Roma

What is the general concensus at II about the historical existence of Jesus? Could somebody please give me some links to some non-religious sites about the historical record of Jesus? I tried googling but I mostly came up with sites just trying to preach. Thanks.

-Roma

Peter Kirby

We recently had a thread asking for opinions on that very subject. Are you a HJer, JMer, or agnostic on the issue? The poll is affected by the fact that replies are public, but the thread is worth checking out nonetheless. It shows that there is variety among II participants along a spectrum of positions:

(1) Jesus is utterly mythical, and you are a fundy to doubt this.

(2) Jesus is probably a complete fiction.

(3) There may have been a historical individual underneath the stories, but the Gospel Jesus is a composite figure.

(4) Jesus is probably a historical character, though interpreted and mythified later.

(5) Jesus is self-evidently historical, and you are an idiot to doubt this.

Though the center of opinion for non-religious people is lower on this scale, and that for Christians is higher, people run the gamut of stances on the HJ matter. An interesting question, and one which is not given enough consideration before positions are declared, is what it means to speak of "the historicity of a person," such as the historicity of Jesus. (For example, does it mean that all of the stories or a percentage of stories about that person have to be true?) I would welcome any opinions on the matter of what the debate is about.

As for web sites, for varying approaches, there are Did Jesus Exist?, Christ Myth Refuted, The Jesus Puzzle, and Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity. I would recommend taking every source with a handful of salt. If you have time for a book, try Doherty's book The Jesus Puzzle.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clara Listensprechen

Because the Internet is a relatively new invention so far as the long road of history is concerned, I recommend that you research the subject using honest-to-god hardcopy books actually on paper, and with copyrights older than 1940, using newer publications only as supplemental updates. National Geographic is but one that makes for good supplemental modern update reading.

That copyright recommendation is due to the effort to avoid the politicoreligious polarization and resulting historical distortions/avoidance of detail attributable to the creation of the State Of Israel, when archaeologists had a freer hand to do their work at that location than they do now.

Vorkosigan

Clara, that's a bit dramatic. Holy Land Archaeologists in the 30s and 40s were dominated by an overarching need to make the Bible true. After the 1950s new perspectives, tools, methodologies, techniques and political views have all combined to make modern archaeology much more interdisciplinary, rigorous, and thorough, at least the way I see it.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Ossuaries aside, how much does archaeology impinge on the historicity of Jesus? There are the odd bits of contextual information, such as the shape of tomb stones or the identification of a geographical setting. But I would hardly say that archaeology makes a crucial difference in deciding the historicity of Jesus--that seems to be more the province of debates over ancient Israel.

If you are still interested, though, in classic works on the historicity of Jesus, there are three on my web site: Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? by Maurice Goguel, The Historicity of Jesus by S. J. Case, and Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? by G.R.S. Mead. Follow the link. Note that there is no significant difference in the way that these works use archaeology (which is not a lot at all).

best,
Peter Kirby

lpetrich

Ms. Listensprechen, I can't believe that you are serious.

You ought to be aware that some leading Bible-historicity skeptics live and work in Israel. Notably Israel Finkelstein, coauthor of The Bible Unearthed with Neil Asher Silberman.

They propose that most of the Bible's history before the Dual Monarchy period is essentially mythology with a some "real" history mixed in here and there. Kings David and Solomon most likely existed, but were not nearly as big as the Bible makes them out to be. And before that was worse. The Conquest accounts may contain some rewritten memories of the strife of the 1200's in the eastern Mediterranean, when barbarians destroyed the Mycenaean and Hittite centers and attacked Egypt. But before that is even worse -- no trace of the wanderings in the desert, the exodus from Egypt, the stay in Egypt, the patriarchs, or before.

Volker.Doormann

There exist an historic document in hardware, which - I'm sure - is written by a historic person, that is called 'The Gospel of Thomas'. Nothing in that document would be changed in the hidden meaning of it, whether there was a historical Jesus or not. The try to make the person more important as existing traditional arguments, is personal cult. A person is irrelevant and never need to recognize the truth or untruth of arguments. Thruth never depends on (historic) persons.

Volker

Clara Listensprechen

Peter, thank you for providing the necessary material in your link I need to show how serious I am about the copyright date thing:

Rather than register my opinion as MJ or HJ in that thread, under the circumstances It's more appropriate for me to state my case here. I'm an HJ-leaning Agnostic and further point out that until definitive archaeology is done to confirm ANY Jesus beliefs outside of blind faith, we're ALL necessarily "agnostic". Very little has been dug up directly related to Jesus' person, in the geographical area that he's been reported to walk. The reason is because the area is considered so holy that digging around holy sites is totally prohibited, meaning very little is EXPECTED to ever be dug up. Try and the local tourism groups will join the religious in wanting your head served on a platter.

This wasn't the case prior to Winston Churchil's inventing an area for an Israel in the early days circa 1923. The Ottoman Empire, under which this region was ruled prior to WWI, fell during that Great War and the region then became sole protectorate of the U.K., under whose administration Iraq was invented, Transjordan was invented, and the area that was to become Israel had been laid out. Many explorers and studiers of antiquities were primarily from Britain and to the great consternation of the fallen countries now on their independent feet, find that their precious artifacts had been dug up and removed. They bemoan the fact that many of their precious artifacts from antiquities remain to this day in British hands...not the least of which is Greece which makes an annual habit of asking for their "marbles" back.

The era I speak of did discover ancient history in considerable detail, much of which is lost in today's references, fallen by the wayside under editorial perogative--non-Israeli/Palestinian polarized then, all Israeli/Palestinian polarized now.

There is a different editorial slant to beware of, though. Don't get the idea that any older era is totally devoid of its slants...and it's not the prove-The-Bible-true-at-all-costs slant that was suggested elsewhere. It's the holier-and-more-civilized-and-more-intelligent-than-thou approach that Middle Easterners refer to as "orientalism". That is, in fact, the case.

Good caveat to anyone reading anything for information:

1) Consider the source.

2) Never rely on just one or just two, or even just three different sources for your information. The more different sources you read, the smaller the author bias becomes on the overall.

3) New stuff could very well have been discovered since the time the old stuff was written, so the thing to do is refer to the old stuff for leads on details, then follow up with recent reliable sources for supplemental reading. Think of it this way--when reference books were written in an earlier day, there was less information to process because as time goes by, more stuff needs to get covered and therefore the detail falls by the wayside just to make room for the new stuff that comes in. Old stuff has more detail, and is great to start for detail LEADS. Once you have the details, research each individually for updated info.

Now you know another reason why I'm reluctant to cite my references, besides the facts that they're not online and they're out of print--to cite everything I've read on a single subject would warrant writing my own book. For verification of what I post, you'll find it far more convenient to refer to the reference material of your choice. I've also posted (in the past, on other boards) lists and charts that are a composite of a set of researched materials, plural, and so when I post such a composit list or chart, I myself am the original author thereof.

Peter Kirby

Clara, I believe and do not doubt that you are serious in your advice concerning publishing date and Middle East archaeology.

What I said and continue to think is that archaeology has not been a major factor in the debate over the existence of Jesus, and thus any change in archaeology in the 20th century has not been the cause of any shift in opinions on the Jesus issue.

This has changed a bit with the greatest relic since the Shroud of Turin, revealed in the 21st century. So I suppose that archaeology is now a factor in the debate. But I don't think that it is the deciding factor, and not just because I have my doubts about authenticity. Archaeology will show the results of great building projects, of war and destruction, as well the everyday life of the inhabitant of a region. But despite our own intense interest in a particular Galilean carpenter, archaeology is indifferent and does not yield specific answers. The preservation of archaeological data over two thousand years about our subject would be amazing but also incredible, unless unimpeachable under exacting criticism, because of its rarity (low background probability under the 'too good to be true' principle).

Because of the difficulties of verifying an artifact of Jesus, which would only be exacerbated by the political problems you mention, I think that the matter of the historical Jesus receives its only direct light, to the degree that we can see anything, from the literary remains, and from material culture only to the extent that the cultural context is provided.

To return to the question of any shift around 1940 in the literature on Jesus, this has been claimed, but not due to archaeological obstacles, because archaeology played no greater role in Jesus studies before the Second World War. The claim that is made is a 'circling of the wagons' as a response to the modernist crisis in the early twentieth century, resulting in a more conservative scholarly climate. This is possible, as such a pattern can be seen in some historical issues, including the Testimonium Flavianum: whereas many antebellum scholars questioned its authenticity in any part, now criticism on the issue is sustained mainly by those outside the scholarly circle. I don't think that this should be exaggerated, however, because a strong conservative contingent has always existed in biblical studies. However, I don't think that the creation of the state of Israel has had much of an impact on Jesus studies. That argument would have to be pointed at the archaeology of pre-exilic Palestine, if it is to hit a target at all.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

I endorse five except I do so for a more tactful modified version:

Mythicism is idiotic. That doesn't mean mythicists are idiots though. Most are simply misinformed. Some are idiots just like their naive Christian opposites.

Vinnie