I am in general agreement with Bede's list, but I would add a few more events and would discuss Jesus' teaching. I only have time to address the events:

1. Jesus's family was dissatisfied with his ministry, including his mother Mary and brother James.

2. Jesus was buried after his death on the cross by Joseph of Arimathea.

3. His tomb was found empty by his followers.

4. Jesus' disciples, and his brother James, believed that Jesus had been resurrected and appeared to them.

To briefly describe what I believed Jesus' teachings to be: he taught the coming Kingdom of God and saw himself as somehow involved in the ushering in of that Kingdom.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 27, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 27, 2001).]

I would agree with pretty much everything that Bede said in his list:

- Jesus was a Jew from Nazereth;
- He was baptised by John the Baptist;
- He had disciples;
- He was a teacher who used parables;
- He was believed to be a miracle worker;
- He challenged the priestly establishment at the Temple;
- He was crucifed under Pontius Pilate outside Jerusalem at Passover in 30AD/33AD;
- After his death, his disciples believed he was, in some sense, still with them.

Except for two things: the 2nd, about John the Baptist, and the bit about Pilate and the date of 30AD/33AD.

There is no reference in Paul's writings to John the Baptist, nor in the Q gospel. Admittedly Q is a hypothetical document, but I think admitting the existence of Q helps the Christian apologian. Without an early 'sayings' text, the gospels are 3rd-hand hearsay written over 50 years later, and therefore cannot be relied on for 'well-established historical facts'.

With Q however, Christians can claim that there were writings extant around the time of Paul that recorded what Jesus is supposed to have said and did. But the earliest proposed writings of Q, (Q1) contains nothing about John the Baptist, nor Pilate.

Now, for Layman's contribution: None of what Layman has added seems to be in the Q gospels, or Paul, so we're left with the 3rd-hand writings of 50 years later. I would strike all of his list except for the last item from the consensus list.

Cheers,

-Kelly

I don't have time to address all the errors and unfounded assumptions in your post. But there are some screamers that demand attention.

Paul DOES record Jesus' burial, although he doesn't mention Joseph of Aramithea.

Paul DOES record that Jesus' disciples and James, his brother, believed that Jesus appeared to them after his resurrection.

And Q & Paul support my assertion that Jesus taught the coming Kingdom of God, as ushered in somehow by himself.

And on what basis do you conclude that Q is an older source than L? Its something I've seen assumed a lot, but have rarely seen discussed. Seriously, I'd be interested in a discussion of this.

Enough for now.

[Edited to add: Cross-posted with the preceeding post.]

I'm breaking the rules, Layman, and I apologize (really!) for doing so. I have to say though that your amendments took my breath away somewhat, so I'm going to ask a follow-up question. Address it when you have the time - I promise not to "claim victory" if there is a delay.

The general question is What is the primary source material that I should use to conduct my own investigation about the historiocity of those claims?

I'll take you through my initial reactions to your four points briefly so you can offer me better steering. As I said earlier, I've got no scholarly background in this area so please be patient if my questions seem obvious to you.

1. I don't have any problem with this, nor do I have any intuitive feel for whether it is true or not. It is certainly reasonable to conclude that if he was putting his life in danger his family would have concerns. Are there extrabiblical sources that confirm their dissatisfaction (or even discuss them in any detail)?

2. Same question about extrabiblical sources. I don't have any reason to doubt this, but I'm not aware of what the sources for this are.

3. This one is harder to accept (and I'm sure that doesn't surprise you) because the biblical accounts of the empty tomb story are so confused on the details (at least as I read them). Is the presence of the "empty tomb" or even any tomb at all recorded anywhere other than the bible.

4. Obviously, you are making a stronger claim here (belief in the resurrection) than Bede made earlier (belief in some kind of presence among the living). What sources would a historian be able to use to verify this belief amongst those who had known him personally? What do we have to base such a strong claim about their belief?

I also want to comment on your last point about his teachings, but I'll need to add an explanatory note first. The primary reason that I believe that such a person existed is because of presence in primary and secondary source material of attributions to him. That's the primary basis for my intuitive belief in a 2000 year old jewish teacher from Nazareth. As I said, I'm no scholar, but somebody had to say those things, right? Anyway, I'm somewhat familiar with the theory that Luke and Matthew are based upon Mark with sayings from a hypothetical document referred to a "Q". "Q" and "Thomas" record sayings attributed to him. After all that, are the specific teachings that you mentioned about the Kingdom of God mentioned in those places, or are they found in the gospels alone?

I'll do a little looking on my own on that point, but if someone already knows the answer and could provide a little steering that would be helpful.

