These two episodes on Jesus were very good. I've been an atheist for a long time and it's the first time in decades that I've heard a discussion about Jesus that compels me to reconsider that whole story. Thank you gentlemen for two very great episodes.
Fantastic work, thank you. Both episodes are great. Decades as a History and RE teacher make me wish I had this a long time ago. Jesus as an agent provocateur is the character I’ve always understood. Fantastic quality of discussion and good research. Keep up your brilliant work.
What I love about this episode is that it achieves a rare feat incurrent discussion about religion, which is to be respectful and impartial. Exactly as I imagine what a perfect discussion might be
Huh, finally listened to the whole thing and it's interesting as a practicing Christian how Tom's views genuinely aren't very different from my own. Only difference really is Tom stays agnostic about this mixture of mystery and coincidence that I'd call "divine".
If you go to Nazareth/Galilee etc, which I did on a university trip 15 years ago, you'll notice there's still a church and a community to John the Baptist - so he still has followers who believe he was the Messiah, and not Jesus. Also, the olive trees in the 'garden of gethsemane' are 3000 years old, and still there today. So, when you travel through the landscape of Palestine its strangely eerie how features of biblical stories are still there.
Also, I heard somewhere Jesus 'the carpenter' is a mistranslation from the antiquity greek for 'mason'. And the biblical historian pointing this out, also said there's no trees in Galilee, but only an active quarry at this time supplying to the greek city nearby. Perhaps, a mason he was.
@@brianwyse5810The original term is "tekton" which means "craftsman." As I understand it that can be interpreted as everything from mason to carpenter to laborer. A couple of prominent scholars believe laborer is correct.
Consideration for upcoming episode: The French Revolution and its relationship to changes in Christianity using topics from Dominion's Chapter 16. I found it within that chapter a new look at the the context and activities surrounding the revolution.
I'd be interested to know what Tom Holland thinks of René Girard's interpretation of Jesus aa the ultimate 'scapegoat' in the sense of his minetic theory. Has Holland commented on that?
I have a thought about the doubt expressed, about the necessity of traveling to a specfic location for the census. In 2008 we traveled from south central Manitoba Canada to what is now Russia. We traveled to a tiny village of maybe 100. There was however a very large old Church there and within the church a birth record. Our interest was for the entry of the birth of my German Grandfather in 1933 when the church was in Germany. I don't think it is all that difficult to believe that 2000 years ago having to travel (probably no more than 60 miles [National Geographic Article referred to vast majority of humans die within 60 miles from their birth place ) to the location of the record/database, really it seems like the best option logistically. Besides how would one prove their citizenship or lineage unless they were scrutinized by those who would be familiar with the facts. To the comment why would Romans care about lineage? Why would they not. Information is everything, do the governments of today not keep ridiculous details on their subjects. How else do you keep tabs on potential dissidents or ring leaders....these are just my thoughts I am by no means a historian. But I do know this fact about the distance people lived from their origins was basically universal around the world until the last 50 years.
Human history both BCE and CE revolves around almost ceaseless migration and that particular area had been a migration route since the time homo erectus. If people never travelled more than 60 miles from their birth place until 50 years ago how did Australia and the Americas become populated by Europeans?
You are right that the Romans did care about keeping these records. I read a source on one of those censuses, where the author talked about looking back through the Roman census records decades later looking for specific names.
Just want to say I never had any problem with actual Christianity, as a philosophy. I do not like most of the organizations that grew up around it however, obviously very human, greedy and power hungry. I was lucky to been raised in a small community with an Episcopal church that was 95% truly Christian and true to the faith, and not dramatic, very accepting of people. We had lovely Sundays and holiday pot lucks. Religion specifics were sometimes discussed but open mindedly. I was lucky to never have be abused or mistreated.
Christianity isn’t a philosophy it’s larger than that. Stoicism is a philosophy, platonism, Christianity is more encompassing though it contains philosophy.
@@aimowenaim I use that term to separate how I think about it from being a "religion". I don't worship the whole thing but I do think the ideals are ok.
He cannot be killed prior to passover and have been present at the last supper ,(a Sedar). So how exactly does the "lamp " thing work? They were killed prior to passover
I got halfway through one of Bart Ehrman's books. He was brought up in an American protestant tradition that believed the Bible was dictated by God and was inerrant. There are obvious inconsistencies between the four Gospels, but you would expect that. There are relatively few contested issues. All the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus. NT Wright taught theology at Oxford and was Bishop of Durham. Wright points out that we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts, more than any other ancient text. Caesar's Gallic Wars was written in the first century B.C. There are only 10 manuscripts in existence. The earliest textual evidence we have was copied 1,000 years after the original. Garry Wills is a Catholic, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, and received a doctorate in Classics from Yale. He believes there is only the Jesus of faith, and it is not worth looking too hard for the historical Jesus.
Yes. Love your enemies, forgiveness of sin, and charity for all. Unheard of. Counterintuitive. Difficult and challenging as anything can be. And necessary. Absolute game changer.
