Jesus: Connections to Eyewitnesses and Extrabiblical Sources

[Berserk]

I'll begin with 2 points and later expand them as the discussion proceeds.
(1) Papias (C. 60-125 AD) is famous for his preference for eyewitness testimony ("a living voice") to Jesus over written records. He has directly consulted disciples of the apostles and even a couple of living disciplesof Jesus (John the Elder and Aristion). What he learns is that the Gospel of Mark is based on Peter's teaching ministry and is therefore on eyewitness testimony. Mark is criticized by these disciples for changing the sequence of events in Jesus' life. Mark does not offer a chronologically historical narration, but rather on how each story fits his thematic purpose. This explains why Jesus' itinerary in Mark makes little sense as a continuous journey. So it is irresponsible to claim that Mark is poorly informed about Palestinian geography. Mark's role as Peter's assistant and translator is attested in 1 Peter 5:13. Peter was martyred in Rome and the Latanisms in Mark attest Rome as the place of the Gospel's origin. So the Gospel's origin in Rome attests its connection to eyewitness testimony (Peter's). This fits nicely with Justin Martyr's reference in Rome to Mark's Gospel as "his (Peter's) memoirs (Dialogue with Trypho 106:3)."


(2) The historical credibility of Mark's preservation of Peter's memoirs can be supported by striking details that are embarrassing and unlikely to be fabricated. Here are just 3 examples: (a) The Gospel concedes that Jesus' family considers him mad and actually tries to physically restrain Him (3:19-21). This rejection prompts Jesus to complain that no prophet is "honored among his own kin and in his own house (6:4)." Even John 7:5 sadly concedes, "His own brothers did not believe in Him." (b) Hostility at Nazareth creates an atmosphere in which Jesus "is unable" to perform miracles there. In other words, He apparently tries and fails! (The "except" clause in Mark 6:6 is recognized by scholars as a later gloss.). (c) Jesus does not succeed in curing the blind man at Bethsaida on His first attempt. A 2nd effort is needed to complete the healing (8:22-26). These embarrassing details are surely historical reminiscences.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I'll begin with 2 points and later expand them as the discussion proceeds.
(1) Papias (C. 60-125 AD) is famous for his preference for eyewitness testimony ("a living voice") to Jesus over written records. He has directly consulted disciples of the apostles and even a couple of living disciplesof Jesus (John the Elder and Aristion). What he learns is that the Gospel of Mark is based on Peter's teaching ministry and is therefore on eyewitness testimony. Mark is criticized by these disciples for changing the sequence of events in Jesus' life. Mark does not offer a chronologically historical narration, but rather on how each story fits his thematic purpose. This explains why Jesus' itinerary in Mark makes little sense as a continuous journey. So it is irresponsible to claim that Mark is poorly informed about Palestinian geography. Mark's role as Peter's assistant and translator is attested in 1 Peter 5:13. Peter was martyred in Rome and the Latanisms in Mark attest Rome as the place of the Gospel's origin. So the Gospel's origin in Rome attests its connection to eyewitness testimony (Peter's). This fits nicely with Justin Martyr's reference in Rome to Mark's Gospel as "his (Peter's) memoirs (Dialogue with Trypho 106:3)."


(2) The historical credibility of Mark's preservation of Peter's memoirs can be supported by striking details that are embarrassing and unlikely to be fabricated. Here are just 3 examples: (a) The Gospel concedes that Jesus' family considers him mad and actually tries to physically restrain Him (3:19-21). This rejection prompts Jesus to complain that no prophet is "honored among his own kin and in his own house (6:4)." Even John 7:5 sadly concedes, "His own brothers did not believe in Him." (b) Hostility at Nazareth creates an atmosphere in which Jesus "is unable" to perform miracles there. In other words, He apparently tries and fails! (The "except" clause in Mark 6:6 is recognized by scholars as a later gloss.). (c) Jesus does not succeed in curing the blind man at Bethsaida on His first attempt. A 2nd effort is needed to complete the healing (8:22-26). These embarrassing details are surely historical reminiscences.

Proof that these people said this?

