Archaeologists believe they've found cross of Jesus of Nazareth

[BainsBane]

158. How do you know there is no evidence outside from the Bible?

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2013, 09:48 PM - Edit history (1)

That's a bold claim, and I have to wonder if you've done the reading necessary to make that claim. Part of it is clearly false. There are gospels, such as the gospel of Thomas, that never became part of the New Testament. There are a number of others. At a certain point, the Church settled on a certain set of gospels and versions of them to include in the Bible. Various translations (and mis-translations) and editions of the Bible have changed dramatically how people in the US understand the life of Jesus Christ as a religious figure.

Historians do not use the Bible. They will use the earliest editions of the gospels they can find, in their original languages. Teaching in a religious studies section does not mean those scholars are illegitimate. In some universities, that section might be part of a department of Near Eastern Studies and/or Classics. To imagine the goal of such scholarship is proselytizing is to miss the point, not unlike the Fox news anchor did with Reza Aslan. What purpose do you think a scholar, who happens to be Muslim, would have for fabricating the existence of Jesus? There is a difference between a biblical scholar and a scholar of the Near East of that era. I have worked with both. I've worked with a scholar who has devoted his life to the study of Paul. Paul is one source for the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Now this is not to say the Gospel of Paul or any other is factually true in all or most regards. It is an account. It is the perception of the author, as is the case of EVERY historical document. Historians never take documents on face value. Much of what historians do now is to focus on perception, what the biases inherent in documents tell us about cultural ideas of a given time period. One early article that established this approach in Latin American history is: Patricia Seed, "Failing to Marvel: Atahualpa's Encounter with the Word" (1991), which you can read online free if you register. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2503763?uid=3739736&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102515324111

As I said, this is far from my educational background. So let's compare it to what I do know. I have probed 19th century police and judicial records to learn about arrest and punishment of slaves. They become visible only through the lens of those in power. That is the case for all of social history. Very few slaves or ordinary people not in political power can be traced from birth to death in societies without high levels of literacy. I've written about a slave named Seraphim who was beaten so badly by police authorities that his master petitioned the courts to stop the beatings. I only know of Seaphim though a law journal and documents from Brazil's Council of State. Other slaves I know of--like several who refused to obey the police and invoked the status of their master as a reason why--I know of only through a single tattered manuscript, often riddled with holes. No one has ever questioned me about whether those slaves existed. Questions that arise are about interpretation.

Why should the life of a carpenter from Nazareth be so much more contested? His life becomes controversial only because of the attributes of divinity attributed to him by Christians. To pretend reactions here are not about that rather than simple historical proof of the existence of an individual misses the outrage to my OP.

People have unrealistic expectations of what history can actually document. A history book is not a court of law, nor is it subject to scientific proof. Having 13 plus accounts of someone's life is tremendous level of historical evidence.
Clearly, studying a period 2000 years ago is more challenging than the 19th century. Documentary evidence is scarcer, records long ago deteriorated, etc... Someone below compares evidence for the life of Jesus with Pontius Pilatus. He clearly knows FAR more about the period than I do. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3395089

You may not personally feel a zeal to deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, but such zeal is the only explanation I can fathom as to why so many people have reacted so negatively to this little story. I simply don't get it. Clearly most of these are people who no knowledge of the discipline of history, historical documentation, or analysis. Comments bemoaning a "lack of scientific proof" demonstrate that. Many of the responses here are clearly a knee-jerk ideological rejection of anything related to Christianity. I have not read all the comments, nor do I plan to do so. I had not realized posting a Yahoo article of mild interest to me would require donning a Kevlar vest.