Cege

It isn't what I'm expecting that I'm asking about. Rather, it is what historians would expect to find in order to establish the validity of a possible historical event.

1) official records*
2) grave w/inscription in stone
3) eyewitness accounts**
4) etc ??

* do these need to be the original documents and not just copies?
** do these need to be the original documents?

Could you give example of a historical event similar to the cruxifiction in the near time period that has forensic/historical evidence to support the actuality of the event to general satisfaction?

I'm not trying to be either difficult or challenging. I'm just trying to understand what would be needed to confirm such a claimed historical event as the cruxifiction of Jesus of the NT.

Toto

There were several crucifixions in the first century which were written about by Philo and Josephus. These are generally accepted as historical, because both were writing about events they saw or knew about from contemporary sources, and neither had a motive to fabricate those particular reports.

If the gospels were history, they would be accepted as the minimal amount needed to establish that someone was crucified in the first century, and many people do accept them for that purpose, even if they think that Jesus did not rise from the dead. But there are too many incongruities in the gospels. The trial scene is not believable, and it is not at all clear that the gospels were written as history.

David B

I'm not an historian, so I'll just say what I think.

Well, if we take the alleged crucifixion as an example, then if there were a record, in a letter or whatever, saying that some sentence of crucifixion was carried out on a seditious Jewish rabble rouser, from Roman sources, then that would count as some sort of evidence. Especially if the original were found, or even if it was well attested.

I know of none such.

In the case of the crucifixion, I don't think a grave would do it - graves in that part of the world at that time are ten a penny.

There are no eyewitness acounts, AFAIK, however there are accounts of alleged eyewitness accounts, which are mutually inconsistent. The fact that they are mutually inconsistent does not, IMV, constitute evidence that they are hence reliable, as I have seen claimed.



Certainly.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pompeii.htm

Lots of forensic evidence.

The link simply says that Pliny's letters were discovered in the 16th C. I don't know the details. However, the accounts are completely consistent with what we now know about the eruptions of that sort of mountain (St Helen's, Pinatubo et al)

{quote]I'm not trying to be either difficult or challenging. I'm just trying to understand what would be needed to confirm such a claimed historical event as the cruxifiction of Jesus of the NT.[/QUOTE]

Well attested eye witness accounts along with archaeological evidence does it for Vesuvius.

Any sort of of contemporary non biblical reference would help a lot, as would evidence of darkness and/or earthquakes at a suitable time, from non biblical sources, and/or astronomy or geophysics.

Zilch, afaik, there.

But really, I don't need a lot of evidence to tend to believe that there was a crucifixion of someone who fits the bill as allegedly seditious cult leader/rabble rouser.

On the simple inductive proposition that there is often a grain of truth behind a lot of myths.

The alleged resurrection, on the other hand, being an extraordinary claim, would require extraordinary evidence.

David B

Cege

Josephus mentions a Jesus in the right time period who was condemned to the cross/crucified by Pilate and who the "tribe of Christians" were named after. That information supplied by Josephus is found the the writing minus later addition and/or interpolation. Why does it not count as a historical mention of Jesus' crucifiction?

Toto

Josephus gives no indication that he or anyone he knew witnessed this crucifixion. If the whole passage is not a complete forgery, it is based on rumors or Christian stories of the crucifixion.

The idea that you can recover what the original passage read after it has been clearly tampered with is untenable. There is no way to know what Josephus originally wrote - if it mentioned Jesus at all, if it mentioned another guy named Jesus, if it reported that he was crucified.

Don't mistake me - I think that there is evidence to say that Jesus was crucified. It is just not compelling evidence. If you could prove that Jesus was crucified, you could prove that he existed. And then half of the threads on BCH could be closed.

Cege

I found this webpage which answers my questions about historical evidence examples of what could/should be available and refering to the Jesus of the NT.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, as I realize I'm way behind speed of IIDB.