Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]How does ancient history work?

We almost never have “contemporary eyewitness news reports.”

For almost every person or event before about 1800 CE, the sources we have are:
Written 20–300 years after the events
Often copied and re-copied by hand (with small errors creeping in)
Frequently written by people who were not the author’s enemies, allies, or later admirers — rarely by neutral journalists.

Examples everyone accepts:
1. Alexander the Great (died 323 BCE): Our main sources (Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus) were written 300–450 years later.
2. Hannibal crossing the Alps (218 BCE): Livy and Polybius wrote 50–180 years later.
3. Socrates (died 399 BCE): Plato and Xenophon wrote shortly after, but the next accounts (Aristotle, etc.) are decades later, and we still trust the core story.
4. Julius Caesar’s assassination (44 BCE): Nicolaus of Damascus wrote ~50 years later; Suetonius and Plutarch 150 years later.

[color=red]No one says “We have zero contemporary neutral eyewitnesses, therefore Caesar/Socrates/Alexander probably didn’t exist.”[/color]

The standard historians use: Multiple attestation + embarrassment + coherence.

Historians ask:
1. Do several independent sources (even hostile ones) agree on the basic facts?
2. Do the sources contain details that would have been embarrassing or inconvenient for the author? (People rarely invent embarrassing stories about their own heroes.)
3. Does the story fit what we know about the time and place from archaeology, other texts, etc.?

Jesus passes these tests better than most 1st-century figures:
- Multiple independent streams: Paul (48–60 CE), Mark (70 CE), Q source, Josephus (93 CE), Tacitus (116 CE) all confirm a Jewish teacher executed under Pilate.
-Criterion of embarrassment: The Gospels say he was baptized by John (implying John was greater), crucified (a shameful death), denied by his own disciples, etc. Early Christians would not make that up.
-Archaeology and context: Pontius Pilate inscription (1961), Caiaphas ossuary, 1st-century crucifixion nails, etc., all confirm the world of the Gospels.

Silence is normal, not suspicious!

Most people in antiquity left zero written trace. We have:
*Only ~10–15 brief mentions of Pontius Pilate outside the New Testament, even though he was the Roman governor.
*Zero contemporary writings from Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee during Jesus’ entire life.
*Onlyone ambiguous line about the famous rabbi Hillel from his own lifetime.

Jesus was an obscure apocalyptic preacher executed for disturbing the peace in rural Judea and was far less likely to be noticed by elite writers than a Roman governor — yet we still have more early evidence for Jesus than for almost any other 1st-century Palestinian Jew.

Jesus actually has unusually early and abundant evidence for a non-elite figure from a marginal province.

Ancient history does not demand — and almost never has — “contemporary neutral eyewitnesses with first-hand knowledge.” It works by piecing together sources that are:
1. As close in time as possible
2. Preferably independent
3.  Ideally including hostile or neutral voices
4. Checked against archaeology and what we know about the culture

By those normal standards, the historical existence of Jesus is about as solid as anything from the early 1st century gets.

The people who say “zero evidence” are applying a 21st-century journalistic standard that literally nothing from antiquity could meet.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics