What is the actual evidence for the existence of Jesus?

[RabbiO]

Putting aside the question of Jesus for the moment, my understanding is that there are virtually no known existing records from that period of time from that region.

 

[Thomas]

Because there are lots of people out there who claim that there is indeed strong evidence for Jesus.

Oh, there is lots of strong evidence for Jesus – most scholars today accept that – just not the material evidence you want.

That argument you're pursuing a logical fallacy – an argumentum ex silentio.

+++

What follows is largely gleaned from wiki.

The historicity debate is considered "fringe issue" and is generally ignored by mainstream modern scholars. The general consensus is that Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew, was active in Judea in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity later emerged. There are only two key moments in the biblical biographies that are widely accepted as historical, the baptism by John the Baptist and the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus, the letters of Paul (a contemporary who knew and engaged with eyewitnesses, the gospels (although as a genre quite unlike what we would expect from a biography today), and non-Christian sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Mara bar Serapion.

In his Did Jesus Exist? (2012), famous atheist and New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman explained:
"Nearly all critical scholars agree at least on those points about the historical Jesus (Baptism & Crucifixion). But there is obviously a lot more to say, and that is where scholarly disagreements loom large – disagreements not over whether Jesus existed but over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher he was."

+++

There are also apocryphal texts. Although non-canonical, or even heresiarch, they nevertheless count as additional independent sources on Jesus’s existence, and they corroborate details found in other sources.

Contemporary non-Christian sources of the 1st and 2nd century never deny the existence of Jesus, and there is also no indication that Pagan or Jewish writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned his existence.

Scholars regard it as unreasonable to expect non-Christian sources to corroborate the specific existence of someone with Jesus’s socio-economic status. Ehrman points out that materials from the era are so lacking that no contemporary eyewitness reports for prominent individuals such as Pontius Pilate or Josephus survive.

On that point, there is more evidence available for Jesus than for other notable persons from 1st-century Galilee.

From Josephus and Tacitus, for example, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah, he had a brother named James, he won over Jews and gentiles, Jewish leaders had unfavourable opinions of him, Pontius Pilate decided his execution, he was executed by crucifixion, and he was executed during Pilate’s governorship.

They agree on four sequential points:
a movement was started by Jesus,
he was executed by Pontius Pilate,
his movement continued after his death,
the movement still exists.

Josephus, in his book Antiquities of the Jews (93-94CE), mentions Jesus twice.

The first is the infamous 'Testimonium Flavianum' in Book 18, most likely consisting of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian interpolation or forgery.

Te second, found in Antiquities 20,9,1: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" is considered guinuine.

Tacitus, in his Annals (c. 115CE), describes Nero’s scapegoating of the Christians following the Great Fire of Rome. He writes that the founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself.(Annals 15.44) The consensus is that Tacitus’ reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate is both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Mara bar Serapion was a Stoic philosopher from the Roman province of Syria. In a letter he wrote to his son Serapion he refers to the unjust treatment of 'three wise men': the murder of Socrates, the burning of Pythagoras, and the execution of "the wise king" of the Jews. Most scholars date it to shortly after 73CE.

Are you telling me that there was no one around in that time who was writing stuff down?

The Samaritan historian Thallus wrote a history classicists date to the mid first century CE, and there he mentions the darkness at Jesus’ crucifixion. The work is lost but was quoted by the second century Julius Africanus.
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun?"

If Thallus was writing around 50CE, as scholars generally accept, then we have his account which 'explains away' the darkness as an eclipse, which Julius argues cannot be the case.

The writings of Phlegon of Tralles are dated to the 2nd century CE, and Origen records that Phlegon, in his Chronicles, mentions Jesus:
"Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions."

He referred to a description by Phlegon of an eclipse accompanied by earthquakes during the reign of Tiberius: that there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun" and that "it became night in the sixth hour of the day (ie noon) so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea." (Origen, Against Celsus, Book II, Chap. XIV).

+++

The Jesus of the Bible is another matter altogether, one is free to accept or deny his teachings, but really the existence of a person upon whom the subsequent writings were founded is almost beyond repute.

So it's up to you. You believe he didn't. The vast weight of scholarship, and significant evidence, says he did ...

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Well, for a start, I'd want sources that come from the person's lifetime.

Do we have sources about Hammurabi that come from his lifetime? Yes. He lived from 1810BCE to 1750BCE (or thereabouts), and there is a stone tablet with a carving of him that is dated to between 1792 to 1750 on display in the British Museum.

I don't seriously doubt the fact that he existed, but one tablet is not a stronger proof than many writings that mention Jesus. There are also tablets mentioning Babylonian deities, does that prove that they existed?

