# Jesus: Myth, or Man? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2016, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392 "2016-01-07T03:02:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/301 "2016-01-08T23:17:50Z")
I’d like to note that this tangent doesn’t do anything to make Josephus any more likely to have actual knowledge of Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/302 "2016-01-08T23:20:06Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Of course the events were highly mythologized, to make the life of the hero Jesus out to be more significant than it was, an to surround it with classical signs and portents. That happens to quite real people all the time. > > Naturally, details like accuracy don’t matter to “true believers”. But that’s not the target of the stories. If they only appealed to “true believers”, the Jesus cult would never have grown from its original tiny group. They had to appeal to people who were _not yet_ true believers. > > Basing their entire story on a guy who never existed, claiming he did stuff that would have been easily disproved because a large percentage of the Jewish population was there to personally witness his non-appearance, would not have helped. > > Isn’t it far more probable that the stories were based on someone who did exist? I do think that a non-divine “Jesus of Nazareth” existed, for reasons I’ve already given, but you seem to want it both ways. You say it’s unlikely that the Gospel writers could get away with tales of fairly mundane stuff – like a rabble rouser rousing the rabble at Passover – unless it really happened. But they obviously got away with much more memorable stuff, like zombie saints walking around Jerusalem a few days later, which you don’t believe happened. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/303 "2016-01-08T23:26:10Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > I do think that a non-divine “Jesus of Nazareth” existed, for reasons I’ve already given, but you seem to want it both ways. You say it’s unlikely that the Gospel writers could get away with tales of fairly mundane stuff – like a rabble rouser rousing the rabble at Passover – unless it really happened. But they obviously got away with much more memorable stuff, like zombie saints walking around Jerusalem a few days later, which you don’t believe happened. That’s a really good point. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2016, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/304 "2016-01-08T23:30:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’d like to note that this tangent doesn’t do anything to make Josephus any more likely to have actual knowledge of Jesus. He didn’t. He knew (or was familiar with) James the Just, enough to call him the Brother of Jesus\* called\* “Christ”\*. Altho Josephus was more or less supportive of High Priest Ananus, he clearly was unhappy with Ananus’s actions in ordering the execution. Ananus was deposed due to that. The quote makes it clear that James was well known for being the brother of Jesus Christ. Josephus’s issue was that it not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin (for the purpose or ordering a execution) without the approval of King Agrippa or Lucceius Albinus the Roman Procurator of Judea. - _brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James_ ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/305 "2016-01-09T00:03:41Z")
> [@Jayhawker\_Soule](#): > > [QUOTE=wikipedia] > The vast majority of scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed, although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to “almost universal assent” are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. [/QUOTE] Jeez, I hate to sound like a climate change denier, but I don’t find this appeal to authority persuasive. First, the majority of New Testament scholars were probably Christians before they began college. I’m not saying that makes their work useless, but I think it puts a thumb on the scales. Second, and thank you for quoting this because I didn’t know it before, the fact that they say one of the two events they’re most sure about is Jesus’ baptism by JtB strikes me as ridiculous, because if it happened in any manner resembling what the Gospels said, i.e. as one of a mob out in the countryside, there would be no record of it — it would be entirely oral tradition. Since it is accompanied by the marvelous appearance of God the Father, I don’t see how anyone can take it seriously, unless he begins with the position that everything that can’t be 100% disproved in the Gospels is true. ---
**Author:** ![Jayhawker\_Soule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@Jayhawker\_Soule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayhawker_Soule)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/306 "2016-01-09T00:08:54Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Jeez, I hate to sound like a climate change denier, but I don’t find this appeal to authority persuasive. It was not my appeal to authority. I’ll try to address this further tomorrow. For now: Shabbat Shalom … ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/307 "2016-01-09T00:24:01Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > wiki: \* Brown and others argue that, based on Bethlehem’s estimated population of 1,000 at the time, the largest number of infants that could have been killed would have been about twenty,[15][16] and R. T. France, addressing the story’s absence in Antiquities of the Jews, argues that “the murder of a few infants in a small village [is] not on a scale to match the more spectacular assassinations recorded by Josephus”.[17]\* > > However, Macrobius (c. 395-423), wrote in his Saturnalia _“When he [emperor Augustus] heard that among the boys in Syria under two years old whom Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered killed, his own son was also killed, he said: it is better to be Herod’s pig, than his son.”[19]_ Congratulations, it must have taken a while to find those two short passages in a [fairly long article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents) that, from first to last, affirms that there are no mentions of the Slaughter that are known to be based on anything other than Matthew, and that most scholars believe it to be an invention. I might also note that Macrobius’ full name is Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius, and that he wrote after Theodosius the Great had made Christianity the official state religion, so you might as well quote Jerry Falwell. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/308 "2016-01-09T00:36:50Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Congratulations, it must have taken a while to find those two short passages in a [fairly long article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents) that, from first to last, affirms that there are no mentions of the Slaughter that are known to be based on anything other than Matthew, and that most scholars believe it to be an invention. > > I might also note that Macrobius’ full name is Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius, and that he wrote after Theodosius the Great had made Christianity the official state religion, so you might as well quote Jerry Falwell. Why would there be a mention of such a minor act amid the many, many atrocities Herod perpetrated? > **[Macrobius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobius)** > > Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius, usually referred to as Macrobius (fl. c. AD 400), was a Roman provincial who lived during the early fifth century, during late antiquity, the period of time corresponding to the Later Roman Empire, and when Latin was as widespread as Greek among the elite. He is primarily known for his writings, which include the widely copied and read Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis ("Commentary on the Dream of Scipio") about Somnium Scipionis, which was one of the most important... “Little is known for certain about Macrobius, but there are many theories and speculations about him. He states at the beginning of his Saturnalia that he was “born under a foreign sky” (sub alio ortos caelo), and both of his major works are dedicated to his son, Eustachius.[2] _His major works have led experts to assume that he was a pagan._” italics mine. > **[Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius | Late Roman, Saturnalia, Neoplatonism](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ambrosius-Theodosius-Macrobius)** > > Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius was a Latin grammarian and philosopher whose most important work is the Saturnalia, the last known example of the long series of symposia headed by the Symposium of Plato. Little is known about his life; long identified... \*There is much nostalgia for Rome’s pagan past; Christianity, the dominant religion of the 5th century ad, is ignored (except, perhaps, for the name of the boorish character called Evangelus). \* ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/309 "2016-01-09T00:59:52Z")
> [@Jayhawker\_Soule](#): > > > [@Frylock](#): > > > > > [@Jayhawker\_Soule](#): > > > > > > I have read a great deal about it. What books would you recommend? > > > > FWIW this looks to be a relevant work … > > I haven’t read it. > > Oy vey :smack: **Jayhawker Soule** , you mixed the quotation and the response from different posts by you and **Frylock**. That is not appropriate. I understand that you were “simplifying” the discussion to make your point, but you did, in fact, alter the actual exchange in a way that is prohibited by the rules. Do not do this again. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/310 "2016-01-09T01:05:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Why would there be a mention of such a minor act amid the many, many atrocities Herod perpetrated? A better question is, why do we know about the murders Herod committed within the privacy of his Palace walls, but not a mass murder in Bethlehem (and its environs)? Which gets more ink today: a man who kills his wife in their home, or a man who shoots several innocent strangers in a shopping mall? To quote your own article: > [@](#): > > The massacre is not reported outside of the Gospel of Matthew (2:16) and other later Christian writings likely based on that gospel. The Roman Jewish historian Josephus does not mention it in his history, Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94 AD), which reports many of Herod’s misdeeds, including murdering three of his own sons.[8] as well as his mother-in-law (Antiquities 15:247-251; LCL 8:117-119)and his second wife (Antiquities 15:222-236; LCL 8:107-113). > [@](#): > > [Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius | Late Roman, Saturnalia, Neoplatonism | Britannica](http://www.britannica.com/biography/Ambrosius-Theodosius-Macrobius) > \*There is much nostalgia for Rome’s pagan past; Christianity, the dominant religion of the 5th century ad, is ignored (except, perhaps, for the name of the boorish character called Evangelus). \* Exactly, except that “dominant” understates the case – Christianity was the official state religion of Rome. So which is more likely, that Macrobius based his joke on Matthew, or that he alone had access to a secular history that had escaped the Church fathers for nearly 400 years? ---
**Author:** ![Jayhawker\_Soule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@Jayhawker\_Soule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayhawker_Soule)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/311 "2016-01-09T13:28:31Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Jeez, I hate to sound like a climate change denier, but I don’t find this appeal to authority persuasive. Again, it was not my appeal to authority. It was a response to the assertion that my “premise has been given it’s due consideration, on this board, and in general terms in the academic/intellectual world at large.” I was simply noting the result of that consideration. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > First, the majority of New Testament scholars were probably Christians before they began college. I’m not saying that makes their work useless, but I think it puts a thumb on the scales. So you deprecate the work of scholars based on your presumptions concerning the nature and extent of their religious beliefs as teenagers? Seriously? How is this anything other than mild bigotry? > [@TonySinclair](#): > > Second, and thank you for quoting this because I didn’t know it before, the fact that they say one of the two events they’re most sure about is Jesus’ baptism by JtB strikes me as ridiculous, because if it happened in any manner resembling what the Gospels said, i.e. as one of a mob out in the countryside, there would be no record of it — it would be entirely oral tradition. Since it is accompanied by the marvelous appearance of God the Father, I don’t see how anyone can take it seriously, unless he begins with the position that everything that can’t be 100% disproved in the Gospels is true. Baptism, ritual cleaning, and crucifixion are well attested, and I’ve read no one associated with the historical Jesus studies claiming that it “happened in any manner resembling what the Gospels said,” or, for that matter, “that everything that can’t be 100% disproved in the Gospels is true.” You, however, seem wedded to the proposition that anything that can’t be 100% proved in the Gospels is likely false. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/312 "2016-01-09T20:03:42Z")
Ahem I take back what I said about the Josephus “brother of Jesus who was called Christ” passage. The number of scholars who have seriously suggested that “who was called Christ” doesn’t belong there is greater than three (I do not know the exact number) but the consensus on this is stronger than I understood it to be. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/313 "2016-01-09T21:45:10Z")
But the “brother of Jesus” part is generally believed to be original, no?, even if “who was called Christ” is not. Since “brother of X” is an uncommon way to define someone, _the passage tells us Jesus was a memorable person. That point would be **even stronger if Josephus expected “Jesus” would be identifiable even without noting** _ that he was called Christ. Yes, another “Jesus” is mentioned in the paragraph but it seems clearly a different person. One Jesus is a member of the priesthood, another’s brother is a foe. ---
**Author:** ![Jayhawker\_Soule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@Jayhawker\_Soule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayhawker_Soule)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/314 "2016-01-09T21:58:35Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Ahem I take back what I said about the Josephus “brother of Jesus who was called Christ” passage. The number of scholars who have seriously suggested that “who was called Christ” doesn’t belong there is greater than three (I do not know the exact number) but the consensus on this is stronger than I understood it to be. How many more than three do you need before you claim that it constitutes a ‘consensus’? It is my understanding that current ‘consensus’ is that the James reference is authentic. If you’re interested in the topic, I recommend picking up: [**Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy From Late Antiquity to Modern Times**](http://www.amazon.com/Josephus-Jesus-Testimonium-Controversy-Literature/dp/0820452416) by Alice Whealey. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/315 "2016-01-09T22:24:39Z")
> [@Jayhawker\_Soule](#): > > How many more than three do you need before you claim that it constitutes a ‘consensus’? > > It is my understanding that current ‘consensus’ is that the James reference is authentic. Not what I understand. > **[Nonreligious Questions](https://www.patheos.com/nonreligious-questions/)** > > Whether you’ve been turned off by religion in the past or have a question about one of the world’s religions, check out what Patheos has to offer. > [@](#): > > That’s surprisingly powerful support for the Christian position, but you know what they say about things that sound too good to be true. > > Josephus was born after Jesus died, so in the most charitable interpretation, he is simply passing along second-hand information. More damning, scholars almost universally agree that this was not original to Josephus. This is what a Christian would’ve written, and Josephus was no Christian. Also, the passage interrupts the flow of the book at this point (that is, the book would read better if this passage were removed), and it is briefer than similar summaries in the rest of the work. This is what you’d expect from a later addition. > **[Does Josephus prove a historical Jesus? – Freethought Nation](http://freethoughtnation.com/does-josephus-prove-a-historical-jesus/)** More links and overview of why many do not think Josephus wrote that can be found here: > **[Josephus](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josephus)** > > Titus Flavius Josephus, generally just Josephus, born Joseph ben Matityahu, (ca. 37 - 100 CE\[1\]) was a Romanised Jewish historian who wrote about Israel during New Testament times. He is primarily known because he supposedly considered Jesus to be... ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/316 "2016-01-09T22:43:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not what I understand. > > [Nonreligious Questions](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/07/josephus-important-evidence-for-jesus/) > [Does Josephus prove a historical Jesus? – Freethought Nation](http://freethoughtnation.com/does-josephus-prove-a-historical-jesus/) > [Josephus - RationalWiki](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josephus) **GIGObuster** , your cites and quote are largely directed agianst the mention of Jesus in _Antiquities_ Book XVIII not the mention in Book XX which is the subject of this sub-debate. Connecting the Jesus brother of James with Jesus son of Damneus seems totally wrong. A complaint is that Josephus’ references to Jesus are stilted or illegal, _but that connection would make the passage weirdly written and illogical._ ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/317 "2016-01-09T23:03:50Z")
