I read “somewhere” that there was a contemporary reference by “some Roman official” in “some document” about a rabbi named “Jesus” (or whatever his Romanicized name would have been.) (Sorry, don’t remember the details.)
However, “Jesus,” or rather is previous version “Yeshua,” would have probably been a rather common name, so I don’t know how relevant that reference is. . .
From the article referenced in the OP:
We must realize that “Jesus” (Yeshua) is a Hebrew name meaning Saviour. At the beginning of Christianity it refers not to the name of a human individual but (like the term Logos) to a concept: a divine, spiritual figure who is the mediator of God’s salvation.
Ye(ho)shua is a standard Jewish name meaning, roughly, “God is my salvation” in the same sense as “Bethel” means “house of (El the) God.” It was the name given by Nun to his son who “fit the battle of Jericho” and was the name of a (high?) priest in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. It was the name of the son of Sirach who complied the Apocryphal book called Ecclesiasticus. Even the Gospels make passing reference to a couple of guys of that name who had minor roles in then-recent history and are not to be confused with the Man they focus on.
In short, to suggest that it was a theophoric name without historical referent is something like claiming that since World War II represents the victory of the democracies (with a Jewish minority part of their diverse mix of peoples) against an anti-Semitic Germany which used “iron” as a symbol – Iron Cross, Iron Gates, iron in the name of several divisions – that a man whose byname was a traditional slang term for a Jew and whose surname means “iron-hewer” was metaphorical for the victorious Allied armies overcoming that Germany. In short, that Ike Eisenhower was a mythical character.
Here’s a good article on the subject from The Atlantic Monthly.
Their conclusions are, well, inconclusive. But it’s an interesting read on the historical study and struggle over whether Jesus existed and exactly who he was, that’s been going on for about 2,000 years.
Danielinthewolvesden wrote:
Huh. I guess, as usual, the Real Story [TM] is more complicated than I’ve been led to believe.
A quick google.com search on “Ananus” and “Josephus” turned up a document at http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/josephus.html, from which I gleaned the following:[ul][li]The passage in question is from Josephus’s Antiquities, section 20.9.1.[/li][li]Josephus’s Antiquities was written circa 93 A.D…[/li][li]The passage deals mainly with why Ananus II was ejected from the priesthood (he authorized an unpopular stoning), not with the victim of the stoning or the victim’s family relations.[/li]There were several other people in the Antiquities named James (Iakobos) and Jesus (Iesou), and Josephus was probably being specific as to which James got stoned to death and which Jesus was his brother.[/ul]One obvious possibility was that James was a real person, but he was not actually the brother of Jesus – he may have just claimed to be the brother of Jesus for reasons of personal notariety. (It was 30 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that James got stoned to death, after all.)
Thanks for the books, CalMeacham & ianzin. I guess I’ve found a use for my $10 off coupon from B & N.
I suppose that the firmer believers on both sides might get in a bit of a lather over this, but does it really matter if Jesus existed, much less was the ol’ SOG hisself? Isn’t the philosophy of loving your neighbor and watching out for others less fortunate than you because it’s the nice thing to do more important and useful than a lump of meat hanging from a cross or a promise of playing harp in a cloudy hereafter?
Since the existence of only a tiny fraction of the people who ever lived can be proven and that a tiny fraction of the few records kept have survived, I’m not that surprised there isn’t a lot to corroborate the existence of yet another messianic figure from a crappy little town in a jerkwater province far from Rome. As if it really mattered.
Cal- certainly one could argue that James was a cousin, or even a 'spiritual brother"- however, this is still a documented mention of JC, which is not (AFAIK) disputed.
tracer- altho Josephus (c37AD>100AD) did write in about Ad90, it is known he worked from other notes & histories.
James was one of the “big 3” in early Christianity- so certainly he was well known & respected by Peter & others who were amoung the original Apostles. Thus- he certainly was no “poseur” who was just pretending to be JCs brother. True, it is JUST possible, that by “brother”- cousin or “spiritual brother” was meant. But Peter was not normally called JC’s “brother”. John the Baptist was known to be JC’s actual cousin- and was also not generally referred to as JC’s “brother”. Some have postulated a second marriage, thus James would have been JC’s half-brother, who, if that was indeed true, would be normally referred to as just “brother”. Ture, at times JC would address ALL of the Apostles as “Brothers”- but then why would James be so well known as JC’s “brother”, and not the rest of the apostles?
However, there are many mentions in the Gospels of JC’s "siblings’- with no indication at all they were not actual brothers & sisters in the normal meaning.
Dropzone commented:
“Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord [will be saved] but he who does the will of my Father in Heaven.” (As defined by the guy who supposedly said this, “the will of my Father” is pretty closely akin to the “philosophy” that Dropzone defines.)
So, does that mean you, and this Jesus dude, at least to an extent, agree with me? There was always SOMETHING I liked about you, Polycarp.
(Actually, my “philosophy” was developed after many years of religious training, followed by many more of questioning religion, and concluding with a reductio ad absurdum of Christianity into a single verse, Galatians 5:14. At least I didn’t pick anything about taking up serpents.)
I think Douglas Adams summed it up best. The central message of Christianity is, “Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone were nice to each other for a change?”
… along with the occasional cursing of a fig tree.
<ducking and running>