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]Historians judge the historicity of any ancient figure (whether Jesus, Socrates, Hannibal, or an obscure rebel leader) using a consistent set of methodological tools and criteria. They do not require archaeological evidence, statues, or coins. Instead, they work with the evidence that actually survives from antiquity—almost all of it textual—and apply the following principles:

1. Multiple, Independent Attestation
The more independent sources that mention the person (especially if they are from different perspectives or hostile to each other), the stronger the case for historicity. Example for Jesus: At least 8–10 independent sources within ~100 years (Pauline letters, Mark, Q-source, Matthew, Luke-Acts, John, Hebrews, Josephus [2×], Tacitus, possibly Pliny the Younger/Suetonius). That is far more than for almost any other 1st-century Palestinian Jew.

2. Criterion of Embarrassment
Details that would have been inconvenient or embarrassing to the author are unlikely to be invented. Examples: Jesus baptized by John (implying subordination), crucified by Romans (a shameful death), denied by his disciples, family thinking he was crazy (Mark 3:21), etc.

3. Criterion of Dissimilarity (or Double Dissimilarity)
Sayings or actions that don’t easily fit either later Christian theology or contemporary Judaism are unlikely to be invented by the church.
Examples: “Render to Caesar…”, prohibition of divorce, associating with tax collectors and sinners, etc.

4. Coherence with Known Historical Context
Does the figure fit what we independently know about the time, place, language, culture, politics, and archaeology? Jesus fits 1st-century Galilean Judaism under Roman rule almost perfectly (Aramaic speaker, debates Torah, apocalyptic prophet, conflict with Pharisees and Temple authorities, executed under Pilate, etc.).

5. Principle of Analogy
 Does the story resemble known patterns of human behavior and historical events?
Itinerant charismatic prophets who attract followers, clash with authorities, and get executed were extremely common in 1st-century Judea (Theudas, the Egyptian prophet, John the Baptist, etc.).

6. Early Dating of Sources
The closer the source is to the person’s lifetime, the better. Paul (writing 48–60 CE) already knows of Jesus’ crucifixion, brother James, and several disciples by name — within 15–30 years of the events. Mark ~70 CE, less than one lifetime later.

7. Hostile or Non-Christian Corroboration
Confirmation from sources that have no reason to be sympathetic. Josephus (Jewish, non-Christian) twice mentions Jesus (one passage partially corrupted, but core is accepted by almost all scholars). Tacitus (Roman pagan, hostile to Christians) in 115 CE confirms Jesus was executed under Pontius Pilate.
 
8. Effects and Rapid Spread (the “Big Bang” argument)
A historical figure often leaves a disproportionate “explosion” of evidence shortly after their death.  Within 20–30 years a movement in Jesus’ name had spread from rural Galilee to Jerusalem, Antioch, Damascus, Corinth, Rome — with thousands of followers willing to die for the claim he had risen. That kind of rapid, explosive growth almost never happens around a purely mythical figure.

Alexander the Great: the earliest sources we have after his death is approximately 300 years. We have several independent sources and of course cities, coins, and statues of Alex. Historians are certain he existed.

Socrates: earliest sources are 10–40 years after his death (Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes). We have 4+ independent sources for Socrates. We have zero archeological evidence. Historians are certain he existed.

Hannibal: earliest sources after his death are 50-150 years. We have 2-3 independent sources, zero direct archaeological evidence, and historians are certain he existed.

Pontius Pilate: earliest sources after his death are 30-60 years, (Philo, Josephus, Gospels, Tacitus) and 4 independent sources. We have one piece of archaeological evidence found in 1961, and historians are certain he existed.

Jesus of Nazareth: earliest sources after his death, 15-40 years. 8-10+ independent sources, no archaeological evidence, and his historicity in near universal among historians and scholars.

[size=24]Virtually every professional historian (Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic) who studies the period accepts that Jesus existed. The very few who argue otherwise (the “Jesus mythicist” position) are generally not ancient historians and are treated like flat-earthers or Holocaust deniers within the academy.[/size]

In short: historians are not surprised we have no coins, statues, or inscriptions of Jesus. They are impressed we have as much early, diverse, and contextual evidence as we do for a 1st-century Galilean peasant preacher. By normal historical standards, the evidence for his existence is actually quite strong.

Why is dcum a hotbed of non-ancient historians espousing what is considered Holocaust denier levels of skepticism on this topic?

