Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by hakeem »

John2 wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:43 pm The Clement that Hegesippus is in agreement with concerning the death of James is Clement of Alexandria, and the person who is purported to have written the Clementine literature is Clement of Rome. One has nothing to do with the other.
In Christian writings Clement of Alexandria was not a contemporary of the supposed James the Just so could not be a witness to his death. It is claimed Clement of Alexandria died in the 3rd century which means that he could have merely copied the supposed Hegesippus.
John2 wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:43 pm Regarding Eusebius' statment that Hegesippus' and Clement of Alexandria's accounts of the death of James are in agreement, Eusebius says in EH 2.23.3 that:
The manner of James' death has been already indicated by the above-quoted words of Clement [of Alexandria], who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club.


And in EH 2.23.19 he says:
These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement [of Alexandria].
The claim that James was thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple and beaten to death with a club is not found in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 where it is stated James and others were delivered to be stoned.

There is no evidence of capital punishment in ancient Jewish Law where a Jew is to be clubbed to death.

Christian writers manufactured the character called James the Just and fabricated his death.

No person called James the Just who was clubbed to death is found in any writings of Pliny the elder, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius or any accepted contemporary non Christian writings,
John2 wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:43 pm Regarding the reference in the Clementine literature, I wasn't aware of it until I saw you mention it several days ago, so I did some research on the dating of Peter's death and came away with the impression that the dating of it is not very certain and it ranges from 68 CE to as early as 55 CE.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV
Christian writings are evidence that the Jesus story with Peter and James were invented. Christian writers could not even agree when Jesus, Peter and James died and up to this day they have no idea who initially wrote any book of their own New Testament, they do not know when they were written and do not know the order in which they were written.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:40 am
Just for reference, here is Crusé's translation (first published in 1838), simply because John T keeps going on about it for some reason; to my knowledge I had never even laid eyes on it until this very morning while writing this post:

Christian Frederic Crusé: Josephus also has not hesitated to superadd this testimony in his works: "These things," says he, " happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of him that is called Christ, and whom the Jews had slain, notwithstanding his preeminent justice."

And here is the Loeb edition:

Kirsopp Lake (for the Loeb series): Of course Josephus did not shrink from giving written testimony to this as follows: "And these things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, for the Jews killed him in spite of his great righteousness."

But yes, you are correct. In either case, there is no suggestion in this passage that more than one writing applies, which makes perfect sense given the Greek wording.
Yes, I too doubled checked Kirsopp Lakes 1926 (Loeb translation) and did not see where Cruse erred in translation as you suggested. Thank you for admitting to your mistake before I was forced to point it out.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ction%3D20

Be as that may, you are right back to what I said from the get go, that is, Eusebius was quoting Josephus. And contrary to what you want to believe, the passage is strong evidence (nay proof) Josephus had more to say about James the Just then what we currently now have in Antiquities. :cheers:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John T wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:21 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:40 am
Just for reference, here is Crusé's translation (first published in 1838), simply because John T keeps going on about it for some reason; to my knowledge I had never even laid eyes on it until this very morning while writing this post:

Christian Frederic Crusé: Josephus also has not hesitated to superadd this testimony in his works: "These things," says he, " happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of him that is called Christ, and whom the Jews had slain, notwithstanding his preeminent justice."

And here is the Loeb edition:

Kirsopp Lake (for the Loeb series): Of course Josephus did not shrink from giving written testimony to this as follows: "And these things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, for the Jews killed him in spite of his great righteousness."

But yes, you are correct. In either case, there is no suggestion in this passage that more than one writing applies, which makes perfect sense given the Greek wording.
Yes, I too doubled checked Kirsopp Lakes 1926 (Loeb translation) and did not see where Cruse erred in translation as you suggested. Thank you for admitting to your mistake before I was forced to point it out.
What mistake are you referring to?

(I was speaking to Steven when I said, "But yes, you are correct," not to you. This is the only thing I can find in my post that I can imagine you having mistaken for an admission of any kind.)

Also:
John T wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:27 amThen you edit C. F. Cruse's translation of Ecclesiastical History, thinking no one could spot your error/trick. :facepalm:
Where did I edit C. F. Crusé's translation (whether in error or as a trick)?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by neilgodfrey »

John T wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:36 am
"his writings" = Plural.

Josephus is being cited from more than once source and not just Antiquities.
By this logic Eusebius is quoting a line that Josephus wrote more than once in different writings. In other words, at least once in a work by Josephus now lost to us and in a passage since removed from Antiquities, or in two works now lost to us . . . .

I think twenty books making up Antiquities constitutes a plural, no? But then maybe Eusebius meant that Josephus wrote that line in several of those books, or also in Wars -- and in every case it just happened to have since been lost?!