Thanks for taking the time, and I hope you will have a chance to respond in the near future. I understand if your schedule will not allow.

Bookman

P.S. Just in case: The primary reason that I'm inquiring about extrabiblical sources is not that I consider it worthless or anything, its just that I'm already somewhat familiar with it. I've read the gospel accounts myself, so I'm familiar with them. I'm curious to know what other sources I should be learning to better understand what we can say is historically probable.

[This message has been edited by Bookman (edited April 27, 2001).]

So much for a "quick post," eh?

I'm busy with some work now. You may have to wait a while.

As I said, that's fine. Your reply caught me off-guard - I didn't expect those claims. I'll reiterate my promise not to "claim victory" or anything else.

Perhaps Polycarp or someone else will be able to drop by and address some of the points.

Thanks for your initial reply, and I am sorry for breaking the rules.

Bookman

LOL!! This is too easy...

Layman said:

Paul DOES record Jesus' burial, although he doesn't mention Joseph of Aramithea.


So which were you asserting that Jesus was buried, or that he was buried by JofA? I, like probably everybody else who read your list, assumed the latter. And, as you said, Paul did not record that. I stand by my position.

And:

Paul DOES record that Jesus' disciples and James, his brother, believed that Jesus appeared to them after his resurrection.


Layman, did you read what I wrote? I granted you the last item on your list. That was #4, right? Sheesh...


And on what basis do you conclude that Q is an older source than L? Its something I've seen assumed a lot, but have rarely seen discussed. Seriously, I'd be interested in a discussion of this.


L? You mean Luke? Or a pre-Luke 'sayings' text?

I'm simply assuming, as do the biblical historians whose books I've read (admittedly only a few) or seen summarized (quite a few more), that the 4 gospels were all written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. I AM granting you the existence of an earlier text, possibly texts, the Q texts, which may have been written by eyewitnesses.

You're complaining about this? From what I've read on this board, I'm admitting quite a lot more leeway in historical documentation than most skeptics. You want me to accept the King James Bible NT as firsthand testimony written during the week after the first Easter? Suuuuuuure.

Regards,

-Kelly

So you don't deny that Jesus' burial is an etablished historical fact?

Any comments on the teachings of Jesus?

Ya know. How pathetic it is that you have to invent a strawman like King James Inerrancy and charactarize that as my position. Where have I ever advocated inerrancy in the New Testament's original documents, much less the King James version?

"L" is the common reference to Luke's special material. It is widely believed to be a an earlier, written source upon which Luke relied.

Why do you date it later than Q?

Originally posted by Layman:
So you don't deny that Jesus' burial is an etablished historical fact?

Sure, I'll admit he was buried. I think it is likely that the burial was in a common grave with other crucified criminals, but that isn't what the purpose of this thread is. Yes, most likely he was buried, instead of being left on the cross for the birds.


Any comments on the teachings of Jesus?

No, not right now.


Ya know. How pathetic it is that you have to invent a strawman like King James Inerrancy and charactarize that as my position. Where have I ever advocated inerrancy in the New Testament's original documents, much less the King James version?

I'm sorry, Layman, this was intended to be humor. Maybe I should have put a smiley face in there. I thought the 'week after Easter' quip might have tipped you off. I make no such claims about your beliefs about NT inerrancy, none whatsoever.


"L" is the common reference to Luke's special material. It is widely believed to be a an earlier, written source upon which Luke relied.

Why do you date it later than Q?


I have seen the reference to 'L' before, but I need to read up on it a bit more. Can you provide me some of the 'widely believed' references? Thanks.

Regards,

-Kelly

Bookman,

I have some time to reference the Kingdom of God sayings I referred to. I will begin by saying that I agree with the majority of New Testament scholars that Q is a common source for both Matthew and Luke and that the Gospel of Thomas is a second century document rougly based on the Synoptics, and perhaps John.

This is not an exhaustive list:

Sayings regarding alertness for the end-times;

Luke 12:39-40, 42-46/Matth. 24:43-44, 45-51

Luke 12:51-53/Matth. 10:34-36

Luke 12:54-56/Matth. 16:2-3

Luke 12:58-59/Matth. 5:25-26

Sayings Regarding the Coming of the Son of Man (Jesus) at the End

Luke 17:23-24/Matth. 24:26-28

Luke 17:26-27/Matth. 24:37-39

Luke 17:33/Matth. 10:39

Luke 17:34-35/Matth. 24:40-41

Luke 19:12-27/Matth. 25:14-30

Luke 22:28, 30/Matth. 19:28