Metacrock

I'm just talking about his exsitence as an historical figure. We don't have much knowledge about him outside of the canoncials. But the evidence that he existed as a figure in hsitory is good enough that anyone can rest with confidence in that assumption:

1) Their burden of proof!

Jesus' existence has presumption, 2000 years worth in history and every historian who lived since that time., No one ever broght a credible challenge to it, and historians almost universally accepte at least his existence. they are, therefore, making an extoardinary claim. and as we all know, those reqauire what? extraordinary proof! so where is it? They have none. They have not overturned presmumption!

2) History is probability


We don't have to prove it absolutely, all we have to do is provide a good probablity that he did live, and that has already been done.


I. Historical Writters (Non Christian) mention Jesus


A.Josephus (1st cent)
B.Tacitus
C.Thallus (?)
D. Phelgon
E. Lucian
F-Suetonius,
G.Galen,
H.Celsus, (1st)
I.Talmud (Jewish)(1st)*
J.Numenius (Second cent.)
K.Galerius (Second Cent.)

II Christian

A.Paul (1st)
B.Philip's Daughters
C.Clement (1st)*
D.Papias*
E.Iranaeus
F.Polycarp
G.Heggesipus

* Clment proves historicity of Peter. Eugene R. Fairweather argues that Clement offers good evidence. Historicity of Peter greatly increases probablity that Jesus lived. Same with Daughters of Philip, because they help secure the historicity of principle charcter's in the drama of Jesus' life.

*cliamed to know directly several eye witnesses to Jesus' life; including non Apostles Aristion and Elder John. We do have a fragment of this independent of Eusebius.

* I know the actual work is from about 300, but Edersheim shows that it is drawn from ealrier soruces, going back to the first century. For one thing, the material is the same as that presented by Celsus.


III. Lost Gospels

19 lost Gosopels all dating between AD 60 and 150. Many of them older than cononicals. All of them portray Jesus as existing in history and leading public ministry.

that in itself beats Doherty because he denys a belief in flesh and blood Jesus until 2nd century.

A. GPete

Early, proven by Brown, Koester, others. Passion narrative dates back to AD 50

B. Thomas

also pre dates Mark, and is thought to contain authentic sayings. Also contians many synoptic sayings, which pushes synoptic readings before Markan redaction; Thomas dipicts not only a Jesus who lives in the world, but one who is flesh and blood!:

C. Egerton 2


PreMarkan readings push testimony of historical Jesus back to AD 50

D. Diatesseron

E. Of course the canonicals are also defensable and provide a good evidence.


more pre makran readings. (documented on thread about evidence for jesus)


2 common sense arguments


IV No other versions

1) Mythology tends to proliforate:multiple story versions are common

2) When historical facts are known to a wide audience, people tend not to deny the basic facts of an event.

a) eye witnesses keep it stairght

b) People who try to invent new aspects of the event are confronted with the fact that most everyone knows better.

c) people know the story for a fact and just dont' bother to change it.

3) Story proliforations would probably influence further tellings, thus creating many more documents with different versions of the same story.

4) If a myth proliforates we would tend to find more versions of the same story, when there is only one version we can accept a degree of certainty that the story did not proliforate.

5) We do not find a proliforation of versions of the Jesus story in any sources we know of.

6) The most logical way to account for this single Jesus story is through p2, that everyone knew it was the case, there were too many eye witnesses to spread new versions.

a) It is illogical to assume that everyone just liked it so they didn't add to it.

b) There was no canonization process in place in the early period, and the single unified verison existed from the earliest trace of the story.

7)Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.



The main thing that myths do is change. Given enough time, a myth will transmography until the names of the heroes are different, how they died is forgotten and retold so many times, there came to be multiple versions of their death. Myths change over time, but history does not. People remember a basic event they know its real, they don't forget it. Herclues has two deaths, in one he's poisaned, in another shot with an arrow. There are about 14 versions of the Tamuz myth. But there is only one way for the guys at the Alamo to die, there is only one death for Arthur, and there is only one way that Jesus Christ is ver portrayed as dying, that's by the cross. Why? Because that's how he really died. No one could deny it, so no one ever propossed another method.



V.The Absurdity of a fictitious Jesus!



A. The Historical world

1) Early documentation

History is documents. Historians do not usually assume that documents are fake just because they are polemical, or that all the information in them is fictitious. It is absurd to think that Jesus was fiction or legend. It is absurd to think that the Gospel could have spread within the life time of eye witnesses. The accounts were being written by AD 50. Just because the canonical Gospels weren't yet written doesn't mean that the stories in them weren't written.

2) Living participants

The stories were certainly circulating during the time of eye witnesses. Wouldn't it have occurred to some one in Jerusalem, "say why is it that I don't' remember anything about a Pilate, or a Jesus of Nazareth, or even a town called Nazareth. Peter, Paul, James, Philip, all were real people, the stories with them in them circulated during their life times, would it not dawn on them "I don't' remember any of this?" would they not try to put a stop to it?


3) Living Memory of the Masses

Where were the multitudes, where were the throng of recipients of Jesus healing power? Where were those who greeted him when he rode into Jerusalem and the crowd put palm leaves in his path and shouted "Hosanna!"? If these things never happened how could 12 fishermen from the stix possibly convince the multitude of Jerusalem, a might urban center, that they had not only seen but participated in what all of them would have known never happened? And if one thinks well it wasn't written until 70 years latter, no it was written 50 years latter, but it was told orally from day one AD 33 Christ's resurrection. So how could they possibly convince a city that it saw what everyone in the city would know never took place? At the first writing just 20 years latter (AD 50) (see Jesus Puzzle pages) there would still be sufficient eye witnesses left to refute the claims. Such claims at that point would be laughed out of town. But even 70 years latter (actually 40 for Mark) there would still be some eye witnesses left, quite a few in fact since Polycarp lived to 86, one could live at least half that long and a little over. But wouldn't the next generation find it storage that their parents and grandparents never said anything about any such events? Moreover, there would be no basis for proof of such things, no record of witnesses, no empty tomb, no sacred sites.

4) Sacred Sites

Where did all the sacred sites come form? How could they just pick a site and tell people it was the site upon which this event that one remembers happened and expect them all to believe it? Why would they mark it? Why would they tend such sites? All the sacred sites of Christianity marked by tradition can be traced back to the first century, or at least the early second century. This is because people have living memoirie and as the first generation passed away people marked the sites to point out for future posterity, and for sacred veneration. But who would mark a site for an event no one could remember? Who would start going there to worship if there was no tradition anywhere that this was the site?

B. The Hoax

The only way the Christ-Myth notion could work is if it were a hoax. So Peter and 11 friends fabricate this account and start telling it to everyone around them. Wouldn't down on someone that "I never saw you with any Jesus of Nazareth! and say, where' s Nazareth?" Just how would that work? With all the principles still alive and living around the communities in which the stories were spreading. NO one ever saw a Jesus of Nazareth, or his crucifixion, or heard of an empty tomb. But suddenly here are these people proclaiming all the things that everyone would know nerve happened! The whole idea is ludicrous.

1) Motive?

Why would they start such a hoax in the first place? What would their motive be? Some thing that it was already a mystery cult form pagan sources. If this is the case than why would the principles create a hoax around it? What would they expect to gain from it? There would be no money in it because they had to work against the odds, face persecution,give up their family and friends, just to establish it. And they did get nothing out of it.

2) Why die for a lie?

We know from Clement's letter that at least Peter died for his faith. In fact Church tradition records that all the Apostles except John died for their faith. Why would anyone die for a hoax that he/she knew to be a lie? Who dies for a lie that he/she helps to create?

C. Why the Resurrection?

Even more ludicrous is the notion that this fictitious Messiah rose form the dead? The Messiah, according to Jewish belief was supposed to raise all the dead of Israel when he returned to establish his Kingdom. But the Jews did not look for a Messiah who would himself raise from the dead. Why would hoaxers risk such an outlandish story, if they could even think of it in the first place, when it was sure to be rejected?



No, it doesn't prove it absolutely, it offers good probablity historically that Jesus existed. The thing is, none of these sources aboslutely proves it, but what it does prove is that there was a widespread and growing tradition encumpassing a whole theology, a corpus of ethical teachings, and a mythos of miracle stories and so foth, about the flesh and blood man Jesus by only 20 years after the alledge events. That Blows Doherty out of the water. It overs a good basis, given presumption, or assuming Jesus lived.

Now where is their extraordinary evidence? they have the burden of proof, trying to over turn 2000 yeras of historical assumption and flying in the face of consensus in every major academic field that is revlivant.

and with all of that all they can say is "why didn't so and so talk about the empty tomb?" Well I explained why (thread; truth about empty tomb), so that's not even an option anymore. they have nothing! They have no evidence, they have nothing.

