Historical Jesus

[DBT]

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Insufficient to prove your proposition.

You throw around the word "prove" as if everything from history has been proved as an absolute certainty. Don't you understand that most of our recognized history has NOT been "proved" with certainty

Exactly !

I want "proof" that Socrates was a real person.

The existence of Socrates is not an extraordinary claim....

That's right.
And so claims about his existence were NOT subjected to anywhere near as much scrutiny as the claims about Jesus.

Nobody much cared whether or not Socrates was real. And yet Jesus' historicity (accounts given within the same generation in which Jesus lived) survive intact.

Not quite true. The gospels were written by anonymous authors, 'Mark' being considered the earliest.

There is evidence of copying and embellishment using OT messianic prophecy in order to fulfil the conditions for Messiahship, which Judaism rejects.

Nor is the Christ of St Paul identical to Jesus in the Gospels. Apparently Paul had no knowledge of many of the miracles described in the gospels, which are later works.

Which strongly suggests that the miracles described in gospels are later embellishments.

...no thanks to His many POWERFUL enemies who wanted Him expunged from history.

It's not that simple.

 

[bilby]

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Insufficient to prove your proposition.

You throw around the word "prove" as if everything from history has been proved as an absolute certainty. Don't you understand that most of our recognized history has NOT been "proved" with certainty

Exactly !

I want "proof" that Socrates was a real person.

The existence of Socrates is not an extraordinary claim....

That's right.
And so claims about his existence were NOT subjected to anywhere near as much scrutiny as the claims about Jesus.

Nobody much cared whether or not Socrates was real. And yet Jesus' historicity (accounts given within the same generation in which Jesus lived) survive intact.

Not quite true. The gospels were written by anonymous authors, 'Mark' being considered the earliest.

There is evidence of copying and embellishment using OT messianic prophecy in order to fulfil the conditions for Messiahship, which Judaism rejects.

Nor is the Christ of St Paul identical to Jesus in the Gospels. Apparently Paul had no knowledge of many of the miracles described in the gospels, which are later works.

Which strongly suggests that the miracles described in gospels are later embellishments.

...no thanks to His many POWERFUL enemies who wanted Him expunged from history.

It's not that simple.

Theists are usually simple.

Trying to explain reality to them is like playing chess with a pigeon.

 

[DrZoidberg]

...no thanks to His many POWERFUL enemies who wanted Him expunged from history.

You mean, the problem of his many powerful enemies who had never heard of him? Nobody in the Roman administration had a clue who he was. They certainly did their best to find information once it became official state religion. None to be found.

I don't think anybody had him expunged from history. Why bother when there's nothing to expunge?

 

[angelo]

There is ample proof Socrates existed, as for many others who left tangible evidence. The evidence for a Jesus existing outside of the N/T is zilch!

Plato was a major figure in the Athenian aristocracy, and Xenophon was a famous general, both in the leading cultured city in the Mediterranean, and but for them we wouldn't know much - and they disagree in the picture they give. What enormous Martian plot do you suppose created a revolutionary myth in Occupied Palestine, and who exactly stood to benefit from making it up and spreading it?

Firstly I don't agree with your statement about an "occupied Palestine," and secondly there was/is ample reasons to spread a "revolutionary" myth! Selling Tickets to heaven being the main one.

 

[Learner]

You're assuming that the oral stories of Jesus were formalized in this manner. Do you have any evidence that they were preserved that way, the same as the teachings of the Jewish holy histories?
And that still doesn't come close to establishing that the origin of the Jesus stories was, in fact, Jesus.

I would say theres is no evidence that people became Christians and learn't of Jesus by reading the local news hot from the printing press or listening to radio back then.

You're assuming rather a lot, there.
How about answering the question?

I was sort of assuming about the Romans and Pharisees.

The Navajo also have a tradition of oral stories that were passed down with great care to keep them from being altered.
In your estimation, does the simple fact of these oral stories provide evidence of Thelgeth (hairy, headless monsters), or of the tricks played by Coyote? Or Changing Woman and her son, Monster Slayer?

Seriously, do you think the recording of a story grants plausibility to the tale in and of itself?

It grants that their tales survive for generations. Stories ,ancestral history to survival skills.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would say theres is no evidence that people became Christians and learn't of Jesus by reading the local news hot from the printing press or radio back then.

