A Question about the historicity of Jesus

[he_who_is_nobody]

thenexttodie's reluctance to bother dealing the the meat of any of the posts, preferring to address pointless things and tangents indicates to me that we have a troll in our midst.

 

[Laurens]

You're right, if all the names were removed from all of the posts in this forum, Scholars would not be able to discern every post made by which individual.

That's the opposite of what I said.

Scholars might not be able to discern who by name, but they could come up with a list of Person A, Person B etc. For the most part, if the posts are substantial enough in length people would be able to see commonalities and be able to say whether or not two posts were by the same person...

But I'm done responding to you now. I'm all but certain you're just trolling.

 

[Collecemall]

Your blog post appears to have caught Richard's attention. Well done.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Your blog post appears to have caught Richard's attention. Well done.

You cannot just say that without providing sources and links.

 

[thenexttodie]

I have to say that what you have presented appears like a very weak rebuttal to Jesus's title. I could buy that, but I was hoping there would be a better rebuttal for such an obvious problem from the mythosist's prospective. It also does not address why his name is Yeshua and not Emanuel. As I said, one would think if one were to create a Jewish messiah, than the name of the created messiah would be Emanuel. One would think if one was trying to hit as many prothetic nails on the head, getting the name of the messiah correct seems like a big one to hit.

I don't see an obvious problem with it, the fact that Matthew states "that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled." in context of Jesus being a Nazarene. Even if we disregard the NZR exegesis, we are left with the question of why Matthew said this. Was he making up a prophecy to fix awkward facts after the matter? Maybe, but he equally could have been referencing an actual known prophecy.

Actually the wording used is similiar to other verses in the Bible where one thing is called something. Like how Eve was called "Woman". Her name was not Woman. But that's what she was.

Interestingly, when you take the meanings behind the names of the first several people mentioned in the Bible, you get an idea of Gods plan of salvation for us.

 

[Collecemall]

Your blog post appears to have caught Richard's attention. Well done.

You cannot just say that without providing sources and links.

Sorry. It was on Richard's Facebook feed. https://www.facebook.com/richard.carrier.phd/posts/10153835845702049

 

[Rhed]

Without appealing to scholarly consensus, what do you find the most convincing evidence, or argument for the historicity of Jesus?

I've been reading up of the mythicist position lately, and feel a slight worry that my biases (as an atheist) are leaning me more in it's favour than someone completely impartial might be.

Of course I am not asking you to do my research for me, I have a backlog of articles saved on my phone, and I'm going to get some books on the topic when I am able.

The reason I am asking is mainly to generate a discussion, to see how well the evidence holds up and to see how well the counter arguments hold up...

I find this topic fascinating because of the glimpse it provides at the ancient world and the formation of a religion that has subsequently shaped our society and culture.

Edit: the reason I ask not to appeal to scholarly consensus, is because we know what the consensus is and therefore it does not progress the discussion to say "experts say he existed" I want to know why they are saying it, and what their best case for it is.

Surely you have an mind and will look at the evidence circumstantially and see where ever that may lead...

From the time between the life of Jesus (AD 1-33) and the Council of Laodicea (AD 350-363) is well over three hundred years. So picture a timeline: Jesus on the left and a timeline to the first establishment of the canon of the Books. If we find writers about the Gospels and the Epistles closer to the right (the council) then skeptics will more than likely be correct that Jesus didn't exist and the New Testament is nothing but a fairy tale.

Before I list the pieces of evidence on the timeline of the Canon books let's consider if there is any evidence that the Gospels were written in the time period that it claims.

1. There is no description of the destruction of the temple.in AD 70, one of the most significant historical events. This would have corroborated with Jesus' prediction about the temple recorded in the Gospels. Jesus predicted others things as well and was corroborated later in the Gospels and Epistles, such as His death and resurrection.

2. There is no description of the siege of Jerusalem, another significant point in history. A 3-year war between the Romans and Jews.

3. Years before the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, in the Book of Acts, Luke doesn't mention the deaths of Peter (AD 65) and Paul (AD 64). Luke writes extensively about these two men.

4. Luke in the Book of Acts doesn't mention the death of James, the brother of Jesus (AD 62), although he mentions the the deaths of James, the brother of John, and the death of Stephen.

5. The Gospel of Luke predates the Book of Acts (Acts 1:1-2)

6. Apostle Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke (AD 63-64) in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. This shows Luke's Gospel was known about that time.

7. Paul summarizes the Gospels (1 Cor. 15:3-8) dated around AD 53-57. And Paul described his interaction with Peter and James (Gal 1:15-19; Gal 2:1). This means that Paul saw the risen Christ and learned about the Gospel accounts from the eyewitnesses (Peter and James) within the 5 years of the crucifixion.

8. Paul quotes Luke's Gospel (Luke 22:19*20) in 1 Cor. 11:23-25 (Luke's description of the Last Supper).

9. The Gospel of Luke quoted Mark and Matthew repeatedly.
Luke readily admitted he was not an eyewitness, but a historian collecting eyewitness accounts.

10. Mark's Gospel appears to be an early "crime broadcast", meaning a brief and focused record of essential elements. The details will come later, just like what happens in crime investigations.

11. The Gospel of Mark doesn't mention key players by name due to protection of eyewitnesses. Later does the Gospel of John fill in the names (most scholars agree that John was the last Gospel written). The eyewitnesses were out of harm's way by that time.

Let's place this evidence on the timeline to see where the Gospels are located relative to the life of Jesus:

AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple

It is reasonable to conclude from circumstantial evidence that the Gospels were written in the 1st century during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.

This is a good stopping point so we can discuss. I'll post another about ancient writings of the Church fathers corroborating with the New Testament in our timeline.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You can start by citing sources for these claims and dates.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rhed]

Greetings,

You can start by citing sources for these claims and dates.

Kindest regards,

James

Within the Biblical text it mentions specifics years from such and such event. The maximum time span of the Gospels is more than likely before AD 67 due to lack of references of significant historical events.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

You can start by citing sources for these claims and dates.

Kindest regards,

James

Within the Biblical text it mentions specifics years from such and such event. The maximum time span of the Gospels is more than likely before AD 67 due to lack of references of significant historical events.

Not according to biblical scholars - see here.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rhed]

Without appealing to scholarly consensus, what do you find the most convincing evidence, or argument for the historicity of Jesus?

I've been reading up of the mythicist position lately, and feel a slight worry that my biases (as an atheist) are leaning me more in it's favour than someone completely impartial might be.

Of course I am not asking you to do my research for me, I have a backlog of articles saved on my phone, and I'm going to get some books on the topic when I am able.

The reason I am asking is mainly to generate a discussion, to see how well the evidence holds up and to see how well the counter arguments hold up...

I find this topic fascinating because of the glimpse it provides at the ancient world and the formation of a religion that has subsequently shaped our society and culture.

Edit: the reason I ask not to appeal to scholarly consensus, is because we know what the consensus is and therefore it does not progress the discussion to say "experts say he existed" I want to know why they are saying it, and what their best case for it is.

Here's my second post about the timeline. In the last post I ended with this:
Let's place this evidence on the timeline to see where the Gospels are located relative to the life of Jesus:

AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple


Now I'll continue with the timeline from the eyewitness accounts from the Gospels to the next generation.

1. Apostle John (AD 6-100) taught Ignatius (AD 35-117)

Ignatius' letters describe what John has taught him about Jesus:

The prophets predicted and waited for Jesus
Jesus was in the line of King David
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit
He was and is the Son of God
A star announced His birth
He came forth from God the Father
He was born of the virgin Mary
He was baptized by John the Baptist
He was the perfect man
He manifested the will and knowledge of God the Father
He taught and had a ministry on earth
He was the source of wisdom and taught many commandments
He spoke the words of God
Ointment was poured on Jesus's head
He was unjustly treated and condemned by men
He suffered and was crucified
He died on the cross
Jesus sacrificed Himself for us as an offering to God the Father
This all took place under the government of Pontius Pilate
Herod the Tetrarch was king
Jesus was resurrected
He had a physical resurrection body
...and on and on

He alluded to 7-16 New Testament books including most of Paul's letters and the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John..

John also taught Polycarp (AD 69-155)

Polycarp's letters describe the same as above. He referenced 14-16 NT book including Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corthinians, Galations, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, and 1 John.

Polycarp and Ignatius taught Irenaeus (AD 120-202)

Irenaeus mentions 24 books of the NT including Revelation.

Irenaeus taught Hippolytus (AD 170-236), the next generation. He was the first "anti pope" and was against the pagan influence of Christians. He also identifies as many as 24 NT books.

So far here is the timeline:

AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple

AD 70 Apostle John
AD 110 Ignatius (7-16 books)
AD 110 Polycarp (14-16 books)
AD 185 Irenaeus (24 books)
AD 220 Hippolytus (24 books)

My next post will be about Paul's students.

 

[Rhed]

Not according to biblical scholars - see here.

Kindest regards,

James

There are two schools of opinion: Maximalists and Minimalists. You chose to cite Minimalists.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Your list of "evidence" in the earlier post above are nothing more than belief-claims - many of which are contradictory.

For example, Jesus being of the line of David only works if Joseph was his father, since it's the latter that's said to be of David's line. However, if Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit", hence the "virgin birth", then Jesus can't be of the line of David.

And this is just one problem with your list.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rhed]

Without appealing to scholarly consensus, what do you find the most convincing evidence, or argument for the historicity of Jesus?

I've been reading up of the mythicist position lately, and feel a slight worry that my biases (as an atheist) are leaning me more in it's favour than someone completely impartial might be.

Of course I am not asking you to do my research for me, I have a backlog of articles saved on my phone, and I'm going to get some books on the topic when I am able.

The reason I am asking is mainly to generate a discussion, to see how well the evidence holds up and to see how well the counter arguments hold up...

I find this topic fascinating because of the glimpse it provides at the ancient world and the formation of a religion that has subsequently shaped our society and culture.

Edit: the reason I ask not to appeal to scholarly consensus, is because we know what the consensus is and therefore it does not progress the discussion to say "experts say he existed" I want to know why they are saying it, and what their best case for it is.

My 3rd post.

So far here is the timeline:

AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple

AD 70 Apostle John
AD 110 Ignatius (7-16 books)
AD 110 Polycarp (14-16 books)
AD 185 Irenaeus (24 books)
AD 220 Hippolytus (24 books)

This post will be about Paul's chain of custody...

Apostle Paul taught Clement of Rome (AD 80-140) . Clements description of Jesus is very similar to Ignatius and Polycarp; i.e.:

The prophets predicted the life and ministry of Jesus
Jesus provided His disciples with important instruction
He taught principles as described by Mark and Luke
He was humble and unassuming
He was whipped
He suffered and died for our salvation
He died as a payment for our sins
He was resurrected from the dead
He is alive and reigning with God
We are saved by Grace
He is Lord
All creation belongs to Him
He is our refuge and our High Priest
and on and on...

Clement passed the truth to Evaristus (AD ?-109) to Alexander I (AD ?-115) to Sixtus I (AD ?-125) to Telesphorus (AD ?-136) to Hyginus (AD ?-140), to Pius I (AD 90-154).

Justin Martyr (AD 103-165) became known as the first apologist. He quoted or alluded to the four Gospels and Revelation.

Justin taught Tatian (AD 120-180), who identified the Gospels, letters of Paul, and the book of Acts.

Continuing with the timeline:

D 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 60 Apostle Paul
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple
AD 70 Linus
AD 70 Apostle John
AD 95 Clement (7 books)
AD 100 Evaristus
AD 110 Ignatius (7-16 books)
AD 110 Polycarp (14-16 books)
AD 110 Alexander
AD120 Sixtus
AD 130 Telesphorus
AD 135 Hyginus
AD 150 Pius
AD 160 Justin Martyr (5 books)
AD 175 Tatian (20 books)
AD 185 Irenaeus (24 books)
AD 220 Hippolytus (24 books)

Peter's students will be next.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Still no citations.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Just to look at some of your claims:

1. There is no description of the destruction of the temple.in AD 70, one of the most significant historical events. This would have corroborated with Jesus' prediction about the temple recorded in the Gospels. Jesus predicted others things as well and was corroborated later in the Gospels and Epistles, such as His death and resurrection.

