The historicity of Jesus

[Nin]

Well, my personal conviction is still that if Jesus has indeed existed (which is possible, but not sure,) he had only little to do with the Messiah of the Bible. The Bible has been writen often centureis later and in order to claim the ideas of christianity, not to testify about Jesus actual life. The same would IMHO go for Moses, for instance, whom none of you quoted. Why btw? Moses would be the foundator of all three monotheistic religions in the end... (although I have just read the fantastic essai by Freud: Moses, the Egyptian which makes you doubt a lot)

Also, if I think of a mother it would be ANY mother, not specificly one going to Bethlehem and having a "special" child, but just any child, any human being.

I also think that the perception of being important in history does change. Kings or emperors used to be considered the most important figures, but in modern history which considers dates as less important (I don't think I read the same history books as Lurker, nor do I apparently base my teaching on this kind of books...) inventions, social progress etc and those who make it progress prevail often on dynastic personnalities.

And the discussion of the value of sources like the diary of Anne Frank - which is a fabolous text - could make an interesting topic of its own one day.

[Lurker]

(I don't think I read the same history books as Lurker, nor do I apparently base my teaching on this kind of books...)

Actually, I'm not an academician (I read business books/journals more often.) so history books doesn't interest me at all, put me to sleep. I do read biographies and non fiction books (even fiction like Ken Follet's a Dangerous Fortune which accts. the crash of the British economy which he actually researched), in fact, I have a book which describes living during Chairman Mao's regime in a sort of "comedic" way of looking at things from the author's perspective. I don't think history books would tell you that during this regime, only a few people can go to university because they need more people in the farmlands than academics cause it drives the economy. Do history books tell you the atrocities that were done to women during WWII, yes, we all know about the holocaust but nothing is written about women being forced to "perform/service" to "please" their oppressors. It's only now that the children of these women came out and documented their mother's experiences cause during that time it was "taboo" to talk about these things.

[Nin]

History books do tell all this. Especially about Mao's policy: it is something which to me seems so commonly known... Usually history books include testimonies of witnesses and analyse them or put them into comparison. At least this is how I studied history and this is also how I teach it. There is always a source to be analysed as departure.

[solicitr]

It's utterly unsurprising that surviving Roman records never mention Jesus. He was small fry. I expect that there was probably one document ever, one line in a routine report "executed two bandits and a rabble-rousing preacher." Buried and lost.* It might have mentioned names, but probably not: Roman bureaucrats paid little attention to non-citizens as individuals.

In any event the amount of Roman paperwork which has survived is tiny. We really have very, very little information about anybody in the period who wasn't a major player. Practically everything we know about Pilate himself comes from Josephus;** indeed but for Flavian Joe and his opportunistic career we'd know diddly-squat about the actual history of 1st-c. Judaea.

What we do know is that by 64, the year of the Great Fire, there was a sufficiently large community of Christians in Rome itself for Nero to blame the disaster on them.





*Although there is a brief passage known as the "Epistle of Pilate", included in two pseudopigraphic works, the Acts of Peter and Paul (Greek) and the Passion of Peter and Paul (Latin), which is probably bogus, and even if not then certainly tampered with, but does reflect the tone one would expect of such a report, as opposed to the florid style of other clearly fake "letters" by Pilate and Herod, recounting all of Jesus' miracles & c.:

Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar the Emperor, Greeting:

1. About Jesus Christ, whom I fully made known to you in my last letter, a bitter punishment has at length been inflicted by the will of the people, although I was unwilling and apprehensive. In good truth, no age ever had or will have a man so good and upright.
2. But the people made an amazing effort, and all their scribes, chiefs and elders agreed to crucify this ambassador of truth, although their own prophets, like the Sibyls with us, advised to the contrary; and when he was hanged supernatural signs appeared, and in the judgment of philosophers menaced the whole world with ruin.
3. His disciples flourish, and by their behavior and continence of life do not repudiate their master; on the contrary, in his name they are most beneficent.
4. Had I not feared a sedition might arise among the people, who were almost furious, perhaps this man would have yet been living with us.
5. Although, being rather compelled by fidelity to your dignity, then led by my own inclination, I did not strive with all my might to prevent the sale and suffering of righteous blood, guiltless of every accusation, unjustly indeed, through the maliciousness of men, and yet, as the Scriptures interpret, to their own destruction.
6. Farewell. The 5th of the Calends of April.

NB: Pilate's "scriptures" would have been the Sybilline Books, not the Jewish writings. Romans were obsessed with omens and prophecies, none more so than Tiberius. This oddity suggests that the Epistle is rather older than the fourth-century matrices into which it was inserted.


**Plus a brief mention in Tacitus, one in Philo, and an inscription which confirms the fact that he was indeed prefect of Judaea. The use of the anachronistic title 'procurator' is evidence that the written sources postdate AD 44.

[Lurker]

History books do tell all this. Especially about Mao's policy: it is something which to me seems so commonly known... Usually history books include testimonies of witnesses and analyse them or put them into comparison. At least this is how I studied history and this is also how I teach it. There is always a source to be analysed as departure.

Yes, history do tell us this but do all history books tells us this. I'm sure if I open a HS World History book right now it wouldn't state that in detail. It would just talk about the "Agricultural Revolution" that's it, nothing about the economics of why it happened.

My point is the man on the street wouldn't even know what you and I are talking about (with regards to the Mao regime) cause most people are not historians or academics. That is why this question about "Who is the Most Important Person In History?" is always subjective. In fact, not until my study group had to do case study on whether or not we can introduce hockey in China that they knew about these facts about the Mao regime during our research eventhough I've known it all along. That is to say that not all history books covered that, they found the fact in a book about "Doing Business in China" not a history book. That's why I don't want to tell people he ain't the most important because, hey, maybe he did something in history which is little known to me and everybody else. I think this thread is not debatable, it's not about whether that person existed or not but what are the contributions of this "entity" to make him/her most important.

History books like history itself always changes since if we discovered facts not incoporated in the previous books we put the new facts in and it changes everything on how we view the world back then.

[Frelga]

is TE the place for this? I generally refrain from bringing up things that contradict othe people's dogma here. Personally, I thought the discussion was fine where it was. If a person is nominated as the most important in history, then the question of whether that person existed and had done what is ascribed to them is very relevant, no?

[solicitr]

The Bible has been writen often centureis later and in order to claim the ideas of christianity, not to testify about Jesus actual life.

Not centuries at all. Paul's Letters were all written before his execution; i.e. within one generation after Jesus' death. The Synoptic Gospels are not much newer: ca AD 100, plus/minus twenty years or so.

[Primula Baggins]

is TE the place for this? I generally refrain from bringing up things that contradict othe people's dogma here. Personally, I thought the discussion was fine where it was. If a person is nominated as the most important in history, then the question of whether that person existed and had done what is ascribed to them is very relevant, no?

What do you all think? I could move this back to LBL. It didn't occur to me not to put it here, because the question of what documentation there may be outside the Bible for the life of Jesus is just not an important one to me or most believers I know. But if I misperceive, please tell me.

[MithLuin]

I think that the 8th post in this thread (by The Watcher) belongs in the original thread about who was the most important person in human history.

I think that this topic (whether or not Jesus lived, or did anything like what the Bible attributes to him) should remain a separate thread, because while it is relevant to the original question, a full-fledged debate on the topic really does detract from the point of yov's thread, and he requested that the discussion move elsewhere. It is still perfectly appropriate for people to use their own take on this issue in answering the question, but if we're going to dredge up Josephus and the Didache, we really should go elsewhere.

Whether or not this new thread belongs in Tol Eressëa or not is another question. I'm fine with it here, but if someone else feels uncomfortable with it, I see no reason not to move it. It's more a history question than a religion question, anyway, though the implied question is "just how far are we to take a religious text as a historical document?" There are, of course, a multitude of documents referring to Jesus' existence by eye-witnesses of his life. But of course, these are the gospels, and associated writings, all within the context of the early Christian (or Gnostic) churches. No one ever doubts that St. Paul really lived, though...at least, not that I've heard.

[Nin]

I can see why the thread is in Tol Eressëa, but I don't really care.

Not centuries at all. Paul's Letters were all written before his execution; i.e. within one generation after Jesus' death. The Synoptic Gospels are not much newer: ca AD 100, plus/minus twenty years or so.

