• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What counts as a historical Jesus?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. It's an important point. The gospel writers all assert that Jesus was executed by Pilate. That means, in my opinion, that they believed Jesus was executed by Pilate, and therefore that he had lived in the recent past. If these writers had also been presented with the statements: "Jesus was executed by Alexander Janneus" in the less recent past, or "Jesus was executed by Titus" in the very recent past, then they could have stated which of the three statements they accepted as true and which as false. I'm sure we must not assume that they had chosen not to be able to distinguish truth from fiction as you suggest, and simply set down anything that took their fancy in an entirely random way.

The birth stories are evident fictions, but not random ones. Having identified Jesus as the Messiah, gMatthew and gLuke had thereby decided that he must have been born in Bethlehem (a prophesied Messianic attribute) and they duly inserted the appropriate accounts of this. But such considerations cannot explain the statement that he was executed by Pilate, as such a belief is not imposed by any scriptural prophecy or other text. By far the best way to account for it, therefore, is the hypothesis that it is factually true.



We are going around in circles. The highlighted part above is precisely where we began this discussion, ie with the question of where the gospel authors found the name of Pilate.

I made the point to you that, as far as we know, none of the authors for any extant copy of the gospels were eye-witnesses to anything that ever happened to Jesus.

So, where do you think those later gospel authors got the name of Pilate from?
 
We are going around in circles. The highlighted part above is precisely where we began this discussion, ie with the question of where the gospel authors found the name of Pilate.

I made the point to you that, as far as we know, none of the authors for any extant copy of the gospels were eye-witnesses to anything that ever happened to Jesus.

So, where do you think those later gospel authors got the name of Pilate from?
No, it is whether the gospel authors believed that Jesus had been executed by Pilate. People may have evidence - even very credible and valid evidence - for things they did not personally witness. They were heirs to a transmitted structure of beliefs. They did not find an account of Jesus' life in Paul, but for that reason alone, we know they had other sources. That the surviving companions of Jesus recalled and passed on such a striking and simple datum as that their teacher had been put to death by Pilate, is a perfectly credible proposition. They did not ooncoct it from scriptural texts. It is therefore quite probably true. Where did they get the name Pilate from? From transmitted memory of the event. I have no problem with that. It is you who have the problem, if they didn't get it from transmitted recollection, and they didn't get it from scriptural exegesis. You tell me where, then.
 
Last edited:
...In fact, the Bermuda Triangle is a perfect example as that thing is a wild mish mash of distorted history and outright fabrications. Yet despite this people BELIEVE. How is that any different from 1st through 2nd century Christianity?

A very good question.



... FWIW, it seems unlikely to me that the author of Mark didn't believe there had been an HJ. I think he was exploiting a market for information about the HJ in response to a growing belief in his community that an HJ had existed. He grabbed every related fact he could find and wrote his story around those facts.

Could we use fanfic as an analogy here?
 
No, it is whether the gospel authors believed that Jesus had been executed by Pilate. People may have evidence - even very credible and valid evidence - for things they did not personally witness. They were heirs to a transmitted structure of beliefs. They did not find an account of Jesus' life in Paul, but for that reason alone, we know they had other sources. That the surviving companions of Jesus recalled and passed on such a striking and simple datum as that their teacher had been put to death by Pilate, is a perfectly credible proposition. They did not ooncoct it from scriptural texts. It is therefore quite probably true. Where did they get the name Pilate from? From transmitted memory of the event. I have no problem with that.


OK, so that means you are now going to give us the sources which in your belief provided the name of Pilate to the gospel writers, correct?

Right, so err … where are those sources?

Who said or wrote that Pilate had executed Jesus? Just give us a citation for that, can you?




It is you who have the problem, if they didn't get it from transmitted recollection, and they didn't get it from scriptural exegesis. You tell me where, then.


Well I have already told you at least 5 times where they could perfectly easily have got the name of Pilate. Did you not read any of that?

