I happened upon the archived topic below while doing etymology research :

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...php/t53074.html

Truly it was an interesting and enlightening thread, but I had a couple of thoughts I wanted to voice on the matter. I don't have as much time as I'd like to post tonight, so i will only quote a few sources here, so as not to make you all snore...

The one thing that truly bothered me, was that many of the quotes that some of you take to be, "fact", are only other peoples' suppositions. There are many varied opinions, and too many of those opinions are stated as fact. Instead of engaging in a debate on the subject, many of you have once again pulled out your college thesis', googled the subject, read a book (or 2) on the subject, and then rattled off a list of suppositions from (although learned people), people who strongly believe one way or the other. The search for truth becomes lost when you make lists of suppositions, regardless of the source.

Example: Quoting mako here (from the post near the bottom of the page):

"As Earl Doherty stated in “ The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?”: "the entire tenor of such an 'original' does not ring true for Josephus. In the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, he has nothing but evil to say. Indeed, he condemns the whole movement of popular agitators and rebels as the bane of the century. It led to the destruction of the Temple, of the city itself, of the Jewish state. And yet the 'authentic' Testimonium would require us to believe that he made some kind of exception for Jesus." (pp. 210-211)."

My thoughts: There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. Jesus' message was a message of PEACE and LOVE, who wouldn't agree with that (except madmen?). What sane, learned individual WOULDN'T make an exception? In our search for "truth", we forget all too often that History, is NOT cold, hard facts written in stone, history is the story of the human plight from ignorance to enlightenment. Humans are not cold, hard, rational beings; we are hot blooded, passionate, emotional creatures that are usually NOT ruled by a rational mind. You should know that truth is rarely written in stone, and even more rarely on paper. Truth is in our blood, that is the only place to find it.

Quoting someone else's research, nay, quoting someone else's supposition, does not make it a fact.

Example 2: "It is argued that Josephus wrote the passage in a carefully neutral tone, however his readers were primarily Roman, some Jewish. What reason would he have had for being, in Meier's phrase, "purposely ambiguous"? He had nothing to fear from Christians, and no reason to consider their sensibilities."

My thoughts as to this, "What reason would he have had for being, in Meier's phrase, "purposely ambiguous"? and "He had nothing to fear from Christians, and no reason to consider their sensibilities?"

That is an incredible supposition. How do you know he had nothing to fear, or no reason to consider their sensibilities? Maybe he spent the night in bed with a Christian farmer's daughter two weeks prior - which is also an incredible supposition on my part, but just as preposterous as saying "He had nothing to fear from Christians, and no reason to consider their sensibilities." There are a very great many suppositions we could attribute, but they are only that, suppositions. He's long dead, no one knows what he assumed or supposed.

Christ taught, that considering others' sensibilities was of vast importance - Peace to all, and to Love everyone. What sensible author wouldn't consider that in his/her writings?

Example 3: "Thus, the fact that the reconstructed Testimonium has nothing but nice things to say about Jesus tends to work in favor of its inauthenticity. Consider the reference to Jesus as a "wise man" (sophos aner). Josephus reserves this phrase elsewhere for such worthies as King Solomon (Ant. 8.53) and the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182). Mason notes, "If Josephus said it, it was a term of high praise." (p. 171) But it is inconceivable that Josephus should have such high praise for one who is only given so little space and who is attributed with such negative characteristics (to Josephus) as apocalyptic prophecy and the cleansing of the Temple."

My thoughts on this: Let's not forget that according to scripture, and the other texts mentioned in the various lists above (yes, including the NT, regardless of what problems you may have with it), Jesus WAS a King. He was/is called the King of the Jews, at least to some...and according to history, a great many people. Why wouldn't the author (in his texts) treat Jesus with a term of respect? I don't like George W. Bush, but I'd still call him President Bush, or Mister President to his face. I would also, as an educated person, use those honorifics in my writings, regardless of the amount of actual page-space dedicated to the subject.

---

Please keep in mind, this is an unfinished thread, so please don't feel like I'm picking on mako, I'm just getting started here and I hope to have more time to delve in to this and explore the other posts in the original thread - www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t53074.html

Thanks for your time!

What of the irony of making a supposition about a list of other people's suppositions?

I do see what you are suggesting, Moons - and welcome to UM, btw! - however most of our knowledge is derived from someone else's 'supposition' at some point in our education. It is in investigating those [suppositions] that we are able to form an opinion about what we choose to believe correct, and your big supposition here is in assuming those you are accusing did not investigate themselves before adopting their position.

A feisty post to start your UM career though!!! Kudos to that!

I PMed Mako for you. If we are lucky he will show up. The thing about Mako is he is an actually paid historian. He really does know his stuff. Personally I am not really sure Jesus was an actual person any more than Hercules. A lot has been written about Hercules so does that make him a real person?

BTW Hail and welcome to UM.

Any historian who attempts to offer a bias view is not treating their craft properly. This can usually be seen quickly through the use of attempting to steer the reader. Asking many questions hoping the audience makes the same conclusions. This technique is very persuasive yet history should be the collecting of information to better understand the past with an unbiased view. Feminists versions of history are even more of a pain to read though they can offer further insight most of it is biased.



This attitude towards history is highly biased. If one approaches the past as them being ignorant true understanding would be harder to acquire in the same way as if someone treats another living group alive today the same way.

Josephus who wrote in the Greek, participated in a Jewish revolt against Rome as a combatant, and later became a good Roman citizen, is important not because of his few scant references to Jesus which one is in question as being added by a later manipulator of history with an agenda, namely calling Jesus the Christ when all it really said was Jesus brother of James. He is important because he offers insight into life as it was at the time concerning the figures of the age and the movements. He is most important for those wishing to study the New Testament era and the Dead Sea scrolls, the Dead Sea scrolls of more or less recent finding, but without historians of the era to actually allow us a greater picture of the era they become narrow views of history alone.

