How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco 208 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Disillusioned JW

  That is Interesting.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  In light of what you said about "Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" this matter is now difficult for me to decide upon, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus says the following - and it agrees with what I said (including about the significance of the use of the phrase "who was called Christ").

  'In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth (James the Just).[2] This occurred after a large number of Jews complained and petitioned the king. Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

  While the authenticity of some passages in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews has been subject to debate, the overwhelming majority of scholars consider the discussion of the death of James in Section 9 of Book 20 to be authentic.[4][5]

  The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, and scholars agree that Jesus the son of Damneus is distinct from the reference to "Jesus called Christ", who is mentioned along with the identification of James.[6] John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context.[7] '

  After doing a search a moment ago for ""Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" I noticed that a Christ myth web page at https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html (of a site which many years ago I had read some other pages from) says something which agrees with you. There it says the following.

  "When we remove Christian interpolation from the "Jamesian" reference in Josephus, it becomes clear that James was the brother, not of a non-existent 'Jesus Christ', but of Jesus bar Damneus, high priest briefly in the year 63. In the increasingly violent rivalry between the two major families that had controlled the high priesthood for a century, James was the brother of one contender. Together with his supporters, he was eliminated by the boss of the rival faction. Briefly, the 'aggrieved' family gained control of the Temple. But once the new Roman procurator was installed he put pressure on Agrippa II to replace Jesus bar Damneus with a more pro-Roman candidate – and Jesus, son of Gamaliel became high priest.

  ... If you drop the spurious clause about "being called the Christ", doubtless inserted by a Christian editor, then this James would have been the brother of the guy who eventually made high priest because of James' execution! "
• 

  peacefulpete

  Personally, again, I have no problem with it as it is written, but who knows. Wiki can be a great first peek at a topic but remember it is a crowd sourced encyclopedia. The accuracy of the info is inversely proportionate to the controversial nature of the topic.

  I noticed the snip you posted from wiki says

  :

  'In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus of Nazareth (James the Just).[2] This occurred after a large number of Jews complained and petitioned the king. Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

  See how when identifying Jesus of the Gospels even this contributor identified him in the more neutral way, "Jesus of Nazareth" when making his proposal. If a secular Jew writing 50 years after Jesus (as is usually presumed) were to first introduce a new character to his readers, surely he would have identified him by his surname (ben Joseph) or his home (of Nazareth). If he meant to say this Jesus of Nazareth was a would-be Messiah he would also have defined his movement as he does with a half dozen other would-be Messiahs in his works.

  The wiki contributor also summarily assumes Jesus of Nazareth is the same as the brother of James the Just. That is circular reasoning, an assertion, not evidence or even an argument. The very controversy in discussion is if 'James the Just' is to be identified as the James who was killed in Josephus OR with the James who led the Christain church in Jerusalem, OR a 'brother' of Jesus of Nazareth OR none of these Jameses.

  Ask yourself why would the Jews be in uproar about the death of a Christian or subsequently blame the destruction of 70 on his murder as other writers assert? Recall it was they who are described as the ones who had Jesus killed and according to Paul were actively persecuting them at this time. Even 'James the Less" (aka apostle James ben Alphaeus) was said to have been killed as a result of persecution a around this time. Let it all sink in.

  It is far easier to believe Joes was making a brief interrupting phrase to identify James by his association with the High Priesthood, (the topic in discussion) He summarily describes this Jesus as the anointed High Priest who gets the position as a response to the murder of his brother. It fits Josephus' pattern and context as well as sound logic.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  peacefulpete you might be write about the Joseph passage (and of Jesus not having had a brother named James) and I might end up believing it. But if I I do come to believe such, it likely won't be in haste. I would think about it quite about and consider how compatible the idea is with a number of ideas I already hold and think about if those ideas of mine have problems.

  Regarding the account in Josephus which refers to Jesus as "called Christ" instead of saing "son of Joseph" or "of Nazareth", perhaps it was because that when he wrote the account (in the late 1 century CE), Christians were much more often referring to Jesus as "Christ" than as "of Nazareth" or "son of Joseph". We see such usage in the NT letters, including in Paul's.
  

  A number of years ago, I read claims that James was both the brother of the Jesus and leader/bishop of the Jerusalem congregation of Christianity, was righteous/just in the minds of non-Christian Jews, and according to Josephus was killed (but with many non-Christian Jews saddened by his death). When I first learned learned that a great many non-Christians Jews were saddened by such a James I thought such was had to believe (due to the portrayal in the gospels of the Jews demanding the death of Jesus). But a few years ago (or so) I was wasn't, because I came to a different view about Jesus (and his likely teachings) and of the views and practices of his earliest Jewish non-Hellenistic followers, as a result of reading various articles.

