# Review finds no mention of Christ in ancient texts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2014, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003 "2014-09-30T19:59:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/61 "2014-10-01T08:01:40Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > If none of us can do this in a way that satisfies you, does that make the author of the linked article right? The problem is not “me being satisfied”. The problem is there is no proof Jesus existed. ---
**Author:** ![Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steely_Dan_Fan)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/62 "2014-10-01T08:01:48Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > none of those are first hand accounts, they are all basically heresay Which is perfectly fine, when they’re assessed critically and contextually. Which, incidentally, is what actual historians (i.e. people who have some semblance of a clue what they’re doing i.e. not you) do with any source anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/63 "2014-10-01T08:06:00Z")
> [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](#): > > Of course there are; Aspidistra named several. > > The problem isn’t that useful sources don’t exist. The problem is that your conception of what constitutes a “useful source” bears zero resemblance whatsoever to what people who actually know what they’re talking about and actually practice the academic study of history recognize as a “useful source,” because they know that your standards are bullshit and insane and would exclude literally everything that a human being has ever written or produced. 1- none of the church fathers wrote about him or met him while he was living 2- they are biased source anyway > [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](#): > > Which is perfectly fine, when they’re assessed critically and contextually. > > Which, incidentally, is what actual historians (i.e. people who have some semblance of a clue what they’re doing i.e. not you) do with any source anyway. name me a historical figure whom we have 100% certainty existed that no first hand accounts exist for ---
**Author:** ![Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steely_Dan_Fan)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/64 "2014-10-01T08:16:17Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > The problem is not “me being satisfied”. The problem is there is no proof Jesus existed. There’s never any proof of anything in history. History doesn’t work that way–for that matter, neither does any other academic field outside of mathematics and logic. All you ever can do is make a claim of probability based on the preponderance of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steely_Dan_Fan)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/65 "2014-10-01T08:18:09Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > 1- none of the church fathers wrote about him or met him while he was living And? Doesn’t make their work useless. > [@](#): > > 2- they are biased source anyway And? There is literally _no such thing_ as a non-biased source. Bias (or, more properly, “perspective”) is an inherent element of anything produced or done by humans. You’re literally just pulling standards out of your ass, because you have no idea how history is done, because you’re interested in pushing your agenda rather than actually thinking about things and acquiring a rigorous, reality-based understanding of the past. > [@](#): > > name me a historical figure whom we have 100% certainty existed that no first hand accounts exist for Alexander the Great. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/66 "2014-10-01T08:24:58Z")
> [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](#): > > And? Doesn’t make their work useless. > And? There is literally _no such thing_ as a non-biased source. Bias (or, more properly, “perspective”) is an inherent element of anything produced or done by humans. > > You’re literally just pulling standards out of your ass, because you have no idea how history is done, because you’re interested in pushing your agenda rather than actually thinking about things and acquiring a rigorous, reality-based understanding of the past. it makes their works entirely useless. i see TV preachers and street corner preachers make stuff up ALL THE TIME. to think that they were not doing this wholesale 2000 years ago is, how do you put it, having an agenda that ignores reality > [@](#): > > Alexander the Great. interesting… > [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](#): > > There’s never any proof of anything in history. History doesn’t work that way–for that matter, neither does any other academic field outside of mathematics and logic. All you ever can do is make a claim of probability based on the preponderance of evidence. so there’s no proof george washington existed? ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/67 "2014-10-01T08:25:06Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > The problem is not “me being satisfied”. The problem is there is no proof Jesus existed. In 2000 years time there will be no proof you existed. Does that cause you to vanish in a puff of unsmoke now ? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/68 "2014-10-01T08:27:44Z")
Well most of the material about Pythagoras was penned centuries after his death. While he was an author, none of his writings survived. Gutenberg wouldn’t invent the printing press until the 1400s: it’s not like we can just pull the newspaper clippings. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/69 "2014-10-01T08:29:01Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > In 2000 years time there will be no proof you existed. Does that cause you to vanish in a puff of unsmoke now ? no, it doesn’t but, if 2000 years from now someone wanted $100 to help put into stained glass windows for the church of Robert163, a smart person would ask for some type of proof that i did exist ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/70 "2014-10-01T08:37:06Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > The problem is not “me being satisfied”. The problem is there is no proof Jesus existed. That is a problem in its own right, yes. But it’s not necessarily a rebuttal of the critiques of methods used by the linked author. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/71 "2014-10-01T08:41:14Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > That is a problem in its own right, yes. But it’s not necessarily a rebuttal of the critiques of methods used by the linked author. I think the authors point was, if, you had someone who regularly healed leprecy, blindness and other diseases, raised people from the dead and himself returned from the dead, and, finally, floated up to the heavens, that such extraordinary events would be recorded somewhere by someone ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/72 "2014-10-01T09:03:54Z")
