Secular Historians regarding Jesus

[BrckBrln]

I never said that because something is mentioned in the bible, it's automatically incorrect. It's just not necessarily an actual event.

But I think you did say that because something is mentioned in the Bible it can't be used as an historical source by historians, right? The event may have happened in history but you can't used the source found in the Bible to prove it, right?

[Fenris]

No. I think it's the emerging consensus among all NT scholars. It used to be that most of the non-Christian NT scholars thought the Gospels were of a mythic genre or something like an ancient novel, but now I think most believe the genre of the Gospels is more akin to the ancient Greco-Roman biographies. Scholars reach this conclusion by comparing the Gospels with the ancient biographies.

Including the empty tomb? I rather doubt it.

As I said earlier, some texts about Julius Caesar tell of strange things happening at his death. That doesn't mean what they previously said about his life is untrue. Asking people to recognize that Jesus existed, died on a cross, and even left an empty tomb behind, is not the same as asking people to believe he was God incarnate who came to save his people. I absolutely affirm this is a theological belief.

The empty tomb is not a historical event just as the strange events around Caesar's death are not historical events.

I'm curious what would it take for you to argue the historicity of the Exodus or what happened at Mt. Sinai?

We have no historical proof that those events happened. I believe they happened because the bible says so, but I will not present the bible as proof since it is not.

Care to share this information? I know it's popular to try and say the story of Jesus dying and rising from the dead is patterned on the 'dying and rising gods' of the ancient world, but I don't think the parallels are there.

I'd rather not go there.

Okay. Since the claim of an empty tomb is probably a very early claim and not something started decades after Jesus' death (based on the early pre-Pauline creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15) how do you explain this belief? Did the people who buried Jesus forget where they buried him? Did the disciples steal the body?

How do we know when the claim was first made? Mind you, Paul's writings are probably the oldest NT texts.

No, it helps if you do a comparison between the Gospels and ancient biography.

Most ancient biographies don't have the dead coming to life. Those that do are generally myths.

I think pretty good considering Paul tells them their whole faith depends on that event that happened decades earlier and that there are still people alive who witnessed it.

So the simple farmers and shopkeepers are going to travel hundreds of miles to verify it? What are they going to do, book a plane ticket? Hop on a train? Jump in the car?

Those societies were not "mobile".

We don't know that no one checked. I don't think we should have expected a letter where Paul details all the people who checked on his claim. The question still remains why make the claim in the first place? If it wasn't true, why take the unnecessary risk of risking exposure? Why not just say nothing about witnesses?

makes the story more credible, naturally.

If they are facts of history, sure. What N.T. Wright is saying is not some Christian theological belief, it's historical fact. Just because he's a Christian does not mean he can't get his historical facts straight.

But he isn't citing historical fact. He's citing a tenet of Christian faith.

Because, at that time, the testimony of women was not regarded as the same as the testimony of men. Here's what Josephus says.

"But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of the sex." (Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. IV. Ch. Vlll. 15)

If the disciples were making up the story of Jesus' resurrection it's incredibly more likely they would have chosen highly regarded men (like Peter) to be the first to discover the empty tomb rather than women.

And that automatically makes it true? Sorry, a claim like the dead coming to life needs more proof than "women found it and not men".

He was a Roman Catholic but left the Church and according to Wikipedia 'reassert[ed] his Jewish identity'.

As I said, he is better identified as "a scholar who is Jewish" (marginally) than "a Jewish scholar".

The point is that he's not a Christian and he doesn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus, or more accurately doesn't believe we can know what happened to Jesus. He does, however, on the basis above about the women, believe in the historicity of the empty tomb.

I guess you will write him off as 'daring' or some kind of 'maverick', huh?

Yup.

No, only that you would understand better literary matters. As I said before, even a lot of Christians don't understand these things.

Heh.

He wasn't referring to the empty tomb. I quoted him because this goes back to what the thread is about and your apparent belief that the idea that Jesus never existed is a valid belief.

Eh. It's valid. Mind you, I think Jesus did exist.

I highly doubt this would be the case if there were no external non-Christian sources for Jesus.

This whole thread is supposed to be about "external non-Christian sources for Jesus". And no one has cited one.

[the rookie]

I suppose....

But I won't quote them as historical documents.

Why is no one getting this?

Because secular historians do. So your standards are higher than theirs

[Fenris]

But I think you did say that because something is mentioned in the Bible it can't be used as an historical source by historians, right? The event may have happened in history but you can't used the source found in the Bible to prove it, right?

Mm. An example: The book of Kings mentions the Assyrians sieging Jerusalem. Isaiah mentions the Assyrians sieging Jerusalem. And Sannichereb leaves behind a record of sieging Jerusalem.

So we can be pretty sure that the Assyrians did in fact lay siege to Jerusalem.

[Fenris]

Because secular historians do.

Really? Do tell.

[the rookie]

Really? Do tell.

They do it on that there History Channel all the time

[Fenris]

I think you mean the "History" channel.

[Free Indeed]

I think you mean the "History" channel.

The History Channel is great if you want to watch shows about bikers, truckers, and Big Foot.

[Fenris]

Big Foot.

He in the bible? Yup! Genesis 27: Esau my brother is a hairy man

[BrckBrln]

Including the empty tomb? I rather doubt it.

We can, and have been, arguing over whether the empty tomb is historical or not. The point I'm making here is that the Gospel genre as a whole is more akin to ancient biography rather than ancient myth or novels.

The empty tomb is not a historical event just as the strange events around Caesar's death are not historical events.

Well this is what we are debating. The point I make here is that just because a text reports strange events doesn't mean the rest of what it reports is untrue or unreliable. The historical facts of Jesus' existence, death on a cross, and, I argue, the empty tomb, can be accepted without believing God raised Jesus from the dead.

We have no historical proof that those events happened. I believe they happened because the bible says so, but I will not present the bible as proof since it is not.

I was asking what it would take for you to be able to prove the events happened in history. I guess you answered it in another post when you said a secular source with nothing to gain or lose. I just wonder if you apply this same standard to every other historical event and person? Can we only ascribe the title 'historical' to an event that has a non-involved, supposedly non-biased, person reporting it? If so, I think you may need to rethink what you regard as historical, then.

I'd rather not go there.

Then don't make the claim. The fact is, there are no parallels of seasonal dying and rising gods with the story the NT presents of God raising Jesus from the dead.

How do we know when the claim was first made? Mind you, Paul's writings are probably the oldest NT texts.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul cites an earlier creedal statement that most scholars believe is very early. That statement implies the empty tomb. This means the claim of an empty tomb is not something that came half a century or century later. And where do get that Paul's writings are the oldest NT texts? Paul's writings are the earliest! 1 Corinthians was written somewhere in the 50's AD. The Gospels were probably written anywhere from 60-100 AD.

Most ancient biographies don't have the dead coming to life. Those that do are generally myths.

You need to remember that ancient biographies are not the same as modern biographies. Ancient biography could include things like legend and even Mike Licona thinks it's possible the story of the dead rising at the time of Jesus' death could be something like legend or apocalyptic language. But that story, which is only reported in Matthew, is very different from the story of the resurrection of Jesus, which is reported in all the Gospels and in Paul's writings and the General Epistles.

Also, if you simply reject the Gospels because they report a man rising from the dead, you are employing an anti-supernatural bias, rather than actually dealing with the evidence.

So the simple farmers and shopkeepers are going to travel hundreds of miles to verify it? What are they going to do, book a plane ticket? Hop on a train? Jump in the car?

Those societies were not "mobile".

I think you are selling them short. Paul and his companions traveled all over the Roman world. Other people did the same. It was a pretty mobile world back then with the trade routes and such.

makes the story more credible, naturally.

It also makes it unnecessarily falsifiable. If I say to you there are 500 people who witnessed a person rise from the dead and actually tell you to check them out, I'm setting myself up for exposure. Given the great importance I placed on the event, surely somebody from the other country I'm writing to (not to mention the people in and around Jerusalem who presumably knew about the witnesses as well) will go and try to talk to some of these witnesses to verify the claim. It's completely unnecessary and counterproductive for Paul to make up the story.

But he isn't citing historical fact. He's citing a tenet of Christian faith.

No he isn't. He's saying the testimony of women was not as credible as the testimony of men in the ancient world Jesus and his disciples lived in. That's not a tenet of the Christian faith, it's a simple historical fact. We then can use this fact as evidence that the story of the empty tomb is historical because if it was made up by the disciples, they likely would have had credible men discover the empty tomb.

And that automatically makes it true? Sorry, a claim like the dead coming to life needs more proof than "women found it and not men".

The claim being made here is not God has raised Jesus from the dead, it's that Jesus' tomb was found empty. The fact that women discovered the empty tomb is very good evidence that the account is not made up. That said, the empty tomb can be explained in a variety of ways. The question becomes, which explanation is the best?

This is the method Licona uses in his book. First, he spends two hundred pages discussing historiography. Second, he surveys the various sources for Jesus' resurrection deciding which ones are useful and which ones are not. Third, he seeks to establish what he calls a 'historical bedrock' of facts that all scholars believe to be true. Things like the fact of Jesus' death on a cross, the conversion of James and Paul, the disciples belief of a risen Jesus, etc. He actually doesn't use the empty tomb here. Fourth, he then examines the views of a number of scholars (including Geza Vermes) and assesses how they fare in explaining the historical bedrock of facts. Finally, he looks at the 'Resurrection Hypothesis' and argues that it alone is the best accounting for the facts we know to be true.

Yup.

You might want to try and contact him and inform him of his maverick ways. I'm sure he'd love to know how his views are somehow radical.

Eh. It's valid. Mind you, I think Jesus did exist.

No, it's not valid. Even one of the most prominent NT scholars (Bart Ehrman, who's not a believer) says he doesn't know of a single credible historian who believes Jesus never existed. He would tell you it's not a valid belief. If you don't believe him, who will you believe?

This whole thread is supposed to be about "external non-Christian sources for Jesus". And no one has cited one.

That's not true. You just don't accept them because they weren't written when Jesus was alive. Look at the table of contents for Licona's book. He cites 9 non-Christian sources that mention Jesus. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Mara bar Serapion, Thallus, Lucian, Celsus, and Rabbinic Sources.

Mm. An example: The book of Kings mentions the Assyrians sieging Jerusalem. Isaiah mentions the Assyrians sieging Jerusalem. And Sannichereb leaves behind a record of sieging Jerusalem.

So we can be pretty sure that the Assyrians did in fact lay siege to Jerusalem.

Right. But if we didn't have Sennacherib's record, if the only record we had of the event was recorded in the OT, would you think the event could be proved to be historical based on the sources found in the OT?

[Fenris]

We can, and have been, arguing over whether the empty tomb is historical or not. The point I'm making here is that the Gospel genre as a whole is more akin to ancient biography rather than ancient myth or novels.

Except for the whole son of god/empty tomb/dying for mankind stuff?

Well this is what we are debating. The point I make here is that just because a text reports strange events doesn't mean the rest of what it reports is untrue or unreliable. The historical facts of Jesus' existence, death on a cross, and, I argue, the empty tomb, can be accepted without believing God raised Jesus from the dead.

Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

I was asking what it would take for you to be able to prove the events happened in history.

From the sources we have now? No.

I guess you answered it in another post when you said a secular source with nothing to gain or lose. I just wonder if you apply this same standard to every other historical event and person? Can we only ascribe the title 'historical' to an event that has a non-involved, supposedly non-biased, person reporting it? If so, I think you may need to rethink what you regard as historical, then.

I can't see something as historical if it's written by a believer (of any faith) and that's our sole source, no.

Then don't make the claim. The fact is, there are no parallels of seasonal dying and rising gods with the story the NT presents of God raising Jesus from the dead.

If you say so.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul cites an earlier creedal statement that most scholars believe is very early. That statement implies the empty tomb. This means the claim of an empty tomb is not something that came half a century or century later. And where do get that Paul's writings are the oldest NT texts? Paul's writings are the earliest! 1 Corinthians was written somewhere in the 50's AD. The Gospels were probably written anywhere from 60-100 AD.

I know Paul's are the earliest.

Again with the 'most scholars'.

You need to remember that ancient biographies are not the same as modern biographies. Ancient biography could include things like legend and even Mike Licona thinks it's possible the story of the dead rising at the time of Jesus' death could be something like legend or apocalyptic language.

Um what about him coming back to life? That also legend?

Also, if you simply reject the Gospels because they report a man rising from the dead, you are employing an anti-supernatural bias, rather than actually dealing with the evidence.

"anti-supernatural bias"?

Let's put it like this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I think you are selling them short. Paul and his companions traveled all over the Roman world. Other people did the same. It was a pretty mobile world back then with the trade routes and such.

Sure, everyone was moving all over the place.

It also makes it unnecessarily falsifiable. If I say to you there are 500 people who witnessed a person rise from the dead and actually tell you to check them out, I'm setting myself up for exposure. Given the great importance I placed on the event, surely somebody from the other country I'm writing to (not to mention the people in and around Jerusalem who presumably knew about the witnesses as well) will go and try to talk to some of these witnesses to verify the claim. It's completely unnecessary and counterproductive for Paul to make up the story.

Except that the event in question takes place decades before in a faraway land where people don't even speak the same language. I think he made a safe bet.

No he isn't. He's saying the testimony of women was not as credible as the testimony of men in the ancient world Jesus and his disciples lived in. That's not a tenet of the Christian faith, it's a simple historical fact. We then can use this fact as evidence that the story of the empty tomb is historical because if it was made up by the disciples, they likely would have had credible men discover the empty tomb.

Therefore, they found an empty tomb? An awful lot hangs on that premise.

The claim being made here is not God has raised Jesus from the dead, it's that Jesus' tomb was found empty. The fact that women discovered the empty tomb is very good evidence that the account is not made up. That said, the empty tomb can be explained in a variety of ways. The question becomes, which explanation is the best?

This is the method Licona uses in his book. First, he spends two hundred pages discussing historiography. Second, he surveys the various sources for Jesus' resurrection deciding which ones are useful and which ones are not. Third, he seeks to establish what he calls a 'historical bedrock' of facts that all scholars believe to be true. Things like the fact of Jesus' death on a cross, the conversion of James and Paul, the disciples belief of a risen Jesus, etc. He actually doesn't use the empty tomb here. Fourth, he then examines the views of a number of scholars (including Geza Vermes) and assesses how they fare in explaining the historical bedrock of facts. Finally, he looks at the 'Resurrection Hypothesis' and argues that it alone is the best accounting for the facts we know to be true.

The problem is that we still don't know that the tomb was, in fact, empty. We only have the NT's statement of this. The matter is not proven, and I don't believe it.

You might want to try and contact him and inform him of his maverick ways. I'm sure he'd love to know how his views are somehow radical.

Oh I'm sure he knows.

No, it's not valid.

Now you're the judge of what's "valid"?

That's not true. You just don't accept them because they weren't written when Jesus was alive.

Well, yeah. If he made such a big splash in his lifetime I would expect someone else to mention him.

Right. But if we didn't have Sennacherib's record, if the only record we had of the event was recorded in the OT, would you think the event could be proved to be historical based on the sources found in the OT?

If the only record we had was the OT? No, the event count not be proved.

[amazzin]

Hey Fenris.

Just because you (observant and non-observant Jews) find the historical account of Jesus death hard to believe it doesn't make it lie as much as parting the Red Sea isn't a lie.

What is a historical fact is that Matza ball soup is really Italian but you may or may not choose to believe that either!!!!

[Fenris]

Hey Fenris.

Just because you (observant and non-observant Jews) find the historical account of Jesus death hard to believe it doesn't make it lie as much as parting the Red Sea isn't a lie.

I'm not saying it's a lie. All I've been saying is that the bible (any bible, including my own) is not a history book and everything in it is not necessarily true (although we may believe that it is!)

What is a historical fact is that Matza ball soup is really Italian but you may or may not choose to believe that either!!!!

This...this cannot be!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matzah_ball

[the rookie]

Hey my brothers -

FYI - I'm moving this thread to the Areopagus forum, where we can debate the historicity of Jesus and His resurrection all the day long. Doesn't work in Bible Chat, though I do understand the spirit of the discussion.

[amazzin]

Which one do you want me to tackle first?
Jesus
The Bible
Matza ball

I'm not saying it's a lie. All I've been saying is that the bible (any bible, including my own) is not a history book and everything in it is not necessarily true (although we may believe that it is!)
This...this cannot be!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matzah_ball