Facts Regarding Jesus

[JoeyKnothead]

From here:

...However, there are facts that we know about the Historical Jesus...

For debate:

Please present verifiable facts regarding "the Historical Jesus" for examination.

[Goat]

It seems to me you are insisting that if Jesus existed, then certainly Philo would have written about him. I'm sorry, but this is not logically valid. There are any number of reasons why Philo might not have written about Jesus. Two obvious possibilities are: 1) he hadn't heard of him (why should you be so certain that he would have?)
2) Philo saw nothing noteworthy to write about - Jesus was one of many itinerant preachers.

I would say that this demonstrates that IF Jesus existed, during his life he did not distinguish himself from others. This directly contradicts the Gospels, which made Jesus bigger than life, with multitudes of followers.

To me , this shows that if the historical Jesus did indeed exist , he probably only had a vague resemblence to the biblical Jesus.





=

[fredonly]

It seems to me you are insisting that if Jesus existed, then certainly Philo would have written about him. I'm sorry, but this is not logically valid. There are any number of reasons why Philo might not have written about Jesus. Two obvious possibilities are: 1) he hadn't heard of him (why should you be so certain that he would have?)
2) Philo saw nothing noteworthy to write about - Jesus was one of many itinerant preachers.

I would say that this demonstrates that IF Jesus existed, during his life he did not distinguish himself from others. This directly contradicts the Gospels, which made Jesus bigger than life, with multitudes of followers.

To me , this shows that if the historical Jesus did indeed exist , he probably only had a vague resemblence to the biblical Jesus.=

The Biblical Jesus is clearly clouded in myth, with Old Testament trappings overlayed on it. The historical Jesus research attempts to analyze these layers and peel them back. Historical Jesus research is distinct from theories about his existence/non-existence; this research takes his existence as a premise.

[cnorman18]

It seems to me you are insisting that if Jesus existed, then certainly Philo would have written about him. I'm sorry, but this is not logically valid. There are any number of reasons why Philo might not have written about Jesus. Two obvious possibilities are: 1) he hadn't heard of him (why should you be so certain that he would have?)
2) Philo saw nothing noteworthy to write about - Jesus was one of many itinerant preachers.

I would say that this demonstrates that IF Jesus existed, during his life he did not distinguish himself from others. This directly contradicts the Gospels, which made Jesus bigger than life, with multitudes of followers.

To me , this shows that if the historical Jesus did indeed exist , he probably only had a vague resemblence to the biblical Jesus.=

The Biblical Jesus is clearly clouded in myth, with Old Testament trappings overlayed on it. The historical Jesus research attempts to analyze these layers and peel them back. Historical Jesus research is distinct from theories about his existence/non-existence; this research takes his existence as a premise.

I would agree with that. There are several separate questions being debated at once here:

(1) Is there evidence that there was ANY real, historical person who was the basis for the stories about Jesus of Nazareth?

(2) If there was, did that real person bear any resemblance to the Jesus presented in the Gospels and Christian tradition, without regard to the supernatural aspects of that figure (i.e., was he an itinerant Jewish preacher and storyteller who was in some sort of conflict with the religious authorities of his day)?

(3) Is there ANY basis for the aforementioned supernatural aspects of that person's life (healings, miraculous food being provided to multitudes, Resurrection, etc.) -- that is, is there any evidence of such stories circulating in Jesus's day?

(4) If there is -- if there actually were stories circulating at the time that include those aspects -- to what extent are those stories credible and worthy of considering as factual?

(5) Even if those aspects are considered historically factual, to what extent are they evidence of the Christian claims about Jesus as God Incarnate, son of God, and so on? (There have been healers throughout history; none but Jesus, so far as I know, has ever been claimed to be the Deity in human form.)

On the usual scale of 5="very much" and 1="not at all," it seems to me that these questions are answered in descending order; #1 is "very much," #2 is "probably," #3 is "maybe," #4 is "probably not," and #5 is "not at all." But that's my opinion from my own reading. Let's not conflate all these questions together. That wouldn't be helpful at all.

[Question Everything]

(1) Is there evidence that there was ANY real, historical person who was the basis for the stories about Jesus of Nazareth?

A lot depends on how much that person has to resemble the Gospel stories for him to count as "the basis". For example, is it necessary for him to be from Nazareth? For him to be crucified? Born in Bethlehem?

[d.thomas]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/ From the IEP

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew also called Judaeus Philo, 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.

Philo wrote about people like Jesus and was in Jerusalem about the time of the supposed Jesus' arrest, trial, and crucifixion. He wrote about Pilate, conflicts between the occupying Romans and Jews, but never mentioned this Jesus character.

[Goat]

(1) Is there evidence that there was ANY real, historical person who was the basis for the stories about Jesus of Nazareth?

A lot depends on how much that person has to resemble the Gospel stories for him to count as "the basis". For example, is it necessary for him to be from Nazareth? For him to be crucified? Born in Bethlehem?

I would also include 'How close are the lessons and stories he preached'.

There is also the possibility that the 'Biblical Jesus' is a conglomeration of a number of the preachers of Jerusalem at the time.

[cnorman18]

(1) Is there evidence that there was ANY real, historical person who was the basis for the stories about Jesus of Nazareth?

A lot depends on how much that person has to resemble the Gospel stories for him to count as "the basis". For example, is it necessary for him to be from Nazareth? For him to be crucified? Born in Bethlehem?

Precisely. Question 1 would be whether or not there was any such person at all, i.e. an itinerant preacher of that sort. Question 2 would be about whether that real person shared any of the attributes, other than the supernatural, of Jesus, including whether or not he was from Nazareth, crucified, born in Bethlehem, etc.

[cnorman18]

(1) Is there evidence that there was ANY real, historical person who was the basis for the stories about Jesus of Nazareth?

A lot depends on how much that person has to resemble the Gospel stories for him to count as "the basis". For example, is it necessary for him to be from Nazareth? For him to be crucified? Born in Bethlehem?

I would also include 'How close are the lessons and stories he preached'.

Again; the nature of the lessons and stories this hypothetical person preached would be a matter for question 2. This is what I mean by conflating these questions together and considering them at the same time.

There is also the possibility that the 'Biblical Jesus' is a conglomeration of a number of the preachers of Jerusalem at the time.

That is indeed one possible answer. Pretenders to the office of Messiah were thick on the ground in Palestine at that time, never mind wandering preachers. John the Baptist may be another such "composite" character, as they are called in historical fiction. The nature of oral traditions and oral history -- at this time, there was no clear distinction between the two -- together with the dearth of actual contemporary written records, makes that sort of question all but impossible to answer, and we are left with speculation.

These questions are academic in nature, and not religious; that should be emphasized too. From an academic standpoint, there are many speculative answers that are reasonable, including the theory that there was an actual, historical Jesus, about whom stories of healings, etc., were circulated; that is as far as I'm willing to go myself, but that seems reasonable to me, if not demonstrably correct. It's also reasonable to theorize that there was never any such person, and that the Gospels are collections of folktales and legends of the time. There is not, and I feel confident in saying that there will never be, ANY theory that will ever be proven "demonstrably correct." These speculations are all we shall ever have.

The religious, of course, are free to choose whatever interpretation they like; but when the discussion moves to provable, historical reality, we are all on shakier ground. Some religious scholars have long since recognized a distinction between the "Christ of faith" and the "historical Jesus," and the futility of trying to determine the relation between them. Again; music and geometry, subjective and objective, fact and opinion. Two different languages, with two different sets of standards and two different ends in mind. IMHO, neither is capable of either validating or invalidating the other. Which you subscribe to depends on where you stand.

It's called "freedom of thought," the way I learned it. The preacher has no right to sneer at science and call it false -- but the scientist has no right to declare faith itself futile or in vain, either, even if he DOES have the right to dispute claims of scientific or historical fact.

That's my take, anyway; if another theist wants to make his faith dependent on historical or scientific claims, that's not my problem.

[Goat]

(1) Is there evidence that there was ANY real, historical person who was the basis for the stories about Jesus of Nazareth?

A lot depends on how much that person has to resemble the Gospel stories for him to count as "the basis". For example, is it necessary for him to be from Nazareth? For him to be crucified? Born in Bethlehem?

I would also include 'How close are the lessons and stories he preached'.

Again; the nature of the lessons and stories this hypothetical person preached would be a matter for question 2. This is what I mean by conflating these questions together and considering them at the same time.

There is also the possibility that the 'Biblical Jesus' is a conglomeration of a number of the preachers of Jerusalem at the time.

That is indeed one possible answer. Pretenders to the office of Messiah were thick on the ground in Palestine at that time, never mind wandering preachers. John the Baptist may be another such "composite" character, as they are called in historical fiction. The nature of oral traditions and oral history -- at this time, there was no clear distinction between the two -- together with the dearth of actual contemporary written records, makes that sort of question all but impossible to answer, and we are left with speculation.

These questions are academic in nature, and not religious; that should be emphasized too. From an academic standpoint, there are many speculative answers that are reasonable, including the theory that there was an actual, historical Jesus, about whom stories of healings, etc., were circulated; that is as far as I'm willing to go myself, but that seems reasonable to me, if not demonstrably correct. It's also reasonable to theorize that there was never any such person, and that the Gospels are collections of folktales and legends of the time. There is not, and I feel confident in saying that there will never be, ANY theory that will ever be proven "demonstrably correct." These speculations are all we shall ever have.

The religious, of course, are free to choose whatever interpretation they like; but when the discussion moves to provable, historical reality, we are all on shakier ground. Some religious scholars have long since recognized a distinction between the "Christ of faith" and the "historical Jesus," and the futility of trying to determine the relation between them. Again; music and geometry, subjective and objective, fact and opinion. Two different languages, with two different sets of standards and two different ends in mind. IMHO, neither is capable of either validating or invalidating the other. Which you subscribe to depends on where you stand.

It's called "freedom of thought," the way I learned it. The preacher has no right to sneer at science and call it false -- but the scientist has no right to declare faith itself futile or in vain, either, even if he DOES have the right to dispute claims of scientific or historical fact.

That's my take, anyway; if another theist wants to make his faith dependent on historical or scientific claims, that's not my problem.

While I don't think there will be any definitive answers at this time, I will say that the desire for 'proof' for biblical stories makes for a great counterfeit industry. The practice of forgers to add inscriptions on period artifacts to give them religious significance has totally ruined the archeological record on this. This makes any find that might or might not relate to the 'Historical Jesus' suspect. I find that very frustrating, since the corruption of the archeological record for profit by taking advantage of people's religious beliefs is extremely unethical.

[cnorman18]

(1) Is there evidence that there was ANY real, historical person who was the basis for the stories about Jesus of Nazareth?

A lot depends on how much that person has to resemble the Gospel stories for him to count as "the basis". For example, is it necessary for him to be from Nazareth? For him to be crucified? Born in Bethlehem?

I would also include 'How close are the lessons and stories he preached'.

Again; the nature of the lessons and stories this hypothetical person preached would be a matter for question 2. This is what I mean by conflating these questions together and considering them at the same time.

There is also the possibility that the 'Biblical Jesus' is a conglomeration of a number of the preachers of Jerusalem at the time.

That is indeed one possible answer. Pretenders to the office of Messiah were thick on the ground in Palestine at that time, never mind wandering preachers. John the Baptist may be another such "composite" character, as they are called in historical fiction. The nature of oral traditions and oral history -- at this time, there was no clear distinction between the two -- together with the dearth of actual contemporary written records, makes that sort of question all but impossible to answer, and we are left with speculation.

These questions are academic in nature, and not religious; that should be emphasized too. From an academic standpoint, there are many speculative answers that are reasonable, including the theory that there was an actual, historical Jesus, about whom stories of healings, etc., were circulated; that is as far as I'm willing to go myself, but that seems reasonable to me, if not demonstrably correct. It's also reasonable to theorize that there was never any such person, and that the Gospels are collections of folktales and legends of the time. There is not, and I feel confident in saying that there will never be, ANY theory that will ever be proven "demonstrably correct." These speculations are all we shall ever have.

The religious, of course, are free to choose whatever interpretation they like; but when the discussion moves to provable, historical reality, we are all on shakier ground. Some religious scholars have long since recognized a distinction between the "Christ of faith" and the "historical Jesus," and the futility of trying to determine the relation between them. Again; music and geometry, subjective and objective, fact and opinion. Two different languages, with two different sets of standards and two different ends in mind. IMHO, neither is capable of either validating or invalidating the other. Which you subscribe to depends on where you stand.

It's called "freedom of thought," the way I learned it. The preacher has no right to sneer at science and call it false -- but the scientist has no right to declare faith itself futile or in vain, either, even if he DOES have the right to dispute claims of scientific or historical fact.

That's my take, anyway; if another theist wants to make his faith dependent on historical or scientific claims, that's not my problem.

While I don't think there will be any definitive answers at this time, I will say that the desire for 'proof' for biblical stories makes for a great counterfeit industry. The practice of forgers to add inscriptions on period artifacts to give them religious significance has totally ruined the archeological record on this. This makes any find that might or might not relate to the 'Historical Jesus' suspect. I find that very frustrating, since the corruption of the archeological record for profit by taking advantage of people's religious beliefs is extremely unethical.

I quite agree, but that's not confined to Biblical archaeology. I understand that faking Khmer artifacts has become an actual industry in Cambodia, with open-air factories dedicated to carving and aging stone "relics" for the tourists. The same seems to hold true in Egypt and Greece and Rome, though maybe not as openly. It's not even just in archaeology. I was at one time a firearms collector, and fake Walker Colts are easy to find. Real ones are in the high six figures; fake ones I can get you for a few hundred.

The professionals are pretty good at distinguishing fake documents and relics from real ones, anyway. I don't think we're in much danger of the Jesus narratives being confirmed by the sudden discovery of the guest check for the Last Supper or the receipt for the nails. The nails themselves are easy -- I understand there are a couple hundred of them scattered around Europe. In the Middle Ages, I understand, it was said that they were all genuine -- the multiplication of the Holy Nails was itself a miracle.