Firstly, the name Pilate is apparently in one of the "fake" letters of Paul.

But secondly, it's perfectly obvious that the name of Pilate could have been deduced simply from Paul's vision on the road to Damascus ... if that vision was on the third day, then that would place the crucifixion around 30-36AD, which was roughly around the end of the period for when Pilate was supposed to be governing the region. Ipso-Facto - Pilate must have been in charge of the execution … Case solved! Lol ;)
 
Last edited:
First of all, why do you insist on throwing out not only the best evidence we have, but the best evidence anyone could possibly hope to have?

What evidence ? The Gospels ? I really wish you'd come out and say it.

Also, if you have a more probable alternative scenario to present, then do so.

So if other scenarios don't win, yours does ? Again, this wouldn't fly in any other topic, here.

In Jewish tradition, yes. To be a messiah -- an anointed one -- you had to be a person.

You had to be a person in order to be a king, too, and yet we have Arthur. You had to be a person in order to be an outlaw, too, and yet we have Robin.
 
They did not find an account of Jesus' life in Paul, but for that reason alone, we know they had other sources.

Wait, wait. We know they had other sources because they didn't find those details in Paul ? How about Mark made it up ? Seems to me you're excluding that possibility pretty early.
 
OK, so that means you are now going to give us the sources which in your belief provided the name of Pilate to the gospel writers, correct?

Right, so err … where are those sources?

Who said or wrote that Pilate had executed Jesus? Just give us a citation for that, can you?
I am proposing that it could have easily been recalled by witnesses and transmitted orally or in informal texts now no longer extant. It's a simple thing to remember.
But secondly, it's perfectly obvious that the name of Pilate could have been deduced simply from Paul's vision on the road to Damascus ... if that vision was on the third day, then that would place the crucifixion around 30-36AD, which was roughly around the end of the period for when Pilate was supposed to be governing the region. Ipso-Facto - Pilate must have been in charge of the execution … Case solved! Lol ;)
LOL indeed. I need lots of sources to support that line of reasoning. Including good ones to support the contention that Paul's vision could have happened or be believed to have happened on the third day. What sources do you have that sustain such a chronology? Did not Paul, before his "vision" but after Jesus' death, persecute Jesus' followers? Was he not engaged in this enterprise in his journey to Damascus?
 
Maybe Mark's Pilate comes from the same "source" as Luke's Quirinius.

Real guy, a genuine Imperial papyrus-shuffler who really could have done what his character does in the story. The timing is only off by so little that you would have to check to see the bad fit. And why would you check if you already believed that the terms of a worldwide census were that everybody had to go to the hometown of their ancestors, thirty generations later?

Either Luke or else his sources made this up. Luke didn't bother to check. None of Dan Brown's fans seem concerned that Versailles is north of Paris in Brown-France. Brown thought giving this detail would make his story more realistic. It didn't, because he got it backwards, but getting it backwards didn't hurt him, either. Luke has visibly done well despite his gaffe, too.

The difference between Mark and Luke-Brown may be only that Mark got away clean with his invention, and it stuck. I'm still 60-40 pro-HJ, including Pilate as the killer, but it's 40 because it's not that difficult to have faked a story that barely survives casual scrutiny anyway.

Based on surviving Paul, why not Pilate? How much more than "why not?" would Mark's first audience of undying-aviator wannabes have insisted upon?
 
Last edited:
I am proposing that it could have easily been recalled by witnesses and transmitted orally or in informal texts now no longer extant. It's a simple thing to remember.


You are "proposing" it??

OK, so the actual answer is that you do not have any source or reference to support your belief.



LOL indeed. I need lots of sources to support that line of reasoning. Including good ones to support the contention that Paul's vision could have happened or be believed to have happened on the third day. What sources do you have that sustain such a chronology? Did not Paul, before his "vision" but after Jesus' death, persecute Jesus' followers? Was he not engaged in this enterprise in his journey to Damascus?


