Even though you paraphrased me, and that’s not me in quotes, what I stated in my previous post had everything to do what was posted in the OP title:"How do we know for certain Jesus really lived.
Really, what gave it away? I kid, I kid.
Freudian slip? That’s wiki’s take, here’s some of rationalwiki’s objections to the crucifixion by scrolling about halfway down.
Did you find another source of skeptics rejecting Pilate’s existence until the stone was uncovered in '61? Because it’s sure not in your wiki article. Prefer some mainstream scholarship on this too, spare me any of your evangelical and fundamentalist cites that you have a reputation of going to that might be claiming this kind of nonsense. I did find a scholar that said evangelical apologists are famous for claiming the very thing you are claiming.
And even most fundamentalist websites date the Exodus no earlier than 1446 BCE (hence a conquest no earlier than 1400 BCE, since the Bible says the Israelites wandered around Sinai at least 40 years before entering Canaan), while it is more usual to favor a date in the 1200’s BCE, to have any hope of matching ancient Egyptian records of the cities mentioned in the Bible. So even accepting your date of Jericho’s destruction, and the most favorable estimates from apologist websites, Joshua is still nearly 100 years too late.
Mainstream scholarship finds no evidence of any large-scale presence of Hebrews in ancient Egypt within a thousand years of that time, let alone a mass migration into Canaan, even ignoring the miracles. It also shows that Egypt controlled Palestine during these centuries, and that Egypt would have been Joshua’s chief opposition during his conquest, had there been a conquest. There is no mention of even the existence Egyptian forces in the book of Joshua, let alone battles with them.
Bottom line — no evidence for the Exodus (although Friedman has an interesting hypothesis that a small band of Levites migrated from Egypt to Canaan, joined the Israelites who had always been there, and took over the priesthood), and quite a lot of evidence contradicting the book of Joshua.
That’s because virtually all scholars, Biblical and secular, realize that the Jewish religion in recognizable form originated after the destruction of Jerusalem in the 6th century BCE. That was when the Hebrew Bible was compiled and redacted, and that was when “Jews,” so called because they were mostly from the tribe of Judah, no longer accepted the other Israelite tribes as having the same religion (hence their contempt of Samaritans, which sharpens the point of Jesus’ parable).
To speak of a Jewish religion in the 15th century BCE would be akin to referring to Arabs of the same period as Muslims.
Yahweh was one of many ancient gods of that region, and if the Israelites were even a distinct people at that time, which is dubious, their chief deity would have been El, rather than Yahweh. The very name “Israel” means “God rules,” where El is God.
Apiru is not a synonym for Hebrew. It refers to a social class that comprised many ethnicities, from various regions including Canaan, Syria, and Anatolia. And the Hyksos were rulers in Egypt, not slaves, so it would be ridiculous to equate them to Israelites.
Yeah, they quote Richard Carrier , who has been so debunked he has to sleep on the floor. That’s the problem with rationalwiki. None of their objections are strong or valid.
First: There are several important pre-historic migrations which have left no archaeological trace. As just one example, we KNOW from linguistic and genetic evidence that there was some important movement (“Aryan invasion”) from near present-day Turkmenistan to India a few centuries before the Hyksos expulsion, but the journey left no clear footprint.
It is futile to look for traces of a Mostly Mythical exodus, whose size and duration are unknown.
Thanks for this!
This subthread stated with the agreement that the Exodus story is “Mostly Myth.” The “40 years in the desert”, if it has any basis at all, might be metaphor for a much shorter period … or a much longer period.
Some ancient Egyptian documents do suggest that a very large portion of the Egyptian population during some periods were “Asiatic servants.” Some of these were slaves, some were more princely — the sons of Caananite mayors taken hostage by the Egyptians to ensure their fathers’ loyalty as vassals. (And an attack on these vassal cities would have been resisted firstly by the vassals’ forces, not by Imperial soldiers.)
The princely Asiatic hostages were immersed in Egyptian culture and treated to a good education, partly in the hope that they would return to Canaan and take their fathers’ place as loyal vassals. Some remained in Egypt and attained high rank. The stories of both Joseph and Moses — even if fictional and just used as basis for a myth — might fit this model.
Early mentions of ‘Yahweh,’ ‘Israel’ and ‘House of David’ seem very interesting historically even if the references precede the origin of a recognizable Jewish religion.
And what about the Beta Israel of Ethiopia? Some of their scriptures were so old as to predate the oldest versions in Israel. Yet the Beta Israel had no knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem and didn’t observe associated holidays??
And what about the Jewish Temple on Elephantine Island? its creation is dated to the 7th-century reign of Psamtik I. Yes, the Elephantine Jews may have been polytheistic, but so what? I seek history, not religion.
Finally: In my readings I see wide acceptance that Apiru is cognate with Hebrew. And that Apiru might have begun as almost a pejorative.
Some books of the Bible make clear that ‘Hebrew’ is an Egyptian term, though often associated with the people who call themselves ‘Children of Israel.’ In Genesis, ‘Hebrew’ occurs only in speech to or by Egyptians.
Can I suggest that anyone here who is serious about wanting to understand the situation in Judea at the time of Jesus reads Josephus?
What you get from reading the actual texts written at the time, and especially Josephus, is a sense of how extremely complex and messy the situation was. Almost all the comments I’ve seen here are based on highly over-simplified understandings of the situation.
I know that people question the accuracy and motives of Josephus, but I’d say he is at least as accurate as top journalists writing today. If we had the opinions and accounts of other people at the time I’m sure they would have had different takes on it, in the same way as different journalists today have different takes on any situation. But this is the account we have.
The important thing is that Josephus was there personally. He was a priest in the Temple, he was briefly Governor of Galilee, he knew personally many of the major figures involved in events of his time. He was an eyewitness or spoke to eyewitnesses of many of the major events of early first century Judea/Galilee. (The crucifixion of Jesus didn’t seem like a major event at the time!) He was familiar with both Jewish and Roman culture. He was at home with both, and he spoke the languages.
He gives a brief history of the Jews during the second and first century BCE, and then starts going into great detail from the reign of Herod onward, leading up to an account the war of 66-70 CE and Masada.
His work is heavy reading if you are used to glib, simplified pop-history accounts, but it’s really worth it. You start getting into after a while. It’s an absolute must-read for anybody interested in this period, because it’s the voice of someone who was actually there, frozen in time at the moment he wrote it down.
Get a decent translation of The Jewish War by Josephus. There are free translations on the internet, but they are old, bad translations and practically unreadable. The best is probably the Penguin Classics translation by Williamson.
There is a preview on Amazon, and you can at least read the Preface by Josephus himself, which is only a couple of pages (click on Preface in the Contents). He explains who he is, his approach to writing the book, and what he covers. This will give you some idea of the book.
This might be directed at me, so let me confess that I find it confused, confusing and probably … NOT logical.
Similarly, when I wrote ***"Mostly mythical ... (Of course, the idea of an expulsion contradicts the Biblical assumption that Pharaoh resisted a voluntary exodus.[SIZE="4"] Perhaps the shift, even if fictional, was useful to the religious writers.)"[/SIZE]*** *what did I do wrong?* Did I need to use several emphasizing tags as I have used here?
No objection is ever strong or valid enough for an apologist sympathizer, look at their material, and their explanations of why the sun went out or dark for three hours during the crucifixion, e.g… It reminds me of something Farrel Till once proclaimed of them: Anything-will-do-just-say-something-dammit!
Carrier is cited in wiki too, you use wiki, don’t use rational wiki. Got it.
You could at least acknowledge that you’re mistaken (I’m being generous) about skeptics doubting Pilate until the stone discovery in '61. I doubt this is the first time you’ve used this.
A knowledgeable poster on EVCforum lists many major sources. He also found an evangelical apologist source written in print after 1961, that helped perpetrate this fundie belief.
Hardly a apologist. Look, almost every scholar agrees that Jesus was a real person. Article after article shows that the Crucifixion was a common method.
The only apogists that differ are those apologists for Carrier.
Ok, and yes, as you can see Pilate was mentioned in ancient sources EXACTLY as often as Jesus was. Josephus being one of them. So, if Doubters dismiss Josephus on Jesus, why not Josephus on Pilate? Tacitus mentions Jesus- but that doesn’t count, but his mention of Pilate does. But of course :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: doubters believe only what they choose.
Until the Pilate stone there was no concrete (pun intended) proof Pilate existed. Three ancient sources, just like Jesus is mentioned in…three ancient sources.
as to your second cite :
*Late 1st and 2nd century
Many early Christian books mention Pilate for his part in Jesus’ story :
Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, The Epistle of the Apostles, The Gospel of Peter, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Acts of Peter and Paul, the various Pilate forgeries, Irenaeus, Melito of Sardis, Clement of Alexandria.
Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.
3rd century
Porphyry’s fragments mentioned Pilate as historical.
Many Christian works and writers mention Pilate :
Acts of Andrew, Acts of Peter and Andrew, Acts of Thadeus, Acts of Thomas, Against Novatian, Acta Pilati, The Teaching of Simon Cephas in Rome, The Clementina, Cyprian of Carthage, Hippolytus, Origen, Peter of Alexandria, Tertullian.
Every single one of these books cites Pilate as a historical figure. No mention of sceptics who thought otherwise.*
All of whom are Christian sources, so of course- we can’t believe them for Jesus, but we can for Pilate. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
So, you’d have to find a source for Pilate BEFORE the Pilate stone. Afterwards, of course Pilate was real- look at all those sources!!! The **exact same sources the doubters dismiss out of hand on anything else.
[Aside] Lee Strobel? I thought his name was familiar. It seems I went to high school with him. He was a couple years ahead of me and I didn’t know him, but still. [/Aside]
Has ANYONE ever expressed ANY doubt that Pontius Pilate really existed?
The purpose of showing the paucity of evidence for Pilate was NOT to suggest that Pilate might be fictional BUT rather to hint at the chance for Jesus’ historicity: the paucity of Pilate evidence despite his real existence suggests that paucity of Jesus evidence does NOT suggest that Jesus is fictional.
