(Untitled)

[transformergeek]

Hello,

I've heard people speak of documents that are used to prove the historical existence of Jesus. Does anyone know anything about this? What historical proof do we have, other than The Bible, that Jesus walked The Earth?

Thanks!

Comments

[foxmagic]

See the Wikipedia article [[Historicity of Jesus]] for a fairly thorough treatment of your question.

The short of it is that, besides the Gospels, writings from only four contemporary authors have been found which even mention anything about Jesus in passing: Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus.

And of the two passages in Josephus's histories (see [[Josephus on Jesus]]), one of them is generally accepted to be a clumsy forgery, because its style differs so much from that of surrounding paragraphs and because it lauds Jesus in a way that a Jew such as Josephus would not have done. This passage is thought to have been written by the fourth-century monk Eusebius.

It's interesting to consider that the fourth-century Church would have felt so little evidence of Jesus existed that it had to manufacture such evidence.

[foxmagic]

Yup, that's the one. :)

[ysgawen]

From what I have heard, the passage on John the Baptist is a forgery, but the Jesus one is probably genuine. A jew would probably have praised a man who was seen as good. However, Tacitus says Jesus existed too, and we know he hated Christianity.

[holyoffice]

And of the two passages in Josephus's histories (see [[Josephus on Jesus]]), one of them is generally accepted to be a clumsy forgery,

I recommend Alice Whealey's book on this subject. Her conclusions are that the passage is not a "clumsy forgery," but that a single word or two may have been altered.

http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf

This is based on the recent discovery of a Syriac manuscript that contains the phrase, "he was believed to be the Christ," rather than "he was the Christ," which is the passage that prompted the forgery charges.

[elusivecharades]

Pardon, but I have a question regarding Wikipedia..it's my understanding that anyone can write up articles on any subject and post them to Wikipedia, correct? (If I remember right, a person was fired for writing an article that connected a co-worker to the assassination of JFK and another person, which was obviously a malicious prank.)

If *anyone* can write and post an article on anything to that website, how can anyone possibly trust what it says on important matters such as the life and existence of Jesus Christ, and the writings on him outside of the Bible?

Wouldn't it be better to consult and link to a more reliable website, such as something from a historian or university?

[archaist]

How true! I wonder if they realize how silly it sounds when they say "Don't trust the Bible for accuracy. Check out this bitchin' Wikipedia article!"

[foxmagic]

If *anyone* can write and post an article on anything to that website, how can anyone possibly trust what it says on important matters?

Because it's a community effort. Vandalism gets fixed quickly, especially in highly-trafficked articles like the ones about Jesus. Contributions get analyzed by all sides, and biased writing gets picked apart and rewritten factually until everyone can agree on it.

Keep in mind that professional encyclopedias online have disclaimers; no warranty is stated or implied as to the accuracy of their content. See Wikipedia:Trustworthiness for more on this.

[6543210]

eh, actually, the general belief seems to be that no one forged/edited that passage in Josephus -- instead, we misread it. we assume the passage presents Josephus as stating that Jesus was the Christ - and that in so saying, he was making a faith claim. instead, we should read it as would make more logical sense in a historical document - that Josephus is reporting that the man named Jesus was the "Christ" (as in, the man named Jesus was the one many referred to as the "Christ") -- which is not a faith claim on the part of Josephus at all.

as someone else mentions, early manuscripts point toward this conclusion (instead of forgery).