Jesus discussion

[Spurius]

That is an interesting question! I think it would be difficult to find evidence that was not from a Christian or a Jewish source, as Jesus primarily performed miracles to the Jews and people living in and around Judea. Because of this it would be difficult to find contemporary sources documenting the miracles from other regions.

I suppose that, if anyone non-Jewish would have witnessed the miracles of Jesus then it would be Romans who were in Judea (possibly military officials / personnel) or travellers from other regions who were in that area for trade. Having a scholar from a non-Jewish population in Judea at the time may be a rarity.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Answering Praetoria's question - without getting into the discussion of what is biased and what is not, the answer is probably "No". All the records we possess are in the NT, extra-canonical Christian literature (including Gnostic, etc. sources), and in what appears to be a Christian rendering of Josephus' Antiquities. The question is, what in the passage of 18.3.3, which mentions "doing of wonders," is a later Christian interpolation.

[Primitivus]

Who wasn't biased one way or another?

And the question can be asked just as aptly: who isn't biased today?

While earning an undergrad degree in journalism, we emphasized the pursuit of objectivity in reporting the news. It's a noble goal. But I'm persuaded it is only that... a goal towards which we strive. I've never met a totally objective/unbiased individual. Oh, I've met many who are "open-minded" and a number who earnestly try to uncritically understand alternative views... but I've yet to encounter a 100% unbiased human being.

...and don't any of you out there claim to be completely unbiased! 3sjl2y30](1)[/size] lying, or [size=75:3sjl2y30](2)[/size] self-deceived.

[Restitvtvs]

That's it! We're human, limited. Now as then.

Ergo, many questions actually remain open.

Pax vobiscvm, +r

[tlclark]

The problem with any source that is "unbiased" that claims Jesus performed miracles is that it would automatically become biased, because the ususal definition of what is "biased" is that it claims christ performed miracles! It's an impossible question, and a silly one.

But if it's of any worth, Celsus claims that Jesus learned "magic" in Egypt. so there is a basic recognition that Jesus was known as a wonder-worker, even then. And then there's the Muslim tradition which acknowledges his miraculous works as well.

However this is not evidence of Christ's genuine position as "The Son of God" as Romans, Greeks and Hebrews had traditions of magic and miracles. So even if we could find a source that said "We aren't Christians, but we know Jesus performed miracles" It would be meaningless, since no one had any real hang up supernatural events. Biases against supernatural events are really a post - enlightenment phenomenon. To the syncrestic era, jesus miracles are the least of their concern. Rather their problem was with the followers and their bizarre insistence on exclusivity.

So even if you find such a source it wouldn't prove anything I'm afraid.

We really can't answer such questions anyway. Miracles are a matter of faith and up to personal choices.

However there is a great deal of skepticism towards Christian oral and manuscript traditions that is simply missing with regard to other traditions and I think that's where the biases enter in.

Travis

[~Praetoria~]

so there are no unbiased people =/ well then I guess my question is answered.

[tlclark]

I think it would be useful if we moved the argument from faith claims (which are unanswerable) to what we can demonstrate people believed in and how that impacted history.

For example, we really can't answer whether Christ really performed miracles, but we can answer what early Christians believed about him performing miracles.

A discussion on those grounds would be more useful anyway.

[Tarbicus]

Anyone read this book?: JSNTS 148 SSEJC 5 Early Judaism Christianity Scriptures

Looks relevant, and covers a lot of interesting ground.

[Primitivus]

Anyone read this book? Early Judaism Christianity Scriptures

No, but it looks quite interesting, especially the chapter... To Invert or Not to Invert: The Pharisaic Canon in the Gospels.

[Matt Lukes]

so there are no unbiased people =/ well then I guess my question is answered.

Perhaps it would have been better said 'an independent source' rather than an unbiased one.

I wondered this too about much of the OT back when I was very interested in ancient Egypt and first considered the historical authenticity of the stories of the plagues, etc. Sadly for the most part we're lucky to have single mentions of most things let alone multiple versions from different sources...