---

As to this: "history is the story of the human plight from ignorance to enlightenment"

I should have used different wording there, I apologize. But do you understand the point I was trying to make?

---

As to this: "Any historian who attempts to offer a bias view is not treating their craft properly. This can usually be seen quickly through the use of attempting to steer the reader. Asking many questions hoping the audience makes the same conclusions. This technique is very persuasive yet history should be the collecting of information to better understand the past with an unbiased view. Feminists versions of history are even more of a pain to read though they can offer further insight most of it is biased."

All I'm asking, is for you (read: everyone) to maybe consider a different point of view. If you would please notice, I never claimed to be right, or correct, I'm simply asking others to consider a different point of view, and then maybe examine the subject once again - with that differing opinion in mind. And if you could, please show me a historian that is completely unbiased and I'll drop the whole thing. None of these topics would exist, nor be filled with differing opinions if we all had unbiased views.

---

Truly, I'm here to learn. I was fairly excited to find these boards, and to see that there were many intelligent and well-spoken people offering different tidbits of information, as well as differing viewpoints.

Nearly every person, in every thread I've had the time to read through (which isn't much, as this is only my 2nd time here) does exactly this at one time or another: "Any historian who attempts to offer a bias view is not treating their craft properly. This can usually be seen quickly through the use of attempting to steer the reader. Asking many questions hoping the audience makes the same conclusions. This technique is very persuasive yet history should be the collecting of information to better understand the past with an unbiased view."

That, is the exact reason I posted in the first place, this thread had originally ended with the reader (read: me) being steered to the conclusion of a differing viewpoint. But that is all it is, a differing viewpoint. It is in fact...not a fact. As stated by various other posters, there are many people who do believe that those documents are not forgeries, fakes, etc, and they are just as learned.
---

I'm not here to change people's minds. I'm here to learn, and when I ask a question, I'm not trying to steer you to MY CONCLUSION, but rather asking you to consider a different point of view and then explore the subject once again. If you'd like, I'm sure I could find many of your own posts that steer the reader towards your own conclusions, or viewpoints. I'm just as prone to making mistakes as the lot of you, but it is my intention to learn and to better myself.

I will certainly try to make my questions, my posts, and my thoughts, less argumentative. I'd like to make the most of the information contained on these boards, as well as make the most of the information contained within the noggins of my fellow board members.

I do not wish to offend.

---

"What of the irony of making a supposition about a list of other people's suppositions?" - I lol'd to that by the way. Oh, the irony, the irony...

---

" It is in investigating those [suppositions] that we are able to form an opinion about what we choose to believe correct, and your big supposition here is in assuming those you are accusing did not investigate themselves before adopting their position."

I have to correct you here, I in no way accused anyone of not investigating themselves before adopting their viewpoint, I only said that it is exactly that, a viewpoint, not a fact.

I'm quite well read, and I'm sure there are many posters on this board that are far more well-read than I, and even more intelligent, but that certainly does not give anyone the right to say, "this IS the way it is", when we have no idea what the truth of the matter is. That is why we are here in the first place, the search for answers, for enlightenment (and certainly for entertainment). The fact that there are so many differing viewpoints, from so many learned people, should just go to show that we truly DON'T have all the answers. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, so I'll leave that be.

---

And thanks for the warm welcome! I'm looking forward to perusing these boards. I'm hoping to hear/read more from mako, he seems like a treasure trove.

I'm also thinking I may have smacked a hornets' nest with a stick, but I'm not gonna run!

My apologies Moon for being highly critical of your post and not offering the highlights I considered within it. It is true that many of my posts will attempt to steer the reader but as an avid and amateur historian I take the subject quite seriously and will point out things that detract from my point as well as offer it. I am confident of this because history should be about telling the story. Nothing disturbs me more within this subject than someone that only wishes to prove a point and ignores all the other records or worse someone who ignores the records and puts forth a hypothesis without adding a disclaimer that it is not based on the records but their own beliefs.

With that out of the way I agree with you that history is not about cold hard facts but emotions. Luckily within the past century more and more historians have given differing views of history that reflect society at large and the plight of the common man instead of just focusing on leaders and dates. What was going on through the populace especially their views and sentiment are very important. In a way I do agree with you that history runs through our blood. Who we are and how we feel are both products of history.

I definitely agree with you that as a possibility that Josephus might have portrayed Christ in a meaningful manner than others. It is one I am highly suspicious as being true though because Josephus was never a Christian that I am aware of but was a Jew that practiced Judaism. His work 'Against Apion' was Jewish apologetics written to counter Apion's work which Josephus found as anti-Semetic. Jews would not have seen Jesus in the same eyes as a Christian. For this reason calling Jesus the Christ might be a forgery but if enough people at the time called Jesus such it becomes a possibility. I also think Jesus' message was more than peace and love but that was His major points indeed.

I have also not read 'The Jesus Puzzle' so am not sure of the case presented is highly biased or not. If every point it makes is solely made to make the author's case against Christ I would be consider it dubious scholarship. If he includes a broad range of facts to be as unbiased as possible then it would hold more validity. Maybe it was just the poster selecting choice parts for his case and not the author of the book? Or maybe the book was written with a strong bias and the poster ate it up horse and foot while ignoring the rest of history?