 

[Ingledsva]

I'll begin with 2 points and later expand them as the discussion proceeds.
(1) Papias (C. 60-125 AD) is famous for his preference for eyewitness testimony ("a living voice") to Jesus over written records. He has directly consulted disciples of the apostles and even a couple of living disciplesof Jesus (John the Elder and Aristion). What he learns is that the Gospel of Mark is based on Peter's teaching ministry and is therefore on eyewitness testimony. Mark is criticized by these disciples for changing the sequence of events in Jesus' life. Mark does not offer a chronologically historical narration, but rather on how each story fits his thematic purpose. This explains why Jesus' itinerary in Mark makes little sense as a continuous journey. So it is irresponsible to claim that Mark is poorly informed about Palestinian geography. Mark's role as Peter's assistant and translator is attested in 1 Peter 5:13. Peter was martyred in Rome and the Latanisms in Mark attest Rome as the place of the Gospel's origin. So the Gospel's origin in Rome attests its connection to eyewitness testimony (Peter's). This fits nicely with Justin Martyr's reference in Rome to Mark's Gospel as "his (Peter's) memoirs (Dialogue with Trypho 106:3)."


(2) The historical credibility of Mark's preservation of Peter's memoirs can be supported by striking details that are embarrassing and unlikely to be fabricated. Here are just 3 examples: (a) The Gospel concedes that Jesus' family considers him mad and actually tries to physically restrain Him (3:19-21). This rejection prompts Jesus to complain that no prophet is "honored among his own kin and in his own house (6:4)." Even John 7:5 sadly concedes, "His own brothers did not believe in Him." (b) Hostility at Nazareth creates an atmosphere in which Jesus "is unable" to perform miracles there. In other words, He apparently tries and fails! (The "except" clause in Mark 6:6 is recognized by scholars as a later gloss.). (c) Jesus does not succeed in curing the blind man at Bethsaida on His first attempt. A 2nd effort is needed to complete the healing (8:22-26). These embarrassing details are surely historical reminiscences.

One problem. It is a "lost book," known only by later writings, which means the whole thing could be made up.

*

 

[Berserk]

One problem. It is a "lost book," known only by later writings, which means the whole thing could be made up.

*

Congratulations! Your comment is the intellectual equivalent of fundamentalists who argue that Satan planted the fossils to create the deception of evolution. No modern scholar doubts that Papias' book exists. Various church fathers own it, the most important of which is Eusebius; and he dismisses Papias as a "simpleton" because of his millenarianism. And as I noted, Justin Martyr of Rome who grew up in Samaria in the early 2nd century indepdently attests to Papias' information that Mark is directly based on Peter's teachings.

 

[McBell]

Congratulations! Your comment is the intellectual equivalent of fundamentalists who argue that Satan planted the fossils to create the deception of evolution. No modern scholar doubts that Papias' book exists. Various church fathers own it, the most important of which is Eusebius; and he dismisses Papias as a "simpleton" because of his millenarianism. And as I noted, Justin Martyr of Rome who grew up in Samaria in the early 2nd century indepdently attests to Papias' information that Mark is directly based on Peter's teachings.

yeah, cause your conspiracy theory presentation is so much better....

 

[Berserk]

No my expression of the scholarly consensus as to the reality of Papias's book is "so much better." I guess I have to assume that on a site like this most skeptics will be virtually illiterate with respect to modern scholarship, the Bible, and early Christian writings.

(3) My next and most important eyewitness connection:
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul lists the sequence of resurrection appearances that he "in turn had received." Received from whom? Well, the answer can be found in Galatians 1:11-17 and 2:1-10. There Paul makes it clear that he made 2 trips to Jerusalem to consult first with Peter and Jesus' brother James, and then with Peter, James, and John, to validate His Jesus' story with eyewitness testimony. Paul notes that they made no corrections in his version of the Gospel. We can safely assume that the series of Easter appearances that Paul reports found confirmation in their testimony. More importantly, Paul is the last witness of the Risen Jesus and his resurrection appearance transforms him from a guilt-free hitman for the Pharisees into the greatest and most effective apostle. 3 times Paul celebrates his life-changing resurrection appearance, thus giving support to his travel companion, Dr. Luke's accounts in the Book of Acts.

The appearance reported in 1 Cor 15:3-8 to Jesus' brother James is particularly persuasive testimony to Jesus' resurrection appearances because it transforms Jesus' brothers from skeptics to believers in Jesus' claims and messianic status (see John 7:5, Mark 6:3-4; cp. Acts 1:14).

 

[Ingledsva]

Congratulations! Your comment is the intellectual equivalent of fundamentalists who argue that Satan planted the fossils to create the deception of evolution. No modern scholar doubts that Papias' book exists. Various church fathers own it, the most important of which is Eusebius; and he dismisses Papias as a "simpleton" because of his millenarianism. And as I noted, Justin Martyr of Rome who grew up in Samaria in the early 2nd century indepdently attests to Papias' information that Mark is directly based on Peter's teachings.

Yeah, like we haven't had church fathers add or delete information in the past. LOL!

We don't have the book, - thus we don't know what the book actually says, or if it even existed.

*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No my expression of the scholarly consensus as to the reality of Papias's book is "so much better." I guess I have to assume that on a site like this most skeptics will be virtually illiterate with respect to modern scholarship, the Bible, and early Christian writings.

Reliability:

Eusebius, despite his own views on Papias, knew that Irenaeus believed Papias to be a reliable witness to original apostolic traditions. Later scholars have been questioning of Papias' reliability. Much discussion of Papias's comments about the Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew is concerned with assessing Papias' reliability as evidence for the origins of these Gospels or with emphasizing the apologetic character of the Gospels in order to discredit their reliability. Casey argued that Papias was indeed reliable, but reliable about a Hebrew collection of sayings by the Apostle Matthew which had nothing to do with the Greek Gospel of Matthew, either incorrectly ascribed to Matthew or written by another Matthias. Concerning the Gospel of Mark, many modern scholars have dismissed Papias' reliability regarding this Gospel due to the purpose of Papias in vindicating the apostolicity of Mark's Gospel.​

 

[Ingledsva]

No my expression of the scholarly consensus as to the reality of Papias's book is "so much better." I guess I have to assume that on a site like this most skeptics will be virtually illiterate with respect to modern scholarship, the Bible, and early Christian writings.

(3) My next and most important eyewitness connection:
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul lists the sequence of resurrection appearances that he "in turn had received." Received from whom? Well, the answer can be found in Galatians 1:11-17 and 2:1-10. There Paul makes it clear that he made 2 trips to Jerusalem to consult first with Peter and Jesus' brother James, and then with Peter, James, and John, to validate His Jesus' story with eyewitness testimony. Paul notes that they made no corrections in his version of the Gospel. We can safely assume that the series of Easter appearances that Paul reports found confirmation in their testimony. More importantly, Paul is the last witness of the Risen Jesus and his resurrection appearance transforms him from a guilt-free hitman for the Pharisees into the greatest and most effective apostle. 3 times Paul celebrates his life-changing resurrection appearance, thus giving support to his travel companion, Dr. Luke's accounts in the Book of Acts.

The appearance reported in 1 Cor 15:3-8 to Jesus' brother James is particularly persuasive testimony to Jesus' resurrection appearances because it transforms Jesus' brothers from skeptics to believers in Jesus' claims and messianic status (see John 7:5, Mark 6:3-4; cp. Acts 1:14).

This dead person walking around stuff is baloney. It is later people, after his death, trying to make Jesus appear more "special."

He died instead of doing the things the Jewish Messiah was supposed to do, - thus they needed a rising from the grave, to come back and finish it text.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you view it, they seem to have misunderstood Tanakh Messiah texts.

The Messiah is not God. The Hebrew Messiah is a special HUMAN from the line of David. Jesus' father would have to be of the Line of David, for him to be such. He isn't in the story.

No trinity, - that is blasphemy to the Jews and Jesus was a Jew.

No "virgin" birth. They misunderstood that Isaiah text and decided it was about the Messiah. It isn't.

They also mistranslated the Tanakh text "supposedly" about pierced hands and feet.

And the list goes on and on.

And by the way, - if you continue to write crap like that in your first paragraph, - you will soon find yourself typing to yourself. People will just stop responding to your posts.

*

 

[Berserk]

This dead person walking around stuff is baloney. It is later people, after his death, trying to make Jesus appear more "special

LOL, now you are arguing like the flatearthers who claim that the Apollo moon landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar. Modern scholarship rarely doubts that the resurrection appearances were very real to the apostles who experienced them. Scholars might try to dismiss them as hallucinations. But they realize that Paul's encounter with the Risen Lord transformed him from a hitman for the Pharisees into the most effective
Christian missionary who ever lived. And you conveniently duck my point that the private appearance to Jesus' brother James brought the previously skeptical brothers into the fold. Besides Paul, among others, Jesus appeared to Peter and James, and Paul confirmed this by direct conversations with both men! So there is a solid eyewitness connection. Please educate on these issues before you continue to pontificate from naitve ignorance.

Jayhawker, you are a refreshing change from such blissful ignorance and bias. You are correct that some scholars try to discredit Papias's conversations with the eyewitnesses, not they never occurred, but for the reliablility of their claims. But they don't challenge the patristic claims to possess a very real book written by Papias. In a future post, I will provide 2 reasons why their skepticism on that soore is mistaken.

 

[Berserk]

(continued) Jesus appeared to Peter and James, and Paul confirmed this by direct conversations with both men! So there is a solid eyewitness connection. Please educate on these issues before you continue to pontificate from naitve ignorance.

Jayhawker, you are a refreshing change from such blissful ignorance and bias. You are correct that some scholars try to discredit Papias's conversations with the eyewitnesses, not they never occurred, but for the reliablility of their claims. But they don't challenge the patristic claims to possess a very real book written by Papias. In a future post, I will provide 2 reasons why their skepticism on that soore is mistaken.

 

[Ingledsva]

LOL, now you are arguing like the flatearthers who claim that the Apollo moon landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar. Modern scholarship rarely doubts that the resurrection appearances were very real to the apostles who experienced them. Scholars might try to dismiss them as hallucinations. But they realize that Paul's encounter with the Risen Lord transformed him from a hitman for the Pharisees into the most effective
Christian missionary who ever lived. And you conveniently duck my point that the private appearance to Jesus' brother James brought the previously skeptical brothers into the fold. Besides Paul, among others, Jesus appeared to Peter and James, and Paul confirmed this by direct conversations with both men! So there is a solid eyewitness connection. Please educate on these issues before you continue to pontificate from naitve ignorance.

BULL! You are the ones claiming dead people got out of their graves and walked around a city.

It doesn't matter what you think about Paul, or Peter and James, - or even what the Bible says.

Dead people do not get out of their graves and walk around. PERIOD!

It is far more logical that people misunderstood, and wrote erroneous stories to fill in the blanks.

Also, some Biblical Scholars have suggested they were using Midrash techniques, meaning they were giving extra meaning to what the text actually said. Thus Jesus "rising" from Sheol, - becomes an exaggerated story of dead Jesus rising from the ground and walking around a city with other dead people.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

(continued) Jesus appeared to Peter and James, and Paul confirmed this by direct conversations with both men! So there is a solid eyewitness connection. Please educate on these issues before you continue to pontificate from naitve ignorance.

Jayhawker, you are a refreshing change from such blissful ignorance and bias. You are correct that some scholars try to discredit Papias's conversations with the eyewitnesses, not they never occurred, but for the reliablility of their claims. But they don't challenge the patristic claims to possess a very real book written by Papias. In a future post, I will provide 2 reasons why their skepticism on that soore is mistaken.

The Bible saying something happened is not proof that it actually happened. That is circular reasoning.

*

 

[George-ananda]

No my expression of the scholarly consensus as to the reality of Papias's book is "so much better." I guess I have to assume that on a site like this most skeptics will be virtually illiterate with respect to modern scholarship, the Bible, and early Christian writings.

I like your style. Super-impressed by your knowledge. Hopefully you'll stick around and the haters of anything religious won't drive you away.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(
Jayhawker, you are a refreshing change from such blissful ignorance and bias. You are correct that some scholars try to discredit Papias's conversations with the eyewitnesses, not they never occurred, but for the reliablility of their claims. But they don't challenge the patristic claims to possess a very real book written by Papias. In a future post, I will provide 2 reasons why their skepticism on that soore is mistaken.

No doubt. But first, would you mind telling us precisely what you're seeking to prove?

Parenthetically, when responding to someone it is best to either (a) quote the person (as I've done in this post, or (b) tag the person by prepending an ampersand to his or her username. Either approach will alert the user.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I am going to take the time to read this thread. There are letters in Latin alleged to be written by Pilate himself speaking of Jesus. No matter how much evidence, someone will always "prove" these extra biblical writings are forgeries.

 

[Berserk]

Papias (60-120 AD) writes: "And [John] the Elder said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

Papias says he prefers "a living voice" to written documents. By this, he means that he prefers information that living disciples of Jesus (John the Elder and Aristion) and direct disciples of Jesus' disciples conveyed to him orally to written sources. Papias's learns form the eyewitness John that Mark was Peter's interpreter, a claim that finds independent support form 1 Peter 5:13). John's claim, mediated by Papias, that Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name derives independent support from Justin Martyr of Rome who refers to Mark as Peter's memoirs. Justin grew up in Samaria in the early 2nd century.

Interestingly, some eyewitnesses and those close to them complain that Mark mixes up the sequence of events in Jesus' life. But Peter never wrote an sequentially correct biography of Jesus. As John tells Papias, Mark doesn't knows not the sequence of events, but the actual incidents and miracles of Jesus' ministry, which he gleaned from Peter's teaching sessions for edifying purposes. Thus, this controversy indirectly attests an eyewitness connection with Jesus.

Papias writes: "Matthew put together the SAYINGS [Greek "logia"of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
The Gospel of Matthew is originally composed in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. For this reason, some scholars claim that Papias's source is mistaken. But Papias never says that Matthew wrote the Gospel; rather,he says that Matthew wrote a "sayings" collection, and Christians "interpreted them (the sayings) as best they could." This sounds like the modern sayings source Q that the scholarly consensus identifies as a sayings source used by Matthew and Luke, but not by Mark and John. Q is from the German "quelle" (= source). It represents the major sayings collection that was circulated east of the Jordan River. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas consists of 114 sayings of Jesus and represents the sayings collection that circulated east of the Jordan, and eventualyl found its way to Egypt. Q, then, is a translation from the original Aramaic. When Greek authors mention "Hebrew," they include "Aramaic," which is, after all, a Hebrew dialect. Appparently, an unknown editor combined Matthew's Q with Mark to produce the Gospel of Matthew and Matthew's name was extended from the Q source to the entire Gospel by association. In any case, Papias is a legitimate witness to a large sayings source traceable to Matthew, an eyewitness of Jesus.

 

[roger1440]

In Irenaeus’ book Against All Heresies, 5:33:3-4 Irenaeus quotes Papias from one of Papias’ writtings. According to Papias he is quoting something from one of the elders of the church that was handed down. The original quote claims to be from Jesus himself. There is no church in modern times I know of that accepts this quote as genuine. How can the church(s) accept some writings from Papias as genuine but not others? Either Papias can be trusted or not. To go in both directions would be going to no direction.

2 "The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five-and-twenty measures of wine.
3 And when any of the saints shall have taken hold of one of their clusters, another shall cry, I am a better cluster; take me, bless the Lord through me. Likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads, and every head shall have ten thousand grains, and every grain ten pounds of fine flour, bright and clean, and the other fruits, seeds and the grass shall produce in similar proportions, and all the animals, using these fruits which are products of the soil, shall become in their turn peaceable and harmonious, obedient to man in all subjection."
4 These thing Papias, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient worthy, witnesseth in writing in the fourth of his books, for there are five books composed by him….

http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Fragments_of_Papias.html

 

[Berserk]

Roger, the saying you quote is just one of dozens of sayings of Jesus outside the 4 canonical Gospels. On what grounds can you or anyone else dismiss it as inauthentic? The saying is expressing the miraculous bounty of fruits in the post-resurrection kingdom of God. Want a parallel in our Gospels? How about Jesus' parable of the sower in Mark 4:3-8, which contrasts the sloppiness of the sower with a miraculous yield? A well-known aspect of Jesus' pedagogy is the use of Semity hyperbole to engage the listener. My point is that there is no compelling reason to reject the saying as inauthentic.

Besides this, keep 2 facts in mind: (1) Papias does not get this saying directly from John the Elder; rather, he gets from others who claim to derive it from John. The Gnostics supported their heresy by claiming that it derived from Gaucias, Peter's interpreter, and we know this teaching cannot be traced to Peter. (2) In any case, the saying has no independent attestation, but what Papias is told about Mark derives support from both 1 Peter 5:13 and Justin Martyr of Rome.

Jayhawker asks me what I'm trying to "prove." On historical issues like this, "prove" is a word critics impose on positions they don't like ,so that they can stamp the case unproven. Eyewitness testimony is often sufficient to convict in a court of law, but sometimes it is not, and it may at times be unreliable. A better word is "persuasive" because it acknowledges the subjective nature of historical inference. Of course, in the case of conversion or aversion, the term also express the aspect of choice in assent to any belief system. What I haven't explained is what it took to persuade me and what it has taken to persuade seekers I have engaged on other websites. I'll explain that in a future post.

For example, it is beyond dispute, I think, that Paul's life was tatally transformed by what he considered an appearance of the risen Christ. But whether what he saw was actually Jesus, as I think it was, is a matter of faith. It is also beyond dispute, I think, that Paul then confirms his reported series of resurrection appearances by conversations with Peter, John, and Jesus' brother James. But there is no certain way of guaranteeing that these witnesses were not hallucinating or lying. But c'mon. no rational person would call them liars. They were willing to seal their testimony with their blood, whereas in Gethsemane they deserted Jesus and fled.

 

[Berserk]

(5) Many skeptics post and repost online the claim that Josephus never mentions Jesus and thus display their ignorance of Josephus's allusion to Jesus in the phrase "James, the brother ofJesus, the so-called Christ (Antiquities 20.9.1)" is accepted by most scholars for 2 reasons: (a) It is neutral towards the legitimacy of Jesus' claims. (b) It forms part of Josephus's account of James's martyrdom in 62 AD. This martyrdom is independently attested in the second century by Hegisippus and partly by the Ascents of James.

Online skeptics typically dismiss the summary of Jesus' ministry and claims in the "testimonium Flavianum", which presents a clearly doctored summary of Jesus' life. So the question is, is the whole passage an interpolation or just the few words that make Josephus a believer. The scholarly consensus is the latter because the passage fits Josephus's literary style in minute detail and ancient forgers lacked the sophistication to achieve such styistic mimicry. Jopsephus was born in Jerusalem in 37 AD, just 7 years after Jesus' crucifixion.

(6) The consensus is that prohibition against grave robbery that shows up at Nazareth is ordered by Claudius. It imposes capital punishment as the penalty for grave robbing, despite the normal Roman penalty of a stiff fine. Its importance is twofold: (a) It probably reflects Christian claims that Jesus rose bodily from the dead and the counter-Jewish claim that Jesus' disciples stole Jesus' body. (b) This implies that Romans had no idea what really happened to Jesus' body. The only problem with this tablet inscription is that its original exact location in Israel has been lost. The alternate site proposed is the Decapolis which contained thriving Christian communities in the second century.

(7) The house near Mary's well in Naxsreth has been celebrated as Joseph and Mary's house since around 600 AD. Only recently has it been established as a first-century house from the time of Jpseph and Mary.. This lends some credence to the tradition in an analogous way to the credibility that might be added to the Shroud of Turn if the promised redating tests could establish a first century date.

The house is part of a cave formation, whose entrance has been filled in. But the cave will be opened and researched this summer (with the help of Ken, a member of my former church! In 7 AD, Judas the Galilean led a failed revolt against Rome, centered in Sepphoris, about 3 miles from Nazareth. Was this cave a hideout for Jewish rebels? Joseph never appears alive after the suppression of this revolt and Jews in the area were conscripted for the fight. Was Joseph killed in this battle? Does this cave contain evidence of his participation in the revolt, or other priceless clues to his life. Of course, the identity of this house as Jesus' has not yet been proven, but what an intriguing possibility!.