Jesus' historicity?

[iKnighty]

Would you agree that enough criteria was given to accept that Jesus truly existed and was crucified under pontius Pilate?

I don’t agree. Not because I believe that it didn’t happen, but because I’m no historian and I don’t like assuming I know the criteria to accepting an event as having really happened.

I beleive what tm30 was saying was that, after jesus was dead, it would have been much more probable for the disciples to stop teaching about Jesus since the latter had been crucified because of his teachings.

Jesus was crucified because he didn’t deny that he was the Son of God and the King of the Jews. One who claimed to be King would usually initiate a rebellion against the current rulers, no?
The Apostles on the other hand didn’t claim to be kings, they didn’t claim authority over the state of Israel. They were no threat to Rome, I wouldn’t think that Pontius Pilate would crucify them, and I don’t see how they could be afraid of that happening while knowing the accusations that led to Jesus being crucified.

In order for the disciple to continue preaching about Jesus, it must have been, in my opinion, because of a conspiracy to overthrow the Roman government or because they truly believed in Jesus teachings.Now, if they continued to teach about the teachings of Jesus because they believed in his teachings, then, it stands to reason that the teachings of Jesus are those found within the Gospel accounts.

Not really. The Gospels themselves don’t say explicitly who wrote them, we don’t know if they were written by eye-witnesses[apostles], or not. Thus we can’t say that the whole of the Gospels are accurate portrayals of Jesus’ life and his teachings.

The most fantastic of all those miracles would be the resurrection, and we know the disciples were teaching about the resurrection not as some symbolic story but a real event.

The NT treats it that way.

I also personally agree that conspiracy was not the goal. However, what was the purpose of teaching a condemned person’s theology?
They must have experienced, in my opinion, what they claimed to be the resurrection.

Ever heard of Cognitive dissonance?
People may continue believing something [in this case in the teaching so Jesus], even when something happens that is in contradiction with their view [that Jesus was killed]. They continue doing so by creating an excuse [that Jesus resurrected]. Later people may have come to the conclusion that the Apostles did witness Jesus’ resurrection, even if they didn’t claim to, because how would they have know otherwise?

You may be correct, although, I would think otherwise, because Jesus crucifixion was due to his claiming as being the Messiah, Son of God. Now, I imagine that as soon as the story of his resurrection circulated, that not only the Jews, but the Romans as well became concerned, and I think that the writings of Tacitus,Pliny the Younger and others reflect this.

The persecution of Christians by Nero began well before Tacitus wrote his Annals and Pliny his letter mentioning Jesus, which was what I was mentioning.
The later persecution of Christians, at least that of the time of Pliny, was not like Nero’s persecution. Trajan the emperor at the time of Pliny, commanded Pliny to not persecute and seek out Christians, but only to execute them when they were brought forward and they didn’t recant. The persecution of Christians wasn’t caused by their belief in a different god, the later non-active one did involve beliefs…

If we accept the trial of Jesus as being an historical event, then, we can also accept the context of the trial as seen in the scriptures, as this would have been easy to prove false anything untrue by those prominent figures who condemned him. I believe that is why the authors of the gospel found it important to specify the washing of the hands of Pilate, in order to make certain not to accuse anyone of
those political figures who were not directly responsible for the death of Jesus because that would have made them liable to be themselves trialed for purgery

Andre

Pilate’s reluctance to execute Jesus, as portrayed in the NT, is suspicious. From Josephus’ Antiquities we know that he was a harsh ruler, and killed thousands of other Jews. It and the washing of hands were probably invented so as to appear in neutral light in the eyes of the Romans. If they would have said it like it probably happened, they would appear in a bad light to the Romans. It would appear as if the Roman Emperor actually killed Jesus as the authority of Pilate came from him, and some Christians would probably have given fault to Romans for the killing of Jesus, instead of to the Jews [which some have been incited to do by the NT].
There was no motivation to prove it to be false, and as I mentioned earlier it could have been done but the documents were destroyed.

 

[mich2]

I don’t agree. Not because I believe that it didn’t happen, but because I’m no historian and I don’t like assuming I know the criteria to accepting an event as having really happened.

What would be the evidence against the existance of Jesus crucified under Pontus Pilate?

Jesus was crucified because he didn’t deny that he was the Son of God and the King of the Jews.

If Jesus was not condemned because he claimed to be God’s Son, as it is written, what would you think might be the reason, and why would such a reason not be mentioned at all?

