Historical Jesus III:Josephus page 3; scholars support Josephus two passages; Sholmo Pines Arabic Text.

The Religious A priori

Historical Jesus

Josephus (page 3)

There is a whole second passage about Jesus and basically no good reason to think it was forged too. The skeptics argue guilt by association. IF the TF was forged then the brother passage was too. But that's not the way scholars see it.

Research on the Brother passage contributed by the researcher Nehemias

8/18/2008 02:16:00 PM on CADRE blog.

James Passage:

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Catholic Encyclopaedia ( Early Historical Documents on Jesus Christ): "Two passages in his "Antiquities" which confirm two facts of the inspired Christian records are not disputed. In the one he reports the murder of "John called Baptist" by Herod (Ant., XVIII, v, 2), describing also John's character and work; in the other (Ant., XX, ix, 1) he disappoves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against "James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ."

So, the article only discuss the authenticity of Antiquites 18:63. The James' passage and John Baptist's passage were said to be not in the discussion.

However, the internet version of Catholic Encyclopaedia was written in 1910. So, we need a more up-to-date authority.

The leading Josephus scholars, Prof. Louis Feldman (Yeshiva University) and Steve Mason (York University), state:

"That indeed, Josephus did say something about Jesus is indicated, above all, by the passage - the authenticity of which has been almost universally ackonowledge - about James, who is termed (A XX, 200) the brother of "the aforementioned Christ" (Feldman, Louis H, Introduction In Feldman, Louis H. & Hata, Gohey "Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity", page 56)

"Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Josephus' reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings. (Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, page 174 ff)

The authenticity of the James passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by josephan scholars. So, J.L. Hinnan is quite right right to appeal to Ant. 20, 200 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

Next argument: III.B. Tacitus

The Religious A priori