The historical Jesus

[Neo Art]

I said more references. Not as much evidence as. About temples and coins, I was obviously speaking of written sources. I'm not stupid enough to say that, in the rest, the existence of Tiberius is not as proven as Jesus. What I'm saying is that the number of writings about Jesus is not that bad for the era. Simple.

and once again, number is meaningless, QUALITY is what's important. Moreover, if you don't want to argue that "there's the same evidence for Jesus as there is for Tiberius" you might want to refrain from quoting sources who are trying to argue just that.

[JLAEST]

I only see the author speaking of numbers. And that is all. About quality, obviously (if you don't count religious sources) it is a lost cause: No way some guy that was arrested and crucified somewhere in Palestine would get the same detail in writing than an emperor. That's why Jesus starts being mentioned later, and Christians are mentioned too.

[Neo Art]

I only see the author speaking of numbers. And that is all. About quality, obviously (if you don't count religious sources) it is a lost cause: No way some guy that was arrested and crucified somewhere in Palestine would get the same detail in writing than an emperor. That's why Jesus starts being mentioned later, and Christians are mentioned too.

Um, your source was written by one Dr. Gary Habermas. You mean this Dr. Gary Habermas? Yes, this tiny little extract just talked about "numbers" but there's a bit of context we thinking people are able to extract from that source, and it's clear what the end goal of that piece is discussing, what its purpose is, and for what reason the clear distortion of facts is aimed at.

[Dakini]

I still can't understand how Jesus having more references (or almost the same number if you don't count Christian sources)in the 150 years after his death than the emperor at the time is not a proof of his existence...

Let's look at this, shall we?

“What we have concerning Jesus actually is impressive. We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider the critical thesis that other authors wrote the pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we’d have an even larger number.

Citing the Bible as support for the Bible does not count. Especially since three of the gospels probably share the same source of borrowed sayings so if anything, should be counted as one author.

Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian sources mention Jesus within the 150 years: Josephus, the Jewish historian;

The passage about Jesus in Josephus's writings is a well-known forgery.

Tacitus, the Roman historian;

Reports the beliefs of Christians, not that this actually happened. Gives evidence that there were Christians by 116 CE, not that there was a Jesus.

Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome;

Reports about Christians in 112 CE. They were refusing to worship the emperor. Nothing about Jesus.

Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories;

...reports about an eclipse and does not mention Jesus or Christians at all.

Lucian, the Greek satirist;

Made fun of Christian beliefs in 170 CE by talking about how they believe in a man apparently crucified in Palestine started this cult.

Celsus, a Roman Greek philosopher;

Wrote criticising the beliefs of Christians sometime between 170-180 CE.

and probably the historians Suetonius

Wrote about an uprising of Jews at the instigation of Chrestus, which was a popular name at the time. No mention of Christians or Jesus.

and Thallus,

Is otherwise unknown and only mentioned in Christian apologist sources starting in the second century. Might also not have existed.

as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion.

Talks about the wise king of the Jews. Does not say anything about resurrection or anything. Also puts the wise king of the Jews on the same level as Socrates and Pythagoras.

At best, most of these sources mention that there were Christians. We know that there were Christians, this isn't in doubt.

[Dakini]

I said more references. Not as much evidence as. About temples and coins, I was obviously speaking of written sources. I'm not stupid enough to say that, in the rest, the existence of Tiberius is not as proven as Jesus. What I'm saying is that the number of writings about Jesus is not that bad for the era. Simple.

Except that most of the writings aren't actually about Jesus.

Seriously, enter the name of an author you cite and Jesus into a google search. Skip over the apologist websites (this might be difficult, but if you want to find information with less of a bias you should do this) and see the actual quotes. Don't just take the word of apologists, investigate for yourself. It doesn't take long, that's what I did in the long post where I broke it up. Most of it is heavily cited on wikipedia.

[Tmutarakhan]

three of the gospels probably share the same source of borrowed sayings so if anything, should be counted as one author.

The three synoptics are not from ONE source: Mark is one author, whose material is reused in Matthew and Luke; but the collection of sayings used in Matthew and Luke (much of it also found in Thomas) is an entirely different author (not even the same genre: not a narrative story at all); and while the "special Matthew" material probably does not come from an earlier source (it looks rather like late invention), at least some of the stories in the "special Luke" material are from a distinctive author (this stuff stands out for a somewhat shaky grasp of Greek, where Luke's own Greek is superb; thus from an educated but non-native speaker of the language). There are probably more than three first-generation authors represented here.

The passage about Jesus in Josephus's writings is a well-known forgery.

It has certainly been tampered with, but it is a general consensus that that parts of the passage are genuinely by Josephus; and there is a second reference in passing, whose authenticity there is not the slightest reason to doubt.

Tacitus, the Roman historian;
Reports the beliefs of Christians, not that this actually happened. Gives evidence that there were Christians by 116 CE, not that there was a Jesus.

This is completely wrong. He is reporting the beliefs of the Romans about the Christians (he is not at all likely to have ever spoken to a Christian), does indeed report the execution of their founder as something that actually happened, and is talking about Christians in 63-64 CE, not fifty years later.

Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome;
Reports about Christians in 112 CE. They were refusing to worship the emperor. Nothing about Jesus.

On the contrary, he reports that they were worshipping Jesus "as if a god".

Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories;
...reports about an eclipse and does not mention Jesus or Christians at all.

This is correct. The Christian attempt to connect this eclipse reference to the "darkening of the sun" in the gospels is unlikely in the extreme (the crucifixion happened near Passover, which is fixed at the full-moon phase, when a solar eclipse is maximally impossible).

Lucian, the Greek satirist;
Made fun of Christian beliefs in 170 CE by talking about how they believe in a man apparently crucified in Palestine started this cult.

Yeah, what's your problem? Lucian like Tacitus takes it for granted that their founder actually was put to death by crucifixion; this was as matter-of-fact an assertion as saying that Kennedy died by being shot.

Celsus, a Roman Greek philosopher;
Wrote criticising the beliefs of Christians sometime between 170-180 CE.

Much earlier than that. Between 170-180 is when we get thorough Christian responses to this text; but Justin Martyr writing before 150 also has heard of his arguments.

and probably the historians Suetonius
Wrote about an uprising of Jews at the instigation of Chrestus, which was a popular name at the time. No mention of Christians or Jesus.

It is probable that Suetonius is writing about Jews who followed some Messianic claimant, but this would more likely be one of the heirs to the Zealot claim (the descendants of Judah of Galilee, major rebel in 6-7 CE; his heirs were hunted down and crucified in the 40's shortly after the troubles in Rome that Suetonius mentions).

and Thallus,
Is otherwise unknown and only mentioned in Christian apologist sources starting in the second century. Might also not have existed.

This whole idea of making up people who never existed is thoroughly post-modernist; people did not used to think that way.

as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion.
Talks about the wise king of the Jews. Does not say anything about resurrection or anything. Also puts the wise king of the Jews on the same level as Socrates and Pythagoras.

The reference is almost certainly to James the brother of Jesus.

At best, most of these sources mention that there were Christians. We know that there were Christians, this isn't in doubt.

Yes, but WHY were there Christians?

[Dakini]

three of the gospels probably share the same source of borrowed sayings so if anything, should be counted as one author.

The three synoptics are not from ONE source: Mark is one author, whose material is reused in Matthew and Luke; but the collection of sayings used in Matthew and Luke (much of it also found in Thomas) is an entirely different author (not even the same genre: not a narrative story at all); and while the "special Matthew" material probably does not come from an earlier source (it looks rather like late invention), at least some of the stories in the "special Luke" material are from a distinctive author (this stuff stands out for a somewhat shaky grasp of Greek, where Luke's own Greek is superb; thus from an educated but non-native speaker of the language). There are probably more than three first-generation authors represented here.

Not getting into this.

The passage about Jesus in Josephus's writings is a well-known forgery.

It has certainly been tampered with, but it is a general consensus that that parts of the passage are genuinely by Josephus; and there is a second reference in passing, whose authenticity there is not the slightest reason to doubt.

This is entirely untrue. The only people who think that the part of the Josephus passage regarding Jesus is authentic are biblical apologists. It breaks the flow of the narrative and does not appear in early Christian apologist accounts, even those who write about Josephus.

Tacitus, the Roman historian;
Reports the beliefs of Christians, not that this actually happened. Gives evidence that there were Christians by 116 CE, not that there was a Jesus.

This is completely wrong. He is reporting the beliefs of the Romans about the Christians (he is not at all likely to have ever spoken to a Christian), does indeed report the execution of their founder as something that actually happened, and is talking about Christians in 63-64 CE, not fifty years later.

He wrote the passage in 116 CE. We don't know if his attributing the fire to Christians is something that was actually a common attitude at the time of the fire or if this is something that happened later. In addition, he just claims that they follow a man who was executed by Pilate, he does not actually say that this guy was executed, he's likely just reporting what Romans gathered about Christian beliefs and did not check on the matter (or if he did, recording it in the middle of a section talking about a fire in Rome would not be very organized of him).

Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome;
Reports about Christians in 112 CE. They were refusing to worship the emperor. Nothing about Jesus.

On the contrary, he reports that they were worshipping Jesus "as if a god".

He reports that Christians are unwilling to worship the emperor and then comments on their beliefs. This is not proof that Jesus existed.

Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories;
...reports about an eclipse and does not mention Jesus or Christians at all.

This is correct. The Christian attempt to connect this eclipse reference to the "darkening of the sun" in the gospels is unlikely in the extreme (the crucifixion happened near Passover, which is fixed at the full-moon phase, when a solar eclipse is maximally impossible).

Good we agree on something.

Lucian, the Greek satirist;
Made fun of Christian beliefs in 170 CE by talking about how they believe in a man apparently crucified in Palestine started this cult.

Yeah, what's your problem? Lucian like Tacitus takes it for granted that their founder actually was put to death by crucifixion; this was as matter-of-fact an assertion as saying that Kennedy died by being shot.

Or like someone who is arguing against the beliefs of any other group just argue the belief. At any rate, he is not really an independent witness as he is relying on what Christians claim.

Celsus, a Roman Greek philosopher;
Wrote criticising the beliefs of Christians sometime between 170-180 CE.

Much earlier than that. Between 170-180 is when we get thorough Christian responses to this text; but Justin Martyr writing before 150 also has heard of his arguments.

If by much earlier, you mean between 3 and 13 years... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus#Loc ... 7_writings not before 150 CE.

and probably the historians Suetonius
Wrote about an uprising of Jews at the instigation of Chrestus, which was a popular name at the time. No mention of Christians or Jesus.

It is probable that Suetonius is writing about Jews who followed some Messianic claimant, but this would more likely be one of the heirs to the Zealot claim (the descendants of Judah of Galilee, major rebel in 6-7 CE; his heirs were hunted down and crucified in the 40's shortly after the troubles in Rome that Suetonius mentions).

It's quite probable that the Jews were upset about being conquered and went into revolt led by a guy with a common name.

and Thallus,
Is otherwise unknown and only mentioned in Christian apologist sources starting in the second century. Might also not have existed.

This whole idea of making up people who never existed is thoroughly post-modernist; people did not used to think that way.

Well, for one thing nobody knows when the guy wrote, anything he might have written has only appeared in fragments and only by Christian apologists. If he existed and if he wrote these things (e.g. if he and his quotes weren't made up by early Christians) his work isn't a contemporary reference to Jesus anyway.

as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion.
Talks about the wise king of the Jews. Does not say anything about resurrection or anything. Also puts the wise king of the Jews on the same level as Socrates and Pythagoras.

The reference is almost certainly to James the brother of Jesus.

Why would it almost certainly be James the brother of Jesus who is referred to as the wise king of the Jews? There were a number of messiahs running around in this time, it could be referring to any one of them, or none of them.

At best, most of these sources mention that there were Christians. We know that there were Christians, this isn't in doubt.

Yes, but WHY were there Christians?

Why are there Hindus? Clearly Brahman, Shiva and Vishnu (and a host of others) exist because there are Hindus.

[JLAEST]

Just a little correction: those are gods, not prophets/messiahs.

About the quotes, I've been searching, apparently you and others know a lot more than me, so I'll remain silent on that for now.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Just a little correction: those are gods, not prophets/messiahs.

About the quotes, I've been searching, apparently you and others know a lot more than me, so I'll remain silent on that for now.

I find you to be interesting, actually. Wrong, but interesting. Please, do continue if you have the urge to post.

[Dakini]

Just a little correction: those are gods, not prophets/messiahs.

So? People wouldn't believe in them if they didn't exist, no? This is a logical extension of the point I was addressing.

People believe all kinds of things that didn't happen, the global deluge for instance. People believe in things that don't exist (e.g. Loch Ness monster, Atlantis, Yeti) and I'm sure there are a lot of myths and legends about people who didn't exist (e.g. Krishna, Mithras, Heracles). A lot of the time people believe things just because they're lazy and don't look into it and it's easier to go "ok, sure". In the case of Jesus, people either didn't actually care if the man existed and just wanted to discuss the beliefs of his followers or just believed that he did while Christianity was just getting established. Once Christianity became established, those who questioned the existence of Jesus would be in rather deep trouble so if anyone did, they didn't do it publicly (though they might have forged new passages in old texts to make it appear as though contemporaries did mention him). Absolutely none of the sources you mentioned are contemporary to Jesus. Few of them (already written long afterwards, therefore hearsay) are reliable sources (and the ones that are talk about his followers).

[Grave_n_idle]

We all know Jesus, but is he real, did he had a life? Well, IMHO, I doubt.

There's no good evidence. Most of it is written almost 100 years later after he had his so-called life. In that time there were several Jesus figures as well. Including ones that had 'magic' power, as turning water into wine, multiplying bread and so on.

So what do you think? Is there a historical Jesus or not?

Stop trying to start arguements about this same issue time after time.

Then stop telling the same stories, time after time...

See how that works?

[JLAEST]

Just a little correction: those are gods, not prophets/messiahs.

About the quotes, I've been searching, apparently you and others know a lot more than me, so I'll remain silent on that for now.

I find you to be interesting, actually. Wrong, but interesting. Please, do continue if you have the urge to post.

Thank you Buffett, but for now I'm researching on the issue.

Dakini, not neccessarly. It's completely different to have a religion that was started by one man and lasted 2000 years than myths that lasted some hundreds. And it is also different saying that Gods (immaterial, invisble) don't exist than saying that actual prophets that led to religions exist. I'm not Muslim, I agree Mohammed existed. I'm not Buddhist, I agree Buddha existed (altough he is not a prophet, but you get the idea).

[Grave_n_idle]

Just a little correction: those are gods, not prophets/messiahs.

About the quotes, I've been searching, apparently you and others know a lot more than me, so I'll remain silent on that for now.

I find you to be interesting, actually. Wrong, but interesting. Please, do continue if you have the urge to post.

Thank you Buffett, but for now I'm researching on the issue.

It's completely different to have a religion that was started by one man and lasted 2000 years than myths that lasted some hundreds.

By which logic, of all the religions we know about, the Egyptian pantheon must be true-est?

[Deus Malum]

Thank you Buffett, but for now I'm researching on the issue.

It's completely different to have a religion that was started by one man and lasted 2000 years than myths that lasted some hundreds.

By which logic, of all the religions we know about, the Egyptian pantheon must be true-est?

Or Buddhism. Started by one man, and he's got 500 years on good old Jay-sauce.

[Dakini]

Dakini, not neccessarly. It's completely different to have a religion that was started by one man and lasted 2000 years than myths that lasted some hundreds.

Hinduism is older than Christianity. As is Buddhism. The legend of the great deluge lasted much longer than hundreds of years, I'm willing to bet that beliefs in the yeti have been around for some time too. People have also believed in Krishna and Mithras for quite some time as well. That doesn't mean that any of these things existed or happened (respective to event/person or thing).

And it is also different saying that Gods (immaterial, invisble) don't exist than saying that actual prophets that led to religions exist.

Except that many gods are supposed to have interacted directly (and visibly) with humans. I'm also not sure how this is different. Someone who doesn't exist is someone who doesn't exist.

I'm not Muslim, I agree Mohammed existed. I'm not Buddhist, I agree Buddha existed (altough he is not a prophet, but you get the idea).

If I'm not mistaken, there is independent and contemporary evidence that these two figures existed (although the existence or non-existence of Buddha would not make a lick of difference to Buddhism so it really doesn't matter if he did or not).

[JLAEST]

When will you understand that I'm not reffering to Christianism being more true than other religions? What I'm saying is plain and simple: One religion won't last that long without someone real supporting it. Egyptians had the pharaohs, real. Muslims - Mohammed, real. Buddhists - Buddha. Simple.

[Treznor]

When will you understand that I'm not reffering to Christianism being more true than other religions? What I'm saying is plain and simple: One religion won't last that long without someone real supporting it. Egyptians had the pharaohs, real. Muslims - Mohammed, real. Buddhists - Buddha. Simple.

Not even remotely true. A lot of legends are amalgamations of other stories mixed together. The story of Noah's Ark was possibly started by a Macedonian king who got himself and his cargo caught in a flash flood that carried him out to sea, and built with the telling. Add in a few myths from some other places, and bingo.

It's far more likely there was no single man named Jesus about whom the Gospels were written, but a combination of men claiming to be the Christ.

[Farnhamia]

When will you understand that I'm not reffering to Christianism being more true than other religions? What I'm saying is plain and simple: One religion won't last that long without someone real supporting it. Egyptians had the pharaohs, real. Muslims - Mohammed, real. Buddhists - Buddha. Simple.

And while Pharaoh was considered more or less divine, he was not at the heart of the Egyptian pantheon. Those gods were worshipped for probably twice as long as Christianity has been around. Now, I will concede that yes, the Egyptian rulers, who were - most of them - real, did support the worship of those gods, so you might have a point there.

I've always liked the idea of there having been a single person, Jesus, around whom the break-away sect coalesced (you might find Moorcock's Behold The Man interesting reading - the link will give away the plot, however). The evidence just doesn't allow us to say that definitively. That should not affect your faith in the least, however.

[Farnhamia]

When will you understand that I'm not reffering to Christianism being more true than other religions? What I'm saying is plain and simple: One religion won't last that long without someone real supporting it. Egyptians had the pharaohs, real. Muslims - Mohammed, real. Buddhists - Buddha. Simple.

Not even remotely true. A lot of legends are amalgamations of other stories mixed together. The story of Noah's Ark was possibly started by a Macedonian king who got himself and his cargo caught in a flash flood that carried him out to sea, and built with the telling. Add in a few myths from some other places, and bingo.

It's far more likely there was no single man named Jesus about whom the Gospels were written, but a combination of men claiming to be the Christ.

Whoa, Trez, what? Macedonian? I've heard Sumerian, there's a Noah-like figure in the Gilgamesh story.

[Dakini]

When will you understand that I'm not reffering to Christianism being more true than other religions? What I'm saying is plain and simple: One religion won't last that long without someone real supporting it.

Yeah. People supported it (/believed in it) and people are real.
Buddhism would still be Buddhism if it was actually created by a group of people who invented the idea of a Buddha and recorded "his" teachings. Christianity would still exist if a bunch of people created a story about a wise man named Jesus who did this and that and the other.
It doesn't matter if the figureheads of religions existed. They could all have just been evolutions of their respective societies that someone wrote down eventually whose true origins were lost to history and people would still believe in them.

