här får du lite mer info:
Jesus existence
Jesus existence have been a topic of debbate for a long time, most theologians and historians would agree that Jesus existed as a historical person (Ehrman 2011: 285, Grant 2004: 200, Gould & Burridge 2004: 34). Some theologians and historians goes so far as to say that any ideas surrounding Jesus lack of existance are refuted (Voorst 2000: 16, Dunn 2007: 35-36 Stanton 1989: 145). Theologians however do not agree on exactly what parts of the biblical stories that are true (Powell 1998: 181). The only hypothesises that enjoys anything close to consensus among theologians are the stories surrounding Jesus trial and baptism (Dunn 2003: 339, Herzog 2005: 1-6, Crossan 1995: 145). Most theologians and historians would also agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 4 BC, in the closing stages of the reign of King Herod and died 30–36 AD, that he lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere, and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and maybe Greek (Green et al 1992: 442, Dunn & McKnight 2006: 303, Crossan & Watts 1999 28-29, Barr 1970: 9-29, Porter 1997: 110-112, Hamp 2005: 3-4). This chapter examines the evidence available for both the historical Jesus as well as the mythological one.
The methods involved in researching Jesus existance are mainly comparative studies between different sources such as; gnostic texts, synoptic gospels, Pauline letters, Talmud, Josephus, Irenaeus and Tacitus (Blomberg 2009: 431-436, Bockmuehl 2001: 121-125, Chilton & Evans 1998: 460-470, Voorst 2000: 39-53). The earliest writings about Jesus — traditionally dated 52-67 CE, earlier than any gospels, comes from Paul of Tarsus (Nongbr 2005: 24-52). There are also over 80 texts that mentions “Chrestus”. (Linck 1913: 106).The Garden Tomb may be concidered evidence by some theologians, this will however be discussed in the chapter concerning Jesus's miracles and resurrection.
Many scholars of Biblical history believe that the gospels of the Bible are evidence enough to say that Jesus did exist and that his existence can be assumed from them (Guiart 1952: 169). Many theologians would from this also draw the conclusion that it is equally likely that major themes in Jesus's life are based in reality, that he likely would have been one of the many selfproclaimed prophets of the time and that he probably angered the wrong people resulting in his death (Dawson 1998, Robertson 1975, Blackhorn 1985).
Chrestus does not have to refer to Jesus, as suggested by certain christian apologists, besides meaning “good” or “useful” in those days it was also one of the names of the Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis (McClintock & Strong 1894: 259, Porter & O'Donnell 2004: 102). The followers of Serapis was refered to by some as “Christians” (Giles 1877: 86). References to “christ” does not have to refer to jesus either since it is refering to a title, the term is even used about several people IN THE BIBLE! For example when speaking about high priests and kings of ancient Israel (Wright 1995: 296, Pleket & Stroud 2013).
Paulus never met or spoke to Jesus, but claim to have met a few of the Diciples, no wittnesses are mentioned by name, only that several people have met Jesus. Some thologians also interpret Galatians as Paulus mentioning Jesus's brother (Ehrman 2003). But is Paulus a reliable witness? Is there no possibility that he was just an attention-seeking liar motivated by something entirely different than faith? This is a question that cannot be answered by any means available today. It is clear that Paulus letters is not evidence enough to say with any certainty that Jesus existed.
The authors of the four canonical Gospels (The Apostle Levi Matthew, the evangelist John Mark, the physician Luke, and the Apostle John.) are not eye witnesses, they are merely retelling stories that they have heard. They also never identify themselves explicitly, making them questionable as sources. Most of the information in Matthew and Luke comes from Mark, making it quite logical that they would agree on some points. Despite of this fact, the Gospels still disagree on several facts:
Furthermore, parts of the Gospels where added on later, such as Mark 16 and John 8: 2-11.
As if this was not enough to question the Gospels reliability, The King James authors changed certain stories so that the Bible would correlate with reality, for example the change from Gerasenes to Gadarenes in Mark 8:28.
The earliest source of the Gospels that exists is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, dated to somwhere between 100 CE - 150 CE, depending on which researcher you ask. In other words, the earlies sources are still approximately a 100 years older that the supposed life of Jesus.
The early years of the Roman Empire is one of the best-documented periods of ancient history, they even kept a record on who was crucified (Carrier 2011), Jerusalem was a center of education (Crossan 1996: 94). Philo of Alexandria and Gaius Plinius Secundus were both historians and philosophers active in the area Jesus supposedly traveled at the time when Jesus supposedly lived. Non of them mentions Jesus at any point. Philo was living in (or near) Jerusalem when Maria gave her virgin birth and when the Herodian massacre occurred, when Christ made his entry into Jerusalem, when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place. Isn't it strange that a historian wouldn't mention these events especially when living right next door? Isn't it strange that not one single historian of Jesus supposed time, ever mentions Jesus? The Gosphels describes Jesus as very popular, and still there is not a word of his existance before 93 CE, Jesus, a leader of the people, isn't even mentioned in the records over the crucified people, this is indeed very strange.
Matthew and Luke do not agree on when Jesus was born. Matthey says it is between 6-4 BCE wile Luke says no earlier than 6 CE (with a reference to Quirinius).
According to Irenaeus ( in Demonstration) Jesus got crucified under Claudius Caesar (41-54 CE) (Carrier 2011, Goodblatt 2005).
"For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."
- Irenaeus (130-202 CE)
The problem is, that the Judea Province of this time only had a united rulership under Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa. According to Luke Jesus was about 30 when he was baptized and this was when the: "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" which was 29 CE.
Even if Jesus's supposed birth date was as late as 6 BCE, putting Jesus at 34 in 29 CE, you do not get to the required minimum 46 years of age until 41 CE, which requires the Caesar to be Claudius (41-54 CE) and the Herod "king of the Jews" to be Agrippa I (42-44 CE). That leaves the problem of Pontius Pilate, who had been recalled to Rome in 36 CE. Also, with a Herod "king of the Jews" in charge, Pontius would be unnecessary. (Bilden in här)
Irenaeus goes on to say:
“But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar” (180 CE). Irenaeus acctually is saying that Pontius is working under 2 different Cæsars during the days of Jesus, this is simply incorrect, making Irenaeus doubtful as a source.
The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius was the earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus. Josephus was born in 37 CE, well after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus, which means that he could not have been an eyewitness. His book Antiquities isn't written before 94 CE. Most historians and even biblical scholars agree on that the mentioning of Jesus actually is a forgery. (Price 2003, Carrier 2012, Efrón 1987, Flavius 90). "If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." (Bishop Warburton, Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. 4)
Tacitus was born in 64 C.E, and is therefore not an eyewitness. Tacticus mentions “Chrestus” in the follwing passage:
“"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind" ”
First of all, there is no historical evidence, besides this writing by Tacticus himself, that Nero persecuted Christians, furthermore, there is no evidence that Nero burned Rome, so there would most likely be no need to asign blame in the first place. This is reason enough to doubt Tacticus as a source..
Talmud has been used as a source for the existance of Jesus. Talmud is refering to "Yeshu"(Sanhedrin 43a, Sanhedrin 107, Gittin 56b, 57a ). However, this is actually a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia who lived at least a century before the supposed Christian Jesus. Also, the oldest version of Talmud is still from 300 CE, making it useless as a source.
