Historical Jesus

[TexasJackCan]

I know this may seem like trolling, but I asure you all, I'm looking for a good old fashioned honest debate.

Can you prove that Jesus actually existed?

 

[Anoetos]

Can you prove Julius Caesar actually existed?

 

[EyesOfKohl]

If you're looking for some facts from historians, here is your evidence. I've taken the following facts from another site, I hope you don't mind.

Cornelius Tacitus - a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote: “The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.”

Suetonius and Pliny the Younger also referred to Christ.

Flavius Josephus - a first-century Jewish historian, wrote of James, whom he identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (THE JEWISH ANTIQUITIES, JOSEPHUS, BOOK XX, SEC. 200)

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”—THE COMPLETE WORKS OF TACITUS (NEW YORK, 1942), “THE ANNALS,” BOOK 15, PAR. 44.

Pontius Pilate Inscription - It was in 1961 that the first archaeological find was made with reference to Pontius Pilate. ( the person who put Jesus to death) This was a stone slab located at Caesarea, which bore in Latin the name of Pontius Pilate

All the places and names where Jesus and his companion's travelled to all exist.

Lastly, how could Jesus have such a big impact on the world with his teachings if he didn't even exist?

 

[Anoetos]

The idea that Jesus did not exist was a trope of atheists in the late 19th and early 20th century, but nobody seriously maintains it anymore. Most atheists, to their credit, realized that it was a zero-sum effort and have abandoned it.

There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus as a historical person than there is for anyone else who lived at the same time, from secular references to independent biblical accounts. The idea that there could have been this widely held fiction in the first century is kind of ridiculous and requires the kind of faith in conspiracy theory more common to tin-foil hatters and moon landing deniers.

 

[Anoetos]

Also Jack, I feel that I should remind you that the theology section of the board is a Christians Only area. I realize you are new here and you may not have read that in the header.

Your question deserves discussion though and I am subscribing.

 

[lesliedellow]

I know this may seem like trolling, but I asure you all, I'm looking for a good old fashioned honest debate.

Can you prove that Jesus actually existed?

As I am sure you are aware there are two mentions of Jesus in Joephus, and as I am sure you are also aware, one of them is hotly disputed. Nevertheless, the consensus of scholarly opinion nowadays favours partial authenticity. (Paula Fredriksen and Geza Vermes, for instance.)

As to the brief reference to "James the brother of Jesus," the authenticity of that has never been seriously disputed, except by the new atheists.


To that you might want to add internal evidence in the gospels. For instance, at the trial of Jesus Peter is depicted as denying Jesus. Since that shows one of the disciples in a very bad light, it seems unlikely that the early church would have wanted to make that up. But if it isn't made up it must be based upon history, and if it is based upon history, there must have been a historical Jesus for Peter to deny.

 

[TexasJackCan]

Thank you to all who posted, I'm very happy that I wasn't greeted with messages of "Heathen!" or "Your kind is not welcome here". Sadly, I am all to fimilar with messages like the above when trying to hone my debating skills.

Without truely starting this debate, as I'm not sure if this is the correct place, or format, I'd have to say that the initial issues I take with Historians like Tacitus or Flavius is that they were writing long after 33 CE, which I believe, however I could be wrong, is the date of the death of Jesus.

 

[EyesOfKohl]

Peace be upon you TexasJackCan,

I hope you are well.

Apparently, Tacitus lived from 55 A.D. to 120 A.D. I'm not sure which year Jesus was crucified, but Josephus was born in 37 or 38 A.D. and died sometime after 100 AD. I believe this would put Josephus as the closest historian at the time of Jesus.

Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities wrote:

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

 

[EyesOfKohl]

If 33 CE was the death of Jesus, that means Josephus wouldn't have been around during his lifetime. But since Josephus lived in Jerusalem, we can be sure that his parents or other family would've seen Jesus and could very well have been at the crucifixion aswell.

We know Jesus was in Jerusalem through the Gospel's. Josephus was raised Jewish, he was the son of Matthias, who was a priest in Jerusalem. As a Jew, he would have been raised to respect his parents and follow the 613 Commandments. We can safely say then, he would've been heavily influenced by his parents, especially since his father was a priest.

In the above verse I've shown you in my last post, he writes very highly of Jesus, so I'm sure he would've asked his parents about Jesus, especially his father. I believe this is clear historical evidence of Jesus' existence.

