2 votes, average: 4.00 out of 52 votes, average: 4.00 out of 52 votes, average: 4.00 out of 52 votes, average: 4.00 out of 52 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5 (2 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...

More Conspiracy Nonsense

Poor Hercules, trying to fight the Hydra. Once he lops off *one* head….

So I’ve received several emails over the past couple of days about the breathtaking new announcement to be made on October 19 (assuming the world still is functioning after October 17!) in London by “American Biblical scholar” Joseph Atwill (whom – I have to admit – I have never even heard of, to my recollection) In this announcement Mr. (so far as I can tell, from his blog, he is not a “Dr.”; in what sense is he a “scholar”? Is it because he’s read a bunch of book? Hmm….) Atwill will “prove” that “the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ.”

In other words – brace yourself – Jesus is in fact a myth. Has anyone heard this before?

For the full story, go to

http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm

Atwill is a different breed from most mythicists. That’s probably good and bad. Good because, well, you wouldn’t like to be like the others. Bad because, well, you really shouldn’t want to be one at all. In any event, here is Mr. Atwill’s case in a nutshell, as described in this earth-shattering press release (referenced above):

“Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire. “Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century,” he explains. “When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That’s when the ‘peaceful’ Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to ‘give onto Caesar’ and pay their taxes to Rome.”

The operative word in this description is the second one: “asserts.” I know sophomores in college who could rip this assertion to shreds. For now, let me just put out some talking points, in hopes that I don’t have to talk about them at any length.

 

FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN OR YOU’LL FOREVER WONDER….

You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.


Constantine and Christianity
Widespread Misconceptions about the Council of Nicea

66

Comments

  1. KungFuJoe  October 10, 2013

    I haven’t checked out all the prominent mythicists, but I did see a review of Atwill’s book by Dr. Robert Price. He was none too impressed by it.

    http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm

  2. dennis  October 10, 2013

    Nice try , Bart , but this London farce is an obvious transparent conspiracy launched by two North Carolina New Testament scholars to further bring into ridicule and derision the mythicists . Just how much are you and Jim Tabor paying your stooge Atwill and just how naive do you imagine us to be ? Yes , you are both tenured , but there may be a limit to what the faculty Ethics committee will stomach . Careful , my friend .

  3. David Chumney  October 10, 2013

    Your good buddy Richard Carrier has blasted Atwill’s claims on his blog, and he notes that several other prominent mythicists (Price, Verenna, Murdoch) concur with his assessment. This may well be a first–those individuals agreeing with you (or as they would likely put it, you agreeing with them)!

  4. jebib  October 11, 2013

    And you thought O’Reilly had a vivid imagination!

  5. PersephoneK  October 11, 2013

    Thanks Bart! I was hoping you’d chime in on the discussion. Its been driving me crazy seeing this lack of critical thinking nonsense circulate around the interwebs.

    Side note: I’ve been getting savaged after writing this blog piece http://www.persephonespath.com/persephonekblog/defending-truth-can-mean-defending-jesus/ (where I cite you), and on this atheist forum http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Story-of-Jesus-Christ-now-proven-to-be-a-fabrication?page=5 where I’m posting under my pen name PersephoneK.

    Cheers,
    PersephoneK

  6. billgraham1961  October 11, 2013

    All great points, Bart. In reading the article, the thing that stood out to me was the following statement by Joseph Atwill:

    “I started to notice a sequence of parallels between the two texts,” he recounts. “Although it’s been recognised [sic] by Christian scholars for centuries that the prophesies of Jesus appear to be fulfilled by what Josephus wrote about in the First Jewish-Roman war, I was seeing dozens more. What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus. This is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern. The biography of Jesus is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the biography of a Roman Caesar.”

    Atwill admits he’s seeing dozens more prophecies fulfilled in Josephus’ book, the Jewish War. In other words, he’s making connections that even the Christian scholars he’s criticizing refuse to make.