I am ignorant though of the exact tone that Josephus wrote about Jesus and if it was ambiguous while it was not towards others it does add some credence to the point made by the the poster of the second point you made. But your point is equally valid that what if Jesus was considered not just as a rabble rouser or a rebel as stated by the author of 'The Jesus Puzzle'? He certainly was not a revolutionist in the eyes of many people even if perhaps, the Jewish priesthood, Herod's house, and then the Romans considered him such a threat. I am just supposing though because I do not have enough information to make an informed decision on how exactly Jesus was viewed by all of his contemporaries.

You make a strong point about Jesus being the King of the Jews but was it really a title of respect? Sure Christians considered Him one but not of an earthly kingdom. Talk of it though is what brought Herod against Him to begin with because it was a threat to his own dynasty according to the biblical account. The Romans used it to mock Jesus I always thought so not sure how much any Jews considered Him with any reverence. Certainly the Christians revered Him. The question basically boils down to how much did Josephus honor Jesus? I would have to side with the Mason on that point but even then how certain can we be? But how sure can we be that Josephus would have thought of Jesus as we do of Bush even if most of us dislike Bush.

I hope I gave your post is due and feel bad I glossed over it the first time. I side with you though in your apologetics towards Jesus but apologetics do not make good history. I love Jesus and believe he was Crucified for our sins, was Resurrected on the Third Day, and Ascended to heaven. But I am not willing to mix my belief of Jesus and history. We can only go by the sources and though it pains me at times to read overly biased cases that only attempt to disprove Jesus I try to retain as much of the information as possible that is historical and separate that from the bias. Not only does presenting a bad case for Jesus weakens our faith but it represents Christians as ignorant of facts. Bottom line I do not need history to prove that Jesus existed and the Bible is true but only the Spirit to prove that point. It is great to read when discoveries are made that prove many points of the Old Testament.

I hope you continue the thread because history is one of my three passions but do not judge me to harshly if I seem to be playing the devil's advocate. I am glad to hear theories not based in historical fact and have many of my own but when it comes to pure history I strive for excellence not just in what I write even if it disproves my case, as you just saw when it comes to my belief in Jesus, but also in accuracy of those historians of which works I read.

Not to mention that an impressive number of historians doubt the authenticity of Josephus' comments about Jesus. First of all, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was a messiah which makes it odd that he would have written something like, "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."

I am personally confident that the Testimonium is still another example of how the monks of the early church edited, inserted and forged documents to support the belief held by their superiors.

What I find interesting is that even with the Romans detailed record keeping there is not one mention of this dude from Nazareth! Of all the great writers that were around during Yeshewa's days nobody wrote one word concerning Him.

There is no contemporary mention of Jesus...even the so-called gospels are not contemporary and date from sometimes towards the end of the 1st century CE (no, Mark was not written before the temple was destroyed) and the late part of the second century. Josephus' works were not written until around 90 CE, which means that he only worked from what was reported to him or recorded in Jewish and/or Gentile history. Then too it has been noted by many different scholars that the so-called Testimonium Flavanianum was never mentioned prior to it's mention in the 4th century by Eusebius, Bishop of Salamis. Eusebius is the first historian of the Christian church but has a problem in that he has been caught in many lies and has earned the title, "Liar for God"...he even said that lies were okay if they furthered the religion. Another problem with the Testimonium is the $100 Greek used, Josephus used mediocre Greek at the best, consequently many scholars believe the passage was written by a very well educated Roman, not a Jew with mediocre language skills. the letter of Mara Barsarapion is not dated to 73 CE, but rather to sometime around 200 CE and is too general to be accepted as a mention of Jesus...

Just one mentioning of Jesus as the Christ is in question within the works of Josephus. The Testimonium most likely was edited by the early church but it is just one passage is in question. Other parts of Josephus' works have been used by an archaeologist to find Herod's tomb. That does not affect the passage in question though but does reflect the overall scholarship if Josephus. Your view states confidence that there were forgeries and editing of documents and that it was to meet the requirements of church superiors seems to be so but if using that as a charge that Jesus was invented then that part is not based in historical fact but modern conspiracy theory.



It might be interesting but the answer is Jesus, a small leader of sect when there were many, considered by some in power as a threat in an era of many full on rebels, does not make it such a remarkable fact that there are not more sources available. What is more unlikely is that when message of Jesus began to spread and people started to become martyrs in the name of a new faith that they all did so from a mythical character. Everyone has accepted Jesus existed as a historical personage based on other works written not long after his death but the living history of his followers also adds weight to that effect. Doubting of his existence seems to be a popular industry now with many authors claiming such as of late but this doubt is of a more modern invention and these new works do not accurately reflect history or are considered actual history but pop culture and pseudo-history. What is in doubt if he did any miracles but not that he was ever alive.



There are three theories on when Mark was written and while one can subscribe to one or another to simply pick one and ignore the rest when the issue has not been fully resolved is bias at best.

Josephus works were not written in the time of Jesus but they are still considered history and not disqualified only for that reason. Also Josephus is just the most popular reference to Jesus there are a few other historians. Some will try to discredit them all wholesale but that is also an attempt to offer a more biased view while ignoring the historical consensus.

As for the Testimonium being a fabrication of Eusebius was an idea introduced by Ken Olson and some scholars but not the majority have accepted that theory.



The problem with this statement is that it might mislead others into thinking the Testimonium was a vast work when in fact it is one passage within a greater work. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is the greater work that contains the one passage called the Testimonium. The passage is most likely a forgery and it proves Josephus did not consider Jesus as Christ but it does not disprove the historicity of the personage of Jesus. Some might like to think he did not exist to add to their world view and others might like to think he did and performed miracles to add to their world view but history only shows he did exist by the broad consensus of historians. That is the simple fact and theories developed that he did not are not accepted by all and they only have the same source work to go by as everyone else so until new discoveries are made there might be dispute but the favor falls onto the actual existence of Jesus.

