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]Paul is writing 20 years after Jesus’s death — extremely early by ancient-history standards.

Paul says explicitly that he:
	•	Met James, the brother of the Lord
	•	Met Peter
	•	Joined the movement that already existed shortly after the crucifixion

Historians ask:

How is there a movement centered around a non-existent person within a single generation, led by his “brother”?

Mythicists try to argue that “brother” meant “spiritual brother,” but this collapses because:
	•	Paul uses the term differently elsewhere
	•	It appears specifically in a context of identifying a biological family connection

This alone is one of mythicism’s biggest fatal blows.

Historians look for multiple independent attestations — stories that come from different lines of tradition.

For Jesus we have:
	•	Paul (independent of the Gospels)
	•	Mark (earliest Gospel)
	•	Q-like material (sayings source used by Matthew/Luke)
	•	M material and L material (unique to Matthew and Luke)
	•	Josephus
	•	Tacitus
	•	Early rabbinic traditions

These sources disagree on plenty — which proves they didn’t all copy each other.
But they agree that:
	•	Jesus was a real Jewish preacher
	•	He had followers
	•	He was executed by Roman authority

When multiple hostile or indifferent sources confirm a person existed, historians treat it as strong evidence.

Ancient writers rarely invent things that weaken their own case.

For Jesus:
	•	Being executed as a criminal is not something early Christians would invent.
	•	His family not fully believing in him early on.
	•	His baptism by John (implies inferiority).

These are embarrassing, meaning historically likely.

A mythic figure normally has:
	•	Glorious birth narrative
	•	Death in battle
	•	Triumph

Jesus has:
	•	Obscure origins
	•	A humiliating execution

That’s the opposite of typical myth creation.

If Jesus never existed, why did a Jewish sect form instantly around the belief that he was the Messiah?

Mythic heroes usually develop over centuries (e.g., Hercules, Romulus).
But Jesus’s movement exploded:
	•	In Jerusalem, where he supposedly lived
	•	Within a few years of his death

Movements based on nonexistent people don’t spring up immediately among people who supposedly knew them.

Here’s the harsh academic truth:
Mythicism fails the basic rules of ancient historical method.

Historians ask:
	•	What is the simplest explanation that fits the evidence?
	•	Does this explanation require extra assumptions?

Mythicism requires:
	•	Reinterpreting Paul unusually
	•	Dismissing all embarrassing material
	•	Suggesting coordinated literary invention without motive
	•	Ignoring how Jewish messianic movements actually worked

It becomes more complicated than simply accepting that a preacher lived and was executed.

When Carrier and Price present mythicist arguments, historians from:
	•	Princeton
	•	Yale
	•	Harvard
	•	Brown
	•	Cambridge
	•	Oxford

…all say the same thing:

“This isn’t how ancient history works.”

Mythicism relies on special pleading, hyper-skepticism, and reading texts against normal linguistic/historical usage.

That’s why scholars in the field consider it fringe.

Tacitus (Roman historian) writes about:
	•	“Christus” who was “executed under Pontius Pilate”
	•	The origin of the movement in Judea

Tacitus hated Christians.
He had no reason to repeat Christian myths — he got his information from Roman archives or non-Christian sources.

Josephus (Jewish historian) also mentions Jesus twice.
Even removing Christian edits, the core reference remains widely accepted.

Hostile witnesses rarely treat fictional characters as real recent people.

Bart Ehrman (agnostic/atheist):

“There is no serious historian who doubts Jesus existed.”

Paula Fredriksen (Jewish, non-Christian):

“I don’t know any full professor of ancient history who doubts his existence.”

Maurice Casey (agnostic):

“Mythicism is an embarrassment to real scholarship.”

Michael Grant (secular classical historian):

“The denial of Jesus’s existence is not tenable.”

When even scholars opposed to Christian theology uphold his existence, that’s telling.

