50 People in the Bible Confirmed by Archaeology

[Mister D]

This references an article in Biblical Archaeology Review I'm reading now that I can't seem to link for you guys. I have a subscription but I rarely go on the website. This guy has the list I'm trying to paste.

http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2014/02/50-people-in-bible-confirmed-by.html

Pretty cool.

[Mister D]

I did not know that Darius and Xerxes are both mentioned in the bible. Xerxes is called Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther.

[Max Rockatansky]

Thanks for the link. I wonder why they didn't mention Moses or Jesus in that list of 50? http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-angel.gif

[Mister D]

Is Moses attested anywhere? As for Jesus, I think this just deals with the Hebrew bible.

[Max Rockatansky]

When anyone says "the Bible", they're talking about the Christian holy book. The Hebrew holy book is the Torah.

I have little doubt many of the historical events depicted in the Bible are true. Any controversy involves the supernatural events depicted not that so-and-so was King during a period of a few thousand years.

There's even evidence of some cataclysmic event destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, although whether or not God destroyed them is subject to debate.
http://voices.yahoo.com/sodom-gomorrah-has-archeology-found-proof-the-688985.html?cat=37

In 1995, two new voices were added to the mystery. David Neev of the Geological Survey of Israel and K.O. Emery of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution of Massachusetts wrote a book about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In it, they argued that the sites as excavated proved that it was entirely possible that a seismic activity had occurred amongst the five cities of the plains.

They even referenced the Bible where is speaks not only of "fire from heaven" but also states that the cities were "overthrown," which could very well attest to the validity of earthquake. In fact, they proclaimed that the whole area to the south and east of the Dead Sea bore what would appear to be scars of past earthquakes. One major such event would appear to have taken place around the time documented within the Bible.

They went on to explain how fires would have been fed as hydrocarbons were released from the fractures caused in the ground by the earthquake. And the region, which was naturally rich in sulfur, could have easily produced what would have appeared for the world as "brimstone" from God himself.

[KC]

I don't know enough to add much to this thread, but these sure are interesting tidbits.

[Mister D]

When anyone says "the Bible", they're talking about the Christian holy book. The Hebrew holy book is the Torah.

I have little doubt many of the historical events depicted in the Bible are true. Any controversy involves the supernatural events depicted not that so-and-so was King during a period of a few thousand years.

There's even evidence of some cataclysmic event destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, although whether or not God destroyed them is subject to debate.
http://voices.yahoo.com/sodom-gomorrah-has-archeology-found-proof-the-688985.html?cat=37

I said the Hebrew Bible.


The Hebrew Bible (also Hebrew Scriptures, Jewish Bible (Judaica Bible); Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language): Biblia Hebraica) is a term used by biblical scholars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_scholars) to refer to the Tanakh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh) (Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language): תנ"ך‎), the canonical collection of Jewish texts, which is the common textual source of the several canonical editions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon) of the Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) Old Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament). These texts are composed mainly in Biblical Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hebrew), with some passages in Biblical Aramaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Aramaic) (in the books of Daniel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel), Ezra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ezra) and a few others).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible

There is quite a bit of controversy over the 'plain' history. King David, for example, was believed by some to have been mythical until quite recently. Then again, all history is interpretation. It's always more than the mere facts

[Max Rockatansky]

I said the Hebrew Bible.

You mean the "Old Testament". Okay, fine. Do you think the authors of the article are deliberately hiding proof of the New Testament or that they just don't have any?

[KC]

You mean the "Old Testament". Okay, fine. Do you think the authors of the article are deliberately hiding proof of the New Testament or that they just don't have any?

I think maybe it's taken for granted that the historical Jesus exists. There is surprisingly little controversy over that much.

[Mister D]

You mean the "Old Testament". Okay, fine. Do you think the authors of the article are deliberately hiding proof of the New Testament or that they just don't have any?

no, I mean the Tanakh. It's an oft used term (i.e. Hebrew Bible) but a silly one to argue about.

no, I think the article about the Hebrew Bible. Anyway, proof of what? As KC notes, the Jesus Myth folks are fringe at this point. What kinds of evidence would you be looking for and for what exactly?

[Mister D]

I think maybe it's taken for granted that the historical Jesus exists. There is surprisingly little controversy over that much.

For an obscure Galilean peasant it's dare I say miraculous that Jesus is attested at all.