It looks like even quora.com figured that much out. And we’re better than them, I hope.
The simple answer to OP’s question is that we don’t know for certain that Jesus really lived. As has already been stated, there are researchers who think he did and those who think he didn’t; IMO there are good arguments on both sides. I certainly don’t believe in his divinity or ability to perform miracles, etc. There is quite enough research to the effect that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are full of myths and falsehoods. But Jesus of Nazareth could have been an actual preacher that promoted his personal take on Judaism. Or, as has already been stated, he may have been inspired by - or even a composite character based on - various other preachers/“messiahs” that were active in Judea in the First Century AD.
What should be stressed is that there would probably be something at the kernel of the myth; we don’t know exactly what, to which more and more legends and claims were added over time until the story about Jesus was codified in the form familiar to us today. This is actually not a rare occurrence. Here are several similar examples:
King Arthur. Various characters recorded in history, such as Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman officer stationed in Britain, have been proposed as the basis of King Arthur, but it is uncertain if any of them contributed anything to his myth. Earlier sources from the Dark Ages tell of him as more of a soldier than a great king; later Medieval sources form the legend we all know where Arthur is the overlord of Britain (if not of lands on the Continent as well) and anachronistically leads a band of typical chivalrious Medieval knights. Given that Arthur seems to be absent from historical sources actually written in the first few centuries following the fall of Rome and the Anglo-Saxon invasion, it would seem likely that he is either not a historical figure, or that the bulk of what is written about him has been made up.
Robin Hood. Many different stories are told about him and it is unclear if he ever existed or not. There are some records of someone called “Robin Hood” (or some variation of that name from Medieval England, but some of these are simply used descriptively to denote a person as being a felon or scoundrel. There are people not named Robin Hood, upon whose life stories the Robin Hood legends may have been modelled, such as Roger Godberd, a real Sherwood Forest outlaw.
The Pied Piper of Hamelin. Here we have a good example of a “kernel of truth” on which a whole legend was built. There should be a chronicle from the town of Hamelin (Chronica ecclesiae Hamelensis, i.e. the Chronicle of the church of Hamelin), with an entry dated 1384 saying “it is 100 [One source says 10] years since our children left.” No explanation is given and there are various theores as to what exactly happened. Eventually a story about a piper leading the children away arose; the rats were first added in a version dated c. 1559. What really happened may have been very different from the fairy tale; one common explanation is that the “children” were simply young people who left the city to as a part of a project to settle lands more to the East.
Even a well-documented person such as Elvis Presley may have various legends develop around them. I recall reading about a woman who claimed she was healed from some ailment after looking at a picture of Elvis.
That’s not the charge that DrDeth was making though, but I get the angle you’re going with there. Don’t have too much of an issue with that aspect. And no, if you’re referring to the poster I linked to on the second link and his sources, he’s showing that through all major works including many Christian sources, there is not to be found any skeptics doubting Pilate’s existence. It is to the question, Did any sceptics ever consider Pilate a myth?
Unbelievable! You’re changing the script! And all of that material goes against your original allegation when major Christian sources are not making that claim against skeptics doubting Pilate’s existence until the stone discovered. That’s precisely the point of why the poster listed many major Christian sources to help substantiate if there were skeptics doubting Pilate’s existence prior to the discovery, seems like somebody would have mentioned it in some major work.
Again, you’re flipping the script. If you believe what you wrote. You made this allegation:
Unless I missed it, no one has yet mentioned Reza Aslan, a renowned religious historian, professor, writer, producer, and many other things. Aslan wrote an excellent book on the subject called Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth that I found to be credible and well-documented, using different versions of the Gospels and other historical evidence. The essence of his thesis is that yes, Jesus really existed, but he was less a religious leader and more a political revolutionary, his main objective being to free Judea from Roman control. In that regard the Romans truly regarded him as an enemy, and crucified him for that reason. He must have been smart and charismatic to have such a large following, and may no doubt have spoken to them about principles of behavior, but in the final analysis, according to Aslan, Jesus was more Che Guevara than a saintly miracle worker. All that stuff came from later embellishments of the Gospels.
In ancient and medieval times uneducated and illiterate people tended to take the bible literally, but educated people, and many of the greatest and most influential theologians didn’t.
I remember reading that, even in a book. However, I can’t find it now. Sorry. And of course, a Skeptical Blog that said that Pilate didnt exist either would be edited after the discovery of the Pilate stone.
However, the idea that the evidence for Pilate (as well as Socrates) was as sparse as that for Jesus was much more common, I concur. The evidence for those two is sparse but they have not been denied anywhere near as much as Jesus.
Yes, and I cant find it. Any Skeptical blog that made that claim would be edited or deleted, now wouldnt it? Or so old it is buried. Anyway the fact that that claim is debunked must indicate that many thought Pilates existence had been doubted.
Suggesting that someone might edit a blog entry at such a respectable site due to the discovery of something so well known for quite a while is just weird.
This subthread stated with the agreement that the Exodus story is “Mostly Myth.” The “40 years in the desert”, if it has any basis at all, might be metaphor for a much shorter period … or a much longer period.