'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: 'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

Post by Bernard Muller »

There is another possibility, not often aired (I say that while admitting I am not an expert who would know how often it is aired) that 'Paul' tailored his theology to his audience, in order to make it more absorbable by and acceptable to them. In this sense, it's his audience who may have been more (previously) exposed to 'non-Judean' ideas, not Paul himself. Think chameleon. Think salesman.

Why not? He apparently did a rather sudden 180-degree turnabout in relation to his approach to followers of Jesus.

As to Gnosis and Docetism, I admit I tend to see these (mainly) as subsequent interpretations of Christianity rather than as preceding belief systems about entities other than Jesus.
I certainly agree with that.
http://historical-jesus.info/t58.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

Post by John2 »

I've read some of what I can find of Unterbrink on Google Books and came away with the impression that his idea that "Jesus was a rewrite of a real individual, Judas the Galilean" requires that there was too much going on in early Christian writings. There are two examples of this on his "The Three Messiahs" website (https://thethreemessiahs.wordpress.com/):
Finally, one last question must be asked: why does Matthew assign a date of 9-4 BCE and Luke a date of 6 CE? Both authors are Herodian and know the facts well. The 27 BCE date is when we would expect the birth of Judas the Galilean. To distance the newly created Jesus of Nazareth from the historical Judas the Galilean, the Gospel writers assign a birth date for Jesus that correspond with Judas the Galilean’s major deeds: the 4 BCE Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing and the 6 AD tax rebellion. Both events are recorded by Josephus and are anti-Roman in nature. The fledgling Christian movement could not be seen as anti-Roman, so the dating of the Messiah’s birth is fudged by the Gospel writers. And this sleight-of-hand has worked wonderfully for two thousand years.

Two sons of Judas and two “brothers” of Jesus were named James and Simon. How easy it would have been for an early Gospel writer to change children into brothers and a wife into a mother.
Regarding the identity of the figures mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I have no issues with proposing candidates from the first century CE, but Unterbrink's argument that the Teacher of Righteousness was Judas and the Wicked Priest was Joazar or Annas is less appealing to me than even Roth's idea that the Teacher was Judas' son Menachem (which I don't buy but think he makes a decent case for).

I think Hegesippus (the earliest Christian historian) is the best Christian historian, so in my view if you want to know who Jesus was and what Christianity was like between c. 60 CE and c. 150 CE, he is the best bet and I see no need for Unterbrink's kind of speculation.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:04 pm
Jax wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:15 pm Does it seem reasonable that Tacitus had not read Josephus?
It's widely believed (by historians) that Tacitus read Josephus, for some of his reporting / knowledge of the Jewish revolt.
I have definitely seen it posited that Tacitus had read Josephus, but a common source is often posited, as well:

Louis Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980), pages 840-843:

27.2: Josephus and Tacitus

....

Since Tacitus is the somewhat later contemporary of Josephus (his 'Histories', which covered the events of 69—96, was issued about 104—109, and the 'Annals' about 115—117, whereas Josephus' 'War' dates from 75—79, and the 'Antiquities' from 93-94) and parallels him in a number of points, particularly in the account of the 'Jewish War', a number of scholars have considered whether Tacitus used Josephus as a source. WEBER (3320), pp. 50, 103, concludes that Tacitus did not use the 'War' but that both had a common source.

RAPPAPORT (3321), pp. 87—91, comparing the accounts of Tacitus (Histories 5. 13) and Josephus (War 6. 300ff.) of the prodigies that accompanied the destruction of the Temple, argues that there was no influence of one upon the other, since the motifs are frequent in ancient pagan and Jewish Hellenistic literature generally.

At a number of points in the later books of the 'Antiquities' Josephus and Tacitus parallel each other in their accounts of Parthian affairs. DEBEVOISE (3322) argues that Josephus must regularly be preferred to Tacitus, who is here, he says, as confused as he is exact for the events at Rome. SCHUR (3323), especially pp. 2010—2011, on the other hand, follows Tacitus, especially when supported by numismatic evidence, against Josephus.