When it comes to Ceasar, we have coins with his face that were minted during his lifetime. We have the actual writings of Maimonides, and when it comes to Martin Luther and Einstein, I doubt you'd claim that we have nothing regarding them that was made during their lifetime.

Can you provide me a source that speaks of Jesus that comes from the time Jesus lived?

As he has probably been murdered after only about 3 years of public activity. It's plausible that there's no mention of him from this short time. The report of people who knew him is certainly sufficient.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Yes, and I want to know what is the actual evidence they base that conclusion on.

As I understand it, it has to do with the preponderance of references to him even though they are not contemporary.
Evidence - Too little too late for a die-hard slam-dunk, but evidence is too much too early to be dismissed. @Thomas might be able to say whether my little heuristic there is on target.
You might do well to look into the scholars directly, https://ehrmanblog.org/ This is a famous scholar's blog, Bart Ehrman. It is a subscription blog and inexpensive and he gives the money to charity. You can post and ask questions and look through the historical posts.
Dan McClellan You Tube channel, he does live streams, answers questions, has tons of videos.
I think you can find the answers to your questions, but you might have to dig a little more into something closer to secondary or even primary sources to feel comfortable if what you are getting from internet forums doesn't really answer the questions in your mind.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As I said, I am looking for what evidence exists. I was quite clear about that..

What do you want? Information..
Whose side are you on? That would be telling.. I want information..
You won't get it! By hook or by crook, I will.

 

[Kylie]

Oh, there is lots of strong evidence for Jesus – most scholars today accept that – just not the material evidence you want.

Funny, because there have been quite a few other people in this thread who have said otherwise.

That argument you're pursuing a logical fallacy – an argumentum ex silentio.

I could make the same argument for the existence of Fairies, that anyone who claims they don't exist because of the lack of evidence is committing this fallacy. But that doesn't mean that fairies are real.

+++

What follows is largely gleaned from wiki.

The historicity debate is considered "fringe issue" and is generally ignored by mainstream modern scholars. The general consensus is that Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew, was active in Judea in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity later emerged. There are only two key moments in the biblical biographies that are widely accepted as historical, the baptism by John the Baptist and the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

So, you go from "lots of strong evidence" to claiming that all we can come close to knowing is that he was baptised and he was crucified.

There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus, the letters of Paul (a contemporary who knew and engaged with eyewitnesses, the gospels (although as a genre quite unlike what we would expect from a biography today), and non-Christian sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Mara bar Serapion.

Many oif those were simply hearsay, and many were also just repeating what Christians of the time believed.

I can say that Scientologists believe in Xenu, but that doesn't mean that my claim counts as evidence that Xenu is real.

In his Did Jesus Exist? (2012), famous atheist and New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman explained:
"Nearly all critical scholars agree at least on those points about the historical Jesus (Baptism & Crucifixion). But there is obviously a lot more to say, and that is where scholarly disagreements loom large – disagreements not over whether Jesus existed but over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher he was."

+++

There are also apocryphal texts. Although non-canonical, or even heresiarch, they nevertheless count as additional independent sources on Jesus’s existence, and they corroborate details found in other sources.

Contemporary non-Christian sources of the 1st and 2nd century never deny the existence of Jesus, and there is also no indication that Pagan or Jewish writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned his existence.

Scholars regard it as unreasonable to expect non-Christian sources to corroborate the specific existence of someone with Jesus’s socio-economic status. Ehrman points out that materials from the era are so lacking that no contemporary eyewitness reports for prominent individuals such as Pontius Pilate or Josephus survive.

On that point, there is more evidence available for Jesus than for other notable persons from 1st-century Galilee.

From Josephus and Tacitus, for example, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah, he had a brother named James, he won over Jews and gentiles, Jewish leaders had unfavourable opinions of him, Pontius Pilate decided his execution, he was executed by crucifixion, and he was executed during Pilate’s governorship.

They agree on four sequential points:
a movement was started by Jesus,
he was executed by Pontius Pilate,
his movement continued after his death,
the movement still exists.

Josephus, in his book Antiquities of the Jews (93-94CE), mentions Jesus twice.

The first is the infamous 'Testimonium Flavianum' in Book 18, most likely consisting of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian interpolation or forgery.

Te second, found in Antiquities 20,9,1: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" is considered guinuine.

Tacitus, in his Annals (c. 115CE), describes Nero’s scapegoating of the Christians following the Great Fire of Rome. He writes that the founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself.(Annals 15.44) The consensus is that Tacitus’ reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate is both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Mara bar Serapion was a Stoic philosopher from the Roman province of Syria. In a letter he wrote to his son Serapion he refers to the unjust treatment of 'three wise men': the murder of Socrates, the burning of Pythagoras, and the execution of "the wise king" of the Jews. Most scholars date it to shortly after 73CE.



The Samaritan historian Thallus wrote a history classicists date to the mid first century CE, and there he mentions the darkness at Jesus’ crucifixion. The work is lost but was quoted by the second century Julius Africanus.
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun?"

If Thallus was writing around 50CE, as scholars generally accept, then we have his account which 'explains away' the darkness as an eclipse, which Julius argues cannot be the case.

The writings of Phlegon of Tralles are dated to the 2nd century CE, and Origen records that Phlegon, in his Chronicles, mentions Jesus:
"Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions."

He referred to a description by Phlegon of an eclipse accompanied by earthquakes during the reign of Tiberius: that there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun" and that "it became night in the sixth hour of the day (ie noon) so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea." (Origen, Against Celsus, Book II, Chap. XIV).

+++

The Jesus of the Bible is another matter altogether, one is free to accept or deny his teachings, but really the existence of a person upon whom the subsequent writings were founded is almost beyond repute.

So it's up to you. You believe he didn't. The vast weight of scholarship, and significant evidence, says he did ...

Again, this stuff is mostly hearsay, non-contemporary, and simply describing what people believed, not arguing that it is correct.

It is far from convincing.

 

[Kylie]

I don't seriously doubt the fact that he existed, but one tablet is not a stronger proof than many writings that mention Jesus.

It literally came from when he actually lived.

That's far better than what we have for Jesus.

There are also tablets mentioning Babylonian deities, does that prove that they existed?

A person is not a deity.

And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

As he has probably been murdered after only about 3 years of public activity. It's plausible that there's no mention of him from this short time.

Even considering the amazing things he allegedly did? Feeding the multitudes? healing the sick? Raising the dead? Gathering huge crowds? Are you suggesting that no one thought any of this was worthy of record?

The report of people who knew him is certainly sufficient.

And yet we don't have that. Or have you been able to definitvely determine the authorship of the Gospels? If so, you'd be the first!

 

[Longfellow]

Even considering the amazing things he allegedly did? Feeding the multitudes? healing the sick? Raising the dead? Gathering huge crowds? Are you suggesting that no one thought any of this was worthy of record?

I’m not sure what your argument is here. Is it “If someone did those miracles, it would be recorded in writings that we have today from people who didn’t believe they really happened”?

Or is it “If a guy named Jesus from Galilee was going around giving public talks and private lessons like the ones in the gospels, and people made up stories about him doing miracles, it would be recorded in writings that we have today from people who didn’t believe they really happened”?

(later) If you think that we have writings today from people who were living in that area at that time, who would have written about people claiming that someone was doing miracles, what are your reasons for thinking that?

 

[Thomas]

What do you want? Information..
Whose side are you on? That would be telling.. I want information..
You won't get it! By hook or by crook, I will.

I wonder how many get the reference ... ?

 

[Thomas]

Funny, because there have been quite a few other people in this thread who have said otherwise.

Well that's my reasoned view, so take it or leave it.

I could make the same argument for the existence of Fairies, that anyone who claims they don't exist because of the lack of evidence is committing this fallacy. But that doesn't mean that fairies are real.

Nevertheless, your particular argument is still classed as a fallacy.

So, you go from "lots of strong evidence" to claiming that all we can come close to knowing is that he was baptised and he was crucified.

Isn't that strong enough for you? He was crucified, ergo he existed.

Many oif those were simply hearsay, and many were also just repeating what Christians of the time believed.

Yes, which is strong evidence in itself.

I can say that Scientologists believe in Xenu, but that doesn't mean that my claim counts as evidence that Xenu is real.

This is not a valid argument. It requires discernment.

What are the arguments for Jesus, for Xenu, for faeries, for unicorns ... and what are the arguments against, then weigh up on balance, which is what scholars do, and in the light of that the answer is:
1: Jesus – Yes, there is sufficient evidence to say he existed.
2: Xenu – quite unlikely.
3: faeries – unlikely, but not out of the question.
4: unicorns – most unlikely.

Again, this stuff is mostly hearsay, non-contemporary, and simply describing what people believed, not arguing that it is correct.
It is far from convincing.

OK, for you ... for the broad range of informed scholarship, it is sufficient.

+++

So, to reecap, for the world at large, there is sufficient evidence that points to the existence of an historical person known as Jesus, who hailed from Nazareth, was something of a wonder-worker and prophet, a teacher of profound spiritual insight, who perhaps claimed a direct and personal relationship with God, who attracted a sufficient enough following for the authorities to deem it necessary to remove him, and so he was crucified.

(This is the Jesus of history. It's a long way short of the Jesus of the New Testament, but that's a whole different world ... )

I think you've made your point that despite all the scholarly reasoning, and despite your very unsound arguments, you still seem to doubt his very existence.

OK ... You've made your point.

What now?

 

[Longfellow]

Because there are lots of people out there who claim that there is indeed strong evidence for Jesus.

Government records such as a census. There were quite a few historians writing down the events of the day. And even physical traces of events described in the stories.

That still assumes an actual Jesus.

Are you telling me that there was no one around in that time who was writing stuff down?

I want to try again to see if I understand your question. Are you asking for documents or artifacts dated from that time, about a person such that we can be sure that the gospel stories were passed down from stories about him?

 

[Longfellow]

I accidentally replied to myself.

 

[Longfellow]

Because there are lots of people out there who claim that there is indeed strong evidence for Jesus.

Government records such as a census. There were quite a few historians writing down the events of the day. And even physical traces of events described in the stories.

That still assumes an actual Jesus.

Are you telling me that there was no one around in that time who was writing stuff down?

Maybe I'm getting it now. Maybe you're thinking that if the gospel stories were passed down from stories about a real person named Jesus, we would have documents or artifacts from that area dated from that time about a person named Jesus, from non-Christian sources that could not possibly by any stretch of imagination have been corrupted by Christians. I've never seen or heard of anyone claiming that we do.

 

[Longfellow]

Because there are lots of people out there who claim that there is indeed strong evidence for Jesus.

Government records such as a census. There were quite a few historians writing down the events of the day. And even physical traces of events described in the stories.

That still assumes an actual Jesus.

Are you telling me that there was no one around in that time who was writing stuff down?

Now I'm wondering, if we don't have any documents or artifacts from that area at that time, about a person named "Jesus," Is that a reason for you to think that the gospel stories were not handed down from stories about a real person?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I wonder how many get the reference ... ?

Patrick McGoohan starred in and produced:

"We are all just prisoners here, of our own device" - Hotel California/Eagles

 

[TheLightWithin]

What are the arguments for Jesus, for Xenu, for faeries, for unicorns ... and what are the arguments against, then weigh up on balance, which is what scholars do, and in the light of that the answer is:
1: Jesus – Yes, there is sufficient evidence to say he existed.
2: Xenu – quite unlikely.
3: faeries – unlikely, but not out of the question.
4: unicorns – most unlikely.

Just curious, why do unicorns rank below faeries in likelihood?

 

[moralorel]

Well, yeah, but have a look at what he did. I mean, he drew massive crowds, he walked on water, he rose the dead back to life...

It's a bit hard to believe that he was viewed as almost a nobody, when the Bible describes him as having lots of people coming to see him.

He had maybe a thousand people who came to see Him? Maybe more. But when He was up for execution nobody seemed to even care about Him. Pontius Pilate had never heard of Him. Neither did King Herod. So He wasn't famous. Most definitely didn't believe He was the Messiah. He was a commoner. Plain and simple.

 

[moralorel]

Government records such as a census. There were quite a few historians writing down the events of the day. And even physical traces of events described in the stories.

We actually covered this in another thread (not sure which one). There is no census naming commoners from that area. For over 20 years I have put people to the test and challenged them to find one. One user on here claimed one existed. He retracted that claim when he realized there is no such thing. If you can find one do let us know. We would all love to see it. But you won't find one.

 

[moralorel]

Just curious, why do unicorns rank below faeries in likelihood?

"Unicorn" just means "one-horned". So if an animal has one horn, or at least one very dominant horn, it could be classified as a unicorn. So I'd think it should be higher than fairies as well.

 

[Kylie]

I’m not sure what your argument is here. Is it “If someone did those miracles, it would be recorded in writings that we have today from people who didn’t believe they really happened”?

Or is it “If a guy named Jesus from Galilee was going around giving public talks and private lessons like the ones in the gospels, and people made up stories about him doing miracles, it would be recorded in writings that we have today from people who didn’t believe they really happened”?

(later) If you think that we have writings today from people who were living in that area at that time, who would have written about people claiming that someone was doing miracles, what are your reasons for thinking that?

I am simply making the point that you are making two claims that appear contradictory.

You present Jesus as someone who was well-known for performing miracles and attracted large crwods and performed miracles in front of them. People heard about what he had done and sought him out to ask for miracles themselves, which he would do.

You also present Jesus as a nobody who wasn't worth being recorded by any historians at the time he actually lived.

These are quite contradictory.