Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Eusebius and the "trial of James the Just"


eight bits
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

All of our Greek-language source manuscripts of Josephus's Antiquities book 20 say that  a certain James, "the brother of Jesus called Christ" was sentenced to death in Jerusalem during the summer of 62 CE.

The guild (as New Testament scholars call themselves with good humor) has a widespread confident consensus that the passage is  authentic. Maybe it is, but strong consensus is puzzling in light of the many reasons to discount the evidence favoring authenticity.

Everything turns on the two words "called Christ" to specify which Jesus is meant. There are two other Jesuses in the story itself, and at least one other Jesus who was mentioned in an earlier work by Josephus and whose career as a prophet-of-doom began shortly after the trial.

Authentication of two centuries-old words is inherently difficult. The first person to suggest the phrase appears anywhere in Josephus is Origen, who also remembers reading somewhere in Josephus many other things that Josephus didn't write anywhere about this James.

However, Origen persuaded Eusebius that Josephus had attributed the fall of Jerusalem to divine retribution for the mistreatment of this James. Although Eusebius couldn't find that passage, he said that that was what Josephus wrote. Eusebius did find the trial scene, however, and so became the first person known to claim that one of its defendants was the brother of Jesus called Christ.

We all-but know from the Flavian Testimony fiasco that sometimes when Eusebius found something juicy in Josephus, later Christian scribes included it in their manuscripts. But this case is worse.

In the same book 20 of his Antiquities, Josephus attributed the fall of Jerusalem  to divine retribution for murders in the temple precincts - but not mistreatment of James. Eusebius's statement contradicts this.

To summarize the case for authenticity, then, the guild calls two witnesses. The first misremembers everything about his reading except the two words "called Christ." The second witness outrightly contradicts Josephus on the role of James in the loss of Jerusalem, but can tell you where to find that pesky phrase the first witness remembered reading somewhere.

Seriously? I don't claim to know what Josephus really wrote. What I claim is that jail house snitches manage greater credibility on the witness stand. How the guild maintains near-unanimous acceptance of this passage eludes me.

Here's something from the Uncertaintist blog on Eusebius's role in all of this:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2022/08/09/eusebiuss-witness-to-josephus-on-james-the-just/

Edited by eight bits
  • Thanks 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

All of our Greek-language source manuscripts of Josephus's Antiquities book 20 say that  a certain James, "the brother of Jesus called Christ" was sentenced to death in Jerusalem during the summer of 62 CE.

The guild (as New Testament scholars call themselves with good humor) has a widespread confident consensus that the passage is  authentic. Maybe it is, but strong consensus is puzzling in light of the many reasons to discount the evidence favoring authenticity.

Everything turns on the two words "called Christ" to specify which Jesus is meant. There are two other Jesuses in the story itself, and at least one other Jesus who was mentioned in an earlier work by Josephus and whose career as a prophet-of-doom began shortly after the trial.

Authentication of two centuries-old words is inherently difficult. The first person to suggest the phrase appears anywhere in Josephus is Origen, who also remembers reading somewhere in Josephus many other things that Josephus didn't write anywhere about this James.

However, Origen persuaded Eusebius that Josephus had attributed the fall of Jerusalem to divine retribution for the mistreatment of this James. Although Eusebius couldn't find that passage, he said that that was what Josephus wrote. Eusebius did find the trial scene, however, and so became the first person known to claim that one of its defendants was the brother of Jesus called Christ.

We all-but know from the Flavian Testimony fiasco that sometimes when Eusebius found something juicy in Josephus, later Christian scribes included it in their manuscripts. But this case is worse.

In the same book 20 of his Antiquities, Josephus attributed the fall of Jerusalem  to divine retribution for murders in the temple precincts - but not mistreatment of James. Eusebius's statement contradicts this.

To summarize the case for authenticity, then, the guild calls two witnesses. The first misremembers everything about his reading except the two words "called Christ." The second witness outrightly contradicts Josephus on the role of James in the loss of Jerusalem, but can tell you where to find that pesky phrase the first witness remembered reading somewhere.

