h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If evidence is to be considered reliable, the source of the evidence must also be considered.
The point about Josephus' manuscript was that there is strong suspicion suggesting it had been edited by Eusebius, a self-proclaimed propagandist and prevaricator.
The bit about Jesus being the Messiah supports the contention at least parts of the manuscript were doctored.
We have no way of knowing which parts, unsupported by prior or pristine sources, are true, therefore much of the manuscript is factually questionable.

That the non-contemporary writers may or may not have accessed now vanished Roman records is speculation.

Considering the spectacular events claimed in the New Testament gospels, and considering there are numerous contemporary records and manuscripts detailing events of that era, isn't it strange there are none containing any references to Jesus?

Indeed, absence of proof is not proof of absence, yet since none of the contemporary historical records we have do anything to support the historicity of Jesus, why should we simply accept such a person ever existed?

Thanks for the link. Most of it seems to be standard apologistics about the gospels, however, which are by definition non-secular.

The quote from the former Benedictine monk, Luke Timothy Johnson, "Even the most critical historian, etc.." merely states his opinion. I await some hard evidence to support Mr. Johnson's assertion, and similar assertions of other Christian apologists.

'The bit about Jesus being the Messiah supports the contention at least parts of the manuscript were doctored.'

Not really it doesn't. All of Jesus' followers were Jews weren't they? Some pretty devout Jews, so we are led to believe. All it does is point to the obvious bias of the account, but even that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't genuine.

'That the non-contemporary writers may or may not have accessed now vanished Roman records is speculation.

Fair point. What I am striving to point out, though, is that forty years isn't very far away from an actual event, and it is entirely plausible that the writers and historians of the 1st century would have been able to talk to people who remembered the events personally and get some (albeit slightly ropey) first hand accounts. What motivation does Tacitus have to record Jesus if he isn't real? The fact is that you have a number of independent sources describing the same person, each one making it less and less likely that the others are all works of fiction. Bear in mind too that while we are used to reading the new testament as a collected work, that's only because it was subsequently assembled that way. The various gospels were just the written accounts of individuals involved, and four seperate people wrote of the (often simillar or even identical) life story of the same bloke. I don't think you'll find there are this many accounts of the life of Julius Caesar. It seems pretty likely that he was real, and entirely plausible that, one way or another, the stories became more and more blurred and erroniously reported so that we end up with the stories with which we are now familliar.

Taliesin,

If you do the math on the years most of these are written 50-80 years or so from Christs death, not over 100 years. Many within the lifetime of people who might have witnessed the death. Furthermore they are in some cases reports that are addressed to their Emperor or are about their lifes, perhaps collating many pre-existing sources to make a definitive history (which will always be many years after specific events). They would be relatively painstaking to make sure they would not be ridiculed as being inaccurate by their peers. It's simply not true to say there are no non-Christian historical records of the Christ's existence.

The newly discovered Didach and the Matthew Gospel fragment (http://www.equip.org/free/DJ028.pdf) are dated within 10-20 years of Christs death. James early Paul epistles are in the same period around 50-60 AD. Certainly in a period where many could have challenged them with eyewitness rebuttals. And we have none - not a single voice from antiquity indicating they where not substantially accurate. Is this analysis 'cast-iron' - no. There is an older tradition of liberal literary interpretation that resists this view and suggests a 10-20 years later dating, but even so the case is not destroyed.

IMO it takes quite an assertive and negative POV to nevetheless say that there is NO reasonable evidence of Christs existence and that the traditional story was not being articulated in ways we would recognize within a short period from the events in question.

None of us doubt the existence and the given life history of characters such as Socrates and and we only really have one reference for him, by his pupil Plato written perhaps 50 years after his teachers death.

I agree that there are questions over the dates and authenticity as well as bias of some sources. No one is suggesting they are 'perfect' evidence sources to a standard of 'evidence' we might wish today. But overall they are very reasonable ones given circumstances telling a fairly consistent story.

It's enough for most biblical scholars to accept that Christ existed and had a remarkable life/death - exactly what detail is debatable. To say otherwise puts one on an extreme and shaky limb, those that do are open to the question of 'why, when you do not hold other historical characters to the same level of evidence?'. It indicates there is an ulterior motivation - a clinging to an unreasonable POV for a personal need, a kind of denial. Given the need that many have to maintain an atheistic position is that analysis possible do you think?

Ignoring the sprinkling of ad hominem...

The sole point I think I have made is that, no matter how popular the idea, due to lack of reasonable evidence, the statement, "Jesus certainly existed" remains open to debate.

At the risk of repeatedly masticating my brassica oleracea:
We have absolutely no reliable evidence, from secular sources, that Jesus ever lived, or that any of the events surrounding his life as described in the four Gospels ever happened.
There is no contemporary record, despite there being many contemporary record keepers.
I ask: Is this not rather surprising considering the 'multitudes' of followers, profound impact on secular Roman officialdom, and involvement in some quite astonishing and tumultuous events?

All the evidence is hearsay, whether it was written 5, 10 or 100 years later does not alter that fact. The Didach and Matthew fragments do not alter that fact one iota.

And fyi, I do hold other reputed historical characters to the same level of evidence.
I would equally challenge the statement, "Socrates certainly existed", for example, and if provided "relible, secular evidence", I would concede, as I would in the case of the Jesus of the New Testament Gospels.

I have no evidence that you exist Taliesin either, other than your postings, that will probably dissapear in time unless BBC have very good archive process.

Your POV is legitimate. But to my reckoning it's not reasonable.

I'll drop off this conversation for a while. Have fun, and remember... 'you have a choice over your subjective ultimate meaning, since nothing meaningful is certainly objectively provable.'

And, actually, there are sources from the early period which very clearly dispute the canonical picture of Jesus. Never mind the inconsistancies in the picture that emerges from the Gospels and the Epistles: if we consider the testimony of witnesses who were later labeled heretics, the picture of Jesus becomes a Jackson Pollockesque spattering of rhetorical paint. The New Testament as we have it is what the Church picked out of this mythological Rorschach test. There are stories of Jesus walking about Judea a simple ordinary man, there are stories he was the son of God, there are stories he was the son of man, there are stories that he was just a story, and, of course, there is the possibility that Christianity started out as a magic mushroom cult.

I just wanted a pyrrhic reponse to Anhaga as he posted before I dropped off.

Anhaga - you could not have given me a better setup to make my point for me!. (Perhaps you are an undercover ontologial guerilla)

If you see my post 736 para 3 and 4, you'll note that I acknowledge the non-canonical documents, and argue that they can be seen in the context of a reaction to an emerging consensus. These gnostic gospels where labelled heretical at the time by Church fathers as well as the gospels of John as well as Pauline epistles. If they where missing it would be a piece of the human puzzle lost. The fact they exist and are commented on by the church fathers is what you would expect from a real human drama and not some fiction. To every action there is a reaction, but dont let that dynamic confuse you.

The analogies you give are great. If you approach abstract Jackson Pollock art looking for 'still life realism' you wil find a chaotic piece. But if you step into the shoes of Pollack, see his POV, then what appears random starts to show a pattern. The intelligence and purpose of the colour and dynamism come through and the artist comunicates. Just as the Roscharch test is meaningless to the colour blind to those with eyes to see they can see a message and a purpose behind it.

It maybe that you are right, that the sources we have are concocted and are lies. That the consistency is a manufacture of our minds. But there is a very real possibility that it is not. That they are genuine historical documents, and that NT records map into the OT messianic prophecy. That the metaphysical exegesis is accurate. That our being inspired by the meaning of the good news gives life and purpose for us here and now.

There is a possibility that you are colour blind and not an abstract art fan you know!

Of course I don't exist

Others appear to behave as though I do, yet can it be truly said that any really know me?

Though no one in particular knows I've tried, I cannot even seem to objectively observe myself....

Ah, well. Share and enjoy

Nothing to attain
No one to seek attainment
Not a thing exists

P4T:

a) I should have responded to the subject line: No.

b) 'they can be seen in the context of a reaction to an emerging consensus' as can the canonical documents.

c) speaking as an actual scholar of things Mediaeval : When we're talking about the Imperial (early and late) Period and the Early Medieval, it's a load of guess work. You want to believe Jesus walked and talked and ate bananas? Have at 'er. You want to believe that there wasn't a marble building in Rome before Augustus? Have at 'er. You want to believe it's all Mithras? Have at 'er.

d) the ultimate question that I raise again and again: How does it work? Seriously, this whole faith/spirituality/god thing comes down to 'I don't give a s*it how it works -- I believe in it.'



e) I well understand (from reproducable personal experience as well as theory) the details of fermentation and distillation, so, I think I'll return to the products of them and enjoy far more tangible benefits than prayer (for example) will ever provide.

Oh alright then, how about this:

'It is reasonable to say that in all likliness, Jesus existed'?

<<'It is reasonable to say that in all likliness, Jesus existed'?>>

Eminently reasonable in my opinion...

Vicky

And for the sceptics?

<>

I think it is unreasonable to be sceptical about the fact of Jesus' existence - the question for the sceptic should be, IMO, the *menaing* of it, not the fact of it.

Vicky

There is nothing unreasonable about being sceptical about the fact of Jesus' existence. There were many people who were thought to be or claimed to be 'The MESSIAH' see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants

we arent talking about whether he was the messiah all we are saying is that Jesus existed as a person.

now we have to decide if he was the messiah

Facts
1) If he existed, his name wasn't Jesus.
2) The Jewish messiah was not the son of god.
3) He was not born in Bethlehem.
4) He didn't live in Nazareth.
4) His apostles were not Jews they were Galileans (except for Judas who was a Judean)

'The old testament has proved quite useful for historians at finding stuff, like Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, which is real and apparently subject to some sort of liquifaction style disaster with unexplained flaming that scientists were able to explain.'

Sodom and Gomorrah have not been found! See 'A Great Christian Scam' @ http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-AGreatChristianScam.html

'records of his crucifiction and the recollections of pontious pilate who, I think, recalls a description of Jesus, as well as of the events of the trial.'

There are no records from Pontious Pilate. The only record we have of his existance is fron Josephus Flavius.

Prof Feuerbach (hope I spelt it right) once wrote this - "The stronger and richer God is, the weaker and poorer becomes man. God represents mans powers transferred from the owner to a being outside him." - Once you have cooked up a really useful God you have a good argument for shifting the responsibility on to his shoulders. Then you can get away with hanging all sorts of irritating blokes - of course you need a power base to do it, so you make sure that all your politicians and police etc etc are all worshipping the same God.

Benjamin,

I was thinking just now about a question you had posed earlier (I paraphrase) “Why, is it proposed, that God had only clearly in the life of Jesus manifested his presence objectively – specifically why not more objective evidence clearly for his presence in our age”.

From a Christians POV I believe there could be many responses to that question. But one came to me as follows…

In Mark 15:31-32 he relates in part the passion scene where the chief priests mocked him saying. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe."

In a sense if we ask God to intervene in our world again as he did in the Incarnation, would we be in some sense setting up Christ to be crucified again? Would we not treat another coming of Christ the same way with skepticism and unbelief? If as Christians believe the atonement for our sin has been performed in Christ’s passion – the question is in part “should we put ‘God in the Dock’ again, and again before EVERYONES’s eyes – and for what purpose?” Is it so we must ‘see and believe’, that we position ourselves that faith actually has no value?

There comes a point, for each person, when we need to put aside the never ending positivist evaluation of the ‘case for Christ’. For us to rationally and objectively come up with our personal view from that perspective, and then ask ourselves if we have any other reasons to believe?

For me it is a solid & reasonable case, but not a certain one. From a positivist sense you will always be able to find cause for some doubt. But, for me, what persuades me to be a Christian is the subjective reasons I find within myself, when I apply my whole being to find the meaning in the BIG question. I have faith.

I was reading this morning a passage from G K Chesterton, it’s his reason why he decided to follow ‘the way, the truth and the life’ of Christ…

“These are my ultimate attitudes towards life; the soils for the seeds of doctrine. These in some dark way I thought before I could write, and felt before I could think: that we may proceed more easily afterwards, I will roughly recapitulate them now. I felt in my bones; first, that this world does not explain itself. It may be a miracle with a supernatural explanation; it may be a conjuring trick, with a natural explanation. But the explanation of the conjuring trick, if it is to satisfy me, will have to be better than the natural explanations I have heard. The thing is magic, true or false. Second, I came to feel as if magic must have a meaning, and meaning must have some one to mean it. There was something personal in the world, as in a work of art; whatever it meant it meant violently. Third, I thought this purpose beautiful in its old design, in spite of its defects, such as dragons. Fourth, that the proper form of thanks to it is some form of humility and restraint: we should thank God for beer and Burgundy by not drinking too much of them. We owed, also, an obedience to whatever made us. And last, and strangest, there had come into my mind a vague and vast impression that in some way all good was a remnant to be stored and held sacred out of some primordial ruin. Man had saved his good as Crusoe saved his goods: he had saved them from a wreck. All this I felt and the age gave me no encouragement to feel it. And all this time I had not even thought of Christian theology.”

http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonfiction/Religion/Orthodoxy/Contents.htm

(Orthodoxy, the Ethics of Elfland – Final Page)

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply- nose op and stuff (see my personal space).

Anyway- you feel that Chesterton's extract expresses your own ideas? I can't help feeling that the parapgraph you have shown me is full of flaws in terms of it's thinking. He knows dragons don't exist doesn't he? This, I suppose, is the trouble. If you examine atheist thinking, Darwinism and stuff, you tend to find that it flows, logically, one thing from the next and makes sense. Whereas theologans of whatever faith seem, at some point, to need to tie themselves in logical knots, or else to ask you to 'depart from logic' in some way, in order for their version of events. I can see the attraction of a beleief God, but when you weigh up the merits of the 'for' and 'against' arguments, 'for' often winds up looking rather flimsy.