[Max Rockatansky]

no, I mean the Tanakh. It's an oft used term (i.e. Hebrew Bible) but a silly one to argue about.

no, I think the article about the Hebrew Bible. Anyway, proof of what? As KC notes, the Jesus Myth folks are fringe at this point. What kinds of evidence would you be looking for and for what exactly?

I'm not looking for any evidence. I have faith both Jesus and Moses existed.

[Mister D]

I'm not looking for any evidence. I have faith both Jesus and Moses existed.

I don't. It seems pretty clear that Jesus existed historically. I have faith that he is the Son of God.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think maybe it's taken for granted that the historical Jesus exists. There is surprisingly little controversy over that much.

As mostly a matter of faith and a small, but debatable reference by Flavius Josephus. As D mentioned in post #11, no small wonder considering, at the time, he was considered small time.

It's only in reflection that we understand Christ's importance. It makes me wonder if Jesus appeared today, would we recognize him as sliding into our presence in a golden limo with a $2000 Armani suit or would he be among our poor, our sick and our disenfranchised spreading the word of God and berated by others as a "do-gooder", a "tree-hugger" or "a fucking liberal hippy"?

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't. It seems pretty clear that Jesus existed historically. I have faith that he is the Son of God.
Awesome. Please present your evidence because all I've seen is the account by Flavius Josephus and the Bible.

[Mister D]

Awesome. Please present your evidence because all I've seen is the account by Flavius Josephus and the Bible.

Flavius Josephus is enough but there is also Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian among others. If you would like to read about the more or less scholarly consensus look it up.

[Mister D]

As mostly a matter of faith and a small, but debatable reference by Flavius Josephus. As D mentioned in post #11, no small wonder considering, at the time, he was considered small time.

It's only in reflection that we understand Christ's importance. It makes me wonder if Jesus appeared today, would we recognize him as sliding into our presence in a golden limo with a $2000 Armani suit or would he be among our poor, our sick and our disenfranchised spreading the word of God and berated by others as a "do-gooder", a "tree-hugger" or "a fucking liberal hippy"?

Max, modern scholarship is overwhelmingly in favor of the the authenticity of the primary reference in Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum. Having faith that Jesus was a real person is like, as Chris says, putting faith in your faith.

[Mister D]

Well, look, if it's important to you that you place faith in Jesus' existence that's cool. Whatever works I suppose.

[Max Rockatansky]

Max, modern scholarship is overwhelmingly in favor of the the authenticity of the primary reference in Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum. Having faith that Jesus was a real person is like, as Chris says, putting faith in your faith.

My readings show there are controversies on the writings. Some after-the-fact insertions. Not unusual since the present day Bible itself was hobbled together 300 years after the Crucifixion.

http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

In 1995 a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum. For the first time it was pointed out that Josephus' description of Jesus showed an unusual similarity with another early description of Jesus.
It was established statistically that the similarity was too close to have appeared by chance.
Further study showed that Josephus' description was not derived from this other text, but rather that both were based on a Jewish-Christian "gospel" that has since been lost.
For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator.

[Mister D]

My readings show there are controversies on the writings. Some after-the-fact insertions. Not unusual since the present day Bible itself was hobbled together 300 years after the Crucifixion.

http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

There are controversies and definitely Christian interpolations but the overwhelmingly consensus is that the original passage refers to Jesus of Nazareth.

[Max Rockatansky]

There are controversies and definitely Christian interpolations but the overwhelmingly consensus is that the original passage refers to Jesus of Nazareth.

Agreed, but it's unclear if it was in the original text or added later to support the documentation of Christ's existence. As you previously noted, the crucifixion of a single Galilean among the thousands the Romans executed over the years wouldn't have caused many historians to take notice. What was noted was the Christian movement as it began to take hold. I think that is proof itself albeit not on the same level as a video of that Passover Friday at Golgotha.

[Mister D]

Agreed, but it's unclear if it was in the original text or added later to support the documentation of Christ's existence. As you previously noted, the crucifixion of a single Galilean among the thousands the Romans executed over the years wouldn't have caused many historians to take notice. What was noted was the Christian movement as it began to take hold. I think that is proof itself albeit not on the same level as a video of that Passover Friday at Golgotha.

Certain phrases were most likely added by a later Christian editor but the original passage (variously reconstructed) is considered a genuine refrence to Jesus of Nazareth. That later Christians edited the passage is also the consensus. "He was the Messiah", for example, was not in the original passage.

That a historical Jesus existed would be the default for me regardless of existing evidence. It just doesn't seem plausible to me that Christianity could develop the way it did if it was not linked with a real person. We agree there.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

My readings show there are controversies on the writings. Some after-the-fact insertions. Not unusual since the present day Bible itself was hobbled together 300 years after the Crucifixion.

http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm
The Testimonium reference to Jesus is inserted slap-dash in the middle of an otherwise unrelated narrative, and really isn't consistent with the author's writing style. Most incriminatingly of all, early Christian writers never used the famous quote when arguing the authenticity of Christ, despite owning most other Josephus volumes (and actually quoting from them on other matters).

Would it matter if Josephus mentioned him in the first place, anyhow? He was writing nearly a century after the events described. He may well have just been expressing admiration for the political activities of the contemporary Christian sect.

[Mister D]

The Testimonium reference to Jesus is inserted slap-dash in the middle of an otherwise unrelated narrative, and really isn't consistent with the author's writing style. Most incriminatingly of all, early Christian writers never used the famous quote when arguing the authenticity of Christ, despite owning most other Josephus volumes (and actually quoting from them on other matters).

Would it matter if Josephus mentioned him in the first place, anyhow? He was writing nearly a century after the events described. He may well have just been expressing admiration for the political activities of the contemporary Christian sect.

Early Christian writers never questioned the authencity of Jesus, the style is that of Josephus*, and, again, the overwhelming contemporary consensus is that the original Josephus passage is a genuine reference to Jesus of Nazareth with later Christian interpolations.

*
As acknowledged even by proponents of the forgery theory, the style and vocabulary of the passage is essentially that of Josephus (cf. the studies employing the Rengstorf concordance and the TLG database).

http://www.josephus.org/question.htm

It matters because it's an extrabiblical reference which is what we're discussing. It was also written about 60 years after the death of Jesus. Granted, I see no reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus regardless but some do.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Early Christian writers never questioned the authencity of Jesus
Correct, they propounded it. Where one would expect it to be in their best interest to use the Testimonium reference, however, they fail to do so, despite holding otherwise exhaustive collections of his work and citing avidly from them. The apologist Origen quotes Josephus avidly in his anti-heresy polemic (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm) - but the famous passage, which could have proven the trump up his sleeve in such a debate, is nowhere to be found.

the style is that of Josephus*, and, again, the overwhelming contemporary consensus is that the original Josephus passage is a genuine reference to Jesus of Nazareth with later Christian interpolations.

*
It's inserted awkwardly in the middle of an unrelated story about a Roman atrocity, and the rhetorical nature of the passage ("as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him ...") is atypical of a skeptical, otherwise decidedly objective Jewish historian. As late as the 17th Century, copies of the Testimonium were surfacing without the Jesus cameo.

http://www.josephus.org/question.htm

It matters because it's an extrabiblical reference which is what we're discussing. It was also written about 60 years after the death of Jesus. Granted, I see no reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus regardless but some do.
Half a century after his death? Where are the other sources? Why does he build this one, ambiguous prophet among others up, with untypical language, whilst lavishing infinitely harder detail upon the miracles of John the Baptist and proto-Christ Simon of Peraea?

Even more abysmal are vanilla theological assertions that Jesus is "the best-documented figure in human history". On the contrary, he's incredibly ill-defined, and it's for that reason I have serious doubts about his corporeal existence.

[Mister D]

Correct, they propounded it. Where one would expect it to be in their best interest to use the Testimonium reference, however, they fail to do so, despite holding otherwise exhaustive collections of his work and citing avidly from them. The apologist Origen quotes Josephus avidly in his anti-heresy polemic (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm) - but the famous passage, which could have proven the trump up his sleeve in such a debate, is nowhere to be found.

It's inserted awkwardly in the middle of an unrelated story about a Roman atrocity, and the rhetorical nature of the passage ("as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him ...") is atypical of a skeptical, otherwise decidedly objective Jewish historian. As late as the 17th Century, copies of the Testimonium were surfacing without the Jesus cameo.

Half a century after his death? Where are the other sources? Why does he build this one, ambiguous prophet among others up, with untypical language, whilst lavishing infinitely harder detail upon the miracles of John the Baptist and proto-Christ Simon of Peraea?

Even more abysmal are vanilla theological assertions that Jesus is "the best-documented figure in human history". On the contrary, he's incredibly ill-defined, and it's for that reason I have serious doubts about his corporeal existence.

Gerrard, the Christ Myth theory originated in modern times (17th or 18th Century). It was taken most seriously in the 19th Century which is no surprise. Again, early Christians wouldn't have thought to argue for the historicity is Jesus of Nazareth. It was taken for granted. It didn't become an "issue" until 1700 years later

The discussion is about extra-biblical references. That of Josephus is widely accepted. Is that not enough now? (Shrug) There are others (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny etc.) but they are less solid than Josephus. Again, that there are later Christian interpolations present is acknowledged but the overwhelmingly consensus is that the original passage (variously reconstructed) is a genuine reference to Jesus of Nazareth.

That Christ is attested at all outside the bible is remarkable. Anyway, you can have doubts about his "corporeal existence" but the grounds for doing so are rather poor. Even Dawkins distances himself from this sort of thing.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Gerrard, the Christ Myth theory originated in modern times (17th or 18th Century). It was taken most seriously in the 19th Century which is no surprise. Again, early Christians wouldn't have thought to argue for the historicity is Jesus of Nazareth. It was taken for granted. It didn't become an "issue" until 1700 years later
We have a dozen Christian writers, all of them quoting actively from Josephus in an effort to promulgate the legitimacy of their prophet, and not a single one uses the Testimonium. Is that not a cause for concern?

The discussion is about extra-biblical references. That of Josephus is widely accepted. Is that not enough now? (Shrug) There are others (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny etc.) but they are less solid than Josephus. Again, that there are later Christian interpolations present is acknowledged but the overwhelmingly consensus is that the original passage (variously reconstructed) is a genuine reference to Jesus of Nazareth.
There's an overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW, too. Shall we stop questioning that?

That Christ is attested at all outside the bible is remarkable. Anyway, you can have doubts about his "corporeal existence" but the grounds for doing so are rather poor. Even Dawkins distances himself from this sort of thing.
My point of contention rests upon a void of credible documentation surrounding the life of Jesus. So, what's on the other side of the fence? We have a set of incredibly loose textual references, none of them contemporary to Christ's lifetime. The bulk of them discuss the man with acknowledgement to the posthumous sect forming around him, rather than Jesus as an individual, which renders attestation not at all surprising ...

And after that, we hit a literary dead end. Jesus is a ghost as far as the epistolary writers are concerned - they utilize few specifics, talking about Jesus as if he's an omnipotent, deific presence (Paul, who exhibited signs of epilepsy, even claimed to have delusions featuring communication with Christ and other NT figures). They delve into no detail regarding his life, miracles and exploits, as we would expect. The New Testament can't even be considered a valid historical account.

So, who's on poor grounds, again?

[Mister D]

We have a dozen Christian writers, all of them quoting actively from Josephus in an effort to promulgate the legitimacy of their prophet, and not a single one uses the Testimonium. Is that not a cause for concern?

There's an overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW, too. Shall we stop questioning that?

My point of contention rests upon a void of credible documentation surrounding the life of Jesus. So, what's on the other side of the fence? We have a set of incredibly loose textual references, none of them contemporary to Christ's lifetime. The bulk of them discuss the man with acknowledgement to the posthumous sect forming around him, rather than Jesus as an individual, which renders attestation not at all surprising ...

And after that, we hit a literary dead end. Jesus is a ghost as far as the epistolary writers are concerned - they utilize few specifics, talking about Jesus as if he's an omnipotent, deific presence (Paul, who exhibited signs of epilepsy, even claimed to have delusions featuring communication with Christ and other NT figures). They delve into no detail regarding his life, miracles and exploits, as we would expect. The New Testament can't even be considered a valid historical document.

So, who's on poor grounds, again?

You're drifting off topic. I'm not sure who quoted Josephus or why but I do know that proving Jesus was a real person wasn't the reason.

You can question whatever you like but it's obvious that it's hostility that motivates you.

There is no credible documentation for 99.9999999999 (get the picture?)% of 1st Century humanity. Again, that Jesus is mentioned at all outside the bible in the 1st Century is remarkable. What would you expect for an obscure Galilean peasant? In any case, I see no reasonable grounds for doubting his existence. That the sect existed at all and identified itself with someone they claimed was executed by the Romans is suggestive of a real personage not a mythical figure. It's by far the more plausible position.

