[helene_t]

luke warm, on Nov 6 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 6 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

The Annals were written somewhere around 110 AD

which is some 80 years after Jesus' death... compare to accounts of other historical(?) figures

Well believe it or not, historians sometimes write about people they have met themselves. As for Alexander, while the primary sources are lost except for short inscriptions and fragments, there are plenty of later historians who used the primary written sources.

[blackshoe]

It may well be that the people who wrote about Jesus 75 years and more after his alleged life and death had access to documents that were written during that alleged life. If so, I find it curious that no reference was ever made to such documents, and that none of them seem to have survived to be examined by any later scholars.

It's also entirely possible that those writers made the whole thing up, or reported as "fact" things that somebody else made up.

Until we find a way to go back in time and actually look for the guy, we're never going to know.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Nov 7 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

It may well be that the people who wrote about Jesus 75 years and more after his alleged life and death had access to documents that were written during that alleged life. If so, I find it curious that no reference was ever made to such documents, and that none of them seem to have survived to be examined by any later scholars.

It's also entirely possible that those writers made the whole thing up, or reported as "fact" things that somebody else made up.

Until we find a way to go back in time and actually look for the guy, we're never going to know.

Although a lack of eyewitness accounts is not proof of nonexistence, the following is certainly enough to make a thinking person ponder, is it not?

Quote

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus", yet not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him.

Some explain this lack of eyewitness documentation by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or the scarcity of paper.  But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

At the least you would think someone would have kept a label from one of the water-into-wine bottles as a memento.

[blackshoe]

Wino: "Are you the guy who turns the water into wine?"
Jesus: "Yea, brother, it has been done."
Wino: "Well, then, follow me, to the Hudson River!"
-----Vaughn Meader, The Second Coming

[barmar]

Imagine, for instance, that the first book written about a woman named Amelia Earhart, who tried to be the first woman to fly solo around the world, didn't appear until 60 years after her alleged disappearance, and there were no new stories about it from the time of the disappearance. Wouldn't it seem more likely that the book was was a work of fiction? If it really happened, it would have been big news, and it wouldn't take 60 years for someone to write about it.

[PassedOut]

For what it's worth (not very much) I suppose that the more plausible aspects of the story -- a charismatic traveling preacher, and so on -- have some basis in fact. The magical stuff -- virgin birth, walking on water, resurrection, and so on -- do not. By nature, all religions have a mixture of such elements.

[phil_20686]

Most of the difficulty surrounding the date comes from the difficultly of fixing dates when teh calenders got changed. That is, even if you know exactly where it is in the roman calender, you dont necessarily know exactly when it is in our calendar. There is a large range of uncertainty in matching our calendar to the roman calendar, who generally dated things by the x year of y's reign. Further, they had only 355 days in teh year, and made up for this by inserting extra months from time to time, but this was abused by the pontificus to make some years longer and keep their poitical allies in office, so there is real confusion about dating in the julian/gregorian calendar before later reforms made it more systematic. I think astrominical simulations of the eclipse mentioed in the cruxifiction narrative give the date as 33 ad, april 3rd, and this is consistent with all the evidence, but that is not in itself completely conclusive.

Secondly, the comments above about sources are widely inaccurate. That is, you have referred only to 'non-christian' sources, but after the widespread converstion by the apostles in the years after the cruxifiction, most of the people who knew him personally became christians. If you include christian (and Jewish, who had an equally large anti-christian bias) sources, there are litterally hundreds of sources. There is much argument about the historicity of various sources, but the gospels themselves contain many details that are accurate, like the names of officials and such like, which suggests that they were written (or compiled from the writings of) someone who was intimately connected with Jesus' life.

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0060616628. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

RE Passedout, Plausablility is a very strange criteria, as it is predicated on assumption. That is, if you assume Jesus was just a man, then it looks very implausable, but if you assume that he was God then it is certain that he would have an unlimited power to reshape reality. So your statement contains a closed logic - you are evaluating evidence that challenges your assumptions based on your assumptions.

Re Philo and others, its not necessary that everyone who knew about it wrote about it. You could easily find prominant historians who lived through the first half of this cenntury and never wrote about the Wars. My understanding was that Philo was a historian, as in someone who wrote and studied the past, and that his writings on current affairs were fairly incidental. For example, all of his biographical details are known from other sources. Its also possible we just lost his relevant writings. For every document that survived 2000 years, there must be hundreds or thousands that didnt.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on Nov 10 2009, 08:07 PM, said:

Secondly, the comments above about sources are widely inaccurate. That is, you have referred only to 'non-christian' sources, but after the widespread converstion by the apostles in the years after the cruxifiction, most of the people who knew him personally became christians. If you include christian (and Jewish, who had an equally large anti-christian bias)  sources, there are litterally hundreds of sources.

I suspect that a lot of scholars would dispute your claim that "most of the people that knew him personally became Christians".

PBS had a really good documentary a few years back called "From Jesus to Christ" that discusses the evolution the belief systems in early Christianity. There's a lot of good discussion about what defines Christianity and when it actually started to become distinct from Judaism.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-First-C...s/dp/B0002ERWT6

Quote

If you include christian (and Jewish, who had an equally large anti-christian bias) sources, there are litterally [sic] hundreds of sources.

I'm calling bullshit...
Put up or shut up.

[Winstonm]

Quote

There is much argument about the historicity of various sources, but the gospels themselves contain many details that are accurate, like the names of officials and such like, which suggests that they were written (or compiled from the writings of) someone who was intimately connected with Jesus' life.

The Hunt For Red October contained many details that are accurate.
Shogun contained many details that are accurate.
The Iliad contains accurate details.

Quote

phil_20686
I think astrominical simulations of the eclipse mentioed in the cruxifiction narrative give the date as 33 ad, april 3rd, and this is consistent with all the evidence, but that is not in itself completely conclusive.

Here is another view. I cannot verify accuracy of any claim, though.

Quote

According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also that, for obvious reasons, eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur during full moons), Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.

It appears to me that it is the supporters of the Christian claims who have to do the most bending and twisting of conditions to make the story and the facts fit.

[phil_20686]

Winstonm, on Nov 10 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

Quote

phil_20686
I think astrominical simulations of the eclipse mentioed in the cruxifiction narrative give the date as 33 ad, april 3rd, and this is consistent with all the evidence, but that is not in itself completely conclusive.

Here is another view. I cannot verify accuracy of any claim, though.

Quote

According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also that, for obvious reasons, eclipses can't occur during a full moon (passovers always occur during full moons), Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.

Julius Africanus (c. 160 - c. 240)

Chronography, XVIII refers to writings by Thallus and Phlegon concerning the darkness during the Crucifixion:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun...Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak.

Also, solar eclipses are local, only a small area would see a total eclipse. Thats why eddington had to go to africa to prove the light bending effect of gravity.

[ArtK78]

As has been mentioned, a solar eclipse is not possible during a full moon, as the moon is not located between the earth and the sun.

[phil_20686]

hrothgar, on Nov 10 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

Quote

If you include christian (and Jewish, who had an equally large anti-christian bias) sources, there are litterally [sic] hundreds of sources.

I'm calling bullshit...
Put up or shut up.

Ill put up. The following non christian sources mention Jesus and/or early christianity.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) Several books of antiwuities
Tacitus in his annals
Pliny the younger, in his tenth book.
The babylonian Talmud
Lucian - he satirises christ and early christians.
Also, Thallus, whose wrtings are only knwn through the references in other writers.
Phlegon - whose works are known only throught he quatations found in Philopon
Suetonius
Celsus - whose works are known mainly through the quotations of Origen in Contra Celsus
Philo, who died around ad 40 talks of the early church, and is said to have met Peter. He describes the workings of the church of alexandria, in a work on contemplative life, which is quoted in Eusebius, although the original document appears to be lost.

here is alist of other minor Jewish sources. These are either later of of lesser importance.
His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, Against Celsus I.28 and I.32). The father's name is Panthera, a common soldier (Gemara "Sanhedrin", viii; "Schabbath", xii, cf. Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum", I, 109; Schottgen, "Horae Hebraicae", II, 696; Buxtorf, "Lex. Chald.", Basle, 1639, 1459, Huldreich, "Sepher toledhoth yeshua hannaceri", Leyden, 1705). The last work in its final edition did not appear before the thirteenth century, so that it could give the Panthera myth in its most advanced form. Rosch is of opinion that the myth did not begin before the end of the first century.

The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr. Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, Against Celsus II.48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op. cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, Against Celsus I.28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699 700; cf. "Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, Against Celsus II.55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.

Then there are teh following christian books/authors.
*Everything in the new testament*
In particular the gospels and the 4 long epistles of st paul, which are important as we have earlier source material for them and there is no real doubt about authorship.
THere is also the apocrypha and the argrapha. These terms refer to the documents that were rejected by the early councils either due to doubt about their accuracy, or about their origins. Neverthe less all confirm the existence of CHrist, or at least a widespread beleif in his existence/cruxifiction etc.

Eusebis is important as he went to the public archives in Edessa around the end of the 3rd century, and found letters written from Abgarus, the ruler of edessa, to Jesus, and the reply by Jesus. He also quotes Papias, who knew personally John the Apostle.

Justin the marytr is known to quote from the "Acts of Pilate" which was apparently an offical summary of Pilate's reign sent to the Emperor.

This is probably good enough.

[phil_20686]

ArtK78, on Nov 10 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

As has been mentioned, a solar eclipse is not possible during a full moon, as the moon is not located between the earth and the sun.

This is true, but winstom said no one else recorded the 'darkening of the sky', which was untrue.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on Nov 10 2009, 11:33 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 10 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

Quote

If you include christian (and Jewish, who had an equally large anti-christian bias) sources, there are litterally [sic] hundreds of sources.

I'm calling bullshit...
Put up or shut up.

Ill put up. The following non christian sources mention Jesus and/or early christianity.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) Several books of antiwuities
Tacitus in his annals
Pliny the younger, in his tenth book.
The babylonian Talmud
Lucian - he satirises christ and early christians.
Also, Thallus, whose wrtings are only knwn through the references in other writers.
Phlegon - whose works are known only throught he quatations found in Philopon
Suetonius
Celsus - whose works are known mainly through the quotations of Origen in Contra Celsus
Philo, who died around ad 40 talks of the early church, and is said to have met Peter. He describes the workings of the church of alexandria, in a work on contemplative life, which is quoted in Eusebius, although the original document appears to be lost.

here is alist of other minor Jewish sources. These are either later of of lesser importance.
His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, Against Celsus I.28 and I.32). The father's name is Panthera, a common soldier (Gemara "Sanhedrin", viii; "Schabbath", xii, cf. Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum", I, 109; Schottgen, "Horae Hebraicae", II, 696; Buxtorf, "Lex. Chald.", Basle, 1639, 1459, Huldreich, "Sepher toledhoth yeshua hannaceri", Leyden, 1705). The last work in its final edition did not appear before the thirteenth century, so that it could give the Panthera myth in its most advanced form. Rosch is of opinion that the myth did not begin before the end of the first century.

The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr. Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, Against Celsus II.48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op. cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, Against Celsus I.28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699 700; cf. "Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, Against Celsus II.55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.

Then there are teh following christian books/authors.
*Everything in the new testament*
In particular the gospels and the 4 long epistles of st paul, which are important as we have earlier source material for them and there is no real doubt about authorship.
THere is also the apocrypha and the argrapha. These terms refer to the documents that were rejected by the early councils either due to doubt about their accuracy, or about their origins. Neverthe less all confirm the existence of CHrist, or at least a widespread beleif in his existence/cruxifiction etc.

Eusebis is important as he went to the public archives in Edessa around the end of the 3rd century, and found letters written from Abgarus, the ruler of edessa, to Jesus, and the reply by Jesus. He also quotes Papias, who knew personally John the Apostle.

Justin the marytr is known to quote from the "Acts of Pilate" which was apparently an offical summary of Pilate's reign sent to the Emperor.

This is probably good enough.

We've already discussed Josephus and Tacitus, so lets start to work out way through the rest of your list:

Pliny the Younger's 10th book discusses the existence of Christians circa 100 AD. No one is disputing that there were Christians in 100 AD. The original discussion involved contemporary records about Christ.

The Babylonian Talmud was complied in the 6th Century AD

Lucian wasn't born until 125 AD

Thallus: No primary source material extant. Julius Africanus didn't write his account regarding Thallus until 220 AD.

Phelgon: Lived during the 2nd Century AD

Suetonius: Discussed here http://en.wikipedia....Jesus#Suetonius

Celsus: Wrote between 175 and 180 AD

Do I need to go on?

[luke warm]

but have we ever really settled the question of what is meant by 'contemporary'? compare the time from Jesus' death to the writings of him to the time between the deaths of other ancients and the writings of them

[barmar]

ArtK78, on Nov 10 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

As has been mentioned, a solar eclipse is not possible during a full moon, as the moon is not located between the earth and the sun.

And they can't last 3 hours. The longest possible total eclipse is about 7.5 minutes, and they're usually much shorter (the last one over 7 minutes was in 1973, and the next one won't be until 2150).

Then again, if this is supposed to have beem a miracle, none of the normal rules of astronomy or physics have to apply. God can make an eclipse whenever he damn well pleases. Suddenly moving the moon to the opposite point in its orbit could certainly cause earthquakes.

[Winstonm]

phil_20686, on Nov 10 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 10 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

As has been mentioned, a solar eclipse is not possible during a full moon, as the moon is not located between the earth and the sun.

This is true, but winstom said no one else recorded the 'darkening of the sky', which was untrue.

Just to be fair, Phil, I did not say so but only quoted a passage that I found. What I said was this:

Quote

Here is another view. I cannot verify accuracy of any claim, though.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Nov 10 2009, 04:33 PM, said:

but have we ever really settled the question of what is meant by 'contemporary'? compare the time from Jesus' death to the writings of him to the time between the deaths of other ancients and the writings of them

Jimmy,

There is no way to prove or disprove the case either for or against. The only qualm I had originally was the claim of "the best documented event" etc.

To me, if there were persons living at the same time (and there were and they tended to keep quite copious record - the Romans) then the lack of any such record is an oddity that weakens the historical case somewhat.

The only records are not from eyewitness accounts. Unlike many other historical figures, there is also no physical evidence to confirm later writings.

The strangest fact of all to me is that there were ample persons who lived at the same time who never bothered to record a living Jesus despite all the heroics attributed to him and the interest of the Romans and the Jewish priesthood.

[barmar]

Oh, that crafty deity. First He creates the world with fossils that appear to be millions of years older, just to trick scientists (Darwin and his followers failed the faith test), then He manipulates the historical record of his Son's life, wiping out all the contemporary accounts, so His followers will have to prove their faith.

[luke warm]

why can't the same be said for other historical figures? when is the first written evidence for, to beat a dead horse, alex the great? or mark anthony or cleo? Jesus was written of by paul (certainly a contemporary) 5 or 10 years after his death, that seems to be the earliest... there's also a famous letter from pliny to emperor trajan, and trajan's response... the jews of the day even wrote the history of Jesus, at least as it pertained to his crucifixion, the earliest written about 10 years after he died...

even if one discounts totally the miracles, etc, i see no reason to doubt his existence (not if one wishes to be consistent and not arbitrary)