The Historical Jesus

Lumpenproletariat:

What are the historical facts we can determine about Jesus, regardless of anyone's religious interpretation or feelings or traditions? What did this historical person actually do that makes him noteworthy or important? or that distinguishes him from other popular prophets or heroes in history?

Lumpenproletariat:

Here's a Historical Jesus message board topic, which has some good stuff in it, but also bad stuff (you have to copy and paste this url into your address box):

https://iidb.org/threads/historical-jesus.8491/
___________________________

I. THE FACTS WE KNOW FOR SURE, based on the historical evidence

The location of Jesus in history, initially, was Palestine/Israel at the north end of the Sea of Galilee, near the town of Capernaum, from which he traveled to Jerusalem, accompanied by some Galileans who were attracted to him. There, after a short time, he was condemned to death and crucified, during the Passover season. Probably between 29-33 AD.

There is virtually nothing else we know for sure about him. The rest is all guesswork, as much of known history is guesswork rather than Absolute Certainty of the facts, or proven facts. But we can conclude much more than this about the historical Jesus, based on good guesswork, just as we can derive the facts of history based on probability and good guesswork.


2. OUR HISTORICAL SOURCES:

We have reliable evidence for only about the last 1-3 years of his life. There is no credible historical record for anything earlier. Nothing about his birth or childhood.

The main SOURCES we have about him are the Paul Epistles, the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts, and John. (Additional sources are minor in comparison to these. Possibly the Gospel of Thomas could be added to these five.) There is nothing uniquely flawed about these sources as evidence for history, but they are subject to the same error as any other sources for ancient history, and are to be doubted when they're contradicted by another source.

These are FIVE SEPARATE SOURCES, not just one source because they're in "the Bible" -- there was no "The Bible" in the 1st century when these sources were written. And these are FIVE genuinely separate sources despite some reliance of one author on another. For the credibility of any one text we consider its possible reliance on another. But nonetheless these are FIVE DIFFERENT SOURCES which make the claims in them more credible when there is agreement between them. ONLY ONE OR TWO sources is always LESS CREDIBLE than three or four. So these five separate sources make the record they tell more reliable, i.e., on the particular points where they harmonize. And in the ancient written record it is uncommon to have so many extra sources for the same reported events, making these reported events more credible, despite the details where they disagree and are less reliable.

Even if these sources are considered as generally less credible than some of the mainline historians, because they're more subjective, this is mostly insignificant considering that many of the historians also were subjective, being propagandists rather than reporters of the facts. And yet we rely on ALL the sources without rejecting any, despite the subjectivity of the authors or the difficulty of errors they commit. We must apply the same critical standards of doubting and testing and verifying to all the ancient sources and distinguish the more credible parts from the less credible. ALL ancient sources contained a mixture of fact and fiction.

Lumpenproletariat:

What is PROBABLY the truth, beyond what we know with certainty?

I suggest the following as probably true about Jesus, though it cannot be proved for sure. This is based on the normal historical evidence such as we have for most of our ancient history facts, for which we have high probability but not certainty.

He performed "MIRACLE" ACTS, mainly acts of healing, instantly curing those afflicted with physical and mental illness or disability or deformity. This was something unique in the ancient world, contrary to what some debunkers and scholars tell us. We have virtually no evidence of other miracle-workers in the ancient world prior to Jesus in the 1st century. (There are some ancient hero legends, e.g., Hercules, Osiris, Prometheus, Asclepius, etc., which appear in literature centuries later than the time when the alleged miracle-worker hero lived. But those legends evolving only centuries later are not evidence for those heroes, such as we have evidence for the Jesus events in the form of 1st-century written accounts.)

He also rose back to life after he was killed. And again, contrary to what we are told by many experts, there are no other corroborated cases of persons who died and returned back to life. There are some alleged cases which are cited, but there is no credible evidence in any of those cases, such as we have 4 1st-century sources for the Jesus miracle healing acts and 5 sources for the Resurrection.

There might be a dozen or so reported cases of the above spread out over 2000 or 3000 years PRIOR to Jesus, but there is no credible evidence for any of them (e.g., only one source in each case). But AFTER the 1st century there emerges a flood of miracle-worker stories as we proceed into the Dark Ages. These are mainly copycat stories, based on the Jesus miracles in the Gospel accounts. And further toward modern times there are numerous miracle claims, charlatans, etc., mostly taking their inspiration from Jesus in the Gospels. Most modern miracle claims cite Jesus as a precedent and use him as the archetype or Model for comparison.

lori100: what evidence of jesus exists? words in books?? yeah right...

ghostgeek: Jesus got himself killed and reappeared three days later, according to legend. A bit like Elvis Presley but without the fan club. Or the impacted turds.

Lumpenproletariat: lori100:

what evidence of jesus exists? words in books?? yeah right..
_________________

The same evidence as we have for all history. Or all ANCIENT history.

Written accounts from the time of the events. If you don't accept the ancient written accounts, you have to toss out ALL the ancient history events.

The main sources are the Paul epistles and the 4 Gospel accounts. These are legitimate sources for the history, just as all other ancient history events are based on written accounts.

We can distinguish the fact from fiction in these accounts. ALL the ancient writings contain propaganda, religious superstition, etc. We can take into account those problems and figure out what really happened.

If the written account is dated centuries later than the reported events, then it's less reliable. Also anything reported which contradicts other sources on the same subject is less credible.

It's true that the 4 Gospels contradict each other on some details. So these details are less credible. If there's a contradiction, at least one source has to be incorrect. So we can disbelieve the Gospels on those points where they conflict. Also when they're contradicted by any other source they are less credible.

But where the 1st-century accounts agree on what happened and are not contradicted by other sources, they are credible. All 5 of our 1st-century accounts agree that the Resurrection happened. And the 4 Gospels all agree that Jesus did the miracle healing acts. So the Resurrection and the miracle healing acts are credible as historical events. Even if some other reported details about Jesus are not credible.

Of course there is doubt about ALL the ancient history events. Our history books are not infallible, nor the sources they rely on. And for ancient history there is plenty to doubt in all our accepted historical record. But we can make good guesses about what really happened, relying on the written accounts from the time.

Will Durant said: "History is mostly guessing, the rest is prejudice."

lori100: -----The Lost Years of Jesus: Documentary Evidence of Jesus' 17-Year Journey to the East
by Elizabeth Clare Prophet------------ During those so-called lost years, the child "increased in wisdom and stature," as Luke wrote. But was it in the carpenter shop at Nazareth?According to ancient Tibetan manuscripts, Jesus secretly withdrew from the home of Mary and Joseph at age thirteen. Young "Issa" joined a merchant caravan. Destination: India and the Himalayas.At Juggernaut, "the white priests of Brahma made him a joyous welcome. They taught him to read and understand the Vedas, to cure by aid of prayer, to teach, to explain the holy scriptures to the people, and to drive out evil spirits from the bodies of men."- Buddhist scholars documented "The Life of Saint Issa" two thousand years ago. - Nicolas Notovitch discovered the long-lost document in 1887 at the Himis monastery in Ladakh. - Swami Abhedananda published a Bengali translation of the Himis manuscript in 1929. - Nicholas Roerich quoted the same verses in a 1929 travel diary of his Asian expedition. - And in 1939, a beaming lama at Himis presented a set of parchments to Elisabeth Caspari with the words: "These books say your Jesus was here "Now you can read the controversial stories of these travelers together with the original Buddhist scriptures on the most important events that shaped the life and work of the Saviour Jesus Christ.

ghostgeek: The Gospels are fiction, so the miracles, the healing and the casting out of demons have nothing to support them. Stick with what Paul has to say, that Jesus was crucified and was seen three days after his death, and you pretty much have everything that's known about Christ.

Lumpenproletariat:

lori100:

-----The Lost Years of Jesus: Documentary Evidence of Jesus' 17-Year Journey to the East
by Elizabeth Clare Prophet------------ During those so-called lost years, the child "increased in wisdom and . . . etc. etc.
________________

None of those writings are legitimate sources for what happened in the 1st century.

Jesus was a 1st-century figure. We must rely on the writings which come close to his time, not something written 500 or 1000 years later.

The 4 Gospels were written in the 1st century, about 70-100 AD. And the Paul epistles were written about 50-60 AD. These are good sources for the Jesus events of about 30 AD. Most of the ancient history we know is based on written accounts about 50-100 years later than the events. Or 50-200 years.

Possibly some 2nd-century writings are reasonable to consider also. But most of what you're citing is centuries later. It's only legends which accumulated over a long period, like the legends of St. Nicholas.

And even most 2nd-century sources have to be rejected if they conflict with the Gospel accounts which are much closer to the actual events.

It's OK to consider the Gospel of Thomas as having some authentic historical value for Jesus, though it's more doubtful. And actually this "Gnostic" Gospel does not contradict the 4 canonical Gospel accounts.

No serious scholars believe Jesus ever traveled to India. That is legend only, emerging from 200 AD and later.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Jesus got himself killed and reappeared three days later, according to legend.
______________________

A "legend" can be true if it's based on the known facts, or evidence, from the written accounts of the time. Where the accounts conflict with other sources, then we should doubt them, or disbelieve them. But there is no 1st-century source which conflicts with our 5 1st-century sources which report the Jesus resurrection.
____________________

ghostgeek:

A bit like Elvis Presley but without the fan club. Or the impacted turds.
____________________

There are many contemporary accounts which contradict the Elvis appearance claims. They identify who the Elvis impersonators were. Plus also those reporting these appearances often admit that it's just a joke.

But we have no evidence from the 1st century contradicting the Jesus resurrection claims.

We must look at all the legitimate evidence which is close to the time in question, and where they are consistent and don't contradict other sources, they are credible. And where they contradict each other they are not credible.

Not sure about the "turds." If turds are something you're an expert on, maybe you could elaborate on how it relates to the historical Jesus.

ghostgeek: The last decade of his life had seen his health take a dramatic nose dive. After years of drug abuse, the once lithe star weighed in at 25 stone and had spent months barricaded in his bedroom gorging on platters of cheeseburgers.

He needed a full-time nurse and apparently refused to bathe throughout 1975, causing him to develop sores on his body.

As a result of his horrendous diet, he suffered from chronic constipation and a post mortem found he had compacted stool that was four months old sitting in his bowel.

[ https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/elvis-presley-constipated-4-months-23395093 ]

ghostgeek: As to the Gospels, they are fiction. This isn't hard to determine if you go to Mark's Gospel. Start at the back and ask yourself how anyone could have known what the women who visited Jesus' tomb saw and were told if they told no one as the gospel claims.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

The Gospels are fiction, so the mir . . .
____________________

No, they contain some fiction, like all other ancient writings. But we cannot arbitrarily reject any of them as "fiction" only, because they all contain a mixture of fact and fiction.

There is historical fact contained in the Gospel accounts. All historians accept the Gospel accounts for 1st-century history, while also recognizing the need to be critical, as with other sources also. Even if the Gospels require extra critical judgment, still their historical content must also be respected.
_________________________

ghostgeek:

. . . so the miracles, the healing and the casting out of demons have nothing to support them.
___________________

Most of our facts of history have "nothing to support them" other than the sources which report them, just as the Gospels are our sources for the healings and exorcisms.

These acts of Jesus are reported in these 4 sources and are not contradicted by any other source. So the evidence of history is that these events did happen, reported in 4 sources from the time and not contradicted by any source. We don't have good evidence like this for the ancient superstitions and pagan heroes and miracle legends.
__________________

ghostgeek:

Stick with what Paul has to say, that Jesus was crucified and was seen three days after his death, and you pretty much have everything that's known about Christ.
________________

No, we should accept ALL the legitimate sources dated less than 100 years from the events. Most events of ancient history are known to us from sources 50-200 years later. In a few cases even 300 or 400 or 500 years later is acceptable, as long as it's not miracle claims and is not contradicted by other sources. But the reported claims become less and less reliable as the sources for it are more and more separated from the original events being reported.

Though Paul is the most reliable source, being the earliest, he's not the only source. But he omits everything about Jesus prior to the arrest and crucifixion, so he leaves out the earlier events. And we can assume that Jesus did not suddenly pop up in history immediately at the point when he was arrested. He must have been there earlier. So since Paul ignores that part, we must accept the other sources also which report on those earlier events.

This is analogous to Cicero as a source for Julius Caesar. Cicero is more reliable, being earlier, even contemporary, but he tells only a small amount, so we must rely on later sources, like Tacitus and Plutarch, for the more complete accounting of the events.

ghostgeek: Seems you didn't read what I wrote above.

