A peculiar document from the early church raises questions about Jesus's historicity

[BurtWorm]

"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with60 Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and <truly> died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life."

Ignatius, (born around AD 35 and martyred between AD 98 - AD 117), Epistle to the Trallians
(Roberts-Donaldson English Translation)

There is some question about the authenticity of some of Ignatius's alleged writings. This document, for example, seems to contain a clear interpolation right upon the foot of this passage, in that it repeats the above litany of "facts" to be believed about Jesus Christ, but with added references to Scripture, which Ignatius could not have had access to, let alone expected his audience to have seen.

That said, let's assume this is authentically from the years between 98 and 117 of our era, by someone allegedly born within a few years of Jesus's death: Why this need to firmly assert all those "trulies" if Jesus was a well known figure of the times?

[derby378]

1. Probably due to the Arians, Monarchians, and early Gnostics

The Monarchians were the ancestors of the modern Unitarians; they taught that Jesus was not born an actual "Son of God," but had been made one through a rite of adoption by God himself, probably at the moment when John the Baptist immersed Jesus.

Then there were the Arians, who had similar doubts about Christ's divinity, and the early Gnostic Christian sects, of whom Simon Magus (a contemporary of Paul) was reportedly one of the first elders.

[BurtWorm]

3. Now if Jesus was a real, famous, beloved teacher...

why all this argument over--not Jesus's divinity--but his being "truly" born and "truly" killed and risen? In other words, about his real humanity.

[thereismore]

5. because there were some schools of thought that Jesus was not

"truly" human - that he was a divine illusion of sorts. This guy just says that he was truly borm like any fleshly man, trule ate and drank, etc. He was 100% human, in other words, truly human, and yet truly God. There is no reason to suspect that the author is fighting people who doubted Jesus ever existed.

[BurtWorm]

8. No reason except for the constant drumming of the word "truly"

before each fact, which would imply that many thought he was NOT truly born, etc.

[Meshuga]

7. There are no contemporaneous

accounts of him to prove that he even existed

[Joe for Clark]

24. There are many accounts at the time.

Roman authors Cornelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger

There are a lot of accounts - pick where you want to start.

Joe

[Meshuga]

33. None of these

ever met Jesus.

[Joe for Clark]

38. I suppose that is true. Bet I never met Nixon and I know he

existed. You see the point???

Joe

[BurtWorm]

53. No. We have videotape and many, many, many more eyewitnesses

to Nixon's having been a real person. It doesn't matter if you or never met him. The standards for his having been a real person have been met.

Not so in Jesus's case.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

125. This is so funny

you are implying that people 2000 years ago had the media coverage that we do now! Jesus, if he existed, was a rabbi in a small, troublesome section of the Roman Empire. Most of the world at the time was pagan; Jews as a group were a minority in the Roman world at that time, not only in religious practices, but in the belief of monotheism. Is Hillel mentioned in Roman texts? I don't know, but that rabbi is still revered today, as Jesus is, for his thoughts and ideas.

Whether Jesus lived or not is really a moot point right now--the teachings attributed to Jesus have spread around the world and have influenced world history. That cannot be in dispute.

For a non-believer, there will never be enough proof, I feel; for a believer, no proof is needed. That is because the former thinks with his head, the latter with his heart.

[beam me up scottie]

127. Um, excuse me.

For a non-believer, there will never be enough proof, I feel;

"enough" proof?

There is NO proof of supernatural deities.

And you can't think with your heart, it's a muscle/organ that pumps blood, not a brain.

Pretty lame attempt to insult atheists, ayeshahaqqiqa, and totally uncalled for considering most of us have always treated you with respect in this forum.

[BurtWorm]

147. What I find funny is how people who believe Jesus lived move the goal posts

to suit the arguments against them. If Josephus hasn't been mentioned yet, historicists sneak him in to show how well known Jesus was. When the Jesus references in Josephus are shown to be probable interpolations, historicists then claim it's insane to think Jesus would have been so well known in the ages of Tiberius and Nero.

That Christianity has had a major impact on the world is not at all in dispute. But you raised that issue, I didn't. I'm only concerned with the facts about its origins, which are indisputably mysterious. The impact it has had on world culture doesn't immunize it from critical inquiry, does it?

[Zhade]

45. Incorrect. Those mention ChristIANS, not CHRIST.

And Josephus, which you mention below, has been found by biblical scholars to be a later-added forgery.

[Joe for Clark]

9. I don't believe there is any argument about this.

That he existed and that much in gospels did happen is pretty well documented - not just in the gospels - in historian, secular accounts at the time. By Josephius and at least two Roman Governors comment on it in their writtings.

That he was a son of god, that is a matter of faith, really.

You know, even the Muslims recognize he existed and was at least a great prophet.

Joe

[BurtWorm]

11. You can't really gloss over the controversy so easily.

To say his life is "pretty well documented" outside the gospels is a gross exaggeration. Google "Jesus myth" to familiarize yourself with the weaknesses in the historicist case if you're interested.

[Joe for Clark]

12. Yes I can.

No exaggeration. You know he does appear on Roman census records at the time. Tell me, if if did not exist - why does even Islam recognize that he did?? Jews do too.

He is prominent in the memoirs of two Roman Govenors - how is that possible??

The question isn't if existed or not - clearly, he did.

Maybe the rest is faith - son of god - but certainly not that he did live and breath 2006 years ago.

Joe

[TRYPHO]

16. There was no census...

And although "Christians" are spoken of in the Talmud, Jesus in definitely NOT.

And Jews do not accept he existed. I can't speak for Muslims.


You should find this site quite eye-opening:

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

TRYPHO

[Joe for Clark]

19. Yes there is - death record too.

Cut and paiste - Josephius is a dominant secular historian for the time- but there are others.
Type Joesphius and Jesus in a search engine. Like I said, this is cut and paiste.
There is no doubt as to the fact he existed by any reasonable standard.

Joe

There is A LOT more.

Josephus on Jesus

Twice Josephus refers to Jesus. His second reference concerns the episode involving James, whom he defines as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ." Earlier, in the middle of his reports on Pontius Pilate’s administration, Josephus has a longer passage on Jesus. For centuries this had been dismissed as a Christian interpolation. But what is doubtless the original wording has now been restored. In view of its importance, the entire passage is presented here:

"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day" (Antiquities 20:200).

Other non-Biblical, non-Christian ancient references to Jesus occur in the pagan Roman authors Cornelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger, as well as in the Jewish rabbinical traditions. One especially important notice in the last, the arrest notice for Jesus, will be dealt with in the next article.

Bottom line: In view of the many points of tangency between the Biblical and non-Biblical documentary evidence and the full correlation of these two, history also supports the complete historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

[TRYPHO]

20. That is known to be edited after the fact...

since it is known to include things that weren't known at the time.

You SHOW me that birth/death certificate and I'll convert faster than you can swear me in.

But guess what, you wont find it, its NOT there, it doesn't exist, you are not asking the right questions just passing on your ignorance.

FIND ME SOME FACTS.

TRYPHO

[Joe for Clark]

22. You know, according to you jews do not recognize he existed.

And also according you, you don't know what Isam thought. So I don't think you know that much.
Maybe I don't know as much as I should - but clearly more than you.

However, from what I did gave you - you can easily trace the three Roman authors mentioned. Not difficult. The governors of the provinces at the time then concerned with the crucifiction worte about the sentence - not in any good light for the jews or "christians" at the time.

Let me get this - I am supposed to show you his birth certificate? - you read greek or aramaic??

Get real. There is no serious historian of the time that does not recogize the existance of "Jesus of Nazareth".

That he was the son of god is a matter of faith - and personal. Not that he existed.

Joe

[TRYPHO]

25. He was a Nazarene - nazareth didn't exist then

You are aware of the sects at that time? The Sadducess, Pharisees and Nazarenes? The Greek didn't know what they were so called his Jesus of Nazareth. Same mistake happened with Bethlehem - which was in reality a local nickname for the Egyptian capital where they stored bread -bet lehem house of bread.

And I read modern Hebrew/Ivrit, which means I can read Aramaic, but needs a dictionary for some words. (Actually, I cant read the Aramaic they wrote back then, coz they wrote it real shitty, but if they'd had a typewriter I could read it).

You wrote:
There is no serious historian of the time that does not recogize the existance of "Jesus of Nazareth".

OK, now I can give up , coz I know you're just baiting me without a jot of evidence, you didn't read from the link I sent you, you aren't arguing on sane ground, and so I will let you go back to whence you came from.

There is ONLY one valid argument in favour of Jesus and that is the concept of doing good to your fellow man, although, according to the (secret) Gospel of Thomas (which pre-dates Paul) the actual phrase used was do NOT do unto others and you would NOT have them do to you - which is the Jewish phrase that pre-dates that one.

Enjoy your ignorance, it must be bliss!

TRYPHO

[Joe for Clark]

28. He existed - guess you could start reading here:

Carr, Steven. "First Response by Steven Carr." (URL:<http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/marston2.htm>, 2000).
Charlesworth, James H. Jesus within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (New York: Doubleday, 1988).
Crossan, John D. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991).
Crossan, John D. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994).
Davies, W. D. Invitation to the New Testament, a Guide to its Main Witnesses (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966).
Doherty, Earl J. The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? (Ottawa: Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999).
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship (Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter, 1984).
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987).
Freke, Timothy and Peter Gandy. The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (New York: Harmony Books, 1999).
Goguel, Maurice. Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1926).
Grant, Robert. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1963).
Hardwick, Michael E. Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
Hoffman, Joseph R. Jesus Outside the Gospels (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1984).
Lowder, Jeffery Jay. "Josh McDowell's 'Evidence' for Jesus: Is It Reliable?" (URL:<http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html>, 2000).
Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992).
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, v. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991).
Olson, Ken. "Eusebian Fabrication of the Testimonium" (URL:<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/files/%22Eusebian%20Fabrication%20of%20the%20Testimonium%22>, 2001).
Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin Press, 1993).
Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978).
Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998).
Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000).
Wells, G. A. Did Jesus Exist? (London: Pemberton Publishing Co., 1986).

Like I said - you can believe or disbelieve he was as he said the son of god - but not that he didn't exist.

Joe

[Az]

32. Um Joe

Just because a lot of people wrote a lot of words extolling why they think in their opinion Jesus existed doesn't mean he did.

The problem you have is the utter lack of evidence of his existance and the literary problems inherant to the bible. To be specific there is nothing anyone ever wrote during the supposed life of Jesus that actually mentions Jesus. No one who ever knew him wrote anything down about him during his life. No court records exist about him. No death certificate or birth cirtificate. No execution orders. No diary entries saying how powerful that sermon on the hill was. No mention of the amazing things the bible claims happened such as the sun standing still or the dead rising from the grave. Nothing. There is nothing historically corroborating about Jesus existance.

This does not mean he did not exist. It just means there is no evidence he existed. It is when coupled with the conflicting details we have from the bible and the apparent ficticious entries that crop up that we begin to surmise that he may have been a creation or a reinvention of someone else.

[Joe for Clark]

35. Because people wrote a lot of words??

Those "people" are some of the leading historians we have today on the period. Their conclusions are very clear.

There are records of birth, death and the sentence documents - ACCORDING TO THEM. I don't read ancient Greek or Aramaic - so I guess I have to take their words that they do.

There really is no legitimate question that he did exist - at all.

Joe

[TRYPHO]

41. SHOW IT TO US

I READ F ARAMIAC WELL ENOUGH. Show me. Tell me WHERE IT IS - I will f fly there. I HAVE MONEY. I will f pay anyone £1,000 tomorrow if they can get me to the f original, proven, academically accepted, carbon dated, birth, death or anyfucking thing you like, that says Jesus son of Joseph or similar on it.

£10,000.


And I'll convert. In public.

TRYPHO (google TRYPHO Joe)

[Az]

47. Leading historians have opinions too

And without evidence that is what they are conveying. The point still stands. There is no direct evidence that the person named Jesus in the bible ever existed. None. Zip. Nada. Without evidence any conjecture about his existance is an opinion. Thats all it is. Whether it comes from the senior professor of divinity at Harvard University or some guy down the street.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. A couple of points to consider

Since Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, I wonder if we have anybody's court records from that era. We know about Pontius Pilate, because the records about him were kept in Rome, but do we know the names of any of the people he had crucified? Evidently, he was considered brutal even by the generous standards of the Romans, so why would any one political rebel (for that was the charge they got him on, declaring himself "king of the Jews") in an era of many political rebels merit special attention?

No death certificate or birth certificate? No driver's license or high school yearbook either, I bet. In later centuries, we're able to prove the existence of, say, various medieval and Renaissance figures because their baptismal records still exist. But what of some equally real person who was baptized in a church that was destroyed by Henry VIII or the Puritans or simply abandoned after the plague?

Diary entries? Wealthy people kept diaries, but how many of them have survived? Besides, it's pretty clear that most of Jesus' followers were not wealthy and were too busy staying alive to sit down and write journal entries every night. You get diaries, letters, and essays by Christians only after the center of the faith has moved from the backwater of Judea to big cities like Rome and Athens.

It's mighty hard to prove that ANY individual existed in ancient times. You have to remember that people who met Jesus in person may have found him a charismatic person, but they didn't know he was going to be considered the founder of a world religion. To contemporaries, except the most perceptive, he may have looked like just another guy with groupies.

My academic field of study centered on Japan between 1185 and 1615, and any manuscript or artifact that survives from that period is just a fraction of what really existed--which is real frustrating for the researcher. For example, since I was studying changes in the language of that period, I was especially interested in finding letters and narratives by semi-literate people, but there are none. Everything--and I mean everything--that's left over from that period was written down by either Buddhist monks and nuns or wealthy people, and both groups tried to write pure, classical prose based on the style of the eleventh century. They didn't always succeed, which is what gave me something to research, but surrounded by written materials as we are, we find it hard to fathom how little written material most people saw or produced in their lifetimes.

Let's just suppose that the whole Jesus story is a hoax or a work of fiction. Most of the twelve disciples were martyred. Now if they just made up the whole story (in four different versions, which agree in broad outline but differ in many details, which sounds more like oral tradition than anything else), can you imagine them being willing to die for a hoax? You can claim that the later converts were duped like the adherents of the People's Temple, but the original disciples? I don't know about you, but if I had made up a hoax, I'd say, "Just kidding, you guys," the minute they showed me the lions or the executioner's axe or the stake and pile of wood.

[trotsky]

59. "Would someone die for a hoax?"

Using that logic, then Mormonism is true. Joseph Smith was martyred.

Heck, using that logic, just about every religion is true. They all have martyrs.

[Az]

86. You would think the followers of Jim Jones

and other such cult leaders would have diabused people of this particular argument.

[trotsky]

89. ...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. But they believed in Jim Jones, whom they knew personally

They didn't say, "Yeah, I think you're a big phony, but I'll drink the poison anyway."

Like the Branch Davidians, they were in the presence of their charismatic (to some, anyway) leader.

Both Jim Jones and David Koresh knew that the party was over for them. Their suicides were like the suicides of the major Nazis at the end of the World War II--they preferred death to the humiliation of being taken prisoner and being seen as weak and defeated. Their followers, sadly, believed in them and died for them.

It's one thing to say, "This man is special to me, and I will follow him to death" (as the Jonestown group and the Branch Davidians did) and another thing to say, "I know this guy is a charlatan, and I'll die for him anyway." Remember that the people who saw through Jim Jones left early or tried to leave. A few refused to drink the poison, which shows that they had doubts.

Many times throughout history, people have chosen to die for a charismatic leader, but I can't think of any cases in which people who knew they were part of a hoax and who would have enjoyed every advantage if they had admitted the hoax, decided to follow through to torture and death.

If Jesus was a fictional construction, the martyrdom of the disciples who claimed to know him would be like George Lucas insisting under torture that Star Wars really happened.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. Josepth Smith wasn't put into a situation of "recant or die"

He was killed in a shoot-out with a lynch mob that was angered about his suppression of a newspaper that criticized him. Quite a different situation.

Yes, every religion has martyrs, but the question is whether the people who claimed to have actually walked with Jesus would have maintained their claim in the face of torture and horrible ways to die, when there was every advantage in recanting.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

129. You're not following her logic all the way

Joseph Smith was the founder of his religion. The disciples weren't. If the whole thing was a hoax, why were they executed for following a man they claimed to be the Messiah and NOT claim that THEY were the Messiah? That would make more sense.

(and Joseph Smith was killed by a mob while incarcerated in the jail at Carthage IL. I don't think he planned his death or thought it was part of some prophecy-it was a political killing)

[TRYPHO]

36. Did you ever read YOUR OWN REFERENCE?

You suggested I read this:

Carr, Steven. "First Response by Steven Carr." (URL:<http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/marston2.htm >, 2000).

You should read it! ALL OF IT. Its an excellent rebuttal AGAINST Josephus and the New Testaments historicity of Jesus.

THATS FROM YOUR REFERENCE!!!!

I'm having such a laugh now.

TRYPHO

(But sriously READ IT)

[charlie]

37. Doherty's also a naysayer

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0968601405

[BurtWorm]

54. That's the guy who woke me up from my sleep on this question.

http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

This Website has all the information one needs to stop taking the Church's word for it where Jesus's historicity is concerned.

[okasha]

48. The archaeology says otherwise

In 2003, a large first-century Roman bath complex was discovered in Nazareth. Not only does this make it clear that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus, but that it may have been a Roman garrison town. The possibility casts an interesting light on the insult that "nothing good ever came out of Nazareth" and has some no doubt controversial implications for the gospel narratives once scholars start to explore it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1067930,00.html

[BurtWorm]

55. Of course, if it is a Roman bath, it's a giant leap to assume it's Jesus's bath.

It's even a leap to assume that the town under modern day Nazareth had the same name when the bath was built there.

[okasha]

99. Well, yes.

Obviously there is no evidence that Jesus had any personal connection with the Roman baths. It's rather likely, in fact, that Roman baths were avoided by pious/nationalistic Jews living under the Roman occupation. What the baths do establish is that the site was inhabited at the time of Jesus, natterings to the contrary notwithstanding. (So do the local burials and pottery, but the baths are a clincher.)

It's not impossible for the town's name to have changed, of course, but it does seem unlikely, given the general persistence of local place names in the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Place names tend to change only when the local language or culture undergoes a radical alteration, but may remain constant even then. The name "London," for example, underwent very little change through Roman, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Norman regimes.

[TRYPHO]

93. A Contrary view...

A Contrary View (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth)

Some historians have called the city's traditional association with the life of Jesus into question, suggesting instead that what was originally a title was corrupted (Nazarene) into the name of his hometown (alternately, Nazara or Nazaret or Nazareth). Alfred Loisy, for example, in The Birth of Christianity argues that Iesous Nazarene meant not "from Nazareth", but rather that his title was "Nazarene."

Frank Zindler, managing editor of the American Atheist Press, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.<28> His arguments include the following:

* No "ancient historians or geographers mention before the beginning of the fourth century ."<29>

* Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.
* Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages
* Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).
* Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.

Also from the same page:

In the mid-1990s, shopkeeper Elias Shama discovered tunnels under his shop near Mary’s Well in Nazareth. The tunnels were eventually recognized as a hypocaust (a space below the floor into which warm air was pumped) for a bathhouse. The site was excavated in 1997-98 by Y. Alexandre, and the archaeological remains exposed were ascertained to date from the Middle Roman, Crusader, Mamluk and Ottoman periods.

Since no one has said anything much since the mid 1990's, I'd suggest your excitement seems a little misplaced.

TRYPHO

[okasha]

103. It was suggested several decades ago that "Nazarene" or "of Nazareth"

might in fact be a corruption or misuderstanding of "Nazorean" or "Nazirite." That's certainly plausible. The not-inconsiderable problem is that Jesus, as reported in the gospels, behaves very differently from such known Nazirites as John "the Dipper" and his own brother James/Jacob.

Even discounting the bathhouse, the archaeology of Nazareth shows continual habitation from the Seleucid period (c. 200 BCE) up through the time of the Roman occupation and beyond to present. There are also first century CE burials. I'll go with the potsherds and the bones. Mr. Zindler can have his wishful thinking. :)

(The writer in me really loves the Roman garrison idea, though. There's a novel in there.)

[charlie]

96. It's clear from the article

that Dr Freund's excitement has run away with him.

"I am sure that what we have here is a bathhouse from the time of Jesus," he says, "and the consequences of that for archaeology, and for our knowledge of the life of Jesus, are enormous."

...

"What we are looking at now is probably Roman but even if it proves to be from a later period, then the bath underneath certainly is Roman," says Freund. "Either way, we know that under the shop lies a huge new piece of evidence in understanding the life and times of Jesus."

Apart from Freund's exultant expectation, there's nothing in the article about confirmation of a 1st-century find. The only supporting evidence mentioned is what a rabbi was told by locals 1400-1500 years after Jesus lived.

Since the article, radiocarbon dating has determined the upper bathhouse to be Crusades-era. That leaves roughly up to 1000 years since the time of Christ that the lower bath could've been built, quite a wide window.

http://users.drew.edu/csavage/Nazareth.pdf

[okasha]

101. Even while his "excitement was running away with him"

you might have noticed that Dr. Freund allows for the possibility that the uppper structure is younger.

Ah, but you did notice. You quoted him.

[charlie]

108. Did you read what I wrote?

Looks like you didn't, in your rush to snark.

Freund didn't "allow for the possibility" that the upper structure is younger, he knows it's younger. It's the lower bathhouse that's got him excited. The one you called a 1st century structure. Its age is unknown. The upper bath has been dated -- by Dr Freund's team, it's in the PDF I linked. That sets an upper limit on the lower bath's age, from the Crusades, a thousand years after Jesus. Quite a span of time.

[Trajan]

26. There are three known 'editions' of the Josephus passage ...

You are obviously unaware of this ...

The so-called 'Testimonium Flavianum' .... I have found two versions

First: Arabic Version

Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.).
The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism.
Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders



Second: Greek Version

Josephus, Antiquities 18.63, probably in a Christian redaction
Tr. I. H. Feldman, Loeb Classical Library, vol. 9, pp. 49ff.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still up to now, not disappeared.


Even as an Atheist, I find no cause to doubt the mere existence of a Jesus ... I strongly question his divinity, as I also find the theological notions about the meaning of his death to be inconsitent and meaningless ....

[Joe for Clark]

30. You understand, he is a source not the only source.

The question about his writtings is not that they were real, but if some of the writtings were later altered.

I guess if he was the only source it may be a question - but he isn't - he is just a good source, well known.

Joe

[TRYPHO]

40. NO ONE from 0-80 CE has ever mentioned JESUS

He didn't get a mention anywhere, in anything, by anyone. Its almost a miracle. Or perhaps the Church managed to hide everything they found because it was so obviously going against church doctrine - and they've had 2000 odd years to cover up the facts now.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give me some references, quotes, websites, pictures, anything from that period quoting something about Jesus - yo must have LOADS!>!>!>!>!

The only thing you will find is an empty feeling.

Trust me.

TRYPHO

[Trajan]

43. The extant manuscripts of that passage of Josephus ARE different

as shown .. hence they WERE later altered, in what are called by biblical scholars 'interpolations' .... the most favorable maximalist critics even agree that the copy was edited at a later date ....

According to the Catholoc Encyclopedia:

"Attempts have been made to refute the objections brought against this passage both for internal and external reasons, but the difficulty has not been definitively settled. The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations."

Not exactly a condemnation, but a recognition of the controversial nature of the passage and the fact that no theist has definitively explained the differences to the satisfaction of textual critics.

[BurtWorm]

56. How can he be called a "good" source if it's in doubt that his "testimony" is really his?

:wtf:

[TRYPHO]

31. Here's a similar discussion from elsewhere...

Josephus says that at Masada hundreds of Jews were killed. But the archeological evidence shows this to be impossible. Thus, Josephus is here unreliable. His descriptions of Jewish sects were intended to curry favor with Rome; his description of the Essenes included. They are therefore biased and likewise unreliable as source for historical reconstruction.

Consider his "stories" lie a modern paperback.

TRYPHO

[Meshuga]

34. Sure

There is no serious historian of the time that does not recogize the existance of "Jesus of Nazareth".

They might recognize the myth and the creed. But it still does not make him a real person.

[TRYPHO]

39. let me make this clear - THERE ARE NO REFERENCES

FROM the timeline postulated for Jesus' existence, from any source FULL STOP. NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH. ZIP.

If one person on this forum keeps saying there is and everyone else says there isn't it doesn't mean 'a' is right and 'b' is wrong, it means 'a' has to come up with the goods. He's come back quoting Josephus and we've shown Josephus was at the right time, made erroneous and infact false comments, and have suggested fairly convincingly that the comments cited in his name are almost certainly post script additions faked by the Church as a later date. So 'a' needs to come up with something better, when 'a' says that EVERYBODY at that time was writing about Jesus 'a' should be able to list a whole library of names for 'b' to try and argue against if 'b' can.

Come on, gimme some more "historians"

TRYPHO

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

128. Just out of curiosity

I'm not a scholar, but do you know if many facts about the lives of Jews in Roman Palestine are known? Hillel, for example, was a near contemporary of Jesus-what is known about him to prove he existed?

[TRYPHO]

130. Hillel pretty much re-wrote the book for Jews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

Jews use the Torah as a base for belief and the Talmud for the exact definitions. These change over time so after the death of Moses the power for these decisions was placed in the Judges, who developed into the SanHedrin in the Temple. Actually thats not quite true but I'm keeping it simple.

So, these Rabbi's would argue a section in fine details, argue and argue, and eventually (sometimes after a few HUNDRED years) come to a decision. They would than make a note of this in the Talmud. (There were two schools, the Jerusalam and the Babylonian, but almost everyone only ever talks about the much more authoratative and larger Babylonian one).

Hillel, has HUNDREDs, no thousands, of mentions. And there are other surviving books that detail the discussions around the final decisions. Indeed, there were schools just to developm the logic processes required to argue correctly.

Anyway, the point being that if you were in that Talmudic system, your name would live forever (Can I blame the pope here for burning tens of thousands of them once it was realised how important the Talmud is to the Jewish faith, back in the 14th Century I think). After that they were put to print (under licence by the pope) and there were sufficient copies to avoid an absolute loss).


Anyway, two points arise:

1. Hillel was prolific - see the wiki link.
2. Jesus wasn't in "the in crowd" - so if he had anything to say it was outside of the Temple.

TRYPHO

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

133. Thank you

I didn't know this, and appreciate the information; I admire Hillel for his famous explanation of the meaning of the Torah in simple language. How were the Talmudic texts kept from being destroyed by the Romans? I know the Romans sacked the Temple in Jerusalem and basically sent the Jews packing.

[TRYPHO]

135. In the Yavneh college were some VERY wise men who...

Seeing the Romans were about to obliterate Jerusalem - in a scorched earth policy killing almost a million lives - said they would accept Rome's sovereignty if they would be allowed to continue running the Jewish faith from there. That was agreed, and the academy became the home of the Talmud and Mishnah. It was Rabbi Akiva who was so in support of the rebel leader Bar-Kochba that he put his men at BK's disposal with the add-on that he thought Bar-Kochba was the Messiah - this was in the year 132 Common Era - so clearly they were still waiting for one to appear!

The story of survival continues throughout the Mid-east and Europe, with the copying of the sacred works being added to in every generation, and being meticulously copied for all to see. The loss of a single book would be a tragedy, but the losses suffered at the hands of the Church are beyond recompense. They forced name changes that made a mockery of the work (usually at the expense of others), they removed every entry relating to Jesus or Christianity, and then they just gave up and burned them where they could find them.

But of course, they couldn't find them all, and once printing took hold the number of copies recovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud tells the story and shows a page from the original press at Vilnus - there are some stories worth sharing about that, but perhaps they'll come out on another thread.

TRYPHO

[greyl]

57. Why do you think you're speaking for all Jews?

Or am I misunderstanding something in your phrase "Jews do not accept he existed" ?
Are you orthodox?

[TRYPHO]

94. You are quite right...

I shouldn't have said I speak for all Jews, in fact some Jews claim to be Christians; which I believe atleast gives thenm some validity AS Christians, since ALL Christians should of course be Jews, like Jesus was, if he had existed.(?!)

Yes, I am quite Orthodox - but not shomer shabbat (as its Friday night now, the guests have gone home, and I can't wait till tomorrow to see hoe this thread is panning out!)

Orthodox Jews believe Jesus was just a man - but that he did exist.

TRYPHO

[TRYPHO]

100. Damn, I did it again...

Orthodox Jews believe Jesus was just a man - but that he did exist.

Should have said:

SOME Orthodox Jews believe Jesus was just a man - but that he did exist.

Also, I should have said I belong to an orthodox synagogue, but am not exactly orthodox in practice myself.

TRYPHO :evilfrown:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

126. I can

Check out the sura Maryam, which is named for Mary, mother of Jesus, and the verses therein referring to the birth of Jesus. Some of the stories of Jesus found in the Qur'an are found in books that were not placed into the Christian Bible, but can be found in The Lost Books of the Bible.

From the index of The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an, translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, all mentions of Jesus:

Jesus, a righteous prophet, 6:85
birth 3:45-47; 19:22-23
messenger to Israel 3:49-51
disciples 3:52-53; 5:111-115
taken up 3:55-58; 4:157-159
like Adam 3:59
not crucified 4:157
no more than messenger 4:171;5:75; 43:59, 63-64
not God 5:17, 72
sent with Gospel 5:46
Message and miracles 5:19, 30-33
prays for Table of viands, 5:114
taught no false worship 5:116-118
disciples declares themselves Muslims 5:111
followers have compassion and mercy 57:27
disciples as Allah's helpers 61:14
as a Sign 23:50;43:61
prophesied Ahmad 61:6

From the listings, you can see that the Islamic take on Jesus is different than the Christian one, but Jesus is definately recognized as having existed!

[TRYPHO]

131. You're still 600 years too late to comment

From the listings, you can see that the Islamic take on Jesus is different than the Christian one, but Jesus is definately recognized as having existed!
--
Just because that's your VERY VERY late comment on Jesus, doesn't make it any truer or falser than before you commented.

What if I say Jesus was a gay man, and was thrown out of the faith for being homosexual.

In 600 years will my saying it be any more reason for it to be the truth?

TRYPHO

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

132. But I was merely replying to your post

where you said you didn't know if Islam mentioned Jesus or not. I was giving you factual information that shows the Qur'an does, indeed, mention him. Next time you are in debate with someone, you can now say that you know Islam talks of Jesus; then you can go on to make your argument, whatever it is.

[TRYPHO]

136. yep, I see your point

It was just that somewhere between me saying I didn't know what the Muslim perspective of Jesus was, and your posting, I had read elsewhere on this thread that the Quran was written 600 after the time in question - hence my response to you.

I didn't wish to sound flippant, and I accept the Qurans entry as such.

TRYPHO

[BurtWorm]

17. Where are those records.

That would settle the question right now. ;)

("Christ, Jesus H., 32 King David Circle, Nazareth")

Why would Islam, which came into existence 600 years after the alleged death of Jesus, have an inside line on whether or not Jesus lived if not even Ignatius's contemporaries did? Why is there no reference to Jesus in Jewish literature (aside from the clearly bogus Testamonium Flavianum) until centuries after his alleged death? (And even Josephus' Antiquities was written in the second century, if you want to believe the TF is a genuine Jewish reference dolled-up in Christian finery).

[Esra Star]

13. I think it helps to be really gullible.

If this person existed (i.e. with all the qualities we have learnt about)
What was his actual name.
The closest I have ever got is Jeshua Ben Pandera.
I don't think this is the guy though. I think a few historical characters got mixed up in the
description over the years. The odd phurphy is also thrown in.
The people spinning the yarns never thought they would be found out one day.

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. There are reams of evidence to the contrary

"That he existed and that much in gospels did happen is pretty well documented - not just in the gospels - in historian, secular accounts at the time. By Josephius and at least two Roman Governors comment on it in their writings."

This statement assumes the writings of Josephus that supposedly mention Jesus are authentic and have not been altered. That subject alone is controversial and most likely not true. I am curious which "two Roman Governors" you speak of.

In fact, the secular, contemporary historical record regarding a man named "Jesus who is the Christ" is virtually non existent and the few threads that the church and others try and hang onto that supposedly verify the historicity of Jesus have been repeatedly demonstrated to NOT be contemporary and spurious if not outright forgeries.

As far as Islam is concerned, it is quite frankly a Johnny-come-lately faith of the God of Abraham, having beginnings some 5 CENTURIES after Christs supposed advent in the Levant. As such, the founders of that religion had plenty of time to come up with what is simply an effective marketing scheme aimed at a particular demographic.

Jesus Christ is an amalgam of the dozens of Saviour man-gods that predate him by millenia, most of whom were born of a virgin or maiden, born in a cave, whose birth was attended by wise men and shepherds and whose birth was "foreseen", who were born on or about the winter solstice and were called "Saviour".

It is a fable - a play - an allegory for the movement of the sun and the seasons and not to be taken literally. The need to make him historical and literal is about controlling the masses, NOT about any sense of spirituality. That people have faith that the fantastical story of this one particular god is true while all the others with similar stories are untrue is just an added bonus for the church.

[Joe for Clark]

23. Beg to differ -

He is sometimes referred to as brother of James.

I speak only of contemporaries to him. Pagan and or secular.

Like I said - type Joepheus + Jesus in a search engine. Names fall out if that is what you want.

Joe

[TRYPHO]

27. Let me say this calmly..the INTERNET isnt always the truth!

I am looking at my shelf in front of me, and I will pick a few random books:

Beyond belief, the secret gospel of thomas; Prof Elaine Pagels
Niether Jew nor Greek; prof Judith Lieu
The complete dead sea scrolls in English; Geza Vermes
101 myths of the Bible; Gary Greenberg
James the brother of Jesus; Robert Eisenman
Misquoting Jesus; Bart Ehrman
Jesus the man; barbara Thiering
Lost Christianities; Ehrman
The Jesus Dynasty; James Tabor
The lost books of the Bible; (weird - cant see an author but printed by testasment books)
Textual criticism of the Hebrew bible; Emanuel Tov (very heavy reading)
Gateway to the Talmud; Rabbi Bergman
Back to the Sources; Barry Holtz
The essential Talmud; Adin Steinsaltz (excellent read)


This is my reading list over the last 6 months or so. What did you read? The internet?

If you are SERIOUS, then STUDY - dont be TOLD.

TRYPHO

[Joe for Clark]

29. Many of the books I just posted.

And no, this information is not something you can glean off the internet - so I agree with you on that.

I have read seriously on the subject a lot of my life - I wanted to know.

Joe

I can repost here for you.

Carr, Steven. "First Response by Steven Carr." (URL:<http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/marston2.htm>, 2000).
Charlesworth, James H. Jesus within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (New York: Doubleday, 1988).
Crossan, John D. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991).
Crossan, John D. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994).
Davies, W. D. Invitation to the New Testament, a Guide to its Main Witnesses (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966).
Doherty, Earl J. The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? (Ottawa: Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999).
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship (Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter, 1984).
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987).
Freke, Timothy and Peter Gandy. The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (New York: Harmony Books, 1999).
Goguel, Maurice. Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1926).
Grant, Robert. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1963).
Hardwick, Michael E. Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
Hoffman, Joseph R. Jesus Outside the Gospels (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1984).
Lowder, Jeffery Jay. "Josh McDowell's 'Evidence' for Jesus: Is It Reliable?" (URL:<http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html>, 2000).
Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992).
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, v. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991).
Olson, Ken. "Eusebian Fabrication of the Testimonium" (URL:<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/files/%22Eusebian%20Fabrication%20of%20the%20Testimonium%22>, 2001).
Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin Press, 1993).
Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978).
Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998).
Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000).
Wells, G. A. Did Jesus Exist? (London: Pemberton Publishing Co., 1986).

[TRYPHO]

42. Why do you keep posting the Anti-Christian web link?

You wrote:
And no, this information is not something you can glean off the internet - so I agree with you on that.
I have read seriously on the subject a lot of my life - I wanted to know.
Joe
I can repost here for you.
Carr, Steven. "First Response by Steven Carr." (URL:<http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/marston2.htm >, 2000).
--
That website bowness.demon..... leads to "The Uk's leading Atheist Page - Debates"

There are two sections on Josephus:

Josephus on Jesus

And

Jesus in Antiquities Book 20

They argue how for two centuries Christians arguing in favour of Jesus, whilst quoting Josephus failed to find a mention of Jesus in Josphus's books - which then miraculously they did! - and that the entry, when it did appear, was in a completely different writing style and used completely different words to that which Josephus used otherwise.

So please explain why you pointed to this website as though it argued in favour of Josephus knowing and commenting on Jesus when it does exactly the opposite. Take a moment and read it, whilst I go to bed. I'll look forward VERY MUCH to reading your comment on that website (WHICH YOU TOLD ME TO READ!) tomorrow.

TRYPHO

[Realityhack]

138. You have some massive holes there

First off there is a legitimate debate among historians as to wither he existed.

It IS largely agreed to that many many of the biblical 'facts' of his existance are complete rubish.

Contrary to your statement much of the bible did not happen in anything like the way it is recorded in the bible.

If things went the way the bible claims we would expect a large quantity of historical evidence. We simply do not have that. There are few if any independent accounts outside the bible that can be dated to the time when he was actualy alive as uposed to afterward when the accounts might well be second hand.

Admitedly some figure may have existed but it is extrodanarily unlikely that he bore much of any reseblence to the biblical accounts.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Nice theory, but

The Monarchians and Arians did not exist until about 100 years after this was purportedly written.

Most likely, it was written by a latter writer who "adopted" Ignatius' name as the author. There are quite a few works known to have been written like this: it is extremely unlikely that the gospels of Mark, Matthew and John were written by their purported apostles, and there is general consensus that First and Second Timothy and Titus were not written by the same person (let's call him Paul) who wrote Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. (The authorship of the remaining three "Pauline" Epistles -- Ephesians, Colossians and Second Thessalonians -- remains in dispute.)

It is also interesting to note that Ignatius makes reference to "presbyters" in Chapter three of his letter to the Trallians (I'm looking here. The importance he placed on presbyters -- called "elders" in the Epistle of James and the forerunner of priests -- did not exist until after the time of Constantine, when Christian clergy became de facto agents of the Imperial State.

[bluerum]

2. I question the authenticity of the entire bible. nt

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

4. Or is that just more of that odd and sort

of circular translation from Greek to Aramaic to Hebrew to Latin to English.

Can't be certain until you know what the original verbs said, we may not have an exact translation in English.

[BurtWorm]

6. This was translated from the Greek.

The history of the text is complicated, though, for sure.

[EST]

10. Without newspapers, radio, TV, or the internet, as well

as a lack of any sort of public archives other than hand-lettered papyrus or mud and stone carvings, I could see that assurances of the authenticity of even fairly recent historical events, known to a comparative minority of the citizenry, might seem necessary.

As well, Jesus the Christ was only well known to the poor and sick, except for a public trial, and the prosperous and politically well connected wouldn't particularly give a shit about a dirty rascal who was doing what everybody and his third cousin was doing at the time--seeking fame and riches by claiming to be the highly predicted king of the Jews promised by god.

[BurtWorm]

14. The first century BC was not as primitive as you make it out to be.

Just consider Ignatius, the example at hand. He lived in Antioch, one of the great cities of the Mediterranean in the ancient Greek portion of the Roman Empire. Consider Ignatius's own writing, and why he wrote, and to whom he wrote, and how what he wrote came down to be known to us today. The Mediterranean was a great communication medium, as were the roads of the Empire. Epistles were forms of news. News had to travel quickly or the Empire would never have been as cohesive as it was. A literate citizen of Rome, no matter where he or she lived, got the news. It may been warped by the less than perfect means of communication, but we're not talking about the stone age here. We're talking about a vast, relatively coherent civilization.

[TRYPHO]

18. PLEASE READ THIS IN FULL

The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12, 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.) Although the book of Acts presents Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.). Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities, which was used as reference by the author of Luke and Acts.

The story of Jesus's trial is also highly suspicious. It clearly tries to placate the Romans while defaming the Jews. The historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them. However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. According to Christian mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. This is of course a blatant lie. Jews never had a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year. According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas. This story is a vicious antisemitic lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by antisemites). What is particularly disgusting about this rubbish story is that it is apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed that the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free. The name "Barabbas" is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic "bar Abba" which means "son of the Father." Thus "Jesus Barabbas" originally meant "Jesus the son of the Father," in other words, the usual Christian Jesus. When the earlier story claimed that the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring to the usual Jesus. Somebody distorted the story by claiming that Jesus Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and this fooled the Roman and Greek Christians who did not know the meaning of the name "Barabbas."

And this continues at:

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

Regards,

TRYPHO

[Zhade]

44. So does the lack of corroborating evidence for his existence.

(Even biblical scholars have concluded that Josephus' "mention" of Jesus is a later-added forgery, so let's dispense with that right away.)

[okasha]

46. You're misinterpreting the use of "truly" here.

The argument isn't about the historicity of Jesus, but rather about his humanity. The core tenet of docetism, which arose in the late first/early second century CE, was that Jesus only appeared (Gk. dokeo)to be a physical human being who was physically born and physically died. Like the later Christian Gnostics, the docetists held that Jesus was a pure spirit and both came into the world and left it without incarnating in a human body. That's why Ignatius makes reference to eating and drinking, a way of emphasising that Jesus had a real physical body. The same argument appears obliquely at the end of the Gospel of John, where the resurrected Jesus enjoys a fish fry with his disciples. Real food, real belly, real body, real human.

You'll find a similar argument against docetism in Irenaeus, by the way. He's the first to identify the doctrine and attribute it to one Kerinthos.

[BurtWorm]

68. Who developed that doctrine? Apostles?

Kerinthos (Cerinthus, in the Latin version) was not an apostle. He was no eyewitness. He was an Egyptian Gnostic, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Were any Docetist's eyewitnesses to the events they claim were an illusion? I doubt it. Docetism, it seems to me, is the kind of explanation for unseen events concocted by people who want to believe in them but also want to root their belief in some kind of logical explanation of reality.

[okasha]

106. You've answered your own question.

Otherwise, you seem to be arguing points I never made. I don't follow you at all when you state that Docetism seems to be "concocted" by people who want to "root their belief in some kind of logical explanation of reality," given that a non-physical, entirely spiritual Jesus seems a good deal less "rooted in reality" than a quite physical rebel rabbi who got afoul of the Romans and paid for it with his life.

That would be, oh, I don't know, kind of like making up Santa Claus as an explanation of how your presents get under the tree even when you know your parents are stuffing your toy train in the clothes hamper.

[BurtWorm]

145. Gentile Christians in the first centuries didn't talk about Jesus as a rebel rabbi.

Not even the orthodox and catholic elite spoke of him as a rebel. They spoke of him as the son of god--or, more confusingly, as one aspect of god. That's the "reality" that early Christians struggled with. Was God *really* on the earth? Did he *really* suffer and die? How can God *die*? They weren't bothering themselves over the political situation in Judea (though the Judeo-Christians who created the myth no doubt did), and they didn't care at all about the career of Jesus outside the gospels and apocrypha (which together cover only his childhood and the last three of his alleged 33 years on earth).

It seems to me that Docetism and Marcionism and all the other heresies were attempts to address the problems the gospels raised about a living God in some kind of manner that would make them cohere to the reality in front of their faces. And their reality, to a much greater degree than our own, included literal belief in monsters and supernatural apparitions. It made more sense to suppose that Jesus was a divine apparition than to suppose he was an actual person, because in the ancient world, it was common knoweldge that gods only appeared to be among the mortals. Their actual lives (if they could be said to have them) were "lived" on another plane.

[neebob]

50. The idea of Jesus' historicity has no credibility whatsoever.

He didn't have a uterus - so there!

Forgive me and thank you for the new word. :)

[okasha]

51. Hmmm.

Maybe that should be "hystory" instead of "herstory."

Good puns require no forgiveness, only admiration. ;-)

[neebob]

52. Okay, make that "he didn't have a uterus to remove."

I hate it when I blow the punchline!

[kwassa]

58. This really is a pointless line of debate

Hundreds of millions believe that Jesus lived. Many within a short historical time period after his death believed that he had lived. Not having specific, credible documentation THAT EXISTS NOW from his lifetime does not mean the opposite; that he never lived. That is simply a piece of monumental projection on the part of those who wish he hadn't. It is simply supposition, and would seem far overweighed by those who close to that era strongly believed in his existence. The oral tradition of the Gospels that was written down with a couple of generations of those who had personally known Jesus, not something that floated out there for a millenium.

I find the absurd idea, the one that completely defies common sense, that Jesus never existed at all.

Who would make his life up, and for what purpose, and how would they get everyone else to go along with it? Jesus certainly had a lot of competition out there in the world of roving preachers in the region. He clearly had a great and revelatory impact on those around him who carried his message to others, who found it equally powerful. If he had not existed, then who did create Jesus's message, and why didn't HE take credit for it?

[Meshuga]

60. I think it is valid to claim

that Jesus probably never existed at all as it is to claim that Jesus probably existed. There is no historical proof of his existence but whether he existed it is a fifty-fifty (and I am being generous). You say the people who say he did not existed might have wishful thinking but it might be also true that the people who say there was actually a historical Jesus to have wishful thinking as well.

"Who would make his life up, and for what purpose, and how would they get everyone else to go along with it?"

For the same reason people make up new religions and myths in the present time and people still go along with it.

Perhaps Jesus was created for the purpose of making a stronger case and more of an impact for the "message" and the "revelation". Taking credit for creating Jesus would kill Jesus and it would defeat the purpose.

[kwassa]

61. no validity at all, only supposition

It goes against the way people are, it goes against common sense, it requires a massive conspiracy of silence, for which there is also no evidence.

Ridiculous.

[Meshuga]

63. Are you talking about...

Christianity?

On edit: In goes both ways because if you think about it, faith is just as ridiculous.
More edit: people didn't have access to information like we have today and it is still easy to create myths today. A massive conspiracy theory is not necessary in the case of Jesus.

[BurtWorm]

65. It only requires a legion of people who believe.

Or who want to believe.

[kwassa]

66. and how do you start such a legion?

Have to start with something, or in this case, someone.

[BurtWorm]

67. In this case, it very easily could have started with not a someone but a something.

And that something, I submit, was a myth about a hero named Jesus.

[kwassa]

69. Highly unlikely, with the reasons pointed out already.

and you have no evidence for your point of view, I might add. None, zero, zip, nada. Just an opinion without historical evidence of the myth-making process. I think you are simply positing your unsupported belief on the subject.

Defies common sense.

and ultimately, it doesn't matter, because it all comes down to whether people BELIEVE that Jesus existed, and that his message was important. That has worked pretty well for a couple thousand years.

[trotsky]

71. Just how literate and informed do you think people of the place and time were?

All they knew was what they heard. They were superstitious. They had no real knowledge about what was or wasn't possible in the world. Then think about the telephone game and how a not-that-unusual story could have easily morphed into the loaves and fishes. Etc.

The certainty with which you dismiss any possibility that Jesus didn't exist is a lot more problematic, IMHO.

ultimately, it doesn't matter, because it all comes down to whether people BELIEVE that Jesus existed, and that his message was important. That has worked pretty well for a couple thousand years.

Yup. Sure did.

[BurtWorm]

73. No evidence for my point of view?

What I have a lot of is evidence that the Church took an active role in doctoring *its* evidence to the contrary, and THAT "evidence" is the only available to support its case that there was a Jesus.

You might enjoy reading a very tart yet in-depth and painstaking critique of the Church's case for the historical Jesus by a lawyer friend of HL Mencken's named Joseph Wheless called "http://jbrooks2.tripod.com/ra1fic0a.htm">Forgery in Christianity," which is available in its entirety on-line. A few years ago, when I first came upon it, I'd print out a chapter each night before going home from work. It made for great reading and was an education on the Early Church in itself. I highly recommend it to anyone. It's one of the 20th Century's great overlooked books.

[kwassa]

74. Like I said ....

you have no proof that Jesus didn't exist, which is your thesis, really. As to mythic qualities of details of his life story, that is certainly contestable.

I think that there is little-to-no historical evidence of his life. We have little-to-no history of the vast majority of lives of that era, probably on the order of 99% or more of the population. They still lived, but we have no proof. We have to assume so because they left descendants and some historical record behind, as thin as that might be.

Biblical scholarship is a vast field, with many contenders for the absolute authority, and for some differing standards of evidence, too. The idea that one particular scholar has the only right answer is fairly amusing, too, in a field where the total amount of historical information is so small!

[BurtWorm]

77. My thesis, really, is that there being no evidence of a historical Jesus,

it makes more sense to think of him as pure myth. This is absolutely not the same as what you represent my thesis to be. Nor do I believe or make the case that Wheless has "the only right answer." What Wheless has is a compelling critique of the historicist argument based on careful analysis every important document in the historicists' arsenal. But, as I'm sure you know, Wheless is far from the only scholar to tear apart historicism's flimsy case. He just happens to have had a lot more energy, wit and determination than most people.

[kwassa]

81. No it does NOT make sense, and that is the problem.

"My thesis, really, is that there being no evidence of a historical Jesus, it makes more sense to think of him as pure myth."

Should I think of the entire population of ancient Palestine as mythic, too? I certainly have no evidence of them either, do I?

All the millions of mythic people!

You have made an unsupported leap in logic. No historic evidence of Jesus does not lead to no Jesus, just no evidence. That is all.

[BurtWorm]

83. You have all sorts of evidence of the people of ancient Palestine

including bones, writings, and other datable cultural and physical artifacts from that region. Not so with Jesus.

[kwassa]

85. you avoided my argument, as you have done repeatedly.

No historical evidence of Jesus means "no evidence", not "no Jesus".
Lack of information is not lack of existence.

AND you have little to no evidence of the identity of most Palistineans who ever lived in the region.

I am editing to add this, which I just found. It is humorous because it says exactly what I have been saying:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none.htm

"There might be evidence still in the ground that proves that the Bible passage is accurate. However it might not have been found yet. To quote a common expression used by biblical archaeologists: "No evidence of existence is not evidence of non-existence." Hard proof may still be waiting to be uncovered in the sands of the Middle East."

[Realityhack]

141. Wow

It almost looks like you put effort into missenterpreting what Burtworm said.

As far as I can tell Burtworm and you both agree that:

1. There is no substantial evidence of a historical jesus.
2. Evidence may exist that we are not aware of yet that shows this conclusively one way or the other or that simply adds a little knowlege to the puzze.

The ONLY diffrence I see between your positions is this.

Burtworm:
There is no known credible evidence. I will reguard it as a myth untill I see some.

Kwassa:
There is no known credible evidence. I will reguard it as true untill proven otherwise.

Burtworms position is arguably a lot more logical. I don't see him saying that we souldn't explore the posibility etc. just that without atleast SOME credible evidence blind belief because it is popular is foolish.

[BurtWorm]

146. Thank you, realityhack, for your excellent summary.

I certainly am not arguing that there's proof for or against Jesus's ever having existed as a historical person. You summarize my position perfectly. :toast:

[Evoman]

78. Yeah, but most people aren't the Son of God (tm).

And if he was just a man and not The Son of God (tm), then it makes no sense being a christian, I would think. Why worship a man...its dumb.

[Meshuga]

79. There is no evidence

of a historical Jesus. Not even little evidence! There are people who never met him who talk about him after he died but people still do and that is still no proof. Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, etc. had as much proof of the historicy of Jesus as Christians have today which is NONE! I'm not saying I have proof Jesus did not exist but I affirm there is no proof of the existance of a historic Jesus.

The more I read about the subject the more I have doubts there was a Jesus.

If he existed or not is not an issue, right? Isn't following his example what it is all about?

[w13rd0]

109. "you have no proof that Jesus didn't exist"

...fascinating statement.

You have no proof that Hercules and Zeus did not exist. You have no proof that aliens have not visited earth and lived here. To be quite frank, you have no proof that YOU existed, prior to your waking this morning. Faith is the belief in things unseen. And for those who do not share ones faith, it is the belief in things both unseen and positively ridiculous. Argument over the matter is academic, and without time machines, we really have no REAL way of knowing.

So maybe we should be investing our time in creating time machines...

[PassingFair]

134. Absence of evidence ....

is not evidence of absence.....

now WHERE have I heard that before...

Something about WMD's in the desert SOMEWHERE!

:rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

62. Why would people make up

Odysseus, Gilgamesh, Beowulf? It's a good fucking story. Teaching some cool shit. Epic hero and all that. Compare the story of Jesus to the B.C.E. epic hero stories and tell me there isn't a HUGE similarity.

[BurtWorm]

64. Doubts about a historic Jesus begin with a realization

that the salient features of his "life" as we know it from the Gospels (which are the only sources for his "biography" that we have), could not have taken place given the laws of the universe we live in. It's fine if Christians want to believe in the magical world of the Gospels. That's what Christian faith is all about. But it's ludicrous to expect the rest of us to buy it.

Nevertheless, many non-Christians do give Christians the benefit of the doubt on the historicity question, assuming that such a profoundly influential ideology in the formation of modern Europe and the Western world, not just *must* have have been based on something "real," but really *should* have been. I mean it offends most people's moral sense to believe that such a central foundation of the modern world would be based on "lies," to be blunt, or, to be less incendiary, on *myth.*

I think that distinction between "lies" and "myths," actually, is a helpful one. It might help Christians see that non-Christian questioning of Jesus's historicity is not--or, at least, does not *have* to be--hostile to Christian beliefs.

PS: I didn't finish a thought up above, about the offense to the moral sense that one of the foundations of the western world might be based on myth. This shows how far the development of science and rationalism has progressed, moving us in a totally contrary direction from the sort of world Christianism created. In the Christian world, faith is the apex of all values. ("I believe because it is absurd") But the West has (until recently) been steadily moving toward a more reason-based value system.

It's for this reason that the modern Westerner might be offended to find one of the culture's foundations based on something not actually "true"--i.e., not empirically demonstrable. But a little reflection shows that myth has very often been the basis of cultures and civilizations; the Western world is hardly the first to have absurd stories with sacred meaning underpinning its culture.

[Evoman]

70. Religous fraud happens all the time.

The mormons, scientology....hell, people will believe that a little girl who can't speak or move is a religous icon. Just research cargo cults....a religion can start overnight, and still not have an ounce of validity.

In the case of Jesus, there was NOTHING written about him until hundreds of years after his death. Why is it so difficult to believe that he never existed. For gods sakes, there people in our MODERN world who believe that Romeo and Juliet were real people.

I can easily see people 2000 years ago, at a time when the vast majority were ignorant and illeterate to a degree not seen in our modern world, to believe in a made up myth.

[kwassa]

75. Nope.

Evoman
"In the case of Jesus, there was NOTHING written about him until hundreds of years after his death."

Incorrect!

Please note the dates. Even with the greatest timeline, it is probable that people were alive that had met Jesus, and at worst, were one generation removed, but had met those who knew Jesus. Not enough time for a fully fictional oral tradition to suddenly be transformed into the written word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christianity

Early Christianity
(excerpts)

65? Q document, a hypothetical Greek text thought by many critical scholars to have been used in writing of Matthew and Luke

70(+/-10)? Gospel of Mark, written in Rome?, by Peter's interpreter? (1 Peter 5:13), original ending apparently lost, endings added c.400, see Mark 16

70? Signs Gospel written, hypothetical Greek text used in Gospel of John to prove Jesus is the Messiah

70-100? additional Pauline Epistles

70-200? Didache; Other Gospels: Unknown Berlin Gospel, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Oxyrhynchus Gospels, Egerton Gospel, Fayyum Fragment, Dialogue of the Saviour; Jewish Christian Gospels: Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes

80(+/-20)? Gospel of Matthew, based on Mark and Q, most popular in Early Christianity

80(+/-20)? Gospel of Luke, based on Mark and Q, also Acts of the Apostles by same author

95(+/-30)? Gospel of John and Epistles of John

95(+/-10)? Book of Revelation written, by John (son of Zebedee) and/or a disciple of his

100(+/-30)? Epistle of Barnabas (Apostolic Fathers)

100(+/-25)? Epistle of James

100(+/-10)? Epistle of Jude written, probably by doubting relative of Jesus (Mark 6,3), rejected by some early Christians due to its reference to apocryphal Book of Enoch (v14), Epistle to the Hebrews written

[Evoman]

76. Yes, I exaggerated. But? So what?

How does that change anything else I said? My point still stands. To reiterate:

"Religous fraud happens all the time. The mormons, scientology....hell, people will believe that a little girl who can't speak or move is a religous icon. Just research cargo cults....a religion can start overnight, and still not have an ounce of validity.

In the case of Jesus, there was NOTHING written about him until DECADES (at least 60 to 70 years) after his death. Why is it so difficult to believe that he never existed. For gods sakes, there people in our MODERN world who believe that Romeo and Juliet were real people.

I can easily see people 2000 years ago, at a time when the vast majority were ignorant and illeterate to a degree not seen in our modern world, to believe in a made up myth."

Booyah.

On edit: life expectancies during that time were a lot shorter back then, weren't they? Just a thought.

[kwassa]

80. Religions don't start overnight.

Evoman:
"In the case of Jesus, there was NOTHING written about him until DECADES (at least 60 to 70 years) after his death."

exaggeration #2

His death was somewhere between 25 to 35 A.D. which makes a maximum of 40 years before the first written mention of him, which means that many of those that knew him personally were still alive.

[BurtWorm]

82. A minimum of thirty years before the first mention of him?

That's really odd. Isn't it? Is there another instance of a public figure from that era or any one since who wasn't written about for 30-40 years?

[kwassa]

84. How would I know?

Maybe he was written about a number of times, but none of the texts survived, which is entirely believable.

[Meshuga]

87. But still...

no evidence at all, only supposition. The supposition of Jesus not existing is ALSO entirely believable.

[Az]

88. Jesus is special in a lot of ways

Few people have been sought as desperately as he has. Few people have been fought over as much as he has. The absense of evidence and desperation to believe create a rather fertile ground for all manner of stories about him to crop up. Be they true or not.

Its the lack of evidence confirming his existance or any of his supposed activities that create such a problem. Just as it is possible that he did exist it is also possible that he never existed and was an invention of one or more people. Without evidence we have difficulty telling either way. But the fact that so many of the stories concerning him fall apart when examined closely lends creadance to the fictional explanation.

The search continues.

[BurtWorm]

90. For thirty to forty years?

Sure.

[Zhade]

102. Amazing how strong denial can be when belief is involved, eh?

NT!

[kwassa]

115. About 11 years. First letters of Paul date to about 40 C.E.

and predate the Gospels.

Very close to the life of Jesus.

[Meshuga]

118. Paul never met Jesus

Can't use it as proof that Jesus existed.

[kwassa]

120. You've been missing my points for quite awhile

Since you didn't get the first ones, it is unlikely you will get the last one, either.

[Meshuga]

121. Your points are flawed

Don't blame me. :-)

[kwassa]

122. How can my points be flawed, if you never have addressed them?

Like most other responders in this thread?

My essential point: lack of historical evidence does not prove lack of Jesus's existence.

No one has addressed that one. I just get repeat after repeat about the lack of historical evidence. That is a given.

Point #2: Many who could have known Jesus in his life time were alive when the Gospels and Paul's letters were written. There was not a great deal of time elapsed between the death of Jesus and the first writings, so accounts can be as little as once removed. The idea that this is made up of complete fiction is therefore very unlikely.

Extra bonus point: The world of Biblical scholarship is huge. There may be no subject studied more by historians than the Bible. Virtually all agree that he existed. The direct evidence is scant, the indirect and circumstantial great.

[TRYPHO]

123. The problem is more about the content than the truth

point #1: lack of historical evidence does not prove lack of Jesus's existence.
Point #2: Many who could have known Jesus in his life time were alive when the Gospels and Paul's letters were written. There was not a great deal of time elapsed between the death of Jesus and the first writings, so accounts can be as little as once removed. The idea that this is made up of complete fiction is therefore very unlikely.
--
#1 - Agreed and impossible to dipsrove.
#2 - I don't have a big problem with that, but I have a massive problem with the context and content and the political and religious agendas of that period. We, generallt, do not consider the circumstances of that time period, when the Jews were the oft-hated radicals, the 2nd Temple had been destroyed, the imigration of Jews had been an issue, the Yavneh Rabbi's hadn't formulated new prayer methodologies yet, and the open opportunity for change within the synogogue was being carried by the flag of christianity from within rather than from without.

There is only one problem:
The stuff we have today is clear and utter hocus-pocus, voodoo bollocks compared to the clever theological discussion that would have been happening at that time. Its made for converting idol worshippers not Jews, and does not bear any relationship to whatever must have come before it when the christians were a jewish organisation.

Somethings clearly amiss.

But its not whether Jesus existed, its more who and what would Jesus really have been like, and what would he have said and done in his life.

TRYPHO

[kwassa]

124. This I agree with

"But its not whether Jesus existed, its more who and what would Jesus really have been like, and what would he have said and done in his life."

that is the greater mystery.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. Togodumnus, the strongest king in Britain when Rome invaded it

The name Togodumnus is mentioned twice in book sixty of Cassius Dio's History of Rome. Both passages are quoted below:
"... (Plautius) first defeated Caratacus and then Togodumnus, <1> the sons of Cynobellinus, who was dead. <2> ... After the flight of these kings he gained by capitulation a part of the Bodunni, <3> who were ruled by a tribe of the Catuellani; <4> and leaving a garrison there, <5> he advanced further and came to a river. <6> ..." (Dio lx, 20.1-2)

"Shortly afterwards Togodumnus perished,<7> but the Britons, so far from yielding, united all the more firmly to avenge his death. ..." (Dio lx, 21.1)

...

There is no evidence of the existence of Togodumnus in classical literature other than the words of Dio (quoted above). Our other primary source of information regarding this period, the works of Cornelius Tacitus, are unfortunately incomplete, and amongst the missing chapters are those dealing with the invasion of Britain in AD43.

Unlike his brother Caratacus, Togodumnus issued no known inscribed coinage, which is unusual; Celtic monarchs in Britain had begun to issue inscribed coins prior to the turn of the first millenium, primarily to let their tribes people know who was now in charge. To explain this anomalous behaviour, Graham Webster (TRIoB, pp74) suggested that in c.AD40 when Togodumnus and Caratacus apparently took control of the Catuvellaunian state, they did so not because the old King had died, as had been supposed by most other historians, but because he had been near fatally injured or had suffered a stroke. Webster says further that old king may have been still alive during Caratacus' annexation of the Atrebatean territories, though incapacitated. Togodumnus had apparently stayed at Camulodunum as co-ruler because his fathers condition had so enfeebled him as to make his continued rule a physical impossibility. If this was so, for Togodumnus to have issued his own coins from Camulodunum whilst his father was still alive would have been the height of indiscretion. Caratacus however, would get away with issuing coinage of his own in the captured lands of the Atrebates.

http://www.roman-britain.org/people/togodumnus.htm

Cassius Dio wrote (or at least finished) his History of Rome after AD229. But this is taken as sufficient evidence for Togodumnus to be accepted as a historical reality - for instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica mentions him.

It seems quite believable that the execution of an inconvenient preacher at the edge of the Roman Empire wouldn't get included in contemporary records that subsequently managed to survive. Politically, Jesus wasn't a major event.

[BurtWorm]

105. The apostles or their secretaries were supposedly busily establishing

the church after the alleged death and resurrection in those 30 to 40 years. One of them--John--was supposedly instructing the second generation of Fathers in Smyrna by the turn of the second century, so the Church claims. And the same John supposedly (according to Church tradition) wrote his Gospel in response to a heresy instigated by a Jewish Gnostic from Egypt named Cernithus who was operating during this same period. Paul supposedly knew enough about Jesus before 60 AD (when the earliest epistles appear) that he was a zealous persecutor of his followers in Asia Minor.

But now I'm supposed to buy that Jesus was a real human being AND no big deal politically?

As for Togodumnus, did he come from a culture with a written history? Wouldn't oral history have preserved his memory?

Jesus, on the other hand, allegedly came from a culture whose middle name was "Written History." Consider the sect of Messianic Jews who left their writings in a cave by the Dead Sea. (Of course that sect wrote in Aramaic, while the early Christians would eventually write mainly in Greek and Latin.)

No, I think the reason the Christians didn't write about their "leader" for all those years is that they were orally inventing the stories about him that would become the myth, that would eventually become the "history."

[okasha]

107. There were at least two written documents in circulation before Mark:

the Q gospel and the "Sayings gospel" which were sources for the canonical books. We don't know exactly how long the gap was, but we do know it was less than those 30 or 40 years.

As for Paul--he made converts in Asia Minor. He persecuted the followers of Jesus, according to Acts, in Jerusalem, which was at that time the center of the movement. He was, again according to Acts, a sort of Temple police officer/prosecutor. He'd know the local bad boys, just as a local DA would.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. No, Jesus wasn't big politically, in the Roman Empire

He didn't lead a revolt; he wasn't a ruler, or a wealthy Roman. So he didn't make it into the big histories, which are the ones people make the effort to preserve and copy. Look how fragile even those are - books of Tacitus's Annals are missing, so we don't have a record of the invasion of Britannia in 43AD that was written in the same century - just the one from over 150 years later. That was probably compiled from an earlier book (Tacitus's missing volumes, perhaps), or maybe oral history - but the point it that the surviving written record of Togodumnus dates from long after him. You asked if any other public figure from the time had a gap of 30 to 40 years before appearing in the written record; and they do.

