Genealogy Of Jesus

[BeRational]

How do you know how bias ancient people were?
Careful now, if you say that people associated with the early church are more biased than any other ancient epistle writers and non church writers of the genre the Gospels are often included in i.e. Roman biography you are in danger of making the Genetic fallacy.

It seems to me that someone who is trying to point out that we don't know stuff about these writers is also making huge assumptions about the very people he is claiming we don't know about.

Because the people copying texts that made the bible were not independent.
They had a vested interest in the stories.

Were are the same stories told by people having no axe to grind.

None of the stories are written by eye witnesses

[Spud]

Someone on Youtube wrote in a comments section of a video about founders of religions relying on converts not being able to verify the founder's religious experience. For example, if someone has no witnesses to confirm that he has been visited by angels (whether he was lying or imagining it), someone gullible enough might still take his word for it. Or, he might claim that the miracle happened/would happen long enough in the past/future that it was impossible to verify.
He said that people apply to Christianity this rule about how religions get off the ground through gullibility. They assign later dates to the gospels because in order to get people to believe the accounts of miracles, they must have been recorded a long time afterwards when there was no way of verifying them. Since this is the only way to get people to believe in the miraculous (apart from having no other witnesses and relying again on gullibility to convince contemporary converts), the stories in the gospels must have been made up long enough after they were supposed to have happened for verification by witnesses to be impossible.
However, there is strong evidence the stories were written down pre-AD70. A five-sided pool in Jerusalem, mentioned by John as still in existence, was destroyed by the Romans. There is no mention of the deaths of James, Peter and Paul in Acts, which we know to have happened before 70. Luke would almost certainly have mentioned this, and the persecution under Nero, had he written after those events.
If as this and other evidence suggests, the gospels were published before 70, then the genealogies must be reliable. They would have been checked against the records, which were still extant in Jerusalem.
So we are then at liberty to make inferences as to why they differ in places.

[Gordon]

Someone on Youtube wrote in a comments section of a video about founders of religions relying on converts not being able to verify the founder's religious experience. For example, if someone has no witnesses to confirm that he has been visited by angels (whether he was lying or imagining it), someone gullible enough might still take his word for it. Or, he might claim that the miracle happened/would happen long enough in the past/future that it was impossible to verify.
He said that people apply to Christianity this rule about how religions get off the ground through gullibility. They assign later dates to the gospels because in order to get people to believe the accounts of miracles, they must have been recorded a long time afterwards when there was no way of verifying them. Since this is the only way to get people to believe in the miraculous (apart from having no other witnesses and relying again on gullibility to convince contemporary converts), the stories in the gospels must have been made up long enough after they were supposed to have happened for verification by witnesses to be impossible.
However, there is strong evidence the stories were written down pre-AD70. A five-sided pool in Jerusalem, mentioned by John as still in existence, was destroyed by the Romans. There is no mention of the deaths of James, Peter and Paul in Acts, which we know to have happened before 70. Luke would almost certainly have mentioned this, and the persecution under Nero, had he written after those events.
If as this and other evidence suggests, the gospels were published before 70, then the genealogies must be reliable. They would have been checked against the records, which were still extant in Jerusalem.
So we are then at liberty to make inferences as to why they differ in places.

Nope - you can liberally infer all you like, Spud, but the simple fact is that you have no external criteria to establish the reliability of claimed geneaologies so as to support your personal convictions (which is all you really have).

[Spud]

Nope - you can liberally infer all you like, Spud, but the simple fact is that you have no external criteria to establish the reliability of claimed geneaologies so as to support your personal convictions (which is all you really have).

What sort of criteria do you mean?

[Gordon]

No idea, since DNA and birth certificates aren't available: but then I don't much care because I can't see why it matters and, anyway, it isn't my claim. I think you need to at least recognise that some things really are unknowable, and especially so when the provenance is uncertain and concerns people and events dating from antiquity, to the extent that a degree of scepticism is required.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because the people copying texts that made the bible were not independent.
They had a vested interest in the stories.

Then surely they would have preserved and taken care what they were vestedly interested in.

Since you have dropped your insistence that we know nothing or cannot do any surmising, let's carry on in that vain by saying that perhaps everybody has a vested interest and that no one was independent. Certainly not Roman historians who were also politicians, Certainly not the jewish authorities or religious sects who expelled christianity from their synagogues

Were are the same stories told by people having no axe to grind.

Axe grinding? Do tell.