Alternatively, we could get a better grasp of what was understood by the expression translated as "these writings".

John T, why don't you try to be nice? Why all the "childish name calling" (that you say you deplore in others) and hostile sarcasm and put-downs? Why not try to be civil?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by neilgodfrey »

John T, I have just run your comments on the last three pages through an LIWC analyser:

Their analytic score was 38.58 % (Even Donald Trump's score is higher than that!)

Despite this below par level of analytical thinking their confidence score was 88.8%

The imbalance reminds one of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by DCHindley »

John T wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:16 am A historian enters the debate. Thanks DCH.
Well, I'm probably a piss-poor historian.
I always intended to get to Contr. Cels. 1.47 but I couldn't even get the mythicists to look up/let alone understand Eusebius, Book 2 chapter 23.

Let's proceed, shall we?

1. Origen is quoting from Josephus (source unknown) and comments that Josephus missed the deeper cause for the destruction of the temple. Although Josephus attributes it to the murder of James the Just, Origen says it was actually the death of Christ that caused the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Even though Origen does not source his quote from Josephus it is authentic to Origen.

2. Origen referencing the 18th book of Antiquities is pointing out that although Josephus did not believe in Christ, unwittingly Josephus acknowledges the existence of Jesus by confirming the compatriots of Jesus, that is, John the Baptist and James the Just.

3. Origen does not claim that Josephus wrote details in book 18 on the manner/method of death of James the Just in book 18. Instead he points out that Josephus acknowledges such a righteous well known man existed and by extension, therefore Jesus existed.

4. Origen writes as if this additional source by Josephus regarding James the Just is still readily available to Celsus and Ambrosius.
Well, JT, I am not as certain as you that Origen or Eusebius were actually testifying that Josephus blamed the destruction of the city on James death. I'd put it more like these figures believed the tradition passed down by Clement and/or Hegesippus, that Josephus had said so.

I mean, how would the average sophisticate of that time know for sure whether he had read/heard *everything* written by any particular author? They may only have read/heard a few volumes books from the various works by the author. The person who had read/heard volume 18 of his 20 volume work known as Antiquities may well not have read/heard volume 4 of his work known as the Judean War. "If Clement or Hegesippus says that Josephus said it, then I believe it, and that settles it."

However, if it ever existed, the book has not been preserved. I would have been surprised, though, if such a book by Josephus really did exist, and Christians did not preserve it along with Josephus' other works. Those preserved works were all written in Greek, but his first book, hastily written in Aramaic immediately after the war, an account of the Roman capture of the city, has not. Perhaps such a statement was there, who knows, but it does not seem especially likely.

Clement, Hegesippus or Origen could have just said, "Josephus, in his book Capture of Jerusalem, written in the Judean dialect for Judeans resident in Mesopotamia, said ..." Instead, the source is left vague, meaning it was probably just rumor, not an established fact.

DCH
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by DCHindley »

I've attempted to compare the stories passed on to posterity about various figures mentioned by both Josephus and NT writers, with some interesting results:

John the Baptist:
Judean High Priest Ananus, son of Ananus:
James the Just:
Jesus the Christ of God:
The Judean Tetrarch Antipas marries the ex-wife of one of his brothers. Insults the Idumeans who had sent armies to Jerusalem at Zealot request by locking them out. Taught that Jesus was the Christ. Taught moral aphorisms targeted to all, not just to the upper classes.
Antipas's already existing Nabatean wife, learning of his plans, will not accept the position of #2 wife. As a result, she gives Antipas an ultimatum: either give up the second wife or divorce her. She is allowed to depart to the kingdom of her father, king Aretas IV. Ananus gives a speech in which he insults the Idumean forces that had been denied access, saying they looked impressive and all, but didn’t have the common sense to let the Judean aristocracy handle the war-making. "Don't go away mad … just go away!" This seriously offends the Idumeans. Judean authorities in the city force James to publically explain what "is the door of Jesus." It is not clear what this is supposed to signify, but it appears that it would entail stating that Jesus was not the Christ. Some of the Judean people openly entreat Jesus to assume the role of a Royal claimant (appatrently without Roman approval).
John criticized Antipas' "illegal" marriage to his brother's ex-wife. Because Herodians had their own interpretation of marriage laws that allowed for this situation, John is arrested for his criticism. While held in custody, Antipas came to believe John's disciples could openly revolt. Idumeans, when Zealots make it possible for them to get into the city, pour into the city in a rage, killing innocent civilians. They then started instead to seek out as many of the high priesty aristocrats as they could find, to kill them as opponents to the Zealot agenda of full revolt, with surrender not on the table. James, against their expectations, states that Jesus was indeed the Christ, and the Judean authorities decide to have him executed. The advocacy of the Judean people for Jesus to claim the royal title alarms the Judean aristocracy, who feared revolution by the people would lead to the destruction of the city/people. This, to me, seems definitely connected to Josephus' statements that Ananus, if allowed to do his magic, would have negotiated a solution that would have preserved Judean autonomy.
Antipas, to remove any possible threat of revolt by John's followers, has him beheaded. Ananus is caught and summarily executed by the Idumeans, and mocked as his dead body was cast out over the city wall and not allowed to be buried, thus avenging the insults Ananus said to them from the city walls at the gate. To punish James, the Judean authorities throw him from the pinnacle of the temple, finishing him off by means of a fuller's club. The Jewish priestly aristocracy formally charge and convict Jesus of being a claimant to kingship. Jesus is delivered to the Roman governor, Pilate, for punishment, who has him crucified (or Pilate allow the Jews to do this, as suggested by one Gospel).
Later, Josephus relates that Nabatean King Aretas IV, to avenge Antipas' divorce of his daughter, rashly makes war on him but utterly defeats his army in battle. People opined that this defeat was divine punishment on Antipas for his execution of John the Baptist. Josephus stated in War 4 that the exeution of Ananus by the Idumeans doomed Jerusalem to destruction at the hands of the Romans. Eusebius claims that Clement and Hegesippus both said that Josephus claimed that Jerusalem was destroyed (and the local Judean population generally enslaved) as divine retribution for James's death. Origen expressed his opinion that Josephus did say this about James, but that he was only part right, because the true reason that Jerusalem was destroyed was the execution of Jesus at Judean instigation.

