Stein wrote: The most likely conclusion is that there was a real such rabbi from Galilee called Jesus, who was human and preached social inclusiveness and riled up the Roman authorities.

How did Jesus rile up the authorities? What are the accounts of this riling?

Stein wrote:As such, the Romans initially viewed him as primarily a political phenomenon.

What evidence is there of that? ie. that the Romans viewed him as a political phenomenon.

Stein wrote:it's the model that anyone who's reasonably well educated perceives as the more plausible.

What's the model/s that anyone who's not reasonably well educated perceives as the more plausible?

Stein wrote:The human historical Jesus is the Jesus that professional secular non-apologetic academic researchers of today, who do in-depth historiography for a living, subscribe to

How much is the subscription?
What in-depth historiography do they produce?

Stein wrote: It is not the Jesus that all Christians necessarily subscribe to, even as the multitude of Christians in fact fold in countless different perspectives.

What are some of the Jesuses other Christians might subscribe or 'fold in different perspective' to?

Stein wrote: 2 )
This is Josephus's Antiquities XX.9.1. This is a _contemporary's_ eyewitness account of a living member of the Jesus family, explicitly identified as such.

"And now Cesar, upon hearing of 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 an High Priest to God; and who had himself injoyed 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 [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead; and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, the one named James: and some others; [or, some of his companions.] 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 [Agrippa,] 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 sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complyed 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 account King Agrippa took the High Priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months; and made Jesus, the son of Damneus High Priest."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html

How many times must we remind readers that the eyewitness Chapter 20 account of Ananus and James concerns an incident that doesn't entirely match any scripture to begin with?

Well, the key phrase/s match/es with a few Xian scriptures (but, of course, the whole narrative doesn't).

A. "the brother of Jesus" matches Galatians 1:19. It's probable it was written in Antiquities XX.9.1 to match Gal 1:19

B. "the so-called Christ" is, in Greek, τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, and probably better said to be, 'who is called Christ.'

This passage or slight variants of it occurs in Matt 1:16, 27.17 and 27.22; Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10,17; Contra Celsum 1,47 and 2.13; and Eusebius' Ecclesiastical history, 2,23.20-1 (which is almost identical to Origen's C.Celsum. 1,47)

Origen did not note the phrase, “who was/is called Christ,” as original to Josephus, or claim that he was even quoting Josephus at all. It is mainly with Eusebius’s quotation of Origen that this presumption is made: Eusebius starts Eccl. hist. 2,23.20-1 claiming that he's quoting Josephus when, in fact, he's quoting Origen. Eusebius calls James 'the Just' when implying he's quoting Josephus, even though Josephus never did: it's Origen that did that.

Eusebius goes on to quote what is in the extant Antiquities XX.9.1/200, which Origen never did.

One could rightly conclude Origin and Eusebius got τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ from the Gospel of Matthew and inserted it in Antiquities XX.9.1 when considering it

Stein wrote:The notion is absurd that Josephus's clear put-down, "Jesus the so-called Christ", isn't testimony to a Jesus the Christ having been real. It's perfectly blatant that "Jesus the so-called Christ" is a real mention in Josephus.

The 'clear put-down' appears in the Gospel According to Matthew (3 times!); as well as in Origin (3x) and Eusebius

'a real mention' may be a mention for many reasons

Are we dealing with historiography or hagiography (or both)?

proudfootz wrote:It takes real dedication to rewrite the Bible, deleting page after page, to get a plausible Jesus.

Stein wrote:As for the Tacitus passage, it evidently reflects a very circumscribed Silver-Age style (so-called) in Latin writing relatively hard to fake. Like Ch. 20 in Antiqs., scholars generally see Ch. 15 of Annals as authentic too. Ch. 15 is useful in giving us an authentic picture of a decidedly unsympathetic Cosmopolitan outlook on both Jesus and the movement he started. Moreover, there is nothing remotely hagiographic in this Ch. 15. Quite the contrary. Tacitus pours down withering scorn on everything to do with Jesus.

key non-apologetic pieces of data in Josephus's Antiquities XX (_not_ Antiqs. XVIII!) and Tacitus's Annals.

non-apologetics like Tacitus and in Josephus's "Antiquities", Chapter XX.

there was only one manuscript of [Sulpicius'] Chronicle, probably of the eleventh century, which is now in the Vatican. Hence the work was almost unknown throughout the Middle Ages, and no one was aware of the reference in it to a Roman persecution of the Christians. It is noteworthy that Poggio Bracciolini seems by some lucky chance to have discovered and read this manuscript https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Witn ... /Section_2

This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if not spurious, for the following reasons:

1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
7. At this time but one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus.
8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.
9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.
10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals" believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation.

Remsburg, John E. (1909). The Christ: A critical review and analysis of the evidences of His existence.
Ripol Classic. p. 40. ISBN 5871713521.