[Grave_n_idle]

When will you understand that I'm not reffering to Christianism being more true than other religions? What I'm saying is plain and simple: One religion won't last that long without someone real supporting it. Egyptians had the pharaohs, real. Muslims - Mohammed, real. Buddhists - Buddha. Simple.

Not even remotely true. A lot of legends are amalgamations of other stories mixed together. The story of Noah's Ark was possibly started by a Macedonian king who got himself and his cargo caught in a flash flood that carried him out to sea, and built with the telling. Add in a few myths from some other places, and bingo.

It's far more likely there was no single man named Jesus about whom the Gospels were written, but a combination of men claiming to be the Christ.

Mesopotamian. There are much older versions of the flood story than the Genesis account - the earliest I've seen talks about a river bursting it's banks, and some livestock being placed on a trading raft type boat. Interestingly, there are many passages of the Hebrew scripture that are word-for-word translations of that older text. It's almost like the Hebrew myth was stolen from an earlier one.

[Grave_n_idle]

When will you understand that I'm not reffering to Christianism being more true than other religions? What I'm saying is plain and simple: One religion won't last that long without someone real supporting it. Egyptians had the pharaohs, real. Muslims - Mohammed, real. Buddhists - Buddha. Simple.

And while Pharaoh was considered more or less divine, he was not at the heart of the Egyptian pantheon. Those gods were worshipped for probably twice as long as Christianity has been around. Now, I will concede that yes, the Egyptian rulers, who were - most of them - real, did support the worship of those gods, so you might have a point there.

I've always liked the idea of there having been a single person, Jesus, around whom the break-away sect coalesced (you might find Moorcock's Behold The Man interesting reading - the link will give away the plot, however). The evidence just doesn't allow us to say that definitively. That should not affect your faith in the least, however.

"Behold the Man" is an amazing piece of work.

[Grave_n_idle]

When will you understand that I'm not reffering to Christianism being more true than other religions? What I'm saying is plain and simple: One religion won't last that long without someone real supporting it. Egyptians had the pharaohs, real. Muslims - Mohammed, real. Buddhists - Buddha. Simple.

The Pharaohs were not the original gods of the Egyptian Pantheon, although they possibly did become godlike on their transition after death, or were believed to be earthly incarnations of god-attributes.

[Farnhamia]

When will you understand that I'm not reffering to Christianism being more true than other religions? What I'm saying is plain and simple: One religion won't last that long without someone real supporting it. Egyptians had the pharaohs, real. Muslims - Mohammed, real. Buddhists - Buddha. Simple.

Not even remotely true. A lot of legends are amalgamations of other stories mixed together. The story of Noah's Ark was possibly started by a Macedonian king who got himself and his cargo caught in a flash flood that carried him out to sea, and built with the telling. Add in a few myths from some other places, and bingo.

It's far more likely there was no single man named Jesus about whom the Gospels were written, but a combination of men claiming to be the Christ.

Mesopotamian. There are much older versions of the flood story than the Genesis account - the earliest I've seen talks about a river bursting it's banks, and some livestock being placed on a trading raft type boat. Interestingly, there are many passages of the Hebrew scripture that are word-for-word translations of that older text. It's almost like the Hebrew myth was stolen from an earlier one.

Whew, okay, Mesopotamian. Yes, I agree, the Hebrew myth was undoubtedly modeled on an older, Mesopotamian one. After all, where did Abraham come from? From Ur of the Chaldees (though there seems to be some debate on where that was, exactly, in Sumeria or in Northern Mesopotamia, at Edessa). Anyway, there was a progression of Semitic peoples up from the Bahrain - Oman area into Mesopotamia, up into Syria, down into Palestine, maybe then back down into the Hejaz. They would have carried their myths and legends with them.

[Treznor]

I stand corrected. Mesopotamian. I knew it started with an "M."