Evidence for Jesus

[_Nevo]

I even clarified my position again two pages back for Jersey Girl (to be fair, I know this isn't your fault. If Jersey Girl hadn't derailed this so bad, you could have followed along better)

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.

The New Testament can't even keep from contradicting itself, let alone be trusted as evidence

.

Was I wrong to connect the two? You don't seem to think so because you write that this is "one aspect of why they are unreliable evidence." Well, what were the other reasons he gave? I must have missed them.

You did miss them. Care to apologize again? You are forgiven.

You are very gracious. And I do appreciate the clarification.

I amend my former statement as follows:

The consensus I noted earlier regarding the basic outline of Jesus' life reflects the assured results of decades of critical scholarship. That you glibly dismiss it with the absurd argument that the New Testament writings cannot yield factual information about Jesus because they "contradict each other, promote ideas that were popular at the time, and don't have a clear author or date" clearly demonstrates your ignorance of historical Jesus scholarship--and indeed of historical research generally.

[_marg]

If GoodK agrees that the New Testament constitutes historical evidence for Jesus' existence but simply considers it problematic then I don't see where we disagree.

I think the problem is really a function of definition, what is meant by evidence. GoodK I believe is saying that the evidence is so problematic, so unreliable that it is a stretch to consider it as evidence at all. And in fact one could use the evidence which is used to argue for the postive that Jesus existed as evidence to argue for the negative Jesus didn't exist so it cuts both ways with much of the evidence. And hence GoodK argues there is no evidence to warrant the positive claim...Jesus existed. Correct me if I'm wrong GoodK.

I would have to go back and find out what problems or reasons GoodK gave for evidence being problematic, but so much has been mentioned in this thread anyhow, that it is there and why should GoodK repeat? And it is also obvious, that contradictions in the Gospels could not in and of itself mean there can be no facts in them. Contradictions is just one piece of the puzzle. Some people can explain them away, for other people they are used as evidence against Gospels being historically true.

Are you still at the university of ***..decided to delete name. I used to envision you living in a univ. library with resources at your finger tips, either that or you had a full time staff working for you, finding them. Do you scan your resource quotes that you post or do you type them up?

[_Jersey Girl]

I even clarified my position again two pages back for Jersey Girl (to be fair, I know this isn't your fault. If Jersey Girl hadn't derailed this so bad, you could have followed along better)

There was no derailment of this thread, GoodK. You began making assertions regarding contradictions early on in this thread. Contradictions are part of the discussion. To think that one can make assertions on a thread such as this without challenge is unrealistic at best. You are on a thread with a small band of discussors who will challenge each other's assertions and ask for evidences or reasoning for said assertions. I expect people to challenge my assertions and you should expect it as well. It is part of the process of examination of topic on a board like this.

[_Jersey Girl]

And it is also obvious, that contradictions in the Gospels could not in and of itself mean there can be no facts in them. Contradictions is just one piece of the puzzle. Some people can explain them away, for other people they are used as evidence against Gospels being historically true.

That is a fair evaluation, marg. This is why when I look at the issue of the timing of the passover meal/festival, I tend to look past it to the activity/conversation in the "scene" of the meal that is presented and what I see as the significance of that. It's difficult to to push that aside and decide where the importance lies. I'll keep trying though!

[_marg]

There was no derailment of this thread, GoodK. You began making assertions regarding contradictions early on in this thread. Contradictions are part of the discussion. To think that one can make assertions on a thread such as this without challenge is unrealistic at best. You are on a thread with a small band of discussors who will challenge each other's assertions and ask for evidences or reasoning for said assertions. I expect people to challenge my assertions and you should expect it as well. It is part of the process of examination of topic on a board like this.

