You seem to be implying that Christianity was possibly some kind of vast conspiracy. To what end? Christians didn’t seek power or esteem or riches. What, praytell, would be the motive for such a grand hoax that promised torture and death for its leaders?
As the wikipedia article notes, Price is almost alone among scholars in this regard, and while he has scholarly credentials it’s interesting that he’s currently teaching at an unaccredited school. That doesn’t mean that he has nothing valuable to say, of course, but it does give some indication that his views are out of the mainstream and that he may be regarded in the guild as a bit of a crackpot.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.” **
For what purpose? There’s no motive - financial, political, egotistical - to create a hoax if Jesus did not do what the Gospels said He did. The price He paid was death on a cross - the most horrible death imaginable - from which the word “excruciating” finds its origin - a death so horrificly feared that the Apostles barricaded themselves in the upper room for weeks - even after they saw the resurrected Lord firsthand! If Jesus became the darling of the Roman Empire and the Apostles were feted and regaled in palaces and had treasures bestowed upon them, a hoax makes sense. But what transpired before and after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection rules out - by any stretch of logic - the possibility that the works of Christ were mere mythology. The Apostles had nothing earthly to gain by propagating Christianity. Peter and Andrew and John and James owned boats and fished - they were not poor! They would have certainly retreated into the comfortable existence they knew before, if Jesus were a charlatan.
No, because most of them were clearly much later. The only one that gets that kind of treatment is the Gospel of Thomas. Elaine Pagels and some other scholars think that it may have predated John, and many scholars think that it may give us independent testimony to some of the sayings that are in the Synoptic Gospels. (For instance, I got in an argument with an NT scholar who participates in the Jesus Seminar a few weeks ago, and who shares the view common among Jesus Seminar scholars that the historical Jesus was primarily a wisdom teacher of some kind and that the apocalyptic stuff is a later addition. He claimed that the parables are not apocalyptic. I cited the parables in Matt. 13, and he argued that since the Gospel of Thomas gives us non-apocalyptic versions of some of these (particularly the mustard seed, if I remember rightly), the apocalyptic context is probably not the original one.
That is not beyond dispute by any means.
This is the traditional view. Some conservative scholars would take it seriously (not perhaps the part about the 70 disciples). I lean toward that position myself. But it’s at the conservative end of the scholarly spectrum.
Dubious.
Much more likely but certainly not capable of proof.
You’re missing the point. The question is not whether Peter existed (I don’t think this is commonly denied, though you can find someone who will deny just about anything). The question is whether the author of the Second Gospel in fact got his information from Peter. We have early Christian tradition in favor of this, but no proof.
1 Corinthians 15 is the one piece of evidence that supports this. And I think that’s a very significant bit of evidence.
I think pretty much everyone agrees that James existed and led a religious community in Jerusalem that was somehow linked with Jesus. However, not everyone agrees that the New Testament accurately describes his role (and in fact our NT and other references to James are rather fragmentary and cryptic–how do we interpret Paul’s references to him in Galatians, for instance?).
Most people date John to the 90s at the earliest–some put it in the early 2nd century. So I’m not sure that’s true.
No, we don’t have “accounts, such as Josephus.” We have Josephus. All the others are so late as not to count as independent evidence. And Josephus is a bit too good. His reference to Jesus sounds so much like something a Christian would write (which is odd, since we know Josephus wasn’t a Christian) that most people think it was tampered with (this includes the conservative evangelical scholar F. F. Bruce). Conservative scholars have pointed to certain phrases that could have been added by a Christian scribe. Take them out, and you have a reasonable reference to Jesus such as a Jewish writer might have been expected to produce. But of course once we admit that the text as we have it isn’t authentic, some folks (given the absence of textual witnesses to the suggested reconstruction) will argue that the entire passage is spurious.
I think we need to be careful about stating when various documents were written. Dating many of these documents is tentative at best. For example many scholars believe the John’s Gospel might have been written before the Destruction of the Temple, others might give it a date as late as 140 AD. About all we can safely say is when there are known references in documents whose dating is better known. This will give us a latest date a document could have been written, but hardly an earliest possible date.
Again, lets be careful about being sure which came first. Granted the Synoptics are a special case because of the fact that both Luke and Matthew were obviously written with Mark as a reference. That aside, you will find some scholars to support almost any date you care to give any of the Gospels.
I will echo your statement that there are questions about the timing of the Gospels. Many believe, in fact that Matthew’s was the first gospel and that it might date to as early as 35AD. It is not obvious that Mark is the reference for Luke and Matthew. That suggestion only came out in the last 150 years and requires an unseen “Q” document for it to make any sense whatsoever. Also, I believe that there is a partial parchment containing the Gospel of St. John from 125AD that was found in Alexandria so that is the outer limit for John. And to me, it is hard to believe that Luke can be dated any later than 64AD since that is where Acts abruptly stops.
This is maybe a little bit of a tangent, but I am very unimpressed by the logic of the Jesus seminar. They start off with the assumption that Jesus was not divine. They then mark up scripture and categorize all statements that imply his divinity as not historical.
This was the first time that I’d had an opportunity to discuss these matters with a member of the Jesus Seminar (well, my wife’s boss in New Jersey was also involved with them, but I never got in a discussion about it with him, which is probably just as well). As often happens, when one hears a position defended by someone who actually holds it, it makes more sense than previously. I still think that he and other similar scholars are starting off with criteria that give them the result they want. This goes beyond the question of Jesus’ divinity–they seem to value a certain kind of cryptic, subversive wisdom teaching and see it as most likely to be authentically from Jesus. I don’t think this position is as obviously false as I used to, but it still seems just one among several possible approaches at best (looking at it from a purely historical point of view).
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.
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
sorry;
My implication was that if Peter and the other apostles truly existed and were still alive after the gospel of Mark was being circulated, whatever was in that gospel which wasn’t accurate would have been brought up right away. Since this has not occured, it would imply that whatever information exists within the gospel account must has have been taken from those witnesses who are mentioned in the gospel…Peter and John, for instance. This, in turn would render the account as seen in the gospel as coming from a contemporary source.
a/a
ok, fine,Chicago Bears…but that is what this thread is all about. There are some who believe that Jesus is a fictitious person who never actually existed.
I agree that most of the Roman world might not have known Jesus, although, if the gospel accounts are true, then, it seems that there might have been some rumors circling around the provincial districts concerning such events. I agree with the rest of what you wrote.iKnighty
It would give secular proof that Jesus was an historical figure.
..Once reason is applied, it becomes almost impossible to believe that the miracles in the Gospels are mere inventions of the authors/early Christian church. If Jesus was not who He said He was, and did not perform these supernatural miracles as a sign of His divinity, then there is absolutely no imaginable reason the Apostles began the church. They were in abject terror of being associated with Jesus. If He were simply some guy who died on a cross, they would have gone back to their secular lives and families.
Not really. As a historian one has to begin examining a text with a set of criteria assumptions you might say.
They couldn’t have done that. They would have been recognized by the Jews as the followers of the false prophet Jesus, and treated badly. As happened to Peter before the Crucifixion.
No, no. I said myself earlier that the Gospels themselves are evidence against a ‘vast conspiracy’, as they tell the same stories with different details. If they were part of some conspiracy they would match in every detail, probably.
You have any evidence that they did so? Preferably out of non-Christian texts, but if from Christian texts please name the document and the calculated year it was written in. Thanks.
I probably wouldn’t become a Christian even if I believed that Christ came back from the dead. It’s certainly not enough to validate that he’s the son of God the Father, and also part of a Trinitarian Godhead.
The persecution of Christians didn’t begin because of their beliefs. It began because Nero gave them fault for the Great Fire of Rome. It didn’t matter to the Romans if Christ existed or not, as their reason was not that the Christians were in the wrong, their reason were simply that Christians had done them wrong and they were enacting their revenge.
Pagan histories were no threat to Christianity, writings that I mentioned would have been. Also I did a quick search and it appears that Constantine did himself order the burning of some heretical books. The writings of Arius, to be exact. So it does hold water.
No. Just that what he believed about Christ may have come from biased Christians , instead of other sources.*
How exactly? I still can’t understand that.
I think it is clear that the early Apostles experienced something that made them believe that Jesus rose from the Dead. By faith, I believe it was actually the resurrection itself. On the flip side though, I am not going to claim that anyone who has alternate explanations has no intellectual leg to stand on.
Would you agree that enough criteria was given to accept that Jesus truly existed and was crucified under pontius Pilate?
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. 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.