Thanks much for this article. Very well done. I was taught as a child decades ago that there were so many violations of Jewish law in the Gospel trial (15 at one recent count) that it casts doubt on the whole narrative. There was no reason for most of those violations, and their inclusion can be chalked up to either the Gospel authors' ignorance of the law, or their need to make the incident fit a prophetic framework.
Thanks for your kind words. However, nearly all of that 15-count list comes from Mishnah Sanhedrin, compiled around 200 CE, some 170 years after the fact, describing an idealized procedure that likely reflects Pharisaic rather than Sadducean practice.
Of course, Sadducean practice may have mirrored it, and the whole list may well be historical. But that's the problem; "may well be" isn't something I wanted to build on. Including anything from that list would have given skeptical readers a reason to treat the entire piece as contestable, so I played safely and stuck to the irregularities that Christian theology itself acknowledges.
For the dating problem, the one I'd point you to first is Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah (1994). Brown was a Catholic priest and one of the most respected New Testament scholars of the last century, and volume 1 takes up the Mishnaic rules directly, going through the supposed violations and explaining why Mishnah Sanhedrin can't be assumed to describe first-century courtroom practice. If you want the same argument from the conservative end, Darrell Bock, an evangelical New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, makes it at length in Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus (1998). Neither man has any interest in undermining the Gospel accounts, which is what makes them useful here.
On your second question, we have less than you'd hope, and what we do have is instructive. There was no standing legal procedure for messianic claimants, because claiming to be the messiah wasn't a crime under Jewish law. Rabbi Akiva, the leading rabbi of his generation, publicly hailed Bar Kokhba as the messiah in the 130s. Nobody put either of them on trial for it. After the revolt collapsed, later rabbis settled for renaming him Bar Koziba, "son of the lie."
What Josephus gives us are prophetic figures cut down by Roman troops in the field. Theudas was beheaded around 45 by the governor's cavalry, the unnamed Egyptian lost his followers to Felix around 56, and Pilate slaughtered a Samaritan crowd on Mount Gerizim in 36. No courts involved in any of it.
The one case where the Jewish authorities themselves act is Jesus son of Ananias, in Jewish War book 6. In 62 he started shouting through Jerusalem that the city would fall. The leading citizens seized him and beat him, and when that didn't quiet him they handed him over to the Roman governor Albinus, who flogged him to the bone and released him as a lunatic. There's no trial in the account, no verdict, and no charge that survives. That's the closest procedural parallel we have to the Gospel scenes, and what it suggests is that these men got dealt with when they drew crowds and risked a Roman reaction, with the content of the claim mattering a good deal less than the disruption.
The Jewish legal category that would fit is the one in Deuteronomy 13, enticing Israel to go after other gods, and the Talmud applies precisely that to Jesus in Sanhedrin 43a. But that's a Babylonian text from centuries later, so it lands us back in the same problem as the 15-count list.
If Christians have an issue with any of this, they don't read anything but a Bible and don't let the truth overtake the preferred myth. I agree with you on all counts. The Law demanded death by stoning, which didn't happen; crucifixion was a Roman punishment; and the crime was stated in the note hung on the cross above the criminal's head. Jesus was crucified for sedition. He declared that he was a king. Even though he also stated that his kingdom was not of this world, declaring himself a king of anything was seen as a direct challenge to the emperor, so he had to die. He could have announced he was king of the sea or king of the fairies and he still would have been crucified. As for Pilate, how cruel must he have been to be called back to Rome for extreme cruelty by a state that was known for its cruelty? And how sad is it that Christians need to be reminded constantly that Jesus was Jewish, as were all of his disciples and all of the early Christians? Christianity was originally recognized as a sect of Judaism.
I'm happy to hear we're in agreement on the topic.
Being blunt without pandering, and clear enough that neither religious nor irreligious readers can misread me into taking offense at something I didn't say, is a hard balance to strike.
