The Historical Jesus

[bonnie]

The Historical Jesus

Jerry Newcombe

Jerry Newcombe

Mar 07, 2013

Every once in a while, we hear a false charge. A charge that has significance during this Lenten season of 2013.

It’s an old lie that seems to keep resurfacing. The accusation is that supposedly there is no historical reliability to Jesus as a person.

In other words, we supposedly can’t know for sure that He even existed historically.

That is so false. For example, Will Durant, the great historian who wrote the series, "The Story of Civilization,"noted in the volume, "Caesar and Christ," that if the same criterion by which some philosophers claim Jesus didn’t really exist as an historical person, then by that same criterion we’d have to throw out all sorts of historical figures, such as Hammurabi or King David.

Will Durant was not a believer. But even he saw how false this notion was.

This lie that we don’t know if Jesus ever existed is even dallied with, and (thankfully) dismissed, by some of the modern bestselling books promoting atheism by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens.

I heard a caller on a talk show recently where he was challenging the host and co-host as to Jesus Christ. The caller made the astounding claim that Jesus is only written about in the New Testament, but there were no secular or non-Christian sources writing about Him during those early years.

Unfortunately, the hosts let this comment slide by with some sort of remark like, “You have to take it on faith.” But Christianity is well-rooted in history. Jesus is better attested than virtually any figure of antiquity.

Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University is the author of "The Historical Jesus." He tells us that there are multiple non-Christian sources from the first and second centuries that refer to Jesus Christ in one way or another.

These include: Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Phlegon, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Emperor Trajan, Emperor Hadrian, the Talmud, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, and so on.

In addition, there are multiple sources from Christian writers who are not in the New Testament. They would include Clement of Rome, Diognetus, Aristedes, Papias, Barnabas, Polycarp, Ignatius, Melito of Sardis, Quadratus, Justin Martyr, and so on.

Dr. Gary Habermas and Dr. Mike Licona, authors of "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," note that there is more documentation for Jesus Christ within 150 years of his life, even from secular sources, than there is for Caesar Tiberius.

That’s an astounding observation.

[joeb]

Nice post, Bonnie. It was interesting.

[Gibs]

Isaiah gave us the first gospel,

Isa 53:1 ¶ Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Isa 53:4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Isa 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Ge 3:14 ¶ And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[bonnie]

I was more intrigued by non biblical accounts

[Kevin H]

Excellent

[bonnie]

Wikipedia Interesting read,

Existence and location

See also: Historical Jesus

Judaea and Galilee during the first century.

The question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is distinct from the study of the historical Jesus which goes beyond the analysis of his historicity and attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea.[29][30][31][32]

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[1][3][4][5][6][7] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[33][34] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines.[5] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and the agreement on his existence does not include agreement on his divinity.[8][9][10][11]

Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[30][11] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[30] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[7]

A number of ancient non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[35] These include the works of 1st century Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus.[35][36] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[37][38][39][40] Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.[41]

The Mishnah (c. 200) may refer to Jesus and reflect the early Jewish traditions of portraying Jesus as a sorcerer or magician.[42][43][44][45] Other possible references to Jesus and his execution may exist in the Talmud, but they also aim to discredit his actions, not deny his existence.[46][47][42]

Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.[12][13] However, in a review of the state of modern scholarship, Amy-Jill Levine stated: "Beyond recognizing that 'Jesus was Jewish' rarely does scholarship address what being 'Jewish' means."[48]

Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea.[15][16][17] The Talmud refers to "Jesus the Nazarene" several times and scholars such as Andreas Kostenberger and Robert Van Voorst hold that some of these references are to Jesus.[47][49] Nazareth is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian gospels portray it as an insignificant village, John 1:46 asking "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"[50] Craig S. Keener states that it is rarely disputed that Jesus was from Nazareth, an obscure small village not worthy of invention.[50][51] Gerd Theissen concurs with that conclusion.[52]

The languages spoken in Galilee and Judea during the first century include the Semitic Aramaic and Hebrew languages as well as Greek, with Aramaic being the predominant language.[18][19] Most scholars agree that during the early part of the first century, Aramaic was the mother tongue of virtually all women in Galilee and Judae.[20] Most scholars support the theory that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that he may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[18][19][53][54]

Most scholars reject that there is any evidence that an adult Jesus traveled or studied outside Galilee and Judea.[55][56] Robert Van Voorst states that modern scholarship has "almost unanimously agreed" that claims of the travels of Jesus to Tibet, Kashmir or India contain "nothing of value".[57]

Basic historical facts

The Pilate Stone from Caesarea Maritima, now at the Israel Museum

The reconstruction of portraits of the historical Jesus along with his life story has been the subject of wide ranging debate among scholars, with no scholarly consensus.[31] In a review of the state of research Amy-Jill Levine stated that "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" and that all portraits of Jesus are subject to criticism by some group of scholars.[31]

However, regardless of the scholarly disagreements on the reconstruction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be two historically certain facts about him.[21][58] James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[21]

Beyond these two key events, scholars attribute levels of certainty to other episodes, e.g. E.P. Sanders and separately Craig A. Evans go further and state that there are two other incidents in the life of Jesus can be historical, one that Jesus called disciples, the other that he caused a controversy at the Temple.[25] This extended view assumes that there are 8 elements about Jesus and his followers that can be viewed as historical facts, 4 episodes in the life of Jesus and 4 facts about him and his followers, namely:[22][25]

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. He called disciples. He had a controversy at the Temple. Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.[22][25]

Jesus was a Galilean. His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea. After his death his disciples continued. Some of his disciples were persecuted.[22][25]

But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, and beyond the two basic facts of baptism and crucifixion, scholarly consensus begins to dilute.[22][25][26] For instance, N. T. Wright accepts that there were twelve disciples, but holds that the list of their names can not be determined with certainty, while John Dominic Crossan disagrees with Wright, and believes that Jesus did not call disciples and had an "open to all" egalitarian approach, imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.[22] On the other hand John P. Meier sees the calling of disciples a natural consequence of the information available about Jesus.[22]

A bronze prutah minted by Pontius Pilate

Although there is disagreement about issues such as the calling of disciples, the agreement on crucifixion is very widespread, and most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable.[23][59][60][61] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[24] Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[60] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[23] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[61] Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.[62]

Although scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it, e.g. both E. P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion, but contend that Jesus did not foretell his own crucifixion, and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a Christian story.[63] Geza Vermes also views the crucifixion as a historical event but provides his own explanation and background for it.[63]

The existence of John the Baptist within the same time frame as Jesus, and his eventual execution by Herod Antipas is attested to by first century historian Josephus and the overwhelming majority of modern scholars view Josephus' accounts of the activities of John the Baptist as authentic.[64][65] One of the arguments in favor of the historicity of the Baptism of Jesus by John is that it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent, typically referred to as the criterion of embarrassment in historical analysis.[66][67][68] The four gospels are not the only references to the baptisms performed by John and in Acts 10:37-38, the apostle Peter refers to how the ministry of Jesus followed "the baptism which John preached".[69] Another argument used in favour of the historicity of the baptism is that multiple accounts refer to it, usually called the criterion of multiple attestation.[70] Technically, multiple attestation does not guarantee authenticity, but only determines antiquity.[71] However, for most scholars, together with the criterion of embarrassment it lends credibility to the baptism of Jesus by John being a historical event.[70][72][73][74]

Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who reigned 26-36 AD.[75]

Chronology

Main article: Chronology of Jesus

The Temple of Apollo in Delphi, Greece, where the Delphi Inscription was discovered in the 20th century, helping confirm the chronology of Paul.[76][77]

Diverse approaches have been used to estimate the chronology of Jesus, ranging from the comparison of the accounts in the Christian gospels with Roman and Jewish sources regarding facts such as the marriage of Herodias and separately the Jerusalem Temple, to correlation with the well established chronology of Paul of Tarsus, to astronomical analysis based on an approach first suggested by Isaac Newton.[12][13][78][79][80]

Two independent approaches can be used to estimate the year of birth of Jesus, one based on the nativity accounts in the gospels, the other by working backwards from the date of the start of his ministry. Most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC.[81]

