Well, as has been said Josephus wrote about both James & his Brother- Jesus.
wiki:
*The overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” to be authentic and to have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[4][1][2][5][6][7] *
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus… 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.[20]
Josephus is a major source of Roman & Jewish history. If we throw him out we also throw out a lot of what we know about the Romans. No serious scholar thinks that Josephus is not a credible source. True, in one book, his line about Jesus has obviously been tampered with: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
wiki :* The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[11][12][13][14] James Dunn states that there is “broad consensus” among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[15] Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 where Josephus refers to the stoning of “James the brother of Jesus”*
There are several other sources of James being a real person.
Peter is also pretty solidly historic- hell they even have what are likely his bones. He even has two epistles that are ascribed to him by the vast majority of Scholars (several other writings were also attribued to him, but those are more doubtful). No one doubts he was real.
They have found the Tomb of St Phillip. Admittedly a minor disciple, but still a real person.
I mean, you are really reaching. :rolleyes: Can you prove Socrates existed? Just about everything written about him was penned by one of his two disciples- Plato & Xenophon. Plato is well known to make things up (Atlantis) and make them sound real. Maybe he made up Socrates?
And, you are also wrong about literacy in the Middle East. HUGE amounts of ancient graffiti, clearly written for & by the masses show that many of the common people coudl read and write a little. And, the Rabbinical schools in the area of Israel are solidly documented, and taught many to read. Sure, by todays standards they were 'functionally illiterate" but so was everyone who was not a scribe. Cesaer was considered remarkable as he wrote his own stuff and could read a letter straight thru without sounding it out first.
This was debated here many times, and the evidence shows beyond a doubt that there is not reason at all to think that Jesus and many of his disciples couldnt read & write- a little.
This is absolutely not true. I can list dozens of scholars who dispute this. I don’t know where you’re getting this, but it’s not from mainstream New Testament scholarship.
We already had this debate back on page one:
Raymond E Brown, the expert on John sez The Gospel is sourced as follows:
*The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[28] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[29]
An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD.[30] *
Sure, it was written late, but that because John lived to be 90. Other issues can be handwaved due to editing or just poor memory on the part of a 90 yo man.
Mind you- true, it wasn’t WRITTEN by John. But almost nothing from ancient sources was written by that source. Instead it was written by a secretary or scribe. Caesar was considered exceptional as he wrote his stuff himself. But note that I said “John almost certainly has as it main source- the Apostle John himself” . "SOURCE. "
He’s citing the most comprehensive and recent study to date. I’ve read some of it. Graffiti is virtually non-existent in Galilee outside the urban areas, and Greek is found only in Sepphoris.
Raymond Brown (a conservative Catholic) wrote about the Gospel of John in 1966. The book I cited from Ehrman was published like six months ago.
Are you familiar with Geza Vermes? Maurice Casey? John D. Crossan? E.P. Sanders? Paula Friedrickson? April DeConick? Hoffman? Arnal? Carrier? Wells? Price? Meiers? Have you read any Historical Jesus scholarship at all besides Raymond Brown?
Sure, because really, it’s clear that a Roman Senator would sneak down out of the Palantine to write graffiti in the slums- where the residents couldn’t read it. Suuuure. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Originally Posted by tomndebb ; It would not be a matter of Jesus “needing” to be literate, (to the point of deliberately making up false claims), so much as simply portraying him in a way that presumed he could handle any situation–which would include being educated. Someone who can read (and write?) simply has an advantage in the world that an illiterate person lacks, (particularly from the perspective of the authors of the gospels who were, themselves, literate).
= = =
OTOH, Dio, believing firmly in his own favored scholars makes an absolutist case for illiteracy that requires a number of assumptions, as well. The case for illiteracy based on a lack of time or materials has a certain persuasion, but it is not the clear cut case that Dio would like to believe. There is enough commentary from people in the first century B.C.E. through the second century C.E. about the general level of education among the Jewish people that a more cautious scholar might wish to temper his or her certitude.
Among the tantalizing points:
When the Pharisees briefly held power in the early First Century B.C.E., they passed a law demanding that every father ensure that his sons could read and write.
Later, a further law was passed that actually talked about establishing schools.
These are not conclusive. Many laws are held in the breach more than the enforcement. It is also possible that the laws were only felt to apply to the merchant class and large land-holders with the poorest peasants simply ignored. Further, there is no reliable evidence that the required schools were ever built.