"it is, however, very doubtful, in view of the silence of the other Christian authors who used Tacitus, if the manuscript of Tacitus which Sulpicius used contained the passage in question. We are therefore strongly disposed to suspect that the passage (Annals, xv,44) was transferred from Sulpicius to the text of Tacitus by the hand of a monastic copyist or forger, for the greater glory of God and in order to strengthen the truth of the Christian tradition by a pagan witness."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Witn ... /Section_2

or both passages were forged later at the same time

RealityRules wrote:
Let's look at Tactitus' Annals 15.44

Despite the "withering scorn" therein, "on everything to do with Jesus", one would still expect a 'Church Father' to have provided witness to Tactitus' Annals 15.44 at some point in time

RealityRules wrote:Correction:

RealityRules wrote:
Let's look at Tactitus' Annals 15.44

Despite the "withering scorn" therein, "on everything to do with Jesus", one would still expect a 'Church Father' to have provided witness to Tactitus' Annals 15.44 at some point in time

And one would expect an NT text such as Acts of the Apostles to have referred to the Rome fire being blamed on Christians

proudfootz wrote:

RealityRules wrote:Correction:

RealityRules wrote:
Let's look at Tactitus' Annals 15.44

Despite the "withering scorn" therein, "on everything to do with Jesus", one would still expect a 'Church Father' to have provided witness to Tactitus' Annals 15.44 at some point in time

And one would expect an NT text such as Acts of the Apostles to have referred to the Rome fire being blamed on Christians

Well observed.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Nice Remsburg quote. Also the first unequivocal mention of the Neronian persecution in connection with the burning of Rome is found in the forged correspondence of Seneca and the apostle Paul, which belongs to the fourth century.

1.6 Seneca to Paul; Letter 12:

12. SENECA TO PAUL, greeting. Hail, my dearest Paul. Think you that I am not in sadness and grief, that your innocent people are so often condemned to suffer And next, that the whole people thinks you so callous and so prone to crime, that you are supposed to be the authors of every misfortune in the city Yet let us bear it patiently and content ourselves with what fortune brings, until supreme happiness puts an end to our troubles. Former ages had to bear the Macedonian, Philip's son, and, after Darius, Dionysius, and our own times endured Gaius Caesar: to all of whom their will was law. The source of the many fires which Rome suffers plain. But if humble men could speak out what the reason is, and if it were possible to speak without risk in this dark time, all would be plain to all.

Christians and Jews are commonly executed as contrivers of the fire. Whoever the criminal is whose pleasure is that of a butcher, and who veils himself with a lie, he is reserved for his due season: and as the best of men is sacrificed, the one for the many, so he, vowed to death for all, will be burned with fire. A hundred and thirty-two houses and four blocks have been burnt in six days, the seventh brought a pause. I pray you may be well, brother. Given the 5th of the kalends of April; Frugi and Bassus consuls (64).

http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-bo ... nd-seneca/

proudfootz wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Nice Remsburg quote. Also the first unequivocal mention of the Neronian persecution in connection with the burning of Rome is found in the forged correspondence of Seneca and the apostle Paul, which belongs to the fourth century.

1.6 Seneca to Paul; Letter 12:

12. SENECA TO PAUL, greeting. Hail, my dearest Paul. Think you that I am not in sadness and grief, that your innocent people are so often condemned to suffer And next, that the whole people thinks you so callous and so prone to crime, that you are supposed to be the authors of every misfortune in the city Yet let us bear it patiently and content ourselves with what fortune brings, until supreme happiness puts an end to our troubles. Former ages had to bear the Macedonian, Philip's son, and, after Darius, Dionysius, and our own times endured Gaius Caesar: to all of whom their will was law. The source of the many fires which Rome suffers plain. But if humble men could speak out what the reason is, and if it were possible to speak without risk in this dark time, all would be plain to all.

Christians and Jews are commonly executed as contrivers of the fire. Whoever the criminal is whose pleasure is that of a butcher, and who veils himself with a lie, he is reserved for his due season: and as the best of men is sacrificed, the one for the many, so he, vowed to death for all, will be burned with fire. A hundred and thirty-two houses and four blocks have been burnt in six days, the seventh brought a pause. I pray you may be well, brother. Given the 5th of the kalends of April; Frugi and Bassus consuls (64).

http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-bo ... nd-seneca/

It's interesting how these myths develop.

RealityRules wrote:Happy 23th anniversary/birthday!

Never again will I allow anyone to get away with trying to say that Jesus really did have to come from Nazareth because no-one would make up a story about a god-man (or a figure near enough) coming from some place of no reputation.

https://vridar.org/2023/03/15/from-humb ... mbmoW_nLFA

According to Bauer,
the writer of Mark's gospel was "an Italian, at home both in Rome and Alexandria";
Matthew's gospel was written by "a Roman, nourished by the spirit of Seneca"; and
Christianity is essentially "Stoicism triumphant in a Jewish garb."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Bau ... an_Origins

Stein wrote:The latest from Bart Ehrman --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CD5DwrgWJ4

Stein

proudfootz wrote:

Stein wrote:The latest from Bart Ehrman --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CD5DwrgWJ4

Stein

Just about the best thing is the comments under the video and how many people are triggered by the host's establishing her preferred pronouns and color of her hair.

The criterion of embarrassment is a type of historical analysis in which a historical account is deemed likely to be true under the inference that the author would have no reason to invent a historical account which might embarrass them. Certain Biblical scholars have used this as a metric for assessing whether the New Testament's accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically probable.[1]

The criterion of embarrassment is one of the criteria of authenticity used by academics, the others being the criterion of dissimilarity, the criterion of language and environment, criterion of coherence, and the criterion of multiple attestation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion ... arrassment

The degree of natural aging of the cellulose that constitutes the linen of the investigated sample, obtained by X-ray analysis, showed that the TS fabric is much older than the seven centuries proposed by the 1988 radiocarbon dating. The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe