Isn't the Bible an historical source?
Sylvia
That is another debate all together...
But I asked not to use the Bible... I think that as former JWs we well know what the Bible says about Jesus, so the argument from the Bible is moot (for the purposes of this thread, no offense to those who still believe in "the good book").
My point on this thread: Are there non-Biblical sources that corroborate Jesus' existence? If not, then his historicity can seriously be called into question.
From the wikipedia link that Aniron posted (likely to support Jesus historicity):
On the other hand, mythologists [ 2 ] , and a minority [ 3 ] [ 4 ] of biblical and historical scholars argue that Jesus never existed as an historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure synthesized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes. [ 5 ]
I have done some reading on this argument, and it is compelling. I refer to the book, "The Jesus Mysteries - Was Jesus a Pagan God?". I wonder if any who insist on the historicity of Jesus have analyzed the arguments agianst his historicity.
Regarding Josephus words, note what Wikipedia says:
Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage is an interpolation by a later scribe. Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree. In antiquity, Origen recorded that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ, [ 51 ] as it seems to suggest in the quote above. Michael L. White argued against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the third century, who quoted from the Antiquities, do not mention the passage. [ 52]
While some may say that Josephus did in fact mention Jesus, as noted by Wikipedia, that quote by Josephus has at the very least, been corrupted by Christians re-writing history (not unlike the WTS rewriting their own history in the Proclaimers book).
I also highlight the section in Wikipedia about the Gnostic documents:
[edit] Gnostic texts
The Gnostics' opinion of Jesus varied from viewing him as docetic to completely metaphorical, in all cases treating him as someone to allegorically attribute gnostic teachings to, his resurrection being regarded an allegory for enlightenment, in which all can take part. Nonetheless, certain Gnostic texts mention Jesus in the context of his earthly existence, and some scholars have argued that Gnostic texts could contain plausible traditions. [ 33 ] Examples of such texts include the Gospel of Truth, Treatise on Resurrection, and the Apocryphon of John, the latter of which opens with the following:
It happened one day when John, the brother of James — who are sons of Zebedee — went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him: "Where is your master whom you followed?" And he said to them: "He has gone to the place from which he came." The Pharisee said to him: "This Nazarene deceived you all with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers." [ 34 ]
Of all the Gnostic texts, however, the Gospel of Thomas had drawn the most attention. It contains a list of sayings attributed to Jesus. It lacks a narrative of Jesus treating his deeds in an historical sense. Some [who?] date it to the second century, while other scholars contend for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical Q document among other reasons. [ 35 ] [ 36 ]
[edit] Gnostic texts
The Gnostics' opinion of Jesus varied from viewing him as docetic to completely metaphorical, in all cases treating him as someone to allegorically attribute gnostic teachings to, his resurrection being regarded an allegory for enlightenment, in which all can take part. Nonetheless, certain Gnostic texts mention Jesus in the context of his earthly existence, and some scholars have argued that Gnostic texts could contain plausible traditions. [ 33 ] Examples of such texts include the Gospel of Truth, Treatise on Resurrection, and the Apocryphon of John, the latter of which opens with the following:
It happened one day when John, the brother of James — who are sons of Zebedee — went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him: "Where is your master whom you followed?" And he said to them: "He has gone to the place from which he came." The Pharisee said to him: "This Nazarene deceived you all with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers." [ 34 ]
Of all the Gnostic texts, however, the Gospel of Thomas had drawn the most attention. It contains a list of sayings attributed to Jesus. It lacks a narrative of Jesus treating his deeds in an historical sense. Some [who?] date it to the second century, while other scholars contend for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical Q document among other reasons. [ 35 ] [ 36 ]
As I mentioned in an earlier thread, http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/168265/1.ashx, the canon of the NT is suspect since it was not completed until hundreds of years after Jesus appearance on the earth and was subject to the decision of the early church. The canonizers rejected any book, not on the basis of whether it was true or not, but rather on the basis of whether it conformed to what they believed. Any books that did not conform were destroyed, although some were preserved at Nag Hammadi. Are you willing to consider the possibility that the gnostic writings were the original Christian writings?