I think we can all agree that dating the Nativity to the census of Quirinius doesn't make sense, not only for all the reasons you rightly provide but also because it contradicts what Luke writes: 5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah,… 11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, … he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15….” 26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. Therefore it would seem that both Matthew and Luke date the birth of Jesus to around the time of Herod the Great, it's just that Luke misdates the census of Quirinius - perhaps like many later scholars to this day because he was trying to "rationalise" the reason for Jesus being born in Bethlehem. But it is certainly far less rational to assume that He was born in Nazareth, regarding which there is no mention in the historical sources.
The idea that Jesus is buried in Kashmir is very interesting. But I have never understood why this would negate the belief in Resurrection. Whether Jesus survived the crucifixion or was resurrected, either way he could have travelled to India.
John the Baptist primed the people, Saint Paul gave them confirmation from outside Jesus' circle. Bookends, maybe necessary ones, that make it harder to explain away as a conspiracy of a few.
Dear Listeners! Are you familiar with the book: The Immortality Key by Brian C. Muraresku, and if so what do you think about it? How much credit should be given to his work? Wish you all a happy Christmas!
Paul didn't know Jesus, everything he says comes from visions. Which ought to make his writings somewhat sceptical to say the least. There were definitely people who seem to be going around at this time performing miracles. I don't know were I read this but there is a specific quote regarding the false profits
i think john the baptist may have been looking out for the recurring astrological convergence which heralded the flood and the passover..the people who understood astrology from sumerian star names had constructed the messiah king idea
Why is the notion of the imminence of the end times so prevalent in the time of Jesus: the Jews were specially argumentative and they hated the Romans for a taxing them and that’s probably one of the major factors.
A deeper reading, and more understanding, of the bible would have helped this episode. Perhaps a reading of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" would of helped this effort. Otherwise a good effort!
A heard a genealogist say the Bible was really the story of the house of David and after John Jesus was the heir of both branches the military and religious branch so the crown prince
Well reasoned analysis & wide ranging discussion of a rich topic, gentlemen. It would be nice if Dom wasn't forever stepping on Tom's dialogue because Tom's final thought is often overridden thus. I find the articulateness of both scholars here valuable & resent missing any of it. That said, one difference of opinion: the most humiliating form of execution IMHO is impalement, especially vertically.
The census was not 9f people but of property. Joseph was poor and would not have owned property in Bethlehem. Nor would there be Inns people didn't travel around like that.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by a small and highly exclusive sect of deeply zealous and very apocalyptic monks who lived in closed communities that had very little contact with the wider Jewish world. I don't think you can apply their mindset to other Jews, any more than you can say that the Amish or the Mennonites are a representative sample of Christians in the modern USA.
The reputation of Jesus is a victim of the 4th Estate -Gossip and virulent rumour. He's alleged to have said He could destroy the Temple and raise it in 3 days. He doesn't usually make promises he can't keep. There is an earthquake over Passover weekend, but the Temple isn't destroyed. The Establishment is another matter.
I'm a little disappointed, I thought this was going to be a podcast that would actually discuss the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth within scholarship. I am 4:55 minutes into this video and the dismissive way history is being handled is utterly ridiculous and nowhere near scholarly. "One of the most important inscriptions from the Roman era is the Res Gestae (Acts or Achievements) of Augustus. It is an autobiography in which Augustus describes his achievements, of which he writes "In my sixth consulship [28 BC], with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I made a census of the people. I performed the lustrum after an interval of forty-one years. In this lustration 4,063,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A second time, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius, [8 BCE.] I again performed the lustrum alone, with the consular imperium. In this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A third time, with the consular imperium, and with my son Tiberius Caesar as my colleague, [14 AD] I performed the lustrum in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius. In this lustrum 4,937,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll."
If such was the case then presumably he would have called himself a Christian, he does not. He is a Jew, who is relating to Jewdism. He isn't out there preaching to other cultures. If he is how you're attempting to portray him would he not be preaching to all cultures?
None of the "proof" for anyone named Jesus holds any water. The entry in Josephus that is commonly cited was added by someone who was a religious fanatic (a fact that is generally accepted by scholars today). And the Gospels are not history. The earliest was written at least 50 years after the years when "Jesus" would have lived - when people back then usually lived 30-40 years. The names of each Gospel book were assigned much much later with no evidence that they were written by that person. The four books contradict each other. "Matthew" is based on "Mark", and "Luke" is a revision of "Matthew"/"Mark". There is evidence that multiple authors had their hand in what is called John. I've listened to several ot "The Rest Is history" podcasts, but this one was very disappointing. Why would they rehash old arguments that are generally not believed except in the most conservative colleges and churches? It calls into question the validity of the other podcasts - at least for me.
load of the Jesus myth is lifted straight from the cult of Mithras. 25th Dec, kings worshiping. god of light, divine incarnation, ascension to heaven, bread and wine are key to the rituals, as is baptism.
carpenter comes from the greek tekton but this is a similar word as teknon meaning infant.in one gospel it says 'carpenter son of god' using a different greek word for son...i get the feeling tekton might be a deliberate spelling mistake or wordplay..john mchugh explains the nativity story from astrology where the sumerian name for the star regulus means 'infant'
Sorry Tom but you're seriously not looking at this from the point of view that you said. You are preaching the Christianity that is written in the Bible...which in itself is beyond problematic
The sleeping guards theory is ridiculous when thought about. "While I was asleep and not conscious of anything going on around me, I was able to identify His disciples and that they removed the seal on the stone and the stone and grabbed His body and left. So I reported it to you."
Huh... What is more plausible: (a) all these well crafted stories and parables come from a team of learned writers that research and collect them over the years from traditions beyond their time and place or (b) they come from the illiterate son of a Nazareth carpenter that invents them while walking in the desert... Mhhh... difficult to tell.
You've had geniuses emerge from nowhere, autodidacts, et al in history before. Plus, Jesus' knowledge was quite folksy, you know? I think it makes sense.
Christ absolutely identifies Himself as God. ‘Truly truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM’ is unequivocal. With this declaration, He not only arrogates a distinctly Jewish name for God (first appearing jn the burning bush in exodus) but more importantly, He claims an eternal nature: before Abraham ‘was’ (in the past) I Am, I was in the present tense then, as I am now, because Christ never ‘was’ He is eternally in the present & the future.
In modern nonduality circles, the "I am" is seen as awareness, as in "I am" is awareness or life, and every human can know herself as the "I am". So many think that's the "I am" in Bible.
Which translation? Who wrote it? How long after Christs’ death? All these questions have to be answered, then you’ll find the degrees to which the accounts differ. There is no 1 gospel truth.
The four gospels contradict each other in numerous places. You are quoting from John, the last and most "sexed up" gospel. The earlier gospels are quite different.
@th8257 not one contradiction... different accounts does not mean they are a contradtion. If you and I both witness something... or if we both write accounts of what other people witnessed, of course our writtings will be different. Some things might be there and others that aren't. Doesn't mean the essence of them are antithetical.
the empire of alexander had fallen apart.i think jesus and others before him tried to reunify the alexandrian countries and they needed a unified worldview
There's actually a (couple I think) good conversations between Holland and NT Wright. One online is primarily on Paul but it included an even more agnostic version of Holland...
Two brilliantly well informed people on everything from Tolkien and World War Two to the Aztecs and Alexander the Macedonian. Am surprised anyone would think they were amateurs -except in the old-fashioned sense of their love & enthusiasm for each of many topics covered.
“Jesus existed.” What is uncontested is that BELIEF in Jesus existed in the first century. That’s not the same thing as the bold assertion “Jesus existed.” The story of the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus was most probably made-up (see Plutarch), but the Jewish lawgiver Jesus really existed(?). Jesus’ teaching is unique? I have found 24 gospel teachings in Cicero. Cicero was much praised by Jerome. The Stoics produced great ethical teachings mirrored in “the teachings of Jesus.” These writings were publicly available at the time the story of Jesus was written. The “kingdom of virtue” was a unique idea? What Jesus is portrayed as is as the virtuous king. Where does this idea come from? From Cyropaedia by Xenophon. To say that the teachings of Jesus were in any way unique shows an ignorance that should not be countenanced by historians. Cutting down the fruitless tree is not mentioned elsewhere in scripture? Has Holland not read Jude 11-13? “They are waterless clouds carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted;...” or, Paul in Romans 11? “For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you?” (v.21) The death of John the Baptist occurs in 36AD which is long after the supposed career and death of Jesus. (Josephus, Ant 18.5.2) A cult around John arose as a result of this event, which competed with the new cult of Jesus. John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul. In the initial conception of Christianity which Paul preached there was not seen any connection between Jesus and John because John lived and died a long time before Christianity became popular. The trouble is people (including historians like Holland) have been mesmerized by the story and have failed to ask the basic historical question; WHEN. When did the religion arise? Whether Jesus existed or not there was a year in which the religion did not exist and a year following, in which it did. (Think by analogy of Mormonism.) This is fundamental. What year was that? When did the religion kick off? And being a highly successful religion we can assume that it didn't linger for forty or so years in the wilderness. It bolted from the starting blocks. There is no good evidence that Christianity existed prior to the Roman-Jewish War.
I too was frustrated by the lack of scholarship in this podcast. Where did these sayings come from? 85% of them are plucked right of the Hebrew Bible! Most of the sayings of Jesus are copy/pasted right out of the books of Deuteronomy and Psalms.
Hi, John. Your comment is informative, and I'm hoping you can elaborate on why a successful religion would necessarily jump out of the starting blocks. That doesn't seem intuitive to me. Is it not just as likely that a religion could garner a small following, only to explode in popularity later? There are always many factors at play.
@@PartOfACompleteBreakfast What do you mean by "later?" And why would the founders of a new faith want to contain "the truth?" Their enthusiasm would fade with time not increase. The factors that led to its success were there from the beginning.
@@paulgeorge1144 The founders of a new faith would not sabotage themselves. By "later", I mean I'm curious about how long it takes a religion to gain mass popularity. Has every major world religion exploded onto the scene, or did some grow slowly?
Too right. All the "Christians" banging on about "Jesus" all the time. Notice that no-one has every produced his birth certificate, or his driver's licence, passport records, school reports, year book entries, utility bills, nothing, They ask us to believe that he's the son of God and they don't even have a photo of the dude.
"No. He was from Nazareth!" Really, so definite, so early. But, I will give it a bit longer... 20.00 Messiah? No mention of Messiah yet??? No doubt we will get to this and the Greek term christos (annointed one) 30.00 Glossed over the Messiah issue eith a bit of 'stretching' it serms to me. (Sidenote: the word miracle has yet to be uttered during this or the previous episode...) Strong emphasis on the memorability of the sayings which have been drummed into people WEEKLY over two thousand years. Its not surprising people remember them! "Struggling to explain? Not half! This bit is garbled and misleading...Does Joseph of A get mentioned? Conclusion: I haven't learned much here, unfortunately... Bye
Nothing historically scholarly about this accounting of Jesus. Just general knowledge that ignores the depth of understanding and aswath with opinion. Makes me consider that other historical accounting in this podcast will suffer in like manner and therefore make me historically shallow for listening. Unsubscribing and will read what real historians will write on these matters and avoid populist history from now on.
Most definitely he was a socialist he was preaching to people on earth how about the social injustices and they were striving for a new kingdom in the heavens but they lived on earth
Nuff said? 😒Are you a professional historian, brilliant lady? Why is there such a wide consensus among ATHEIST historians that Jesus did exist? I'm not spiritual in any way, but I find their arguments convincing.
Bart Eheman, perhaps the most distinguished biblical historian, has stated that the evidence for Jesus existing is fairly clear cut. What he said and did is another story. As another biblical historian, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, said "We know a man called Jesus existed. We don't know much else."
Krishna didn't exist either, but none of this matters to people who have religious mania and who are terrified of the fact that we are alone in the Universe.
Religion, like it or not, is a part of life and has been for a very long time. How can discussing this amount to "fraud"? (Tell you what though, if you're in the mood to denounce fraud, you're probably better off focusing your attention on public education and the woke lunacies passed off as reality therein.)
I thought you atheists were supposed to be open minded…. We are all people of faith but put our faith in different things- your binary thinking is similar to religious fundamentalists
These two episodes on Jesus were very good. I've been an atheist for a long time and it's the first time in decades that I've heard a discussion about Jesus that compels me to reconsider that whole story. Thank you gentlemen for two very great episodes.
You mad bro?
Give it another five minutes thought!
I have some cool aid for you to drink if you like.
@@boogerf3679 I had my nu-atheist phase decades ago, I am good.
I'm a believer ,Greek orthodox and share yr feelings
I have along time ago and I Am not mad ,just able to look beyond prejudice to a wider truth. Try it too ! @@jonathonjubb6626
Fantastic work, thank you. Both episodes are great. Decades as a History and RE teacher make me wish I had this a long time ago. Jesus as an agent provocateur is the character I’ve always understood. Fantastic quality of discussion and good research. Keep up your brilliant work.
What I love about this episode is that it achieves a rare feat incurrent discussion about religion, which is to be respectful and impartial. Exactly as I imagine what a perfect discussion might be
As a Christian thank you for being a respectful sceptic. Your podcasts are both entertaining and informative.
What a pleasure to listen to both Sandbrook and Holland, great podcast!
Simply my favourite podcast.
I love to learn history and you guys mix hard facts - and educated opinion - with levity and colour. Thank you.
Probably the best podcast you guys have done. Thank you 🙂
Huh, finally listened to the whole thing and it's interesting as a practicing Christian how Tom's views genuinely aren't very different from my own. Only difference really is Tom stays agnostic about this mixture of mystery and coincidence that I'd call "divine".
Yes, as a Christian I have to really appreciate Tom and Dom. Rarely do you hear historians take such a diplomatic stance on such a subject.
probably just has a higher IQ than your good self
Faith is a gift that some people never receive.
@@tobywaller8717or are fearful to touch, which is definitely a spirit speaking.
@@tobywaller8717faith can be delusional toby
Wonderful, thankyou.
It's wild that the cold hard historical analysis of Jesus is almost more compelling than the Bible itself
And a Merry New Year to everyone.....^^.......
The Wise Men are portrayed as arriving about two years after Christ's birth.
Better late than never?
Always look on the bright side of life ...
If you go to Nazareth/Galilee etc, which I did on a university trip 15 years ago, you'll notice there's still a church and a community to John the Baptist - so he still has followers who believe he was the Messiah, and not Jesus. Also, the olive trees in the 'garden of gethsemane' are 3000 years old, and still there today. So, when you travel through the landscape of Palestine its strangely eerie how features of biblical stories are still there.
Also, I heard somewhere Jesus 'the carpenter' is a mistranslation from the antiquity greek for 'mason'. And the biblical historian pointing this out, also said there's no trees in Galilee, but only an active quarry at this time supplying to the greek city nearby. Perhaps, a mason he was.
Those are the Mandaeans. They also view Jesus harshly.
@@brianwyse5810The original term is "tekton" which means "craftsman." As I understand it that can be interpreted as everything from mason to carpenter to laborer. A couple of prominent scholars believe laborer is correct.
@@baarbacoa no forests in Galilee.
That is wack!!! Insane. Wow
24.58 Fascinating to hear Dominic light heartedly self describe as "the salt of the earth". An unknowing direct quote from Jesus himself.
First thank Jesus!
Consideration for upcoming episode: The French Revolution and its relationship to changes in Christianity using topics from Dominion's Chapter 16. I found it within that chapter a new look at the the context and activities surrounding the revolution.
I'd be interested to know what Tom Holland thinks of René Girard's interpretation of Jesus aa the ultimate 'scapegoat' in the sense of his minetic theory. Has Holland commented on that?
Jesus Christ is King! 🙏🏾
Absolutely NOT what Jesus claimed for himself
I have a thought about the doubt expressed, about the necessity of traveling to a specfic location for the census. In 2008 we traveled from south central Manitoba Canada to what is now Russia. We traveled to a tiny village of maybe 100. There was however a very large old Church there and within the church a birth record. Our interest was for the entry of the birth of my German Grandfather in 1933 when the church was in Germany. I don't think it is all that difficult to believe that 2000 years ago having to travel (probably no more than 60 miles [National Geographic Article referred to vast majority of humans die within 60 miles from their birth place ) to the location of the record/database, really it seems like the best option logistically. Besides how would one prove their citizenship or lineage unless they were scrutinized by those who would be familiar with the facts. To the comment why would Romans care about lineage? Why would they not. Information is everything, do the governments of today not keep ridiculous details on their subjects. How else do you keep tabs on potential dissidents or ring leaders....these are just my thoughts I am by no means a historian. But I do know this fact about the distance people lived from their origins was basically universal around the world until the last 50 years.
Human history both BCE and CE revolves around almost ceaseless migration and that particular area had been a migration route since the time homo erectus. If people never travelled more than 60 miles from their birth place until 50 years ago how did Australia and the Americas become populated by Europeans?
You are right that the Romans did care about keeping these records. I read a source on one of those censuses, where the author talked about looking back through the Roman census records decades later looking for specific names.
Just want to say I never had any problem with actual Christianity, as a philosophy. I do not like most of the organizations that grew up around it however, obviously very human, greedy and power hungry. I was lucky to been raised in a small community with an Episcopal church that was 95% truly Christian and true to the faith, and not dramatic, very accepting of people. We had lovely Sundays and holiday pot lucks. Religion specifics were sometimes discussed but open mindedly. I was lucky to never have be abused or mistreated.
Christianity isn’t a philosophy it’s larger than that. Stoicism is a philosophy, platonism, Christianity is more encompassing though it contains philosophy.
@@aimowenaim I use that term to separate how I think about it from being a "religion". I don't worship the whole thing but I do think the ideals are ok.
There would be no shepards looking after their flocks in the middle of winter, that is definitely a spring summer activity
The Jerusalem Bible equates the young companion of Paul and Barnabas, named John Mark, with the gospel writer Mark.
He cannot be killed prior to passover and have been present at the last supper ,(a Sedar).
So how exactly does the "lamp " thing work? They were killed prior to passover
Jesus also raises Lazerus from the dead just a few days before arriving in Jerusalem, as a sign too.
I got halfway through one of Bart Ehrman's books. He was brought up in an American protestant tradition that believed the Bible was dictated by God and was inerrant. There are obvious inconsistencies between the four Gospels, but you would expect that. There are relatively few contested issues. All the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus. NT Wright taught theology at Oxford and was Bishop of Durham. Wright points out that we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts, more than any other ancient text. Caesar's Gallic Wars was written in the first century B.C. There are only 10 manuscripts in existence. The earliest textual evidence we have was copied 1,000 years after the original. Garry Wills is a Catholic, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, and received a doctorate in Classics from Yale. He believes there is only the Jesus of faith, and it is not worth looking too hard for the historical Jesus.
I’ve heard a lot of these splinter theories of Christ and the passion. Fascinating. 👍
Any thoughts on how Jesus, a poor Galilean peasant would have been literate and so conversant with scripture?
I think the point is that he wasn't a peasant. He was of the craftsman class
Cultural context of Jesus is that gods were business in the Greco Roman world
It is the message of love thy neighbour and forgive they enemies which distingushes Jesus as well as personal qualities.
Yes. Love your enemies, forgiveness of sin, and charity for all. Unheard of. Counterintuitive. Difficult and challenging as anything can be. And necessary. Absolute game changer.
Lmao what?!......@Joe-sg9ll
I think we can all agree that dating the Nativity to the census of Quirinius doesn't make sense, not only for all the reasons you rightly provide but also because it contradicts what Luke writes:
5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah,…
11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, … he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15….”
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David.
Therefore it would seem that both Matthew and Luke date the birth of Jesus to around the time of Herod the Great, it's just that Luke misdates the census of Quirinius - perhaps like many later scholars to this day because he was trying to "rationalise" the reason for Jesus being born in Bethlehem. But it is certainly far less rational to assume that He was born in Nazareth, regarding which there is no mention in the historical sources.
The idea that Jesus is buried in Kashmir is very interesting. But I have never understood why this would negate the belief in Resurrection. Whether Jesus survived the crucifixion or was resurrected, either way he could have travelled to India.
If he understands that his death is his fate then why is Judus vilified. He is essential to the entire thing?
Because Judas had free will. Any of the disciples could have betrayed Christ but only Judas chose to do so.
Well, there was this PR guy: Saint Paul.
The sneaky snake. 🐍
John the Baptist primed the people, Saint Paul gave them confirmation from outside Jesus' circle. Bookends, maybe necessary ones, that make it harder to explain away as a conspiracy of a few.
David rode on a mule. The idea of the King of Israel being a servant of the people predates Christ.
The purpose of the two donkeys episode is to imply Jesus is the Messiah.
Quirinius served two separate terms in office there.
Dear Listeners!
Are you familiar with the book: The Immortality Key by Brian C. Muraresku, and if so what do you think about it? How much credit should be given to his work?
Wish you all a happy Christmas!
None. It's a load of rubbish.
Not much
💚
Paul didn't know Jesus, everything he says comes from visions. Which ought to make his writings somewhat sceptical to say the least.
There were definitely people who seem to be going around at this time performing miracles. I don't know were I read this but there is a specific quote regarding the false profits
i think john the baptist may have been looking out for the recurring astrological convergence which heralded the flood and the passover..the people who understood astrology from sumerian star names had constructed the messiah king idea
Where can I find episodes 1-177?
On Podbean
Why is the notion of the imminence of the end times so prevalent in the time of Jesus: the Jews were specially argumentative and they hated the Romans for a taxing them and that’s probably one of the major factors.
A deeper reading, and more understanding, of the bible would have helped this episode. Perhaps a reading of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" would of helped this effort. Otherwise a good effort!
Certainly time to have a parallel historical discussion about Muhammad. I dare you!
A heard a genealogist say the Bible was really the story of the house of David and after John Jesus was the heir of both branches the military and religious branch so the crown prince
You two guys should do a follow-up to this: how historically accurate was "The Life of Brian"?
It's probably more accurate than most would like to admit. For instance "Naughtius Maximus" is inspired by a historic rumor.
100%!!! He truly was a very naughty bot
This...people refuse to believe that Biggus Dickus and Incontenentia Buttocks were real people
@@Ed-om9xy Much like ChatGPT. 😉
Well reasoned analysis & wide ranging discussion of a rich topic, gentlemen. It would be nice if Dom wasn't forever stepping on Tom's dialogue because Tom's final thought is often overridden thus. I find the articulateness of both scholars here valuable & resent missing any of it. That said, one difference of opinion: the most humiliating form of execution IMHO is impalement, especially vertically.
The census was not 9f people but of property. Joseph was poor and would not have owned property in Bethlehem.
Nor would there be Inns people didn't travel around like that.
Christ opposed the traditions of the Pharisees added to the Scriptures also, which they hated, and they were part of the Sanhedrin.
The amadis also believe that he is buried with Moses in Kashmir.
you don't think a sense of the end times was prevalent in the first century? have you read the dead sea scrolls??
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by a small and highly exclusive sect of deeply zealous and very apocalyptic monks who lived in closed communities that had very little contact with the wider Jewish world. I don't think you can apply their mindset to other Jews, any more than you can say that the Amish or the Mennonites are a representative sample of Christians in the modern USA.
The reputation of Jesus is a victim of the 4th Estate -Gossip and virulent rumour. He's alleged to have said He could destroy the Temple and raise it in 3 days. He doesn't usually make promises he can't keep. There is an earthquake over Passover weekend, but the Temple isn't destroyed. The Establishment is another matter.
Roll on to 70AD!
I'm a little disappointed, I thought this was going to be a podcast that would actually discuss the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth within scholarship. I am 4:55 minutes into this video and the dismissive way history is being handled is utterly ridiculous and nowhere near scholarly. "One of the most important inscriptions from the Roman era is the Res Gestae (Acts or Achievements) of Augustus. It is an autobiography in which Augustus describes his achievements, of which he writes "In my sixth consulship [28 BC], with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I made a census of the people. I performed the lustrum after an interval of forty-one years. In this lustration 4,063,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A second time, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius, [8 BCE.] I again performed the lustrum alone, with the consular imperium. In this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A third time, with the consular imperium, and with my son Tiberius Caesar as my colleague, [14 AD] I performed the lustrum in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius. In this lustrum 4,937,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll."
If such was the case then presumably he would have called himself a Christian, he does not. He is a Jew, who is relating to Jewdism. He isn't out there preaching to other cultures. If he is how you're attempting to portray him would he not be preaching to all cultures?
None of the "proof" for anyone named Jesus holds any water. The entry in Josephus that is commonly cited was added by someone who was a religious fanatic (a fact that is generally accepted by scholars today). And the Gospels are not history. The earliest was written at least 50 years after the years when "Jesus" would have lived - when people back then usually lived 30-40 years. The names of each Gospel book were assigned much much later with no evidence that they were written by that person. The four books contradict each other. "Matthew" is based on "Mark", and "Luke" is a revision of "Matthew"/"Mark". There is evidence that multiple authors had their hand in what is called John.
I've listened to several ot "The Rest Is history" podcasts, but this one was very disappointing. Why would they rehash old arguments that are generally not believed except in the most conservative colleges and churches? It calls into question the validity of the other podcasts - at least for me.
load of the Jesus myth is lifted straight from the cult of Mithras. 25th Dec, kings worshiping. god of light, divine incarnation, ascension to heaven, bread and wine are key to the rituals, as is baptism.
...they must know he's the carpenter guy from Nazareth.... 😆
carpenter comes from the greek tekton but this is a similar word as teknon meaning infant.in one gospel it says 'carpenter son of god' using a different greek word for son...i get the feeling tekton might be a deliberate spelling mistake or wordplay..john mchugh explains the nativity story from astrology where the sumerian name for the star regulus means 'infant'
Sorry Tom but you're seriously not looking at this from the point of view that you said. You are preaching the Christianity that is written in the Bible...which in itself is beyond problematic
The sleeping guards theory is ridiculous when thought about. "While I was asleep and not conscious of anything going on around me, I was able to identify His disciples and that they removed the seal on the stone and the stone and grabbed His body and left. So I reported it to you."
Sadly, the Gospels are just collected Christian propaganda for a mythical figure who replicates the actions of many mythical figures before him.
Jesus was stabbed in the heart while he was on the cross
By the same person who stabbed you in the brain?
Huh... What is more plausible: (a) all these well crafted stories and parables come from a team of learned writers that research and collect them over the years from traditions beyond their time and place or (b) they come from the illiterate son of a Nazareth carpenter that invents them while walking in the desert... Mhhh... difficult to tell.
"A cardinal mind cannot understand spiritual things"
You've had geniuses emerge from nowhere, autodidacts, et al in history before. Plus, Jesus' knowledge was quite folksy, you know? I think it makes sense.
Not 12, but 13, 0 is a number. Sorry to be pedantic and I know you are a historian rather than a 9 year old mathematician.
Christ absolutely identifies Himself as God.
‘Truly truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM’ is unequivocal. With this declaration, He not only arrogates a distinctly Jewish name for God (first appearing jn the burning bush in exodus) but more importantly, He claims an eternal nature: before Abraham ‘was’ (in the past) I Am, I was in the present tense then, as I am now, because Christ never ‘was’ He is eternally in the present & the future.
In modern nonduality circles, the "I am" is seen as awareness, as in "I am" is awareness or life, and every human can know herself as the "I am".
So many think that's the "I am" in Bible.
Which translation?
Who wrote it?
How long after Christs’ death?
All these questions have to be answered, then you’ll find the degrees to which the accounts differ. There is no 1 gospel truth.
The four gospels contradict each other in numerous places. You are quoting from John, the last and most "sexed up" gospel. The earlier gospels are quite different.
@th8257 not one contradiction... different accounts does not mean they are a contradtion. If you and I both witness something... or if we both write accounts of what other people witnessed, of course our writtings will be different. Some things might be there and others that aren't. Doesn't mean the essence of them are antithetical.
the empire of alexander had fallen apart.i think jesus and others before him tried to reunify the alexandrian countries and they needed a unified worldview
Jesus resurrected from the dead they said, Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse they said. Take your pick or read Tolkien.
Not the magi! 😥
Like amateur hour listening to these two, how about getting NT Wright on?
There's actually a (couple I think) good conversations between Holland and NT Wright. One online is primarily on Paul but it included an even more agnostic version of Holland...
Two brilliantly well informed people on everything from Tolkien and World War Two to the Aztecs and Alexander the Macedonian. Am surprised anyone would think they were amateurs -except in the old-fashioned sense of their love & enthusiasm for each of many topics covered.
“Jesus existed.” What is uncontested is that BELIEF in Jesus existed in the first century. That’s not the same thing as the bold assertion “Jesus existed.” The story of the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus was most probably made-up (see Plutarch), but the Jewish lawgiver Jesus really existed(?).
Jesus’ teaching is unique? I have found 24 gospel teachings in Cicero. Cicero was much praised by Jerome. The Stoics produced great ethical teachings mirrored in “the teachings of Jesus.” These writings were publicly available at the time the story of Jesus was written. The “kingdom of virtue” was a unique idea? What Jesus is portrayed as is as the virtuous king. Where does this idea come from? From Cyropaedia by Xenophon. To say that the teachings of Jesus were in any way unique shows an ignorance that should not be countenanced by historians.
Cutting down the fruitless tree is not mentioned elsewhere in scripture? Has Holland not read Jude 11-13? “They are waterless clouds carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted;...” or, Paul in Romans 11? “For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you?” (v.21)
The death of John the Baptist occurs in 36AD which is long after the supposed career and death of Jesus. (Josephus, Ant 18.5.2) A cult around John arose as a result of this event, which competed with the new cult of Jesus. John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul. In the initial conception of Christianity which Paul preached there was not seen any connection between Jesus and John because John lived and died a long time before Christianity became popular.
The trouble is people (including historians like Holland) have been mesmerized by the story and have failed to ask the basic historical question; WHEN. When did the religion arise? Whether Jesus existed or not there was a year in which the religion did not exist and a year following, in which it did. (Think by analogy of Mormonism.) This is fundamental. What year was that? When did the religion kick off? And being a highly successful religion we can assume that it didn't linger for forty or so years in the wilderness. It bolted from the starting blocks.
There is no good evidence that Christianity existed prior to the Roman-Jewish War.
I too was frustrated by the lack of scholarship in this podcast. Where did these sayings come from? 85% of them are plucked right of the Hebrew Bible! Most of the sayings of Jesus are copy/pasted right out of the books of Deuteronomy and Psalms.
Hi, John.
Your comment is informative, and I'm hoping you can elaborate on why a successful religion would necessarily jump out of the starting blocks. That doesn't seem intuitive to me. Is it not just as likely that a religion could garner a small following, only to explode in popularity later? There are always many factors at play.
@@PartOfACompleteBreakfast What do you mean by "later?" And why would the founders of a new faith want to contain "the truth?" Their enthusiasm would fade with time not increase. The factors that led to its success were there from the beginning.
@@paulgeorge1144 The founders of a new faith would not sabotage themselves. By "later", I mean I'm curious about how long it takes a religion to gain mass popularity. Has every major world religion exploded onto the scene, or did some grow slowly?
@@PartOfACompleteBreakfast why would Christianity have grown slowly? The Book of Acts says that It grew rapidly.
"Is he the jewish messiah?" Well, who else has there been.
It's all bollox! None of the contemporary historians seemed to have noticed this Jesus fellow, supernatural or otherwise.
Too right. All the "Christians" banging on about "Jesus" all the time. Notice that no-one has every produced his birth certificate, or his driver's licence, passport records, school reports, year book entries, utility bills, nothing, They ask us to believe that he's the son of God and they don't even have a photo of the dude.
@@gentlebreeze6414yeah and no social media accounts? He wasn't on Instagram!
"No. He was from Nazareth!"
Really, so definite, so early.
But, I will give it a bit
longer...
20.00 Messiah? No mention of Messiah yet???
No doubt we will get to this and the Greek term christos (annointed one)
30.00 Glossed over the Messiah issue eith a bit of 'stretching' it serms to me.
(Sidenote: the word miracle has yet to be uttered during this or the previous episode...)
Strong emphasis on the memorability of the sayings which have been drummed into people WEEKLY over two thousand years. Its not surprising people remember them!
"Struggling to explain? Not half! This bit is garbled and
misleading...Does Joseph of A get mentioned?
Conclusion: I haven't learned much here, unfortunately... Bye
Obviously he is coming from the point of view of a Jew.
Nothing historically scholarly about this accounting of Jesus. Just general knowledge that ignores the depth of understanding and aswath with opinion. Makes me consider that other historical accounting in this podcast will suffer in like manner and therefore make me historically shallow for listening. Unsubscribing and will read what real historians will write on these matters and avoid populist history from now on.
Most definitely he was a socialist he was preaching to people on earth how about the social injustices and they were striving for a new kingdom in the heavens but they lived on earth
Sorry but I really don’t buy this idea that Jesus and Christianity are so incredibly unique. Tom Holland doesn’t convince me in the slightest.
and should we care about your opinion...?
It's all nonsense. A pity.
@hismhssanta clause is still going strong
Jesus Christ never existed. Nuff said. Sadly there are still millions who won't accept the truth,
Nuff said? 😒Are you a professional historian, brilliant lady? Why is there such a wide consensus among ATHEIST historians that Jesus did exist? I'm not spiritual in any way, but I find their arguments convincing.
Self identifying ‘Mensa’ lady where’s your proof your the smartest of them all 🤔🤣😇
Bart Eheman, perhaps the most distinguished biblical historian, has stated that the evidence for Jesus existing is fairly clear cut. What he said and did is another story. As another biblical historian, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, said "We know a man called Jesus existed. We don't know much else."
Krishna didn't exist either, but none of this matters to people who have religious mania and who are terrified of the fact that we are alone in the Universe.
I thought this was a history channel not a fraud channel.
Did you even listen to the episode?
Religion, like it or not, is a part of life and has been for a very long time. How can discussing this amount to "fraud"? (Tell you what though, if you're in the mood to denounce fraud, you're probably better off focusing your attention on public education and the woke lunacies passed off as reality therein.)
what are you on about you utter muppet?
@neilcam2001 -- you probably also think you're an intellectual.
I thought you atheists were supposed to be open minded…. We are all people of faith but put our faith in different things- your binary thinking is similar to religious fundamentalists