If we are going to talk about historians, let's talk about the historians that were alive at the time Jesus was supposedly alive and apparently forgot to write about him.
Yes, GoodK! Will you post their names and perhaps a link to their writings or mention of their writings?
Thank you!
Who would have written about him> To everyone else, he was a minor radical preaching a heretical Jewish doctrine that was no political danger to the Empire as a whole. Who cared? Christians, who wrote a lot about him. Jews, who wrote apologetics trying to discredit him. The rest of the world didn't care until Paul and the rest of the Apostles got around to teaching them about him. Then a flood of information pours out about him and his sect once they became politically dangerous and later, politically orthodox.
Do we find writings about him from his followers as we should expect? Yes. Do we find him mentioned by the Jewish leaders of the day, mostly apologetics to discredit him? Yes. Do they ever attempt to discredit him by claiming the man never existed? No, even though the events that the Christians claimed happened (the triumphal entry, Jesus's trials) would have been witnessed by hundreds of Jews still alive at the time.
As a side note, claiming that contradictions in a record about someone makes them less likely to have existed is silly. By that standard, we can use Hillary's recent claims about her trip to Bosnia to prove that she does not in fact exist.
Of course the early writers make no claim against the historical Jesus. Some of those who did write of him appear on the list that GoodK supplied and they wrote of him enmeshed with other historical figures of the time period.
I asked this previously in the thread. If a bonafide historian wrote of a fictional character interacting with a historical figure, don't you think their credibility would have been called into question?
Of course it would have.
The historical Jesus issue is a contemporary invention. What I see going on in this thread on the part of at least a few posters, is a penchant to regurgitate that which they've been taught via numerous skeptic sites/books with an inability to engage the material. When/if GoodK chooses to supply evidence of New Testament "contradictions" I'll demonstrate what I've just stated.
GoodK wrote:If we are talking about a historical Jesus, one in which there is evidence of, we need to first list what the "evidence" actually is, and then if it is reliable.
Evidently you are unfamiliar with historical Jesus scholarship. There is a broad consensus regarding the basic outline of Jesus' life.
"There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity. . . . Jesus was born c. 4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great; he spent his childhood and early years in Nazareth, a Galilean village; he was baptized by John the Baptist; he called disciples; he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities); he preached 'the kingdom of God'; about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover; he created a disturbance in the Temple area; he had a final meal with his disciples; he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest; he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate" (E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus [London: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1993], 10-11).
"Jesus came from the Galilean town of Nazareth. . . . His family was Jewish, which is clear from the names of his parents (Joseph and Mary) and his brothers (James, Joses, Judas, and Simon). Jesus' father was a building artisan or a carpenter. . . . Jesus' mother tongue was Galilean Aramaic, or perhaps even a Hebrew dialect that had survived in Galilee. . . . At some point after he had joined the sect of John the Baptist, Jesus parted from them and began his own ministry. The places where he was active are not known with any certainty because most of the specific place names in the gospels were added to the tradition at a later date. But it is striking how strongly Galilee stands out as the place of his activity, and how completely the most important Hellenistic cities (Caesarea, Sepphoris, Tiberias) are missing in the tradition. . . .
There are good reasons to assume that the numerous exorcisms reported of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition have their ultimate root in Jesus' activity as an exorcist. . . . It is quite likely that the saying connected with the driving out of demons contain several genuine words of Jesus. These sayings demonstrate plainly that Jesus himself saw his exorcisms as a visible sign of the victory over Satan and of the beginning of the rule of God. . . . The parables are the central part of Jesus' proclamation of the rule of God. . . .
Nothing can be said about the duration of Jesus' ministry. . . . It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed. . . . All the gospels agree in reporting the inscription on the cross: 'Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews.' This inscription says only too clearly that there was a substantive reason for Jesus' condemnation by the Romans. . . . Executed by the horribly cruel method of crucifixion, Jesus died a painful death" (Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982], 73-79 passim).
"Jesus was born in Nazareth in one of the most turbulent periods of Jewish history. . . . [Jesus] received John's message of repentance in preparation for the coming Kingdom, and was baptized in the Jordan. After John's arrest and execution, Jesus continued to preach the message of the Kingdom, attracting some of John's now leaderless disciples. . . . Many Palestinian Jews from various walks of life . . . were attracted to Jesus, whose authority as spokesman for the coming Kingdom was clearly demonstrated in the exorcisms and cures he performed. . . . Finally, during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, Jesus went up to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. . . . Proceeding to the Temple, Jesus then pronounced the nearness of the End through a prophetic gesture. Overturning the tables in the outer court, he symbolically enacted the impending destruction of Herod's temple. . . . Interrogated briefly by the High Priest, Jesus was condemned by Pilate, who executed him as a messianic pretender together with other enemies of the imperium" (Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988], 127-130).
"[Jesus] grew up in Galilee, in the town of Nazareth, close to the major city of Sepphoris. He spoke Aramaic, some Hebrew, and probably at least some Greek. He emerged as a public figure in around AD 28, in the context of the initially similar work of John the Baptist. He summoned people to repent and announced the kingdom, or reign, of Israel's god, using parables in particular to do so. He journeyed around the villages of Galilee, announcing his message and enacting it by effecting remarkable cures, including exorcisms, and by sharing in table-fellowship with socio-culturally wide group. He called a group of close disciples, among whom twelve were given special status. His activities, especially one dramatic action in the Temple, incurred the wrath of some elements in Judaism, notably (at least towards the end) of the high-priestly establishment. Partly as a result of this, he was handed over to the Romans and executed in the manner regularly used for insurrectionists" (N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2, Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996], 147-48).
If we are going to talk about historians, let's talk about the historians that were alive at the time Jesus was supposedly alive and apparently forgot to write about him.
Yes, GoodK! Will you post their names and perhaps a link to their writings or mention of their writings?
Thank you!
Jersey Girl - Here is your list. You may consult Google if you'd like links to their writings.
This is a list of historians who lived within Christ's lifetime or within a hundred years of it:
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/jesus5.htm wrote: Apollonius Persius Appian Petronius Arrian Phaedrus Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus Columella Phlegon Damis Pliny the Elder Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger Dion Pruseus Plutarch Epictetus Pompon Mela Favorinus Ptolemy Florus Lucius Quintilian Hermogones Quintius Curtius Josephus Seneca Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus Juvenal Statius Lucanus Suetonius Lucian Tacitus Lysias Theon of Smyran Martial Valerius Flaccus Paterculus Valerius Maximus Pausanias
Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer mentioned above, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ. At all. Consider: "Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacred occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place -- when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the rpesence of many witnesses ascended into heaven.
That's not what I asked you for, GoodK.
You wrote:
If we are going to talk about historians, let's talk about the historians that were alive at the time Jesus was supposedly alive and apparently forgot to write about him.
That's what I want to see a list of. The historians that were alive at the time of Jesus and didn't write about him. Not within a hundred years.
Ahh.. my mistake. I really thought your question was sincere.
The list includes both historians that were alive when he was allegedly alive and immediately after. Are you forgetting that much of the New Testament was written within a hundred years of Jesus life, not at the time he was actually alive.
None of those historians mention Jesus. This is common knowledge. Even Bob Crockett chimed in on page 2 (pay attention!)
It is a dubious collection of early writings that contradict eachother, promote ideas that were popular at the time, and that don't have a clear author or date.
How do the writings in the New Testament contradict eachother?
You must be kidding. You expect me to lay it all out here?
I doubt you have failed to encounter at least one of the many contradictions in the Old and New Testaments.
Was he crucified on Friday or Sunday Jersey Girl?
Depends on what book you read.
Who was there when he appeared after resurrection?
Depends on what book you read.
You should really know this stuff -- if you've read the Bible.
GoodK wrote:If we are talking about a historical Jesus, one in which there is evidence of, we need to first list what the "evidence" actually is, and then if it is reliable.
Evidently you are unfamiliar with historical Jesus scholarship. There is a broad consensus regarding the basic outline of Jesus' life.
"There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity. . . . Jesus was born c. 4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great; he spent his childhood and early years in Nazareth, a Galilean village; he was baptized by John the Baptist; he called disciples; he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities); he preached 'the kingdom of God'; about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover; he created a disturbance in the Temple area; he had a final meal with his disciples; he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest; he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate" (E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus [London: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1993], 10-11).
"Jesus came from the Galilean town of Nazareth. . . . His family was Jewish, which is clear from the names of his parents (Joseph and Mary) and his brothers (James, Joses, Judas, and Simon). Jesus' father was a building artisan or a carpenter. . . . Jesus' mother tongue was Galilean Aramaic, or perhaps even a Hebrew dialect that had survived in Galilee. . . . At some point after he had joined the sect of John the Baptist, Jesus parted from them and began his own ministry. The places where he was active are not known with any certainty because most of the specific place names in the gospels were added to the tradition at a later date. But it is striking how strongly Galilee stands out as the place of his activity, and how completely the most important Hellenistic cities (Caesarea, Sepphoris, Tiberias) are missing in the tradition. . . .
There are good reasons to assume that the numerous exorcisms reported of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition have their ultimate root in Jesus' activity as an exorcist. . . . It is quite likely that the saying connected with the driving out of demons contain several genuine words of Jesus. These sayings demonstrate plainly that Jesus himself saw his exorcisms as a visible sign of the victory over Satan and of the beginning of the rule of God. . . . The parables are the central part of Jesus' proclamation of the rule of God. . . .
Nothing can be said about the duration of Jesus' ministry. . . . It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed. . . . All the gospels agree in reporting the inscription on the cross: 'Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews.' This inscription says only too clearly that there was a substantive reason for Jesus' condemnation by the Romans. . . . Executed by the horribly cruel method of crucifixion, Jesus died a painful death" (Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982], 73-79 passim).
"Jesus was born in Nazareth in one of the most turbulent periods of Jewish history. . . . [Jesus] received John's message of repentance in preparation for the coming Kingdom, and was baptized in the Jordan. After John's arrest and execution, Jesus continued to preach the message of the Kingdom, attracting some of John's now leaderless disciples. . . . Many Palestinian Jews from various walks of life . . . were attracted to Jesus, whose authority as spokesman for the coming Kingdom was clearly demonstrated in the exorcisms and cures he performed. . . . Finally, during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, Jesus went up to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. . . . Proceeding to the Temple, Jesus then pronounced the nearness of the End through a prophetic gesture. Overturning the tables in the outer court, he symbolically enacted the impending destruction of Herod's temple. . . . Interrogated briefly by the High Priest, Jesus was condemned by Pilate, who executed him as a messianic pretender together with other enemies of the imperium" (Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988], 127-130).
"[Jesus] grew up in Galilee, in the town of Nazareth, close to the major city of Sepphoris. He spoke Aramaic, some Hebrew, and probably at least some Greek. He emerged as a public figure in around AD 28, in the context of the initially similar work of John the Baptist. He summoned people to repent and announced the kingdom, or reign, of Israel's god, using parables in particular to do so. He journeyed around the villages of Galilee, announcing his message and enacting it by effecting remarkable cures, including exorcisms, and by sharing in table-fellowship with socio-culturally wide group. He called a group of close disciples, among whom twelve were given special status. His activities, especially one dramatic action in the Temple, incurred the wrath of some elements in Judaism, notably (at least towards the end) of the high-priestly establishment. Partly as a result of this, he was handed over to the Romans and executed in the manner regularly used for insurrectionists" (N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2, Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996], 147-48).
Sorry Nevo, maybe I missed something, but what evidence have you cited here?
It almost seems like you've posted a bunch of assumptions...
(wake me up if someone has something besides the shady New Testament to support their Jesus myth)
If we are going to talk about historians, let's talk about the historians that were alive at the time Jesus was supposedly alive and apparently forgot to write about him.
Yes, GoodK! Will you post their names and perhaps a link to their writings or mention of their writings?
Thank you!
Who would have written about him> To everyone else, he was a minor radical preaching a heretical Jewish doctrine that was no political danger to the Empire as a whole. Who cared? Christians, who wrote a lot about him. Jews, who wrote apologetics trying to discredit him. The rest of the world didn't care until Paul and the rest of the Apostles got around to teaching them about him. Then a flood of information pours out about him and his sect once they became politically dangerous and later, politically orthodox.