    From my partially informed and limited perspective, Josephus seems far more interested in telling the history of the Judean War in a way that venerated Vespasian, his adopted Roman patron, than telling the story of Jesus and his followers. The chief passage in question appears to be the Testimonium Flavianum. Did Josephus write of Jesus in such glowing terms or did a Christian come along later and embellish the original passage? I have little doubt that Josephus knew who Jesus of Nazareth was, but I sincerely doubt he saw him as the Messiah. He tells the story of James, Jesus’ brother, from the perspective of one viewing the execution of a criminal. He tells the story of John the Baptist, a good man, as one observing the execution of a potential insurrectionist against Rome.

    I forget what what your view was on the Testimonium Flavianum, but it certainly seems possible that part of it was a Christian interpolation unless, of course, Josephus saw Christians in a positive light. I will go back and read the passage that deals with Josephus in your book, Did Jesus Exist? It never ceases to amaze me that people feel so threatened by the existence of historic Jesus. For those of us who have barely scratched the surface of biblical scholarship and church history, it’s obvious that Orthodox Christianity was only one expression of the nascent Church. It is not a threat. It is a fascinating exploration of our history and one well worth an entire lifetime of dedicated study.

  7. Alfred  October 11, 2013

    That’s what I call a withering blast of criticism! It would be interesting to see someone identify the common elements in this sort of work, in pseudo-science, in cryptozoology and political conspiracy theories. Is it all a recent phenomenon, or is there continuity with story-telling traditions reaching back before modern historical and scientific analysis. On another issue, I am not sure that being academically-unqualified makes you more or less likely to publish works of this sort. There seem to be an awful lot of people with divinity or scripture degrees writing similarly strange things.

  8. ktn3654  October 11, 2013

    I have nothing positive to say about Mr. Atwill’s claims, but I’m a little surprised at your second point. In your own book Did Jesus Exist?, you discuss a “Fourth Philosophy” among the Jews of Jesus’ day. Followers of that philosophy, in your own words, “believed that God wanted them to take up the sword to oppose the Romans.” (p.281) They sound like just the sort of people who would have been awaiting a warrior messiah.

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  October 11, 2013

      YEs, there were some Jews who wanted a violent overthrow. I assume this was true of most people in most of the conquered provinces; I don’t see it as unique to first century Palestine. And I don’t know of a constant barrage of insurrectoins either….

  9. rsNvt  October 11, 2013

    I respect you more than any other scholar of religion, but while I agree that Atwill lacks credentials, I humbly suggest you not lead your talking points by pointing this out. It isn’t as if amateurs have not made contributions to history or science. Your other items carry far more weight. Maybe it is my weak high school journalism poking up its ugly (and ignorant) head, but it his lack of credentials, to many conspiracists, that give him street credit. I’m not arguing the point, just its placement. Please consider this a journalistic suggestion by, oh brother, a trained computer scientist.
    🙂

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  October 11, 2013

      You make a good point, but I think I disagree. Whenever a speaker gives a public talk, the person introducing him/her discusses such things as degrees, books written, articles written, positions held, and so on. That is, qualifications. That’s to prime the audience for the talk (given before the audience hears what the person has to say). And if the person doesn’t have qualifications, s/he wouldn’t be invited to give the talk in the first place. Just imagine that someone announces that a talk will be given my Donald Nobrowski about how the world is only a thousand years old. Would you really decide to go (outside of curiosity) if it turns out Nobrowski had never studied the subject?

      • scissors  August 30, 2018

        Plus, if the crackpots (Mythicists) are calling you(Atwill) a crackpot, it’s time to hang it up.

  10. RonaldTaska  October 11, 2013

    I won’t being buying a plan ticket either.
    This is way too complicated a plan to be carried out by first century Roman politicians.
    Hercules and the Hydra myth: I watched President Obama’s recent news conference and thought he did a reasonable job explaining why he can’t negotiate every few months over a fiscal cliff threat. Then, I thought I would tune in the analysis of the news conference on Fox News. What a different view. It made me wonder if we had watched the same presidential news conference. It is very much like Hercules and the Hydra ….

  11. Wilusa  October 11, 2013

    Wow. It’s amazing anyone would take this guy’s claims seriously, even for a minute!

