Did Jesus exist, Part II

Well, tactitus and Pliny are probably the best it gets..Yet, it has been shown they are insufficent for being able to independantly verify the existance of a Jesus of Nazareth (or the nazarine), who was cruxified at passover.THat is not to say that a Jesus did not exist. It is just to say that there is no outside verification from outside the Bible (yet).

You seem to think that, particularly when one of your cherished beliefs are being challenged.However, from your reactions, other might consider you lacking objectivity, or even any semblence of reason (for example, your reaction when it was suggested that the synoptic gospels were NOT written by the apostles to whome they were attributed to.)

Well, it verifies James. However, there is doubt in SOME minds about the phrase "Jesus the so called christ". In context, the 'SO CALLED CHRIST' doesn't make sense, since the phrases just before and after were talking about another Jesus.

Yes, Peter Kirby gave both sides of the arguement. That was one side. The other side had

quote:

---

# Wells states, "The words have the character of a brief marginal gloss, later incorporated innocently into the text. Josephus probably wrote of the death of a Jewish Jerusalem leader called James, and a Christian reader thought the reference must be to James the brother of the Lord who, according to Christian tradition, led the Jerusalem Chruch about the time in question. This reader accordingly noted in the margin: 'James = the brother of Jesus, him called Christ' (cf. the wording of Mt. 1:16: 'Jesus, him called Christ') and a later copyist took this note as belonging to the text and incorporated it. Other interpolations are known to have originated in precisely such a way." (p. 11) Doherty elaborates: "If he [Josephus] knew nothing else about James or chose to say nothing more, he would simply have used some equivalent to 'a certain James' or 'someone named James.' And what in fact do we find in the Greek? The words referring directly to James are: Iakobos onoma autoi. Translations render this 'James by name' or 'whose name was James' or 'a man named James.' Such a phrase could have stood perfectly well on its own (with a slight cahnge in grammatical form), and had the reference to a brother Jesus added to it by a Christian interpolator." (pp. 216-217) While these observations do not prove that the reference was interpolated, they do indicate the possibility of the interpolation hypothesis.

---

and

quote:

---

# Doherty argues: "Why would Josephus think to make the Jesus idea paramount, placing it before the James one? James is the character that brought about Ananus' downfall, while mention of Jesus is supposed to be an identifying afterthought. It would have been much more natural for Josephus to say something like: '(Ananus) brought before them a man named James, who was the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ . . .' On the other hand, if the phrase is the product of a Christian scribe, it may be understandable that he, consciously or unconsciously, would have given the reference to Jesus pride of place." (p. 217)

​

This argument is weak. The fact that "the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ" is placed first, in the accusative, does not mean that the reference to Jesus is given some kind of "pride of place." It is simply one grammatically correct way of identifying James.

​

# Steven Carr supplies a reason for doubting the authenticity of the reference to Jesus:

​

How does Josephus refer back to people he has previously mentioned in those days when books had no indexes? Here he is going back two books, so readers will need more than a casual reference.

​

Judas of Galilee was first mentioned in 'Wars of the Jews' Book 2 Section 118 'Under his administration, it was that a certain Galilean , whose name was Judas , prevailed with his countrymen to revolt ; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans , and would, after God , submit to mortal men as their lords.'

​

Josephus refers to him again in Book 2 Section 433 as follows '"In the meantime one Manahem, the son of Judas , that was called the Galilean (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Quirinius , that after God they were subject to the Romans )" - considerable detail is included.

​

In Wars, Book 7 Section 533 we read about Judas again - "... Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews , as we have formerly related , not to submit to the taxation when Quirinius was sent into Judea to make one; ...' . So a change of book causes Josephus to say 'as formerly related'.

​

Judas was also in Antiquities 18 'Yet was there one Judas , a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt , who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty'.

​

Josephus referred back to Judas in Antiquities 20 'the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Quirinius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have shown in a foregoing book .'

​

So Josephus usually put in detail and when he referred back from Ant. 20 to Ant. 18, he reminded the reader that it was in a different book. None of these factors apply to Josephus's reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20. A Christian interpolator would naturally need not need to supply such detailed back-references. His readers would know exactly who Jesus called the Christ was.

​

This argument is also weak. It presumes that the reference in 20.9.1 was intended to be a cross-reference to an earlier place. However, Josephus may not have intended this identification to serve as a reference to an earlier passage. The plausibility of such an identification without any earlier reference is established from the similar example in Wars of the Jews 2.247 (see above).

---

And a number of other arguements that cast doubt on the authticity of the phrase 'Jesus, the one called christ"

Well, that is not what is found at Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question.Peter kirby did both sides of the stories, and gives really good arugments that antiquites 18 is an insertion. Even many conservative
scholars admit it is at least modified.Since that is case, what evidence is there that it existed before the 4th century?

I don't know about if Paul was really a pharisee. When discussing evangalistic techniques, Paul wrote"I am a Jew to the Jews, A Greek to the Greeks, a Gentile to the Gentiles".It sounds like he put on what ever hat he needed for the purposes of trying to convert people. Someone who was a pharasiee above all things would not say that.

Antiquies 20 also was discussed in this thread. There is certainly enough doubt put on that to make that appear as a 'copiers gloss'. The line does not run smooth if you keep the 'brother of christ' in the line, but makes perfect sense when you look at it in context without that phrase, since it is talking about a different Jesus.