Three independent approaches to estimate the dates of the ministry of Jesus (when he started calling disciples, generally considered to be after his baptism) and are: first, the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, second: the date of the building of the Jerusalem Temple and third, the date of the death of John the Baptist.[12][64][78][82][83][84] Scholars generally estimate that the ministry of Jesus began around AD 27-29 and lasted at least one year, and perhaps three years, or more.[12][82][85][86]

At least four distinct approaches have been used to estimate the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. One approach uses the attestations of non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Tacitus.[87][88] Both Josephus,[89] writing in Antiquities of the Jews (c. AD 93), and the early 2nd century Roman historian Tacitus,[90] writing in The Annals (c. AD 116), state that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus.[91] A separate approach uses the reign of Herod Antipas. Another method works backwards from the historically well established trial of Apostle Paul in Achaea to estimate the date of his conversion.[92][92][93][94] Two independent astronomical methods have also been used, suggesting the same date, i.e. Friday, April 3, AD 33.[95][96][97] Scholars generally agree that Jesus died AD 30-36.[12][13][92][98]

Josephus provides a useful link between the chronology of the ministry of Jesus and his death. Most modern scholars also view Josephus' account (in Antiquities 18.5.2) of the execution of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas, and the marriage of Herod and Herodias to be authentic.[64][78][84][99] Given that John the Baptist was executed before the defeat of Herod by Aretas IV of Nabatea in the AD 36, and based on the scholarly estimates for the approximate date of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias AD 28-35, Josephus establishes a key connection between the time frame of the ministry of Jesus and his execution.[64][78][100][101]

The Pauline letters, which were written before the Christian gospels, also shed light on the chronology of Jesus. The estimation of the date of the conversion of Paul places the death of Jesus before this conversion, which is estimated at around AD 33-36.[92][93][94] The estimation of the year of Paul's conversion relies on a series of calculations working backwards from the well established date of his trial before Gallio (who was mentioned in the Delphi Inscription) in Achaea Greece (Acts 18:12-17) AD 51-52, the meeting of Priscilla and Aquila which were expelled from Rome about AD 49 and the 14-year period before returning to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1.[76][92][93][94] Scholars generally agree that this expulsion from Rome is likely the same as that reported by Suetonius in Claudius 25 in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars further confirming the consistency of the Pauline-based chronology.[102][103][104]

[Gibs]

The trouble with non Biblical accounts is the fact the winners always wrote them and they were men. Some for sure has much truth but I for me cannot build on that.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[phkrause]

The trouble with non Biblical accounts is the fact the winners always wrote them and they were men. Some for sure has much truth but I for me cannot build on that.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Not sure I'm understanding the point of your reply Gibs! The Bible is also written only by men! Not that I'm putting any other book above the Bible, just your comment "written by men" makes no sense!

[BobRyan]

"Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God" 2Peter 1:20-21.

The Word of God is living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword".

It is written - Man shall not live by bread alone but by ever Word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Matt 4.

AS COMPARED to -

"men who appointed themselves as historians - engaged in some revisionism to favor their own agendas"

In both cases a human is doing the writing. But the inspired source of that writing is very different between the two examples.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University is the author of "The Historical Jesus." He tells us that there are multiple non-Christian sources from the first and second centuries that refer to Jesus Christ in one way or another.

These include: Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Phlegon, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Emperor Trajan, Emperor Hadrian, the Talmud, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, and so on.

In addition, there are multiple sources from Christian writers who are not in the New Testament. They would include Clement of Rome, Diognetus, Aristedes, Papias, Barnabas, Polycarp, Ignatius, Melito of Sardis, Quadratus, Justin Martyr, and so on.

non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus may be more convincing to non-Christians than to Christians.

Still it is good to see the list of sources.

in Christ,

Bob

[bonnie]

The trouble with non Biblical accounts is the fact the winners always wrote them and they were men. Some for sure has much truth but I for me cannot build on that.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

The article was not meant to convince you of anything. I simply found interesting the historical non-biblical accounts of Jesus