Seeing that the belief and faith in Jesus led untold numbers of early Christians to undergo martyrdom, does anyone know when was the existence of Jesus first questioned?

Just curious,
Karlis

Good point the fact that large a number of people were willing to stake their lives and a very humiliating and painful death of themselves their wives and children on hearsay and stories. Sure you have your minor cults today who are willing to take their lives on someone else’s word but they are few and far between. Also remember that there would be an equal or probably even greater numbers that would renounce their faith temporarily out of simple fear of being eaten alive by lions, if you can imagine those wosseies. Even those closest to Jesus, his very elect renounced him and they new him personally on a day to day basis and witnessed His abilities.

Their numbers became so strong the Romans did not have enough lions to go around and finally the Roman Government had to adopt the faith, and Caesar Constantine even renounced his position as a god figure and became the last Caesar of Rome on hearsay I very much doubt.

It is only recently that a small number of historians are beginning to doubt the existence of the man Jesus because of the fog of time itself. As far as ancient historians recording historical figures, they had neither reason nor ambition to do so because such endeavors required the backing and consent of rich and powerful men to feed shelter and cloth them in the meantime.

Most historical figures became myth and legend handed down by word of mouth it is no reason to doubt their very existence. The big question you should be asking is He, who claimed to be or simply a mad fool. You at least don’t have to worry about being eaten by lions in your decision today!
.
Irish

I understand what you're saying but I also understand that any of the Jewish sects that rebeled against the Essenes were in fact in danger.


I truly believe that Constantine's desire for 'one God, one religion' 'one empire, one Emperor' had much to do with his decision to genocide all Pagan faiths. . . but, I may have misunderstood your post here.

The well documented persecution of Christians from A. D. 64. By Caesar Nero right up to the Edict of Milan, issued in A. D. 313 by Constantine. Who incidentally was the first to claim, if you can't beat them, you might as well join them. And started his own brand of (controlled) Christianity, Known today as the Holy Roman Catholic Church. It was a jelly role of Pagan, Christian and Jewish traditions in a very successful attempt at control of the dominant world religions.
Irish

Constantine ended the persecution of Christians and did merge the Roman pagan church system with Christian beliefs creating a new strain which became the most dominant. Constantine did begin transferring the state control of what was once the state pagan church into this new merging of faiths of a new one. What Constantine did not do was decide to commit genocide on all Pagan faiths. Starting unnecessary wars was not something any emperor was keen to do. The war on Paganism became full scale later on but it was never really in totality a clear cut case of genocide for they would have rather had forced conversions than eradications of whole ethnic groups. 'Genos' means tribe or ethnic and 'cide' means murder so the word does not apply in the least.

You are indeed correct. The destruction of all Pagan temples came later 391AD I believe.

Not only that but the official state church system was not the entirety of pagan belief within the Empire. Many were outside of that system. Their beliefs were not stamped out. Then with the barbarian invasion of Rome not long after everything changed once again and when the Franks began taking most of the Western Empire and continues the Roman church system they had their own persecution of not only Pagans but what they considered heretical Christian sects.

After Constantine though Christian persecution did not completely die. Justine the Apostate attempted a return to Paganism along official state lines and resumed Christian persecution.

Here is a more in depth view though it is not really in depth at all because for a small period the balance kept changing until eventually the Roman church system merged with the new Frankish kings and formed the Holy Roman Empire. By then Pagan persecution was in full swing but there were many facets of it and it was just not a full onslaught against Paganism. There are also many Pagan customs that survived all that and a few who claim they never fully became Christianized.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_pe...ty_and_Paganism

