Extrabiblical Evidence about Jesus in the First 2 Centuries

[chansen]

Berserk, before you post more "archaeological finds", you are aware that I'm still active on this site, right?

 

[Mendalla]

Berserk, before you post more "archaeological finds", you are aware that I'm still active on this site, right?

He is now, though it would help if you used his current name and tagged it.

 

[Mystic]

Berserk, before you post more "archaeological finds", you are aware that I'm still active on this site, right?

No, I'm shocked: I thought you were whimpering in your closet, just hoping I'd leave, so that you could safely return.

 

[chansen]

Just another of your discredited hypotheses.

 

[revsdd]

With respect to archaeological discoveries, the ossuaries (bone boxes) of Joseph Caiaphas and, more importantly, James , Jesus' brother are hot topics of academic discussion. Caiaphas is a high priest who interrogated Jesus and then sent him to Pontius Pilate. The James ossuary reads "James, the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" (in Aramaic). ... But in my view, neither archaeological find is as important or fascinating as 2 others that are seldom discussed. I will discuss these in a future post.

There is also definite archaeological evidence for the existence of both Pontius Pilate and Herod, as well as much that affirms the basic details of the New Testament account of the cultural environment in which Jesus lived. There is less direct evidence for Jesus that I'm aware of, which doesn't really surprise me. What many skeptics would like is some sort of Roman document affirming either the life or crucifixion of Jesus. That, however, is (to me at least) a form of anachronism. It assumes that the Jesus who is well known today was as well known to the Roman authorities of his own day. Realistically, Jesus was - from the perspective of the greatest empire in the world - a relatively minor figure in a bit of a backwater of the Empire. He was also - from the Roman perspective - just one of thousands upon thousands who were crucified or otherwise put to death. It's not likely that the Romans would have kept many detailed records. He simply wouldn't have been considered a significant figure. A local nuisance to the Roman authorities of the region, perhaps - but probably not even important enough to have been reported to Rome. Indeed, aside from those who were extremely well known historical figures, there's precious little evidence that I know of that says very much about the lives of individuals in the Roman Empire. From the Roman perspective, although we have solid evidence of the existence of Pilate, there isn't really very much of that either - again, probably because Pilate was the governor of a backwater; distant from Rome - a region that was, like Jesus probably was, a nuisance to the Empire as much as anything. He likely wasn't a figure of great significance in Roman politics, and may have been sent to Judea because he fell out of favour. I doubt being made governor of Judea was considered a huge reward. In any event, since the Romans would have regarded Jesus as a minor, unimportant, obscure figure, and the Jewish authorities of the day would have had motive to simply ignore him, it's not surprising (although some may find it suspicious) that written evidence for Jesus' life is primarily restricted to Christian sources. Is there a "mythic" (in the best and most appropriate sense of the word, which shouldn't be confused with the colloquial use of the word, which implies something that's just totally made up) element to the Christian accounts of Jesus' life? Certainly. That doesn't negate what I consider to be the very solid evidence for Jesus' existence.

Thus far, I'm certainly quite familiar with the archaeological discoveries that Mystic has referred to. Personally, I'm curious to see what the two "seldom discussed" pieces of evidence are.

 

[Waterfall]

There is also definite archaeological evidence for the existence of both Pontius Pilate and Herod, as well as much that affirms the basic details of the New Testament account of the cultural environment in which Jesus lived. There is less direct evidence for Jesus that I'm aware of, which doesn't really surprise me. What many skeptics would like is some sort of Roman document affirming either the life or crucifixion of Jesus. That, however, is (to me at least) a form of anachronism. It assumes that the Jesus who is well known today was as well known to the Roman authorities of his own day. Realistically, Jesus was - from the perspective of the greatest empire in the world - a relatively minor figure in a bit of a backwater of the Empire. He was also - from the Roman perspective - just one of thousands upon thousands who were crucified or otherwise put to death. It's not likely that the Romans would have kept many detailed records. He simply wouldn't have been considered a significant figure. A local nuisance to the Roman authorities of the region, perhaps - but probably not even important enough to have been reported to Rome. Indeed, aside from those who were extremely well known historical figures, there's precious little evidence that I know of that says very much about the lives of individuals in the Roman Empire. From the Roman perspective, although we have solid evidence of the existence of Pilate, there isn't really very much of that either - again, probably because Pilate was the governor of a backwater; distant from Rome - a region that was, like Jesus probably was, a nuisance to the Empire as much as anything. He likely wasn't a figure of great significance in Roman politics, and may have been sent to Judea because he fell out of favour. I doubt being made governor of Judea was considered a huge reward. In any event, since the Romans would have regarded Jesus as a minor, unimportant, obscure figure, and the Jewish authorities of the day would have had motive to simply ignore him, it's not surprising (although some may find it suspicious) that written evidence for Jesus' life is primarily restricted to Christian sources. Is there a "mythic" (in the best and most appropriate sense of the word, which shouldn't be confused with the colloquial use of the word, which implies something that's just totally made up) element to the Christian accounts of Jesus' life? Certainly. That doesn't negate what I consider to be the very solid evidence for Jesus' existence.

Thus far, I'm certainly quite familiar with the archaeological discoveries that Mystic has referred to. Personally, I'm curious to see what the two "seldom discussed" pieces of evidence are.

It's always been my understanding that the Romans were meticulous record keepers.
There were even women scribes such as Melania the younger, Ceasaria the younger and Thecla(an Egyptian) who were appointed to transcribe scripture. Thecla supposedly a scribe for the codex Alexandria.
Also we know about others who claimed to be the Messiah so one has to ask, how do we know about these people if things were not written down and recorded?

 

[revsdd]

It's always been my understanding that the Romans were meticulous record keepers.
There were even women scribes such as Melania the younger, Ceasaria the younger and Thecla(an Egyptian) who were appointed to transcribe scripture. Thecla supposedly a scribe for the codex Alexandria.
Also we know about others who claimed to be the Messiah so one has to ask, how do we know about these people if things were not written down and recorded?

The Romans - like all societies - were meticulous about recording things that were important to them. Jesus wasn't important to the Romans on a mega-scale. Many, many people were crucified by the Romans. How many do we know about from Roman sources? How many Roman trial records do we have? Did the Romans preserve for posterity the names of minor local agitators? No, they didn't. Judea wasn't a significant part of the Empire. It was a backwater. It wasn't even especially useful as a buffer against foreign enemies. The only empire that could have challenged Rome at the time was the Persian Empire, and they would have done it through what's now Turkey - not Judea. Jesus was simply a local nuisance. No particular reason for the Romans to think much of him or to document anything about him. We know of others who claimed to be Messiah largely through Jewish sources. They were discredited Messiah claimants. They gained no long term following. They posed no threat to established Jewish religion and its authorities. Those authorities would be only too happy to proclaim loudly and for all to hear that "this guy was a big failure." But the Jesus movement took hold. There was reason not to mention him. To the established religious authorities he (and even more the movement that sprung up around him) was a threat.

 

[Waterfall]

It's always been a curiousity for me with regards to the many proclaimed "Messiahs" in Jesus' day. More documentation for Apollonius of Tyana, for example who was highly regarded by Emperors and commoners throughout the ancent world, well educated in Pythagarism and eastern religions and various churches built in his honour. He was born in the same year as Jesus. Is it possible Rome compiled and combined all the teachings of the "Messiahs" in order to unify the people under one religion? Of course this is only speculation on my part based on the writings that are available.

