New Insights on History of Jesus

by Amazing 29 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Last year on H20 much was discussed about whether Jesus was a historical person. It was brought out that no mention of Jesus is ever made outside the works of Christians (presuming that all Christian historians are biased) except for the the writings of Roman historian, Flavius Josephus. And, even the brief mentioin of Jesus in Josephus works are challenged by some as being spurious addtions to some manuscripts. Other historians have showns the pros and cons of these claims, and I published both of these on H20. Notwithstanding this, the claim continues that Jesus is built upon mere embellishments of some guy, like the was St. Nicholas was transformed into Santa Claus. Others have claims that Jesus Christ never existed, period. Two questions that can be asked are: What happened to various people, including Christians, who traveled to and from Israel, and 2.) Is there any other evidence of Jesus existence beside the plethora of Christian writings, and the scant references possibly made by Flavius Josephus?

    Christian Travels: The difficulty in trying to discredit Christian historians contemporary with Jesus is that freedom of religion, the press and speech were not quite the same as they are today. Even where such freedom was present, literacy ratios were lower, and the ability to publish works in writing was cumbersome. So, when a family became Christian and then traveled to another land, obviously taking their Christian beliefs with them, much of what they had by way of information, was orally transmitted. Also, they were often not well received, or at least the new land was not interested in publishing anything about the Jewish Jesus. It is not like the modern 21st Century media that examines everything, included Presidential semen stained pants. At times these ancient Christians were also persecuted and thier books and any mention of them were destroyed. Sometimes war, as it was fought in ancient times, could have destroyed records, not with malice toward Christians, but they just got in the way.

    Other sources of Jesus Christ: So, I have been searching from time to time into various historical works looking for references to Jesus Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth. And here are some interesting points that are among the things I am collecting.

    1. There are many 'indirect' references to Jesus Christs. Ancient peoples, like today, were accostumed to speaking about people by their 'reputation' rather than always using proper names. Often, in newspapers today, it is just the opposite, journalists give full names ages places of birth along with any other character references and reputational notes. We don't just read, the First Lady, but we read 'First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, wife of William (Bill) J. Clinton the 42nd President of the USA, etc., etc., ...

    So, for example, in ancient times, a simple reference to the 'First Lady' would have been enough. Likewise, in Jesus case, we see indirect references to 'the Nazarene,' or the 'son of Mary,' or the 'Carpenter's son,' etc., or the man who was executed with criminals.

    2. The Jewish Babylonian Talmud, which contains many features such as discussions of law, history, Rabbinical notes, tradition, ritual was written and codified shortly after Christ, in the 2nd Century and continued to the 6th Century. There are also the Palestinian Talmud, and the Jerusalem Talmud, all written in the same general time, but contain different comments from different Rabbis, etc.

    The Talmud is the Mishnah of early 'oral' tradition of the Jews which Jesus referred to when he condemn the traditions of men, such as when he challenged the Prarisees. This 'oral' tradition was written down 'after' Jesus died, but was added to over time and includes references the Jesus Christ, many 'indirect' references, and several direct references, such as in the protion of the Talmud called Sanhedrin, Chap. 43a. Certainly, if any group had reason to expose Jesus as being a figment of Christian fantasy, the Jews from the time of Christ forward would have such motivation. And, while there references to Jesus Christ are not complimentary, they do support what the apostles wrote concerning Jesus, his birth of Mary, his life and death.

    3. Other nations about, besides Rome had historical writings. While much of Roman history was burned, with the exception of Josephus works, and thus mention of Jesus Christ may have been lost with it, there are works in Persia (Iran) that are written about Jesus dating from the first Century. I am in the process of getting copies of those works.

    4. While Islam did not begin until about 570 AD, much of what this religion teaches recognizes Jesus Christ in the Koran (Quran) such as the comments about Jesus born of Mary made in Surah 3: Ayat 42-63. Clearly, Islamic writings would not contain such direct references to Jesus Christ unless there had been some known historical information that they would trust enough to place into their Holy Book, the Koran. And given that Islam claims to be superior, or say a better, or more recent fulfillment of God's (Allah's) will, then any information that would discredit the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ as being a fantasy of Christian invention would have been most useful to Islamic tradition, especially when they ended up at war with Christians during the Crusades.

    5. There are writings from yet other nations, like Egypt, Syria, Greece, etc. that I am looking into for any references to Jesus Christ, whether direct or inderectly made. Certainly, if we cannot rely upon Josephus for secular verification, and much Roman history has been destroyed that might have discussed Jesus Christ, even just briefly, then other nations about must have something about Jesus Christ, even just a little.