  I learned there were Torah keeping Jews in Jerusalem who believed in Jesus as the Messiah (not just the ones referred to in some of Paul's letters and in the book of Acts), but who did not believe that Jesus is God (or even literally the son of God), and who also didn't believe that Jesus was born from a virgin. [As you know, the earliest gospel account of the NT has no virgin birth account for Jesus, and as you know the book called Matthew portrays Jesus as being Torah keeping and urging fellow Jews to keep the Torah law.] Some groups with at least some of those ideas were ones called Nazarenes, Ebionites, and some other names (I don't remember right now the names of the other groups). I read claims that Jesus the brother of Jesus was a righteous man who was also a Torah keeping Jew (even after his brother Jesus died), and that he was very influential among Jewish Christians largely because he was the fleshly brother of Jesus. He would have known that Jesus had a biological father (one likely named Joseph). The Christianity of that kind of Jew was much more mainstream Jewish (though of a messianic type) than the gentile Christian type. It thus would have been much more acceptable to non-Christian Jews than Paul's type of Christianity would have been to them. I thus think that such a Jewish follower of Jesus, who was known as keeping the Mosaic law faithfully and for being righteous, and for not saying that Jesus was God, and for saying that the literal father of Jesus was a Jewish man, would be respected by many non-Christian Jews, and that his death (by murder) would be mourned by many of them.

  I no longer believe the account in the gospels of large numbers Jewish people calling for the execution of Jews, nor the account of the Jewish religious leaders plotting to have Jesus killed, and the Jewish religious leaders had a sham trial conducted in a manner which broke many of their own rules. I have learned (from Jewish web sites) that throughout over 1,000 years the Jews have been saying they did not do the horrible things to Jesus which the gospels say they did. I remember that they say the accounts in the gospels slander the Jewish people (including the religions leaders) and has influenced many people over nearly 2,000 years to persecute them as a result. I read that the Jewish people have long had various rules about how a Jewish suspect is to be tried and that the rules forbid doing things the way the gospels accuse them of having done to Jesus. They give details of the rules, including going down the street asking is there is anyone who wishes to come forward and say something in defense of the accused. They also say that their courts would never condemn a fellow Jew to become crucified! According to their law back them, even if they had a Jew hung (such as upon a tree or a stake), he would not be executed that way, but would be killed some other way instead, and only after he was already dead would he be hanged/hung.

  The NT gospel accounts portray Pilate as kind just ruler who tried to avoid having Jesus executed, but history shows that he was ruthless instead. The gospels try to make it appear that the Romans were not really guilty for the death of Jesus, by claiming that the Jews insisted upon his death instead. That scenario is unlikely.

  Consider what is said at the following sites:

  - https://outreachjudaism.org/who-killed-jesus/ which says the following (among making many other good points).

  'In contrast to the gracious, benign caricature of Pontius Pilate conveyed in the Gospels, according to noted historians, including Philo and Josephus, the Roman Governor was renowned for “his violence, thefts, assaults, abusive behavior, endless executions, and savage ferocity”15 and as a “cruel despot who executed troublemakers without a trial and ordered his soldiers to randomly attack, beat, and kill scores of Jews.”16 Not surprisingly, this record of Pilate’s brutality is mentioned nowhere in the New Testament. A cruel tyrant such as Pilate would not have hesitated to execute any leader whose followers posed a potential threat to Roman rule. The notion that the Jews would or could demand of Pilate to crucify Jesus is preposterous.'

  - https://antisemitism.adl.org/deicide/ which says in part the following.

  "This narrative is patently false. While certain leaders in the local Jewish community felt that Jesus’ teachings were politically subversive, experts have gathered that Jesus was not perceived as particularly threatening or enraging to the Jews around him.4 Modern readers misinterpret the trial of Jesus as a conflict between Jews and Christians, but this does not square with the Jewish origins of Christianity or with the fact that Christianity emerged years after Jesus’ death. The only non-Jews present in the story of Jesus’ crucifixion were the Romans."

  - https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jesus-the-crucifixion-pontius-pilate-and-the-new-testament is a Jewish source presenting a Jewish view. It says in part the following.

  'Concerning Jesus’ executioner, Pontius Pilate,* we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his “heart of hearts” really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional. Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose. When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman law. The Romans, well aware that they had executed Christianity’s founder—indeed the reference to Jesus’ crucifixion by the Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the New Testament—had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation. Christianity’s only hope for gaining legitimacy was to “prove” to Rome that its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about because the Jews forced Pilate to do it. Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, “Crucify him.” The account ignores one simple fact. Pilate’s power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews, whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired.

  Crucifixion itself, a Roman form of execution, was forbidden by Jewish law because it was torture. Some 50,000 to 100,000 Jews were themselves crucified by the Romans in the first century. How ironic, therefore, that Jews have historically been associated with the cross as the ones who brought about Jesus’ crucifixion.'
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Correction: In my prior post where I said "I no longer believe the account in the gospels of large numbers Jewish people calling for the execution of Jews ..." I should have said "I no longer believe the account in the gospels of large numbers of Jewish people calling for the execution of Jesus ...".
• 

  peacefulpete

  DisillusionedJW....You made many good points. I agree the antisemitism of much of the Gospels is a secondary layer of the faith. Interestingly even in the most proJewish revision of Mark (called Matthew) the Jews are depicted as perpetually bloodguilty for the death of Jesus.

  "His blood be on us and on our children!" Matthew 27:25

  A key to unraveling all the tangles is to realize that as soon as a person says, The Jews did this or that or believed this or that" they are guilty of stereotyping and grossly oversimplifying the religious environment of the times. Half of the deaths of Jewish people were by Jewish people. On a small scale, like the death of the Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran to the civil war level revolts between the sects supporting or rejecting the Hasmoneans or the Maccabees. Josephus has just shown us the violent power struggles for the High Priesthood. IOW they were quite capable of violence over religious and political matters.

  I'll share my present understanding of the early stages of Christianity. I cannot prove much of it, but feel it is consistent with the facts and works as a model.

  I suspect the movement began with a soft-start. No single event or person initiated the religion. Rather it grew from the Hellenized Jewish conceptions of a Son of Man/ Son of God heavenly figure such as we see expressed fully in Philo and intertestamental literature. This topic has been discussed on this forum in a number of threads. It was a small step to envisioning an incarnation of this heavenly figure. This figure, previously known as the Logos, or Son of God was given a human story. A story almost entirely drawn from the OT and intertestamental imagery. This was not 'fraud' but pious inspiration (small i). This was the norm. Typological (dual meaning) reinterpretation of past writings was the lifeblood of Jewish religious culture.

  The Jerusalem temple-focused sect was not a fertile soil for new religious ideas, it had devolved into a political institution that was deemed largely irrelevant by the much larger diaspora. It was here in the larger Jewish community that creativity vitalized the faith, it was here in the melting pot of ideas unchained by temple politics, that the roots of Christianity spawned. I'd place this soft start around 100-50BCE.

  As I just said, the incarnation of the more approachable Son of Man figure required a narrative. This was drawn piece by piece through brilliant usage of scores of stories of Moses, David, Elijah, Judah etc. This apparently existed in oral forms for a short time (time of Paul) but then eventually written down. This was done by someone outside Idumea and a second or third generation Christian. (many scholars call it UrMark, an early form of Mark) The name Joshuah (Jesus) and the place became fixed by this same method of OT typology. It's also possible the myths of Messiah ben Joseph contributed to the fleshing out the story. Messiah ben Joseph - Wikipedia

  The writer made clear he was drawing from the OT but later generations understood the narrative as historical and the parallels as prophesy literally fulfilled.

  It also seems quite plausible that early on, the new faith attracted followers of John the Baptist. Some even assuming the new character was John reborn. (Matt 16:14) The miraculous birth narratives, also drawn from OT, were apparently previously attached to the JTB. It was this key element that anchors the story in time IMO. From there the story writes itself. The OT typological necessity for Jesus to die (on a tree) by forces of evil was quite naturally depicted as killed by Roman crucifixion.

  This narrative (possibly written as a didactic (teaching) play) was popular and distributed among the communities of Christians (who from the start had diverse views). The literate leaders of these communities revised this narrative as each perceived the Jesus figure slightly differently. Many other narratives (gospels) and sayings were written at this time as well.

  40-70 years later 4 of these narratives (3 synoptics and one with more Gnostic tone) were collected and elevated, becoming sanctioned by the congealing orthodoxy amongst the most politically savvy group. Names of persons in the stories are attached to them as authors.

  As the centuries pass this orthodoxy is challenged by many rivals but the 4 narratives are further harmonized somewhat and weaponized into dogma and as a base of power. The same is done to a collection of Paul's writings. The book of Acts is written and a number of Pseudo-Paulines that cement the orthodoxy's (Catholic) positions. Revelation by John the Presbyter is eventually attributed to the same guy as the Gospel and a number of epistles. It is reluctantly adopted into the collection.

  Take that for what it's worth.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Hey MeanMrMustard, maybe the book of Jeremiah refers to two overlapping periods of 70 years ..

  I see what you did there. :)
  

  But if the 70 years (or one period of 70 years) includes defeat of Assyria, why is their no mention of Assyria in Jeremiah chapter 25. As far as I can tell no city of Assyria is even mentioned in chapter 25. Am I missing something in chapter 25 which specifically refers to Assyria?

  Why should there be? I guess this gets at the main point: what is the 70 years? It's been my position that if you look specifically at what's said, just read it grammatically and accept that it's not some sort of cryptic message, then it's 70 years of Babylonian rule.
  

  Seventy years that nations (not just Judah) will serve Babylon. Again, 29:10 - "Seventy years FOR Babylon"
  

  Every time the 70 years is mentioned it points to Babylon, and specifically it's rule. Like Daniel said (ch 9) he may not have known the exact time the 70 years began, but he sure knew when it ended. He was looking in Jeremiah and read that when the 70 years ends, the king of Babylon would be called to account, and he just saw that happen. He probably knew it was getting close (since he had been captive for a time approaching 70 years), but he knew it was over because Jeremiah said it was 70 years for (29:10) Babylon, and when the 70 years was over Babylon fell.
  

  If the conquest of Assyria is included in the prophecy (and pertains to the start of the the 70 year period) then why does Jeremiah 25:1 say that Jeremiah received the prophecy during the first year in which Nebuchadrezzar was king - which was about two years after Nebuchadrezzar (during the reign of his father) had conquered Assyria and thus made it a part of the Babylonian empire?

  Because tthatis when he received it. Where does it say the 70 years has any connection to when Jeremiah received the prophecy? The prophecy said 70 years Babylon would subjugate plural nations, including the ones "round about". They weren't all subjugated at the same time. Some nations were made vassals years before Neb. It's still seventy years FOR Babylon.

  Why does verse 9 also state it pertains to the time in which Nebuchadrezzar was king and thus after Assyria had also became a part of the empire of Babylon?

  Because Neb is king during the time Judah gets its punishment. So? The 70 years is still just connected to 'nations' serving Babylon.

  That is right. Since Assyria was already conquered by Babylon by the time that the book of Jeremiah says that Jeremiah received the prophecy, then that means (according to the prophecy, as recorded in the book called Jeremiah) Assyria was already a part of Babylon (that is, the Babylonian empire, Babylonia) when the prophecy was received. That is probably why Assyria is no where mentioned in chapter 25 as one of the nations which will serve Babylon - since it was already a part of Babylon/Babylonia (Babylonian empire)!

  Right. But it's seventy years FOR Babylon (29:10). Part of that 70 years is what Babylon did before Neb did anything to Judah. It wasn't a terribly long time, but it was there.
  

  Notice also that Jeremiah 25:2 itself puts the emphasis upon Judah and Jerusalem - not upon the gentile nations, yet you claim is wrong for me and others to put the emphasis on Jerusalem and the rest of Judah.

  This keeps coming up: that Jeremiah "puts emphasis" on Judah. You quote it :

  Jeremiah 25:2 (NWT Study Edition) says the following. "'This is what Jeremiah the prophet spoke concerning* all the people of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem:"

  This is essentially my issue. The condemnation is for Judah. They are going to get punished. How? By Babylonian rule. If you take verse 2 as somehow overriding the clear language in v11, then that's the exact ungrammatical reading I'm arguing against. He said 70 years FOR Babylon, when nations (plural) serve Babylon. One of those nations is Judah. That is the judgement that concerns Judah.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Hi peacefulpete, I have done some more research regarding the two references to Jesus Christ in the extant writings of Josephus. I have read multiple conflicting arguments (when I include comments by Richard Carrier on this matter) about the longer passage and thus I am not sure if the entire passage (not just portions of it) were interpolated into it by Christians, but I am still inclined to believe that most of it is authentic. If most of it is authentic, then it would provide the context for the identify of the particular Jesus who is "called Christ" who is mentioned in the shorter passage, which is the later passage. However, I am very confident that the shorter passage is not an interpolation, and that it refers to Jesus Christ of Christianity. To me the article at https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence makes a strong case for the shorter passage being about the Christian Jesus Christ. To me the article at https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/ (which is written by an atheist) makes even a stronger, and very convincing, argument that is about the Christian Jesus Christ. For Carrier's views, primarily about the longer passage, (which to me some are stated in a very contorted and convoluted way), I have read https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12071 , https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437 , and https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4391 .

  The https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/ article is written by an atheist who says the following about himself. "Tim O'Neill is an atheist blogger who specializes in reviews of books on ancient and medieval history as well as atheism and historiography. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania and is a subscribing member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics." His article says in part the following.

  'Ananus executed some Jews without Roman permission and, when this was brought to the attention of the Romans, Ananus was deposed. This deposition would have been memorable for the young Josephus, who had just returned from an embassy to Rome on the behalf of the Jerusalem priests. But what makes this passage relevant is what Josephus mentions, in passing, as the cause of the political upheaval:

  "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, 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 mention is peripheral to the story Josephus is telling, but since we know from Christian sources that Jesus' brother James led the Jesus sect in Jerusalem in this period, and we have a separate, non-dependent, Christian account of James' execution by the Jerusalem priesthood, it is fairly clear which "Jesus who was called Messiah" Josephus is referring to here.

  Almost without exception, modern scholars consider this passage genuine and an undisputed reference to Jesus as a historical figure by someone who was a contemporary of his brother and who knew of the execution of that brother first hand. This rather unequivocal reference to a historical Jesus leaves Jesus Mythicists with a thorny problem, which they generally try to solve one of two ways. They either claim:

  (i) "The words "who was called Messiah" are a later Christian interpolation"

  Since it is wholly unlikely that a Christian interpolator invented the whole story of the deposition of the High Priest just to slip in this passing reference to Jesus, Mythicists try to argue that the key words which identify which Jesus is being spoken of are interpolated. Unfortunately this argument does not work. This is because the passage is discussed no less than three times in mid-third century works by the Christian apologist Origen and he directly quotes the relevant section with the words "Jesus who was called the Messiah" all three times: in Contra Celsum I.4, in Contra Celsum II:13 and in Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17. Each time he uses precisely the phrase we find in Josephus: αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου ("the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah"). This is significant because Origen was writing a whole generation before Christianity was in any kind of position to be tampering with texts of Josephus. If this phrase was in the passage in Origen's time, then it was clearly original to Josephus.

  (ii) "The Jesus being referred to here was not the Jesus of Christianity, but the 'Jesus, son of Dameus' mentioned later in the same passage."

  After detailing the deposition of the High Priest Ananus, Josephus mentions that he was succeeded as High Priest by a certain "Jesus, son of Damneus". So Mythicists try to argue that this was the Jesus that Josephus was talking about earlier, since Jesus was a very common name. It certainly was, but we know how Josephus was careful to differentiate between different people with the same common first name. So it makes more sense that he calls one "Jesus who was called Messiah" and the other "Jesus son of Damneus" to do precisely this. Nowhere else does he call the same person two different things in the same passage, as the Mythicist argument requires. And he certainly would not do so without making it clear that the Jesus who was made High Priest was the same he had mentioned earlier, which he does not do.

  The idea that the Jesus referred to as the brother of James was the later mentioned "Jesus son of Damneus" is further undercut by the narrative in the rest of Book XX. In it the former high priest Ananus continues to play politics and curries favour with the Roman procurator Albinus and the new high priest by giving them rich presents. This makes no sense if Jesus the brother of the executed James was also "Jesus the son of Damneus", since the new high priest in question is the same Jesus ben Damneus - the idea that he would become friends with his brother's killer just because he was given some nice gifts is ridiculous.

  Mythicists are also still stuck with the phrase "who was called Messiah", which Origen's mentions show can't be dismissed as an interpolation. They usually attempt to argue that, as a High Priest, Jesus the son of Damenus would have been "called Messiah" because "Messiah" means 'anointed" and priests were anointed with oil at their elevation. Since there are no actual examples of any priests being referred to this way, this is another ad hoc argument designed merely to get the Mythicist argument off the hook.

  So the consensus of scholars, Christian and non-Christian, is that the Antiquities XVIII.3.4 passage is authentic despite some obvious later additions and the Antiquities XX.9.1 passage is wholly authentic. These references alone give us about as much evidence for the existence of a historical "Jesus, who was called Messiah" as we have for comparable Jewish preachers and prophets and is actually sufficient to confirm his existence with reference to any gospel or Christian source.'

  Also please read what that same article says about what Tacitus wrote about Jesus and how that is also strong evidence that Jesus (the one who was and is called Christ) was a historical person. The conclusion in the article mentions in part the following.

  "The original question we concerned ourselves with was whether historians regard the existence of Jesus to be "historical fact". The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world. There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material. Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure.

  The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam's Razor and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars."
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Where the article at https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/ says "... sufficient to confirm his existence with reference to any gospel or Christian source" I think the author meant to say "... sufficient to confirm his existence without reference to any gospel or Christian source", especially since in his conclusion he says "... even without looking at the gospel material."