Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]-Socrates: Everyone accepts he existed, yet we have zero words written by him and zero contemporary documents mentioning him.

-Pythagoras: Famous theorem, religious cult that lasted centuries—yet not a single text or inscription from his lifetime or the century after.

-Spartacus: One of the most famous slave rebels in history, but no Roman historian writing while he was alive or within a century afterward left a detailed account that survives.

Jesus is actually on the stronger end of the spectrum for a non-royal, non-elite person from the early 1st century CE. The combination of multiple independent sources (hostile, neutral, and friendly) appearing within 20–90 years is better than what we have for many other accepted ancient figures who were far more powerful or famous in their own lifetimes. [/quote]

You seem very smart and you type well, too.[/quote]

Thanks! I am an old guy who has spent decades studying this stuff. I think the worst thing I have seen is the Horus, Mithras, etc, meme crap that people somehow actually believe. Those are memes that someone probably made as a joke. And they are everywhere on the internet and people use them as “evidence.” [/quote]

Evidence doesn't matter when it comes to religion.  It's what people believe - or not.[/quote]

Yup. People can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if they want. 
[/quote]

Do we have any non-religious contemporary writings to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed? [/quote]

If people told the story of the FSM thousands of years ago, I'm sure some suckers would believe it and repeat the tale.

We have exactly just as much concrete evidence for the FSM as we do for Jesus. 
[/quote]

No, we do not have “exactly just as much concrete evidence” for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as for Jesus. That claim is simply false.

Mentioned in multiple 1st–2nd century sources? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Referenced by non-followers / hostile sources? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Has a specific time and place in history? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Left a verifiable historical movement that rapidly grew? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

Year the figure is first claimed to have existed? Jesus: ~4-6 bce. FSM: 2005 (Bobby Henderson’s open letter)

Serious academic debate about whether the figure existed? Jesus: yes. FSM: no.

The FSM was invented in 2005 explicitly to mock the idea that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. It is a deliberate parody with zero pretense of historicity.

Jesus is a 1st-century Jew whose existence, baptism by John, and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate are accepted by essentially 100% of relevant scholars — including atheist, Jewish, and agnostic ones (Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, etc.).

Saying “we have the same evidence for both” is like saying we have the same evidence for Julius Caesar and Darth Vader. One is a documented historical person; the other is an openly admitted 21st-century joke.

The FSM argument only works if you completely ignore chronology, sources, and basic historical methodology. Once you apply the same standards we use for any other ancient figure, the comparison collapses instantly.

So no — not “exactly the same evidence.”

One has early, multiple, and hostile corroboration.

The other has a 2005 blog post that says “I made this up to make a point.”

That’s the difference.

[/quote]

No, concrete evidence isn't stories retold centuries later.

There is zero concrete evidence that either existed.

[/quote]

The  “zero concrete evidence” claim is simply false, and the “centuries later” claim misrepresents the actual timeline of the sources by hundreds of years. The historical existence of Jesus is about as solid as anything from that era gets.[/quote]

Incorrect. The evidence historicists are relying on is debated and not concrete. Most, if not all of what we do have was altered by Christians to support their beliefs.

For claims that there is as much evidence as there are for other historical figures, many of those other historical figures have archaeological evidence, in addition to written sources. There is no archaeological evidence in support of Jesus. [/quote]

You are raising two common objections that sound strong at first but don’t hold up when you look at how ancient history actually works. [color=red]Let’s look at them with the facts most secular historians (not apologists) accept.[/color]

“All the evidence was written and altered by believers, so it’s worthless”

Yes, the Gospels and Pauline letters were written by believers. That’s true of almost every source we have for every religious founder (Buddha, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, etc.). But historians don’t treat religious texts as inspired scripture; we treat them as normal ancient documents and apply the same critical tools we use on Tacitus, Josephus, or Plutarch. The alterations and theological spin are real and obvious (compare Mark’s very human, screaming Jesus with John’s calm, divine Logos). Scholars spend entire careers charting that development. [u]The key point: the presence of later theological layering does not erase the presence of earlier, inconvenient historical details that the later editors failed to remove completely (see the criterion of embarrassment again). That’s how we still recover usable data even from heavily redacted sources.[/u]

“There’s no archaeological evidence, and other ancient figures have archaeology”

[b]This is the single most widespread misunderstanding about ancient history.[/b]

Here’s the reality for the early 1st century CE in the Roman Empire:

Jesus of Nazareth was an itinerant Galilean peasant preacher. What archeological evidence do historians expect to find from an itinerant peasant with his social status? None. Absolutely none.

Pontius Pilate was a Roman Prefect. High status. What archeological evidence do we have for PP? A single limestone inscription. It was discovered in 1961.

Caiaphas, the High Priest:

“Caiaphas: An Archaeological Biography – Bible Archaeology Report
The Caiaphas ossuary was discovered in Jerusalem in 1990 by workers in a construction project in the Peace Forest near a neighborhood in the southeast of the city. The ornate limestone bone box contains the remains of several people, including a man around 60 years old, and is inscribed with the name "Joseph son of Caiaphas," leading scholars to believe it belonged to the high priest Caiaphas who is mentioned in the Gospels. Authentication efforts have confirmed the inscription's authenticity and its age, placing it in the first century CE.”

That’s what we have for him.

Hillel the Elder (famous rabbi)- zero archaeological evidence for this famous teacher.

Apollonius of Tyana, very famous, zero direct archaeological evidence.

Hannibal Barca, one of the if not most famous generals in antiquity- zero contemporary inscriptions of images

Spartacus, leader of the largest slave revolt in Rome- literally zero archaeological evidence.

Most Galilean villagers mentioned by Josephus: zero archaeological evidence.

99% of people below the elite level in antiquity leave zero archaeological trace. No statues, no inscriptions, no coins—nothing. A lower-class Jewish apocalyptic preacher from rural Galilee who never held office, never led an army, and was executed as a criminal is exactly the kind of person we would expect to leave no archaeological footprint.

The only reason we have the Pilate stone or the Caiaphas ossuary is that they were high officials with money and power. Jesus had neither.

Expecting archaeological evidence for Jesus is like expecting archaeological evidence for any of the dozens of other 1st-century messianic claimants Josephus mentions (Theudas, the Egyptian, etc.). We have none for them either—and nobody doubts they existed.

What we actually have (even by strict secular standards):

Multiple independent literary attestations within 20–90 years (Paul ca. 50–60 CE already knows the crucifixion under Pilate, brother of Jesus named James, etc.; Mark ca. 70; Josephus’s Antiquities 18 and 20, even if 18 has some later interpolation, the core is accepted by almost everyone; Tacitus Annals 15.44 ca. 116 CE). That’s normal or better than normal for a non-elite figure of that era.

Mainstream secular scholarship (Ehrman, Casey, Dunn, Levine, etc.):

The total absence of archaeology is exactly what is predicted for someone of Jesus’ social class and lifespan. The literary evidence we do have is early, multiply attested, and contains the usual signs of authentic historical memory mixed with later legendary development—just like virtually every other figure from antiquity we accept as historical.
The historicist position isn’t built on “certainty” or “inerrant documents.” It’s built on the fact that the evidence fits the normal pattern for a real 1st-century person far better than it fits the pattern for a purely mythic invention.

If you want a single book that lays this out from a completely non-believing scholar, Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? (2012) directly addresses every one of these objections in detail. It’s written for exactly this kind of skeptical audience.
[/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