I don’t think so… What about you?
Absolutely. There’s as much documentation about His life outside the Bible as there is inside.
I recommend the book “He Walked Among Us” to anyone interested in reading about non-Biblical documentation on the life of Jesus.
Pete, you troll. ;0
This turns out not to be the case, actually, unless something has come to light quite recently that I’m unaware of (and, hey, I’m no expert, just an interested party who checks it out occasionally).
The book “He Walked Among Us” takes the four gospels and discusses how Matthew, Mark, Luke and John experienced Jesus. It is all strictly from the Bible and a discussion of those works, if I remember correctly. It has been a number of years since I read it.
In fact, one of the problems with establishing whether Jesus actually lived, as a historical fact, is that there seems to be no record of his life other than the four Gospels, themselves generally considered to have been written from 170 to 180 years after the fact. Contemporary Roman records don’t mention him, and the Romans were inveterate recordkeepers; it seems strange that Roman historians, of which there were many, would not mention someone crucified or who led a rebellion against Roman rule, as that was the Roman punishment for rebels and Palestine was a hot spot during this period.
During the period of 0 CE to the mid-30s CE, which would take in the bulk of Jesus’ life, there seems to be no independant documentaton that mentions him (at least, to my knowledge). The one exception I know of is Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian born in 37 CE, four years after Jesus’ crucifixtion. Most scholars think the two passages in which he mentions Jesus, as a wise man crucified by Pilate, to be forgeries added later by an unknown Christian source, as it appears completely out of context with the rest of the narrative.
Of all mentions of Jesus by name within two centuries of his death, there are a total of 4, and each is consider by scholars, both Christian and non, to be interpolations of his existence due to the existence of the Christian sect.
So, for many academics, the jury is still out on whether Christ was an actual historical figure or not. That doesn’t mean he didn’t live; only that there is no reliable documentation that I’m aware of to independantly confirm this as fact. Who knows? It may just be waiting to be found. We shouldn’t forget the lesson of the ‘myth’ of the Trojan War.
Good post, Jessica. Is there no end to your knowledge? :) I’ve done some reading on this, including the textbook-like The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, which like the above cited He Walked Among Us, is more of a study of the Gospels rather than any true historical evidence.
Josepheus’ entries could very well be forgeries, but the passages referring to Jesus are rather bland and matter-of-fact. I believe if they were forgeries, they might have been written with a bit more verve or at least detail. Nor did Josepheus record any of the “miracles,” which certainly would have helped bolster the case of the early Christians – if, in fact, his entries are forgeries.
I’m not debating with you, though. Just discussing. :) I realize neither of us are qualified experts.
Ultimately I think it doesn’t matter. The lesson(s) is/are more important than the man.
He was definitely white, though…right? :wink:
It’s interesting that the references to Jesus in Tacitus and Josephus are largely taken to be forgeries or interpolations and their references to Tacfarinas and Herod aren’t.
From the Roman point of view, Jesus would have been little more than a minor local disturbance so I wouldn’t expect reams of documents anyway, but even assuming that the Romans were inveterate record keepers, these records would be 2000 years old. For example, almost all of our knowledge of the late Republic comes from the writings of Cicero and (more importantly) commentaries on his writing. Plutarch refers to sources lost in the barbarian invasions, of course, but we have nothing now that confirms his accounts.
The Gospels are no worse as historical records of a man existing than Sallust’s account of the Jugurthine War - the only contemporaneuos account we have of Marius - a key figure in Roman history. Mark was written in the first century, and would likely not have been much good for evangelizing if people in living memory could have said “I was in Jerusalem, and that never happened”, or “I worked for the prefect around that time and remember no such incident”. I’m not saying that they are perfect accounts - they aren’t, but they are as reliable as ancient source materials as stuff we cite all the time.
Troy
The thing to remember with Tacitus is that he wrote the passage in question in 120 AD, when it was a widely accepted oral tradition among Christians that Pilate ordered Jesus’ execution. That’s where the interpolation comes from; it is thought that Tacitus was simply interpolating from common wisdom, not reciting history (those that don’t dispute the authenticity of that Tacitus document itself; opinions seem to run aboiut 50/50). Your mileage may vary.
Good points. One could make the case that the Christians and Jews (actually more like one religion at the time, and treated as such by the Romans) were such a sore spot at the time and rebellions treated so harshly by the Roman overlords, that this would not be considered a small local problem. Perpetrators were made examples of, and it seems unlikely that a foiled insurrection would go without some official notice throughout the land, and that such notice would be recorded somewhere by contemporary sources.
Good points again. Let me just state that that that doesn’t make those other ancient source materials particularly reliable, either.
I should also state I am NOT an expert, just an interested layperson with a tendency to argue, <g>.
-Jess
It is amazing you haven’t yet been hung by some group or other. :D
Perhaps I’m a bit rusty… where/when did Jesus lead anything resembling insurrection against the Romans?
It is amazing you haven’t yet been hung by some group or other. :D[/quote]
I used to try to convince my Baptist friends in high school that Jesus did not quite look like the pictures they had seen. I gave up as my head cracked before the brick wall I was dashing it against did.
The power of blissful ignorance is astounding. :)
Another thing to keep in mind is that Rome’s occupation of Jerusalem had the Jews looking for the messiah under every stone. Jesus wasn’t the only messiah to come along. Zoroaster, anyone? Yet another messiah among the Jews probably wouldn’t make much of a historical rippled among the Romans.
“The Gospels are no worse as historical records of a man existing than Sallust’s account of the Jugurthine War…”
Sure they are if you want to use them to establish a historical basis for Jesus. The authors of the Gospels promote the words of Jesus. It’s in their interest to claim he existed.
“It’s in their interest?” What interest? These guys just got together and decided to invent a Messiah figure so they could form a persecuted religion and get executed for their troubles? It’s not like there was any money in it, like Scientology. And no single revelation to one person only, like Joseph Smith and Mohammed. I’m not arguing in favor of Christianity, but it’s pretty hard to imagine inventing a real life God who gets humiliated and executed by officials and public leaders everyone had heard of and respected - Caiaphas, for example - from not too distant memory. Maybe that’s why I’m not an apostle.
Luke and John are late Gospels and clearly full of symbology and Hellenism - maybe they could be written off as a cult trying to justify itself. But Mark - the least mystical of the Gospels - is 85-110 AD. The Romans were a superstitious lot, but quite careful about their official history.
Jessica, I take your point about Tacitus and the interpolations. It would be unusual, though, for Tacitus to rely on Christian oral tradition regarding an imperial execution, especially since he refers to them as “anti-social”, “degraded and shameful” and “guilty” as Christians but not as arsonists (the discussion of Christians occurs in the context of the burning of Rome). Tertullian trusted these statements enough to condemn Tacitus for them, though this was a couple of hundred years after The Annals was written.
Oh, and a correction to my earlier post - Caesar makes passing references to Marius in his histories, but not enough to gauge his character by. So my comments on Sallust and Marius, though not factually correct, still kind of fit.
Troy
Another thing to keep in mind is that Rome’s occupation of Jerusalem had the Jews looking for the messiah under every stone. Jesus wasn’t the only messiah to come along. Zoroaster, anyone? Yet another messiah among the Jews probably wouldn’t make much of a historical rippled among the Romans.
um, Zoroaster, or Zardusht and/or Zartusht in the Persian, aka Zarathustra, had absolutely nothing to do with the Jews and scholars are currently debating whether such an individual ever existed (it’s a tenet of the religion that he did; however, the only references are in scripture and don’t even really refer to him as a prophet. Some are saying he was a spiritual/mythological figure). Even if he did exist, we’re talking way before Jesus - the religion was practiced by the Achaemenids - 550-330 BC.
ok i know this is pretty generic as far as specific information, but i seem to remember reading these texts in college and there being some pretty specific information about non-biblical sources mentioning/dealing with/confirming the validity of at least Jesus existing. unfortunately, i don’t remember the exact sources…look i just needed the “A.”
Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Harris, Stephen. The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction… Fourth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
of course i sold these texts when the class was done too…sorry.
Zoroaster had a very similar mythology. He claimed that he would someday return from the dead – and his presence did have an effect on Jewish belief. It’s believed by some scholars that the “wise men” in Matthew were followers of Zoroaster. But then, it’s easy enough to find a scholar for every argument – like the Bible being used to support nearly any political movement. :)
““It’s in their interest?” What interest? These guys just got together and decided to invent a Messiah figure so they could form a persecuted religion and get executed for their troubles?”
I didn’t say or imply that they invented Jesus, just that they are naturally biased towards promoting their beliefs, which makes them unreliable witnesses.
Let me put it another way. If you want to accept their writings as proof of the existence of Jesus, don’t you also have to accept their recounting of the miracles? So the historical Jesus did walk on the water, did feed the masses, did raise Lazurus from the dead, and did himself return after death? The Apostles are either good witnesses or not, it seems to me, and I’m not making a judgement one way or the other. You can’t accept just part of what they wrote if you want to use their writings as proof, can you?
I don’t know… it’s easier for me to imagine someone exaggerating or even inventing dramatic, convincing incidents than it is for me to imagine the same person making the entire existence up. I don’t really see being required to accept all of it at face value due to accepting any of it as supportive. Not proof, sure. But supportive evidence.