What evidence is there of Jesus?

[bigbadgirl]

Tacitus was about 9 when rome burned and the fire was blamed by him on the followers of Christus. Jesus was not mentioned. It is also strange that other roman historians,
who lived through the period, including Josephus, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and Epictetus, make no mention of the fire in the writings attributed to them. If you want to know about Jesus, simply find the oldest, original writings about him and decide for yourself. You will find that the earliest intact writings that mention Jesus were written nearly 200 years after he died. Marcion was said to have a version of Luke around 140 CE, yet no copies of it exist. And it was still a religious text. Socrates Chrestus ruled over Bythynia and was executed about 90 BCE. Bythynia is where Nicaea was located, and we all know what happened there. Strange coincidence? There were a lot of people named Jesus back then, and a lot of people given the title of Crestus or Christus. Take your pick.

 

[Quagmire]

I would like to know what evidence there is of Jesus outside the Bible. As in, secular, non-religious evidence. So no Bible or any other holy text.

I'd like to see something from the time when Jesus actually lived. Things written afterwards can only repeat the beliefs of others, after all.

I've yet to see any that I find enough to convince me that there was an actual person.

I love these kinds of threads. It's like:

OP: "Excuse me, can anyone tell me what time it is?"

Several people: "Why certainly, it's 3:30PM"

OP: "HA!!! WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE YOU???? HOW DO i KNOW YOU'RE WATCHES ARE ACCURATE???? AND ANYWAY, ALL YOU'RE WATCHES LOOK LIKE CHEAP'OS TO ME!!!! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!!????"


You asked what the evidence is, people have tried to show you what the evidence is.

The quality of the evidence, whether or not the evidence is conclusive, and what it all adds up to is up for debate.

But regardless, it's still the evidence.

You didn't say "Use the available evidence to try and convince me that Jesus actually existed". If you had, since this was clearly your intent, it would have been a much more honest approach to this.

 

[arthra]

I think it would be a good exercise to think about what we have left as individuals after we're gone that could be verified later...say oh maybe a thousand years from now..?

What evidence is there that we exist? Of course today we have data banks and some tax records and maybe some government records.

I know a few years ago my son was in a Scout troop I myself had been in ohh back in the fifties.. Somehow people thought the troop was only a few years old.. Well the old Scout Headquaters had been in a fire and all their records werwe destroyed... So nobody had any evidence..until I showed them newspaper clipping my mom had saved years ago that proved the old troop had been there.

What would happen if say there was some kind of solar activity that wiped clean a lot of electronic files?

O.K. now consider the time of Christ.. What kind of records would you consider would be evidence of Jesus existence..? A census from Nazareth? A tax record from Bethlehem? Maybe a death warrant for Jesus from Pilate's castle? A lot of that stuff would have been destroyed in the Bar Kokhba rebellion and subsequent destruction of Jerusalem by the Legions.. and what are people going to take with them in the Diaspora?

What are the chances that Jospehus a court historian is gonna recount the life of an itinerant Rabbi who travelled on foot around Galilee? He was more concerned with the Messiahs that were interested in kicking the occupiers out of Judah.

Another aspect of this is that there was not just one biographer of Jesus.. Had there been say a Philostratus to recount His life would it be more convincing? Does the Life of Appolonius of Tyana have more evidence about than the life of Jesus? Since the teachings of Jesus have been found in a variety of sources non-canonical and canonical in say various languages from Aramaic with layers of Koine Greek and some later Coptic does that indicate a wider base that there would more likely be a historical Jesus?

 

[Tiberius]

I love these kinds of threads. It's like:

OP: "Excuse me, can anyone tell me what time it is?"

Several people: "Why certainly, it's 3:30PM"

OP: "HA!!! WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE YOU???? HOW DO i KNOW YOU'RE WATCHES ARE ACCURATE???? AND ANYWAY, ALL YOU'RE WATCHES LOOK LIKE CHEAP'OS TO ME!!!! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!!????"


You asked what the evidence is, people have tried to show you what the evidence is.

The quality of the evidence, whether or not the evidence is conclusive, and what it all adds up to is up for debate.

But regardless, it's still the evidence.

You didn't say "Use the available evidence to try and convince me that Jesus actually existed". If you had, since this was clearly your intent, it would have been a much more honest approach to this.

What, did you think that I was just going to use this thread to stockpile sources of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus?

If I ask for evidence, I'm going to see if that evidence is worth my time. So far all I've are some gospels of indeterminate authorship and date, as well as some writings which come from people who lived after the time Jesus is said to have died, may not be based on eyewitness accounts (and if they are, then they are so long after the events that we must consider them to be unreliable), and may have been altered!

