Yes, that mention was likely edited by some later Monk.
But there are two mentions, one very offhand, exactly what you’d expect:"…Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:…" Note that “called Christ” exactly what a jewish writer would say.
No it’s not. The debate is pretty well settled, to the point that anyone who argues John was written by even an eye-witness (60+ years after the death of Christ), much less an apostle, is on the far-flung fringes of scholarship.
What’s the source for the claim that the Roman’s bothered keeping records of executed criminals in the provinces? Not even citizens, mind you, but some rando who is supposed to have been like a Jewish Hercules or something, but couldn’t even keep from getting nailed to a plank?
Millions of people believe mutually contradictory things, therefore most of them have to be wrong. And that’s ignoring all the people who buy into things that are blatantly contradicted by facts but buy into it wholeheartedly out of self interest, dogma or gullibility.
Thanks for keeping the conversation above board and respecting differences of opinion.
The quote above sums up my view based on everything I have seen and read, including Cecil’s column. Assuming Jesus really did exist, which I am willing to accept, doesn’t necessarily mean he performed the miracles he is said to have performed and was resurrected from the dead. I can see someone later embellishing the stories to make them more powerful and believable to a relative illiterate and uneducated audience 2000 years ago. Having an unwavering belief in the unseen, unprovable and unbelievable is what powers all religions.
Today, millions of people believe Jesus stories and don’t doubt their truth. Once you start to pick apart the Bible the entire Jesus story starts to fall apart, and a true believer can’t afford for that to happen…
“atheists” aren’t a coherent group so can’t “think” anything as a group, plus the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You think Jesus was a real person? fine, show the evidence. Even if you clear that hurdle you’re still only a fraction of the way to any sort of divine powers.
So, did the apostle John write the book of John?
Despite alternative theories about the disciple whom Jesus loved, most evidence still points to the apostle John. The early church father Irenaeus wrote, “afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” Irenaeus lived in the second century, and claimed to receive this information from John’s disciple, Polycarp
*The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran marked a change in Johannine scholarship. Several of the hymns, presumed to come from a community of Essenes, contained the same sort of plays between opposites – light and dark, truth and lies – which are themes within the Gospel. Thus the hypothesis that the Gospel relied on Gnosticism fell out of favor. Many suggested further that John the Baptist himself belonged to an Essene community, and if John the Apostle had previously been a disciple of the Baptist, he would have been affected by that teaching.[citation needed]
The resulting revolution in Johannine scholarship was termed the new look by John A. T. Robinson, who coined the phrase in 1957 at Oxford. According to Robinson, this new information rendered the question of authorship a relative one. He considered a group of disciples around the aging John the Apostle who wrote down his memories, mixing them with theological speculation, a model that had been proposed as far back as Renan’s Vie de Jésus (“Life of Jesus,” 1863). The work of such scholars brought the consensus back to a Palestinian origin for the text, rather than the Hellenistic origin favored by the critics of the previous decades.*
Here is a unbiased source that sez it isnt settled:
In the end, the most likely scenario is that the Gospel of John was written by John son of Zebedee.
C*onclusion: I believe that John the apostle authored the Gospel by dictation. That is to say, John most likely provided the material to an amanuensis. The amanuensis documented the aged apostle’s words and added the addendum to the Fourth Gospel and the title “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in reference to the apostle. I think the evidence is quite strong for John the son of Zebedee authoring the Fourth Gospel. Claims to the contrary[4] bring more questions than answers. *
So, altho you may claim that there is much debate and the question is by no means settled, sure, you cant claim “the debate is pretty well settled” because it just simply isnt.
Altho I can certainly accept "someone later embellishing the stories to make them more powerful and believable " most of the “miracles” are today performed on a weekly basis by any of a number of tent revivalists. Even modern medicine accept that the power of placebos and that of a caring “professional” telling you that they work is great. Raising the dead? Maybe he was only mostly dead. Etc. Yes, a faith healer can really make a sick person well.
Technically, if Jesus didn’t exist then “he” didn’t found a vast global religion based on his own faith. Someone (or group of someones) founded a vast global religion based on his/their own fictional deity named Jesus and his/their own desired set of tenets.
That’s somewhat less miraculous than coming back from the dead.
Not all atheists feel the need to persuade anyone to their camp. Atheism is not a proselytizing religion. Further, the chief argument for atheism is that there is no objective reason to think there are supernatural beings, and that gods are an invention of the human imagination. But even if you could prove there was no Jesus, it would not prove there is no God. In fact, you can’t prove there is no God (see also: Flying Spaghetti Monster).
None of your sources represent the consensus, which is that John is the least likely to be historical of the four canonical gospels, and follows a clear trend of telling an ever more exaggerated tale of what may or may not have been an historical figure. In Mark, Jesus is a prophet interrupted who never says he is the son of god. In John, he is who is and has always been and is here to save us all, never mind your ticklish nails.
I don’t care how many web pages you dig up in pushing your position anymore than I care how many web pages a Young Earth Creationist might be able to dig up insisting that the Earth is six thousand years old.
This is my position, and the consensus position of historical scholars (not necessarily theologians), as related by Doctor Bart Ehrman in a mere five minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhM5lbVBgkk
The gospels do not claim to have been written by eyewitnesses and were not, based on analysis of the texts and the language they were written in, written by eyewitnesses.
Also, a true climate scientist wouldn’t bother arguing against climate deniers. They’re wrong, after all.
Just kidding. Sometimes if we’re really bored we try to argue against wrong people and false beliefs for the sheer entertainment of it.
Quibble: you’re capitalizing “God” here. That capital letter makes it a proper name, which strongly implies that you’re talking about a specific god, the christian one - which comes with a bunch of other assumptions about its properties, abilities, and personality.
It’s kind of like how the term “Jesus Christ” comes with a load of baggage that complicates a discussion about Jeshua Bar Joseph. A dude named Jeshua probably existed. Jesus? The Jesus? Not so much.
One relevant fact has not been mentioned explicitly:
There was no paper in those days; skills of writing or even ink preparation were uncommon. Any book would have been written by a trained scribe on an expensive material, e.g. specially prepared sheepskin. The result would have been a treasure, possibly just a single copy, and might have become damaged and lost.
The assumption that contemporaneously-written reminiscences of Jesus should be common seems quite counterfactual.
I’ve read a couple of books that argue for Jesus being conflated with one or more others that lived a century or so earlier.
One outside source is from rabbinical literature such as the Talmud. “Yeshu” is mentioned several times. But given the chronological information that can be derived from these mentions, they seem often to be talking about people who lived in completely different times. Remember, Yeshu was a common name.
So, back to these books. They argue that there was at least one other Yeshu that preached earlier than the famous one, got some followers, ticked off the powerful and soon came to an end.
The followers could have continued on for a few generations. A new Jesus comes along, some of those followers help form a core group. Note the matter of whether John the Baptist was Elijah reborn. The return of an old fave was on people’s minds. So people thinking the new Jesus was the old Jesus might have occured.
From there you can get into all sorts of stuff. E.g., was some of the sayings/actions of Jesus in the New Testament done by the old or new one? After all, perhaps the writers didn’t see a distinction.
Now, lots of speculation there, but is there other evidence that something going on at the time that suggests things might not be so straightforward.
Oh, boy. Look at Paul’s writings. They are really weird. They are significantly detached from the Gospels in many ways. (And Paul is clearly at odds with the Jerusalem church.) Paul doesn’t mention any of the great miracles Jesus did. Barely quotes him (from his life) and then mainly when Jesus is making an Old Testament point that Paul likes. The big thing is the death and resurrection. Little else matters.
And there is nothing in the writings to suggest Jesus died recently. (The early Christians he mentions are not stated as having known Jesus directly.) If you buy the earlier Jesus idea, you cannot rule out the idea that Paul’s Jesus is either a conflation or something else.
So, the historicity of Jesus has a lot of issues. But it takes a stretch to take all of the above and deny there wasn’t a Jesus in that approximate era at all. Yet it does barely takes any effort at all to find quite a bit that makes the “straightforward” account doubtable. So the more someone makes specific claims about the particulars of a given Jesus, the less likely they are right. Therefore “their” historical Jesus may not have existed.
Quite naive. Look at the other end: Easter Sunday (and beyond). Q: Who visited the tomb that morning and who did they see? And then who did what when and where?
The “synoptic” thing and Q is a problem, not a boon. Clearly the three used similar sources for some of the material. But once they write on their own, things get iffy all over the place. Chronology becomes a problem.
