In the Ancient / Classical History forum -- a secular discussion group -- people with knowledge and interest about whether there is adequate non-faith-based evidence that Jesus actually lived have posted their opinions and citations/references.
The purpose of this article is to try to make the range of resources on this site as free from a particular -- especially, religious -- slant as possible. Fair warning: bias can't be removed entirely in so controversial a discussion as the historicity of Jesus. One poster below alludes to the crux of the matter. While Jesus may have been of tremendous importance in the last two millennia, during the reign of the Emperor Augustus (the Caesar Augustus of the Gospels), contemporary mainstream historians did not consider him one of the vital movers and shakers.
Here is a compilation of the historical Jesus forum thread.
[Also see Non-Biblical References to Jesus and Historical Jesus: Ecumenical Quest.]
The compilation has been very lightly edited to correct obvious spelling errors and to standardize punctuation. Some of the Internet references are no longer available online. In some cases new links have been supplied. Links to some of the names and terms have also been added.
Message: 1461.1 (1 of 17); from: gillns
If anyone has suggestions as to which links I should add to my Jesus links page (http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/jesus/index.htm) so I can provide a more accurate picture of the historical Jesus, please let me know. Apparently I've fallen short, although I can't figure out in which direction.Unsigned letter from reader:
>>Is there any reason why you would have only "biased" - "un-historical" writings about Jesus Christ? It definitely puts a dent in your so-called "History" site, when the information is tainted; especially with the one man that caused us to use His death, burial, and resurrection as a historical marker... B.C - A.D.<<
Message: 1461.2 (2 of 17) Reply to 1461.1; from: Don20man
All considered, you appear to have a pretty good cross-section. "What Can We Really Know About Jesus?" most closely approximates my personal viewpoint, and I sharply disagree with some of the other references. If I agreed with them all, then something would REALLY be missing.Your anonymous correspondent refers to "Jesus Christ" indicating (to me) that s/he is probably a Christian, as non-Christians do not usually accord Jesus the title of "Christ." For a Christian, the canonical scriptures (biased though they might be) contain the best historical writings about Jesus.
I am really curious as to your anonymous correspondent's objection. S/he is not at all clear. What are the supposed "historical" writings about Jesus that s/he thinks have been ignored? The Book of Mormon? I am sure that if you had the answer, you would not have had to post your question. :-)
Peace,
Don
Message: 1461.3 (3 of 17) Reply to 1461.1; from: Don20man
This is follow-up to my prior post, which has not yet appeared.Possible additions to your site:
"Resource Pages for Biblical Studies" at http://www.hivolda.no/asf/kkf/rel-stud.html contains an interesting assortment of links.
The Gospel of Thomas Homepage at http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html might be the sort of thing that "anonymous" was looking for, although I consider that "The Gospel of Thomas" is singularly unhelpful in the search for the "historical Jesus."
You already have Borg. Although I consider the "Jesus Seminar" approach to be flawed, you can't ignore it.
"A Colloquium on the Historical Jesus" at http://www.suenens.org/Trip-cover.htm looks interesting. Anything with the names of both Cardinal Suenens and Raymond E. Brown attached to it attracts my interest.
"Articles: Historical Jesus" at www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html appears to address the spectrum -- from literal acceptance to debunking -- although all from a single perspective.
"HISTORICAL JESUS. A Brief History of the Quest" at http://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/bibs/ntguides/historical-jesus.htm has some more interesting stuff.
I could go on and on, and with a little effort I could probably find better than any of the above. Unfortunately, it seems that this is a no-win situation for you. Whatever you include there will be those (rabid believers and/or rabid unbelievers) who will see you as presenting a viewpoint biased against them, and there will also be those who would give primacy to "scholarship" based on source documents of dubious historical merit. As I remember, there has even been a contributor to this forum who bases all sorts of biblical theories on long-lost ancient documents which have been revealed to him in dreams!
Good Luck!
Peace,
Don
Message: 1461.4 (4 of 17) Reply to 1461.1; from: Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon (MSTANDART1)
That e-mail has me scratching my head a bit. What writings about Jesus of Nazareth aren't biased to some degree?It might have been more useful if he had been specific about what his concerns were.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
SH-1 USN/RET
Message: 1461.5 (5 of 17) Reply to 1461.3; from: gillns
Thanks very much for the puzzle solution and suggestions. I'll put the latter into place ASAP.By the way, I did ask the person to elaborate and told him/her I'd posted the question.
Message: 1461.6 (6 of 17) Reply to 1461.1; from: RomaHOST
It's such a hot button issue, v. the many pro and con forums on Delphi. Whatever you put up, there will be people who will object one way or the other.I think you have done your best . . . especially with Don providing you with additional links.
Irene
Message: 1461.7 (7 of 17) Reply to 1461.1; from: JosephusHOST
Where WAS I. Just found the post....(out of breath, huff, puff!).Well most of the ones I was going to suggest have been covered but this link contains a lot (including other links) about the "Testimonium Flavianum," which as you know has a LOT of up to date scholarship about the quest for the historical Jesus.
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm#testimonium
My guess is that the poster (from his/her last sentence) will ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES for anything that expresses any doubts about the dead-on accuracy of the gospels.
I think the posting person is, in reality . . . the GRINCH who STOLE Christ . . . recognize the style.
Message: 1461.8 (8 of 17) Reply to 1461.7; from: gillns
You're right.
I should resolve never to answer a question on my own on anything other than an easy "who was it who did?" without first posting it here. Irene in the Homework Help forum realized a correspondent just wanted the basic Bartlett's online information, whereas I made the false assumption the person had already exhausted all obvious sources.I wrote for clarification and received an even more obfuscating response with a demand to "end the wrangling."
Message: 1461.9 (9 of 17) Reply to 1461.8; from: Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon (MSTANDART1)
Uhhhh . . . end the wrangling? While I haven't been able to devote a lot of time to this topic in several months, I have had my fingers on the pulse of historical Jesus studies going on 12+ years now. This avenue of study is filled with nothing BUT wrangling. Scholars vs fundamentalists. Believers vs non believers vs those who to whom belief or disbelief is not an issue, fundies vs fundies, scholars vs scholars . . . it just goes on forever.How would your inquisitor expect anyone to stop what's been going on for 2000 years?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
SH-1 USN/RET
Message: 1461.10 (10 of 17) Reply to 1461.1; from: Talie694
I have bumped into the same kinds of objections as you encountered with your reader. They haven't made an appropriate differentiation between studying the Historical Jesus from a historical viewpoint or doing so from a faith perspective. It is not, in my opinion one of the other but both at different times and in different ways. I think Meier an eminent historian eloquently shows the differences between doing Christology and doing history.A Christology that seeks to profit from historical research into Jesus is not the same thing and must be carefully distinguished from a purely empirical, historical quest for Jesus that prescinds from or brackets what is known by faith. This is not to betray faith. It is only to recognize and honor the proper academic distinctions that have created separate departments of theology and history at major universities, each with its own proper scope, sources, methods, and criteria of validation. . . .
Let the historical Jesus be a truly and solely historical reconstruction, with all the lacunae and truncations of the total reality that a purely historical inquiry into a marginal figure of ancient history will inevitably involve. After the purely historical project is finished, there will be more than enough time.
"The Present State of the 'Third Quest' for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain" http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl80/Comm11.htm
Message: 1461.11 (11 of 17) Reply to 1461.10; from: JosephusHOST
Meier and Crossan, among other meticulous Christologists write from the perspective of believers yet are able to maintain scholarly integrity. Those objecting to historical inquiry are by and large the born-agains and literalists to whom any investigation that goes beyond what is written in the somewhat self-contradictory body of the gospels is verboten Christian baiting. BTW, some of the ablest defenders of Christ as historical figure, IMHO, are Jewish: Jacob Klausner and David Flusser among others. I visited a seminary in Jerusalem two years ago (name escapes me now) whose sole mission is to bring together Jewish and Christian Bible scholars/students to study early Christianity as it may have actually been viewed in the First to Third Centuries CE. This is the kind of work that needs to be done to stop the finger-pointing and understand the true nature of early Christianity . . . by no means a malevolent one.
Message: 1461.12 (12 of 17) Reply to 1461.11; from: benjclark
Please, what is this place?Thanks,
Benj.
Message: 1461.13 (13 of 17) Reply to 1461.11; from: Marypickford (MARYPICKFORD)
How in the world is this going to be done when all the early Christian writings were burned by the Turkish occupation of Constantinople? Are there other sources I don't know about? Are there references in the Dead Sea scrolls? I mean . . . there has to be some kind of base here.
mary-Pickford.
Message: 1461.14 (14 of 17) Reply to 1461.13; from: JosephusHOST
It's been done, being done since at least the 18th C CE by scholars working from what remains of redactions in the late dark age/ early medieval era. Certainly the gospels are no longer intact as "original" documents, if in fact the alleged originators ever wrote them down. However, through careful scholarship, and comparison to the few Roman (i.e., non-Christian) writings of the period referring to the events (some in Tacitus, Suetonius et. al. and some in the Talmudic literature of the Third to 10th Centuries) we can reconstruct what may have been in the original documents, if not the events themselves.The same problem presents itself with regard to the events described in the Old Testament relating to Ancient Israel. A few may deny that these events ever occurred at all, but most scholars at least credit that the Biblical literature reflects a version of reality. And we do have some Greco-Roman literature, Philo, the Qumran and Josephus to cross-check.
Message: 1461.15 (15 of 17) Reply to 1461.12; from: JosephusHOST
I am sorry, Benj, or is it Ben? I have lost my packet of souvenir brochures from my trip and my inquiry to the Israeli embassy cultural attache has gone unanswered after two tries. I can recall the beautiful surroundings very well. It was perched atop one of Jerusalem's surrounding hills and overlooked the Kidrion(sp?) Valley. The resident scholar or director, a wonderfully erudite and gentle Brazilian chap, served our small group tea on the rooftop patio as we gazed down on all that incredible history . . . and contemporary strife. I had asked him about Josephus, my particular interest . . . if it weren't apparent.. and he was wonderfully conversant with all the literature and schools of thought. A few ideological cranks in the audience unfortunately tried to bait him, but he simply smiled and acknowledged their right to an opinion . . . luckily the tour guide, our woman guide from the Israeli Defense Forces educational ministry (I was serving with the Israeli army as a one-month.replacement/volunteer) shushed them up. If I get an answer from the embassy I would be glad to let you know. I really wanted to e-mail the priest to express my thanks and enthusiasm.
Message: 1461.16 (16 of 17) Reply to 1461.15; from: benjclark
Thank you. It sounds wonderful. Yes, it is Benj. I don't really know why though. I envy your experience. If you ever run across it again, please post here. Thanks,benj. clark
Message: 1461.17 (17 of 17) Reply to 1461.12; from: JosephusHOST
<<Please, what is this place?>>Reference to my mention of visiting a wonderful ecumenical bible seminary in Jerusalem that teaches Christians about First Century Judaism AS JUDAISM.Pontifical Biblical Institute, Ratisbonne. The cultural attache at the Israeli Embassy finally replied.
Comments? Please post in the Historical Jesus thread in the forum.
