The Bible Fraud

[Evolution_beyond]

In fact look into Jesus ben Pandira. He may have been the original Jesus.

 

Religious leader followed by many - check.

End-time prophecies - check.

Annoyed the authorities - check.

Died by being 'hung on a tree' (as Paul so tellingly describes it) - check.

[Neon Genesis]

As for Ehrman, I really can't say. I just read some of his work a few months ago, and IIRC, his historical jesus is nothing like what the gospels portray, and he admits that much. Why he would think that, I can only assume is cultural.

This is what Ehrman has to say about the historical Jesus and Josephus on page 150 of his book Jesus Interrupted.

The other reference is extensive but it is also problematic. In it Josephus seems to confess that he is a Christian, but we know from his other works that he was not (he wrote an autobiography, among other things). Scholars have long known that Josephus's writings were not copied by Jews throughout the Middle Ages, since he was (probably right) considered a traitor to the Jewish cause in the disastrous war with Rome in which Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE. His writings were copied instead by Christians. And at the point where Josephus discusses Jesus, it appears that a Christian scribe made a few choice insertions, in order to clarify who Jesus really was. I have placed the sections possibly inserted by the scribe in brackets:

 

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one should call him a man, for] he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he fained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. [For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the dive prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous thins about him.] And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out (Antiquities, 18.33)

 

It is certainly worth knowing that the most prominent Jewish historian of the first century knew at least something about Jesus-specifically that he was a teacher who allegedly did wonderful deeds, had a large following, and was condemned to be crucified by Pontius Pilate. This account conforms some of the most important aspects of Jesus' life and death as recounted in the Gospels. But it doesn't indicate exactly what he did or said, or what circumstances led to his accusations and death, even if you included the bracketed comments. There are no other non-Christian sources-Jewish or pagan-from he first hundred years after his death that mentions Jesus.

[Guest Marty]

Hm, I thought you meant you're member of jesusneverexisted.com camp. Humphreys is the founder of the site.

 

I am a member of that "camp". But why is so hard for you to understand that nobody told me that jesus never existed. I don't need to read a writer's opinion to develop one of my own. I looked for a long time and never found any evidence that points to an actual man that may have existed that jesus was based on. The best I could get was "maybe" or "perhaps". I looked at all sides of the problem, you seem to think I read one book by a single author and then declared my search finished. What do know that I do not? What evidence do you think gives a strong likelyhood of jesus having been real?

 

This is not from someone else's opinion or book, this is from me looking for a historical jesus for over 15 years and finding Nothing with a capitol "N". Can't I have studied this myself and come up with my own conclusion? Do I have to base everything in my life on what other people tell me to think?

 

Sure you can. But using normal historical methods, and not committing special pleading or rising the standards, we do have information about historial Jesus.

 

And how do you know what methods I used to come to this conclusion? Stop implying you have any idea what I have done, how I think, or what quality of research I do. You do not even know me, and you want to tell me how I think? And where have I done any special pleading? I do not have any higher standards than I do for anything else. You keep saying jesus existed, I say I see no evidence of it. If it is so obvious, why have you not presented this incontrovertible evidence? Please, I'd love to look at this information about a historical jesus. Post some links...

 

I think this is obvious reason why scholars belief he existed. But how could I know anything. E. P. Sanders lists "almost indisputable facts" which any interpretation of Jesus should be able to account for.

1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
   
2. Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed.
   
3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve.
   
4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel.
   
5. Jesus engaged in a controversy about the temple.
   
6. Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.
   

 

But how do we know these things are fact and not fable? Outside of the bible, where are these things corroborated? How many extra-biblical sources do we have to show the likelihood of these events having occurred?

 

If this is your evidence, it's pretty pathetic.

[Badger]

Take it easy, Marty. I had problems with you since I though you're Humphreys' follower, or something like that. I apologize for this great confusion. I didn't mean you have done something wrong. It is my belief that historical methods leads to the evidence for historical Jesus, but I'm not a smart guy. How could I know anything.

 

If it is so obvious, why have you not presented this incontrovertible evidence? Please, I'd love to look at this information about a historical jesus.

I believe I already did.

 

But how do we know these things are fact and not fable? Outside of the bible, where are these things corroborated? How many extra-biblical sources do we have to show the likelihood of these events having occurred?

The NT documents can be sources as well, why not. I assume not all information we have from the past is confirmed by outside sources.