Both Philo and Josephus commented in their respective works regarding the Jewish people regarding the widespread, (pretty much universal), education among the Jews.
These comments are not conclusive. The language regarding the material that was taught was not explicit in naming reading and writing among the subjects. An understanding of the Torah could have been accomplished in an oral environment of memorization and verbal explication. And, again, they may have been discussing only merchants and land-holders while ignoring the larger numbers of peasants.
References to Jewish learning also appear in a number of Roman authors. (I don’t recall any similar comments from Greeks, but they had been out of power by more than a century by that time.)
Again, the comments do not explicitly address literacy and there is always the question of whether the peasants were included.
In addition, there is a presumption that the “illiteracy” model makes that may be quite valid–or might be unsupported in fact. Much is made of the costs of the materials required to produce a Torah and further materials needed to study. However, there does not need to have been a Torah in every home. One in each village (or even cluster of villages) would have been sufficient to provide a basic understanding of reading to children old enough to walk to the village but too young to effectively contribute to the labor force. Chalk and slates or sticks and hard packed sand are not that expensive. Children in Ireland were educated in “hedge schools” for several generations under similar conditions of poverty with the additional threat of British authorities seeking to break them up.
None of this is affirmative argument in favor of widespread literacy; it simply points out that the obstacles of time and materiel were not insurmountable obstacles.
Historic forms of graffiti have helped gain understanding into the lifestyles and languages of past cultures. Errors in spelling and grammar in this graffiti offer insight into the degree of literacy in Roman times and provide clues on the pronunciation of spoken Latin. Examples are CIL IV, 7838: Vettium Firmum / aed[ilem] quactiliar[ii] [sic] rog[ant]. Here, “qu” is pronounced “co.” The 83 pieces of graffiti found at CIL IV, 4706-85 are evidence of the ability to read and write at levels of society where literacy might not be expected. The graffiti appear on a peristyle which was being remodeled at the time of the eruption of Vesuvius by the architect Crescens. The graffiti was left by both the foreman and his workers. The brothel at CIL VII, 12, 18–20 contains over 120 pieces of graffiti, some of which were the work of the prostitutes and their clients. The gladiatorial academy at CIL IV, 4397 was scrawled with graffiti left by the gladiator Celadus Crescens (Suspirium puellarum Celadus thraex: “Celadus the Thracian makes the girls sigh.”) http://thriceholy.net/literacy.html
Given that a priori calculations of ancient literacy rest upon doubtful assumptions, by far the best evidence is what the ancients, a voluble lot, themselves said about who could and who could not read and write. Rustics: shepherds, landless agricultural workers,-- are commonly assumed in ancient drama and literature not to be literate. … Subtracting these two admittedly large groups, rustics and slaves, leaves free-born town-dwellers. The evidence of ancient literature is that this group was generally literate…But for reasons of its own, Israel also valued literacy, and already had an elementary school system in the first century A.D.:
“So R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: May the memory of Joshua b. Gamla be blessed, for, were it not for him, Israel would have forgotten the Torah, as in former times the child who had a father was instructed by him; but the one that had not, did not learn at all. The reason is that they used to explain the verse [Deut. xi. 19]: ‘And ye shall teach them to your children,’ etc., literally–ye personally. It was therefore enacted that a school for the education of children in Jerusalem should be established, on the basis of the following verse [Is. ii. 3]: ‘. . . for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem.’ And still the child who had a father was brought to Jerusalem and instructed; but the one who had not, remained ignorant. It was therefore enacted that such school should be established in the capitals of each province; but the children were brought when they were about sixteen or seventeen years of age, and when the lads were rebuked by their masters, they turned their faces and ran away. Then came Joshua b. Gamla, who enacted that schools should be established in all provinces and small towns, and that the children be sent to school at the age of six or seven years…” (Babylonian Talmud, Tract Baba Bathra (Last Gate), Chapter II, p. 62)
This education was at municipal expense:
“Raba further said: The number of pupils to be assigned to each teacher is twenty-five. If there are fifty, we appoint two teachers. If there are forty, we appoint an assistant, at the expense of the town.” (Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra, 21a).
It is alleged that there were 480 elementary schools in Jerusalem at the time of that city’s destruction by Vespasian:
“There were 480 synagogues (batte kenesiot) in Jerusalem, each containing a bet ha-sefer, (primary school for the Scriptures), and a bet Talmud, for the study of the Law and the tradition; and Vespasian destroyed them all” (Yer. Meg. iii. 73d; Lam. R., Introduction 12, ii. 2; Pesik. xiv. 121b; Yer. Ket. xiii. 35c)." (quoted in article, Jewish Encyclopedia, ‘Bet Ha-Midrash.’
Bolded for you “Then came Joshua b. Gamla, who enacted that schools should be established in all provinces and small towns, and that the children be sent to school at the age of six or seven years”
But in any case, most ancients (no matter how literate) didn’t write their own stuff, they had secretaries to write it for them.
That is one thing that always is a hoot- some atheist “expert” claiming such & such a book of the OT couldn’t have been written by it’s attributed author as “the language is that of a educated Greek” . Gomer Pyle voice Suprise, surpise, suprise! No shit Sherlock. Of course it appears written by an educated Greek, it was written by a secretary/scribe who was educated in Greek. Mind you, since some works were pseudepigraphal, there is good reason for some skepticism.
What’s amazing is that even when (as in 1 Peter) it even sez it was written by a secretary, the nimrods continue with their bogus argument.
And it’s still the most current scholarship. What is your evidence that people in rural galilee could read? It’s not in either the archaeological or documentary evidence and it defies common sense. The materials alone - books, paper, ink, were unavailable to the average peasant. They also didn’t have time. They lived on the edge of starvation and had to work all day (particularly in this period when Herod Antipas had instituted a campaign of commercialization which caused a lot of upheaval in the first three decades of the 1st century). There were no schools. They can’t even find many synagogues. There do not appear to have been any public buildings of any kind in Nazareth.
Just briefly, your first quote appears to be from an older thread on this board. Not sure what that’s supposed to prove.
Your evidence for graffiti and synagogues do not address rural Galilee. There were synagogues and schools in Jerusalem, yes, but Jersualem was not in Galilee, and neither was Pompeii.
Can’t speak to every nutcase that passes by, so I’m gonna ignore David Koresh.
Joseph Smith was clearly a small-time con man before either he pulled the Mormon con, or found some rather interesting religious artifacts, depending. Assuming the former, I think it’s clear that he was in it for a combination of the fame, the girls, and an easy racket. It’s not like he created his new religion in a way that sought out martyrdom; rather, it found him.
No, but many of his Christian contemporaries were, so whether he was martyred or died of natural causes, the substantial risk of martyrdom was there for him. My question was, why would he have invented a religion that had that downside? Just as today’s evangelicals have no problem pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, surely Paul could have created a perfectly good religion whose adherents could find room to swear allegiance to Caesar.
I would find a man who believed in the the things attributed to him. I’d also find a human being, flawed as all humans are flawed. Flawed as Martin Luther AND Martin Luther King were flawed. As Ghandi was. As so many others were flawed.
I’d find a man who believed in his heart that the messages he preached were the product of divine message. And who is anyone to doubt? What is divinity? Those who claim no special spirituality have things happen in their lives that alter their course. Those who proclaim deep and profound ( and frequently very very public ) spirituality live their whole lives hoping to experience a smidgen of something of a spiritual moment.
I do believe there was a man whose modern English name is Jesus Christ. I believe that he believed everything he preached.
That is kind of the nice thing about spirituality. Nobody gets to tell someone else that what they believe is wrong.
Tho I do believe He was Yahweh Incarnate, I don’t think He made it obvious to His followers & so if I had a mind-wipe before meeting Him, I doubt I’d recognize it either.
At the VERY worst, I think I’d find a man who said & purported to do much of what the Gospels attribute to him, so that if he were not a Divinely-empowered miracle-worker he would be either delusional, a con man, or much much worse.
FriarTed - you added a twist to the discussion. Most of what’s been said relates to the facts about what we’d encounter, rather than our response to them. I stand by my understanding of who I would encounter. But my response - would I have grasped the significance and followed and worshiped? Given my hardness of heart and pride, I’m as likely to have been among those condemning Him as among those following.
Good admission. I, of course, would like to think I’d immediately sign up, but then again, I “know” how the Story ends. BUT I admit that if it were not for my faith in The Resurrection & that Jesus has been demonstrated to be the Son of God, Lord and Savior, that I would find many of his teachings to be idealistic nonsense- especially the “turn the other cheek, love your enemies, judge not” stuff that can be seen as abdicating the world & one’s life to the worst among us.
If a real, live person existed that we could trace back and positively identify as being the source of the Jesus myth, he would either be a charismatic Jewish rabbi or a charismatic con artist.
