Evidence for Jesus

[_JAK]

Hi Jersey Girl,

I should like to replace your entire post of Mar 15, 2008 6:33 because of length. I know it’s long as it stands and as you wrote it (unless someone edited). I should like to assume it’s still there even though I answer to you without reposting all of the dialogue and important points.

I’ll try to avoid any misrepresenting any of your thoughtful comments. If I seem to, please know it was not by intention.

It’s difficult to bring one’s thinking into short posts on a BB such as this and not appear to be writing a book.

Jersey Girl stated:
That doesn't mean that what we do have overall, is inaccurate. We have pieces of the story of Jesus. I think that if the location in question (largely Jerusalem) were not ruined shortly following the death of Paul, Temple destruction 70 AD, we might have had more to work with and think about. As it stands, we do not.

JAK:
First, your comment assumes a Jesus. If it is the Jesus depicted in the New Testament (and I’m sure that’s your reference), the problematic issue is what is accurate and what is non-factual. We, today, cannot determine the difference between those even if we assume some “person” exemplified some characteristics, expressions, personal values, etc. If the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is incorrect (false) by reason of story-telling with invention, the whole of the doctrine falls as it asserts that Jesus was the “son of God” as opposed to a biologically normal human person. That’s a fundamental and primary doctrine of Christianity.

It is also contrary to physics or biology. It’s fundamental to Christian dogma. However, other non-Christians tend to agree with some of the teachings accredited to Jesus. The problem here is that these teachings were not original. That is, the fundamental principle of humane, kind, forgiving response to even enemies did not originate in Christianity. Christians like to believe it was. It’s their religion. But the ideas expressed by a biblical Jesus were not original. They had been expressed previously.

So the “teachings” of Jesus are presented in the Bible (as the biblical scripts were developed and canonized). If the doctrine of “Immaculate Conception” is false, Jesus expressed no more than was previously understood as a concept or principle of treatment of people. I am addressing “Historical Evidence Issue” in addressing this.

If “Immaculate Conception” doctrine is false, we are left with a flawed history. That does not in any way diminish the repetition of attitudes of “forgiveness,” or “kindness,” etc. It those ideas of humane treatment of other humans, they stands on its own merit.

Historically, Christianity has a long and bloody history not due to Jesus (accurate history or not) but due to the embracing of Christianity by the power of Rome and its use of the cross as a symbol of power and control.

Since there is no method other than truth by assertion to set forward Immaculate Conception or Resurrection as doctrine, it is irrelevant in objective consideration. But is entirely relevant in Christian doctrine. (History is a point of view.)
+++
Jersey Girl asked:
“Are you skeptical, for example, of the existence of Herod?

JAK:
No. I am not skeptical that Herod was a Roman king. Kings and emperors had status and were recognized as emperors and kings at the very time when they were emperors and kings. Most of them have historical documentation at the time of their life and rule. There weren’t after the fact claims for supernatural powers as we find for and in Christianity. Herod did not claim to offer eternal life (a doctrine). Herod did not have others make claims that he was of “virgin birth.” That was not part of his history or claimed history.

JAK previously:
The Bible (with different script/translations/languages) is a product over time with revision and configuration. There is a wide variety of beliefs today regarding the accuracy or the historical statement found in the 66 books (including the apocrypha, the Book of Mormon, etc.) Such beliefs are not reliable based on the fact of belief. They are also not made reliable based on various interpretations though the various schisms.

Jersey Girl:
Even with the advent of the printing press and contemporary technological advances, we still do not enjoy 100% accuracy. The Gospels and Epistles are not the only ancient historical mentions of Jesus. Why limit the "evidence" in this discussion for the historical Jesus, to the Gospels and Epistles? There are more and other writings that make mention of Jesus. We can discuss those as the thread continues.

JAK:
The importance for the beginning of printing is that all who could acquire the capacity to read, could read for themselves without the interpretation of those in charge of official doctrine/dogma. That fact created enormous difficulty for the doctrine makers. Efforts were made to prevent reading, personal reading of the Bible. The Church will tell you what the scripture means. The doctrine makers quickly recognized the “dangers” of having people actually read for themselves what Guttenberg’s invention made possible. And it was 200 years before the King James Version (1611) of the Bible became available to those who could read.

My skepticism is not of well-documented humans with rationally understandable histories such as emperors and kings. Was every detail of their “history” correct? Likely not. Were all their virtues or dishonors reported or recognized” Likely not.

But you (Jersey Girl) asked: “Are you skeptical, for example of the existence of Herod.” And I answered.

Jersey Girl stated:
The question on the table is not evidence for the messiah. It is evidence for the historical Jesus.

JAK:
Previously I responded (in another post) to this. But, I should like to amplify that the religious claim of “the messiah” (with a capital) for Jesus is impossible to divorce from “the historical Jesus.”

The claims religiously for Jesus by Christianity and by various and quarreling religious scholars are inherent in the various analyses of “historical Jesus.”

Jews reject the New Testament claims for Jesus.

Consider the disagreement of so-called Christian scholars as such scholars disagree.

Consider the view of The Four Gospels from a Jewish perspective. (History is a point of view.)

Notice in this reference the identification of “transmitted orally…”

If you scroll down, you find “Unhistorical Character of the Gospels.” This is from a Jewish perspective of history. I’ll not take space here to quote all in the above website. Suffice it to say that history is not perceived the same.

See also Unhistorical

See also Peter and Paul

See also Paul the Miracle-Worker

Now, you understand I am in no way defending a Jewish view of history here. I am citing it as an example of conflicting point of view.

Upon reading from these websites, one might incorrectly conclude that my defense is of Judaism or a Jewish perspective. That is not the case. Jewish perspective “makes mention of Jesus” (as you observe that “There are more and other writings that make mention of Jesus.”) You’re correct.

The “mentions” are not consistent nor are they in agreement regarding “historical Jesus.”

Jersey Girl stated:
“I don't see the ‘construction of books’ as relevant to these exchanges. Do you disagree that scribes painstakingly made copies of the Jewish Bible, the Talmud? Were they not careful in their occupation given the subject matter?”

JAK:
We disagree. The construction of books is relevant to the promotion of the Christian mythology. So it is relevant. We cannot contemplate “historical Jesus” without recognizing the “construction of books” and the construction of Christian mythology contained within those books. We also must consider the “climate” in which those books were canonized which was a climate which looked with extreme favor on Christian mythology.

If we accepted the Jewish “construction of books” there would be no Christianity. The mythology of Christianity is inextricably connected to the “construction of books.”

Jersey Girl stated:
“There was no free press in the production of material attributed to Aristotle or Plato. Do you question their existence? As I recall, we have discussed this before.”

JAK:
I addressed this in an earlier response to your post here. The existance of Aristotle and Plato are not questioned. Both were scholars of their time and both wrote extensively and their writings are documented.

At present, I have nothing further to add to my earlier response on these very important points and questions which you raise.
++++
I want to point to something which is difficult to do in short space. So, you may disagree and it may be I fail to state well in abbreviation.

Those in power tend to control the history. That was more true when there were fewer observers and fewer writers. Lyndon Johnson prohibited the filming of horrendous atrocities committed by US forces in Viet Nam. He controlled the history by suppressing it. G.W. Bush has prohibited the videoing of caskets being off-loaded from military planes returning dead Americans to US soil. A few pictures have slipped through. But generally, the control of information such as this example and others is done by power.

There are may others which would take much space to detail.

Now, you may ask: What does this have to do with “historical Jesus”?

When those in power control information by suppression or by loudly voiced expression, those in power manipulate information. They have the capacity to shape opinion and perception.

While it does not always work, particularly in today’s world, it is attempted and it does work to some degree or extent. You will remember the proclamation of Bush: “Mission Accomplished”. On that day and many days if not months, even years after that proclamation, the image of a military conflict successfully completed was perpetuated by all the Bush/Cheney administration. The US had a great success.

Unlike emperors and kings of times long past, the Bush administration had people, reporters, skeptics watching day after day, month after month and now year after year. The “mission” was not accomplished. The “mission” was continually re-defined as time passed.

Although there was great effort to control the minds of Americans, there were too many watching, thinking, and investigating for the mantra to be propped up for the thinkers.

But, in the days when myth-making could be carried out with almost no one who could read or write, and when power ruled in a different way than it rules today, such mind-control was not only possible, it was effective.

However, after hundreds of years and after the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, keeping the masses under control (ignorant) became impossible for any religious hierarchy. And so, today we have Christian wars such as we see on this bb and such as we see in competition for allegiance to particular religious groups. I am not now talking about military battles in which life is taken in the name of religion (although we still have that). I am speaking about the kind of argument we see on this and other BBs regarding which doctrines (myths) are true as those doctrines compete for numbers and for power.

Often it’s subtle. It’s often so subtle as to be unrecognized. However, one religious group takes pride and joy if it converts someone of a different religious group to their group.

I recognize that this extended analysis is more encompassing and more extensive than the questions of “historical Jesus.” However the larger perspective must necessarily recognize the picayune controversies over detail which may not be resolved by any examination of evidence. The “evidence” is too old and too fractured.

This is not a negative reflection on our discussion here, but rather a recognition that larger predilection prevails.

Again, I appreciate your questions, comments, and even disagreement. The complexity and interwoven quality of history cannot be overestimated. Causal links are multiple not singular as many wish to think.

JAK

[_JAK]

Thank you, marg, for your contribution here. I will try to respond but quite frankly, I don't know how I can keep up with this thread and responses given the format which causes me a great deal of frustration and makes it time consuming for me to find responses, reply to them and remain on topic. I will make an honest effort to do so.

Jersey Girl,

I heartily concur with your point regarding format.

It seems this format is best suited for a chat with few words posted directly after the few words of another just before.

JAK

[_marg]

.

You said my claim was silly because you could provide a list of historians that agreed with JAK.

Well, where is it? Is the theology trained Robert M. Price all you've got?

Here are a couple of citations worth noting:

"Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard [Christ myth] as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.” Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Eerdmans, 2004, p.34.

Kevin, I believe you are assuming incorrectly. JAK to my knowledge has not argued that Jesus didn't exist. What he has argued is the information available to form a conclusion on just who and what can we say with a high degree of certainty about the historical figure Jesus is unreliable. And he has argued reasons why.

As far as historians arguing that Jesus didn't exist ..an historian is not in the business of writing about what didn't happen they are in the business of writing about what probably happened based on evidence. As far as evidence for Jesus, it is limited and pretty much boils down to the Gospels. In all liklihood based upon the evidence Jesus did exist with some similarity to the Gospel stories. However saying he existed is not the same as saying he existed as per all the claims in the Gospels or to the evolved figure worshipped in Christianity.

From a non historical perspective because history is not about what didn't happen, one can make a case, that this man Jesus, per the Gospels is a far cry from the actual person who probably existed. That case has been made in previous posts in this thread.

[_Jersey Girl]

Thank you, marg, for your contribution here. I will try to respond but quite frankly, I don't know how I can keep up with this thread and responses given the format which causes me a great deal of frustration and makes it time consuming for me to find responses, reply to them and remain on topic. I will make an honest effort to do so.

Jersey Girl,

I heartily concur with your point regarding format.

It seems this format is best suited for a chat with few words posted directly after the few words of another just before.

JAK

I'm admittedly lost here. JAK if you are agreeable, would you mind if I begin again by responding to your most recent post and moving forward in a one for one exchange from that point on?

[_marg]

[
The Jewish sources are something that I'm interested in. Could you post just a list of those? I don't expect you to post lengthy commentary unless you choose to. I've been collecting references for this thread that I've not posted yet. I'd like to know Ehrman;s list of Jewish sources for I have 2 collected that I'd like to learn more about.

The short of it is Flavius Josephus..in Jewish Antiquities.

And Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud, AD 5th century commentaries on AD second century collections of oral traditions called the Mishnah.

[Anonymous]

Nevo,

Now you have my undivided attention. Might you share with us the gist of what Byrskog and Bauckham are forwarding?

Sure. Byrskog points out that Greco-Roman historians valued direct experience in reporting on historical events. If the historian wasn't himself a participant in the events he was narrating, the historiographical best practice was to rely on the reports of eyewitnesses. Often these would be supplemented with oral traditions and written records. Byrskog characterizes the Gospels as "syntheses of history and story, of the oral history of an eyewitness and the interpretive and narrativizing procedures of an author." Bauckham picks up where Byrskog leaves off and suggests likely examples of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels.

Commenting on Byrskog's work, Bauckham notes that--contra the form-critical assumptions of most twentieth-century critical scholarship--"the eyewitnesses do not disappear behind a long process of anonymous transmission and formation of traditions by communities, but remain an influential presence in the communities, people who should be consulted, who told their stories and whose oral accounts lay at no great distance from the textualized form the Gospels gave them." He suggests that in those Christian communities where eyewitnesses were not present, there were probably "recognized teachers who functioned as authorized tradents of the traditions they had received from the eyewitnesses either directly or through very few (authorized) intermediaries."

Analyzing the fragmentary writings of Papias preserved by Eusebius, probably written around the turn of the second century, Bauckham observes that

Papias was clearly not interested in tapping the collective memory as such. He did not think, apparently, of recording the Gospel traditions as they were recited regularly in his own church community. Even in Hierapolis it was on his personal contact with the daughters of Philip that he set store. What mattered to Papias, as a collector and would-be recorder of Gospel traditions, was that there were eyewitnesses, some still around, and access to them through brief and verifiable channels of named informants. It is natural to suppose that those who were writing the Gospels (our canonical Gospels) at the time of which Papias speaks would have gone about their task similarly, as indeed the preface to Luke's Gospel confirms. For the purpose of recording Gospel traditions in writing, Evangelists would have gone either to eyewitnesses or to the most reliable sources that had direct personal links with the eyewitnesses.

Although geographically widespread, the earliest Christian communities were in close contact with each other so first or secondhand contact with eyewitnesses would not have been unusual (cf. Heb. 2:3-4). Also, "individual eyewitnesses of importance, such as Peter or Thomas, would have had their own disciples, who (like Mark in Peter's case) were familiar enough with their teacher's rehearsal of Jesus traditions to be able to check, as well as to pass on, the traditions transmitted in that eyewitness's name as they themselves traveled around."

Regarding the reliability of eyewitness memory, Bauckham remarks:

In the first place, we can be sure that the eyewitnesses of the events in the history of Jesus would have first told their stories very soon after the event. . . . an eyewitness's story would have acquired a fairly fixed form quite soon. Some key words of Jesus might be remembered precisely, and the story line or structure would be stabilized. . . . As a general rule, frequent rehearsal would have had the effect of preserving an eyewitness's story very much as he or she first remembered and reported it. Of course, we cannot exclude the universal human tendency to "improve" or embellish a good story, but we can exclude the frailties and distortions of memory to a large extent.

The eyewitnesses who remembered the events of the history of Jesus were remembering inherently very memorable events, unusual events that would have impressed themselves on the memory, events of key significance for those who remembered them, landmark or life-changing events for them in many cases, and their memories would have been reinforced and stabilized by frequent rehearsal, beginning soon after the event. They did not need to remember--and the Gospels rarely record--merely peripheral aspects of the scene or the event, the aspects of recollective memory that are least reliable. Such details may have been subject to performative variation in the eyewitnesses' tellings of their stories, but the central features of the memory, those that constituted its meaning for those who witnessed and attested it, are likely to have been preserved reliably.

Bauckham concludes the book with these reflections:

Trusting testimony is indispensible to historiography. This trust need not be blind faith. In the "critical realist" historian's reception and use of testimony there is a dialectic of trust and critical assessment. But the assessment is precisely an assessment of the testimony as trustworthy or not. What is not possible is independent verification or falsification of everything the testimony relates such that the testimony would no longer be needed. Testimony shares the fragility of memory, which is testimony's sole access to the past . . . . But, for most purposes, testimony is all we have. There are, indeed, other traces of the past in the present (such as archaeological finds), which can to a degree corroborate or discredit testimony, but they cannot, in most cases, suffice for the study and writing of history. . . .

Participant eyewitness testimony has a special role when it comes to events that transcend the common experience of historians and their readers. The more exceptional the event, the more historical imagination alone is liable to lead us seriously astray. Without the participant witness that confronts us with the sheer otherness of the event, we will reduce it to the measure of our own experience. In such cases, insider testimony may puzzle us or provoke disbelief, but, for the sake of maintaining the quest for the truth of history, we must allow the testimony to resist the limiting pressure of our own experiences and expectations.

As the paradigmatic case in modern history of an exceptional event of this kind, the Holocaust comes to mind. . . . Holocaust testimonies are not easily appropriated by the historian, since they are prima facie scarcely credible and since they defy the usual categories of historical explanation. . . . This is why the testimonies of Holocaust survivors are in the highest degree necessary to any attempt to understand what happened.

So what Bauckham and Byrskog are saying, in effect, is that the Gospels (for the most part) reliably preserve first-hand testimony of Jesus. Of course, we are free to trust or distrust that testimony.

[_Jersey Girl]

[
The Jewish sources are something that I'm interested in. Could you post just a list of those? I don't expect you to post lengthy commentary unless you choose to. I've been collecting references for this thread that I've not posted yet. I'd like to know Ehrman;s list of Jewish sources for I have 2 collected that I'd like to learn more about.

The short of it is Flavius Josephus..in Jewish Antiquities.

And Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud, AD 5th century commentaries on AD second century collections of oral traditions called the Mishnah.

Thank you, marg! I see that you posted excerpts. Jesus was mentioned in the Talmud and also the Babylonian Talmud. Apparently the comments were exponged from the Talmud but still appear in the Babylonian Talmud. I'll read the excerpts now.

Edit: It was Nevo who posted excerpts. My mistake.

[_Jersey Girl]

In comments to JAK on another thread, I wrote this:

"I'm thinking in terms of coming to a better understanding of scripture instead of simply passively receiving it and spouting it, we should engage it. "

When I think of "engaging" scripture, I think that learning about the culture it was written in is imperative to increasing our understanding of what it is that we're receiving and spouting. I claim no expertise in the cultural traditions of ancient Israel, but I am convinced that this is where Christians are seriously lacking. The information regarding attitudes and practices of orality and what oral traditions were deemed important enough to write down, supplied by Nevo, is a case in point. It is my understanding that long before the ancients had the ability to write, their stories were among their most treasured possessions. Could the stories that they carried from generation to generation have been altered by time? I think so yes. However, I do think the gaps between reports of Jesus (whether one was identifying a Messiah or not) are not so significant as to discredit the historicity of Jesus.

Did early Christians corrupt some of the work of historians with interpolations regarding Jesus to forward their Christian perspective? I suppose they could have. It's very difficult for us or genuine scholars to reach back in an attempt to draw a straight line from the time of the events in question to the Gospels and other writings. I have to go with some common sense here, for it's my only tool in this effort.

Paul

We have the Epistles attributed to Paul. Though the authorship of some of the Epistles is questionable, we do have writings that scholars attribute to Paul without much question. The New Testament in it's entirety reports leading up to two major events. The death of Paul in Rome on or around 68 AD and the Temple Destruction in 70 AD.

Neither of those events are mentioned in the New Testament.

The Gospels

In Matthew 24, the words attributed to Jesus give a prophecy of the Temple Destruction. Jesus is standing in front of the Temple and tells of it's destruction. Read it and "look" at the scene you see portrayed. Forget viewing it as a Second Coming prophecy. Look at where the figures are placed in the account. Read what Jesus is saying. In 70 AD no stone was left unturned.

Given the information regarding orality that Nevo supplied, why would anyone bother to write down the testimony of another person (The Gospels) many several years after the fact when the stories were incomplete? Where are the additional writings that tell the story of the death of Paul in Rome or the Temple Destruction?

The writings attributed to Luke, date themselves internally as is demonstrated by the work of Ramsey.

This leaves me to conclude that the Gospels and certainly the Epistles attributed to Paul were written in close proximity of the events they describe. Else, why do they remain unfinished?

Where is the rest of the story?

When I asked earlier in the thread for evidence of challenge of the New Testament stories the answer I got (and always get) is that there are none.

Yes, there are.

The extra Biblical references to Jesus that I typically see on a thread like this are those of Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius, Origen, Pliny the Younger and such. And the criticism is that they are too far in proximity away from the events in question.

This is why I asked marg for information regarding the Talmud. Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud, the mention was removed and remains in the Babylonian Talmud in Sanhedrin. Why has this not been mentioned in this thread?

Why, did the Jews see fit to include references to Jesus in the rabbinic literature? Did they believe he was the long awaited Messiah? Of course not. They tell the story of a historical figure, a heretic who was executed.

Why?

Why even mention Jesus in the Talmud if not to challenge his messianic status and forward the superiority of Judaism over this seeming insignificant heretic. One in many perhaps however, his story is told over a period of centuries. A seeming insignificant heretic whose story began early in the first century, was told by Paul (who never met the historical Jesus and yet was transformed) before he died in Rome in 68 AD, whose story was reported in the testimony of people and written down because it was a "tribal treasure" , whose story was reported in the writings of the teachers of the very religion who took exception to his heresy and whose story was told in the writings of Josephus, Seutonius, Tacitus, etc. intertwined with known historical figures such as Herod and Pilate.

If bonafide historians injected a non-historical person in the histories of people such as Herod and Pilate.

Don't you think someone would have called them on it?

I think they would have.

[_Jersey Girl]

Regarding Bart D. Ehrman who was mentioned earlier in the thread by marg and Kevin. Here is a blurb from wiki:

"Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is a book by Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar and self-professed agnostic.[1] The book introduces lay readers to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Ehrman provides an overview of the 5,700 known New Testament manuscript fragments, from which scholars have cataloged 200,000 differences.[2] When ancient manuscripts differ from each other, such as whether they include the Comma Johanneum, textual critics use clues to conclude which version is the original. Ehrman discusses many textual variations that resulted from intentional or accidental manuscript changes during the scriptorium era. The book, which made it to the New York Times Best Seller list, is available in hardcover and paperback[3].

Ehrman recounts his personal experience with the study of the Bible and textual criticism. He summarizes the history of textual criticism, from Erasmus to the present. The book describes an early Christian environment in which the books that would later compose the New Testament were copied by hand, mostly by Christian amateurs. Ehrman concludes that various early scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to deemphasize the role of women in the early church, to unify and harmonize the different portrayals of Jesus in the four gospels, and to oppose certain heresies (such as Adoptionism). Ehrman contends that certain widely-held Christian beliefs, such about the divinity of Jesus, are associated not with the original words of scripture but with these later alterations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus

The statement that I bolded is where I take exception. I would like to hear from anyone on the thread just how Ehrman demonstrates that the scribes altered the New Testament texts to deemphasize the role of women in the early church.

Anyone care to address that?

Does Ehrman supply proof that the role of women was deemphasized and how does he go about that?

If Ehrman claims that the role of women was reduced or deemphasized by scribes, what material does he provide to prove or demonstrate that there was a previous stronger emphasis?

Deemphasized from what?

[_marg]

The statement that I bolded is where I take exception. I would like to hear from anyone on the thread just how Ehrman demonstrates that the scribes altered the New Testament texts to deemphasize the role of women in the early church.

In the course I have there is no mention of scribes likely altering N.T. texts to deemphasize women. And to go into Ehrman's methodology would be a lengthy post. However he does explain how he reasons to various conclusions.