  12. jbaughman  October 11, 2013

    This guy is like me…I’m lifelong student of the American Civil War but I’m not James McPherson(BART)!!

  13. Kempster  October 11, 2013

    So, Latin speakers in Rome writing texts in Greek for Aramaic speakers in Palestine. What a brilliant strategy that was.

  14. Peter  October 11, 2013

    Bart.

    I’m sure this strain of mythicism is just as silly as the others, but just to say (with some trepidation, since I sense your irritation!) that the author, at least not in the excerpt from which you quote, doesn’t state that there were “constant violent insurrections”; he stated that the Jewish sects were “a constant source of violent insurrection”. Not to be pedantic, but isn’t there a difference between the two, and isn’t the latter true? Wasn’t the reason Pilate came to Jerusalem during Passover that he wanted to keep a lid on these simmering tensions to be found among the different Jewish sects? And isn’t it true that there was a risk of a serious outbreak of violence even though the Romans had sent the legions into Palestine at around the time of Jesus’ birth, i.e. in the lifetime, and memory, of many of those who would have been in Jerusalem for Passover?

    Also, wasn’t a “warrior Messiah” the expectation of at least some Jews in the 1st Century? I thought there were records of self-proclaimed Messiahs who took up arms, no? Was a warrior Messiah anathema?

    Hope I haven’t increased your blood pressure….!

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  October 11, 2013

      Yeah, its a good point: but how could they be a source of insurrection if there was no insurrection (and a constant source would presuppose constant insurrection). Otherwise it would be like saying there is a constant source of water (say at a spring) when in fact there is not water.

      And yup, Pilate and other governors did go to keep a lid on things. But that’s just the point. They *did* keep a lid on things, for the most part, most of the time. So far as I know, there were no legions *ever* sent into Palestine at all from, say 1-65 CE (the period in which Jesus would have been “invented”)…

      • Steefen  October 12, 2013

        “But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. …”

        The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1. (55)

        There was no movement of troops into Palestine?
        There was no insurrection in response to what Pilate does here?

        Beginning at (60)

        But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the *sacred* money. (This seems to have been done after he introduced Caesar’s effigies into the city–“Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done at night.”) The Jews were not pleased. Some used reproaches and abused the man as crowds of such people usually do. Pilate had a great number of his soldiers to carry daggers under their garments and sent them to a place where they might surround them. A great number of the Jews were slain; and thus an end was put to this sedition.

        Right after this we go into the Testimony of Flavius Josephus (Testimonium Flavianum) which is problematically attributed to Josephus because on the one hand Vespasian is the Messiah but Jesus is the Christ.

        Dr. Ehrman, although you say you disagree with a student of yours for saying this testimony is an insert of Eusebius, there is a test of consistency as well: how can Josephus give Christ to Jesus and Messiah to Vespasian?

        • Bart Ehrman
          Bart Ehrman  October 13, 2013

          Pilate just had some troops with him in Caesarea, but the legions were up in Syria. And yes, the incident with the acqueduct is one of two major issues Josephus mentions about the reign of Pilate.

      • Peter  October 13, 2013

        Bart.

        “But that’s just the point. They *did* keep a lid on things, for the most part, most of the time.”

        But I think that’s the point the writer is making: the Romans didn’t want to have to keep a lid on things in the first place; they wanted to change the mindset of the general population, so that acquiescence and acceptance, rather than a desire for “regime change”, would become the norm.

        I think that’s why he uses the word ‘source’ in the way he does. Since the source of insurrection; namely, the desire to rid the country of a pagan, foreign, and mercenary oppressor, was widely and persistently felt, there was always a significant risk that a widespread insurrection would come about….and this fear of insurrection that the Romans had was subsequently realized when rebellion broke out (in the late 60s).

        Anyway, as I said before, I’m sure you’re right in saying that this theory is doesn’t hold water, but I just thought that you might have slightly misinterpreted what the writer said ( I’m just going from the excerpt you provided). The other, far more likely, possibility is that you’re right and I’m wrong!!

        Regards.

