04:25
Ignore the message beginning "Ehrman concludes"
It refers to Matthew, not Mark. I told you I was tired. :)
Although the point remains valid.
@JMFB I disagree, but only on a minor point of detail. A few Jews had something to do with Jesus' crucifixion, but only a few, and certainly not "the Jews". As it happens, the few Jews who were involved - the highest echelons of the Temple leadership - were not especially well liked by the average Jewish Palestinian of the first century.
@JMFB I disagree here too, but again, only to a point. There are two references to Jesus in Josephus. One is an obvious forgery, the other is probably genuine, but embellished by later Christian scribes. The authentic reference is the one that barely even mentions Jesus at all. It basically describes the following situation:
The Roman Procurator of Judea, Porcius Festus, died. A replacement was sent from Rome, but before he arrived, the Temple Priest, Ananus, decided to exploit the power vacuum by having some people executed. One of the victims was James, the brother of Jesus. It appears that James was critical of Ananus, which would explain why Ananus wanted him out of the way. However, only the Procurator was permitted to order an execution.
The people of Jerusalem liked James, because he had taken a vow of poverty, and devoted his life to helping the poor, widows, and orphans. They also objected on principle to Ananus' deliberate violation of his lawful authority. When the new Procurator arrived, the people complained to him, and he essentially fired Ananus. He appointed a man named Jesus, son of Damneus (no relation to the famous Jesus).
Josephus only mentions the famous Jesus in passing: "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"
This passage, unlike the other one (two, technically), is almost certainly authentic. It doesn't say anything complimentary about Jesus, which the other passages do. He is incidental to the anecdote, so it is virtually certain that Josephus really did write this.
Josephus was a prime target for textual alterations because of his role in the Jewish Revolt, in which the Temple was destroyed. Josephus began the war as an officer in the Jewish forces, but was captured and started to help the Romans. As a result, Jews have considered him a traitor ever since. The only people willing to transcribe and copy his writing were later Christian scribes, and it was in their best interests to alter the text to make Jesus a more conspicuous presence.
But they went too far, and inserted passages that were absurdly obvious as forgeries. Josephus was a devout Jew for his whole life, so it would be incredibly weird for him to have written things like:
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ."
"And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. "
It could not be more obvious that a Christian wrote that.
@JMFB It isn't surprising that Josephus wasn't mentioned in debates between Jews and Christians in the third century. Jews hated Josephus for betraying them in the revolt, and Christians wouldn't have had access to Josephus' works. Josephus wrote for the Emperor, and Christians were still persona non grata in the Empire at that time. Whoever inherited Josephus' texts from the Emperor for whom they were written would not have been lending his books to Christians.
@JMFB This isn't really true. My mother is a very devout Christian, but she raised me to believe that everyone goes to heaven. The exact requirements for admission to heaven vary from one denomination to the next.
@JMFB EXACTLY! The gospels, especially Matthew, Luke, and John, make it seem like the Pharisees were authority figures. This became closer to the truth after the Temple was destroyed, but during Jesus' life, the Pharisees were in direct opposition to the Temple leadership, they had no power whatsoever, and they deliberately stood apart from mainstream Judaism as defined by the Sadducees.
@JMFB This is very true, and to top it off, the genealogies go through Joseph, Mary's husband, who, according to Christian belief, had no blood relation to Jesus whatsoever. This renders the whole idea of genealogies moot. Even if one of the two genealogies was accurate, which neither of them are, it would only prove that Jesus' stepfather was a descendant of David.
If Mary was a virgin, and Jesus' actual father was god, then it makes no difference whether Joseph was related to David.
And in any case, Jews, unlike Christians, know that the messiah will be triumphant in life, not death, and at no point do the Jewish scriptures suggest that the messiah is expected to suffer a horrible death in the most humiliating manner imaginable. This is why the disciples were largely ineffective in converting other Jews.
Imagine the conversation: "Hello, fellow Jewish person, I want to tell you about the messiah, Jesus."
"Okay, I'm willing to listen. I hadn't heard that the messiah had already shown up."
"Oh, yes, he came. Then he did some miracles, and the Romans killed him by crucifixion, but then..."
"Let me stop you right there. Did you just say that the messiah was crucified?"
"I sure did, but the best part is that...."
"Okay, I'm going to leave now. If you really believe that the messiah was killed, you have clearly never read the scriptures"
"Well, no, I haven't, because I'm actually illiterate, but.."
Nature of salvation (response to comm…
