Evidence for Jesus outside the Bible?

[Minimalist]

Ah, yeah.....and recorded by a xtian writer, Socrates Scholasticus of Constantinople in his Ecclesiastical History.

THERE WAS a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not unfrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in going to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more. Yet even she fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles.* After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them.

Praise jesus, motherfuckers.

[Justtristo]

Bart Ehrman is quoted as saying, "I don't know any serious historian that doubts the existence of Jesus."

Ehrman does say that. And then he goes on to show that he has no more evidence for the godboy than anyone else. When he trotted out Josephus I knew he had jumped the shark.

However, we cannot expect him to support a position which would put him out of work eventually.

It could also be the nature of the whole "historical jesus" studies community, who are composed mostly of believers of some sort of another or if they are not are fearful of retaliation by those believers if they claim Jesus Christ was a totally mythical character.

To give an example Richard Dawkins when he came to Australia last year said that it was likely Jesus never existed and the biblical studies community came out against him.

[Minimalist]

biblical studies community came out against him.

Of course...if jesus is a fucking figment of the imagination who needs scholars who specialize in "biblical studies?"

Selling salvation to the gullible has been a lucrative field for a very long time.

[DeistPaladin]

One of the videos I'm going to make soon will entertain the idea that there was a "historical Jesus", defined as a mortal on whom the myths were based. I'm going to dissect the Book of Mark, focusing on this Gospel because it was the first and all others were clearly based upon it. I'm then going to categorize each episode in the patchwork yarn according to whether anything of that event would be left if we stripped the miracle away. This makes three categories:

1. Miracle central to the story
2. Miracle that embellishes the story
3. Miracle not part of the story

In the first category, nothing would be left if you took the miracle out. For example, if Jesus didn't walk on water, what's left of the walking-on-water story? If he didn't raise a girl from the dead, what's left of that story? For those who insist on a mortal Jesus, these events have to be discarded as later additions.

In the second category, a real event might have happened with some fanciful exaggerations added.

In the third category, we have a mundane event that can be explained with nothing more than natural occurrences. The sermon on the mount might be a good example.

Some events might seem natural but really need to be put under the first category. His temple-tantrum (or cleansing of the temple) is one. As Ken Humphreys pointed out, the temple was a sprawling complex. Even a powerfully strong man would have been wrestled to the ground after tipping the first table.

My guess is that I'll find that once you remove the miracles, there isn't much left. It's kind of like "the historical Superman". Once you take away the super powers, there's no way the "real story" or even real character can be anything like the comic book account, even with the most broad license of "based on a true story".

[KichigaiNeko]

biblical studies community came out against him.

Of course...if jesus is a fucking figment of the imagination who needs scholars who specialize in "biblical studies?"

Because xtians and the religious are stoopid???

Selling salvation to the gullible has been a lucrative field for a very long time.

Proof positive is the wealth of the catholic church and the financial capabilities of the Islamic fundies.

[The Grand Nudger]

That would be a great little article to read Deist. Every now and again I get a bug up my ass to do something like that, but then I remember that it would be pointless and I lose interest.

[popeyespappy]

One of the videos I'm going to make soon will entertain the idea that there was a "historical Jesus", defined as a mortal on whom the myths were based. I'm going to dissect the Book of Mark, focusing on this Gospel because it was the first and all others were clearly based upon it. I'm then going to categorize each episode in the patchwork yarn according to whether anything of that event would be left if we stripped the miracle away. This makes three categories:

1. Miracle central to the story
2. Miracle that embellishes the story
3. Miracle not part of the story

In the first category, nothing would be left if you took the miracle out. For example, if Jesus didn't walk on water, what's left of the walking-on-water story? If he didn't raise a girl from the dead, what's left of that story? For those who insist on a mortal Jesus, these events have to be discarded as later additions.

In the second category, a real event might have happened with some fanciful exaggerations added.

In the third category, we have a mundane event that can be explained with nothing more than natural occurrences. The sermon on the mount might be a good example.

Some events might seem natural but really need to be put under the first category. His temple-tantrum (or cleansing of the temple) is one. As Ken Humphreys pointed out, the temple was a sprawling complex. Even a powerfully strong man would have been wrestled to the ground after tipping the first table.

My guess is that I'll find that once you remove the miracles, there isn't much left. It's kind of like "the historical Superman". Once you take away the super powers, there's no way the "real story" or even real character can be anything like the comic book account, even with the most broad license of "based on a true story".

In The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Thomas Jefferson has done much the same thing except he edited the entire volume of the New Testament. I think it contains a total of about 80 individual versus from Mark. If you complete your project it would probably make a good starting point. A comparison of your finished project with his could be interesting.

[The Grand Nudger]

For those who like to read. (We've got a reader over here, everybody point at this guy he reads books!)

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng...fJesu.html

[Thor]

To give an example Richard Dawkins when he came to Australia last year said that it was likely Jesus never existed and the biblical studies community came out against him.

Of course the idiots came out against him. They have to! They must defend their godboy! If Jesus never exisited their entire religion comes crashing down! This is why they will insist Jesus and his "miracles" were real. This puts them on the same level as a five year old who will insist that Santa Claus and his flying reindeer are real. Except the five year old will eventually realize the folly of such a belief.

[Minimalist]

Meanwhile, 18 pages later, there is still NO evidence of jesus outside the bible.