What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Brainache]

Justin Martyr in the earlier half of the second century tells us that the Jews had a tradition that the Messiah would not be known, to others nor even to himself as the messiah, until he was anointed by Elijah.

The Dialogue of Trypho, the Jew Trypho speaking:


If that tradition was known at the time of the first gospel then it is quite clear why the first gospel would have had no problem at all with having an Elijah figure baptize Jesus. Indeed, we could even say the first gospel was compelled to write this into the text to "prove" Jesus' messiahship. Don't forget that the Gospel of Mark is also seen by many as adoptionist or separationist -- that is, that Jesus was a normal person until either adopted by God at baptism or entered into by a separate spirit of Christ (that also left him at the cross) -- and it was this that led to the embarrassments of the subsequent evangelists, and their attempts to rewrite the baptism scene to allow for a more 'divine' Christ from the outset.

Neil

You just told me that there was no evidence for a popular Messiah myth before 70 CE. What is Justin talking about? And what are the Dead Sea Scrolls, chopped liver?

I'd also like to know why everybody in this thread assumes that the DSS "Teacher of Righteousness" was from 100 BCE. What is the source for that date?

 

[neilgodfrey]

You just told me that there was no evidence for a popular Messiah myth before 70 CE. What is Justin talking about? And what are the Dead Sea Scrolls, chopped liver?

I'd also like to know why everybody in this thread assumes that the DSS "Teacher of Righteousness" was from 100 BCE. What is the source for that date?

I indeed did say that my own studies have led me to understand that there was no popular expectation of an imminent appearance of a messiah before 70 CE. Correct. There is literary witness to some messianic ideas but the extent to which these were part of the popular consciousness AND fed into some popular expectation of an imminent coming of a messiah is completely without any supporting evidence.

If you know of any I'd like to hear it. As has been said, people have regularly found "messiahs" where there is no reference to messiahs -- such as the bandit and other rebel movements before the first Jewish War.

None of this contradicts the belief that when the messiah is to appear he is to be made known to all and sundry, including himself, when anointed by Elijah.

There is no evidence that the words put into Trypho reflected an eager anticipation of such an event as if it were to happen "soon", etc.

As for the "Teacher of Righteousness" being 100 BCE, I will have to pass on that one. It seems to me that all attempts to identify this figure are entirely speculative.

 

[maximara]

And Tiro was Cicero's secretary (very probably born in Cicero's household) and perhaps the inventor of shorthand! A very typical slave indeed. As to literacy in Judaea and Galilee, other views are possible:https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html

Since you don't known you clearly didn't follow the link to the article I provided so why are you wasting our time in things the article preemptively addresses?

Also the passage I quoted started out "Like all Roman children..." What part of ALL Roman children did you not understand?

Besides as J. H. Humphrey's 1991 Literacy in the Roman World Journal of Roman Archaeology ISBN-13: 978-1887829038 shows things are not as cut and dry as Meir Bar-Ilan tries to make them. Callie Williamson, Indiana University gives a good overview of Humphrey's collection and states "any discussion of literacy in the Roman world must accommodate at the very least tremendous social, cultural, linguistic and other differences in addition to changes over time."

Meir Bar-Ilan tries to use "data of illiteracy gathered from different societies in the first half of the 20th century" to build his model. From what is said based on Humphrey's book we can tell why that is a monumentally bad idea.

Furthermore the quotes in the passage actually come from Dupont, Florence. (1989) Daily Life in Ancient Rome Tr. Christopher Woodall. Oxford: Blackwell who is quoted at length:

"The written word was all around them, in both public and private life: laws, calendars, regulations at shrines, and funeral epitaphs were engraved in stone or bronze. The Republic amassed huge archives of reports on every aspect of public life. Praetors and magistrates kept records of every judgment that was handed down , ... [which] formed the cornerstone of Roman jurisprudence.... At home, too, writing was important. Noble families ... had their own [ancestral] archives. ... But all families ... kept books of farming tips, prayers, and remedies. Writing played a vital role in business too: contracts of sale, hire, association and estate management were all recorded on tablets and registers. Then there were the innumerable letters that Romans traveling far from home sent back to their friends in the City" (Dupont, Florence. (1989) Daily Life in Ancient Rome Tr. Christopher Woodall. Oxford: Blackwell; pg 223)

So much for your counter argument.

