Heck, I can’t prove that I’m not a figment of my own imagination. But I have a body of evidence for some things that is bigger than the body of evidence available for other things.
The evidence for a historical Jesus is scant. Very little of it is contemporaneous to his life. None of it is verifiably first hand. Its plagued with the issues of the era in which it was written - no mass reproduction of content, documents copied and recopied by hand (with all the the errors that might occur in transcription), recorders of History who do not meet modern standards for historians.
Nevertheless, I believe its probable he existed, but the quantity and quality of evidence does not rise to what I’d consider proof. Therefore, I would be very hard to convince there was proof of a resurrection of a person I don’t think has been proven to have existed (even though I think its probable he existed)
The evidence for a historical Hitler fills rooms. We have film and video. We have his own writing and the writing of others that knew him personally. We have court records and government documents and newspaper accounts and images of him on film. We have the diaries and journals of people who knew him. I am willing to look at the quantity and quality of evidence available and say it is sufficient to prove Hitler existed. That doesn’t mean there is sufficient evidence he was living in South America in the 1960s.
Weeeeeeel, most historians agree that at best, in the cities, literacy could be as high as 10%, in Palestine it was closer to 3%, or even 1%. Out in the sticks it was mostly 0%, like for fishermen like Peter and John:
*Many of the debates on ancient literature spring not only from divergent evidence but
from the fact that scholars have different definitions of literacy. For example,
Professor William Harris, one of the most distinguished scholars on the subject,
suggests a very low rate for literacy in the ancient world (10 per cent at best). He
reached this conclusion by assessing a variety of evidence, from the ancient sources to
archaeological surveys, and searching for conclusive proof for formal education,
either as a concept or as an object (e.g. school buildings). His opinion is contested by
a number of scholars who cite case studies in places like Pompeii, where, in addition
to monumental inscriptions, there is an abundance of graffiti in houses, bars, brothels
and notably on the steps of public buildings, which could have been used as covered
venues for teaching (see the bibliography below). The poet Martial complains about
the constant barrage of noise in the city: ‘There’s no place for a poor man to think or
rest. Schoolmasters disturb life in the morning, the bakers at night, the coppersmiths
hammer all day’ (Epigrams 12.57). Grouping schoolteachers with other skilled
labourers suggests that they were common features of everyday life in a town.
Moreover, the graffiti in Pompeii, like modern graffiti in a public toilet, often
represents not a one-off comment but a dialogue between two or more individuals,
suggesting that it was, at least on some occasions, read by an audience (Slide 2).
Harris counters these arguments by citing the poor quality of the graffiti, noting that
quoting (or more often misquoting) Virgil’s Aeneid on a tavern wall does not make a
man literate. His concept of literacy is in line with modern definitions – formal
education and having the ability to read, speak and compose in a language. And
indeed, if one accepts this definition of literacy, his arguments stand up well. *
http://www.schools1.cic.ames.cam.ac.uk/pdfs/Literate%20or%20illiterate%20at%20Pompeii.pdf How literate — or illiterate — were the people of Pompeii? It depends, of course, on the definition of
literate. It has often been claimed that only certain groups of people — the rich, the elite, the religious
hierarchy — were literate and the great mass of the population was unable to read or write. In fact,
recent studies and new archaeological discoveries suggest that the situation was considerably more
complicated. While it is certainly true that only a limited number could have read difficult literary or
scientific texts, there is good evidence that basic literacy was much more common…This suggests that a fair percentage could read and write at least
basic Latin. Many examples include quotes or literary references suggesting that, as in Shakespeare’s
London, literary culture was shared up and down the social scale, probably through the theatre, rather
than being the exclusive prerogative of a limited class."
I*dentifying—let alone gauging—the various levels of ancient literacy is notoriously difficult. There was undoubtedly a spectrum of literacy, and the simple categories of “literate” or “illiterate,” as well as the false dichotomy between “oral vs. written,” no longer suffice in academic circles.
1
At the same time, most modern NT scholars still start their literacy discussion by pointing to William V. Harris’s influential study of ancient Greco-Roman literacy levels…In sum, it seems likely that ancient literacy levels were at neither end of the spectrum. /I]
Many were what we would today call “functionally illiterate” but still quite able to read graffiti and even reply to it.
Very nice, So the Talmud had a rule which kicks in if there is only one person in a Ancient synagogue who could read. There are also rules for what happens if you cant get ten men for a Minyan.
That doesnt mean that you can’t normally get ten men for prayer, not does it mean that every synagogue in Israel only had one man who could read. Incredibly bad scholarship.
Spoiler Alert: Jesus was NOT resurrected from the dead.
It’s still interesting to explore the historic Jesus, however.
Nitpick: Yeshua ben-Yosef might have been a rather common name, so asserting that a so-named man existed is like asserting that a Bob Jones exists. I believe there was a “Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, who was baptized by John the Baptist, noted in Galilee for healing and preaching, caused a scene at the Temple in Jerusalem, and was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate.”
Not sure about the “ben-Yosef” part, however. IIRC, neither Mark nor Paul ever names Jesus’ father; some sources show “ben Pantera.” (Is it possible James the Just was Jesus’ half-brother?)
Much of the magical lore in the Gospels is just-so mythology tacked on later. Note that the same writers busy adding Virginity to their based-on-fact fictions were also busy expunging James and Jesus’ other siblings. (James and Paul were “enemies.” As Paulists gained dominance in Roman Christianity, James and the historic Jesus in general, were expunged just as Stalin airbrushed his ex-friends from photos.)
The historicity of Jesus’ brother James is rather strong, IIUC, and provides some of the best proof that Jesus himself existed.
You are doing it again. Nowhere in the section I quoted did Ehrman say that, nor would he say that. Most people are less blatant when constructing their strawmen, and I am beginning to question your sincerity as a Christian.
Read what you quoted “Turning to hard historical evidence for ancient Israel, Bar-Ilan notes that the Talmud allows for towns where only one person could read in the synagogue (Soferim 11:2). Since all synagogues that have been discovered can accommodate more than 50 people, we are probably looking at literacy rates, in these places, at about 1%.”
There’s a dotted line there, which indicates a “Hypothetical or questionable relationship”. So, no- John is not generally believed to be influenced by Mark, but it is possible. But “influenced” is different that what was proposed.
However, still this statement by **Musicat **is false and betrays ignorance of the New testament.
**Musicat **
*"And often quite religiously biased.
Example: Most of John’s work (or the person(s) who are now called “John”) appears to be an embellishment of earlier writers like Mark. If Mark didn’t provide enough detail to make the story complete, John supplied it, even though he wasn’t closer to the events than Mark. .*"
It would be incredibly bad scholarship IF EHRMAN HAD SAID THAT. That is why I accuse you of being disingenuous. History is like fundamentalism in that you are working with the words, not your interpretation.
Anyway, forming a minyan in ancient Israel was a cinch since any guy thirteen and older was a man and bright six year olds could count in a pinch. But Israel, like the rest of the world, was largely oral, and all you “needed” was one guy in the ten or more in the room who could read Hebrew, the language of scripture and generally understood for that reason, but not necessarily Aramaic, the language in ordinary use, or Greek, the language of business and the Gospels. But there had been a lot of rote memorization of scripture, too.
Which is what he said. “Turning to hard historical evidence for ancient Israel, Bar-Ilan notes that the Talmud allows for towns where only one person could read in the synagogue (Soferim 11:2). Since all synagogues that have been discovered can accommodate more than 50 people, we are probably looking at literacy rates, in these places, at about 1%.”
In other words,
1.There were towns where only one person could read in the synagogue (true)
2. A synagogue holds about 50 people. (true)
3. Thereby the the literacy rate was only 1%.- (false conclusion)
