Historical Jesus

[Augustus]

Can you quote one of these “early Christians” that met “Jesus the man”, excluding the Bible? You can not use the Bible to prove the Bible.

Nope. Why would we expect such evidence to exist of a poor 1st C Jew from Nazareth with a smallish following?

Saying the Bible can't be used as evidence though is applying a special disadvantage on Jesus' historicity when compared to any other historical figure. It's a bit like saying you can't use Herodotus to prove Thermopylae.

It's pretty much impossible to verify 99% of Jesus' words and deeds in terms of their historicity. It's 99+% certain that he existed as a man though.

 

[oldbadger]

Also Suetonius & Pliny the Younger.

....and Celcius?

 

[oldbadger]

Nope. Why would we expect such evidence to exist of a poor 1st C Jew from Nazareth with a smallish following?

Saying the Bible can't be used as evidence though is applying a special disadvantage on Jesus' historicity when compared to any other historical figure. It's a bit like saying you can't use Herodotus to prove Thermopylae.

It's pretty much impossible to verify 99% of Jesus' words and deeds in terms of their historicity. It's 99+% certain that he existed as a man though.

Very good post, I reckon........

The New Testament is a collection of books which some folks believe should be all discarded as evidence, when in fact they are separate books which vary in historical value in regard to Historical Jesus.

Even books such as G-John can be helpful; for instance we learn that Judas's formal name was probably BarSimon, and I don't think that any other book tells us that. Now why would the author have made that up?

But I like G-Mark best, and reckon that it is based upon truth save for the addition at the end, and evangelical edits here and there.

 

[roger1440]

Nope. Why would we expect such evidence to exist of a poor 1st C Jew from Nazareth with a smallish following?

Saying the Bible can't be used as evidence though is applying a special disadvantage on Jesus' historicity when compared to any other historical figure. It's a bit like saying you can't use Herodotus to prove Thermopylae.

It's pretty much impossible to verify 99% of Jesus' words and deeds in terms of their historicity. It's 99+% certain that he existed as a man though.

If the Bible can be used to prove the Bible then that same method can be used to prove a character in any book. Goldie lox and the three bears exist then. I can prove it. Just read the story. Each and every book ever written in the history of mankind is true.

 

[Lyndon]

Except the Bible is not one book, its a collection of many books by many authors

 

[Augustus]

If the Bible can be used to prove the Bible then that same method can be used to prove a character in any book. Goldie lox and the three bears exist then. I can prove it. Just read the story. Each and every book ever written in the history of mankind is true.

Are you really making the argument that historical texts are worthless in the study of history? Or are you special pleading as regards the Bible? Either way, why?

It isn't just 'Jesus exists because the Bible says so', it is a combination of factors: Bible, the early existence and rapid spread of (proto)Christians suggesting a group with a leader, references from other sources, the fact that no early critiques doubted his existence (Romans could have checked their records if in doubt), the fact that there were countless prophets at this time so why make one up?, etc.

Perhaps the most persuasive aspect of the Bible though is the fact that nobody would have invented a fictional figure so poorly suited to being the prophesised Messiah.

 

[pearl]

Perhaps the most persuasive aspect of the Bible though is the fact that nobody would have invented a fictional figure so poorly suited to being the prophesised Messiah.

Excellent point!

By all human standards Jesus was a failure. Executed as a criminal, denied by his closest disciple, deserted by the others as they scattered, abandon by his God. His movement dead. Not exactly the stuff of a folk hero, never mind a messiah.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Can you quote one of these “early Christians” that met “Jesus the man”, excluding the Bible? You can not use the Bible to prove the Bible.

You're missing the point, or ignorant of historical method. The Bible is like any other historical document. You can look for internal consistency and external references to check it.

Take Mark's gospel. It's supposed to be written by Mark, Peter's secretary, after Peter's death in 64. The earliest reference to it is in Papias, who wrote about 120 and who knew of no other gospels. It's much franker than the other gospels and doesn't hesitate to show the disciples behaving stupidly or even badly. The early testimony and informal character argue for authenticity. So does the lack of a developed theology: it has no mention of a virgin birth and the original text ends with the discovery of the empty tomb.

Compare the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Papias knew nothing of them. They rely on Mark and on a collection of the sayings of Jesus which Papias did know. They contradict each other on the circumstances of the birth of Jesus; they attribute a divine status to him, which Paul and Mark do not; they claim that people have seen his resurrected body, which Mark and Paul do not. All this suggests that they are not authentic, but written after Papias, when their supposed authors would be dead.