Again, what do you expect for an obscure Galilean peasant? A complete biography? Seriously, what would you expect there to be? Paul claimed to have delusions? Could you cite that for me? Of course you can't. That's just your hostility again. As for the pastoral letters, dude, they weren't written about Jesus' life. They were written for specific reasons. I'm shaking my head right now. What you really need is some background on what those letters actually say, who they are written to, and what the purpose was. Why, for example, should they have contained all this information about the earthly Jesus?

[Gerrard Winstanley]

You're drifting off topic. I'm not sure who quoted Josephus or why but I do know that proving Jesus was a real person wasn't the reason.

You can question whatever you like but it's obvious that it's hostility that motivates you.

There is no credible documentation for 99.9999999999 (get the picture?)% of 1st Century humanity. Again, that Jesus is mentioned at all outside the bible in the 1st Century is remarkable. What would you expect for an obscure Galilean peasant? In any case, I see no reasonable grounds for doubting his existence. That the sect existed at all and identified itself with someone they claimed was executed by the Romans is suggestive of a real personage not a mythical figure. It's by far the more plausible position.
Again, he's mostly mentioned within the context of the sect growing up around him in the 1st / 2nd Century AD. That's not at all surprising. Cases like that of the Pacific cargo cults illustrate how entire traditions can come into being as a consequence of apparent trivialities and misunderstandings, which removes the need for a historical Jesus. Most likely, the whole thing is the result of interspersed hearsay, the apocalyptic climate in contemporary Judea and an amalgamation of the mythologies surrounding at least two actual figures, all drawn together into a single doctrine by an opportunistic, zealous leadership.

Again, what do you expect for an obscure Galilean peasant? A complete biography? Seriously, what would you expect there to be? Paul claimed to have delusions? Could you cite that for me? Of course you can't. That's just your hostility again. As for the pastoral letters, dude, they weren't written about Jesus' life. They were written for specific reasons. I'm shaking my head right now. What you really need is some background on what those letters actually say, who they are written to, and what the purpose was.
No, I don't expect a biography to turn up any time soon, nor do the written sources offer anything close to a satisfactory account. So, faith aside, why are you so convinced he existed?

I'm not hostile towards Jesus. There's little to be hostile about. The man, real or fake, had a message of peace and liberty way ahead of his time, for all the perversion it has been subject to through the long course of the ages.

Why, for example, should they have contained all this information about the earthly Jesus?
Because that would have indicated the prevalence of a material tradition, with historical precedent. What we get instead is this treatment of Jesus as a force of divine nature and retribution, more akin to the pantheon of Greco-Roman folklore than the Bible's charismatic teacher and healer.

[Mister D]

Again, he's mostly mentioned within the context of the sect growing up around him in the 1st / 2nd Century AD. That's not at all surprising. Cases like that of the Pacific cargo cults illustrate how entire traditions can come into being as a consequence of apparent trivialities and misunderstandings, which removes the need for a historical Jesus. Most likely, the whole thing is the result of interspersed hearsay, the apocalyptic climate in contemporary Judea and an amalgamation of the mythologies surrounding at least two actual figures, all drawn together into a single doctrine by an opportunistic, zealous leadership.

No, I don't expect a biography to turn up any time soon, nor do the written sources offer anything close to a satisfactory account. So, faith aside, why are you so convinced he existed?

I'm not hostile towards Jesus. There's little to be hostile about. The man, real or fake, had a message of peace and liberty way ahead of his time, for all the perversion it has been subject to through the long course of the ages.

Because that would have indicated the prevalence of a material tradition, with historical precedent. What we get instead is this treatment of Jesus as a force of divine nature and retribution, more akin to the pantheon of Greco-Roman folklore than the Bible's charismatic teacher and healer.

Nor should you expect any biography of an obscure Galilean peasant or a "satisfactory" (what does that even mean?) written account. We do, however, have at least one extra biblical 1st Century reference to Jesus. The consensus on that regard is overwhelming. Sure, you can continue to question it but you''re just engaging in speculation at this point.

I'm convined he existed because we do in fact have at least one extra-biblical reference since, in such a discussion, only extra-bibical references are valid. That said, the NT and other Christian writings alone are enough for me as they are for most people. Why shouldn't they be?