Well at least the Gospel of John is believed to be written much later. And as you quoted, I said often and not "all of the Bible". However, and having studied medieval texts I assume it must be alike for the Bible: even if written for the first time not as late as I supposed (and have always heard, I will check), the text of the Bible has been translated inot various languages and during centuries exclusively been copied by hand. For having studied onyl few medieval texts and having seen the difference between one hand-written version and the other: I don't really think we can assume safely that the Bible is a an accurate historical document of Jesus existence. To me it is like assuming that the books proove the existence of King Arthur and Lady Morgaine or of Hector, Paris and Cassandra...

[Primula Baggins]

Thanks, Mith. I'll move that post back where it came from.

To be clear, what I'm offering to do is keep this thread separate but move it to LBL.

[Crucifer]

As I said in the other post, the historicity of Jesus doesn't matter.
Whether or not He, or Moses, or Elijah, or Buddha, or Confucius, or any of the others actually existed is irrelevant.
The persona, real or invented, is something that has been made real in human minds over centuries. Jesus might just have been a carpenter with 12 friends who got all controversial on the High Priests, but the knowledge (accurate or not) that He was the Son of God has affected millions.

[elfshadow]

As I said in the other post, the historicity of Jesus doesn't matter.

Well, I think many Christians would say that it is very important to them that Jesus actually existed. If Jesus was the Son of God, and Christianity is based on that as a fact, then the entire foundation of many people's faith might crumble if we were to "discover" that Jesus never existed. I agree that it is Jesus' effect upon others that made history what it is today, but individually I'm sure many Christians wouldn't just say, "Oh well, it doesn't matter!" that Jesus literally existed or not.

[Crucifer]

Well yes, for religious purpses his existence matters, obviously.

But I don't think that it does for the purposes of this discussion.

[Primula Baggins]

It really isn't possible to prove that Jesus did not exist. It's certainly possible to be unable to prove (by sources independent of the Bible) that he did. But that applies to just about everyone who was alive in those times and does not worry me.

[solicitr]

I don't really think we can assume safely that the Bible is a an accurate historical document of Jesus existence. To me it is like assuming that the books proove the existence of King Arthur and Lady Morgaine or of Hector, Paris and Cassandra...

Not at all. Homer and Geoffrey wrote centuries after their subjects were supposed to have lived; and in Geoff's case at least what he says is demonstrably false for the historical period.

Whereas for Jesus' existence we have letters from his right-hand man (Peter) and his frickin' brother (James), as well as the extensive letters of Paul, who interacted with many who had known Jesus personally. Indeed it's unlikely that young Saul, as a Pharisaic student of Rabbi Gamaliel, would have been unaware of Jesus' rather splashy last days. Moreover the Gospels certainly have the confirmable facts correct: Pontius Pilate, Herod I and his sons, Annas and Caiaphas and so on.

NB: The Latin and Greek texts of the New Testament books have been fairly well fixed (if not without fuzzy bits) since the Third Century. I believe the oldest complete physical manuscripts in existence are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (ca 330-350), but a fragment of John exists dating from about 100-150.

[Crucifer]

I was sure I posted a response to that...

Agreeing with solicitr, and pointing out that any document dated 100-150 AD is likely to be a very accurate account of those times.

[solicitr]

Well, within reason. It's as if I were to write a biography today of Al Capone, relying on oral tradition. However, the fact that a copy of the Fourth Gospel was made as far away as Egypt by Hadrian's reign strongly implies that the original was rather older.

[Kushana]

I am become a catchphrase, a maker of [other's] posts!

First of all, I would hesitate to choose Jesus of Nazareth because his historical existence is not entirely proved

If you are going to make that argument there many primary sources in your way: no source from Antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, thought that Jesus was mythical, and many of our early sources are non-Christian. Nothing in the great sweep of early Christian literature in its first three centuries suggests that Jesus was mythical, not in the heat of any argument -- and early beliefs about Jesus spanned the spectrum from him being an ordinary Jewish man to many, many ideas on how he was related to/appointed by/possessed by/identical with God (including ideas that he was not God at all but rather an angel or a prophet or a wise man.)

