One passage is a forgery and one is authentic?
Basically, yes. There is one passage in Josephus which, while not entirely forged, contains a number of interpolations (forged insertions of text by Christian redactors). Part of the text is original to Josephus but much of it is not.
The bit which refers to James is not believed to be an interpolation.
Actually it is not that clear. The sources you go on to cite are to varying degress problematic when discussing the historicity of Jesus. To my knowledge the matter was most thoroughly discussed in this thread:
It starts out as something else entirely, but around page 2 and 3 the discussion shifts to the historicity of Jesus and explodes from there. The citations you provided and dozens of others are examined, and to make a long story short there is indeed a lack of hard evidence on this subject. All ancient chroniclers who do mention Jesus A) were not contemporaries and B) made use of sources that not only were not primary but that in many cases may be considered historically suspect (such as popular myths, propaganda texts, hearsay, etc.). There seems to be no good primary evidece of Jesus such as we have for historical figures. Unfortunately this can irritate some people.
Just one point, as all the others have been discussed in great detail in the linked thread:
That would have to be highly confused indeed, since Jesus, if he actually did exist, never went anywhere near Rome and was by the time of the revolt already putatively departed. At any rate Suetonus is thought to have lived A.D. 75-160. The event in question (the explusion of the Jews from Rome) dates to about 48-50 AD.
By the way, “Chrestus”, being a Greek name, could easily refer to an agitator other than the Son. Since the sum of Suetonus’s treatise of Chrestus amounts to one sentence in “The Life of Claudius”, it is hardly reasonable to assume that this is THE Jesus of myth:
“As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.” (Claudius 25.4)
It’s possible, of course, that Suetonus did not know exactly what he was talking about.
I have nothing to add at this point, but I can’t find any other way of subscribing to this thread than to post. In this (so far) short thread there have already been some pretty interesting posts, and I’d like to keep up, if only as a lurker. Carry on. 
DesertGeezer, go up to Thread Tools in the, um, “Tools Bar”, and you’ll find a drop-down list that includes “Subscribe to this thread.”
Having said that, now I’m subscribed, and I second your assessment. Interesting thread.
I don’t know about this, I seem to recall reading that the second Josephus statement was also an interpolation-or at least heavily suspected of being one. In either case, neither figure claimed to have direct contact with Jesus (or James IIRC) and were just going off of what they heard from the early Christian movement-so it wouldn’t be surprising that Jesus was attributed to a living person. Also, both were written significantly after Jesus’s day (IIRC).
The problem with the sayings that have been attributed to Jesus is that they were not original in Jesus.
There probably was a man named Jesus, although the evidence is very slim and legitimately arguable IMO. Then again, I’m just at the beginning of my researching of the question-so what do I know :D. As with everything else religious I think one needs a good amount of ‘faith’ in order to believe.
I’ll try to dig up the reference to the second one being an interpolation. I’m certainly not positive of it in any event.
This is the primary problem IMO. The argument from silence gets even worse when the miraculous aspects of Jesus’s resurrection come into play. Someone should have noticed and written those down, if they occured. Dead Saints walking around would be hard to miss. The fact that these events are only chronicled in the New Testament-several decades after the fact-is disturbing IMO.
I never heard about Buddha connection, but there are numerouos mythical similarities between Jesus and Krishna.
I agree that there is no smoking gun, no hardcore, unassailable evidence that Jesus definitely existed. I just think the circumstancial evidence makes it more likely than not.
Not all of Jesus’ sayings are known to have origins elsewhere, btw, although many do. The Jesus Seminar credits something between 20-25% of the sayings attributed to Jesus as being authentic.
It’s also true that there are some mythicists who argue that the James passage in Josephus is another interpolation, but they are in the minority. Personally I think it’s a difficult case to make for the simple reason that it’s such a casual, passing reference and no special claims are made for Jesus as they are in the larger interpolated passage and as would be expected from a Christian forger. I tend to think that the argument for an interpolated James passage is predicated more on an a priori assumption on the part of the mythicist school of historical Jesus research than on any strong, positive evidence. It doesn’t fit their theory so they try to say it’s fake.
You’re assuming that these authorities would have an access to evidences that the guy didn’t exist. What evidences would be these? When christianism began to be noticed by roman authors (*), the supposed events were already one century old.
Secondly, we only know about the arguments used by the opponents to christianism through the “refutatio” written by christian authors. There’s no evidence that the most embarassing counter arguments would have been recorded.
(*) By the way, in response to a former post :
It’s not because a Roman author write a brief footnote mentionning that the christians call themselves this way after the name of a guy called Christ executed by pontius Pilatus that it means said author had investigated the issue or had evidences that a Jesus (he doesn’t mention this name, actually) was really executed by Pontius Pilatus. More likely, he’s only retelling what christians were saying. It only proves that by his time (around 115 AD, IIRC), the belief in a Messiah excuted by Pontius Pilatus was already present. The other latin authors only refer to the existence of christians (how to deal with them, or that they were rioting in Rome), and don’t mention Jesus at all. All of them are writing a long time after the supposed death of Jesus.
But assuming this passage isn’t interpolated, someone always bugged me : What evidences is there that it would refer to this Jesus, since Josephus isn’t telling us anything about him, apart mentionning his name?
I would tend to agree, but nevertheless, I dont think it’s that foolish to believe he didn’t. The most convincing argument being IMO the apparent ignorance of Paul about this earthly Messiah.
