Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Nick227]

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist, but I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus." - Bart D. Ehrman, December 2007. (http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/)

I heard Bart make the above statement on a recorded radio show and wondered what people thought of it. It seemed to me pretty strong.

Nick

[Tsukasa Buddha]

My position is that, if I had to bet, then I would say there was a person off of whom the Gospels were written. But it is impossible to be sure what he actually taught and what was added on afterwards, and what he actually did and what was added on afterwards. Especially when some of the stories contradict known history or even themselves.

Also, every researcher who looks for the REAL Jesus always make some biased conclusion. Like some come away saying he was a Jewish reformer, and others say he was a hippie, and others say he was etc. etc. They always take whichever quotes they like and use those as evidence and overlook other ones that go against their view.

I mean, I am pretty sure that there was a Jesus dude, I just think that he was lost in the mythology.

[leon_heller]

'Jesus' was a very common name in the Aramaic community, there would have been thousands of young men with the same name. It's quite likely that several Jesus's were crucified at around the same time.

Leon

[Olowkow]

He was on the Infidel Guy podcast and claimed he had never heard of Bob Price. Price, the Bible Geek, has made an interesting case that Jesus is a compilation of many characters. There really is no good contemporary evidence of this person. I was not impressed by Ehrman's arguments. Just the same old historians 70 years later etc.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Nick227

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus.

The idea there was no historical Jesus requires a paradigm shift. As such, the idea his existence is not commonly doubted among serious historians is not necessarily a good defense of the position.

I think the biggest argument against an historical Jesus is the fact the source of information about Jesus is almost entirely from the Bible and at least one of the only two alternative historical references is suspected of being a forgery. The other uses the name Jesus but the reference could easily be someone other than the Biblical Jesus.

If in addition to the Bible, there was overwhelming positive evidence for the existence of Jesus, then the fact most historians agreed, would hold more weight.

[Nick227]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

The idea there was no historical Jesus requires a paradigm shift. As such, the idea his existence is not commonly doubted among serious historians is not necessarily a good defense of the position.

I think the biggest argument against an historical Jesus is the fact the source of information about Jesus is almost entirely from the Bible and at least one of the only two alternative historical references is suspected of being a forgery. The other uses the name Jesus but the reference could easily be someone other than the Biblical Jesus.

If in addition to the Bible, there was overwhelming positive evidence for the existence of Jesus, then the fact most historians agreed, would hold more weight.

Well, Ehrman categorically stated "no doubts" which is a lot stronger than "not commonly doubted." I was struck by the force of his conviction. I hear your point about historians, thanks.

What personally puts me more in the camp of believing there was a Jesus is not so much the Bible but the mystical depth of many of the Nag Hammadi texts, and particularly the presence of so many direct teachings - the sayings of Jesus. I can't understand why so much original teaching would be credited to one individual if there was no one to whom it refers. It seems to me that there is a great deal of very deep and original "smoke" for there not to have been "fire." Of course, in academic circles, this might not be such a great argument, what with the time separation, but I haven't heard an alternative explanation that much resonates for me yet.

Nick

[JoeEllison]

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus."

Yeah, and no serious historian doubts the existence of 17th Century France, Louis XIII, Cardinal Richelieu, and a Musketeer named D'Artagnan.

Does that mean that this is a historical documentary?

[Foster Zygote]

I've read a good bit of Ehrman myself and I'm sure he is not saying that the Jesus of the gospels literally existed. He's written in his books that he's almost certain that there was a person, most likely an apocalyptic rabbi, upon whom the original, lost tale of Jesus was loosely based. What we don't know is who he was, what he really said, or what he really did. The Jesus of the Bible is certainly a fictional character like Arthur Pendragon. But sometimes even fictional characters can be modeled on real people, even very loosely, as Arthur may have been. But that doesn't mean that elements from other stories weren't added into the Jesus legend. And it doesn't mean that the actions of other persons and fictional characters weren't attributed to Jesus as the early cult developed.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Nick227

particularly the presence of so many direct teachings - the sayings of Jesus. I can't understand why so much original teaching would be credited to one individual if there was no one to whom it refers. ...

Nick

The problem is that much of these teachings and sayings are either not original or can be shown by analysis to have to have been added centuries later, because of stylistic and contextual considerations. Dr. Robert Price has written several very interesting books on this topic. "Deconstructing Jesus", and more, I can't recall the titles just now.
As for "why", probably for the same reasons that hundreds of sayings have been attributed to Mohammed after the fact by guys who want to seem important.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus."

If any historian expresses doubts, then he is not a "serious historian". QED.

[articulett]

Exactly. It's circular. Robert Price is a former evangelical and a great historian. He doubts the historicity of Jesus.

I think Bart Ehrman can't stand to consider that he might have built his life around a myth cut from whole cloth. It takes a long time to want to really understand what is true when it means considering that we may have been very mislead by our own intuitions.

[Bikewer]

I've read a number of Ehrman's books, and it's my impression that he thinks all the furor must have been over somebody...
His view of the historical Jesus is pretty limited; an Apocalyptic preacher who made the mistake of announcing his notions of becoming "king of the Jews" in Jerusalem itself. Not something that played well with the Roman authorities...

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by articulett

Exactly. It's circular. Robert Price is a former evangelical and a great historian. He doubts the historicity of Jesus.

I think Bart Ehrman can't stand to consider that he might have built his life around a myth cut from whole cloth. It takes a long time to want to really understand what is true when it means considering that we may have been very mislead by our own intuitions.

Bart Ehrman gave up the myth of Jesus many years ago. Again, he is saying that in his professional opinion there was a person that the myth was based on, not that the Gospels are accurate depictions of who he was.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Bart Ehrman gave up the myth of Jesus many years ago. Again, he is saying that in his professional opinion there was a person that the myth was based on, not that the Gospels are accurate depictions of who he was.

I know... I had heard his interview on infidel guy and I had the same reaction as in the OP... so did reggie (the infidel guy)-- Bart does not want any one to even intimate that Jesus may not have been an actual historical figure.

Btw, I like Bart Ehrman a lot. I was surprised at his insistence that Jesus must be a real historical figure as the evidence for such a claim is just not there. Most atheists and agnostics don't have quite such an emotional investment in regards to whether there was a real preacher man named Jesus or if he was an amalgam of characters based on myth, schizophrenia and/or something else.

[MattusMaximus]

Of course there's a Jesus... he's the guy who cuts my neighbor's lawn.

<Ducks to avoid the inevitable retribution for such an off-color remark>

[JoeTheJuggler]

Was there a historic keelboatman the Mike Fink legends were based on? Maybe so, but that real person's resemblance to the legend is probably pretty thin.

When people ask whether there was a historic Jesus, they're usually willing to accept that all the false claims (miracles and such) probably weren't actual events. At least some of his teachings predated the time period, and other bits were certainly added later. Some parts of the Gospel are obviously fiction (and not eyewitness accounts--as for example the prayers of Jesus during the agony in the garden and the Nativity stories). So what's left isn't much.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Was there a historic keelboatman the Mike Fink legends were based on? Maybe so, but that real person's resemblance to the legend is probably pretty thin.

When people ask whether there was a historic Jesus, they're usually willing to accept that all the false claims (miracles and such) probably weren't actual events. At least some of his teachings predated the time period, and other bits were certainly added later. Some parts of the Gospel are obviously fiction (and not eyewitness accounts--as for example the prayers of Jesus during the agony in the garden and the Nativity stories). So what's left isn't much.

But did whatever is left go by the name "Jesus"? It's such a Latin sounding name.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

...
When people ask whether there was a historic Jesus, they're usually willing to accept that all the false claims (miracles and such) probably weren't actual events. At least some of his teachings predated the time period, and other bits were certainly added later. Some parts of the Gospel are obviously fiction (and not eyewitness accounts--as for example the prayers of Jesus during the agony in the garden and the Nativity stories). So what's left isn't much.

So where besides in the Bible is there a record of even a specific preacher who resembles the Jesus character? Surely the claim he performed all those miracles and had followers should be noted in some kind of historical record besides the Bible. There were other historical records during that time in that part of the country wasn't there?

[lionking]

What interests me is that if it could be categorically proven that there was no biblical Jesus who performed miracles and arose from the dead, the whole basis for christianity would collapse, which is why any evidence of his non-existence (or non-evidence of his existence) will be discredited.

On the other hand, if Buddha was proven not to exist, buddhists would say "so what". I do not subscribe to buddhist philosophies, but it seems to me that they are constructed on firmer foundations than christianity.

[articulett]

If it turns out the evidence for a historical Jesus is on par with evidence for there actually being real live angelic delivered gold plates on which the book of Mormon was written-- you are going to have a lot of peeved believers.

And so far, the evidence seems about equally compelling for both... which is considerably less compelling then the evidence of an actual "Mohummed" on which the Quo'ran is based.

I can see why this might really bother some people including Bart Ehrman. I find the whole thing amusing, myself.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by articulett

But did whatever is left go by the name "Jesus"? It's such a Latin sounding name.

Well, "Jesus" is the Latinization of the Hebrew name "Y'shua," which was pretty common for the area.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Well, "Jesus" is the Latinization of the Hebrew name "Y'shua," which was pretty common for the area.

I know... I was just joshin'. I wonder what percentage of the men at the time were named Y'shua and how many were rabbis and if any of them may have been schizophrenic.

[Nick227]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I've read a number of Ehrman's books, and it's my impression that he thinks all the furor must have been over somebody...
His view of the historical Jesus is pretty limited; an Apocalyptic preacher who made the mistake of announcing his notions of becoming "king of the Jews" in Jerusalem itself. Not something that played well with the Roman authorities...

Yes, I agree. There's a lot of smoke. Stuff was added, stuff was lost through chinese whispers, but there is a mystical depth to many of the recovered Gnostic writings that resonates to this day. There are plenty of other explanations for how this material could have got there but I've still not heard any that really sounded convincing.

Personally, for years I figured Jesus didn't exist, but it's not clear for me anymore. I'm not bothered about the miracles and other stuff, show me a realistic alternate source for the Gospel of Truth or the Gospel of Thomas.

Nick

[David Swidler]

Originally Posted by articulett

I know... I was just joshin'. I wonder what percentage of the men at the time were named Y'shua and how many were rabbis and if any of them may have been schizophrenic.

It was quite a common name - IIRC Josephus mentions a few such people, and it stems from the same root as the more familiar (to us) Joshua (Y'hoshua').

The thing about the rabbi business is that the title as such hadn't really come into common use until at least a few decades after Jesus. The spiritual leaders were known more or less by their first names, ben (son of) father's name (well, so was everyone else; that's remained the formula for traditional Jewish names since at least Genesis). Contextual information beyond the mere mention of a name is necessary to identify someone as occupying such a social/religious position.

[Bikewer]

In The Gospel Of Judas Escariot, Ehrman goes into Gnostic thinking more deeply than any of his previous books. (at least, the ones I read....)

He says the origins of Gnosticism are still unclear to scholars, and some think that the idea may have originated outside of Christianity altogether.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yeah, because Christianity is totally original.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

In The Gospel Of Judas Escariot, Ehrman goes into Gnostic thinking more deeply than any of his previous books. (at least, the ones I read....)

He says the origins of Gnosticism are still unclear to scholars, and some think that the idea may have originated outside of Christianity altogether.

Zoroastrianism had a few centuries of a head start to Gnostic Christians I'm afraid.

[Nick227]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

In The Gospel Of Judas Escariot, Ehrman goes into Gnostic thinking more deeply than any of his previous books. (at least, the ones I read....)

He says the origins of Gnosticism are still unclear to scholars, and some think that the idea may have originated outside of Christianity altogether.

Yes, I'm going to get that one when it comes out in paperback. I've no doubt that much of Gnosticism relates to pre-Christian times. I imagine that the Eleusis "school" would be a factor (not that anyone seems to know really what went on there), Plato also, plus Hermeticism, and Babylonian mysticism, just to start with. But to me there is still a considerable synthesis around this purported figure of Jesus and the apparent apostolic succession he created. Why would so many highly diverse mystical schools arising in this period, 50-200 CE, so much credit one original character, Jesus? I could understand it as fiction if it was just one school, but there were a lot.

Nick

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Bart Ehrman gave up the myth of Jesus many years ago. Again, he is saying that in his professional opinion there was a person that the myth was based on, not that the Gospels are accurate depictions of who he was.

But if he doesn't have any similarities to the dude described in the bible, outside of mundane trivialities, then in what way are the bible stories "based" on him?

I've said it before, there is a girl named Dorothy who lived in Kansas who had an Aunt Em in the late 1800s. Does that make her the "historical Dorothy" from the Wizard of Oz?

[cj.23]

OK, actually what is important here is why "no serious historian doubts a historical Jesus." As I can briefly outline that...

First, as an aside, the name was as noted very common. I believe it was the third most common male name in the area at the time. Many Jesus are listed in historical records -- including a number who served as High Priest.

So let's look at the reasons

1. Historiography - Jesus is actually better attested than almost any figure from the 1st century who is not owing to say Emperor status commonly represented in the archaeological record by artifacts. So if we were to repudiate the evidence for Jesus, we would have to repudiate a large number of other historically established figures -history as we know it would vanish! So historians applying normal standards of criteria for evidence in the period overwhelmingly agree on a historical Jesus.

I do however like the idea of a scientific test. This is a historical question... but we can apply statistics to it.

Null Hypothesis:The documentary evidence for Jesus is weaker than one would expect for a public figure of his times.

Design: Test ten figures from the period -- I can make suggestions, but obviously Messianic claimants/rebel leaders from Josephus are closest compatible figures and should be included, as should Honi the Circle Drawer, Paul/Saul, and maybe a few others like say Pontius Pilate, the High Priest of the time, and the Emperor Tiberias. I won't make a list -- I suggest you draw up a long list of public figures, then randomly select ten or 12 to compare Jesus to.

Methodology: Take the figures, and draw up a table of references to them in writers within 100 years of their deaths. Take Jesus as dying in 33AD. Column A is number of references, column B lists the period (based on mean estimate of scholars) that the reference was written from the baseline date of death of the person (or 1 if contemporary). Then test the outcomes to see if JC is particularly poorly attested as is claimed.

Give it a go, and post your results.

So that is point 1 - simply that by the standards historians apply to evidence, there is no argument.

2. The logical issues - even the best arguments of the so called "Christ Mythers" are violent violations of Occam's Razor. The fact an exorcist/healer lived, taught, gathered a following and died on the cross is completely unremarkable in this historical context, so there is little reason to doubt it. There are several reasons to believe it likely --

a) The Pauline Evidence - Paul testifies to having met Jesus family (and indeed argued with them). He testifies to the general belief in the Resurrection and Crucifixion. It is true he gives relatively little biographical evidence in his 7 authentic Paulines, but that is exactly what one would expect to find based in the fact apostolic status was conferred on "those who were with him from the start", whereas Paul never met the chap. So his theology is based on revelation and visions, NOT the Jesus the others physcally knew. The arguments of the Council of Jerusalem in Galatians 2 are bitter and not the kind of thing you'd have any logical reason to make up? Paul is incidentally writing within 20-30 years of the crucifixion - and repeatedly asserts he has argued with the brother of the man he regards as Lord and Saviour - odd if he thought he was mythical. I can expand on this at length if anyone is interested.

b) The Gospel accounts are as historical as any other document - sure they are full of passages which are mythic, supernaturalist, etc, etc. So is Herodotus, and most other writers of the period. Even Josephus lists many supernaturally interpreted events, and he is far from keen on miracles. The fact they are written with an apologetic bent in no way invalidates them as historical sources - Josephus was after all writing to establish Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah. So we can not count the Gospels, Paul, etc as any less historical sources than any other contemporary "secular" or pagan writing.

c) The criterion of embrassment is a strong indication that a historical core lies at the heart of the Early Christian accounts. You can look this up easily enough, but clearly there are many passages in the accounts which are an awkward fit to the beliefs they advocated. Jesus asserts his message is to the Jews, not the Gentiles at one point. In another place he is accused of being a glutton and a drunkard - and so forth. It is said the people of his home toiwn rejected him, and tried to stone him, and that his own family thought he was nuts and tried to have him put away. The list goes on and on - and a mythical figure is unlikely to have this "embarassing" material created around them.

d) The incoherence of testimony. A fabrication, or simple linear developm,ent of the Gospel tradition material, would create a far more unified historical and theological picture than the Biblical accounts do -- if you doubt me check the classic by James Dunn, Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, which shows clearly the theological tensions in the first century interpretations of events. This suggest strongly seperate oral traditions and communities teachinsg being used as source material.

e) The high degree of correlation between the Biblical manuscripts and 1st century conditions, with a few minor issues. See the great Jewish historian Geza Vermes works but especially Jesus the Jew and The Changing Face of Jesus, and E.P.Sanders book on the historical Jesus for contetual analysis and hermeutics.

f) The shame of the cross. If Jesus was not earthly crucified, then it was the dumbest claim in the history of advertising. Those hanged upon a tree were rejected by God (see the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament), and crucifixion was a shameful disgusting thing to Romans. The Cross was a major stumbling block to conversion. Why preach an absurdity like this if it was not true?

I could go on, and probbaly will - but let's briefly review the non-religious, not that they are inherently any better than the "religious" sources as I have already noted -- from my original discussion on Richard Dawkin's forum --


* Pliny the Younger, writing in Bithynia c.111AD

Pliny is concerned about how to handle an outbreak of Christianity in his region. He writes to the Emperor Trajan, and the relevant part for our inquiry is

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

This merely shows Christ was worshiped in Asia Minor, and a reference later in the letter says that some has apostatized up to twenty five years before, so the churches were established there by c.85AD, and probably before. I don't think Paul ever got this far north.

You can read the whole letter (and Trajan's response) here and the Early Christian Writings website has a couple of links ot articles on this letter.

Trajan's reponse was
"You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age."

It seems that Trajan was well aware of Christians, and that some persecution occurred presumably as a threat to the State through their "atheism" as it was usually termed. Beyond establishing that Christ was worshiped as God this comparatively early stage, it leads us no closer to the Historical Jesus, but it seemed as good a point as any to begin!

Let's move on to Suetonius, 115CE

Early Christian Writings is excellent as usual here - so it seems pointless for me to rehash what is said already there.

Suetonius wrote in The Life of Claudius (25.4)
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." he also notes the presence of Christians -
"Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

Now Claudius from 41 to 54CE, so is this Chrestus actually ChristĂƒÂ³s, Christ? Did rows in the synagogue (and recall Christianity was still part of Judaism at this point) lead to the expulsion? It seems not unlikely, and agrees with the account in Acts. Traditionally dated to 49CE, this event is probably within twenty years of the crucifixion so very early - but its not certain. the instigation of Chrestus seems to imply someone alive, but if Suetonius who was writing some seventy years later was using a lost source, it would be an easy mistake to make. I think this probably does represent the earliest Christian missions to Rome - and yet again, it brings us no closer to the Historical Jesus...

Nero ruled from 54 to 68CE. As we shall see other references exist tot he Christian community in his reign in Rome.

Tacitus, Annals - c.115AD

15:44


Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

It goes without saying that Early Christian Writings is the best place to start your evaluation. The possibility this is a Christian interpolation strikes me as highly unlikely - we have an independent reference to Neronic persecution in Suetonius (see above) and it is very unflattering. However none of the Christian Church Fathers make mention of it . It strikes me as entirely probable. Note Pilate is described as a Procurator, but in fact was a Proconsul, a simple enough error, Tacitus using a contemporary title resulting in this anachronism.

The absolutely central issue here is where Tacitus got his information from. It may well have been a Roman source, as Christian sources are unlikely to express these kinds of feelings, and Tacitus appears to have despised Christians. One can't help feel Tacitus had some early reference from which he worked for the Neronic persecution at least -- the references to public sympathy brought about by the persecution have that feel.

A common claim I often see is that it is odd that none of the Church Fathers mention the Neronic persecution (they do) or Tacitus' mention of it. I may as well address it briefly here before proceeding.

Eusebius cites the Church Father, Tertullian (155-230), Defence 5

"Study your records: there you will find that Nero was the first to persecute this teaching when, after subjugating the entire East, in Rome he especially he treated everyone with savagery. That such a man was author of our chastisement fills us with pride. For anyone who knows him knows him can understand that anything not supremely good would never have been condemned by Nero."

I think that Tertullian is here drawing directly on Tacitus, and his account (cited above) of the Neronic persecution. I may be wrong, but "Study your records" implies that Tertullian was referring to a Roman authority, and Suetonius or Tacitus fit the bill, and Tacitus best.

Phlegon of Tralles, c130-160??? EDIT: or possibly much earlier, writing circa 80CE - see links for detailed discussion.
[i]

Jerome (the Church Father not me) wrote --
Jesus Christ, according to the prophecies which had been foretold about him beforehand, came to his passion in the eighteenth year of Tiberius, at which time also we find these things written verbatim in other commentaries of the gentiles, that an eclipse of the sun happened, Bithynia was shaken by earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings collapsed, all of which agree with what occurred in the passion of the savior. Indeed Phlegon, who is an excellent calculator of olympiads, also writes about these things, writing thus in his thirteenth book:

(Phlegon) - "In the fourth year, however, of olympiad 202,* an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea. These things [are according to] the aforementioned man."

The events referred to are from 32CE, a possible date for the Crucifixion and darkening of the sky. Yet in Jerome's translation Jesus is never mentioned! My suspicion is that he was referring to Jesus, and that Jerome was honest here, as that is his implication. However Phlegon was clearly extremely credulous and loved fortean phenomena - see his
wiki entry, so I hesitate to put much emphasis on him. Still he mentioned Jesus and prophecies fulfilled, and was a secular historian. Good technical discussion complete with excellent links and analysis to be found here.

This brings us to Thallus, writing somewhere between 50 and 150CE

The key passage here by being quoted by Julius Africanus in alost work, but quoted by George Syncellus in a 9th century text! Does not inspire confidence does it, but very normal for recovering historical data

Here is the passage from Africanus --

"A most terrible darkness fell over all the world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake, and many places both in Judaea and the rest of the world were thrown down. In the third book of his Histories Thallus dismisses this darkness as a solar eclipse, unreasonably, as it seems to me. For the Hebrews celebrate the Passover on Luna 14, and what happened to the Saviour occurred one day before the Passover. But an eclipse of the sun takes place when the moon passes under the sun. The only time when this can happen is in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last day of the old moon, when they are in conjunction. How then could one believe an eclipse took place when the moon was almost in opposition to the sun? So be it. Let what had happened beguile the masses, and let this wonderful sign to the world be considered a solar eclipse through an optical [illusion]. Phlegon records that during the reign of Tiberius Caesar there was a complete solar eclipse at full moon from the sixth to the ninth hour; it is clear that this is the one. But what have eclipses to do with an earthquake, rocks breaking apart, resurrection of the dead, and a universal disturbance of this nature"

There are three good sources for study of this - Wikipedia is succinct and good, but also see Textcavation and for all you atheists out there the excellent atheist scholar Richard Carrier.

I don't aim to make any real judgements myself at this point, just chronicle the key texts, so I'll move on...

OK, moving on --

Lucian, c.150CE?

Lucian is well known to us -see Wikipedia on Lucian

The excellent Textcavation cites various surviving passages from his play The Passing of Peregrinus, where the lead character exploits Christians, but which accords well with what we know of early Christian practices from their own sources --

I'll cite the passages here...
It was then that he learned the marvelous wisdom of the Christians, associating with their priests and scribes around Palestine. And how else could it be? In a trice he made them all appear like children, for he was prophet, cult leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself, and he exegeted and clarified some of their books and even composed many himself, and they regarded him as a god and made use of him as a lawgiver and wrote him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he brought this new cult to life.

So the gullible Christians are taken in by this cynical guru! The play sounds rather fun, but there does appear a clear reference to Jesus crucified here as well. Textcavation referenced above tells us more of the story, and shows Lucian was well aware of the generosity and charity of the Early Christians, while scathing as to what he regarded as there gullibility. I'd like to know more about this one if we have any classicists who can tell us anything?

Edict of Caesar

OK, let us quickly look at an unusual source - an inscription! I shall (without permission, but I hope in the context it will be acceptable) cite Richard Carrier's translation as the best I can find --

Edict of Caesar:
It satisfies me that the graves and tombs
[that] whoever, for the cult worship of ancestors,
makes, or [for the cult worship] of children or household members,
that those [graves and tombs] remain unmoved
throughout their existence. And if anyone charges that
anyone has either destroyed them, or in some other
way made off with what was buried in them, or to another
place with knavish malice
took [these things], for the purpose of doing injury to
the buried, or [had] the doorstone or
[other] stones switched, against that
man [who is accused] I order that a trial
occur, just like [a trial] concerning the [cult worship of] gods,
for the cult worship of men.
For it shall be much more necessary
to honor the buried:
[so] let no one at all move them.
Otherwise, that man I
want condemned to death for the charge
of digging through tombs

A condemnation of graverobbing, found at Nazareth (yes that Nazareth) and dating from between 50BCE and 50CE (we don't know which Caesar promulgated it), it is entirely possible it could have been issued as a response to the Christian claims of the Resurrection. I cited Richard Carrier's translation as others may make the translation seem more relevant than it is, and it is entirely possible that it is nothing more than a restatement of an edict against graverobbing already common. I recommend Richard Carrier's essay on the Nazareth inscription from Internet Infidels.

Even if Carrier is wrong, and the edict resulted from the actual claims of the Resurrection of Jesus, and dates from say the period 30 to 50CE, as seems not entirely improbable, it of course in no way stands as actual evidence of the reality of said Resurrection a sis sometimes purported. I think however it deserves to be ranked as possible evidence for a historical Jesus, and find it very interesting. Wikipedia notes it is likely to have originated in Sepphoris and been brought to Nazareth later.

It is certainly interesting...

Mara Bar Serapion 73CE to 200CE

Written in Syriac, and hard to date correctly, this letter is rather interesting. The whole letter can be read here, on Early Christian Writings

The crucial passage however is
What are we to say when the wise are forcibly dragged by the hands of tyrants and their wisdom is deprived of its freedom by slander, and they are plundered for their superior intelligence without the opportunity of making a defence? They are not wholly to be pitied.

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished.

God justly avenged these three wise men. The Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die; he lived on in the teaching which he had given. (from textcavation)

the Robertson-Donaldson translation reads for the final sentence
"For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay, Socrates did not die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the wise king, because of the new laws which he enacted."

Was the Wise King Jesus? The Textcavation article makes what seems to me a good case that the author was familiar with the gospel of Matthew, and used that as a source. The abolition of the Jewish Kingdom almost certainly refers to the events of 66 to 70CE. Interesting, but little new!

SATOR AREPO - pre-79CE

OK, moving on - to one of the most compelling
mysteries of Early Christianity, the Sator Arepo magic square. Known for centuries to have been used by churchman in the Dark Ages, in the 20th century it was proven to to be authentically Roman, and date back as far as the 300s CE.

For those not familiar with it, it is a word square

SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS

Arepo is not a real word, but probably a name, and it makes little sense (so it is not a very good word square!), but it was realized quite quickly that it was some kind of Christian code. In 1924 it was cracked at last, and in context was quite obvious --

Then, in 1924, C. Frank made the startling discovery that the square could be so arranged as to produce the first words of the LordĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s Prayer twice over (except that there was only one N instead of two), plus two AĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s and two OĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s. Shortly afterwards, Grosser33 came to the independent conclusion that this unique combination could be explained by a cruciform arrangement whereby the N was used twice. The remaining four letters, two AĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s and two OĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s, would then be disposed thus:

A
P
A
T
E
R
APATERNOSTERO
0
S
T
E
R
0

[edit: I can't get it to line up on the forum,but it should form a Cross through the central 'N'. - j x]

A theory such as this cannot be proved. Its strength lies in its intrinsic probability, plus the fact that the mathematical odds against such a combination occurring by chance are astronomical. Frank was subsequently supported by Jerphanion, who in an exhaustive investiĂ‚Â*gation of the squareĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s origin and history added a rider.34 He reported that a correspondent had pointed to the position of the TĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s, which are in every case flanked by A and O.



ROT AS

O E A

TENET

A E O

SATOR


The first literary reference to the use of the T as a symbol off the Cross is in an obscure passage in the Epistle of Barnabas

So wrote Fishwick in the 1950s. Then disaster struck the theory: the word square was found not once but twice in Pompeii and Herculanaeum, two cities known to have been destroyed by the explosion of Vesuvius in August 79CE.

The problem? This appeared to be evidence of Christianity in a period when it was considered unlikely to exist in Southern Italy. Furthermore the square requires the Cross to be a symbol of the Christian faith, yet we are more familiar with the Fish in the early church.

Yet in fact modern scholarship now tends to accept there was a Christian presence in Pompeii. The evidence is tenuous - there was clearly a Cross mounted on a wall in one room, from the marks left, and a charcoal inscription was found in the 19th century excavation but accounts disagree and it strikes me as weak evidence at best so I will ignore it for now.

Now as Paul actually makes clear the Cross was to him the centre of the Christian faith, it is not unreasonable to think this symbol of shame was adopted as a Christian symbol very early. The famous donkey headed graffito almost certainly a slur on some early Christian attests to it's antiquity, and the coincidence of the square and the wall mounted cross in these towns suggests that there may well have been a flourishing Christian community here by 79CE. The objection the early Church had no persecution to fear and no need for covert anagrams is rather belied by the passages I have already cited from Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius.

We are still no nearer to the historical Jesus, but we may have evidence of the Cross as a central Christian symbol within 50 years of the Crucifixion here. there are of course other theories - Fishwick himself favoured a Jewish explanation, but his theory failed to convince scholars. Nonetheless his essay on the history of the square is excellent.

Were there Christians as early as 79CE? Yep, it likely they had been in Rome for thirty years by then, and Christianity was well established in Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor and probably Egypt and North Africa. It strikes me as probable they were in Pompeii too - which raises a fascinating possibility - might we learn more of them from the finds in the Villa of the Papyri and future excavations on that site?

See here. Even if not, it is the equivalent in classical studies of the Dead Sea scrolls and a fascinating archaeological treasure trove.

A very quick look at Celsus c. 178 CE

When I was an undergrad, I read Origen's Against Celsus (well Contra Celsum) which cites almost all of Celsus' The True Word, and is how we know his arguments. Celsus may well have been a friend of Lucian (see earlier entry) and was a sophisticated critic of Christianity. I think almost everyone here would enjoy the Wikipedia article on him.

Wikipedia wrote:Celsus opens the way for his own attack by restating the arguments leveled at the Christians by the Jews. They are: Jesus was born in adultery and nurtured on the wisdom of Egypt. His assertion of divine dignity is disproved by his poverty and his miserable end. Christians have no standing in the Old Testament prophecies and their talk of a resurrection that was only revealed to some of their own adherents is foolishness. Celsus indeed says that the Jews are almost as ridiculous as the foes they attack; the latter said the savior from Heaven had come, the former still looked for his coming. However, the Jews have the advantage of being an ancient nation with an ancient faith. The idea of an Incarnation of God is absurd; why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? And why should God choose to come to men as a Jew? The Christian idea of a special providence is nonsense, an insult to the deity. Christians are like a council of frogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dunghill, croaking and squeaking, "For our sakes was the world created."

I have made part of it bold, because I will draw upon it later in my argument: it shows that certain Jewish polemics were known as early as the middle of the second century. Celsus tells us quite a bit about Jesus, and understands a great deal about the development of Christianity -- you can read his and other great early critics of Christianity on Google Books. So why have I not bothered to delineate his material on Jesus?

Apart from certain elements, which I think probably stem from a good knowledge of the Jewish critiques, and rational and moral objections of his own,it seems that Celsus drew heavily from the Synoptic Gospels. Therefore to repeat what he tells us about Jesus may really just be to indirectly cite sources I am explictly avoiding - the Biblical texts. To do so would be at best iintellectual dishonest.

However bear in mind the Jewish polemics - I will return to those shortly. And if you can, do have a look at Celsus' arguments - not the New Atheism, but there is nothing new under the sun, and they are actually rather enjoyable. As you may have gathered I rather like Celsus! Hoffman's 'translation' should be avoided however - critics have stated it is an 'imaginative reconstruction'.

Jewish Critiques

Hi anyone still reading! In my last post I mentioned that Celsus mentions a number of Jewish critiques of Jesus and Christianity. I will begin tonight by discussing them.

Let's start by making one thing clear - the Historical Jesus was of course Jewish, and observed the Law, that is based on the Hebrew scriptures. By the time the gospels were written there was a fracture between the Jews, including the Jewish Christians, and other groups who accepting Paul and Peter's teachings had moved away from observance of the Law. The latter group evolved in to our modern Christianity, and this early rupture was responsible for the anti-Semitic polemic within the New Testament, which has dogged Christianity ever since.

So what did the Jews of the time say about Jesus? Unsurprisingly, we seem to have some material.

There is a fascinating and scholarly Wikipedia article on individuals called Yeshu in the Talmud. There are several, and it may be an abbreviation of Yeshua (Jesus) or an acronymn standing for "May his name and memory be obliterated" - a profound curse. Perhaps it is used differently in different occasions? I lack the scholarship to be able to judge the case, but the article is well worth reading. Unfortunately, overly enthusiastic apologists often present this material as definitely about "their" Jesus, but Jesus (Yeshua in fact) was a very common first century Jewish name.

I'm going to start by citing one passage that I think probably is referring to the Jesus under consideration, from the Babylonian Talmud...

wikipedia wrote:In Sanhedrin 43a, the execution of a certain Yeshu for sorcery, and enticing others to apostasy, is mentioned. Because of his connections with the government a town crier was sent to call for witnesses in his favour for forty days before his execution. No one came forth and in the end he was stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover.

Here we have the bare bones of the Jesus story
* sorcery - a miracle worker accused of dealing with demons as the gospels tell us
* crier demanding witnesses but no one speaks in his defence - the Barrabas story seems similar
*stoned and hanged on eve of Passover - right date, and the stoned is a problem, but hanged is how crucifixion is described?

It also notes this Yeshu had royal connections, which is not as problematic as it sounds - I'll discuss the case later if i may.

Another passage from later

wikipedia wrote:Sanhedrin 43a also mentions that a certain Yeshu (possibly intended to be the one it mentions earlier) had gathered five disciples Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah who were executed.

This again might fit - but only if it is a late confused account, or if our account in Acts in unreliable. I think this source might well reflect the Jesus of Christianity. I could of course be wrong!

I have read the entire passage in translation (you can find it online) and note that in fact the executed Yeshu was not stoned in the account, though that was the original intention, but 'hanged'.

I can see no strong objection to this being a late 1st century reference to the death of Jesus.

The Babylonian Talmud is a complex subject, and the manuscripts we have are later, but it represents the oral traditions collected by the rabbis in the period from the late first to the middle of the second century? Where I am ignorant, I prefer not to speak, but I hope the link will help you assess the possibility this reflects an authentic tradition of a historical Jesus.

Another reference that is often cited is from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedri n 107.b

The Rabbis taught: The left should always be used to push away, and the right, on the other hand to draw nearer. But one should not do it as Elisha who pushed Gehazi away, nor as R. Joshua ben Perachiah, who pushed away Yeshu with both hands. What was the problem with R. Joshua ben Perachiah? When King Jannai ordered the extermination of the Rabbis, R. Joshua ben Perachiah and Yeshu fled to Alexandria. When it was safe to return, Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach sent him a letter:

From me, Jerusalem the holy city, to the Alexandria in Egypt, my sister. My spouse tarries in your midst, and I sit desolate.

Joshua set off at once. During the trip they happened upon an inn in which they treated him with great respect. Joshua commented, "How fair is this inn." Yeshu replied, "But Rabbi, she has unattractive eyes." Joshua replied, "You godless person, do you fill your mind with such things?" Then he had 400 trumpets sounded and anathematized him. Yeshu often came and said to him, "Receive me back." Joshua paid no attention. One day, while Joshua was reciting the Shema, Yeshu came to him, hoping for a reprieve. Joshua made a sign to him with his hand. Yeshu misunderstood, thinking he had been repulsed, so he went away set up a brick and worshipped it. Joshua said to him, "Repent!" Yeshu replied, "I learned this from you: 'Anyone who sins and causes the people to sin, is not allowed the possibility of repentance.'"

taken from Alan Humm's site
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/ ... n107b.html

Interesting! Firstly, it is often asserted this Yeshu is Yeshua, or Jesus. Yet Joshua, the other character in the story can equally be translated as Jesus - Jesus is a version of Joshua, or rather they are both translations of the same Hebrew name, which was very common in the 1st century - maybe John, Jon, Johnny are modern parallels in terms of how common they are? So in fact either of the characters could be "Jesus" by our reckoning. Interestingly, it has also been suggested that Yeshu may be an acronym used for those who should not be named, as they are anathema - see this excellent article - yet this practice is probably much later. The passage is dated to events in the reign of King Jannai, so we can place it in Alexander Jannaeus reign (103BCE to 76BCE). I see no reason to believe it refers to the same Jesus as Christianity.

One manuscript adds

The Teacher said: "Yeshu practiced sorcery and corrupted and misled Israel."

I think it entirely possible this tradition is later, and reflects the entirely reasonable hostility felt by the Jewish community to Christian persecution, or possibly is early from the period of contention in the 90s. I lack the necessary scholarship to judge - however it is possible that it reflects an early tradition I expect. No one seems to have denied Jesus practised miracles and in the Gospel accounts as here the issue was the source of his power, not its existence. It's worth noting that healings, exorcisms and miracles were not he exclusive preserve of Gods in the 1st century, but indeed reasonably common claims of people who were definitely mortal, just as such claims are still common today. The miracles in no way proved Jesus' message or divinity to the audience he was addressing, and were not really evidence bearing on that question.

Still, no one seems to have doubted a Jesus was a healer, exorcist and miracle worker (in roughly that order). John's Gospel loses the healing and exorcisms, as if they somehow lessened Jesus which might seem odd to our modern perspective. Anyway, on the tradition of miracle working holy men, here is wikipedia on Honi the Circle Maker. It's well worth reading this as one example of the kind of holy man the historical Jesus may have been.

I'll end part 1 here as it is a bit long. In Part 2 I will discuss Josephus and others....

j x

Hegesippus was writing about 170CE, and his work is only preserved in Eusebius. He is given to rather fanciful tales, but even so this is rather interesting...

Hegesippus wrote:There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.

Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.

Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.

When they were released they became leaders8 of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trajan.

Domitian was son of Vespasian, conqueror of Judea. He was 15 years old at the time of the Jewish Revolt, and 19 at the time of the destruction of the Temple. He did not go to Judea unlike his brother Titus, and I would find it much easier to believe Titus made inquiries of the relatives of Jesus, who as I recall fled to the gentile city of Pella during the Revolt.

Titus was to become Emperor after Vespasian, and Domitian became Emperor in 81CE, dying in 96. Nerva succeeded then, then Trajan in 98CE ruling to 117CE.

Did Domitian persecute the Christians? Unlike the Neronic persecution, modern critics have expressed considerable doubt about this, though the Church Fathers claim it. I suspect what we may be seeing is a garbled tradition that the Christians were at this time distinguished from the Jews in the repression that followed the destruction of Jerusalem and the Great Revolt - however some persecution does seem likely, partly because of Domitian's known tendencies, partly because of the Book of Revelation composed many believe in his reign, though others have placed it as early as Nero, or Vespasian.

Personally I think the Domitian date of Revelation is likely, and hence the persecution, based on the analysis of J Denny Weaver who has very clearly explained the visions in relation to historical events under the previous Roman Emperors. I could be wrong though!

So did Jesus relatives live on till this time? I guess we ought to look at them next. I'll chat about this tomorrow if I have time...

[articulett]

I think all those are addressed and being investigated further by the Jesus Seminars...

Not all scholars agree that a historical Jesus is likely.

[e-sabbath]

I might as well just point out that Jesus' teachings, including especially the Sermon on the Mount, would be entirely logical to come from a firebrand inspired by Rabbi Hillel, who gave us the Golden Rule and sandwiches.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by articulett

I think all those are addressed and being investigated further by the Jesus Seminars...

Originally Posted by articulett

Not all scholars agree that a historical Jesus is likely.

Don't know much about the Jesus Seminar, but don't think many members were Christ Mythers. The Jesus Seminar took the existence of a HJ as a default, as 150 years of study in Biblical Criticism has made it one of the strongest cases as I said in 1st century history. The next stage the Jesus Project is due to study such things in an agnostic spirit, but has already run in to major issues - not least the fact that very few major experts publishing in the peer reviewed literature seem to have signed up based on the very little information now available. It is also funded and run by CSR, part of the CSI-CSR organisation the third part of which is the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH), and when I checked the works of those involved, I noticed a strong emphasis for people who have published through Prometheus Books. Now Prometheus are an excellent publishing house, again affiliated to CSH/CSR/CSI, but are clearly ideologically driven in this respect.


Where is Dunn? NT Wright? Geza Vermes? Fredriksen? Sanders? Ehrmann? and many more household names in this era? Mind you I'm not saying the JP is not a useful and interesting contribution - but my point is you are possibly confusing it with the Jesus Seminar. The JP website now lists no news, and this is the most recent statement i can find --
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/response_rjh.htm


Anyway, good luck to it. The only people i can think of off the top of my head who have argued passionately for no HJ were


GA Wells - Professor of German at Birbeck, University, author of several books. Last I heard he had accepted a likely HJ as a composite of two figures, but I'm not certain, so is no longer in this category.


