Editing Josephus on Jesus (section)

=== Arguments for authenticity ===
[[Louis Feldman]] states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged".<ref>''Josephus, Judaism and Christianity'' by [[Louis H. Feldman]], Gōhei Hata 1997 {{ISBN|90-04-08554-8}} pp. 55–57</ref> Feldman states that this passage, above others, indicates that Josephus did say something about Jesus.<ref name="Feldman, Louis H. p. 56">Feldman, Louis H.; Hata, Gōhei. ''Josephus, Judaism and Christianity''. BRILL. {{ISBN|90-04-08554-8}}. p. 56</ref> Feldman states that it would make no sense for Origen to show amazement that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus as Christ ([[Wikisource:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book X/Chapter 17|Book X, Chapter 17]]), if Josephus had not referred to Jesus at all.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}} [[Paul L. Maier]] states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage"{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284–285}} Zvi Baras also states that most modern scholars consider the James passage to be authentic.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=341}}

[[File:Jakov brat gospodnji.jpg|thumb|upright=0.85|A thirteenth-century icon of James, Serbian monastery [[Gračanica Monastery|Gračanica]], [[Kosovo]]]]
According to [[Robert E. Van Voorst]] the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=83}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst states that the James passage fits well in the context in the ''Antiquities'' and an indication for its authenticity is the lack of the laudatory language that a Christian interpolator would have used to refer to Jesus as "the Lord", or a similar term.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=83–84}} Van Voorst also states that the use of a neutral term "called Christ" which neither denies nor affirms Jesus as the Messiah points to authenticity, and indicates that Josephus used it to distinguish Jesus from the many other people called Jesus at the time, in the same way that James is distinguished, given that it was also a common name.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=83–84}}

[[Richard Bauckham]] states that although a few scholars have questioned the James passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic", and that among the several accounts of the death of James the account in Josephus is generally considered to be historically the most reliable.{{sfn|Bauckham|1999|pp=199–203}} Bauckham states that the method of killing James by stoning, and the description provided by Josephus via the assembly of the Sanhedrin of judges are consistent with the policies of the Temple authorities towards the early Christian Church at the time.{{sfn|Bauckham|1999|p=231}}

[[Andreas Köstenberger]] considers the James passage to be authentic and states that the James passage attests to the existence of Jesus as a historical person, and that his followers considered him the Messiah. Köstenberger states that the statement by Josephus that some people recognized Jesus as the Messiah is consistent with the grammar of Josephus elsewhere but does not imply that Josephus himself considered Jesus the Messiah. Köstenberger concurs with John Meier that it is highly unlikely for the passage to be a Christian interpolation given that in New Testament texts James is referred to as the "brother of the Lord" rather than the "brother of Jesus", and that a Christian interpolator would have provided a more detailed account at that point.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104–105}}

Claudia Setzer states that few have questioned the authenticity of the James passage, partly based on the observation that a Christian interpolator would have provided more praise for James.<ref name=Setzer108>''Jewish responses to early Christians'' by Claudia Setzer 1994 {{ISBN|0-8006-2680-X}} pp. 108–109</ref> Setzer states that the passage indicates that Josephus, a Jewish historian writing towards the end of the first century, could use a neutral tone towards Christians, with some tones of sympathy, implying that they may be worthy of Roman protection.<ref name=Setzer108 />

[[John Painter (theologian)|John Painter]] states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical. Painter discusses the role of [[Ananus ben Ananus|Ananus]] and the background to the passage, and states that after being deposed as High Priest for killing James and being replaced by [[Jesus son of Damneus|Jesus the son of Damnaeus]], Ananus had maintained his influence within Jerusalem through bribery.{{sfn|Painter|2005|p=136}} Painter points out that as described in the [[Antiquities of the Jews]] ([[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9, 2]]) Ananus was bribing both [[Lucceius Albinus|Albinus]] and Jesus the son of Damnaeus so that his men could take the tithes of other priests outside Jerusalem, to the point that some priests then starved to death.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=139–142}} Philip Carrington states that there is no reason to question the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James, and elaborates the background by stating that Ananus continued to remain a power within the Jewish circles at the time even after being deposed, and that it is likely that the charges brought against James by Ananus were not only because of his Christian association but because he objected to the oppressive policies against the poor; hence explaining the later indignation of the more moderate Jewish leaders.<ref>''The Early Christian Church: Volume 1, The First Christian Church'' by Philip Carrington 2011 {{ISBN|0-521-16641-1}} Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–189.</ref>