Seriously? I don't claim to know what Josephus really wrote. What I claim is that jail house snitches manage greater credibility on the witness stand. How the guild maintains near-unanimous acceptance of this passage eludes me.

Here's something from the Uncertaintist blog on Eusebius's role in all of this:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2022/08/09/eusebiuss-witness-to-josephus-on-james-the-just/

Since literally, figuratively and actually everything concerning early Christianity is disputed, the guild members have chosen to believe, based on previous decisions to believe concerning contributing factors to their final decision, which, of course, is disputed.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the titular matyrs... 

Quote

Stephen (Greek: Στέφανος Stéphanos, meaning "wreath, crown" and by extension "reward, honor, renown, fame", often given as a title rather than as a name; Hebrew: סטפנוס הקדוש, Stephanos HaQadosh; c. 5 – c. 34 AD), traditionally venerated as the protomartyr or first martyr of Christianity,[1] was, according to the Acts of the Apostles, a deacon in the early Church at Jerusalem who angered members of various synagogues by his teachings. Accused of blasphemy at his trial, he made a speech denouncing the Jewish authorities who were sitting in judgment on him[Acts 7:51-53] and was then stoned to death. Saul of Tarsus, later known as Paul, a Pharisee and Roman citizen who would later become a Christian apostle, participated in Stephen's martyrdom.[Acts 22:20]

~

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, eight bits said:

All of our Greek-language source manuscripts of Josephus's Antiquities book 20 say that  a certain James, "the brother of Jesus called Christ" was sentenced to death in Jerusalem during the summer of 62 CE.

The guild (as New Testament scholars call themselves with good humor) has a widespread confident consensus that the passage is  authentic. Maybe it is, but strong consensus is puzzling in light of the many reasons to discount the evidence favoring authenticity.

Everything turns on the two words "called Christ" to specify which Jesus is meant. There are two other Jesuses in the story itself, and at least one other Jesus who was mentioned in an earlier work by Josephus and whose career as a prophet-of-doom began shortly after the trial.

Authentication of two centuries-old words is inherently difficult. The first person to suggest the phrase appears anywhere in Josephus is Origen, who also remembers reading somewhere in Josephus many other things that Josephus didn't write anywhere about this James.

However, Origen persuaded Eusebius that Josephus had attributed the fall of Jerusalem to divine retribution for the mistreatment of this James. Although Eusebius couldn't find that passage, he said that that was what Josephus wrote. Eusebius did find the trial scene, however, and so became the first person known to claim that one of its defendants was the brother of Jesus called Christ.

We all-but know from the Flavian Testimony fiasco that sometimes when Eusebius found something juicy in Josephus, later Christian scribes included it in their manuscripts. But this case is worse.

In the same book 20 of his Antiquities, Josephus attributed the fall of Jerusalem  to divine retribution for murders in the temple precincts - but not mistreatment of James. Eusebius's statement contradicts this.

To summarize the case for authenticity, then, the guild calls two witnesses. The first misremembers everything about his reading except the two words "called Christ." The second witness outrightly contradicts Josephus on the role of James in the loss of Jerusalem, but can tell you where to find that pesky phrase the first witness remembered reading somewhere.

Seriously? I don't claim to know what Josephus really wrote. What I claim is that jail house snitches manage greater credibility on the witness stand. How the guild maintains near-unanimous acceptance of this passage eludes me.

Here's something from the Uncertaintist blog on Eusebius's role in all of this:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2022/08/09/eusebiuss-witness-to-josephus-on-james-the-just/

And, eighty is back with a bang.