Jesus existed, it's a dead cert!

Metacrock

Just some quotes by major scholars backing up the idea that we have the presumption:

Histirans do not dismiss the historicity of a figure just because supernatural claims are invovled. They dismiss the cliams of the supernatual as a matter of ideological bias (ideological in the non-pajorative sense). But, they do not dismiss out of hand the existence of any particular individual just because he is bound up with superntural claims. Most ancient world figures in early history were bound up with such claims. Gilgamesh is the star of an ancient flood narrative which history takes to be mythical, but historians see Gilgamesh himself as an historical figure, probably king of ancient Sumer. Now in all fairness, most histoirans do not place much stock in Pliny the younger's account as proof of Jesus' historicity, most of them do not accept Thallas account at all, or Sarapion, but they accept without question that Jesus existed based upon the Gospels, and the accounts of Josephus and Tacitus.
_
_
_
_
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus, San Francisco: Harper, 1996,p.121
_
_
"...Non narrative New Testament writtings datable with some degree of probability before the year 70 testify to traditions circulating within the Chrsitian movement concerning Jesus that corrospond to important points within the Gospel narratives. Such traditions do not, by themselves, demonstrate historicity. But they demonstrate that memoires about Jesus were in fairly wide circulation. This makes it less likely that the corrosponding points within the Gospels were the invention of a single author. If that were the case than such invention would have to be early enough and authoritative enough to have been distributed and unchallenged across the diverse communities with which Paul delt. Such an hypothosis of course would work agaisnt the premise that Paul's form of christiantiy had little to do with those shaping the memory of Jesus."
_
_
"As I have tried to show, the character of the Gospel narratives does not allow a fully satisfying reconstruction of Jesus ministry. Nevertheless certain fundamental points when taken together with confirming lines of convergence from outside testimony and non-narrative New Testament evidence, can be regarded as historical with a high degree of probability.Even the most cirtical historian can confiently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was exicuted by crucifiction under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death. These assertions are not mathematically or metaphysically certain, for certainty is not within the reach of history. But they enjoy a very high level of proability."
_
_
The level of probablity is slightly less secure wtih the resurrection, but that is one of those points of convergence which meet steming form these three different points of origin (Gospels, epistles, and secular sources). It must be remebered that the epistles were written before the Gospels, except perhaps for Mark. So they do count as independent sources.
_
_

_
_
C. How Historians Look at the Historicity of Jesus

_
_
From J.P. Holding
"Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus thanthere is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one woulddare to argue their non-existence. Meier notes that what we know aboutAlexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no onedoubts that Alexander existed. [Meier, John P. - A Marginal Jew: Rethinkingthe Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1991, p. 23]Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about himthan about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Charlesworth, JamesH. - Jesus Within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988., 168-9]The well-respected Jewish New Testament scholar, E.P. Sanders, echoes Grant,saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John theBaptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whosenames we have from approximately the same date and place."[ Sanders, E.P. -The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Press, 1993., xiv.]</BLOCKQUOTE>


On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraintsof History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982., 11]

The main proponent of the view that Jesus never existed has been the GermanProfessor G.A. Wells (NOT an NT scholar). Referring to Wells' thesis, Dunnwrites:


"The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such acoherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figuresuch as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. Itinvolves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to themuch simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more orless what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact ofChristianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition issuch that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing theexistence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity'sbeginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably comeout very like Jesus!"[ Dunn, James G. D. The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville:Westminster, 1985., 29]
_
_
Morton Smith, a hardened skeptic of Orthodox Christianity and an EmeritusProfessor of History, wrote of Wells' work:"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."
_
_
"...he argues mainly from silence."
_
_
"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this
space."
_
_
"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I findincredible beyond anything in theGospels."[Hoffmann, R. J. and Larue, Gerald, eds. Jesus in History and Myth.Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986, 47-48.]
_
_
_
_
Encyclopedia. Britannica says, in its discussion of the multipleextra-biblical witnesses (Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, etc.):"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponentsof Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputedfor the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the endof the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."(Article on "Jesus", 1990)
_
_
_
_
_
_
As F.F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at theUniversity of Manchester, has stated:
_
_
"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not doso on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is asaxiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. Itis not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."[Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? ..5th revised edition, Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972.]Otto Betz concludes: "NO SERIOUS scholar has ventured to postulate thenon-historicity of Jesus (emphasis mine)."[Otto Betz, What do We Know aboutJesus?, SCM Press, 1968, page 9]
_
_
J.P. Meier, in his authoritative work on Jesus, points out that what is MOSTsurprising is that we have ANY reference to Jesus at all:
_
_
"When we look for statements about Jesus from non canonical writings of the1st or 2nd century A.D., we are at first disappointed by the lack ofreferences. We have to remember that Jews and pagans of this period, if theywere at all aware of a new religious phenomenon on the horizon, would bemore aware of the nascent group called Christianity than of its putativefounder Jesus. Some of these writers, at least, had direct or indirectcontact with Christians; none of them had had contact with the ChristChristians worshiped. This simply reminds us that Jesus was a marginal Jewleading a marginal movement in a marginal province of a vast Roman Empire.The wonder is that any learned Jew or pagan would have known or referred tohim at all in the 1st or early 2nd century." ."[John P. Meier, A MarginalJew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1994)]


