Persecution of christians

[Buck Birdseed]

*journalism course starts to come in handy*

I've not been following this thread but reading the last few posts I'm wondering whether the historical evidence for Jesus's existence passes the standard criteria of source criticism.

Specifically: How long after his death were the sources written? Are they primary or secondary sources? Are there at least two independent sources that do not rely on each other at all that argue for his existence, and prefferably have opposing interests? Do the sources contain falsehoods on other issues? What is the purpose of the sources- are they really documents designed to tell historical truth or are they opinions, allegories, etc.? Do the sources have an inherent interest in presenting Jesus as having existed?

[Ned]

Well, Buck, I am no expert. I am sure Molly or UR will give you a good answer.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Rather like Merlin (who WAS a historical figure).

Ooh! Ooh! Prove it! Prove it!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Does Lincoln's book come in a braille version?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
That's nonsense. It's entirely on the basis of similar fragments from Gildas, Bede and the Anglo-saxon Chronicle that we draw practically our entire historical knowledge of all dark-ages British rulers.

But this is part of the point. The similarities between Arthurian legend and the real basis for Arthur are probably about the same as those between the legend of Jesus given in the gospels and the real person(s).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
That's nonsense. It's entirely on the basis of similar fragments from Gildas, Bede and the Anglo-saxon Chronicle that we draw practically our entire historical knowledge of all dark-ages British rulers.

I am not sure if that's tongue-in-cheek, Laz.

Even though there are more outside sources such as archeological digs to confirm or deny info contained within these works.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Specifically: How long after his death were the sources written? Are they primary or secondary sources? Are there at least two independent sources that do not rely on each other at all that argue for his existence, and prefferably have opposing interests? Do the sources contain falsehoods on other issues? What is the purpose of the sources- are they really documents designed to tell historical truth or are they opinions, allegories, etc.? Do the sources have an inherent interest in presenting Jesus as having existed?

AFAIK, the earliest of the three Synoptic Gospels, Mark, was written somewhere between 70CE and 90CE, and it is widely held to be based on a number of primary sources, now lost. These primary sources are variously named Q, L, M, etc.

There are several abnomalities that lead one to doubt the accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels and the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, the primary one being the behaviour of Paul the Apostle, who did exist. Paul never referred to any of the Synoptic Gospels in his writings, and has a rather radical different discription of Jesus (than that of the Synoptic Gospels).

Another big one is of course the contradictions among the Synoptic Gospels (like the two different genealogies given in Matthew and Luke), such contradictions are usually denied by Christians.

[Ben Kenobi]

Alright, I'm back.

Starting with Boris:

The fact that none of those historians mentions Jesus isn't evidence Jesus didn't exist in and of itself, but it corroborrates the notion, as there aren't any contemporary records that support his existence. Jesus's absense from them is conspicuous when taken alongside the lack of contemporary account, not in and of itself.

Josephus mentions the existence of Christ.

Regardless, you'd think that if the events of the gospel were as important as the gospels maintain, these historians would be mentioning them.

Were they important to the people of the time, to the Roman Empire? No. It is only later, with Nero, that we see Nero blaming the Christians, that they start to make a big enough impact on the world around them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The paltry reference in Tacitus to Christians (the details of which are refuted by Seutonius) and lack of other mentions make me think that the supposed storm over the supposed prophet Jesus is a good deal exaggerated, at the very least.

How exactly does Seutonius refute Tacitus? And how is the supposed storm exaggerated? Which accounts are making him to be more than he is?

The synoptic Gospels?

I believe there is only once instance in John in which the author claims to be an eyewitness. I don't have the passage citation handy, but we've discussed this many times before. It was a passage you yourself brought up first.

Then you can do your own homework.

I said we have no idea on what basis he made the ascriptions.

He made the ascriptions because he believed them to be true.

Given that is was nearly a century after the supposed events, the nature of the difficulty of placing authorship in those days,

Not difficult, especially when you have the Early church available to verify and scrutinise everything that has to do with Christ. If Papias had it wrong, I'm sure they would have corrected his works, or we would have heard of contrasting interpretations or theories. The reality is that there is no controversy for the church as to the authorship of the Gospels.

Standards of scholarship among the laypeople weren't exactly strident then, were they?

Why would a layperson be a member of the clergy? By definition, the clergy had to have some education in order to become part of the clergy and the clergy would be making these decisions.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Josephus mentions the existence of Christ.

You know when you try to portray something like this as a factualy blanket statement, you just anoy everyone else. There is are a couple of paragraphs attributed to him in some works, but considerable doubt has been laid upon the authenticity of these works, and the reasons why have already been posted and linked to in this thread.

For instance:

This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:

The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.

The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

[Ben Kenobi]

Che:

The same is true for Christians. Christianity is defined by its history and by its adherents and by its victims. Your struggle, therefore, isn't with atheists and other "anti-Christians," but with the Christian religion itself. Until you can get Christians to break with their hateful ways towards other human beings, how can you expect the rest of us to trust you?

Che:

Our struggle is with the world, in that the world does not love Christians for what they believe and what they teach. This is why Jesus says that he comes not to bring peace, but a sword. Anyone who follows his teachings will become a fool in the eyes of the world, making the question for each individual Christian whether they want the world more than Christ.

You are right to gage Christians by what you see as right conduct, but one thing you must understand is that if you take the same eye to yourself, is your conduct any better? Is the problem with the Christians, or with the perception of one not a Christian? I've been blessed with knowing a great deal of intellegent and exemplary Christians, whom I struggle to come even close to what they find easy and simple.

No Christian places his faith on sand, on the actions of others, but on Christ himself. If my best friend were to fall away, I would consider that his failing and not Christ's.

Don't trust me, don't trust Lincoln, but read the Gospels, and see for yourself.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Orthodox position was that Christ died bodily and was resurrected bodily.

Okay Che, I'm going to stop you here. Why was this the orthodox position? Politics? Hardly. It would make more sense to be like the Gnostics because the Gnostics taught like the Pharisees, and the Greeks, in believing in a spiritual, though not physical resurrection.

There was no martyrdom to emulate,

So the Gnostics assert Christ never died on the cross? There is absolutely no room for accomodation if this is the case.

As for the NT apocrypha books, this raises an interesting question of inspired and not inspired books. However, this is more of an in-house debate. What's the use of arguing over which books ought to be in the canon, when you don't even believe in any of the books?

[Ben Kenobi]

and I note that none of your other historical references record that Jesus existed:

Jack:

Setting aside your other points since Josephus was 'addressed' by waving your hand and plugging your ears.

"Chrestus! = Christ " is enough proof for you?

I wish I had your faith in UR.

You have failed to deal with the synoptic Gospels which I have submitted as historical evidence of Christ in this thread. Care to deal with my argument?

[Ben Kenobi]

Specifically: How long after his death were the sources written? Are they primary or secondary sources? Are there at least two independent sources that do not rely on each other at all that argue for his existence, and prefferably have opposing interests? Do the sources contain falsehoods on other issues? What is the purpose of the sources- are they really documents designed to tell historical truth or are they opinions, allegories, etc.? Do the sources have an inherent interest in presenting Jesus as having existed?

Buck, these are excellent questions.

OF the books besides the NT surviving from the 1st Century:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html

"A final consideration is that we have very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are:

An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.

An inscription that mentions Pilate.
Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.
Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.

From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16] "

[Ben Kenobi]

Compare these total works, we still have the synoptic Gospels.

All of the other historical evidence, Josephus, etc. count as secondary sources, while the synoptic gospels are primary. The synoptic Gospels were written between 50-60 AD, only 20-30 years after the death of Christ. Almost all of the eyewitnesses would still have been alive to verify the Gospels.

Are there at least two independent sources that do not rely on each other at all that argue for his existence, and prefferably have opposing interests?

Different Gospel writers use different eyewitnesses. As for opposing interests, that's why the Josephus quote comes up so much because he would not be considered an ally of the Christians.

This lack of sources from opposing interests needs to be balanced with the number of historical records we have from this time peroid, which are scant.

are they really documents designed to tell historical truth or are they opinions, allegories,

The synoptics are written accounts that are very restrained, that expose the disciples as less than stellar people.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Our struggle is with the world, in that the world does not love Christians for what they believe and what they teach.

No Ben, it's because most Christians feel compelled to "save" the rest of us by force, be it inquisitions or laws. If Christians minded their own business they wouldn't engender disgust from people who believe in "live and let live". The failure of so many Christians to understand that many people don't like having Christians run their lives reveals a willful ignorance and arrogance. Many Christians don't settle for telling us they know the proper path, they threaten people with violence to compel everyone else to follow that path.

So what is the difference between Islamists who punish people for not accepting the Islamist way of life and these Christians? Today's Christians are not as brutal? That's about it... Osama would kill me for being a "sinner", Jerry Falwell wants me put in a cage until I accept his "salvation"... And if I refuse, back in the cage I go... So much for the Golden Rule...