You never fail to bring it when it comes to all things Jesus. Wow, very interesting. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading between the lines, I suspect this is a desperate attempt by religious scholars to find a secular commentator who mentions Jesus.  Personally I prefer the idea that if you want historical proof of someone's existence you need look no further than their enemies.  But what enemies could Jesus possibly have?  Interestingly, those who believed that John the Baptist was the messiah and Jesus was an interloper seeking to hijack John's ministry are now known as the Mandaeans, have scriptures which are very unflattering towards the person of the historical Jesus.  As an atheist, it doesn't thrill me to admit evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus, but such a person likely existed and was also likely the best stage magician of his day.  Speaking of which, does anyone have a link to Penn & Teller's Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes video?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2022 at 2:51 AM, Alchopwn said:

Reading between the lines, I suspect this is a desperate attempt by religious scholars to find a secular commentator who mentions Jesus.  Personally I prefer the idea that if you want historical proof of someone's existence you need look no further than their enemies.  But what enemies could Jesus possibly have?  Interestingly, those who believed that John the Baptist was the messiah and Jesus was an interloper seeking to hijack John's ministry are now known as the Mandaeans, have scriptures which are very unflattering towards the person of the historical Jesus.  As an atheist, it doesn't thrill me to admit evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus, but such a person likely existed and was also likely the best stage magician of his day.  Speaking of which, does anyone have a link to Penn & Teller's Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes video?

All the attributes given to him in Matthew and Luke were borrowed from Greco-Buddhist and Greco-Hindu demigods and morality teachers.

Buddha did the loaves and fishes according to some sources.

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Piney said:

Buddha did the loaves and fishes according to some sources.

I'm pretty sure it was Penn & Teller that did the Loaves and Fishes, unless that video have been Mandela Effected out of existence like Dolly's braces.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Standard understanding of this section from scholars is that the text is authentic but likely added to by early scribes. The controversy surrounds the phrase "who is called Christ". If that line wasn't there, it would be entirely consistent with Josephus' text, and therefore many historians believe that the original text read "James the brother of Jesus" without any elaboration. Doesn't help us identify which James or Jesus this was (and therefore not necessarily easy to directly say that this is the Jesus spoken of in the early Christian texts, but it's fair to say that no Jew would have written "who is called Christ" into their commentaries, and Josephus is about as Jewish as you can get). 

Another option that many historians believe is that the text originally said something along the lines of "James the brother of Jesus, who is the so-called Christ". There are some early manuscripts with this version, and the suggestion is that Eusebius didn't like the "so-called" line and simply omitted it. 

Then there are those who say it's a complete forgery. 

The first option is the most likely and historians are comfortable with that. So am I. The existence of the historical Jesus is, unlike how the media likes to portray it, completely uncontroversial to historians of all religious and non-religious persuasions. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Standard understanding of this section from scholars is that the text is authentic but likely added to by early scribes. The controversy surrounds the phrase "who is called Christ". If that line wasn't there, it would be entirely consistent with Josephus' text, and therefore many historians believe that the original text read "James the brother of Jesus" without any elaboration. Doesn't help us identify which James or Jesus this was (and therefore not necessarily easy to directly say that this is the Jesus spoken of in the early Christian texts, but it's fair to say that no Jew would have written "who is called Christ" into their commentaries, and Josephus is about as Jewish as you can get). 

Another option that many historians believe is that the text originally said something along the lines of "James the brother of Jesus, who is the so-called Christ". There are some early manuscripts with this version, and the suggestion is that Eusebius didn't like the "so-called" line and simply omitted it. 

Then there are those who say it's a complete forgery. 

The first option is the most likely and historians are comfortable with that. So am I. The existence of the historical Jesus is, unlike how the media likes to portray it, completely uncontroversial to historians of all religious and non-religious persuasions. 

Actually, as part of the Hellenized Jewish intelligentsia, Josephus spoke Greek as a second language and did most his writing in Greek.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings, @Paranoid Android

The difficulty is that unless Josephus wrote the received text as we the living find it (that the defendants at the Sanhedrin trial in 62 CE inculded "the brother of Jesus called Christ, named James"):

1. There is no way to know what Josephus wrote instead, and
2. There is little reason to care.

There is a wide range of educated opinion about point 1 among the small group of educated people who have actually studied the matter critically and doubt the received text. The least difficult alternative, in my opinion, is that "called Christ" was originally some other identifier (son of _____, or perhaps called ______, with a different nickname than "Oily").

