I do think that a non-divine “Jesus of Nazareth” existed, for reasons I’ve already given, but you seem to want it both ways. You say it’s unlikely that the Gospel writers could get away with tales of fairly mundane stuff – like a rabble rouser rousing the rabble at Passover – unless it really happened. But they obviously got away with much more memorable stuff, like zombie saints walking around Jerusalem a few days later, which you don’t believe happened.
He didn’t. He knew (or was familiar with) James the Just, enough to call him the Brother of Jesus* called* “Christ”*. Altho Josephus was more or less supportive of High Priest Ananus, he clearly was unhappy with Ananus’s actions in ordering the execution. Ananus was deposed due to that. The quote makes it clear that James was well known for being the brother of Jesus Christ.
Josephus’s issue was that it not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin (for the purpose or ordering a execution) without the approval of King Agrippa or Lucceius Albinus the Roman Procurator of Judea.
brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James
Jeez, I hate to sound like a climate change denier, but I don’t find this appeal to authority persuasive.
First, the majority of New Testament scholars were probably Christians before they began college. I’m not saying that makes their work useless, but I think it puts a thumb on the scales.
Second, and thank you for quoting this because I didn’t know it before, the fact that they say one of the two events they’re most sure about is Jesus’ baptism by JtB strikes me as ridiculous, because if it happened in any manner resembling what the Gospels said, i.e. as one of a mob out in the countryside, there would be no record of it — it would be entirely oral tradition. Since it is accompanied by the marvelous appearance of God the Father, I don’t see how anyone can take it seriously, unless he begins with the position that everything that can’t be 100% disproved in the Gospels is true.
Congratulations, it must have taken a while to find those two short passages in a fairly long article that, from first to last, affirms that there are no mentions of the Slaughter that are known to be based on anything other than Matthew, and that most scholars believe it to be an invention.
I might also note that Macrobius’ full name is Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius, and that he wrote after Theodosius the Great had made Christianity the official state religion, so you might as well quote Jerry Falwell.
Why would there be a mention of such a minor act amid the many, many atrocities Herod perpetrated?
“Little is known for certain about Macrobius, but there are many theories and speculations about him. He states at the beginning of his Saturnalia that he was “born under a foreign sky” (sub alio ortos caelo), and both of his major works are dedicated to his son, Eustachius.[2] His major works have led experts to assume that he was a pagan.” italics mine.
*There is much nostalgia for Rome’s pagan past; Christianity, the dominant religion of the 5th century ad, is ignored (except, perhaps, for the name of the boorish character called Evangelus). *
Jayhawker Soule, you mixed the quotation and the response from different posts by you and Frylock. That is not appropriate. I understand that you were “simplifying” the discussion to make your point, but you did, in fact, alter the actual exchange in a way that is prohibited by the rules.
A better question is, why do we know about the murders Herod committed within the privacy of his Palace walls, but not a mass murder in Bethlehem (and its environs)? Which gets more ink today: a man who kills his wife in their home, or a man who shoots several innocent strangers in a shopping mall? To quote your own article:
Exactly, except that “dominant” understates the case – Christianity was the official state religion of Rome. So which is more likely, that Macrobius based his joke on Matthew, or that he alone had access to a secular history that had escaped the Church fathers for nearly 400 years?
Again, it was not my appeal to authority. It was a response to the assertion that my “premise has been given it’s due consideration, on this board, and in general terms in the academic/intellectual world at large.” I was simply noting the result of that consideration.
So you deprecate the work of scholars based on your presumptions concerning the nature and extent of their religious beliefs as teenagers? Seriously? How is this anything other than mild bigotry?
Baptism, ritual cleaning, and crucifixion are well attested, and I’ve read no one associated with the historical Jesus studies claiming that it “happened in any manner resembling what the Gospels said,” or, for that matter, “that everything that can’t be 100% disproved in the Gospels is true.” You, however, seem wedded to the proposition that anything that can’t be 100% proved in the Gospels is likely false.
Ahem I take back what I said about the Josephus “brother of Jesus who was called Christ” passage. The number of scholars who have seriously suggested that “who was called Christ” doesn’t belong there is greater than three (I do not know the exact number) but the consensus on this is stronger than I understood it to be.
But the “brother of Jesus” part is generally believed to be original, no?, even if “who was called Christ” is not. Since “brother of X” is an uncommon way to define someone, the passage tells us Jesus was a memorable person. That point would be even stronger if Josephus expected “Jesus” would be identifiable even without noting that he was called Christ.
Yes, another “Jesus” is mentioned in the paragraph but it seems clearly a different person. One Jesus is a member of the priesthood, another’s brother is a foe.
GIGObuster, your cites and quote are largely directed agianst the mention of Jesus in Antiquities Book XVIII not the mention in Book XX which is the subject of this sub-debate.
Connecting the Jesus brother of James with Jesus son of Damneus seems totally wrong. A complaint is that Josephus’ references to Jesus are stilted or illegal, but that connection would make the passage weirdly written and illogical.
Yes, although I wouldn’t put it that way. I was trying to convey that I was talking about religious beliefs they had held all their lives, rather than those they adopted in adult life. I believe that childhood indoctrination of religion, in certain types of people (and I know of no other characteristic those types of people share, because they run the gamut from stupid and ignorant to intelligent and highly educated), is almost impossible to defeat by reason and evidence.
Yes.
I don’t know, since I don’t know your definition of mild bigotry. But I think it’s perfectly valid to assume that in a statistically valid sample, lifelong Christians are going to be more receptive to arguments and evidence that affirm their faith, no matter how hard they try to be objective. How else do you explain the very intelligent and educated Christians you must know, who are not fazed by arguments against Christianity that you find convincing, but who make very similar arguments against Islam?
Well, that’s just ridiculous, since I have been arguing throughout this thread that Jesus actually existed (although I have argued against IMO shoddy reasoning in support of that opinion). I have no problem accepting the mundane assertions of the Gospels. I reject the claims of miracles, and highly improbable events like Luke’s census or Matthew’s slaughter, when they are not strongly corroborated by secular historians. It’s not my fault that none of them are.
Despite what definitely appear to me to be very strong arguments, it remains true that by a huge majority the consensus view in the field is that the “brother of Jesus” belongs in the original.
I do not know why this is the consensus, but consensus it is.