    • judaswasjames  November 25, 2013

      I was of open mind on historicity, and studied Neil Godfrey’s “Vridar” Mythicist site for weeks before concluding that the Mythicists are far from ‘silly’. Why would you conclude that? I think they have a much better case than historicists.

  15. willow  October 11, 2013

    Atwill – who?

  16. donmax  October 11, 2013

    Bart — I think you should write more articles like this one. You seem less cerebral and more committed. The aggressive tone does wonders for your style and your message. You might even want to call your own press conference. 😉

  17. Billy Geddes  October 11, 2013

    Richard Carrier more or less annihilated Atwills thesis:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664

    I’ll warn you now, it’s a long piece!!

  18. Steefen  October 11, 2013

    He attacked you.

    http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/category/bart-ehrman/

    You attack him.

    # # #

    Bart Ehrman asks:

    What does he mean by speaking of “constant” violent insurrections in first century Palestine.

    Steefen:

    It is generally accepted that the Passover was a time of violent insurrections.
    And, are you saying Pilate did not have to deal with this when he governed?

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  October 11, 2013

      Really? What are you thinking of. There was the incident under Cumanus (long after Jesus’ day). Which other ones do you have in mind? Can you think of any in Jesus’ time (say in the teens, 20’s, or 30’s CE?). If not — why invent Jesus to prevent them?

      • ralfellis  October 12, 2013

        Dear Bart,

        >> Not many Passover Insurrections.

        Perhaps, but if you move the N.T saga into the late AD 60s, and agree that the biblical Jesus was Jesus of Gamala, then there were any number of insurrections that fit the N.T. narrative. How else did Jesus know how the Romans encircled Jerusalem, in AD 70? (see Luke 19:43). Clearly, this was an eyewitness account from AD 70.

        Face facts.
        a. Saul was Josephus Flavius (they were on the same shipwreck going to Rome).
        b. And Jesus was Jesus of Gamala.

        And this happy conflation of characters means that:

        a. Saul was chasing and arresting the followers of Jesus around Galilee.
        b. Josephus was chasing and arresting the followers of Jesus of Gamala around Galilee.

        a. Jesus of became High Priest of Jerusalem, according to the Hebrews 7.
        b. Jesus of Gamala became High Priest of Jerusalem, according to the Talmud.

        b. Jesus married Mary Magdalene, according to tradition and the wedding at Cana.
        b. Jesus married Mary Boethus (i.e.: Mary Magdalene), according to the Talmud.**

        etc: etc: etc:
        I could give more instances, but I think I have made the initial point.

        ** See Robert Eisenman’s identification of Mary Boethus as Mary Magdalene.

        .

        • Bart Ehrman
          Bart Ehrman  October 13, 2013

          Yes, there were occasional uprisings later. But for this theory to hold, there would have had to have been regular insurrections in the 10’s, 20’s, and possibley 30’s. I don’t know of any.

          • ralfellis  October 14, 2013

            .
            Dear Bart,

            I think you missed the point of my posting.

            Forget the AD30s, nothing happened then. Just get the gospels and relocate them into the AD 60s, and follow the historical account given by Josephus Flavius in Bellum and Vita.

            Now, in the AD 60s, you will find all of the N.T. characters and events. In reality, Jesus was Jesus of Gamala, the primary adversary of Josephus himself. Jesus of Gamala was the leader of the Jewish Revolt, and so this is the ‘minor’ revolt that the biblical Jesus was involved in. Thus the crucifixion scene given in Vita, where the three leaders of the Jewish Revolt were crucified in the Kidron Valley, is the biblical crucifixion scene. And, of course, one of the leaders of the Revolt survived the crucifixion.

            Try it for yourself – if you place the entire N.T. into the AD 60s, you will find every event – including the feeding the 5,000 and the armed assault by Jesus from the Mount of Olives. It is all there in the historical record, if you understand that Jesus was the leader of the Jewish Revolt, and Saul was Josephus Flavius.

            Ralph

          • Bart Ehrman
            Bart Ehrman  October 14, 2013

            Ah, I see what you mean now. Well, you’d have other problems then, such as the dating of the life of Paul.