 

[james bond]

Why should I have faith that "God" exists, and then in the Christian form of Jesus?


I agree that Buddhism is a systematic investigation into Reality and its Laws, and in that sense it is a philosophy of life. However, as I've discovered, once I've come to personal understanding of these Laws, the idea of adhering to dogma which teaches things contrary to those Laws - such as Christianity - becomes far less appealing and more unreasonable.

I guess you misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and I do not have an answer for "those" questions. Those questions are not something I ever asked when I was searching. It's something one has to do for themselves.

I reread what the Buddhist said and he did not say "philosophy." He said practice. It's a practice like yoga. My bad.

 

[ajay0]

What facts about Jesus do we have, from a scientific point of view?
I think 3 authors mention him: Flavius Josephus, Tacitus and the 3rd I forgot.
What did Jesus really say and what is only attributed to him?

Perhaps the issue may be that much of what Jesus had said may have been edited as politically incorrect, and the remaining stuff , an illogical whole , was then forced upon the believers to believe wholeheartedly so as to condition them as per the needs of the editors.

 

[seeking4truth]

What facts about Jesus do we have, from a scientific point of view?
I think 3 authors mention him: Flavius Josephus, Tacitus and the 3rd I forgot.
What did Jesus really say and what is only attributed to him?

Jesus is the name we know him by from the Greek but his Jewish name was not Jesus. As a Jewish man he was known by a different name and as a significant religious leader he was known by different titles. Looking for him and the growth and development of his movement by names other than Jesus opens up many more dirrections for study.

 

[Shrew]

Jesus is the name we know him by from the Greek but his Jewish name was not Jesus. As a Jewish man he was known by a different name and as a significant religious leader he was known by different titles. Looking for him and the growth and development of his movement by names other than Jesus opens up many more dirrections for study.

Do you know the jewish name of Jesus?

 

[oldbadger]

Excellent point!

By all human standards Jesus was a failure. Executed as a criminal, denied by his closest disciple, deserted by the others as they scattered, abandon by his God. His movement dead. Not exactly the stuff of a folk hero, never mind a messiah.

Mostly true, but Jesus got written about and we know about him 2000 years later.

Not bad....?

 

[oldbadger]

Do you know the jewish name of Jesus?

I'll plump for Yeshua BarYosef

 

[Shrew]

I'll plump for Yeshua BarYosef

Thanks for the hint, by searching for this name I found this interesting site.

 

[1robin]

What facts about Jesus do we have, from a scientific point of view?
I think 3 authors mention him: Flavius Josephus, Tacitus and the 3rd I forgot.
What did Jesus really say and what is only attributed to him?

1. I think over 40 early authors commented on Christ or the early explosion of the Christian faith.
2. You, for some reason left out the primary authors (the apostles) by which we come to know about Christ.
3. The current best estimate as to the accuracy between the original manuscripts and modern bibles according to even atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman is 90% - 95%, and according to most theologians is about 99.5%.
4. More so than any other text in ancient history, of any kind, and by any author, we can have confidence in the Bible.
5. You asked for facts, but historical issues do not have certainty. In fact there are only a handful of things that we can know with certainty. Examples being that we know we think and therefore are, or that the law of non-contradiction is true, etc.....
6. However I will give you a few of the bible's most reliable claims. According to a consensus of NT historians (regardless of their faith) the following are historically reliable.

A. Christ appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
B. Christ practiced a ministry of miracle working and exorcism.
C. That he died on a cross, put there by the Romans, but at the request of the Hebrew priestly class.
D. His tomb was found empty.
E. Even his enemies claimed to have spoken with him, post mortem.

Now if those were only the facts in the bible that were reliable you would still have everything necessary to justify Christian faith, however as to reliable historical claims the bible makes there are thousands considered as reliable as history can make them. Regardless, those 5 are a good place to start.

 

[oldbadger]

........According to a consensus of NT historians (regardless of their faith) the following are historically reliable.

A. Christ appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
B. Christ practiced a ministry of miracle working and exorcism.
C. That he died on a cross, put there by the Romans, but at the request of the Hebrew priestly class.
D. His tomb was found empty.
E. Even his enemies claimed to have spoken with him, post mortem.
.

So much for experts.....
A is weak because Yeshia never appeared on scene with divine authority, and he never heard words like Christ or Jesus.
B is fair, but the real name was Yeshua and the miracles were just amazing acts.
C might not have happened, he might not have died or even been executed.
D is true....empty tomb. This means little.
E is half true, because if Yeshua got away to zindia as many believe, then he was seen as a real man

 

[1robin]

So much for experts.....

That is not an argument. If you want to contradict the bulk of NT scholarship that's fine, but it will require more than yelling declarations at traffic.

A is weak because Yeshia never appeared on scene with divine authority, and he never heard words like Christ or Jesus.

Yeshia? I looked it up, it is a name parents give children, it has only existed since the 50s so I knew that isn't what you meant to say. So I looked up Yeshiva but it was a Jewish educational facility. So you must have meant Yeshua, but he is Jesus so the rest of your statement makes no sense. I do not know what your talking about but will post two mistakes you made.

1. I said nothing about whether Christ has an unprecedented divine authority. I said that he claimed he had it, and given his multiply attested accounts concerning his divine power, the conclusion that he actually had divine authority is far greater than it's negation.
2. Yeshua is more of a description (title) than a name (in some usages it is even a verb). It means to deliver or rescue. So it perfectly fits Christ.

B is fair, but the real name was Yeshua and the miracles were just amazing acts.

Miracles are not defined by the word amazing. Miracles are acts performed by divine power which defy or suspend natural law. According the bible the recently dead Jesus shone with the radiance of the sun as he physically ascended into heaven. That is a miracle, not magic. No wires from Bethany to the moon, no cranes, and no advanced forms of propulsion.

C might not have happened, he might not have died or even been executed.

I will remind you again your arguing against the consensus of NT scholars (those who have by far more training and more access to the evidence than you ever will).

The Romans and even the Hebrew priestly class would have done anything (including killing the leader of) to stop the growth of Christianity. If Jesus had died as you stated then they could have easily found the body and said "look here is your leader, he didn't rise from the dead, and all of the hundreds of prophecies about him were apparently untrue". In fact that is exactly what they tried and failed to do, after he died. More on this below.

D is true....empty tomb. This means little.

Rome was good at many things, but what they may have been best at was torturing and killing. Since there exists multiple attestations to the fact he was buried in the tomb in question (Joseph of arimathea's) and there exists no claim to dispute from any contemporary witness, then that makes an empty tomb as meaningful as anything could ever be. That is why the faith held by a few "radicals" in a Roman backwater is now the only faith present in significant numbers in every nation on earth. Joseph and a few others put Christ's corps in Joseph's tomb. I can show you forensic coroner's reports that state that Christ could not have lived through what the bible says he experienced, but lets pretend he could have survived. They rolled a stone weighing many tons into a notch that was to secure it for eternity, the Romans and the Hebrews put guards around the tomb specifically so no one could steal the body. The Romans also put an official seal across the door, and anyone who broke it would have been executed. Christ had been beaten within a inch of dying (Romans were professionals at this), hung on a cross for hours (you ought to look up crucifixion), and a spear stabbed through his heart. Yet you have him surviving for 3 days without even food and water somehow rolling lets say a 10 ton stone out of it's cradle and sneak past two sets of guards, then being described as a happy person who never looked better, walking and talking with people for miles and miles.

E is half true, because if Yeshua got away to zindia as many believe, then he was seen as a real man

I would bet there is not one person who believes that for every million that don't. Regardless, if he had walked all the way to India it would not make any of those conclusions any less true.

Unless you have a PhD in history, philosophy, comparative theology, or are a born again Christian you have no idea whether anything I listed is wrong or right. You seem to be equating what you find convenient with being wrong, and what you like with truth.

 

[oldbadger]

That is not an argument. If you want to contradict the bulk of NT scholarship that's fine, but it will require more than yelling declarations at traffic.

I notice that no NT scholars are in complete accord with each other. I've read some of their books, and....... blimey!.... the ideas!

Yeshia? I looked it up, it is a name parents give children, it has only existed since the 50s so I knew that isn't what you meant to say. So I looked up Yeshiva but it was a Jewish educational facility. So you must have meant Yeshua, but he is Jesus so the rest of your statement makes no sense. I do not know what your talking about but will post two mistakes you made.

Try writing on a mobile, and see how many typos you get!

1. I said nothing about whether Christ has an unprecedented divine authority. I said that he claimed he had it, and given his multiply attested accounts concerning his divine power, the conclusion that he actually had divine authority is far greater than it's negation.

Oh, please! Yeshua never claimed any such thing, at least, not in G-Mark the 1st gospel, before the additions and such.
Please don't quote G-John, who couldn't even get the timeline correct. He didn't even know what happened in the last week!

2. Yeshua is more of a description (title) than a name (in some usages it is even a verb). It means to deliver or rescue. So it perfectly fits Christ.

His name was most likely Yeshua BarYosef, or close to that.
And I notice that Yeshua fits Eastern Aramaic, whereas Christ just does not.
All the manipulation in the World can't fit 'Jesus' or 'Christ' into Galilean vocabulary. Why not just go back to the roots.... as close to truth as possible?

Miracles are not defined by the word amazing. Miracles are acts performed by divine power which defy or suspend natural law. According the bible the recently dead Jesus shone with the radiance of the sun as he physically ascended into heaven. That is a miracle, not magic. No wires from Bethany to the moon, no cranes, and no advanced forms of propulsion.

Look, if you want to, need to, believe in and have Faith in that, no problem. But if you want to enter the subject matter of Historical Jesus then let's keep the facts firmly down to earth, eh?

I will remind you again your arguing against the consensus of NT scholars (those who have by far more training and more access to the evidence than you ever will).

Oh my Gawd! What evidence is that then?
Please do show it, and do stop telling us all that the consensus of scholars must be right because they are who they are....... let's see their consensus of evidence.
Geza Vermes rips G-John to shreds in 'The changing faces of Jesus'
Dominic Crosson has a Magic for meal traveller shuffling from village to village with a few hangers-on..... etc
and on.... and on.....some are really very weak ideas.
I've got a list of nearly 200 scholars and they just can't agree, so leave the ad-hominems out of it.

The Romans and even the Hebrew priestly class would have done anything (including killing the leader of) to stop the growth of Christianity. If Jesus had died as you stated then they could have easily found the body and said "look here is your leader, he didn't rise from the dead, and all of the hundreds of prophecies about him were apparently untrue". In fact that is exactly what they tried and failed to do, after he died. More on this below.

Jesus wasn't 'The Christ' in his last week! He was (to the authorities) just a ruffian who committed pillage and mayhem in the Temple courts and picketed the whole area with his supporters TWO DAYS RUNNING.!!! If that doesn't get a person executed then I don't know what would. The Temple takings in a Passover week probably exceeded $30,000,000 in todays' money and Yeshua seriously affected the takings!
You want proof of that? Do I need to teach you about that? Let me know and I'll teach you about it all, a layman.....

Rome was good at many things, but what they may have been best at was torturing and killing. Since there exists multiple attestations to the fact he was buried in the tomb in question (Joseph of arimathea's) and there exists no claim to dispute from any contemporary witness, then that makes an empty tomb as meaningful as anything could ever be.

Where have you seen Joseph of A's testimony?
Apart from Magdalene and Salome, who was there?
Who was there all through the following night and day?,

That is why the faith held by a few "radicals" in a Roman backwater is now the only faith present in significant numbers in every nation on earth. Joseph and a few others put Christ's corps in Joseph's tomb. I can show you forensic coroner's reports that state that Christ could not have lived through what the bible says he experienced, but lets pretend he could have survived. They rolled a stone weighing many tons into a notch that was to secure it for eternity, the Romans and the Hebrews put guards around the tomb specifically so no one could steal the body. The Romans also put an official seal across the door, and anyone who broke it would have been executed. Christ had been beaten within a inch of dying (Romans were professionals at this),

This is rubbish..... The Romans strung out crucifixions to last up to three days. Theyu didn't try to kill a person in a few hours.

Unless you have a PhD in history, philosophy, comparative theology, or are a born again Christian you have no idea whether anything I listed is wrong or right. You seem to be equating what you find convenient with being wrong, and what you like with truth.

Ad Hominem.
Many PHD in history or theology would giove very unsympathetic opinions to you.

 

[Milton Platt]

What facts about Jesus do we have, from a scientific point of view?
I think 3 authors mention him: Flavius Josephus, Tacitus and the 3rd I forgot.
What did Jesus really say and what is only attributed to him?

Virtually all authors are merely writing down what Christians told them. They had no way to verify the information and we have no way to do so, either. It is not only possible that a guy named Jesus lived in the middle east, it is probable. The issue is demonstrating that he was the son of a god, or a manifestation of a god, or did any miracles.