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]Historical documentation of ordinary peasants from 1st century Roman Judea (including Galilee) is extremely rare—most records focus on elites, rulers, or notable figures—there are a few examples of men from similar lower social strata who gained mention in surviving texts, usually because they became involved in rebellions or unrest. These come primarily from the works of the 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who documented events in the region. Keep in mind that “peasant” here refers to rural, lower-class individuals like farmers, shepherds, or laborers, and Jesus is often classified as such based on his Galilean origins and described trade as a tekton (carpenter or builder).

Athronges, a shepherd from Judea who, around 4 BCE (shortly after Herod the Great’s death), led a rebellion against Roman-backed rule under Archelaus. Josephus describes him explicitly as a “mere shepherd” with no noble birth or wealth, who nonetheless gathered followers, crowned himself, and fought Roman forces before being defeated. This places him in a similar social and geographic context to Jesus: a low-status rural worker in Roman-occupied Palestine during the early 1st century.

Simon of Peraea, a former royal slave (even lower status than a free peasant) who also rebelled around 4 BCE, crowning himself king and leading attacks before being killed by Roman troops. While not a free peasant, his origins align with the underclass in the same region and era.

A third is Judas the Galilean (also known as Judas of Galilee), who around 6 CE led a revolt against the Roman census in Galilee—the same area as Jesus. Josephus portrays him as a local leader who rallied common people against taxation, founding a zealous anti-Roman movement. Though described as a “teacher” or “sophist,” his roots were in rural Galilee, and he represented peasant grievances like debt and land loss.

These figures are documented because their actions disrupted the status quo, drawing Roman attention—much like how Jesus’ ministry and execution led to his mentions in Josephus and later Roman historians. For everyday peasants who didn’t rebel or preach, records are virtually nonexistent, as literacy and record-keeping were limited to elites. Archaeological finds, like ossuaries with common names (e.g., Yehohanan, a crucified man from 1st century Jerusalem), provide indirect evidence of lower-class individuals but lack the narrative detail of textual sources.  Overall, this scarcity highlights why any mention of someone like Jesus is historically significant.

Expecting archaeological evidence for Jesus is unreasonable for several well-established historical and material reasons. Here’s why scholars (both believing and non-believing) almost universally agree that the absence of archaeological remains for Jesus is exactly what we should predict:

1. Jesus was a lower-class itinerant preacher from a rural backwater, and belonged to the peasant/artisan class (tekton = carpenter/builder) in a small Galilean village (Nazareth had maybe 200–400 inhabitants). People of this social status almost never leave any archaeological trace in antiquity. We have no inscriptions, statues, coins, or tombs for 99.9 % of the population of Roman Palestine.

2.  He never held political or military power. The only 1st-century individuals from Judea/Galilee who left direct archaeological evidence are kings (Herod the Great, Herodians), governors (Pontius Pilate, Felix), high priests (Caiaphas, Ananus), or rebel leaders who minted coins or built fortresses (Simon bar Giora, John of Gischala). Jesus held none of those roles. He was executed as a criminal and buried (according to the Gospels) in a borrowed rock-cut tomb—exactly the kind of tomb that is reused for generations and leaves no individual marker.

3. No contemporary inscriptions were made for him. In the Roman world, honorary or funerary inscriptions were commissioned by the wealthy or by cities for important people. A poor Galilean preacher would never receive one. The earliest Christian inscriptions (catacombs, graffiti) only appear from the late 2nd century onward, long after Jesus’ death.

4.  His followers were marginal and persecuted for decades. For the first 250–300 years, Christians had no political power, no wealth, and often faced hostility. They were in no position to erect monuments or inscriptions to Jesus. Contrast this with Roman emperors or even minor provincial elites who left hundreds of statues and inscriptions.

5.  The type of evidence that does survive fits his profile perfectly.  We actually do have the kind of evidence we would expect: Rapid growth of a religious movement in his name within a few years of his death (attested by Paul’s letters ~48–60 CE). Multiple independent written sources within 40–90 years (Mark, Q, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.).

Archaeological corroboration of almost every place and many minor figures mentioned in the Gospels (Caiaphas’ ossuary, Pilate inscription, Pool of Siloam, Capernaum synagogue foundations, etc.). [color=red]That is far more than we have for almost any other 1st-century Galilean peasant.[/color]

Demanding direct archaeological evidence (a statue, an inscription, a coin, a personal artifact) for Jesus is like demanding the same for any other 1st-century Jewish carpenter from rural Galilee. We don’t have it for a single one of them—yet no matter how pious or virtuous they may have been. The surprise would be if we did have it for Jesus.[/quote]

So you agree that we don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting. 
[/quote]

Are you saying that virtually every historian and scholar of antiquity are wrong?

Where did you study about antiquity, and what degrees do you hold? Are you a working scholar of antiquity or professor of antiquity or historian specifically working actively in your field?

If you aren’t, just tell us your qualifications and specialties and why everyone who is a scholar and historian is wrong?

Why do you think we should have archeological evidence of Jesus? Be specific. [/quote]

No, I am simply saying:

[size=30][color=blue]We don’t have any archaeological evidence or independent, contemporaneous reporting.[/color][/size]

Anyone who is being honest here will admit this fact.

[/quote]

So what?[/quote]

Earlier posters claimed otherwise. Just trying to dispel mistruths. 
[/quote]

Everything about Jesus belief is a mistruth![/quote]

1.  Almost no serious historian doubts Jesus existed. Even strongly anti-Christian scholars (Bart Ehrman, Reza Aslan, Maurice Casey, etc.) agree a Jewish preacher named Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30–33 CE. The only people who deny Jesus existed at all are a tiny fringe on the internet.

2.  We have more early evidence for Jesus than for almost any other figure from the ancient world.
-The four Gospels were written 35–65 years after Jesus’ death (earlier than most biographies of Alexander the Great or Tiberius Caesar).
-Paul’s letters (which mention Jesus’ brother James and the crucifixion) date to within 20–25 years of the events.
-Non-Christian sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger) confirm the basic outline within 80 years.

“Everything is a mistruth” is impossible to defend.  If you say the resurrection never happened, that’s a debatable opinion.  But if you say Jesus never existed, was never crucified, never had followers, etc., you are contradicting the same historical record that tells us Julius Caesar was assassinated or that Socrates drank hemlock.

You can separate “Did the miracles happen?” from “Did anything about Jesus happen?” Plenty of atheists and agnostics (Ehrman, Aslan, etc.) say: “I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead or was divine, but the basic story — a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who gathered disciples, clashed with authorities, and was executed — is solid history.”

I get that you don’t believe the miracle claims or that Jesus is God. That’s fair to debate.

But saying everything about him is a lie isn’t supported by historians — even the ones who are atheists. We know more about Jesus, and earlier, than we do about most ancient figures.[/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