One who claimed to be King would usually initiate a rebellion against the current rulers, no?

Agreed; which would have been a good reason for Pilate to personally execute the hanging. However, the only source we have shows Pilate washing his hands over the whole affair. This would support the recorded statement of Jesus to Pilate :“My kingdom is not of this world”.

The Apostles on the other hand didn’t claim to be kings, they didn’t claim authority over the state of Israel. They were no threat to Rome, I wouldn’t think that Pontius Pilate would crucify them, and I don’t see how they could be afraid of that happening while knowing the accusations that led to Jesus being crucified.

Either Jesus was condemned by Rome, which would have been due to His claim of kingship, or that he was condemned by the Jewish priests, because of the sin of blasphemy. In any case,the disciples certainly would have put their lives on the line for preaching Christ resurrected and would have been persecuted by both the Romans and the jews, it seems.

Not really. The Gospels themselves don’t say explicitly who wrote them, we don’t know if they were written by eye-witnesses[apostles], or not. Thus we can’t say that the whole of the Gospels are accurate portrayals of Jesus’ life and his teachings.

However, I believe that we can confirm that the gospel account was written while the witnesses were still alive. If such witnesses didn’t argue against what was written, then, it stands to reason that such information was given by them.

Ever heard of Cognitive dissonance?
People may continue believing something [in this case in the teaching so Jesus], even when something happens that is in contradiction with their view [that Jesus was killed]. They continue doing so by creating an excuse [that Jesus resurrected]. Later people may have come to the conclusion that the Apostles did witness Jesus’ resurrection, even if they didn’t claim to, because how would they have know otherwise?

Two points; if the apostles were hanging on to their memories of Jesus while knowing that he had been crucified,it doesn’t explain their teachings of Jesus being resurrected, unless they either were contemplating deceit or they believed that he was truly risen. Secondly, the stories showing how Jesus appeared to the witnesses, written by the “later people”, had not been denied by the witnesses, who were still alive at that particular time.This can only support the case where the witnesses were the originators of the stories.

The persecution of Christians by Nero began well before Tacitus wrote his Annals and Pliny his letter mentioning Jesus, which was what I was mentioning.

Yes, however, if you read a book about the second world war written by a twenty year old historian, would you claim that his rendering of the war was wrong because he wasn’t born when the war was going on? Or would you put your faith in his/her having read a great deal of documents in order to give an accurate account? Josephus and Tacitus wer indeed historians.

The later persecution of Christians, at least that of the time of Pliny, was not like Nero’s persecution. Trajan the emperor at the time of Pliny, commanded Pliny to not persecute and seek out Christians, but only to execute them when they were brought forward and they didn’t recant. The persecution of Christians wasn’t caused by their belief in a different god, the later non-active one did involve beliefs…

Would you agree that the testimony of Suetonius, for example, was accurate in claiming Claudius as expelling the christians from Rome in AD 50?

Pilate’s reluctance to execute Jesus, as portrayed in the NT, is suspicious. From Josephus’ Antiquities we know that he was a harsh ruler, and killed thousands of other Jews. It and the washing of hands were probably invented so as to appear in neutral light in the eyes of the Romans. If they would have said it like it probably happened, they would appear in a bad light to the Romans. It would appear as if the Roman Emperor actually killed Jesus as the authority of Pilate came from him, and some Christians would probably have given fault to Romans for the killing of Jesus, instead of to the Jews [which some have been incited to do by the NT].
There was no motivation to prove it to be false, and as I mentioned earlier it could have been done but the documents were destroyed.

good argument.

Andre

 

[Jermosh]

How exactly? I still can’t understand that.

It would mean that Jesus was recorded in Official Govt writings, it gives validation to the claim that Jesus was a real person since it comes from a non-bias source.

 

[iKnighty]

What would be the evidence against the existance of Jesus crucified under Pontus Pilate?

Can’t think of any, but I think it probably did happen.

If Jesus was not condemned because he claimed to be God’s Son, as it is written, what would you think might be the reason, and why would such a reason not be mentioned at all?

I said that he was executed because he didn’t deny he was the Son of God and the King of Jews…

Agreed; which would have been a good reason for Pilate to personally execute the hanging. However, the only source we have shows Pilate washing his hands over the whole affair. This would support the recorded statement of Jesus to Pilate :“My kingdom is not of this world”.