          • Monarch  January 24, 2018

            What about the sicarii? I don’t think that we would today classify radical Islam as an “insurrection,” but it does attract disaffected youth, as well as more organized “cells,” and we have therefore found it necessary to declare a full-fledged “War on Terrorism.” Roman officials and sympathizers were being assassinated in Judea probably on a fairly regular basis, as both stated and implied by Josephus, and these incidents were no doubt a constant thorn–or dagger–in Rome’s side. You don’t need an army or a mob to have an uprising, just a ferment on slow-boil. And yet, when this pot did boil over, the Jews were certainly able to recruit an army from it.

        • judaswasjames  November 25, 2013

          “How else did Jesus know how the Romans encircled Jerusalem”? By Luke inventing it. 🙂 Write me at by avatar at AOL. I want to talk privately about Eisenman.

          • SHameed01  November 26, 2013

            Are you a Christ mythicist?

          • judaswasjames  November 27, 2013

            SHameed01: Yes, I think so. I see no reason to think Jesus was other than a literary invention. Paul is the best ‘evidence’, and I don’t think “brother of the Lord” is very substantial. It does not matter if Jesus was real or not, however, IMO. Whoever said his quotes indicated that one needs a living Master as savior — John 6:40 (continuous present tense as in the Greek) and John 9:4-5 BEFORE its corruption (see C. Sinaiticus):

            http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx

            James is the real target of the New Testament. There was a concerted effort (conspiracy? maybe not) to HIDE James as successor. Eisenman started the expose’, I like to think I fulfilled it:

            http://www.judaswasjames.com/

      • Steefen  October 12, 2013

        In a reply above, I mention the protest against Pilate extending the flow of water. This incident is followed by the Testimonium Flavianum which begins “about the same time.”

        Right before the extension of water flow incident, the Jews get together to protest the images of Caesar Pilate introduced. On the sixth day of this, Pilate was going to have his soldiers give the protestors immediate death. The Jews threw themselves on the ground and laid their necks bare for slaughter.

        Before 65 C.E. the Egyptian Prophet led the Jews to use force against Rome but Felix met them with Roman army and put that insurrection down.

        Jesus’ Palm Sunday incident had military overtones. How could the Son of Man movement claim rulership without violently forcing Pilate and Rome and the client-kings of Rome out of Palestine?

        Judas of Galilee or Judas of Gamala led a violent resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around AD 6.[1] The revolt was crushed brutally by the Romans. These events are discussed by Josephus in Jewish Wars and in Antiquities of the Jews.

        Hopefully, I’ll be able to get Rev. Marcum at Highland Park United Methodist Church (adjacent to SMU) to further defend the statement it was not unusual for Jews to cause trouble for the Romans on their holiday of liberation.

        Every sermon and adult class regarding Palm Sunday, he mentions that Rome expected and sometimes got trouble from Jews on Passover.

      • Steefen  October 12, 2013

        P.S.: Jesus is made an example that resistance is futile. All across Western civilization there are churches, cathedrals, modern stadium-sized churches that advertise resistance leads to half-naked torturous death. Then we have Jesus cowering before Pilate. Pilate asks, where is your kingdom. Jesus cowers and answers that the hopes and dreams of his people Daniel – forward is not even on this Earth–the right of way is given to Rome and the other super powers. Our God is in the air somewhere. Oh, I wasn’t recreating Solomon’s entrance into the gate of Jerusalem for Earthly purposes. The people weren’t waving palm branches the way there were doing in the Maccabbees for military victory. The Son of Man is coming in the clouds, he’s not going to land on Earth and cause Caesar problems in Jerusalem. I have nothing to say against Rome. Rome is here on the ground, I’m harmless with my aspirations for a kingdom of subjects of good character giving to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. I make no Earthly claims. When I was tempted, I didn’t want a kingdom of this Earth.

  19. Billy Geddes  October 11, 2013

    This is the problem of a Moderated Forum..