> [@Jayhawker\_Soule](#): > > So you deprecate the work of scholars based on your presumptions concerning the nature and extent of their religious beliefs as teenagers? Yes, although I wouldn’t put it that way. I was trying to convey that I was talking about religious beliefs they had held all their lives, rather than those they adopted in adult life. I believe that childhood indoctrination of religion, in certain types of people (and I know of no other characteristic those types of people share, because they run the gamut from stupid and ignorant to intelligent and highly educated), is almost impossible to defeat by reason and evidence. > [@](#): > > Seriously? Yes. > [@](#): > > How is this anything other than mild bigotry? I don’t know, since I don’t know your definition of mild bigotry. But I think it’s perfectly valid to assume that in a statistically valid sample, lifelong Christians are going to be more receptive to arguments and evidence that affirm their faith, no matter how hard they try to be objective. How else do you explain the very intelligent and educated Christians you must know, who are not fazed by arguments against Christianity that you find convincing, but who make very similar arguments against Islam? > [@](#): > > Baptism, ritual cleaning, and crucifixion are well attested, and I’ve read no one associated with the historical Jesus studies claiming that it “happened in any manner resembling what the Gospels said,” or, for that matter, “that everything that can’t be 100% disproved in the Gospels is true.” You, however, seem wedded to the proposition that anything that can’t be 100% proved in the Gospels is likely false. Well, that’s just ridiculous, since I have been arguing throughout this thread that Jesus actually existed (although I have argued against IMO shoddy reasoning in support of that opinion). I have no problem accepting the mundane assertions of the Gospels. I reject the claims of miracles, and highly improbable events like Luke’s census or Matthew’s slaughter, when they are not strongly corroborated by secular historians. It’s not my fault that none of them are. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/318 "2016-01-09T23:03:55Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > **GIGObuster** , your cites and quote are largely directed agianst the mention of Jesus in _Antiquities_ Book XVIII not the mention in Book XX which is the subject of this sub-debate. > > Connecting the Jesus brother of James with Jesus son of Damneus seems totally wrong. A complaint is that Josephus’ references to Jesus are stilted or illegal, _but that connection would make the passage weirdly written and illogical._ 😕 The Rationalwiky link about Josephus does deal with Book 20 thus: > [@](#): > > Passage 2: the “Jamesian Reference” > > The second, and lesser known, supposed reference in Josephus is to James the brother of Jesus. In Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1 of the Antiquities, Josephus writes:[19] > > > [@](#): > > > > Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he [Ananus, the Jewish high priest] assembled the [S]anhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, him 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. > > Though there are good reasons to think this too is not Josephus’ original text: > > ``` > [ul] > > ``` > > [li]Again Josephus would have provided more details for the Gentile readership like just what was meant by “Christ”. If the Josephus had mentioned “Christ” before he would have referenced back to it as he does to the Sadducess several times in this work.[20][/li][li] After reading the rest of the text of this passage we find that the Jews were so angry about the stoning of James that they they demanded that King Agrippa fire Ananus. Why would the Jews be angered over the killing of a Christian, since Christians were seen as heathens by the Jews?[21][22][/li][li] The end of the paragraph seems to identify the Jesus described within as Jesus the son of Damneus, and clearly states that this Jesus was made high priest by Agrippa.[/li][li] The passage doesn’t agree with any other account of James the Just and Acts make no mention of the event at all.[23][/li][li] In Against Celsus 1.47, Origen states “this writer” (Josephus) … “in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple” … “says nevertheless” … “that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)”. This point is repeated in Against Celsus 2.13 where Origen states “But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.” Note that the Josephus passage above does NOT connect the death of this James with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, or any other disaster despite Origen stating twice that the passage he is referring to does.[/li][li] Finally, and most importantly the James of Josephus died c. 62 CE by just stoning while Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition all had James the Just dying c. 70 CE by being thrown from a battlement, stoned, and finally clubbed to death by passing laundrymen.[24] In fact, Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History, Book III, ch. 11 clearly writes “After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed…” but there are seven years and four High Priests[25] between these two events if the Josephus passage is genuine so either we have one of the wonkiest definition of “immediately followed” in the history of the world or these are two different James and the passage was added to make the connection. The later interpretation is supported by Rufinus of Aquileia in the 4th century who states James the Lord’s brother was informed of the death of Peter (64 CE or 67 CE ie after the James in Josephus was dead and gone).[26][/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/319 "2016-01-09T23:09:09Z")
> [@Jayhawker\_Soule](#): > > How many more than three do you need before you claim that it constitutes a ‘consensus’? > > It is my understanding that current ‘consensus’ is that the James reference is authentic. If you’re interested in the topic, I recommend picking up: > > [**Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy From Late Antiquity to Modern Times**](http://www.amazon.com/Josephus-Jesus-Testimonium-Controversy-Literature/dp/0820452416) > > by Alice Whealey. Not to be too pointed, I really am wondering: Is English your first language? Did you not recognize my post to be, basically, a complete capitulation of the point? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392/320 "2016-01-09T23:29:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 😕 > > The Rationalwiky link about Josephus does deal with Book 20 thus: Despite what definitely appear to me to be very strong arguments, it remains true that by a huge majority the consensus view in the field is that the “brother of Jesus” belongs in the original. I do not know _why_ this is the consensus, but consensus it is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jesus-myth-or-man/742392.md?page=17)