Early Christians may have been writing down things about Jesus not long after he died; but that doesn't mean we would expect to find them. Only exceptional conditions can preserve papyrus of vellum from that time - such as the Dead Sea Caves. It depends on a chain of people deciding to copy and recopy the original documents, to get the original words preserved. The commonly accepted scholarship is that there were one or more gospels that preceded the 4 that got into the bible; and that those 4 started appearing about 70AD. That's 40 years after the events they say they describe - within living memory.

I think it would be an unnecessary risk, if you're making up the entire story, to say there was a public execution, at the time of the major holiday, for which there would be many people still alive who could say "Rubbish! I lived in Jerusalem then, and nothing like that happened". You can get away with details that happened in private, that weren't given exact dates, because you can say to any naysayer "well, you just weren't there". But invent a crowd scene in the major city, at the most important time of the year, and there'll be a lot of people who could say it never happened. They could have avoided that making up a different story, not so public.

I'm not saying the gospels are mostly true. But they do count as something towards the existence of Jesus; and so does Josephus. Ignore the passage that calls him the Messiah - that doesn't ring true with what we know of Josephus. But the other mention, as 'Jesus, called Christ', is referred to, and criticised, by Origen (who says it's wrong of Josephus to accept James as a good man, without accepting his brother as the Messiah). It is still possible that it's a forgery done by a different scribe, that Origen saw, and we do as well; but it's not a very impressive forgery, if an early churchman still thinks it shows Josephus to be anti-Jesus. It's not proof; but it is evidence.

[TRYPHO]

116. Don't forget almost everyone died in AD70 so....

when you write...

-0-
I think it would be an unnecessary risk, if you're making up the entire story, to say there was a public execution, at the time of the major holiday, for which there would be many people still alive who could say "Rubbish! I lived in Jerusalem then, and nothing like that happened". You can get away with details that happened in private, that weren't given exact dates, because you can say to any naysayer "well, you just weren't there". But invent a crowd scene in the major city, at the most important time of the year, and there'll be a lot of people who could say it never happened. They could have avoided that making up a different story, not so public.
-0-

You are forgetting the million* or so lives lost, the total destruction of Jerusalem, the kicking out of any Jews from the remains and the dispersal and upheavel probably sent most people towards the East or South rather than Europe where the Jesus Gospels were being spread.

So, if you wanted to up the ante a bit on the Jesus fables, there was a much better than normal chance of getting away with it than your argument presumes.

TRYPHO
* - I'm fairly sure thats the fidure I've read in a book somewhere - it was certainly the lives lost in one of the Jewish uprisings against Rome, but there were quite a few!

[okasha]

104. Your math is still off.

Assuming that Jesus was crucified sometime between 25 and 35 CE, the gospel of Mark would have appeared no more than 30 or 40 years later (between 65-75 CE.) A good case can be made that it was written before 70 CE, given that in it Jesus prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem, but there is no mention of that prophecy's fulfillment. (And it doesn't matter in the slightest for the purpose of dating whether the prophecy was genuine or not. It might have been. It might have been a good guess. It might have been Mark's own astute assessment of the situation after around 66 CE. What matters is the omission of a relevant contemporary event.)

Even before Mark, though, there was the Q gospel, which appears to have been his primary source. He also, apparently, used the lost "Sayings gospel" which was the foundation of the Gospel of Thomas and also underlies much of John. We know that the "Sayings gospel" is older than Mark because Thomas contains much of the same material as Mark, but in a less developed form. So we are probably looking at written material about Jesus coming into circulation not later than the 50's. That takes another ten years or so off the gap. A couple decades, tops. Not centuries, or even near it.

[Imperialism Inc.]

111. Those dates are certainly not universally accepted.

Mark may have been end of the 1st century. It is possible, but very improbable, based on what writings we really have, that he is as late as 3rd century (this would require some passages in early Christian writings to be, somewhat plausible interpolations and mis-interpretations) . I'm not going to go in to all the specifics so I understand if no one takes my word for it but just realize that not everyone agrees with that time line.

Apologists and Christian scholars assume 70 for Mark because of the destruction of the temple but, by itself, there is no reason for that to mean it happened shortly before only that it was in the past. The "logic" they use to do so is very strange and internally inconsistent. They claim it had to be as close to the life of Jesus as possible, otherwise the Gospels would be more inaccurate due to oral tradition getting further from the the truth over time. First, that is putting the cart before the horse and assuming a reliable Gospel! Second it contradicts what they tell us about how reliable oral tradition supposedly is (despite evidence to the contrary).

So the logic goes like this. Oral tradition is a remarkably accurate way to hand down a story. (They base this on Jewish Mishnaic oral tradition practices but could have easily as chosen less reliable traditions as a comparison with our lack of evidence. Not to mention there are modern day studies that show reliability is not what they claim. Not to worry. They'll acknowledge that as needed). But, the Gospels must have been written as close to the death of Jesus as possible because otherwise the stories would be perverted by the unreliability of oral tradition. Oh, and all those non-canonical Gospels and writings? Well those aren't reliable since the tellers allowed their imaginations and theological preferences to corrupt the oral traditions. (And not the canonical Gospels?)

[okasha]

112. The dates are in fact widely accepted among scholars.

They don't depend only on "assumptions" but on the relationship between the gospels. For instance, if Luke used Mark as a source--and he did--then Mark must pre-date the early second century papyri of Luke.

Crossan accepts dates very close to those given by Lydia, by the way, and he absolutely shreds the notion of oral transmission.

[Imperialism Inc.]

113. Right , but then how do you decide on the date for Luke.

I'm only pointing out that there is a much wider range of possible dates than the wikipedia implies. Also my point was, there are scholars that think that later dates may be correct. And with good reason.

For example. Synagogues.

From Robert Price's Incredibly Shrinking Son of Man

A major collision between the gospel tradition and archeology concerns the existence of synagogues and Pharisees in pre-70 CE Galilee. Historical logic implies there would not have been any, since the Pharisees fled to Galilee only after the fall of Jerusalem. Sure enough, there is virtually no evidence for synagogue buildings in Galilee in Jesus' day and this is a major blow to Gospel historicity, since Jesus is depicted as constantly "entering" synagogues, or meeting halls. A similar problem is posed by the ill fit between the synagogue disputes with Jesus and the scribes and actually opinions of the scribes as inferred from the Mishnaic evidence. The Gospels seem to caricature scribal opinion in such a way as to suggest they were not even familiar with their opponents' views. Thus, these stories can scarcely go back to the time they pretend to report.

Besides showing the Gospels as unreliable history, the synagogue problem raises an important question. Why did the authors write about so many synagogues? Doesn't that imply that they were common in their day? Is under a decade really long enough for synagogues to not only have become commonplace, but for the author to have forgotten that they weren't commonplace in Jesus' day? Isn't it more likely that he is writing a few decades after the fall of Jerusalem when synagogues are now commonplace and only the old remember that didn't used to be?

[okasha]

114. Fairly easily, actually.

I think you'll agree that any work has to be (a)later than its known sources and (b) contemporaneous with or earlier than its first known manuscripts. This clearly places Luke after Mark and his sources and after whatever still unknown source Luke used for his nativity/infancy narrative. This means that Luke must fall somewhere between the earliest date for Mark and the earliest known Lukan manuscript, i.e., late first to early second century. It also precludes Mark's being later than the other two synoptics or John. True, that gives a range with variable termini at both ends, but it doesn't give a particularly wide range.

Here's the UNESCO World Heritage Site on the subject of early Galilean synagogues.

Date of Submission: 30/06/2000
Criteria: (iii)(vi)
Category: Cultural
Submission prepared by:
Delegation Permanente d'Israel aupres de l'UNESCO
Coordinates:
Lat. 32°54' N / Long. 35°35' E
Ref.: 1470

Description
The synagogue was a revolutionary institution from its inception, embodying dramatic religious and social changes. It appears to have been a uniquely Jewish creation that influenced the subsequent development of the Christian church and the Muslim mosque. As its Greek name - synagogue - "place of assembly" - attests, it functioned as a community center, housing the activities of school, court, hostel, charity fund, and meeting place for the local Jewish community. In Second Temple and later sources, the word synagogue often refers to a congregation and not to a building.



The early synagogues of the Galilee were the first buildings representing monotheistic space where people worshipped without idols. They were also the initial prototypes where Jesus prayed. The remains of as many as 50 different synagogues were identified in the Galilee, one of the most concentrated sites for synagogues in the world at that time. These early synagogues included Meron, Gush Halav, Navorin, Bar Am and Bet Alfa and Korazim, and Capernaum by the Sea of Galilee.



The earliest synagogue remains in Palestine date to the late first century BCE. or by the early first century CE. By this time the synagogue was a developed central institution throughout the Jewish world.

Note especially the Israeli scholars' statements that "synagogue" referred to a congregation as well as to a building at the time of the Herodian Temple (as did "church" in its earliest usage)and that the synagogue was a "developed central institution" by the first century CE. Congregations meeting in homes or other locations would not necessarily leave distinctive archaeological remains.

[Imperialism Inc.]

117. First know manuscripts are from 3rd century ce so that isn't really

helping your case. There are second hand references ( to Marcion I believe) that perhaps refer to a shorter version of Luke in mid 2nd century. So that is consistent with what I am saying. I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was hundreds of years (in fact I said that was very improbable). But there is a several decade range that is quite reasonable. And indeed the original reasons for picking the earliest possible dates as the most likely dates were motivated by religious reasons.

As far as the synagogues go it sure seems difficult for someone to "enter" a congregation and start teaching. Entering is something you do with a building. But it is useful info that there is a claim that there is a lot of evidence for synagogues which is obviously in direct contradiction of what Price said. I'll have to look in to it. Thanks for the info.

Take care.

Edit: ok after brief glance I would have to say maybe it isn't a contradiction of Price after all. I certainly wouldn't try to say either way as I am unfamiliar with most of the towns mentioned. But the 2 I checked end up with synagogues dated early 2nd century after all. As a vague summary it is hard to tell which if any of those listed are supposedly pre70 CE. That's not a criticism . In fact that is to be expected from a snippet of a web page of a cultural organization. Here is the full link for anyone interested.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1470/

[okasha]

119. I do seem to have oversimplified.

As one of my professional colleages is unfortunately fond of saying, let's "drill down" to another level.

The Marcionite reference to Luke is second century, which certainly indicates that Luke, in some form, was extant at/before that time. Papyri 4, 64 and 67, which contain parts of both Luke and Matthew, are also second century, and T. C. Skeat uses their witness to argue for a four-gospel codex as early as the late second century. The more extensive copy of Luke you may be referring to, P75/Bodmin 406, is in fact third century.

Meanwhile, P52/Rylands is a small fragment of John, dated to the early second century, while P66/Bodmin 426, more substantial, clocks in at later second century. If John is the latest of the four canonical gospels, and it's pretty well accepted that it is, then Mark, Luke and Matthew must all be earlier than the early second-century P52. That's still a simplification, but I do think it makes the chronology clear. There's also the relationship between Luke and Acts to consider.