I wish I could provide more historical references, but I don't know much about the history at this time, sorry.

If you are very curious, I would recommend that you read the scriptures, travel to Israel and Palestine, visit the actual places and ask people there. I'm sure they'll have all your answers, as they have all the original scriptures and writings.

Take care

 

[lesliedellow]

Thank you to all who posted, I'm very happy that I wasn't greeted with messages of "Heathen!" or "Your kind is not welcome here". Sadly, I am all to fimilar with messages like the above when trying to hone my debating skills.

Without truely starting this debate, as I'm not sure if this is the correct place, or format, I'd have to say that the initial issues I take with Historians like Tacitus or Flavius is that they were writing long after 33 CE, which I believe, however I could be wrong, is the date of the death of Jesus.

That is one of the weakest arguments I hear from atheists. For example, another first century figure, Appolonius of Tyana, is a name which frequently gets brought up as the model upon which the "mythical" Jesus was based. His historicity is apparently not in doubt, in spite of the fact that all we know of him comes from a document written in the third century, and the modelling shows every sign of having been the other way around.

 

[Anoetos]

As far as we know, Alexander never wrote a word, and he lived many years before Jesus, how do we know that he existed? From the testimony about him and his physical legacy.

The same is true of Jesus, why question His existence but not that of a Macedonian king?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

As far as Josephus is concerned, however, it should be remembered that it's generally recognized that our general reading of Josephus' mentions of Jesus may be Christian interpolations or at least modifications. It's known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

However, there is an alternate text of the Testimonium in Arabic, which may reflect an earlier and more reliable version,

"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 their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."

Here Josephus merely recalls what Jesus' followers believed concerning Him, rather than making a personal judgment as is found in more popular versions of the Testimonium.

More information can be found here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SavedByGrace82]

Shalom My Sister and Brothers in Jesus Christ!

I wonder what you think about the Arabic version that Shlomo Pines had found!
It goes like this:

" 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 their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."

I found this version wery interessting!

 

[wayseer]

Without truely starting this debate, as I'm not sure if this is the correct place, or format, I'd have to say that the initial issues I take with Historians like Tacitus or Flavius is that they were writing long after 33 CE, which I believe, however I could be wrong, is the date of the death of Jesus.

Well, the debates on.

All historians write after the event. One can hardly write a history 'before' the event. So in that respect all historians are in the same position.

I guess what you are alluding to is the time differential. But then again most history is written many years after the events to which they allude. So, again, there is not much to quibble with here.

The other aspect is that we are dealing with an event which hardly amounts to a blip on the historical radar. But the various piece of evidence fit together rather nicely.

First of all, the Gospels are historical works. They record the event of a real person living in a real social setting. And while these texts may have been composed many years after the events the authors have had other texts to work off as well as oral history. In other words, the authors where not composing their texts, they were redacting - fitting together a jigsaw in much the same way as does the editor of your local newspaper.

For instance, if I sent you a local newspaper from four different towns recording the events of 19 January 2011 in Queensland you could not fail to miss the Big News - which was the recent floods. But you would also get a 'local' take on how that event effected each locality individually - and there would be some differences in how that event was recorded.

In the same way we can 'read' the Gospels are recording the Big Event to which they allude but in that recording reflect local aspects which each community thought important.

Outside of the biblical texts there are a number of records. Thallus writing about 52 noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. Pliny the Younger writing about 112 asked for some help from Rome with the Christians in his area. Then there is Josephus and Tacitus as you mentioned. The Talmud also note the death of Jesus at Sanhedrin 43a - written before 135.

However, it is also the content of the historical record. For instance the author of Luke mentions Quirinius as being governor of Syria at the time of a census between 6 - 5 BCE - correct. We know Pilate was at Jerusalem - correct.

In fact, had it not been for the Christian records no one today would know that Caiaphas was High Priest of the Temple - all Jewish records having been destroyed by the Romans on 70.

Yes, there are errors in the historical record - but we KNOW there are errors. And we only know all this from the painstakingly arduous task of many researchers over many years.

Jesus of Nazareth did exist and met his death in Jerusalem at the time of Pilate. As a result of what happened a sect of Judaism arose, later known as Christians, which survived and expanded as we know it today.

For a well argued essay read Proving the Historical Jesus by Harry V. Martin.

 

[wayseer]

Shalom My Sister and Brothers in Jesus Christ!

I wonder what you think about the Arabic version that Shlomo Pines had found!
It goes like this:

" 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 their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."

