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]This conclusion rests on multiple [b]independent[/b] textual streams (Mark, Q material, Paul's references to Jesus' family, Josephus, etc.).[/quote]

False. Religious writings aren’t independent. 
[/quote]

Your point—that religious writings can’t be independent—is a frequent objection, but it doesn’t align with how historians and biblical scholars evaluate sources for the historical Jesus.

In historical criticism, “independence” refers to sources or traditions that don’t directly copy or derive from one another, even if they originate within the same broad religious or cultural context.

The key is literary and evidential independence, not the worldview of the authors. Scholars widely agree that the evidence for Jesus’ existence draws from multiple independent streams, including both Christian and non-Christian sources, which converge on core facts like his baptism by John the Baptist and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

Christian Sources and Their Independence

The New Testament contains several independent traditions, not a single monolithic account:

Paul’s letters (written ~48–62 CE, e.g., Galatians, 1 Corinthians): These are the earliest surviving references to Jesus, predating the Gospels by decades. Paul, who wasn’t an eyewitness but met Jesus’ brother James and apostles like Peter around 36 CE, draws from oral traditions and pre-existing creeds (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:3–7, which scholars date to within a few years of the crucifixion).

These are independent of the later Gospel narratives, as Paul shows no awareness of them and focuses on theological points rather than biography.

Gospel traditions: The Synoptic Gospels (Mark ~70 CE, Matthew and Luke ~80–90 CE) incorporate independent source materials. For instance:
-Mark is an independent narrative source.
-The “Q” material (a hypothetical collection of Jesus’ sayings shared by Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark) represents another separate tradition.
-Unique material in Matthew (“M”) and Luke (“L”) adds further independent layers.

These aren’t eyewitness accounts but compile earlier oral and written traditions from different Christian communities.

Scholars like Bart Ehrman and James Dunn argue that their convergences (e.g., on Jesus’ family, teachings, and death) provide multiple independent attestations, even though they’re religious texts.

John’s Gospel (~90–100 CE) is often seen as more theologically developed and less historically focused, but some scholars (e.g., C.H. Dodd) have argued for its partial independence from the Synoptics based on unique details.
Early Church Fathers like Papias (~90 CE) collected independent sayings from elders connected to the apostles, adding another layer, though these are later and fragmentary.

Non-Christian Sources Confirming Independence.

These provide external corroboration without relying on Christian texts:

-Josephus (Jewish historian, ~93 CE): In Antiquities of the Jews, he mentions Jesus twice—once in a passage about his execution (Book 20, authentic per consensus) and in the partially interpolated Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18, with a core authentic reference to Jesus as a teacher crucified by Pilate). As a non-Christian writing independently in Galilee, this doesn’t draw from Roman or Christian sources.

-Tacitus (Roman historian, ~116 CE): In Annals, he references “Christus” executed under Pilate during Tiberius’ reign, sourced from Roman records or inquiries, not Christians (given his hostile tone).

-Other minor sources like the Babylonian Talmud (~70–200 CE) hostilely acknowledge a “Yeshu” executed for sorcery, diverging from Christian accounts, or Mara bar Serapion (~73 CE onward) possibly alluding to a “wise king” of the Jews put to death.

These non-Christian sources are independent of each other and the Christian ones (e.g., Jewish sources don’t borrow from Roman ones), and their alignments with Christian traditions strengthen the case without circularity.

[color=red]The vast majority of scholars (including atheists like Ehrman and agnostics like Maurice Casey) view these as comprising at least 12–30 independent sources from diverse authors within ~100 years of Jesus’ death, far more than for most ancient figures.

This multiplicity makes outright fabrication unlikely, as ancient critics (Jewish or pagan) disputed Jesus’ claims but never his existence.

Criticisms, often from mythicists (a fringe minority), include claims of hearsay, late dates, or interpolations, but these are rejected by mainstream academia as the convergences across independent streams outweigh them. For example, Ehrman notes that denying Jesus’ existence requires dismissing all these sources in a way that’s not applied to other historical figures like Socrates or Hillel.

In essence, while the Christian sources are religious, their internal independence and external confirmation from non-religious texts form a robust historical case. If everything hinged on a single dependent religious narrative, you would have a stronger point—but that’s not the scholarly assessment.[/color]

[/quote]

Everything you put here has already been critically disputed. Stating the same previous argument (primarily an argument from authority) without directly addressing any of the critical points indicates a lack of serious debate.

Remember, the scholarly consensus once vehemently argued that the Earth was the center of the universe.  [/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