You are a Christian. Not by birth or family association, but by conversion based on a sudden acceptance of Christ into your heart, along with the message that belief is irrelevant to God. You’ve argued passionately and fervently against individual presumption of the morality of others, based on your stance that morality is “not in the atoms”.
Yet here you are, in a thread exploring the historicity of your Saviour, becoming bitter, combative, rude, dismissive, defensive, pompous— shall I continue?
Ponder whether the Truth within the Christ story is in any way dependent on the historical accuracy of the gospels. Can one, as I do, believe in that Truth, while also accepting (as I have for a long time) the high probability that the story was constructed in a way similar to that described by clairobscur earlier in this thread?
For that matter can one, as YOU do, believe in the literal truth of the story while accepting that the historical evidence alone is totally unpersuasive?
Your opponents in this debate do not have a pit of lions or a cross waiting for you; no one is assailing your faith.
I’ve been watching this debate, and I strongly disagree. I think you’re reading way too much into Lib’s responses. Exactly how are his responses bitter or pompous, for example? One might argue that he’s been combative, but no less so than his opponents. Besides, what else would one expect from an energetic debate?
I’ll admit that some of his responses – and mine, in similar threads – could stand to be tempered, but I would expect that in when it comes to such topics. And frankly, when it comes to some of the responses to his posts, I can’t really blame him for getting impatient.
If the lack of archeological evidence does no harm to the historicity of Jesus, we can discard that as a valid objection. But actually, given the circumstances, there’s quite a bit for a man who built no earthly kingdom. Like the discovery of Capernaum, a city important in Jesus’ earthly life, but abandoned a thousand years ago. The discovery there of a synagogue on the highest point of ground, referenced by Luke to have been built by a Roman centurion. Doesn’t the discovery lend credence to the claim that Jesus taught there? And isn’t it considered significant that a house was found there, believed to have been built in the first century BC and to be the house of Peter (it contains his monogram), with 131 inscriptions found in four languages, 110 in Greek, 10 in Aramaic, 9 in Estrangelo, and 2 in Latin that mention Jesus frequently? (See “Caperaum - Jesus’ Own City,” Bible and Spade, Vol. 10, No. 1)
And considering that Jesus built no earthly empire (indeed, He made plain that that was not His intention) isn’t it enough that Jerusalem and the whole area of Judea are chock full of archeological support for at least the stories told about Jesus? Isn’t the inscription in a first century synagogue in Caesaria, referencing Nazareth, support? In 1961, an ancient inscription mentioning Pontius Pilate was also found at Caesarea. Isn’t that corroborating evidence? What about discoveries at Sepphoris and Tiberias that show that Herod Antipas ruled Galilee? And what about the bones of Caiaphas (either the high priest or his son) being found in 1990 in the Kidron valley? Aren’t those supportive?
I don’t know how much you might demand, but some of the things mentioned in early Christian writings are still there, like the fig trees, and the stairs that run to the renovated upper room. Excavations are ongoing in Bethsaida, Chorazin, Capernaum, Caesarea Philippi, Shechem, Bethany and Jerusalem. But archeological science is barely more than a hundred years old, and digging in holy lands has always been problematic. Maybe a bit of patience?
Finally, are the authors of the nine sources you listed in any way biased, or are they perfectly fair and objective, and using sources that are closer to the period than 40 years?
I don’t have much time to spend responding to these arguments, but I did want to address this one.
Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists who ever lived, believed the New Testament – and Luke’s gospel, in particular – to be a work of fiction. After decades of digging and research though, he was forced to change his position. Despite his predisposition, this eminent archaeologist concluded that Luke’s gospel was historically correct, and wrote,
A lot of the claims made against Jesus’ historicity demand evidence that far exceeds those used by professional historians. A brief overview of some criteria that historians actually use can be found here.
I just did a few searches on the net, and I have found that Sir William Ramsey is one of the greatest archaeologists who ever lived only according to every Christian website that uses him as a reference. Can someone point me to a non-religious source that praises him in such a manner?
