Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sorry for the delay in responding, I forgot this thread existed

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Sebster: Although there have been doubts raised as to the authenticity of Josephus' account, one has to ask this question: If there was a monk, or whomever was preserving the work, who decided randomly: "Hey lets put in a quip about Jesus, just to say we have evidence for him", there stands a good chance that the Church would have done that with many more of the works of antiquity. And by your standard, we should consider all the history that we derive from sources such as Plutarch, Tacitus, Livy, Suetonius, etc. as dubious, since they were all preserved by the Church. And they aren't even as old as Herodotus and the like!

I think we should view much of history with less knowing eyes. We can certainly take somethings as likely, but we should still accept that we don't know for certain.

I think both statements; 'I think it is likely there was an historical figure called Jesus' and 'I think the figure of Jesus was built up from multiple characters and legends from the time' are both reasonable.

I do not think 'We have proof of Jesus because we have a copy of document in the third century where a monk quotes a scholar who talked about Jesus 60 years after he died' is as reasonable a statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:How about the documents of Flavius Josephus, a Romanized Jewish historian who chronicled the time period and makes specific mention of Jesus. There are also some Egyptian and Greek records that mention him as well, but I think the first will suffice.

Edit: I kept screwing up the quotes. Bleh

That's the source I've been discussing with JEB Stuart. In summary, the part about Jesus being mentioned off hand as the brother of James is generally considered solid, but the part about Jesus as a wise man is not. The only source for that comes centuries later, as a quote of Flavius Josephus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:To illustrate I mean by creating a legend around a vacuum, let's imagine we have a group of 12 people (the apostles) who decide to make a legend.

They make up a name a history and a philosophy. They don't get an actor, they don't do any public appearances, they don't preach or do anything. All they do is go round telling other people that this made up name guy is doing all these things and he's fantastic, you should follow him.

How's that going to work?

The point is that it no-one is talking about a deliberate deception, but the evolution over time of multiple inspirational events and myths into a unified narrative. There were a lot of preachers at the time, and many of them were said to have performed miracles. It's possible that early Christianity took the stories of many of these preachers and formed them into one character.

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:How about the documents of Flavius Josephus, a Romanized Jewish historian who chronicled the time period and makes specific mention of Jesus. There are also some Egyptian and Greek records that mention him as well, but I think the first will suffice.

Edit: I kept screwing up the quotes. Bleh

That's the source I've been discussing with JEB Stuart. In summary, the part about Jesus being mentioned off hand as the brother of James is generally considered solid, but the part about Jesus as a wise man is not. The only source for that comes centuries later, as a quote of Flavius Josephus.

That is almost exactly what I said. Did you not read my next post? There are a few other extra-biblical texts from that time period that mention Jesus. FJ is not the only one, it is just the most well known.

I've always said from the beginning that it is a question of whether or not it is reasonable, not whether it is definitive as to existence. I believe it is entirely possible that he didn't exist.

sebster wrote:
That's the source I've been discussing with JEB Stuart. In summary, the part about Jesus being mentioned off hand as the brother of James is generally considered solid, but the part about Jesus as a wise man is not. The only source for that comes centuries later, as a quote of Flavius Josephus.

I have Josephus' Jewish Antiquities with me here, and there definitely is a small section about Christ in the text. I think that should suffice as a reliable source. It isn't drawn from some third party source, this is straight from his own work.

@JEB - yeah, but Flavius Josephus was born after the death of Jesus IIRC, making it not an eyewitness account. This is the same with most (if not all) extra-biblical texts which reference Jesus. But if anyone knows different, I'd be interested to hear about it. What are people's thoughts on the Gnostic Gospels (Judas, Mary Magdalene gospels et al.)? I own The Gospel Of Judas (not the original, sadly ), the picture it paints of early christianity is wildly different from it's current incarnation - well worth a read for people who are interested in this sort of area.

Albatross wrote:@JEB - yeah, but Flavius Josephus was born after the death of Jesus IIRC, making it not an eyewitness account. This is the same with most (if not all) extra-biblical texts which reference Jesus. But if anyone knows different, I'd be interested to hear about it. What are people's thoughts on the Gnostic Gospels (Judas, Mary Magdalene gospels et al.)? I own The Gospel Of Judas (not the original, sadly ), the picture it paints of early Christianity is wildly different from it's current incarnation - well worth a read for people who are interested in this sort of area.

True, Josephus was born after the death of Christ, but it was only 4 years after. He was born in AD 37, and wrote the Bellum Judaicum in AD 75 and the Antiquitates Judaicae in AD 94. Thus he could have and would have met at least some people who knew or saw Jesus. It is also unlikely that he would have been able to garner respect as a historian if his books were as inaccurate as to reference a myth. Not to mention the fact that the ruling class of the day would have been very upset with him for further propagating a legend as fact. As far as the gnostic gospels go, they are interesting reads, but complete rubbish. Since the earliest of them was written about 100 years after the death of Christ, they are most decidedly not written by any of his followers or even any eye witnesses. As I said before, interesting reads, but not relevant to Christian thought....

JEB_Stuart wrote:]I have Josephus' Jewish Antiquities with me here, and there definitely is a small section about Christ in the text. I think that should suffice as a reliable source. It isn't drawn from some third party source, this is straight from his own work.

Which section about Christ? Where is listed as the brother of James, or where he's described in his own right, as a wise man and all that. As I understand there's no confidence that the part about Jesus as a wise man was written by Flavius.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I've always said from the beginning that it is a question of whether or not it is reasonable, not whether it is definitive as to existence. I believe it is entirely possible that he didn't exist.

Cool, that's what I've been saying from the start, that's is perfectly believable that someone called Jesus existed and lived much as the Jesus of the New Testament lived, but we don't know it.

Since the earliest of them was written about 100 years after the death of Christ, they are most decidedly not written by any of his followers or even any eye witnesses.

One could argue the same point about the books that make up The New Testament, the oldest copy of which dates back to around 350 CE.

True, Josephus was born after the death of Christ, but it was only 4 years after. He was born in AD 37, and wrote the Bellum Judaicum in AD 75 and the Antiquitates Judaicae in AD 94. Thus he could have and would have met at least some people who knew or saw Jesus. It is also unlikely that he would have been able to garner respect as a historian if his books were as inaccurate as to reference a myth.

That's your opinion. It's likely that historians from the ancient world were not judged by the same rigorous standards that they are today - there are many different ways to gather historical information in the modern age. A Jewish historian who MAY have spoken to people who MAY have known or seen Jesus, a figure who died before said historian was born is not a reliable eyewitness, that's all I'm saying. Now, records of birth, execution, Census records, letters authored by Jesus (or sent to him by someone else, even) human remains or a tomb - they would be considered more reliable.

Albatross wrote:One could argue the same point about the books that make up The New Testament, the oldest copy of which dates back to around AD 350.

Well no, that isn't true. It is the general consensus of the historical community, that the first gospel written was the Gospel of Mark, and that was around AD 50-60. The rest followed shortly thereafter, with all four being completed no later then AD 75.

Albatross wrote:That's your opinion. It's likely that historians from the ancient world were not judged by the same rigorous standards that they are today - there are many different ways to gather historical information in the modern age. A Jewish historian who MAY have spoken to people who MAY have known or seen Jesus, a figure who died before said historian was born is not a reliable eyewitness, that's all I'm saying. Now, records of birth, execution, Census records, letters authored by Jesus (or sent to him by someone else, even) human remains or a tomb - they would be considered more reliable.

You are right it is my opinion, but it is at the very least logical, and well supported. And yes you are also right in that historians were not held to standards that are as strict as they are today, simply because those standards didn't exist. You don't really seem to grasp just how important Josephus was, and why he would have undoubtedly spoken to Christians, many of whom probably seen Jesus, but he would have at the very least been well connected with the Pharisees and the like, as he was a Jewish noble. He was also a Roman citizen, and that was granted to him by the emperor Titus himself. Josephus was very important, influential and well connected. It is almost a given fact that he would have come into contact with someone who met or saw Jesus. As far as records go, there just isn't anything like that in the ancient world, but we know its history because of its sources, ie: Caesar, Plutarch, Livy, Cicero, Josephus, Strabo, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc. It seems that you wanna throw out all of our historical knowledge from the era because of small details. And as far as human remains go, well being a Christian I believe in the Resurrection and that their are no remains to be had. And there are two tombs that are considered to be the possibility of the location of the tomb of Joseph of Aramathea.

Actually, Birth records, censuses (probably not the correct plural ) and tax records did exist in the ancient world, in fact the romans had a detailed birth-registration process.
Anyway, I'm just playing devil's advocate really...I think Jesus was a real person. But I'm right about Josephus - he wasn't there, he never met Him, he's not an eyewitness no matter how respected he WAS at the time, or IS now. That's not the same as saying Jesus wasn't real, though.

It seems that you wanna throw out all of our historical knowledge from the era because of small details.

Being an Atheist, I have similar problems with Christians, regarding evolution!

It is the general consensus of the historical community, that the first gospel written was the Gospel of Mark, and that was around AD 50-60. The rest followed shortly thereafter, with all four being completed no later then AD 75.

Actually, that's disputed isn't it? The pre-75CE argument comes from a chap (forgotten his name, sorry!) who claimed they were written before this date because the destruction of the Temple in Jeruselem would have made it into the New Testament. That's an interesting (and credible) theory, but a theory is all it is because it's impossible to know for certain.

Albatross wrote:Actually, Birth records, censuses (probably not the correct plural ) and tax records did exist in the ancient world, in fact the Romans had a detailed birth-registration process.

My first instinct was that I was wrong in my initial declaration after reading this, but I sent the question along to an old professor of mine who is a Roman historian. His assertion is as follows: "The idea that the Romans had any sort of birth-registration process that was anything more then simple numbering every few decades or so is unfounded. While prominent Roman citizens, ie Patricians and Equites, did have family records covered in great detail, this was simply not the case for 90% of those who lived under the banner of Rome." Keep in mind the guy has a PhD from UC Berkeley and knows what he is talking about.

Albatross wrote:But I'm right about Josephus - he wasn't there, he never met Him, he's not an eyewitness no matter how respected he WAS at the time, or IS now.

I never claimed that Josephus was alive during the life of Christ, but merely that he is a reliable source.

Albatross wrote:Being an Atheist, I have similar problems with Christians, regarding evolution!

You do realize that not all Christians believe in Creationism right? You should not be so quick to generalize... Besides this isn't even the same as what I claimed. I am talking about historical detail and research, you are pointing to a theological dispute. Not really comparable.

Albatross wrote:Actually, that's disputed isn't it? The pre- AD 75 argument comes from a chap (forgotten his name, sorry!) who claimed they were written before this date because the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem would have made it into the New Testament. That's an interesting (and credible) theory, but a theory is all it is because it's impossible to know for certain.

Quite the reverse. It is just a few historians that think that the Gospels could have been written later than AD 75. The earliest possible dating given is AD 50, although I think that this is way too early. The most likely dates are from AD 65 to AD 75.

You do realize that not all Christians believe in Creationism right? You should not be so quick to generalize... Besides this isn't even the same as what I claimed. I am talking about historical detail and research, you are pointing to a theological dispute. Not really comparable

Actually, I didn't realise that. But surely an overwhelming number of Christians do believe that God created everything? Isn't that kind of the point? Plus, I was being facetious - I know it's not the same thing. I also know that it's a theological dispute, but thanks for patronising me.

As for the Roman thing - I did a bit of research and found an author you might want to check out regarding the birth registration topic: Fritz Schultz. He has written several texts on the subject. here is a quote from an article:

Emperor Hadrian stated in a rescript that when the age of an individual was at issue, all proofs of age should be furnished and a decision reached based on the most credible evidence. In another case, the Roman jurist Modestinus concluded that in order to prove one’s age for exemption of certain responsibilities, “age is proved either by notices of birth or by other customary (lawful) evidence.”

I didn't wanna go down the text-wall route but this SEEMS to suggest a certain amount of prevalence. But I'm going to tread carefully here - I wouldn't presume to discount what your professor says, Just putting it out there.

All I got to say is that JEB is Owning this thread.

Thanks for the insights.

GG

I think most Christians understand that Jesus never spoke about using the force of the government to take money other people earned and spend it on government programs, regardless of what the government plans are supposedly for.

He speaks often about helping those that need it, and I think over all our country does a good job. The United States is one of the most generous nations on Earth. More often than not, when the government gets involved things get worse.