What is a material tradition with historical precedent? What does that mean and why would it have been important for early Christians? Secondly, the epistles and the Gospels were written by the same early Christian communities! Paul's letters are the oldest known Christian documents. All of them were written within 30 years of Jesus' death. The Pastoral letters are Pauline in their theology. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

[Max Rockatansky]

Nor should you expect any biography of an obscure Galilean peasant or a "satisfactory" (what does that even mean?) written account. We do, however, have at least one extra biblical 1st Century reference to Jesus. The consensus on that regard is overwhelming. Sure, you can continue to question it but you''re just engaging in speculation at this point.

The consensus on the Flavious Josephus account is far from "overwhelming". In fact, it's quite out of character for a Jewish scholar who is strongly aligned with Rome to write that Jesus was the Messiah.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 (http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm)



I'm convined he existed because we do in fact have at least one extra-biblical reference since, in such a discussion, only extra-bibical references are valid. That said, the NT and other Christian writings alone are enough for me as they are for most people. Why shouldn't they be? I, too, am convinced Jesus existed despite any hard evidence. The impact of Christ on the population of the Mediterranean post-Crucifixion would certainly be a first in history if he was completely fictitious as the atheists want us to believe.

While the trial and execution of the Galilean might have appeared to be small potatoes to those at the time, the impact was relatively quickly made over the next two hundred years. This in a time without mass communication, mass printing and relatively low literacy rate.

[Mister D]

The consensus on the Flavious Josephus account is far from "overwhelming". In fact, it's quite out of character for a Jewish scholar who is strongly aligned with Rome to write that Jesus was the Messiah.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 (http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm)


I, too, am convinced Jesus existed despite any hard evidence. The impact of Christ on the population of the Mediterranean post-Crucifixion would certainly be a first in history if he was completely fictitious as the atheists want us to believe.

While the trial and execution of the Galilean might have appeared to be small potatoes to those at the time, the impact was relatively quickly made over the next two hundred years. This in a time without mass communication, mass printing and relatively low literacy rate.

Yes, "He was the Messiah" is likely a Christian interpolation. Max, your own source discusses this. It's not disputed by me or most scholars. Yes, the consensus is overwhelming that the original passage minus the interpolations is a genuine reference to Christ.

We agree. Christian history just doesn't seem plausible otherwise.

[Max Rockatansky]

Why would Josephus even be writing about a routine execution? Two robbers were executed as well. Possibly a fourth if the story of Barabbas was true. It was only the custom of Passover that he was freed.

Is there any doubt that crucifixions were held at least monthly if not weekly? Why would Josephus, a Roman scholar, write about that particular execution out of all others?

[Mister D]

Why would Josephus even be writing about a routine execution? Two robbers were executed as well. Possibly a fourth if the story of Barabbas was true. It was only the custom of Passover that he was freed.

Is there any doubt that crucifixions were held at least monthly if not weekly? Why would Josephus, a Roman scholar, write about that particular execution out of all others?

Perhaps because Jesus became a person of note at least for a Jew writing a history of the Jews? I will only refer you to your own source. It's quite interesting. Thanks for the link.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Nor should you expect any biography of an obscure Galilean peasant or a "satisfactory" (what does that even mean?) written account. We do, however, have at least one extra biblical 1st Century reference to Jesus. The consensus on that regard is overwhelming. Sure, you can continue to question it but you''re just engaging in speculation at this point.
The consensus is hardly overwhelming, for the reasons I've detailed, and the reference didn't even appear in copies being published in the 17th Century, which is highly suspect.

I'm convined he existed because we do in fact have at least one extra-biblical reference since, in such a discussion, only extra-bibical references are valid. That said, the NT and other Christian writings alone are enough for me as they are for most people. Why shouldn't they be?
Because the Christian writings are as valid a historical document as Homer's Odyssey or the Arthurian legends.

What is a material tradition with historical precedent? What does that mean and why would it have been important for early Christians? Secondly, the epistles and the Gospels were written by the same early Christian communities! Paul's letters are the oldest known Christian documents. All of them were written within 30 years of Jesus' death. The Pastoral letters are Pauline in their theology. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
And all of them discuss Jesus as if he's a metaphysical force of nature, a sky-being. They provide no hints towards a historical source, utilizing only negligible fragments of the New Testament story.

The issue here isn't whether Christ existed - nobody can answer that. The issue is that the evidence we have is of such highly questionable quality as to render supportive statements futile. The Josephus reference is a potential forgery, and the NT / epistles are no help at all.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

I, too, am convinced Jesus existed despite any hard evidence. The impact of Christ on the population of the Mediterranean post-Crucifixion would certainly be a first in history if he was completely fictitious as the atheists want us to believe.

While the trial and execution of the Galilean might have appeared to be small potatoes to those at the time, the impact was relatively quickly made over the next two hundred years. This in a time without mass communication, mass printing and relatively low literacy rate.
The late Roman Empire was teeming with mystic sects of Levantine origin (Christianity even faced competition in the Roman army with a cult devoted to the Persian god Mithra). A historical Christ wasn't required to make it effective.

[Max Rockatansky]

The late Roman Empire was teeming with mystic sects of Levantine origin (Christianity even faced competition in the Roman army with a cult devoted to the Persian god Mithra). A historical Christ wasn't required to make it effective.
No doubt there were many different religions in those days.

Please cite an example of where a completely fictitious person generated anything close to this example of a "historial Christ".

I can see where atheists question the "mystic" or supernatural aspects of Christ's story but to claim he never existed despite the impact I've described seems to be pushing the envelope beyond reason.

[Max Rockatansky]

Perhaps because Jesus became a person of note at least for a Jew writing a history of the Jews? I will only refer you to your own source. It's quite interesting. Thanks for the link.

Glad you liked the link. Yes, it's quite interesting.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Please cite an example of where a completely fictitious person generated anything close to this example of a "historial Christ".
John Frum.

[Max Rockatansky]

John Frum.

....has a basis in reality....and cargo really did fall from the sky.

http://googlesightseeing.com/2008/02/john-frum-day/

The name ‘John Frum’ is sometimes considered a corruption of “John from (America)”, and the cult believe that their saviour will eventually bring more cargo to this island, just as he did during WWII. Although it’s possible that John Frum existed before the 40s, he would most likely have been described as a white man until black American GIs arrived, whereupon the cult’s devotees very sensibly decided that in fact John Frum had been a black man all along.

[Mister D]

The consensus is hardly overwhelming, for the reasons I've detailed, and the reference didn't even appear in copies being published in the 17th Century, which is highly suspect.

Because the Christian writings are as valid a historical document as Homer's Odyssey or the Arthurian legends.

And all of them discuss Jesus as if he's a metaphysical force of nature, a sky-being. They provide no hints towards a historical source, utilizing only negligible fragments of the New Testament story.

The issue here isn't whether Christ existed - nobody can answer that. The issue is that the evidence we have is of such highly questionable quality as to render supportive statements futile. The Josephus reference is a potential forgery, and the NT / epistles are no help at all.

The passage appears in all extant copies as far as I know. Could you cite a source (please, not an atheist blog) for these 17th Century publications that do not contain the reference?

They aren't meant to be historical documents (your concept of history, btw, is a 19 Century conceit that did not exist in ancient times) and, like I said, we have at least one extra-biblical reference. The development of Christianity just isn't plausible if it was based on a supposedly mythical figure

Wait...what? The NT discusses Jesus as a "sky being" (whatever that means)? Read the Gospels. You don't seem to understand the purpose of the Pauline and Pastoral letters.

The Pauline and pastoral letters discuss Christ as divine because that's what was important to Christians then and that's what's important to Christians now. The life of the earthly Jesus (acknowledged throughout the NT) simply wasn't that important.

The issue here is exactly whether or not Christ existed or why would we be talking about evidence? There simply isn't a good case to be made that Jesus was a mythical figure which is why it's a marginal theory.

[Mister D]

The late Roman Empire was teeming with mystic sects of Levantine origin (Christianity even faced competition in the Roman army with a cult devoted to the Persian god Mithra). A historical Christ wasn't required to make it effective.

But Paul and other early Christians insisted on the reality of Jesus' death and Resurrection because...?

[Gerrard Winstanley]

The passage appears in all extant copies as far as I know. Could you cite a source (please, not an atheist blog) for these 17th Century publications that do not contain the reference?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vzxUhP0MedcC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=vossius+josephus+jesus&source=bl&ots=Fs7fLeerpV&sig=bdaVlu-c3uIKoubyyhwLMB18rXU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNQQU9mxGYLm7AaokIGACw&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=vossius&f=false

A summary Google search will reveal further discussions of the Vossius conundrum. For convenience, I'm just posting a book reference.