As we all know, from this period only a limited number of documents are extant. Other contrary vested interests would certainly not want to write promoting Christianity because of the risk at upsetting social standing or maybe life. Which actually makes those willing to write about this stuff people risking their lives. The ever presence of the cross for capital punishment would have ensured that it wasn't talked about. Let us also remember that even though there were vested interests against Christianity, the non existence of Christ is rarely if ever one of their arguments.

None of the stories are written by eye witnesses

I would suggest that historians seldom are.

[ProfessorDavey]

Then surely they would have preserved and taken care what they were vestedly interested in.

Not necessarily - they would also have had a vested interest in strengthening their case through alterations in the documents through time. This happens all the time - don't forget what we now describe as the new testament is a document written by and sanctioned by 'the winners' in a historical sense.

In other words those that won the battle to determine orthodoxy in christianity and doctrine and, in effect, create the church. Throughout history 'the winners' tend to shape the historical narrative (including documents) to suit their own purposes and agendas rather than being scrupulously fair, even-handed and accurate. I have little doubt that this happened through the first couple of centuries of christianity and we can see all sorts of evidence for it, from the added ending to Mark, the interpolations of earlier texts by Eusebius, through to the most obvious and fundamental aspects being the selection of some texts to be included in the canon and others that were rejected (which is of course a political decision) and the labelling of others with the early church as heretics and their opinions as heresy, presumably not not accepting the developing orthodoxy of those that ultimately became 'the winners'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Let us also remember that even though there were vested interests against Christianity, the non existence of Christ is rarely if ever one of their arguments.

No - you've got this the wrong way around. The point is that there is pretty well zero mention of the existence of Jesus in non-christian contemporaneous or near contemporaneous documents. Sure there is mention of early christians, but that is a different matter. And given that Jesus was living within communities that included Jewish and Roman peoples (both assiduous record-keepers) that is mightily odd.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not necessarily - they would also have had a vested interest in strengthening their case through alterations in the documents through time. This happens all the time - don't forget what we now describe as the new testament is a document written by and sanctioned by 'the winners' in a historical sense.

In other words those that won the battle to determine orthodoxy in christianity and doctrine and, in effect, create the church. Throughout history 'the winners' tend to shape the historical narrative (including documents) to suit their own purposes and agendas rather than being scrupulously fair, even-handed and accurate. I have little doubt that this happened through the first couple of centuries of christianity and we can see all sorts of evidence for it, from the added ending to Mark, the interpolations of earlier texts by Eusebius, through to the most obvious and fundamental aspects being the selection of some texts to be included in the canon and others that were rejected (which is of course a political decision) and the labelling of others with the early church as heretics and their opinions as heresy, presumably not not accepting the developing orthodoxy of those that ultimately became 'the winners'.

I would be interested in what the vested interest Be Rational is talking about exactly is.

Yes an orthodoxy does come through but to talk of winners is incorrect IMV. Since other views of Jesus exist side by side with what we know as orthodox christianity.
And there writings persist side by side with orthodox christianity sometimes for centuries. Yes the new testament contains doctrine, yes patristic writers can show that some of them very probably not only knew the apostles but were educated and apprenticed to them. State christianity gives us a monolithic winning orthodoxy but even here the Roman state wasn't always in line with this orthodox christianity as witness when ''The world awoke to find itself arian'' arianism being similar to an earlier alternative view of Christ known as ebionitism.

The situation for the period we are talking about was therefore not nearly the winner take all, winner change all scenario I feel you are painting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - you've got this the wrong way around. The point is that there is pretty well zero mention of the existence of Jesus in non-christian contemporaneous or near contemporaneous documents. Sure there is mention of early christians, but that is a different matter. And given that Jesus was living within communities that included Jewish and Roman peoples (both assiduous record-keepers) that is mightily odd.

Again the problem of extantcy arises.
What extant Roman and Jewish documents do you think should have mentioned Jesus?

[ProfessorDavey]

Again the problem of extantcy arises.
What extant Roman and Jewish documents do you think should have mentioned Jesus?

True - as with all ancient documents we have the issue of what the original said and what the earliest extant version (often from much later) says.

However in the case of Jesus there are no documents (as far as I am aware) from the period when Jesus was around or shortly thereafter (e.g. 30-50AD) that make any mention of him. As far as I'm aware the earliest mention of Jesus in non-christian documents (note this is the assumed date of the original not of the earliest extant version) is from about 90AD and even then there is doubt about its authenticity with strong evidence that some key information is a later christian interpolation.

Realistically non christian writers only begin to mention Jesus in the context of the developing christian movement, so in relation to christians - i.e. they believed in Jesus, rather than as a factual statement of his existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

True - as with all ancient documents we have the issue of what the original said and what the earliest extant version (often from much later) says.

However in the case of Jesus there are no documents (as far as I am aware) from the period when Jesus was around or shortly thereafter (e.g. 30-50AD) that make any mention of him. As far as I'm aware the earliest mention of Jesus in non-christian documents (note this is the assumed date of the original not of the earliest extant version) is from about 90AD and even then there is doubt about its authenticity with strong evidence that some key information is a later christian interpolation.

Realistically non christian writers only begin to mention Jesus in the context of the developing christian movement, so in relation to christians - i.e. they believed in Jesus, rather than as a factual statement of his existence.

Again, what extant documents should Jesus be appearing in since it seems we cannot be talking about the absence of Jesus in documents which are no longer extant.

With regard Describing Christianity as an outsider. Why would I go further than to mention that there were christians mooching about. It could be that I don't need to expand on it since what christians were and what they stood for was well known.

If I didn't like christians I might say they believe in a person who was non existent but as you say(or maybe it was me)that never seems to crop up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I would suggest that historians seldom are.

A great deal of academic history entails the examination of eye-witness and contemporaneous accounts. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again, what extant documents should Jesus be appearing in since it seems we cannot be talking about the absence of Jesus in documents which are no longer extant.

My point exactly! There are no surviving documents for leprechauns either, "since it seems we cannot be talking about the absence of leprechauns in documents which are no longer extant" right?

So...

[Roses]

Vlad,

My point exactly! There are no surviving documents for leprechauns either, "since it seems we cannot be talking about the absence of leprechauns in documents which are no longer extant" right?

So...

Quite right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A great deal of academic history entails the examination of eye-witness and contemporaneous accounts.

Once again, which extant documents of the period a) should Jesus be expected to appear in and b) Which documents of this period have actual eye witness testimony written into them?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Once again, which extant documents of the period a) should Jesus be expected to appear in and b) Which documents of this period have actual eye witness testimony written into them?

Once again, which extant documents of the period a) should leprechauns be expected to appear in and b) Which documents of this period have actual eye witness testimony written into them?

You seem to think the absence of records for Jesus is an argument for the historical Jesus. It isn’t, any more than the absence of records about leprechauns is an argument for historical leprechauns.

Oh, and in any case this isn’t relevant. Your reply to “None of the stories are written by eye witnesses” was: “I would suggest that historians (sic) seldom are”.

I was merely correcting you on this point – histories often depend on close examination of eye-witness accounts and of other contemporaneous records.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Once again, which extant documents of the period a) should leprechauns be expected to appear in and b) Which documents of this period have actual eye witness testimony written into them?

You seem to think the absence of records for Jesus is an argument for the historical Jesus. It isn’t, any more than the absence of records about leprechauns is an argument for historical leprechauns.

Oh, and in any case this isn’t relevant. Your reply to “None of the stories are written by eye witnesses” was: “I would suggest that historians (sic) seldom are”.

I was merely correcting you on this point – histories often depend on close examination of eye-witness accounts and of other contemporaneous records.

Why is the historical Jesus not largely negated by Historians and yet Leprechauns are?

Which ''eye witness accounts'' and ''contemporaneous records'' of the first century are you referring to?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why is the historical Jesus not largely negated by Historians and yet Leprechauns are?

Actually claims of both are largely ignored by historians as there’s insufficient evidence for either. That’s why “Jesus was alive, then dead, then alive again” isn’t taught in history lessons, and nor is, “leprechauns left pots of gold a the ends of rainbows” for the same reason. 

Which ''eye witness accounts'' and ''contemporaneous records'' of the first century are you referring to?

Not my problem. If you want to say, “records from that time wouldn’t exist” then – true or not – that’s all you can say. Their non-existence has nothing whatever to say though about the supposed existence of Jesus.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not my problem.   

I think you have two issues here

1) You are comparing for some reason the Historical Jesus with Leprechauns.
2) Secondly you are suggesting that there is a comparison to be made(since you brought it up) with the absence of direct written eye witness statement in the case of Jesus with some kind of direct written eye witness statement and contemporaneous accounts. Presumably this comparison does not favour Jesus so the question still remains ''Which documents are you referring to?''

[jeremyp]

No - you've got this the wrong way around. The point is that there is pretty well zero mention of the existence of Jesus in non-christian contemporaneous or near contemporaneous documents. Sure there is mention of early christians, but that is a different matter. And given that Jesus was living within communities that included Jewish and Roman peoples (both assiduous record-keepers) that is mightily odd.