_
_
The Historicity of Jesus
_
_
In his recent work on extra-biblical references to Jesus, Robert E. Van Voorst comments on the thesis that Christ was not a historical figure:
_
_
"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." [Robert E. Van Voorst, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), p. 16.]
_
_
The authors of two of the most influential histories of New Testament interpretation sum up the scholarly opinion of the Christ-myth thesis in their day. Werner G. Kummel writes in a footnote that "the denial of the existence of Jesus.[is] arbitrary and ill-founded."["The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems" (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) p. 447, n. 367.]
_
_
And according to Gunter Bornkamm, "to doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all.was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here."["Jesus of Nazareth" (New York: Harper & Row, 1959) p. 28.]
_
_
Likewise, Van Voorst, referring to the mythicists, states that "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely." [Robert E. Van Voorst, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), p. 6.]
_
_
The skeptical Rudolf Bultmann, who doubted the authenticity of much of the Gospel traditions, concluded:
_
_
"Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community."[Jesus and the Word (2nd ed.; New York: Scribners, 1958).p.13]
_
_
_
_
Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Charlesworth, James H. - Jesus Within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988., 168-9]
_
_
The well-respected JEWISH New Testament scholar, E.P. Sanders, echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place."[ Sanders, E.P. - The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Press, 1993., xiv.]
_
_
_
_
On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982., 11]
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Van Voorst Wrote of Wells:
_
_
"Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question." [Robert E. Van Voorst, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), p. 14.]
_
_
To his credit, G.A. Wells has now abandoned the Christ-Myth hypothesis and has accepted the historicity of Jesus on the basis of the "Q" document. [See G.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1999).]
_
_
Encyclopedia. Britannica says, in its discussion of the multiple extra-biblical witnesses (Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, etc.):
_
_
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." (Article on "Jesus", 1990)
_
_
As F.F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, has stated:
_
_
"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."[Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th revised edition, Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972.]
_
_
Otto Betz concludes: "NO SERIOUS scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus (emphasis mine)."[Otto Betz, What do We Know about Jesus?, SCM Press, 1968, page 9]
Of the historicity of Jesus, Glenn Miller writes the following:
_
_
"Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time).
_
_
"Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below). If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).
_
_
"Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.
_
_
"In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus)."
_
_
In his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders explains that Jesus would not have been well-known by historians in his day: "Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman Empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world" (1993, p. 49, parenthetical comment in orig.).
_
_
J.P. Meier, in his authoritative work on Jesus, points out that what is MOST surprising is that we have ANY reference to Jesus at all:
_
_
"When we look for statements about Jesus from non canonical writings of the 1st or 2nd century A.D., we are at first disappointed by the lack of references. We have to remember that Jews and pagans of this period, if they were at all aware of a new religious phenomenon on the horizon, would be more aware of the nascent group called Christianity than of its putative founder Jesus. Some of these writers, at least, had direct or indirect contact with Christians; none of them had had contact with the Christ Christians worshiped. This simply reminds us that Jesus was a marginal Jew leading a marginal movement in a marginal province of a vast Roman Empire. The wonder is that any learned Jew or pagan would have known or referred to him at all in the 1st or early 2nd century." ."[John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1994)]
_
_
Yamauchi summarized quite well the findings of the secular sources regarding Christ:
_
_
"Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64 A.D.; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside-men and women, slave and free-worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century." (1995, p. 222)
_