 

[Craig B]

... Also the passage I quoted started out "Like all Roman children..." What part of ALL Roman children did you not understand?
...

So much for your counter argument.

I understand you well enough. Now if you take that to mean that the children of slaves (who were not Romans, in the sense of being citizens) and rural labourers, were taught to read, or that the children of subjects in provinces like Galilee (who were not "Romans") were generally literate, then the failure is not of my understanding, but of my credulity. And can you please respond to the literacy estimate for the relevant provinces I quoted in my response you you?

 

[Brainache]

I indeed did say that my own studies have led me to understand that there was no popular expectation of an imminent appearance of a messiah before 70 CE. Correct. There is literary witness to some messianic ideas but the extent to which these were part of the popular consciousness AND fed into some popular expectation of an imminent coming of a messiah is completely without any supporting evidence.

If you know of any I'd like to hear it. As has been said, people have regularly found "messiahs" where there is no reference to messiahs -- such as the bandit and other rebel movements before the first Jewish War.

...

At the moment all I can offer is the DSS. A collection of thousands of scrolls that date from about 100 BCE through to 70 CE.

Almost all of the Sectarian material in the DSS concerns this Messiah prophecy. The Branch. The Star.

According to the Community Rule Scroll the people in the camps making a "Straight Way For The Lord In The Wilderness" number in the thousands. (why else would they need so many bloody scrolls?)

If the population of Jerusalem at the time was 20,000, then a few thousand young men nearby all determined to make the Messiah materialise might count as a popular movement. Don't you think?

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Other than his epistles, all the mention we have of Paul is in Acts?

There are many non-canonical early mentions of Paul as well. Some things are serious, like 1 Clement (a letter which is addressed to the Corinthian church, and draws on Paul's traditional authority as founder there), while other things are frankly fictional like Acts of Paul and Thecla (fun to read, too). There is Gnostic material with an alternative Paul. There are fake (umm, pseudepigraphical) epistles of his, besides the half-dozen in the canon.

But I don't know of anything that's early, besides what you mention, about Paul's pre-conversion activities. Maybe there is, and I just don't know it. The absence is a little strange, since so many Christians are so heavily invested in their being persecution victims (even today), and the religion itself is so much about being a sinner and then repenting to find redemption.

The evolution of a John the Baptist connection

Baptism was practiced by Paul, maybe reluctantly, and he discusses it with a hint that some people keep track of who baptized whom (1 Corinthians 1: 13-17). Paul doesn't mention John at all in any survivng letter.

We don't know why Mark was written, and its sole purpose needn't have been to supply a biography of Jesus. Part of the purpose may have been to explain church practices, as those were coming to be regularized by an institutional church.

If we look at Josephus' historical Baptizer (Antiquities 18, 5, 2) the wet ritual itself does not confer forgiveness, but is part of a larger episode of achieving righteousness,

... the washing would be acceptable to (God), if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins only, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.

A baptism by Josephus' John would be no occasion of "embarrassment" even for a Godman, but rather a proclamation of thoroughly purified righteousness. Woohoo. But what's in received Mark 1: 4-5?

John the Baptist appeared in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. People of the whole Judean countryside and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins.

There is confession, a Christian practice, a blurring of whether the baptism itself or the sinner's repentance accomplishes the forgiveness, and not one word about the soul being thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. We also have some acknowledgment that the Christian practice is different from John's, at 1:9

I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the holy Spirit.

