The correct answer is,well yes,since ask,there are shitloads of evidence for the the existence of an historical Jesus,starting with The new Testament. Same thing for the existence of gods; shitloads.

BUT,what there is NOT, for either, is ANY credible evidence or ANY proof.


'Evidence' is NOT synonymous with 'proof'

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence,but not necessarily proof of absence. It IS a fairly reliable indicator,and is often used in science in that sense...

(December 8, 2011 at 3:09 pm)JollyForr Wrote: I know the story itself is incoherent and false, but I'm saying whether or not any texts, or any other kind of evidence, mentions Jesus - outside of the Bible obviously.

Sure. Here's a complete list:

1. Josephus:
1A. The glaring forgery that is the "Testimonium Flavianum", so bad that even apologists are forced to admit that the passage was tampered with. The short paragraph lists in rapid fire succession every bullet point of Christian beliefs about Jesus. Since Josephus was an orthodox Jew and remained so, you can see why few apologists will try to claim the entire passage as authentic.
1B. The "Jamesian Reference". Apologists, seeking to keep Josephus on the witness stand, present another part of his Antiquities of the Jews that they say refers to Jesus. It does say "brother of Jesus, James". Too bad a few sentences later we see it refers to "Jesus bar Damneus". Jesus was a common name and Josephus tells us it's not the Jesus we're looking for.

2. Tacitus: There's an oblique reference to a "Christos" (which means "The Anointed One"). Specifically, he says that the Christians get their name from "Christos" who was crucified by "procurator" Pilate.

This is the strongest evidence that there was a Jesus behind the Christian myths. It only has the following problems:

2a. It's second century
2b. Pilate was a "prefect" not a "procurator", the latter being a title used for governors in later years.
2c. It's so oblique, it doesn't even mention Jesus by name.
2d. We can't be sure he's speaking from first hand knowledge or got the story from the Christians.

3. Talmud: The earliest Jewish reference to Jesus dates to roughly 300 CE, nearly three centuries after the alleged controversy that drove the pharisees so nuts. The problem is that this "Yeshua" had a 40 day trial, 5 disciples, and was well connected with the government. There is no date given for this trial, so it could have happened during any century. Hardly the Yeshua we're looking for.

4. Thallus: Apologetics hit a sleazy low with this claim. Upon examination, we realize we don't have any works of Thallus and have no idea what he wrote. All we have comes quoted from Christian apologists of the 3rd century. Africanus in the 3rd century wrote that Thallus wrote that there was an eclipse of the sun during a time when there shouldn't have been one.

5. Bar Sarapion: In 70 CE, he wrote a question "what did the Jews gain by killing their king". No reference to either a Jesus or a Christ or any date or any indication as to what "king" this was.

6. Seutonius: Even apologists are known to admit this isn't any evidence, as he refers to a "Chrestus" ("the good one") in Rome around 50 CE stirring up trouble for Caesar Claudius.

That's it, I believe.

In sum, not much and what little exists is questionable. The only one that might be legit is Tacitus. Min will probably tear that one apart too.

(December 8, 2011 at 6:13 pm)padraic Wrote: The correct answer is,well yes,since ask,there are shitloads of evidence for the the existence of an historical Jesus,starting with The new Testament. Same thing for the existence of gods; shitloads.

BUT,what there is NOT, for either, is ANY credible evidence or ANY proof.


'Evidence' is NOT synonymous with 'proof'

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence,but not necessarily proof of absence. It IS a fairly reliable indicator,and is often used in science in that sense...

Well the OP did ask for sources outside the bible.

---

Quote:Min will probably tear that one apart too.

No ancient writer ever heard of it. A bastardized version appears in the 5th century in the work Chronica by Sulpicius Severus which does not quote Tacitus as a source, in any case. No ancient writer xtian or otherwise links Nero to the Great Fire for which he supposedly punished all those xtians who magically appeared in Rome.

You also forgot Pliny the Younger probably the earliest Roman writer to mention xtians ( but not any "jesus") in a report to Trajan about what a bunch of wimps xtians were.

(December 8, 2011 at 10:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You also forgot Pliny the Younger probably the earliest Roman writer to mention xtians ( but not any "jesus") in a report to Trajan about what a bunch of wimps xtians were.

Ah, right. I think my oversight should be understandable considering taht Pliny only speaks of 2nd century Christians, not Jesus nor any Christos not the early Church. Why this is put forward as "evidence" for a historical Jesus escapes me. It's like proving Santa by speaking of children that believe in him.

(December 8, 2011 at 12:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But what he asked was "is there any evidence" for it.

"Hercules" could be based on a real person, too. So what?

Well, in the spirit of the season, I know for a fact that Santa Claus was based on a real person! If in a convoluted way.
So maybe Jesus was too. Maybe He was just an ice cream salesman minding His own Business who helped an old lady cross the street once. And got sanctified a tad out of proportion for it. Remember Maradonna's 'Hand of God' that made the winning goal? Which of course simply was foul play!
Jesus probably was a criminal too.

In Palestine, 2,000 years ago, messianism was a cottage industry. There was a Saviour on every second streetcorner drumming up support – read: cash – for their particular flavor of religion. Ordinary beggars, really. Hundreds of them. And they all amalgamated – 'morphed', in digital lingo – into the persona and myth of one 'Jesus'.
Could just as easily have been Achmed, Moshe, or Billy-Bob...
Imagine that! A billion people could be praying to Billy-Bob!

(December 8, 2011 at 6:13 pm)padraic Wrote: The correct answer is,well yes,since ask,there are shitloads of evidence for the the existence of an historical Jesus,starting with The new Testament. Same thing for the existence of gods; shitloads.

BUT,what there is NOT, for either, is ANY credible evidence or ANY proof.


'Evidence' is NOT synonymous with 'proof'

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence,but not necessarily proof of absence. It IS a fairly reliable indicator,and is often used in science in that sense...

I know what you mean, but I think you misunderstood what I'm getting at. I don't mean evidence for any divine miracles; I meant is there any - maybe I shouldn't have put evidence - mention of a figure who may have gone by the name of Jesus, preferably accounted by some historian alive at the time.
If there are accounts, I know, that this does not prove the claims of the Bible in any way; it isn't proof.
Thanks for the accounts shown

Tacitus is not legit either....the 15:44 Annals he was referring to a cult or sect of people called christians and they they were screaming about some jesus being their saviour. Was in no way confirming a jesus and was only writing what he heard.

Quote:a cult or sect of people called christians and they they were screaming about some jesus being their saviour

Um, actually none of the alleged Roman sources, Tacitus, Pliny or Suetonius - all second century and all acquainted with one another - mentions either of the words "jesus" or "saviour," if indeed Tacitus' is not a complete forgery from centuries later.

With regard to historical-critical research, what is the point of distinguishing canonical and non-canonical writings? Works that fall into both categories remain historical documents. From a historical-critical point of view, the religiously based inside/outside distinction is methodologically irrelevant.

I would say that we have strong evidence for a historical Jesus in Gal 1:19 where a certain James is distinguished from John and Peter by being the adelphos of the Lord. I have cited this text before and have not yet received a paraphrase that is superior to the traditional understanding that an actual sibling of the Lord is what is meant. So if someone can clearly state how they are interpreting the phrase in question, we could compare it with the traditional, literal interpretation of the word as found in this context.

(December 9, 2011 at 4:35 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: With regard to historical-critical research, what is the point of distinguishing canonical and non-canonical writings? Works that fall into both categories remain historical documents. From a historical-critical point of view, the religiously based inside/outside distinction is methodologically irrelevant.

Because canonical works are considered to be pure propaganda.

(December 9, 2011 at 4:35 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I would say that we have strong evidence for a historical Jesus in Gal 1:19 where a certain James is distinguished from John and Peter by being the adelphos of the Lord. I have cited this text before and have not yet received a paraphrase that is superior to the traditional understanding that an actual sibling of the Lord is what is meant. So if someone can clearly state how they are interpreting the phrase in question, we could compare it with the traditional, literal interpretation of the word as found in this context.

How does this qualify as evidence.... of anything?

So what if it is a reference to a "James" as Jeebus' brother?

That hardly gives it merit as evidence.