What the historians tell us about Jesus

erich von stalhein · 03-27-2011, 01:18 AM

West491 asked me here to supply references to statements I made about Jesus and history. I started this thread to oblige him. There is so much information, I will split it into several posts (sorry about the length, but I wanted to give West491 an adequate answer).

Who to believe?

I don't suppose many of us have access to the relevant documents and archaeological sites, know the relevant languages, have studied the culture at the time or have kept up-to-date with the latest information. So we need some facts from experts on which to base our conclusions. But there is some divergence even about the facts (let alone the interpretations), so who should we believe?

Unbelievers are critical if christians quote christian scholars who they suspect of prejudging their conclusions. But equally, we should also be critical if unbelievers quote scholars who might be suspected of prejudging their conclusions. The only approach that has intellectual integrity is to base our views on reputable scholars whose conclusions are well respected by their peers.

Michael Grant ("Jesus", Appendix: Attitudes to the Evidence").
"There are three possible approaches to this task. One can write as a believer, or as an unbeliever, or (as I have attempted to do) as a student of history seeking, as far as one's background and conditions permit, to employ methods that make belief or unbelief irrelevant."

But how to know who approaches things this way?

A few scholars I have read nominate who they think are the leaders in this field. I have found that when scholars reference other scholars, the same names keep appearing. So these scholars merit our attention. Here are some of the names that I believe are recognised as among the most expert (in random order):

Michael Grant
EP Sanders
Robin Lane Fox
JD Crossan
Bart Ehrman
John Meier
NT Wright
Geza Vermes
Marcus Borg
James Charlesworth
Graham Stanton
James Dunn
Martin Hengel
Gerd Thiessen
Craig Evans
AN Sherwin-White

There would be many others, but you will find I will mostly reference these scholars.

erich von stalhein · 03-27-2011, 01:19 AM

There is no doubt that the vast majority of historians and scholars have concluded that Jesus did indeed exist. For example, I am not aware of any on my list who think otherwise. here are some quotes:

Bart Ehrman, Youtube interview
"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period. ….. We have one author who actually knew Jesus' relatives and knew his disciples - Paul."

The late Michael Grant:
"[That Jesus was a myth] has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars .... no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus."

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University:
"some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. ….. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world."

James H. Charlesworth, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature. Princeton University:
"Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." (Jesus Within Judaism)
"No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings" (Jesus and Archaeology, 2005)

Jeffery Jay Lowder:
"I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."

Craig Evans:
"Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors. .... the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding"

Tom Wright:
"The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. .... the evidence dovetails together with remarkable consistency, as I and many others have shown in works of very detailed historical scholarship. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did, and most agree that he did and said a significant amount at least of what the four gospels say he did and said."

Professor Robert van Voorst ("Jesus Outside the New Testament", p14, 16)
"The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question. …. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."

So why are the scholars so sure? Van Voorst gives seven reasons, of which these four are probably the clearest:

The gospels are too early for invention (too many people would have remembered the real facts), and their accurate references to Palestinian geography would not have been possible if the stories were invented later.
No early opponents of Christianity, whether pagan or Jew, ever denied that Jesus truly lived, or even questioned it.
Scholars are generally agreed that references to Jesus in the Roman historian Tacitus (early second century) and the Jewish historian Josephus (late first century) are both genuine, though some parts of Josephus appear to be later additions.
Proponents of the mythical Jesus view have not been able to offer any credible hypothesis that explains the stories of Jesus and the birth of Christianity.

I am only aware of one recognised scholar who concludes otherwise (Robert Price) and one other historian yet to be tested by peer review (Richard Carrier).

It should be noted that to historians, the Bible is not one book, but a collection of documents that are better attested (in terms of the accuracy of the text and the short gap (in historical terms) between the events and the writing. And the viewpoint of the writers is not a problem to historians as almost all ancient documents had a political, philosophical or religious viewpoint, and they are used to taking account of this.

John A.T. Robinson: "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world."

Helmut Koester: "Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript; if there are half a dozen or more, one can speak of a rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek... The only surviving manuscripts of classical authors often come from the Middle Ages, but the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the time at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors."

So we there is a strong scholarly consensus that Jesus existed and we can know significant detail about his life.