Mark 16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

See what I mean. The women ran away and said nothing to anyone, so how did the writer of Mark's Gospel know about this incident? No way he could unless he was writing fiction.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

As to the Gospels, they are fiction.
__________________

You mean Caesar Augustus never existed? John the Baptizer never existed?

The Gospels report historical facts which are recognized by historians. Confirmed in other historical sources. They have to be accepted just as our other sources are accepted for the historical events. None can be arbitrarily rejected. We should also accept Homer, the Vedas, the Koran -- all sources which claim to be reporting to us what happened. We should be critical in judging their claims, but none can be totally rejected as "fiction" just because some of their content is fiction.
_____________________

ghostgeek:

This isn't hard to determine if you go to Mark's Gospel. Start at the back and ask yourself how anyone could have known what the women who visited Jesus' tomb saw and were told if they told no one as the gospel claims.
_________________

There were at least 3 of them, and there's no reason to think that none reported it to others. Probably they all told the others at some point.

Just because they told no one at first doesn't mean they never told anyone. We don't know how long they kept quiet about it. And the others may have learned of it anyway, from someone else. Maybe it was after the appearances began that those women finally told someone.

There are some good reasons to doubt the total factual truth of the "empty tomb" story. Maybe he was really buried in a modest grave rather than a fancy tomb. We don't know.

What matters is that he was crucified, buried, and rose up from that burial place. ALL the evidence says this happened, and there's no evidence which contradicts this evidence. The details about the type of burial, or who went there first, etc., is not important.

Where all the evidence is consistent and the different sources confirm each other, it's reasonable to believe it. Regardless of some discrepancies in the details.

ghostgeek: Can't let the book speak for itself, can you? Got to start speculating. Mark says the three women ran away and told no one what they'd witnessed. End of story.

ghostgeek: How did the writer of Mark's Gospel know what happened at Jesus' trial? Not even Peter got in to see and hear.

ghostgeek: Now here's something that might startle you. Almost every work of fiction includes some historical facts.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Seems you didn't read what I wrote above.

Mark 16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

See what I mean. The women ran away and said nothing to anyone, so how did the writer of Mark's Gospel know about this incident?
_________________

The best explanation is that they eventually did tell someone, and this Mk text only means they kept quiet about it at first. It says the reason they said nothing is that they were afraid. Maybe that fear changed later, so that they finally did tell someone. Especially after the others had heard of the resurrection or the appearances.
___________________


ghostgeek:

No way he could unless he was writing fiction.
_______________________

Let's assume the worst and say this writer "made up" this visit of the women to the tomb. He believed the resurrection had happened and that someone at some time did see the burial spot and saw that the body was gone. It's very likely that he had some reason to believe it was these Galilean women who went to the burial place and saw it empty. But it's even possible he made up that detail and really didn't know who went there first.

But he knew of some claim or rumor that someone had gone to the burial place and saw that the body was gone. And then he "made up" all the further details.

This doesn't matter. There is some fiction in the Gospel accounts. The question is: what are the facts, to which some later fictions might have been added? And the best way to answer that is to look at what the different accounts all agree on, independently of each other.

And they all agree that Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised back up (or rose back up) later, alive. So this probably happened, as all the sources agree and are not contradicted by any other source.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Can't let the book speak for itself, can you? Got to start speculating.
______________________

Of course we have to speculate. All history is based on speculating on what happened, using what the sources tell us as the starting point. We should believe the sources except where they're contradicted by other sources.

And when they leave something out, like how did the writer learn about it (which happens 90% of the time in history writing), we must speculate.

The best explanation is that the writer meant that those women said nothing to anyone for a long time, maybe several days. But not for weeks or months. Nothing about "they told no one because they were afraid" has to mean that they kept quiet about it for the rest of their lives.
__________________

ghostgeek:

Mark says the three women ran away and told no one what they'd witnessed. End of story.
____________________

No, there's no such thing as "End of story" -- history keeps on going for months and years.

Mark's Gospel obviously has an abrupt ending. It has to be understood as hinting at something happening later -- many days or weeks later. Since it omits anything further, we have to assume the author meant the later events would happen and become known and would relate to the earlier events.

Part of what happens later is the appearances to most or all the disciples, which Mark does hint at, and after that happens it's very likely that the Galilean women would finally tell someone what happened. But that later event is not in Mark's account. Mark never says his final words are the "End of story."

How could "because they were afraid" be the real end of the Mark story?

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

How did the writer of Mark's Gospel know what happened at Jesus' trial? Not even Peter got in to see and hear.
_____________________

It's OK to conclude that some or most of the "trial" is fiction, just as most of the ancient quotes in the history books are "fiction" rather than real quotes by the characters having their words recorded, or written in shorthand by a secretary right there preserving all the words for posterity.

So the many quotes in Josephus and Herodotus and other historians are not real quotes, word-for-word accurately reporting to us what the those historical characters really said.

But the events did happen, where the historical persons did argue and make decisions. We can believe the general picture presented to us by the later writers who learned it from the gossip of their time, from oral reports, etc. The "trial" of Jesus is just one more such event, like hundreds of other historical events in Tacitus and Polybius and Herodotus etc., where different historical persons are confronting each other and arguing some issues. And the writer's interpretation often gets into the conversation they report, so that we get a distorted version of what was really said.

There are elements in the Jesus "trial" scene which make it clear that the Gospel editors/writers themselves don't know exactly what they're reporting, and yet they are giving us a general picture of what is going on. They have only an outline picture of the scene, with the details being confused.

There must have been the Barabbas incident, where another prisoner was brought before the crowd and also accused, and we don't understand exactly what this was about. It's possible that he was one of the rioters, or a leader of it, and there was confusion over whether it was this Barabbas or Christ who had instigated the riot.

The general picture is that Jesus is accused by the Jewish leaders, they take him to Pilate to be tried and crucified, and Pilate at first is reluctant but then agrees with them and condemns Jesus. This event did happen. All the evidence says it happened, though the details are unclear. Many knew of it later (the general picture), and also heard some false rumors about it, and the various writers give us their version of it, along with their interpretation, or religious explanation of it.

So Mark knew of it like many others, hundreds who had heard of it. They didn't have to be present at the actual event to know of it and have a general accurate accounting of it, from the oral reports, and probably some writings in circulation at the time. There was probably a crowd of more than 100 present, and some of them would have told others.

It doesn't matter if some later writers like Mark added some fictional details to this event. This fictional element doesn't change the historical fact into fiction.

Lumpenproletariat:

ghostgeek:

Now here's something that might startle you. Almost every work of fiction includes some historical facts.
_______________________

It's even more true that every work of history includes some fiction.

And we should believe the factual part of a fiction book. E.g., we should believe that the Trojan War really happened. Even before the Trojan war was confirmed by archaeology, it was appropriate to believe this war did happen as historical fact. Because Homer is a reliable source for history, despite the fiction. Even if it's mostly fiction.

We should believe the part which is confirmed by the other sources, or which all the sources agree on. Regardless of the fictional element.

Lumpenproletariat:

Any good explanation of the historical Jesus has to answer a few basic questions, like:

⬤ Why was Jesus put do death? Who wanted him dead?

⬤ What did he do that was noteworthy, i.e., that distinguishes him from other historical figures, like John the Baptizer and James the Just and other popular prophets?

⬤ What is the "Good News"? the "Gospel"? or the "Evangelium"? There must be some explanation telling us what the "good news" is, or was, in the 1st century.

⬤ How do we know what Jesus really said? as distinguished from the words put into his mouth by later writers? How do we know that ANY of the sayings of Jesus are authentic? Why did so many writers attribute their ideas to him and put their words into his mouth?

And there are many other similar questions which must be asked.

And there's one answer that explains it all: Jesus did the miracle healing acts, and he rose back to life after being executed. Since all the reliable sources say he did this, and this can explain what was special about him, and what the "good news" was, and also why he was important there in that local situation and made the Establishment nervous -- considering all this, it is reasonable to conclude that the miracle healing acts really did happen. Also, the Resurrection event explains why his reputation as a miracle-worker spread afterwards and why a new religion began, or new religious cults, which made him into a god.

ghostgeek: No mention of miracles from Paul. Just a straight up that Jesus was crucified and seen three days after his death. So if we're to believe what's likely to be the basis of the Jesus story, this is it.

ghostgeek: It doesn't mean that Jesus actually rose from wherever he was buried, but it does suggest that his followers were convinced that they saw him after his death. A bit like all those people who keep seeing Elvis Presley.

ghostgeek: What did Jesus do that was noteworthy? As Paul would have told you, he got himself crucified.