scientific proof of Jesus

Great Debates
41

The laws of nature are not postulations.

When I say “impossible,” I define it as that which violates the laws of physics. If anything could violate them they wouldn’t be laws. It is not unfair or irrational to presume that the universe follows the laws of physics when trying to make empirical inferences. Remember, we are talking about a particular method, here, not about what is absolutely, hypothetically possible.

In other threads I’ve used the analogy of criminal forensics. If we find a supect’s fingerprints at the scen of a crime, should we assume that person left them there or should we consider supernatural explanations for how they might have gotten there? In order to practice science you must make certain assumptions or become paralyzed by the inability to rule anything out.

Once again, I am not talking about absolute ontology or epistemology, I’m only talking about what is required in order to apply scientific methods of discovery.

42

For all of you experts, especially Diogenes, I would like to know what more about historical Jesus scholarship. Which scholars do you think I should read? I am very interested in what historians can and cannot verify concerning Jesus.

Thanks.

43

It’s still a field with some fairly broad diversity of opinion, ranging from minimalist historical views of Jesus as an authentic 1st century Jewish teacher who was mythicized after his death (still the majority view) to theories that Jesus was wholly a myth.

This page offers a good overview of the different kinds of theories and gives info about the leading writers and scholars for each respective category.

Some of the most prominent and most influential authors on what I will broadly call the “historcist” side would be John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg and J.P. Meier. Some leading mythicists would be Earl Doherty, G.A. Wells, Robert Price and Burton Mack.

I would also recommend reading some of Bart Erhman’s books. He doesn’t really break any new ground or offer any startling theories but he’s one of the better writers and does a good job communicating his material to a lay audience. He’s also got a sense of humor and that helps with his readability.

44

Perhaps not, but you’re not just claiming that the laws of nature are valid. Rather, you are also claiming that all things are subject to the laws of nature, i.e. that there is nothing supernatural, nothing beyond the natural realm. As I said, this is neither proven nor empirical. That’s circular reasoning.

Again, circular reasoning.

But the laws of nature woudl not logically apply to the supernatural, if it exists. This would be like applying the laws of geometry to a chemical equation. Those laws do not apply because they cover an entirely diferent domain.

In other words, the supernatural woudl not – strictly speaking – “violate” the laws of nature. Rather, they would encompass a different domain altogether.
You cannot argue against the supernatural by insisting that nothing can violate the laws of nature. Those things which are beyond the merely natural are not bound by natural law.

45

Diogenes, thanks for your advice. What do you think of N. T. Wright? I’m sure you disagree with his conservative conclusions, but do you think any of his work is salvageable, or that some of it has redeeming merit?

46

I haven’t actually read any of Wright’s books, only book reviews and summaries of his theories. So I’m just speaking from what I’ve read about him rather than of his actual work.

On the plus side, I’ve read that Wright has done good work on 2nd Temple Judaism and messsianic/apocalyptic expectations. He seems to good marks on his research and insight into the cultural and religious context of 1st century Palestine which can’t help but enhance historical Jesus scholarship.

On the minus side, (at least from what I’ve read) Wright rejects a layered literary tradition and believes that the gospels were edited from relatively intact oral traditions originating from eyewitness testimony. This really flies against the vast majorty of the evidence and scholarly consensus. The chiastic structures in Mark alone are enough to prove that Gospel is a purely literary composition which could not have arisen in oral tradition any more than a purely oral tradition or memoir can spontaneously produce haikus or iambic pentameters.

Matthew and Luke are both heavily dependent on Mark and both also show dependence on other written sources.

The Gospels are also written in Greek and that pretty much eliminates any chance of independently translated intact oral traditions from Aramaic.

It’s also highly unlikely that much, if any part of the narratives in the gospels had any origin in eyewitness accounts. That’s not to say that a core sayings tradition and perhaps a few short anecdotes could not have apostolic origin but it is practically a given among bible scholars now that the almost all of the narratives, including the nativities, the miracles, the passions and the resurrections are the literary creations of the authors.

47

No. it is not.

It is a given by YOUR scholars. You consider your scholars objective & untainted by supernaturalism or belief in that factualness of Scripture. You consider scholars on my side biased by supernaturalism & conservatism.
There is however, bias on both sides. Describing the literary structures of the Gospels is objective scholarship. Concluding that such structures show a creativity in the accounting is legitimate scholarly extrapolation. Then asserting that the teachings & events described were literary creations with minimal factual basis is subjective interpretation based on certain beliefs. As is asserting the teachings & events described factually occurred.

48

It is possible to show how specific passages were constructed from specific OT passages. It’s possible to demonstrate that other details conflict with known history and fact. It’s pssoible to show many contradictions between Gospels which would show that at least one of them has to be wrong. I’m not just talking about an a priori dismissal if the supernatural, I’m talking about non-supernatural details which can be proven not to be historical.

This is not controversial and only religious conservatives still hold to much historicity in those narratives. Such beliefs are not discovered conclusions but are pre-conceived assumptions rooted in religious faith and defended against critical scholarship rather than being a product of it.

49

Diogenes, can you give me a good example or two of a NT narrative that is crafted solely on an OT passage and not related to any pre-existing oral or written tradition?

50

One classic example would be Matthew’s derivation of the virgin birth from a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14.

Another good example is Matthew 21: 1-

*As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”

4This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
  'See, your king comes to you,

gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ "

6The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. 8A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,

“Hosanna** to the Son of David!”
“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”
“Hosanna[d] in the highest!”*

Before Jesus gets to Jerusalem he tells his disciples to run into a village and steal a donkey and her colt. He then rides both animals into Jerusalem (incidentally contradicting Mark and Luke, who both just put Jesus on a colt). The reason Matthew does this is to make his story fit the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 which he mistakenly read as describing the “Prince of Peace” riding upon two separate ( a donkey and a colt) when clearly, Zehariah was talking about a donkey that was a colt.

Matthew’s blunder can only be ascribed to a misunderstanding of OT scripture and not to any anecdotal source from history.

51

Laugh Out Loud
Or maybe, the blunders come from you and the translator? Or better yet, the person who supposedly transcribed these actual events?

What better way to debunk something than to point out grammatical errors…

For instance, IMO, you just said Jesus exists because God told you so but is that really what you said…

I really am laughing :slight_smile:

52

No, there is no error in the translation, and I can read koine Greek.

Transcribed them from what?

I haven’t pointed out any grammatical errors, so i don’t know what you mean by this. There is no misunderstanding of the passage here. Matthew has Jesus riding on two animals at once. This is a well known gaffe, I didn’t just discover this.

I’ve read this last bit several times and I still don’t have a clue what you mean. I’m positive I said no such thing.

53

Yeah, that covers the whole spectrum of scholarly opinion there. :rolleyes:

54

As a matter of fact it does, if you’re talking about actual historical critical scholarship. I didn’t include religious traditionalists because that’s not scholarship, it’s religion. If you start with assumptions that the Bible is historically true or that Jesus was God, then you’re not really doing practicing any sort of critical methodology or making an attempt to discover objective truth, you’re just believing what you want to believe.

That’s not to say that traditionalists can’t do sophisticated theological or literary criticism of the Bible but that’s a different kind of scholarship than what I’m referring to.

55

No. Hell no!

56

This one keep popping up! If you go back to the article in question and scrutinize it more closely, you will notice that Cecil doesn’t actually say that Jesus existed. He says that Jesus probably existed in some form – an assertion that, apart from being rather loose, is based solely on the opinions of the majority of historians, who themselves offer little or no sound evidence in the way of support of this particular item.