HOSPERS-JANSEN (3324) maintains that Josephus was only a "Jewish historian" and thus not accessible to Tacitus, though she is forced to concede that Josephus was an officially recognized author in educated Roman circles. Moreover, Tacitus, as an orator, apparently knew the writings of the grammarian Apion and of the historian Lysimachus, whose account of the origin of the Jews as lepers is closely followed by Tacitus (Histories 5.3). We may, however, suggest that perhaps because Josephus was in favor with Domitian, whom Tacitus despised because of his treatment of his father-in-law Agricola, he may have detested Josephus.

BRIESSMANN (3325) asserts that there are a number of phrases in the 'War' which are closely paraheled in Tacitus and in Dio. For example. War 4. 602 is paralleled by Tacitus, Histories 2.74 and Dio 65.8,3a in their accounts of Vespasian's hesitation to seek the throne, Simharly War 4. 697 is paraheled by Tacitus, Histories 2. 5. BRIESSMANN explains these similarities by postulating a common source, either Pliny or Cluvius Rufus. We may comment that there is, to be sure, a close resemblance between Phny (Naturalis Historia 7. 65), Tacitus (Hist. 5. 6) and Josephus (War 4. 476—485) in their descriptions of the Dead Sea; and it is, indeed, interesting that Tacitus states that he has compared both the detailed accounts given by earlier writers (presumably Pliny would be one of these), as well as the narratives of those who knew the locality personally. Inasmuch, however, as Cluvius' account is lost, the matter, we may comment, cannot be proved; but it seems unlikely that Josephus possessed a sufficient knowledge of Latin to make good use of Pliny and Cluvius, though, as we have noted above, some have argued that he was influenced stylistically by Sallust, If a common source is sought, we may here suggest the memoirs of Vespasian (Life 342) or those of Titus (Life 358), which Josephus at least does cite.

SCHRECKENBERG (3326), p. 69, suggests that Annals 15, 44, which tells how Nero fastened the guilt for the fire in Rome on the Christians, "a mischievous superstition", so called from Christus, who was punished by Phate, may be dependent upon the 'Testimonium Flavianum', or both may draw on a common source. We may comment that because the passages in both Josephus and Tacitus are so short, are in different languages, and have no striking facts in common, the burden of proof must rest on those asserting dependence. We have already commented above on the discrepancy between Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts of the terms of office of the procurators Cumanus and Felix, Even if we say that Josephus and Tacitus complement each other to some degree, as ABERBACH (3327) suggests, certain puzzles remain, SMALLWOOD (3328) notes that elsewhere (e,g., Ann, 12,23) Tacitus shows confusion about Judaism, and Josephus is generally much fuller. SAUMAGNE (3329), noting that Josephus' accounts vary in each of the three places where he mentions Felix, prefers Tacitus, whose sources, he thinks, were more exact. But, we may comment, the discrepancies in Josephus' accounts are minor, and it seems hard to believe that Josephus, who came from Judea, would have been less weh informed than Tacitus on matters concerning which there was no reason for him to misrepresent the facts.

SADDINGTON (3330), pp. 117—121, as we have remarked above, notes that on the two occasions when Josephus and Tacitus refer to the same auxiharies, once Josephus (War 2. 236) supplies clearer detail than Tacitus (Ann, 12, 54, 3), whereas on the other occasion it is Tacitus (Hist, 5. 1.2) who is more precise than Josephus (War 5. 47ff.). Both, he concludes, are describing the situation as it was in the early principate.

BAER (3331) suggests, but hardly proves, that for the very last days of the siege and fall of Jerusalem, Josephus and Tacitus used a common source written by a Roman military expert, but that Josephus has distorted and falsified this source.

Louis Feldman, Josephus, the Bible, and History, page 389: It is certainly possible that Josephus and Tacitus (in Histories 5) used each other's accounts, inasmuch as they are almost exact contemporaries and, as intimates of emperors, presumably had access to the same official archives; but neither mentions the other, and there are numerous contradictions between them.

