How Josephus' James became Jesus' kid brother

One of the sillier conspiracies ever was the Christian writing or rewriting of Josephus' "Testimony" of Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews book 18. Because of its artlessness, the forgery is easily spotted.

Towards the end of the book, we also find the briefest of mentions of somebody named James, described as a brother of "Jesus called Christ." James was convicted by an illegal gathering of the Sanhedrin and condemned to be stoned.

Whether James was actually stoned, and whether that killed him (Paul supposedly survived a stoning) Josephus doesn't bother to say. The story isn't about James, it's about a power struggle among a Jewish king, a Roman governor, various bandits, and an assortment of Jewish high priests, two of whom are named Jesus. James is collateral damage.

Unlike the "Testimony," the brevity of the James mention makes it difficult to verify or refute whether it is part of the original composition. It is strange that in a story that already has two Jesuses who are players, Josephus would drag in some James and a third Jesus, neither of whom do anything that affects the main storyline. On the other hand, if James were the brother of one of the player Jesuses, that would help motivate some of the ensuing action.

The main reason that anybody thinks the mention of James as Christ's bother is authentic is Origen's report that he read it in the mid-Third Century, too early for Christian scribes to have cooked the book. Origen's report is corroborated (or copied) by Eusebius and Jerome... and of course there is no surviving manuscript of Antiquities that describes James differently.

All that turns out to be not much of a reason, as discussed in this blog post:

uncertaintist.wordpress.com...

"Academic consensus" strongly favors James to have been described as the Christian Jesus' brother. As with so much else in the Historical Jesus controversy, acdemic consensus doesn't seem to have a lot to back up its opinion here.

Academic consensus?
Its common knowledge that James is ASSUMED to be Jesus the Christs younger brother based on the statement in his epistle
I guess we could call it a theory even, a belief, with scholars who agree it was possibly the James related to Jesus
Nowhere have I ever read, by any author that James is definetly the brother of Christ

Storm in a teacup. Every other writer of the gospels or letters were not related to Christ, what's it matter about if James was or was not

What's the point of this thread, I am lost

a reply to: Raggedyman

Its common knowledge that James is ASSUMED to be Jesus the Christs younger brother based on the statement in his epistle

The OP isn't referencing the biblical James. He's referencing Josephus' James. There were lots of men named James, as well as lots of men named Jesus.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Its common knowledge that James is ASSUMED to be Jesus the Christs younger brother based on the statement in his epistle

The OP isn't referencing the biblical James. He's referencing Josephus' James. There were lots of men named James, as well as lots of men named Jesus.

Well my question still stands, what's the point of the thread

There were lots of Jesus' and James, so what, who cares
What's the point of the thread,
Nobody knows if the letter written by James is the birth brother of Christ, what's the conspiracy

and windy, read the op post again, he is referencing James the brother of Jesus Christ, the letters author

a reply to: Raggedyman

Nobody knows if the letter written by James is the birth brother of Christ, what's the conspiracy and windy, read the op post again, he is referencing James the brother of Jesus Christ, the letters author

The title of this thread: How Josephus' James became Jesus' kid brother

The OP isn't referencing the biblical letter or questioning its authenticity.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

Nobody knows if the letter written by James is the birth brother of Christ, what's the conspiracy and windy, read the op post again, he is referencing James the brother of Jesus Christ, the letters author

The title of this thread: How Josephus' James became Jesus' kid brother

The OP isn't referencing the biblical letter or questioning its authenticity.

Ok windy, let's now assume I understand that.

I will ask the same question I asked before in my previous post again, slowly, what's the conspiracy that has been alluded to, what's the thread about then?

a reply to: Raggedyman

From the OP:

"Academic consensus" strongly favors James to have been described as the Christian Jesus' brother. As with so much else in the Historical Jesus controversy, academic consensus doesn't seem to have a lot to back up its opinion here.

Why do some theologians, despite the obvious forgery, still contend that Josephus' James was the same James that was, supposedly, the little brother of Jesus of Nazareth?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Raggedyman

From the OP:

"Academic consensus" strongly favors James to have been described as the Christian Jesus' brother. As with so much else in the Historical Jesus controversy, academic consensus doesn't seem to have a lot to back up its opinion here.

Why do some theologians, despite the obvious forgery, still contend that Josephus' James was the same James that was, supposedly, the little brother of Jesus of Nazareth?

I don't know, prove that it isn't, remember it's assumed, some think it is, some don't think it is, some say they don't know, theory I guess
What theologian states that this James definitely IS Christs brother

What's the conspiracy, what's this all about, as I said earlier on.
Nobody knows, what does it matter to you or the op what another's opinion is
What's the conspiracy? I am at a loss

a reply to: Raggedyman

What's the conspiracy? I am at a loss

Obviously.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well my question still stands, what's the point of the thread

To discuss whether or not Josephus really referred to a certain James as the brother of "Jesus called Christ" in his Antiquities, or whether his text was altered by the joint effort of later copyists.

