Avšak nikto nereagoval na otázku ako si vysvetlíte Jakubovu radikálnu premenu.

Chybí mi tu jedna "drobnost". Odkaz na alespoň některé z "většiny" historiků, včetně citací.

Na podporu svojho tvrdenia, že drvivá väčšina historikov považuje pasáž o Jakubovi za autentickú citujem z Wiki (dúfam, že nepoviete, že Wikipédia nie je hodnoverný zdroj) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#The_James_Passage_2 Louis Feldman states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged"...

According to Robert E. Van Voorst the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic...

Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned the James passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic", and that among the several accounts of the death of James the account in Josephus is generally considered to be historically the most reliable. Bauckham states that the method of killing James by stoning, and the description provided by Josephus via the assembly of the Sanhedrin of judges are consistent with the policies of the Temple authorities towards the early Christian Church at the time.

John Painter states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical.(Painter pages 139-142). atď. atď.