email468
Well-Known Member
The historians I've read agree that the apostles existed and wrote gospel stories (the good news). Though they didn't write them until decades (and sometimes centuries) after the dates given for Jesus' life. In fact there are many, many apostles and gospels that aren't in the bible and some are even canonical.
The historians I would cite also agree that Paul was the author of all those letters (written after the date given for Jesus' death but before the gospels) and Pilate is part of the Roman bureaucracy with ample corroborating evidence of his existence and would further argue that this is the point of the gospels.
I am uncertain regarding Judas however - i would have to do some research though I'm pretty sure there is some canonical literature attributed to him - but don't quote me on that. Jesus, John the Baptist, and Mary/Joseph all have very little (or no) supporting evidence outside the bible. Of course, if the bible is enough of an authority for you then case closed. But if you are looking for corroborating evidence then it is unlikely they ever existed.
That's not to say that archeologists couldn't uncover some new scrolls, tombs or evidence that would corroborate the stories.
But since we're talking about history here, the two times the gospels pin down Jesus to a real time in history is the story of the slaughter of the innocents (King Herod had first born sons put to death to kill Jesus) and the Roman Governor Pilate sentencing Jesus to death by crucifixion.
The story of Herod is clearly derived right out of the Book of Exodus (the Ten Commandments and Plagues of Egypt) and there is no evidence Herod ever engaged in murdering all the firstborn sons.
And the second instance we already pointed out the unlikeliness of the Jewish Supreme Council meeting on passover eve to decide anything, let alone to preside over a simple blasphemy trial. And the even greater unlikeliness that Pilate would have felt any need to let Barrabas go - Barrabas - an insurrectionist and killer of Romans let go?!? and then after letting Barrabas go then, for some inexplicable reason, decides to defend Jesus. This begs so many questions and seems so unlikely that this would have to be another one of Jesus' miracles.
Here is a little aside - some translations give Barrabas' first name as Jesus - so it was Jesus Barrabas and Jesus of Nazareth on trial.
I realize this can be shocking if you've never heard secular historians discuss the "real" bible before so I would say that this in no way takes away from the meaning and morals of the stories and the lessons Christ has to teach. In fact, taking Him out of history, I think, emphasizes the timelessness of the message.