    We all point out the same issues/problems, only for us to realise it once you have released the beast… LOL

    • Billy Geddes  October 11, 2013

      But I will add that I found Rich Carriers post on his blog concise considering the scope of his disagreement….

  20. ralfellis  October 14, 2013

    >>Ah, I see what you mean now. Well, you’d have other
    >>problems then, such as the dating of the life of Paul.

    Not so. It is only an assumption that Saul was born in, say, AD 20.

    However, if Saul = Josephus, then Saul would have been born in AD 37. This means that Saul would have been aged about 14 on his first evangelical tour.

    Too young? Remember that a Jew becomes a man aged 13 or 14, and that Saul was under the guidance of the older Barnabas (Saul was Mercury to Barnabas’ Jupiter). And who do the Mormons send out on evangelical tours to Europe today? The middle aged, or youngsters? The answer is youngsters, because i get them knocking on my door all the time.

    So there is nothing to prevent Saul being born in AD 37. (Nothing bar Saul’s egotism).

    And there is nothing to prevent the N.T. being staged in the AD 60s. The only oddity is the mention of Pontius Pilate. But as you know, the Toledoth Yeshu gives two versions of the trial of Jesus, one with Pilate and one with Queen Helene. The latter is the more correct. But the gospel authors sought to disassociate Jesus from the Jewish Revolt, which they have obviously succeeded very well in doing.

    So, as I pointed out before, there is nothing in the gospels that cannot be explained in terms of Jesus being the leader of the AD 60s Jewish Revolt. And conversely, this theory explains all those strange oddities, like the gospels containing descriptions of the siege of Jerusalem. How? Because this was a history of the Jewish Revolt.

    So try me. Please try and falsify the AD 60s date for the gospel story. Conversely, I can point out many N.T. events that are purely AD 60s (involving Jesus of Gamala):

    The armed assault from the Mount of Olives.
    The feeding of the 5,000.
    Jesus becoming high priest (Hebrews 7).
    Jesus being a leader of a new sect (the Fourth Sect of Judaism)
    A Revolt being waged.
    A dispute over taxation.
    Jesus fighting Saul (ie: Jesus of Gamala fighting Josephus Flavius)
    Saul arresting ‘Christians’. Under what authority was that??
    Saul changing sides (ie: Josephus changing sides.)
    The three leaders of the Revolt being crucified.
    The leaders of the Revolt being taken down from the cross by Josephus (of Arimathaea)
    One of the leaders of the Revolt surviving the crucifixion.
    etc: etc:

    It is all there, and much else besides…..

    Ralph Ellis

    • ralfellis  October 14, 2013

      .
      This was the reason for the Birkat haMinim. And for the many vile curses in the Talmud. Jesus was not hated because he was a minor heretic who chased some sacrificial animals out of the Temple. He was hated because his Jewish revolt ended up with the destruction of the entire city and Temple.

      And Saul’s new Simple Judaic sect of Christianity could not admit an association with such a divisive and hated figure either (hated by both jews and Romans alike). So they merely dropped their hero back by one generation, to separate him from the Jewish Revolt. And so cunning was the ploy, that nobody has seen the truth ever since that time.

      Ralph

    • judaswasjames  November 27, 2013

      I hear what you’re saying, Ralph, but what’s even more important and damning is what has been done to JAMES. It is my conviction that the entire ‘Betrayal’ is a cover-up of James as the successor to “Jesus” — whoever he was. Judas is myth. Spong shows every detail of him in the gospels is midrash. NOTHING is historical. Eisenman has Acts 1 Judas as James, and “Joseph Barsabbas Justus” as obvious tip-off to James (“son of Joseph”, the JUST One) in the Matthias fiction. Combine that with no mention of him by Paul or even a ‘betrayal’ (“handing over” in 1 Cor. 11:23) and Jesus appearing to THE TWELVE (1 Cor. 15:5 and the interpolated “500”) and you have pure myth casting a net over even Jesus. Two famous quotes of Jesus’ were actually spoken by James, according to Hegesippus: “Father forgive them …” and “You will see the Son of man coming with Power and on the clouds of heaven”.
      http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html
      .

You must be logged in to post a comment.