Who wrote James is no doubt an excellent question, too. However, it has nothing to do with Josephus' Antiquities and whether that book has been altered, how, by whom, and for what purposes.

... what does it matter to you or the op what another's opinion is ...

We're all on a discussion board. Many of us find discussion to be wholesome entertainment. If that's not what you're here for, then best wishes on finding whatever it is that brings you here instead.

a reply to: eight bits

Yeah, thanks that certainly makes sense
I apologise didn't understand.

On the Joesephus story, I guess maybe, then again maybe not

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well my question still stands, what's the point of the thread There were lots of Jesus' and James, so what, who cares What's the point of the thread, Nobody knows if the letter written by James is the birth brother of Christ, what's the conspiracy

The object of the thread is obvious. Its and old argument over the authenticity of Josephus and the forgery accusation which, by the way, is not proven or factual by a majority of academia. This is a back door way to influence or bolster the idea that to cause a doubt of a brother to Christ Jesus (named Jacob, or James) is to also cast that same shadow on a Jesus ever existing. All one must do to see through this scam is to look at the source of the material that the op uses.
Nice try eight bits but not true.

a reply to: Seede

Nice try eight bits but not true.

What's not true? Could you be more specific?

I'm 60-40 that there was a historical Jesus, more likely than not. That is a separate question from whether Josephus wrote that the James who was tried in 62 CE was the brother of Jesus "called Christ."

IMO, it is more likely that Josephus did not write that. Other views are possible. Whether Josephus wrote something or not neither establishes nor refutes that Jesus existed, had a brother named James, etc.

As your discussion implies, the significance of James, and in what sense he might have been Jesus' "brother," is a major controversy among Christians. All Nicene Christians (and Muslims) profess that Jesus' mother had not had sexual intercourse before Jesus' birth. That is not a historical question, but a matter of faith.

If we put that aside, a historical question arises: did Jesus' mother have other children? The majority of Christians belong to churches that say Jesus was his mother's only child. A minority of Christians belong to churches that teach otherwise. Blood has been spilled over this. Although either position is naturalistically possible, the actual basis of both sides' position is faith (and the arcane question of the extent to which Tradition can supplement Scripture, another issue over which blood has been spilled.)

As evidence of a historical Jesus, the only distinction of the Josephus mention (and the Testimony in the same book) is that it would be the earliest survivng non-Christian mention of Jesus, or of any other Christian subject.

That does not make it especially good evidence for HJ, since it isn't very early, coming from 93 CE. That's two generations after Jesus supposedly died.

Even the most generous interpretation of the evidence can cast little doubt that Josephus' sources were Christians and their stories about the early days of their religion. The remaining question is whether or not Josephus' sources eliminated the middle man, and wrote the pertinent parts of the Antiquities themselves.

originally posted by: eight bits
a reply to: Seede

Nice try eight bits but not true.

What's not true? Could you be more specific?

I'm 60-40 that there was a historical Jesus, more likely than not. That is a separate question from whether Josephus wrote that the James who was tried in 62 CE was the brother of Jesus "called Christ."

IMO, it is more likely that Josephus did not write that. Other views are possible. Whether Josephus wrote something or not neither establishes nor refutes that Jesus existed, had a brother named James, etc.

As your discussion implies, the significance of James, and in what sense he might have been Jesus' "brother," is a major controversy among Christians. All Nicene Christians (and Muslims) profess that Jesus' mother had not had sexual intercourse before Jesus' birth. That is not a historical question, but a matter of faith.

If we put that aside, a historical question arises: did Jesus' mother have other children? The majority of Christians belong to churches that say Jesus was his mother's only child. A minority of Christians belong to churches that teach otherwise. Blood has been spilled over this. Although either position is naturalistically possible, the actual basis of both sides' position is faith (and the arcane question of the extent to which Tradition can supplement Scripture, another issue over which blood has been spilled.)

As evidence of a historical Jesus, the only distinction of the Josephus mention (and the Testimony in the same book) is that it would be the earliest survivng non-Christian mention of Jesus, or of any other Christian subject.

That does not make it especially good evidence for HJ, since it isn't very early, coming from 93 CE. That's two generations after Jesus supposedly died.

Even the most generous interpretation of the evidence can cast little doubt that Josephus' sources were Christians and their stories about the early days of their religion. The remaining question is whether or not Josephus' sources eliminated the middle man, and wrote the pertinent parts of the Antiquities themselves.

