Evidence for Jesus

[_Nevo]

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

Are they historical sources for the life of Jesus? No.

Isn't Bart Ehrman a New Testament scholar?

Yes he is. Have you ever read any of his books?

[_marg]

Nevo: "if you backed a messiah in the First Century and he got killed, it shows you backed the wrong horse");


Right and for that reason Jews don't consider Jesus the messiah they were looking for.

This idea of being part man part god, of dying and resurrecting, that came from Pagan mythology, so Romans had no trouble accepting a notion of a messiah in line with their pagan beliefs.

(I haven't addressed anything else you wrote, I'm rushing at the moment, and going out for the day, will get back to it later)

[_GoodK]

You say I "haven't done anything but list assumptions from other historians." Actually, what I listed were their conclusions.

Translation: Smart people believe in Jesus. Good one.

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.

Translation: I don't know or care to know what methods.

Here is an example of some evidence you could cite, hardly complex:

So and so was a historian in the first century A.D, and in his writings he mentioned a man named Jesus of Nazareth, the same Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament.

That would require too much work for you though, I guess.

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!).

Did you really just reference Josephus? So your evidence is the New Testament and a fraudulant document known throughout the scholarly community to be fraudulant.

I think we are done here. Good Job.

FACT: Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

This is not a fact. This is an assumption. Based on no evidence. In fact, if Jesus was crucified by Pilot, there would probably be record of this event. Is there? No.

Of course I have read Ehrman. Have you? Then you should know that HE says it is a theological issue, not a historical one.

[_Nevo]

You say I "haven't done anything but list assumptions from other historians." Actually, what I listed were their conclusions.

Translation: Smart people believe in Jesus. Good one.

That's a mistranslation. The correct translation is: Historians believe there is sufficient evidence in the Gospels to establish basic facts regarding the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Here is an example of some evidence you could cite, hardly complex:

So and so was a historian in the first century A.D, and in his writings he mentioned a man named Jesus of Nazareth, the same Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament.

That would require too much work for you though, I guess.

Well, let me give it a shot. The author of the Gospel of Mark, the author of the Gospel of Matthew, the author of the Gospel of Luke, the author of the Gospel of John, and the apostle Paul--whose works all date to the first century CE--all mentioned a man named Jesus of Nazareth in their writing. So did Josephus, also writing in the first century. Hey, that was easier than I expected!

Did you really just reference Josephus? So your evidence is the New Testament and a fraudulant document known throughout the scholarly community to be fraudulant.

The writings of Josephus are not "known throughout the scholarly community to be fraudulant [sic]."

FACT: Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

This is not a fact. This is an assumption. Based on no evidence. In fact, if Jesus was crucified by Pilot, there would probably be record of this event. Is there?

It is based on evidence. And there are multiple records of the event. I think we are done here. Clearly this isn't going anywhere.

Of course I have read Ehrman. Have you? Then you should know that HE says it is a theological issue, not a historical one.

What is a theological issue? Jesus' existence? He says no such thing.

[_GoodK]

The author of the Gospel of Mark, the author of the Gospel of Matthew, the author of the Gospel of Luke, the author of the Gospel of John, and the apostle Paul--whose works all date to the first century CE--all mentioned a man named Jesus of Nazareth in their writing. So did Josephus, also writing in the first century. Hey, that was easier than I expected!

Translation: The only evidence for Jesus is the New Testament itself. I already knew this Nevo, why don't you come back when you have something new to add. By the way, do you know who the authors of those books are? Isn't that important?

The writings of Josephus are not "known throughout the scholarly community to be fraudulant [sic]."

This isn't even debatable. You are obviously uninformed or just playing games now. Josephus did not mention Jesus. Someone tampered with his writings to make it look like he did. I wonder why, I mean, with all the evidence for Jesus out there you wouldn't think it was necessary to lie for Jesus

FACT: Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

What evidence? Multiple records? Oh... you mean the New Testament again. Your refusal to simply acknowledge that the only evidence for Jesus is the New Testament itself is telling.

I'll leave you and Jersey Girl with a quote from Ehrman - a New Testament scholar on the New Testament as evidence for Jesus : (already posted early on in this thread when there was some productive discourse going on)

Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed. For that resaon, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical puposes. They're not contemporary, they're not disinterested, and they're not consistent.

He says no such thing.

Sigh... read this... get back to me after your done...

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/cr ... debate.htm

[_Nevo]

By the way, do you know who the authors of those books are? Isn't that important?

Is it important to know their names? No, not really.

The writings of Josephus are not "known throughout the scholarly community to be fraudulant [sic]."

This isn't even debatable. You are obviously uninformed or just playing games now. Josephus did not mention Jesus.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but most scholars think Josephus did mention Jesus. The passage in Ant. 20.9.1 #200 is widely accepted as authentic. And the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.3.3 #63-64) is no longer rejected outright by most scholars as a Christian interpolation. The prevailing view is that it is "partly interpolated"--which is to say "the basic kernel is authentic" (Louis H. Feldman, "Flavius Josephus Revisited: the Man, His Writings, and His Significance," Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. W. Haase and H. Temporini [Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984], 822; cf. Feldman, Josephus: A Supplementary Bibliography [New York/London: Garland, 1986], 618-19, 677).

From the sixteenth century (J. J. Scaliger) to the twentieth century the authenticity of this passage has been questioned, either as an entirely Christian interpolation or as a Christian substitution for a genuine, uncomplimentary reference to Jesus by Josephus. That is not the majority view, however. Even if few scholars today would argue that Josephus wrote the whole passage, as quoted, most would contend that Josephus wrote a basic text to which Christians made additions.

In vocabulary and style large parts of it are plausibly from the hand of Josephus; and the context of the passage in Antiquities (i.e., among the early unpleasant relations involving the Jewish leaders and Pilate) is appropriate. The passage that follows it speaks of another arbitrary or outrageous action, thus indicating Josephus' attitude toward the treatment of Jesus by Pilate.

Although some statements in the Testimonium are fulsome and fit a Christian pen, other statements would scarcely have originated (in the second century or later) with those who believed that Jesus was the Son of God, e.g., "a wise man" seems an understatement. Granted how Christians came to vituperate the Jewish authorities for their role in the death of Jesus, "upon indictment of the first-ranking men among us" seems bland. Moreover, we have no evidence of Christians in the first century referring to themselves as a tribe or clan.

-- Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave; A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, vol. 1 (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 374; see also, John P. Meier, "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 1 (1990): 76-103.

FACT: Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

What evidence? Multiple records? Oh... you mean the New Testament again. Your refusal to simply acknowledge that the only evidence for Jesus is the New Testament itself is telling.

Huh? Apart from two passing references in Josephus, the New Testament is the only historical evidence for Jesus. I don't know why you would think I refuse to acknowledge this.

He says no such thing.

Sigh... read this... get back to me after your done...

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/cr ... debate.htm

Sigh. I did read it. Ehrman, of course, does not say that Jesus' existence is a theological issue. As Kevin noted earlier, Ehrman himself has a written a book on the historical Jesus (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium). What he does say is that Jesus' resurrection is a theological issue, not a historical one:

"But even if [the Gospels] were the best sources in the world, there would still be a major obstacle that we simply cannot overcome if we want to approach the question of the resurrection historically rather than theologically. I’m fine if Bill wants to argue that theologically God raised Jesus from the dead or even if he wants to argue theologically that Jesus was raised from the dead. But this cannot be a historical claim . . ."

I agree with him. I don't think historians can demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, I agreed with pretty much everything Ehrman said in the link you gave. Do you?

[_GoodK]

Apart from two passing references in Josephus, the New Testament is the only historical evidence for Jesus.

Glad you said that.

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died... The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

"After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ."

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.

And this is your evidence?

If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later.

He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question -- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

Dr. Paul W. Schmiedel, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Zurich, Switzerland, one of the foremost theologians of Europe, tells us in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, that there are only nine passages in the Gospels that we can depend upon as being the sayings of Jesus; and Professor Arthur Drews, Germany's greatest exponent of the doctrine that Christ is a myth, analyses these passages and shows that there is nothing in them that could not easily have been invented.That these passages are as unhistorical as the rest is also the contention of John M. Robertson, the eminent English scholar, who holds that Jesus never lived.