I read what some socialist say about Jesus being socialist and it is just absurd. I'm not claiming to be some expert, but no where in the Bible does Jesus even hint on wanting to use the government to tax people! Some socialists don't really understand Christianity and just heard a few things and know a few verses and honestly believe that Jesus (or his message if they don't believe Him) was a big government guy. I think others that don't believe are just trying to craft a message that will play on American compassion. There are plenty of people who consider themselves Christian but really don't know Jesus. These are the people that may not take the time to wonder if Jesus really would be in favor of a nanny state. Jesus spent time with tax collectors because they were so despised and so lost--not because He wanted to help take money from those that earned it!!!!!

Albatross wrote:Actually, I didn't realise that. But surely an overwhelming number of Christians do believe that God created everything? Isn't that kind of the point?

The belief that God created everything and Creationism are two completely different belief systems. Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis. The whole God created the Earth in 7 days thing, and it is largely held to by Christian fundamentalists. The vast majority of Christians though believe in "Theistic Evolution." This is basically a melding of the two ideas. We believe that God created everything, but through the process of evolution. One of my favorite authors, Dorothy Sayers, put it very well when she argued that God is akin to an artist, and that he used the process of evolution as his canvas for creation.

Albatross wrote:Plus, I was being facetious - I know it's not the same thing. I also know that it's a theological dispute, but thanks for patronizing me.

Sorry for that, I had no intention of patronizing you, I was merely clarifying a point. Its hard to declare the subtle nuances of the English language across the internet. I hate patronizing people, as I hate being patronized. Its part of that Golden Rule that Christ mentioned....

Albatross wrote:As for the Roman thing - I did a bit of research and found an author you might want to check out regarding the birth registration topic: Fritz Schulz. He has written several texts on the subject. here is a quote from an article:

Emperor Hadrian stated in a rescript that when the age of an individual was at issue, all proofs of age should be furnished and a decision reached based on the most credible evidence. In another case, the Roman jurist Modestinus concluded that in order to prove one’s age for exemption of certain responsibilities, “age is proved either by notices of birth or by other customary (lawful) evidence.”

I didn't wanna go down the text-wall route but this SEEMS to suggest a certain amount of prevalence. But I'm going to tread carefully here - I wouldn't presume to discount what your professor says, Just putting it out there.

Ah Fritz Shulz, not one of my favorite Roman historians, indeed Historian of Roman jurist practices is more appropriate. Two things about this point. Herr Schulz is referring to an emperor that ruled 100 years after the death of Christ. Tiberius was emperor during Christ's lifetime, and Augustus was the emperor during his childhood. Roman bureaucracy had not even come close to a maturity point to embark on something like that. It really wouldn't until the rule of Trajan. Secondly, don't be afraid to combat anything I or any of the experts I rely on with fact. I am not above admitting error and I welcome any well supported claims, if only to further examine my own positions.

@GG: Thanks for the props!

Some socialists don't really understand Christianity

Some Christians don't really understand Socialism. Obviously.

Sorry for that, I had no intention of patronizing you, I was merely clarifying a point.

No worries brother - it's hard to convey facetiousness over the internet too.

Herr Schulz is referring to an emperor that ruled 100 years after the death of Christ.

Sorry to nit-pick (hang on - look at who I'm talking to! ) but you just said the 'ancient world' in general, didn't you? Does this still qualify? Does anything post CE? I will admit to being unsure... Anyway, there was allegedly a Census around the time of Jesus' birth, wasn't there? Evidence like that is the kind I'm talking about. Real physical records and eyewitness reports. Take the Great Fire of London for example, we can say that it definitely happened because we have the Pepys diary account, as well as The London Gazette and Broadside Ballad sheets from the time, all eywitness accounts, all independent, and all of which describe it. I know that the time periods are greatly different, but my point is that we don't have THIS type of evidence in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, as we do with other ancient figures. So to beat someone over the head with the evidence - when the evidence is far from 100% conclusive - seems a little unreasonable to me, that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying YOU have done that (you seem a reasonable kind of chap!) - but there have been people on here making "oh yeah? What about Josephus then? OMG you are an idiot"-type statements. I think that owes more to personal bias, than dispassionate analysis of the facts. But again, I think Jesus was a real bloke - I'm not saying Jesus wasn't real like some people.