 

Here is interesting site > Historical Jesus: Method and Criteria

[Guest Marty]

Take it easy, Marty. I had problems with you since I though you're Humphreys' follower, or something like that. I apologize for this great confusion. I didn't mean you have done something wrong. It is my belief that historical methods leads to the evidence for historical Jesus, but I'm not a smart guy. How could I know anything.

 

Well, finally! How many times did I have to say I'm not a follower of anyone but my own mind! Geesh, you xtians really think people have to follow someone else, don't ya? You can't even fathom using your own reasoning skills...

 

If it is so obvious, why have you not presented this incontrovertible evidence? Please, I'd love to look at this information about a historical jesus.

I believe I already did.

 

But how do we know these things are fact and not fable? Outside of the bible, where are these things corroborated? How many extra-biblical sources do we have to show the likelihood of these events having occurred?

The NT documents can be sources as well, why not. I assume not all information we have from the past is confirmed by outside sources.

 

Here is interesting site > Historical Jesus: Method and Criteria

Why not? Um...wow. Do you really need to be told why you can not use a source to prove that the source is real and factual? Have you heard of circular reasoning? Do you know what corroborating evidence is?

 

By this logic, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, Zeus, Hercules, Mythras, ad infinitum, all actually existed and did exactly what was written of them? We have sources, so it must have happened exactly as they say, right?

[Badger]

Well, finally! How many times did I have to say I'm not a follower of anyone but my own mind! Geesh, you xtians really think people have to follow someone else, don't ya? You can't even fathom using your own reasoning skills...

There was confusion, as I said.

 

Why not? Um...wow. Do you really need to be told why you can not use a source to prove that the source is real and factual? Have you heard of circular reasoning? Do you know what corroborating evidence is?

Circular reasoning "is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premises." (Wikipedia, Begging the question) That is, the thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. Thus it is evident I haven't reasoned in a circle. I simply stated a fact, namely, that the NT is historical source for Jesus; how accurate source it is, is another but of course relevant issue.

[Guest Marty]

OK, so you said the NT is a historical source for jesus. Give me an extra biblical source for jesus to corroborate something in the NT. Since jesus worked lots of wonders, healed the sick, raised the dead, there should be lots written about him. Show me how the claims about jesus in the NT can be shown to have historical validity.

[Guest Marty]

Just thought of this this morning...

 

I remember reading in Eherman's jesus Interrupted, that the NT has more textual differences in the manuscripts we have than there are actual words in the NT. So even if I throw you a bone and consider the NT as a historical source for the purposes of this discussion, it is a terrible source of information from the get go, and unreliable on those grounds alone.

[Badger]

OK, so you said the NT is a historical source for jesus. Give me an extra biblical source for jesus to corroborate something in the NT. Since jesus worked lots of wonders, healed the sick, raised the dead, there should be lots written about him. Show me how the claims about jesus in the NT can be shown to have historical validity.

That Jesus performed deeds that were viewed as miracles is attested by multiple independent sources. These sources are earlier than our Gospels. It is also noteworthy that some miracles stories includes elements of embarrassment. Therefore we can conclude, along with the majority of scholars, there is historical substance in this matter. "In the 1st century, healers and miracle workers were fairly well known, though not precisely common, and were not considered to be superhuman beings." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Jesus Christ) This means there doesn't need to be anything unusual with Jesus regarding his miracles, and I'm not arguing he did someting supernatural. Besides the evidence from the Gospels, we have some outside sources corroborating this. These are Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud (there might be some more, but I'm not sure about them).

[Ouroboros]

That Jesus performed deeds that were viewed as miracles is attested by multiple independent sources. These sources are earlier than our Gospels.

Really? What sources? Earlier than the Gospels, and attesting to Jesus doing miracles? You mean the other Gospels which weren't picked by the Church?

 

It is also noteworthy that some miracles stories includes elements of embarrassment.

Yes, some of the stories present the characters in unfavorable light, but it doesn't put Jesus in such light, does it? The characters around the 'Hero' are there to support the protagonist, and they can do so by being made weaker. This doesn't make the story true though... Harry Potter screwed up a couple of times, and so did Hermione and many other characters in HP, but yet, it's not a true story. Sometimes it is a method of the author to get the attention, and sometimes it is to create conflicts, and sometimes it's a method of contrasting, but it's still a method.

 

Therefore we can conclude, along with the majority of scholars, there is historical substance in this matter. "In the 1st century, healers and miracle workers were fairly well known, though not precisely common, and were not considered to be superhuman beings." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Jesus Christ) This means there doesn't need to be anything unusual with Jesus regarding his miracles, and I'm not arguing he did someting supernatural.

That's right. There were magicians at that time, and some of them trying to outdo their competition. What would more spectacular than to 'rise from the dead?' Didn't Chris Angel do a trick like that once?

 

Besides the evidence from the Gospels, we have some outside sources corroborating this. These are Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud (there might be some more, but I'm not sure about them).

Again, Josephus wasn't contemporary in that sense, since he came to the scene after the death of Jesus. And wasn't the Talmud written like 200 years later?

 

The question I always ask is why Philo from Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Jesus, did not write about Jesus at all? He was into the idea of reforming Judaism. He was into the idea of Logos as the origin of creation. He wrote religious/philosophical material that was saved by no other than the early Christians. But he wrote his books and explorations into faith before Paul, and during the time of Jesus, and he mention Jesus this many times: 0 (zero). I wonder why?

 

If you're unclear of who this Philo from Alexandria is, here's an extract from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: (just to give you a background)

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew, is a figure that spans two cultures, the Greek and the Hebrew. When Hebrew mythical thought met Greek philosophical thought in the first century B.C.E. it was only natural that someone would try to develop speculative and philosophical justification for Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy. Thus Philo produced a synthesis of both traditions developing concepts for future Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought, especially by Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen. He may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John (C. H. Dodd) and the Epistle to the Hebrews (R. Williamson and H. W. Attridge). In the process, he laid the foundations for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today. Philo's primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity. The church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic group of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides, described in Philo's The Contemplative Life, as Christians, which is highly unlikely. Eusebius also promoted the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 C.E.) even lists him as a church Father. Jewish tradition was uninterested in philosophical speculation and did not preserve Philo's thought. According to H. A. Wolfson, Philo was a founder of religious philosophy, a new habit of practicing philosophy.

 

My understanding is that he visited Jerusalem at least once, and that he had a brother who was involved in business inside Jerusalem. So he was most likely kept up to date with any activity which would be beneficial to his interests.

 

So why Josephus, but not Philo?

[Badger]

I remember reading in Eherman's jesus Interrupted, that the NT has more textual differences in the manuscripts we have than there are actual words in the NT. So even if I throw you a bone and consider the NT as a historical source for the purposes of this discussion, it is a terrible source of information from the get go, and unreliable on those grounds alone.

I haven't read the book, but I know Eherman is an expert in the field of textual criticism. I'm not going to argue against his claim about the number of textual differences we have. I'm well aware of this. However, I disagree with your conclusion that NT text is unreliable. That's not true. According to Bruce Metzger, a late veteran of the field and Eherman's teacher, there is over 90% agreement among the manuscripts. "None of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine." (Ben Witherington, Misanalyzing Text Criticism)

[Badger]

Really? What sources? Earlier than the Gospels, and attesting to Jesus doing miracles? You mean the other Gospels which weren't picked by the Church?

I believe we have had this discussion already. Well, these sources are Q, M and L traditions.

 

Yes, some of the stories present the characters in unfavorable light, but it doesn't put Jesus in such light, does it? The characters around the 'Hero' are there to support the protagonist, and they can do so by being made weaker. This doesn't make the story true though.

Think about the accusation that Jesus performs miracles because he is in league with the devil. This charge is found from Mark and Q. It is quite unlikely that the Church would have invented it, and it is easier to believe it came from Jesus' opponents. But "charges like that are not advanced unless they are needed as an explanation for some quite remarkable phenomenon," as Tom Wright points out.

 

Again, Josephus wasn't contemporary in that sense, since he came to the scene after the death of Jesus. And wasn't the Talmud written like 200 years later?

I didn't claim Josephus is contemporary, and I don't see why this should be a problem. The Babylonian Talmud is quite late, but it reflects much older Jewish tradition. It "was transmitted orally for centuries prior to its compilation by Jewish scholars in Babylon about the 5th century AD." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Babylonian Talmud)

 

The question I always ask is why Philo from Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Jesus, did not write about Jesus at all? He was into the idea of reforming Judaism. He was into the idea of Logos as the origin of creation. He wrote religious/philosophical material that was saved by no other than the early Christians. But he wrote his books and explorations into faith before Paul, and during the time of Jesus, and he mention Jesus this many times: 0 (zero). I wonder why?

That is of course interesting, but there is nothing unusual. Let me quote great passage from Gerd Theissen Historical Jesus (93-04)

 

1.1. Ancient sources are silet about many people whose historicity cannot be doubted

• John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus (Antt. 18, 116-19) and in Mandaean texts, but not by Philo, Paul and in rabbinic writings.
  
• Paul of Tarsus is attested by authentic letters but is not mentioned either in Josephus or in other non-Christian authors.
  
• The Teacher of Righteousness is known only from the Qumran writings, and there is no account of him in the ancient reports on the Essenes which have come down to us (Josephus, Philo, Pliny the Elder)
  
• Rabbi Hillel, the founder of the school of Hillelites, is never mentioned by Josephus, although Josephus is an avowed Pharisee
  
• Bar Kochba, the messianic leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 132-5, is passed over in silence by Dio Cassius in his account of this revolt.
  

1.2 The mentions of Jesus in ancient historians allay doubt about his historicity.

• The notices about Jesus are independent of one another. Three authors from different backgrounds utilize information about Jesus independently: a Jewish aristocrat and historial, a Syrian philosopher, and a Roman statesman and historian.
  
• All three know of the execution of Jesus, but in different ways. Tacitus puts the responsibility on Pontius Pilate, Mara bar Sarapion on the Jewish people, and the Testimonium Flavianum (probably) on a co-operation between the Jewish aristocracy and the Roman governor. The execution was offensive for any worship of Jesus. As a "scandal" it cannot have been inveted (cf. 1 Cor 1:18ff.)
  

[Skankboy]

1.2 The mentions of Jesus in ancient historians allay doubt about his historicity.

 

The notices about Jesus are independent of one another. Three authors from different backgrounds utilize information about Jesus independently: a Jewish aristocrat and historial, a Syrian philosopher, and a Roman statesman and historian.

All three know of the execution of Jesus, but in different ways. Tacitus puts the responsibility on Pontius Pilate, Mara bar Sarapion on the Jewish people, and the Testimonium Flavianum (probably) on a co-operation between the Jewish aristocracy and the Roman governor. The execution was offensive for any worship of Jesus. As a "scandal" it cannot have been inveted (cf. 1 Cor 1:18ff.)

 

I may be mistaken, but my understanding of these sources is that they only prove there was a sect called christians at that time and that they believed jesus was the son of god and resurrected, etc. These do not speak directly to the existence of such a character, only to the existence of people who claim to follow him.

[Badger]

I may be mistaken, but my understanding of these sources is that they only prove there was a sect called christians at that time and that they believed jesus was the son of god and resurrected, etc. These do not speak directly to the existence of such a character, only to the existence of people who claim to follow him.

Our sources indicates that authors of those texts took Jesus' historicity for granted. Josephus refers to Jesus incidentally two times, and Tacitus mentions one Christus who was a Jew, exectued as a criminal under Pontius Pilate, and was the author of a new religion movement which comes from Judea; its adherets are called Christians after him.

[Skankboy]

I would disagree on that particular point. "Historians" in the day/age you speak of didn't hold data to the level of scrutiny we do today. From what I've read, it seems more likely they were describing events as relayed to them by members of the cult or perhaps via reports from others who had visited the region.

 

This would still only account for a report that the cult existed and what they believed, not necessarily that there was any historical truth to the events that were related to them.

[Ouroboros]

I believe we have had this discussion already. Well, these sources are Q, M and L traditions.

Do you have a copy of any of them?

 

Think about the accusation that Jesus performs miracles because he is in league with the devil. This charge is found from Mark and Q. It is quite unlikely that the Church would have invented it, and it is easier to believe it came from Jesus' opponents. But "charges like that are not advanced unless they are needed as an explanation for some quite remarkable phenomenon," as Tom Wright points out.

No, it's very likely they would invent things like that. The Greek gods were not painted in favorable light either, but were made human. Still, they were ideas rather than real.

 

I didn't claim Josephus is contemporary, and I don't see why this should be a problem. The Babylonian Talmud is quite late, but it reflects much older Jewish tradition. It "was transmitted orally for centuries prior to its compilation by Jewish scholars in Babylon about the 5th century AD." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Babylonian Talmud)

I think the person asking for evidence earlier were concerned about contemporary evidence, rather than inferred from later artifacts.

 

The question I always ask is why Philo from Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Jesus, did not write about Jesus at all? He was into the idea of reforming Judaism. He was into the idea of Logos as the origin of creation. He wrote religious/philosophical material that was saved by no other than the early Christians. But he wrote his books and explorations into faith before Paul, and during the time of Jesus, and he mention Jesus this many times: 0 (zero). I wonder why?

That is of course interesting, but there is nothing unusual. Let me quote great passage from Gerd Theissen Historical Jesus (93-04)

 

1.1. Ancient sources are silet about many people whose historicity cannot be doubted

• John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus (Antt. 18, 116-19) and in Mandaean texts, but not by Philo, Paul and in rabbinic writings.
  
• Paul of Tarsus is attested by authentic letters but is not mentioned either in Josephus or in other non-Christian authors.
  
• The Teacher of Righteousness is known only from the Qumran writings, and there is no account of him in the ancient reports on the Essenes which have come down to us (Josephus, Philo, Pliny the Elder)
  
• Rabbi Hillel, the founder of the school of Hillelites, is never mentioned by Josephus, although Josephus is an avowed Pharisee
  
• Bar Kochba, the messianic leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 132-5, is passed over in silence by Dio Cassius in his account of this revolt.
  

1.2 The mentions of Jesus in ancient historians allay doubt about his historicity.

• The notices about Jesus are independent of one another. Three authors from different backgrounds utilize information about Jesus independently: a Jewish aristocrat and historial, a Syrian philosopher, and a Roman statesman and historian.
  
• All three know of the execution of Jesus, but in different ways. Tacitus puts the responsibility on Pontius Pilate, Mara bar Sarapion on the Jewish people, and the Testimonium Flavianum (probably) on a co-operation between the Jewish aristocracy and the Roman governor. The execution was offensive for any worship of Jesus. As a "scandal" it cannot have been inveted (cf. 1 Cor 1:18ff.)
  

True, but it is very unlikely that a person with great influence and making waves and noise is completely unknown and never mentioned by a person who is specifically interested in the subject. It's like Walter Cronchite going to Iraq during Saddam's regime, writing about the political climate, and not even mention Saddam Hussein. I find it extremely odd that Philo does not even mention the movement, the Christians, or any strange happenings in Jerusalem, since it was his specialty. Sure, it can be, it is possible, but, either Jesus made a storm or he didn't. If he didn't, then how can we say that he started a big movement? Think about it. It's like saying: A nuclear blast occurred, but no one wrote about it, because it was so tiny and quiet.

[Badger]

I would disagree on that particular point. "Historians" in the day/age you speak of didn't hold data to the level of scrutiny we do today.

That does not mean they weren't interested or they coudn't write accurate reports.

 

From what I've read, it seems more likely they were describing events as relayed to them by members of the cult or perhaps via reports from others who had visited the region.

Why should we assume it is more likely that those writers reported past events without considering facts at all? You're saying they simply accepted and reported uncritically what they happened to heard from someone. That they didn't care about truth.

[Badger]

Do you have a copy of any of them?

Copy of what? Q, M and L traditions? I guess you know what they are. "Q" refers to the matrial which Matthew and Luke share, but which is not found in Mark. "M" and "L" traditions refers to the special material of Matthew and Luke.

 

True, but it is very unlikely that a person with great influence and making waves and noise is completely unknown and never mentioned by a person who is specifically interested in the subject.

How great influence there supposedly was then?

[Skankboy]

Why should we assume it is more likely that those writers reported past events without considering facts at all? You're saying they simply accepted and reported uncritically what they happened to heard from someone. That they didn't care about truth.

 

Because "history" as we view it as a discipline today, bears little to no resemblance to "history" as it was seen at the time. Look up "Historiography" sometime, it's the actual study of how history has been defined and related over time (the history of history if you will). I took it in college as part of my history degree, eye opening stuff.

 

For a "historian" of that time, the primary concern wasn't the factual relating of events. Besides, they weren't reporting that "jesus lived, was crucified and then was resurrected", they're reporting that this is what christians believe. This doesn't require any kind of factual backing as it is only a report of what someone else related and not a first hand account.

[Ouroboros]

Do you have a copy of any of them?

Copy of what? Q, M and L traditions? I guess you know what they are. "Q" refers to the matrial which Matthew and Luke share, but which is not found in Mark. "M" and "L" traditions refers to the special material of Matthew and Luke.

Well, then you should realize that Q, M, and L are not separate sources to Mark, Luke, Matthew to support the claims.

 

Wasn't the question if there is any artifacts outside of the Gospels to support the story about Jesus? Well, then Q, M, and L are out of the question, since they're just sub-sets of the Gospels.

 

True, but it is very unlikely that a person with great influence and making waves and noise is completely unknown and never mentioned by a person who is specifically interested in the subject.

How great influence there supposedly was then?

So 500 dead people walking on the street, after a massive earthquake, and the temple veil ripped into two, and a teacher who recently stirred up whole Jerusalem to shout Hosanna stood up from the dead, and then just a short time thereafter thousands of people from all around the world visiting Jerusalem are converted to this new cult of Judaism... complete silence from a writer who was interesting in the religious climate and wanted to renew Judaism. Sure. I can only assume that all those events were just made up and embellishments, since no one really heard about them (except for some authors who got it in third of fourth hand through hearsay).

 

After all, Q, L, and M are speculative documents, and it's very likely they existed, but they are in themselves fictional stories, combined and reconstructed in the Gospels. So, what does that mean? That there are no documents outside of the Gospels to provide the evidence for the events!

[Badger]

Because "history" as we view it as a discipline today, bears little to no resemblance to "history" as it was seen at the time. Look up "Historiography" sometime, it's the actual study of how history has been defined and related over time (the history of history if you will). I took it in college as part of my history degree, eye opening stuff. - - For a "historian" of that time, the primary concern wasn't the factual relating of events.

My knowledge is limited, I admit that, but your claims seems to be in contrast to what Cicero, for instance, said about writing the history. In De oratore (55 BC) Cicero states, "Who does not know history's first law to be that an author must not dare to tell anything but the truth? And the second that he must make bold to tell the whole truth?"

 

Charles W. Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Univ. of Calif Press: 1983):

Of the various principles laid down by the ancients, none is more fundamental than the honest and impartial presentation of the facts, and it is entirely consistent with their clarity of vision and intellectual emancipation that the Greeks gave it to the world. The principle was a natural, indeed, reflexive inheritance from the ethnographic-scientific Ionian school: historia, unless accurate, is a contradiction in terms.

Arnaldo Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Wesleyan: 1975)

Methods had existed since the fifth century B.C.--that is, since the beginning of historiography in Greece--of getting correct information about the remote past. These methods were critical, in the sense that the user, after reflection and study, was satisfied as to their reliability. The first Greek historian, Hecataeus (end of the sixth century), had developed methods of correcting and rationalizing many mythical stories. Herodotus knew how to go about Egypt and other countries and to ask about their antiquities. Even Thucydides used ancient poetry and archaeological and epigraphical evidence to formulate conclusions about the state of archaic Greek society and about specific events of the past. Chronological problems were systematically dealt with by Hippias and Hellanicus at the end of the first century. Later, the practice of consulting ancient texts and of criticizing ancient traditions was vigorously pursued by Hellenistic scholars. The Romans themselves--as their antiquarian tradition shows, from Varro in the first century B.C. to Virgil's commentator Servious at the beginning of the first century A.D.--knew very well how to collect reliable facts about the past.

Interesting.

 

Besides, they weren't reporting that "jesus lived, was crucified and then was resurrected", they're reporting that this is what christians believe.

No, that's not what we find from their texts.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Josephus, Antiquities)

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out. (Josephus, Antiquities [obvious interpolations removed])

Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Tacitus, Annals)

[Badger]

Well, then you should realize that Q, M, and L are not separate sources to Mark, Luke, Matthew to support the claims.

They are independent sources! That's the point. I also said they predate the Gospels, which I think is quite obvious.

 

Wasn't the question if there is any artifacts outside of the Gospels to support the story about Jesus? Well, then Q, M, and L are out of the question, since they're just sub-sets of the Gospels.

Marty asked me to show "how the claims about jesus in the NT can be shown to have historical validity" and to give "an extra biblical source for jesus to corroborate something in the NT." I believe I have answered both of these. I picked out Jesus' miracles (and I don't mean they must be supernatrual miracles) since we have good evidence for this.

 

After all, Q, L, and M are speculative documents, and it's very likely they existed, but they are in themselves fictional stories, combined and reconstructed in the Gospels. So, what does that mean? That there are no documents outside of the Gospels to provide the evidence for the events!

Which events? We are not talking about the historical reliability of the Gospels. If you mean Jesus' reputation as a miracle worker, we do have outside sources.

[Ouroboros]

Well, then you should realize that Q, M, and L are not separate sources to Mark, Luke, Matthew to support the claims.

They are independent sources! That's the point. I also said they predate the Gospels, which I think is quite obvious.

They're not independent, since they are theoretical documents and we don't have any copies of them. To extract parts of the Gospels to create some artificial document does not constitute a separate source per se, but just a document that is assumed to have preexisted the Gospels. I do think Q etc did exist, but they are in themselves proto-Gospels, and hence does not really add anything to the question if there are any existing documents to provide with outside information or evidence for the accuracy of the Gospels themselves. It's like saying that Rowling's handwritten notes before she wrote the Harry Potter books somehow would constitute independent evidence for the truthfulness of Harry Potter. The notes are just fictions, just like the books, since the books are based on the fictitious stories in the notes.

 

Wasn't the question if there is any artifacts outside of the Gospels to support the story about Jesus? Well, then Q, M, and L are out of the question, since they're just sub-sets of the Gospels.

Marty asked me to show "how the claims about jesus in the NT can be shown to have historical validity" and to give "an extra biblical source for jesus to corroborate something in the NT." I believe I have answered both of these. I picked out Jesus' miracles (and I don't mean they must be supernatrual miracles) since we have good evidence for this.

Okay, but I disagree that a subset of the Gospels would add any validity to the Gospels themselves.

 

After all, Q, L, and M are speculative documents, and it's very likely they existed, but they are in themselves fictional stories, combined and reconstructed in the Gospels. So, what does that mean? That there are no documents outside of the Gospels to provide the evidence for the events!

Which events? We are not talking about the historical reliability of the Gospels. If you mean Jesus' reputation as a miracle worker, we do have outside sources.

What sources? What sources do you have besides the Gospels and proto-Gospels to go on?

 

Romeo and Juliet is a story which has been reworked and presented in many different forms, but it doesn't make the movie with Jet Li a true story just because Shakespeare wrote a book hundreds of years ago.

 

A fiction made into a larger fiction doesn't make the first fiction true.

 

Again, is there any document outside of the religiously biased fairy tales to provide evidence that Jesus did miracles? My understanding is that it is all inferred from the religious documents, but not supported by outside sources.

 

And does the Quelle document even contain the empty tomb story? Do you know? (Here's the Q document that I could find: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Q_Documen..._contents_of_Q)

[Badger]

They're not independent, since they are theoretical documents and we don't have any copies of them. To extract parts of the Gospels to create some artificial document does not constitute a separate source per se, but just a document that is assumed to have preexisted the Gospels.

• Mark is indepent of Q document and "M" and "L" traditions.
  
• Q document is independent of Mark and "M" and "L" traditions.
  
• "M" tradition is independent of Mark, Q document and "L" tradition.
  
• "L" tradition is independent of Mark, Q document, and "M" tradition.
  

When Mark reports miracle(s), Q reports miracle(s), "M" reports miracle(s), and "L" reporst miracle(s) we do have three independent sources reporting Jesus' miracles. Then we may add John. But I'm not sure how independent it is of the Synoptic Gospels.

 

What sources? What sources do you have besides the Gospels and proto-Gospels to go on?

I mentioned Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud.

 

And does the Quelle document even contain the empty tomb story? Do you know?

I think it does not.

[Ouroboros]

When Mark reports miracle(s), Q reports miracle(s), "M" reports miracle(s), and "L" reporst miracle(s) we do have three independent sources reporting Jesus' miracles. Then we may add John. But I'm not sure how independent it is of the Synoptic Gospels.

Well, they're not independent of the Gospels, since they're extractions from the Gospels.

 

Q, L, M are just pre-Gospel artifacts, so I can't see how they're any more valid than the Gospels. A story is a story, even before it's embellished.

 

What sources? What sources do you have besides the Gospels and proto-Gospels to go on?

I mentioned Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud.

Both of them are after the fact. Do you have any contemporary (at the same time frame) as Jesus, and is not proto-Gospel/Gospel/Christian material that can confirm his existence? No, you don't.

 

And does the Quelle document even contain the empty tomb story? Do you know?

I think it does not.

Then I guess there's no document to support that part of the story.