As I have illustrated, the washing of hands probably was invented to avoid giving fault to Romans.
How would it support that statement?

Either Jesus was condemned by Rome, which would have been due to His claim of kingship, or that he was condemned by the Jewish priests, because of the sin of blasphemy. In any case,the disciples certainly would have put their lives on the line for preaching Christ resurrected and would have been persecuted by both the Romans and the jews, it seems.

The Jews maybe, but I don’t think that the Romans would have persecuted them [if the the Great Fire of Rome incident had not taken place].

However, I believe that we can confirm that the gospel account was written while the witnesses were still alive. If such witnesses didn’t argue against what was written, then, it stands to reason that such information was given by them.

Only Simon, John and Thomas were alive after 70 A.D [which is the speculated dating given to Mark], at least according to Christian Tradition, and only John remained alive after 74 A.D.
I agree.

Two points; if the apostles were hanging on to their memories of Jesus while knowing that he had been crucified,it doesn’t explain their teachings of Jesus being resurrected, unless they either were contemplating deceit or they believed that he was truly risen.

The earliest Gospel we have is Mark. The earliest Manuscripts of it we have don’t contain the resurrection story [Mark 16:9–20], but ends at the tomb. Also Mark 16:9–20 is stylistically different from the rest of the Gospel, so we can say that our earliest canonical Gospel probably didn’t contain a resurrection story, or that it had a different ending but it was lost.
They could still have preached his resurrection with a clean conscience. Given their belief that Jesus was God and the fact that he was crucified they could have reached the conclusion that he was resurrected.

Secondly, the stories showing how Jesus appeared to the witnesses, written by the “later people”, had not been denied by the witnesses, who were still alive at that particular time.This can only support the case where the witnesses were the originators of the stories.

Only John was alive at time of the writing of Matthew, Luke and John, if we give complete faith to Christian tradition.

Yes, however, if you read a book about the second world war written by a twenty year old historian, would you claim that his rendering of the war was wrong because he wasn’t born when the war was going on? Or would you put your faith in his/her having read a great deal of documents in order to give an accurate account? Josephus and Tacitus wer indeed historians.

I would claim that his rendition of the war isn’t perfectly correct, as he wasn’t present at the time. Contemporary material is preferred to later material.
Tacitus clearly says that the persecution of Christians began because of Nero blaming them for the fire. although he also says that they were hated for their “abominations” they weren’t persecuted for that.

Would you agree that the testimony of Suetonius, for example, was accurate in claiming Claudius as expelling the christians from Rome in AD 50?

Doesn’t Suetonius say that the Jews were expelled?

good argument.

Andre

Thanks.

It would mean that Jesus was recorded in Official Govt writings, it gives validation to the claim that Jesus was a real person since it comes from a non-bias source.

…No. It would mean that we have records mentioning an uprising in Israel.
I don’t see how Jesus enters in that.

 

[mich2]

Can’t think of any, but I think it probably did happen.

ok; So we can assume for now that Jesus did exist and was crucified under Pontus Pilate eventhough you may still be uncertain of this, since you do agree that the event probably did happen.
Next would be to have the documents which speaks of Jesus’ trials. Why was he condemned to death and by whom? The jews or the Romans? Here, I agree we have only the gospel accounts. Let’s go through them and tell me which of the elements you would reject as being possible.

Let’s start with Mark’s gospel.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 14.62And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 14.63And the high priest tore his garments, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 14.64You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.

15.2And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” 15.3And the chief priests accused him of many things. 15.4And Pilate again asked him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” 15.5But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered

6Now at the feast he used to release for them one prisoner for whom they asked. 15.7And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barab’bas. 15.8And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. 15.9And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 15.10For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 15.11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barab’bas instead. 15.12And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” 15.13And they cried out again, “Crucify him.” 15.14And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” 15.15So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barab’bas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified

What part of this account are you not inclined to believe; and why ?

As I have illustrated, the washing of hands probably was invented to avoid giving fault to Romans.
How would it support that statement?

I would have a hard time accepting this view since the washing of the hands was done before the multitude and specifically before the High Priest. Don’t you think the Jews would have spoken out concerning specifically this particular event in order to show the lies christians were making?

The Jews maybe, but I don’t think that the Romans would have persecuted them [if the the Great Fire of Rome incident had not taken place].

Rome was indeed supressing the christian cult before Nero. What manner of supression is unknown however.