IIRC, S. C. Carlson argued a few years ago that Tacitus depended upon Josephus, but Ken Olson thought that both depended upon the lost Memoirs of Vespasian.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: 'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

Post by DCHindley »

archibald wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:21 am
DCHindley wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:45 amJudah the Galilean, IIRC, is somewhat of a composite figure based on both the leader of a rebel faction in the days of Archelaeus, and on speculations about the lineage of a couple of rebel bandit chiefs caught and executed between Jesus' time and the rebellion of 66 CE. The common link seems to be "Zealots."
Hm. I was under the strong impression that Judas the Galilean was un-composite and un-legendary, using mainly Josephus, who cites him as the founder of the 'Fourth Philosophy', who first came to notice in 6AD. He gets quite a bit of coverage in Josephus, as do his sons and grandsons.

What's missing (and Unterbrink suggests this is significant) is a detailed account of his death.

That said, his death (after capture) is very briefly referenced in 'Wars', but only by his likely inclusion in the phrase 'the two rabbis' (were executed). His death is not specifically mentioned in 'Antiquities'. Unterbrink contends that the TF originally referred to the execution of Judas (in around 21CE). He makes a plausible case for re-dating Pilate's tenure while arguing for this execution date.
Well, it can be rather confusing. Here is a table that I hope will demonstrate that the connections are actually quite a bit more fuzzy than normally assumed:

[
WAR
ANTIQUITIES
Judas & Matthias ca. 7 BCE
(JOE Jwr 1:648) There were two men of learning in the city [of Jerusalem,] who were thought the most skilful in the laws of their country, and were on that account had in very great esteem all over the nation; they were, the one Judas, the son of Sepphoris, and the other Matthias, the son of Margalus [ca 7 BCE]. (JOE Ant 17:149) There was one Judas, the son of Saripheus, and Matthias, the son of Margalothus, two of the most eloquent men among the Jews, and the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws ... [ca 7 BCE]
1.649 (JOE Ant 17:150) These men, when they found that the king's distemper [i.e., to do things like dedicate a golden eagle as a gift to God and mounting it on Jerusalem's main gate] was incurable, stirred up the young men to pull down all those works which the king had erected contrary to the law of their fathers [ca 7 BCE]
1.650 (JOE Ant 17:151) ... for Herod had caused such things to be made, which were contrary to the law, of which he was accused by Judas and Matthias; for the king had erected over the great gate of the temple a large golden eagle, of great value, and had dedicated it to the temple. [ca 7 BCE]
1.651 (JOE Ant 17:152) So these wise men persuaded [their scholars] to pull down the golden eagle: [ca 7 BCE]
1.652-653 (JOE Ant 17:157) ... so he [a military captain of Herod's] caught no fewer than forty of the young men, who had the courage to stay behind when the rest ran away, together with the authors of this bold attempt, Judas and Matthias, who thought it an ignominious thing to retire upon his approach, and led them to the king. [ca 7 BCE]
1.654-655 (JOE Ant 17:167) But Herod ... burnt ... Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. [ca 7 BCE]
Hezekiah the captain of a band of robbers ca. 46 BCE
(JOE Ant 14:159) [Herod, as governor of Galilee under Hyrcanus,] finding that there was one Hezekiah, a captain of a band of robbers, who overran the neighbouring parts of Syria with a great troop of them, he seized him and slew him [ca 46 BCE], as well as a great number of the other robbers that were with him;
Judas the son of Hezekiah ca. 4 BCE
(JOE Jwr 2:56) In Sepphoris also, a city of Galilee, there was one Judas (the son of that arch robber Hezekias, who formerly overran the country, and had been subdued by King Herod [ca 46 BCE]) this man got no small multitude together, and broke open the place where the royal armour was laid up, and armed those about him, and attacked those who were so earnest to gain the dominion. [ca 4 BCE] (JOE Ant 17:271) There was also Judas, the son of that Ezekias who had been head of the robbers; which Ezekias was a very strong man, and had with great difficulty been caught by Herod [ca 46 BCE]. This Judas, having gotten together a multitude of men of a profligate character around Sepphoris in Galilee, made an assault upon the palace there, and seized upon all the weapons that were laid up in it, and with them armed everyone of those who were with him, and carried away what money was left there; [ca 4 BCE]
Judas the Galilean/Gaulonite, & Sadduc the Pharisee, start a "4th philosophy" ca. 6 CE
Antiquities of the Jews 18: 3 but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously [ca. 6 CE], yet did they stop any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Boethus, and the high priest; so they, being persuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it;
(JOE Jwr 2:118) Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of their leaders. [ca 6 CE] Antiquities of the Jews 18: 4 yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation [by Quirinus the Governor of Syria by means of Coponius around 6 CE, immediately after the banishment of Archelaeus] was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty: 5 as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honour and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; 6a so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height.
18: 9 Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who started a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with [the] tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted with, 10 concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather, because the infection which spread there among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.
Antiquities of the Jews 18: 23 But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author [who had revolted in the days of Coponius after the banishment of Archealus, ca. 6 CE, War 2:118]. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty; and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relatives and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord; 24 and since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that anything I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain;
Antiquities of the Jews 18: 25a and it was [later] in Gessius Florus' time [64-66 CE] that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans [in 66 CE].
James & Simon, sons of Judas the Galilean, the founder of the "4th philosophy" 46-48 CE
(JOE Ant 20:102) [Lists the events that marked the governments of the Roman procurators] and, besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Quirinius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews [6 CE], as we have showed in a foregoing book [Ant 18.4]. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom [the procurator Tiberius Julius] Alexander [46-48 CE] commanded to be crucified.
Menahem, son of Judas the Galilean, the founder of the "4th philosophy" 67 CE
(JOE Jwr 2:433) In the meantime, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans, [ca 6 CE]) took some of the men of note, with him, and retired to Masada, [ca 67 CE]
Eleazar, a descendant of Judas the Galilean, the founder of the 4th philosophy ca. 67 CE
(JOE Jwr 7:253) It was one Eleazar, a powerful man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized it [that is, the fortress Masada]. [ca. 67 CE] He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded a large number of the Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one; [ca 6 CE]

