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.

As far as I know there are some limited historical references outside of the Bible that contain references to Jesus though nothing as detailed and direct as for instance a birth certificate. However the lack of these records doesn't prove that Jesus was not a real person. Conversely if they definitely existed, it would not prove that Jesus was the Son of God.

It is amusing to note that many people in the modern USA dispute the existence and authenticity of the President's birth certificate, even on the basis of minor elements of phrasing. This being the case, what possible proof could be given from 2,000 years ago of the reality of Jesus that would satisfy sceptics?

IMO part of the problem is defining what is meant by "historical Jesus". There are really three interpretations of the Jesus character, two of them valid candidates for "historical Jesus":

1) The very general inspiration. There was a religious figure (who may or many not have been named Jesus) at roughly the right time and place who gained some followers, was executed, and had his followers continue to preach his message after his death. The various details of the story may have actually happened, may have been details of someone else's story that were later attributed to him, or may have been entirely fictional. AFAIK there is at least some evidence for this claim, and it's a very weak claim that shouldn't inspire too much skepticism. In fact, it would be harder to believe that there was never even the slightest real-world inspiration for the Jesus story and his followers made the whole thing up (but still followed the lie).

2) The "Jesus without the miracles" character. There was a real Jesus who matched most of the details of the story, except for all of that weird supernatural stuff. He claimed to be the son of god (even though he wasn't), he said the specific quotes that are attributed to him, he was executed in the same way, etc. Later authors embellished the story a bit by adding in the supernatural stuff, but most of the events were true. This is a much stronger claim that gets a lot more specific on the details, and AFAIK there is little or no evidence for it outside of Christian religious texts (which are questionable sources at best for obvious reasons).

3) The literal interpretation. Jesus existed and did everything, including all the supernatural stuff. This is obviously absurd and has no credible evidence at all behind it, and strong evidence that it couldn't possibly have happened. No (mainstream) secular scholars take this even remotely seriously.

So, before you continue the debate, I think you should both clarify whether you're talking about Jesus #1 or Jesus #2.

There are several variations on your point 3. One is that Jesus existed and did the various miracles attributed to him but they are explicable by scientific means; for example, that Lazarus was in a coma rather than daed and woke up at the right moment. Another is that Jesus actually was the Son of God and did the miracles by divine intervention as the Bible says. Yet another is that the miracles are actually parables and not intended to be taken literally.

 Hordini wrote:
Did you listen to him answer the whole question, in which he talks about abundant attestations in early independent sources and specifically mentions an author who knew both Jesus' brother as well as Peter?

And yes I'm watching your videos.

Yes, I watched the entire question + answer. He gives no proof that is then backed up by some historical document or something of the like. What I hear is vague claims about "early and independent sources" and the logical fallacies I stated before, and nothing to back up the "early and independent sources". That's about as vague as you can get! No names, no locations, nothing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As far as I know there are some limited historical references outside of the Bible that contain references to Jesus though nothing as detailed and direct as for instance a birth certificate. However the lack of these records doesn't prove that Jesus was not a real person. Conversely if they definitely existed, it would not prove that Jesus was the Son of God.

It is amusing to note that many people in the modern USA dispute the existence and authenticity of the President's birth certificate, even on the basis of minor elements of phrasing. This being the case, what possible proof could be given from 2,000 years ago of the reality of Jesus that would satisfy sceptics?

I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO part of the problem is defining what is meant by "historical Jesus". There are really three interpretations of the Jesus character, two of them valid candidates for "historical Jesus":

1) The very general inspiration. There was a religious figure (who may or many not have been named Jesus) at roughly the right time and place who gained some followers, was executed, and had his followers continue to preach his message after his death. The various details of the story may have actually happened, may have been details of someone else's story that were later attributed to him, or may have been entirely fictional. AFAIK there is at least some evidence for this claim, and it's a very weak claim that shouldn't inspire too much skepticism. In fact, it would be harder to believe that there was never even the slightest real-world inspiration for the Jesus story and his followers made the whole thing up (but still followed the lie).

2) The "Jesus without the miracles" character. There was a real Jesus who matched most of the details of the story, except for all of that weird supernatural stuff. He claimed to be the son of god (even though he wasn't), he said the specific quotes that are attributed to him, he was executed in the same way, etc. Later authors embellished the story a bit by adding in the supernatural stuff, but most of the events were true. This is a much stronger claim that gets a lot more specific on the details, and AFAIK there is little or no evidence for it outside of Christian religious texts (which are questionable sources at best for obvious reasons).

3) The literal interpretation. Jesus existed and did everything, including all the supernatural stuff. This is obviously absurd and has no credible evidence at all behind it, and strong evidence that it couldn't possibly have happened. No (mainstream) secular scholars take this even remotely seriously.

So, before you continue the debate, I think you should both clarify whether you're talking about Jesus #1 or Jesus #2.

I'm talking about Jesus #1 at a minimum, leaning towards Jesus #2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Did you listen to him answer the whole question, in which he talks about abundant attestations in early independent sources and specifically mentions an author who knew both Jesus' brother as well as Peter?

And yes I'm watching your videos.

Yes, I watched the entire question + answer. He gives no proof that is then backed up by some historical document or something of the like. What I hear is vague claims about "early and independent sources" and the logical fallacies I stated before, and nothing to back up the "early and independent sources". That's about as vague as you can get! No names, no locations, nothing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As far as I know there are some limited historical references outside of the Bible that contain references to Jesus though nothing as detailed and direct as for instance a birth certificate. However the lack of these records doesn't prove that Jesus was not a real person. Conversely if they definitely existed, it would not prove that Jesus was the Son of God.

It is amusing to note that many people in the modern USA dispute the existence and authenticity of the President's birth certificate, even on the basis of minor elements of phrasing. This being the case, what possible proof could be given from 2,000 years ago of the reality of Jesus that would satisfy sceptics?

I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.

Well maybe you should read his book. Forgive me if I put a bit more stock in a well-respected scholar of antiquity who does peer-reviewed research over a guy who does YouTube videos, particularly a guy who does YouTube videos and also appears surprised that Jesus didn't write anything down, since Jesus most likely couldn't write (in reference to the second video).

Why are you looking for records of miracles if we're talking about the historical Jesus and not the supernatural, divine Jesus?

 Wolfblade wrote:
I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.

I don't think you really understand the problem here. You're talking about events that happened ~2000 years ago, and we don't have perfect records from back then. At the time of his execution Jesus #1 was just one of many irrelevant cult leaders with a few followers in a not-too-important corner of the empire, and even Jesus #2 might not have been well known until after his death. The most likely answer is that if any paperwork existed in the first place nobody bothered to preserve it and it was thrown in the trash next time someone cleaned the storage closet.

Also, like I said, Jesus #1 is actually a very weak claim. There is nothing at all unbelievable about a religious figure existing, attracting some followers, being executed, and later inspiring a character in a story. So the standards for supporting that claim should be appropriately low, especially given what we know about the small odds of conclusive proof surviving.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are several variations on your point 3. One is that Jesus existed and did the various miracles attributed to him but they are explicable by scientific means; for example, that Lazarus was in a coma rather than daed and woke up at the right moment.

Two things here:

1) This is covered by Jesus #2. The story was still based on real events but enhanced a bit for religious reasons, but we reject the claim that Jesus was the son of god/actually performed supernatural miracles/etc. It just gives us a theory about how exactly we went from the real person to the myth.

2) None of those theories have ever seemed very convincing to me. IMO they have much more to do with a desire to avoid saying "this is a work of fiction, and 'based on a true story' does not mean that everything in the story happened" and offending people than a genuine attempt to find the most likely explanation.

Yet another is that the miracles are actually parables and not intended to be taken literally.

And, again, that's #2: the story of Jesus is based somewhat closely on a real person, but the supernatural stuff didn't happen.

The teachings of Jesus may have also been from more than one person, but it was all attributed to only one. It's impossible to know for sure.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.

I don't think you really understand the problem here. You're talking about events that happened ~2000 years ago, and we don't have perfect records from back then. At the time of his execution Jesus #1 was just one of many irrelevant cult leaders with a few followers in a not-too-important corner of the empire, and even Jesus #2 might not have been well known until after his death. The most likely answer is that if any paperwork existed in the first place nobody bothered to preserve it and it was thrown in the trash next time someone cleaned the storage closet.

Also, like I said, Jesus #1 is actually a very weak claim. There is nothing at all unbelievable about a religious figure existing, attracting some followers, being executed, and later inspiring a character in a story. So the standards for supporting that claim should be appropriately low, especially given what we know about the small odds of conclusive proof surviving.

Hm, I see what you're saying, that we're arguing different variations here. I personally dislike the "pick and choose" aspect people take to the bible, which is why I'm arguing against Jesus 3, taking the bible as saying Honestly this entire argument is based on what variation of "Historical Jesus" that we're trying to argue.

1 is the hardest to prove. There is an unknown number of people making up "Jesus" here, with who knows how many pieces of evidence lost or destroyed.

2 is in the middle obviously. Even if some evidence was destroyed, or lost, and some of it survived, it could be pieced together still.

3 is the easiest obviously, because I think leper colonies being healed, or a man rising from the dead would be pretty big news (for example).

However, there is still the problem with conflicting accounts in the bible about the same events (i.e. Lazarus rising from the dead)

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The teachings of Jesus may have also been from more than one person, but it was all attributed to only one. It's impossible to know for sure.

That's what Peregrine described as Jesus 1 (if my understanding is correct, Jesus 1 is one man who was executed, and is "taking" credit for other people's stories/actions/etc)

If you're arguing against Jesus #3, you're not arguing with me or with Bart Ehrman.

 Wolfblade wrote:
which is why I'm arguing against Jesus 3

But Jesus #3 isn't "historical Jesus", it's "Christianity is true". If you're talking about "historical Jesus" then you're making the assumption that the story in the bible is, at best, based on a true story. And that means either #1 or #2.

However, there is still the problem with conflicting accounts in the bible about the same events (i.e. Lazarus rising from the dead)

But this isn't a problem when you're talking about "historical Jesus". The entire premise of the concept is that the story in the bible is a work of fiction, so finding a contradiction just means that its authors weren't being careful enough about avoiding contradictions. It's like watching two different "based on a true story" movies about the same real person and concluding that, because the movies contradict each other, we should question whether the person existed at all.

That's what Peregrine described as Jesus 1 (if my understanding is correct, Jesus 1 is one man who was executed, and is "taking" credit for other people's stories/actions/etc)

Not quite, it's actually more general than that. Jesus #1 is "Jesus the character is very roughly based on a real person, but the details are from somewhere else". The additions to Jesus the character could be based on other people, other religious myths, or purely a work of fiction by the author of his story. Jesus #2 is "Jesus the character is based closely on a real person and the story is mostly accurate, except for the supernatural bits (which are obviously absurd)". And Jesus #3 is "it's all true, Jesus was the son of god/performed miracles/etc".

Are we mulling again? I stopped mulling a bit ago but it seems like we need to start mulling again.

 Wolfblade wrote:
... ... ...

I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.

Very little paper records survived the fall of the Empire, if they were ever created in the first place.

Birth registration, for instance, was not a legal requirement even for citizens (and Jesus was not a citizen) until Hadrian, and was not strongly enforced after that. Only about 30 Roman birth certificates have survived into the modern era, negligible for an empire of 30 or 40 million people over several hundred years. Other forms of bureaucratic records, like census returns, as also very limited.

Roman books including their histories (e.g. Julius Caesar, Tacitus) survived better because there were more copies distributed across a very wide area. Some references to Jesus are found there.

The historical truth of Pontius Pilate is proved by stone records, which naturally have survived better.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
... ... ...

I'm not asking for ONLY a birth certificate, but anything that shows Jesus existed. What about the order that had Jesus put to death? The record of what was done with the body, the miracles, and so on. Historical records of some kind.

Very little paper records survived the fall of the Empire, if they were ever created in the first place.

Birth registration, for instance, was not a legal requirement even for citizens (and Jesus was not a citizen) until Hadrian, and was not strongly enforced after that. Only about 30 Roman birth certificates have survived into the modern era, negligible for an empire of 30 or 40 million people over several hundred years. Other forms of bureaucratic records, like census returns, as also very limited.

Roman books including their histories (e.g. Julius Caesar, Tacitus) survived better because there were more copies distributed across a very wide area. Some references to Jesus are found there.

The historical truth of Pontius Pilate is proved by stone records, which naturally have survived better.

That would make sense, except the Eastern Part of the Empire surivied for hundreds of years after Jesus was supposedly around. They didn't lose Israel until about 900AD. By then Christianity was the religion of the Empire, so you'd figure they'd actually keep any records about their lord.

The Roman empire didn't have a modern style system of birth and death registration. What laws it did have were often not applicable to non-citizens, and were not established until about or after the rough date of Jesus's death, si he may well have slipped the net anyway.

The Roman Empire wasn't divided into eastern and western administrations until 285 AD. It didn't become officially Christian until about 400AD. You are thinking that the government at that point ought to retrieve any official records that might have existed of Jesus from Rome/Jerusalem, and copy them to Byzantium, whey will have needed to survive two sackings of the city before the fall of the empire.

Apart from the above factors, the early Christians didn't need to preserve probably non-existent historical evidence of Jesus's life because many of them had met him personally, and did not anticipate a need to provide documentary evidence for the use of historians 2,000 years later.