Christ's Tomb Found ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jesus-christ-tomb-discovery-jerusalem-israel-scientists-uncover-marble-rock-a7384206.html

Haven't seen even a hint of this in the Irish Media ?

Nick Park

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jesus-christ-tomb-discovery-jerusalem-israel-scientists-uncover-marble-rock-a7384206.html

Haven't seen even a hint of this in the Irish Media ?

It hasn't exactly been 'found' any time lately. Pilgrims and tourists have been visiting the site for 1600 years. They're just having a wee look inside - which hasn't happened for a few centuries.

I never heard of it.

How sure are they this is Christ's Tomb ?

Avatar MIA

Deleted User wrote: »

I never heard of it.

How sure are they this is Christ's Tomb ?

'The tomb was first discovered by Helena, mother of the Roman emperor Constantine, in 326 AD.'

So if Christ did exist why are we led to believe he didn't ? , not by the Church of course but by pretty much all else.

Mancomb Seepgood

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So if Christ did exist why are we led to believe he didn't ? , not by the Church of course but by pretty much all else.

We're led to believe that he didn't exist? The idea that Jesus is not a historical figure is a pretty fringe belief among historians. The main point of difference is who Jesus was, not whether Jesus existed.

Steve012

Deleted User wrote: »

So if Christ did exist why are we led to believe he didn't ? , not by the Church of course but by pretty much all else.

He existed alright man, Jewish scribes and high up roman historians wrote about him at the time and a few years after his death. One wrote (while he was alive)
"who is this man with his magician witchery" and "why are so many people following him"?
The dignitaries of the day, wealthy people, and high up Jewish folk were all included in peeps who followed him.

Who he was is another story?!?

Who was he indeed , son of God ? that's another thing, Jesus existed but no proof of God. I expect they'll never prove this either way probably because it was never intended for it to be proven, you either believe or not.

Though didn't the Bible say that it would be proven at the "end of the world" ?

Steve012

Deleted User wrote: »

Who was he indeed , son of God ? that's another thing, Jesus existed but no proof of God. I expect they'll never prove this either way probably because it was never intended for it to be proven, you either believe or not.

Though didn't the Bible say that it would be proven at the "end of the world" ?

Whenever that will be! not till after I gets me new motorbike I hope.

Your right, can't prove God, but an interesting thing and this is branching into physics, long story short, lots of scientists believe now, That the universe isn't random, it is by design! thus if it was designed.. there must have been a designer. DNA cannot morph from a fish to a monkey.. proven, yes natually selection can happen in species.

But morphing DNA .. nah, that's like saying windows 10 can turn into a mac ios, it can't because its base software program is very different. DNA (works similar to software)

Some say God, is infinite consciousness, infinite love. We as humans have duality, good and bad, and Yeshua (Jesus) came to show us how to live on the right side of duality.
e.g, Murdering for gain, child molesters..heroin dealers, live on the wrong side of duality.

Im off for a pint!

Its a big hole that each question poses a thousand more.. too big for our heads I sink!

Steve012

Steve012 wrote: »

Its a big hole that each question poses a thousand more.. too big for our heads I sink!

It sure is a head spinner.

Enjoy your Pint "s" !

Thinkingaboutit

It's more Christ's Tomb restored. There have been reports. The Ottomon edifice covering the tomb has been tottering longer than lifetimes of most people here (strengthened with steel bars in 1930s), so Christians should be relieved that a proper job is finally taking place.

Avatar MIA

Steve012 wrote: »

Whenever that will be! not till after I gets me new motorbike I hope.

Your right, can't prove God, but an interesting thing and this is branching into physics, long story short, lots of scientists believe now, That the universe isn't random, it is by design! thus if it was designed.. there must have been a designer. DNA cannot morph from a fish to a monkey.. proven, yes natually selection can happen in species.

But morphing DNA .. nah, that's like saying windows 10 can turn into a mac ios, it can't because its base software program is very different. DNA (works similar to software)

Some say God, is infinite consciousness, infinite love. We as humans have duality, good and bad, and Yeshua (Jesus) came to show us how to live on the right side of duality.
e.g, Murdering for gain, child molesters..heroin dealers, live on the wrong side of duality.

Im off for a pint!

Its a big hole that each question poses a thousand more.. too big for our heads I sink!

So much wrong with that. Would love to see the long list of scientists that believe evolution is so limited.

