Your page, "Herod & the Hasmoneans in the time of the biblical Jesus"

Cousin Sharon, I just came across your page in the topic line. Hope all the PhD work went well! That helps me understand why your posts display such a depth of research and a scholarly tone.

While I understand the page began as sort of a scratch-sheet, it seems there are a couple of opportunities to enhance it, if you're open to that.
First, the listing of "Jesuses Mentioned by Josephus" seems incomplete. You have the mention of Jesus ben Sapphias that you quote from Josephus' Autobiography, [also at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.... ] of course. If you intend it to be more complete, there is also another mention of Jesus ben Sapphias in The Wars of the Jews, Book 2, sec. 566 [see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.... ]. It says of him, "They also chose other generals for Idumea; Jesus, the son of Sapphias, one of the high priests; and Eleazar, the son of Ananias, the high priest; they also enjoined Niger, the then governor of Idumea, 1 who was of a family that belonged to Perea, beyond Jordan, and was thence called the Peraite, that he should be obedient to those fore-named commanders." It looks pretty clear at this point that Jesus ben Sapphias, high priest, general, and perhaps marauder, is unlikely to be the same as the Biblical Jesus. The name was likely as common then as the name Joshua is today. In fact, the name of the Joshua who succeeded Moses became (roughly) Iesous in Greek and would have been written as 'Jesus' in the Latin of the Vulgate Bible. So it would be reasonable for there to be two persons named "Jesus" in works as lengthy as those of Josephus.

The more famous quote, which actually appears to refer to Jesus of Nazareth, occurs in the Antiquities of the Jews, at Book 18, Ch. 3, sec. 3 [see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.... ] which reads,
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." If you're wishing that section to be complete, this should be included.

In all scholarly fairness, there are those who dispute whether this was in the original or whether it was slipped in at some later date; however, Whiston also references in his footnote to the Wars at Book 2, sec. 169 [see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0... ] that Josephus had written further in a discourse on Hades about Jesus [you may know more of it than I, it's not ringing any bells here], and again in a footnote to the Antiquities, Book 1, sec 213 [see http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0... ] refers to it, concluding that the paragraph in Book 18 of the Antiquities (referenced above) is likely genuine.

Whatever personal take either of us have, including the discussion from both sides would seem to be most fair to the reader.

The second possibility for enhancing the page would be to remove the links to the "www.jesusneverexisted.com" pages. I didn't look at the other links on your page, but these two really don't deserve to be on a page written by someone of your intelligence. They appear to be a mixture of fact, half-truth, wild supposition and opinion (hope the author isn't your friend or relative).

The first of two examples: Mr. Humphreys goes on at great length about how Philo of Alexandria never once mentioned any historical Jesus though he lived at the same time. But the Geni page for Philo of Alexandria [ Philo of Alexandria ] mentions that Philo was from Alexandria, and quite vividly describes the oppression, tortures, and crucifixions of Jews in his home town, and points out, "It is likely that Philo only visited the Temple in Jerusalem once in his lifetime." Philo might have been a bit busy to notice one rabbi, or even one more Jew crucified by the Romans. Mr. Humphreys' logic is at the same level as saying, "CNN was in your town but never mentioned you, Kenneth; you must not exist."

The second example is Mr. Humphreys' list of events that Jesus is never recorded as mentioning. However, most of these "World Events That Jesus Never Noticed," as Mr. Humphreys describes them, occurred when Jesus would have been somewhere between a child and a teenager, a decade before preaching to anyone and pretty old news. So Mr. Humphreys basically declares that Jesus had to be a historian in order to exist. By the same reasoning, future Internet bloggers could claim that since Mr. Humphreys made no mention of the Apollo 11 landings on the Moon, he must not have existed.

You, Mr. Humphreys, and myself are all entitled to our opinions, but Mr. Humphreys' opinions are so sloppily thought out that they don't deserve the dignity you would give them by keeping those references. The choice is yours, of course.

I did notice that you are one of the managers for the Philo of Alexandria page, which is richly informative. Thank you for your work on that, and for contributing so much information to ongoing discussions like the Gisele of Cysoing page and others.

Have a great week.