I think there is some connection between the earliest Jesus movement and the Baptizer's historically attested activity. Maybe Jesus actually did some work with John, and got dunked. Jesus' baptism experience, at least in Mark, has a psychological ring of truth. Don't eat or sleep for a few days while some holy wildman manipulates your mind set. That's the thorough purification beforehand. On the big day, do some calisthenics in the desert sun, then jump into cold water and look up at the sky. There's no telling what you'll see and hear.

Then what? There's no intellectual property laws to worry about. Anybody could "preach John," whether John agreed or not. So, I doubt we could ever recover Jesus' having been a formal disciple of John, even if Jesus was. Lots of people admired John, why not Jesus and the James Gang? Baptism is good theater, and a great way to meet women. Use it.

There needn't have been any embarrassment in the linkage of Jesus with John through baptism, but the passage seems overloaded with disparate intentions: explain the church's later practice, get a prestigious Jew's endorsement of Jesus' Messiahship (sort of), put the fundamentally unJewish Godman idea into play straight from the Father himself, something about a bird ... too much stuff retrojected onto too small an incident for any kind of coherence.

 

[Craig B]

At the moment all I can offer is the DSS. A collection of thousands of scrolls that date from about 100 BCE through to 70 CE.

Almost all of the Sectarian material in the DSS concerns this Messiah prophecy. The Branch. The Star.

According to the Community Rule Scroll the people in the camps making a "Straight Way For The Lord In The Wilderness" number in the thousands. (why else would they need so many bloody scrolls?)

If the population of Jerusalem at the time was 20,000, then a few thousand young men nearby all determined to make the Messiah materialise might count as a popular movement. Don't you think?

Agreed. See The Eschatology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Randall Price http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible Studies/dedseascroll.pdf

According to the scrolls, the present age was also to see the imminent visitation of Elijah as the precursor of Messiah (4Q521) and the advent of the Messiah. The Messiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls is clearly eschatological. His coming is at "the end of days," and is royal (Davidic), priestly (Aaronic), and prophetic (Mosaic) in nature. It may be that the sect envisioned two or three messiahs, and such interpretive confusion is understandable in light of the developing messianism of Second Temple Judaism. Nevertheless, the application of Old Testament messianic texts in the Scrolls appears to have predominately combined the messianic offices in one person, and this is the Jewish theology reflected in the Gospels.

 

[IanS]

At the moment all I can offer is the DSS. A collection of thousands of scrolls that date from about 100 BCE through to 70 CE.

Just in the interests of accuracy - afaik the scrolls are usually dated from about 170BC through to 70AD. That is;- the various scrolls were written throughout that range of dates.

As far as the date of the Teacher is concerned - very little seems to be known about him, and very little appears in the scrolls. It appears to be assumed that he was probably a real high priest (the highest of their priests), but afaik that is not truly clear from any of the scrolls, and the title of “Teacher” may have just been one passed on from one highest religious leader to the next. Or the Teacher may have been only a mythical concept based on much earlier possibly mythical OT figures like Melchizedek c.600BC (see my post from a page or two back with wiki link … possibly interesting source of later messiah beliefs there in the figure of Melchizedek).

Anyway, putting the date of the Teacher at 100BC, may be just a rough guess in the middle of the date range of the scrolls, ie somewhere from about 170BC to 70AD.

 

[neilgodfrey]

At the moment all I can offer is the DSS. A collection of thousands of scrolls that date from about 100 BCE through to 70 CE.

Almost all of the Sectarian material in the DSS concerns this Messiah prophecy. The Branch. The Star.

According to the Community Rule Scroll the people in the camps making a "Straight Way For The Lord In The Wilderness" number in the thousands. (why else would they need so many bloody scrolls?)

If the population of Jerusalem at the time was 20,000, then a few thousand young men nearby all determined to make the Messiah materialise might count as a popular movement. Don't you think?

Thousands of scrolls or thousands of fragments of scrolls?