And before anyone claims I'm off topic - I didn't start it.

Steve012

Avatar MIA wrote: »

So much wrong with that. Would love to see the long list of scientists that believe evolution is so limited.

And before anyone claims I'm off topic - I didn't start it.

So much wrong with what? Have you been following string theory, then M theory, multiple universe theory.. Physics knows those theories can't be right. So they looked at design, and it's everywhere.
This is what scientists are saying not me.
Darwinism was blown out of the water once a scientists discovered mitochondrial Dna and how it really works. Natural selection yes but completely morphing over time, no.

0byme75341jo28

Steve012 wrote: »

So much wrong with what? Have you been following string theory, then M theory, multiple universe theory.. Physics knows those theories can't be right. So they looked at design, and it's everywhere.
This is what scientists are saying not me.
Darwinism was blown out of the water once a scientists discovered mitochondrial Dna and how it really works. Natural selection yes but completely morphing over time, no.

What on earth do you mean by completely morphing?

Avatar MIA

Steve012 wrote: »

This is what scientists are saying not me.

Still only hearing this 'revelation' from you. I did miss the main news last night though, maybe that's why.

Steve012

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Still only hearing this 'revelation' from you. I did miss the main news last night though, maybe that's why.

Yes everything is on the news Mia, everything!
There is google on the other hand.

Avatar MIA

Steve012 wrote: »

Yes everything is on the news Mia, everything!
There is google on the other hand.

Wow, you should explore this further. If only there was a conspiracy forum.

Steve012

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Wow, you should explore this further. If only there was a conspiracy forum.

I have that's why I posted it..
No need to be a smart ar*e

evolving_doors

Anyhow... So, What is the evidence that Jesus was buried there?

Avatar MIA

Steve012 wrote: »

I have that's why I posted it..

And that's where is should be kept. No point posting in multiple forums. Especially as there was no effort to expand on it, simple posting as if accepted fact. There was a reason it was posted in the CT forum.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Anyhow... So, What is the evidence that Jesus was buried there?

It was discovered by the Mum of the Roman Emperor and nearly 300 years after the event. What more evidence do you need?

evolving_doors

Avatar MIA wrote: »

And that's where is should be kept. No point posting in multiple forums. Especially as there was no effort to expand on it, simple posting as if accepted fact. There was a reason it was posted in the CT forum.



It was discovered by the Mum of the Roman Emperor and nearly 300 years after the event. What more evidence do you need?

Ok I get the ' fact ' that someones mum found a chamber 1700 years ago.
But what is the evidence she uncovered that pointed toward jesus. Apart from finding a chamber/cave whatever.
Was it built especially just for jesus and never used again after that?

Avatar MIA

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Ok I get the ' fact ' that someones mum found a chamber 1700 years ago.

Sorry, forgot the :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

Avatar MIA wrote: »

It was discovered by the Mum of the Roman Emperor and nearly 300 years after the event. What more evidence do you need?

Actually, no. Constantine's mother is supposed to have found the true cross at the site of the tomb, but the site of the tomb - if indeed it is the site of the tomb - was already known and venerated when she came to Jerusalem. She didn't discover it; she was shown it.

The Roman Emperor Hadrian (reigned 117-138 AD) is supposed to have built a temple to Aphrodite on the site of the tomb, to prevent Christians from venerated the site. If that's true, the temple was built between 80 and 100 years after the death of Christ, so it's quite possible that a site being venerated as the tomb of Christ was in fact the site of the tomb. And, ironically, the presence of the temple would thereafter serve to locat the site of the tomb. Constantine decided that the temple should be destroyed and a Christian basilica built, and that's what Helena was about when she found the cross.

So, nothing miraculous or improbable is alleged about the identification of the site of the tomb. That doesn't mean that the identification is solid, though. Even if Christians were venerating the "site of the tomb" eighty or a hundred years after the event, it's possible that they had the wrong site even them. Or, the story about the construction of the temple on the site of the tomb may not be true.

Our source for the story is Eusebius. On the one hand, he's a scholarly and careful writer, and still regarded today as a signficant source for the history of the period he writes about. He doesn't include stuff that he regards as fanciful or unreliable. (His account of Helena's visit to Jerusalem omits any claim that she found the true cross, for example.) On the other hand, he is writing maybe 200 years after the event he describes so, yeah, he could be wrong.

So, bottom line. The identification of the tomb of Jesus isn't solid. But it's also not implausible, and it certainly doesn't depend on claims about miracles, divine guidance, profoundly improbable events or anything of the kind.

In answer to Gebgbegb's question, no, the tomb wasn't built for Jesus. In a rare display of unanimity on a point of detail, all four gospels agree that the tomb belonged to a citizen of Jerusalem called Joseph of Arimathea, who either took it upon himself to bury Jesus, or made the tomb available to Jesus's followers for the purpose. (The gospels disagree on his motive for this.) It would likely have been his family tomb, and would already have contained some of his relatives, and presumably more would have been buried there afterwards.

evolving_doors

Ok so there is currently zero evidence to point to the burial (entoombing!) of jesus in that place...
Apart from the possibility that some of his family may have been buried there.

Peregrinus

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Ok so there is currently zero evidence to point to the burial (entoombing!) of jesus in that place...
Apart from the possibility that some of his family may have been buried there.

No, some of Joseph of Arimathea's family. There is no suggestion that any other members of Jesus's family were buried there.

But there is not "zero evidence" that Jesus was buried there; there are two independent accounts that say so - John and the Synoptics, and the claim is first recorded within 20 years or so of the event, which by the standards of ancient history is practically contemporary.

FWIW, the majority of historians of the period reckon that the gospel statements that Jesus was buried in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea are probably historically reliable. What is less certain is that the spot now venerated can be identified with that tomb.

Thinkingaboutit

The site was functioning as a quarry, tomb, open ground and waste dump for a fairly narrow window of time before the expanding city of Jerusalem engulfed it. It was outside Jerusalem for just sufficient time. A rival site the grooved and waterproofed Garden Tomb is more likely to have been a cistern or water trough. Catholics whether Greek Rite or Latin, Greek Rite Orthodox and Copts, in fact all the ancient communities hold to the Holy Sepulchre as the site. Hadrian's construction of a temple of Aphrodite to crown the new Aelia, named after his family, would have served as a means to desecrate a site revered by a mix of early Christians and Judaic Christians. The matter cannot be settled definitively except that the Garden Tomb is unlikely. Biddle, Martin (25 February 1999). The Tomb of Christ. Scarborough: Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0-7509-1926-4 is a good and short enough work on the topic. It traces a very ancient belief that the tomb and Calvary were on the site covered by the church of the Holy Sepulchre, long pre-dating St Monica's (or imperially directed) excavations. Scorning Eusebius of Caesarea and others who were in a position to know, seems a bit weak. There is circumstantial evidence for the traditional site while the Garden Tomb requires tendentious readings of scripture and doesn't look like a tomb of the time.

ScumLord

Steve012 wrote: »

He existed alright man, Jewish scribes and high up roman historians wrote about him at the time and a few years after his death. One wrote (while he was alive)
"who is this man with his magician witchery" and "why are so many people following him"?
The dignitaries of the day, wealthy people, and high up Jewish folk were all included in peeps who followed him.

Who he was is another story?!?

I didn't think there was any written records of Jesus by the romans not sure about the Jews. Can you link to a source? It's was part of what lead people to believe he wasn't real, because there's no written accounts of this rebel from the most prolific record keepers of the time.

Steve012 wrote: »

Your right, can't prove God, but an interesting thing and this is branching into physics, long story short, lots of scientists believe now, That the universe isn't random, it is by design! thus if it was designed..

Again, can you link to a source? Because no reputable scientists are saying the universe was by design. But this is a trope trotted out by creationists, they seem to think that if they just say something is true and it becomes science, but that's not how science works.

Peregrinus

ScumLord wrote: »

I didn't think there was any written records of Jesus by the romans not sure about the Jews. Can you link to a source? It's was part of what lead people to believe he wasn't real, because there's no written accounts of this rebel from the most prolific record keepers of the time.

This is a common belief, but it's false. The Romans were not prolific record keepers. Most of the records generated from Roman provinces were details of tax returns, which is all Rome was really interested in, and even they give no information at all about individuals. (Rome was only interested in the total amount collected.) The Romans also kept records of land ownership, but obviously the only names that ever feature in them are the names of landowners. And there were some records of military service, but unless you served (and were or became a citizen) your name would never feature in them.

And even the records which were made have mostly not survived. With the decline of the empire records were dispersed, left to rot or (frequently) used as fuel.

Jesus was not a citizen, and economically and socially was a person of very low status. The likelihood of his ever being named in a Roman record was negligible. Even his trial would not have been recorded, in all likelihood, since it did not involve a Roman citizen. If he had been named in a record, the likelihood of that record being among the tiny proportion that survived was again negligible. Remember that, about 35 years after the time of Jesus, Jerusalem was beseiged for 7 months, then taken by the Romans and utterly destroyed. You think many records survived that?

To put this in context, hundreds of people were executed by the Romans during the period that they governed Palestine. We have names for only a handful; one of those is Jesus of Nazareth. And, so far as I know, of the names we do have, not a single one comes from Roman records.

We can really draw no conclusions at all from the fact that Jesus is not named in Roman records.

ScumLord

Peregrinus wrote: »

We can really draw no conclusions at all from the fact that Jesus is not named in Roman records.

No, but the fact remains, there is no written record of Jesus from the time he was alive.

The problem is the bible is, it's one source, and while it may be based around historical events it's heavily biased in favour of promoting Jesus. I don't believe any of the miracles happened for instance, or at the very least the events got blown out of proportion. But this happens in historical records. Roman history would be heavily biased, but knowing that bias exists and comparing Roman accounts to the biased accounts of other cultures, we can find some truth by comparing them.

One historical account on it's own is problematic, We can only compare details with other historical accounts but any unique details can't be fully accepted as fact without some sort of corroboration.

Peregrinus

ScumLord wrote: »

No, but the fact remains, there is no written record of Jesus from the time he was alive.

True.

But there's also no written record of Alexander the Great from the time he was alive, or of Socrates. And they were both much more prominent in their own times and in their own societies than Jesus was.

So the absence of a contemporary written record of Jesus is not particularly telling.

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem is the bible is, it's one source . . .

Actually, no, it's several sources. It consists of a number of independent texts, written at different times in different places by different people. Independent sources don't become "one source" simply because centuries later somebody decides to bind them between a single set of covers.

I agree with you that it consists of polemical sources which need to be read critically. But that's true of pretty much all our sources for the history of the classical world; nobody at the time was writing dispassionate historiography. So the historians of the period do have a critical apparatus developed precisely for the purpose of evaluating sources like this.

You say that you don't believe that the miracles happened, or at best that the accounts we have are heavily distorted. You wouldn't be alone, there. But on the subject of this thread, which is Christ's tomb, I think the weight of historical opinion is that the claim that Jesus was buried in a nearby tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea is likely to be historically reliable. Sources which don't generally appear to draw from one another, and which disagree on other things, agree on this, which strongly suggests it's not an invention of any of the evangelists; they are all recording a belief or memory which was current before any of the gospels were written, and which was widespread. And the parsimonious explanation for this is that it's what actually happened. And of course there's nothing inherently supernaturalistic or improbable about the story.

Thinkingaboutit

Peregrinus wrote: »

True.

But there's also no written record of Alexander the Great from the time he was alive, or of Socrates. And they were both much more prominent in their own times and in their own societies than Jesus was.

So the absence of a contemporary written record of Jesus is not particularly telling.


Actually, no, it's several sources. It consists of a number of independent texts, written at different times in different places by different people. Independent sources don't become "one source" simply because centuries later somebody decides to bind them between a single set of covers.

I agree with you that it consists of polemical sources which need to be read critically. But that's true of pretty much all our sources for the history of the classical world; nobody at the time was writing dispassionate historiography. So the historians of the period do have a critical apparatus developed precisely for the purpose of evaluating sources like this.

You say that you don't believe that the miracles happened, or at best that the accounts we have are heavily distorted. You wouldn't be alone, there. But on the subject of this thread, which is Christ's tomb, I think the weight of historical opinion is that the claim that Jesus was buried in a nearby tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea is likely to be historically reliable. Sources which don't generally appear to draw from one another, and which disagree on other things, agree on this, which strongly suggests it's not an invention of any of the evangelists; they are all recording a belief or memory which was current before any of the gospels were written, and which was widespread. And the parsimonious explanation for this is that it's what actually happened. And of course there's nothing inherently supernaturalistic or improbable about the story.

Offhand, I can think of that coin of mine of Alexander (III) the Great, one of so many in existence. There's writing of some sort on the coin, not gonna extract it from the filing cabinet.

I think it likely that the more Judaising Christians under St James 'bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere' kept the traditional location in memory. I always thought the detail in Luke was interesting where the crowd make the threat to Prefect Pontius Pilate that he would not be a 'friend of Caesar' if Jesus was freed (a bit off topic, but related to what put Jesus in the tomb). Provincials long had the right of complaining about a governor to Rome, and if the complaint was serious, a recall would follow, and it be more serious than a Republican Rome trial before the Senate, where Senators thought it bad form to end a brother Senator's career.

Peregrinus

FWIW, the (non-scriptural) sources about Pilate suggest that he wasn't a terribly good governor, and was the subject of a lot of complaints to Rome, which eventually got him removed from post. A governor's main job was to keep the peace (and, ironically, within a few fairly broad constraints he could be as brutal as he liked in keeping the peace, as long as he was effective). This mattered because peace meant trade, and trade meant taxes, and taxes was what it was all about. Pilate's brutality was excessive, to the point where far from keeping the peace it tended to destabilise it.

Hotei

Peregrinus wrote: »

But there's also no written record of Alexander the Great from the time he was alive.

Do Egyptian hieroglyphs count?

Peregrinus

Hotei wrote: »

Do Egyptian hieroglyphs count?

They would. Are there Egyptian hieroglyphs which refer to Alexander and which are contemporary with him?

Hotei

Peregrinus wrote: »

They would. Are there Egyptian hieroglyphs which refer to Alexander and which are contemporary with him?

Yes. The walls of temple complexes on the east bank of the Nile at Thebes bear hieroglyphs dedicated to Alexander the Great as pharaoh, and are contemporaneous with his reign.

ScumLord

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no, it's several sources. It consists of a number of independent texts, written at different times in different places by different people. Independent sources don't become "one source" simply because centuries later somebody decides to bind them between a single set of covers.

It would be several sources all from the same point of view, I would have thought that would make it hard to be independant. The accounts would have come from people that witnessed the events, maybe they were following Jesus, basically acting like a media core. That would have made accounts pretty similar because these people were probably comparing and codifying the stories. If the accounts come from people that weren't there they are repeating what they'd heard those other people saying, or worse 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand accounts. That's not really a separate independent source, it's gossip at that stage.

LordSutch

Nick Park wrote: »

It hasn't exactly been 'found' any time lately. Pilgrims and tourists have been visiting the site for 1600 years. They're just having a wee look inside - which hasn't happened for a few centuries.

There are two reputed sites, one inside the walls of Jerusalem (Church of the Holy Sepulchre), the other site outside the East gate, above the Arab bus station atop a hill (Calvary)? and within the walls of the garden of Gethsemane. Both locations claim to be the true location for Christ's tomb. I've been to both.

Nick Park

LordSutch wrote: »

There are two reputed sites, one inside the walls of Jerusalem (Church of the Holy Sepulchre), the other site outside the East gate, above the Arab bus station atop a hill (Calvary)? and within the walls of the garden of Gethsemane. Both locations claim to be the true location for Christ's tomb. I've been to both.

I didn't like the Holy Sepulchre place. But the second one you mention (the Garden Tomb) was very inspiring.

Which one, if either, is correct? I don't know. And I doubt if it really matters.

Peregrinus

ScumLord wrote: »

It would be several sources all from the same point of view, I would have thought that would make it hard to be independant. The accounts would have come from people that witnessed the events, maybe they were following Jesus, basically acting like a media core. That would have made accounts pretty similar because these people were probably comparing and codifying the stories. If the accounts come from people that weren't there they are repeating what they'd heard those other people saying, or worse 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand accounts. That's not really a separate independent source, it's gossip at that stage.

When historical sources are said to be "independent", that means that they are independent of one another. Paul never read the any of the gospels, and therefore got no information from any of them, and there is no evidence that any of the gospel writers read Paul or took any information from him. Therefore Paul and the gospels are "independent sources" about Jesus. Whereas Matthew and Mark (for example) are not independent sources; Matthew quotes Mark extensively, and is obviously drawing information from his reading of Mark.

Ultimately, to the extent that the gospels (or any text about any event) are historical, they are not completely independent, in that they are all based either on direct observation of, or witness testimony about, the same events. So none of them are independent of the underlying facts. But that's a trivial observation, and of little use to historians. When historians describe sources as "independent" they don't mean independent of the facts or the events, or even independent in the sense of reflecting no bias; they mean the sources were independently constructed; they do not draw from one another.

ScumLord

Peregrinus wrote: »

When historical sources are said to be "independent", that means that they are independent of one another. Paul never read the any of the gospels, and therefore got no information from any of them, and there is no evidence that any of the gospel writers read Paul or took any information from him. Therefore Paul and the gospels are "independent sources" about Jesus. Whereas Matthew and Mark (for example) are not independent sources; Matthew quotes Mark extensively, and is obviously drawing information from his reading of Mark.

But where else does Paul get his information from? From what I can see he went and meet apostles got indoctrinated and then spread that message which he'd been told. It's not actually his own account, it's the account of the writers of the gospels. I wouldn't consider that independant just because he didn't write his letters until later. He is still repeating what he was told.

Peregrinus

Paul wrote his letter earlier than the gospels, which is how we know he didn't get his information by reading the gospels. We have no direct evidence that he ever met any of the writers of any of the gospels, though tradition suggests (and scholars tend to agree) that the author of Luke was a follower of Paul. There is no reason at all, therefore, to think that Paul got any information from Matthew, Mark or John, and while he could have got information from Luke, this is not likely for a couple of reasons. First, Luke was a disciple of Paul, so if anything the flow of information and teaching would have been in the other direction. Secondly, Luke was not an eyewitness to the any of the events narrated in the gospels; he makes this clear in his own gospel. So why would Paul be looking to Luke for information about these events? Luke himself put together his gospels by going around to witnesses and collecting their stories, but so far as we know he didn't do this until after all Paul's letters had been written. So all-in-all he's a very unlikely source for Paul.

Paul never met Jesus, but he was a contemporary of his - their lives overlapped - and therefore he was well-positioned to meet and talk to lots of people who knew Jesus, or heard him preach, or were otherwise connected with him. And this is almost certainly the source for the (very limited) biographical information which Paul's letters give us about Jesus. We have absolutely no reason at all to think that Paul got any information from Matthew, Mark or John, and it seems very unlikely that he got any from Luke. So, yeah, historians generally see him as an independents source about Jesus.

For the record, most historians reckon we have xxx independent sources for the historicity of Jesus. In more-or-less chronological order - we can't be absolutely precise about all the dates of composition - from the earliest to the latest we have:

Paul
The Synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke (count as one source)
Josephus (a Jewish historian)
John
Tacitus (a Roman historian)

We have no reason to think that any of these sources draw on any of the others; that's why they are "independent". There are several other independent-but-ambiguous potential sources - as in, they may reference to a figure who could be Jesus of Nazareth, but on the other hand might not be. Or, they do refer to Jesus, but we can't date them, so they might be too lately-composed to have much probative value. But these five are the ones historians generally mention when they say "yeah, it's very hard to explain the existence of these texts, if in fact Jesus of Nazareth never existed".

Peregrinus

Paul wrote his letters earlier than the gospels, which is how we know he didn't get his information by reading the gospels. We have no direct evidence that he ever met any of the writers of any of the gospels, though tradition suggests (and scholars tend to agree) that the author of Luke was a follower of Paul. There is no reason at all, therefore, to think that Paul got any information from Matthew, Mark or John, and while he could have got information from Luke, this is not likely for a couple of reasons. First, Luke was a disciple of Paul, so if anything the flow of information and teaching would have been in the other direction. Secondly, Luke was not an eyewitness to the any of the events narrated in the gospels; he makes this clear in his own gospel. So why would Paul be looking to Luke for information about these events? Luke himself put together his gospels by going around to witnesses and collecting their stories (and by reading Mark), but so far as we know he didn't do this until after all Paul's letters had been written. So all-in-all he's a very unlikely source for Paul.

Paul never met Jesus, but he was a contemporary of his - their lives overlapped - and therefore he was well-positioned to meet and talk to lots of people who knew Jesus, or heard him preach, or were otherwise connected with him. And this is almost certainly the source for the (very limited) biographical information which Paul's letters give us about Jesus. We have absolutely no reason at all to think that Paul got any information from Matthew, Mark or John, and it seems very unlikely that he got any from Luke. So, yeah, historians generally see him as an independents source about Jesus.

For the record, most historians reckon we have five reasonably robust independent sources for the historicity of Jesus. In more-or-less chronological order - we can't be absolutely precise about all the dates of composition - from the earliest to the latest we have:

Paul
The Synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke (count as one source)
Josephus (a Jewish historian)
John
Tacitus (a Roman historian)

We have no reason to think that any of these sources draw on any of the others; that's why they are "independent". There are several other independent-but-ambiguous potential sources - as in, they may reference to a figure who could be Jesus of Nazareth, but on the other hand might not be. Or, they do refer to Jesus, but we can't date them, so they might be too lately-composed to have much probative value. But these five are the ones historians generally mention when they say "yeah, it's very hard to explain the existence of these texts, if in fact Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

On edit: Note that we're just talking here about the question of whether the person we know as Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. We're not talking about whether every claim made about his is true. A historian who point to the Gospels as sources for the historicity of Jesus is not saying that everything in the gospels is true - that Jesus walked on water, rose from the dead, etc. He's just saying that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure, not a fictional character.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Paul wrote his letter earlier than the gospels, which is how we know he didn't get his information by reading the gospels. We have no direct evidence that he ever met any of the writers of any of the gospels, though tradition suggests (and scholars tend to agree) that the author of Luke was a follower of Paul. There is no reason at all, therefore, to think that Paul got any information from Matthew, Mark or John, and while he could have got information from Luke, this is not likely for a couple of reasons. First, Luke was a disciple of Paul, so if anything the flow of information and teaching would have been in the other direction. Secondly, Luke was not an eyewitness to the any of the events narrated in the gospels; he makes this clear in his own gospel. So why would Paul be looking to Luke for information about these events? Luke himself put together his gospels by going around to witnesses and collecting their stories, but so far as we know he didn't do this until after all Paul's letters had been written. So all-in-all he's a very unlikely source for Paul.

Paul never met Jesus, but he was a contemporary of his - their lives overlapped - and therefore he was well-positioned to meet and talk to lots of people who knew Jesus, or heard him preach, or were otherwise connected with him. And this is almost certainly the source for the (very limited) biographical information which Paul's letters give us about Jesus. We have absolutely no reason at all to think that Paul got any information from Matthew, Mark or John, and it seems very unlikely that he got any from Luke. So, yeah, historians generally see him as an independents source about Jesus.

For the record, most historians reckon we have xxx independent sources for the historicity of Jesus. In more-or-less chronological order - we can't be absolutely precise about all the dates of composition - from the earliest to the latest we have:

Paul
The Synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke (count as one source)
Josephus (a Jewish historian)
John
Tacitus (a Roman historian)

We have no reason to think that any of these sources draw on any of the others; that's why they are "independent". There are several other independent-but-ambiguous potential sources - as in, they may reference to a figure who could be Jesus of Nazareth, but on the other hand might not be. Or, they do refer to Jesus, but we can't date them, so they might be too lately-composed to have much probative value. But these five are the ones historians generally mention when they say "yeah, it's very hard to explain the existence of these texts, if in fact Jesus of Nazareth never existed".

Apologies for jumping in late on this, but I did feel the need to respond to your list. Let’s take a look at these sources for the historicity of Jesus more closely.

Paul

As you point out, Paul gives us very little biographical details about Jesus. If I recall correctly, he mentions almost none of the details of Jesus life – no background on his life, no teachings, no miracles. And while he does tell us where he gets his information from, it certainly isn’t historical – it comes directly from the Holy Spirit and scripture (Galatians 1:16, Romans 1:2, Corinthians 15:3-4). This gives us evidence of Paul’s beliefs, but it does not give us evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

The Synoptic Gospels

I’ve talked about the Synoptic Gospels at length on these pages, as well you know, so I will just briefly recap. We do not know who wrote them (the names associated with them date from the end of the second century), they provide no sources, and where they do attempt to intersect with history they are often highly questionable, to put it mildly (the census, the slaughter of the innocents, the trial of Jesus, etc). They show signs of being copied from each other extensively (Luke reproduces 50% of Marks text, and Matthew reproduces 90%), and have almost certainly have had some content added to them, again anonymously. As historical documents they can be perhaps most charitably described as ‘extremely unreliable’.

Josephus

Again, I’ve discussed Josephus with you before, so much so that I’m surprised to see you putting him forward here without qualification. Of the two references to Christ in Josephus, the shortest is almost certainly a single word of errant marginalia that subsequently became incorporated into the text. The other, longer reference, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, is as far as I know almost universally regarded as a later addition, the only question being how much of it is an interpolation. So, in a nutshell, no history of Jesus here. One sees a pattern beginning to emerge.

John

I note that you list John as a separate source, and I can understand why: his Jesus is a very different Jesus than the one presented in the Synoptics. But John shares the same problems as they do; anonymous, no sources, and evidence of later interpolations by other anonymous writers. In addition, John seems to be much more preoccupied with other agendas, such as rebuking earlier gospels, than in presenting anything approaching a historical narrative (Mark and Thomas immediately spring to mind).

Tacitus

Tacitus, one of the foremost Roman historians of his age, does give a brief synopsis what Christians believe (writing, it must be noted, almost a full century after the time of Christ), but unusually for him he does not give us any sources. In any case, even if authentic in its entirety, all we can gain from the Tacitus passage is an insight into what Christians believed in the early part of the second century; it does not prove that Jesus of Nazareth existed, even less in a way professed by Christians.

So, overall, not much historicity.

Peregrinus

We have indeed been through this before, Paul, so I’ll be brief.

Paul: Paul is taken to point to the historicity of Jesus, not so much on account of what he saysa bout Jesus (very little) but because he writes at all. He’s writing to a variety of communities of Jesus-followers in different places. If these communities don’t exist, it’s impossible to account for why Paul writes or, if he does write, why anybody pays any attention to what he says, or takes it seriously, or bothers to preserve and copy it. If they do exist, how did they come to exist? And the parsimonious explanation for this is that they existed because Jesus really did exist, and really did have a following in his own time, which survived his death.

This reading of Paul is corroborated by the fact that the few details that Paul does give are consistent with later sources, who seem to be unaware of Paul. Paul tells us that Jesus had a mother called Mary, had a brother called James, taught against divorce, was crucified. The earliest of the gospels, Mark, whose gospel doesn’t show any influence at all from Paul’s teachings, confirms these details. While we could conjecture that Mark read Paul, decided to disregard everything Paul said except for these details, and then construct a wholly new Jesus with only these details in common with Paul, it’s a fanciful speculation and one unsupported by any evidence or obvious rational purpose. The supposition that Mark and Paul are both writing about the same historical individual looks much more plausible.

The Synoptics: Yes, they’re anonymous and, yes, Mt and Lk draw extensively on Mk; that’s why they can only be considered one source, not three. And, yes, much of their history is doubtful. On the other hand, much of it isn’t - Pilate, Herod and Caiphas are all historical figures, for example - and Mark at least is writing well within the lifetime of contemporaries of Jesus, so if he had made him up out of whole cloth we could expect this would have been noticed. (The same goes for Paul, of course.)

Josephus: We have indeed discussed him before, but I don’t see why you should be surprised that I have not displayed a religious submission of will and intellect to your decrees on the subject. There’s no doubt that Josephus’s principal reference to Jesus was, um, embroidered by a partisan hand, possibly Eusebius. (It affirms that Jesus was the Messiah, or Christ.) But we also have Arabic and Syriac versions of Josephus which contain what look like unembroidered versions of the same passage, and it still tends to confirm the historicity of Jesus. Plus, we have pre-Eusebius Christian writers referring to Josephus as someone who confirms the historicity of Jesus, even though he denies that Jesus is the Christ. The point isn’t unarguable, but I think the mainstream consensus of scholars is that unembroidered Josephus contains a passage referring to the historical Christ, and specifically to his crucifixion under Pilate.

John: As you note, John’s Jesus is very different from the synoptics, and of course he doesn’t even pretend to give us a biographical narrative of Jesus’ life or ministry. His concern is to give us [what he regards as] an authentic presentation of Jesus’ teaching. it could be that his “authentic presentation” is simply a construction of his own, and that he seeks to give it greater credibility by attributing it to Jesus, who already has a following and a movement and, if that’s the case, he’s not compelling additional evidence for the historicity of Jesus. But, if so, there’s no explanation why the Jesus movement would take him seriously, or note or remember what he said, or bother to make copies of it. It seems more likely that John comes from a source that the Jesus movement was disposed to take seriously, and to accord authority to, and that his gospel reflects traditions which he didn’t invent, but which were already current within a section of the Jesus movement, which is why his gospel was taken seriously and gained acceptance. Again, he doesn’t give us much historical detail about Jesus that we don’t get from other sources, but the fact that he wrote at all, and was taken seriously, is most easily explained if Jesus is a historical figure, who gave rise to a following and a tradition from which John and his gospel emerge.