Evidence for Jesus

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK,

What kind of evidence would you find acceptable for the historical Jesus?

[_Jersey Girl]

richard

Well, the question first is whether you accpt the assertion that Acts shows that Luke is a careful historian. If it does, why would he suddenly become a lousy historian in the gospel of Luke. The question you raised was the existence of Jesus. Luke was a companion of Paul who knew the disciples. Are you asserting that this careful historian believed within 20 years in a made up person. As I wrote before, that type of assertion creates more problems than it solves.

richard,

The point you regarding belief in a non-existent person for 20 years. Luke ( so far as we can know) stayed with Paul up until his death. Why would he maintain that type of devotion? What would his motive have been?

[_GoodK]

holycross link

I should point out that the Gospels say they're written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that's just in your English Bible. That's the title for these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn't call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Mathew simpley wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it's the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they get their stories from? .....
How do we know that the stories got changed in the process of transmission? We know the stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be reconciled with one another. You don't need to take my word for this; simply look yourself...

GoodK,

I don't see that the gospels say that they're written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John internally. I agree with the above in that the gospels are that OF Matthew, Mark, Luke and John however to the best of my recollect, internally they do not identify the four as authors. I think they are eye witness accounts that were transmitted via oral tradition however, not authored by eye witnesses.

I can agree that the stories got changed in the process of transmission and I do think that some consideration should be given to changes that took place in the process of transcription. Such details as how many times the cock crowed and that sort of thing are inconsistent between gospels however, for the most part there is overall harmony between them.

Sorry, but the gospels don't have an overall harmony between them, and the differences and contradictions are much more egregious than how many times a "cock crows".

Here:

You don’t need to take my word for this; simply look yourself. I tell
my students that the reason we don’t notice there’s so many differences in the Gospels is because
we read the Gospels vertically, from top to bottom. You start at the top of Mark, you read
through to the bottom, you start at the top of Matthew, read it through the bottom, sounds a lot
like Mark, then you read Luke top to bottom, sounds a lot like Matthew and Mark, read John, a
little bit different, sounds about the same. The reason is because we’re reading them vertically.
The way to see differences in the Gospels is to read them horizontally. Read one story in
Matthew, then the same story in Mark, and compare your two stories and see what you come up
with. You come up with major differences. Just take the death of Jesus. What day did Jesus die
on and what time of day? Did he die on the day before the Passover meal was eaten, as John
explicitly says, or did he die after it was eaten, as Mark explicitly says? Did he die at noon, as in
John, or at 9 a.m., as in Mark? Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself or did Simon of
Cyrene carry his cross? It depends which Gospel you read. Did both robbers mock Jesus on the
cross or did only one of them mock him and the other come to his defense? It depends which
Gospel you read. Did the curtain in the temple rip in half before Jesus died or after he died? It
depends which Gospel you read.

GoodK,

What kind of evidence would you find acceptable for the historical Jesus?

Glad you asked:)

What kinds of evidence do scholars look for when trying to establish probabilities in the past?
Well, the best kind of evidence, of course, consists of contemporary accounts; people who were
close to the time of the events themselves. Ultimately, if you don’t have a source that goes back to the time period itself, then you don’t have a reliable source. There are only two sources of information for past events: either stories that actually happened based on, ultimately, eyewitness accounts or stories that have been made up.

Those are the only two kinds of stories you have from the past – either things that happened or things that were made up. To determine which things are the things that happened, you want contemporary accounts, things that are close to the time of the events themselves, and it helps if you have a lot of these accounts. The more the merrier! You want lots of contemporary accounts, and you want these accounts to be independent of one another. You don’t want different accounts to have collaborated with one another; you want accounts that are independently attesting the results. Moreover, even though you want accounts that are independent of one another, that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject. Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another

For a claim as ambitious as the Jesus claim, nothing less will do.

(emphasis in quote added)

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK's link (I shouldn't do this when it's so late:-)

What kinds of evidence do scholars look for when trying to establish probabilities in the past?
Well, the best kind of evidence, of course, consists of contemporary accounts; people who were
close to the time of the events themselves. Ultimately, if you don’t have a source that goes back to the time period itself, then you don’t have a reliable source. There are only two sources of information for past events: either stories that actually happened based on, ultimately, eyewitness accounts or stories that have been made up.

Those are the only two kinds of stories you have from the past – either things that happened or things that were made up. To determine which things are the things that happened, you want contemporary accounts, things that are close to the time of the events themselves, and it helps if you have a lot of these accounts. The more the merrier! You want lots of contemporary accounts, and you want these accounts to be independent of one another. You don’t want different accounts to have collaborated with one another; you want accounts that are independently attesting the results. Moreover, even though you want accounts that are independent of one another, that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject. Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another

GoodK,

Considering the criteria above, how do you think contemporary accounts could have been produced and protected in the first century? In the real world of the first century, how could that have been accomplished?

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK's link again

You don’t need to take my word for this; simply look yourself. I tell
my students that the reason we don’t notice there’s so many differences in the Gospels is because
we read the Gospels vertically, from top to bottom. You start at the top of Mark, you read
through to the bottom, you start at the top of Matthew, read it through the bottom, sounds a lot
like Mark, then you read Luke top to bottom, sounds a lot like Matthew and Mark, read John, a
little bit different, sounds about the same. The reason is because we’re reading them vertically.
The way to see differences in the Gospels is to read them horizontally. Read one story in
Matthew, then the same story in Mark, and compare your two stories and see what you come up
with. You come up with major differences. Just take the death of Jesus. What day did Jesus die
on and what time of day? Did he die on the day before the Passover meal was eaten, as John
explicitly says, or did he die after it was eaten, as Mark explicitly says? Did he die at noon, as in
John, or at 9 a.m., as in Mark? Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself or did Simon of
Cyrene carry his cross? It depends which Gospel you read. Did both robbers mock Jesus on the
cross or did only one of them mock him and the other come to his defense? It depends which
Gospel you read. Did the curtain in the temple rip in half before Jesus died or after he died? It
depends which Gospel you read.

GoodK,

Why do you think the above details are relevant to proving the gospels false in terms of the historicity of Jesus? I should think that if they lined up detail for detail that would be strong evidence for conspiracy.

Returning to motive. Why do you think the gospels were written? What do you see as motive on the part of the authors? Not the people to whom the gospels are attributed, but to the author's themselves?

You say,

For a claim as ambitious as the Jesus claim, nothing less will do.

GoodK,

Are you overlooking the existence of Christianity from it's inception and throughout the first century? What do you see that as evidence of if not evidence for the existence of Jesus?

[_harmony]

Those are the only two kinds of stories you have from the past – either things that happened or things that were made up. To determine which things are the things that happened, you want contemporary accounts, things that are close to the time of the events themselves, and it helps if you have a lot of these accounts. The more the merrier! You want lots of contemporary accounts, and you want these accounts to be independent of one another. You don’t want different accounts to have collaborated with one another; you want accounts that are independently attesting the results. Moreover, even though you want accounts that are independent of one another, that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject. Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another

For a claim as ambitious as the Jesus claim, nothing less will do.

(emphasis in quote added)

Why would anyone, let alone lots, let alone independently, let alone consistently, why would anyone who was disinterested in a man hanging from a cross go to all the trouble to write down an account of that man, given how difficult writing anything down was at that time? I mean really.

I don't think the biggest problem is proving that Jesus existed. I think the biggest problem is proving he was the Son of God.

[_GoodK]

Why would anyone, let alone lots, let alone independently, let alone consistently, why would anyone who was disinterested in a man hanging from a cross go to all the trouble to write down an account of that man, given how difficult writing anything down was at that time? I mean really.

That sounds familiar.... Why would an uneducated farm boy make up such a story...

If you can't think of a reason why, you have no historical imagination.

[_GoodK]

GoodK,

Why do you think the above details are relevant to proving the gospels false in terms of the historicity of Jesus? I should think that if they lined up detail for detail that would be strong evidence for conspiracy.

Well you can think that, but you wouldn't be exactly intellectually honest. It's not a historical or scientific or objective way of thinking. You are already presupposing the story to have taken place.

If the only evidence for any other claim can't even get the "details" right, of course you wouldn't believe it.

Jersey Girl, let's say your friend, we'll call her Bronx Girl,sent you an email and said, you're boyfriend, Jersey Guy, was at my house last night, and yada yada yada...

You would certainly begin to wonder... Was Jersey Guy really home last night when he said he was?

Then you're other friend, Long Island Girl sends you a text, and says basically the same thing, except one detail doesn't fit. According to Long Island Girl, Jersey Guy was at her house last night, and yada yada yada.

Would you be more inclined to believe the story is true, because the details don't add up exactly?

What if you're cousin, Manhattan Girl, told you Jersey Guy was indeed at Bronx Girl's house, but it was yesterday afternoon, not last night.
And then Jersey Guy's pal, Miami Beach Guy sent you a text saying he was with Jersey Guy at Bronx's Girl's house yesterday afternoon...

Well wait a second, these details don't fit. It must not be a conspiracy theory.

The producers of Loose Change and other 9-11 conspiracy theorists must be telling the truth, since there are so many "details that don't line up".

See what I'm sayin?

What if you later found out that it was Bronx's girl's little brother messing around on his big sisters computer, and Bronx girl really didn't say that...

I'm guessing you would just say forget the whole thing after that.

Returning to motive. Why do you think the gospels were written? What do you see as motive on the part of the authors? Not the people to whom the gospels are attributed, but to the author's themselves?

You say,

For a claim as ambitious as the Jesus claim, nothing less will do.

GoodK,

Are you overlooking the existence of Christianity from it's inception and throughout the first century?

I don't understand. Because Christianity existed, Jesus did?

What do you see that as evidence of if not evidence for the existence of Jesus?

I see it as plainly as it really is, it is evidence of Christianity.

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi GoodK,

Sorry it's taken me a couple of days for me to reply. My father-in-law has cancer so I’ve been preoccupied.

To be honest, I'm not sure if Luke is the writer of Acts, or if Acts shows he is a careful historian. Thank you for pointing out where Acts is historically accurate, and I don't doubt that you are correct. But the key is who wrote Luke? Was it really someone who knew Jesus, or knew the disciples of Jesus personally? Or was it

by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second or third generation

?

I think if it is the latter, then the discussion is pretty much over regarding the evidence for Jesus, at least in respect to the gospel of Luke being evidence.

Well, both Luke and Acts start in the same way. Lk 1:4 states that it is written for Theophilus. Acts 1:1 mentions Theophilus along with “my former book”. Note that Acts changes from the third person to the first person in 16:10. The first person is used in 16:10-17, 20:5-21:18 and 27:1-28:16.

The question of whether Luke is a first, second or third generation Christian obviously depends on the definition. The main two years for Jesus’ death .are 30 and 33 AD. Using 25 years for a generation, the categories would be:
30-55 1st generation
55-80 2nd
80-105

Using this definition, Luke is a first generation Christian. More later.

[_GoodK]

Hi GoodK,

Sorry it's taken me a couple of days for me to reply. My father-in-law has cancer so I’ve been preoccupied.

Sorry to hear that. I hope things get better for him.

Using this definition, Luke is a first generation Christian. More later.

Looking forward to it :)

When you get back to it, please explain how we know when Luke lived.