It seems to me that both the John the Baptist storyline and the Ananus storyline have been combined in weird but different ways in the composition of the other two storylines of James the Just and Jesus the Christ of God.

I should add the books of Josephus or the NT or other sources cited in Origen or Eusebius where the factoids so presented in the table can be found, but that will have to wait until later.

DCH
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:04 pm
John T, why don't you try to be nice? Why all the "childish name calling" (that you say you deplore in others) and hostile sarcasm and put-downs? Why not try to be civil?
The shoe is on the other foot and you don't like it? :o

As I warned from the get go I was going to give a tit for tat, a taste of your own/mythicist medicine, so to speak.
Perhaps now you should ponder your own lack of civility, sarcasm and put-downs?

Any time you want to return to civility and argue the merits, all you have to do is, simply do so.

Just a thought. ;)

John T
Last edited by John T on Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:18 pm

Well, JT, I am not as certain as you that Origen or Eusebius were actually testifying that Josephus blamed the destruction of the city on James death. I'd put it more like these figures believed the tradition passed down by Clement and/or Hegesippus, that Josephus had said so.

I mean, how would the average sophisticate of that time know for sure whether he had read/heard *everything* written by any particular author? They may only have read/heard a few volumes books from the various works by the author. The person who had read/heard volume 18 of his 20 volume work known as Antiquities may well not have read/heard volume 4 of his work known as the Judean War. "If Clement or Hegesippus says that Josephus said it, then I believe it, and that settles it."

However, if it ever existed, the book has not been preserved. I would have been surprised, though, if such a book by Josephus really did exist, and Christians did not preserve it along with Josephus' other works. Those preserved works were all written in Greek, but his first book, hastily written in Aramaic immediately after the war, an account of the Roman capture of the city, has not. Perhaps such a statement was there, who knows, but it does not seem especially likely.

Clement, Hegesippus or Origen could have just said, "Josephus, in his book Capture of Jerusalem, written in the Judean dialect for Judeans resident in Mesopotamia, said ..." Instead, the source is left vague, meaning it was probably just rumor, not an established fact.

DCH
Thank you DCH for taking the higher road in this debate.
Oh, and you are indeed very talented historian/researcher.

**********

I don't need to remind you that Eusebius had access to the best libraries of the Empire. Meaning, he had stacks and stacks of scrolls to sort through and evaluate for authenticity. Just because they didn't survive today does not mean Eusebius claim of additional testimony of Josephus never existed. I will throw in with Eusebius over the mythicists on this one almost every time.

************

"Eusebius had access to the Theological Library of Caesarea and made use of many ecclesiastical monuments and documents, acts of the martyrs, letters, extracts from earlier Christian writings, lists of bishops, and similar sources, often quoting the originals at great length so that his work contains materials not elsewhere preserved."...wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_History_(Eusebius)

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by neilgodfrey »

John T wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:29 pm

Any time you want to return to civility and argue the merits, all you have to do is, simply do so.

Just a thought. ;)

John T
The merits.....

John T, I have just run your comments on the last three pages through an LIWC analyser:

Their analytic score was 38.58 % (Even Donald Trump's score is higher than that!)

Despite this below par level of analytical thinking their confidence score was 88.8%

The imbalance reminds one of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply