Was There A Historical Jesus?

[MereChristian]

I picked composite of a few men/ legends. I think for his teachings and sayings it seems like, as Shyone points out in another thread, there are at least 2 people talking as he contradicts himself.

 

It only takes one person too contradict himself.

 

True. "Do I contradict myself? Yes, I contradict myself very well."

 

I think it is less likely that he is a composite of several men, and more likely that he was one man around whom different stories and views evolved.

[dagnarus]

I think it is less likely that he is a composite of several men, and more likely that he was one man around whom different stories and views evolved.

 

This seems quite plausible to me, in that it seems to me that even today views of Jesus are evolving. That said when we talk about Jesus are we talking about the man, or are we talking about the stories? If there happened to be a doomsday prophet named Jesus who preached around the 1st century, but he didn't perform miracles or resurrect, would he qualify as being the Christian Jesus?

[ContraBardus]

The funny thing is, there really -is- more evidence for Santa Claus than Jesus.

 

St. Nicholas was very likely a real person. He lived from 270 to 347 AD. He was born in the Greek colony of Patara. He was known as Nocholas of Myra, and was the Bishop of Myra.

 

There are actually contemporary records, artifacts, and assorted other evidence of his existence.

 

In other words, it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that 'Santa Claus' was a real person who actually existed.

 

The magical powers, gift giving, and his continued existence, not so much.

 

It can be reasonably shown that he did exist though.

 

The same cannot be said of Jesus though. There really isn't anything. No contemporary evidence of any kind, no artifacts, just myths, legends, and speculation.

 

Eyewitness accounts are the worst kind of evidence. There isn't even that much for Jesus.

 

Put simply, Historians are more interested in the probability that a particular event occurred or person existed than 'proving' anything anyway. It's the best they can hope to do, assign a value to how likely something in the past is.

 

I've come to an understanding that asking for 'proof' is a pretty unreasonable demand of just about anything.

 

What most people mean when the ask for 'proof' of anything is really, 'Show me that it's more likely than what I already believe'.

 

I don't really think it's possible to 'prove' much of anything that doesn't currently exist within the perception of both people involved in the discussion.

 

For example. I can claim I have a pencil in my hand right now.

 

I cannot however, prove, that I have one to anyone reading this. I could prove that I do to someone that is in the room with me, or is within a distance I am capable of carrying the pencil to and show them.

 

Other than that, I can provide nothing but enough evidence to show that a varying degree of how probable it is that I am holding a pensil.

 

For example, I could point out that pencils are not unusual, and it would not be odd that I have one, or I could post a picture of myself holding a pencil. Even then though, it would still not prove I had a pencil at this moment. Merely that I had one at one point and took a photo of it.

 

I could even take a time stamped photo, further improving the probable odds that I have a pencil. However, even that could be faked if I was so inclined.

 

It would not be likely that I would go to such trouble, but it is still well within possibility that I could. So, I'm still dealing with a level of probability and not actual proof of anything.

 

That's how it is with most anything. History or Science. They both deal in probability, not proof. Evidence for, not evidence that proves.

 

There is very little in the world that can actually be proven. Most of the time, we can only show enough evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt.

 

Jesus has a very low probability of existence according to the evidence we have of him and his life. Which is pretty much none.

 

Santa on the other hand, has a rather high probability. There's quite a bit of evidence that points to St. Nicholas being a real man who actually existed.

 

I voted other.

 

There's a very low probability that he was a real person at all.

 

There's no real evidence for it.

 

It's within possibility and not unreasonable to believe he might have been based on an actual person, or a group of people, but again, no real evidence for it.

 

Him being the son of God, who had magic powers, and rose from the dead, is completely improbable. I see no reason to believe it and consider such belief rather irrational and delusional.

[Robto]

I voted like bdp.

 

There's no way to be sure there was even a real person that inspired the Jesus stories. My thought is that if someone actually created the ruckus the Jesus character did in the story, there would probably be lots of independent accounts and official records of his shenanigans. There aren't.