Tacitus
Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.”

Andre

 

[mich2]

The earliest Gospel we have is Mark. The earliest Manuscripts of it we have don’t contain the resurrection story [Mark 16:9–20], but ends at the tomb. Also Mark 16:9–20 is stylistically different from the rest of the Gospel, so we can say that our earliest canonical Gospel probably didn’t contain a resurrection story, or that it had a different ending but it was lost.

While the shorter version ends at the tomb, it does specify the resurrection. Also, the manner the gospel ends in the shorter version implies that some lost fragments exists. In any case, it ends by an angel sending the women to the apostles as witnesses to the resurrection.

Matthew is claimed by so many christian writers to having been one of the witnesses, so I personally don’t have problems with it; although I certainly would agree that the version we have at hand comes from copies of later greek translations from the original.

Luke, I find interesting.

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.” (Luke 1:1-4 RSV)

Luke must have written the gospel before he wrote the book of Acts. He dedicated the books to a certain Theophilus, which he calls “most excellent”.Who could this Theophilus be? He must have been jewish since everything Luke writes pertain to jewish prophecies, and someone important. The theme, however, was to try to explain and focus on the issue that christianity was not mearly for the jews but was catholic in essence.Theophilus could therefore refer to the jewish high priest who was oversee of the Temple between AD 37 - 41. Luke’s Acts refers to Claudius expelling christians (actually all jews) from Rome, which happened between A.D. 41-54. He ends his book with Paul arriving in Rome at about 60 AD. I would therefore personally believe that Luke would have written his gospel and send it to Theophilus while the latter was still in the position of High Priest. I understand that scholars will disagree with this view, however sometimes the view is a forced one; such as the prediction of the fall of the Temple cannot be accepted by some to having been written before the event actually happened.

They could still have preached his resurrection with a clean conscience. Given their belief that Jesus was God and the fact that he was crucified they could have reached the conclusion that he was resurrected.

Without having witnessed the resurrection? I personally would doubt it.

Only John was alive at time of the writing of Matthew, Luke and John, if we give complete faith to Christian tradition.

The writter of John claims to having been a witness to what is written. We have nothing which disagrees with this. Now, I’m not claiming the resurrection must have been true, but, only that the author of John claimed to having been a witness.

Luke’s gospel account, if written to the high priest Theophilus, it would have been between AD 37 - 41. He begins his gospel by saying
that “many others have already undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.” He therefore used other writings, such as Mark ,and possibly Matthew as a guide for his rendering to Theophilus.

I would claim that his rendition of the war isn’t perfectly correct, as he wasn’t present at the time. Contemporary material is preferred to later material.

I personally would disagree since a contemporary observer is limited to his/her personal view of the situation, whille a later one has many different views to work with, and would potentially be more acurate.

Tacitus clearly says that the persecution of Christians began because of Nero blaming them for the fire. although he also says that they were hated for their “abominations” they weren’t persecuted for that.

He did mention that they were supressed as a sect.

Doesn’t Suetonius say that the Jews were expelled?

Yes, as well as Luke in Acts. However, the issue was because of the person of Jesus.

Andre

 

[RosaryFan]

Why are there some historians that claim that Jesus did not exist? They still don’t claim to have any direct proof of his existence since there is no paper beside the gospel who relate his life experience. At least there is enough information to make historians believe what Wikipedia summarize as :

**“With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.” **

Im confused

What “papers” should exist on the life of Jesus? Are we looking for His birth certificate here???

Obama doesn’t seem to have a birth certificate either, but I’m pretty sure he exists.

 

[iKnighty]

What part of this account are you not inclined to believe; and why ?

The beginning of the account, seeing as no apostle was present during the meeting with the High priest and Pilate, it still could have happened that way, but I doubt it’s factuality. The part with Barab’bas I’m inclined to believe, but I think that Pilate is only portrayed as showing mercy for Jesus to gain favour with the Romans.

I would have a hard time accepting this view since the washing of the hands was done before the multitude and specifically before the High Priest. Don’t you think the Jews would have spoken out concerning specifically this particular event in order to show the lies christians were making?

The Jews who were present at that event were probably all dead the time of writing of Matthew [70 - 90 A.D, a date which most scholars agree on]. Anyway, even if it had been written earlier I doubt that the Gospel of Matthew was in circulation in Israel, among these witnesses. Even if it was only a few would have been able to read, if we agree in it’s Greek Primacy.

