287. Jesus Christ: The Mystery

*The Rest Is History Live Tour April 2023*:Tom and Dominic are going on tour in April 2023 and performing in London, Edinburgh, and Salford! Buy your tickets here:robomagiclive....
Jesus Christ: The Mystery In today's episode, Tom and Dominic discuss the most mysterious historical figure of all, Jesus Christ.
They take a deep look at who he was, his teachings, and whether he actually existed. 
To get the second episode in this mini-series right now, join The Rest Is History Club (www.restishistorypod.com). You'll also get ad-free listening to the full archive, weekly bonus episodes, live streamed shows and access to an exclusive chatroom community.
Twitter: @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook

[@simonwells2213]

I'm half way through episode 1 and i have a question.... is there any mention of Brian?

[@jonathonjubb6626]

Big topic, and for once I have extensive knowledge. Let's see ...

[@jonathonjubb6626]

Oh dear... Not much 'history' in the first 20 minutes.

[@deborahrobertson8606]

Isn't the difference that people /nations "believed" in Allah because they knew that they'd have their heads chopped off if they didn't, as opposed to Christians believing in Christ, despite knowing that they would would be executed for doing so? A considerable difference!

[@richardtallach7104]

The Gospels are unlikely to be written after AD 70, because the Temple is everywhere assumed to be standing. See John A. T. Robinson on the dating of the New Testament.

[@andrewmaille8659]

Fantastic episode for both Christians and Atheists alike, big fan of this one!

[@michaelbedford8017]

I love how, after about a minute, you say the name 'Jesus Christ' as if the plumber had just rung to say he wouldn't be coming to fix your leak 'til tomorrow.

[@richardhildebrand104]

Jesus was a carpenter. And he came to serve mankind. So, in many ways, Jesus represents the perfect best of what we can all aspire to.

[@jozsefnemeth935]

Timothy McGrew has an entairtaing and insightful talk on Are the Gospels and Acts reliable historical documents?

[@johnbenson4672]

I enjoyed that. Very balanced and informative.

[@jamesbmcauley]

Let's be honest: this story is only interesting if you find it unique. Otherwise it sounds like a rip off or a con job of fabulists. Do better.

[@j.b.3825]

He was a northerner. From Yorkshire lol. Brilliant.

[@billythedog-309]

Why is that brilliant?

[@mindfulskills]

Please correct me if I misunderstand, but according to Tom Holland, Rome wasn't even collecting taxes from Galilee? Then all of the films, books and TV shows we've seen where tax collectors (like Matthew supposedly was before following Jesus) are wrong? Or is it just that the tax collectors in Galilee (including Capernaum, where Jesus spent most of his time) were collecting for Herod Antipas, and not for Caesar? If this is true, then the TV series "The Chosen" (which supposedly uses historical consultants to get the period right) is totally wrong, and people have had the wrong idea for decades if not centuries. Would appreciate if someone would clear this up for me. Thanks.

[@lutherandross3165]

I’m not sure where Tom got this information. But Publicans (tax collectors among various other titles & job descriptions depending on need) existed all over the Roman Empire at this time. And yes, eventually percentages of all taxes went back to Rome through both direct, indirect, farm & additional Jewish taxation. Some people mistake this because in theory Rome was not supposed to be taxing it’s satellite states. In practice, the Roman system of taxation was extremely corrupt & often extended into regions it had not technically annexed. This includes conducting a census leading up to an annexation. This happened in many regions that were helpless against the expansion of Rome, including Galilee. There was also an entire industry of fake tax collectors running around the outskirts of the empire conducting censuses & collecting taxes that Roman officials had no ability to police. A villager or farmer in Galilee might not know they’d been tricked for months, years or possibly ever.

[@Ken_Scaletta]

During the time of Jesus, Galilee was an independent client kingdom under Herod Antipas. Judea was a Roman province. Galilee was not. During the time of Jesus taxes were definitely collected in Galilee but they were collected by Antipas, not by Rome. As it pertains to the census: Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. Herod was a client king, which means he ruled independently of Rome and paid them a tribute. Rome did not conduct censuses or collect taxes. After Herod died, his kingdom was divided between three of his sons. A son named Archeleaus got the biggest part, Judea, which included Jerusalem and the Temple. Antipas got Galilee and Perea. Antipas is the "Herod" who killed John the Baptist and wants to see Jesus do magic tricks in the Gospel. The third part, East of the Jordan went to Philip, who is mentioned in the Gospels when Jesus flees to his territory to escape from Antipas. Archaelaus turned out to be so brutal and incompetent that after ten years an embassy of Judeans went to Augustus in Rome and asked him to make them a Roman province and get rid of Archelaus (this was not unusual. A lot of populations preferred the stability of Roman rule to tyrannical local kings. Freedom wasn't really a thing. you were going to be subject to someone. You might as well get the best deal). Augustus gave them what they wanted. Archelaus was removed, Judea was annexed as a part of the Syrian province and a governor was appointed to conduct the first Roman census of Judea in 6-7 CE. This census was conducted in Judea and only Judea. Galilee was still a client kingdom not subject to census or tax by ROME. That doesn't mean they weren't taxed by Antipas.

[@Ken_Scaletta]

@@lutherandross3165 Galilee was not a Roman province during the time of Jesus. Judea was, Galilee was an independent client kingdom under Herod Antipas, not subject to Roman censuses or taxes. The tax collectors in Galilee worked for Antipas, not Rome.

[@mindfulskills]

@@Ken_Scaletta Thanks for this, Ken. You've confirmed what historian Tom Holland says. So in "The Chosen," when we see Matthew in his tax collection booth in Capernaum (Galilee) guarded by a Roman soldier, that is wrong. If he was guarded, it would have been one of Herod Antipas's soldiers, not a Roman. Thanks again.

[@Ken_Scaletta]

@@mindfulskills That is correct. There were no Roman troops in Galilee during the time of Jesus. the Herods had their own soldiers and tax collectors. Antipas was rapacious. Fishers on the Sea of Galilee (which is really a lake, not a sea) were not just free to fish the lake and keep or sell what they caught. The lake was literally the private property of Antipas. Fishers had to pay a fee to fish on the lake, then had to pay a percentage of what they caught in Capernaum, then had to pay a toll to take it and sell it in Magdal (which was a major fish processing city just south of Capernaum. Most of what was caight in the lake was processed into garum - a ubiquitous ancient fish sauce). Then got taxed on what they sold as well. By the time they were done getting taxed, they had just enough to survive on. It was a hand to mouth existence. Tax collectors were despised no matter who they worked for.

[@patrickselden5747]

Fascinating podcast, gents! Thank you very much... ☝️😎

[@fernandoseguel-o7f]

Maravilloso. Acá en Atacama los escucho con gran placer

[@robertalpy]

No! The guy who barely hides his contempt when speaking of Christians isnt Christian? Say it aint so. Its ok. We"re used to it and luckily Christ was chill so free will is important.

[@paulgeorge1144]

One of the major sects mentioned by Josephus and Pliny the Elder were the Essenes. But there is no mention of them in the gospels or Paul's letters. Why is this?

[@Rocky-ur9mn]

Because he didn't care to mention it nothing more nothing less

[@williambranch4283]

History is relevant because it isn't past, but alive in the present. It is wrong to think history is discontinuity. Modernity and Enlightenment are taught as discontinuity as revolution. But human nature isn't greatly different thru the ages. In Eternity all time is one.

[@robertalpy]

We have no proof of many later figures. Why is jesus less historical? The romans didnt doubt that they executed this man.

[@michaelhodgson662]

So Jesus influences martin luther to topple statues by denouncing statues.

[@lutherandross3165]

I find it fascinating that an entire podcast can slip through about Columbus without ever mentioning that Columbus didn’t publish his own journals, was dead almost 10 years prior to their release, and that they were translated (edited) into English in 1827 as a propaganda tool with whole sections removed & whole paragraphs added & everyone accepts this version as fact. But we have to tip toe around Christianity because of some butthurt empiricists who seem to think nothing could possibly exist outside of their own ego.

[@robertalpy]

If you sre compsring the lord to a human, only Buddhs comes close. He seems to have reached a level of enlightenment that Christ could recognize and appreciate.

[@robertalpy]

To separate the divine from the Mortal is strange in the ancient world, but not strange for Hebrews who see God as having no mortal sin or traits that mortals would share until Jesus.

[@tonyholmes962]

I don't believe it.

[@taWay21]

I love this podcast.

[@JonniePolyester]

Still trying to find out why and when the crucifix became the symbol of Christianity and when did a Jewish sect become a separate religion.

[@longandshort6639]

Around 33AD when the resurrection occurred.

[@mikegalway4733]

I think the Cross wasn't a Christian symbol until after Constantine became Emperor in 4th century. The cross was a symbol of shame and still used for capital punishment until then often reserved for slaves and foreigners. Early Christian symbols were a fish, or a vine, Chi Rho (X and a P) Alpha/Omega or the good shepherd.

[@gabrielethier2046]

​@@mikegalway4733That's not true, Christians have been using the sign of the cross since at least the very early 3rd century (and very likely quite a bit of time before that as well). Jesus even tells his followers to pick up their cross. Crucifixion was considered a shameful way to die, but that's the point, that's why sacrifice is meaningless, the most innocent man dies the most shameful death.

[@maxjelley4055]

love this channel, great content and womderfully prepared. I've also just been told that Tom is my neighbour and I dont meet many people who share my obsession with these kinds of questions so that's good. Great stuff guys, keep it up!

[@adamcadovius4566]

Of the sources and historicity...no mention of Luke, John Mark, John, Levi (Matthew)? Written between 15 and 25 years after the life of Yeshua, by men who lived with Him (John, Levi)...?

[@MrOliverwoods]

Was Jesus a common name in the Jewish world at that time ? Were there many people named Jesus at that time ?

[@mikegalway4733]

Yes, it was a very common name. His name was Y'shua, it derives from Joshua meaning God is saviour.

[@toptester301]

I don't know guys this seems like trying to prove Spider-Man was real because a thousand years in the future someone finds a Spider-Man comic book and knows from history New York existed.

[@jkb2819]

Is it really though? Any contemporary historians of New York out there casually talking about Peter Parker as if he was an actual person?

[@toptester301]

@@jkb2819 as I said 1,000 years in the future, not currently. The larger the span of time the more Superstition and speculation become factors. An understanding of the history of Jerusalem being in a time of turmoil, isn't substantiation that that turmoil comes from Jesus. That's just speculation. The first hand accounts of Jesus Through The Gospel is it retroactive attempt for substantiation. Taking the Bible as a history book is a logistical fallacy. It may talk of real places, but those places doesn't substantiate the supernatural things the Bible talks about. That is to say in a thousand years when we find a Spider-Man comic book and can substantiate that New York was real, but it isn't proof that Spider-Man was a deity of New York.

[@jkb2819]

@@toptester301 But nobody is claiming that Jesus existed because Judea and Galilee existed. They think he existed because a load of people who were contemporaries of his or near contemporaries say he did. Which is as good as evidence as you get in history (minus finding the corpse, which obviously would be controversial in this case!) I think you are confusing this with a separate argument around Gospel authorship. If the writers are reflecting Jewish knowledge and concerns of the time, this is just generally interesting for understanding why Jesus is portrayed the way he is and why he is revered, irrespective of whether he existed, or was the son of God or whatever. Of course apologists also find it interesting because it casts doubt on the idea that Jesus was invented or exaggerated by people far away in time or by distance. However the existence of Jesus as a basic historical fact does not depend exclusively or even primarily on the Gospel narrative being set in a real life location.

[@williambranch4283]

If people believe in Spider Man at some point, then it is a religion, not a comic book, for as long as people believe in it literally (not as mere poetry). People today believe in Marxism and Karl Marx, who promises believers a Heaven on Earth. Deity or not, that is a religion, and will continue on till the last day a literal believer can be found. In GB, Jedi is a legal religion.

[@marxussy]

Not really, they used Alexander the Great as an example. Any sources talking about him are written long after his life, yet nobody questions his existence.

[@bilinguru]

Hey Tom, you have a tendency when reading passages from historical sources, to read them entirely too quickly to be discernable, which tends to communicate to listeners that the source is not to be believed or bothered with, which I doubt is your intention. Slow down, son! You stutter and babble quite a lot as it is, which I chalk up to your passion about the topic you are discussing. But, it doesn't serve you or listeners well to rush on top of your natural speech impediments. Indeed, sometimes I am forced to change the playback speed setting just to make out what is being said. That is asking quite a lot of your audience, I'm sure you would agree.

[@shawnbenson7696]

Paul's epistles, written by a known author, include limited bio details on Jesus. These should come before the gospels. Secondly, Acts is a continuation of Luke, but if they author knew of the temple destruction then for me it strains credibility that it would not have been used as a polemical point.

[@fuferito]

I'm curious as to Tom's conclusion that Jesus sees _all_ Graeco-Roman cities as a "scam" just because the Temple in Jerusalem upset him.

[@andrewbuswell6010]

Thank you for this episode. The ‘brother of Christ’ reference in Josephus is also disputed as chief priests were apparently also called Christ (as they were anointed) and the passage which contains it is all about a succession crisis concerning high priests. I thought the gospel of Mark is usually dated in the 70s when the temple was destroyed as it is very focussed on temple references. The earliest Christian writings are the epistles of Paul and they are mainly strangely uninterested in the life of Jesus.

[@williambranch4283]

John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, James the Just and Paul of Tarsus ... are radical figures. The work of the Holy Spirit works thru many people ... these people have short degrees of separation. What we do get eventually out of all the Anointing going on before and later, are three State organizations, one in Armenia, one in Ethiopia and one scattered thru the Roman Empire. All of which are radical events in history, compared to the previous 1000 years. It is reasonable to think that what develops into Islam came out of disparate Nestorian groups (the non-State Churches of the Near East onward thru Persia to India and China).

[@danieltemelkovski9828]

It's not strange that Paul doesn't delve into Jesus's biography. He was writing to people who were presumably already aware and convinced of the basic story. If I address a letter to, say, the organizer of basketball tournament, it isn't necessary for my letter to recount the historical development of basketball.

[@Paul-hl4ob]

He was you prod ✝️🙏♾️

[@paulgeorge1144]

If you read Paul's letters carefully you will find that Jesus is Paul's alter ego, nothing more and nothing less. If you compare what is written in Paul's letters to the Corinthians with the gospel of Matthew you will find a strange correspondence. It's almost as if someone has put into the mouth of Jesus the teachings and words of Paul!

[@barrylyons9296]

I was at 'his' grave in Srinigar. I'm a pagan but I believe that's him in Kashmir

[@metacomet101]

Oh boy !

[@faithpals]

Let's talk about Saul the pharisee who became Paul the apostle and wrote about the resurrection a mere 20 years after it took place. "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received - that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day. (1 Cor. 15).

[@pattismithurs9023]

"according to the Scriptures". As this great podcast mentions often, things were said and done to conform with prophecy. Not denigrating Paul as a source, but he would certainly not be overlooking a chance to back up his story with a little history.

[@faithpals]

@@pattismithurs9023 Yes it's a great podcast, but what I hoped they would discuss is this question - What caused this jewish leader and pharisee to suddenly become a faithful follower of the dead messiah he had so fervently opposed? I believe the best explanation is what the New Testament gives witness to and the early church bears out, namely, that he saw the risen Lord Jesus Christ face to face on the road to Damascus.

[@maddi62]

Yes, the whole thing was Paul's invention, who never met Jesus, but saw himself authoritative enough to put those who had known Him straight on what He was all about. You don't have to read much from Paul to get a sense of how ambitious and just crazy he was

[@faithpals]

@@maddi62 two words - eyewitness testimony. read 1 cor. 15 - and also the book "jesus and the eyewitnesses" by richard bauckham.

[@maddi62]

@@faithpals Eye witness testimony sucks at the best of times. You don't even have that in 1 cor 15, just a crazy man making a lot of claims about what other people have seen. And himself, of course. Nothing to corroborate any of it

[@dartharpy9404]

Excellent

[@CL-we8tn]

Didn't they put the ark of the covenant into the pax Romana and then later moved it to St Peter's in Vatican city where it was later 'lost'?

[@jkb2819]

You must be thinking of something else. It was lost 1000’s of years before Saint Peters was built.

[@CL-we8tn]

@@jkb2819 no, i dont think so, it came to Rome in the rule of Titus or Dominican I forget which, it's engraved on the arch of Titus. I know it goes into the pax Romana, it's engraved somewhere there too. Then at some stage and I'm guessing after 450ad it's moved to Saint Peter's made of wood, then that burns down and it's lost in apostrophes. So the Roman's only had it for perhaps 250 years. I'm counting the Vatican as a separate country from the Roman state. I'm fairly sure of my facts, I've often wondered if the ark of the covenant isn't in the nave of st Peter's, nice gold altar they have there.

[@CL-we8tn]

@@jkb2819 there's also the story of the sang graal which is what you get from later versions of the apostles texts, those less accurate, and there is the story of the coptic Africans but I don't believe that either.

[@jkb2819]

Where are you getting this from if you don’t mind me asking? The standard account is the Ark goes missing during the Babylonian invasion, by the time Pompeii takes the temple in the 1st century BC he goes past the curtain and finds a stone with nothing on it. Never heard anything about it being brought back by Trajan or whoever.

[@johnbenson4672]

@@jkb2819 One of the points of the curtain ripping after Jesus's death was to show the under-priests that the Ark was no longer there. Before then only the high priest could go in and see the Most Holy.

[@showze21]

the strongest argument for jesus is that he did influence a great number of people within his lifetime, which allowed the tribe of christians to grow very fast, and become well established within a generation. waiting for some one to apply AI to the jesus problem

[@FiveLiver]

It's an error to say Jesus is in the Qur'an, Tom. A character called Isa, who is purportedly a Muslim prophet is in the Qur'an - he is the Muslim Jesus, not the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, which is the only Holy Book where he can be found.

[@richardtallach7104]

Not a page of the New Testament would have been written if Christ did not rise from the dead.

[@kyle-7107]

I don't know man, that seems like a stretch. Thousand of books are written daily about people who never existed.

[@scotthendrix9829]

I'm an academic historian who enjoys your podcast, but I'll have to push back here. There is not a range of scholarly option about dating and authorship of the gospels that includes the notion that they are eyewitness accounts. Only conservative Christians believe that. It is not an evidence-based viewpoint

[@richardtallach7104]

Richard Bauckham, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses"

[@richardtallach7104]

The Sanhedrin had 72 members and was the ruling council of the Jews.

[@bucksolo703]

Have you heard about the theory that the Romans made up Jesus and Julius Ceasar was the man they based Jesus after

[@richardtallach7104]

Jesus and eleven of the disciples were from Galilee. Judas was from Judea.

[@richardtallach7104]

II Kings 17: 24-41 explains the development of the Samaritans after the invasion of the north by Assyria.

[@paulwilliamson-pm6yu]

Wow! You mean there was someone to ring in Biblical times if you were thinking of topping yourself?

[@adriangeh6414]

Jesus christ is as much a mystery as count dracula is. We should be skeptical of the claims pertaining to both.

[@marxussy]

There is a big difference. There are sources mentioning Jesus outside of these that believed in him as a God.

[@adriangeh6414]

@@marxussy there is no difference. Both are characters from a book with magic powers.

[@marxussy]

@@adriangeh6414 yeah, that is true(in a way), but I just told you the difference which you completely ignored.

[@adriangeh6414]

@@marxussy yes because its ridiculous to believe something just because others believe it. There are people who believe vampires are real, but that doesn't make it true.

[@marxussy]

@@adriangeh6414 I'm not talking about believing in Jesus' divine nature, I'm talking about his existence.

[@richardtallach7104]

Ana-nias (?) Ana-nye-as.

[@capatheist]

2:58 nope! Not both faith, one is faith the other is evidence based. The strength or vehemence of a belief does not make it faith. Some atheists so strongly hold their belief that god isn’t real that they too refuse to acknowledge any counter argument. But that too is not faith, it’s ignorance. Not both faith

[@johnbenson4672]

It's interesting how different the definition of faith is in the Bible from what people assume faith is. Hebrews 11:1 (if you want to know where this is coming from) calls faith the evident demonstration (or convincing evidence) of realities not seen. Byington's translation uses "putting unseen things to the test", American Standard version "a conviction of things not seen." KJ says"the evidence of things not seen" The actual Greek word has a meaning similar to "title deed." as in you have something in hand which is reasonable proof of something you can't see yet. Blind faith is credulity which is quite a bit different. Someone saying "You've just got to believe" (without knowledge) does not know the book they think they are espousing. To give an example, imagine walking along a beach in the southeast US. The weather is perfectly sunny, not a cloud in the sky and the breeze is light. A small boy is running along the beach yelling out random stuff and at one point he says "A hurricane is coming" and then he continues on his way. There's really no reason for believing that a storm is coming. The witness is unreliable and there's no evidence given. You go inside and turn on the news and the weatherman is on. What he says you place greater faith in because what he says is backed up by both the position that he is in, his record of accurate reporting and the evidence that he places with reports of weather and wind patterns. If he were to say that a hurricane was coming in a few days you would take action now. That verse and the Bible as a whole is telling you to read, research and examine evidence thoughtfully.

[@williambranch4283]

@@johnbenson4672 A living faith doesn't depend on old books, it depends on Holy Spirit in living people.

[@johnbenson4672]

@@williambranch4283 Where do you get "old books"?

[@williambranch4283]

@@johnbenson4672 Old people ;-) ... but their living wisdom is best. Ask before they pass beyond the veil. Per Fahrenheit 451, each life is an open book, and we are the author.

[@capatheist]

@@johnbenson4672 I wasn’t quoting the bibles definition. I was referring to the definition in English, and in practice. Faith is the preservation of belief in spite of a lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. That’s what it means, no matter what some primitive desert peasant described it as two Millenia ago… IF that isn’t just a lie too