Evidence for Jesus

[_dartagnan]

JAK has a propensity to write long-winded diatribes to make an obvious point nobody really argues with, yet when asked to clarify important points he goes silent.

Yes, of course that occurred. At the same time, content pertinent to Christianity in particular was subject to control and manipulation from Constantine the Great forward through his descendents and kings who used that religion to their own benefit.

At the same time? The earliest books of the New Testament (references to the historical Jesus) were written centuries before Constantine was even born.

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK,

Not meaning to discredit or ignore the entirety of your lengthy post.

You wrote,

So in answer to your question, it is most unlikely that anyone had time or interest in any challenge. Life was hard, really hard. Survival was difficult, really difficult.

And yet, the Gospels were written, historian's did write their accounts of that time period. Keep in mind that the biblical and extra biblical accounts of Jesus do not represent him as an isolated or lone "character" in history. His accounts are intertwined with the historical Pontius Pilate, Herod and such.

Do you deny that these historical figures existed?

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl,

You make a point with which I agree.

You state: “…historian's did write their accounts of that time period.”

While there was (as I stated) a very limited percent of individuals sufficiently educated to read and write, there were some.

In many, if not most cases of written history, there were few peer reviews of what was written. In addition, it was all done by hand and that hand copied material was heard before it was written. There was no recording. So historians were not only limited in number, they were even more limited by lack of corroboration from other historians. As a result, we have “history” which lacks essentials for accuracy in times before the printing press (1400).

So as we consider the hard times, the unfriendly weather, the sheer stress and struggle to survive, we have much limitation. That is not suggest we have nothing. It does suggest that reliability for fact and reports of thought-to-be-facts have reliability problems.

In cases where attempts were made to produce unified view (what today might be called work of an editor, such unified views could be orchestrated at certain levels of power (emperors, kings, rulers).

Consider today how often newspapers get a story wrong, national television gets it wrong. Obituaries which are written carefully for the paper get published with wrong data. And in this case and with news many are looking. There is much opportunity to correct the record when it goes wrong.

No such virtually unlimited capacity to check, to verify, to correct record existed prior to the printing press in which we had preserved language with specific characters (letters). So, history of ancient time, yet a time when there was language and there was hand written material, the propensity for error was enormous.

That error may or may not have been deliberate. We don’t know. Where one historian got his material from another historian, there was a greater chance for agreement. Where the authority of the kings, emperors, or other people of power were in a position to control history, there was potential for the making of history as in making a record fit with what the powers wanted the record to show.

It’s important to keep this in mind as we consider the reliability of ancient, hand scribbled notes on paper nothing of the likes that we have today for paper.

So readers of something written by someone else perhaps long before (and 10 years was long, hundreds of years was eternity.

That is not to contend the historians such as they were got it all wrong. Rather it is to recognize the problematic issues with which they were confronted.

As we know, our modern papers and magazines can and do get it wrong. If they do so on purpose, they are quickly subject to correction.

When J. F. Kennedy was assassinated, the first announcement of his death was held up 18 minutes (I think), before it was put on the television network. The network did NOT want to get something like this wrong. It would have been unforgivable. It would have destroyed credibility for months or years. So, the network waited to be sure they had it right.

And that event was covered by hundreds if not thousands of cameras and reporters and individuals with cameras of their own in Dallas.

And today, after all the studies and all the documentation endlessly reviewed, there are still those who claim the studies and reports were false. Of course, they present no countervailing information. But for years after that event and the weeks following that event, challenge was made to the historians conclusions.

No such checks were so voluminous thousands of years ago.

Not only that, but other languages were developing in other places with other histories about other events and other people.
+++
Jersey Girl observed:
And yet, the Gospels were written, historian's did write their accounts of that time period. Keep in mind that the biblical and extra biblical accounts of Jesus do not represent him as an isolated or lone "character" in history. His accounts are intertwined with the historical Pontius Pilate, Herod and such.
===
Yes, of course that occurred. At the same time, content pertinent to Christianity in particular was subject to control and manipulation from Constantine the Great forward through his descendents and kings who used that religion to their own benefit. We have a long historical record demonstrating the implementation of religion and the intertwining of it with the power of popes and kings.

There were events surrounding people whom you mention.
+++
History.

Consider the news just today regarding the 54th Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer.

Look at this regarding Eliot Spitzer

How is this relevant to our discussion?

With all the news coverage of this man and all the things he did for the good of New York, we learned more history about Eliot Spitzer just in the past couple of days which caused his resignation of the Governorship of New York.

I linked you to WikipediA because as of my post for you, this latest news about his involvement with prostitutes, that he paid out over $80,000 for their services etc. was not in any news prior to the past few days.

With all the press and television surrounding this person in 2000+, still he was able to keep secret for an extended period of time part of his history which now learned by the public destroys his political career.

What’s my point?

It is that what we may think we know may be faulty. There may be more than historians of ancient time could accurately reflect. There may also have been less than what they wrote.

History is a point of view. It’s a perspective of someone or a group of individuals, or today millions of individuals watching television and reading news stories.

Does Eliot Spitzer exist? Of course. Did ancient rulers exist? Of course.

But what we know about them is only what we can see in the limited perspective of a very limited number of historians.

If you are unaware of the revelations regarding Eliot Spitzer, you can see news and read news regarding the past several days.

It’s important to recognize that we are limited in what we can learn even when we try our best to learn with accuracy. There are errors in history. That’s why someone said: “History is a point of view.” (I don’t know the author.)

Spitzer accomplished a great deal of good. But, the total of his life wasn’t what nearly everyone saw. There were secrets. And that’s part of history as well.

Every person who lived even a short life thousands of years ago had a history. If he/she survived being born and reached some age, he/she had a history. It may never have been recorded in any way, but there was a history. Of course that applies to people who lived merely centuries ago as well.

JAK

Ah, I remember you. ;-) Just acknowledging your post and that I'll reply tomorrow or Friday.

Jersey Girl

[_JAK]

JAK,

Another question for you, do you doubt the existence of Paul?

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl asked:

Another question for you, do you doubt the existence of Paul?
++++++
I’ll address this at the end.

Jersey Girl,

First:
This on-line discussion addresses some of the points in our discussion regarding history.

If you scroll down, you find a comparison of different biblical writers and what their words were as we might currently read them.

It is prefaced with this statement below:

"Such inconsistencies suggest to us that no reliable tradition existed for the evangelist to use in putting together that part of his gospel and so he had to make do the best he could with what material he had. What about those occasions when a single story is not contradicted but modified by each evangelist? For example, in the story of the Empty Tomb, Mark tells us that Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James, and Salome discover a single white-robed man at the empty tomb (16:1-5). In Matthew's account, Salome is not there, but the other two women arrive in time to witness a messenger (angel) roll away the stone (28:1-10). Luke substitutes a woman named Joanna for Salome, includes additional unnamed women companions, and now there are two men at the empty tomb (24:1-10). These divurgences provide valuable clues to the theological underpinnings at work in each evangelist's community. To see how theology is crafted, I shall now look in greater depth at the story of Jesus' baptism. I will put the synopticists' versions side-by-side so that they can be compared:"
+++

Below this introduction is the comparison of writers.

When some speak of no historical Jesus, they generally intend to say that the very exact words alleged to have been spoken or the circumstances very precisely detailed are unreliable. It’s not necessarily a claim that no person of some similar or dissimilar attributes may have existed. The fact that the Jesus wrote nothing, was of poor decent, was uneducated, does not necessarily mean the myths didn’t contain an element or elements of someone about whom stories were embellished.

So the no historical does not necessarily mean a vacuum. But, it could mean that. Some who argue no historical Jesus mean the entire story was invention. Others who argue no historical Jesus mean some person said or presented himself in a way which generated gossip, stories, embellishment.

That phrase is used to mean different things depending upon who is using it.

The website above is a long piece of discussion with resources listed at the end. I understand there are hundreds if not thousands of websites on Christianity. The different interpretations and contradictions are large. Clearly, controversy has not been resolved.

Now your question on Paul.

He was educated to the extent that he could read and write. That establishes an affirmative answer to your question of existence. He actually left something of record.

Paul seems more securely documented because he did write.

I posted the link (I know you’ve seen it) to support that there is evidence for him. However, we should keep in mind that many of the linked sources from WikipediA are pro-Christian sources. And as we know, the more biased sources, the more problematic their reliability. That is not to suggest that none is reliable. But, the information even from relatively objective sources seems to confirm “existence” as you asked.

He may have been credited with more writing attributed to him than he actually wrote (according to the second paragraph in the Wik link). Hence, we don’t know with certainty. Now some have discredited this on-line source. And while it’s subject to revision, it also offers much information and multiple links to further sources. Virtually any source lacks perfection in all respects. I think this source has merit and value expecially in its application on the Internet.

JAK

[_dartagnan]

Did Alexander the Great exist?

How do we know?

[_Jersey Girl]

Did Alexander the Great exist?

How do we know?

I have more names to add, but not yet.