Compare the evidence for Jesus with that of others. I’ve already mentioned John the Baptist, whose historicity is generally accepted but, like Jesus, has little or no near-contemporanenous mention outside the Bible and Josephus. A more interesting example might be King David. This man wasn’t an alleged healer from the backwater of Galilee, but a great king who unified Israel and Judea. Did he really exist? Many scholars think or thought that David was mythical [but recent discoveries may have turned opinion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity): a scrap of stone from the 9th century BC mentioning a “king of the House of David”, a large wall excavated in Jerusalem, dateable by accompanying pottery to the time when Jerusalem was _either_ a small village _or_ housed a great King. I realize David lived 1000 years before Jesus, so evidence was much scanter. Even so, when the non-Biblical evid encefor the great hero-King David comprises only a piece of a wall and a stone fragment that mentions “House of David”, is it reasonable to argue that absence of evidence for Jesus is evidence of absence? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/73 "2014-10-01T09:09:18Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Compare the evidence for Jesus with that of others. I’ve already mentioned John the Baptist, whose historicity is generally accepted but, like Jesus, has little or no near-contemporanenous mention outside the Bible and Josephus. > > A more interesting example might be King David. This man wasn’t an alleged healer from the backwater of Galilee, but a great king who unified Israel and Judea. Did he really exist? Many scholars think or thought that David was mythical [but recent discoveries may have turned opinion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity): a scrap of stone from the 9th century BC mentioning a “king of the House of David”, a large wall excavated in Jerusalem, dateable by accompanying pottery to the time when Jerusalem was _either_ a small village _or_ housed a great King. > > I realize David lived 1000 years before Jesus, so evidence was much scanter. Even so, when the non-Biblical evid encefor the great hero-King David comprises only a piece of a wall and a stone fragment that mentions “House of David”, is it reasonable to argue that absence of evidence for Jesus is evidence of absence? the reason why people have a hard time finding bigfoot is because big foot uses a force field of invisibility. its true. because, after all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/74 "2014-10-01T09:57:32Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I think the authors point was, if, you had someone who regularly healed leprecy, blindness and other diseases, raised people from the dead and himself returned from the dead, and, finally, floated up to the heavens, that such extraordinary events would be recorded somewhere by someone That’s a perfectly reasonable argument. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/75 "2014-10-01T10:01:20Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > That’s a perfectly reasonable argument. Only if you ignore the fact that claims that he did these things date from 40 to 50 years after his supposed death. Claims that he lived at all, however, are much earlier. Scepticism about the later claim does not affect the credibility of the earlier claim. I can be sceptical about the claim that the infant George Washington chopped down a cherry tree without going to the extreme of denying that he was ever born. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/76 "2014-10-01T10:04:30Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Only if you ignore the fact that claims that he did these things date from 40 to 50 years after his supposed death. Claims that he lived at all, however, are much earlier. Scepticism about the later claim does not affect the credibility of the earlier claim. > > I can be sceptical about the claim that the infant George Washington chopped down a cherry tree without going to the extreme of denying that he was ever born. not the point. religious people want to assert the existence of jesus as a historical figure as an indisputable fact. well, they don’t get to make such claims, not without proof. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/77 "2014-10-01T10:13:39Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Because according to Paulkovich, if he _really did_ all that miraculous stuff, someone would have noticed and written about it. Look at an extreme example - if a bunch of dead Jews had risen from their graves and walked around Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified, that would have been noteworthy. Other miracles would have been noteworthy too, to a lesser extent. The existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth does not require that any particular alleged miracle, or any miracle whatsoever, actually occurred. If the more spectacular bits of the story are later accretions, what’s left is the account of a local rabble-rouser whose failure to make it into surviving secular histories is not at all surprising. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/78 "2014-10-01T10:18:49Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth does not require that any particular alleged miracle, or any miracle whatsoever, actually occurred. If the more spectacular bits of the story are later accretions, what’s left is the account of a local rabble-rouser whose failure to make it into surviving secular histories is not at all surprising. so basically, what you are saying is, disproving the existence of superman would not necessarily disprove the existence of clark kent… ? ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/79 "2014-10-01T10:19:36Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > religious people want to assert the existence of jesus as a historical figure as an indisputable fact. well, they don’t get to make such claims, not without proof. What about evidence? Will you take evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003/80 "2014-10-01T10:22:23Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > What about evidence? Will you take evidence? i’m quite interested in what you are gong to provide as evidence… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/review-finds-no-mention-of-christ-in-ancient-texts/700003.md?page=5)