The Historical Validity of Jesus

[RobertJ64]

I searched all the topics and did not find any that dealt directly with this issue.
It is generally agreed that there are no sources from within the time of Jesus that corroberates any of the details in the Gospels. Two historians that were writing at that time Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberias make no mention of Jesus at all.
I would be interested in discussing the issues with apologetics and atheists alike.
Can Jesus in fact be proven to have existed in our history?

[Cathar1950]

Why is "x" dating more plausible than "y" dating?

I think that is what Lotan was doing.
He even showed why the conservative/apologists dated as they do.
Even with the dates there has been tampering and editing.
There are scholars on both sides of the fence that acknowledge that there have been additions including the end of Mark.

[theleftone]

Discussions such as this one are all about evidence.

No, discussions such as this are about the interpretation of the evidence. It is rare for new evidence to come to light. All sides of the debate have the exact same evidence. All sides of the debate use the exact same evidence. The evidence, for the most part, remains the same. What changes are the interpretations of the evidence.

The question is not, "What is the evidence?" The question is, "Here is the evidence. Now, what can we make of it?" It's rare for evidence to point unequivocally to a given position, particularly in dealing with ancient history.

[theleftone]

Why is "x" dating more plausible than "y" dating?

I think that is what Lotan was doing.

I must have missed a post, because it recent posts in this thread certainly are not of this type. I'll go back and check.

[Melis]

From "http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/hist ... stjesu.htm"
(an Easyrider's link):

Pliny the Younger

Was Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor
Wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan in 112 A.D. regarding the Christians in his province
Verifies that Christians in 112 A.D. both worshipped Christ "as to a god", and were willing to die for their belief in Christ

This is a particularly convincing evidence of historicity of Jesus.

[Lotan]

The likelihood of either of you showing that "x" view of the dating on "y" book is the generally accepted view amongst scholars is next to nil.

Why do you say that? Some very well respected academics have seen fit to pronounce their opinion of the scholarly consensus, particularly regarding the dates of the gospels...

"The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition." From Wikipedia.

If Brown is too "liberal" for you then...

"In this country a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100." The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? By F. F. Bruce, 1943

I could cite lots and lots more like these from respectable scholars and websites that give a virtually identical picture of the scholarly consensus. (In fact I did that not too long ago, but I don't know where to find it now. ) Conservative apologists can't do this because the consensus doesn't favor the very early dates that they promote. I have yet to see even one statement from an apologist to the effect that the scholarly consensus is in line with their preferred dates.

What I suggest you do is stop the "my scholars can beat up your scholars," and deal with the actual arguments presented by the scholars.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll pass. I really don't consider myself qualified to make an expert judgement of the various arguments used to date the NT texts which is why I rely on the scholarly consensus (which I have said many times before). I can dabble with it, as in this earlier post regarding 'Acts', but I'll leave the heavy lifting to the Ph.Ds. That's what experts are for.
A great deal of the argument regarding NT dates revolves around the issue of the authenticity of the Pauline epistles, for which there is also a scholarly consensus. Conservatives who argue for the authenticity of some of these letters have to argue for early dates also.

All sides of the debate have the exact same evidence.

Would you say that a belief in supernaturalism constitutes "evidence", or not?

Why is "x" dating more plausible than "y" dating?

I think that is what Lotan was doing.

I must have missed a post, because it recent posts in this thread certainly are not of this type. I'll go back and check.

Actually, I was just having fun highlighting the dishonesty of the Errant Skeptics site. In a sense though we can infer something about individual scholar's conclusions by learning about the scholars themselves. For example, at least two of the scholars listed on the Errant Skeptics site, M. G. Easton and Charles Hodge, lived in the 19th century and didn't have access to all the evidence available today.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, there is the issue of scholarly bias. Absolutely nobody is without bias of some kind, and the effect of their personal bias on the conclusions they reach can be inferred but probably not proven. The objectivity of those scholars who are connected to 'faith-based' schools such as Duke University, Liberty University, Southern Baptists Theological Seminary, BIOLA, etc. and other organizations whose mission is of a clearly apologetic nature, is therefore suspect.
On the other hand, I have yet to see a convincing argument for personal bias as an influence in the conclusions regarding the dates and authorship of the NT books among "mainstream" and "liberal" scholars, with the exception of the extreme fringe of "hyper-skeptics" (to borrow a term from the Errant Skeptic site) who, hopefully, aren't considered credible by anyone, anyway.

[Lotan]

This is a particularly convincing evidence of historicity of Jesus.

So, was the existence of the worshippers of Apollo "convincing evidence of historicity" of Apollo too? How about Anu?

[McCulloch]

From "http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/hist ... stjesu.htm"
(an Easyrider's link):

Pliny the Younger

Was Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor
Wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan in 112 A.D. regarding the Christians in his province verifies that Christians in 112 A.D. both worshipped Christ "as to a god", and were willing to die for their belief in Christ

This is a particularly convincing evidence of historicity of Jesus.

Wrong. This is particulary convincing evidence of the historicity of Pliny, Trajan and second century Christians.

[Cathar1950]

Wrong. This is particulary convincing evidence of the historicity of Pliny, Trajan and second century Christians.

I was going to write that.
That would be like saying Mithra was God and historical because he had followers.
He may be historical but how many want to say he was divine?
I personally do not have a problem with an historical Jesus.
I just don't see the gospels as historical in the sense they are biographies of Jesus. If you look at the differences between the gospel of John and the synoptic gospels you can hardly recognize Jesus the man. But you also can see a progression from Mark to Matthew to Luke. Acts seem to be nothing more then Paul and the gentiles with little or nothing being told about Jesus disciples.

[Melis]

This is a particularly convincing evidence of historicity of Jesus.

So, was the existence of the worshippers of Apollo "convincing evidence of historicity" of Apollo too? How about Anu?

I was just being sarcastic. I simply chose the most "brilliant" "evidence" from that site.

[Lotan]

I was just being sarcastic. I simply chose the most "brilliant" "evidence" from that site.

In that case, sorry. There are lots of people who would actually think that "evidence" was "brilliant". Unfortunately.