Rome was indeed supressing the christian cult before Nero. What manner of supression is unknown however.

Tacitus
Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.”

Andre

That doesn’t specify that the Romans were doing the suppression. I would think that it was referring to the Jewish persecution of Christians, rather to a Roman one.

While the shorter version ends at the tomb, it does specify the resurrection. Also, the manner the gospel ends in the shorter version implies that some lost fragments exists. In any case, it ends by an angel sending the women to the apostles as witnesses to the resurrection.

Ah, yes. Sorry, I forgot about that. I can’t claim anything if it’s ending was really lost, but assuming Mark:16-8 is it’s real ending then it shows that the resurrection evolved through time.

Luke must have written the gospel before he wrote the book of Acts. He dedicated the books to a certain Theophilus, which he calls “most excellent”.Who could this Theophilus be? He must have been jewish since everything Luke writes pertain to jewish prophecies, and someone important.

Isn’t Matthew who does that?

The theme, however, was to try to explain and focus on the issue that christianity was not mearly for the jews but was catholic in essence.Theophilus could therefore refer to the jewish high priest who was oversee of the Temple between AD 37 - 41. Luke’s Acts refers to Claudius expelling christians (actually all jews) from Rome, which happened between A.D. 41-54. He ends his book with Paul arriving in Rome at about 60 AD. I would therefore personally believe that Luke would have written his gospel and send it to Theophilus while the latter was still in the position of High Priest. I understand that scholars will disagree with this view, however sometimes the view is a forced one; such as the prediction of the fall of the Temple cannot be accepted by some to having been written before the event actually happened.

‘Theophilus’ could be referring to the reader, it means ‘beloved of God’. Which could also make it a common name, given it’s meaning.

Without having witnessed the resurrection? I personally would doubt it.

It is still a possibility.
It was the only way they could have resolved the contradiction of their belief that Jesus was God and therefore immortal and that he really died.

The writter of John claims to having been a witness to what is written. We have nothing which disagrees with this. Now, I’m not claiming the resurrection must have been true, but, only that the author of John claimed to having been a witness.

Can you quote John for that? Thanks.

Luke’s gospel account, if written to the high priest Theophilus, it would have been between AD 37 - 41.

Which I doubt, as Luke 1 says ‘Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us’. We haven’t got any such accounts in document form from those years, that is from what we can deduce from early writings and the Gospels they don’t date to that period. And that verse says that many were written before it…

He begins his gospel by saying
that “many others have already undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.” He therefore used other writings, such as Mark ,and possibly Matthew as a guide for his rendering to Theophilus.

Correct.

I personally would disagree since a contemporary observer is limited to his/her personal view of the situation, whille a later one has many different views to work with, and would potentially be more acurate.

You’ve got a point…

He did mention that they were supressed as a sect.

He doesn’t specify by whom, and I’m inclined to believe it was by the Jews.

Yes, as well as Luke in Acts. However, the issue was because of the person of Jesus.

Andre

So, what about the Gentile Christians? They weren’t expelled, or were they?

 

[PennitentMan]

However, the writers were either direct witnesses or contemporary to those who were witnesses. For example, Mark is believed to be a direct witness to Jesus,for he is said to have been one of the seventy disciples, although not a direct witness to everything he wrote, since most of what he wrote came from Peter. Therefore, Mark knew both Jesus and Peter. Does any scholars doubt the existance of Peter? If not, then, Peter is the contemporary source for the account of the existance of Jesus, Eventhough we do not have a written account from Peter, who will deny his acknowlegment to, not only the existance of Jesus,but also to His resurrection since christianity, along with the claim that Peter and others were direct witnesses to the resurrection was alive well before Peter and the other witnesses died. James, the bishop of Jerusalem was well renown, so, I believe no one will doubt of his existance. So what would his title “brother of Jesus” reflect ?

I’m sorry but this is just pure speculation.

The terrible thing with stuff like this is that these fantastic speculations are already called “Later traditions” and in a few years it will most likely be entered into Sacred Tradition and never be questioned.

Unconfirmed assumptions is what that is.

Let me categorically state that there is no proof that any of the gospels were written by anyone that saw Jesus. The best non-biased assumptions they have is that the earliest gospel is a second-hand re-telling, and most probably the person telling the story was in his sixties…and for that time-period, it was an old man…
The other gospels were loosely based on the first.

 

[PennitentMan]

It would mean that Jesus was recorded in Official Govt writings, it gives validation to the claim that Jesus was a real person since it comes from a non-bias source.

Do you have any of these documents? I’m sure people would like to read them.

 

[Contarini]

I agree, they like verses that have twists. Anything that is straightforward is considered not from Christ. I’ve had numerous discussions on line with members of the jesus Seminar. They write a lot of books, all of them assume that Jesus is not divine (and therefor anything that says he is is not considered historical). Their’s is the worst kind of scholarship because it starts at a desired answer and then manipulates the data to prove it.

To be fair, all scholarship is prone to this danger, and when it comes to Jesus scholarship it’s pretty hard to avoid, because we have to take a stand one way or the other on the basic claims Christianity makes about Jesus, and that will shape everything about our lives, including our scholarship. Many scholars, for instance, would say that N. T. Wright is a particularly glaring example of what you are talking about, because he starts with Christian assumptions and then comes up with elaborate scholarly arguments to support them. I don’t react to Wright that way, largely because I share his assumptions. When you get folks who do come to conclusions that go against the presuppositions of their faith to some extent (like John Meier of Notre Dame), they get vilified for being disingenuous in their profession of faith. So you can’t win for losing when it comes to Jesus scholarship.

I don’t mean by this that one can’t or shouldn’t do Jesus scholarship that is open to letting the evidence contradict one’s presuppositions. What I’m saying is that we can do that kind of scholarship best by not slinging around sweeping accusations of those who start from different presuppositions. Their presuppositions bias them, but perhaps no more than ours do.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Let’s go through them and tell me which of the elements you would reject as being possible.

History deals with probability more than possibility. Lots of things are possible. Most of them didn’t happen. A historian tries to figure out which of the many possible things actually happened, which often just means determining which is more probable, since there isn’t enough evidence to establish certainty.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 14.62And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 14.63And the high priest tore his garments, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 14.64You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.

15.2And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” 15.3And the chief priests accused him of many things. 15.4And Pilate again asked him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” 15.5But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate wondered

6Now at the feast he used to release for them one prisoner for whom they asked. 15.7And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barab’bas. 15.8And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. 15.9And he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 15.10For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 15.11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barab’bas instead. 15.12And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” 15.13And they cried out again, “Crucify him.” 15.14And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” 15.15So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barab’bas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified

Looking at the matter purely as a historian, there’s no certainty about any of the details. But the account of Pilate’s “reluctance” is particularly improbable. Pilate doesn’t seem to have been in the habit of doing Jews favors; nor does he seem to have been particularly reluctant to kill Jews. (These two go against each other to some extent–i.e., he might have thought “hey, one more Jewish troublemaker dead, and I’ll get these obnoxious Jewish priests off my back for a while”–but both of them work against the story that he was reluctant. My own view, since as a Christian I am disposed to take the Gospels seriously as a historical source, is that Pilate made a show of reluctance in order to be able to blame the Jewish leaders later on if Jesus’ death sparked off a revolt and he was called on the carpet for it by his Roman superiors.) And if he was killing Jesus just to please the Jewish leaders, he could have killed Him in some way other than crucifixion. (He could have locked Him up in prison and killed Him quietly there.) See Paula Fredriksen’s Jesus of Nazareth for a cogent statement of this argument. The best historical explanation for the fact that Jesus was crucified is that the Romans genuinely saw Him as a threat. And it doesn’t take a wild historical-critical imagination to see why the Gospel writers would have wanted to play down or deny this.

I would have a hard time accepting this view since the washing of the hands was done before the multitude and specifically before the High Priest. Don’t you think the Jews would have spoken out concerning specifically this particular event in order to show the lies christians were making?

How on earth do you know they didn’t? We don’t have any Jewish critiques of Christianity from this era, so we have no idea what their arguments were.

That being said, I find the washing of hands a plausible detail if the general narrative of Pilate’s reluctance is historical. It would support my hypothesis that Pilate was making a dramatic show to shuffle off esponsibility in case his attempt to terrorize Jesus’ followers backfired. But the main reason I take this whole narrative seriously as a historical source is that I am a Christian and thus do not read the Gospels cynically. If they were just some other ancient source describing the death of a religious leader, I’d have no problem accepting the hypothesis that the whole story of reluctance was made up to avoid conflict with the Roman authorities.