Michael Grant (summing up the value of the gospels as evidence):
"In cumulation, these authentic points and others add up to a coherent general impression of Jesus .... the impression remains plausible not only because the personality that emerges is so forceful and individual and satisfying but because it conflicts in a number of ways with what one might have expected to appear in productions of the Church after Jesus' death. .... The consistency, therefore, of the tradition in their [the Gospels'] pages suggests that the picture they present is largely authentic. By such methods information about Jesus CAN be derived from the Gospels."

EP Sanders:
"Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism."

In the next post, I'll summarise what the scholars say we can know.

erich von stalhein · 03-27-2011, 01:20 AM

So, the verdict of the historians is that Jesus almost certainly existed, and we can know significant details about his life and teachings. Conclusions vary of course, but I have prepared a list based on two eminent non-christian scholars (I have included quotes from a few other scholars to round out the picture):

EP Sanders, an agnostic recognised as a cautious and eminent scholar, prepared lists of facts "almost beyond dispute" in his books, "Jesus and Judaism" and "The Historical Figure of Jesus":

Jesus was born about 4 BCE
He grew up in Nazareth in Galilee
He was baptised by John the baptist
He was a Galilean, and an apocalyptic prophet
He called 12 disciples
He taught in Galilee, and his main theme was the kingdom of God
He gained fame as a healer and exorcist (G Stanton: "Few doubt that Jesus possessed unusual gifts as a healer, though of course varied explanations are offered."; E P Sanders: "I think we can be fairly certain that initially Jesus' fame came as a result of healing, especially exorcism.")
About AD 30 he went to Jerusalem for the Passover and caused a disturbance in the temple
He had a final meal with his followers
He was arrested and interrogated by the Jewish authorities and crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate
His followers initially fled, then they had resurrection experiences (EP Sanders: "That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know"; Norman Perrin, Uni of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.")
His followers continued as a movement, believing Jesus would return to establish his kingdom (P J Tomson: "Although he apparently considered himself the heavenly 'Son of Man' and 'the beloved son' of God and cherished far-reaching Messianic ambitions, Jesus was equally reticent about these convictions. Even so, the fact that, after his death and resurrection, his disciples proclaimed him as the Messiah can be understood as a direct development from his own teachings.")

Note that Sanders specifically stated he wrote as a historian and not a theologian, and he does not say he believes Jesus' healings were in fact miracles, nor that the resurrection actually occurred, only what is actually on this list.

The late Michael Grant, also a non-believer and an expert on the Roman period with more than 50 books to his name, deems as historical (In his book "Jesus: an historians review of the gospels") a slightly larger list, which includes in addition:

Welcoming "sinners" was part of his teaching, and he claimed to be able to forgive people's sins ("Jesus introduced a very singular innovation. For he also claimed that he himself could forgive sins.")
He believed his death would be redemptive, and he believed he was inaugurating God's kingdom ("Jesus lived his last days, and died, in the belief that his death was destined to save the human race.")
His tomb was empty, and people believed very early that Jesus had risen from the dead (Jacob Kremer: "by far, most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.")

Most other scholars I have read would agree approximately with Sanders list, perhaps a few less with Grant's additions.

(Note: G Stanton & PJ Tomson quotes from "The Cambridge Companion to Jesus", edited by M Bockmuehl. N Perrin & J Kremer quotes in P Copan "Will the real Jesus please stand up")

Of course we may each draw our own conclusions about whether Jesus reveals God to us, but something like the above facts must be our basis if we wish to have intellectual rigour and integrity and deal fairly with the best evidence available.

Kinich Ahau · 03-27-2011, 03:36 AM

Before the argument begins, (If anyone can be bothered that is) I want to make it clear that there are biases in play other than a historians or scholars religious views.
This sector of the publishing industry is one of the most lucrative in the world. Vast sums of money are made and the top ten lists are hardly without one or two of these types of books, Each year hundreds of books about early Christianity, gnostic gospels and the historicity of Jesus etc. are released, and are lapped up by, I suspect mostly Christians.
It's against most of these scholars self interest to "cook the goose that lays the golden egg" and burst this bubble as well it would make their scholarly pursuits a lot less interesting and appealing, to themselves and the masses.
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy but sometimes there is not much awareness by those involved and a culture can be built that is both self perpetuating and self supporting.

ghoulslime · 03-27-2011, 04:53 AM

Erich, "the best historians available" still require evidence to make any valid argument, you slobbering imbecile. Your argument from authority does not impress anyone with a capacity for basic logic. This is nothing more than a list of wonderfully-fanciful details of a person who probably never existed.

