Jesus' historicity?

[lemonbeam]

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.” **

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

For those who do not want to believe it may be easier for them believe that Jesus is not what the Christians make him out to be.

As well, apart from our 4 gospels there were actually many others. (Including the dubious gospel of Judas). From my understanding some historians treat all of these gospels as if they are just as credible as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[iKnighty]

For those who do not want to believe it may be easier for them believe that Jesus is not what the Christians make him out to be.

True, but they actually have other reasons. Out of the Gospels there is no other account of Jesus that is contemporary to him, all mentions of Jesus’ life occur well after his death, from about 100 A.D [except the Sypnotic Gospels [which are Mark, Matthew and Luke] which were created before]. Out of the later non-Christians who mention Jesus, Josephus and Tacitus are the only ones who details of Jesus’ life, and they were born after his death so they couldn’t have been eye-witnesses but their information could have come from eye-witnesses. Tacitus only mentions the crucifixion.

As well, apart from our 4 gospels there were actually many others. (Including the dubious gospel of Judas). From my understanding some historians treat all of these gospels as if they are just as credible as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

I wouldn’t think so. All the other Gospels, and John, are somewhat late. As Mark, Matthew, Luke and, by some, the Gospel of Thomas are regarded to be the earliest ones, they are the ones with more potential to be right.

 

[mich2]

True, but they actually have other reasons. Out of the Gospels there is no other account of Jesus that is contemporary to him, all mentions of Jesus’ life occur well after his death, from about 100 A.D [except the Sypnotic Gospels [which are Mark, Matthew and Luke] which were created before]. Out of the later non-Christians who mention Jesus, Josephus and Tacitus are the only ones who details of Jesus’ life, and they were born after his death so they couldn’t have been eye-witnesses but their information could have come from eye-witnesses. Tacitus only mentions the crucifixion.

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 wouldn’t think so. All the other Gospels, and John, are somewhat late. As Mark, Matthew, Luke and, by some, the Gospel of Thomas are regarded to be the earliest ones, they are the ones with more potential to be right.

True, but John wrote what he claimed to have witnessed within the generation that could have easily accused him of inventing this so called Jesus figure Why is it that no writings exist to refute the existance of Jesus? What we have are actually accounts, such as Josephus, who, in writing concerning the history of the Jews, somehow found it important to include the person of Jesus, James and John the Baptist. Was he not writing an historical account, or was he simply writing a legendary story? What kind of historian would he have been, having included a figure if he wasn’t sure whether this figure existed or not?

Andre

 

[Chicago_Bears]

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,

This a late tradition that does have not historical or textual support.

Later tradition, however, makes Mark one of the seventy-two disciples, and St. Epiphanius (“Hær”, li, 6) says he was one of those who withdrew from Christ (John 6:67). The later tradition can have no weight against the earlier evidence,

newadvent.org/cathen/09672c.htm

For those interested in accessible works on the historical Jesus, I would suggest:

A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by John P. Meier (the 4th volume comes out in May)

 

[iKnighty]

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 ?

Not all Bible Scholars believe the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, etc. This because all we have to rely on is Christian tradition [from the 2nd Century], the manuscripts themselves don’t point clearly to an author. We don’t know if their sources were eye-witnesses, if what they wrote was from Oral tradition or if they used other early documents.
Jesus, Yeshua or Yehoshua, was a common name. Why wouldn’t a name that means “Yahweh is Salvation” be popular?. Who wouldn’t the name Joshua, the leader who succeeded Moses, be popular with Jews?

True, but John wrote what he claimed to have witnessed within the generation that could have easily accused him of inventing this so called Jesus figure

…John was the latest of the canon Gospels. People would have criticized Mark not him.

Why is it that no writings exist to refute the existance of Jesus?

Because he probably did exist, but maybe the Gospels build false myths around him.

What we have are actually accounts, such as Josephus, who, in writing concerning the history of the Jews, somehow found it important to include the person of Jesus, James and John the Baptist. Was he not writing an historical account, or was he simply writing a legendary story? What kind of historian would he have been, having included a figure if he wasn’t sure whether this figure existed or not?

Andre

I suppose you know that part of the recounting of Josephus is thought to have been edited by some later bishop, whose name I can’t recall.
A historian like Herodotus would have done it, I suppose.

 

[Jermosh]

A World Religion Professor once stated that there were Roman writings accounting for a uprising in the Isreal territory. I never questioned him on it and never looked into it.

 

[iKnighty]

A World Religion Professor once stated that there were Roman writings accounting for a uprising in the Isreal territory. I never questioned him on it and never looked into it.

So? What would that prove exactly?
I seem to recall something about Jesus and a sort of an uprising, but I’m not sure…

 

[mich2]

This a late tradition that does have not historical or textual support.

newadvent.org/cathen/09672c.htm

For those interested in accessible works on the historical Jesus, I would suggest:

A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by John P. Meier (the 4th volume comes out in May)

The point remains,Chicago Bears, that whoever was the writer of the gospel of Mark, wrote the gospel during the time period the supposed witnesses were still alive…such as Peter and James…the Lord’s brother. Do you believe that neither Peter nor James existed as well? If they did indeed exist, then the author of Mark must have been speaking for them, were they not? All the so called witnesses had ample time to protest against the gospel if what was in the gospel disagreed with what the witnesses claimed as fact.
Since no one has ever stood up to them against their claim of the existence of Jesus , then it stands to reason that the jews and Romans believed that Jesus truly existed and was crucified under Pontus Pilate. If you disagree, then explain why this couldn’t be a logical conclusion.

Andre

 

[Chicago_Bears]

The point remains,Chicago Bears, that whoever was the writer of the gospel of Mark, wrote the gospel during the time period the supposed witnesses were still alive…such as Peter and James…the Lord’s brother.

I love how when people on this board get called on their errors, they reply that their “point” still stands. Why not just admit your error?

Do you believe that neither Peter nor James existed as well?

As well as what? What are you implying?

If they did indeed exist, then the author of Mark must have been speaking for them, were they not?

I do not know what the above sentence is supposed to mean.

All the so called witnesses had ample time to protest against the gospel if what was in the gospel disagreed with what the witnesses claimed as fact.
Since no one has ever stood up to them against their claim of the existence of Jesus , then it stands to reason that the jews and Romans believed that Jesus truly existed and was crucified under Pontus Pilate. If you disagree, then explain why this couldn’t be a logical conclusion.

Andre

You seem to be implying beliefs to me that I do not hold.

 

[mich2]

Not all Bible Scholars believe the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, etc. This because all we have to rely on is Christian tradition [from the 2nd Century], the manuscripts themselves don’t point clearly to an author. We don’t know if their sources were eye-witnesses, if what they wrote was from Oral tradition or if they used other early documents.
Jesus, Yeshua or Yehoshua, was a common name. Why wouldn’t a name that means “Yahweh is Salvation” be popular?. Who wouldn’t the name Joshua, the leader who succeeded Moses, be popular with Jews?

We do know through Roman documents that christianity was a well established sect, which existed in the years close to 50 AD, having been established upon one whom was looked upon as a god, having been crucified under Pontus Pilate.Not too many Joshua would fit this description.

…John was the latest of the canon Gospels. People would have criticized Mark not him.

The point being that no one did criticize something which would have been easy to dispute…the crucifixion of a non- existant person.

Because he probably did exist, but maybe the Gospels build false myths around him.

Ok. however this thread is about the historical life of Jesus, which the scripture centers on having been crucified by Pontus Pilate.The disbelief in the miracles and resurrection, while part of the gospel account, does not take away the fact that christianity was established upon a living historical figure called Jesus.

I suppose you know that part of the recounting of Josephus is thought to have been edited by some later bishop, whose name I can’t recall.
A historian like Herodotus would have done it, I suppose.

The part which is being disputed doesn’t take away the mentioning of the person of Jesus by Josephus.

Andre

 

[mich2]

I love how when people on this board get called on their errors, they reply that their “point” still stands. Why not just admit your error?

As well as what? What are you implying?

I do not know what the above sentence is supposed to mean.

You seem to be implying beliefs to me that I do not hold.

ok; let’s start with your theory as to how christianity started and by whom…

Andre

 

[Chicago_Bears]

We do know through Roman documents that christianity was a well established sect, which existed in the years close to 50 AD, having been established upon one whom was looked upon as a god, having been crucified under Pontus Pilate.Not too many Joshua would fit this description.

Which specific documents are you referring to? The earliest Roman documents on Christianity that I am aware of are by Tacitus and date to after 100 B.C. Please do not take this imply anything other than a question. Tracitus does not claim that “Christus” was looked on as a God or that Christians were a “well established sect.” Which specific Roman documents are you referring to?

 

[Chicago_Bears]

ok; let’s start with your theory as to how christianity started and by whom…

Andre

Why won’t you answer my questions?

My best understanding of the historical evidence is that Christianity is a religion about a historical figure named Jesus (probably Yeshua). I do not doubt the existence of a historical Jesus. I have only called into question certain claims of yours.

 

[iKnighty]

Since no one has ever stood up to them against their claim of the existence of Jesus , then it stands to reason that the jews and Romans believed that Jesus truly existed and was crucified under Pontus Pilate. If you disagree, then explain why this couldn’t be a logical conclusion.

Andre

The majority of Romans probably didn’t even know that Jesus even existed, during the Early first century. What they believed later could have been affected by the Christians own beliefs [a reason why not to trust Josephus’ and Tacitus’ accounts].
I agree, Jesus probably did exist.
What convinces me that the Gospels have the potential to have some truth in them is that when they narrate the same stories they give different details. It’s obvious that they weren’t some sort of conspiracy, otherwise they would have agreed with each other at every point.

 

[iKnighty]

We do know through Roman documents that christianity was a well established sect, which existed in the years close to 50 AD, having been established upon one whom was looked upon as a god, having been crucified under Pontus Pilate.Not too many Joshua would fit this description.

I assume you’re thinking of Josephus and Tacitus. As I said before, those were written a bit late and could have been affected by Christian beliefs.
If you were thinking of other documents please post their names and authors. Thanks.

The point being that no one did criticize something which would have been easy to dispute…the crucifixion of a non- existant person.

Oh yeah because we have all documents that have ever been written. Maybe someone did but we haven’t found the document yet, or it was destroyed by the later Roman emperors as it would have been considered heretical. I don’t know if that was common practice with heretical texts, anyone know anything about that?

Ok. however this thread is about the historical life of Jesus, which the scripture centers on having been crucified by Pontus Pilate.The disbelief in the miracles and resurrection, while part of the gospel account, does not take away the fact that christianity was established upon a living historical figure called Jesus.

Yes, there was no need for that. I agree that Jesus probably existed, but maybe not as we think of him.

The part which is being disputed doesn’t take away the mentioning of the person of Jesus by Josephus.

Andre

I know, that’s why I said ‘edited’ not ‘created’.

 

[tm30]

True, but they actually have other reasons. Out of the Gospels there is no other account of Jesus that is contemporary to him, all mentions of Jesus’ life occur well after his death, from about 100 A.D [except the Sypnotic Gospels [which are Mark, Matthew and Luke] which were created before]. Out of the later non-Christians who mention Jesus, Josephus and Tacitus are the only ones who details of Jesus’ life, and they were born after his death so they couldn’t have been eye-witnesses but their information could have come from eye-witnesses. Tacitus only mentions the crucifixion.

For all the troubles and consternation the Christians caused imperial Rome, it would have been very easy for those contemporaneous historians and political leaders to simply point out that all of these Christians were inviting martyrdom for someone who never existed. But it was never disputed that Christ existed and was put to death on the cross. The shortest distance between two points would have been to prove a hoax, not engage in centuries of costly persecution of a group of religious adherents that offered no physical threat to the empire.

 

[tm30]

Oh yeah because we have all documents that have ever been written. Maybe someone did but we haven’t found the document yet, or it was destroyed by the later Roman emperors as it would have been considered heretical. I don’t know if that was common practice with heretical texts, anyone know anything about that?

By that token, the pagan histories would have been considered eminently heretical, yet they were not destroyed by the Christian emperors. So, that argument doesn’t hold water.

 

[tm30]

The majority of Romans probably didn’t even know that Jesus even existed, during the Early first century. What they believed later could have been affected by the Christians own beliefs [a reason why not to trust Josephus’ and Tacitus’ accounts].

Of course it was affected by Christians’ beliefs. I’m puzzled how that diminishes the veracity of Josephus’ and Tacitus’ works? Are you implying that the persecuted, unarmed, peaceful, underground Christian church had a propaganda arm, and Josephus acted as a quasi fifth-column?

 

[paul_c]

Its kind of ridiculous to believe that Jesus never existed. There were a whole lot of people who died rather than to recant that belief, including all the original Apostles other than John. Its hard to imagine what their motivation would be to do this, if they knew what they were saying was untrue.

As for the charge that only Christian writers wrote about Jesus prior to 100 AD. Well, if you personally witnessed a man coming back from the Dead it is quite likely you too would be a Christian. Even St. Paul, who previously persecuted the Church, became a convert when confronted with the risen Christ.