Rome was indeed supressing the christian cult before Nero. What manner of supression is unknown however.

Tacitus
Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.”

It looks to me as if the “repression” he’s talking about simply is Pilate’s killing of Jesus. If anything, this works against the historicity of the Gospel narrative, because it implies that Pilate really was the one responsible. However, I don’t see any reason to think that Tacitus had sources not known to us. It seems most likely to me that he was simply reporting common knowledge–that Jesus was killed under Pilate. And the fact that he tells the story this way underlines why the story of Pilate’s reluctance was very important for the early Christians–it was an implicit refutation of the obvious interpretation any Roman would give to the indisputable fact that Jesus was crucified by Pilate.

Edwin

 

[paul_c]

To be fair, all scholarship is prone to this danger, and when it comes to Jesus scholarship it’s pretty hard to avoid, because we have to take a stand one way or the other on the basic claims Christianity makes about Jesus, and that will shape everything about our lives, including our scholarship. Many scholars, for instance, would say that N. T. Wright is a particularly glaring example of what you are talking about, because he starts with Christian assumptions and then comes up with elaborate scholarly arguments to support them. I don’t react to Wright that way, largely because I share his assumptions. When you get folks who do come to conclusions that go against the presuppositions of their faith to some extent (like John Meier of Notre Dame), they get vilified for being disingenuous in their profession of faith. So you can’t win for losing when it comes to Jesus scholarship.

I don’t mean by this that one can’t or shouldn’t do Jesus scholarship that is open to letting the evidence contradict one’s presuppositions. What I’m saying is that we can do that kind of scholarship best by not slinging around sweeping accusations of those who start from different presuppositions. Their presuppositions bias them, but perhaps no more than ours do.

Edwin

In the case of Jesus scholarship, there are more than two options. The option the Jesus seminar uses assumes that Jesus was not divine. This presumes an answer to the critical question at hand. this is not good scholarship

The option that you say you agree with takes the Gospels at face value. Jesus is divine.

A third option is to test the Gospels to see if they are plausible. Lee Strobel attempts to do this in “The case for Christ”.

 

[dclavey]

The Jews who were present at that event were probably all dead the time of writing of Matthew [70 - 90 A.D:

.

Matthew is clearly written before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. Therefore the Jews present at the event were obviously alive and kicking. It is nonsence to read Matthew, which is full of first hand accounts, and say this was made up later.

 

[Contarini]

Matthew is clearly written before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

On what do you base this claim?

It is nonsence to read Matthew, which is full of first hand accounts

Which accounts are you talking about? And how do you know they are first-hand?

I see no actual argument or evidence in your post. Do you have any?

Edwin

 

[PennitentMan]

Matthew is clearly written before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. Therefore the Jews present at the event were obviously alive and kicking. It is nonsence to read Matthew, which is full of first hand accounts, and say this was made up later.

It’s easy to write something in the first person, but that’s hardly proof that the writer was actually there.

I concur with the text that you quoted, that Matthew was written between 70 CE and 90 CE (Some make the later date as late as 110 CE)
If you take into consideration that even at an optimistic calendar year of 70 CE, and eye witnesses to the event (the washing of hands, ect) would have had to have been at least young adults to have witnessed the acts and be sources for the retelling, you will have to concur that you are dealing with 60 year old people….in biblical times, that was highly unlikely to have them alive, and even if they were alive, are they still counted as credible?

 

[dclavey]

How about Matt 24:1-4

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” NIV

 

[paul_c]

For most of history, I think that people thought that Matthew was the first gospel. Some people place it as early as 35AD. Eusebius notes that he wrote first in Aramaic and then this was translated into Greek.

Luke is llater, but I think it makes sense that Luke dates prior to 62AD, when Acts abruptly stops. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that it would be later than that. Otherwise, Acts would have included the death of the Apostles, the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the faithful.

It wasn’t until the 1850s that the Mark first view took hold and that required the creation of a source named “Q” to answer the critique that much of Luke was consistent with Matthew. Of course, th’s “Q” source has never been found. A more likely account of Mark is that it is the notes from a presentation by Peter commenting on the existing Gospel of Matthew, filliing in some details and leaving out other sections in their entirety. this is how Eusebius states it in book 3: 39.

John is later but there are fragments from the John that were found in Alexandria that date from 125 AD, so not a lot later…

 

[mich2]

The beginning of the account, seeing as no apostle was present during the meeting with the High priest and Pilate, it still could have happened that way, but I doubt it’s factuality.

I understand your reasoning. My understanding was that if Jesus was condemned to die, it must have been due to a very serious accusation. I doubt very much it had something to do with the Romans, for nothing points to this. Blasphemy was certainly a sin worth to be condemned to death, according to Jewish law.
Along with Jesus, at the trial, was another disciple who is most probably John.

John: 18
15: And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

The part with Barab’bas I’m inclined to believe, but I think that Pilate is only portrayed as showing mercy for Jesus to gain favour with the Romans.

ok; and I think this is an important part since here, Jesus is called king of the jews by Pilate.

The Jews who were present at that event were probably all dead the time of writing of Matthew [70 - 90 A.D, a date which most scholars agree on]. Anyway, even if it had been written earlier I doubt that the Gospel of Matthew was in circulation in Israel, among these witnesses. Even if it was only a few would have been able to read, if we agree in it’s Greek Primacy.

Apparently there was a crowd that witnessed the event of freeing Barab’bas over Jesus. Even if we assume they were all dead, such people would have spoken of the event especially after the rumor that Jesus was still alive, which could not have been long after the time of the crucifixion.

That doesn’t specify that the Romans were doing the suppression. I would think that it was referring to the Jewish persecution of Christians, rather to a Roman one.

I would agree in part; that is, according to Act, some jews wanted to destroy the sect, Saul being among them, and so, persecuted the early christians.Such type of disturbances, in my opinion, is what moved the Romans to supression, as it seems that it might have been leading to some form of revolution.

Ah, yes. Sorry, I forgot about that. I can’t claim anything if it’s ending was really lost, but assuming Mark:16-8 is it’s real ending then it shows that the resurrection evolved through time.

In my opinion, to assume Mark ends at 16-8 , would point to maybe the resurrection being brought forth by a rumor, since the women, in Mark are not directly witnesses. However, the story ending abruptly as such would be so odd that it would suggest a lost passage must exist.

Isn’t Matthew who does that?

Luke starts his gospel in this manner.

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: 3 It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

‘Theophilus’ could be referring to the reader, it means ‘beloved of God’. Which could also make it a common name, given it’s meaning.

Correct; Theophilus is he to whom Luke dedicates or sends a whole gospel. Why Theophilus? He must have been an important figure. He is also called “most excellent Theophilus”, which is a title of importance, such as a high priest. It happens that Theophilus was the name of the jewish high priest between AD 37 - 41. This is the time I personally would date Luke’s gospel. Luke’s Act stops at around AD 60. Here, Luke calls Theophilus simply by “O Theophilus” while still a title of dignity, it would be as though Theophilus would not have the former title as before, as when Luke wrote the gospel account.

It is still a possibility.
It was the only way they could have resolved the contradiction of their belief that Jesus was God and therefore immortal and that he really died.

I have no problems with such a possibility.

Can you quote John for that? Thanks.

John:21

24: This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Notice the words “and we know that his testimony is true”. This is clearly an interpolation. It seems that John’s gospel was rewritten, so that every place where John would have identified himself as “I john”, as seen in the book of Revelation, the secondary author wrote “the disciple whom Jesus loved” instead.

Which I doubt, as Luke 1 says ‘Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us’. We haven’t got any such accounts in document form from those years, that is from what we can deduce from early writings and the Gospels they don’t date to that period. And that verse says that many were written before it…

True, we haven’t got alot except that we know the gospels of Matthew and Mark were availlable to him

So, what about the Gentile Christians? They weren’t expelled, or were they?

My personal opinion would be that this was excecuted before the council of Jerusalem where the gentile christians more prominently came into scene.

Andre

 

[mich2]

I’m sorry but this is just pure speculation.

The terrible thing with stuff like this is that these fantastic speculations are already called “Later traditions” and in a few years it will most likely be entered into Sacred Tradition and never be questioned.

Unconfirmed assumptions is what that is.

Let me categorically state that there is no proof that any of the gospels were written by anyone that saw Jesus. The best non-biased assumptions they have is that the earliest gospel is a second-hand re-telling, and most probably the person telling the story was in his sixties…and for that time-period, it was an old man…
The other gospels were loosely based on the first.

What part of the history of Jesus would you consider “worthy of belief”, PennitentMan?

Andre