Earl Doherty - his book caused controversy but his arguments require a considerable degree of complexity to get round these issues, and are not mainstream scholarship,. May have merit - I'd have to go through them point by point, which weould take a very long time.


Geoff Price - who published Jesus A Very Jewish Myth, and discussed his hypothesis at length we me on the Dawkins forum. He sees the HJ as created in response to mesianic prophecies - and though his book is well worth reading, and i encourage you to do so, it can be countered effectively I believe for the reasons I posted above.


There may be others, but let me say a good place to start would be the presumably not religiously biased SkepticWiki --
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Existence_Of_Jesus#Conclusion


The whole article is well worth reading.


cj x

[Georg]

Are there any non-religious reports that were written at the time the J-man actually was supposed to live? Or only the ones written after his assumed death? If so, why? If he was that important?
If there are reports, are those the original ones? Or only copied, copied, copied......
Where did the copying take place? In monasteries for example? Would that mean that there maybe was a small temptation to alter that reports a bit? Liars for Jesus, part one?
Of course I´m not making claims. Just asking questions.........

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Georg

Are there any non-religious reports that were written at the time the J-man actually was supposed to live? Or only the ones written after his assumed death? If so, why? If he was that important?
If there are reports, are those the original ones? Or only copied, copied, copied......
Where did the copying take place? In monasteries for example? Would that mean that there maybe was a small temptation to alter that reports a bit? Liars for Jesus, part one?
Of course I´m not making claims. Just asking questions.........

There are no reports as far as we know, religious or otherwise contemporary with him. This places him in exactly the same category as almost every figure of 1st century history, regardless of importance. This is the problem - what looks fishy to non-historians seems abundantly obvious to historians - primary contemporary sources are bloody rare. Foe example, the only contemporary source i can think of for Pontius Pilate is a reference in Philo and an inscription found in the 1960's. Try to find contemporary evidence for any of the Jewish High Priests of the period, John the Baptist, Paul, any of the figures mentioned in Josephus, etc, etc.

cj x

[Georg]

Why would no writer living at the same time write down something about such an important person? Or is it more that one can´t find that stuff after such a long time?
Don´t get me wrong. I do not say he did not exist. I just think the evidence is not clear on that issue.

Usual atheist disclaimer: Even if he lived, there is no evidence I´m aware of for him to have been the result of God raping Mary (as far as I´ve heard there is no claim that she said "please god, hump me", or is there?) or of him possessing superpowers.

[Nick227]

Originally Posted by Georg

Why would no writer living at the same time write down something about such an important person? Or is it more that one can´t find that stuff after such a long time?
Don´t get me wrong. I do not say he did not exist. I just think the evidence is not clear on that issue.

Usual atheist disclaimer: Even if he lived, there is no evidence I´m aware of for him to have been the result of God raping Mary (as far as I´ve heard there is no claim that she said "please god, hump me", or is there?) or of him possessing superpowers.

I mean, I doubt we will ever know but it could well be that he became more famous sometime after his death. If true this could also account for the level of pre-Christian mythical embellishments applied to his story.

In addition, I think quite a few of the non-canonical gospels and other early writings claim that Jesus taught a great deal after his resurrection. I think Pistis Sophia says he hung out teaching for 11 years after death.

Nick

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

So where besides in the Bible is there a record of even a specific preacher who resembles the Jesus character? Surely the claim he performed all those miracles and had followers should be noted in some kind of historical record besides the Bible. There were other historical records during that time in that part of the country wasn't there?

There's the paragraph in Josephus that was at the very least tampered with by Christians later. (I think there's a pretty good case to be made that the entire paragraph was inserted just because the sentences before and after seem to go together.)

Otherwise there's a whole lot of nothing. I know absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence but there are definitely writers who you'd expect to have mentioned this guy. In particular, Philo of Alexandria (who wrote on "Logos" and the "Son of Man") made no mention of Jesus. There are others too who'd you'd expect to have made some mention of him.

The idea that he was big enough and important enough to have the Jewish authorities frightened makes me think there should have been mention of him in other texts.

I have no problem at least saying that the case for a historical Jesus is extremely weak. I think it's on par with the case for a historical Paul Bunyan or John Henry or Mike Fink. Even if there was a guy whose name the legends were loosely based on, you can't claim proof that the fictional character as we know it existed.

[JoeTheJuggler]

cj

I've only scanned through your long posts (but promise to give them more time later). At first glance, I'd say one of the strongest arguments you make is the test of embarrassment. There are so many errors and inconsistencies (especially with historical facts, like Herod's reign, the census and so on), that it seems unlikely to have been merely a work of fiction (that is, by a single author).

However, that's not what I think it was. I think it was an oral tradition for at least 50-70 years before these various written versions started popping up. Again, compare it to American tall tales or even contemporary urban legends.

It's not the same thing as a novelist who writes a story and tries to make it consistent.

Again, the oral tradition may have been based on something, but that's not the same thing as saying the Jesus of the Gospels actually existed.

I'm sure there were lumberjacks who were big and strong, and one of them might even have been named Paul Bunyan or something like it, but Paul Bunyan as we know him from the legends certainly did not exist.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I have no problem at least saying that the case for a historical Jesus is extremely weak. I think it's on par with the case for a historical Paul Bunyan or John Henry or Mike Fink. Even if there was a guy whose name the legends were loosely based on, you can't claim proof that the fictional character as we know it existed.

I guess I don't know what is meant by "Historical Jesus" in the first place. Step 1: what do you mean by "Jesus"? Effectively, it seems to come down to, "Take the dude describe in the NT of the bible, and then remove anything that makes him compelling, remarkable, or unique." So when you find that guy that fits the rest, then call him a "historical Jesus." At which point, I say, Congratulations, you have done a great job of convincing everyone there was a common, mundane dude that lived back then. Now, can we talk about something intersting? Like is there any evidence for Jesus as described in the Bible?

The mundane Jesus is as much a "historical" character as is a girl named Dorothy, who lived in Kansas in the late 1800s and had an Aunt Em who Frank Baum based his Dorothy character upon for the Wizard of Oz. Now, if we could show she traveled to the magic land of Oz, then THAT would be something worth discussing.