It's March, Easter approaches, and new books about Jesus have appeared. It is an interesting and diverse batch this time around. Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" (Harper) very ably assembles the evidence, showing that claims that there never was a historical Jesus fly in the face of common sense and more than sufficient evidence. "The Jesus Discovery" (Simon & Schuster) by James Tabor and Simcha Jacobivici argues that a south Jerusalem tomb (called the "Patio Tomb" because it is accessed via the patio of a condo) belonged to a first-generation Christian family. Tabor and Jacobovici think they have found an inscription that alludes to Jesus resurrected and ascended to heaven. Archaeologists are not convinced; some are complaining that the authors have grossly misinterpreted the evidence. Ehrman's interpretation of the evidence is convincing; Tabor's and Jacobovici's is not.
How to interpret this evidence is what my own book is all about: "Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence" (Westminster John Knox Press). I begin by explaining what archaeology is: the excavation and study of the remains of material culture. In the case of Jesus it means the excavating and interpretation of remains from the first century B.C.E. and C.E. in Israel (Galilee to the north and Judea and Jerusalem to the south). It means correlating what we discover with relevant written records (such as the writings of the New Testament and the writings of Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian). It often means applying space-age technologies. It is hard work and it is very rewarding.
The archaeological evidence shows that Jesus grew up in a small village, Nazareth, about four miles from Sepphoris, a prominent city in the early first century C.E. This city had a Greco-Roman look, complete with paved, columned street, but its inhabitants were observant Jews. The evidence further shows that Nazareth was linked to a network of roads that accommodated travel and commerce. The quaint notion that Jesus grew up in rustic isolation has been laid to rest. The youthful Jesus may well have visited Sepphoris, whose theatre may have been the inspiration for his later mockery of religious hypocrites as play-actors.
The evidence for the existence of synagogue buildings in the time of Jesus is now quite strong. Archaeologists have identified at least seven such buildings that date before the year 70. It is in the context of the synagogue that Jesus would have matured in the religious tradition of Israel and heard Scripture read and interpreted. Although some historians think rates of literacy in the first-century Roman Empire were quite low, archaeological finds, such as the tablets found in Vindolanda, England, near Hadrian's Wall, or the thousands of graffiti etched on the scorched walls of Pompeii and Herculaneum, suggest that at least a crude literacy was widespread and reached all levels of society. This evidence, along with the Gospels' portrait of a Jesus who debates scribes and ruling priests, asking them if they had ever read this or that passage of Scripture, suggests that Jesus, founder of a movement that produced and collected literature, was himself literate.
Archaeological discoveries have given us a pretty good idea of the wealth of the ruling priests Jesus encountered in the precincts of Jerusalem's famous temple. We may have the name of Caiaphas, the name of the high priest who condemned Jesus, inscribed on an ossuary (bone box). Only one year ago it was reported that an ossuary has been found with the name of the priest's granddaughter. A number of other priestly ossuaries and possibly even the burial chamber of the family of Annas, father-in-law of Caiaphas.
Of great interest are several discoveries that have a bearing on the crucifixion and burial of Jesus. These include the skeletal remains of a man who had been crucified. (An iron spike is embedded in his right heel!) Despite his execution, his body was taken down from the cross and was properly buried, in accordance with Jewish custom. There is no reason to think that Jesus was treated any differently. His body was placed in a tomb, with the expectation that his bones later would be gathered and placed in his family's tomb. The Easter discovery dramatically altered this expectation.
Will there be more? I have no doubt. Just last week, a court in Israel concluded that there is no convincing evidence of fraud in the case of the ossuary bearing the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." The debates and controversies will continue.
Craig A. Evans is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada. He has published several books, including 'Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence' (Westminster John Knox Press, 2012).
David Briggs: Voices of the Faithful: Belief in Resurrection at Core of Christian Identity
The court in Israel may have acquitted Oded Golan (the owner of the ossuary) of forgery, but the judge's actual words were that his acquittal “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago. This will continue to be studied by scientists and archaeologists, and time will tell."
Also, there's no reason to assume the Jesus and James on the ossuary are the Jesus and James of the New Testament. They were very common names ("Jesus" is related to "Joshua").
Dr. Evans is not a real archaeologist. And neither is Bart Ehrman, for that matter (or Tabor and Jacobivici for all practical purposes).
That statement is misleading. Oded Golan (the owner of the James ossuary) was acquitted of forgery, but the judge's actual statement was that Golan's acquittal: “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago. This will continue to be studied by scientists and archaeologists, and time will tell."
And furthermore, there's no reason to think, if the inscription is authentic, that the James and Jesus are even the James and Jesus of the New Testament. Both were very common names (Jesus comes from Joshua).
While I would agree that James Tabor and Simcha Jacobivici are way off base with their "Jesus Discovery," Dr. Evans seems to be more of a hobbyist than a real archaeologist and his assessment sounds overly dogmatic. Ehrman isn't an archaeologist either, for that matter.
The point is really moot. You're not going to "find Jesus" in Levantine archaeology of the 1st century. The one example of crucifixion you've found does not equal "how Jesus died." Archaeology should not try to prove anything (ie, the Bible). It should speak for itself. Syro-palestinian archaeology, in particular, tends to become wildly speculative and unscientific the more people try to link it to obscure biblical references.
Not so sharp on the concept of free inquiry, though. Or the weakness of arguing by credentials. Cause that's about all he's got: "The vast majority of tenured professors in my field all agree unquestioningly that Jesus existed." A few centuries ago the vast majority of experts in theology -- I'm not sure if Biblical studies existed separately from theology yet back then -- agreed without question that Abraham and Moses existed. Times change. More slowly in Biblical studies than in some other parts of the world.
All things equal, the simplest explanation is often the best.
Why?
"The writings outside the NT, whether contemporaries of Christ or not just lend more credence to his existence"
No contemporary written accounts of Jesus are known. The earliest accounts are in the NT, the earliest of which are by Paul, who by his own admission never saw Jesus except in a vision. There is no non-Biblical account which could not be drawn exclusively from the Bible.
"Why would a Jewish historian (Josephus) make mention of an invented deity figure from a competing religion if he had not existed?"
One, why wouldn't he? Two, at Josephus' time, Christianity was still regarded by many as a sect of Judaism, not a separate religion. Three Josephus barely mentions Jesus at all, in a passage about James. (The Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery.)
"Do you know how many people would have to be involved in conspiracies of these magnitudes?"
In 9-11? Lots and lots of people. In starting Christianty? One author would have been enough. And he might have been named Paul of Tarsus.
"the simplest explanation is often the best"
One person making things up -- that's pretty simple.
There is a myth that Christianity was responsible for the "dark ages". Actually, historians generally avoid the concept of the dark ages. The Wikipedia article on the term is a useful summary.
It is a myth which also neglects several facts.
First, that it was the church which preserved learning during the chaos following the fall of Rome and introduced a radical concept, that education could be provided to the less wealthy.
Second, it was Christianity which, in the early mediaeval period, introduced the idea that we could observe and learn from the natural world, which was God's creation; the classical idea was that the natural world was corrupt and unworthy of contemplation. Modern science couldn't have developed without that changed viewpoint.
And, third, as Christian scholars from Asia Minor increasingly fled to the West to avoid Muslim incursions after the 11th Century, they brought "lost" European knowledge (such as the writings of Aristotle) to the West, leading to the strong position of science alongside theology in mediaeval universities -- which were all Church institutions.
Without Paul, we might now be on the brink of inventing the car -- or, more likely, the bicycle.
The church "introduced the idea that we could observe and learn from the natural world... the classical idea was that the natural world was corrupt and unworthy of contemplation." Really? Which church father promoted that? And the pre Socratic Greeks and Aristotle found reality unworthy? That is just false. It was the christers that promulgated the notion that nature and the human body were sinful if not downright evil, not the Greeks. The very term 'kosmos' means ornament. The Greeks sought to understand Nature, not the christers who made a point of keeping such learning hidden and out of the minds of its followers. The very idea of paganism was related to Nature. And paganism had to be stamped out.
Intellectuals in Asia Minor influenced thought in Europe but they never had to deal with the suppression of ideas and free inquiry flourished there and not in Europe after the Roman church assumed power.
Sorry -- no. The Dark Ages are very aptly named. (You mentioned Apuleius, so perhaps you know who Gellius is. Apart from the palimpsest manuscript of Gellius tentatively dated 7th century by Carl Hosius in his 1903 Teubner edition, do you know of ANY manuscript of a pre-Christian Latin author which dates from the 6th, 7th or 8th century? I don't. And I know an awful lot about the transmission of classical Latin.) After the Christian takeover, literacy rates sharply dropped in the West, being confined mostly to the clergy and a very tiny fringe of old aristocracy independent from the clergy, most of the old aristocracy having been co-opted. Science was thriving in pre-Christian Greece and the huge area which Greece influenced, including the entire Roman Empire and more. Greeks such as Aristotle -- now how exactly does Aristotle fit into your narrative that the idea that one could observe and learn from the natural world was introduced by Christianity? It's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer -- were widely studied in the West before Christianity. Fluency in Greek was widespread in the West before Christianity.
Stop conning people.
Ehrman goes so far as to call people names when they disagree with him. I'll live.
no evidence of his birth, his youth, his literacy (highly unlikely), his family (jewish men were never unmarried unless widowed)....this is all just biblical speculation extrapolated. fairy tales written decades and centuries after the period in which he supposedly lived and preached. to buy into this, you need first accept the second testament as "factual"....some science.
What I don't understand about the "there was no historical Jesus" types is why they readily accept the existence of so many other early Christians; Paul, Peter, etc. Why do you find an utterly unevidenced 'conspiracy' on the part of the early Christians to invent a made up Jesus figure more plausible than the far simpler and more firmly established position that this movement had a founder who was executed? Sure, the supernaural claims about him are BS but there were BS supernatural claims made about Alexander also yet no one doubts his existence.
It seems some people just find the idea that Jesus didn't even exist simply too cool to let go of. Either that or it's a misguided expression of hostility towards the larger phenomenon of religion and Christinity in particular, with all of its irrational claims and dogma. Hey, few people find religion as nonsensical as I do. But this idea that there's something fundamentally implausible about there bring an historical Jesus figure is also nonsensical (especially when the existence of the other early Christisns alleged to have invented JC is accepted so readily!). It's interesting...
[That was a nice, pithy rebuke too, completrely ruined by yet another damn typo.]
What archaeological evidence is there that "Jesus grew up" anywhere? There isn't even any archaeological evidence of Nazareth before the third century BCE. Even the most thorough investigation by Roman Catholic theologians has been unable to find any archaeological
proof. They RC church even bought land there to dig up to find some: Bagatti, B. 'Excavations in Nazareth'. Ancient Jewish sources make no mention of Nazareth prior to the third century CE. Wilson, I. 'Jesus, The Evidence'.
If a fundamental fact such as this is completely wrong and the author thinks the Gospels are factual, what else in his book is wishful thinking and speculation.
1. There is a tomb discovered in Jerusalem that some people claim may contain artifacts that could be interpreted as having Christian type inscriptions from the 1st Century.
2. There was a village that corresponds to Nazareth.
3. There were synagogues present in the region.
4. There was some level of literacy in the Roman Empire at the time.
5. There may be archeological evidence of Caiaphas, the high priest mentioned in the New Testament.
6. There is archeological evidence of the wealth of the elite priestly caste.
7. There is evidence of the Roman practice of crucifixion.
Yes, I would say that this is "more than sufficient evidence" for the existence of a historical Jesus.
James Tabor used to be a very highly-regarded Biblical scholar. Recently he's been working with Jacobovici, which may have helped Jacobovici's reputation somewhat. It certainly has damaged Tabor's reputation considerably.
A few years ago Israel Finkelstein appeared on "The Naked Archaeologist" to discuss sources of artifacts: the antiquities market vs academic archaeology. At the end of their discussion Finkelstein had a look on his face like, "What can you say to a guy like this?" I wouldn't be surprised if it was the last time Jacobovici and Finkelstein spoke.
It's hard to regard the phenomenon of Jacobivici and not become very discouraged -- as with the so-called "History Channel," as with Dan Brown.
Of course, if I keep saying that, some unscrupulous person will take a hint and forge such a letter.
I have a suspicion that if a person could travel back in time, the events would appear much different that we currently "imagine."
Did any handwriting expert check to see if this god really wrote the crap?
Presumably that thorough discussion took place under top-secret conditions. A sort of academic Manhattan Project. (Wish I'd thought of this yesterday.)
This is a lie that believers keep telling themselves. The truth is that that many of us would love to see proof; but, none has been produced, no matter how many times we ask.