I don't think it's odd at all. It's likely that there were hundreds of these little cults at the time of Jesus and there's no contemporary documentary evidence for any of them. People weren't, as a rule, disposed towards writing things down. Most of them couldn't write things down.

I suspect the only reason we have anything at all about the early days of Christianity is because it was the one that survived and had members in later centuries with an interest in preserving the documents. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you have two issues here

1) You are comparing for some reason the Historical Jesus with Leprechauns.

Wrong again. I’m comparing the quality of evidence for each claim. If you think the absence of evidence for one claim (Jesus) tells you anything about the truth of that claim, then the absence of evidence for any other claim (leprechauns) must be treated the same way. 

2) Secondly…

You can’t have a secondly when your firstly has just collapsed in a heap, but ok…

…you are suggesting that there is a comparison to be made(since you brought it up) with the absence of direct written eye witness statement in the case of Jesus with some kind of direct written eye witness statement and contemporaneous accounts. Presumably this comparison does not favour Jesus so the question still remains ''Which documents are you referring to?''

This is incoherent - what are you trying to say here? The quality of written evidence for the biblical Jesus is not sufficient for the claim to be treated seriously by academic historians. That fact tells you nothing at all about whether or not the biblical Jesus was real.

What more do you need to know? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wrong again. I’m comparing the quality of evidence for each claim.

I'm sorry but we know the historic and doctrinal claims of Jesus but when you say ''each claim'' what other claims are you talking about? It would help if you told us which claims and the documentary evidence you think favours them as claims. Anything?

If you think the absence of evidence for one claim (Jesus) tells you anything about the truth of that claim,

sorry, but I think you might be straw manning here

then the absence of evidence for any other claim (leprechauns) must be treated the same way.

There are no claims for leprechauns are there? Which later documents concerning Leprechauns are you referring to. In Christianity, there is of course apparently no directly written eye witness available from that time but a plethora of evidence which satisfies historians of a Jesus and a community which believed in him historically and doctrinally. Not so with Leprechauns.   

What more do you need to know?

The other contemporaneous claims you suggest have directly written eye witness evidence and corroboration.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry but we know the historic and doctrinal claims of Jesus but when you say ''each claim'' what other claims are you talking about. It would help if you told us which claims and the documentary evidence you think favours them as claims.Anything?

Blimey but you struggle. The evidence for the Jesus of the Bible is no better than the evidence for any other supernatural claim. Which other supernatural claims is neither here nor there. That’s a comparison of the quality of evidence, not of Jesus and leprechauns. 
 

…sorry, but I think you might be straw manning here…

Hysterical.

There are no claims for leprechauns are there?

Yes there are. Look – I’ve just claimed them.

Which later documents concerning Leprechauns are you referring to. In Christianity, there is of course apparently no directly written eye witness at the time but a plethora of evidence which satisfies historians of a Jesus and a community which believed in him historically and doctrinally. Not so with Leprechauns.

Wrong again. The evidence for a miracle-performing Jesus is no better than the evidence for miracle-performing leprechauns. You seem to be under the impression that this lack of evidence for the former belief somehow validates the claim. It doesn’t, but if you want to go down that road nonetheless then the same must be true of the absence of evidence for the latter claim.     

The other contemporaneous claims you suggest have directly written eye witness evidence.

You want to know what ancient records exist? Seriously? Have you heard of the ancient Egyptians? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Blimey but you struggle.

No but you are struggling naming the eyewitness accounts, claims of contemporaneous but non Christian history.

The evidence for the Jesus of the Bible is no better than the evidence for any other supernatural claim.

We were discussing what was believed about Jesus, his existence and those communities which derive from his existence

Which other supernatural claims is neither here nor there. That’s a comparison of the quality of evidence,

Again which claims and which evidence. You have already blatantly deflected from historical and doctrinal into the supernatural. That's handwaving.

Hysterical.

Sad I call it.

Yes there are. Look – I’ve just claimed them.[/quote]claimed what?

     

You want to know what ancient records exist? Seriously? Have you heard of the ancient Egyptians?

Yes what eye witness accounts are there which were written by those eyewitnesses and what document is it that corroborates those accounts? Should we make a concession to you to use anything from ancient Egypt although what would really help your case are examples from non christian sources in the first century.

I'm not sure that is appropriate since ancient Egypt covers several centuries more than our period of interest.