Tanner, my friend, you ought to know by now that it takes a lot to offend me and it's never about truth. I'm not so enamored of being right that I can ignore the reality and my faith isn't threatened by anything someone says. Since I've actually studied all of this, I appreciate you adding to that knowledge.
If Christianity were internally consistent, Christians would be on their knees every day thanking their God for the part the Jews (and Judas for that matter) allegedly played in facilitating the necessary redemptive death of Jesus.
The problem is that once Jews who accept Jesus are no longer counted as Jews in people's minds, the claim that Jews helped found and spread Christianity becomes paradoxical, therefore impossible by definition.
Funny thing, your words reflect the words of an Eastern Rite Catholic Priest, a retired Professor from a Catholic College who referenced that very same idea when he said it was a Blessing that Jesus was ‘eliminated’ because without that event, there would be no Christianity. Your words brought back that memory.
No, the piece is not too long and you’re not keeping yourself busy for nothing! Tanner, you’re a freakin’ genius so please keep up all that you do with Biblical analysis.
The piece you just wrote was spot on perfect in all its exposed fallacies and the corruption the Church has banked on for millennia. So true, where would Christianity be without its evil tales based upon historical lies that has generated thousands of years of antisemitism still festering with no hint of demise.
But, so what, fiction finds its way, whether in the story of a crucified messiah, or whether in the story of the debatable existence of that same so-called messiah.
I was unaware that the existence of Jesus was debatable, since there are multiple no-Christian sources written in the first century after his death that point to his existence as a human being. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Does that mean that everything written in the Bible about him is true? That's certainly open for debate, but his existence and his crucifixion are not. Unless you think the Roman writers who referred to him as a criminal deserving of death were somehow Christians...
My comments re. Jesus’ existence or non-existence certainly do not necessarily reflect my personal opinion which is totally irrelevant to the issue. Nevertheless, there are multiple sources available that point to an abundance of so-called
‘evidence’ indicating there is doubt that Jesus was an historical figure.
One such source is a book by a contemporary Roman Catholic Priest, Thomas L. Brodie, “Beyond The Quest For The Historical Jesus,” who insists Jesus was probably a fiction, a composite of Old Testament Prophets, not an historical character.
There is much more that relies on 1st century writers, philosophers, and historians who never mentioned Jesus although they were contemporary to him. If the miraculous and supernatural events recorded in the New Testament actually happened, those scholars would have meticulously recorded every last detail, leaving nothing out. But all is silence, not a word anywhere.
I wouldn’t rely too heavily on Wikipedia, a compromised and less than reliable source for accurate information.
First, Wikipedia has changed over the years and is now considered a valid credible source. I know because I used it multiple times at a real university to get a real Masters degree. Second, I wasn't presenting Wikipedia as my sole source because there are references in the footnotes that point to the sources of the information contained within the article. Perhaps the issue is more of a question of which Jesus you're looking for. The book you referred to is one in which the miracle working individual is in question. It's in the title. Brodie is looking for the miracle worker. The real, actual human being known as Jesus was, in fact, referred to by Roman historians, Jewish historians, Muslims, etc. I didn't say anything about supernatural events, I said Jesus existed. There's plenty of documentation for that.
Just one of the footnotes:
Dunn (2003, p. 339) states of "baptism and crucifixion", these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
Crossan (1994, p. 45) "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
No, Brodie is looking for Jesus the historical figure, whether a worker of miracles or not. Miracles and supernatural events were not a factor in Brodie’s investigation. He does not find Jesus based upon his research and analysis.
The Book’s Title? Perhaps you might consider a deeper approach ? Remember, never judge a book by its cover.
No, there is no documentation to substantiate Jesus’ existence, whether from Roman historians, Jewish historians, or Muslim historians. No factual evidence exists to substantiate Jesus’ was historical.
No, Josephus does not mention Jesus. Any quotes attributed to him in his books are interpolations that the Church has agreed were not written by Josephus, but were added by a Christian scribe.
