ChatterBank0 min ago
historical jesus
are there any historical works (outside of religious texts) that can prove the existance of jesus christ? please dont quote the obvious forgeries that are found in josephus or other religious texts
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dundana66. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You are starting out with a bias - so Josephus is a forgery ?
Ask yourself this for example. Do you believe the Gallic Wars written by Caesar ?
Be aware that there is more documentary evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient literature. Ask yourself again, what would be the point in inventing it several times, with glaring differences and discrepancies.
Obvious forgeries, obvious by whose say so.
If the existence were to be proven - what is your next step ?
Ask yourself this for example. Do you believe the Gallic Wars written by Caesar ?
Be aware that there is more documentary evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient literature. Ask yourself again, what would be the point in inventing it several times, with glaring differences and discrepancies.
Obvious forgeries, obvious by whose say so.
If the existence were to be proven - what is your next step ?
-- answer removed --
he was a religious figure, so it stands to reason any writing about him would be a religious text. Why isn't that enough for you? Do you suppose those who wrote the gospels just got together and decided to invent him? Why would anyone do that?
This isn't to say every word in the Bible is necessarily true. But there seems no good reason to doubt Christ's existence.
This isn't to say every word in the Bible is necessarily true. But there seems no good reason to doubt Christ's existence.
I'm an atheist but I accept that there's sufficient historical evidence that someone called Jesus was born around 3BC (plus or minus 10 years) who created 'a bit of a stir' in Middle Eastern society during his life-time. Certainly, we have no contemporaneous documents recording his life but the same is true of many historical figures. (For instance, despite the absence of anything written by Socrates, we accept his existence and his philosophy through the works of Plato).
I've tried a websearch to provide a more detailed answer to your question. As you might expect, most sources address the issue with a certain amount of 'prejudice'. (i.e. they're either trying to prove the existence of Jesus or trying to disprove it). Wikipedia comes to the rescue, however, with an excellent, unbiased (in my opinion) article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Je sus
Chris
I've tried a websearch to provide a more detailed answer to your question. As you might expect, most sources address the issue with a certain amount of 'prejudice'. (i.e. they're either trying to prove the existence of Jesus or trying to disprove it). Wikipedia comes to the rescue, however, with an excellent, unbiased (in my opinion) article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Je sus
Chris
heathfield, I know what you are referring to with Josephus, I was only making a general point (not very well) that people will believe anything they read by, say, Caesar, but as soon as anything Biblical is mentioned, a veil of scorn and disbelief descends.
It's another whole area of discussion, and I apologise to dundana for mini-hikacking the thread.
I have absolutely no doubts as to the historicity of Christ, nor to most other aspects of his existence...
It's another whole area of discussion, and I apologise to dundana for mini-hikacking the thread.
I have absolutely no doubts as to the historicity of Christ, nor to most other aspects of his existence...
thanks guys for taking the time to answer this post.whiffy, heathfield is right, i wasnt trying to say that all of josephus' work is a forgery but the jesus passages almost certainly are.they are quoted nowhere before the 4th century (the time of Eusabius...who believed that it was right to lie if it furthered the cause of the church. Mmm).I dont understand "if the existance were to be proven what is your next step". I mearly have an intrest in history and am trying to find evidence of an historical jesus as i am interested in this time period. jno, religious writings are not eneough for for me as i like to deal with facts.Obviously if he did exist then there would be religious writings but im trying to find out if there are any secular writings.Given the fact that if he did exist then he was a highly influential figure and one would expect collabrative evidence by other writers of the time.Also jno it is ridiculous to think that the gospel writers just got together and invented him but there are other possibilities.No one would think that the writers of the Bhagavad gita just sat around and decided to invent Lord Krishna for example.But no one really believes that krishna once walked this earth before ascending into heaven either (except HIS followers).Buenchico, thanks for the website, will have a look around soon.thanks again guys
Actually, the latest scholarship on Josephu's description in his Antiquities(Book 18) indicates some parts of the disputed Testimonium Flavianum(TF) to be accurate and written by our historian Josephus ben Matthias. Here's the original paragraph:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
Obvious additions are, such as 'He was the Christ" since no Jew of the time, such as Josephus was, could be imagined using that terminology. However, a strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. A consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan.
Contd.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
Obvious additions are, such as 'He was the Christ" since no Jew of the time, such as Josephus was, could be imagined using that terminology. However, a strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. A consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan.
Contd.
According to John P. Meier in A Marginal Jew, "...We can be confident that there was a minimal reference to Jesus . . . because once the clearly Christian sections are removed, the rest makes good grammatical and historical sense. The peculiarly Christian words are parenthetically connected to the narrative; hence they are grammatically free and could easily have been inserted by a Christian. These sections also are disruptive, and when they are removed the flow of thought is improved and smoother..."
Still, a reference to Yeshua in a time and in a place consistent with historical perogatives...
In reworking the paragraph to conform to the scholarship proposed, it would read:
Contd.
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.
Still, a reference to Yeshua in a time and in a place consistent with historical perogatives...
In reworking the paragraph to conform to the scholarship proposed, it would read:
Contd.
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.
Actually although Josephus was a Jew he was not a Christian so he had no need to lie about the existence of Jesus. Tacitus a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E. was no Christian but writing soon after 100C.E., he tells of Nero's cruel persecution of the Christians and adds: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital (Rome) itself." It is evident that the Christians were hated by Rome but Tacitus felt he had no need to deny the existence of their leader Christ. Also Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century wrote in reference to the death of Jesus: "That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate". In addition according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned Jesus' miracles, regarding which he says: "That He did those things you can learn for the Acts of Pontius Pilate". True, these "Acts" or official records no longer exist. They evidently did exist in the second century and Justin Martyr confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said.
Hi Guys. Can I just say that you have blew me away with everthing you have written. Thought I was a clever girl and now have come to the conclusion that I am seriously backward. Thanks for that!!!! Keep up the intelligent conversations. I'm relying on learning from you all, so that I can return to my original delusion.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Body & Soul5 mins ago
Elderly Break Magna Carta Glass
News8 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
