The term was used by the Greeks as early as the 5th Century BCE (see Herodotus), and I used the term (as I said above) to clarify that I’m talking about the entire region inclusive of Judea, Galilee, Samarita and Perea. If you have a better word. let’s hear it.
Incidentally, it’s the same word Crossan uses.
There’s a pro-gay and poorly written editorial on CNN Religionabout homosexuality in the Bible. Most of the comments from anti-gays are of the “nuh-uh” variety (and in their defense the writer doesn’t make a good case) but one commenter says something about some recent archaeological dig unearthing a letter and reply between King Abgarus of Edessa and Jesus.
While I have no doubt at all that no such letter exists, does anybody know what the poster’s talking about? I’m familiar with apocryphal stories about Edessa and early Christianity mainly that the napkin of Veronica ended up there, but I was curious if this is some kind of religious urban legend going around about this. Also, I mention it here as it involves correspondence from Jesus.
Eusebius wrote in the 4th Century of a legend that Abgar V of Edessa (in what is now modern Turkey), while suffering from some unnamed, but terminal disease, had heard of Jesus’ reputation as a healer, become convinced of his divinity and written him a letter acknowledging him as the “Son of God” and asking him to come to Edessa and heal him.
In Eusebius’ account, Jesus writes back praising Abgar’s faith, but declining to come see him, explaining that he has to fulfill his destinity “in my own country,” but promises to send a disciple to heal Abgar “after my ascension.”
Eusebius quotes both letters, but these letters are universally believed to be spurious, even by conservative Christian scholars, and were believed to have been forgeries even by the Church in the early middle ages.
There is no archaeological find of such a letter. You must have misunderstood something (probably they showed a ruin of Edessa as they talked about the letter or something). The story is completely apocryphal.
I think in all of this discussion something that has been overlooked is the very real and provable ability of a very bright young man being able to move quite quickly from a state of impoverished illiteracy to multi-lingual literacy within a quite short period of time.
In my hometown’s history, we have the story of Manjiro Nakahama, who in quite a short period of time, went from being a young, fatherless, peasant fisherman in Japan to a man who eventually translated Bowditch’s Navigation from Eglish into Japanese and taught at a Japanese university. MANJIRO
All of us went from being illiterate to literate–most of us in our first five years. A bright young man from an illiterate laboring class can easily learn to read and write between childhood an manhood.
NOW, or relatively recently in history… sure. 2,000 years ago… not so easy.
Why not? Same people. Really, in any local newspaper you can read about some grandmother who went back to school and got her degree.
If we have the leader of a cult/sect, with contributions coming in, and learned men on the congregation, a Leader who needs to perform various duties, it makes sense he’d increase his learning. There’s no reason whatsoever to think that Peter, once a fisherman, could not have been educated in his later life. I admit, that it’s unlikely that Peter- at the time he became a Apostle- was any scholar. Maybe he was able to read/write graffiti and slowly work his way thru a few lines of text, but anything more than that, and he’d not have been a fisherman. However, once he became one of the Leaders of the early Church, he certainly could have become more educated. Why not?
The rest of your post is not entire implausible, but this… you’re kidding right? Same people? Uhm no. Most people at that time in that place were illiterate as has been shown countless times in this thread already. It required money and time (time that was not spend getting money) and possibly connections to learn how to read and write.
You can’t seriously compare the social, political, and technological infrastructure available today to the Grandma in the article to that available to a laborer in 1st century Judea.
Well, no in fact it hasn’t yet been shown even once in this thread that *“Most people at that time in that place were illiterate”. *DtC has alleged it twice, based upon old not well researched “guesstimates”. tomndebb and myself have actually posted links and cites that have shown that most people at that time in that place had some degree of literacy. However, a religous leader has time and money, and if not money, then at least eager disciples and converts volunteering to help- not to mention connnections. But as we both posted, there were plenty of schools over that area at that time- *“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…” …
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” * and the education was free.
However, it still remains that the *intectual capabilities *of a “Grandma” today are equivilent to an older person back then.
James, John & Peter were all (in their later life) religous leaders, who certainly had time (John lived to be around 90yo!) and the connections to learn to read. Isreal was then a land that encouraged education, as tomndebb has posted "Both Philo and Josephus commented in their respective works regarding the Jewish people regarding the widespread, (pretty much universal), education among the Jews."
Prove Peter, James and John even existed.
The only way Jesus could be 100% human is if humans are also Gods! If he had no human father, then he would be half human,he would have no human male chromosomes.
Was Jesus real?
The best GQ answer we can come up with to that question is “probably.”
It would seem that what we know now Josephus was not one who necessarily told the truth considering things we know about the suicide of the people of Masada, too much conflict to be fully accepted about Josephus!
Tacitus, Josephus, and the four Gospels all mention Him.
There is some question as to whether Josephus and Tactitus actually had independent knowledge of Jesus or whether they were merely reporting what Christians themselves were saying. Tacitus, for instance, gets Pontius Pilate’s title wrong, which indicates he might have been reporting hearsay, and not citing any official record.
No, he didn’t get it wrong. The ranks of of Procurator and Prefect had the same authority, and were equivilent. When Pilate was Governor, his title appears to have been the older title of Prefect, as that is what was found on the Pilate Stone. However, not long after, the same position was named Procurator. During Tacitus period, that position would have been called Procurator, so Tacitus was correct in that the position that Pilate held was during Tacitus’s time called Procurator. There’s no difference in rank or function, neither had Imperium, etc.
wiki "The rank of Pilate
Pilate’s rank while he was in Judea appeared in an inscription which called him a prefect,[26] while this Tacitean passage calls him a procurator (Latin). Josephus refers to him with the generic Greek term ηγεμων, or governor. Van Voorst thinks that the use of such different terms is what one would expect from witnesses writing in different languages, at different times in history. [27]
Tacitus records that Claudius was the ruler who gave procurators governing power."
What’s interesting is the turn around. For years, the atheist doubters said the Pilate was also a Myth, there was no such person. Then in 1961 the Pilate Stone was found. Now, the same atheist doubters say that the stone shows that Tacitus is a forgery, since he used a term from his slightly later period. Actually, both terms meant the same and were bandied about almost interchangably anyway. Of course, none of the atheist doubters, even when we have solid physical proof that portions of the Gospels were based upon facts- have changed their tune.
And in the case of Josephus, one of his mentions of Jesus is actaully offhand, it really is a portion of Jewish history where Jesus is just mentioned as the brother of James, who was being stoned to death on order of Ananus the High Priest.
wiki *“The Jesus/James reference of Josephus is generally considered reliable, supporting the historicity of Jesus. It is found in the Antiquities, the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9.
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. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, 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: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[9]”
*
Josephus here was simply recording a bit of Jewish history, which is exactly what his books are. It fits exactly into the flow of his writings, and is exactly the sort of things he wrote about. What makes it so solid is the Jesus is not mentioned in any sort of favorable way, just offhandedly, in a story about some political manuverings of the High priest.
Tacitus used an anachronistic title. This indicates that he was not citing documentation or he would have gotten the title right.
This is a canard.
no, Tacitus used the then current title. Anyway, both titles meant the same, had the same authority, etc and had often been used interchangably. Both translate to Greek term ηγεμων, or governor. It’s not proof or evidence or even an indication.
The level of literacy in Japan is quite high. Japanese learn about 1,000 kanji through elementary school and another 9,000 through junior high, the end of compulsorily education. However, the amount of kanji they can write is usually less. Because everyone now uses computers and texts with cell phones, more people are forgetting all the strokes. However, if they see it, then can quickly remember.
Sort of like speelling in English?