Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

[iskander]

The Antiquity of the Jews.
Josephus, The Complete Works, translated by William Whiston, A.M.

Chapter 20 :200 reads, ... he delivered them to be stoned.

[Ulan]

That James the brother of Jesus ''called Christ'' was not even killed by Ananus but only ''handed over''?

I already cited the footnote from perseus.org that claims exactly this.

Thank you but where precisely do you cite this footnote in this thread? And what is DCH adding to that footnote (that is already per se surprising, in my view)?

Here you are.

In context (footnote 2): http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:c ... ng1:20.9.1

DCH actually knows Greek and gives an explanation on his own.

[Giuseppe]

The Antiquity of the Jews.
Josephus, The Complete Works, translated by William Whiston, A.M.

Chapter 20 :200 reads, ... he delivered them to be stoned.

I know obviously the passage, but DCH is saying of new that the more correct translation would be:

he delivered them to be disposed.

In other terms, James was not stoned, not even killed in other ways, by Ananus.

I am surprised

[Giuseppe]

That James the brother of Jesus ''called Christ'' was not even killed by Ananus but only ''handed over''?

I already cited the footnote from perseus.org that claims exactly this.

Thank you but where precisely do you cite this footnote in this thread? And what is DCH adding to that footnote (that is already per se surprising, in my view)?

Here you are.

In context (footnote 2): http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:c ... ng1:20.9.1

DCH actually knows Greek and gives an explanation on his own.

Ulan, I was asking you where you had already said that, according to you, James was not killed by Ananus by stones (see above my answer to Iskander).

[Ulan]

That James the brother of Jesus ''called Christ'' was not even killed by Ananus but only ''handed over''?

I already cited the footnote from perseus.org that claims exactly this.

Thank you but where precisely do you cite this footnote in this thread? And what is DCH adding to that footnote (that is already per se surprising, in my view)?

Here you are.

In context (footnote 2): http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:c ... ng1:20.9.1

DCH actually knows Greek and gives an explanation on his own.

Ulan, I was asking you where you had already said that, according to you, James was not killed by Ananus by stones (see above my answer to Iskander).

You didn't click on the link, did you? Also, my statement was that I "cited the footnote from perseus.org that claims exactly this", with "this" being your question "That James the brother of Jesus ''called Christ'' was not even killed by Ananus but only ''handed over''?" The footnote makes exactly this claim. It explains why James was not killed during this event.

[iskander]

The Antiquity of the Jews.
Josephus, The Complete Works, translated by William Whiston, A.M.

Chapter 20 :200 reads, ... he delivered them to be stoned.

I know obviously the passage, but DCH is saying of new that the more correct translation would be:

he delivered them to be disposed.

In other terms, James was not stoned, not even killed in other ways, by Ananus.

I am surprised

The Sanhedrin sentenced ' them' to be executed by stoning as breakers of the law.
As in the trial of Jan Hus : the Council of Constance, (1414–18), 16th ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church, delivered Hus to be burned. Hus was declared an obstinate heretic, delivered to the secular power, and burned at the stake


Whiston translated Josephus perfectly.

[Ulan]

I already cited the footnote from perseus.org that claims exactly this.

Thank you but where precisely do you cite this footnote in this thread? And what is DCH adding to that footnote (that is already per se surprising, in my view)?

Here you are.

In context (footnote 2): http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:c ... ng1:20.9.1

DCH actually knows Greek and gives an explanation on his own.

Ulan, I was asking you where you had already said that, according to you, James was not killed by Ananus by stones (see above my answer to Iskander).

You didn't click on the link, did you? Also, my statement was that I "cited the footnote from perseus.org that claims exactly this", with "this" being your question "That James the brother of Jesus ''called Christ'' was not even killed by Ananus but only ''handed over''?" The footnote makes exactly this claim. It explains why James was not killed during this event.

Let's quote this again, in order to have the full argument together:

"2 Of this condemnation of James the Just, and its causes, as also that he did not die till long afterwards, see Prim. Christ. Revived, vol. III. ch. 43-46. The sanhedrim condemned our Savior, but could not put him to death without the approbation of the Roman procurator; nor could therefore Ananias and his sanhedrim do more here, since they never had Albinus's approbation for the putting this James to death"

It's basically a legal argument taken from the text. The text doesn't explicitly mention that James actually died. The reason why Ananias got into trouble was not for the appropriation of the death penalty, but simply for calling the sanhedrim together without permission. I guess someone put these two statements into context.

[MrMacSon]

.. I guess someone put these two statements into context.

You mean in writing the footnote?

or someone put it in a new context? ie. used the passage as the basis for writing the pro-Christian context?

[Ulan]

.. I guess someone put these two statements into context.

You mean in writing the footnote?

or someone put it in a new context? ie. used the passage as the basis for writing the pro-Christian context?

Good question, although I don't think it's actually that much "pro-Christian". I don't think the argument is really strong. However, it causes a situation that it actually contradicts some church fathers. It may harmonize Josephus' text with other writings though? What is the "pro-Christian" aspect you see here?

[MrMacSon]

What is the "pro-Christian" aspect you see here?

The way an altered context was used in later texts to shore up the christian narrative; whether in reifying James the Just, or in reifying Jesus.