A few thousand continuously inhabited the Qumran caves throughout the period in question? Are scholars all agreed on even who these people were or the reason for the scrolls?

And what writings among them specifically reflected the popular views among Jews of the day?

And what writings specifically point to an expectation of an imminent appearance of a messiah?

But the fact that they seemed to feel a need to withdraw as they appear to have done would indicate that they did not represent the popular views of the day.

I guess if you are convinced that this "community" was a particular sect that produced Christianity . . . .

What evidence do you have for this? Is there any more reason to believe that Christianity was the product of the Qumran community than any other Second Temple sectarians who took special note of the book of Enoch among other writings?

 

[smartcooky]

I'm late on this thread obviously, and also obviously, I really cannot be bothered trawling back through 4000+ posts, so my apologies if anything I post now has all been posted before.

I wan't to get back to the original question "What counts as a Historical Jesus?"

As far as I am aware, there is not the tiniest scrap of evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed. There are...

► no first person writings or documents attributed to the hand of Jesus,
► no contemporaneous writings by first hand witnesses,
► no physical articles that belonged to him (the Shroud has been proven a 13thC fake),
► no buildings or works attributed to him.
► no contemporaneous Roman records of Pilate executing someone called Jesus,
► no contemporaneous writings anywhere that even mention Jesus Christ

Further, even what we have is of highly dubious veracity...

► every claim that a real person called Jesus existed is second or third hand,
► every document referring to Jesus can only be dated to many years after his alleged death.
► every piece of documentation, be they scrolls or written accounts of any kind, come from either unknown sources, or from people whose own reality of existence is unproven.

In addition, there are numerous sources of "information" about Jesus that are fraudulent, mythical, obvious works of fantasy, or wild and unreliable far-fetched interpretations of the writings of others.

In short, all the evidence is hearsay, and for the critical thinker and the skeptical mind, hearsay evidence is not evidence at all.

So, I will rephrase the question from "What counts as a Historical Jesus?" to "What evidence would I find acceptable that a Historical Jesus really existed?"

1. Written, contemporaneous records of the Romans showing that Pontius Pilate was responsible for executing a man called Jesus, along with two common thieves, approximately 2000 years ago in Palestine.

2. First person eye witness accounts of things that Jesus did, actually written by the eyewitness, and written at the time.

3. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First person eye witness accounts of the crucifixion, again written by the actual witness.

4. Multiple, independent sources for all of the above.
[/FONT]

 

[Brainache]

Thousands of scrolls or thousands of fragments of scrolls?

I just looked it up: 972 texts according to wiki.

A few thousand continuously inhabited the Qumran caves throughout the period in question? Are scholars all agreed on even who these people were or the reason for the scrolls?

Not sure why any of that is relevant. Scholars aren't "all agreed" about anything, ever. I'm just putting out one man's ideas.

And what writings among them specifically reflected the popular views among Jews of the day?

Just about all of them according to Josephus. Josephus tells us a few times about how this Messianic madness gripped the country and led so many astray. For some reason I don't understand you deny this.

And what writings specifically point to an expectation of an imminent appearance of a messiah?

The Damascus Document, The Habakkuk Pesher, The War Scroll, The Community Rule Scroll ... Look them up, knock yourself out.

Just about all of them that aren't copies of OT books.

But the fact that they seemed to feel a need to withdraw as they appear to have done would indicate that they did not represent the popular views of the day.

The Holy Men who withdraw from the world to maintain "Purity", you know what they were called? Nazoreans. These special Holy Men had a lot of influence, just through their reputation for being "Righteous". They weren't "From Nazareth".

I guess if you are convinced that this "community" was a particular sect that produced Christianity . . . .

What evidence do you have for this? Is there any more reason to believe that Christianity was the product of the Qumran community than any other Second Temple sectarians who took special note of the book of Enoch among other writings?

I think this particular collection of scrolls reflect exactly the same Theology and Politics as that associated with the Jerusalem Community led by James "The Brother Of The Lord" as portrayed in Paul's letters, Acts, The Pseudo Clementine Recognitions etc. Every description we have for James is as a Nazorean "Zealous For The Law".

But Christianity didn't exactly grow out of this Jewish Fundamentalism until Paul started preaching his Rome-friendly version. Paul's letters show how there was conflict between his "Christ Jesus" (nothing is impure) and James' idea that to break one tiny rule of the Law is to break them all.

 

[Craig B]

... I wan't to get back to the original question "What counts as a Historical Jesus?" <snip> all the evidence is hearsay, and for the critical thinker and the skeptical mind, hearsay evidence is not evidence at all.

So, I will rephrase the question from "What counts as a Historical Jesus?" to "What evidence would I find acceptable that a Historical Jesus really existed?"

1. Written, contemporaneous records of the Romans showing that Pontius Pilate was responsible for executing a man called Jesus, along with two common thieves, approximately 2000 years ago in Palestine.

2. First person eye witness accounts of things that Jesus did, actually written by the eyewitness, and written at the time.

3. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First person eye witness accounts of the crucifixion, again written by the actual witness.

4. Multiple, independent sources for all of the above.
[/FONT]

I see. Mmm. No hearsay. That is, not only is hearsay evidence not adequate in a court of law it is not evidence at all even in studies of the ancient world!! And the fantastic detail of the evidence you would require - contemporaneous official written records and multiply attested accounts personally written by the hand of eyewitnesses of the events related therein - could somebody please tell me for what person or event in ancient times we have anything like such material? Are you being serious?

 

[maximara]

I'm late on this thread obviously, and also obviously, I really cannot be bothered trawling back through 4000+ posts, so my apologies if anything I post now has all been posted before.

I wan't to get back to the original question "What counts as a Historical Jesus?"

As far as I am aware, there is not the tiniest scrap of evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed. There are...

► no first person writings or documents attributed to the hand of Jesus,
► no contemporaneous writings by first hand witnesses,
► no physical articles that belonged to him (the Shroud has been proven a 13thC fake),
► no buildings or works attributed to him.
► no contemporaneous Roman records of Pilate executing someone called Jesus,
► no contemporaneous writings anywhere that even mention Jesus Christ

Further, even what we have is of highly dubious veracity...

► every claim that a real person called Jesus existed is second or third hand,
► every document referring to Jesus can only be dated to many years after his alleged death.
► every piece of documentation, be they scrolls or written accounts of any kind, come from either unknown sources, or from people whose own reality of existence is unproven.

In addition, there are numerous sources of "information" about Jesus that are fraudulent, mythical, obvious works of fantasy, or wild and unreliable far-fetched interpretations of the writings of others.

In short, all the evidence is hearsay, and for the critical thinker and the skeptical mind, hearsay evidence is not evidence at all.

So, I will rephrase the question from "What counts as a Historical Jesus?" to "What evidence would I find acceptable that a Historical Jesus really existed?"

1. Written, contemporaneous records of the Romans showing that Pontius Pilate was responsible for executing a man called Jesus, along with two common thieves, approximately 2000 years ago in Palestine.

2. First person eye witness accounts of things that Jesus did, actually written by the eyewitness, and written at the time.

3. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First person eye witness accounts of the crucifixion, again written by the actual witness.

4. Multiple, independent sources for all of the above.
[/FONT]

Good summation of what we don't have and what would really be needed to really settle the argument. This is as good a time to bring up the infamous Acts of Pilate. For those who don't know the Acts of Pilate is a 4th century work that claimed to taken from reports at the praetorium at Jerusalem and included material from an official document of Pontius Pilate to Emperor Tiberius confirming not only the crucifixion but Jesus' miracles as well.

Its existence raises interesting questions?:

► Was it a satirical work poking fun at the way Christians were "discovering" evidence that Jesus existed and was the great man they claimed he was?