 

[Waterfall]

The Romans - like all societies - were meticulous about recording things that were important to them. Jesus wasn't important to the Romans on a mega-scale. Many, many people were crucified by the Romans. How many do we know about from Roman sources? How many Roman trial records do we have? Did the Romans preserve for posterity the names of minor local agitators? No, they didn't. Judea wasn't a significant part of the Empire. It was a backwater. It wasn't even especially useful as a buffer against foreign enemies. The only empire that could have challenged Rome at the time was the Persian Empire, and they would have done it through what's now Turkey - not Judea. Jesus was simply a local nuisance. No particular reason for the Romans to think much of him or to document anything about him. We know of others who claimed to be Messiah largely through Jewish sources. They were discredited Messiah claimants. They gained no long term following. They posed no threat to established Jewish religion and its authorities. Those authorities would be only too happy to proclaim loudly and for all to hear that "this guy was a big failure." But the Jesus movement took hold. There was reason not to mention him. To the established religious authorities he (and even more the movement that sprung up around him) was a threat.

If Jesus was so insignificant why did Rome eventually adopt Christianity as it's official religion? IYO. I'm aware Constantine played a significant role in this but Christianity must have held more signifigance than is being suggested for this to happen.

 

[revsdd]

Waterfall, you're trying to take later events and read them backward in time. Yes, Christianity became the imperial religion - 400 years after the fact. At the time of Jesus' life and death he was of no significance to Rome. He was a local nuisance to a Roman governor who was himself of no great significance in a region that was an afterthought in imperial policy.

 

[Seeler]

If Jesus was so insignificant why did Rome eventually adopt Christianity as it's official religion? IYO. I'm aware Constantine played a significant role in this but Christianity must have held more signifigance than is being suggested for this to happen.

Waterfall - I'm no expert, but the answer to this seems to be the time element. Jesus had a small group of followers in Judea. He never travelled fifty miles from his birthplace (unless you consider the holy family taking refuge in Egypt for a few years following his birth).
It was after his death that the Christian movement began to spread -- when Jerusalem was destroyed and the followers scattered - and Paul rose to prominence. And another century or two before it was recognized by the Romans.

 

[Mendalla]

It was after his death that the Christian movement began to spread -- when Jerusalem was destroyed and the followers scattered - and Paul rose to prominence. And another century or two before it was recognized by the Romans.

This. If it had just been Jesus and his small band of followers (the Disciples and various hangers-on), they would have been another bit of Messianic rabble (c.f. Monty Python's The Life of Brian). It was the work of people like Paul that created the Christianity we know.

 

[Waterfall]

Waterfall - I'm no expert, but the answer to this seems to be the time element. Jesus had a small group of followers in Judea. He never travelled fifty miles from his birthplace (unless you consider the holy family taking refuge in Egypt for a few years following his birth).
It was after his death that the Christian movement began to spread -- when Jerusalem was destroyed and the followers scattered - and Paul rose to prominence. And another century or two before it was recognized by the Romans.

I'm no expert either, and yes I agree. It was almost two or three centuries before Christianity became the official religion.

 

[revsdd]

I'm no expert either, and yes I agree. It was almost two or three centuries before Christianity became the official religion.

It wasn't "almost two or three centuries." Christianity didn't become the official religion of the Empire until 380AD, and the public worship of other gods wasn't banned until 391AD. Even after that there were some emperors who blamed Rome's decline on the rejection of the old gods and tried to roll Christianity back.

 

[Waterfall]

It wasn't "almost two or three centuries." Christianity didn't become the official religion of the Empire until 380AD, and the public worship of other gods wasn't banned until 391AD. Even after that there were some emperors who blamed Rome's decline on the rejection of the old gods and tried to roll Christianity back.

I stand corrected...also the Council of Nicea affirming Christs Divinty which had already been established amongst most Christians centuries before.
And were't many early writings closer to Jesus life and death used to establish and define.this?

 

[Waterfall]

It was the work of people like Paul that created the Christianity we know.

Do you think Paul's Christianity was the same or different from the original beginnings of Christianity?

 

[revsdd]

I stand corrected...also the Council of Nicea affirming Christs Divinty which had already been established amongst most Christians centuries before.
And were't many early writings closer to Jesus life and death used to establish and define.this?

The writings of the New Testament were already largely established by the time of Nicaea, and those and the writings of the "church fathers" and others were the basis on which Nicaea made its theological decisions. It's become the "in thing" to say that Nicaea was all about imperial politics. That's also much exaggerated. Not that it didn't play a role, but the discussions were highly theological in nature.

As to Paul - I know you addressed that to Medalla but by "the original beginnings of Christianity" do you mean the teachings of Jesus?

Paul gets a bad rap from many people today too. By the standards of his day he was remarkably enlightened. I would say that he took the basis of what he had been taught/had been revealed to him about the teachings of Jesus and adapted them to a Gentile context.

 

[Waterfall]

The writings of the New Testament were already largely established by the time of Nicaea, and those and the writings of the "church fathers" and others were the basis on which Nicaea made its theological decisions. It's become the "in thing" to say that Nicaea was all about imperial politics. That's also much exaggerated. Not that it didn't play a role, but the discussions were highly theological in nature.

As to Paul - I know you addressed that to Medalla but by "the original beginnings of Christianity" do you mean the teachings of Jesus?

Paul gets a bad rap from many people today too. By the standards of his day he was remarkably enlightened. I would say that he took the basis of what he had been taught/had been revealed to him about the teachings of Jesus and adapted them to a Gentile context.

Yes I was just thinking that these were examples of extra biblical evidence, seeing as the council at Nicea were basing their findings on established letters from centuries before.
Do you think adapting the gospel with a Greek or gentile twist can affect the message....as we sometimes now notice, one slight misinterpretation of a word can sometimes change the nuance of the meaning?

 

[revjohn]

It is highly unlikely that the Romans would record the names of any who were to be crucified since it was more commonly used as a form of propaganda than anything approaching justice.

If the crucified individual was identified in anyway it was rarely if ever by name and more often than not by crime.

 

[revsdd]

Yes I was just thinking that these were examples of extra biblical evidence, seeing as the council at Nicea were basing their findings on established letters from centuries before.
Do you think adapting the gospel with a Greek or gentile twist can affect the message....as we sometimes now notice, one slight misinterpretation of a word can sometimes change the nuance of the meaning?

Can it affect the message? Language can affect the message. Translation can affect the message. Taking Aramaic teachings and rendering them into Greek (and then into Latin, and then into German/English/French, etc.) could affect the message.

The primary difference between Paul and Jesus, though, was probably emphasis. 1 Corinthians was at the heart of my doctoral thesis. It's a fascinating letter that gives us many hints about what Paul saw as being of most importance. Paul had spent significant time in Corinth, preaching, teaching, etc. After he left the Corinthians wrote to him asking a number of questions about primarily ethical issues. "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote." Paul's self-testimony in 1 Corinthians is that when he was with them his preaching and teaching revolved primarily around Christ crucified. Christian ethics would seem not to have been an emphasis during his preaching ministry in Corinth - otherwise the Corinthians wouldn't have had to write to him seeking advice on all of the issues that Paul must not have taught them about. We can probably assume that this was a consistent practice by Paul. So, for Paul, the crucifixion (and probably also resurrection) of Jesus was of first importance. For Jesus, much of his preaching and teaching was ethical. He dealt with a variety of ethical and social issues in the course of his ministry - from divorce to treatment of the poor to paying taxes. The very event of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus - and the need to make some sense of that event - in and of itself meant that Christianity wouldn't revolve simply around the teachings of Jesus and would have to be contextualized - both for reasons of culture and simply to try to explain Jesus' death and resurrection.

I'm not saying, by the way, that Paul only preached about crucifixion and resurrection and never about ethics, or that Jesus only preached about ethics and never about more spiritual matters - including teaching about his own death and resurrection. But I am suggesting that the emphasis was different.