So, there is no connection between the chief of the robbers (Hezekiah) defeated by Herod when governor of Galilee under Hyrcanus II, and the Judas of Gaulanitis/Galilee who formed the 4th philosophy, who was himself the father of James and Simon (executed by governor Tiberius Alexander 46-48 CE) and of Menahem, who attempted unsuccessfully to claim the crown in the early days of the rebellion of 66 CE.

You will also note that none of these were ever said to belong to a formal group with the name "Zealots." This was a loosey goosey term that sort of equated the faction known as Zealots in the Judean rebellion, 1st mentioned in the period 66 CE, with the creation of the 4th philosophy by Judas the Galilean around 6 CE.

C. Roth connected Judas of Galilee with Hezekiah the robber chief on the basis of his son Judas, who had attacked Sepphoris in Galilee to capture an arms depot in support of revolutionaries around the time of Herod's death (ca 4 BCE). I also think that S G F Brandon continued this loose equation of Zealots and the 4th philosophy in (Jesus and the Zealots). Unfortunately we really do not know whether the Zealot party in the War of 66 CE was the same as the 4th Philosophy founded by Judas the Galilean, as no one actually makes that direct connection. The best we have is Josephus' opinion that the effects of the introduction of the 4th philosophy could be blamed for the ultimate destruction of the Judean people and their holy city and the temple.

DCH :confusedsmiley:

Edit: added color coding to distinguish the players on the field.
Last edited by DCHindley on Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

Post by John2 »

Is the Judas mentioned in War 1.648 and Ant. 17.149 the same as Judas the Galilean? Josephus calls the former Judas "the son of Sepphoris" and "the son of Saripheus," but the Judas in Ant. 17.271 is called "the son of that Ezekias who had been head of the robbers."

Perhaps there is something about the Greek regarding the meaning/spelling of "Sepphoris/Saripheus" (and "son of") that I don't understand, but these Judases sound like different people to me.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

Post by John2 »

Unterbrink says in The Three Messiahs that:
It was written that Judas was the son of Sepphoris, or rather from Sepphoris ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=KJ4E2 ... is&f=false
But if we are to understand that this Judas was "from" Sepphoris/Saripheus, does the same apply to Mattbias and Margalus/Margalothus?

War. 1.648:

"Judas, the son of Sepphoris, and the other Mattbias, the son of Margalus."

Ant. 17.149:

"There was one Judas, the son of Saripheus, and Mattbias, the son of Margalothus ..."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

Post by MrMacSon »

John2 wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:17 pm Is the Judas mentioned in War 1.648 and Ant. 17.149 the same as Judas the Galilean? Josephus calls the former Judas "the son of Sepphoris" and "the son of Saripheus," but the Judas in Ant. 17.271 is called "the son of that Ezekias who had been head of the robbers."

Perhaps there is something about the Greek regarding the meaning/spelling of "Sepphoris/Saripheus" (and "son of") that I don't understand, but these Judases sound like different people to me.
See http://www.livius.org/articles/religion ... -galilean/
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: 'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

Post by archibald »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:00 pm Well, it can be rather confusing. Here is a table that I hope will demonstrate that the connections are actually quite a bit more fuzzy than normally assumed.
Complicated, possibly, but there is no hint, I don't think, of any figure being made 'legendary' to the point of giving us a good reason to seriously doubt that they were historical?

From what I recall, Unterbrink does, yes, suggest that Judas of Sepphoris/Saripheus and Judas the Galilean are the same person. Personally......I have doubts. For one thing, if memory serves, in 'Wars', there is reference to 'both Rabbis' (presumably Judas of S and Matthias) being executed for the Golden Eagles incident. As noted above, by DCHindley in his table, 'Antiquities' only has 'Matthias and his companions' being executed. Unterbrink uses this ambiguity (arguably the more odd because Judas is introduced before Matthias, as if he were at least as senior if not had some priority) in Antiquities to suggest that Judas of S lives on, slightly later to turn up again with Sadduc.
Last edited by archibald on Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:02 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: 'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

Post by maryhelena »

archibald wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:33 pm I am in the middle of reading this book:

Image

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Judas-Nazareth ... 1591431824

Here is Unterbrink's website on the topic (I am not sure when it was last updated):

https://judasthegalilean.weebly.com/

I am finding the thesis very interesting. Basically, it suggests that our 'Jesus' was really Judas The Galilean. Also that our 'Paul' was Josephus' Saul, a Herodian and a cousin of Agrippa I.

Have any of you much more-learned-than-me chaps (and/or chapesses) read or considered this (quite complicated) hypothesis, which is essentially historical rather than ahistorical?

I myself don't know whether to be sold on it completely or not.....just yet.
There is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean. Hence Underbrink's theory - like that of Lena Einhorn and her Egyptian theory - falls short as an explanation of early christian origins. All these two authors are doing is comparing a NT story with a Josephan story. In other words; that sort of exercise is simply going around in circles when it seeks to find parallels between the stories. Perhaps interesting in and off itself in that it demonstrates a relationship between the two sources - but that relationship does not open a way forward in research for early christian origins.

Research into early christian origins requires that Jewish history - as far as it can be ascertained - be the primary focus of research. Yes the NT story and the Josephan stories are important - but the importance arises from their relationship, or their reflection, of actual Jewish history. Yes, similarities between the two sources, the NT and Josephus, have their value - but it is a limited value as it can hinder historical research. If both these sources use storytelling alongside historical references - then the way forward is to make sure we have all our historical ducks in a row prior to any interpretation of the NT story.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: 'Judas of Nazareth' by Daniel Unterbrink

Post by archibald »

John2 wrote: Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:37 pm I think Hegesippus (the earliest Christian historian) is the best Christian historian, so in my view if you want to know who Jesus was and what Christianity was like between c. 60 CE and c. 150 CE, he is the best bet and I see no need for Unterbrink's kind of speculation.
I may go and read some Hegesippus. Via Eusebius, I believe.

I will agree that Unterbrink does at times over-elaborate, to the point of stretching credibility imho, on just how much is going on in what he suggests are the rewrites.
Last edited by archibald on Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:20 am, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply