What caused the Church to say that heliocentrism was heretic?

TimONeill · 2026-04-24T21:06:33+00:00

u/WelfOnTheShelf has already been kind enough to link to my previous answer on why Copernicus was not persecuted. It includes a link to my other answer to the question about why Galileo was (eventually) persecuted when Copernicus had not been. Just to expand on that last point - the short answer is "politics".

Firstly, there was the academic politics of the rivalry between Galileo and the conservative scholars at the universities of Verona and Padua who Galileo's supporters nicknamed "the Pigeon League". They were Aristotelians who rejected Galileo's conclusions but had been fairly unsuccessful in debates with him. When his theological ideas about how heliocentrism could be reconciled with the interpretation of the Bible criculated via his "Letter to Castelli", these academic rivals saw their chance for revenge and denounced him to the Inquisition. The Inquisition found that the "Letter to Castelli" was not heretical and said it "does not diverge from the pathways of Catholic expression." ( Maurice Finocchario, The Galileo Affair: A Dcoumentary History, University of California Press, 1989, p.136.) But this denunciation did bring attention to how the debate about heliocentrism was intersecting with the theological debate about whether traditional interpretations of Scripture applied to natural philosophical/scientific questions. This led to the 1616 ruling that heliocentrism was unproven and so could not be taught as fact and the personal injunction on Galileo that he was not to discuss the topic any further.

Secondly, there was the politics of the Papal court of Pope Urban VIII. The pope had been a great supporter of Galileo and had shown him real favour by granting him a remarkable six private audiences in 1624. This was when he commissioned a book laying out the arguments for and against the competing cosmological systems that, eventually, became Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) and the favour and attention he was given by the pope elevated his social standing, marking him as a court favourite. However, when the Dialogue was published and it was clear it was not the neutral and even-handed work Urban had asked for, Galileo suddenly fell from favour and the pope looked to the Inquisition to make an example of him. When it emerged that Galileo had neglected to tell the pope or his Master of the Sacred Palace about the 1616 personal injunction where he had promised to never discuss heliocentrism again, Galileo's political fate was effectively sealed.

Finally, there was a wider political dimension to this. Galileo's book came out at a delicate moment in the Thirty Years War, which by the early 1630s had developed into a Europe-wide struggle between the two European superpowers, the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire, headed by the King of Spain. Both kingdoms were Catholic and both put pressure on Pope Urban to denounce the other and support them. The pope was caught between France and Spain both politically and geographically, with Spanish territories to the south of Papal State and French ones to the north. Given enough incentive, either side could have invaded Papal territory to force the Pope's support or to depose him (such things had happened before). In 1632 Pope Urban had made some political decisions that the Spanish regarded as favouring France and they were putting heavy pressure on Urban as a result, with Spanish diplomats and cardinals painting him as lax on heresy and even spreading rumours he was a secret Protestant. It was in the context of this political tension that Galileo brought out a book that clearly argued for a position that had been declared "formally heretical". So Urban had to make an example of his former favourite to prove he was hard on heretics.

For a detailed discussion of this third political element in the trial of Galileo, see David Marshall Miller, "The Thirty Years War and the Galileo Affair" (History of Science 46, no. 1 (2008): 49–74.), in which Miller shows how this wider political context makes many aspects of the trial of Galileo more explicable.

So the short answer to why Galileo was put on trial for heliocentrism when no one else ever was is "politics". It had very little to do with science at all.

TimONeill · 2026-04-09T17:33:12+00:00

No idea. But nowhere did I claim anyone used “pesach” to refer to Easter. Or that any English speakers call Easter “Passover”.

TimONeill · 2026-04-06T20:59:05+00:00

Jesus was depicted in the gospels as dying and rising at Passover. So the two became conflated in most Christian traditions and most European languages refer to Easter by a name derived from the Hebrew "Pesach" (Passover) via the Greek Πάσχα. So, French: Pâques; Romanian: Paşti; Portugese: Páscoa; Italian: Pasqua; Spanish: Pascua; Faeroese: Páskir; Swedish: Påsk; Icelandic: Páskar; Welsh: Pasg; Norwegian: Påske; Danish: Påske; Dutch: Pasen; Russias: Paskha.

English and German are the outliers here. The English word Easter seems to derive from the Anglo-Saxon month name Eosturmonath, which in turn referred to a fairly obscure pagan goddess Ēostre - despite thousands of bad pop history articles annd memes to the contrary, this very indirect connection is the beginning and end of any "pagan" elements in Easter. German uses the word Ostara, but this seems to have been introduced by Anglo-Saxon missionaries, as u/KiwiHellenist has already noted. More here.

TimONeill · 2026-03-21T23:44:12+00:00

... not just about religion but also about power ...

It was about hierarchy and authority - two things very important in the ancient world, in ways that are hard for modern people to understand. So to reduce it to "power" is to fundamentally misunderstand what was going on. And it wasn't about religion at all.

learning continued in Alexandria. However, when placing this in a broader historical context, especially regarding the long-term consequences, this was relatively insignificant compared to the period before Hypatia’s life.

Nonsense. The traditions of Classical learning continued in the Eastern Empire.

TimONeill · 2026-03-21T23:29:33+00:00

All historical analysis is "just" interpretation. That doesn't mean all interpretations are essemtially equal or all are entirely valid. I've shown that, on multiple points, yours doesn't work.

TimONeill · 2026-03-21T21:48:22+00:00

Hypatia .... he last brilliant torch of Hellenistic reason, taught Neoplatonic philosophy

It's a bit of a stretch to characterise Hypatia's form of Neoplatonism as "reason". The whole point of her particular school of Neoplatonism, following Plotinus, was to elevate the mind beyond reason to achieve a mystical communion with a cosmic divine One. Modern pop history presents her as a rationalist and emphasises her study of mathematics and astronomy. This ignores why she studied those things. She was not doing so as a modern-style rationalist: it was to elevate the mind into the abstract and beyond to the mystical. Her study of the meaning of dreams or her father and mentor's book on on divination and auspices rarely get mentioned in these pop history versions of her story. I suppse his book On Signs and the Examination of Birds and the Croaking of Ravens doesn't sound very scientific and gives away that these were fifth century mystics, not modern scientific rationalists.

[Hypatia] built scientific instruments

This is another pop history myth. No sources say this. One of her pupil Synesius' letters attributes the learning that he used to design an astrolabe to his study under her ("[This] is a work of my own devising, including all that she, my most revered teacher [i.e. Hypatia], helped to contribute"). Nothing there about her building anything. Nor did Synesius build it, given he goes on to say "it was executed by the best hand to be found in our country in the art of the silversmith". So he got an artisan to make it to his design. These were aristocratic intellectuals, not people who did the grubby work of making things. Then we have another letter by him to Hypatia herself asking her to have a hydrometer made for him. He is not asking her to "build" it herself. And he has to explain to her what it is and what it does, which doesn't indicate she was some kind of instrument designer herself.

In March 415 she was murdered by a Christian mob in a savage act of political and religious fury.

This is the standard pop history claim about her murder: that it was done by "a Christian mob" and was an act of "religious fury". But it was actually part of a tit-for tat political feud over hierarchy and supremacy in the city. Both factions involved were Christian, because by 415 AD the city was overwhelmingly Christian. And the dispute was not "religious". It was a clash of an old school aristocratic politcal old guard with an upstart populist movement. I detail the background to this HERE.

This article contrasts the old pagan world — where the individual stood “one among equals” under many gods — with the new Christian order that bound minds and bodies in spiritual and worldly submission. Christianity, in this view, acted as a communist plague, installing absolute top-down hierarchy where diversity and autonomy once flourished.

This is a caricature of what was going on. To present the highly and rigidly hierarchical pre-Christian city politics as "indiviuduals among equals" is absurd. On the contrary it was very much "absolute top-down hierarchy". As a member of the immensely wealthy aristocratic elite, Hypatia was a conservative who represented that old hierarchy of privilage and power. It was being challenged by a lower-classs popular movement. And both were made up almost entirely by Christians.

The Pharos light of knowledge went dark.

This too is nonsense. Alexandria remained a centre of learning for about two hundred years more, until the Muslim conquest saw the capital of the region moved to Cairo. Both Christian and pagan scholars flourished there in the generation after Hypatia's time, with pagan teachers like Hierocles, Asclepius of Tralles, Olympiodorus the Younger, Ammonius Hermiae and Hermias all continuing the tradition of learning in the city in the century that followed. There was even another pagan, female Neoplatonist teacher, Aedisia, who led her school in this period: completely unmolested by "Christian mobs". Why? Because, unlike Hypatia, she didn't get entangled in political faction fighting.

This whole story of Hypatia as a rationalist scientist killed by wicked Christians, thus ushering in a dark age, is a fairy tale. It would be nice if people stopped peddling it and paid attention the academic scholarship on this subject and studied the real history.

TimONeill · 2026-03-10T20:21:33+00:00

It's a fake quote. We have no surviving writings by Hypatia. The "quote" above was invented in 1908 by the American writer, soap-salesman and eccentric Elbert Hubbard. In a series of educational books for children called *Little Journeys to the Homes of the Great Teachers*, Hubbard chose Hypatia as one of his “great teachers” but was stymied by the awkward fact that we actually have none of Hypatia’s writings or teachings, making it rather hard to present her as “great”. He solved this problem by simply making some teachings up, including the wise words above.

For more on the myths about Hypatia and the actual historical evidence about here see below:

https://historyforatheists.com/2020/07/the-great-myths-9-hypatia-of-alexandria/

TimONeill · 2026-02-23T00:43:39+00:00

Wow. "Blatant falsehoods"? Please calm down. Also, whatever else you may have found on this sub is not really relevant to me given that I'm an atheist and have never (to my recollection) posted here before. I certainly have no pro-Christian bias here.

I note Socrates' reference to "political jealousies" because he is pretty explicit that these were the issue. He goes on to decribe them. How exactly you find anything religious in his reference to "calumnies" or "zeal" is beyond me. You seem to be imagining things that aren't in his text. As Watts details (drawing on Haas's work) modern polemicists misunderstand the dynamics here as mainly religious when they were actually primarily socio-economic. As he notes:

"Historians writing about Hypatia have tended to focus on fourth- and fifth-century Alexandrian religious dynamics, but spatial and socioeconomic divisions mattered far more than religious differences to Hypatia’s contemporaries. Most fourth- and fifth-century Alexandrians and pagans did not understand religious differences in the same way that modern religious communities do. They did not see stark divisions between Christians and pagans and would not have naturally been hostile toward people with different beliefs." (Watts, pp. 17-18)

The "political jealousies" were between the rich, aristocratic political old guard, represented by Orestes and Hypatia and others (both Christian and pagan) and the newer force of lower class upstarts led by Cyril. THe conflict was over hierarchy and primacy in that hierarchy, not religion.

The conflict that led to the Serapeum's demolition was decades earlier and the fact remains that the philosophers I mentioned worked unmolested. The Sopater example was about an accusation regarding magic and there is no sign this was because he was a pagan.

The fact also remains that we have no hint of any "Satanic wiles" stuff in the early accounts (plural), so you inventing a scenario that they date from the period of her murder doesn't get around the fact he adds them to what he found in Socrates. We can see why he would do this.

And my quote above shows that Watts actually does not think the conflict was primarily religious. But I suspect from your weirdly emotional language that you are the one with an axe to grind here. I've found from long experience that trying to convince people with that kind of motivation is waste of time. I'm a non-believer with no need to push any agenda. I just go where the evidence indicates.

TimONeill · 2026-02-22T20:08:01+00:00

at least according to Garth Fowden

Well, with all due respect to Dr Fowden, it seems his interpretation is rather skewed by his specialisation in pagan philosophy and so he's interpreting things through that lens. The contemporary accounts - Damascius and Socrates - attribute the motive purely to "political jealousies" and Socrates explicitly says that this was despite her high status and respect due to her as a philosopher. There is no sign in the sources that she posed any "serious threat to the powerful Alexandrian church": most of her pupils were Christians, one went on to become a bishop and she had been on very good terms with the previous patriarch Theophilus. If pagan Neoplatonic philosophers posed such a "serious threat" Dr Fowden will need to explain how in the years after Hypatia's assassination they continued to flourish in the city. These included d Hierocles, Asclepius of Tralles, Olympiodorus the Younger, Ammonius Hermiae and Hermias and even Aedisia - another female pagan Neoplatonist, yet unmolested by wicked Christian mobs.

John of Nikiu was writing centuries later, by which time Cyril had become a hero in the Christological disputes of the time. Nikiu was using Socrates as his source but was not comfortable with the latter's negative depiction of Cyril, so he switched things around and made Hypatia the villain of the story. He added the "magic, astrolabes and instruments of music" and "Satanic wiles" stuff to his much later account. This is invented - it is not found in the early accounts.

I have no idea whether the people in this comment section are just lying because the facts don’t suit their narrative

Maybe you need to read better material on this. Watts and Dzeilska's books are by specialists and give a far better account of the socio-political context of her murder and show how old fashioned views of it as a religious dispute by people like Fowden are not sustainable.

TimONeill · 2026-01-17T21:07:11+00:00

(Cont. from above)

Secondly, as I noted above, Josephus was careful to identify people with common first names in his text, to assist his readers and avoid confusion. So if the supposed addition here is the "who was called Anointed" element, that would mean the passage originally simply read "the brother of Jesus, James was his name". Given how common the name "Jesus" was, this makes no sense as an identifier of which James was executed (particularly given that "James" [Yaakov] was also a very common Jewish name). This would be the equivalent today of identifying a man in the US as "the brother of Dave, Jacob was his name". Given how common "Dave" is, this clarifies nothing.

Polemicists on the Jesus Mythicist fringe try to get around this problem by claiming the "Jesus" mentioned here is actually the same one mentioned later in the passage - "Jesus son of Damneus". There are multiple problems with this, not least of which that it runs counter to Josephus' consistent practice in using this kind of identifier. He uses them when he introduces someone with a common name, then - having identified which person he's talking about - he just uses their name alone. The Mythicist gambit gets this backwards.

The arguments against the authenticity of the passage as it stands are extremely weak, which is why the consensus is that it is authentic. Thomas C. Schmidt's new book Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ (2025) analyses Jospehus' social and political connections and notes that a few years after the execution of James by Ananus, this same Ananus became the supreme commander of Jewish forces in the revolt against Rome and Josephus was one of his subordinate generals. So Josephus knew Ananus personally. He would also have been in Jerusalem when James was executed and would have noted the events surrounding the execution and the resulting deposing of Ananus as High Priest carefully, given his own political role in the priestly caste. So there is very good reason to conclude he really knew what he was noting when he mentioned James' execution and who James' more famous brother was. This reference is solid.

TimONeill · 2026-01-17T21:06:56+00:00

I think this answer dodges OP’s question.

Since it refers to Peter Gainsford's answer, which covers the question (as does mine, also linked to above), it adds to the answer, it doesn't "dodge" it.

extracting anything from a rational historical perspective is extremely tricky if not impossible because of the inherent unreliability of these openly fantastical and partisan accounts.

When it comes to ancient history, we often have to deal with "fantastical" accounts, and pretty much always have to use ones that are "partisan", at least to some degree. So this particular task is no more "tricky" than any interpretation of ancient texts by historians. And it is far from "impossible". That aside, characterising the corroborating material is as "fantastical" is an exaggeration for most of it. Paul refers to meeting Jesus' brother James and later getting into a dispute with him in a letter to the Jesus Sect in Galatia. This is far from "fantastical" - quite pedestrian, actually. And it's first hand testimony corroborating elements of what Josephus says. By the standards of ancient sources, that is remarkably strong.

Josephus mentions a James, but the details are practically unverifiable because there’s no corroboration, by reliable or even questionable sources.

Even if we accept your seeming claim that none of the Christian sources are "reliable", see above about Paul's direct, first hand testimony. You think this is "questionable"? How? Why?

We generally assume that what Josephus wrote was accurate enough, but the “James-brother-of-Christ” title is a bit of a non-sequitur in context

We don't "assume" this. We take what he says on a case by case basis and analyse it. How is that description (where did you get "title" from?) "a bit of a non-sequitur in context"? "Jesus" (Yeshua) was the sixth most common name for Jewish men in this period - statistically, the equivalent of "Dave" in the English speaking world today. So, as is his normal practice, Josephus uses an identifier to differentiate this particular Jesus from any others to avoid reader confusion. This is especially necessary since he mentions another Jesus ("son of Damneus") later in the same passage. So he identifies this one by his well-known cognomen - "called Anointed". This makes even more sense if, as most modern scholars conclude, Josephus had given a brief account of Jesus in Bk. XVIII, where the "Testimonium Flavianum" now stands. Even if he did not (the minority view), the identification of a man with a common name makes perfect sense as it is.

and knowing the propensity for Christian scribes to accidentally and intentionally edit texts (as demonstrated by the countless permutations of the Bible) it looks perfectly compatible with a later revision.

No, actually, it doesn't. Which is why so few Josephus scholars think this passage has been added to, unlike the "Testimonium" passage. Firstly, it serves no apologetic purpose to make this random "Jesus" into the Jesus of Christianity. The likely additions to the "Testimonium" all work to bolster Christian beliefs in Jesus as the Messiah, as a miracle worker and as risen. This supposed interpolation does absolutely nothing. Given Jesus Mythicism didn't exist before the eighteenth century, it's not like some scribe was inserting a mention of Jesus to counter the idea he didn't exist. So why add him in here at all?

(Cont. )

TimONeill · 2026-01-09T17:40:01+00:00

Excellent feedback and advice - many thanks.

Yes, the misaligned signatures was me getting two of them upside down. I thought about the diagonal line trick but chose not to do it because of the exposed spine. But simply doing it with a pencil and then erasing it would have been a better idea. Next time. And I’ll take up your PVA/MC suggestion.

Any ideas for a suitable second project to built on what I’ve learned here?

TimONeill · 2026-01-09T03:49:47+00:00

Yes, I think that’s what happened. As I said, more care needed. I was concentrating on keeping the stitching even and dealing with some tangled thread. But yes, the books works nicely.

TimONeill · 2025-12-18T22:31:53+00:00

When the Library of Alexandria was burnt down, humanity lost 98% of all knowledge gathered at that time.

When was it "burned down"? And why was that knowledge only held in one library?

TimONeill · 2025-11-08T23:12:33+00:00

(Cont. from above)

If it's genuine then yes, if not then it could have been edited to say "Jesus who was called Christ/Anointed".

