Well, don’t most (reputable) historians seek out the best available evidence? And isn’t that generally considered to be (reliable) eyewitness accounts, contemporaneous references, and contemporaneous artifacts? All of which are pretty lacking for Jesus - and WHOLLY lacking for Christ.
And generally, doesn’t the quality of the evidence affect the certainty with which conclusions can be expressed as to past events? Whenever I think of it, it astounds me the degree of certainty believers have as to specifics, based on such questionable “evidence.” They don’t just wish or hope such and such is true - they KNOW it!
Whether something is admissable as evidence in a court of law is entirely different than the probative weight that will be afforded it.
It is true that historians prefer the best available evidence, which generally (but not always) means an eyewitness account. My point was simply that historians do not REQUIRE eyewitness testimony, especially since the vast majority of historical accounts were not written by eyewitnesses. That’s why it’s foolish to dismiss the historical evidence for Jesus on the grounds that they were not written by eyewitnesses. (As an aside, there are a significant number of scholars who do believe that some of the direct New Testament accounts were written by eyewitnesses. Even if we discount this fact though, the point remains that no credibly historian would insist on only having first-hand testimony, especially in a society that was as vastly illiterate as ancient Palestine.)
The same holds true for the need for “contemporaneous accounts.” A naive layperson might think that this makes the accounts unreliable, but historians know otherwise – especially when dealing with ancient societies that did not have any sort of mass media or printing technology. In the case of Jesus, such demands would be especially misguided; after all, his movement never became significant until AFTER his death, and so there would have been little point in writing about him during his lifetime.
As I said, that’s the problem with these objections to the existence of Jesus. Critics apply standards that might make sense to naive laypeople who enjoy the benefits of modern mass media. These standards are vastly more restrictive than those used by historical scholars though, especially since we are only talking about his existence and not the specific claims about his teachings or actions.
That is true, but it does not justify the claim that Jesus did not exist. A first-hand account by Jesus himself would have been grant, and detailed memoirs by each of the Apostles would have been wonderful. Even without such testimonies though, we have more than enough evidence to convince the overwhelming majority of historians, even those who are hostile to Christianity.
Again, while contemporaneous eyewitness accounts are nice, they are not at all required, even when it comes to making historical claims of a high degree of certainty. Once more, I refer you to the reference I cited earlier, Justifying Historical Descriptions by C. Behan McCullagh.
Besides, remember that were are not talking about “specifics” in this thread. We are only talking about the existence of Jesus, a decidedly non-specific claim. I can understand why people would be skeptical when it comes to certain claims about the life of Jesus, but the arguments used against his mere existence simply do not hold water.
To the extent that the Gospels can be trusted, Jesus frequently read publicly from the Scriptures at the synagogues on the Sabbath, and expounded upon their meaning.
I’d also like to see a cite for the claim that there was a famine going on at the time that Jesus cursed the fig tree. Nothing in the context of Matthew 21 or Mark 11 even remotely suggests such a thing. (The claim that he did so “out of spite” is incorrect as well, since the incident was designed to be a teaching moment – a parable acted out, so to speak.)
The objection that these accounts are only recorded in the Bible is likewise a naive objection. The implicit claim is that only unbiased accounts can be considered admissible as evidence. Such a claim may sound profound to laypeople’s ears, but no credible historian would insist on such a standard. As a history professor once told me, historians recognize that historical accounts almost always contain an element of bias; after all, people seldom write about matters in which they have no personal interest whatsoever. The historian must therefore take this bias into account when evaluating the claims, but it is not sufficient grounds for dismissing these accounts.
Virtually everything we know about the Gallic Wars comes from Caesar, for example, yet no credible historian would discount this testimony simply because it comes from a biased source. Similarly, it would be unwise to discount anything that George Washington wrote about the Revolutionary War, simply because he sided with the colonists. Bias is bound to find its way into any historical narrative, whether ancient or modern.
Again, I am not claiming that one should uncritically accept any biased historical account whatsoever. Rather, my point is that the existence of bias does not constitute a valid objection in and of itself. This is another way in which enthusiastic laypeople often demand standards of proof that far exceed those that historians require.
Well, the gospels portray Jesus as literate, but the reality is that he lived in a culture that was by historical estimates 95-98% illiterate, and that he did not belong to a social class which would have afforded him any opportunity at literacy. The Gospels say he was the son of a tekton which literally means “builder,” and is traditionally translated as “carpenter,” but which was really a general designation for artisan laborors, including carpenters, but also stonemasons, bricklayers and the like. The artisan class was a subsistence, sub-peasant class in Jesus’ culture. They wre basically day laborors doing temp work and piece work. They did not go to schooland their children did not go to school.
The small chance that Jesus was literate would occur if he’d become a Pharisee at some point, or perhaps an Essene, in his adulthood.
Luke has Jesus quote from the Bible, but he quotes verses that would not have been together on the same scroll page, and Luke has him quote from the Greek LXX, not the Hebrew, so that anecdote is most likely a fiction, though it’s possible Jesus could have quoted from memory.
As to the fig tree, Mark says Jesus cursed it for not bearing fruit out of season, which seems pretty weird to me.
That link makes the claim that the fig tree incident was meant to be a metaphor for the nation of Israel, but I don’t buy that - the context isn’t there.
This was the opportunity Jesus took to tell his disciples “if you just have faith, you can kill fig trees too! Or move mountains!”