[_Dr. Shades]

JAK has a propensity to write long-winded diatribes to make an obvious point nobody really argues with, yet when asked to clarify important points he goes silent.

[MODERATOR NOTE: In the Celestial Forum, please address people's words only, not the person him/herself. Thanks. --Shades]

[_Jason Bourne]

And yet, the Gospels were written, historian's did write their accounts of that time period. Keep in mind that the biblical and extra biblical accounts of Jesus do not represent him as an isolated or lone "character" in history. His accounts are intertwined with the historical Pontius Pilate, Herod and such.

If I recall there are no other immediate contemporary mentions of Jesus. And as noted here there are only a few outside the Bible all of which came many years after his life and even after the gospels were written. I think intertwined is overstating it. But even so, as I noted in this thread, James Michner wrote historical novels that intertwined fictional people with historical characters. The gospels certainly could be that.

[_JAK]

Jason,

Interesting observations and contribution here.

Perhaps you noted that my comments recognized the very limited capacity of people to read or write as we consider time thousands of years back in human history. Both Jersey Girl and I used “intertwined.” I used it in quotation or italics joining her in that recognition.

Jason observed:
I think intertwined is overstating it. But even so, as I noted in this thread, James Michner (Michener) wrote historical novels that intertwined fictional people with historical characters. The gospels certainly could be that.

JAK:
Yes, an interesting point, and J. Michener was indeed a creative writer and historically far removed from a time period in which writings later canonized by Christianity were recognized officially.

As I pointed out for Moniker and Jersey Girl, those who wrote anything did so from what they heard. In relying mostly on oral story-telling, such writers (or if we call them historians) were at a disadvantage. They didn’t have video cameras or sound recording equipment to help them get history as we have today.

There are numerous sources for biblical contradictions which may be useful in the correctness of your last sentence which I cited.

My title (earlier) and which I restate here as the subject reflects your recognition of how facts may well have mixed with fictions in ancient writings.

It is interesting to note that after the printing press, individuals (then groups of individuals) began to read and form their own interpretations. Those interpretations came into sharp contrast with one another, and the Protestant Reformation has give rise to the greatest number of Christian groups since 800 to 1066 A.D. in the history of that religion. When printing and standardization became more secure, and when more and more people could read particularly the Bible for themselves, interpretations multiplied dramatically. That really began with the Protestant Reformation 1517 A.D. For 500 years since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, we have seen many, many groups evolve in the religion.

JAK

[_JAK]

Did Alexander the Great exist?

How do we know?

We know about Alexander the Great for several reasons. As the link shows, “He was one of the most successful military commanders in history, and was undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks.” Coins were created with his image at the time of his power and extended reach.

JAK

[_JAK]

GoodK,

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

Jersey Girl,

I understand your question was addressed to GoodK. With regard to it, however, I’m skeptical that any reliable evidence for a singular character of Jesus can be produced. One might make a case for a character of similar description but only on the grounds that word of mouth had some validity over time.

The challenge of “historical Jesus,” does not mean some charismatic figure (and many charismatic figures may have appealed to the emotions of people).

But the Bible claims exact quotations verbatim which were not written at the time by anyone. The notion that exact words in fact were recorded and then translated into many languages verbatim is the problem and the challenge for a singular historical individual as the biblical proponents claim.

There are at least two ways to approach the question. One is the literal verbatim historical character in a singular person. The other is that someone said something which others told as stories which later were written by hand and which were verbatim the words and life of an individual with absolute historical accuracy. The latter case is generally what Christianity has claimed. It is, dare I say it again, truth by assertion. The evidence for such a claim as the latter is non-existent.

It requires magic. It requires suspension of disbelief. Even today, a verbatim news coverage of what someone said, actually said becomes a subject of dispute, tone of voice, person-in-the-flesh.

And there were no recorders, there was no television, there was no publisher with writers who took quick notes or short-hand.

So to believe that any evidence for a person, a single person who fits all the absolute biblical verbiage of the Bible, is an irrational leap to conclusion. Not only that, we have many biblical translations which have altered words from other translations on what Jesus said really.

So the “kind of evidence” for which you ask does not exist.

GoodK will have to answer as she wishes.

“History is a point of view.” I wish I could take credit for that brilliant understanding, but I can’t. Even history of the war with England in the fight for an independent country (America) which is much more recent is not a “history” which is recorded in English history as it is recorded in American history. Villains to the British were heroes to the Americans (not yet identified as Americans).

History is a point of view.

JAK

JAK,

Is your underlying assertion that the Gospels provide the only evidence for the historical Jesus? Let me ask you this, if the historical Jesus did not exist, don't you think that someone, some writer, some scribe, some historian would have challenged the accounts regarding Jesus? If not, why not?

