The Life of Jesus' from Evidence Outside our Gospels

(1) Atheist Morton Smith is a genuine scholar. In his unique book, "Jesus the Magician," he reconstructs the version of Jesus' life as told by His Jewish detractors. I have summarized his findings in the paragraph below. The main source is the Platonist Celsus, who interviewed Jewish leaders to get their version of Jesus' life. Some of what they share can be independently corroborated by earlier sources traceable to the first century. I have cited other sources in parentheses for certain negative Jewish traditions about Jesus.

Jesus is the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Panthera and a spinner woman (Rabbi Eliezer--70 AD). Her husband disowned her for her adultery and Jesus was born while she was on the run. He got a job in Egypt as a laborer and took the opportunity to become an adept in magic there. Jesus even had himself tattooed with magical spells (Celsus--170 AD--also responsible for the ensuing claims). Returning to Galilee Jesus hung out with sailors of the worst sort, and wandered from place to place, making his living shamefully as a beggar. He recruited 10 (not 12) disciples and taught them to indulge in secret orgies in defiance of the Law of Moses. He persuaded the masses that he was the Messiah by his miracles, which were either demonically powered or nothing more than magically induced hallucinations. His cures were not real and did not last (Quadratus--100-125 AD). Even his own family rejected his claims. He was tried and executed by Pilate for sedition and the practice of magic. His disciples stole his body and then claimed that they saw him after he rose from the dead. Some say the gardener at the tomb site removed the body to discourage sightseers from stepping on his lettuce (Tertullian--208 AD). But the false claim that he rose from the dead has gained him a huge following.

Both believers and Jesus' Jewish detractors agree
(1) that Joseph is not Jesus' true father,
If Joseph is not Jesus' father, then we need to choose between His illegitimate birth and His virgin birth.
(2) that to His Jewish audience, Jesus appeared to perform miracles:
Notice that His Jewish detractors don't claim that these miracle stories are later fabrications.
(3) that Jesus' crucified body was not buried by Roman soldiers in the customary manner:
So His missing corpse forced speculation on His body's fate.
(4) that, unlike our Gospels His detractors are interested in His physical appearance:
"Was the claim that he was tattooed related to Paul's claim, "I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body (Galatians 6:17)?
Those marks are usually interpreted, rightly I think, as Paul's wounds inflicted for his Gospel witness.

Hmm I guess it’s true to this very day.

Matt 28
11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12And after the chief priests had met with the elders and formed a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money 13and instructed them: “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ 14If this report reaches the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”

15So the guards took the money and did as they were instructed. And this account has been circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Seems it Kind of grew too.

1. THE GOSPEL OF MARK: THE MEMOIR'S OF HIS DAD'S EYWITNESS TESTIMONY
There is good reason to embrace the tradition that Mark contains Peter's memoirs. But last night, as I was thinking about this post, I realized that there are good grounds for taking this one step further and claiming that this Gospel represents the memoirs of Mark's Dad! Here is the 7-step reasoning process by which I reached that conclusion:

(1) Mark's account of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law implies that Peter was married (1:29-31).

(2) Paul reports that Peter's wife traveled with him on his missionary tours (1 Corinthians 9:5).
So Clement of Alexandria's tradition that Peter had children and that Peter's wife accompanied him to Rome, where both were martyred, are probably both true (Clement's Stromateis as quoted in Eusebius, HE 3:30).

(3) Writing from Rome [= "Babylon"], Peter identifies Mark as "my son (1 Peter 5:13)." In view of (1)-(3) above, it seems likely that Peter means that literally and that "my son" is not just a term of endearment for his travel companion Mark.

(4) Papias (c. 60-130 AD) reports that Jesus' disciple, John the Elder, is currently testifying to his knowledge that Mark was Peter's interpreter at Rome and recorded Peter's memoirs of Jesus in his Gospel.
"Papias...says that he had actually heard Aristion and John the Elder. He often quotes them by name and gives their tradition in his writings Eusebius, HE 3:39)."

(5) Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) lives in Rome and confirms the Roman tradition that Mark's Gospel in fact represents Peter's memoirs.

(6) The many Latinism in Mark lend added credence to the Gospel of Mark's origin in Rome.

(7) So Mark's Gospel likely preserves his Dad Peter's eyewitness testimony to Jesus' life and teaching.

(3) The Nazareth inscription is a tablet from the emperor, warning that the penalty for grave robbing is death. Most scholars date it to the time of Claudius (c. 41 AD). In 1878 it was initially brought to Nazareth, Jesus' home town. If Claudius is indeed the inscription's source. and if it was found near Nazareth, then it would likely be prompted by a Roman belief in the same charge that Jews made against Jesus' disciples: that the disciples stole Jesus' body. If so, these charges likely mean that neither the Jews nor the Romans know why Jesus' body was missing from the tomb. There is scant evidence that the Romans executed ordinary grave robbers. So the death penalty here probably reflects a Roman belief in Christianity as a troublesome cult focused on someone who committed a crime against Rome (e. g. sedition).

Unfortunately, the original locale of the tablet is unknown, but it is brought to officials in Nazareth. So it is probably discovered near there. Still, it seems unlikely Claudius would bother authorizing such a tablet to be written and sent to Palestine, unless a charge of notorious grave robbing had been leveled. Based on the style of lettering, the Decapolis has been proposed as an alternative place of origin. But the Decapolis is a hotbed of early Christianity. So whether it comes from Nazareth or the Decapolis, the tablet indirectly seems to attest the mystery of Jesus' empty tomb.
Of course, the earliest Gospel tradition about Jesus' burial (Mark) identifies a member of the 'Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea, as sympathetic to Jesus (though not a disciple!) of Jesus and as gaining permission to bury a prematurely dead Jesus so as not to profane the Sabbath. In short, apologists are overreaching to claim this as proof of the resurrection, but the tablet looms as a relevant artifact possibly alluding to the witness to Jesus' bodily resurrection.

For a scholarly discussion, see:

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...tion-Proof-of-the-Resurrection-of-Christ.aspx

The Life of Jesus' from Evidence Outside our Gospels

Click to expand...

Any so-called "evidence" from outside the Gospels would be highly suspect. So what is your point?

The enemies and detractors of Christ hated Him, and fabricated stories about Him. And the Gnostic gospels are full of legendary accounts.

Christians can absolutely nothing by wasting their time on rubbish. Just like the Fake News of today. A total waste of time.

Basically they provide evidence outside the Bible that Jesus existed. All have been a very biased viewpoint of Jesus. Mostly antagonistic about him. It happens today. Look at the hate the Democrats have for Trump. Fabrications galore!!

I was thinking that the above "history" written by some no name scholar = the rough toilet paper with splinters that was sold when toilet paper began to be mass produced........

On a side note....I seen an ad from Scott toilet paper from the early 1900's <----guaranteed splinter free.......!!!!

While these stories may not have their details in order, they do collectively testify to one truth:

Jesus was a real person who lived at that time.

It shoots down atheists that try to claim that Jesus didn't exist.

The Codex Sanctimonius, and the Codex Pharisius-the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, in my humble, but superior, opinion, and blah-blah-blah, etc. ad nauseum,,,,,

I agree your post is blah-blah-blah, etc. ad nauseum!!

(4) In 670 AD bishop Arculf visited the site of a church built over a house at Nazareth and reported the tradition that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus lived in that house. Surrounding ancient inscriptional evidence supports that identification. The house referenced by Arculf clearly has a much longer history than 670AD. But how many centuries before Arcult was the house built? Till now, this tradition has been widely dismissed as legendary. But recently archaeologists have been able to scientifically date the house to the time of Joseph and Mary. Ancient fragments of a woman's spinning equipment have been found there. For a more detailed account of this house, see:
https://zenit.org/articles/the-home-of-joseph-the-just-one-in-nazareth/
About 8 years ago, I led a small academic Bible study for 4 people, Attendees went on to get an MDiv and 2 MAs in Theology. One of them, Ebb, a janitor, got an MDiv from Princeton and then spent a summer on the archaeological dig at Bethsaida, the home of 3-5 of Jesus' disciples. Another Bible study member ,Ken (a young retired architect) then asked me if he could also participate in that dig. I encouraged him to apply and he was accepted. Indeed, he made some important archaeological discoveries there and that success earned him an invitation to join a team searching for the tunnel entrance of Jewish Holocaust escapees in Vilnius Lithuania. I'm proud of Ken because he quickly discovered that entrance, when many LIthuanian archaeologists had previously failed to locate it. For this achievement, Ken was even featured on the Nova science program.
I tell you this because an Israeli archaeologist then invited Ken to join his team in their effort to find a safe way to penetrate a wall in "the Jesus house" to enter a room on the other side that is closed off. So far Ken has declined the invitation. But just think of it: if this really is Jesus' childhood home, then artifacts from that room might me located in this closed off room! Well, at least it's fun to speculate about the possibilities.

(5) Here is a well-received article about a Jesus "Hideout" in Jordan" just across the river and near John the Baptist's headquarters at "Aenon near Salim" (John 3:23).

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...archaeology-places/a-jesus-hideout-in-jordan/

John baptized at "Bethany beyond the Jordan (John 1:28)," but the exact location of this Bethany has not been identified. The Mosaic Madaba map from the 600s AD shows a rope ferry near the point of Jesus' alleged cave hideout near Aenon. In Aramaic "Bethany" can mean "house of the ferry boat." One sat in a boat and pulled an overhanging rope until one reached the Jordan's other side. So this Bethany is not a town, but rather a small structure for transportation across the river, perhaps with a building to house a spare boat and rope equipment. That's no doubt why archaeological evidence of Bethany has not been found. There is a scholarly consensus that the current tourist site identified as the place of Jesus' baptism is too far south. Indeed, in the 1850s, a British historian (Conder) claimed to find a large rock with "Bethany" inscribed on it in Aramaic near Jesus' alleged hideout. But Conder had to return to England and died before he could return to study the site further. That rock was never again seen and might have been partially submerged in mud after some rainy seasons. Someone must launch a thorough search for that hidden rock because its discovery would change our understanding of where Jesus was baptized. Sadly, it is possible that some peasant removed it as a keepsake.

When Jesus invites Andrew and the other unnamed disciple of John to see where He was staying (John 1:38-39), He might have been referring to this hideout cave, the same cave that Tabor says was His hideout during a visit to the Decapolis region.

I’ve read as well

the meaning of Bethany is defined as domus adflictionis or "house of affliction". Brian J. Capper writes that this is a Latin derivation from the Hebrew beth 'ani or more likely the Aramaic beth 'anya, both of which mean "house of the poor" or "house of affliction/poverty", also semantically speaking "poor-house". Capper concludes, from historical sources as well as this linguistic evidence, that Bethany may have been the site of an almshouse.

Bethany has traditionally been identified with the present-day West Bank city of al-Eizariya (Arabic العيزرية "place of Lazarus"), site of the reputed Tomb of Lazarus, about 1.5 miles (2.4 km) to the east of Jerusalem on the south-eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. The oldest house in present-day al-Eizariya, a 2,000-year-old dwelling reputed to have been (or which at least serves as a reminder of) the House of Martha and Mary, is also a popular pilgrimage site.

Bethabara,,, the place beyond the Jordan possibly the site in question.

KnowMe: "Bethany has traditionally been identified with the present-day West Bank city of al-Eizariya (Arabic العيزرية "place of Lazarus"), site of the reputed Tomb of Lazarus, about 1.5 miles (2.4 km) to the east of Jerusalem on the south-eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. The oldest house in present-day al-Eizariya, a 2,000-year-old dwelling reputed to have been (or which at least serves as a reminder of) the House of Martha and Mary, is also a popular pilgrimage site."

Many sites in ancient Palestine have the same name as another city there. John baptized in the Jordan. So the Bethany you cite is too far from the Jordan to be John's baptismal site. The evidence of rope ferries on the Jordan, combined with the fact that "Bethany" can also mean the site [house] of the ferry boat" makes the most sense because John would want to baptize at a site to which the public has access from both sides of the Jordan River. Besides, the Bethany of John 1;29 is on the other side of the Jordan.

KnowMe: "Bethabara,,, the place beyond the Jordan possibly the site in question."
Origen (c. 225 AD) went looking for "Bethany beyond the Jordan at the locale that is the traditional site today and couldn't find it. It was the locals who pointed to the ford at Bethabara; so Origen wrongly accepted that as the correct site. That's how "Bethabera" wrongly found its way into the KJV of John 1:28. Origen himself admits that "Bethany," not "Bethabera" is used in earlier manuscripts of John 1:28. That is just another nail in the coffin of the corrupt KJV text. Msny modern Bible scholars now recognize that hints in the Gospels about Bethany's location point to many miles further north along the Jordan, nearer to the alleged Jesus hideout.

Well I think there was small little places called Bethany and bethpage not but a mile or so away from Jerusalem, and I think John Baptized up and down the jordon. one or two might have been mentioned in the Bible but I think he did at many places. did Jesus and the disciples have a place they would frequent, probably that would make sense rather it’s called a hide-out, man-cave or what not, they didn’t seem to hangout in the city a whole lot.

I feel as a Almshouse is more likely IMO,

Jesus in the evening would go out from jerusalem and stay there, seems unlikely he would travel miles and miles, in the last few days in Jerusalem.

seems not many maps have the Bethany across the Jordan, here’s one I found, some maps show the village Bethany some don’t. but anyhow probably two places no doubt what ever they are/were called.

Best to go with facts rather than conjecture. That gets into fiction. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) that is a method used in electronics and software. It applies to many diverse areas as well.

Right about that, though if KISS was actually practiced always, we wouldn’t have advanced electronics and software. Like DOS it’s pretty simple computer language but even that needed to grow.

I think there’s a bible verse that says, let’s move forward beyond the rudimentary teachings., there seems room to grow.