No big surprise that you and I differ on this topic. Just wanted to point out, tho, that the more responsible criticism would be a (IMO extremely correct) claim that very little reliable information exists as to Jesus’ existence, rather than a claim as to his non-existence. And (again IMO) NO reliable evidence exists as to his alleged supernatural abilities.
You refer to “history” as tho it were an exact science, and “historians” as tho they were universibly reliable sources of objective “truth.” Historians as a whole are no more or less reliable and accurate than the news media.
Do you acknowledge that at least as good evidence exists as to the existence and experiences of Mohammed, Buddha, and any number of other non-christian characters, as exists for Jesus?
I’ve heard it commonly speculated that Jesus was indeed a Pharisee, or, more accurately, a former Pharisee. Not only does it explain his literacy and familiarity with the scriptures, but it also helps explain his apparent grudge against the Pharisees.
Interesting that people would speculate ways to explain his literacy rather than question whether he was indeed literate at all. Well, no, it’s not really interesting at all.
No, Dinsdale, I do NOT refer to history as “an exact science.” Quite the contrary; I explicitly acknowledged that there are degrees of certainty when it comes to evaluating historical claims. I also cited the criteria used by C. Behan McCullagh. These criteria allow for systematic analysis, but they most certainly do not constitute an exact science.
What I am saying is that the objections raised regarding the existence of Jesus are unreasonable. If we were to apply those criteria consistently, then we would have to discard virtually everything that we know about ancient history. That is why historians do not insist on such demanding evidence (contemporaneous accounts, eyewitness testimonies, completely unbiased reporting, etc). It is also why historians are virtually unanimous in declaring that Jesus existed, even though not all of them accept him as the Messiah. (There are some popular writers who like to propose that he never existed, but virtually none of them have any credentials as historians.)
By “a culture that was by historical estimates 95-98% illiterate,” what “culture” are you referring to—the Meditarranean world as a whole? The Jews specifically? I was under the impression that the Jews placed a relatively high value on being able to read the Torah.
Do you not think this second sentence the slightest bit overstated?
I’m not an expert in history of religion, so please educate me. Other than Jesus, what historical events or persons are accepted as having occured anywhere near as widely, and based on as little contemporaneous or otherwise verifiable/corroborative evidence?
Right. Richard Carrier is one of the few such people, and as far as I can tell, the only contemporary historian who actually argues against the existence of Jesus. (As far as I can tell, Burton Mack doesn’t actually argue that Jesus never existed. Quite the contrary; all the references I’ve seen to his work suggest that he did believe that the man Jesus existed, though he argues for mythological development.)
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of historians – including those who are hostile or otherwise unaccepting of Christianity – do believe that Jesus actually existed. They differ on the details regarding his life and his teachings, but virtually none of them contend that Jesus never existed.
No, it’s not. How much of history do you think was actually written by eyewitnesses, for example? The writings of Josephus are considered to be generally reliable, and yet it’s a safe bet that he did not personally witness everything he recorded – or even the majority thereof.
Again, I refer you to Justifying Historical Descriptions and similar texts. No offense, but I’m not about to launch into a comparative study regarding the historical evidence for various ancient events. I’ve already written plenty within this thread, and what you’re asking for basically amounts to a miniature term paper – especially since a proper treatment would require discussing criteria such as explanatory power and scope, ad hocness, and the criteria of embarrassment. I’ve provided an excellent starting point that shows how historians actually think, and I urge you to start from there.
I’d be the last person to argue that the Gospels should be regarded as definitive, objective evidence of Jesus’ attributes, Messiah-hood, resurrection, etc. But I’d expect even the most hardened skeptic to regard them as evidence that there was, at minimum, a person named Jesus who made one hell of an impact on a bunch of people.
I am indeed quite a skeptic. I admit that there are a couple of references to an individual named Jesus existing around the time the Jesus is supposed to have lived. (OT - was Jesus a unique name at the time?)
I’m not at all sure, however, that the evidence shows that this individual had “one hell of an impact on a bunch of people.” Instead, I’d offer that in the years after Jesus may have lived, certain other people used Jesus’s name and supposed life to have “one hell of an impact on a bunch of people.”
Please do not dismiss this as a minor distinction, because it is very important to those of us who acknowledge that the best available evidence strongly suggests that men create gods instead of the other way around.
JT - I ask again. What other historical person is widely accepted as having lived, despite as little contemporaneous evidence as Jesus? With Jesus, we are not simply lacking eyewitness accounts, but pretty much every other kind of contemporaneous evidence as well. I’m surprised you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that.
I’m also kind of surprised - and disappointed - that so many historians seem to accede to the school of “so many people believe it that there is probably SOME grain of truth to it.” Do we apply the same standard and accept Joe Smith’s angle Moroni and golden tablets? Or whatever L. Ron says proves Scientology? In my mind, these more recent examples illustrate how credulous people can be to well-marketed bullshit. And I believe that presents a reasonable explanation for what is supposed to have happened 2 millenia ago.
It was extremely common. Actually “Jesus” is a Latinized version of the Hebrew name, Yeshua, which is also often spelled as “Joshua.” It was one of the most common Jewish names there was. I actually think it’s a minor point in favor of historicity that the name was so common, because it doesn’t seem likely (to me) that such a mundane name would be invented for a fictional Messiah. It was literally calling him “Bob,” or “Dave.”