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl,

Given the limitation of what we can know as a matter of fact regarding actual history, events, your question is virtually impossible to answer with certainty. We can guess. The evidence is that very few could read or write. Literacy was not good even at 1400 A.D. Why should it have been? That is, there were no books. There was no printed language (prior to the invention of the printing press). At even that late with century upon century of human existence/reproduction, there was little need for people to read, let alone have a comprehensive view of history or a comprehensive understanding of language and information.

Previously, I recognized that the idea, the notion of historical is subject to interpretation.

One might consider that stories told after the fact might have contained elements of genuine fact as well as elements of improvisation. Therefore, the reliability is questionable. That is, what is genuine fact, and what is improvisation? Absent investigative reporting and objective observation, we only know what survived in hand-written word. We also know that the writers had to rely on what they heard. We also know, even today, that reliability of spoken stories (word) is not very reliable. Many centuries ago, it would have been difficult to separate fact from improvisation. There was no multi-camera television.

Today, we have many biblical translations which have nuance of difference that makes significant difference in claims of religious groups. Consider the long-standing quarrel over the meaning of “virgin.” Some translations characterize Mary as “a young woman.” Some Christian groups regard that as false doctrine, and insist that “virgin” means a woman who never had sexual relations with any man. Hence, “the Mother of God” was Mary and the doctrine is “Immaculate Conception.” Other more liberal translations interpret “virgin” to mean young woman. In that, the liberal groups can conclude that who is father of Jesus is immaterial.

Interpretation becomes a matter of doctrine/dogma. Of course the internal contradiction biblically is that Jesus is traced biologically through the MAN, through Joseph. Yet, some dogma asserts that Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations prior to the conception of Jesus, the Immaculate Conception of Jesus.

Your question on “historical Jesus” then becomes a question of doctrine/dogma. Truth by assertion.

Even if one considers that there was “historical Jesus,” just what does THAT mean? It depends upon what doctrine/dogma you take as truth by assertion. Any pronouncement by that means is unreliable.

We know numerous individuals have been claimed to be products of virgin birth. When people state with pomposity It’s in the Bible, they make the claim based upon a particular interpretation of words from a particular translation (among many translations today).

Various religious organizations have generated doctrine/dogma which attempt to set forward with certainty differences. However, other religious organizations have set forward other doctrines/dogmas which set forward other doctrines/dogmas. This is the case on a variety of issues, not just one (as the example I used for illustration).

While doctrine/dogma might answer your questions simplistically, the evolution of Christian views, even as they may be articulated presently, are diverse, contradictory, and in competition. Most are not interested in the academic analysis which I have expressed here. Rather, they are interested in marketing their doctrine as the true Christianity. And it’s not trivial that religious organizations are interested in the transfer of wealth.

The Pope (Roman Catholic Church, RCC) has no interest in accommodating or incorporating Southern Baptist
Convention view as an alternative of equal status with that of the RCC. The Mormon Church has no interest in accommodating or incorporating the views of the Unitarian Universalist Church.

History is a point of view. In religion “history” is asserted as fact, truth.

Honest response to your questions cannot come down on a single side but rather must recognize the complexity of evolution inherent in a 2,000 year history of a religion. We could consider this for any religious mythology which extends over centuries or even through less than 200 years. Consider the controversies confronted by Mormons as Mormons argue over Mormon doctrine/practice/dogma.
+++

These are some thoughts and analysis regarding Jersey Girl’s questions:

“Is your underlying assertion that the Gospels provide the only evidence for the historical Jesus? Let me ask you this, if the historical Jesus did not exist, don't you think that someone, some writer, some scribe, some historian would have challenged the accounts regarding Jesus? If not, why not?”
+++

Even if someone had “challenged the accounts,” it is likely that such challenge would have been buried by the prevailing powers which were well positioned to control what was perpetuated.

In a day of major exposure to newspapers, radio, and television, J. F. Kennedy had a private life which became public many years after his death. Consider how easy it would have been to conceal a challenge to a prevailing view when there was no newspaper, no radio, and no television to expose or uncover that which those in power wanted to keep quiet.

Only this week did the American public learn of a secret life for the Governor of New York and not so well published the secret life of many others who were involved in the secret high-priced prostitution facts.

Without question (in my view), any challenges to the preferred doctrines could have been managed beyond the lifetime of someone who wanted to challenge. Any writing would have been singular. There were no publications. Even if there had been publications, they would have been controlled by those in power.

JAK