Modern mythicism arose from:
	•	19th-century anti-Christian activism
	•	Non-scholarly writers
	•	People pushing sociopolitical agendas

It didn’t come out of universities or trained historians.

That origin matters.

Why Scholars Reject Mythicism

Because it requires ignoring:
	•	Early eyewitness-proximate sources
	•	Embarrassing historical details
	•	Hostile sources referencing Jesus
	•	Historical method
	•	How ancient movements form

…and instead replacing them with a complex conspiracy-like theory without evidence.

The simplest, strongest-supported conclusion is:
A Jewish preacher named Jesus lived and was executed.

Everything else Christians claim is a separate debate — miracles, theology, divinity — but the man himself?
For historians, that part is not controversial.
[/quote]

We have [i]stories[/i] about him and/or his followers, but none are written by non-religious contemporaries with first-hand knowledge.

[/quote]

That doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist—historians overwhelmingly conclude he did, based on the available evidence and comparisons to other ancient figures.

Why is the lack of contemporary non-religious sources isn’t unusual, you may wonder? —>
In antiquity, written records were rare, often lost, and biased toward elites like emperors or generals. Most people from that era—including teachers, philosophers, and rebels—lack firsthand contemporary accounts. For example:

Socrates (died 399 BCE): No writings from his lifetime survive; everything we know comes from his students Plato and Xenophon, written decades later. Alexander the Great (died 323 BCE): Contemporary writers existed, but none of their works survive; our main sources are from centuries later, like Arrian (2nd century CE). Spartacus (died 71 BCE): No contemporary records at all; details come from later Roman historians like Plutarch (1st-2nd century CE). Even Julius Caesar (died 44 BCE): While he wrote his own accounts, many details rely on later biographies, and some claims (like his famous campaigns) lack direct corroboration from enemies or neutrals.

Historians accept these figures as real because the cumulative evidence (later writings, archaeological hints, cultural impact) points to a historical core, even if details are embellished. The same logic applies to Jesus: absence of perfect evidence isn’t evidence of absence, especially for a lower-class Galilean preacher in a remote Roman province.

Christian Sources (Closest to Contemporaries)

Paul’s Letters (written ~50-60 CE): Paul, a Jewish convert to Christianity, never met Jesus but knew his brother James and disciple Peter personally (Galatians 1:18-19). He references Jesus’ teachings (e.g., on divorce), last supper, crucifixion under Roman authority, and resurrection claims. These are within 20-30 years of Jesus’ death—earlier than many sources for other figures.

Gospels (Mark ~70 CE; Matthew/Luke ~80-90 CE; John ~90-100 CE): These draw from oral traditions and earlier written sources (like the hypothetical “Q” document). They include “embarrassing” details unlikely to be invented, like Jesus’ baptism (implying he needed repentance) or his cry of abandonment on the cross.

Non-Christian Sources (Independent Corroboration)
These come from Jewish and Roman writers who had no stake in promoting Christianity. They’re later but reference Jesus as a historical figure:

Josephus (Jewish historian, ~93 CE): In Antiquities of the Jews, he calls Jesus a “wise man” who performed “startling deeds,” was crucified by Pilate on Jewish leaders’ accusations, and had followers who believed he rose from the dead. A shorter passage mentions James as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” While parts may have Christian interpolations, scholars agree the core references are authentic.

Tacitus (Roman historian, ~116 CE): In Annals, he describes “Christus” executed under Pilate during Tiberius’ reign, noting his followers (Christians) were persecuted by Nero. This is a hostile source confirming basic facts.

Pliny the Younger (Roman governor, ~112 CE): In a letter to Emperor Trajan, he reports Christians worshiping “Christus” as a god and meeting to honor him.

Others like Suetonius (~120 CE) mention disturbances caused by “Chrestus” (likely Jesus) among Jews in Rome, and Lucian of Samosata (~166 CE) mocks Christians for following a crucified “sophist.” 
These align on key points: Jesus was a real Jewish teacher executed by Romans around 30 CE, founding a persistent movement.

