Tammuz

There is a widespread opinion on this forum that Jesus wasn't a historical person. I find the arguments in favor of that quite convincing, or at least worth to investigate.

However, the majority of the historians seem to consider Jesus to be a historical person. As they obviously aren't convinced of Jesus' ahistoricity, I wonder what convinces them that he was historical.

Also, is it true, as some people claim, that Jesus' historicity is either equally or more certain compared to the historicity of Socrates and Plato?

Minimalist

Christians say lots of stuff that turns out to be false. Why believe that?

makerowner

I think rather than being positively convinced of historicity, they might just accept it as the 'default'. Most historians in Europe have accepted HJ, because that position only began to be questioned fairly recently (~100 years ago?).

I don't think so. Socrates, for example, is mentioned in a play by Aristophanes: a hostile contemporary account. He is described in detail independently by his students Plato and Xenophon.

Solitary Man

That's because many historians who've examined it think it's legit.

Aristophanes' account is parallel to Josephus' account. What if the Platonists interpolated Aristophanes' text?

aa5874

You mean "Christian scholars" and not "historians".

I know of no history book any where in the known world written by any credible historian about Jesus of Nazareth living during the days of Pilate. There is just no evidence for such a God.

Can you give me the name of an historian or the name of an history book about the God/Man Jesus?

You must not forget that the Jesus in the NT was a God, theologians and christians believe that he is/was real.

aa5874

Over 1800 years ago, according to Irenaeus in "Against Heresies", Christian HERETICS like Cerinthus and Carpocrates claimed that Jesus was just a man, not a god, and Irenaeus declared that they were LIARS, and FALSE INTERPRETERS.

What is legit about the following:

• The conception of Jesus through the Spirit.
• The baptism of Jesus.
• The temptation of Jesus.
• The miracles of Jesus.
• The sayings of Jesus.
• The transfiguration of Jesus.
• The trial of Jesus.
• The crucifixion of Jesus.
• The resurrection of Jesus.
• The ascension of Jesus.

What is the name of the history book written by a credible historian that claims Jesus of the NT is legit? I cannot find such a history book.

lpetrich

What they often consider historical is that there was some obscure wandering preacher who got in trouble with the authorities and who got crucified on orders of Pontius Pilate -- something like the Gospels with the miracles stripped out and some selection made out of conflicting possibilities.

Isaac Asimov, in Asimov's Guide to the Bible, is a popularization drawn from the conventional wisdom of the time that it was written. IA briefly dismissed Jesus mythicism, then went on to treat the Synoptics as describing the historical JC. He also argued that the Gospel of John was not literal history but something like one of Plato's Dialogues.

Solitary Man, I've read Aristophanes's play The Clouds, and that is absolute hooey. Why don't you read it for yourself?

Smullyan-esque

Non-historian here.

Were both Josephus and Aristophanes alive at the time of the subjects they wrote about? Were they, or did they claim to be, personally aquainted with their subjects? Does every text of Aristophanes come to us from Platonist sources, and does every text of Josephus come to us from Christian sources?

So far as I am aware (and I could easily be wrong!) Josephus did NOT personally witness the life of Jesus, but Aristophanes DID personally know Socrates. And I seem to recall that all modern sources of Josephus come to us from Christian documents. I don't think it is the case that Aristophanes comes to us entirely by way of Platonist sources.

If I am right, it seems that the parallel is VERY weak. Aristophanes was an eye-witness, while Josephus is simply hearsay. There is good reason to suspect the Testonium Flavium to be interpolated, while there is little reason to suspect the same of Aristophanes' play.

makerowner

Yes, thank you. I was going to look up the info, cause I didn't think it was parallel either. Then my laziness kicked in...
The content also belies the parallel. Josephus' possible mentions of Jesus are positive or at least neutral, while Aristophanes' mention of Socrates is quite hostile. (The parallel with Tacitus would probably have been better.) Also, the reference to Socrates in The Clouds is itself referenced, though only obliquely, in Plato's Apology, so a theory of interpolation would require that both books be interpolated at around the same time and neither one survives without the interpolation.

Tammuz

According to Wikipedia, most scholars believe that Jesus was historical. Some suggest that the historical Jesus and the theological Jesus should be studied separately, wheras some say that separation isn't necessary.