With all of these great big giant authorities on your side, you should be able to provide ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE! Ha ha, you clown! You cannot, because there is none!

There is, in fact, no evidence that a real Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.

The Incredible Edible Jesus

ghoulslime · 03-27-2011, 04:54 AM

Quote:

erich von stalhein wrote

Jesus was born about 4 BCE
He grew up in Nazareth in Galilee
He was baptised by John the baptist
He was a Galilean, and an apocalyptic prophet
He called 12 disciples
He taught in Galilee, and his main theme was the kingdom of God
He gained fame as a healer and exorcist (G Stanton: "Few doubt that Jesus possessed unusual gifts as a healer, though of course varied explanations are offered."; E P Sanders: "I think we can be fairly certain that initially Jesus' fame came as a result of healing, especially exorcism.")
About AD 30 he went to Jerusalem for the Passover and caused a disturbance in the temple
He had a final meal with his followers
He was arrested and interrogated by the Jewish authorities and crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate
His followers initially fled, then they had resurrection experiences (EP Sanders: "That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know"; Norman Perrin, Uni of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.")
His followers continued as a movement, believing Jesus would return to establish his kingdom (P J Tomson: "Although he apparently considered himself the heavenly 'Son of Man' and 'the beloved son' of God and cherished far-reaching Messianic ambitions, Jesus was equally reticent about these convictions. Even so, the fact that, after his death and resurrection, his disciples proclaimed him as the Messiah can be understood as a direct development from his own teachings.")

PROVE IT!

ghoulslime · 03-27-2011, 05:07 AM

Quote:

erich von stalhein wrote

[*]The gospels are too early for invention (too many people would have remembered the real facts), and their accurate references to Palestinian geography would not have been possible if the stories were invented later.

Prove it! (BTW, the Talmud has very accurate geography.) Why wouldn't somebody who had accurate geography from an earlier publication be able to make reference to it in a later publication? What a complete imbecile you are!

Quote:

erich von stalhein wrote

[*]No early opponents of Christianity, whether pagan or Jew, ever denied that Jesus truly lived, or even questioned it.

Prove it! You are presuming to speak for every pagan or Jew who denied this fantasy god/man?

You mean like, say, members of the cults of Asclepius as they were being exterminated by the members of the Christ cult?

Quote:

erich von stalhein wrote

[*]Scholars are generally agreed that references to Jesus in the Roman historian Tacitus (early second century) and the Jewish historian Josephus (late first century) are both genuine, though some parts of Josephus appear to be later additions.

Yes, the part where Josephus DOES NOT MENTION JESUS is true. The forgeries where he does, are false!

Tacitus called the belief in Jesus Christ a "pernicious superstition". I agree completely with Tacitus.

Quote:

erich von stalhein wrote

[*]Proponents of the mythical Jesus view have not been able to offer any credible hypothesis that explains the stories of Jesus and the birth of Christianity.

Credible to whom? To people who believe that if they drink the blood and eat the flesh of their resurrected god, they will never die?

Was that your best shot, you pathetic fraud?!!

ghoulslime · 03-27-2011, 05:13 AM

Look at Erich's head spin! He thinks that Jesus was real because the Bible says so. And he thinks the Bible is true because it has the words of Jesus in it. Someone has already explained to him the folly of his circular logic, right?

ghoulslime · 03-27-2011, 05:24 AM

All of the famous historians agree that Winnie the Pooh liked honey, and Piglet wore pink clothes!

ghoulslime · 03-27-2011, 05:29 AM

Erich has built his house of straw on a foundation of sand. For lack of evidence of his imaginary friend, he relies on the authority of historians to do his work for him.

Tacitus was one of the most famous historians who ever lived, right Erich?

Tacitus called the belief in Jesus Christ a "pernicious superstition".

And Erich thinks Tacitus is a good reference for his pernicious blood-drinking superstition!

Thank you for the laughs, Erich!