Again, this criticism represents what is out there, not my personal opinion. Concerning Wikipedia, to each his own, I understand it is still used quite frequently in both elementary and high school.
Wow. I wasn't aware that you could get a Masters degree in elementary or high school. Parents everywhere will be thrilled to learn that they can save so much on tuition.
I once again quote from the footnotes and resources, this time from an atheist:
Bowman Jr., Robert; Komoszewski, J. (2024). The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense. Kregel Academic. pp. 630–31. ISBN 0825445795. These facts convince a consensus of scholars, including many secular and even atheist scholars, that the death of Jesus on the cross is solid historical fact. Gerd Lüdemann, an atheist New Testament scholar, states, "The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable, despite hypotheses of a pseudo-death or a deception which are sometimes put forward." As Joel B. Green concludes, "Multiple strands of evidence—from Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources—undergird the claim that among the data available to us regarding Jesus of Nazareth, none is more incontrovertible than his execution on a Roman cross by order of Pontius Pilate."
Since Roman historians wrote of the crucifixion of Jesus when it happened, it wasn't made up and Jesus existed. Also in the footnotes that you didn't read are multiple comments that no serious scholar denies that Jesus existed. and finally, this one: Ehrman (2012, pp. 336–338): "It is no accident that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge) are either atheists or agnostics. The ones I know anything about are quite virulently, even militantly, atheist."
Josephus wrote of him. Tacitus, the Roman Senator and historian, wrote of him. The Koran recognizes him as a prophet, although a lesser prophet than Muhammed. His existence is a fact; choosing not to believe it doesn't change that.
If you truly believe that the use of Wikipedia in both elementary and high school will guarantee a college degree, then so be it. That sentiment is based upon your erroneous comprehension of the sentence I wrote.
So too, believe as you must re evidence for the existence of Jesus. There is none, regardless of how many opinions you put forward to the contrary. No evidence, but lots of conjecture, does an historical fact make.
Again, I have no opinion or interest in either the truth or the falsity of it all. It’s simply another historical conundrum.
Finally, Father Brodie is no mythicist. He is a faithful, practicing Christian, a genuine believer in Christianity, who is convinced, nonetheless, that Jesus did not exist.
1. Perhaps the most important point is the dissonance between the anti-semitic trope that Jews killed Jesus and the bottom line that God sent his only son to earth to be sacrificed for the sake of mankind, or at least for the sake of Christians. If God wanted his son sacrificed, someone had to do it. Why condemn them when they were obviously part of Gods plan.
Consider what would have happened if Jesus had not died on the cross. He would have spent his life living communally with a group of unmarried men, at least until the Jewish War against Rome. Without his death, there would have been no resurrection. And Christians would have no relief from their sins.
2. Maybe more related to your argument, though it might cut against it - within a week prior to the Last Supper, Jesus led a riot against the Temple. He drove out the 'money changers' using a whip. Keeping in mind that the 'money changers' were a critical part of the Temple finances (and therefore Judean finances), this was a bit like Occupy Wall Street, if the Occupy movement had actually driven out the financiers on Wall Street. This kind of activity was not going to sit well with the authorities, whether Jewish or Roman (or American).
3. Taking the insurrectionary idea a bit further, it is curious that at least two of the Apostles were carrying swords. Peter Simon even used his to cut off the ear of the slave of the High Priest. (John 18:10) - seems to be a fairly aggressive attack against the the high priest, Caiaphas, who was personally appointed by the Roman procurator, Valerius Grates. Jesus even suggested that if any of his Apostles did not have swords, they should sell their cloaks to get them. This at a time when Jesus was telling his Apostles that they should take their money bags and a knapsack. Jesus concluded that two swords would be enough, but the unanswered question is, enough for what! And why pack your money and a backpack? (Luke 22: 36-38)
4. Speaking of the appointment of Caiaphas by Valerius Grates (the predecessor to Pontius Pilate), it seems a useful point of reference for your argument. Caiaphas was not an 'independent' High Priest. He owed his job to the Roman procurator. Would it be wildly speculative to imagine that a High Priest appointed by the Romans might be in discussion with Roman authorities as to what to do about the messianic movement Jesus was leading that could challenge not only the High Priesthood, but the Pax Romana in Judea. Especially after one of the Apostles hacked off the ear of the High Priest's slave with a sword.
5. Finally, a bit of context. Jesus lived at a time of growing conflict between the Jews and Rome. The Romans ended the Hasmonean dynasty (which had ruled with plenty of violence itself since the success of the Maccabees against the Seleucids.) when the Senate appointed Herod (eventually, the Great) as king. Following his death, the Romans quickly ended Jewish independence in Judea, turning Judea into a Roman province (6 AD), which did not sit so well with many of the Jews there. The first insurrection began that year under Judas of Galilee who led the fight against the first Roman census taken in Judea. Judas rejected Roman rule and proclaimed God to be the only king. Riots broke out in 38 and the situation deteriorated until war broke out between Jews and Rome in 66. (Wikipedia, "Jewish-Roman Wars".)
Please considee NOT "dumbing down" your writing. Bart Ehrmans Biblical Studies Academy, no has nearly 1300 PAID subscribers, 1000 in the 1st year. For 33 years i attended dumbed down Sunday School classes which were largely poolings n of ignorance
Noted, and thank you. The plan is to keep the reasoning at full strength and cut the padding around it instead. Nobody learns anything from a piece that's been sanded down until every claim carries a hedge.
The entire question could be a red herring if this was all written by Romans after 70 AD based on Greek and Egyptian astrotheology and philosophy set in Judea. That there was never a Jesus nor a Jewish authority that even resembles our idea of Judea. That it was all concocted to steal the identity of Judean rebels and their raison d'etre to claim their inheritance and beliefs as the new overseers in their Imperial cult.
The very idea of Jesus being from Judea and Christianity emerging from there would be entirely fictitious.
The false accusation of antisemitism is a misnomer. The blame is, as you say, on the Romans. And Judaism would never have existed if the Romans hadn't spread it globally to make their claim of the inheritance appear valid.
1984 happened 2 millennia ago. We haven't shaken the consequences of Roman Propaganda still. Truth? What is truth?
For that, ask Plato, not a series of propaganda pamphlets of ancient mythology pressed into a book to steal indigenous people's property and souls without requirement for armies and overheads.
inspiring work Tanner, wouldn't wanna miss a word.
it's about the paradox of humanity, not just of civilization, it's a paradox of tribal community. The reason why we're nearly all members of a tribe is that your chances of living long enough to pass your genes was vastly greater within a tribe than as a solitary hermit.
Problem is, tribal morality is tough. It's rooted in collective survival, NOT in justice, no matter what the ruling class (the Romans in this case) would have you believe.
So of course if someone comes along preaching a morality of pure justice, they'll put him down and rewrite the historical record. He's preaching the same justice that the ruling class PRETENDS to believe in, just like they do today. He's exposing their own lies.
And there's the universal human paradox: He's killed for practicing what the overclass preaches, for actually believing in Right and Wrong.
"Two thousand years of pogroms, expulsions, and ghettos have rested on that phrase."
Sadly this is not a question but a statement. This statement is historically false. Most pogroms were triggered by human sacrifice and many expulsions were triggered by ushury. You try to expose a contradiction that is simply not there. It looks contradictory because the lack of understanding. One must do better research on historical accounts that are relevant to the question.
Length of article was fine. Thanks for the excellent summation that invalidates 50 years of my indoctrination.
Thanks, David. I’m happy you found it helpful.
Thanks much for this article. Very well done. I was taught as a child decades ago that there were so many violations of Jewish law in the Gospel trial (15 at one recent count) that it casts doubt on the whole narrative. There was no reason for most of those violations, and their inclusion can be chalked up to either the Gospel authors' ignorance of the law, or their need to make the incident fit a prophetic framework.
Thanks for your kind words. However, nearly all of that 15-count list comes from Mishnah Sanhedrin, compiled around 200 CE, some 170 years after the fact, describing an idealized procedure that likely reflects Pharisaic rather than Sadducean practice.
Of course, Sadducean practice may have mirrored it, and the whole list may well be historical. But that's the problem; "may well be" isn't something I wanted to build on. Including anything from that list would have given skeptical readers a reason to treat the entire piece as contestable, so I played safely and stuck to the irregularities that Christian theology itself acknowledges.
Thanks for that explanation, it makes a lot of sense.
Do you have a reference for a Christian source where this is spelled out? That would be handy.
Do we have any historical information on how the religious authorities dealt with claimed messiahs in that period?
I had overlooked this one, sorry.
For the dating problem, the one I'd point you to first is Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah (1994). Brown was a Catholic priest and one of the most respected New Testament scholars of the last century, and volume 1 takes up the Mishnaic rules directly, going through the supposed violations and explaining why Mishnah Sanhedrin can't be assumed to describe first-century courtroom practice. If you want the same argument from the conservative end, Darrell Bock, an evangelical New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, makes it at length in Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus (1998). Neither man has any interest in undermining the Gospel accounts, which is what makes them useful here.
On your second question, we have less than you'd hope, and what we do have is instructive. There was no standing legal procedure for messianic claimants, because claiming to be the messiah wasn't a crime under Jewish law. Rabbi Akiva, the leading rabbi of his generation, publicly hailed Bar Kokhba as the messiah in the 130s. Nobody put either of them on trial for it. After the revolt collapsed, later rabbis settled for renaming him Bar Koziba, "son of the lie."
What Josephus gives us are prophetic figures cut down by Roman troops in the field. Theudas was beheaded around 45 by the governor's cavalry, the unnamed Egyptian lost his followers to Felix around 56, and Pilate slaughtered a Samaritan crowd on Mount Gerizim in 36. No courts involved in any of it.
The one case where the Jewish authorities themselves act is Jesus son of Ananias, in Jewish War book 6. In 62 he started shouting through Jerusalem that the city would fall. The leading citizens seized him and beat him, and when that didn't quiet him they handed him over to the Roman governor Albinus, who flogged him to the bone and released him as a lunatic. There's no trial in the account, no verdict, and no charge that survives. That's the closest procedural parallel we have to the Gospel scenes, and what it suggests is that these men got dealt with when they drew crowds and risked a Roman reaction, with the content of the claim mattering a good deal less than the disruption.
The Jewish legal category that would fit is the one in Deuteronomy 13, enticing Israel to go after other gods, and the Talmud applies precisely that to Jesus in Sanhedrin 43a. But that's a Babylonian text from centuries later, so it lands us back in the same problem as the 15-count list.
Thanks for all this detail
You're most welcome.
If Christians have an issue with any of this, they don't read anything but a Bible and don't let the truth overtake the preferred myth. I agree with you on all counts. The Law demanded death by stoning, which didn't happen; crucifixion was a Roman punishment; and the crime was stated in the note hung on the cross above the criminal's head. Jesus was crucified for sedition. He declared that he was a king. Even though he also stated that his kingdom was not of this world, declaring himself a king of anything was seen as a direct challenge to the emperor, so he had to die. He could have announced he was king of the sea or king of the fairies and he still would have been crucified. As for Pilate, how cruel must he have been to be called back to Rome for extreme cruelty by a state that was known for its cruelty? And how sad is it that Christians need to be reminded constantly that Jesus was Jewish, as were all of his disciples and all of the early Christians? Christianity was originally recognized as a sect of Judaism.
I'm happy to hear we're in agreement on the topic.
Being blunt without pandering, and clear enough that neither religious nor irreligious readers can misread me into taking offense at something I didn't say, is a hard balance to strike.
Tanner, my friend, you ought to know by now that it takes a lot to offend me and it's never about truth. I'm not so enamored of being right that I can ignore the reality and my faith isn't threatened by anything someone says. Since I've actually studied all of this, I appreciate you adding to that knowledge.
If Christianity were internally consistent, Christians would be on their knees every day thanking their God for the part the Jews (and Judas for that matter) allegedly played in facilitating the necessary redemptive death of Jesus.
I completely agree.
The problem is that once Jews who accept Jesus are no longer counted as Jews in people's minds, the claim that Jews helped found and spread Christianity becomes paradoxical, therefore impossible by definition.
Funny thing, your words reflect the words of an Eastern Rite Catholic Priest, a retired Professor from a Catholic College who referenced that very same idea when he said it was a Blessing that Jesus was ‘eliminated’ because without that event, there would be no Christianity. Your words brought back that memory.
No, the piece is not too long and you’re not keeping yourself busy for nothing! Tanner, you’re a freakin’ genius so please keep up all that you do with Biblical analysis.
The piece you just wrote was spot on perfect in all its exposed fallacies and the corruption the Church has banked on for millennia. So true, where would Christianity be without its evil tales based upon historical lies that has generated thousands of years of antisemitism still festering with no hint of demise.
But, so what, fiction finds its way, whether in the story of a crucified messiah, or whether in the story of the debatable existence of that same so-called messiah.
Thanks for reading and for your feedback, Ariel.
I was unaware that the existence of Jesus was debatable, since there are multiple no-Christian sources written in the first century after his death that point to his existence as a human being. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Does that mean that everything written in the Bible about him is true? That's certainly open for debate, but his existence and his crucifixion are not. Unless you think the Roman writers who referred to him as a criminal deserving of death were somehow Christians...
My comments re. Jesus’ existence or non-existence certainly do not necessarily reflect my personal opinion which is totally irrelevant to the issue. Nevertheless, there are multiple sources available that point to an abundance of so-called
‘evidence’ indicating there is doubt that Jesus was an historical figure.
One such source is a book by a contemporary Roman Catholic Priest, Thomas L. Brodie, “Beyond The Quest For The Historical Jesus,” who insists Jesus was probably a fiction, a composite of Old Testament Prophets, not an historical character.
There is much more that relies on 1st century writers, philosophers, and historians who never mentioned Jesus although they were contemporary to him. If the miraculous and supernatural events recorded in the New Testament actually happened, those scholars would have meticulously recorded every last detail, leaving nothing out. But all is silence, not a word anywhere.
I wouldn’t rely too heavily on Wikipedia, a compromised and less than reliable source for accurate information.
First, Wikipedia has changed over the years and is now considered a valid credible source. I know because I used it multiple times at a real university to get a real Masters degree. Second, I wasn't presenting Wikipedia as my sole source because there are references in the footnotes that point to the sources of the information contained within the article. Perhaps the issue is more of a question of which Jesus you're looking for. The book you referred to is one in which the miracle working individual is in question. It's in the title. Brodie is looking for the miracle worker. The real, actual human being known as Jesus was, in fact, referred to by Roman historians, Jewish historians, Muslims, etc. I didn't say anything about supernatural events, I said Jesus existed. There's plenty of documentation for that.
Just one of the footnotes:
Dunn (2003, p. 339) states of "baptism and crucifixion", these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
Crossan (1994, p. 45) "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
No, Brodie is looking for Jesus the historical figure, whether a worker of miracles or not. Miracles and supernatural events were not a factor in Brodie’s investigation. He does not find Jesus based upon his research and analysis.
The Book’s Title? Perhaps you might consider a deeper approach ? Remember, never judge a book by its cover.
No, there is no documentation to substantiate Jesus’ existence, whether from Roman historians, Jewish historians, or Muslim historians. No factual evidence exists to substantiate Jesus’ was historical.
No, Josephus does not mention Jesus. Any quotes attributed to him in his books are interpolations that the Church has agreed were not written by Josephus, but were added by a Christian scribe.
Again, this criticism represents what is out there, not my personal opinion. Concerning Wikipedia, to each his own, I understand it is still used quite frequently in both elementary and high school.
Wow. I wasn't aware that you could get a Masters degree in elementary or high school. Parents everywhere will be thrilled to learn that they can save so much on tuition.
I once again quote from the footnotes and resources, this time from an atheist:
Bowman Jr., Robert; Komoszewski, J. (2024). The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense. Kregel Academic. pp. 630–31. ISBN 0825445795. These facts convince a consensus of scholars, including many secular and even atheist scholars, that the death of Jesus on the cross is solid historical fact. Gerd Lüdemann, an atheist New Testament scholar, states, "The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable, despite hypotheses of a pseudo-death or a deception which are sometimes put forward." As Joel B. Green concludes, "Multiple strands of evidence—from Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources—undergird the claim that among the data available to us regarding Jesus of Nazareth, none is more incontrovertible than his execution on a Roman cross by order of Pontius Pilate."
Since Roman historians wrote of the crucifixion of Jesus when it happened, it wasn't made up and Jesus existed. Also in the footnotes that you didn't read are multiple comments that no serious scholar denies that Jesus existed. and finally, this one: Ehrman (2012, pp. 336–338): "It is no accident that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge) are either atheists or agnostics. The ones I know anything about are quite virulently, even militantly, atheist."
Josephus wrote of him. Tacitus, the Roman Senator and historian, wrote of him. The Koran recognizes him as a prophet, although a lesser prophet than Muhammed. His existence is a fact; choosing not to believe it doesn't change that.
If you truly believe that the use of Wikipedia in both elementary and high school will guarantee a college degree, then so be it. That sentiment is based upon your erroneous comprehension of the sentence I wrote.
So too, believe as you must re evidence for the existence of Jesus. There is none, regardless of how many opinions you put forward to the contrary. No evidence, but lots of conjecture, does an historical fact make.
Again, I have no opinion or interest in either the truth or the falsity of it all. It’s simply another historical conundrum.
Finally, Father Brodie is no mythicist. He is a faithful, practicing Christian, a genuine believer in Christianity, who is convinced, nonetheless, that Jesus did not exist.
Thanks for the great summary!
Here are some additional points to consider.
1. Perhaps the most important point is the dissonance between the anti-semitic trope that Jews killed Jesus and the bottom line that God sent his only son to earth to be sacrificed for the sake of mankind, or at least for the sake of Christians. If God wanted his son sacrificed, someone had to do it. Why condemn them when they were obviously part of Gods plan.
Consider what would have happened if Jesus had not died on the cross. He would have spent his life living communally with a group of unmarried men, at least until the Jewish War against Rome. Without his death, there would have been no resurrection. And Christians would have no relief from their sins.
2. Maybe more related to your argument, though it might cut against it - within a week prior to the Last Supper, Jesus led a riot against the Temple. He drove out the 'money changers' using a whip. Keeping in mind that the 'money changers' were a critical part of the Temple finances (and therefore Judean finances), this was a bit like Occupy Wall Street, if the Occupy movement had actually driven out the financiers on Wall Street. This kind of activity was not going to sit well with the authorities, whether Jewish or Roman (or American).
3. Taking the insurrectionary idea a bit further, it is curious that at least two of the Apostles were carrying swords. Peter Simon even used his to cut off the ear of the slave of the High Priest. (John 18:10) - seems to be a fairly aggressive attack against the the high priest, Caiaphas, who was personally appointed by the Roman procurator, Valerius Grates. Jesus even suggested that if any of his Apostles did not have swords, they should sell their cloaks to get them. This at a time when Jesus was telling his Apostles that they should take their money bags and a knapsack. Jesus concluded that two swords would be enough, but the unanswered question is, enough for what! And why pack your money and a backpack? (Luke 22: 36-38)
4. Speaking of the appointment of Caiaphas by Valerius Grates (the predecessor to Pontius Pilate), it seems a useful point of reference for your argument. Caiaphas was not an 'independent' High Priest. He owed his job to the Roman procurator. Would it be wildly speculative to imagine that a High Priest appointed by the Romans might be in discussion with Roman authorities as to what to do about the messianic movement Jesus was leading that could challenge not only the High Priesthood, but the Pax Romana in Judea. Especially after one of the Apostles hacked off the ear of the High Priest's slave with a sword.