This remark was originally a response to a statement going along the line “there are not much evidences about many other historical figures”. My point was that for many such figures, archeology can make up for the lack of writen evidences, which reduce the number of potentially doubtful historical figures. Certainly, the lack of such evidences (which could they be, anyway) don’t harm the concept of a historical Jesus. But it doesn’t help, either, obviously.
Well, reading your list, I recalled having already seen mentionned some the evidences you listed, but didn’t remember any specifics. So, I’m going to check your list with the help of a piece called “Archeological testimonies related to the life of Jesus” penned by F. Manns, a theology professor in Jerusalem. I know, he isn’t an archeologist, but I’m going to give more credit to his opinion than yo yours. Plus, given his job, I assume he’s probably not a rabid atheist.
Yep. I even get two pictures of the site, and three level plans. Concerning the highest point…err…honestly, the site is situated just beside a lake, and the ground seems really very flat. Mr Mann say roughly (sorry, but a translation of the whole thing would be way too painful for me, so I’m not going to list the evidences) that the synagogue has been at a late date. In particular, he points to the presence of late roman coins and the presence under the synagogue of other buildings dating back to the second century. Finally, he mentions that a trench revealed the presence of an even older building, cruder dating from the “hellenistico-roman period” and which would be “probably a public building rather than a private one”.
So, we have here a late synagogue build after the second century under which there would be a building “probably public”, and not precisely dated. We’re a long way from any evidence there’s a synagogue build by the centurion Luke refers to
(by the way, I didn’t check Luke, since I didn’t know where he mentionned that).
Anyway, i’m not sure why it would be surprising to find a synagogue in a Jewish village. Probably as surprising as a church in an european village. I’m not sure why it would prove that a guy named Jesus actually went there around 30 AD.
Mr Mann seems to like a lot this building (I even get a picture of one of the graffitis). I gather from what he writes that one room of the complex situated under a later byzantine church would have been considered quite early as the house of Peter (at the latest during the IV° century) and that it “has been transformed in a place of meeting at the end of the first century”. It’s not totally convincing, but I must admit this is an archeological evidence related to early christianism. It doesn’t prove much, though. It would be an evidence that Peter possibly lived there and certainly was an important figure for early christians.
I didn’t check these, because they indeed don’t appear supportive to me. What you’re trying to prove is that places and important people mentionned in the gospels actually existed. But nobody denied that. It’s an evidence that the authors (or editors) of the gospels had some knowledge about Judea and major figures of this era, either a direct knowledge or oral recounts. But not that Jesus existed, Let alone a Jesus pretty similar to the character described in the gospels.
To take an exemple simpler than a religious myth, an urban legend can include the name of place where the event took place, a date, the name of some public figure supposedly involved, etc…Proving that the town and the public figure mentionned actually exist doesn’t make the event true. I choose the urban legend example because it also has a somewhat mythical nature, rely on faith (sort of) and include extraordinary claims.
More than for another historical figure for the reasons I explained above (unbelievable events mixed with the story of the guy, unreliability of testimonies of believers about their god/guru of choice, “evidences” handed to us by the very people who wanted to convince everybody that the story was real, etc…).
Actually, though it’s perhaps theorically possible to conceive a convincing archeological evidence of Jesus, I can’t really imagine what they could be. The better evidence which could actually be found (though it would be extremely unlikely) would probably be something like an early (hence untainted by later zealous christians) copy of at least part of the gospels, similar to the dead sea scrolls, for instance, which would mention Jesus and some events of his life.
You see, the problem I’ve with the kind of evidences you’re offering, is that they aren’t evidences of Jesus as described by the gospels, but evidences that there has been a christian sect, or evidences that the background appearing in the gospels actually refers to the first century Judea. And i don’t dispute these two statements.
I don’t know to what place you’re refering, here.
Well…we’ll see…
Well…I listed those mainly to show you that I didn’t made my mind just because I liked it that way, but actually read stuff on this topic. And they aren’t the only related things I read.
Are they biaised? Some appears to be relatively unbiased, some are very biased, but not necessarily in the way you’re expecting. An author obviously has a deep dislike of christiannity, for instance, but as rather comprehensive references about early sects related to judaism and early christian figures. Another provides a quite complete list of accounts about the life of Jesus, but enthousiastically considers texts like the “gospel according to Pilatus” as a valid historical source. I guess you know it’s rather difficult to find unbiased sources on this topic. Most people writing about it have an agenda. And in the wide majority of cases, this bia is pro-christian, as you probably noticed. IMO, people who have no point to make (means : don’t have faith in Jesus nor a negative opinion of christianity) probably aren’t really interested in knowing if Jesus existed or not ( what does it change, actually? True or not, the historical consequences are the same) and wouldn’t jump in this can of worms.
What about you? Did you base your opinion on unbiased sources? Do you apply the same criteria to christian and non-christian religious figures? To Mohamed, Zoroastre and Jesus, for instance? Or to Moses and Hercules?
Are they closer to the period than 40 years? What point are you trying to make? That the gospels, being older are necessarily more accurate than recent studies? In this case, it would mean that the content of any written myth is more reliable that any modern view we could have on this myth. But you wouldn’t apply the same reasonning to other myths, of course. How unbiased is that?
That is not an objective overview of the criteria used by historians but an attempt to prove that the gospels are true. If it’s not blatantly obvious to you after the 20 first lines…well…I don’t know what to say…
I’m going to quote what is said on the site itself about the author of this overview, though (apart from the fact his grades are in theology, not history) :
"His speciality is communicating Christ to secular audiences in biblical, culturally appropriate ways […]and trains Christian leaders, broadcasters and print media professionals in effective communication with secular audiences".
That is exactly the kind of credentials I expect from an unbiased historian :rolleyes:
That does not surprise me, as this isn’t not the sort of info which one would necessarily find on the web. (See this link for a similar objection raised at Tektonics.org.) A more suitable reference would be archaeology references or university archives.
Moreover, even if one chooses not to regard him as one of the greatest archaeologists every known, that does not render his arguments invalid. In addition, the fact that he was compelled to recant his position against Luke’s historicity (after decades of research!) is itself extraordinary, even if he were not a world-renowned scholar. His texts on the New Testament can be found in major libraries, and are thus readily available.
It’s not your fault, but it would help to spell the name right.
Sir William Ramsay, born in Glasgow on March 15, 1851 to a third generation Scottish lawyer, was appointed as the first Professor of Classical Art and Archaeology at Oxford in 1886. Archeology was a very young science. Few that held the formal title of “archeologist” even existed.
Ramsay was an historian who held nine earned (not honorary) doctorates — one each from Oxford, St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cambridge, Edinburgh, New York, Bordeaux, and Marburg. He was one of the founding members of the British Academy, and was awarded the Victoria Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 1906.
According to the London Times (April 22, 1939, page 14), “Ramsay’s abiding fame will rest first on his comprehensive exploration of Asia Minor; … and secondly, on the new method which he developed and taught to students of ancient geography. On account of both he received worldwide recognition.” The obituary talks about Ramsay’s interesting and original approach to this new archeological science, “Taking into his purview sites of all periods down to the Byzantine, he sought the help of evidence neglected or little used before, notably that of local coin types, and that of Christian authors and legends, and set out to interpret the ancient geography of Asia Minor by noting the relative positions of points on roads and by applying the method of exclusion to administrative groups of towns, of which some members were already fixed with fair certainty in the map.”
Insisting on first-hand acquaintance with the facts, he read the manuscripts then extant himself in their original Greek and Latin, and used these to form the framework of his searches. His authority on the geography and history (i.e., archeology) of Asia Minor became legendary. After several visits and years of work in the area with other famous scholars, he wrote nearly a hundred articles for the ninth edition of the Encyclopeadia Brittanica and scores of other works that were spread out here and there.
The academic community clamored for him to compile his work into a single volume. The Royal Geographic Society published his magnum opus, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor in 1890. He wrote in his introduction, “My scheme has been (after several experiences of the difficulties caused by accepting wrong conjectures of modern writers) to make an absolutely fresh work founded on the ancient authorities alone, in which the geographical situation, the natural surroundings and the commercial advantages of each city should be set forth in an account of its history.”
He retired in 1911 after being knighted five years earlier during the celebration of the four-hundredth anniversary of the University of Aberdeen (where he was a professor of Latin) for his “distinguished service to the scholarly world”.
Incidentally, it was in St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 1884, that Sir Ramsay discussed how his extensive research changed his mind. He wrote:
Among his credentials listed are Honorable Member, Athenian Archaeological Society, 1895; former Professor of Classical Archaeology and Fellow of Exeter and of Lincoln College, Oxford, and Levering Lecturer in Johns Hopkins University, 1894.
Interesting. Could either “Ramsey” or “Ramsay” be a variant spelling? I wonder because an awful lot of texts – both Christian and atheist – use the former.
I think they just misspelled it, JT. They likely mean the same man (which shouldn’t be a controversy unless Czar or someone intends to argue that they don’t). Certainly, they quote the same words and tell the same stories that apply to Ramsay.
By the way, the date I gave for the Traveler should have been 1895. The link is to the 1907 Tenth Edition. 1884 was when he was accepted into the German Archeological Society at Goettingen, where he had studied Sanskrit under the tutelage of famed historical linguist, Theodor Benfey.
JT, note that the link you give provides a sic notation after the spelling of “Ramsey” by one of the atheists who said that he couldn’t find any mention of the man with respect to archeology. I’m confident that even Clairobscur and others involved on the other side of this debate will readily acknowledge at this point the notability and importance of Sir Ramsey’s work.
You and I disagree about whether there is a lack of archeological evidence, at least in the same way that there is a lack of contrary evidence of just about any kind — meaning none.
Unless you insist that they find the body (which, for obvious reasons, won’t happen) then about the best you’re going to get archeologically, given the nature of the beast, is discovery of the people and places that are said to be associated with Him and references to Him from the same. Either archeological evidence matters or it doesn’t. Personally, I think it does. And the body of evidence, archeological and otherwise, with respect to the historical Jesus is one of the strongest bodies of evidence that we have for any historical figure.
The only other significant mentions of Capernaum from ancient texts — other than the New Testament (it’s never mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures) — are from Josephus, who visited there sometime in the late 60s (0060) after hurting his wrist falling off a horse, where he wrote just a little bit about the place both in Life (72) and in Wars (3.10.8), and from Rabbinic texts in which second century Pharisees refered to Capernaum as a center for “Minim”, early Judeo-Christians.
Jesus Himself called it His earthly home, and both the Gospels and letters from Paul mention it prominently mainly because of Peter’s house, and the fact that it served as a homebase for Jesus’ ministry. Paul even mentions Peter’s wife traveling with him somewhere around 50-55 AD. It is likely that, in addition to Peter, his wife, and Jesus, other disciples and family members stayed there as well, such as Peter’s mother-in-law and brother.
Using ordinary standards of proof, most scholars concede that, by a preponderance of the available evidence, the house is indeed Peter’s.
The graffiti you mentioned, as you know, date from around the early third century, and adorn a plaster that was put over plaster that dates from the first century. When Egeria wrote of the house (in the fourth century), some of the original wall still stood. Egeria wrote, “In Capharnaum autem ex domo apostolorum principis ecclesia facta est, cuius parietes usque hodie ita stant, sicut fuerunt” (The house of the prince of the Apostles [meaning Simon Peter] in Capernaum was changed into a church; the walls, however, are still standing as they were). It was common knowledge that the house was Peter’s (note that Egeria specifically calls it a house, and not a public building), and there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. Even today, the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs official recognizes it as Peter’s House.
Of course, even if it could be established as a statistical certainty that the house was Peter’s, you could always argue that well, yes there was a Peter, but this doesn’t prove there was a Jesus. Which brings us to the synagogue.
I think you might have confused the White Synagogue with the Basalt Synagogue. The White Synagogue wasn’t built until the late third century, but the Basalt Synagogue (where Jesus taught) was itself destroyed in 70 AD, and is believed to have been built in 20 AD by the Roman Centurion who commanded the garrison in Capernaum. Other than for that particular building, Capernaum escaped most of the destruction brought about by the First Jewish Revolt. Some images of the excavations can be seen on a faculty page by David Binder at Southern Methodist University. (I trust that you will join me in correcting anyone who refers to this as a “religious” cite.)
Taken on the whole, we find that evidence grows year by year in favor of the places and people of the New Testament scriptures being real and substantially faithfully described. In order to hold that there is a problem of any significance, we have to argue the position that the authors took meticulous care to describe events and locations accurately in every particular except one, namely Jesus. And since we certainly have no contrary evidence or testimony from the period, it is hard to imagine a greater leap of faith.
By the way, the lake you mentioned is the Sea of Galilee.
Once again though, those objections hinge of the assumption that hearsay is necessarily inadmissible. That’s not strictly true in a legal sense, and it’s certainly not true in matters of history and archaeology.
As for Mara bar-Serapion not mentioning Jesus by name, that’s simply a silly objection. We are talking about preponderance of evidence, after all, and historians do not take pieces of evidence in isolation. Mara bar-Serapion spoke of the king of the Jews, he said that this man was executed by those same Jews, and he said that the teachings of this man continued to live on. What other king might this be, and what other teachings might this be? In the absence of evidence for another such person, it’s only reasonable to treat this document as corroborating the existence of Jesus the Nazarene.
The basalt building is the one I refered to as “not precisely dated” and “probably public”. And I wonder what evidence one would have that it has been build by a centurion.
As for the house of Peter, I’d say that him having actually lived in this house seems more credible to me than him having been executed in Rome, for instance.
Concerning Peter. His historicity doesn’t seem to be disputed, even by authors who aren’t convinced by Jesus historicity (or at least I read enough authors not disputing his existence to be convinced he was for real). However, the fact that a Judean called Peter has been a proeminent figure for early christians doesn’t tell much by itself about what could have been his life, and probably more important, his actual teachings. For, instance, I quickly checked an author who writes :
“Concerning Simon-Peter […] the only historical evidence refers to Simon, son of Juda of Gamala and brother of Jacob, executed as zelot. Could he be Simon the essenian, mentionned by Josephus as strongly hostile to John the Baptist?”
“historical evidence” in this text refers to evidences outside the christian tradition, to clarify things.
You’ll note that both hypothesis hint at a Peter whose philosophy would be strongly different from the christian position. A zelot’s opinion would be pretty much the total opposite of “the other cheek” stand. An essenian would be…well, an essenian, not a christian (assuming that christianism didn’t actually arise from essenism…but this hypothesis would nullify the content of the gospels too). Not even mentionning a strong hostility to John the baptist.
By the way, the same author believes that the early christian school of thought which refered to Peter (and James) was the main opponent of the the one which refered to Paul (the divergences in their view being later removed from records after having been reconcilied, essentially favoring Paul and at the expense of the pro-Peter side…which is not surprising IMO, since Paul side favored the relaxing of Jewish law, hence was way more attractive for the gentiles). He briefly mentions Paul refered to as a “false witness” or as “having falsified the teachings of the Messiah”.
What I mean is that having evidences of a historical Peter doesn’t tell much about who he was and what he taught, because the christian texts refering to him have been handed to us by the christian church after it has defined its core beliefs, and most probably after a lot of editing of the original sources, with the obvious goal of passing its current teachings as the original, universal and never disputed ones (meant defined by Jesus in 30 AD, and not by a bunch of arguing sects during the second century).
As an aside, since I mentionned Paul, I’d add that I read texts disputing also the existence of Paul (at least as someone even remotely related the Paul appearing in the epistiles), and considering basically that this character and its epistiles (those who are commonly considered as actually authored by Paul, that is) had been made up, possibly by Marcion.
First, do remember that we must consider the totality of the evidence. It would thus be reckless – and unscholarly – to say “I can’t find any record of Jesus feeding the multitudes! How can we claim that he existed?” Clearly, that would be rubbish.
Second, there’s a huge difference between seeking evidence for an event and seeking evidence for an entire civilization. One could understand the lack of extrabiblical evidence for, say, Jesus’ healing of a withered hand. In contrast, the lack of evidence for the centaur and amazon civilizations is much harder to excuse.
Third, with regard to feeding thousands… what kind of archaeological evidence should we find for this, exactly? Their leftovers, or the utensils they use? Such an event would not lend itself to much archaeological evidence, except perhaps for written documents… such as what was recorded in the gospel accounts.
Fourth, as for the earth being shrouded in darkness when Jesus died, this event is recorded by secular writers. Julius Africanus recorded the writings of both Thallus and Phlegon, wherein they reported the darkness that occured as Jesus died on the cross. Neither Thallus or Phlegon were sympathetic to the Christians, and dismissed this event as being due to a solar eclipse – unreasonably so, since Phlegon himself said that it happened during a full moon, during which a solar eclipse can not occur.
Finally, as for Christ’s resurrection and subsequent visitations, let me first point out that you’re seeking an extravangance of evidence. We are, after all, talking about whether Jesus Christ existed. Even if he never rose from the dead, we can most certainly believe that he existed. And second, I believe there is considerable evidence to corroborate his resurrection. That matter would merit a thread of its own, but the evidence was sufficient to convince numerous once-skeptics, including archaeologists Sir William Ramsay and Dr. William Albright, legal authority Dr. Simon Greenleaf, journalist Albert Henry Ross (writing under the pseudonym Frank Morison). Another erstwhile skeptic, Dr. William Lane Craig, discusses this evidence in great detail in his virtual office
Do I understand you correctly to say now that, not only Jesus, but Peter (as His disciple) and Paul (as the converted Saul) might not have existed either? Is there a point at which you draw the line? Or is it safe to say that, as far as you’re concerned, categorically no one mentioned in the New Testament ever existed?
If you don’t mind, I’d like to know the name and credentials of some of your sources tying them to specific claims (I can’t tell from your earlier list really who said what). The reason I ask is that Loffreda dated the basalt cobblestones and pottery he found in 1968 at the Capernaum synagogue as early 1st century. (Typological Sequence of Iron Age Rock-Cut Tombs in Palestine. Liber Annuus 18: 244-87.) Has there been another dating since then that contradicted his? If so, by whom and when?
Also where did your source that you “quickly checked” get his or her information about Judah of Gamala, other than from his mention by Luke in Acts 5:37, “After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered,” or Josephus in War 2:118, “(Judah) incited his countrymen to revolt, upbraiding them as cowards for consenting to pay tribute to the Romans and tolerating mortal masters, after having God for their lord”? I think I understand correctly that you would trust neither of those sources. Am I right?
Oops. You asked about the Roman Centurion in Capernaum (the man who built the synagogue), and I missed giving you your answer.
Here’s the narrative from Luke:
You can see the remains of the small military outpost that would have been appropriate to a Roman Centurion in Capernaum today, thanks to excavations by the Fransiscans. This is the same garrison that Josephus mentions in 72. He went there to bandage his wrist. The custom houses, where taxes were collected to finance the synagogue, can also be seen.
Libertarian, if it was my post that you are refering to, please note that what I actually said was that Sir Ramsey(this being the spelling found throughout the Christian web sites, btw) was one of the “greatest archaeologists of all time” only according to the Christian websites that use him as a reference. I never said I couldn’t find any mention of him at all. Can someone point me to some NON-Christian websites that hold him to such high esteem?