Archeological data and primary sources for New Testament characters

[Cypress]

Archaeological data:

A stone inscription identifying Pontius Pilate
The tomb of Jewish high priest Caiapahas who presided over the Sandedrin trial of Jesus
The tomb of James the Just, brother of Jesus (this is still open to debate by scholars)
Speculations about the location of the tomb of Jesus and the location of the crucifixion are probably bogus.


Primary 1st century written attestations:

Four canonical gospels
Epistles of Paul
Gospel of Thomas
Roman- Pliny the Younger
Roman- Tacitus
Jewish historian Josephus, who knew about Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Jesus, and James the brother of Jesus.

 

[Kafka]

Archeological Data that proves Stephen King's novel "The Stand" is real

The city of Las Vegas actually EXISTS. It can be visited.
The city of Boulder, CO actually EXISTS. It can be visited.
The country of America exists. It can be visited
Pandemics have happened in the past (history)

Primary Witnesses:
Direct account from Stephen King. No one contests the attribution of "The Stand" to Stephen King.


CAVEAT AND WHY I POSTED THIS:
By this point, Cypress will no longer be reading. He will be enraged that I have suggested the Bible is at least in part fiction. But here's the actual point for people smart enough to understand it:

1. It doesn't really matter if Jesus was a real person or not. It is reasonable to assume he was real, one supposes. Most scholars now agree he was probably real.

2. The Jesus who was an itinerant apocalyptic messianic preacher in Palestine in the first century CE means he was quite a common type character for the time and place.

3. It is reasonable to assume much if not all of the Gospels represent an actual "picture" of life in first century CE Palestine but that does NOT necessarily mean that all the events recorded were TRUE. Yes we can find evidence of many of the characters just as you can find many cases where REAL PEOPLE were used as FICTIONAL CHARACTERS in novels. We literally see it all the time in the modern world.

4. We know that the Gospels were all written for specific PURPOSES not as a history per se. As such they differ in subtle and interesting ways which point to the political or theological reasons the writer put pen to paper. When an ulterior motive shows up in a document to explain why the document is what it is then it calls into question how accurately it reports the events of the time. Jesus has a couple different genealogies. They were developed to fulfill some prophetic aspect of Jesus' story.

5. So what if there was an itinerant apocalyptic messianic teacher wandering Palestine in the first century CE? I think a rational person would be able to understand that he did NOT do miracles. He didn't walk on water, he didn't change any water into wine, etc. In other words he wasn't really all that special per se.

NOW: There are a lot of Jesus' teachings that are fantastic. And, indeed, as far as I can tell from a secular standpoint, these are the meat of the value in the Gospels. But do we really know if Jesus said them? Or were they ideas in the zeitgeist at the time that the authors attributed to Jesus in order to better coordinate the thinking of the times. We already know a lot of the Gospels were simply made up (how could they not be given the inconsistencies and the supernatural stuff).

FINALLY: Don't get me wrong. I love a lot of the commands in the Gospels that Jesus espouses. Love thy enemy, etc. It is all good, even if it is something most of us can't do. But I guess I don't "NEED" the details of Jesus' life to be "proven". If he existed he was a mere mortal human being. He had (or was attributed) a great deal of wisdom and a good message. The message is really the key. You don't need to PROVE Jesus' life was or wasn't as depicted in the Gospels.

Paul didn't really need to experience a real physical Jesus to write extensively about what Jesus wanted for all mankind. He did, however, have the ability to coalesce concepts and frame them in a pre-existing sect and effectively invent the religion we have today as Christianity. Even if that religion looks nothing like what the folks in Jerusalem who could be expected to have actually experienced the physical Christ imagined it would.

(Also I have not heard that anyone has yet suggested that the Josephus mentions of Christ aren't just Medieval additions, which is what I thought the current thinking was. Have they found something else?)

 

[Cypress]

Archeological Data that proves Stephen King's novel "The Stand" is real

The city of Las Vegas actually EXISTS. It can be visited.
The city of Boulder, CO actually EXISTS. It can be visited.
The country of America exists. It can be visited
Pandemics have happened in the past (history)

Primary Witnesses:
Direct account from Stephen King. No one contests the attribution of "The Stand" to Stephen King.


CAVEAT AND WHY I POSTED THIS:
By this point, Cypress will no longer be reading. He will be enraged that I have suggested the Bible is at least in part fiction. But here's the actual point for people smart enough to understand it:

1. It doesn't really matter if Jesus was a real person or not. It is reasonable to assume he was real, one supposes. Most scholars now agree he was probably real.

2. The Jesus who was an itinerant apocalyptic messianic preacher in Palestine in the first century CE means he was quite a common type character for the time and place.

3. It is reasonable to assume much if not all of the Gospels represent an actual "picture" of life in first century CE Palestine but that does NOT necessarily mean that all the events recorded were TRUE. Yes we can find evidence of many of the characters just as you can find many cases where REAL PEOPLE were used as FICTIONAL CHARACTERS in novels. We literally see it all the time in the modern world.

4. We know that the Gospels were all written for specific PURPOSES not as a history per se. As such they differ in subtle and interesting ways which point to the political or theological reasons the writer put pen to paper. When an ulterior motive shows up in a document to explain why the document is what it is then it calls into question how accurately it reports the events of the time. Jesus has a couple different genealogies. They were developed to fulfill some prophetic aspect of Jesus' story.

5. So what if there was an itinerant apocalyptic messianic teacher wandering Palestine in the first century CE? I think a rational person would be able to understand that he did NOT do miracles. He didn't walk on water, he didn't change any water into wine, etc. In other words he wasn't really all that special per se.

NOW: There are a lot of Jesus' teachings that are fantastic. And, indeed, as far as I can tell from a secular standpoint, these are the meat of the value in the Gospels. But do we really know if Jesus said them? Or were they ideas in the zeitgeist at the time that the authors attributed to Jesus in order to better coordinate the thinking of the times. We already know a lot of the Gospels were simply made up (how could they not be given the inconsistencies and the supernatural stuff).

FINALLY: Don't get me wrong. I love a lot of the commands in the Gospels that Jesus espouses. Love thy enemy, etc. It is all good, even if it is something most of us can't do. But I guess I don't "NEED" the details of Jesus' life to be "proven". If he existed he was a mere mortal human being. He had (or was attributed) a great deal of wisdom and a good message. The message is really the key. You don't need to PROVE Jesus' life was or wasn't as depicted in the Gospels.

Paul didn't really need to experience a real physical Jesus to write extensively about what Jesus wanted for all mankind. He did, however, have the ability to coalesce concepts and frame them in a pre-existing sect and effectively invent the religion we have today as Christianity. Even if that religion looks nothing like what the folks in Jerusalem who could be expected to have actually experienced the physical Christ imagined it would.

(Also I have not heard that anyone has yet suggested that the Josephus mentions of Christ aren't just Medieval additions, which is what I thought the current thinking was. Have they found something else?)

Overly verbose word salad.

You are free to believe the main characters in the New Testament are complete fabrications and never existed.

Almost all reputable scholars of antiquity think Jesus is the most well attested Palestinian Jew of the first century. He is far more well attested than Confucious, Socrates, The Bhudda, Muhammed.

How did Josephus know about Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, James brother of Jesus, but the two Jesus references themselves are fabrications?
Most reputable scholars think the two references to Jesus are genuine, but the second one has been modified.

 

[Kafka]

You are free to believe the main characters in the New Testament are complete fabrications and never existed.

Actually I didn't say that at all. You really are unable to read aren't you? Were the words too big?

Almost all reputable scholars of antiquity think Jesus is the most well attested Palestinian Jew of the first century. He is far more well attested than Confucious, Socrates, The Bhudda, Muhammed.

And if you had honestly read my post you'd see I am A-OK with that. I said as much in the post.

PLEASE READ THEM BEFORE RESPONDING YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

How did Josephus know about Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, James brother of Jesus, but the two Jesus references themselves are fabrications?
Most reputable scholars think the two references to Jesus are genuine, but the second one has been modified.

Citation please.

 

[Kafka]

Overly verbose word salad.

Can we start a fund here on JPP so Cypress can learn how to read? We can buy him some phonics books.

 

[Cypress]

Actually I didn't say that at all. You really are unable to read aren't you? Were the words too big?



And if you had honestly read my post you'd see I am A-OK with that. I said as much in the post.

PLEASE READ THEM BEFORE RESPONDING YOU FUCKING IDIOT.



Citation please.

Write less....most people here don't want to slog through an excessively verbose wall of words.

You didn't explain why how two Jesus references in Josephus can be totally fabricated, but the references to other New Testament characters are genuine, like James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, and John the Baptist. Why would those be genuine, and the Jesus references be totally fabricated?

I'm not here to teach you. If you aren't aware that most reputable scholars think the two refences to Jesus in Josephus are genuine, even if the second reference has been modified, then you need to educate yourself.

 

[Kafka]

Write less

Read more. I don't have to hold your hand. If you don't want to read my post DO NOT RESPOND TO IT. It's that simple, douche
.

You didn't explain why how two Jesus references in Josephus can be totally fabricated, but the references to other New Testament characters are genuine, like James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, and John the Baptist. Why would those be genuine, and the Jesus references totally fabricated?

Citation please.

If you aren't aware that most reputable scholars think the two refences to Jesus in Josephus are genuine, even if the second reference has been modified, then you need to educate yourself.

Le Sigh. I asked because I don't know for certain. You see, Cypress. I don't mind not knowing a fact. Unlike you my ego isn't wholly tied into everyone thinking I'm the smartest person in the room.

That's why I couched it as a question and asked for citations against the medieval forgery hypothesis.

I'm surprised you get so bent when someone asks a simple question. But I note you can't really answer it. So I'll go figure it out on my own.

 

[Cypress]

Read more. I don't have to hold your hand. If you don't want to read my post DO NOT RESPOND TO IT. It's that simple, douche
.


Citation please.



Le Sigh. I asked because I don't know for certain. You see, Cypress. I don't mind not knowing a fact. Unlike you my ego isn't wholly tied into everyone thinking I'm the smartest person in the room.

That's why I couched it as a question and asked for citations against the medieval forgery hypothesis.

I'm surprised you get so bent when someone asks a simple question. But I note you can't really answer it. So I'll go figure it out on my own.

What's my motivation for agreeing to be your teacher, when you have a long history of screaming at me in ALL CAPs rants, wallowing in rage posts, and deceiving me about your sock puppets.

You have the morality and ethics of a pig. You truly are a repulsive person.

Balance of probability--> the Jesus, John the Baptist, James the Just references in Josephus are probably genuine, and along with all the other primary sources and archeological data point to the fact that the characters described in the New Testament were real people.

 

[Kafka]

What's my motivation for agreeing to be your teacher,

You have none. Seriously I couldn't care less. You made a statement I asked a question about it and asked what data you had about it and you blew a fuse as usual.

I wish you were an adult or able to control your emotions.

when you have a long history of screaming at me in ALL CAPs rants, wallowing in rage posts, and deceiving me about your sock puppets.

I can't deal with your non-stop grievances. If you can't answer a simple, honest question then I feel sorry for you.

Balance of probability--> the Jesus, John the Baptist, James the Just references in Josephus are probably genuine, and along with all the other primary sources and archeological data point to the fact that the characters described in the New Testament were real people.

Citation please.

 

[Kafka]

Just another thread that Cypress screams at anyone who so much as questions his assumptions.

 

[Kafka]

What's my motivation for agreeing to be your teacher,

Have you actually read the Bible? I'm asking seriously because you talk so much about the historicity of Jesus as if it matters. So I am curious why Jesus' words miss you so widely?

I'd suggest you hit up Matthew 5:43-48, Matthew 7:1, Matthew 18:21-22, Luke 6:27, Luke 6:31, Luke 6:37

I honestly thought you were being honest when you claimed you were an "agnostic", I just questioned how widely you applied that epistemology. So I assume that you are not caught up in the "miracles" and the "death and resurrection" are not necessarily key things to you (otherwise you'd be a Christian) so much as the MESSAGE. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

So it is quite fascinating how little of the message you presumably value that you actually listen to.

 

[Kafka]

What's my motivation for agreeing to be your teacher,

Oh, BTW, can I ask a favor? When you, as usual, accuse me of screaming at you in all caps, could you please find an actual EXAMPLE of that rather than YOU changing my posts into all caps as if I'm screaming. Just a bit of "common decency", which I know you are incapable of given your lax "morality" and non-existent "ethics", but I thought I'd ask nicely.

 

[Knuckles Neanderthal]

Archeological Data that proves Stephen King's novel "The Stand" is real

The city of Las Vegas actually EXISTS. It can be visited.
The city of Boulder, CO actually EXISTS. It can be visited.
The country of America exists. It can be visited
Pandemics have happened in the past (history)

Primary Witnesses:
Direct account from Stephen King. No one contests the attribution of "The Stand" to Stephen King.


CAVEAT AND WHY I POSTED THIS:
By this point, Cypress will no longer be reading. He will be enraged that I have suggested the Bible is at least in part fiction. But here's the actual point for people smart enough to understand it:

1. It doesn't really matter if Jesus was a real person or not. It is reasonable to assume he was real, one supposes. Most scholars now agree he was probably real.

2. The Jesus who was an itinerant apocalyptic messianic preacher in Palestine in the first century CE means he was quite a common type character for the time and place.

3. It is reasonable to assume much if not all of the Gospels represent an actual "picture" of life in first century CE Palestine but that does NOT necessarily mean that all the events recorded were TRUE. Yes we can find evidence of many of the characters just as you can find many cases where REAL PEOPLE were used as FICTIONAL CHARACTERS in novels. We literally see it all the time in the modern world.

4. We know that the Gospels were all written for specific PURPOSES not as a history per se. As such they differ in subtle and interesting ways which point to the political or theological reasons the writer put pen to paper. When an ulterior motive shows up in a document to explain why the document is what it is then it calls into question how accurately it reports the events of the time. Jesus has a couple different genealogies. They were developed to fulfill some prophetic aspect of Jesus' story.

5. So what if there was an itinerant apocalyptic messianic teacher wandering Palestine in the first century CE? I think a rational person would be able to understand that he did NOT do miracles. He didn't walk on water, he didn't change any water into wine, etc. In other words he wasn't really all that special per se.

NOW: There are a lot of Jesus' teachings that are fantastic. And, indeed, as far as I can tell from a secular standpoint, these are the meat of the value in the Gospels. But do we really know if Jesus said them? Or were they ideas in the zeitgeist at the time that the authors attributed to Jesus in order to better coordinate the thinking of the times. We already know a lot of the Gospels were simply made up (how could they not be given the inconsistencies and the supernatural stuff).

FINALLY: Don't get me wrong. I love a lot of the commands in the Gospels that Jesus espouses. Love thy enemy, etc. It is all good, even if it is something most of us can't do. But I guess I don't "NEED" the details of Jesus' life to be "proven". If he existed he was a mere mortal human being. He had (or was attributed) a great deal of wisdom and a good message. The message is really the key. You don't need to PROVE Jesus' life was or wasn't as depicted in the Gospels.

Paul didn't really need to experience a real physical Jesus to write extensively about what Jesus wanted for all mankind. He did, however, have the ability to coalesce concepts and frame them in a pre-existing sect and effectively invent the religion we have today as Christianity. Even if that religion looks nothing like what the folks in Jerusalem who could be expected to have actually experienced the physical Christ imagined it would.

(Also I have not heard that anyone has yet suggested that the Josephus mentions of Christ aren't just Medieval additions, which is what I thought the current thinking was. Have they found something else?)

I must say, masterful analysis.

 

[Kafka]

I must say, masterful analysis.

Thanks. It's kinda weak but it gets the point across.

For all the people who find archeological validation that there are things in the Bible that actually existed in reality doesn't move the needle much.

There is also a great deal of archeological evidence which calls into question a lot of the Bible. The stories of David before he became King have him running around all over Israel often visiting towns that didn't exist at that time.

None of this matters in the fullness of the discussion. There IS a lot of good stuff in the Bible. A lot of valuable information. But there is also a lot of "made up" stuff as well.

I think it's kind of a fools errand to go looking for evidence that Jerusalem existed 2000 years ago. Sure enough real things often make their way into fictional things. Especially for a people who weren't writing history in the same manner we understand history today.

 

[Cypress]

Archaeological data:

A stone inscription identifying Pontius Pilate
The tomb of Jewish high priest Caiapahas who presided over the Sandedrin trial of Jesus
The tomb of James the Just, brother of Jesus (this is still open to debate by scholars)
Speculations about the location of the tomb of Jesus and the location of the crucifixion are probably bogus.


Primary 1st century written attestations:

Four canonical gospels
Epistles of Paul
Gospel of Thomas
Roman- Pliny the Younger
Roman- Tacitus
Jewish historian Josephus, who knew about Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Jesus, and James the brother of Jesus.

According to Bart Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar, if you remove the Christianized modifications supposedly made to Josephus' Antiquities, this is most likely what Josephus genuinely wrote about Jesus:


"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out"

https://ehrmanblog.org/do-any-ancient-jewish-sources-mention-jesus-weekly-mailbag/

 

[Kafka]

According to Bart Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar, if you remove the Christianized modifications supposedly made to Josephus' Antiquities, this is most likely what Josephus genuinely wrote about Jesus:


"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out"

https://ehrmanblog.org/do-any-ancient-jewish-sources-mention-jesus-weekly-mailbag/

Love me some Ehrman. I'm not sure where I fall on this yet since you have provided virtually nothing that clearly evidences that it is more likely real than a forgery (and as I understand it the Testimonium Flavianum is generally considered by scholars to be a forgery.) It sounds like many feel that the second mention of Jesus (where he is mentioned as James brother) is considered to be contemporary as I understand it.

It is interesting that in the Second Century Origen was writing about Josephus in Contra Celsum but he fails to mention this particular quote which would have been extremely helpful to him one would think, especially if the Contra Celsum was aimed at an audience of people just learning about Christianity with an eye toward addressing pagan critiques. He does, however, mention the second appearance in Josephus of Jesus as James the Just's brother called The Christ. His only other mentions of Josephus are more around the history of the Jews, not Christ per se. (Again, not necessarily proof that the Testimonium Flavianum didn't exist at that time but kind of an interesting point that Origen would somehow NOT mention that more direct testimony.)

Obviously there are some who seem to come down on the side of "NOT a forgery".

But again, to the main point: It doesnt matter if it is a forgery or real. It matters if one wants to assume that the mere existence of an historical Jesus means it is IPSO FACTO the "supernatural miracle working Jesus".

It is not necessarily true. Yes Jesus may very well have been an historical figure. But why does it matter? Do you believe that if he was historical he would then HAVE to be a miracle-working Godhead manifest on earth?

I've already gladly admitted that the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Gospels is good and valuable. Why would it matter if it was made up or if there actually was a real dude named Jesus?

 

[Cypress]

Love me some Ehrman. I'm not sure where I fall on this yet since you have provided virtually nothing that clearly evidences that it is more likely real than a forgery (and as I understand it the Testimonium Flavianum is generally considered by scholars to be a forgery.) It sounds like many feel that the second mention of Jesus (where he is mentioned as James brother) is considered to be contemporary as I understand it.

It is interesting that in the Second Century Origen was writing about Josephus in Contra Celsum but he fails to mention this particular quote which would have been extremely helpful to him one would think, especially if the Contra Celsum was aimed at an audience of people just learning about Christianity with an eye toward addressing pagan critiques. He does, however, mention the second appearance in Josephus of Jesus as James the Just's brother called The Christ. His only other mentions of Josephus are more around the history of the Jews, not Christ per se. (Again, not necessarily proof that the Testimonium Flavianum didn't exist at that time but kind of an interesting point that Origen would somehow NOT mention that more direct testimony.)

Obviously there are some who seem to come down on the side of "NOT a forgery".

But again, to the main point: It doesnt matter if it is a forgery or real. It matters if one wants to assume that the mere existence of an historical Jesus means it is IPSO FACTO the "supernatural miracle working Jesus".

It is not necessarily true. Yes Jesus may very well have been an historical figure. But why does it matter? Do you believe that if he was historical he would then HAVE to be a miracle-working Godhead manifest on earth?

I've already gladly admitted that the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Gospels is good and valuable. Why would it matter if it was made up or if there actually was a real dude named Jesus?

Don't want to read an excessively verbose wall of words.

Even Bart Ehrman think the deniers of the historicity of Jesus are incorrect and uniformed.

Since Josephus knew about John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, James the brother of Jesus, a skeptic needs to explain why out of all the New Testament characters Josephus knew about, only Jesus was a fabrication. Also, why would Josephus specifically identify James as the brother of Jesus unless he was actually aware of Jesus?

More importantly, Josephus is just one primary source. The weight of evidence and the balance of probability based on primary sources and archeological evidence is that these New Testament figures were historical people.

 

[goat]

Don't want to read an excessively verbose wall of words.

Even Bart Ehrman think the deniers of the historicity of Jesus are incorrect and uniformed.

Since Josephus knew about John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, James the brother of Jesus, a skeptic needs to explain why out of all the New Testament characters Josephus knew about, only Jesus was a fabrication. Also, why would Josephus specifically identify James as the brother of Jesus unless he was actually aware of Jesus?

More importantly, Josephus is just one primary source. The weight of evidence and the balance of probability based on primary sources and archeological evidence is that these New Testament figures were historical people.

Your timeline is off. Hebrews were tired of endless war 700 years before the biblical Jesus. Jew sanctuaries are still being found buried in the desert sand far from what they call the filth of the cities. Supremacy has always been part of jew ideology. They persecuted anyone demanding dignity.

Nothing has changed in almost 3000 years. Jews still believe they're the chosen people intent on killing anyone who gets in their way. Jesus was a common name like Joe or John, so there were many named Jesus opposed to endless wars.

 

[Cypress]

Your timeline is off. Hebrews were tired of endless war 700 years before the biblical Jesus.

Between 180 BC and 135 AD the Jews were involved in a series of revolts against their overlords of the Seluecid and Roman empires.

Supremacy has always been part of jew ideology. They persecuted anyone demanding dignity.

That's what the Nazis thought.

 

[Kafka]

Don't want to read an excessively verbose wall of words.

Then don't. No one cares that you are now going to just insult me and won't address any point. No one expects you to be a decent person.

Even Bart Ehrman think the deniers of the historicity of Jesus are incorrect and uniformed.

That's all you have???? Do you think that's an argument? Seriously. This is what you do. You cite authorities and then your debate points all come down to "This authority says this".

Try framing the debate in your own words for a change. Try THINKING about the topic and not just quoting other people.

Since Josephus knew about John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, James the brother of Jesus, a skeptic needs to explain why out of all the New Testament characters Josephus knew about, only Jesus was a fabrication. Also, why would Josephus specifically identify James as the brother of Jesus unless he was actually aware of Jesus?

As I said I'm still on the fence. That's a very good point. But it does leave the weaker mention as the legitimate one. The other mention appears to be a forgery and it is the stronger one.

But again, and I can't stress this enough: I don't know one way or the other. I'm OK with it being fully 100% correct. But my point still stands: does it matter?

More importantly, Josephus is just one primary source. The weight of evidence and the balance of probability based on primary sources and archeological evidence is that these New Testament figures were historical people.

And, again, why does it matter? Do you think it means the miracle stories of the Bible are necessarily true? It's not a big deal if there was a real live Jesus but I think we can all agree he didn't do miracles and he didn't come back from the dead.

The message is the important bit and that could just as easily have been made up from whole cloth as parts of the Gospels appear to be.