I'm afraid I've seen this argument often made by people who wish Jesus (and thus Christianity) never existed, but they aren't always familiar with the full range of sources or the complexities of arguing historicity. (Also, parallels to Greek and Roman religion do not mean Jesus never existed: they do mean that the Near Eastern idea of a messiah did not necessarily play well in other cultures and the importance and divinity of Christ had to be described with more familiar terms and symbols.)

(Also note that the existence of Jesus is a separate matter from how Christianity developed and whether one likes or dislikes how it turned out.)

Yes, the bible is not a history book but it accounts what was happening during the time of "Jesus".

He also refers to James, the brother of Jesus (who Paul also mentions.) The substantial agreement on the names of Jesus' immediate family (in separate sources) also tends to confirm his existence: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /tree.html

(Legendary stories tend to disagree on details (how many siblings, what parents' names are) by folkloricly traceable groups.)

The New Testament:

Well, none of it is contemporary with Jesus: it ranges from decades after his death to more than a century.

The question of whether any later literature: Gnostic, Talmudic, Christian legendary, the Quran has useful historical information about Jesus and his early followers is complex and often less-studied than it should be. (The "Epistle of Pilate" is certainly inauthentic.) Even the matter of whether these literatures know of and are copying from earlier sources has often not been investigated as carefully as it could be. (First one needs to be trained in each body of literature, its history and ways of thinking and storytelling, and its language(s) -- then one needs to sift it for history...)

Graciously settled, yov and elf, but the distinction between Jesus and many others whose acts are questioned is that there is no contemporaneous confirmation by unbiased sources.

Most of our early sources are Roman and no friends of Christianity; Josephus is contemporary ... and whatever his biases, he was not Christian:

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jd ... jesus.html

(Again, historicity is a matter of sifting not wholesale rejection or inclusion.)

I do not think another proclaimed messiah would necessarily have said the same thing: read about the popular uprisings in Josephus (and Horsley's Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus). Some beliefs about messiahs can be traces from Zoroastrianism to Judaism to Christianity (i.e. the messiah as a bringer of peace), some depend on what whoever's-proclaimed-a-messiah says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants)

There are no mentions of Jesus in the contemporary Roman accounts of the region, which is more telling to me.

Besides Josephus, which ones did you have in mind?

There were probably several groups of Christians in Rome ... note that Jesus' Jerusalem followers drop out of history after the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 ... Christian tradition says they fled to Pella, I tend to doubt they lived. On Christians in Rome:
http://www.textexcavation.com/suetoniustestimonium.html

From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries by Peter Lampe.

The community was not necessarily large: see Pliny's letter -- Christians were highly noticeable because a) they were secretive (and Rome had recent been though an episode with a politically subversive, secretive, criminal religion) and b) they did not contribute to the welfare of the empire: they would not hold any public office (these often included Greco-Roman religious obligations), they may have objected to military service, and they would not contribute to the series of festivals and ritual that upheld the contract between the gods and humans ... the maintenance of these contracts averted famines, natural disasters, and invasions -- to not participate was to wish these ills on the nation.

Recall also, as other have noted, that little is known of most ordinary people throughout history: they could not write, the usually did not interest (or catch the notice of) chroniclers, and they are anonymous and forgotten. If not for Josephus we would know of few leaders of movements/religious revivals/popular uprisings save Bar Kosibah (and we're very lucky to have his letters.) The interests of chroniclers are narrow and close to the centers of power: they miss a lot of things we wish they'd comment on (see the recent Nova program on Pizarro and the Inca of Lima, Peru.)

Archaeology must make up the difference. Most individuals from the past are known only by the contents of their graves: important information, but think of how poor a biography it would be if far future archaeologists only knew you by the contents of your coffin (especially if your headstone has been misplaced by time.) Think of how little about you that represents: they'll only know the number of children you've had if you're a woman, your biography is largely medical (with some comments on your diet and worklife), and they won't be able to say much about your personality, beliefs, aspirations or achievements.

[I've already put thought to my grave goods: I have a nice heavy bracelet that should relieve the tedium of brushing silt off bare bones. ]

The problem of New Testament names and disciples' lists ... This isn't the most complex account of the Jameses, but it's a good start:

( 1.) The son of Zebedee and Salome; an elder brother of John the apostle. He was one of the twelve. He was by trade a fisherman, in partnership with Peter ( Mat 20:20; 27:56). With John and Peter he was present at the transfiguration ( Mat 17:1; Mar 9:2), at the raising of Jairus's daughter ( Mar 5:37-43), and in the garden with our Lord ( 14:33). Because, probably, of their boldness and energy, he and John were called Boanerges, i.e., "sons of thunder." He was the first martyr among the apostles, having been beheaded by King Herod Agrippa ( Act 12:1,2), A.D. 44. ( Mat 4:21; 20:20-23).

( 2.) The son of Alphaeus, or Cleopas, "the brother" or near kinsman or cousin of our Lord ( Gal 1:18,19), called James "the Less," or "the Little," probably because he was of low stature. He is mentioned along with the other apostles ( Mat 10:3; Mar 3:18; Luk 6:15). He had a separate interview with our Lord after his resurrection ( 1Cr 15:7), and is mentioned as one of the apostles of the circumcision ( Act 1:13). He appears to have occupied the position of head of the Church at Jerusalem, where he presided at the council held to consider the case of the Gentiles ( Act 12:17; 15:13-29: 21:18-24). This James was the author of the epistle which bears his name.

- From Easton's Bible Dictionary

It's utterly unsurprising that surviving Roman records never mention Jesus.

Let me introduce you to three fine Romans:
http://www.faulkner.edu/admin/websites/ ... tm#Tacitus

(I recommend reading their works in their entirety.)

Note: most websites on the Roman sources are hopelessly tendentious for one side or the other and are among the worst examples of historical thinking I've read.

Note also that misspellings in manuscripts of the time show "i" and "e" sometimes sounded similar ... and that "Chrestus" ("gentle") was a far more familiar name than "Christus" (oil-smeared). (Chrestus was a common name for slaves.)

Whereas for Jesus' existence we have letters from his right-hand man (Peter) and his frickin' brother (James), as well as the extensive letters of Paul, who interacted with many who had known Jesus personally.

From his own letters, Paul met them once -- and they disagreed. (And he only thought to visit after years of work on his own. (Most historians do not put full weight on Acts, it sometimes contradicts what Paul says and puts in his mouth things he is not likely to have thought.)

Scholars do not think the letters of Peter, Jude, or James (or John) were written by apostles they are attributed to, the are far too late and aware of and interested in matters that were issues long after the first generation of Christians: (Indeed they are some of the latest documents in the New Testament.)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jude.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1john.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2john.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/3john.html

Indeed it's unlikely that young Saul, as a Pharisaic student of Rabbi Gamaliel

Paul himself never says that (nor do any Talmudic sources which keep careful lists of chains of teachers and disciples, even eccentric ones) ... and it's a bit like saying someone went to Yale or Harvard, the kind of claim which should be checked rather than believed out of hand.

the Gospels certainly have the confirmable facts correct: Pontius Pilate, Herod I and his sons, Annas and Caiaphas and so on.

The gospels have the basics of their setting correct: alas they sometimes make errors of geography, Jewish practice, and Roman imperial chronology. (They're also some reason to think early generations of Roman Palestinian Christians would have preferred Aramaic to Greek. Nearly all surviving Christian literature is in Greek.) Historicity must be evaluated item by item; getting the general gist of setting correct does not make an entire document historical.

NB: The Latin and Greek texts of the New Testament books have been fairly well fixed (if not without fuzzy bits) since the Third Century.

Before that they're quite catywhampus (and indeed they undergo changes after that time ... Byzantine manuscript titles of Biblical books are often very long and pious elaborations). Pick up either http://store.bibles.com/Category/Resour ... lgate.aspx or http://store.bibles.com/products//ABS_NEW/112846.aspx and look at the footnotes: those are only the most important variations, not a list of all existing manuscript variations.

A profound interest in the historicity of Jesus must include a look at Q, Paul's letters, and the earliest forms of Christian literature: attention to recent archeology and how Galilee was and was not like the rest of Roman Palestine is also vital.

-Kushana

[Primula Baggins]

Thank you so much for that fascinating post, Kushana. I've got to take my kids to a movie, but when I get back I'm going to follow those links.