5. Finally, a bit of context. Jesus lived at a time of growing conflict between the Jews and Rome. The Romans ended the Hasmonean dynasty (which had ruled with plenty of violence itself since the success of the Maccabees against the Seleucids.) when the Senate appointed Herod (eventually, the Great) as king. Following his death, the Romans quickly ended Jewish independence in Judea, turning Judea into a Roman province (6 AD), which did not sit so well with many of the Jews there. The first insurrection began that year under Judas of Galilee who led the fight against the first Roman census taken in Judea. Judas rejected Roman rule and proclaimed God to be the only king. Riots broke out in 38 and the situation deteriorated until war broke out between Jews and Rome in 66. (Wikipedia, "Jewish-Roman Wars".)
Please considee NOT "dumbing down" your writing. Bart Ehrmans Biblical Studies Academy, no has nearly 1300 PAID subscribers, 1000 in the 1st year. For 33 years i attended dumbed down Sunday School classes which were largely poolings n of ignorance
Noted, and thank you. The plan is to keep the reasoning at full strength and cut the padding around it instead. Nobody learns anything from a piece that's been sanded down until every claim carries a hedge.
The entire question could be a red herring if this was all written by Romans after 70 AD based on Greek and Egyptian astrotheology and philosophy set in Judea. That there was never a Jesus nor a Jewish authority that even resembles our idea of Judea. That it was all concocted to steal the identity of Judean rebels and their raison d'etre to claim their inheritance and beliefs as the new overseers in their Imperial cult.
The very idea of Jesus being from Judea and Christianity emerging from there would be entirely fictitious.
The false accusation of antisemitism is a misnomer. The blame is, as you say, on the Romans. And Judaism would never have existed if the Romans hadn't spread it globally to make their claim of the inheritance appear valid.
1984 happened 2 millennia ago. We haven't shaken the consequences of Roman Propaganda still. Truth? What is truth?
For that, ask Plato, not a series of propaganda pamphlets of ancient mythology pressed into a book to steal indigenous people's property and souls without requirement for armies and overheads.
https://ivanfraser.substack.com/p/return-of-the-storm-god-appendix-5c6
Tanner,
Please don’t shorten what you need to say! Some of us have more than a 15-second attention span!
inspiring work Tanner, wouldn't wanna miss a word.
it's about the paradox of humanity, not just of civilization, it's a paradox of tribal community. The reason why we're nearly all members of a tribe is that your chances of living long enough to pass your genes was vastly greater within a tribe than as a solitary hermit.
Problem is, tribal morality is tough. It's rooted in collective survival, NOT in justice, no matter what the ruling class (the Romans in this case) would have you believe.
So of course if someone comes along preaching a morality of pure justice, they'll put him down and rewrite the historical record. He's preaching the same justice that the ruling class PRETENDS to believe in, just like they do today. He's exposing their own lies.
And there's the universal human paradox: He's killed for practicing what the overclass preaches, for actually believing in Right and Wrong.
The fact that he was crucified says it all.
An astutely done article as always. The length of the article was adequate for me
"Two thousand years of pogroms, expulsions, and ghettos have rested on that phrase."
Sadly this is not a question but a statement. This statement is historically false. Most pogroms were triggered by human sacrifice and many expulsions were triggered by ushury. You try to expose a contradiction that is simply not there. It looks contradictory because the lack of understanding. One must do better research on historical accounts that are relevant to the question.