Do we find writings about him from his followers as we should expect? Yes. Do we find him mentioned by the Jewish leaders of the day, mostly apologetics to discredit him? Yes. Do they ever attempt to discredit him by claiming the man never existed? No, even though the events that the Christians claimed happened (the triumphal entry, Jesus's trials) would have been witnessed by hundreds of Jews still alive at the time.
As a side note, claiming that contradictions in a record about someone makes them less likely to have existed is silly. By that standard, we can use Hillary's recent claims about her trip to Bosnia to prove that she does not in fact exist.
It may be silly to someone who doesn't care about the details, someone who has to accept the Jesus myth in order to be a Mormon, but your negligence for truthiness is what seems silly to me.
If the only evidence (and it has been repeated here for over ten pages that the evidence for Jesus is the New Testament) can't get the details of the story right, and we have nothing else to go on besides this inconsistent story, an intellectually honest person would question the story.
Of course I would never accuse you of being intellectually honest.
GoodK wrote:It may be silly to someone who doesn't care about the details, someone who has to accept the Jesus myth in order to be a Mormon, but your negligence for truthiness is what seems silly to me.
If the only evidence (and it has been repeated here for over ten pages that the evidence for Jesus is the New Testament) can't get the details of the story right, and we have nothing else to go on besides this inconsistent story, an intellectually honest person would question the story.
Of course I would never accuse you of being intellectually honest.
Thank you, I will also avoid making the same accusation against you.
Okay, let's go over the New Testament again. Matthew and John appear to be largely independent. Luke and Mark are connected.
The accounts are written some time after the events in question. There is no newspaper and likely no journal entries to consult. If they agreed completely, I would think people would (rightly) be suspicious that there was more collaboration. They got some things wrong, which is to be expected. I spent an amazing day with a friend once and we both recorded it in our journals. Months later, we let each other read them. Many contradictions. We wrote it the day it happened. These accounts were written years and in some cases decades later. They were also not written by modern journalists. Also, the accounts read like history. To be blunt, I could probably write a much better story if I wasn't constrained by trying to get facts right. The only religious text I've read that is similar is the Old Testament. Messy, convoluted, and filled with tons of irrelevant details. Like most histories are.
I would also posit that in addition to the New Testament we have the witness of the Jews in their apologetics. There's also the whole Christianity thing that seems to imply that something happened. No one has touched the concept of Jewish Apologetics.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
previously: Even if every single historian talks about a Jesus that doesn't mean they are saying by the fact they talk about him, that Jesus must necessarily have existed.
Kevin: And I suppose that in your corner of the universe, historians frequently write books about fictitious individuals. Good one!
***Actually Kevin that's my point. That you think that because an historian talks about a Jesus that means he existed. Christianity is historically important. The evolution of it is historically significant. The amount of evidence with regards to Jesus, is minimal, problematic, and is extremely unreliable. An historian can talk about Jesus as if he existed, while acknowledging the problems with the evidence. That does not mean the historian is making any comment on the probability of whether or not Jesus existed.
previously: Obviously historical evidence varies with degrees of reliability on whether that evidence reveals historical truth.
Kevin: But neither you nor GoodK are prepared to speak on this reliability because you haven’t read the relevant scholarship. The two of you rely heavily on Ehrman sound bites, but appear to be oblivious to the fact that Ehrman doesn’t reject the historicity of Jesus. You guys snag snippets from him out of context that appear to be speaking about the unreliability of certain texts, and you recognize a familiar theme from the hate blogs so you automatically assume Ehrman reaches the same conclusions. This is what you call intellectual laziness. You pretend to be interested in scholarship, but really all you are interested in is googling any negative piece you can find. Any author is a “scholar” in your book, and any scholar must be a “historian.”
*** I did speak on the reliability from 2 sources, Ehrman's course on History of Jesus and the history text by Spodek. And I gave the notes from the course, i didn't use my own words and what was written in the history text by Sodek.
As a side note, where have I commented on what Bart Ehrman's position is on Jesus' existence? I have not. But you do this constantly, create an argument position for a person that they did not make, then you argue against that position, and then make personal attacks on the person for arguing a position they never made in the first place. Keeps you busy and entertained I guess , eh? by the way I don't read other message boards and the only blogs I've ever read are by scientists and have nothing to do with religion.