Considering that there is no indication that any of the Church Fathers prior to the mid 2nd century knew anything about any gospels (short of Clement mentioning off-hand of a manuscript by an individual named Mark, which may or may not be the Mark that the present gospel is ascribed), it would be difficult to say when any gospel was written. However, the lack of mention of these or any gospels prior to mid 2nd century is indicative of their not being written until sometime after the first quarter of the 2nd century, around a century after the tradition date of Christ’s execution. However, even then we have a problem (shut up Irish, you know where I am going, don’t you…LOL). We have no way of telling when Jesus lived or died…the gospels do not agree with each other, nor with recorded history. The gospels could actually have been written as far after the death of Jesus as 125 to 150 years or if you believe believe what Irenaeus, 2nd century Bishop of Lyon (and the one who set the basic canon of the church), Jesus was still alive in the reign of Trajan (Against Heresies, II, 22), or if you believe Epiphanius, 4th century Bishop of Salamis, Jesus was born before Herod the Great (born 73 BCE) around 100 BCE.
This brings forth some interesting questions, since Irenaeus is the gentleman that set the canon of the New Testament and choice the 4 gospels of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John, he would surely have known that all these gospels had Jesus being executed at the hands of Pontius Pilate, yet he indicates that Jesus was alive and well and touring with John in Asia during the reign of Trajan! Evidentially, the gospels that he had were not those that are currently in the Christian bible and since we have no full or even partial copies of any of the Gospels prior to the 4th century CE (we have fragments that might or might not be from the gospels or might even be from other manuscripts that the authors of the gospels copied from) we can only speculate! This is not bias, this is historical research and pondering…it is bias to accept a insert into a manuscript that quite evidentially did not fit the flow of the language of the rest of the manuscript and whose Greek is of a better quality (the words used where not those of an undereducated writer, nor of a non-Roman writer) as being a valid quotation of Josephus. Rather it should be recognized that the insert is highly questionable and contended and that a large number of scholars do not accept it as valid. It should also be noted that as early as the 16th century such scholars as de Cisneros and later scholars such as Desiderius Erasmus and John Mill (among many others) questioned the Testimonium and it’s validity. So this has been an ongoing confrontation with the religious grasping desperately for confirmation of their savior outside a very biased NT and the secular scholars warning that there is more evidence of fraud than validity.
Now on to what is presently accepted as the biographies of Jesus, in particular Matthew and Luke, since they seem to establish a beginning and end to his life. Mark, the oldest of the canonical gospels (between 85 and 105 CE) makes no mention of it at all and neither does the “youngest” gospel John (probably 124 CE or later). Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great (73 – 4 BCE) and Luke has his birth during the Syrian governorship of “Cyrenius” (real name – Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, 6 – 9 CE), at least a 10 year difference exists between the dates reported by the two. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE as recorded by several historians, Josephus being the major one, so If Matthew (who reported Jesus being born during the reign of Herod the Great) is correct, Jesus would have been born prior to that time. Since the holy family supposedly fled to Egypt to escape the “Slaughter of the Innocents”, he was probably born between 8 and 6 BCE if Matthew is correct. This means Jesus started his ministry around 22 to 24 CE and was executed around 24 to 26 CE. This presents several problems – (1)Luke tells us that John the Baptist did not start his ministry until the 15th year of Tiberius, which was 29 CE and both Matthew and Luke state that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist at the beginning of his (Jesus’) ministry an act that would have been exceedingly hard for John to perform since Jesus would have been dead/arisen/ascended for more than 3 years when he first started our! (2) Both Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all tell us that Jesus was condemned to death by Pontius Pilate and intimates that Pilate had been in authority for a year or so. If this is so, Jesus would have died either 2 years before Pilate arrived in Judea or on the year he arrived, but since the crucifixion date is tied to Passover (which occurs in March or April) and sea traffic during that period was curtailed by the winter and spring storms until May, it would make it unlikely that Pilate officiated at his trial or execution, having not yet arrived in Judea.
If Luke were correct, there are even bigger problems – (1)Jesus would have been born between 6 and 9 CE (the period that Cyrenius served as governor) and would have started his ministry between 36 and 39 CE, which means that John the Baptist would have already been executed by Herod Antipas and Pilate would have already departed for Rome! So, as you can see…there is no way to even ascertain when Jesus lived or even if he lived…nor is there any way to ascertain when the gospels were written, although the majority of the evidence is that they are mid 2nd century CE. But we can see that a closer look at the "inerrant word' shows that it is definately errant!

Unfortunately this topic is not about if the Word is inerrant or errant as you made as the final point of your post. It is about the historicity of Jesus. Most scholarship does not deny he did live. Whether some hold opposing theories they are not in the majority.

Even the Jesus Seminar who are one of the major critics of the divinity of Christ and proponents that the Gospels are not divine agree that the Gospels were first introduced into the oral tradition between 30-50 CE and were committed to text within decades of Jesus' death. Most scholars attest to this. Anything else is an alternative view and if presented without introducing the consensus then that is clearly bias taking precedent over actual historiography.

The Gospels were also not simply chosen by one person, even if Irenaeus was a major proponent of four only, there was much input from other people in power as well as what the masses more or less accepted. We cannot leave any one part out of we will get an inaccurate unbalanced view.

Most people agree the one passage within Antiquities of the Jews, called the Testomonium, is an insert and a forgery but that small detail does not break or make the case for the historicity of Jesus. People use that small detail as if it were some weapon that can erase all of history. There are other sources and even if one person simply attempts to dismiss them all in one fell sweep it definitely takes more than that to do so. They is more than one accepted primary source and they are valid when composing a picture of what happened in the past.

Discrepancies within details of dates and such within the Gospels also do not make or break the case of if Jesus actually existed. I am sure there are many threads devoted to that but this is simply if Jesus was mentioned outside the Bible or not. He clearly was.

I referred, of course, to the singular passage about Jesus that I quoted since it best relates to this thread. That it is most likely a forgery can not be seriously doubted. At the same time, however, Josephus was commissioned to make a map of Israel and his map did not show Nazareth which leads some to conclude that Nazareth was formed after the conquest of Jerusalem and thus Jesus could not have been the "Jesus of Nazareth." All that is academic but holds some valid substance for debate.

Whether or not Jesus was considered a threat by authorities is equally open to debate. We might accept that if we depended solely upon the gospels but given their inconsistencies, one should want more to support such a claim.

In "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions," Walter Dorne mentions that there were nine noted historians living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus and none mentioned him. We not place all our eggs in the Josephus basket when evaluating the question of Jesus being mentioned outside the Bible. Nor do we need to equate the question of his being mentioned in other sources with any doubt that he truly existed.

Jesus indeed might not have been seen as a threat to Herod and your point is true. If he was not seen as a threat then it only adds to the case of why the lack of an abundances of sources. More than likely the history outside of the Gospels, which are still used as historical sources even by the Jesus Seminar who attempt to disprove the myth but find other validity in the Gospels, does not have other sources of if Jesus was a threat or not.

I would cast doubt on Walter Dorne's works as a sound historical source since his works are in the field of comparative mythology and comparative religion and not in actual history. He deals with ideas and concepts and while related to history it is not history. Is there any other sources that claim there were nine noted historians living in Jerusalem?