So your whole argument is that because you think Joesephus was fake the whole old and New Testament was fake
Because a secular text after the fact, a record keeper called Josephus is in your opinion a forgery
That you think and we should also think.
Thousands of texts from the old and New Testament and you would declare all them waste papyrus based on Josephus text validity

60/40, that's a little strange, I don't know many if any learned scholars who deny Jesus was real, plenty don't think He was a miracle worker or God yet you deny him all together
That's very simplistic, possibly one of the most recorded lives in the antiquitys, more evidence for Jesus than Josephus and your concern is over James

That's some serious intelectual contortions
That's like trying to kill a tree by cutting off a leaf

and to make it more silly, your premise about James is based on an assumption that it could be the wrong James, yeah, it could be another James
That's been clearly stated.

Here is a thought, who cares about Josephus, if it's valid or not
Who cares if Josephus lived or didn't.
And the most logical, why would a Christian forge, change Josephus work when they were writing the gospels and letters throughout most of the known word

How would they know about the relevance of Josephus work and why care, if someone is not going to believe, Josephus work is not going to win them over, surely

Your whole premise is flawed

a reply to: eight bits

Josephus was one who left subtle clues about what really happened as was Luke and Plutarch who may be the same person.

If the James comment is valid I believe he was saying Saul killed James but this Saul is a Herodian but Paul writes to or about a Herodias that he knows so I believe it is the same Saul as "Paul."

Jeshua was a common Jewish name and occurs in the OT and there is Jesus Ben Sirach in the Catholic bible. It is the same as Joshua and Jesus is an improper translation.

Jesus Barabbas was the man who was released instead of Jesus Christ before his sentencing.

a reply to: Seede

There is ample reason to suspect much forgery in all church controlled writings that are not controlled any longer.

They were not honest men and we don't have the original records of a God man but have ancients Egyptian papyri with spells?

Come on now.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: eight bits
a reply to: Seede

Nice try eight bits but not true.

What's not true? Could you be more specific?

I'm 60-40 that there was a historical Jesus, more likely than not. That is a separate question from whether Josephus wrote that the James who was tried in 62 CE was the brother of Jesus "called Christ."

IMO, it is more likely that Josephus did not write that. Other views are possible. Whether Josephus wrote something or not neither establishes nor refutes that Jesus existed, had a brother named James, etc.

As your discussion implies, the significance of James, and in what sense he might have been Jesus' "brother," is a major controversy among Christians. All Nicene Christians (and Muslims) profess that Jesus' mother had not had sexual intercourse before Jesus' birth. That is not a historical question, but a matter of faith.

If we put that aside, a historical question arises: did Jesus' mother have other children? The majority of Christians belong to churches that say Jesus was his mother's only child. A minority of Christians belong to churches that teach otherwise. Blood has been spilled over this. Although either position is naturalistically possible, the actual basis of both sides' position is faith (and the arcane question of the extent to which Tradition can supplement Scripture, another issue over which blood has been spilled.)

As evidence of a historical Jesus, the only distinction of the Josephus mention (and the Testimony in the same book) is that it would be the earliest survivng non-Christian mention of Jesus, or of any other Christian subject.

That does not make it especially good evidence for HJ, since it isn't very early, coming from 93 CE. That's two generations after Jesus supposedly died.

Even the most generous interpretation of the evidence can cast little doubt that Josephus' sources were Christians and their stories about the early days of their religion. The remaining question is whether or not Josephus' sources eliminated the middle man, and wrote the pertinent parts of the Antiquities themselves.

So your whole argument is that because you think Joesephus was fake the whole old and New Testament was fake
Because a secular text after the fact, a record keeper called Josephus is in your opinion a forgery
That you think and we should also think.
Thousands of texts from the old and New Testament and you would declare all them waste papyrus based on Josephus text validity

60/40, that's a little strange, I don't know many if any learned scholars who deny Jesus was real, plenty don't think He was a miracle worker or God yet you deny him all together
That's very simplistic, possibly one of the most recorded lives in the antiquitys, more evidence for Jesus than Josephus and your concern is over James

That's some serious intelectual contortions
That's like trying to kill a tree by cutting off a leaf

and to make it more silly, your premise about James is based on an assumption that it could be the wrong James, yeah, it could be another James
That's been clearly stated.

Here is a thought, who cares about Josephus, if it's valid or not
Who cares if Josephus lived or didn't.
And the most logical, why would a Christian forge, change Josephus work when they were writing the gospels and letters throughout most of the known word

How would they know about the relevance of Josephus work and why care, if someone is not going to believe, Josephus work is not going to win them over, surely

Your whole premise is flawed

Your anger and length of rambling betrays your arrogance about all things Christ. You are the least humble "christian" I have ever seen.