► Was it an crude attempt to show that Jesus really existed to people who were now doubting if he ever lived?

► What relation (if any) does it have to Justin the Martyr's "And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." (The First and Second Apology of Justin, Chapter 35) comment?

► Is the "Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius" based on Irenaeus' Demonstration (74) comment or is the inverse true?

 

[neilgodfrey]

I'm not sure why there seems to be disagreement. I don't dispute the evidence you refer to.

Not sure why any of that is relevant. Scholars aren't "all agreed" about anything, ever. I'm just putting out one man's ideas.

I am trying to establish a best supported argument. If it just comes down to debating different ideas then I guess I'm in the wrong discussion.

Just about all of them according to Josephus. Josephus tells us a few times about how this Messianic madness gripped the country and led so many astray. For some reason I don't understand you deny this.

I don't deny it at all. Josephus is clear. His references to that "madness" relate to the time of the War.

The evidence we have until that time is that the term "messiah" was never applied to a contemporary person.

There is no evidence that there was any sort of mad expectation of an imminent messiah in the supposed time of Jesus. None. There is only assumption, and when met with silence, there are attempts to explain away that silence. So Josephus does not refer to messiahs because of the sensitivities of his Roman audience, only to rebels, who don't apparently offend Roman sensibilities, etc.

The Damascus Document, The Habakkuk Pesher, The War Scroll, The Community Rule Scroll ... Look them up, knock yourself out.

Can you quote a text that demonstrates an imminent expectation of a messiah? Again, I know the references in the various texts to messiahs. But that's not what we are talking about, is it? I thought we were looking at popular beliefs and expectations.

The Holy Men who withdraw from the world to maintain "Purity", you know what they were called? Nazoreans. These special Holy Men had a lot of influence, just through their reputation for being "Righteous". They weren't "From Nazareth".

We know that the so-called Qumran community were called Nazoreans?

(I know Nazorean does not refer to Nazareth.)

I think this particular collection of scrolls reflect exactly the same Theology and Politics as that associated with the Jerusalem Community led by James "The Brother Of The Lord" as portrayed in Paul's letters, Acts, The Pseudo Clementine Recognitions etc. Every description we have for James is as a Nazorean "Zealous For The Law".

But Christianity didn't exactly grow out of this Jewish Fundamentalism until Paul started preaching his Rome-friendly version. Paul's letters show how there was conflict between his "Christ Jesus" (nothing is impure) and James' idea that to break one tiny rule of the Law is to break them all.

I asked if you had evidence for Christianity emerging out of the Qumran community. You have only told me more detail about what you think. No new evidence. But if your evidence is based on the work of Eisenman then we will have to agree to disagree.

Neil

 

[eight bits]

smartcooky

Actually, we've had a recent discussion about hearsay. That discussion may be summarized as people having different ideas about what "hearsay" is. To make a long story shorter, though, if you're reading or listening to something, and the writer or speaker isn't an eyewitness, then it's plain-language hearsay to you. That would almost inevitably be the case with your items:

► no first person writings or documents attributed to the hand of Jesus,
► no contemporaneous writings by first hand witnesses,
► no physical articles that belonged to him (the Shroud has been proven a 13thC fake),
► no buildings or works attributed to him.
► no contemporaneous Roman records of Pilate executing someone called Jesus,
► no contemporaneous writings anywhere that even mention Jesus Christ

After 2000 years, written material would plausibly reach you only by having been copied and recopied. With respect to your third point, maybe Jesus' toothbrush would reach you intact, but whatever reason you would have to believe it was his toothbrush would likely require some writing (or just talk) that identifies it. The link between the item and Jesus, then, would rely on hearsay.

Would rely? Europe is awash in physical things that are "attributed to" Jesus. The Shroud is one.

None of that is rebuttal. Your explanation of how you reason about your own beliefs is self-proving. Whatever you demand for conviction, then there's no arguing about tastes.

By the same token, you cannot be surprised that many other people have less onerous requirements for accepting the existence and identification of long-ago persons, among whom "a historical Jesus" is one proposal. You may remain unconvinced, and may resist any asserted certainty about such an uncertain matter, but "no arguing about tastes" cuts both ways.

max

Since you like modern examples, I have encountered at least one person offering and other people initially accepting Anatole France's 1902 short story "The Procurator of Judea" as a record of the retired Pontius Pilate's recollections of his service in Jerusalem. And since you like secondary sources, the confusion depends on quoting a mainstream historian discussing the short story, omitting from the quotes anything that indicates that the historian's subject is a modern fiction. It's all very instructive.

It is interesting to speculate why any fiction was written, but, despite denials in this thread, some ancient people wrote realistically about things they knew to be contrary to fact. There is nothing in the "reports from Pilate" that excludes fantasy role-play, indulged in for the entertainment and moral improvement of an audience who recognized the characters being fantasized about. Ditto Anatole France. On the other hand, wherever three or more people are gathered, at least one of them didn't get the memo. Somebody is apt to read any meanigful-to-them fiction as fact.

 

[Belz...]

I see. Mmm. No hearsay. That is, not only is hearsay evidence not adequate in a court of law it is not evidence at all even in studies of the ancient world!!

Well for what it's worth I disagree. I think hearsay is evidence. It's just the weakest possible kind of evidence, possibly behind obvious fiction.

Oh, wait...

 

[Craig B]

Well for what it's worth I disagree. I think hearsay is evidence. It's just the weakest possible kind of evidence, possibly behind obvious fiction.

Oh, wait...

I think we need to attend to hearsay, nevertheless, in historical studies. What else is the written work of a historian who depends on anything other than his or her own experience as a source?

But I do agree it would be nice to have what smartcooky demands, maybe with a bit of DNA thrown in! For which ancient figure do we have the like of this, I ask?

1. Written, contemporaneous records of the Romans showing that Pontius Pilate was responsible for executing a man called Jesus, along with two common thieves, approximately 2000 years ago in Palestine.
2. First person eye witness accounts of things that Jesus did, actually written by the eyewitness, and written at the time.
3. First person eye witness accounts of the crucifixion, again written by the actual witness.
4. Multiple, independent sources for all of the above.

 

[neilgodfrey]

I think we need to attend to hearsay, nevertheless, in historical studies. What else is the written work of a historian who depends on anything other than his or her own experience as a source?

Unless I'm missing something critical here, I suspect the real question comes down to what is genuinely a first-hand report of X and a document that claims to be a first-hand report of X.

So we come back, if I'm on the right track with others here, to the question of provenance. Provenance is one of the most elementary bits of data that is an absolute sine qua non before one can ever consider knowing how to interpret any text.

 

[pakeha]

pakeha

There are many non-canonical early mentions of Paul as well. Some things are serious, like 1 Clement (a letter which is addressed to the Corinthian church, and draws on Paul's traditional authority as founder there), while other things are frankly fictional like Acts of Paul and Thecla (fun to read, too). There is Gnostic material with an alternative Paul. There are fake (umm, pseudepigraphical) epistles of his, besides the half-dozen in the canon.

But I don't know of anything that's early, besides what you mention, about Paul's pre-conversion activities. Maybe there is, and I just don't know it. The absence is a little strange, since so many Christians are so heavily invested in their being persecution victims (even today), and the religion itself is so much about being a sinner and then repenting to find redemption.

...

Cheers, eight bits.
Those were interesting leads, indeed.
A bit of Googling yielded more information about 1 Clement^WP and the doings or Acts of Paul and Thecla^WP.

Dunno what PETA would think of Thecla's miraculous rescue from the seals, myself.
1 Clement seems to be a fascinating text in itself and is apparently quite early, though how early is a subject of controversy, AFAIK
http://www.radikalkritik.de/clem_engl.htm
Hermann Detering comments
" VOLKMAR did not accept a date later than 125, ...Nevertheless he designates the epistle as spurious in two ways: 1. Clement (3rd or 2nd successor of Peter in Rom according to tradition) cannot be the author; 2. The letter cannot have been originated by the official governing body of the Community mentioned in the introduction (because this would presuppose that the antagonism between Gentile and Jewish Christians had been resolved at a very early time)."

The article lists 12 reasons to doubt the authenticity of 1 Clement, yet http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement claims "Historians generally consider it authentic".
Something to mull over at work this afternoon.

ETA
I seem to have stumbled into a nightmare of controversy by quoting Hermann Detering.
My, my, my.

 

[smartcooky]

I see. Mmm. No hearsay. That is, not only is hearsay evidence not adequate in a court of law it is not evidence at all even in studies of the ancient world!! And the fantastic detail of the evidence you would require - contemporaneous official written records and multiply attested accounts personally written by the hand of eyewitnesses of the events related therein - could somebody please tell me for what person or event in ancient times we have anything like such material? Are you being serious?

Yes I'm being serious.

It is not too much to ask that, if Jesus really existed, there would be some record of his existence somewhere outside of the NT, which in its self is not contemporaneous with the story that the gospels tell. Its is not so much what people wrote about Jesus after he was allegedly executed that makes me skeptical. The compelling thing for me is why is there not one, single mention of him anywhere, by any of the philosophers, scribes or historians who lived during the time that Jesus was purported to have lived. After all, if we are to believe what the synoptic gospels say about him, Jesus was widely known, famous even, throughout the region.

Famous enough near the time of his supposed birth for Herod to have carried out an act of infanticide in order to ensure his death (for which by the way, there is absolutely no historical record outside of the NT)

Famous enough to have had great multitudes of dedicated followers. Numerous times in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke talk about the great multitudes that followed him, and the great crowds of people who gathered to listen to his word, so much so, that there often appeared to be standing room only....

► Matthew 4:25 "And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan"..

► Luke 12:1 - "...there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another,"

► Luke 5:15 - "But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities."

So famous, and yet not one among all of that multitude of followers, who must have numbered in the tens of thousands, recorded anything about him.

Famous enough to have reputedly become a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire; particularly that of Pilate (the Roman Governor) and Herod.

► Matthew 14:1, "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus"

Yet even with all that fame and notoriety with the government of the time, there is not a single mention of him in any Roman documentation.

Famous enough that during his persecution in Jerusalem, all the Head Priests and scribes, including Joseph Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest, supposedly organized the plot to kill Jesus; with Caiaphas himself getting involved in Jesus Sanhedrin trial

All that fame, but not a singe mention outside of the NT, of the plot, trial or the crucifixion... not one mention!!

Jesus' supposed many tens of thousands of devout followers are claimed to have regarded him as a teacher, a healer, a miracle worker and a prophet

► Matthew 14:5 - "...they counted him as a prophet."

► Matthew 14:14 - "And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick."

► Matthew 14:19-21 - "And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children."

We see here that the Gospels claim Jesus was hugely famous throughout Palestine with thousands upon thousand of followers and even thousands more who must surely have heard about him. Numbering among those were members of the Jewish Priesthood and the Roman Government, and yet not one of those people ever wrote anything about him during his lifetime.

Think of it as like being a researcher into the life and times of Leonard Da Vinci, and going to Florence, Italy. You are travelling around all of the museums, trawling through all of the original 15thC writings there, and not being able to find a single mention of Leonardo Da Vinci until you start looking into late 16th century writings. Well, that is what Christians want you to believe; that Jesus really existed in spite of a complete and utter lack of contemporaneous evidence to support that conclusion, and relying instead, only third-hand hearsay evidence written 50 to 150 years afterwards.