Historical Evidence For the Existence of Jesus

[psychoslice]

The only thing we can be certain of is that Josephus has been tampered with and that it is late.

Yes this is true, but many don't want it to be true.

 

[steeltoes]

Yes this is true, but many don't want it to be true.

I can understand the frustration because no matter what one's viewpoint happens to be, the so called evidence for an historical Jesus is scant to say the least. It must be particularly frustrating for those that are convinced of an historical Jesus lurking in the shadows behind the death defying miracle worker we read of in the gospels because there isn't anything definitive to point to in order to support such a conviction. Maybe Jesus existed, maybe he didn't, and it appears to be frustrating for those that have taken a clearly definitive side on the issue when nothing is really so clear.

 

[JoStories]

If I have insulted anyone here, its because they insulted me first, so please don't jump to conclusions just because you don't agree with me. So if you belie that Jesus was a real character, then you prove it to me.

In no way did I single you out in this Psycho. I was speaking in general terms and if I offended you, I apologize to you. I believe there is enough evidence to make the supposition that a person perhaps named Jesus lived but in no way do I believe he was divine or any of the other claims made of him. The issue is contraversial and has been for ages. Habermas does a really good job of evaluating the debate across several millenia, remaining mostly unbiased in his analysis. Also, outhouse posted a really good article for you to read if you have interest. I would, however, never tell you unequivocably that the man Jesus definitely lived. Its not proveable.

 

[JoStories]

Yes this is true, but many don't want it to be true.

Agreed, absolutely. I dont look to Josephus for any real tangible evidence. As you note, he is late in the writing, begging the question of where he got his information and further, his position seems more apologetic than not. Taticus is good but again has similar issues. I look to evidence found outside religion. Any evidence taken from a religious POV is of necessity, to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, both point to a man called Jesus and by both, am talking about Josephus and Taticus.

Taticus is good but again has similar issues.

It's after arduous study and thought on the topic though graduate theology courses under the tutelage of people like Erhman and others. Can you say the same?

Well, to begin with, I, like Erhman, know that his name was Tacitus and that Josephus' Antiquities 20.9.1 is widely considered to be authentic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

BTW, what does ...

..., his position seems more apologetic [emphasis added - JS] than not.

mean? According to whom (other than you) are the works of Josephus "more apologetic than not"?

 

[JoStories]

Well, to begin with, I, like Erhman, know that his name was Tacitus and that Josephus' Antiquities 20.9.1 is widely considered to be authentic.

I didn't say it was not authentic. I said it has problems with such things as the latest of its inception and the overt bias.

 

[JoStories]

BTW, what does ...

​

mean? According to whom (other than you) are the works of Josephus "more apologetic than not"?

Habermas, for one. And quite a few others. I have suggested you read that book. Perhaps it would behoove you to do so.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Hello Guys
Not sure if anyone mentioned it.
Your best evidence for the existence of Jesus(PBBUH) is in the Noble Quraan and from the lips of Prophet Muhammad(peace and blessings be upon him).

 

[steeltoes]

Hello Guys
Not sure if anyone mentioned it.
Your best evidence for the existence of Jesus(PBBUH) is in the Noble Quraan and from the lips of Prophet Muhammad(peace and blessings be upon him).

I hate to admit it, but it is as good as any presented so far.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Paul never meant the Christ to be a man, the Christ to Paul was a Christ Consciousness, nothing to do with a man called Jesus.

You've gone too far in the other direction. Paul repeatedly associates the Christ with Jesus by name, up to and including the earliest biographical sketch of Jesus's life and death that we have (Paul predates the Gospels by a generation or two).

While it's true that to Paul the Christ is more than just the man Jesus of Nazareth, since the Christ is in all of us, he sees Jesus as not only an exemplary manifestation of the Christ, but as the one who was foretold to come and lead the way in the Messianic sense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't say it was not authentic.

What "overt bias" do you detect in Antiquities 20.9.1.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Habermas, for one. And quite a few others. I have suggested you read that book. Perhaps it would behoove you to do so.

Perhaps it would behoove you to read the following:

(2) Wells realizes that if Paul's reference to "James the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:19) means that he met with Jesus' sibling, then this alone is very troubling to his thesis (HEJ, 167-174; DJE, 21). But here we perceive Wells' special pleading at its very best. Rather than admit Paul's straightforward meaning, he suggests that there was a zealous group in the early church who were not relatives but were called "the brethren of the Lord"!

Very surprisingly, Wells even admits the severity of his plight:

If Paul means blood brother of a historical Jesus, then it would suffice to establish--against my view--that Jesus had really lived in the first half of the first century. Furthermore, I must admit that this interpretation of Paul's words does seem the immediate and obvious one. Here, then, is a case where what seems to be the plain sense of a text . . . would weigh very heavily indeed against my view of Christian origins. (HEJ, 167)
But there are several reasons that Paul was referring to Jesus' brother. As Wells states, this is the normal way to understand this passage. Second, in I Corinthians 9:5, the Lord's brothers refer to individuals who are authoritative enough to be compared to Peter and the apostles, not to some obscure group of believers. Third, all four gospels refer to Jesus' physical brothers. [ix] James is even specified as one of them (Mk. 6:3; Matt. 13:55-56). Whatever date is assigned to these books, they plainly understood the tradition in a way that disagrees with Wells. Fourth, we will discuss below Jewish historian Josephus, who also calls James the brother of Jesus. [x] But Josephus would hardly be referring to a sectarian group of believers known within the church! Fifth, there is no historical evidence to support Wells' specific contention concerning James.

So this leaves Wells to face his own critique stated above. That he is clearly wrong about James weighs heavily against his entire thesis concerning the historical Jesus, just like he admits.

(3) Paul appears to refer to those who were physically present with Jesus, calling them the twelve (I Corinthians 15:4) and the apostles (15:7). As with James, Wells fully realizes that if this is so, then his thesis suffers at another key point: "If these words were really written by Paul, then it looks as though he was aware that Jesus chose twelve disciples; and if Paul in this respect corroborates what the gospels say, then it would be reasonable to infer that he also knows the principle facts of Jesus' life . . . ." (DJE, 124). But Wells contends that "apostle" does not mean a physical companion of Jesus (HEJ, 227, note 14). Further, "the twelve" was interpolated into Paul's epistle (DJE, 124), even without textual evidence for this conclusion! Again, Wells recognizes a crucial passage, and once again, the sense of special pleading is apparent. He is willing to say virtually anything to avoid a clear text opposing his view, even if he has to ignore the contrary evidence and hold that it was added, relying on little more than his own assertion.

(4) Wells' treatment of the many nonbiblical references to Jesus is also quite problematic. He downplays those presenting difficulties for his position (Thallus, Tacitus), and suggests late dates for others, again in contrast to the wide majority of scholars (Thallus [perhaps second century AD!], Polycarp [135 AD!], Papias [140 AD]). Yet, he provides few reasons why these dates should be preferred (DJE, 10-15, 78, 139; HEJ, 15-18).

The most important problem for Wells' treatment is Josephus' testimony. In order to dismiss this important Jewish documentation, Wells resorts to questioning both of Josephus' references to Jesus. Not only does he disallow them as interpolated comments, but he asserts that this is also "widely admitted" by scholars (HEJ, 18; DJE, 10-11). But he is so wide of the mark here that one is tempted to question his research altogether.

While virtually everyone thinks that portions of Josephus' longer statement in Antiquities 18:3 has been added, the majority also think that a fair amount still came from Josephus. Princeton Seminary's James Charlesworth strongly concludes: "We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus." [xi] John Drane adds that "most scholars have no doubts about the authenticity"of the passage's nucleus. [xii] Written about 93-94 AD, Josephus' statement, among other claims, clearly links Jesus to his disciples and connects his crucifixion to Pilate. It is independent of the gospels, according to Wells' dating.