Allen D. Callahan
Ass. prof NT Harvard
From Jesus to Christ Website
visited 6/7/01

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...y/gospels.html


Well, there are what we might identify as contradictions in the account. Some of this has to do with our methodology. If we want to read the gospels as eye witness accounts, historical records and so on, then not only are we in for some tough going, I think there's evidence within the material itself that it's not intended to be read that way. I mean that there are certain concerns that are being addressed in this literature. And we become theologically and even historically tone deaf to those concerns, if we don't give them due consideration. It's now consensus in the New Testament scholarship to some extent [that]... in the gospels we're dealing with theologians, people who are reflecting theologically on Jesus already. And there's all indication that what we now refer to as theological reflection was there at the very beginning of things...

.Are you saying that the gospels are of little value as eye witness accounts of his life?

Well, they don't claim to be eye witness accounts of his life. I don't think that the people who are responsible for those documents were staying up at night worried about those kinds of things. They're making certain arguments and they have concerns..., and they are articulating those arguments and they're forwarding those concerns based on what they know and what other people know about what Jesus said and did. I think the historic story provides certain controls on our project of reconstruction. We just can't make Jesus anything that we want him to because we have certain historical constraints. Now, I also think that we're not the first people who have had these problems. I think these problems are very old. I think you start with the gospel writers, themselves.In other words, even though we're concerned about the gospel literature as being shot through with allkinds of tendencies and all kinds of biases and exaggerations and however we want to characterize these things, those guys who were responsible for that literature couldn't sit down and write anything that they wanted to about Jesus.... Among other things, they were writing for an audience, or audiences, who already knew something about Jesus; there was a market out there for their literature, and in order to engage that market, they really had to write about somebody that people knew about. They wanted to tell more about a figure about whom people already knew. And so they couldn't say any old thing. And furthermore -- and other scholars wiser and smarter than I kind of smoked these places out -- [there are points in] the text that indicate that the gospel writers themselves were dealing with certain traditions about which they may be ambivalent, but nevertheless had to do something with them. [In] a classic example, Luke tells us about the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Now, if we read elsewhere in the Gospel of Luke [in]... the Acts of the Apostles, we see that Luke knows about the sect of John the Baptist. He knows that they preceded the Jesus movement and he also knows that there are some people in the Baptist Sect who insist on following the teachings of John the Baptist, even after Jesus has come on the scene, even after John is dead. And Luke doesn't like this....They were supposed to kind of get with the new franchise but they didn't.... He's concerned to show that even [though] John is a great guy, he's not greater than Jesus. But he knows that John baptized Jesus and that John was preaching of baptism of the repentance [of] sins. So, what does he do? ...In the third chapter of his gospel, he presents Jesus as coming to John the Baptist and then he says, "later John was put into prison." ... So, we get a notice that John was put in prison, and immediately following that notice, Jesus is baptized, it's in the passive, the verb's in the passive, with no mention of who baptized him. Now, we all know who baptized Jesus, and the smart money is that Luke knew who baptized Jesus but he didn't want to come right out and say, "John baptized him" because he doesn't like what that suggests, in the terms of the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus....



Crossan (Ibid) ( From Jesus to Christ Website)


Interviewer: "And so you're making it sound as if the gospels are extremely unreliable as evidence."

even the celibrated J.D. Crossan:

Crossan: "The gospels are, first of all, extremely reliable historical documents for their own time and place. Mark tells us very much about, say, a community writing in the 70's. John, a community writing in the mid-90's. But, since we have four of them, we get four vectors, then, on the basic tradition that they're working with. What is common, we might be able to then work, by going back very carefully through those deliberate... what scholars call "redactional" elements in there. If Mark just made it up any old way, and Matthew did the same, we could not do anything historically with them."



Interviewer: "How significant and discrediting to belief are the differences between the four gospels?'

Crossan: "For somebody who thinks the four gospels are like four witnesses in a court trying to tell exactly how the accident happened, as it were, this is extremely troubling. It is not at all troubling to me because they told me, quite honestly, that they were gospels. And a gospel is good news ... "good" and "news" ... updated interpretation. So when I went into Matthew, I did not expect journalism. I expected gospel. That's what I found. I have no problem with that."


Dr. Paul L. Maier is professor of Ancient History and chaplain_ at Western Michigan University-Kalamazoo, MI.