You can say anything, clearly.
But you're still not showing a reason to think that the stories that ended up written down as the gospels MUST be taken as preserved stories from eyewitness accounts...

The Navajo also have a tradition of oral stories that were passed down with great care to keep them from being altered.
In your estimation, does the simple fact of these oral stories provide evidence of Thelgeth (hairy, headless monsters), or of the tricks played by Coyote? Or Changing Woman and her son, Monster Slayer?

Seriously, do you think the recording of a story grants plausibility to the tale in and of itself?

It grants that their tales survive for generations.

Wow. What a dodge.

 

[Learner]

They engaged in Midrash. They invented stories and situations complete with dialogue to teach lessons, just like the gospel stories. Do some research.

Yes the midrash from the Pharisees. Jesus sort of said and opposed the same thing. Do some research - what a good idea!

(bb later)

 

[DrZoidberg]

They engaged in Midrash. They invented stories and situations complete with dialogue to teach lessons, just like the gospel stories. Do some research.

Yes the midrash from the Pharisees. Jesus sort of said and opposed the same thing but I will research it. Cheers!

It's not only Jews. "Morality litterature" or "morality tales" was the biggest genre of literature produced in the ancient world. Aesop's fables is an example, but about animals. "Pepi goes to school" is an ancient Egyptian similar story about the importance of doing your homework. These were all made up with idealised characters. Real people, like in the case of Pepi, who was Pepi II Neferkare pharao of Egypt, was given idealised features. Nobody thinks his life was like that. Real person. Fictional life's story.

The style of this literary tradition, of which the Bible clearly is a part of, makes it highly unlikely that anything is historically accurate. The point of the stories is to teach moral lessons. Not to teach history. They wouldn't have seen fabricating details of Jesus' life as lying. They'd change anything if they thought it helped with emphasising the lesson learned.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes the midrash from the Pharisees. Jesus sort of said and opposed the same thing.[/SIZE]

Really?
That seems odd, because the story is that Jesus spoke in parables. That's amplifying information presented to help convey the ideas of the legal portions of scripture, isn't it? Which would be the nature of midrash?
They have the laws they need to obey, and someone explaining why the law is a good thing to obey, and demonstrating how it sucks to be the guy who doesn't obey it through the use of fictional characters in contrived situations that highlight the desired conclusions....

So what exactly was Jesus opposing?

 

[iolo]

IIRC there are four contemporaneous sources for Socrates.

None for Jesus.

Also, Socrates is said to have once remained standing motionless in a trance for 24 continuous hours. Not exactly miraculous, but it was considered to be evidence of his superior mental powers.

If you count comedies, perhaps. So? Have you ever tried looking for literary evidence for anything in the Roman provinces that didn't reflect credit on some Roman politician? Try Roman Britain, for instance.

 

[Horatio Parker]

IIRC there are four contemporaneous sources for Socrates.

None for Jesus.

Also, Socrates is said to have once remained standing motionless in a trance for 24 continuous hours. Not exactly miraculous, but it was considered to be evidence of his superior mental powers.

If you count comedies, perhaps. So? Have you ever tried looking for literary evidence for anything in the Roman provinces that didn't reflect credit on some Roman politician? Try Roman Britain, for instance.

I don't know what you're getting at.

I'd guess Aristophanes reference by itself isn't proof of anything, but when taken in the context of the others it tends to weigh more on Socrates existence, no?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Recorded during the lifetime of. IOW, there are accounts from four people who wrote about Socrates while both they and their subject were alive.

There are no written eyewitness accounts of Jesus, except by anonymous authors and those date from years after he was dead.

Jews have always had strong oral traditions ,as still practiced today. By this cultural method long in practice was perfect for news to spread widely and very quickly during Jesus's life time and after his death with later written accounts.

Judaisms use of writing was unique among ancient religions. Christianity adopted the same practice.

Except for this one difficult to explain period between Jesus supposed time on earth and the recording of it. Then all of a sudden it's an oral tradition, which then reverts back to a written one after a couple of generations.

That gMark was midrash fits the known facts and lack of same better. Not proof, but the stronger argument.

 

[angelo]

There is ample proof Socrates existed, as for many others who left tangible evidence. The evidence for a Jesus existing outside of the N/T is zilch!

So there is evidence for Jesus.
That's what you're saying.
You're saying that apart from the evidence, there's no other evidence.

Somebody should have told those NT writers not to call it "the NT"
Why, why, WHY !!!
Why did so many people have to pay so much attention to that pesky thing called "The NT"?
Why couldn't they have ignored it and simply let it remain just another boring bit of text from antiquity.

...then we could treat it like every other historical document.

But, but, but! The N/T is NOT a historical document! Not does it claim to be outside of the church!

 

[iolo]

If you count comedies, perhaps. So? Have you ever tried looking for literary evidence for anything in the Roman provinces that didn't reflect credit on some Roman politician? Try Roman Britain, for instance.

I don't know what you're getting at.

I'd guess Aristophanes reference by itself isn't proof of anything, but when taken in the context of the others it tends to weigh more on Socrates existence, no?

I'm pointing out that I don't doubt the existence of Socrates but the logic of your comparing someone in the centre of the aristocratic class world in the Mediterranean's most advanced city and things that happened to ordinary working people in the despised backwoods of an Empire. You are comparing different things.

 

[Learner]

So what exactly was Jesus opposing?

Math 23
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.
27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

It does, to be fair, go for certain Christians preachers too .

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't know what you're getting at.

I'd guess Aristophanes reference by itself isn't proof of anything, but when taken in the context of the others it tends to weigh more on Socrates existence, no?

I'm pointing out that I don't doubt the existence of Socrates but the logic of your comparing someone in the centre of the aristocratic class world in the Mediterranean's most advanced city and things that happened to ordinary working people in the despised backwoods of an Empire. You are comparing different things.

What, being descended from king David isn't enough?

I would guess that Platos establishing the Academy had more to do with his writings preservation than his lineage.

Anyway, you're assuming historical Jesus was the gospel figure. Perhaps his origins weren't so humble. There used to be a poster here who argued that the Jesus story was a reworking of the execution by the Romans of Antigonus, the last Hasmonean king, in 37 BC.

According to the gospels, Jesus was literate. That alone puts him in an elite, probably less than 5% of the population.

According to the gospels, his followers were Jews. Judaism was dependent on written texts. That his followers would suddenly rely on oral tradition strains credulity.

Besides, how else can we look for evidence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It does, to be fair, go for certain Christians preachers too .

So he was opposing hypocrisy, not Midrash.

That wasn't exactly what you seemed to be saying.

 

[iolo]

I'm pointing out that I don't doubt the existence of Socrates but the logic of your comparing someone in the centre of the aristocratic class world in the Mediterranean's most advanced city and things that happened to ordinary working people in the despised backwoods of an Empire. You are comparing different things.

What, being descended from king David isn't enough?

I would guess that Platos establishing the Academy had more to do with his writings preservation than his lineage.

Anyway, you're assuming historical Jesus was the gospel figure. Perhaps his origins weren't so humble. There used to be a poster here who argued that the Jesus story was a reworking of the execution by the Romans of Antigonus, the last Hasmonean king, in 37 BC.

According to the gospels, Jesus was literate. That alone puts him in an elite, probably less than 5% of the population.

According to the gospels, his followers were Jews. Judaism was dependent on written texts. That his followers would suddenly rely on oral tradition strains credulity.



Besides, how else can we look for evidence.

As you very well know, the King David crap was put in later and is part of the myth-making that is set off by hugely popular figures. Anyway, given the nature of monarchs, most people are descended from them - it is difficult NOT to be descended from Charlemagne for instance. The scholarly status of persons who once posted here is not obvious to me, so I can't comment. You should use your intelligence, not look for evidence that, in the nature of things, doesn't exist. If you did a census of First-Century Palestinians re literacy, well done - don't keep it to yourself any more,

 

[James Brown]

It's curious how oral tradition is considered superior to all other means of conveying information, until the minute something is written down.

Then the written word takes its place as the most reliable method of conveying information.

 

[iolo]

It's curious how oral tradition is considered superior to all other means of conveying information, until the minute something is written down.

Then the written word takes its place as the most reliable method of conveying information.

News to me. By whom? The point about the above discussion is that for most of humanity, most of historical time, there are no records whatever. The rich and powerful write history, mostly about themselves. For others, the best we can hope for is survivals of folk-narrations. Jesus' world barely touched theirs, so we can expect nothing new, unless something has survived in the Middle-Eastern sands somewhere.