My own personnal belief (that I can prove, it’s just an opinion, so don’t ask for a cite) is that Jesus did exist but that the real “christians” were the members of this sect which survived for some centuries, followed the Jewish Law and according to them the teachings of Peter, and denounced Paul as having betrayed the words of Jesus. The whole thing makes much more sense to me, since I’ve for instance a hard time believing that a Jewish rabbi would have taught not to follow the Jewish law, or such things. But of course everything is possible, especially if we assume he really said he was a prophet, or best of all, the son of God. It’s just my take on the issue, which makes me believe “Christians” are actually rather “Paulians”.
To be fair, the passage does call him “Jesus who was called ho Christos” (the Messiah) but that’s still a fair point as Yeshua was a rather common name, as were claims to Messiahship. I still think the most likely interpretation is that Josephus was referring to the J man, though, whoever who really was historically.
Here is a good analysis (I think) of the Josephus passages along with a decent argument for Antiquities containing some authentic references to Jesus by Josephus.
I don’t think it’s foolish either, and I agree that Paul’s lack of information about the earthly Jesus is the strongest point in favor of this view. My reading of such mythicists as Earl Dougherty has not convinced me that Jesus was purely a fictional character but they make some very good points, not the least of which is that even if Jesus existed it is not possible to know very much about him and the gospel accounts are highly subjective, liturgical and fictionalized accounts of who he was.
I basically agree with all of this. I think Paul pretty much invented Christianity as a new theology and soteriological pardaigm apart from Judaism. I think you’re also right that the original Jesus movement and his direct disciples viewed themselves purely as a Jewish movement, not as a new religion. I also don’t believe that Jesus was deified or viewed as a redeemer of sins in the Jerusalem cult but that those are Pauline innovations.
As a nitpick, the phrase “son of God” had a figurative meaning in ancient Jewish tradition, not a literal one. At most it would have been a claim to the throne of David (i.e. Messiahship), not literal Godhood.
Friar ted does make a good point- 100 years after Jesus died, when the Roman were trying to crush Xtianity, they likely could have laid their hands on Pilate’s records, and could have shown there was no Jesus Cruxified. The fact that no one tried to attack Xtianity by saying “Jesus never even existed” until a thousand years or more later is some evidence that the “Jesus never existed” arguement isn’t a good one.
The passge in Josephus about “James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ” is accepted as authentic by everyone who isn’t just talking out their ass. 
We know they are talking about THE Jesus becuase James was stoned for being a Heretic for his Christian beleifs by the High rueist Ananus. James was one of the “Big 3” in the early Church, and Josephus’s record matches what we get from Xtian writings. Read the whole quote in Diogene’s excellent cite!
Now on to the “interpolated” passage- it is thought by most experts (including non-Xtians) to say something about Jesus- but much less complimentary. Diogene’s cite below has a very good version of what experts think the the original read :
" At this time there was Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who performed (surprising / wonderful) works, and a teacher of people who received the (truth / unusual) with pleasure. He stirred up both many Jews and many Greeks. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the leading men among us, those who had loved him from the first did not desist. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct."
That sounds more like Josephus.
Finally- Cecil himself has stated there there is no real doubt that Jesus existed as a man.
-Why would they have even bothered tried to prove that the story wasn’t true?
-Assuming they did, what make you think that such a record would have existed at the first place and that they would have been kept for 100 years?
-Assuming that such records existed and were kept for 100+ years, what makes you thing that they would have survived to Jewish revolt?
-Assuming all the rest, what evidences have you that they didn’t actually check the records and show that there wasn’t any Jesus sentenced by Ponce-Pilatus?
Once again, what evidences have you that such attacks weren’t made at the time of early christinism? Are you under the impression that we have kept the documents written by opponents to christiannism?
If you say so, how couldn’t I be fully convinced…
I’ve probably read at least twenty different versions of what experts thought Josephus had written. And some were way less complimentary than this one. Generally, they wouldn’t assume that he couldn’t have written anything complimentary about a sectarist, like “received the TRUTH”. I also read a lot of experts stating that in their opinion, the whole thing was an interpolation, and Josephus didn’t write anything at all about Jesus there. Or who thought there was no way one could say whether he wrote something or not, and if he did, to guess what it could have been.
Not impressed.
Blasphemy, stone the heritic 
It is of some interest to me how this compares with the legend of King Arthur. In that no-one existed with all the attributes associated with King Arthur, but non the less he appears to be a portmanteau made up of several real people and additional fictional attributes.
Is Jesus also a mxiture of several historical people with added mythology?
I don’t think disproving Jesus’ existence would have been necessary for Roman authorities to promote anti-Christian rhetoric. Plus, such a rhetorical strategy could backfire (e.g. fine, Caeser, prove to me that you’re a divinity), or maybe not be so convincing in that day and age. I think people were a bit more credulous back then.
As it was, Christians got badmouthed pretty harshly in the first couple centuries of the Common Era. For instance, they were often portrayed as depraved cannibals because part of their worship involved consuming the “body” and “blood” of their Savior. And though maybe no Christians were fed to lions in Rome, that was mighty entertaining to folks in other parts, and clearly indicates that, prior to the conversion of Constantine, Christians were held in very low esteem. Whether or not Jesus was thought to be a “real” person, His message, and the beliefs of His followers got little credence among the Roman vast majority of Romans.
Dude- you’re posting on his damn message board, OK? If you’re not impressed that Cecil himself has wieghed in and given us his opinion (or “the Straight Dope” as we like to call it) then kindly remove your self to anothr message board. I’d refute the rest of your post point by point- but if you’re not impressed with Cecil as a source (on his own board), then you’re hopeless. :rolleyes:
I think the Arabic manuscript mitigates against an outright fabrication. The lack of the same interpolations would seem to indicate a translation from an undoctored manuscript. It’s unlikely that a Greek manuscript would have contained only the core, journalistic portion without all the halleluja insertions unless it was authentic.