Reprinted with permission from The Lutheran Witness magazine (October, 1999).


http://www.issuesetc.com/resource/archives/maier3.htm

History, Archaeology and Jesus
Hard evidence from the ancient world dramatically supports the New Testament record on Jesus.
by Paul L. Maier
Mythical personalities are not involved in authentic episodes from the past. Nor do they leave hard evidence behind. In the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, however, there are many points of contact between His record in the Gospels and the surrounding history of His times. Just as the New Testament is studded with authentic geographical locations, it is also full of genuine personalities who are well known from secular sources outside of the Bible record, including some that are even hostile to Christianity.

All of the following are Bible characters about whom we know as much, or more, from secular ancient historical records than from the New Testament.
Roman emperors: Caesar Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius.
Roman governors: Pontius Pilate, Serguis Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus.
Local rulers: Herod the Great, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Philip, Herod Agrippa I, Herod Agrippa II, Lysanias, Aretas IV.
High priests: Annas, Joseph Caiaphas, Ananias.
Prominent women: Herodias, Salome, Bernice, Drusilla.
Prominent men: John the Baptist, James the Just. In some cases, the additional, non-Biblical information on these personalities is immense. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37—100), for example, supplies about a thousand times as much data on Herod the Great as does Matthew’s Gospel.
In other cases, the secular facts are crucial. The New Testament does

Metacrock

hey come on guys, time to respond

Vinnie

People here often make parallels to Achilles and such. When I ask for a stratification of sources and for a date of ground zero the answer is usually I can't stratify the sources and ground zero ends up being a span of 600 or so years. I'd like to add in a solid date for "ground zero" of Jesus of Nazareth.

All of these traditions, IMO, make a cumulative case for the historicity of Jesus on the basis of historical plausibility. All of these datums are from first century sources and all date from say 20 to 60 years after the alleged ground zero. Giving me a 300 year old source on Achilles who may have existed sometime over the course of a 500 year span does not compare to the attestation for Jesus of Nazareth. We have attestation in a varitety oif sources and forms and the favor of historical plausibility. Here are sixteen datums pointing to ground zero:


1] Jesus is said to have been Crucified by Pontius Pilate whose office can be dated from 26-36 A.D. Extant texts of both Josephus and Tacitus mention this. Both references are disputed, but for those who accept the authenticity of one or both of these outside vectors, we need go no further.

[2] James, Jesus' brother was alive in the 50's as is evident in the Pauline corpus (James is also attested by Josephus and Mark). The logic of this one is simple. Jesus could not have died in 50 BC and have a brother alive in 50 A.D. This helps establish a timeframe.Also keep in mind that the average life expectancy was probably lower in antiquity than it is today.

[3] Jesus is said to have been baptized by John the Baptist whose historicity is secured by Josephus and Mark,Q, etc.

[4] John the Baptist is said to have been killed by Herod and the Synoptics have Jesus/Herod related material.

[5] Both Matthew and Luke say Jesus was born near the time of Herod the Great's death (4 B.C.).

[6] Paul became a follower after Jesus' death (establishes an upper limit on Jesus' life).

[7] Peter's existence and Jesus' followers being alive and known by Paul in the 40s and 50s fit in well with and help establish a general timeframe.

[8] When disputing with him, some contemporaries exclaimed "You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham!" (John 8:57) This reference to Jesus not yet being 50 years old is consistent with the overall time frame. For a discussion of it see Meier, ibid, PP 378-379)

[9] John 2:20 supports the timeframe as well. "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" We can date, approximately this reference to the Temple rebuildingt (probably Herod's 15th or 18th year). There are problems with using this reference in hopes of obtaining an exact chronology and John Meier offers good discussion of the issues (ibid., PP. 380-382) but for our purposes here it supports the general timeframe.

[10] Jesus Short ministry (all four Gospels) is consistent with the general timeframe (7-6 B.C - 36 A.D.)

[11] Luke says Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry (Luke 3:23) which is consistent with the timeframe.

[12] The opening to Luke 3 is filled with names and historical references: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene-- during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" (v. 1-2) John the Baptist started preaching. As noted before, Pilate can be dated but most important reference here is " In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" which is very consistent with out timeframe. For a discussion of problems and questions with this passage see Meier, ibid, p. 383-386.

[13] Some scholars think that statements in documents like Q seem to fit in well with the atmosphere of the Palestinian 20s.

[14] The existence of sources about Jesus (e.g. Pauline corpus, other epistles, Mark, Q, L, M, Matthew, Luke, Acts, John, a Miracle list and the form of Mark's Gospeletc.) are consistent with this timeframe.Obviously Jesus must pre-date any sources which mention him but on the flip side it might be difficult to maintain a literary silence concerning a person such as Jesus who was born in 100 B.C. with any sort of widespread oral transmission that finally reached the literary limelight almost a century and a half later. The existence of such sources logically establish an upper limit and at the same time they probably should caution us from bumping Jesus too far back in spacetime.

[15] Peter (a follower of Jesus) was alive during the 50s as is evident from the Pauline corpus.

[16] The expectation of an imminent return of the Lord. By 50 A.D. The Thessalonians were already concerned about the return of the Lord. (1 Thess 4:15-17). As E.P. Sanders (HFJ p.179) notes, "Paul's concerts were shaken by the fact that some members of the congregation had died; they expected the Lord to return while they were all still alive." E.P. Sanders also goes on to argue that there appears to be a saying behind this belief and reconstructs it from the independent usage by Matthew and Paul.

These are from the article I wrote on my web-page:
http://www.acfaith.com/jchronology.html

Vinnie

Vinnie

Josephus independently mentions James along with GMark and Paul. I've written on this here:

http://www.acfaith.com/jamesjesus.html

Of extra-importance is this Pauline reference along with the historicity of Peter being a follower of Jesus and also the return of Jesus mentioned in datum 16 above. All of these indicators speak of a recently crucified man in Paul. I believe Peter being a follower of Jesus can be established extremely well (from Paul, Mark et al).

So Paul believed in a recently crucified man, the existence of a brother named James, and a follower named Peter argue for historicity as well.

Numerous other arguments could be raised as well.

Vinnie

ElectEngr

I have often wondered if the Thessalonians made copies of the letter the Saul sent them and past it on to the Ephesians, Galatians and to the Jerusalem church for verification.

The same with the Ephesians making copies of their letter, etc.

I woiuld speculate that to the early churches, these letters would be of great value to them and they may not have wanted any harm to come to the letters, so they wouldn't send out the originals

How did the different churches know who Saul sent letters to? I know that the Middle East wasn't an isolated area but travel and communications took alot longer than today.

How far off base am I?
[edit to add: This is probably first year seminary stuff.]

Later,
ElectEngr

Kosh

Thanks for posting the notes from your apologetics class, but you forgot to put the copyright notace on thme.

MortalWombat

As far as I know, Paul never indicates when he thought the crucifixion occurred, so we can't really say that he believed in "recently crucified" Jesus.

Also, with regard to James, he is always referred to in Paul's writings as "brother of the Lord" (Greek "ton adelphon tou kuriou"), not "brother of Jesus." In 1 Corinthians 9, he asks: "Have we not the right to take along a sister (adelphen), a wife, as do the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord (adelphoi tou kuriou) and Cephas?" Surely, he is not talking about taking a literal sister (adelphen) as a wife in the first part of the sentence, so why do we assume he is talking about a literal brother or brothers in the other instances, especially since he never says "Jesus," but "Lord?"

In addition to Paul's use of "brother of the Lord" instead of "brother of Jesus," we can also look to the epistles of James and Jude, who are both supposed to be Jesus' brothers by Christian tradition. James is referred to as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ," in the epistle of that name, and Jude is referred to as "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James" in his namesake epistle. In neither case do the writers of those epistles (whether they be the actual James and Jude or they referred to as "brothers of Jesus," even when a brother relationship is explicitly given for Jude as the brother of James.

See Doherty's reader feedback here for a more comprehensive treatment of the "brother of the Lord" issue.

Metacrock

Good question. They copied them for each other, and the copies began to circulate. in one place Paul instucts two chruches to trade letters, not sure where that is but I've seen it.

1 Clement is a letter from Bishops of Rome to chruch of Corinth, in which they make reference to the letters paul wrote to the Corinthians. So they already knew about those books in AD 96, before the canon existed.

ST. Agustine had all the letters of Paul which he kept together in is own little private Paul collection.
ElectEngr [/B][/QUOTE]

Metacrock

Never taken an apologetics class. I went to a liberal seminary. Liberals don't do apologetics. They don't care if yo believe or not.


try answering some it know all. That's the kind of shit skeptics utter when they know they are out gunned.