Was Jesus an Historical Person?

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Luke/acts was barely finished late first century, and by 150 CE we knew what it contained. yes it has Paul.

Show us an extant copy of Luke from the 2nd century.
Perhaps we should start a new thread : When did Christianity begin?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Show us an extant copy of Luke from the 2nd century.
Perhaps we should start a new thread : When did Christianity begin?

Even more interesting might be: When did Judaism Begin? - particularly if we use a criteria as silly as 'extant copy' ... :yes:

 

[outhouse]

Show us an extant copy of Luke from the 2nd century.
Perhaps we should start a new thread : When did Christianity begin?

Just like the other forum.

You will need to get around Pauls dating and historicity, to prove a later date then is already in place for the evolution of Christianity.

And that is something almost no credible scholar will tackle. Even Earl places historicity on paul.




Again, try for a replecement hypothesis and see how that pans out for you.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Even more interesting might be: When did Judaism Begin? - particularly if use a criteria as silly as 'extant copy' ... :yes:

What are you talking about? It works fine. First there was Christianity. Then the Roman mystery cults. Then Judaism. Then later Roman religion. Then ancient Greek philosophy like Plato, Aristotle, etc. What's the problem? Clearly, dating religions by extant manuscripts works fine.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Perhaps Suetonius or Tacitus could have mentioned Paul's visits with Herod or Nero, but they did not. And Justin Martyr was unaware of Paul in the 2nd century.

1) Neither Seutonius' nor Tacitus' writing is from the first century.
2) We don't have any manuscripts of either even close to the first century.
3) We have no manuscripts around that time from Justin Martyr either. In fact, apart from some papyri scraps, we basically don't have any manuscipts from the first century at all.

If we want to rely on dating actual manuscripts, then we have no ancient history. Of course, nobody relies on such an absurd criterion, at least among historians, so thankfully we aren't left with interpreting inscriptions, art, and scraps from trash heaps in Egypt.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What are you talking about? It works fine. First there was Christianity. Then the Roman mystery cults. Then Judaism. Then later Roman religion. Then ancient Greek philosophy like Plato, Aristotle, etc. What's the problem? Clearly, dating religions by extant manuscripts works fine.

I stand corrected.

... and chastised. ​

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

1) Neither Seutonius' nor Tacitus' writing is from the first century.
2) We don't have any manuscripts of either even close to the first century.
3) We have no manuscripts around that time from Justin Martyr either. In fact, apart from some papyri scraps, we basically don't have any manuscipts from the first century at all.

If we want to rely on dating actual manuscripts, then we have no ancient history. Of course, nobody relies on such an absurd criterion, at least among historians, so thankfully we aren't left with interpreting inscriptions, art, and scraps from trash heaps in Egypt.

Sure, but Suetonius (c. 69 – c. 122), and Tacitus (56 AD – 117 AD), nonethless never heard of Paul.

And religious texts, by reason of their hyperbolic nature, cannot be trusted as historical sources without secular confirmation.

Consider gMatthew's account of hundreds of resrrected saints shuffling around Jerusalem. How can you trust a source like that? Wouldn't you think a non-Xian source notice an 'historical' event like that?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure, but Suetonius (c. 69 – c. 122), and Tacitus (56 AD – 117 AD), nonethless never heard of Paul.

We don't know. We clearly can't trust them, as we don't have any manuscripts from them dating from around the time either lived. If we can't trust a guy writing letters which were preserved, all because we don't have copies close to the originals, then why should we accept clearly biased, often fantastical (even mythical) accounts by Roman historians like Suetonius when our manuscript attestation is so poor?

And religious texts, by reason of their hyperbolic nature, cannot be trusted as historical sources without secular confirmation.

There is no such thing as secular for that time. All sources require critical analysis. But critical is one thing. Writing off sources like letters or even gospels (which were a kind of ancient history) because they are clearly in part fantastic (and comparing them to works like the Iliad, which belong to a wholly different genre) simply confuses the issue. There is no way to explain these sources except by understanding that they result from a historical core. Unless one wishes to go the route of conspiracy theory and propose that Constantine created the N.T. and then covered it all up.

 

[steeltoes]

This website explores in depth the historicity of Jesus and his apostles.

*Link Deleted*

At this point in time, I certainly don't believe a miracle working Jesus ever existed, but I do think the story or the legend of Jesus may have been inspired by a real person who lived during that time. . . perhaps Judas the Galilean or one of his sons, James or Simon.

What do you think?

I have no idea. No one that ever wrote about Jesus ever met the guy. People are still writing about him, asking if he existed or not.

 

[Desert Snake]

What are you talking about? It works fine. First there was Christianity. Then the Roman mystery cults. Then Judaism. Then later Roman religion. Then ancient Greek philosophy like Plato, Aristotle, etc. What's the problem? Clearly, dating religions by extant manuscripts works fine.

Actually, this is very important, considering how many arguments are predicated on date of extant text.(text or no text date being referenced)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually, this is very important, considering how many arguments are predicated on date of extant text.(text or no text date being referenced)

It makes no difference whatsoever when are manuscripts are from, and (alas) most of our manuscripts for classical and neo-classical texts date from the middle ages. The most well attested (in terms of manuscript and textual witnesses) collection of texts from antiquity is the N.T. If we were forced to rely on things like having witnesses to a text near the time the text was composed, then we'd have almost nothing to rely on from antiquity (as far as literature is concerned, historical or not) other than the N.T. It would be nice if we had plenty of autographs. It would be nice if we had even a few dozen witnesses for most texts which dated to within 1,000 years of the original. We don't. The amount of manuscript evidence we have for the N.T. is the fortunate exception, not the rule.

 

[Desert Snake]

It makes no difference whatsoever when are manuscripts are from, and (alas) most of our manuscripts for classical and neo-classical texts date from the middle ages.

It matters when arguments are put forth that rely on the date of extant texts, such as the various OT/NT comparison arguments, going from NT to OT etc.
Same is true for any religious texts.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It matters when arguments are put forth that rely on the date of extant texts, such as the various OT/NT comparison arguments, going from NT to OT etc.
Same is true for any religious texts.

Sure, if the argument is made from the date of extant texts. Most arguments come from internal evidence such as wording, use of certain words, references or allusions to historical events, and so forth. The only way the dates of the manuscripts matter is for arguments like the dating of John, which has to be fairly early in the 2nd century or (more likely) late in the 1st because we have a scrap of John from ~125-150 CE far, far from the origins of the Jesus tradition. But this is a boundary argument which keeps dates very few considered likely (e.g., late 2nd century or early 3rd) off the table. It's not all that significant, and it's for the latest gospel.

If you know of arguments being made about Paul, Mark, Luke, etc., based on the dates of papyri, I'd be curious to know what these are.

 

[steeltoes]

Sure, if the argument is made from the date of extant texts. Most arguments come from internal evidence such as wording, use of certain words, references or allusions to historical events, and so forth. The only way the dates of the manuscripts matter is for arguments like the dating of John, which has to be fairly early in the 2nd century or (more likely) late in the 1st because we have a scrap of John from ~125-150 CE far, far from the origins of the Jesus tradition. But this is a boundary argument which keeps dates very few considered likely (e.g., late 2nd century or early 3rd) off the table. It's not all that significant, and it's for the latest gospel.

If you know of arguments being made about Paul, Mark, Luke, etc., based on the dates of papyri, I'd be curious to know what these are.

As long as this date for John from 125 - 150 CE is in any way accurate.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As long as this date for John from 125 - 150 CE is in any way accurate.

Here we are talking about an actual archaeological artifact. But hey, what do those people know about dating?

A random rant:
I just love these double standards. I understand when Christians assign greater historical value than is warranted, as it is a matter of faith. I may not agree, but whatever. But when people who supposedly don't care suddenly become the most skeptical people on the planet about a handful of sources and the thousands of papers, books, and other works of scholarship produced over the past 2 centuries on this issue, yet are mind-numbingly accepting of whatever they get off of wikipedia about other historical figures, authors, and so forth...well, that boggles the mind. Does the facade of neutrality masking overwhelming ignorance really seem that convincing from the "inside"?

 

[Quagmire]

Here we are talking about an actual archaeological artifact. But hey, what do those people know about dating?

I'm withholding judgement until someone who actually lived through the first part of the second century shows up and verifies it.

A random rant:
I just love these double standards. I understand when Christians assign greater historical value than is warranted, as it is a matter of faith. I may not agree, but whatever. But when people who supposedly don't care suddenly become the most skeptical people on the planet about a handful of sources and the thousands of papers, books, and other works of scholarship produced over the past 2 centuries on this issue, yet are mind-numbingly accepting of whatever they get off of wikipedia about other historical figures, authors, and so forth...well, that boggles the mind. Does the facade of neutrality masking overwhelming ignorance really seem that convincing from the "inside"?

It's just the internet version of a combatant retreating to a neutral corner when their getting their butt kicked. :yes:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm withholding judgement until someone who actually lived through the first part of the second century shows up and verifies it.

"This just in! With the help of their new flux capacitor program, the DeLorean research group, aided by Dr. Brown, has finally offered conclusive proof the Jesus was actually Mithras! That's right folks! Your would-be Jewish peasant savior was actually a Roman military God! Don't you feel foolish. We're going to a commercial break, but stick around because up next we have "St." Paul, here to tell us the "real deal" about Simon "the Rock" Peter!"
- A Daily Show Report by Brian Williams

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Sure, if the argument is made from the date of extant texts. Most arguments come from internal evidence such as wording, use of certain words, references or allusions to historical events, and so forth. The only way the dates of the manuscripts matter is for arguments like the dating of John, which has to be fairly early in the 2nd century or (more likely) late in the 1st because we have a scrap of John from ~125-150 CE far, far from the origins of the Jesus tradition. But this is a boundary argument which keeps dates very few considered likely (e.g., late 2nd century or early 3rd) off the table. It's not all that significant, and it's for the latest gospel.

If you know of arguments being made about Paul, Mark, Luke, etc., based on the dates of papyri, I'd be curious to know what these are.

If all we have is a scrap or a fragment of gJohn from 125-150 CE, how do we know it is from gJohn? How can we assume that the vast amount of text that forms gJohn would be present if that scrap was not a scrap but included the whole text? Perhaps the 'scrap' was actually a fragment of some other (even unrelated) document?

 

[Quagmire]

If all we have is a scrap or a fragment of gJohn from 125-150 CE, how do we know it is from gJohn? How can we assume that the vast amount of text that forms gJohn would be present if that scrap was not a scrap but included the whole text? Perhaps the 'scrap' was actually a fragment of some other (even unrelated) document?

Here's what P52 looks like:

Seven lines on each side. That should be enough to establish it's identity.

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html

 

[Quagmire]

"This just in! With the help of their new flux capacitor program, the DeLorean research group, aided by Dr. Brown, has finally offered conclusive proof the Jesus was actually Mithras! That's right folks! Your would-be Jewish peasant savior was actually a Roman military God! Don't you feel foolish. We're going to a commercial break, but stick around because up next we have "St." Paul, here to tell us the "real deal" about Simon "the Rock" Peter!"
- A Daily Show Report by Brian Williams

*Calls Shirley MacClaine and cancels appointment*