Well I’ve just given you two references. How many do you want?

Paul’s Letters to Timothy apparently give the name of “Pilate”. So thats the first opportunity for later gospel writers to get the name itself.

But even earlier than that, the first letters of Paul describe his vision of Jesus which was known to be around 30 to 36AD, and where in the same passage he tells his readers that Jesus rose on the third day.

So it's perfectly obvious that later gospel writers may have interpreted that to mean Paul had seen Jesus on the 3rd day.

Did not Paul, before his "vision" but after Jesus' death, persecute Jesus' followers? Was he not engaged in this enterprise in his journey to Damascus?


Indeed. Exactly. And I pointed that out to you before when saying to you that the full context of what Paul apparently wrote about that vision, shows that the vision could have been at any time after Paul had thought Jesus had died … days, weeks, months, years, even as I think I said before “centuries”!

How much clearer do you want all that to be for heavens sake! :rolleyes:
 
You are "proposing" it?? OK, so the actual answer is that you do not have any source or reference to support your belief.
I have stated why this proposal is perfectly plausible. At all events it is vastly more probable than the collection of speculations that you have advanced likewise lacking not merely textual evidence, but any probability at all. This for example, which is entirely at odds with the chronology of Acts.
But even earlier than that, the first letters of Paul describe his vision of Jesus which was known to be around 30 to 36AD, and where in the same passage he tells his readers that Jesus rose on the third day.

So it's perfectly obvious that later gospel writers may have interpreted that to mean Paul had seen Jesus on the 3rd day.
So give me a written source wherein the later gospel writers meditate on interpretations of this sort. Oh, but it's "obvious" that they "may have". So you don't need a written source. I forgot.
 
Last edited:
If Paul persecuted Jesus' followers, it stands to reason that there were followers to be persecuted, so it would be a bit later than Jesus' death, no ?

True but we have a problem the Gospels have Jesus preaching after John the Baptist was beheaded which based on temporal markers in Josephus was in 36 CE.

As another poster pointed out based on what Paul claimed he could converted no later then 37 CE.

Supposedly Paul was infamous for his persecution of Christians in three provinces which would have taken time (ie years) to acquire.

The timeline doesn't seem to fit unless ala John Frum you had two Jesuses: a mythical legendary one (Teacher of Righteousness perhaps) and an inspired guy (ala Manehivi).

Paul persecutes the followers of the mythical legendary Jesus and has his conversion.

The Jesus ala Manehivi drifts off into obscurity though there are stories about him floating around which Paul hears. Paul writes his 2 Corinthians 11:4 warning about another Jesus another Gospel.
 
Last edited:
True but we have a problem the Gospels have Jesus preaching after John the Baptist was beheaded which based on temporal markers in Josephus was in 36 CE.

As another poster pointed out based on what Paul claimed he could converted no later then 37 CE.

Supposedly Paul was infamous for his persecution of Christians in three provinces which would have taken time (ie years) to acquire.

Right. No one's ever said the Gospels were reliable, in any way, at all. What baffles me is that people think they can glean some measure of truth from the text, without knowing who wrote it, when, where, why, or from what sources.
 
Right. No one's ever said the Gospels were reliable, in any way, at all. What baffles me is that people think they can glean some measure of truth from the text, without knowing who wrote it, when, where, why, or from what sources.
Even if they are not reliable, they contain information about what their authors believed. We are entitled to ask why these beliefs were held by these groups of people at that time. Some of the beliefs (e.g. Jesus' death at the hands of Pilate) may best be explained by the supposition that they are true. Others (e.g. the birth in Bethlehem) may best be explained as interpretations of supposed prophecies about the Messiah. But it is possible to examine this material and make cogent suppositions about its origin, authorship, sources, and historical probability, even if only on the basis of internal evidence. This on the supposition, of course, that the authors did not write truths and falsehoods at random because they had chosen not to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.
 
Even if they are not reliable, they contain information about what their authors believed. We are entitled to ask why these beliefs were held by these groups of people at that time. Some of the beliefs (e.g. Jesus' death at the hands of Pilate) may best be explained by the supposition that they are true. Others (e.g. the birth in Bethlehem) may best be explained as interpretations of supposed prophecies about the Messiah. But it is possible to examine this material and make cogent suppositions about its origin, authorship, sources, and historical probability, even if only on the basis of internal evidence. This on the supposition, of course, that the authors did not write truths and falsehoods at random because they had chosen not to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.

I agree with this sort of. Mark is writing obvious fiction and almost nothing he says actually happened. The question, I think, is whether any of the most significant facts in Mark can be tied to actual events.

Putting your idea in my own words, I think the approach is to find events in Mark which are so significant that they might have been either part of an oral tradition or even recorded in other documents. The problem with this approach is that it only provides facts that might be true. Mark itself can't corroborate anything since it is just a fictional work. And that's a big problem for the use of Mark as a source of information about the HJ. Corroboration is not available for events related to the life of the HJ beyond that some of the people and places mentioned existed.
 
Even if they are not reliable, they contain information about what their authors believed.

Unless Mark was writing a fictitious interpretation of stuff he heard. We don't know. The entire point of this thread for the last, oh, 50 pages or so, is that although it may be the best explanation that there was a person or persons who was/were the inspiration for the Jesus stories, we simply don't know, and we're definitely not "certain" about it.
 
You're kidding, right?

First of all, why do you insist on throwing out not only the best evidence we have, but the best evidence anyone could possibly hope to have?

Also, if you have a more probable alternative scenario to present, then do so.

Part of the argument you made is that Peter the apostle that had personal knowledge of the HJ and Cephas are the same fellow.

I think there is reason to doubt that and I asked you for what is the basis of your conclusion that they are the same.

Peter is a poor (according to an earlier post by you), perhaps illiterate, probably Aramaic speaking fellow that lived in Galilee. The theory that you seem to be claiming to be established fact is that same fellow is the Cephas that Paul mentions is Corinthians who is apparently a competitor to Paul and a significant leader of some kind of Jesus based religious movement for Greek speaking people.

There is no doubt that the Gospels equate the two fellows. One of the goals of the Gospels especially with regard to interpolations about Peter is to build this guy up to provide a prestigious figure to be the founder of the Roman church.

Did Paul think that Peter and Cephas were the same fellow?
In this passage from the second Chapter of Galatians he seems to treat them as two different people:

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.[b] 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.
 
Go on then. Give me a better attested figure in the literature of the period, not an Emperor or monarch, not using archeological realia as I suggest. :) I'm sure there may be some, but I'm thinking hard...

cj x

I think you and I will just have to disagree over this. I think the point is a stupid one and I have provided my reasons. You apparently think that a point which is obviously true but that provides no insight into the question that it is seemingly addressed to is not a stupid point. I respect your opinion on this I just disagree with it.

ETA: I wonder if you think the fact that Moses is the best attested figure of his age that wasn't a major leader is any kind of indication that Moses existed. Made up characters can obviously be well attested, certainly better attested to than most human being that have actually lived.
 
Last edited:
Even if they are not reliable, they contain information about what their authors believed. We are entitled to ask why these beliefs were held by these groups of people at that time. Some of the beliefs (e.g. Jesus' death at the hands of Pilate) may best be explained by the supposition that they are true. Others (e.g. the birth in Bethlehem) may best be explained as interpretations of supposed prophecies about the Messiah. But it is possible to examine this material and make cogent suppositions about its origin, authorship, sources, and historical probability, even if only on the basis of internal evidence. This on the supposition, of course, that the authors did not write truths and falsehoods at random because they had chosen not to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.