2. There is no description of the siege of Jerusalem, another significant point in history. A 3-year war between the Romans and Jews.

If I am writing historical fiction set during WW2 why would I include details of Sputnik? These events don't happen in the period covered by the story so why should they be included?

Also, your claims about Jesus predicting things are predicated on a) him having existed, b) the Gospels quoting him accurately and c) the Gospels having been written before these events. None of these are established.

3. Years before the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, in the Book of Acts, Luke doesn't mention the deaths of Peter (AD 65) and Paul (AD 64). Luke writes extensively about these two men.

4. Luke in the Book of Acts doesn't mention the death of James, the brother of Jesus (AD 62), although he mentions the the deaths of James, the brother of John, and the death of Stephen.

Hardly conclusive. Details of Paul's and Peter's deaths are "traditions" and not established history. The author of Acts also doesn't demonstrate familiarity with Paul's letters.

5. The Gospel of Luke predates the Book of Acts (Acts 1:1-2)

Possibly.

6. Apostle Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke (AD 63-64) in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. This shows Luke's Gospel was known about that time.

The consensus is that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.

7. Paul summarizes the Gospels (1 Cor. 15:3-8) dated around AD 53-57. And Paul described his interaction with Peter and James (Gal 1:15-19; Gal 2:1). This means that Paul saw the risen Christ and learned about the Gospel accounts from the eyewitnesses (Peter and James) within the 5 years of the crucifixion.

Do you understand the basic premise of the mythicist argument (i.e. have you read this thread at all)? Nothing Paul says is inconsistent with a purely celestial Jesus who died and rose again in a celestial realm. This hardly summarizes the Gospels as this version has no birth and no earthly ministry, only mentioning that people saw him after he rose from the dead (as Paul claims to have done so in a vision). Also, you are assuming Peter and James are followers of a human Jesus though nothing in Paul's texts indicate that they did anything other than have visions of Jesus like he did.

8. Paul quotes Luke's Gospel (Luke 22:19*20) in 1 Cor. 11:23-25 (Luke's description of the Last Supper).

This is a stretch. The language isn't really parallel here.

9. The Gospel of Luke quoted Mark and Matthew repeatedly.
Luke readily admitted he was not an eyewitness, but a historian collecting eyewitness accounts.

So? This just suggests those gospels predate Luke, as most people agree.

10. Mark's Gospel appears to be an early "crime broadcast", meaning a brief and focused record of essential elements. The details will come later, just like what happens in crime investigations.

This also happens in mythology where a basic story gets elaborated by later authors.

11. The Gospel of Mark doesn't mention key players by name due to protection of eyewitnesses. Later does the Gospel of John fill in the names (most scholars agree that John was the last Gospel written). The eyewitnesses were out of harm's way by that time.

This is a ridiculous supposition (apart from John being last). What evidence do you have for it?

 

[Laurens]

Rhed. I'll address your claims when you provide citations.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the scholarly consensus was that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those were just traditions that later became part of the Bible's canonization.

6. Apostle Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke (AD 63-64) in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. This shows Luke's Gospel was known about that time.

The consensus is that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.

Citation needed.

 

[SpecialFrog]

The consensus is that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.

Citation needed.

if you insist.

[W]hen we come to the Pastoral epistles, there is greater scholarly unanimity. These three letters are widely regarded by scholars as non-Pauline.

By the end of the twentieth century New Testament scholarship was virtually unanimous in affirming that the Pastoral Epistles were written some time after Paul's death. ... As always some scholars dissent from the consensus view.

For the avoidance of doubt, the "Pastoral Epistles" are 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.

 

[Rhed]

AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the scholarly consensus was that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those were just traditions that later became part of the Bible's canonization.

There are two schools of Biblical scholarships: conservative and liberal. Liberal scholars don't believe the supernatural or miracles, therefore they will support a late date and canon was what the early church wanted; not inspired by God.