I'm sorry if I don't see that as convincing evidence that a person named Jesus actually existed.

 

[Quagmire]

What, did you think that I was just going to use this thread to stockpile sources of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus?

No, I expected you to use it for just what you've been using it for.

If I ask for evidence, I'm going to see if that evidence is worth my time. So far all I've are some gospels of indeterminate authorship and date, as well as some writings which come from people who lived after the time Jesus is said to have died, may not be based on eyewitness accounts (and if they are, then they are so long after the events that we must consider them to be unreliable), and may have been altered!

!!!!!

I'm sorry if I don't see that as convincing evidence that a person named Jesus actually existed.

Nobodies asking you to. The problem as I see it is that you came in here, ask for something, and then disregard most of what the people who responded to your request and subsequent objections have to say about it.

The analogy I used in my last post sums things up: you ask for something so you can ridicule it without attempting to understand it. Like Caladan says here:

What on earth are you talking about?
you asked for evidence relating to Jesus. why are you hysterical that I provided you them? have some integrity.
Did I say anything about everything said about Jesus in the gospels to be true? you need to go a long way to claim that my post said anything close to that. only a fool will believe that a man called Jesus turned water into wine or rose from the dead during the first century, and only a greater fool will look for people who still believe that in order to prove them wrong.

You make objections, and then ignore people who address those objections, exp:

Lemme guess, you're talking about his "Antiquities of the Jews", which was written about 60 years after the death of Jesus? So it's a safe bet that he didn't interview any actual eyewitnesses who saw Jesus in the flesh. At best, all he could do was write down what other people told him.

To which Plato replied:

The parameter you set of... 'I'd like something written about him while he actually lived'....Is impossible for just about 'any' historical figure....

...and went to great lengths to explain all that to you. As did Fallingblood, Jayhawker Soule, and Tumbleweed.

your response to all that was:

Josephus did NOT live during the life of Christ.

Josephus wrote about Jesus in 93-94AD, James died in 68AD.

In other words, "LALALALALA I'm not listening".

which pretty much verifies what Cynthia is saying here:

I don't think he is interested in the evidence or having a debate. So far all he has done when people present honest evidence is move the goal post and spout some sarcasm.

You ask for the evidence, and then fold your arms and say "Go ahead and try to make me look at it in some light than other than the one I've already decided to look at it in, I dare ya".

I don't call that a debate.

 

[McBell]

I would like to know what evidence there is of Jesus outside the Bible. As in, secular, non-religious evidence. So no Bible or any other holy text.

I'd like to see something from the time when Jesus actually lived. Things written afterwards can only repeat the beliefs of others, after all.

I've yet to see any that I find enough to convince me that there was an actual person.

Out of idle curiosity...
Are you able to do what it is you are asking for ANYONE from that particular time period?

That time period being from the date Jesus was born to the date Jesus rose from the tomb.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Tacitus was about 9 when rome burned and the fire was blamed by him on the followers of Christus. Jesus was not mentioned. It is also strange that other roman historians,
who lived through the period, including Josephus,

whose histories concerned the events leading up to and including the Jewish result and the history of the Jews

Dio Chrysostom

Whose historical writings we don't have as they didn't survive. We have his orations.

Plutarch,

Who wrote biographies of specific individuals, and most of what he wrote about Nero is lost. We have only fragments.

and Epictetus

A philosopher, and one whose writings, if he wrote anything at all, we don't have.

make no mention of the fire in the writings attributed to them.

How is this "strange?" Out of all the authors you mention, the only one who we might expect to write about the fire is Plutarch, but the problem what he wrote about Nero is lost to us. We have only fragments quoted by a later author.

If you want to know about Jesus, simply find the oldest, original writings about him and decide for yourself. You will find that the earliest intact writings that mention Jesus were written nearly 200 years after he died.

What?

Marcion was said to have a version of Luke around 140 CE, yet no copies of it exist.

On the other hand, we have a fragment of John which dates to before that time (c. 125).

Strange coincidence? There were a lot of people named Jesus back then, and a lot of people given the title of Crestus or Christus. Take your pick.

Why? The two words mean different things: one means "good/useful" (or, in this case "the good"), and the other means "annointed." Jesus/Iesous/Yeshua is a Jewish name, and Christos is the greek word for the hebrew messiah. There were "a lot of people given the title of" messiah back then. Which makes it a lot easier to identify which Jesus one is referring to (the whole point of titles, kinship identification methods, and other alternatives to our modern surname system).

