Reason

There is scant evidence that the historical person "Jesus of Nazareth" ever existed. The difficulty begins even with the name "Jesus of Nazareth."

No contemporary source other than the xtian NT mentions a city or town named Nazareth. In the OT, The Book of Joshua contains a reputed record of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area where Nazareth supposedly existed, but of the dozen or so places named, Nazareth is not among them.

The Talmud names a score or more towns, but not Nazareth.

Nowhere in any of Paul's writings is Nazareth mentioned.

The earliest mentions of Nazareth appeared around 300 CE, long after the alleged godman walked his last steps on Earth.

It seems therefore quite fitting that a non-existent godman would hail from a non-existent town.

gstafleu

The question "did Jesus of Nazareth exist" is different than the question "did Jesus exist." We've been over the (non?)existence of Nazareth in this Forum before, and iirc the conclusion seems to be that while you cannot conclude that it did exist, you equally cannot include that it did not. That makes it a bit useless in arguments.

Anyway, many on this forum who think that Jesus did exist (not me, BTW) seem to think more in terms of a "minimal Historical Jesus," one who does not have many of the properties we learn from the gospels.

Which properties did he have? Good question. I gather he was born (from a woman, no less), probably he was connected to Israel (he was of the seed of David) and he was crucified (not clear when, where or by whom, but it may have been in Jerusalem).

I don't see anything that necessitates the existence of such an HJ, but others do. But that has nothing to do with Nazareth.

Gerard Stafleu

SlowTrainComing

Erm, did my post not quite make it into here?

Potoooooooo

just repost it!

SlowTrainComing

Major historians from that time agree on the existence of Christ. For example, Tacitus and Lucian, two RABID anti-Christians that despised the Faith and took every chance possible to undermind it. Both wrote historical accounts of Christ's time and openly admitted that He indeed existed. Pliny the Younger wrote about Christianity and the Christ worshipped by Christians. Josephus, a Jewish priest and historian, made numerous mentions of Jesus. The Talmud, NOT a Christian writing, mentions Christ and His crucifixion.

Now, it need be mentioned that I don't condone the message of the negative writings. But they're clear, contemporaneous accounts of Jesus walking the earth.

Toto

This thread threatens to set the debate here back a few years.

Tacitus might have written about Jesus' time, but that part of his writings has not survived. A later volume of his work mentions Christians whose founder was crucified by Pilate.

Lucian wrote a satire that is aimed at Christians. But no history of Jesus' time.

Josephus' work contains two references to Jesus, one of which is almost universally admitted to be at least partially forged.

The Talmud is not a historical work, and cannot be used to show the existence of a Jesus from the first century.

NONE of these can be considered a contemporaneous record of Jesus walking the earth.

SlowTrainComing

I see what you're saying here, but it's inaccurate. Josephus' work, some have claimed, has been altered to show a more favorable view of Christ. It is believed by some - not "almost universally admitted," but believed by some - that some of his statements referring to Christ's divinity were added to his writings. But all translations maintain his historical recordings of Jesus.

Equinox

A few short points:

1. Even if one of Josephus' lines is considered authentic, remember that Josephus was born around 4 years old AFTER when Jesus was supposed to have been executed. I wouldn't call Josephus' work contemporaneous (it was written in 93 CE).

2. There is OT scripture saying that the messiah would be a "Nazarene". A naive early Christian, ignorant of Jewish customs, may have been unaware that being a "Nazarene" was being a member of a Jewish religious order, and not a reference to one's hometown. Thus, the writer may have made up the town of "Nazareth" to make another prophecy fit the stories about Jesus. By the 4th century, there were lots of Christians, so founding a town by this name would be as natural as the fact that there are many towns in the US named, say, "london" or "paris".

The closest in time is probably Mark at around 35 years after Jesus, discounting Paul's scant mention of Jesus' life (which are around 20 years after Jesus was supposed to have been executed, and so not contemporaneous).

Equinox

Reason

STC: In the other htread, you stated:

Please trot out the myriad evidence.

Meatros

I'm no where near a bible scholar and I find it practically impossible for a Jew to write the above passage and remain a Jew.

How on earth can anyone look at that passage and not suspect at least some interpolation?