I found this version wery interessting!

I think you'll find that Pines is translating Josephus.

 

[roger2000]

I know this may seem like trolling, but I asure you all, I'm looking for a good old fashioned honest debate.

Can you prove that Jesus actually existed?

The difficulty with this demand is that most people don't know on what basis we consider that *any* history is true. So any response based on evidence tends to attract dismissive responses, because the people "asking" don't have any hard and fast rules for "yes" or "no" in mind. The criteria get made up on the fly.

The second problem is that the demand is usually made by people who are really saying, "Prove something to me, while I sit and throw peanuts at you. Unless you can get me to agree, I win. And, boy, you're not going to get me to agree WHATEVER you say." That is a game that even the village idiot can play. It requires no education, no intelligence, merely determination not to listen and to pick holes.

The third problem is that denying Jesus existed is just such a useful debating tactic for atheists. Imagine if we wanted to run the Moslems around? We could try denying that Mohammed ever existed. We don't have to know anything about history -- that's their problem! So then we sit back, and just watch them run around, and try to scrabble up evidence. Whatever evidence they come up with, we ignore. We come up with some excuse to either dismiss it entirely, or else as insufficient. And in an age when most people believe what they see on TV, and not much else, unless the Moslems can come up with TV footage, they aren't going to make much progress. It's great for us! We don't need to do anything but make trouble. And while they're running around, even if they succeed in some half-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] way, they still haven't even started on convincing us that Islam is true.

We should always be wary of "questions" which serve, not to inform, but to confuse, to divert rather than discuss.

It is not a question between Christians and non-Christians whether Jesus existed. It is a question between all educated people, of all religions and none; and a handful of malevolent, not very educated, not very honest people. I don't feel that we should let the latter get away with this ploy.

Jesus certainly existed, since we have extensive literary testimony about him, his followers, and the movement he founded, in continuous succession from his own time down to our own. His footprint in the historical record is considerably more extensive than most such figures based in the marginal lands. By contrast, if we were to suppose that he did not exist, we would need to have an explanation for this footprint. No other explanation appears in the historical record, and, since most things in this life are indeed started by one determined man, we would posit a single, founding figure for Christianity, even if we didn't have a single text mentioning him for five centuries after his life. That's how history is done.

But I would simply suggest that anyone asking go and talk to any professor of ancient history at any university in the world.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger2000]

I think you'll find that Pines is translating Josephus.

Pines is translating a passage in the 10th century World Chronicle of Agapius (which is online in English complete). Agapius was a Christian writer who was writing in Arabic -- one of the Christian groups that had found themselves under Moslem control after the Moslem conquest. He himself says that he is saying what Josephus says.

However there is considerable uncertainty as to whether Pines' text is what Agapius wrote. For the second part of his history (which contains this passage), there is only a single manuscript, which is in Florence. But there are also references in the unpublished and untranslated Arabic Christian history of Al-Makin. Pines had access to some variant readings from this, and believed that he could restore the text of Agapius along the lines above.

I have doubts about so indirect a process, myself. In the Florence manuscript to which I referred, Agapius does not seem to me to be quoting directly.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[wayseer]

Pines is translating a passage in the 10th century World Chronicle of Agapius (which is online in English complete). Agapius was a Christian writer who was writing in Arabic -- one of the Christian groups that had found themselves under Moslem control after the Moslem conquest. He himself says that he is saying what Josephus says.

However there is considerable uncertainty as to whether Pines' text is what Agapius wrote. For the second part of his history (which contains this passage), there is only a single manuscript, which is in Florence. But there are also references in the unpublished and untranslated Arabic Christian history of Al-Makin. Pines had access to some variant readings from this, and believed that he could restore the text of Agapius along the lines above.

I have doubts about so indirect a process, myself. In the Florence manuscript to which I referred, Agapius does not seem to me to be quoting directly.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thank you for that. The passage you quoted sounded to me as something that was like translated from Josephus to Arabic and then someone translated Arabic into English. Confusing.

 

[roger2000]

Thank you for that. The passage you quoted sounded to me as something that was like translated from Josephus to Arabic and then someone translated Arabic into English. Confusing.

Understandable, for it IS confusing. The fault is partly Shlomo Pines', for his article was not as clear as it might have been on this sort of stuff. I spent rather a lot of time working with Agapius until I puzzled out what had been done.

All the best,

Roger Pearse