One can make the same claims about all recorded history prior to 500 AD as it is extremely sparse and most of what we have was written long after the fact by people who may have had ulterior motives.
The integrity of journalism hadn’t even been considered by the recorders and much was handed down by word of mouth over many years.
There is very little evidence of Alexander the Great actually being a historical person yet he was considered a great leader. And yet many wonder why there was not much recorded (other than His followers) about an insignificant carpenter from Nazareth in the first century.
If you are going to throw the baby out with the bath water you might as well dump all that we know.
It’s interesting to note that those that don’t want to see the evidence there is, are the same ones who would suffer the most if it was proven truth.
A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are:

* An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.
* An inscription that mentions Pilate.
* Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
* From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.

Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.
* From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
* From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]

To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him! (For a response to a commonly-used list of writers who allegedly should have mentioned Jesus, see Here
A point to ponder…
Today’s date is May 15 2008AD
How did a lowly carpenter from a remote region of the Roman Empire have so much influence upon the world in that day that we base our easement of year’s upon His accomplishment on the cross even today?
As for His claim to be the son of God, well we must all decide whether he was lying or telling the truth.

Irish

As a side note!

During a discussion of William Shakespeare, a student asked the old professor about the en vogue theory that Shakespeare did not write the plays ascribed to him.
The professor growled, "Young man, if Shakespeare did not write those plays,then they were written by someone who lived at the same time and had the same name!"

The fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] have indicated several reasons why Jesus remained a "marginal Jew" about whom we have so little information:
1.As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
2.Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
3.Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
4.Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
5.Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
6.Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!
source

lol that had me cracking up. It is so true and I have heard some theories on Shakespeare some will pick a play and say he did not write it but to blame all his work on forgeries makes no sense. Some also say Moses did not exist and his works are an accumulation of many sources but some agree most of his writings seems to come from one man in their style, narrative, and thought patterns.

Where can one find this information???


fullywired

If you are implying it is a biased source so are all those authors who make Jesus is a Myth books or Jesus never existed books.

I would say this... Where did Jesus ever refer to himself as the "King of Kings"? Where did Jesus ever refer to himself as "King of the Jews"? Such titles were thrust upon him by some of his followers, yes, but even more so by the evangelists some 70 years after his crucifixion. During the life of Jesus, he was simply known as Jesus of Nazareth. And what of the historians of the day? Do they refer to Jesus as a king? No. In fact, the much quoted Josephus passage -- most of which is a known interpolation -- says nothing of Jesus being a king of anything. Josephus had no doubt that he was a false messiah -- as did the Jews! Why? Because the Jewish Messiah is not to be a miracle worker, nor get himself crucified -- which was/is an abomination to the Jews!

As for martyrs ... This is common Christian apologetics--a McDowell one at that (More Than A Carpenter). Martyrdom means absolutely nothing -- save that people were fanatical in their beliefs! Nothing new. Such fanaticism is seen throughout history -- including the 21st century! Just take a look at those who martyr themselves for Allah! They do so by the thousands! Does that make Allah the true God -- or even a god at all?! Of course not! It simply means that followers are wholeheartedly convinced that their system of beliefs is unequivocally correct. So, in my humble opinion, martyrdom means absolutely nothing with regards to truth.

Martyrs
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/martyrs.htm

Most kindly,

Sean

yet for as well known as he is(shakespeare), much of his life remains a mystery to us..He did not keep a diary, and none of his personal letters have survived, we do not even know exactly where he was born, we know little about his parents , his wife, his kids ..besides his plays and poems, the only other documents we have is buisness transactions, court papers and his will...

what we do know is about the times he lived in and the historians investigate a life just like a dectective, gather all the known facts until a pattern begins to appear..

it is not unreasonable to consider or question whether Shakespeare wrote plays or not, of if jesus lived or not....


its a big jump to argue that jesus was actaully the one who is accredited for so much based on what we know.......

I am implying nothing because you haven't produced anything yet


fullywired

Evidence for Jesus outside of the NT is sparce--freely admitted by scholars and theologians. Tektoniks ... ARGH!

“What we know of Jesus amounts to little more than a pragraph.” Dr. C. Shea, Professor of Classics, Ball State University.

One of the problems with retrieving the historical Jesus is that so little can be known of him with certainty. He is mentioned briefly in about a half-dozen non-Christian texts of the time: works by Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger.1 But these say little more than that he lived, preached, and was crucified [which was based on what Christians said, rather than what they knew from their own historical research].--Notre Dame Magazine, NEW TESTAMENT:"Who Do Men Say That I Am", Temple, Kerry {Managing editor}

Sean

That is not the opinion of the majority of scholars seanph. Anyone can post the opinions of revisionist while ignoring what is already agreed upon by the majority.



The consensus among historians is that Jesus was a real person. What is their to produce other than pouring through the work already done and representing it?

Here is part of an interesting article.



http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/d...ediscover2.html

Would not Christian historians who base their history on the Bible be just as bias as non-Christian historians who don't base their history on the Bible. To say some one is bias because that don't think Jesus was a real person is the pot calling the kettle black.

No Darkwind. The Jesus Seminar for instance attempts to disprove Jesus as being anything special, they believe he is just an invention based on previous inventions, but they view the New Testament as actual historical document for the other facts outside of theology that they offer. They separate the theology from the history and accept them for the history. They do believe Jesus existed as a person they just do not think he died on a cross.

Try not to think in terms of Christian historians, those do exists as Apologetics, but more in terms of biblical historians who will pick and tear apart the Bible and say the religion is fake but the history in both Testaments is real.

Some of the findings of the Jesus Seminar.



There are at least 10 important areas in which the JS adopts assumptions and perspectives that are widely held in nonevangelical scholarship but which need to be challenged. Those assumptions include:

1. The authors of the four canonical Gospels are not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as traditionally believed.
2. None of these four Gospels were written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
3. The oral tradition of Jesus' sayings was quite fluid. Simple teachings were often greatly expanded, embellished, and distorted in the process.
4. Various people in the early church, including the Gospel writers themselves, felt free to invent sayings of Jesus that had little or no basis in what He actually taught.
5. If a saying can be demonstrated to promote later Christian causes, it could not have originated with Jesus.
6. The historicity of John’s gospel is extremely suspect.
7. Historical analysis cannot admit the supernatural as an explanation for an event. Therefore, Jesus' words after His resurrection—like His earlier predictions about His death, resurrection, and return—cannot be authentic.
8. Jesus never explained His parables and aphorisms. All concluding words of explanation, especially allegorical interpretations of parables and metaphors, are thus inauthentic.
9. Jesus never directly declared who He was. All such “self-referential” material (in which Jesus says, “I am…” or, “I have come to…”) is therefore also inauthentic.
10. The burden of proof rests on any particular scholar who would claim authenticity for a particular saying of Jesus and not on the skeptic

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t017.html

That is not entirely true. The Jesus Seminar has concluded that 18% of what Jesus was supposed to have said did say it or most likely said it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

On the contrary, Doane's work (I somehow had a typo the first time) challenges the Cambridge History of the Bible for its references and uses of legitimate authorities. While he does, indeed, compare Christianity and myth, he utilizes historical events and characters to make his points.

Certainly Justus of Tiberius must be considered when considering historians living in the area of Jesus and contemporary to his times. Justus made no mention of Jesus.

Philo lived in Alexandria and was certainly close enough to have known of such a miraculous ministry or the crucifixion. Still, he wrote nothing.

Paul himself becomes something of a historian in his Acts but knew nothing of Jesus before his alleged "vision."

The fact is that there were no less than 41 historians that lived during or within 100 years of Jesus . . . . all without a single entry concerning him. Even those extending a century later would have access to the recollections of others or records still intact.

It remains odd that in some cases there is more available information about some of the 16 other "saviors" who were sent from heaven and born on Dec. 25 of a virgin. They also raised the dead, conversed with the priests at the temple at 12 years old, were crucified and arose on the third day.

This is the list of what the Jesus Seminar has concluded as happening or most likely as happening in the life of Jesus.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

If all of that is true and not the suppositions of one man then it should not be difficult to find a few sources of known historical integrity to corroborate each of those points. But an argument from silence which is what this person is claiming by saying there were so many such and such historians yet none mentioned Jesus is not good history.

The whole 16 other 'saviors' all born on December 25 and conversed with priests a the temple at 12 years is so very far fetched that I want to call it a flat out lie. There is no proof of that than any historians agrees on.

Just for the sake of curiosity who were these 41 historians?

BTW everyone knows Jesus was not born on December 25th. The shepherds were out and never are during that time of the year. The whole December 25th is the old winter solstice on the Julian Calendar and for pagans was the sun god's birthday. It was the Roman pagan church system who adopted a Christian facade who attributed that date to Jesus' birthday. In other words it was a pagan holdover and just because Catholicism became the dominant faith does not mean it is the most accurate one at lest when comparing it to biblical purity. They are a faith of mixed pagan and Christian thought.

Clovis, we are not talking about the importance of the bible for issues of faith, but about the the importance of jeus for who he was , if he was.....the bible for the pursuit of a faith is another subject.....

what kind of documents are the gospels of the NT???


Expatriate, .love your posts they are very interesting....

in order to understand that one has to have an understanding of the 3 diffenrt ways the gospesl have been interpreted ....


Before the european enlightenment of the 18th century virtualy everyone understood the gospels to be supernatural histories , records of things that actaully happened( but mainly supernatural happenings)

examples: jesus walking on water, simom peter walking on water and the biggie the resurrection.....


Then the enlightenment scholars started seeing the gospels not as supernatural histories but 'natural histories'

( the enlightenment swept through europe inthe 18th century and invovled a new way of thinking and looking at the world......

then the intellectuals came to distrust traditional sources of authority and started to insist on the power of human reason to understand the world and the humans place in it....


Logic and the importance of cause and effect relationships prevailed this was the age of sceince and technology, ideas of natural laws were being created i.e. highly predictable ways in which nature worked along with concomitant views that these laws couldnt' be broken by any outside agency( you know what I am leading to e. g. a divine being)



humans were moving from dogmatic teachings to objective processes such as as rational observation and empirical verification and logical inferrence etc etc.....religious beleif scholars began to recognize that what they had was a naive methodology of appealing to divine agency to explain natural phenomena that once seemd so mysterious could now be explained...


Many biblical scholars were heavily influenced by the EE and took a rationalistic view (The theological doctrine that human reason rather than divine revelation establishes religious truth) of the gospels....according to these religious scholars the miracles of the bible obviously didn't happen for such scholars the gospels do not contain historical accounts of actual supernatural events but rather events that were mispercieved as miraculous...

Heinrich Paulus (1827) was one such interpreter and and a german theologian he wrote a famous study called Dar Leben jesu ( life of jesus)

then another shift in the gospels came in the years 1835-36 a 2 volume book by the theologian David Freidrich Strauss the life of jesus critically examined 1500 pages of meticulous argumetation involving every story in the bible Strauss felt the gospels were myths ( he defined myths as something true but that didn't happen if that makes sense) that a myth is history like, yet fictional it is simply meant to convey a religious truth.....

I hope this helps clovis....wiki is not the best source for data IMO....

Well welcome to the thread SS I see this is the second time you have posted. But lol why would you have to tell me the above? Have you read my posts at all on this thread? I am simply discussing the history of it all and not the faith on this thread. That is what I was explaining to Darkwind that the Gospels can be used as simple historical sources without any religious connotations. That is what the Jesus Seminar does and my point was if they, the most notable critics it seems against Jesus as anything more than a historical person without any divinity, if they believe Jesus did exist as most other historians then it is most likely he did exist as a person.

The secondary point was that it is not biased to use the Bible as a history book while leaving the faith out of it. Pure history can be derived from the Bible when compared to other historical works and subsequent archaeological and anthropological findings.

As far as the history behind the way the Gospels were looked at in the three different phases that is interesting. Unfortunately your third phase is revisionism when it comes to history. People are still looking at the Gospels and all of the Bible as a source of natural history to this day. The third phase you speak of is more done along the lines of comparative religion, comparative mythology, and philosophy students. While they offer great insight to the overall picture they are not historians per se and this thread is not whether the Bible is all myth or based on older myths but this thread is about if Jesus was an actual person using historiography alone.

As I mentioned earlier, Doane does an excellent job of cofirming his claims and you will need to check his references. My copy of his book is 1,500 miles from where I now am but I remember well this comment. On the other hand, it is not difficult to realize that Justus lived in Tiberius where Jesus visited often and still mentioned nothing of his ministry or miracles. The Center for Hebrew Studies in Jerusalem has countless temple records dating back farther than any Christian writings and none mention a Jesus even though scribes worked there daily. Jesus reportedly refers to them in Mark 12.

The 41 historians? Apollonius, Tacitus, Persius, Appian, Petronius, Lysias, Theon of Smyran, Arrian, Statius, Phaedrus, Aulus Gellius, Philo-Judaeus, Columella, Phlegon, Damis, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Pliny the Younger, Dion Pruseus, Plutarco, Epictetus, Pompon Mela, Favorinus, Florus Lucius, Quintilian, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Quintius Curtius, Josephus, Seneca, Justus of Tiberius, Silius Italicus, Lucian, Martial, Valerius Flaccus, Lucanus, Suetonius, Paterculus, Valerius Maximus, Juvenal and Pausanias.

Of course it is well known that Jesus was not born on the date celebrated but it demonstrates the need for a criteria to have been followed to qualify a messiah.

Thulus 1700 BC
Atys of Phrygia, 1170 BC
Crite of Chaldea, 1200 BC
Krishna of India, 1200 BC
Thammuz of Syria, 1160 BC
Hesus, 834 BC
Indra, 725 BC
Bali of Orissa 725 BC
Iao of Nepal, 622 BC
Alcestos, 600 BC
Mithra, 600 BC
Sakia, 600 BC
Quexalcote, 587 BC
Wittoba, 552 BC
Prometheus 547 BC
Quirinius, 506 BC

All born on December 25 . . . . most of a virgin (perhaps all) . . . . all crucified . . . . most resurrected . . . most after three days . . . . Sakia astonished the priests with his comments at the age of 12 . . . . Mithra had 12 disciples, a last supper and invented a communion rite . . . . perhaps all far-fetched to you but the repetition becomes more than the mere belief that history repeats itself.

clovis from the historical and academic stance that is the reason for the first part of my post to let you know and others know for clarity that I was specifically addressing the history of jesus, that I understand in the context of faith one beleives quite differently and resepct that..., also alot of christians are not concerned at all that jesus and the lore are most likely fabricated .....

yes, I read your posts you are inferring that bible scholars hold a pov that the bible is historically accurate.. I was countering from a historical pov......how is a story true if it didn't happen how would you answer that ?????

historically we know about 4 sentences about Jesus if indeed its one and the same person.....there was a man he was a jewish minister that preached apocalyptic judiasm he was brought up on rebelliion charges and was crucified....he is mentioned barely in a few sources outside of the gospels and the few contain nothing to support the christian characterization...


today few 'scholars' follow a supernatural, natualistic view.... the gospels are meant to convey christian truths to make the christians lives easier to support the christian message and the beleifs... even though the bible is not historically accurate, its important in the context of faith this is widely shared in the scholary community ....

Nothing that doesn't help your stance ,is not good history to you ,an argument from silence speaks volumes .Nobody knew him


fullywired

Oh how quick the tune changes lol. The post above is a far cry from what was posted in the quote below.



As far as why historians did not mention Jesus more often, a few did, but more...well that is an argument from silence and does not prove much. As far as all the mythological figures again that is comparative religion and comparative mythology which are not true history.

Let me see though I am familiar with Quexalcote who is better known as Quetzalcoatl. He was not born on December 25th so there goes your whole 'All born on December 25' assertion. He was not born of a virgin, he was not crucified, he was tricked and left on a burning raft that became Venus and was prophesied to return some day so that is similar, he was not resurrected after three days, and there was no element of a mystery play.

Krishna was not born of a virgin, he was born in July, he was not crucified (there goes your all were crucified statement), and there is no mystery play.

Mithra did not have 12 companions or disciples.

Either way I could spend all day trying to debunk that list but it is not history in any case. It might question the divinity of Jesus but as stated previously it does nothing to change the made of contemporary historians that mostly agree Jesus was a real person.

Those lists though that you proved of all the sixteen 'saviors' is just so far from the truth and anyone with a bit of time can pour through the records and books and see that list is a lie.

Cloivs, what is really important is what did he actaully say and do?? it seems odd to me you would dismiss that as immaterial.......

It is probably certain he is not the character that has been created by christianity....you can deduce all day, it dsoent change there is no evidence of the stories spun by the gospels even the gospels themselves do not support/agree with each other....we actaully do have alot fo writngs form the earlier centurys as Ex says....


why isn't there anything outside of the bible about this jesus character..????

You can only take this lore on faith there is no other way, imo historically it can't be supported........ ( faith means you accept something unquestioni