 

[outhouse]

Also, you have to understand the time period that Jesus lived. We are talking about an oral society, with the vast majority of people being literate

You mean illiterate dont you?

 

[Tiberius]

Out of idle curiosity...
Are you able to do what it is you are asking for ANYONE from that particular time period?

That time period being from the date Jesus was born to the date Jesus rose from the tomb.

The Emperor Tiberius springs to mind. There are many records of him and his acts in the Acta Senatus (minutes of the session of the senate), as well as the Acta Diurna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Daily Public Records). These official records that were made at the time are very persuasive pieces of evidence that the Tiberius mentioned within them was a real person. When Tacitus wrote about Tiberius, he based a large portion of his works on the information he got from these two kinds of documents. We also have coins from that time period which bear the likeness and name of Tiberius. We also have the work "Compendium of Roman History" written by Velleius Paterculus, who served under Tiberius for 8 years starting AD 4.

Is this satisfactory?

We also have a stone commemorating the dedication of a building to Tiberius by Pontius Pilate. Although this isn't universally recognized as proof of Pilate's existence, it is a lot more than what we have for Jesus, AND it comes from a time when the person in question was actually still alive!

 

[Inthedark]

Has anyone mentioned the Q document, which doesn't exist but clearly did exist at some point and provided the foundations for some of the canonical gospels as well as gnostic gospel of Thomas? There you have clear evidence as established by academics in the field, that something existed but no longer exists that is evidence.

Evidence of non existent evidence, which provides us with evidence of Jesus. Brilliant.

That should satisfy even the toughest of scrutineers.

That aside, there are over 5,000 ancient documents of one form or other in which the biblical Jesus gets a mention. You would think with such a widespread base of texts, someone at some stage called Jesus must have made an impression on those close to him and inspired some to have it written down.

Existence is one thing but what he actually said and did is another matter altogether.

 

[Tiberius]

Has anyone mentioned the Q document, which doesn't exist but clearly did exist at some point and provided the foundations for some of the canonical gospels as well as gnostic gospel of Thomas? There you have clear evidence as established by academics in the field, that something existed but no longer exists that is evidence.

Evidence of non existent evidence, which provides us with evidence of Jesus. Brilliant.

That should satisfy even the toughest of scrutineers.

Yes, I am aware of the hypothetical Q document.

However, if this is true, then the four gospels that we have aren't the written records of four different eyewitnesses to Jesus, they are four different versions of the story told by the Q document, written some time after the story is alleged to have happened.

That aside, there are over 5,000 ancient documents of one form or other in which the biblical Jesus gets a mention.

Could you provide a source and a list of these please?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The Emperor Tiberius springs to mind. There are many records of him and his acts in the Acta Senatus (minutes of the session of the senate),

And what are our sources for the acta senatus? Seutonius? Or rather, medieval manuscipts copies of seutonius?

These official records that were made at the time are very persuasive pieces of evidence that the Tiberius mentioned within them was a real person.

Did you bother to check what "official records" we actually have, or did you just read a wiki article and assume that the records you refer exist apart from summary descriptions of them in other sources?

We also have coins from that time period which bear the likeness and name of Tiberius.

We have the same evidence for Zeus, Herakles, and other mythic figures.

We also have the work "Compendium of Roman History" written by Velleius Paterculus, who served under Tiberius for 8 years starting AD 4.

We don't, alas. We have very corrupt remnants of the original text which are quite difficult to work with.

Is this satisfactory?

Well you've referred to a lot of documents we don't have, or have only in very fragmentary pieces, and evidence which could support the historical existence of Zeus, so not really.

, AND it comes from a time when the person in question was actually still alive!

Really? So what acta senatus texts are do we have copies of which were written when Tiberius was alive?

 

[Inthedark]

Yes, I am aware of the hypothetical Q document.

However, if this is true, then the four gospels that we have aren't the written records of four different eyewitnesses to Jesus, they are four different versions of the story told by the Q document, written some time after the story is alleged to have happened.



Could you provide a source and a list of these please?

Prominent scholar Professor Bart Erhman talks about what is known not known and the likelihood of the texts we have being inaccurate with regard to history. He mentions the 5,200 plus texts I mentioned previously. He argues what we have are copies of copies of copies which at some point were based on an oral tradition. His point being one that the bible cannot be the word of god and is infact full of error. However, what I take from his talk is that point, of course its full of error, but also that someone called Jesus existed.