If you were secure in your faith you wouldn't need to be obsessed with people not agreeing with you and making unacademic pure arrogant arguments.

You seem like your not happy with your religion being a literal joke and fraud. Well, you have other options.

As for Josephus, Roman stooge all day. But it provides some information it just isn't trustworthy because it is not older than 600 ad as far as the copies in existence are concerned.

a reply to: Parazurvan

well thanks for the kind words, I will be sure to mind my manners.

Now care to discuss the issue at hand instead of me

Does it matter what Josephus said when we have numerous books and letters attesting to the Christ

a reply to: Raggedyman

One book attests to Christ and it can't be verified as autheny.

And why would it? I have been reading early church writings by Clement who never mentions the ressurection.

Nothing is older than 400 BC and believing it is true only makes it true in your mind. You know you can't prove it. We have books about many things that aren't true.

If being a book makes something true than every religion with a book is true. No more proof of Jesus than their is for Krishna or any other so called god.

To me it really doesn't matter if the text was interpolated, just because nothing that Josephus says can be taken at face value. The only reason why we have his historical accounts are because he was a traitor to his own people, because he was in the group who were victorious over the war. There is so much evidence to support that Josephus is a liar, and it is very sad that he is believed by scholars. Some of his stories are utterly blasphemous, and when compared to the understanding that his family was the royal family of Sadducees who were the very opposition to the royal family of Nazarenes whom James and Jesus were a part of, it is so simply obvious that his hatred and opposition to the Essene family of Nazarenes and royal Davidic bloodline caused him to blot them out from the account of history. He and his family were Roman puppets that were put in the place of power to destroy the rebels, who were the descendants of the Maccabees, and the Essenes, who were the Nazarene descendants of King David.

It is terribly sad that because of the Roman and Sadducee hatred of the royal family of King David, the following truths of history have been omitted from the annuals of history and therefore are disbelieved by the masses of society who play into the hand of the Gentile victors, these same masses of society are proving to worship the very people who hated Jesus when they think with all of their heart and will that they are worshiping the Nazarene! Every Christian in the world will have to give an account to God for why they believe liars such as Josephus and Paul over the apostles and Christ himself. If they worked hard enough to uncover the lost Nazarene texts, they would understand that Paul was an enemy to the brothers of Jesus who reclined with the Savior and ate with him.

Therefore they reject the Nazarene texts that tell us James, Peter, and the Christ were educated and fully literate.

They reject that the family were normal brothers and were Essene.

They mix up the Maccabean rebels with the Nazarenes and speak the hypocrisy that Christ and his followers were violent.

They accept things like John the Baptist ate bugs, Jesus rose form the dead in three days, and the virgin birth, when these things were never mentioned in the Jewish gospels, those of which were written and produced before their Greek gospels that are filled with paganism and lies. Surely, all Christians will have to give an account to God for why they believed Greek speaking Gentiles over the Jewish followers of their pronounced Savior, even if they are forgiven for being so ignorant to the fact that gentiles and Jews alike hated the Nazarenes with a passion.

We have a religion that was created by the most righteous men of the earth and taken by the hands of beasts in love with dishonesty. It is so utterly sad and horrible that human beings are so gullible as to believe in miracles stories created by antisemitic gentiles, yet when the most honorable truthful men in history tell them that we have been visited by aliens from outer space, they disbelieve it. It just shows that human beings in modern society are so much more than just ignorant, they are completely horrible slime balls, they are more than naive brats, they are worst than cockroaches hiding in the dirtiest garbage the planet has ever seen.

To passionately believe in liars with all your heart and soul, and to disbelieve in the most honorable men and women of history, is so much more than pathetic, it is so much more than being prideful or stubborn, it is to be the lowest life form in the history of the universe, it is to be scorned by the very person who they think is going to save them. Certainly, James and Jesus have nothing but grief and frowning to modern Christians, because in their circle, during the creation of the first church, it was considered horrible on every level to teach people an untruth as it would be leading the soul of others to destruction, which was the opposite reason for the struggles and hard work in creating the church - to save the souls of mankind. For them to know that you are going around preaching the lies that their own enemies infiltrated into their own church, they are not going to hug you will a smile for that. That same absolute pride that you have, just being completely stubborn to the truth and believing in liars for no other reason that to hold these liars in the place of gods, believing anything they say no matter how irrational it is, it is completely hated by Jesus and James - they strictly taught against the very thing that Christians hold close to their hearts. I may need to become a Nazarene spokesman, because this has gotten so far out of hand, just imagine millions of people being turned away by the very person they had hopes and faith in for their whole life. That is what we are dealing with.