[QUOTE]They aren't meant to be historical documents (your concept of history, btw, is a 19 Century conceit that did not exist in ancient times) and, like I said, we have at least one extra-biblical reference. The development of Christianity just isn't plausible if it was based on a supposedly mythical figure
Why isn't it? Decades after Jesus kicked the bucket, and under the oversight of a man who had never met him, Christianity was flourishing.

Wait...what? The NT discusses Jesus as a "sky being" (whatever that means)?
No, the epistles do. They provide only tenuous reference to the NT account. One would expect at least a nod to one of the key sites, for the digestion of the Christians they was addressed to, or examples of his deeds and miracles. But no, nothing.

The issue here is exactly whether or not Christ existed or why would we be talking about evidence? There simply isn't a good case to be made that Jesus was a mythical figure which is why it's a marginal theory.
There isn't a good case for his existence. That theory's survival is testament to how integral Christianity has become to the Western psyche.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

But Paul and other early Christians insisted on the reality of Jesus' death and Resurrection because...?
Didn't L. Ron Hubbard hold to his assertion Xenu exists? :rollseyes:

[Gerrard Winstanley]

....has a basis in reality....and cargo really did fall from the sky.

http://googlesightseeing.com/2008/02/john-frum-day/
I'm sure Jesus had roots in reality. Christianity's success doesn't mean there had to be a single carpenter, touring 1st Century AD Judea and conjuring miracles.

[Mister D]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vzxUhP0MedcC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=vossius+josephus+jesus&source=bl&ots=Fs7fLeerpV&sig=bdaVlu-c3uIKoubyyhwLMB18rXU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNQQU9mxGYLm7AaokIGACw&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=vossius&f=false

A summary Google search will reveal further discussions of the Vossius conundrum. For convenience, I'm just posting a book reference.
[QUOTE]
Why isn't it? Decades after Jesus kicked the bucket, and under the oversight of a man who had never met him, Christianity was flourishing.

No, the epistles do. They provide only tenuous reference to the NT account. One would expect at least a nod to one of the key sites, for the digestion of the Christians they was addressed to, or examples of his deeds and miracles. But no, nothing.

There isn't a good case for his existence. That theory's survival is testament to how integral Christianity has become to the Western psyche.

The Vossius conundrum doesn't seem to address the topic although I only looked at the first page of results. The book in question is...

World Transformation: A Guide to Personal Growth and Consciousness

Really? You seem remarkably credulous when it's convenient. I can't seem to find a single scholarly source for this claim. If it is so damning why is that?

Right. Christianity was flourishing quite unlike the cargo cults in your analogy. You seem to have answered your own question. Now my question: why wasn't the existence of Jesus doubted by anyone in the early days of Christianity?

Gerrard, they aren't Gospels. The purpose of letters is not to tell the story of Jesus Christ. No, one would not expect a repeat of the Gospels. You don't seem to understand the purpose of the letters. It's amazing to me that while it's clear you haven't read them or even tried to understand their background you tell me what should have been in them.

On the contrary, there simply isn't any reason to doubt his existence. Not only do we have an extra-biblical reference but the development of Chrsitianity makes the Christ Myth wildly implausible.

[Mister D]

I'm sure Jesus had roots in reality. Christianity's success doesn't mean there had to be a single carpenter, touring 1st Century AD Judea and conjuring miracles.

Most scholars agree. What are we arguing about?

[Mister D]

Didn't L. Ron Hubbard hold to his assertion Xenu exists? :rollseyes:

Why so evasive? You said:


The late Roman Empire was teeming with mystic sects of Levantine origin (Christianity even faced competition in the Roman army with a cult devoted to the Persian god Mithra). A historical Christ wasn't required to make it effective.

Yet Paul and others insisted on the fact of Jesus' earthly life and execution. Obviously, this was of great theological importance to the very earliest Christians. Why was that?

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm sure Jesus had roots in reality. Christianity's success doesn't mean there had to be a single carpenter, touring 1st Century AD Judea and conjuring miracles.While I'll agree the stories of Christ's divination are a matter of faith, not fact, my main point is that those who say Jesus was a complete fabrication because there is no evidence of his existence are wrong.