Josephus' second statement refers to James as the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ (Antiquities 20:9). This also hurts Well's thesis significantly, because it likewise links Jesus to a first century person who was known to Paul and other apostles. [xiii] In spite of Wells' dismissal (without citing a single scholar who agrees--HEJ, 18), Yamauchi concludes, "Few scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage." [xiv]

Thus it is no wonder that Wells would dearly like to squelch Josephus' two references to Jesus. Both clearly place Jesus in a specific first century context connected with the apostles and Pilate, cannot be derived from the gospels on Wells' dating, and come from a non-Christian. Wells even notes that such independent data would be of "great value" (DJE, 14). So it is exceptionally instructive, not just that Wells dismisses both, but that he clearly wishes his readers to think that contemporary scholarship is firmly on his side when it very clearly is nowhere close. Charlesworth specifically refers to Wells' treatment of Josephus, saying that, "Many solid arguments can be presented against such distortions and polemics." [source

Now tell us again precisely where Habermas rejects Josephus as being too apologetic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And while we're at it, @JoStories , where in Habermas' The Historical Jesus does he dismiss Josephus for being too apologetic - or, for that matter, for any other reason? In fact. very early we read:

We conclude that Josephus did write about Jesus, not only in the brief statement concerning James, but also in this longer account. The evidence points to his composition of this latter passage with the deletion and modification of a number of key phrases which were probably interpolated by Christian sources.

What historical facts can be ascertained from the deleted and altered portions of Josephus’ statement such as those changes made in the Arabic version? (1) Jesus was known as a wise and virtuous man, one recognized for his good conduct. (2) He had many disciples, both Jews and Gentiles. (3) Pilate condemned him to die, (4) with crucifixion explicitly being mentioned as the mode. (5) The disciples reported that Jesus had risen from the dead and (6) that he had appeared to them on the third day after his crucifixion. (7) Consequently, the disciples continued to proclaim his teachings. (8) Perhaps Jesus was the Messiah concerning whom the Old Testament prophets spoke and predicted wonders. We would add here two facts from Josephus’ earlier quotation as well. (9) Jesus was the brother of James and (10) was called the messiah by some.(25)

There is nothing really sensational in such a list of facts from a Jewish historian. Jesus’ ethical conduct, his following, and his crucifixion by the command of Pilate are what we would expect a historian to mention. Even the account of the disciples reporting Jesus’ resurrection appearances (if it is allowed), has an especially authentic ring to it. Josephus, like many historians today, would simply be repeating the claims, which were probably fairly well known in first century Palestine. That the disciples would then spread his teachings would be a natural consequence.

Josephus presented an important account of several major facts about Jesus and the origins of Christianity. In spite of some question as to the exact wording, we can view his statements as providing probable attestation, in particular, of some items in Jesus' public ministry, his death by crucifixion, the disciples’ report of his resurrection appearances, and their subsequent teaching of Jesus’ message. [emphasis added - JS]

There is a cautionary lesson here: pretending to know what one clearly does not know is not as easy as one might think.

 

[JoStories]

And while we're at it, @JoStories , where in Habermas' The Historical Jesus does he dismiss Josephus for being too apologetic - or, for that matter, for any other reason? In fact. very early we read:

​

There is a cautionary lesson here: pretending to know what one clearly does not know is not as easy as one might think.

For the record, this is me last time I will reply to you. Not because I don't have an answer but mostly because I tire of your rude attitude and incivility. I don't put people on ignore as I find that childish but I do simply not respond further.

If you read the defintion of the word apologetics can, you might reconsider. A person's writing is considered apologetic only if the writer writes in defense of a cause or topic that he or she considered of paramount importance. Therein, Josephus does fit the bill. Further collaboration for my opinion comes from Feldman, although dated by today's standards. Also edmunds, Gilbert, price and Rollins, 1999. Furthermore, in 1996, Feldman collaborated with levinson to ask whether Josephus used 'superficial ad hoc refutations' in his analysis of Contra Aponien. My own opinion here is based not only on them, as they are but a small sampling a of authors and scholars, but on my study of his work. I care not that you disagree. Now do carry on sir and have a good life.

 

[psychoslice]

You've gone too far in the other direction. Paul repeatedly associates the Christ with Jesus by name, up to and including the earliest biographical sketch of Jesus's life and death that we have (Paul predates the Gospels by a generation or two).

While it's true that to Paul the Christ is more than just the man Jesus of Nazareth, since the Christ is in all of us, he sees Jesus as not only an exemplary manifestation of the Christ, but as the one who was foretold to come and lead the way in the Messianic sense.

I like how Paul doesn't mention the so called miracles and the virgin birth and all the rest that Jesus supposedly did, its just like he never heard of these things at his time, just as if it didn't happen. I believe also that the name Jesus was added to his writings, where he used the name Christ was nothing to do with the man Jesus, the Christ is the Enlightened one, its not a name title, its a level of Consciousness, the Christ Consciousness, Paul was a true gnostic.

 

[psychoslice]

This lecture by David Fitzgerald is really good, it will give you a few laughs also.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I like how Paul doesn't mention the so called miracles and the virgin birth and all the rest that Jesus supposedly did, its just like he never heard of these things at his time, just as if it didn't happen. I believe also that the name Jesus was added to his writings, where he used the name Christ was nothing to do with the man Jesus, the Christ is the Enlightened one, its not a name title, its a level of Consciousness, the Christ Consciousness, Paul was a true gnostic.

As for Paul's being a proto-gnostic, various gnostic groups seem to have thought so, and I'm inclined to agree. However, the idea that the name of Jesus was added into his writings at a later date has no support behind it. Paul thought Jesus of Nazareth was the enlightened one, a fulfillment of Messianic prophecy (albeit not the fulfillment most Jews were expecting). He encourages others to be like Jesus and frequently uses him as an example that it can be done. It's true that Paul predates the Gospels and thus the virgin birth and all the outward miracles that got attached to the story of Jesus, but you still go too far in claiming that Paul is writing about some hypothetical person and that all references to Jesus are forgeries. If that much of Paul were corrupt, then we would have no way of determining what he was saying to any degree.

In fact Paul's writings provide what is by far the earliest mention of Jesus of Nazareth that we know of. The stuff that Paul doesn't seem to know about is relevant because it helps to date when that stuff entered the tradition.

 

[outhouse]

Hello Guys
Not sure if anyone mentioned it.
Your best evidence for the existence of Jesus(PBBUH) is in the Noble Quraan and from the lips of Prophet Muhammad(peace and blessings be upon him).

funny its one of the few religious books that have ZERO historical value with Jesus.

 

[Vishvavajra]

This lecture by David Fitzgerald is really good, it will give you a few laughs also.

Well, he's right about the Gospel Jesus (i.e. the mythic Jesus) being largely a midrashic construction. That's not to say it's not being hung on a guy who actually existed. His chronology is a bit off when he suggests the author of Mark invented him, since Mark is the product of an existing tradition, and Paul predates Mark by a generation or more. I don't think anyone with an understanding of the Gospels will deny that the figure they present is a mythic one and that subsequent traditions took that figure in a number of different directions, but that doesn't begin to address the question of where the idea of this guy came from in the first place. The problem is that he's actually not very iconic or archetypal until they spin him that way, and they spend a great deal of energy doing so and trying to warp Biblical prophecies and kingship theory around him to fit. What you see in the Gospels is not at all what you'd see if he had been fabricated specifically for that purpose; it's more that they're trying to take what's already there and morph it into something that suits their purpose.

As for the rest, he makes a number of fine points, but they're points that were made in critical Biblical scholarship more than a century ago. It's really only evangelical apologists who make the outlandish claims he's refuting, and in doing so they're already isolating themselves from mainstream Biblical scholarship.