 

I voted #2 - if you look at modern New Testament studies, you learn that there are at least four early, independent sources that can be identified: Paul, Mark, Q and the Gospel of Thomas. These present very different views of Jesus, yet they all make sense (well, a certain amount of sense) when viewed as different versions of the same person. However, I am only "somewhat sure" about this conclusion. I'm open to the possibility that Jesus was the result of pure myth-making, but I have yet to see a convincing presentation of how this might have occurred.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I voted #2 - if you look at modern New Testament studies, you learn that there are at least four early, independent sources that can be identified: Paul, Mark, Q and the Gospel of Thomas. These present very different views of Jesus, yet they all make sense (well, a certain amount of sense) when viewed as different versions of the same person. However, I am only "somewhat sure" about this conclusion. I'm open to the possibility that Jesus was the result of pure myth-making, but I have yet to see a convincing presentation of how this might have occurred.

 

"Q" is actually hypothetical. The logic behind it makes sense and it is definitely possible, but no such document has ever been found and thus it is speculative.

[ShackledNoMore]

OK, this subject has ballooned into my short term hobby/interest over the past few days.

 

I've looked at arguments against the historicity of Jesus, but nothing that I could not find either online or as a free e-book. Some of what I read looked like it was using the kitchen sink argument, throwing out all sorts of claims to oppose a historical Jesus that were hard to check and may or may not ring true. Still, whether or not some form of historical Jesus existed, his story is not original. Elements that were clearly recycled from older mythologies at a minimum overpowered any underlying historical Jesus that may have existed, even if he was not fabricated entirely from the ground up.

 

Another thing that bothered me a bit was that I was seeing semi-credible-but-take-with-a-grain-of-salt-starting-point-sources such as Wikipedia kept saying things like "the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians." I would expect that the consensus among a bunch of PhDs who had devoted their lives to these sorts of things and were experts in their fields would necessarily be very well supported. What I found when I started clicking some links was that almost all of the scholars and historians I checked were distinguished doctorates at theological seminaries. Yes, at least based on my preliminary investigations, these were christians who were "called to god's service" and got their divinity degrees having presupposed the validity of christianity before even addressing the question of a historical Jesus!

 

When I looked at the sources these scholars seemed to be drawing their conclusions from, it seemed to be pretty much the same sources that are obviously available: canonical and non-canonical gospels, epistles, New Testament, Gnostics texts, texts attributed to early church fathers, the earliest of which was probably Clement--no earlier than the gospels--and I would need to be convinced of evidence of their authenticity, and the short list of non-christian historians, first and foremost Josephus.

 

Of course I've heard the argument that the passages documenting historical Jesus in Josephus' writings were forgeries inserted by later scribes. It sounded reasonable. Some pro-historical-Jesus comments seemed to suggest that the Jesus passages were more extensive and less artificial than the non-historical-Jesus proponents would have us believe. So, I looked up some of Josephus' writings. I have to say, it was a minimal effort: the first thing I noticed was an extensive account on the history of the Jews long before Josephus lived. I suppose that I obviously need to revisit Josephus, but a probably tedious rehash of Jewish legend from before the dawn of xianity was not what I was looking for at the time.

 

Needless to say, I am starting to become somewhat more at ease reconciling the claims that the consensus of the scholars is for a historical Jesus with the non-historical Jesus hypothesis. I'm no historian, but it appears to me that supposedly distinguished historians may be basically confirming their own presuppositions by accepting the historicity of Jesus on weaker criteria than they demand for other ancient historical figures.

 

The most promising source I have seen so far that is a proponent of the historical Jesus hypothesis is someone named Michael Grant. I know little about him so far accept that he is prolific, he seems to have a very impressive resume with prestigious universities that are NOT seminaries, and he appears to be convinced that a historical Jesus existed. If anybody knows anything about Michael Grant, by the way, or has any recommendations from him (or for similar sources, for that matter), I'd love to hear about it.

 

In my mind, the jury's still out, but the case for a historical Jesus never having existed is starting to look quite plausible (dare I say likely?) and worthy of further consideration.

 

There are schools of thought, quite reasonable supposing there was not a historical Jesus, that figures like the apostles and Paul did not exist historically either. So assuming, it would be interesting to address the question of which of the very early popes (say, before the Council of Nicaea, certainly) actually existed historically.