It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend has made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians."

And this is your evidence?

Sorry to rain on your parade, but most scholars think Josephus did mention Jesus.

Really, most? What does most mean?

In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history...In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist...This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."

In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians -- a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century -- six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time -- so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.

[_Nevo]

Yeah, infidels.org is a real treasure trove, isn't it? Yet this seminal essay from Marshall Gauvin's magisterial Fundamentals of Freethought (1922) doesn't show up in any of the surveys I've read of twentieth-century scholarship on the historical Jesus. Strange, eh?

MG: There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died.

Actually there is a small fragment--the Rylands papyrus, which contains portions of the Gospel of John--that "may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D." In any case, there is no reason to doubt the current scholarly consensus that the canonical Gospels were written before 100 CE.

According to Bart Ehrman,

Christians probably began to produce writings shortly after [Jesus' death, ca. 30 CE], although our earliest surviving writings, the letters of Paul, were not made for another twenty years or so (around 50-60 CE). Soon the floodgates opened, however, and Christians of varying theological and ecclesiastical persuasion wrote all kinds of books: Gospels recording the words, deeds, and activities of Jesus; accounts of the miraculous lives and teachings of the early Christian leaders ("acts of the apostles"), personal letters ("epistles") to and from Christian leaders and communities; prophetic revelations from God concerning how the world came to be or how it was going to end ("revelations" or "apocalypses"), and so on. Some of these writings may well have been produced by the original apostles of Jesus. But already within thirty or forty years books began to appear that claimed to be written by apostles, which in fact were forgeries in their names (see, e.g., 2 Thess. 2:2).

-- Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (New York: Oxford, 2003), 2.

MG: Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that [the Gospels] were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians.

Not at all.

It is certainly wrong to picture the early Christian missionaries and church leaders as uneducated people who could neither read nor write. The culture of the Hellenistic and Roman periods was to a large extent a literary culture. This is especially true for Judaism in that period, which became a matrix for the formation of early Christianity. Learning how to read was expected for all male members of the Jewish religious community. Accordingly, in early Christianity oral traditions also seem to have been written down for ecclesiastical use at an early time. Such written materials would have included catechetical collections of Jesus' sayings, church orders, or collections of parables and miracle narratives. Some of these were later incorporated into larger writings, such as the early collection of parables, first written down in Aramaic, that is preserved in Mark 4, and the early church orders that were used by the author of the Didache.

-- Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1982), 1.

MG: If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later.

Well, most scholars think Luke is wrong. See, e.g., Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, rev. ed. (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 547-555.


MG: The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

At the time of Jesus, Nazareth was an obscure village south of Sepphoris. Excavations under several churches and convents have found dwellings dug into bedrock and around caves. Silos, olive and wine presses, as well as storage jar receptacles are indicative of the village's agricultural base. Evidence for a necropolis helps determine the extent of the 1st-century ruins, which correlate to a population of well under 500.

-- Jonathan L. Reed, "Nazareth," Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 951.

MG: Professor Arthur Drews, Germany's greatest exponent of the doctrine that Christ is a myth, analyses these passages and shows that there is nothing in them that could not easily have been invented.That these passages are as unhistorical as the rest is also the contention of John M. Robertson, the eminent English scholar, who holds that Jesus never lived.

This stuff's a century old. Do you have anything more recent? No? That's what I thought.

[_richardMdBorn]

Apart from two passing references in Josephus, the New Testament is the only historical evidence for Jesus.

Glad you said that.

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died... The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

I feel a bit like John McEnroe. You can't be serious. The Diatessaron by Tatian, a harmony of the four gospels, dates from 150-160. Marcion's canon, circa 140, includes part of Luke. Or is the weasel phrase "in their present form" the key here.

[_richardMdBorn]

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.

This argument is very weak. The undisputed epistles by Paul are in Greek and they date circa 50-60. To say that none of the early Christians could have written in Greek is refuted by this. Paul is an early Christian by any reasonable definition of the term and he wrote in that language. And the assumption that there were no multilingual early followers of Jesus is dubious.