L
lemonbeam
Guest
Are there any eyewitness testimonies of Jesus during his own time period? Is there any evidence for Jesus’ existence at all?
- Status
F
foundthelight
Guest
There are a great many such testimonies in the bible.
M
mercygate
Guest
For a good review of the credibility of the New Testament and early references from outside the Christian community, Lee Strobel’s two books, *The Case for Christ *and The Case for the Real Jesus provide excellent background.
Strobel is not Catholic but the territory he covers is history.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Yes, we call them Matthew’s and John’s Gospel!!!
C
ConallCernach
Guest
My good friends may be nice guys, but I’m not sure I’m willing to be crucified upside down because I think they’re pleasant fellows…
M
mlchance
Guest
St. Mark was a companion of St. Peter. He would have very likely been witness to much of what he writes about in Mark’s Gospel. St. Luke talked to witnesses, in a sense recording the oral history of their experiences.Yes, we call them Matthew’s and John’s Gospel!!!
I’m not terribly fond of Strobel’s works referenced above. OTOH, Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels is excellent.
– Mark L. Chance.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
All we know of St. Mark witnessing of Jesus’ life is that he may have been the guy running naked out of the garden of Gethsemane. Luke could only be called a historian (or chronicler) to Jesus’ life. But John was there during the entire ministry of Jesus. Matthew was there nearly as long, once he was through counting money!
P
PhilVaz
Guest
lemon << Is there any evidence for Jesus’ existence at all? >>
Of course, the evidence is St. Paul’s epistles, written just some 20 years after the events. He interviewed St. Peter and others (Gal 1-2) just a couple years after Christ, refers to Jesus’ life, sayings, teachings, death by crucifixion (e.g. 1 Cor 1:13-23; 2:2-8; 15:1ff; Gal 2:20; 3:1,13; 6:12-14; Phil 2:8; Col 1:20; 2:14-15; 1 Thess 2:14-16; Heb 6:6; 12:2; etc) and bodily resurrection. The Book of Acts refers to his teaching/preaching, death by crucifixion, and resurrection several times (Acts 2:23,36; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; etc) and that “we are all witnesses of these things” (cf. Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 3:16). Also the Gospels are ancient biographies (not myths) written some 30+ years after the events. Jesus is also referenced in non-Christian sources like Josephus (twice) near the end of the first century (c. 90 AD), and a couple others. That’s enough “proof” for most historians. Even the “Jesus myther” G.A. Wells changed his mind in the 1990s, and now says:
“Some recent scholars (such as Freke and Gandy in their 1999 book, and Earl Doherty, whose book was also published in 1999) hold that the earliest Christian writers did not believe Jesus to have come to Earth as a man at all. I have never maintained this view, although it has often been imputed to me by critics who have been anxious to dispose of my arguments without troubling to see wherein they consist.” (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament [2004], page 4)
Your best book on the topic is now Shattering the Christ Myth by J.P. Holding. I hope to finish my page here by Christmas!
For defense of the Gospels see Blomberg’s updated (2007) Historical Reliability of the Gospels, or more technical Burridge’s What Are The Gospels? (2004) and Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2006), and Boyd/Eddy’s awesome The Jesus Legend (2007).
I just added Boyd/Eddy (mp3) talking about their book. Great stuff!
For scholarly Catholic works on the historical Jesus, see John P. Meier’s A Marginal Jew, especially his first volume (1991).
Phil P
Of course, the evidence is St. Paul’s epistles, written just some 20 years after the events. He interviewed St. Peter and others (Gal 1-2) just a couple years after Christ, refers to Jesus’ life, sayings, teachings, death by crucifixion (e.g. 1 Cor 1:13-23; 2:2-8; 15:1ff; Gal 2:20; 3:1,13; 6:12-14; Phil 2:8; Col 1:20; 2:14-15; 1 Thess 2:14-16; Heb 6:6; 12:2; etc) and bodily resurrection. The Book of Acts refers to his teaching/preaching, death by crucifixion, and resurrection several times (Acts 2:23,36; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; etc) and that “we are all witnesses of these things” (cf. Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 3:16). Also the Gospels are ancient biographies (not myths) written some 30+ years after the events. Jesus is also referenced in non-Christian sources like Josephus (twice) near the end of the first century (c. 90 AD), and a couple others. That’s enough “proof” for most historians. Even the “Jesus myther” G.A. Wells changed his mind in the 1990s, and now says:
“Some recent scholars (such as Freke and Gandy in their 1999 book, and Earl Doherty, whose book was also published in 1999) hold that the earliest Christian writers did not believe Jesus to have come to Earth as a man at all. I have never maintained this view, although it has often been imputed to me by critics who have been anxious to dispose of my arguments without troubling to see wherein they consist.” (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament [2004], page 4)
Your best book on the topic is now Shattering the Christ Myth by J.P. Holding. I hope to finish my page here by Christmas!