Have a listen and see what you think:

[youtube]O-1hdqNDQ9E[/youtube]
The Truth about Bible exposed by a Bible Scholar (MISQUOTING JESUS) - YouTube

Textual criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Professor Bart D. Ehrman - James A. Gray Distinguished Professor

 

[McBell]

The Emperor Tiberius springs to mind. There are many records of him and his acts in the Acta Senatus (minutes of the session of the senate), as well as the Acta Diurna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Daily Public Records). These official records that were made at the time are very persuasive pieces of evidence that the Tiberius mentioned within them was a real person. When Tacitus wrote about Tiberius, he based a large portion of his works on the information he got from these two kinds of documents. We also have coins from that time period which bear the likeness and name of Tiberius. We also have the work "Compendium of Roman History" written by Velleius Paterculus, who served under Tiberius for 8 years starting AD 4.

Is this satisfactory?

We also have a stone commemorating the dedication of a building to Tiberius by Pontius Pilate. Although this isn't universally recognized as proof of Pilate's existence, it is a lot more than what we have for Jesus, AND it comes from a time when the person in question was actually still alive!

So you got a grand total of three sources and flat out admit that one of the sources is nothing more than a compilation of the other two?
Not very convincing.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, I am aware of the hypothetical Q document.

However, if this is true, then the four gospels that we have aren't the written records of four different eyewitnesses to Jesus, they are four different versions of the story told by the Q document, written some time after the story is alleged to have happened.

So you mean like how most historical works are composed. As in, they take older sources and use those in order to compose a more complete and accurate picture.

Also, Mark and John probably didn't really utilize the Q document (there is suggestion John used it to a point, but that is debated).

Also, all we know about the Q document, so far, is that it was a saying document. And it clearly doesn't give the entire story, as Matthew and Luke also used Mark as a source, as well as independent sources.

So really, what we have are sources that are based on earlier sources. Just like most historical records are.

 

[bigbadgirl]

A fragment of John (unconfirmed) from 125ce. No original writings. It seems like the followers of Jesus would have thought more of their original texts, and taken better care of them. That is if they ever existed to begin with. Seems that God and Jesus were both illiterate. The dead sea scrolls are proof that texts of this period still exist.

 

[fallingblood]

A fragment of John (unconfirmed) from 125ce. No original writings. It seems like the followers of Jesus would have thought more of their original texts, and taken better care of them. That is if they ever existed to begin with. Seems that God and Jesus were both illiterate. The dead sea scrolls are proof that texts of this period still exist.

How many original writings do we have from that period at all? Even the Dead Sea Scrolls, for a large part, were not originals. Just look at the Hebrew scriptures. They were copied and copied and copied. We have no originals of those either. Yet we know that they were cherished works.

However, documents, especially when in use (as in they are not being preserved in some manner), disintegrate relatively quickly. There is a reason we don't have many originals at all. That doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Also, the originals were not necessarily the best in the eyes of the followers of Jesus. Most were used to copies in the first place, as these works would have been copied and spread from community to community. That and the very fact that they were copied would be evidence that they were seen to be important enough to preserve in the first place.

So really, people preserving these texts in the first place (by copying them), shows that they were being taken care of.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A fragment of John (unconfirmed) from 125ce. No original writings. It seems like the followers of Jesus would have thought more of their original texts, and taken better care of them. That is if they ever existed to begin with. Seems that God and Jesus were both illiterate. The dead sea scrolls are proof that texts of this period still exist.

First, I don't know what you mean by "unconfirmed." Second, what "original writings" (autographs) do you think we have at all? You seem to be assuming that there are a fair number of texts written by other ancient authors for which we have the originals. Nothing could be further from the truth:

In fact, the number of texts we have make the task of the NT textual critic a joke compared to textual criticisms in classics. In the 4th edition of The Texts of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman , we find: "the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of material. Furthermore, the work of many ancient authors has been preserved only in manuscripts that date from the Middle Ages (sometimes the late Middle ages), far removed from the time at which they lived and wrote. On the contrary, the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of the lapse of a millenium or more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant that were copied within a century or so after the composition of the original documents."

Pick virtually any NT text (a gospel, a letter of Paul's), and you will find that apart from other NT texts the one you pick is, if not THE best attested manuscript from the ancient world, it's close.

The autographs (original texts) are usually fragments of a random letter written by someone we know only through that letter, or a scrap of some prayer (or curse) which also happened to end up preserved in a garbage heap somewhere (what do you think the Oxyrhynchus site was?).

 

[SaintAugustine]

I think you have some inference...Nero lays the burning of Rome at the Christians feet. Thats what 64 AD, pretty close to ground zero.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Or in other words, the usual method of the Jesus-myther.

Like Yogi Bear said "It's like deja vu all over again"