In order to date the first appearance of Luke to the 3rd century CE, you would have to argue either that it's almost a century later than John, or that the John papyri are badly misdated and themselves between 100 and 150 years later than current scholarship accepts. On the basis of present evidence, I'd say both those positions are untenable. They would also present really nasty problems on the source and redaction level.

As far as the synagogues go, there is considerable evidence from the gospels themselves that rabbinic teaching took place in "unofficial" locations as well as dedicated buildings. Recall that Jesus is teaching a gathering--a congregation, if you will--in a private house when the paralyzed man is lowered from the roof. He also seems to have been something of a "hedge rabbi," and can hardly have been the first, last or only one to do his teaching anywhere his listeners could get comfortable on the grass.

Thanks for posting the link to the UNESCO site. I'd meant to, but was posting rather hurriedly and obviously didn't.

[Imperialism Inc.]

143. Sorry for taking so long to respond. The holidays and all.

Your final paragraphs raise an interesting problem for your point view. The term Rabbi, which is used about Jesus, is also a term that did not have wide usage until near the end of late first century CE. Also, you argument about synagogues, while not entirely convincing, is also mostly irrelevant. The problem is that you ignore the second half of the original equation. The Pharisees. They were not present in Galilee until after the fall of Jerusalem. In fact Jewish scribal writing show quite clearly that before the Pharisees were forced out of Jerusalem they were quite hostile to the area. There is a quote in a Price book of one scribe saying how after a year in Galilee not one person had asked him anything about the Torah, along with the many "put downs" Judeans used about Galilee. So not really a hotbed of scribes and Jewish teachers as the New Testament portrays. And it is really here that your argument about the synagogues in the New Testament falls on its face. There really isn't any way to view these depictions of Jesus "entering" synagogues to debate scribes and Pharisees except as current practices (of post 70CE) being written back in to the story of Jesus. So again my point remains. Is it reasonable that Mark was written immediately following when this started to happen? Don't we need a bit of time, a decade at the very least? I won't say that it is impossible but to me it seems very unlikely that Mark could have been written so soon after the Pharisees fled to Galilee.

[okasha]

144. Your reply contains two buried assumptions.

One is that Jesus was static in Galilee. The other is that the "scribes and Pharisees" were static in Jerusalem.

If you look at the gospels themselves, they record Jesus as moving throughout the Judean landscape--from Galilee to John at the Jordan and back, and through Samaria and several times down to Jerusalem and Judea proper. The gospels also assume that the Pharisees were mobile: e.g., "Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem then came to Jesus...." (Matthew 15:1) They might not have had Southwest Airlines, but they did get around.

[Imperialism Inc.]

72. At this point, there is no way we can know if Jesus was historical.

The direct references to the man Jesus (and not just people know as Christians) is exactly one and that bears all the hallmarks of a later interpolation.

What is clear is that the main accounts we have of Jesus (canonical Gospels and non-canonical) are grossly mythologized and full of syncretism. Not just in that some of the story resembles the classic hero archtype but in specifics. Just one small example of many are Jesus using the same methods pagans used to "exorcise demons" (e.g. have to say the demons name to gain power over it, etc). This happened in many different directions at once leading to often contradictory movements.

We can't just assume the ones that became canonical are the "correct ones". For 2 reasons. First, they contradict each other int many places. Apologists can often find a way to "harmonized" the contradictions but most of the time the explanations they come up with aren't anything an objective party would ever think is the best explanation. I mean if you are already a literalist and need a reason to keep being so , they might offer enough sawdust and glue to keep you there , but you aren't going to buy it otherwise. The other is that the canonical gospels were chosen in a political process by men with political purposes. Men with an agenda at the very least require us to approach them with a cautious eye.

Personally I am split roughly 50-50 on the question. Both historicity and ahistoricity seem equally plausible. We certainly won't be solving it here at DU. I mean just look at the kooky birth and death certificate claims rofl. The proper suggestion was given though. Read!

If you are interested in secular perspectives I would recommend 2 authors. Burton Mack for a historicist view. And Robert Price for an historical agnostic view. Both are very qualified in the field. I find Price more persuasive because it seems to me Mack is not really offering evidence of existence, he is mostly just assuming it.

[TRYPHO]

97. My Final Word...

I have a sneaking suspicion someone in the Vatican knows the truth, and probably has some amazing papers to go with it. The shame is, whenever these things tend to turn up, they tragically suddenly go missing. There's a wonderful account of this sort of thing from Baigent in The Jesus Papers, where he chases all over for Dead Sea Scrolls that keep vanishing. A good read though, if a tad biased.

I would dearly love some real proof of Jesus to materialize in my lifetime - crikey we came close with the Nag Hammadi Texts, so who knows. The problem I really sense is the Church. Its position would be so untenable if the truth came to light that it would literally move mountains to stop the word spreading. Why? Because the real Jesus, a Jew, would have said NOTHING like what the church now espouses in his name.

Somehow, between the death of whoever Jesus was, and the Q document and the other Gospels gradually appearing, (until Iraneous got the mess finally sorted into todays canon - PLEASE read Elaine Pagels "Beyond Belief - The Secret Gospel of Thomas - to see how, why, where, when and what motivated him to do it) the word, stories, history and truth became so fudged that extrapolation backwards is well near impossible.

Imagine going to a library and picking up half a dozen books entitled something like "a dissertation on the underlying meanings within Shakespeare's plays". If you collected and read all these books would you be able to piece together any of Shakespeare's original plays in their original language?

And that's the problem.

So, unless some amazing new piece of evidence comes to light, and the Church doesn't pay someone 15 million dollars to lose it (yeah yeah, I'm that cynical) all we've got are third hand stories, at least two languages removed from the alleged source, and impossible to extrapolate back, validate, prove or, for the faithful, deny.

SO, Christians can have their faith in the New Testament, and the doubters can doubt, but I'll firmly acknowledge two absolute fundamentals:

1. There is NO proof of his existence - which tells me something in itself.
2. I am happy to have 1 proven wrong, and accept it wont ever be proven right.

Finally, as someone very well versed in ancient Christianity, can I just thank you all for your part in this thread, and particularly any of you that posted web-links, some of which I hadn't seen before and have found extremely interesting and will use a lot in the future.

Cheers all,

TRYPHO

[TRYPHO]

98. Oh, I forgot one thing

Jesus probably hated the Romans*, almost everyone in Israel did, since they were the oppressive tyrants squeezing every last shekel out of the poor Jews in taxes such that some even had to sell their children in to slavery to survive (kids were plentiful if food wasn't! But you wouldn't sell one if you didn't have to). And the worst of the Romans were the ones from Rome of course. So, Jesus, if he did manage to come back again, would really see the big joke, when the Church that was founded in his name, somehow came to be spoken in LATIN, and was based IN ROME, and is called the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Boy, would he laugh.

Peter on the other hand...


TRYPHO
* - he may not have, he may have covorted with the enemy and got himself killed for it, who knows.

[peanutbrittle]

137. Just a general thought on the conspiracy theory side of the issue..

If Jesus didn't die until 25 -35 AD and some of the texts can be dated to as early as 40 -100+
Considering the fact that the debate, discussion and division between sects of the followers of Christ i.e. Paul, Gnostic, Mark seems to have already begun it's course at that point and beyond adds much creedence to the evidence of Jesus's existence. Had it been a conspiracy there would be no divisions in the interpretations of Jesus's life and teachings as all would need to be on the same page.

I mean it's a simple point that has probably been discussed here but just attempting to clarify.
Of course beyond that the question of him being the Son of God still stands.

Good thread Burtworm!

[TRYPHO]

139. I'm not into any conspiracy theory myself, but SOMETHING is wrong

with the picture that appeared such that every book that appeared (apart from perhaps Matthew and Luke, and even them quite a lot) were SOOOOOOO different - in fact irreconcilable.

Logic demands either A LOT of groups were adding A LOT of stories to the basic theme that underlines them all, or one group were coming out with an ever increasing spread of fantastic stories. In either option there are source groups which spread the original word, and the problem is, there is nothing yet to prove they weren't just making up stories in the manner that was the custom of the time of prophetic Jewish sects (no doubt Wikipedia has something to offer...if I find a good link I will add it later).

So, the story of Jesus could well be fabricated, but the appearance of later gospels from additional diverse and unknown sources (none are ever mentioned, either assumed or alluded to, but never specific enough to categorically state) sort of increases the likelihood of an original source with off-spring groups appearing ad-hoc over a period of time, from a variety of regions. This isn't factual, just a sort of holistic likelihood, but I'm going with the view that those followers who escaped the destruction in C.E.70 went in various directions, and then regrouped by chance, in Southern Europe and elsewhere, having amassed their collections of stories in to gospels which they preached to the local Jewish synagogues.

The REAL problem for the Church for the future is in reconciling the fact that the original gospels that have come to light DO NOT have the Divinity of Jesus in them, DO NOT have the Virgin Birth in them, and DO NOT have any of the other stuff that drifted in to the canonised gospels. Actually, thats not true, they only appear in John, but the Church takes Johns word over the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

TRYPHO

[TRYPHO]

140. Unfulfilled Christian Prophecies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_unfulfilled_Christian_Prophecy

Wasn't what I was looking for but I thought it was so interesting you'd all be delighted to share in the good news!

Jesus is coming. He's coming...now. Now. Soooooooon. Ok, in a bit. NOW. Soooon. Soooooon. Are you ready?

Hmmmm.....well, soon then.

TRYPHO
Edited: You dont spell news with a K.

[Realityhack]

142. Some thoughts.

I hope someone gets down this far in the thread. Here are some thoughts I regarding the existence of a historical Jesus.

There are some things mentioned with regard to Jesus that are clearly false. Herod’s slaughter of the innocents is an example.
There are a number of things that have some basis in reality but the details are all wrong or two or more biblical accounts can not in any way be reconciled. For example a Roman census was taken by Quirinius, but the bible makes some silly twists with the methodology to get Jesus’ birth place to work the way they want it to. In addition this date is incompatible with the dates of Herod’s rein.
There is no known contemporaneous independent account of Jesus’ existence. As noted above the contemporaneous histories actually run contrary to some of the biblical ‘history’.

The STORY of Jesus clearly held quite a bit of power within a relatively short time after when he was supposed to have lived.
The STORY of Jesus clearly holds enormous sway today.
The power of the story of Jesus may be entirely separate from any reality of it. Many arguably educated people today believe in the story of the flood as literal truth. There is no reason to think that people then could not have been convinced of something false. Even if it was relatively obviously false.

Therefore we know for a FACT that at least some of the events surrounding Jesus in the bible are complete fabrications.
We also know for a fact that early Christians (and later ones as well) have intentionally forged the record to try to create independent accounts of Jesus.

I see no compelling reason to believe in a historical Jesus.

If one does chose to believe without any evidence to base such a belief on. One should at least admit that the historical Jesus if real might well bear little resemblance to the biblical Jesus as we know at least some of the accounts are outright made up.