The case against the original being "Jesus" without further specification is that the reader would have no way of knowing which Jesus was meant, which would in turn raise the question of why the author would single out James from the other defendants, and identify him only by his brother, but not identify the brother. Jesus and James were both common Palestinian Jewish names, and there are two Jesuses just in the story of the aftermath of the trial.

(I think there may be some confusion with ossuary inscriptions where a formula like "James the brother of Jesus," say no more, might be found carved on a bone box. That's in a context where the family in question was already a given and the intended readership for such an inscription would be a well-defined small group.)

As to "called Christ" being unJewish somehow, that simply isn't the case. It is the same formula pagan Pilate uses twice to refer to Jesus in Matthew. Equally, it is the same formula used to designate Jesus in his genealogy in the same gospel. It is a neutral expression in Greek, not a confession of faith and not a denial of it, either. It is what it looks like: a statement that the individual has a specified cognomen or nickname. Lots of people had nicknames.

9 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The first option is the most likely and historians are comfortable with that. So am I. The existence of the historical Jesus is, unlike how the media likes to portray it, completely uncontroversial to historians of all religious and non-religious persuasions. 

The evidence for a historical Jesus being a real person who actually lived is thin and corrupted. No human opinion is better than the evidence upon which it based. No exceptions. In my opinion, of course.

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, eight bits said:

Greetings, @Paranoid Android

The difficulty is that unless Josephus wrote the received text as we the living find it (that the defendants at the Sanhedrin trial in 62 CE inculded "the brother of Jesus called Christ, named James"):

1. There is no way to know what Josephus wrote instead, and
2. There is little reason to care.

Hi 8bits, 

End of the day, if this is the standard we are using to judge ancient historical texts, then we can't really know ANYTHING about ancient history. Many of our ancient texts only exist because they were preserved by Christian scribes through the centuries, therefore by your logic we should not trust any of it, not this line or any other line in any of the works of Josephus (or any other ancient writer). 

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

The evidence for a historical Jesus being a real person who actually lived is thin and corrupted. No human opinion is better than the evidence upon which it based. No exceptions. In my opinion, of course

I disagree. The evidence for Jesus is stronger than almost any other ancient figure. There is no reasonable reason to discount his historicity, and I would rank it up there as a giant ancient conspiracy theory, no better or worse than modern 9/11 conspiracies or the belief that we never landed on the moon.

Or perhaps a comparison to William Shakespeare and the question over who wrote his collection of works is more reasonable. Even if you could convince someone that there is some validity to the theories that Shakespeare didn't write his plays, will the Literature departments at any university stop attributing his works to him as a result of this? Or will it always be that Shakespeare wrote his plays because that's how it's always been? 

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

End of the day, if this is the standard we are using to judge ancient historical texts, then we can't really know ANYTHING about ancient history.

Even if that were true, it's not my problem, is it? Its truth would just imply of logical necessity that none of us can know whether Jesus was a real person who actually lived. OK. then that's my answer and we'd move on to something else.

But it's not true anyway, unless you adopt a definition of the verb to know that excludes reliance on any inferences from observed evidence in every field that infers likely truth from evidence. Plus, scholars often settle for something weaker than quasi-certainty, like acceptance.

This text is being judged by the circumstances known to surround this text and other texts similarly situated. A complete fail on who James really was wouldn't even impeach the prospects of a partially authentic Flavian Testimony, much less the entirety of exclusively-textually-attested ancient history.

Quote

therefore by your logic we should not trust any of it

Well, actually in March I made a peer-reviewed presentation to a small guild meeting suggesting that we should not  discount Josephus's account of the dates of Pilate's term in Judea. So, if you find the time, then would you be so kind as to point out the failing in "my logic" that leads me to the opposite conclusion in this case than you predict?

The slides are here

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2022/03/27/eusebiuss-witness-to-josephuss-dating-of-pilates-term/

and the full paper can be downloaded from the Unlinks page (tab at the header of each page).

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

There is no reasonable reason to discount his historicity, and I would rank it up there as a giant ancient conspiracy theory, no better or worse than modern 9/11 conspiracies or the belief that we never landed on the moon

There are people who disbelieve Jesus's historicity because of various "conspiracy theories" (e.g. the Flavians invented him for political reasons). Since that is not the reason I stated, nor do I have anything to do with those people, why would you discuss that concern with me?

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Or perhaps a comparison to William Shakespeare and the question over who wrote his collection of works is more reasonable. Even if you could convince someone that there is some validity to the theories that Shakespeare didn't write his plays, will the Literature departments at any university stop attributing his works to him as a result of this? Or will it always be that Shakespeare wrote his plays because that's how it's always been? 

That is an interesting question, but not much of an analogy in my opinion. By and large, as best as I can make out, the people who believe that Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him formed their belief on the basis of evidence of reasonable quality and quantity. That's the main reason why it's the consensus view. Shakespeare is also recent enough that additional evidence may yet be found, which will favor whatever "side" it favors.

The Jesus problem isn't much like that.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

The Jesus problem isn't much like that.

 

It's interesting, isn't it?

Other than with the masquerading members of the so-called "guild" and those who work alongside them, Jesus isn't a problem at all. 

:D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote
21 May 2013  Proclus – The Elements of Theology is the single most important philosophical work because whenever it has come to the forefront of ..

~

How the Jesus myth ended up as more neo Platonism than a Judaic breakaway sect

~

Quote
Proclus was a prolific writer of ancient Greek philosophy leaving behind extensive commentaries on Plato, Aristotle, Porphyry and Plotinus, books and treaties ...
School: Neoplatonism
 
Born: 8 February 412; Constantinople, Thracia, Eastern Roman Empire; (now Istanbul, ...
 
Other names: "The Successor"
 

~

 

 

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Will Due said:

Other than with the masquerading members of the so-called "guild" and those who work alongside them, Jesus isn't a problem at all. 

I think you have the team jerseys switched.

"The guild" is the bunch you're rooting for, the ones who almost unanimously express confidence that Jesus was a real person who actually lived.

Other guild consensus positions related to Josephus that have come up (not as nearly unanimous and maybe with not quite as much individual confidence as for Jesus's historicity):

Pilate served in Judea from 26 through 36 CE, as Josephus wrote.
Part, but not all, of Josephus's "Testimony" about Jesus is authentic.
Part and maybe all of Josephus's mention of John the Baptist is authentic.
Josephus described a certain James as the brother of Jesus called Christ.

I support the first three, but find no valid foundation for the fourth.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, eight bits said:

I think you have the team jerseys switched.

"The guild" is the bunch you're rooting for, the ones who almost unanimously express confidence that Jesus was a real person who actually lived.

Other guild consensus positions related to Josephus that have come up (not as nearly unanimous and maybe with not quite as much individual confidence as for Jesus's historicity):

Pilate served in Judea from 26 through 36 CE, as Josephus wrote.
Part, but not all, of Josephus's "Testimony" about Jesus is authentic.
Part and maybe all of Josephus's mention of John the Baptist is authentic.
Josephus described a certain James as the brother of Jesus called Christ.

I support the first three, but find no valid foundation for the fourth.

 

My point is that unless you're interested in trying to prove that Jesus didn't exist, there is no "Jesus problem". 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

My point is that unless you're interested in trying to prove that Jesus didn't exist, there is no "Jesus problem". 

But that's not what's going on on the ground. As with @Paranoid Android's "conspiracy theorists," yes, there are conspiracy theorists among the mythicists. And yes, there are mythicists (I think there are, anyway) who've decided that Jesus didn't exist, so they'll ballet with the evidence until it fits. Another popular observation is that some mythicists are atheists, although I've yet to figure out why that would be a bad thing.

But a well-designed and well-conducted survey showed that 20% of adult English people are mythicists (similar results have been observed in Australia).  Seriously? All of them are atheist conspiracy theorists setting out to prove that Jesus didn't exist?

I really don't think so.

Edited by eight bits
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

But that's not what's going on on the ground. As with @Paranoid Android's "conspiracy theorists," yes, there are conspiracy theorists among the mythicists. And yes, there are mythicists (I think there are, anyway) who've decided that Jesus didn't exist, so they'll ballet with the evidence until it fits. Another popular observation is that some mythicists are atheists, although I've yet to figure out why that would be a bad thing.

But a well-designed and well-conducted survey showed that 20% of adult English people are mythicists (similar results have been observed in Australia).  Seriously? All of them are atheist conspiracy theorists setting out to prove that Jesus didn't exist?

I really don't think so.

 

Are you trying to prove that Jesus never existed?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Are you trying to prove that Jesus never existed?

No.

I like the way Bertrand Russell put it in his essay "Why I am not a Christian,"

Quote

Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him ...

https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, eight bits said:

No.

I like the way Bertrand Russell put it in his essay "Why I am not a Christian,"

https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html

Beyond Jesus’ being a 1st century Jew I’d agree with the latter part. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, eight bits said:

No.

I like the way Bertrand Russell put it in his essay "Why I am not a Christian,"

https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html

 

I like the way it's put in other places.

"You don't have to be a Christian to believe in Jesus (God)." That way, there isn't a "Jesus problem".

How do you believe in Jesus without using the Bible as a source of information?

 

Spoiler

:yes:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Beyond Jesus’ being a 1st century Jew I’d agree with the latter part. 

Just for conversation, if it turned out that the real human Jesus whom Paul had in mind was the Talmudic Jesus who died in the 1st Century BCE under King Alexander Jannaeus, so about a century give-or-take before Pilate's time in office, then that wouldn't count for you as a historical Jesus?

No right or wrong answer, but curious how you see it.

...

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

"You don't have to be a Christian to believe in Jesus (God)." That way, there isn't a "Jesus problem".

I suspect that anybody who believed in "Jesus (God)" would be well on their way to being some kind of Christian. If you just mean that the religious questions are separate from the history of religion questions, then we're in agreement.

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

How do you believe in Jesus without using the Bible as a source of information?

If Josephus's mention of James could be authenticated somehow, then it would be very strong evidence that the Christian Jesus was a real man who actually lived. Josephus may have been an eyewitness to the 62 CE trial, and even if he weren't (he might have been away in Rome on a diplomatic mission), he'd have known all the high priests and Sanhedrin members personally and professionally.

There'd also be some "synergy" with the (partial) Testimonium. Standing on its own (and I'm fine that some of it stands on its own), it can be fully explained by Josephus telling his reader what Christians in 93 CE (when the Antiquities ws written) say about their origins.

If in addition Josephus also displayed some personal knowledge of Jesus's kin and Jesus-movement activity in the 60's, then that can only improve the chances that the Testimonium reflects not only what Christians told him, but also what his parents' generation told him about this Jesus fellow and the first followers, plus what he'd have seen for himself in Jerusalem growing up there.

So we'd have some possible corroboration (not just repetition) of a few key Gospel-Acts elements: Jesus was a sage or teacher who attracted followers who thought he was the Christ, Pilate crucified him, but his surviving followers saw him again in some kind of "Easter event" and they went on to build a Christian movement.

It'd be a very different world. Two little words.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eight bits said:

It'd be a very different world.

 

In what way?

 

9 minutes ago, eight bits said:

If in addition ....

 

To be honest, even though you said you're not out to prove that Jesus did not exist historically, most of the time when I read your posts it seems to me that that's what you're doing or at least trying to do. So if I'm wrong, it's not the first time that I've misunderstood someone.

But I do have a question. It seems to me, based on the many things you have said about the evidence that exists academically, that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, that he did teach, that he was crucified and so on.

I'm curious, are you in agreement with this?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

In what way?

As you put it in your question in the earlier post: we wouldn't be relying on the Gospels alone for information about a historical Jesus's words and deeds, unambiguously situated in Palestine during the governorship of Pilate.

16 minutes ago, Will Due said:

But I do have a question. It seems to me, based on the many things you have said about the evidence that exists academically, that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, that he did teach, that he was crucified and so on.

I'm curious, are you in agreement with this?

Suggests? Yes, that's what the gospels say, and it's what institutional Christianity believes, and has believed since 100 CE or so, IMO, and maybe less well organized Jesus movement(s) before that.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.