For defense of the Gospels see Blomberg’s updated (2007) Historical Reliability of the Gospels, or more technical Burridge’s What Are The Gospels? (2004) and Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2006), and Boyd/Eddy’s awesome The Jesus Legend (2007).
I just added Boyd/Eddy (mp3) talking about their book. Great stuff!
For scholarly Catholic works on the historical Jesus, see John P. Meier’s A Marginal Jew, especially his first volume (1991).
Phil P
C
ConallCernach
Guest
P
PhilVaz
Guest
<< Hey Phil, you don’t have the ISPN for Shattering the Christ Myth do you? >>
You mean ISBN? Real quick I’ll look at the back of the book:
ISBN = 978-1-60647-271-2
Phil P
You mean ISBN? Real quick I’ll look at the back of the book:
ISBN = 978-1-60647-271-2
Phil P
C
ConallCernach
Guest
M
Mersenne
Guest
not eye witness accounts by any means. Not written in a way that eye witnesses could have written, and too far after the events to be eye witness accounts.
I
Ignatius
Guest
There is far more historical evidence of Jesus than many other historical figures of that time and yet no one doubts the existence of other figures of the period. Virtually any knowledgeable scholar of history will tell you that Jesus Christ is probably the best documented figure of his time.
If you’re up to a little honest scholarship, line up all of the eye witness accounts of Hannibal, for example, and those of Christ.
Let me know how that turns out.
M
Mersenne
Guest
Paul doesn’t even claim to have ever met Christ physically.
None of these are very close to the source, just people retelling rumors. There’s only two sources, and one is a proven forgery. There are two main reasons why historians believe in the existence of Christ.
References to a “Brother of Christ” that historians interpret as an actual sibling. If you maintain the Catholic view that Jesus had no siblings then this evidence goes out the window.
Jesus behaves like a con man. If someone were telling a myth, or even exaggerating a real story, there’s no reason to make him behave obviously like a con-man. The “I can’t use my powers when skeptical people ask” is a common ploy, and there’s no reason to write your mythological figures as resorting to such obvious flummery. He also references many towns who saw his biggest and best miracles, but yet still didn’t believe, and coincidentally these towns were always backward out of the way towns where no one would be able to easy verify that what he was saying was false.
So you have to except those two things to except Christ as a real historical figure. Otherwise the evidence is slim.
T
thistle
Guest
What do you think the Gospels are? Fiction??
M
mercygate
Guest
So, where ya been since yesterday afternoon, lemonbeam?
M
Mersenne
Guest
Did you read the next line of my post or did you just stop at the first?
I think the gospels are not eye witness accounts. It is impossible for them to be, for the reasons I laid out. They could be anywhere from pure fabrication to myths based on true events. Jesus could be a composite character, there were certainly a number of people running around claiming to be the messiah, and many aspects of his story borrow from local folklore.
C
cpayne
Guest
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, by Richard Bauckham.
(For those who are willing to research the matter before giving their “I think.” )
(Where’s the OP? Was this a hit and run operation?)
(For those who are willing to research the matter before giving their “I think.”
)(Where’s the OP? Was this a hit and run operation?)
U
Usagi
Guest
Can you explain this, please?
Certainly they don’t appear to have been written contemporaneously with the events they describe, but most historians seem to place them within the lifetime of people who could have known Jesus. So I don’t see why they could not have been written by people who were eyewitnesses.
(Of course, the author of Luke makes clear that his information comes from interviewing sources rather than from his own knowledge, so he does not claim to be an eyewitness – though possibly some of his informants were. The author of John claims to be the “beloved disciple” and therefore an eyewitness to many of the events described. Matthew and Mark, to my knowledge, contain no in-text claims either way, though of course they are traditionally attributed to individuals who were present for at least some portion of Jesus’ public life.)
Usagi
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Did you read my posts? Who do you think Matthew and John were, if not eye witnesses?
- Status