You are missing GoodK's point. Sorry to interject here, but GoodK already said it doesn't matter whether the Gospel's have contradictions or not. What he/she is saying is that they are internal sources, not objective. They basically create their own evidence. That they contradict only weakens their case. But for argument sake, there could have been only one Gospel in existence, but if we know nothing about the writer, if they wrote long after the facts, if they talk of things which could not have happened and/or seem unlikely, if the only other sources to back them says no more than what they say and the other sources had that source available anyhow (just to list of few of the problems)...and if the people involved have vested interests, in calls into question the reliability of any of the claims made by the internal source of evidence...the Gospels.

So GoodK mentioned contradictions, and it's true the Gospels have contradictions, so it really is a tangent Jersey Girl to argue there are none, but contradictions isn't a necessary requirement in GoodK's argument anyhow. But yes it is a small ingredient to the argument. But as far as GoodK is concerned that ingredient can be thrown out. And he/she has stated that already.

Am I presenting your position GoodK? If I'm out to lunch let me know. I'm only speaking up because I'm empathetic to how time consuming it is to argue positions I haven't made and then ignored on positions I have made. It becomes too much of an effort to even bother.

[_GoodK]

There was no derailment of this thread, GoodK. You began making assertions regarding contradictions early on in this thread. Contradictions are part of the discussion. To think that one can make assertions on a thread such as this without challenge is unrealistic at best. You are on a thread with a small band of discussors who will challenge each other's assertions and ask for evidences or reasoning for said assertions. I expect people to challenge my assertions and you should expect it as well. It is part of the process of examination of topic on a board like this.

You are missing GoodK's point. Sorry to interject here, but GoodK already said it doesn't matter whether the Gospel's have contradictions or not. What he/she is saying is that they are internal sources, not objective. They basically create their own evidence. That they contradict only weakens their case. But for argument sake, there could have been only one Gospel in existence, but if we know nothing about the writer, if they wrote long after the facts, if they talk of things which could not have happened and/or seem unlikely, if the only other sources to back them says no more than what they say and the other sources had that source available anyhow (just to list of few of the problems)...and if the people involved have vested interests, in calls into question the reliability of any of the claims made by the internal source of evidence...the Gospels.

So GoodK mentioned contradictions, and it's true the Gospels have contradictions, so it really is a tangent Jersey Girl to argue there are none, but contradictions isn't a necessary requirement in GoodK's argument anyhow. But yes it is a small ingredient to the argument. But as far as GoodK is concerned that ingredient can be thrown out. And he/she has stated that already.

Am I presenting your position GoodK? If I'm out to lunch let me know. I'm only speaking up because I'm empathetic to how time consuming it is to argue positions I haven't made and then ignored on positions I have made. It becomes too much of an effort to even bother.

Thank you Marg, you are correct in your presentation of my position.

If the New Testament is evidence for Jesus, is the Book of Mormon evidence for Alma the younger?
Is the Koran evidence for Muhammed's winged horse? Certainly not. Like you said, it is an internal source.

It has been a little frustrating to spend the last couple days of this thread on Jersey Girl's tangent and having to identify and defend straw men.

For the third time, the New Testament is not evidence .... This would be true even if the New Testament was completely succinct about the details of Jesus' life.

Some people choose not to follow along and rather throw out red herrings and derail threads.

At least I'm making sense to someone...

Thanks!

[_GoodK]

I even clarified my position again two pages back for Jersey Girl (to be fair, I know this isn't your fault. If Jersey Girl hadn't derailed this so bad, you could have followed along better)

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.

The New Testament can't even keep from contradicting itself, let alone be trusted as evidence

.

Was I wrong to connect the two? You don't seem to think so because you write that this is "one aspect of why they are unreliable evidence." Well, what were the other reasons he gave? I must have missed them.

You did miss them. Care to apologize again? You are forgiven.

You are very gracious. And I do appreciate the clarification.

I amend my former statement as follows:

The consensus I noted earlier regarding the basic outline of Jesus' life reflects the assured results of decades of critical scholarship. That you glibly dismiss it with the absurd argument that the New Testament writings cannot yield factual information about Jesus because they "contradict each other, promote ideas that were popular at the time, and don't have a clear author or date" clearly demonstrates your ignorance of historical Jesus scholarship--and indeed of historical research generally.

Interesting. You keep speaking of scholarship and ignorance, but the best you have done is to recommend some horribly lengthy book and rattle off a list of excerpts that do not mention any evidence, but rather historians that agree with you.

If you really were as informed on this subject as you pretend, you would be able to cite what evidence there is for a historical Jesus, rather than doing this:

"Smart people believe in Jesus"

You haven't done anything but list assumptions from other historians. Should I be impressed by these gents you cite? No I am not.
Francis Collins is a good example of a smart man who can believe idiotic things. So is Daniel Peterson, my dad, etc.... I don't care how many historians believe in Jesus, tell me why they feel comfortable historically verifying a theological issue.

Is there evidence for a historical Jesus?

WHAT IS THIS EVIDENCE!!???

[_Nevo]

Are you still at the university of ***..decided to delete name. I used to envision you living in a univ. library with resources at your finger tips, either that or you had a full time staff working for you, finding them. Do you scan your resource quotes that you post or do you type them up?

Hi marg. No, I'm no longer at the UofT--I'm back in BC now. I did at one point live across the street from a library when I lived in residence at St. Michael's College. Now I'm limited to my home library and online databases (ATLA, JSTOR, and so forth). I type out just about all of the quotes I use since I don't have a scanner.

Now back to the thread. GoodK is claiming that the New Testament does not constitute historical evidence for Jesus. But citing arguments for the unreliability of the Gospels (they're late, they're anonymous, they're biased) does not establish that they're worthless as historical sources. Critical scholars have been making silk purses from this sow's ear for the past hundred years and have, in fact, reached a consensus on the basic facts of Jesus' life.

This is noted in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, recently published by Oxford University Press:

From the eighteenth century on, attempts have regularly been made to prove that Jesus never existed and that this figure is in some way a personification of the ideas which led to the founding of the new religion of Christianity or the result of a combination of a series of existing myths. However, there is sufficient evidence about Jesus to rule out this view, which cannot stand up to detailed examination. . . . Despite the many problems and uncertainties [presented by the New Testament texts] a consensus has now formed among scholars on a basic outline of the life of Jesus. . . .

-- John Bowden, "Jesus," Encyclopedia of Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 655-57.

GoodK disingenously claims to want to "be sure there is no evidence for Jesus" but won't engage any of the scholarship on the subject. I've presented arguments for historicity from Richard Bauckham and Dale Allison specifically, and pointed to works on the historical Jesus by E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, John P. Meier, N. T. Wright, among others, but GoodK hasn't acknowledged any of it. Evidently he prefers to remain oblivious.

Here are three facts that all New Testament scholars agree on:

1. Jesus was from Nazareth.
2. He was baptized by John the Baptist.
3. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

If the Gospel writers were simply writing about a fictional character, why would they include details that would seem to undermine their claim that he was the true Messiah?

[_GoodK]

Are you still at the university of ***..decided to delete name. I used to envision you living in a univ. library with resources at your finger tips, either that or you had a full time staff working for you, finding them. Do you scan your resource quotes that you post or do you type them up?

Hi marg. No, I'm no longer at the UofT--I'm back in BC now. I did at one point live across the street from a library when I lived in residence at St. Michael's College. Now I'm limited to my home library and online databases (ATLA, JSTOR, and so forth). I type out just about all of the quotes I use since I don't have a scanner.

Now back to the thread. GoodK is claiming that the New Testament does not constitute historical evidence for Jesus. But citing arguments for the unreliability of the Gospels (they're late, they're anonymous, they're biased) does not establish that they're worthless as historical sources. Critical scholars have been making silk purses from this sow's ear for the past hundred years and have, in fact, reached a consensus on the basic facts of Jesus' life.

This is noted in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, recently published by Oxford University Press:

From the eighteenth century on, attempts have regularly been made to prove that Jesus never existed and that this figure is in some way a personification of the ideas which led to the founding of the new religion of Christianity or the result of a combination of a series of existing myths. However, there is sufficient evidence about Jesus to rule out this view, which cannot stand up to detailed examination. . . . Despite the many problems and uncertainties [presented by the New Testament texts] a consensus has now formed among scholars on a basic outline of the life of Jesus. . . .

-- John Bowden, "Jesus," Encyclopedia of Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 655-57.

GoodK disingenously claims to want to "be sure there is no evidence for Jesus" but won't engage any of the scholarship on the subject. I've presented arguments for historicity from Richard Bauckham and Dale Allison specifically, and pointed to works on the historical Jesus by E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, John P. Meier, N. T. Wright, among others, but GoodK hasn't acknowledged any of it. Evidently he prefers to remain oblivious.

Here are three facts that all New Testament scholars agree on:

1. Jesus was from Nazareth.
2. He was baptized by John the Baptist.
3. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

If the Gospel writers were simply writing about a fictional character, why would they include details that would seem to undermine their claim that he was the true Messiah?

You are still doing this:

"Smart people believe in Jesus"

You still choose to cite no evidence.

Do you even know why "all New Testament scholars agree on" this, or do you just wish to continue parroting the same argument...

And to claim my call for evidence is disingenous seems like an attempt to hide the fact that you still have not presented any evidence besides this little gem you provided me with:

It's in the New Testament. Check it out.

Like I said, if you wish to swallow every claim in that crappy collection of writings, fine by me. But no one will accuse you of being intellectually honest for doing so.

Do you mind citing WHAT the evidence is?

I really would be happy if you would.

Do you also consider the Koran evidence? Or how about the Book of Mormon? Are those evidences in and of themselves?

Isn't Bart Ehrman a New Testament scholar?

There are so many holes in your argument Nevo, dressing it up with references and bullet points hardly hides them...

[_Nevo]

Interesting. You keep speaking of scholarship and ignorance, but the best you have done is to recommend some horribly lengthy book and rattle off a list of excerpts that do not mention any evidence, but rather historians that agree with you.

If you really were as informed on this subject as you pretend, you would be able to cite what evidence there is for a historical Jesus, rather than doing this:

"Smart people believe in Jesus"

You haven't done anything but list assumptions from other historians. Should I be impressed by these gents you cite? No I am not.
Francis Collins is a good example of a smart man who can believe idiotic things. So is Daniel Peterson, my dad, etc.... I don't care how many historians believe in Jesus, tell me why they feel comfortable historically verifying a theological issue.

Is there evidence for a historical Jesus?

WHAT IS THIS EVIDENCE!!???

Two of the historians I've cited on this thread are Jewish (Alan Segal and Paula Fredriksen). Do you think they "feel comfortable historically verifying a theological issue"? This isn't about theology; it's about history.

You say I "haven't done anything but list assumptions from other historians." Actually, what I listed were their conclusions. The methods by which they reached those conclusions are complex and I frankly don't have the time or energy to transcribe detailed arguments about this or that tradition-complex. Especially when you show yourself so unwilling to acknowledge the validity of New Testament scholarship in the first place.

Is there evidence for a historical Jesus? Yes. It is found in the various streams of tradition that inform the New Testament writings as well as in Josephus (there's your cherry!).

FACT: Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
EVIDENCE: It meets the criterion of multiple attestation (it is attested in various streams of New Testament tradition, Josephus, and Tacitus); the criterion of embarrassment (the mode of Jesus' death was scandalous; as N. T. Wright once observed, "if you backed a messiah in the First Century and he got killed, it shows you backed the wrong horse"); and the criterion of coherence (it fits with what we know about Pilate and messianic pretenders in Josephus, and with other aspects of the Gospel accounts).