Since I haven't argued what Bart Ehrman's position is, are you saying that omission of a negative position your words "Ehrman doesn't reject the historicity of Jesus" is a tacit agreement by Ehrman that Jesus did exist?
And if so I'd like references where Bart Ehrman argues for Jesus' existence, where he emphatically argues the evidence is strong that Jesus existed. I"m not saying he hasn't, but the implication from you seems to be that he has.
GoodK wrote:It may be silly to someone who doesn't care about the details, someone who has to accept the Jesus myth in order to be a Mormon, but your negligence for truthiness is what seems silly to me.
If the only evidence (and it has been repeated here for over ten pages that the evidence for Jesus is the New Testament) can't get the details of the story right, and we have nothing else to go on besides this inconsistent story, an intellectually honest person would question the story.
Of course I would never accuse you of being intellectually honest.
Thank you, I will also avoid making the same accusation against you.
Okay, let's go over the New Testament again. Matthew and John appear to be largely independent. Luke and Mark are connected.
The accounts are written some time after the events in question. There is no newspaper and likely no journal entries to consult. If they agreed completely, I would think people would (rightly) be suspicious that there was more collaboration. They got some things wrong, which is to be expected. I spent an amazing day with a friend once and we both recorded it in our journals. Months later, we let each other read them. Many contradictions. We wrote it the day it happened. These accounts were written years and in some cases decades later. They were also not written by modern journalists. Also, the accounts read like history. To be blunt, I could probably write a much better story if I wasn't constrained by trying to get facts right. The only religious text I've read that is similar is the Old Testament. Messy, convoluted, and filled with tons of irrelevant details. Like most histories are.
I would also posit that in addition to the New Testament we have the witness of the Jews in their apologetics. There's also the whole Christianity thing that seems to imply that something happened. No one has touched the concept of Jewish Apologetics.
What if the writers of the Gospel were making the whole thing up? What if their story served a purpose, and was not literally true? Any way to be sure?
The writers of the Gospels were educated men. Jesus' disciples were not educated men.
I'm fascinated though, to hear about any other evidence besides the New Testament. If you care to elaborate on the evidence that comes from Jewish Apologetics I'm all ears (or eyes).
If we are going to talk about historians, let's talk about the historians that were alive at the time Jesus was supposedly alive and apparently forgot to write about him.
Yes, GoodK! Will you post their names and perhaps a link to their writings or mention of their writings?
Thank you!
Jersey Girl - Here is your list. You may consult Google if you'd like links to their writings.
This is a list of historians who lived within Christ's lifetime or within a hundred years of it:
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/jesus5.htm wrote: Apollonius Persius Appian Petronius Arrian Phaedrus Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus Columella Phlegon Damis Pliny the Elder Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger Dion Pruseus Plutarch Epictetus Pompon Mela Favorinus Ptolemy Florus Lucius Quintilian Hermogones Quintius Curtius Josephus Seneca Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus Juvenal Statius Lucanus Suetonius Lucian Tacitus Lysias Theon of Smyran Martial Valerius Flaccus Paterculus Valerius Maximus Pausanias
Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer mentioned above, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ. At all. Consider: "Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacred occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place -- when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the rpesence of many witnesses ascended into heaven.
That's not what I asked you for, GoodK.
You wrote:
If we are going to talk about historians, let's talk about the historians that were alive at the time Jesus was supposedly alive and apparently forgot to write about him.
That's what I want to see a list of. The historians that were alive at the time of Jesus and didn't write about him. Not within a hundred years.
Ahh.. my mistake. I really thought your question was sincere.
The list includes both historians that were alive when he was allegedly alive and immediately after. Are you forgetting that much of the New Testament was written within a hundred years of Jesus life, not at the time he was actually alive.
[b]None of those historians mention Jesus.[b] This is common knowledge. Even Bob Crockett chimed in on page 2 (pay attention!)
Yes, of course my question was sincere. When you make an assertion and I ask you to provide proof, I expect proof of some sort and not simply a list of names that goes far outside of the time period you yourself used as a time frame in your original comments.
Above you say that none of those historians (on the list, I assume) mention Jesus.