If you are reading this thread, just know that the people who are demanding delusional levels of proof for JC are really delusional. I don’t mean that as an insult; they just don’t know how professional historians and scholars work.

If you think that the only people who can objectively study the life of Jesus Christ are atheists raised in a sterile, religion free environment, I don’t want to sound like I am attacking anyone, but you are really wrong and ignorant about not only the historicity of JC, but the world of academia and scholarship. It’s really a disheartening thread, so many people are posting the most inaccurate and misleading information. [/quote]

It’s interesting that you write about methodological principles while simultaneously failing to apply them rigorously to the evidence for Jesus. The mainstream consensus is built upon weak foundations and special pleading. The key error here is the assumption that the "normal historical standards" you cite actually favor a historical Jesus when applied with proper skepticism.

You argue that historians use consistent tools. This is true. The problem is that when these tools are applied without the underlying assumption that "Jesus must have existed," the evidence evaporates. Mainstream scholars typically fail to account for the unique nature of early Christian literature, which is inherently theological, allegorical, and rooted in scriptural interpretation, not historical biography.

Your “8–10 independent" sources within 100 years” is a profound misunderstanding of source dependencies. The Gospels are not independent. Mark influenced Matthew and Luke (the Synoptic Problem). John is a separate tradition but deeply theological. The "Q-source" is a hypothesis, not a physical document, and may be a collection of sayings used by Matthew and Luke. Grouping them as independent sources is fallacious. We have perhaps two or three lines of Christian tradition: Pauline, Markan, and Johannine.

Paul is crucial because he is early. But, his silence on earthly details is deafening. Paul never mentions any details that require an earthly, recent Jesus. He mentions a crucifixion, a burial, a resurrection, all details found in the scriptures and revealed through prophecy or visionary experience, within a celestial framework. He mentions a "brother James," which is an ecclesiastical title, not necessarily a biological relationship. Paul is excellent evidence for a celestial Jesus cult, but terrible evidence for a historical one.

Tacitus/Josephus - As discussed previously, Tacitus reflects Christian belief, not Roman records of an event fifty years prior. The Josephus passages are universally acknowledged to have Christian interpolations. The minimal historical core scholars try to salvage from them is guesswork, not robust evidence. The original Josephus likely said nothing about Jesus.

For Socrates, Plato and Xenophon are writing philosophical dialogues about a teacher they knew personally in living memory, not anonymous, post-resurrection propaganda written 40-70 years later by anonymous authors in different countries. The comparison is entirely fallacious.

As noted before, the criterion of embarrassment, assume the authors were writing history rather than theology or allegory. The alleged embarrassments served a specific literary or theological purpose for the original Markan. The dissimilar sayings often disappear in later gospels or are highly ambiguous, making them weak historical indicators.

The claim that Jesus "fits perfectly" is circular reasoning. The "1st-century Galilean Judaism under Roman rule" construct is largely derived from the Gospels themselves, supplemented by Josephus. Its creating a context from these sources, then using that context to validate the sources. This is poor methodology.

Your “Big Bang” argument - This is the weakest argument of all. A "mythical" figure cannot generate rapid growth? For example, the Cult of Asclepius rapidly spread across the Mediterranean with thousands of followers who believed they were healed by a divine figure. The ancient world was littered with mystery cults centered on celestial, saving gods who were believed to have existed in a mythic past and appeared in visions. Early Christianity spread because it offered attractive theological answers = salvation from sin plus reward of an afterlife. Witness how many people still buy the idea today. The idea spread, the narrative followed.

Please stop with your ad hominem attempts to link mythicism with holocaust deniers and flat earthers. That is not engaging in an honest debate.

The vast majority of scholars in the field were trained within institutions that presuppose Jesus' historicity. Biblical scholarship grew out of theology departments. To question the existence of the founder of the religion you are studying is often career suicide or intellectually disqualifying within the field. It is a consensus based on tradition, not necessarily a consensus that survives a truly neutral, external investigation.

Professional ancient historians, when they bother to look at the specific source problems of the Gospels and Paul with the same skepticism they apply to Romulus or Dionysus, often find the evidence much weaker than you suggest.

The evidence for Jesus is strong only if you desperately want it to be. By normal, rigorous historical standards applied without bias, the evidence is astonishingly weak. 
[/quote]

+2[/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