The vast majority of experts—including non-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman (agnostic), Paula Fredriksen (Jewish), and others—affirm a historical Jesus existed as a Jewish apocalyptic preacher baptized by John, who gathered disciples and was crucified.

[color=red]Mythicism is a minority view, often compared to denying the Holocaust or moon landing in academic circles—[/color]interesting but not credible due to overreliance on silence and ignoring how movements like Christianity arise from real events.

If you like being a peer of Holocaust deniers, and moon landing deniers, then by all means, continue with denial of the existence of Jesus Christ as a man who walked the earth.[/quote]

We have plenty of physical evidence and contemporaneous reports of the Holocaust and moon landing. Zero evidence of Jesus.

We only have stories retold about Jesus and/or his followers - none are written by non-religious contemporaries with first-hand knowledge.

[/quote]

^^ factually inaccurate

Jesus is not in the same evidential category as “Zero Evidence”

Almost no one in ancient history who wasn’t an emperor or general has “plenty of physical evidence and contemporaneous reports.” By that extreme standard, we would have to deny the existence of:

Socrates (no writings by him, only later students)

Hannibal (no Carthaginian eyewitness documents survive)

Alexander the Great’s daily activities (our main sources are 300–400 years later)

[u]Most 1st-century rabbis, philosophers, or rebels, yet no serious historian doubts these people existed. Jesus is actually better attested than most 1st-century Palestinian Jews.[/u]

No contemporary non-religious reports is expected:

Judea was a backwater province. Roman officials didn’t keep daily blogs about every executed troublemaker.

Literacy was low (~5–10%); almost all surviving writing from the period is from elites.

The Jesus movement was tiny and considered a weird Jewish sect for the first 20–30 years. It only became noteworthy to Roman writers after it spread.

Expecting a Roman senator to write a real-time op-ed about an obscure crucified Galilean preacher is like expecting for a 2025 New York Times reporter to file a story about a street preacher in rural Bolivia today — it just doesn’t happen until the movement blows up.

Holocaust/moon landing is a category error

Holocaust: 6 million murdered in living memory, with photos, documents, mass graves, surviving perpetrators and liberators, Nazi records, etc.

Moon landing: 1969, filmed, hundreds of thousands involved, physical samples, ongoing tracking of the landing sites by lunar orbiters.

These are 20th-century events with modern record-keeping and millions of direct participants.

Jesus is a 1st-century religious figure in a pre-modern society. The correct comparison is other 1st-century religious or political figures — and by that standard the evidence is solid.

We actually have more early sources for Jesus than for most people from 1st-century Palestine — several writings from within 20–60 years, plus two non-Christian historians confirming he existed and was executed under Pilate. Expecting 1st-century Roman bureaucrats to write official memos about every crucified Jewish teacher is completely unrealistic. The real scholarly debate is not ‘Did Jesus exist?’ (virtually no one denies that anymore), but ‘What did he teach and do?’”

The historical consensus (even among atheist and agnostic scholars like Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) is clear: Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

[color=red]Mythicism is a fringe internet position, not a serious academic one.[/color][/quote]

[size=20][color=blue]
[u]FACTS:[/u]
We have plenty of physical evidence and contemporaneous reports of the Holocaust and moon landing. Zero evidence of Jesus.

We only have stories retold about Jesus and/or his followers - none are written by non-religious contemporaries with first-hand knowledge.
[/color][/size]

[/quote]

Can you cite the sources for your facts?[/quote]

Physical evidence at the Holocaust museum and NASA.

Zero non-religious contemporaries with first-hand knowledge of Jesus. 
[/quote]

That is true for virtually every figure from that time and place.

Demanding a non-Christian eyewitness document from the years 27–33 CE is setting an impossible standard that no one from that social level in that region can meet. It’s not how ancient history works.
[/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