person mentioned at the end of the passage.
I think it's coincidence that the theological character is the same name as the person mentioned at the end of the passage.
I disagree. I think that "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is independent to the later, single reference to Jesus ben Damneus.
Given some have it as "Jesus, who was Christ" (Alden & Beardsley in their 1857 The Works of Flavius Josephus page 836 pointed out why that rendition has problems) I have to ask why can't the passage be read as 'Jesus who was anointed' (ie a reference to Jesus ben Damneus?
Because Jesus ben Damneus is introduced as the high priest who king Agrippa replaced Ananus with.... why can't the passage be read as 'Jesus who was anointed' (ie a reference to Jesus ben Damneus?
It would seem to be quite a coincidence that Ananus had delivered a fellow high priest's brother to be stoned; or that Jesus ben Damneus had been appointed priest b/c his predecessor had stoned his brother.
Which rendition has problems? Why?.. some have it as "Jesus, who was Christ" (Alden & Beardsley in their 1857 The Works of Flavius Josephus page 836 pointed out why that rendition has problems) ..
dejudge, it's an unusual reference to someone in a passage otherwise about a few other people. If it was an interpolation, it might as well refer to "called King" or "called Emperor" if the interpolated character was purported to be such.
I think it's coincidence that the theological character is the same name as the person mentioned at the end of the passage.
The problem with that is given who Josephus was writing for the passage would not clarify just who this James was unless there was one and only one Yeshua (Joshua as well as Jesus) who was called "Christ" by the mid 90s when Josephus wrote this work.
Josephus himself effectively kicks that idea in the head as we have Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] of 66-70 CE whose fate reads like a distorted version of the passover story regarding Jesus with 20 matching points and 1 inversion:
JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah; JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49; JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17; JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2; JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1; JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points); JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15 JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34; JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37.
Given how common the name Yeshua was and how would be Christs were popping up like bad pennies all over the place this phrase makes no sense as there had to be more then one Yeshua who had been called "Christ"
It would be like talking about the brother of President Adams, Roosevelt, or Bush.
It would like talking about Radu, whose brother Vlad was called Voivode.
Without more context you have no freaking clue as to who I am talking about in either of the above examples and neither would Josephus gentile readership.
Last edited:
Because Jesus ben Damneus is introduced as the high priest who king Agrippa replaced Ananus with..
And what do you do with a high priest? Why anoint them which when the Old Testament was translated into Greek was rendered as "christ" (The Many "Christs" in the Bible)!
So I again ask why can't the passage be read as 'Jesus who was anointed' (ie a reference to Jesus ben Damneus)?
Oh the problem Alden & Beardsley were on about the James reference being "Jesus, who was Christ" was the fact Origen clearly stated twice that Josephus did NOT state Jesus was Christ.
In fact the passage tended to rendered as "brother of Jesus, who was Christ" until the early 19th century when the "called" tap dance started as I have have found it as early as 1815 in William Whiston's "The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus" but I also found the older translation as late as 1846 in Martyrologia; or, Records of religious persecution by John Sundins Stamp, John Foxe, William Harris Rule:
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was upon the road ; so be, Ananns, assembled the sanhedrin of Judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was Christ, whose name was James, and some others"
So we have evidence that the translation we are getting is possibly being distorted so not to disagree with Origen. We need to see an actual photostat of the Josephus being used for these translation to verify what we are being given is accurate.
Last edited:
dejudge, it's an unusual reference to someone in a passage otherwise about a few other people. If it was an interpolation, it might as well refer to "called King" or "called Emperor" if the interpolated character was purported to be such.
I think it's coincidence that the theological character is the same name as the person mentioned at the end of the passage.
The Greek word for anointed is not unusual at all.
The Greek for anointed is found multiple times in the Greek version of Jewish Scripture called the Septuagint.
Jewish High Priest were actually and physically anointed with specially prepared oil based on Jewish Laws.
Exodus 40:15
And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.
ONLY Jesus the High Priest the son of Damneus is qualified to be called ANOINTED in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
Examine the RECIPE for the Anointing Mixture for High Priest according to Jewish Law.
Antiquities of the Jews 3.8.3.
Moses now purified the tabernacle and the priests; which purification was performed after the following manner: - He commanded them to take five hundred shekels of choice myrrh, an equal quantity of cassia, and half the foregoing weight of cinnamon and calamus (this last is a sort of sweet spice); to beat them small, and wet them with an bin of oil of olives (an hin is our own country measure, and contains two Athenian choas, or congiuses); then mix them together, and boil them, and prepare them after the art of the apothecary, and make them into a very sweet ointment; and afterward to take it to anoint and to purify the priests themselves....
Josephus tells us the mixture for the Anointing process.
Jesus the High Priest the son of Damneus would be called the Anointed since he was ANOINTED.
You are deliberately deceiving people. I have stated that Mark says Jesus had brothers, including a James. Elsewhere, in Paul, we have a James who is a "brother" of "the Lord". But I agree, in listing Jesus' brothers, no source states that the sibling James, brother of Jesus, is the same person as Paul's "Lord's brother". I have never claimed that it did. Nevertheless I think it reasonable to identify these two characters as the same person. That seems probable to me.Your statement is an established fallacy. Authenticity is not directly related to veracity.
There is NO statement that the Apostle James is a brother of Jesus in gMark.
There is ZERO claim in the NT that James the Apostle was the brother of Jesus.
None of the character called James the Apostle is documented as a brother of Jesus in the ENTIRE NT.
We've been through all this dejudge. You attribute to me claims that I have not made, and you are knowingly doing this in order to deceive other readers of this thread.
Remember, if you commit Sins like that, you'll go to the Bad Fire.
You are deliberately deceiving people. I have stated that Mark says Jesus had brothers, including a James. Elsewhere, in Paul, we have a James who is a "brother" of "the Lord". But I agree, in listing Jesus' brothers, no source states that the sibling James, brother of Jesus, is the same person as Paul's "Lord's brother". I have never claimed that it did. Nevertheless I think it reasonable to identify these two characters as the same person. That seems probable to me.
On the surface it does seem to be a logical thing to do...but Paul uses "brother" and "sister" to reference followers of Jesus and Mark 3:35 has Jesus state "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."
So the logic is flawed in that Paul doesn't state if the James he references as brother of the Lord is an actual sibling and in Mark Jesus himself calls all those that "do the will of God" "my brother, and my sister, and mother" and no where in Mark is there any connection between the sibling James and either of the two James that are listed as being part of the twelve.
The logical thing to clear up any possible confusion would have be to say James brother to the Lord in the flesh but Paul doesn't do that and Mark doesn't show that either of the James he lists as part of the twelve are in anyway blood related to Jesus.
What you have with this argument is what amounts to confirmation bias where one is letting their assumption drive the data. It is what Horace Miner did in his 1956 article where every practice of then current 1950s United States actually firmly based on science is skewed through the "primitives use magic" lens so common back then.
Chlorination of water to prevent disease is reduced to "the Water Temple of the community, where the priests conduct elaborate ceremonies to make the liquid ritually pure."
The hospital with all it hard learned scientific advances is reduced to a temple "that is where you go to die" with the nurses now "vestal maidens" and the doctors now "medicine men".
Scientific Medicine is reduced to "ceremonies" of "discomfort and torture" with "magic wands" (thermometers) and "magically treated needles" (antibiotics and medicines).
After this Horace Miner's fellow anthropologist got the hint and actually looked at magic they discovered the only real differences was that magic didn't have a self correcting mechanic nor a set procedure for determining which concept best fit what was being observed.
The whole James brother of the Lord connection has the same problem. It is working from the assumption that "brother" in Paul is being used in the biological sense and trying to make everything fit that assumption. Once you leave the option open that "brother" could be used in a spiritual sense the whole house of cards falls apart and there is NOTHING to show that any apostle called James was an actual biological 'brother' to Jesus.
Also assuming this is actually Paul you have this James being separate from the twelve:
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. - 1 Corinthians 15:4-8
Here Paul clearly shows that James is an apostles but that he is NOT "of the twelve" because "the twelve" saw the risen Jesus BEFORE the "five hundred brethren" while James saw the risen Jesus AFTER. If this passage is totally faithful to what Paul actually wrote then this James CANNOT be any of the two James who are listed as being "of the twelve"!
I should point out unless there is something wonky about the way Greek translates Cephas is NOT "of the twelve" either; otherwise the passage would read 'then by the rest of the twelve'!
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.