    So far, the Babylonian Talmud is once such source. There are first century writings in Iran that mention Jesus Christ. And, I am also trying to get a copy of a document supposedly written by one of the Persian Magi (Zorastrian Priest] who visited Jesus in Herod's time, and is among the 3 wise men mentioned in the Bible. I have a scant reference to this, and until I have it, I can't make too much of it. When and if I can collect more data, I will update this topic for you. - Simply Amazing

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Surah 3:52, from the Glorious Qur'an:
    But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried: Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We will be Allah's helpers, We believe in Allah, and bear thou witness that we have surrendered* (unto Him).

    footnote= *or "are Muslims"

    Maybe I'm just an overly cynical bastard, but I couldn't help but add to the end of that scripture a weasely voiced, SNL character's postscript: "yeah, that's the ticket."

    The Surah goes on to make the point that all should worship Allah and no other: "Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for Lords beside Allah."

    Yeah, that's the ticket.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Amazing, I forgot to say; thanks for bringing this up, I'm interested in whatever you find.

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Six: Thanks for pulling that one out of Surah 3. My mention of the Quran is largely an exercise into other non-Christian works that mention Jesus Christ in contemporary writings, or close to contemporary. UNfortunately, the Quran was not penned down intil Muhammad around 570 AD. But, it is interesting and part of the overall search. Surah 4:Ayat 163-171 make other mention of Jesus, and at least in part show that other peoples did know about this man.

    The more interesting work is that of the Babylonian Talmud showing confirmation of Jesus of Nazareth, born of Mary. The statements in the Talmud are not complimentary of Jesus Christ, but they show that he was someone that Jews at the time of Jesus and afterwards did discuss and ponder and poke fun at and debate. This would not have been the case were Jesus Christ just a figment of some quack imaginations of a few cooky Jews.

    Long standing Jewish tradition and writings since then have continued to recognize Jesus as historical, but of course they at best believe that Jesus was a local Rabbi, possibly influenced by small local factions. At least it is something additional and independent of Josephus writings, and helps establish the Jesus Christ existed, whatever anyone makes of him or the claims about him. - Amazing

  • Copernicus
    Copernicus
    I am also trying to get a copy of a document supposedly written by one of the Persian Magi (Zorastrian Priest] who visited Jesus in Herod's time, and is among the 3 wise men mentioned in the Bible.

    This sounds fascinating. I've never heard of the existance of such a document before. Please keep us informed on this, the historical Jesus is something I've longed to investigate myself.

    Amazing, where do you find the time for all this stuff?

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Corpernicus: I am not certain that the document supposedly by one of the 3 wise men is in existence, but a scant reference to something about it was mentioned. So, I will follow it. My main focus is on the surrounding nations, excluding Rome, where non-Christian reference is made of Jesus Christ. I am especially looking for writings close to or comtemporary with Jesus life time, or at least with the Apostles. So far, the Babylonian Talmud is the best I have done.

    You asked, "Amazing, where do you find the time for all this stuff? "

    I have done much research over the years, and have a lot catalogued, or at least the source references available, so I don't have to spend as much time at it anymore. For example, I looked at the babylonian Talmud a long time ago and wrote some discussion in another forum. So, when someone recently stated that the only non-Christian reference to Jesus Christ that is known is mentioned in the works of Flavius Josephus, and that even this was suspect of tempering, I went back and had to ask about the Babylonian Talmud. So far, no one has disputed this reference.

    Also, I make time to look into things. It is just a part of me that will never go away. It is not that I am on some major search for something, but more that I have a great interest in many topics, religion, history, science, philospohy, and I enjoy debate. So these combined make me what I am. I type fast, so that helps. - Amazing

  • JanH
    JanH

    Amazing,

    There is no reason to believe that the Babylonian Talmud was referring to and responding to anything else than the Christian claims about Jesus. Nothing indicates they are independent witnesses to a historical Jesus. Those Jewish Jesus-writings about are full of puns and rhetoric concerning various late traditions. I have actually never heard any historian even entertaining the thought that these are independent witnesses to Jesus.

    Do you seriously believe that the Quran's reference to Jesus is independent from Christian traditions?

    Josephus' two references remains the only non-Christian mention of Jesus that can be considered even remotely contemporary. And one of them is almost certainly spurious, the other seems more authentic.

    That is a fact people have to deal with.