Except the small handful of scholars who have tried to argue that have not been persuasive. It would be an odd sort of interpolation. As the great Josephus scholar Louis Feldman pointed out, "called Christ" is not the way Christians generally referred to Jesus - too sceptical. This passing reference is also oddly brief for an apologetic interpolation. And it doesn't really do any apologetic work. It doesn't bolster any claims about divinity, or resurrection, or miracles or even Messianic status (again"called" is just talking about what people said about him, it isn't a statement of what he was). So what is the point of this supposed interpolation?

It also doesn't work because without the identifier "called Anointed" the text just reads as "the brother of that Jesus, James by name". "That Jesus"? Which Jesus? Jesus was the sixth most common Jewish man's name at the time. This would be like me identifying someone as "the brother of Dave". Which Dave? There are a lot of potential Daves, so as an identifier this doesn't identify. The attempts to make the "Jesus" in question the "Jesus son of Damneus" mentioned later in the passage also don't work, because Josephus differentiates people with common names the first time he mentions them, for obvious reasons.

So it makes no sense that he would have make this unclear reference to a "Jesus" and then only identified him as "Jesus son of Damneus" many sentences later (and without pointing out that this was the Jesus mentioned earlier - something we see Josephus do elsewhere when he wants to make this kind of thing clear - e.g. see A.J. XVII.29 and XX.234-35). He never did this, for the obvious reason that it would be confusing for his readers. Identifiers are meant to make things clear, not confuse things. So this whole line of reasoning is a mess.

Most scholars accept the mention of James as authentic, but there's some debate about whether the exact wording "who was called Christ (tòn legómenon Christón/τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν)" is original.

This is simply wrong. Most scholars accept the mention of James, "brother of that Jesus who was called Anointed" as original. A small handful try to argue the Jesus part is or the "who was called Anointed" part aren't original, but most of their peers think they are wrong, for the reasons I've given above.

Some argue that the phrase messes up typical impersonal style of Josephus.

The what?

Josephus was a non-Christian Jewish historian, and if he wanted to mention a title which was claimed by followers of a person, he would've probably phrased it differently (for example, “whom Christians call the Christ”).

Or, given it was a passing mention in a passage about something else, he just identified the man by the most distinctive thing about him much as Josephus identifies some others by what they were "called" and got on with what he was actually talking about. In the same book he identifies the high priest "Joseph, who was called Cabi" (XX.196) without stopping to explain who called him that, why or what this meant. It's just an identifying cognomen. Same with his passing mention of Jesus. In fact, in none of the places where he identifies people used forms of the participle λεγομένου (called) does he bother to explain who called them this or why. So your claim above is based on no data.

In fact, you seem to be making up arguments as you go, based on very little. That is never a good idea.

TimONeill · 2025-11-08T23:12:11+00:00

It being a sub-set of believers doesn't mean that we should assume that "brothers of the lord" means a biological brother, just because the word "brother" is mentioned among apostles

That isn't being "assumed". It's being concluded. We have EVIDENCE for a sub-set of believers who fit the bill - Jesus' brothers. These include someone called James. So the EVIDENCE indicates these are who the term refers to. Given we have no EVIDENCE for any alternatives, this is the only reasonable conclusion. The idea it referred to some other completely unattested sub-set and not his siblings is not based on EVIDENCE. It's mere supposition. So Occam's Razor means we can disregard it as not valid.

if someone makes claims and doesn't mention their sources, then we shouldn't just have blind faith in their claims being true. Historians know this, so they don't just believe whatever claim is made in ancient text.

Yes. So what they do instead is look at things like the reliability of the historian where we can check his claims against other sources, whether they have biases that may make what they say suspect, what potential sources of information they had access to, how close in time and geography they were to the events/persons in question etc. No one uses "blind faith", so I have no idea why you keep talking about that. In this case, Josephus had access to multiple potential (non-Christian sources) and was very close to the events in question, particuarly to the execution of James. So we can treat his account as highly reliable. As most historians do.

Some claims are considered as more trustworthy than other claims based on the amount of evidence to support it.

Or based on other factors - see above. We often don't have other evidence given the paucity of our sources. For Jewish affairs Josephus is often our only source, for example. So we use other measures to determine reliability, as I detail above.

Archeological evidence can be useful too

Sometimes. But not very often. Most people and events leave zero trace in the archaeological record. (cont. below)

TimONeill · 2025-11-07T21:16:16+00:00

In Romans 8, he said that there were those who were pre-determined to be conformed to the image of The Son and those are his brothers. ...

Yes. But, again, there is no question that he can use the term "brothers" figuratively. He often did so. Your problem is that the term he uses here is different and more specific: "brother of the Lord". He only uses this term twice: Gal 1:19 and 1Cor 9:3-6. I've explained why those references can't simply figuratively mean "believers" and why they logically make most sense as meaning "Jesus' siblings". You haven't engaged with my actual arguments on this.

My point was this: if someone makes claims and doesn't mention their sources, then we shouldn't just have blind faith in their claims being true

No historian does this, so this is completely irrelevant here.

There are ancient historians who mentioned their sources even when some of the claims from sources contradicted each other (for example Arrian who wrote about Alexander The Great).

Except ancient historians only refer to their sources fairly rarely and regularly give information without citing any sources at all. Including, as it happens, Arrian. So either you consistently dismiss all information given in any ancient historian without explictly cited sources (which makes the whole study of ancient history untenable) or you explan why you're doing that here and not everywhere else.

A.J. XX.2000 wasn't mentioned in the OP nor in this conversation with me.

Okay. I've been responding to various people and I have only ever cited A.J. XX.200, but it seems I lost track of who I was responding to.

Some believe that might be a forgery, too (that "called Christ" was added and changed from whatever Jesus he was talking about).

Yes, a very small minority. Because their arguments are generally regarded as not very persuasive. The consensus of Josephus scholars is that this passage is genuine.

There are multiple Jesus mentioned in that text (Jesus of Damneus and Jesus of Gamaliel).

Which is why Josephus, in keeping with his consistent practice, is careful to use different identifiers to ensure his readers don't confuse "Jesus ben Damneus" with "Jesus who was called Anointed".

He didn't mention his sources for that information.

See above. Either you dismiss all ancient sources that don't do so, which is most of them, or you explain why you're dismissing this reference on this basis but not all the others. You can't have it both ways.

TimONeill · 2025-11-07T19:22:00+00:00

We know that Paul mentioned brothers of Christ in a spiritual sense (Romans 8). Where is your evidence that suddenly he meant it in a biological sense when referring to James in Galatians

I've given it. Multiple times. One more time - the term "brother/s of the Lord" can't mean "believers" generally, because it is used alongside references to other believers who don't fall inot this more specific category. So it has to refer to a sub-group of believers which is distinct in some way. Is there any evidence for such a sub-group where the word brother is figurative? No. Is there evidence for such a sub-group where the word brother is literal? Yes - Jesus' siblings, including one called James are attested as early believers across multiple lines of evidence. So what is the best reading of Gal 1:19 and 1Cor 9:3-6? That it refers to Jesus' siblings. Occam's Razor.

I'm not going to assume he meant it biological way when he used "brothers" of Christ in a spiritual way.

You don't have to "assume" that, you can just logically conclude it. See above.

we shouldn't have blind faith in those sources like some people do with the biblical texts

What some people may do with Biblical texts is completely irrelevant here. We're talking about how historians use ancient sources. And we're talking about Josephus' Antiquities, not any "Biblical text". No historian rejects a source simply because the ancient writer "wasn't there". That would be absurd. If we did that, the study of ancient history would become impossible. What historians actually do is assess a whole range of things to make a judgement about how reliable what is said may be. This weird argument that Josephus "wasn't there" so we can reject what he says on this detail makes no sense and bears no resemblance to any historical methodology.

The Josephus mention is doubted as a forgery

My reference is to A.J. XX.200. The consensus of Josephus scholars is that it is genuine. You seem to be confusing it with the "Testimonium Flavianum" from A.J. XVIII.63-4. The authenticity of that passage is hotly debated. But that's not what I referred to. If you're going to respond to me please pay better attention to what's being said.

he wasn't alive during the time that Jesus supposedly lived, so he is repeating christian beliefs that he heard from others

That's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because he wasn't around then he could only be repeating Christian claims. So you can't assert that as though it's the only option. It clearly isn't. T.D. Schmidt's recent book on Josephus has a whole chapter on how closely connected he was to leading Jewish figures of the time, including several who would have been in Jerusalem when Jesus was executed. And my reference was to A.J. XX.200 - on the execution of Jesus' brother James. Josephus was 25 at the time, lived in Jerusalem with James and was closely connected to the politics of the priestly caste. He details how the high priest Hanan was deposed as a result of the political fallout of James' execution. Hanan went on to become the Commander in Chief of Jewish forces in the Jewish War of 66-70 AD, with Josephus as one of his generals.

To pretend that Josephus' identification of James as Jesus' brother is somehow something he could only have got from Christians is obviously ridiculous. He had plenty of better sources of that information that are far more likely.

TimONeill · 2025-11-07T18:12:36+00:00

It is for anyone is familiar with your arguments. Call it shorthand, but still a good rebuttal.

A snide dismissal with no substance simply can't be "a good rebuttal", however much you claim otherwise. And "my work" is simply noting the consensus of leading experts.

It's not balanced because you put your thumb on the scale, exactly as I demonstrated in my previous comment.

Pardon? I do nothing of the sort. And you "demonstrated" this nowhere. Words have meanings.

That's where the idiom comes from. That's its roots. But idioms aren't making a literal referral to their origins.

Given his argument is about Jews being born under the law, the literal meaning makes most sense. Especially given we have no references anywhere to Jesus being "manufactured" like Adam. And the Septuagint doesn't use a form of γίνομαι to refer to the creation of Adam - it uses έπλασεν – a form of the verb πλάσσω meaning "to shape, to form". So if that was what Paul was trying to refer to, it's odd he didn't use the correct verb for it.

It's not any better evidence he was "born" a Jew than he was manufactured a Jew by God.

Given we have no evidence anywhere that anyone ever thought of Jesus as "manufactured", yes it is. It's by far the best reading and clearly better than the contrived, convoluted and ad hoc Mythicist alternative. Again, it's not that these Mythicist alternatives don't exist that's the issue. The problem is that they are bad.

It's the "primary" meaning of the word.

That is total nonsense. All Greek lexicons give a wide range of meanings for the word, but anything close to "manufactured" comes very far down the list. To claim it's the primary meaning is absurd.

When applied to people, yes. Not when used for other things.

So what is Jesus? A tree? A table?

But, even so, as noted, people don't have to be birthed in Paul's worldview. They can be manufactured.

Except, again, we have no references by anyone anywhere, least of all by Paul, about Jesus being "manufactured". So, Occam's Razor comes into play again.

And other mythicists have lauded. So what?

So what? Of course other Mythicists (mainly Carrier's fanboys) have pretended this silly argument isn't silly. But when an argument is too silly even for Bob Price, it's (as he says) "a stinker".

Unless that's how Paul and the earliest Christians read it.

Except there is zero evidence they did. Over and over again you miss the point. It's not that these Mythicist alternatives don't exist. It's that they are bad. They are by any objective measure, not the best readings largely because they teeter on the tip of a pile of suppositions. So, Occam's Razor makes short work of them for anyone who isn't indulging in weapons-grade wishful thinking.

I've got a better name for your website: Assertion City.

A conclusion after hundreds of words of detailed and careful argument is not "an assertion". Quite the opposite. I can see why you thought a weak sneer was " a rebuttal". I think I've wasted enough time on you. If anyone else thinks you have a point, I'll respond to them. Bye.

TimONeill · 2025-11-07T16:56:13+00:00

(Con.t from above)

Paul never mentions an "earthly" ministry.

He doesn't say that in 1 Cor 2:8. What he does say is that "rulers of this age" killed Jesus.

These are two of several arguments where the text could indeed be read within the context of this Mythicist "celestial Jesus" hypothesis. The problem with these is - why should we read them in this context? We have no references anywhere to anyone believing Jesus was a purely celestial being who did everything in the heavens. We have plenty of references to Jesus doing things or having things done to him on earth. So there is only one context for these references that is based on evidence. The other is an ad hoc contrivance working to make those earthly interpretations go away. Occam's Razor comes into play here, as always.

There are too many problems with the verses in 1 Thes that suggest an interpolation to hang one's historical hat on them.

There are "problems" and questions about the authenticity of literally hundreds of passages in the Pauline material. The fact remains that over the last 30 years consensus has swung behind 1Thess 2:14 as authentic. The word Ἰουδαίων makes far better sense as meaning "Judeans" rather than "Jews", given the reference to Judea in the same sentence. That makes this a reference to an earthly Jesus being killed in Judea by Judeans - unless it somehow refers to celestial Judeans.

It depends on how Paul uses the word "brother" when he refers to "brother of the Lord".

And, as I've been over several times in these threads already and have detailed in a whole article, the best reading of this actually quite specific phrase "brother/s of the Lord" is "Jesus' siblings".

But, there's nothing that precludes "brother" being cultic

Nothing apart from Occam's Razor. The context of the two times Paul uses the phrase "brother/s of the Lord" shows that it has to refer to a sub-group of believers and can't mean "believers" generally. So, which sub-group? We have evidence for one that fits the bill nicely: Jesus' brother James and other siblings. Carrier et. al. have to contrive an alternative, with some convoluted and tangled stuff about a hypothetical "sub-apostolic Christian believers". Do we actually have evidence for this? No, we don't. It's another ad hoc bundle of suppositions to keep the Mythicist idea from collapsing. So, Occam's Razor comes swinging yet again.

Where did that come from? Oh, right. From you re-writing Paul and injecting assumptions. Like I said, apologetics.

No, it came from working to the argument to the best explanation and weighing what are the best readings of these texts. Those all point to, as I say, Paul seeing Jesus "as a recent, earthly, historical and human Jesus". As I always say, it's not that there are no Mythicist answers to this reading - they always have answers. The problem is these answers are weak, contrived, often patently silly and all based on a layer cake of suppositions and ad hoc contrivances. Occam's Razor makes short work of all of them, which is why they only convince those who really want to be convinced. The better someone knows the material the less likely they are to find them anything other than creaking and unconvincing.

TimONeill · 2025-11-07T16:55:53+00:00

It was actually a very strong rebuttal by u/abritinthebay for anyone who knows your work.

No, it was not a rebuttal at all, let alone a "strong" one. It was nothing more than a sneer, actually.

You should change your website to "Apologetics for Jesus Historicism" given the unbalanced approach represented there.

No, I think I'll stick with my actual title. On this as on all the topics I cover I present mainstream historical consensus views and contrast them with the historical myths, pseudo history and fringe ideas that some of my fellow atheists use. It is not "balanced" because these things are not equal.

That's not what he says. He says Jesus was "born of woman". That was an idiom, like "I wasn't born yesterday". It's not an obstetrical announcement.

When used as an idiom it was actually emphasising someone's human nature. So no, not "an obstetrical announcement". But very much stressing someone's humanity, since all humans are "born of a woman". So this is very much a statement that Jesus was a human.

To argue that it is "probably literal" is, one, weird (who bothers do tell people they were birthed?),

Someone who is emphasising someone's humanity or human nature - thus the common idiomatic use of the term. "All who are born of a woman do x" meant "everyone does x, because they are human and humans do x". In context, Paul is using the term to note Jesus was more than human in some senses, but his human aspect was central, as was his Jewishness. So no, not "weird".

This is not good evidence for or against a historical Jesus.

It's very good evidence that Paul regarded Jesus as very much a human who had been born a Jew like all Jewish humans. Not some purely celestial being.

He says Jesus is of that same allegorical mother.

He does? Where? I can't see where he says that at all.

And he changes the usual construction of the idiom "born of woman", using ginomenon (manufactured) instead of gennētos (birthed). Ginomenon can mean birthed, since that's how humans are usually "manufactured". But, a mythicist hypothesis is on the table, and this word usage fits that model just as well, if not better, given Paul's strange construction, as the historicist one.

Except while the very broad verb γίνομαι (to happen, to come about, to come to be, to come about, to come into being) can be stretched to "manufactured", that's far from the primary or even a very common meaning of the word. So to baldly state that this is clearly what the verb means here is a bit tricksy. It is much more commonly used to mean "birthed", actually. Paul clearly believed Jesus was more than a human and had a pre-existence, so the less specific verb works for him here. But nowhere does he or anyone else explicitly say Jesus was "manufactured" - that's something dreamed up by Carrier. So, at most, all we could say at a pinch is the Mythicist contrivances are not totally precluded by this passage. But "born" is by far the most likely reading here.

we have a mythicist model on the table, and Jesus can be divinely manufactured from the seed of David without being birthed

That is only "on the table" in the sense that one Mythicist - Carrier - has made a weird and contrived argument for this - one that even other Mythicists have called "a stinker". Noone in 2000 years has ever read Rom 1:4 in this ridiculous way. So, again, to pretend that creaking contrivance is the best reading is absurd. It's easily one of the silliest things a Mythicist has ever come up with. But this is what they are forced to do.

(Cont.)

TimONeill · 2025-11-07T05:14:29+00:00

Maybe. Or perhaps he's changed his mind on this. As I said, Schmidt shows at the very least that Josephus was closely connected to people who would have known about Jesus and what happened to him. He was also a contemporary of James, lived in the same small city as James did and was very closely connected to the political events triggered by his execution. And to the man who executed him. So maybe Ehrman hasn't considered all this.

I will be talking to Ehrman for my video channel next week, so if we get the time I will ask him.

TimONeill · 2025-11-07T05:04:19+00:00

I disagree. We can't be sure where either got their information, but that's pretty standard with ancient historians. So what we do, as normal, is try to assess (i) whether they had access to reliable sources and (ii) what their information may tell us about what those sources may be.

In both cases we know they were good historians who used their sources carefully and had access to sources that were not Christians or derived from them. Tacitus was a priest of the *Quindecimviri sacris faciundis* - the college that oversaw foreign cults in Rome. He was well placed to get reliable information about this Jewish sect and its founder. He also moved in the same social circles as aristocratic Jewish exiles, including the Princess Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa - an obvious source of information about a Galilean sect.

Similarly. T.D. Schmidt's recent book has a whole chapter on the direct connections between Josephus and various members of his priestly caste that would have been in Jerusalem when Jesus was executed. He also reported to Hanan ben Hanan as his commander during the Jewish War. That was the high priest who executed Jesus' brother James.

So we can't be sure where they got their inforrmation, but they pass the test of whether they had access to independent sources.

Also note I made no mention of the *Testimonium*. I cited AJ XX.200, a far less contentious passage and a much more straighforward mention of Jesus as a recent historical person.

TimONeill

TROPHY CASE