Can you give me some names of historians who are not Christian that believe Jesus existed?

[Gorgias]

But if you’ve read his blog over the years and listened to his many, many lectures…you will note that he also says he’d change his belief if strong evidence and facts emerged that proved otherwise.

Which is more than we can say for some Christians.

Maybe the Christians are being honest that there’s no evidence that could possibly be presented that they would regard as “strong” enough to prove otherwise.

If we found the confirmed coffin/remains/bones of Jesus, would you change your belief that he was bodily resurrected?
Many said no. Even if facts were staring at them in the face.

As I recall, the responses were more of the tenor of “that’s an impossibility, and therefore, the premise is invalid.” So, “no” is just shorthand for “bad premise.”

Indeed he did, so we agree it is a hearsay account.

Hearsay is only relevant in a courtroom environement, in which it really means “the witness did not (or can not) provide his testimony to the court”. There’s no court here, and therefore, the notion of “hearsay” isn’t really relevant. The relevant standard is the one that historians use (since, after all, this is a historical argument, not a legal one): where does the testimony of witnesses lead us?

So, if you want to disregard the scribal accounts of the Gospels, I would argue that an improper standard is being asserted.

 

[dochawk]

Josephus and Tacitus, to name two.

and Pliny the Younger . . .

contemporary historians recorded Him; the “no such person” crowd are tantamount to the flat-earthers and such.

Decades ago, one of my Jesuit theology professors, an authority on Christology, had just returned from a secular humanist conference on Jesus to which he’d invited.

One of the speakers went on in his “paper” claiming that “Jesus” was the code name for a hallucinogenic mushroom!

The following speaker started by calling what he has said utter nonsense . . .

 

[Uliana988]

One of the speakers went on in his “paper” claiming that “Jesus” was the code name for a hallucinogenic mushroom!

Can’t…breathe… oh, what a foolish person!

 

[Cathoholic]

FiveLinden . . .

I think he bases his view on the plain meaning of the words in scripture.

Do you think uncle Abraham and nephew Lot . . . were “brothers” FiveLinden?

 

[Gorgias]

You are misinformed.

If you say so.

We have the Vinayas from both the Sthaviravada and Mahasangika schools, which separated 140 years after the Buddha’s parinirvana. The texts are the same.

This only demonstrates that they proceed from the same oral tradition, not that the texts were composed within the lifetime of Siddhartha.

In Ancient India, writing was a secular art, not suitable for scriptures. Hindu, Buddhist and Jain scriptures were not written down but were for oral transmission only.

So, which is it? My “misinformed” assertion, which is that the texts date well beyond the lifetime of eyewitnesses, or your assertion, that “Buddhist scriptures were not written down but were for oral transmission only”? Are you sure you want to assert both, mutually exclusive, claims?

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Gorgias:

He wrote it down from the eyewitness.

Indeed he did, so we agree it is a hearsay account. If the eyewitness had written the Gospel, then it would be an eyewitness account, as parts are. However the accounts of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are hearsay accounts, not eyewitness accounts.

Court transcripts written down by the stenographer are not automatically hearsay either, but by your standard all first hand testimony becomes hearsay testimony if we read the transcripts. Luke knew the BVM and met her according to tradition, and as evidenced by the intimate details of her experiences found in his gospel.

 

[Rhubarb]

As I recall, in terms of serious academic consensus there isn’t really any disagreement that Jesus of Nazareth lived, and that he gathered followers around his unique form of religious ideas.

Whether that figure did everything the Bible ascribes to him is a different matter.

 

[rossum]

Court transcripts written down by the stenographer are not automatically hearsay either, but by your standard all first hand testimony becomes hearsay testimony if we read the transcripts. Luke knew the BVM and met her according to tradition, and as evidenced by the intimate details of her experiences found in his gospel.

Luke and Matthew were not writing transcripts. Then only quote Mary’s word occasionally and often for just a sentence or two. Neither gives a complete transcript of Mary’s description of the birth of Jesus word-for-word as in a court transcript.

In both cases we have the evangelist’s own words, not Mary’s words. These are hearsay accounts, hence neither Gospel is an “eyewitness” account of the birth of Jesus. Only a transcript of the words of an actual witness, Mary or Joseph for example, would suffice.

 

[Gorgias]

Luke and Matthew were not writing transcripts. Then only quote Mary’s word occasionally and often for just a sentence or two. Neither gives a complete transcript of Mary’s description of the birth of Jesus word-for-word as in a court transcript.

If you’re looking for a “court transcript”, then you’re being anachronistic. You’ll also find that the Gospels aren’t a NFL color analyst’s description, but that doesn’t make them inaccurate on that account.

In fact, the Gospels were written in the style of Greco-Roman historical narratives. So, if you want the appropriate description of literary genre, “history” is the right one (even if it doesn’t look like an episode of Perry Mason).

 

[Gorgias]

Only a transcript of the words of an actual witness, Mary or Joseph for example, would suffice.

Again, you’re being anachronistic, by asserting that a 21st-century courtroom standard must be applied to antiquity. I guess we should say that all of Buddhist literature is likewise ‘merely hearsay’?

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Luke and Matthew were not writing transcripts. Then only quote Mary’s word occasionally and often for just a sentence or two. Neither gives a complete transcript of Mary’s description of the birth of Jesus word-for-word as in a court transcript.
In both cases we have the evangelist’s own words, not Mary’s words. These are hearsay accounts, hence neither Gospel is an “eyewitness” account of the birth of Jesus.

If a house burns down and a journalist gets a quote from the owners, it may make up < 1% of the column, but its still not considered hearsay, nor does the completeness of the column have anything to do with the veracity of the quote. You can quibble with the transcript analogy over completeness but even a courtroom only answers questions that are asked, and falls short of completeness.

Only a transcript of the words of an actual witness, Mary or Joseph for example, would suffice.

And we have those in the Gospel. Just as you would have them interwoven within a court transcript or a journalistic column.

The words of Mary are not mistaken for the words of Luke. When Mary speaks we know it.
Lk 1:46 • ‘And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.’

When Luke speaks we know it
Lk 1:1 • ‘Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word…’

 

[rossum]

Again, you’re being anachronistic,

We are both using 21st century English words. By the current definitions of the words we are using the Gospels are not “eyewitness accounts” of the birth of Jesus but are “hearsay accounts”. Neither Matthew nor Luke were personally present, and they do not directly quote any eyewitnesses.

Some parts of the Gospels are indeed eyewitness accounts, but not all parts of them. They are a mixture of eyewitness and hearsay.

 

[Gorgias]

Neither Matthew nor Luke were personally present, and they do not directly quote any eyewitnesses.

Right. 'Cause Mary and the apostles whom they quote weren’t eyewitnesses. Moreover, Matthew and Luke are acting as scribes for those who were there.

You can keep claiming “hearsay” all you want, as a means to denigrate the reliability of the accounts, but the denials ring hollow.

 

[rossum]

You can keep claiming “hearsay” all you want, as a means to denigrate the reliability of the accounts

Eyewitness or hearsay has nothing to do with the reliability of the accounts. Just compare the dates of King Herod (died 4 BCE) and when Quirinus became governor of Syria (6 CE). That is a ten year discrepancy in the two versions, a discrepancy which has been known since Schürer published in the 1880s.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Eyewitness or hearsay has nothing to do with the reliability of the accounts. Just compare the dates of King Herod (died 4 BCE) and when Quirinus became governor of Syria (6 CE). That is a ten year discrepancy in the two versions, a discrepancy which has been known since Schürer published in the 1880s.

A small quibble, there is no year zero so its not quite ten. Not that the range matters in my opinion.

Secondly, the 4BCE date was first pushed a little over a 100 years ago. Traditionally it was said to be 1BCE from 1st century writings and onwards, and modern scholarship now has growing support for the 1BCE date. I think there are a number of reasons for this, including astronomical data showing the mentioned eclipse happening in 1BCE in that region.

Futhermore, in Luke 2:2 the greek word protos normally means “first”, but in this instance there is a case for it meaning “before” when followed by a genitive case. We see an example of this in John 1:15 where the Baptist was “first” protos, or as can be said, he was “before” Jesus as it was translated. So with that in mind the enrolling was “before” Cyrenius was made governor of Syria

 

[rossum]

The death of Herod is associated with a lunar eclipse, dated to 4 BCE by astronomers. Also, there was a Roman census. There was no need for a Roman census until the Romans took over direct rule from Herod’s successors in 6 CE.

How does the authorised Catholic English translation of the New Testament treat protos in this case?

The 1975 English updating of Schürer stuck with his original dates, so I suspect that your points are a minority view among scholars.

 

[GiftofMercy]

You are right. The Gospels cannot reconcile events involving Jesus return from exile in Egypt and the name of certain historical figures identified

The Bible is not a set of history books.

Basically Jesus existed, but not all the stories about Him are true.

I would agree here, given there are some pretty outlandish stories about Jesus as a child and teenager that are found in some of the texts that the Catholic Church in its great wisdom, excluded from Canon, and those texts found in a cave last century.
However what is written of Jesus in the Old and New Testaments is all true.

Not all of the Gospels are fully eyewitness accounts, neither Matthew nor Luke were present at the birth of Jesus for example.

You are misinformed about the validity of the Nativity Gospels. Mary , having been the Mother of God, the Mother of Jesus, would have given her own eyewitness account to others to scribe, to write down. We cannot say it is hearsay, if the Mother herself gives her account for another who then writes it down.
Matthew was a follower of Jesus and knew Mary. There is your credible and valid and accurate account.
Luke is said to have been the first to paint Mary. So Luke also knew Mary. If Luke did not paint the picture credited to him, Luke also knew people who knew Mary well. More credible , valid and accurate accounts.

Please do not attempt to discredit the eyewitness and retelling of the Birth of Jesus by His own Mother to men she knew very well, and shared her grief and agony over His passion.

 

[GiftofMercy]

We are both using 21st century English words.

Which is a huge mistake when attempting to look at text and oral tradition from 2000 years ago, which can be asserted for any text and any religion.
Oral tradition was the primary method of communication. Some very wise and intelligent and smart people then decided to write this oral tradition and share it along the roads of the Roman Empire.

 

[Maximus1]

The Gospels are not history books. Right! The Gospels are spiritual text. And inspiration is in recording a spiritual message.

 

[GiftofMercy]

The Gospels are not history books. Right! The Gospels are spiritual text. And inspiration is in recording a spiritual message.

What we need for our salvation is in the Gospels. I would disagree with the word ‘inspiration’