Even if they are not reliable, they contain information about what their authors believed. We are entitled to ask why these beliefs were held by these groups of people at that time. Some of the beliefs (e.g. Jesus' death at the hands of Pilate That Joeseph Smith was a prophet of god/BoM was inspired) may best be explained by the supposition that they are true. Others (e.g. the birth in Bethlehem Jesus appearing in the Americas) may best be explained as interpretations of supposed prophecies about the Messiah. But it is possible to examine this material and make cogent suppositions about its origin, authorship, sources, and historical probability, even if only on the basis of internal evidence. This on the supposition, of course, that the authors did not write truths and falsehoods at random because they had chosen not to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.

FTFY
 
I have stated why this proposal is perfectly plausible. At all events it is vastly more probable than the collection of speculations that you have advanced likewise lacking not merely textual evidence, but any probability at all. This for example, which is entirely at odds with the chronology of Acts. So give me a written source wherein the later gospel writers meditate on interpretations of this sort. Oh, but it's "obvious" that they "may have". So you don't need a written source. I forgot.



Craig - your posts here have become utterly ridiculous. And also beginning to sound like a rampant personalised vendetta.

When I asked you for any references to support your "proposition" that there must have been eye witnesses to the execution who had given the stories to later gospel writers (who? when? at what date was this?). You had no answer at all.

You have no such reference or sources at all.

Now, you are complaining that I have not given you sources for what I have explained to you over the last two pages. Even though I have just told you that two very obvious, well known, and universally known sources are Paul's letter to Timothy which apparently names Pilate, and Paul's letter describing his vision of the risen Jesus.

Are you really telling me that you did not know Paul’s letters exist?


So give me a written source wherein the later gospel writers meditate on interpretations of this sort. Oh, but it's "obvious" that they "may have". So you don't need a written source. I forgot.


I do not need a "written source" for where the gospels writers may have obtained any of their information, and neither do you! Because everyone agrees that the gospel authors were not eye witnesses to anything involving Jesus.

That means the gospel writers who you are relying upon must have got their stories from earlier sources.

OK, so which earlier sources do we know of?

The only earlier known source saying that Jesus was crucified is Paul’s letter 1-Corinthians 15:3–8, though he also mentions the vision in Galatians 1:11-16. The dates for these, as originals, are usually given as 53-55AD.

Afaik, the earliest possible date for any readable extant copy of Paul’s letters is circa 200AD.

1-Timothy 6:12-14 also mentions Pilate, by name, in a well known passage called “The good confession before Pontius Pilate“. See the quote below.

The letters to Timothy are widely agreed to be “fakes” and probably first written in the 2nd century. Though again, as with all extant copies of the gospels, any readable complete copies are presumably much later than that (certainly later than 200AD).

Now, as far as the gospels which you are relying upon, are concerned - Luke (which you are referring to) is generally dated as the 3rd of the 4 canonical gospels, and generally given an original date of about 80 or 85 AD to 100AD. Though again, no copy from anywhere near that early date is known. And in fact, the first relatively complete copies of any of the 4 canonical gospels date from the 4th century onwards, and mostly from the 6th century onwards.

OK, so what you have above are two direct references to the crucifixion, ie two or more of Paul’s letters, which are thought almost certainly to pre-date any extant relatively complete and readable copies of the gospels.

So those letters of Paul are a very obvious and undeniable known sources from which the later gospel authors, such as whoever wrote “Luke” could obtain their beliefs about the likely date of the crucifixion.

Whereas in stark contrast, you have no reference at all for your presumption that the gospel writers obtained their information from eye witnesses who actually saw Jesus being condemned to death by Pontius Pilate.


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

Damascus Road experience

Conversion on the Way to Damascus (1601), by Caravaggio
Paul's conversion can be dated to 31–36[31][32][33] by his reference to it in one of his letters.[14] There are three accounts of his conversion (Greek: μετάνοια metanoia) in the Acts of the Apostles: Acts 9:1-31, 22:1-22, and 26:9-24.
It took place on the road to Damascus where he reported to have experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus. The account in Acts 9 says that both Saul/Paul and the men that were with him heard the voice asking, "Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?" (The account in Acts 22:9 says his companions saw the light, but did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to Saul.) Saul asked, "Who are you, lord?", to which the voice replied, "I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting! Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do". From that experience he was blinded for three days and had to be led into Damascus by the hand. His sight was restored by Ananias of Damascus. This extraordinary life-changing experience and revelation convinced Paul that God indeed had chosen Jesus to be the promised messiah. Luke, the author of Acts of the Apostles, likely learned of his conversion from Paul, from the church in Jerusalem, or from the church in Antioch.[34]
Paul's letters do not refer directly to this experience on the Damascus road. In Galatians 1:16 he writes that God "was pleased to reveal his son to me". In 1 Corinthians 15:8, in listing the order in which Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, Paul says "last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also".(NASB) These two passages have been interpreted to refer to his road to Damascus conversion experience which he elsewhere had described as the resurrected Jesus appearing to him, but in none of his own epistles does he mention that profound epiphany.



And from 1-Timothy
http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/bellett/GdConfes.html


Paul exhorts his son Timothy "to fight the good fight of faith, and to lay hold on eternal life," in remembrance of this faith that was in the blessed Saviour Himself. "Fight," says he, "the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. I give thee charge in the sight of God, Who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, Who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Tim. 6:12-14).


And finally look at this quote of yours -

That the surviving companions of Jesus recalled and passed on such a striking and simple datum as that their teacher had been put to death by Pilate, is a perfectly credible proposition. They did not ooncoct it from scriptural texts. It is therefore quite probably true. Where did they get the name Pilate from? From transmitted memory of the event. I have no problem with that.


Now what you have been saying throughout this thread is that you believe Jesus was real, correct? And what you are now saying above, is that you believe that the gospel authors had eye-witnesses to the actual execution of Jesus by Pilate. ….

…. well what that amounts to, is you trying to believe in Jesus by telling yourself that since he existed, there must have been eye-witnesses to his execution, and that they must be the people who told the much later gospel authors about it.

Well firstly that is a self-serving and completely circular reasoning which looks very much like a case of blind religious belief.

But secondly - which extant copies of any gospels are you using to obtain any statements about Pontius Pilate executing Jesus?

The reason I ask that, is because, although bible scholars, theists and theologians are very fond of telling us that the first gospels were originally written in the first century AD. The fact of that matters appears to be that “only fragments and quotations exist before the 4th century”. Or to spell that out - the earliest copies of any of the canonical gospels that are relatively complete and therefore likely to be fully readable in the detail of sentences such as those about Pilate, date not from the 1st century, but from the 4th century onwards, and in fact mostly from the 6th century onwards.

So … if you are getting your Pilate information from gospel copies written in the 4th century and later, as seems most likely (but you can tell us, and I'm going to ask you, see below), then your gospel references are fully a hundred years (or much more) later than the earliest extant relatively complete copies of Paul’s letters (which apparently date to circa. 200AD).

IOW - your gospel authors were so late (4th century and later) that (a)they could not possibly have ever met any eye-witness to anything about Jesus or Pilate, (b)would have had at least 100 years or more to know what Paul had said about his visions of the risen Jesus and the likely date of that, as well as the claim of the confession under Pilate!

Right. So can we now be completely clear please - what the above shows is that there are obvious and well known references and sources in Paul’s letters, which by any measure you wish to take, are almost certainly long before your gospels, and which must surely have been known to all Christians inc. the gospel copyists by the time of the 4th century extant copies, if not also very likely well known to even the very earliest gospel author of whatever date.

And against all that (ie the above re. Pauls early letters etc.), you can only offer the idea that you would like to believe that the gospel authors (which ones? at what date?….which copies are you using??), may have met eye-witnesses who actually told these unknown unnamed gospel authors that they saw Pilate executing Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom