Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Generally speaking someone a near contemporary of the events is a better source than someone living 2,000 years later..

No, that's actually a logical fallacy. It's known as an appeal to tradition, you can read about it in the link in my previous post.

Your link is about ways of thinking, not facts. Any reasonable person would assume someone living very near the alleged events and culture would know the truth more than someone living 2,000 years later.

A person making such an assumption would be thinking illogically. When a claim was made has no bearing on the accuracy of the claim itself.

Also, do you remember we're talking about people like Irenaeus? We're talking about a guy writing over a hundred years later on a different continent. Is that what you mean by "very near the alleged events"?

What conspiracy? All you need is one Christian who suggests for whatever reason that the book was written by John (you have a bunch of anonymous gospels, it's only natural that people are going to want to guess at who wrote them).

What guesses? John said he wrote it in the Gospel itself, and the church fathers agreed.

The gospel of John is anonymous. Feel free to quote where John himself says he wrote it.

Then a bunch of other Christians like the explanation so much that they all start believing it. Eventually it becomes so popular that the church fathers piously repeat what essentially started as speculation.

Wow. Don't we know today who wrote what books in our time? The church fathers knew who wrote the Gospels.

When I want to find out who wrote a book, I usually check the cover to see if the author put his name on it. If I don't have a copy in my hands perhaps I will go to the internet to find out. Since the church fathers dd not have access to the internet and the author did not place his name on the book, how do you think they were able to "know" the authors of documents written a hundred years ago? Given the amount of forgeries that made their way into the bible I think it is clear that the church fathers had no reliable method for determining authorship.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the right answer. Your quibbles about authorship aside, as has been said before we have no idea who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls yet they are considered a primary source.

Yes, but a primary source for what? The gospels are not primary sources for Jesus and the life he lived, they are primary sources for the beliefs early Christians had about Jesus and the life he lived.

[East of Eden]

Generally speaking someone a near contemporary of the events is a better source than someone living 2,000 years later..

No, that's actually a logical fallacy. It's known as an appeal to tradition, you can read about it in the link in my previous post.

Your link is about ways of thinking, not facts. Any reasonable person would assume someone living very near the alleged events and culture would know the truth more than someone living 2,000 years later.

A person making such an assumption would be thinking illogically. When a claim was made has no bearing on the accuracy of the claim itself.

Also, do you remember we're talking about people like Irenaeus? We're talking about a guy writing over a hundred years later on a different continent. Is that what you mean by "very near the alleged events"?

Do the math, 100 is closer than 2,000 years.

The gospel of John is anonymous. Feel free to quote where John himself says he wrote it.

Because a book is technically anonymous it doesn't mean we don't know who wrote it. There are many other historical examples of this.

When I want to find out who wrote a book, I usually check the cover to see if the author put his name on it. If I don't have a copy in my hands perhaps I will go to the internet to find out. Since the church fathers dd not have access to the internet and the author did not place his name on the book, how do you think they were able to "know" the authors of documents written a hundred years ago?

The internet confirms John wrote the Gospel, and that it was the consensus of the Church Fathers. They didn't need the internet, being so close to the events.

Given the amount of forgeries that made their way into the bible I think it is clear that the church fathers had no reliable method for determining authorship.

Wishful thinking on your part, and I don't know what forgeries you're talking about. More conspiracy theories with no evidence?

Yes, but a primary source for what? The gospels are not primary sources for Jesus and the life he lived,

Of course they are.

they are primary sources for the beliefs early Christians had about Jesus and the life he lived.

Why did they believe that, and what do you know they didn't?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Your link is about ways of thinking, not facts. Any reasonable person would assume someone living very near the alleged events and culture would know the truth more than someone living 2,000 years later.

A person making such an assumption would be thinking illogically. When a claim was made has no bearing on the accuracy of the claim itself.

Also, do you remember we're talking about people like Irenaeus? We're talking about a guy writing over a hundred years later on a different continent. Is that what you mean by "very near the alleged events"?

Do the math, 100 is closer than 2,000 years.

Ah, so you mean "very near" in a relative sense. Still, while it may seem intuitive that older claims are better than newer claims, you are indeed committing a logical fallacy by making such an assumption.

The gospel of John is anonymous. Feel free to quote where John himself says he wrote it.

Because a book is technically anonymous it doesn't mean we don't know who wrote it. There are many other historical examples of this.

That the book is anonymous means your claim that "John said he wrote it in the Gospel itself" is false. Do you agree, and withdraw your false claim?

When I want to find out who wrote a book, I usually check the cover to see if the author put his name on it. If I don't have a copy in my hands perhaps I will go to the internet to find out. Since the church fathers dd not have access to the internet and the author did not place his name on the book, how do you think they were able to "know" the authors of documents written a hundred years ago?

The internet confirms John wrote the Gospel, and that it was the consensus of the Church Fathers. They didn't need the internet, being so close to the events.

Why didn't they need the internet? How did they get the information? You can't just say they were close to the events as if the fact of John's authorship somehow floated across the Mediterranean into the mind of Iranaeus a century later. If he didn't get his knowledge from the internet, where did he get it?

Given the amount of forgeries that made their way into the bible I think it is clear that the church fathers had no reliable method for determining authorship.

Wishful thinking on your part, and I don't know what forgeries you're talking about. More conspiracy theories with no evidence?

Modern scholars find that, for example, the pastoral epistles are falsely attributed to Paul. I'm sure you don't mean to dismiss the findings of modern biblical scholarship as "conspiracy theories with no evidence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship ... e_epistles

Yes, but a primary source for what? The gospels are not primary sources for Jesus and the life he lived,

Of course they are.

No, they aren't.

Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary, although it may be used by historians in the absence of a primary source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

Keep in mind that we cannot look at a document and simply say "this is a primary source" or "this is a secondary source." We can look at a single source, like one of the gospels, and say "this is a primary source about the beliefs of early Christians" and also "this is a secondary source about the life of Jesus."

[Goat]

Now, there is the tradition that John was written by John the apostle.. but let's look at what some people SAY about that.
From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
This was the commentary in the Anchor Bible. This shows this is not a bunch of 'atheist wanna bes' writting it, but biblical scholars. In case you are wondering, you can look at who Robert Kysar is here

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

Now, here is the kicker..

There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, "[John] was worth of martyrdom." Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, "he [John] was killed by the Jews." In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): "That PapiasÂ’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.


Now, what is written about the history of the Gospel of John..

Helms adduces evidence that there were divisions over the interpretation of John at an early period, as early as the writing of the epistles 1 John and 2 John. Consider the passages 1 John 2:18-19 and 2 John 7. Helms writes (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 163):

Some members of the Johannine community departed, became a rival sect, over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, an event that leads the author of I John to the certainty that 'this is the last hour.' We do not know for sure who these secessionists were, but as Raymond Brown notes, they were 'not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their position by the Johannine Gospel and its implications' (1979, 107). This seems likely, until we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh,' and 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.' Brown's argument founders on his insistence that 'John exactly as we have it' (108, his italics) was the text used by those who left the Johannine community. Brown refuses to 'exclude certain passages from the Fourth Gospel on the grounds that they were probably not in the tradition known to the secessionists but were added by the redactor (either later or as anti-secessionist revision)' (1979, 109). He admits that many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John' (1979, 109) but continues to write as if there were no revision of the Fourth Gospel.

Helms states, "we need to note that part of the purpose of Irenaeus was to attack the teachings of Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century" (op. cit., p. 162). Cerinthus was "educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by a primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him...Moreover, after [Jesus'] baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being" (1.26.1). Irenaeus stated that the purpose of John at Ephesus was as follows:

by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that 'knowledge' [gnosis] falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father and the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another (3.11.1)

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

This information shoves the writing of John back a ways. It eliminates John being written by an eye witness.

Maybe you should go back and read what I wrote? The comparison the Beowulf?

Since I have already stated that its well neigh impossible to prove the authorship of the gospels to a 100%. Indeed, all you can do is pick ones theories that support your preconception. Yet none of the postulates is 100%.

"These resemblances and differences, the extent and complexity of which grow upon the student who compares carefully the Synoptic Gospels and contrasts them with St. John's narrative, constitute a unique phenomenon in ancient and modern literature. They are facts which no one can refer either to mere chance, or to the direct influence of inspiration. On the one hand, the resemblances are too numerous and too striking to be regarded as explicable on the hypothesis that the first three Evangelists wrote independently of one another. On the other, the differences are at times so significant as to imply that they are due to the use of different documents by the Evangelists, as for example in the case of the two genealogies of Jesus Christ. The harmony and the variety, the resemblances and the differences must be both accounted for. They form together a literary problem, — the Synoptic Problem, as it is called, — the existence of which was practically unknown to the ancient ecclesiastical writers. In point of fact, St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine are the only Fathers who have formulated views concerning the mutual relation of the Synoptic Gospels, and the writers of the Middle Ages do not seem to have taken into account these patristic views which, after all, were far from affording a complete solution of that difficult question. Subsequent leading scholars, such as Grotius, Rich, Simon, Le Clerc, had little more than a suspicion of the problem, and it is only in the course of the eighteenth century that the scientific examination of the question was actually started.

Ever since the last quarter of that century, the discussion of the origin of the mutual relationship between the first three Gospels has been carried on with great ardour and ingenuity especially in Germany. As might well be expected, the supposition that these Gospels are so like one another because their respective authors made use of each other's writings was first tried, and in settling the order, that in which the Synoptic Gospels stand in the canon first found favour. As fresh investigations brought new facts to light, new forms of hypothesis sought to satisfy the facts, with the gradual result that the domain of possibility well-nigh appears to have been measured out. Numerous and conflicting as the successive attempts at solution have been, their history shows that a certain progress has been made in the discussion of the Synoptic Problem. The many relations of the question have come into clearer light, and the data for its solution have been revealing themselves while mere a priori views or unsound inferences have been discarded."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14389b.htm

The so called Synoptic Problem then goes on for quite a bit longer.

Nevertheless, authorship says nothing about your thesis: That they are not first person accounts.



For example, we have NO IDEA who actually wrote the dead sea scrolls - they are STILL a primary source.

There are many, many records in the historical account whose authorship is unknown entirely, rather than just unverifiable to a 100%. They are still primary sources which would be why:

In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Now, how many times have I posted that?

And what I get is a guy who has not read any of this, is unfamiliar with the debate, who is using google to selectively quote portions of the debate, and then asking me to quote other portions back - only all of those which support mine are of course apologist web sites.

In fact, you made a specific charge about the intent of the gospels, and then failed entirely to address YOUR OWN THESIS, and instead launched in a debate about authorship rather than INTENT.

Its what happens when you fail to conduct actual research and simply use google to search for evidence of your own prejudices.

Its why Jesus Mythers have fuller earned their tin foil hat.

But thank you for demonstrating the angry rhetoric, base unfamiliarity, and total nonsensical presentation of evidence in support of the wrong claim.

Par for the Jesus Myther course. A a perfect demonstration as to why period scholars, those you suddenly and so eagerly quote, dismiss Jesus Mythers as utterly insane.

Indeed, same point I made in the beginning remains: The evidence is provided, read it and make up your own mind.

But the selective quotes of a bigoted Jesus Myther is about as likely to lead to truth on Jesus as asking a neo-Nazi about Jews.

And, exactly how does any of this actually address the points that were raised? Not a single thing you wrote actually addressed anything that I wrote, nor does it support the concept of 'this was written by an eye witness'.

Evidence has been provided.;.. and that evidence overwhelmingly contradicts your claims.

Nor, was any of that evidence provided by you. The 'synoptic problem' web site didn't even BOTHER to address anything that was discussed

As for the essay by Christopher Price.. well, that is nothing but an opinion piece by some random guy on the internet on an apologist web site. I don't see any evidence actually being provided on that essay.. just opinions and logical fallacies.

I mean, you can post it all you want, but that page provides no useful information.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 262:

...
Because a book is technically anonymous it doesn't mean we don't know who wrote it. There are many other historical examples of this.

If we know who wrote it, by definition, it is not anonymous, whether in a 'technical' sense or not.

Argumentum ad goofium.

[Nickman]

Why didn't Philo Judaeus, Seneca, and Pliny the Elder write one word about Jesus?

Philo, for example, was contemporary to Jesus and the Apostles, yet not one word mentions this man. Luke states,

12:1
Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another,

5:15 Yet the news about him spread all the more, so that crowds of people came to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses.

Matthew states the same. Jesus was very popular and drew attention, not only locally but also abroad. Why did no one write about him who lived at the same time? Especially those that wrote extensively?

Gospels
We have copies of the gospels and not one original. We cannot even say that the copies we have are accurate depictions of Jesus. They are unreliable, externally contradictory and anonymous. Paul would be the only one, yet only 8 out of his 13 gospels are considered his. He didn't know Jesus the man. His accounts are secondhand being from other sources. Anything he would have known about Jesus' life would be hearsay.

Now if God had such a message to give then why didn't anyone take note of these huge events which Luke and Matthew claim? It isn't until many years later after Paul started spreading his gospel that we see any writings. The copies we have date to second century. Scholars try and date when the originals would have been written. Those are the dates we see on such websites as has been presented on this thread. They disregard that those dates are made with the assumption that the originals even existed that early.

The mentions in Josephus are very fishy, and inconsistent with what Josephus is actually talking about. We know for fact one is fraudulent. The other, in book 20, is out of place and makes no sense because the Jesus in the story becomes high priest.

Tacitus wrote in the second century and his writings could have been influenced by Christian sources.

Anything after that is completely unreliable.

We either end up with no Jesus, or a man who was completely embellished and exaggerated. A man who made no impact in the historical world of contemporary literature.

[Mithrae]

Why didn't Philo Judaeus, Seneca, and Pliny the Elder write one word about Jesus?

Philo, for example, was contemporary to Jesus and the Apostles, yet not one word mentions this man. Luke states,

12:1
Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another,

5:15 Yet the news about him spread all the more, so that crowds of people came to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses.

Matthew states the same. Jesus was very popular and drew attention, not only locally but also abroad. Why did no one write about him who lived at the same time? Especially those that wrote extensively?

Does Philo mention Judas of Galilee or Theudas? From a brief search I haven't found any suggestion that he did, but I'm open to correction. Both of these men, I suspect, were about as noteworthy as even the gospels' embellished portrayal of Jesus - if not more so, for Jesus is not said to have led a rebellion as these did. Did Seneca or Pliny the Elder mention these noteworthy Jewish rabble-rousers?

Gospels
We have copies of the gospels and not one original. We cannot even say that the copies we have are accurate depictions of Jesus. They are unreliable, externally contradictory and anonymous. Paul would be the only one, yet only 8 out of his 13 gospels are considered his. He didn't know Jesus the man. His accounts are secondhand being from other sources. Anything he would have known about Jesus' life would be hearsay.

So is virtually everything you read in the papers, see on TV or learn from school and college teachers. Is there an intelligent point behind that buzz-word? Precisely what conclusions can we draw from the observation that Paul was familiar only with Jesus' brother/s, key disciples, the Jerusalem church and wider community?

Now if God had such a message to give then why didn't anyone take note of these huge events which Luke and Matthew claim? It isn't until many years later after Paul started spreading his gospel that we see any writings. The copies we have date to second century. Scholars try and date when the originals would have been written. Those are the dates we see on such websites as has been presented on this thread. They disregard that those dates are made with the assumption that the originals even existed that early.

It is not an 'assumption' that a work's composition will almost certainly pre-date the earliest extant manuscripts by a considerable margin; actual autographs are exceptionally rare. The gaps in the case of the New Testament - generally some 150-350 years between date of composition and earliest manuscripts - compare extremely favourably to other ancient works, which frequently have over a half a millenium before the first extant copies are known.

The mentions in Josephus are very fishy, and inconsistent with what Josephus is actually talking about. We know for fact one is fraudulent. The other, in book 20, is out of place and makes no sense because the Jesus in the story becomes high priest.

If you propose that the high priest Ananus was killing off other priestly families - specifically James, brother of the man you claim became the next high priest, and "some others" - you should provide some 'evidence' for that claim. Josephus obviously didn't consider the incident important enough to elaborate further: So why do you think most scholars' understanding of the passage is incorrect?

Tacitus wrote in the second century and his writings could have been influenced by Christian sources.

A credible Roman historian who clearly viewed the sect with hostility or contempt "could have" simply taken them at their word regarding their founder, yes. Do you have evidence that this is anything more than a slim possibility?

[Nickman]

Why didn't Philo Judaeus, Seneca, and Pliny the Elder write one word about Jesus?

Philo, for example, was contemporary to Jesus and the Apostles, yet not one word mentions this man. Luke states,

12:1
Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another,

5:15 Yet the news about him spread all the more, so that crowds of people came to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses.

Matthew states the same. Jesus was very popular and drew attention, not only locally but also abroad. Why did no one write about him who lived at the same time? Especially those that wrote extensively?

Does Philo mention Judas of Galilee or Theudas? From a brief search I haven't found any suggestion that he did, but I'm open to correction. Both of these men, I suspect, were about as noteworthy as even the gospels' embellished portrayal of Jesus - if not more so, for Jesus is not said to have led a rebellion as these did. Did Seneca or Pliny the Elder mention these noteworthy Jewish rabble-rousers?

I contend that Jesus, according to Luke and Matthew, would have made more of an impact than Judas of Galilee or Theudas. He mentions thousands of followers and also popularity abroad.

Although Philo did not write about these events, others did who were contemporary. Also, in the book of Acts we have a huge contradiction with history. Judas of Galilee is mentioned by the author, yet this would have been post 33 ad. Judas of Galilee led his revolt in 6 ad. This would not have happened during their time, which gives more creedence to the made up history contained within.

John Gill (1800's) also contended that the author of Acts used Josephus as a source and misunderstood the text which is why Acts gets the events completely wrong for both Judas and Theudas.

So is virtually everything you read in the papers, see on TV or learn from school and college teachers. Is there an intelligent point behind that buzz-word? Precisely what conclusions can we draw from the observation that Paul was familiar only with Jesus' brother/s, key disciples, the Jerusalem church and wider community?

There is contention about James even being Jesus' brother. We cannot confirm he was even related. In the First Apocalypse of James, James is not Jesus' brother in the sense of being blood relation. He is a spiritual brother. It is disputed in the scholarly community that Paul does not speak of James as the lord's brother in the sense of blood relation.

It is not an 'assumption' that a work's composition will almost certainly pre-date the earliest extant manuscripts by a considerable margin; actual autographs are exceptionally rare. The gaps in the case of the New Testament - generally some 150-350 years between date of composition and earliest manuscripts - compare extremely favourably to other ancient works, which frequently have over a half a millenium before the first extant copies are known.

It is assumption to date something you don't even have.

If you propose that the high priest Ananus was killing off other priestly families - specifically James, brother of the man you claim became the next high priest - you should provide some 'evidence' for that claim. Josephus obviously didn't consider the incident important enough to elaborate further: So why do you think most scholars' understanding of the passage is incorrect?

Ananus was against the Zealots of which I find nothing that affiliates James the Just with them. Ananus has a man named James stoned with others. The Jesus in the story was the brother of this James who was also the son of Damneus. The same time and event of the revolt is mentioned in both Antiquities and the Wars. This James is not mentioned. The two accounts don't jive.

A credible Roman historian who clearly viewed the sect with hostility or contempt "could have" simply taken them at their word regarding their founder, yes. Do you have any evidence that this is anything more than a slim possibility?

No, but I wouldn't consider it slim. If all you have is a Christian sourse then thats all you can use.

[Mithrae]

Does Philo mention Judas of Galilee or Theudas? From a brief search I haven't found any suggestion that he did, but I'm open to correction. Both of these men, I suspect, were about as noteworthy as even the gospels' embellished portrayal of Jesus - if not more so, for Jesus is not said to have led a rebellion as these did. Did Seneca or Pliny the Elder mention these noteworthy Jewish rabble-rousers?

I contend that Jesus, according to Luke and Matthew, would have made more of an impact than Judas of Galilee or Theudas. He mentions thousands of followers and also popularity abroad.

Although Philo did not write about these events, others did who were contemporary. Also, in the book of Acts we have a huge contradiction with history. Judas of Galilee is mentioned by the author, yet this would have been post 33 ad. Judas of Galilee led his revolt in 6 ad. This would not have happened during their time, which gives more creedence to the made up history contained within.

John Gill (1800's) also contended that the author of Acts used Josephus as a source and misunderstood the text which is why Acts gets the events completely wrong for both Judas and Theudas.

From what I know it's probably true that Acts (mis)used Josephus as a source, and obviously Josephus mentioned both of those people. Those are the only two sources of information regarding them which Wikipedia mentions. Josephus was born over 30 years after Judas of Galilee led his revolt, and was only 8 or 9 when Theudas died. Obviously anything he wrote about them was merely hearsay. So which contemporary sources are you talking about?

So is virtually everything you read in the papers, see on TV or learn from school and college teachers. Is there an intelligent point behind that buzz-word? Precisely what conclusions can we draw from the observation that Paul was familiar only with Jesus' brother/s, key disciples, the Jerusalem church and wider community?

There is contention about James even being Jesus' brother. We cannot confirm he was even related. In the First Apocalypse of James, James is not Jesus' brother in the sense of being blood relation. He is a spiritual brother. It is disputed in the scholarly community that Paul does not speak of James as the lord's brother in the sense of blood relation.

By whom was the First Apocalypse of James written? Is it even 'hearsay,' or is it much, much later stories? Why do you consider it a source worth discussing?

Paul wrote to the Galatian church:
"Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins. . . .
...after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother."

To the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 9) he wrote:
"Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
On both occasions Paul specifically distinguishes people as brothers of Jesus, unlike Peter or the apostles. Catholic apologetics aside, please provide your evidence that when Paul says 'brother' he does not mean brother.

It is not an 'assumption' that a work's composition will almost certainly pre-date the earliest extant manuscripts by a considerable margin; actual autographs are exceptionally rare. The gaps in the case of the New Testament - generally some 150-350 years between date of composition and earliest manuscripts - compare extremely favourably to other ancient works, which frequently have over a half a millenium before the first extant copies are known.

It is assumption to date something you don't even have.

So your disagreement is with historians in general, not with Christianity or the historical Jesus. Fair enough - I've seen similar comments about the obvious problems of radiometric dating

If you propose that the high priest Ananus was killing off other priestly families - specifically James, brother of the man you claim became the next high priest - you should provide some 'evidence' for that claim. Josephus obviously didn't consider the incident important enough to elaborate further: So why do you think most scholars' understanding of the passage is incorrect?

Ananus was against the Zealots of which I find nothing that affiliates James the Just with them. Ananus has a man named James stoned with others. The Jesus in the story was the brother of this James who was also the son of Damneus. The same time and event of the revolt is mentioned in both Antiquities and the Wars. This James is not mentioned. The two accounts don't jive.

Your source that "Ananus was against the Zealots" when he was high priest?

You haven't provided any reason to suppose that scholars' views are wrong, and that the high priest had decided to kill members of other priestly families without Josephus bothering to explain why.

Jesus was quite a common name. What makes you think that the two Jesus' are the same person? Josephus identifies who James' brother is - he's the one called Christ - but that leads us with near-certainty to the conclusion that he's mentioning the same event described by Hegesippus. We are not going to simply take your say-so that there was only one Jesus in Jerusalem, nor that Josephus was so unconcerned about priestly feuds, nor that the overwhelming majority of scholars are so ill-informed. It's called evidence, my friend - we want to see some.

A credible Roman historian who clearly viewed the sect with hostility or contempt "could have" simply taken them at their word regarding their founder, yes. Do you have any evidence that this is anything more than a slim possibility?

No, but I wouldn't consider it slim. If all you have is a Christian sourse then thats all you can use.

Tacitus was not a Christian. He didn't like the Christians. So the source we have here is a credible non-Christian historian who was a Roman senator in the late 1st century.

[Student]

Tacitus wrote in the second century and his writings could have been influenced by Christian sources.

A credible Roman historian who clearly viewed the sect with hostility or contempt "could have" simply taken them at their word regarding their founder, yes. Do you have evidence that this is anything more than a slim possibility?

Tacitus, writing c.115, did not gather his information during the lifetime of Jesus. Furthermore he [Tacitus] does not provide an independent witness to the existence of Jesus. Most probably he was merely repeating what he had heard from various Christian sources.

Had he been quoting official Roman records he would have presumably known that Pilate was in fact a Prefect [praefectus,a military title], and not, as he writes, a Procurator [a civilian].