[ShackledNoMore]

I voted #2 - if you look at modern New Testament studies, you learn that there are at least four early, independent sources that can be identified: Paul, Mark, Q and the Gospel of Thomas. These present very different views of Jesus, yet they all make sense (well, a certain amount of sense) when viewed as different versions of the same person. However, I am only "somewhat sure" about this conclusion. I'm open to the possibility that Jesus was the result of pure myth-making, but I have yet to see a convincing presentation of how this might have occurred.

 

"Q" is actually hypothetical. The logic behind it makes sense and it is definitely possible, but no such document has ever been found and thus it is speculative.

Q is hypothetical, speculative, and unproven, but it does seem like a reasonable conjecture to me and likely.

[Shyone]

There are schools of thought, quite reasonable supposing there was not a historical Jesus, that figures like the apostles and Paul did not exist historically either. So assuming, it would be interesting to address the question of which of the very early popes (say, before the Council of Nicaea, certainly) actually existed historically.

Part of the problem is that there are mythical qualities to some old figures, and clearly words were put into their mouths (or NT books forged in their names). It makes determining fact from fiction very difficult.

 

If you speak of a man that walked on water, turned water into wine, came back from the dead and floated up into "heaven", then that man is a myth.

 

If you speak of an itenerant Jewish Rabbi with a cult following who uttered "deep" things, he probably existed. In fact, several of him existed, and it is now too late to figure out which "deep" things were from one rabbi or another, or interpolated based upon expectations from prophecies - which are another mythical part of the Jesus Story.

[Neon Genesis]

 

This seems quite plausible to me, in that it seems to me that even today views of Jesus are evolving. That said when we talk about Jesus are we talking about the man, or are we talking about the stories? If there happened to be a doomsday prophet named Jesus who preached around the 1st century, but he didn't perform miracles or resurrect, would he qualify as being the Christian Jesus?

I like the way Marcus Borg distinguishes between the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Jesus. The pre-Easter Jesus is the original Jesus who was an ordinary human who was executed by the Roman authorities and the post-Easter Jesus is the miraculous Jesus who was raised from the dead and the post-Easter Jesus is "real" in the sense that he's "real" in the hearts of Christians.

 

The most promising source I have seen so far that is a proponent of the historical Jesus hypothesis is someone named Michael Grant. I know little about him so far accept that he is prolific, he seems to have a very impressive resume with prestigious universities that are NOT seminaries, and he appears to be convinced that a historical Jesus existed. If anybody knows anything about Michael Grant, by the way, or has any recommendations from him (or for similar sources, for that matter), I'd love to hear about it.

The biblical scholar Bart D Ehrman is a secular scholar who got his degree from Princeton. He started out as a fundamentalist Christian, then he converted to liberal Christianity, and now he's an agnostic. Ehrman believes there was a historical Jesus and his argument in his book Jesus Interrupted is that the writings of Josephus were only partiality forged. He thinks the parts about Jesus being God in the flesh and supernatural were added in by later Christians but when you remove those parts, the writings on Jesus left he accepts as authentic.

[Shyone]

Ehrman believes there was a historical Jesus and his argument in his book Jesus Interrupted is that the writings of Josephus were only partiality forged. He thinks the parts about Jesus being God in the flesh and supernatural were added in by later Christians but when you remove those parts, the writings on Jesus left he accepts as authentic.

The passage in Josephus, even if "partially true" or "partially altered" is still poisoned. It is worthless as a historical reference.

 

Incidentally, pre-Easter and post-Easter are different, but let's not forget the "pre-evangelist" childhood of Jesus which, although slightly more plausible than a zombie Jesus, is still fabricated out of whole cloth.

[dagnarus]

The biblical scholar Bart D Ehrman is a secular scholar who got his degree from Princeton. He started out as a fundamentalist Christian, then he converted to liberal Christianity, and now he's an agnostic. Ehrman believes there was a historical Jesus and his argument in his book Jesus Interrupted is that the writings of Josephus were only partiality forged. He thinks the parts about Jesus being God in the flesh and supernatural were added in by later Christians but when you remove those parts, the writings on Jesus left he accepts as authentic.

 

It isn't important that Ehrman accepts a cut down version of the Testimonium. What is important, is why. Why does Ehrman accept this as being authentic? I don't care if he accepts it as being authentic, this isn't a good reason for me to accept a blatant forgery. I care why he accepts it, that reason is the reason why I might potentially change my mind and think that it is actually a prove of Jesus. As it stands, that it might just be a sexed up version of what Josephus actually wrote seems pretty weak to me. It still doesn't explain why earlier church fathers like Origen didn't cite it.

[Neon Genesis]

Here's the quote from Jesus Interrupted on Josephus.

In addition to pagan sources of the first century, we have non-Christian Jewish sources, though not nearly as many. But there is one, and only one, that does mention Jesus. This is the famous Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who around 90 CE wrote a twenty-volume history of the Jewish people from the time of Adam and Eve down to his own day. In this lengthy book he does not talk about Jesus at great length, but he does refer to him twice. In one reference he simply identifies a man named James as "the brother of Jesus, who is called the messiah" (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.91). The other reference is more extensive, but it is also problematic. In it Josephus seems to confess that he himself is a Christian, but we know from his other works that he was not (he wrote an autobiography, among other things). Scholars have long known that Josephus writings were not copied by Jews throughout the Middle Ages, since he was (probably rightly) considered a traitor to the Jewish cause in the disastrous war with Rome in which Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE. His writings were copied instead by Christians. And at the point where Josephus discusses Jesus, it appears that a Christian scribe made a few choice insertions, in order to clarify who Jesus really was. I have placed the sections possibly inserted by the scribes in brackets

He then quotes this section of Josephus and the parts he believes were inserted in by Christians are where it says "if indeed one should call him a man, for", and "He was the Messiah," and "For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him."

It is certainly worth knowing that the most prominent Jewish historian of the first century knew at least something about Jesus-specifically that he was a teacher who allegedly did wonderful deeds, had a large following, and was condemned to be crucified by Pontius Pilate. This account confirms some of the most important aspects of Jesus' life and death as recounted in the Gospels. But it doesn't indicate exactly what he did or said, or what circumstances led to his accusation and death, even if you include the bracketed comments.

[dagnarus]

Here's the quote from Jesus Interrupted on Josephus.

In addition to pagan sources of the first century, we have non-Christian Jewish sources, though not nearly as many. But there is one, and only one, that does mention Jesus. This is the famous Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who around 90 CE wrote a twenty-volume history of the Jewish people from the time of Adam and Eve down to his own day. In this lengthy book he does not talk about Jesus at great length, but he does refer to him twice. In one reference he simply identifies a man named James as "the brother of Jesus, who is called the messiah" (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.91). The other reference is more extensive, but it is also problematic. In it Josephus seems to confess that he himself is a Christian, but we know from his other works that he was not (he wrote an autobiography, among other things). Scholars have long known that Josephus writings were not copied by Jews throughout the Middle Ages, since he was (probably rightly) considered a traitor to the Jewish cause in the disastrous war with Rome in which Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE. His writings were copied instead by Christians. And at the point where Josephus discusses Jesus, it appears that a Christian scribe made a few choice insertions, in order to clarify who Jesus really was. I have placed the sections possibly inserted by the scribes in brackets

He then quotes this section of Josephus and the parts he believes were inserted in by Christians are where it says "if indeed one should call him a man, for", and "He was the Messiah," and "For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him."

It is certainly worth knowing that the most prominent Jewish historian of the first century knew at least something about Jesus-specifically that he was a teacher who allegedly did wonderful deeds, had a large following, and was condemned to be crucified by Pontius Pilate. This account confirms some of the most important aspects of Jesus' life and death as recounted in the Gospels. But it doesn't indicate exactly what he did or said, or what circumstances led to his accusation and death, even if you include the bracketed comments.

 

So in other words he doesn't justify why it shouldn't be considered a complete forgery.

[Neon Genesis]

But what are the arguments for it being a complete forgery?

[qadeshet]

But what are the arguments for it being a complete forgery?

 

Anyone who pretends that the Testimonium is authentic must explain who no Church offical before Bishop Eusebius, in the Forth century, bothered to mention it. Eusebius was an accomplished forger. There are many other arguments against the Testimonium. See the link below for a good summary.

 

Non-Christian Testimony?

[Neon Genesis]

Here's a quote from Wikipedia on Origen's writings on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Origen

The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate both the earliest known manuscripts of the Testimonium and the earliest quotations of the Testimonium by other writers. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he was clearly familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews, since he mentions the reference by Josephus to Jesus as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (xx.9), and also other passages from Antiquities such as the passage about John the Baptist which occurs in the same chapter (xviii) as the Testimonium.[4] Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" [8] "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" [9], but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. Thus it could be inferred that the version of Antiquities available to Origen did not give as positive an endorsement of Jesus as the present-day Testimonium.

 

On the other hand, while the evidence from Origen suggests that Josephus did not write the Testimonium in its current form, it also demonstrates, according to some scholars, that the version of the Antiquities known to Origen must have written something about Jesus, for otherwise Origen would have no reason to make the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ." [10] It is possible, for example, that Origen read the original version of the Testimonium Flavianum, which textual evidence from Jerome and Michael the Syrian (see below) indicates was worded "he was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." According to Alice Whealey, this original version was also probably what Eusebius also had at his disposal. [11] Whealey has argued that the wording of Michael the Syrian's Testimonium in particular, which employs the word mistabra, meaning "was supposed," has a skeptical connotation, as evidenced in the Syriac New Testament where it is used to translate Greek enomizeto of Luke 3:23. She has argued that Origen's probable exposure to a reading like Greek enomizeto (corresponding to the Syriac mistabra) in the original version of the Testimonium would readily explain Origen's statement that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ

[dagnarus]

But what are the arguments for it being a complete forgery?

 

Pretty much as qadeshet stated. Not even Origen, makes reference to this part of Josephus's antiquities, this is in spite of the fact that he is known to have read it and commented that Josephus's should have made reference to him. Plus why if it's an obvious partial forgery, should I not believe that it's a complete forgery? Maybe if there was extensive evidence for Jesus's existence elsewhere, but if the testimonium makes up the majority of the evidence, no, there is no real reason to believe it's not a complete forgery other than you want to.

[dagnarus]

Here's a quote from Wikipedia on Origen's writings on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Origen

The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate both the earliest known manuscripts of the Testimonium and the earliest quotations of the Testimonium by other writers. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he was clearly familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews, since he mentions the reference by Josephus to Jesus as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (xx.9), and also other passages from Antiquities such as the passage about John the Baptist which occurs in the same chapter (xviii) as the Testimonium.[4] Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" [8] "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" [9], but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. Thus it could be inferred that the version of Antiquities available to Origen did not give as positive an endorsement of Jesus as the present-day Testimonium.

 

On the other hand, while the evidence from Origen suggests that Josephus did not write the Testimonium in its current form, it also demonstrates, according to some scholars, that the version of the Antiquities known to Origen must have written something about Jesus, for otherwise Origen would have no reason to make the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ." [10] It is possible, for example, that Origen read the original version of the Testimonium Flavianum, which textual evidence from Jerome and Michael the Syrian (see below) indicates was worded "he was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." According to Alice Whealey, this original version was also probably what Eusebius also had at his disposal. [11] Whealey has argued that the wording of Michael the Syrian's Testimonium in particular, which employs the word mistabra, meaning "was supposed," has a skeptical connotation, as evidenced in the Syriac New Testament where it is used to translate Greek enomizeto of Luke 3:23. She has argued that Origen's probable exposure to a reading like Greek enomizeto (corresponding to the Syriac mistabra) in the original version of the Testimonium would readily explain Origen's statement that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ

 

The fact is that Origen didn't make reference to any part of the Testimonium whatever, whereas he probably would have if it were there. As to the second paragraph, that's just wishful thinking, the most likely reason for Origen knowing that Josephus was not a Christian is that it was common knowledge. It's quite likely that he would learn some information about who Josephus was while tracking down the antiquities for source material. Lastly he could just of well came to the conclusion that Josephus was not a Christian because he wrote a history of Judea covering the period in time in which Jesus was active, without actually covering Jesus, something which a Christian would obviously be interested in investigating and recording.

[ShackledNoMore]

Josephus has the reputation of being very thorough and detailed. He has written in excruciating detail about much less prominent figures than Jesus, even as a man that really influenced people sans miracles (so the argument goes--yep, I still ought to read the works of Josephus). It would be unexpected for him to write only two short, isolated passages about Jesus if he were historical. I don't know, but I think I even remember reading somewhere that at least one of them appears to be out of context with the surrounding text? Maybe this evening I'll try to find the appropriate surrounding passages of the Testimonium.

 

In any case, I think this is the passage in question:

 

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.

 

No elaboration on the ten thousand wonderful things? Only three sentences here on the man that Josephus believes by this account rose from the dead? Although he acknowledges that Jesus rose from the dead he sees no reason to consider being a christian? The whole short passage, from beginning to end, is pretty gooey-gushy complimentary. Anything left that resembles a straight report that comes off as only mildly positive would be minimal. It just doesn't seem to fit. Throw in the fact that scribes had to copy documents back in those days, and it was easy, and I believe common, for them to sprinkle in their own insertions. And there existed an agenda to legitimize Jesus. Plus, there was surrounding context: not only were there only two short passages from Josephus, there was a notable lack of documentation outside the gospels and epistles (canonical or not) by others during what was supposed to be a well documented period of history.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

The fact is that Origen didn't make reference to any part of the Testimonium whatever, whereas he probably would have if it were there. As to the second paragraph, that's just wishful thinking, the most likely reason for Origen knowing that Josephus was not a Christian is that it was common knowledge. It's quite likely that he would learn some information about who Josephus was while tracking down the antiquities for source material. Lastly he could just of well came to the conclusion that Josephus was not a Christian because he wrote a history of Judea covering the period in time in which Jesus was active, without actually covering Jesus, something which a Christian would obviously be interested in investigating and recording.

What about the other passage of Josephus where he references James as the brother of Jesus, the messiah? According to the Wikipedia article, Origen does reference that, so does Origen give credibility to that source?

[dagnarus]

 

 

The fact is that Origen didn't make reference to any part of the Testimonium whatever, whereas he probably would have if it were there. As to the second paragraph, that's just wishful thinking, the most likely reason for Origen knowing that Josephus was not a Christian is that it was common knowledge. It's quite likely that he would learn some information about who Josephus was while tracking down the antiquities for source material. Lastly he could just of well came to the conclusion that Josephus was not a Christian because he wrote a history of Judea covering the period in time in which Jesus was active, without actually covering Jesus, something which a Christian would obviously be interested in investigating and recording.

What about the other passage of Josephus where he references James as the brother of Jesus, the messiah? According to the Wikipedia article, Origen does reference that, so does Origen give credibility to that source?

 

Here is the text Origen cited

 

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. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; 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, 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 sanhedrin 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.[62]

 

I believe that one of the reasons why this isn't necessarily evidence for Jesus is that it seems strange for Josephus to reference to Jesus, here without introducing him properly. He hasn't even mentioned him anywhere else in his works (except of course the flavium, which is justifiably disputed). This becomes even more relevant when we consider that James the Just may have been the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, who was made high priest at the end of the passage. What if Christians such as Origen simply assumed that James the Just was the brother of Jesus talked about in the gospels, and then at some point quite innocently "who was called Christ" got introduced into the text?

 

Also throwing a spanner into the works is this bit of information from the wikipedia page

 

Josephus does not mention the martyrdom of James in his Jewish War. There he connects the fall of Jerusalem to the death of someone else - the very person responsible for the death of James as mentioned in the Antiquities. Josephus writing in Jewish War says:[citation needed]

 

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city (of Jerusalem), and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James

 

And apparently said a lot of nice things about Ananus, the villian of the previous text cited by Origen (It would be useful if somebody who is actually familiar with Jewish Wars could confirm or deny this.)

 

So maybe Origen is just a better forger than Eusubius.

[Neon Genesis]

But wasn't the martydom of James just a later Christian tradition and not something taught in the gospels or the scriptures? So if it was just a tradition and not something that actually happened, then obviously it would make sense to me that he doesn't mention it.

[dagnarus]

But wasn't the martydom of James just a later Christian tradition and not something taught in the gospels or the scriptures? So if it was just a tradition and not something that actually happened, then obviously it would make sense to me that he doesn't mention it.

 

I'm not certain what you mean here. But the final point in my last post was that in the passage from Antiquities which Origen cites, Josephus states that the reason for the fall of Jerusalem was the that Ananus unjustly killed James the Just. However in Jewish wars, also written by Josephus, Josephus does not mention the martyrdom of James the Just, in fact he blames the fall of Jerusalem on the unjust death of Ananus, who it describes thus

 

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered.

 

From http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war4.html

 

So the question becomes why did Josephus who regards Ananus as a kind and Just man in Jewish wars, indeed the very person whose unjust death Josephus blames for the downfall of Jerusalem, suddenly in Antiquities describe Ananus as being such a corrupt and unjust person, so as to murder James the Just? That said there could be some confusion here as the Ananus spoken of in the origen citation is Ananus son of Ananus, both high priests. Whereas I can't be certain that the wiki source didn't jump the gun in assuming these were the same Ananuses, That said Ananus the son of Ananus is at least refered to in Jewish wars. I don't have time to sort this stuff out now however.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others

 

I believe that one of the reasons why this isn't necessarily evidence for Jesus is that it seems strange for Josephus to reference to Jesus, here without introducing him properly. He hasn't even mentioned him anywhere else in his works (except of course the flavium, which is justifiably disputed). This becomes even more relevant when we consider that James the Just may have been the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, who was made high priest at the end of the passage. What if Christians such as Origen simply assumed that James the Just was the brother of Jesus talked about in the gospels, and then at some point quite innocently "who was called Christ" got introduced into the text?

 

The thing that has always stood out to me about that passage is the wording, where James is the subject being identified by Jesus, but Jesus is mentioned first. That is definitely out of the norm. The traditional way to identify a person by his relation was to mention the subject first and then the identifier, such as, "James, the brother of Jesus." The fact that "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" precedes "James" makes me question the text's reliability.

 

For example, see Josephus' mention of "Aaron, the brother of Moses" in Antiquities 20.10.1, and the mention of "Germanicus, the brother of Caesar" in 20.8.1.

 

The fact that Antiquities 20.9.1 reads the way it currently does, listing Jesus before the actual subject James, implies to me that the text was tampered with by a christian who wanted to honor Jesus by putting his name first. I find it difficult to believe that Josephus (who was not a christian) would have deviated from the norm in this passage to mention Jesus first.

[NonXNonExX]

One of the problems that experts have pointed out with the TF is the fact that it interrupts the flow of the narrative, which is a list of calamities that befell the Jews. IOW, it's obviously a clumsy Xtian insertion.

 

As for my answer to the poll, i didn't find an option that really seemed to fit. I think the real answer is that there were many documented characters named Jesus in approximately the right time frame and any one of them could have been the basis for the legend cum myth.

 

My favorite explanation (only partially my own) is that it all began with a guy named Mark who was the interpreter for a guy named Peter, supposedly a companion of JC himself, whoever that might have been (though even this would seem to be questionable because of the dismissive way Paul deals with him). Peter was probably a charismatic and well-liked Jewish preacher. He may well have based some or all of his sermons on someone he knew, but i think his main aim was theological instruction, not historical fact. After he died, Mark realized that his sermons had great value so he tried to write them down as well as he could remember them, possibly embellishing them to make a more or less continuous narrative.

 

Though Peter may have known Jerusalem well, obviously Mark didn't so he was for the most part purposely vague about geographical details. When he did include details about geography or Jewish custom they were often erroneous. Later, a fan of Peter or of Mark's work took the original narrative of Mark and embellished it with a few indistinct connecting phrases, a beginning and an ending. This process seems to have continued even after the version without the post-resurrection account became popular. Mt and Lk, realizing the crude nature of Mark's work, attempted to write improved versions, but by that time the original was too well known to be entirely supplanted.

 

So my ultimate answer is that if there was ever a man behind the legend, he is so far buried behind the interpretations and embellishments that you might as well say there is nothing left or at least nothing recoverable of whoever might have been the basis for the story.