    - Jan
    --
    Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The DevilĀ“s Dictionary, 1911]

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi JanH: I knew this topic would eventually bring you out of the woodwork ... LOL ... I did not state that the Babylonian Talmud was the kingpin of eyewitness testimony. Certainly, there are no eye-witness testimonies save the Christian Bible writers such as Matthew, Mark Luke, John, Peter and maybe a few others. Josephus never met Jesus, nor likely talked to anyone who did. His works were about Roman and Jewish conflicts, etc. and not about Jesus. So his brief mention of Jesus simply shows that in his day, the person of Jesus Christ was known among the Roman people.

    The Babylonian Talmud is a codified and compiled work of many hundreds of years or oral tradition, and likely writings that were incorporated into the Talmud. Since its codified inception in the second century, it grew until about the 6th century. My point is that such oral tradition and perhaps some written documents used to create it go all the way back to before the time of Christ. It stands to reason that if Jesus Christ were a fictitious fantasy of a few quack Christians, that the Talmud would have picked up on this to the Jew's and Rabbi's advantage. Rather, this longstanding tradition, when codified and compiled refers to Jesus Christ as a real person, though done in an uncomplimentary manner.

    I posted about it because it at least provides some evidence, though not conclusive, suggesting that Jesus was real, and at least it is a non-Christian reference. My Jewish side of the family have many works they can refer to that document aspects of Jesus Christ being a rabbinical student of certain factions of Judaism in the 1st century. At times, these are used by them in their discussions of Torah to show that Jesus, though real, was not what he and his followers claimed he was. My goal at the moment is not to promote Jesus Christ as THE Messiah, but to see what is said about him by non-Christian sources close to the time period he lived. So far, other than some Persian works I am looking at, the Talmud is the best I found.

    My mentioning the Quran's references to Christ is not to prove that this is a solid contemporary historical document. Rather, I acknowledged upfront that the Quran was not penned until around 570 AD. But, I found the references as I was looking at Arabic history and whether anything in their historical writings may have mentioned Jesus. So I posted references to Christ in the Quran for information.

    I have no doubt that Muhammad invented Islam and the Quran much as Joseph Smith invented The LDS Chruch with the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon mentions Jesus Christ too, but it is not a good or verifiable document. Muhammad was the Joseph Smith of his day. The exception is that by Joseph Smiths time, the printing press was well established and information moved faster. In Muhammad's day, again oral tradition ruled, with information moving more slowly. Scribes and teachers had to be more meticules in thier works. I am only suggesting that as Islam developed it was the result of what many of these people had already known, and Muhammed simply capitalized on this and incorporated references to Christ in his Quran. And again, I am not referencing the Quran as a bonafide source to establish Jesus as a real person, but drawing up the fact the Jesus Christ has permeated much of history in writings beyond what Christians write.

    Contect of my posts: If you look at what I stated, you will see that I have used many 'qualifiers' and cautions moderating my comments. I have no opinion or agenda on this. I was simply sharing what I have found so far, and commenting on how it might be useful. Hope this helps you see where I am coming from. - Amazing

  • CPiolo
    CPiolo

    Amazing:

    Thanks for the information and reply to requests to back up claims of a historical Jesus. I hope you will share with the board what you find.

    I think it highly unlikely that a movement like Christianity would begin without some historical person to base it upon, no matter how much such accounts have been added to and embelished with local and nearby legend and myth in the years following the death of the historical Jesus.

    You said:

    Certainly, there are no eye-witness testimonies save the Christian Bible writers such as Matthew, Mark Luke, John, Peter and maybe a few others.

    I had thought that all these eyewitness accounts were written at least a generation after the death of Jesus and up to two generations or more after his death; that these accounts began as oral tradition and stayed so until finally having been written down, leaving a lot of time between the witnessing of these events and the actual putting down in writing the accounts -- enough time that the original eyewitnesses may have indeed passed on before their accounts were recorded. In fact, isn't very little if nothing known of these authors -- who they were, their relationship to Jesus, and so forth?

    As I said earlier, the fact that these events were written down and Christianity became a mass movement lends credit to a historical Jesus, but the length of time between the actual events and their recording, the lack of information about the authors, the propagandistic/apologetic intent of the accounts, and the fact that there is not one original document tends to remove much of their credence as an accurate historical portrait. Isn't that why historians look for independent contemporaneous confirmation?

    JanH:

    I am familiar with the spurious account of Jesus in Josephus' work, could you share with me the more credible reference to Jesus?

    CPiolo

    The worst vice of the fanatic is his sincerity. -- Oscar Wilde

  • uncle_onion
    uncle_onion

    Hi Amazing

    Thanks for the info.

    So again I ask.....if Jesus is a real historical person, does this make him the son of God or was he just a clever man?

    UO

    PS still awaiting your e mail:-)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit