Evidence for Historical Figures

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vietnatalians
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vietnatalians

Guest
I’ve been talking to some people that are pretty adamant about Jesus not existing. I know there are people that believe there is ample evidence to support his existence, and there are some who say there is not enough credible evidence to support it. So here’s my question… Is there a widely accepted list of criteria that historians use to determine the actual existence of a historical figure that supposedly lived 2000 or more years ago? Any help, especially with references, would be appreciated.
~Steve~
 
Thanks for the response. I was not looking for the evidence for Jesus though. I’ve been surfing around and finding much of the same things. Josephus, Tacitus, etc. What I’m looking for is a secular, non-biased, method that historians use to determine whether someone existed or not. Does that make sense? What I would like to show these people that their criteria for “proof” of Jesus’ existence is not widely accepted among non-biased historians. Again, thank you for the timely response.
~Steve~
 
two eye witnesses? Because they keep saying we don’t have that for Jesus. The new testament was all written to late.
 
40.png
Vietnatalians:
two eye witnesses? Because they keep saying we don’t have that for Jesus. The new testament was all written to late.
Click to expand...
Two eyewitnesses not written witnesses.

However, the two evangelists were eyewitnesses and wrote it down.

The Gospels are Historical
 
Ask them if they believe the WWII Holocaust really happened. Did we really land on the moon? Some people won’t believe anything.
 
This is from another thread and it is a legitimate question to ask how much evidence is needed to establish a historical figure. However the problem is “the people that are pretty adamant about Jesus not existing.” What they *should * say is that there is not enough historical evidence to make Jesus’ existence a slam-dunk like a=b, b=c, therefore a=c. That is very different than saying triumphally that he didn’t exist. If they were fair they would at least grant it as a possiblity rather than just making dogmatic pronouncements.

The historical evidence for Jesus’ existence may have difficulties, but as they say 10,000 difficulties do not add up to a single doubt. Doubt is an act of the will, not the intellect.

To answer the basic question, I am not aware of any universal historian’s criteria for establishing a historical figure’s existence. Historians basically try to answer three questions:
  1. What do we know? (Sources, documentation, archeological evidence)
  2. What can be reasonably inferred from what we know?
  3. What can we never know?
The amount of evidence you opponents wish to throw out would render virtually all ancient history impossible. You are dealing with radical skeptics, not historians.
 
40.png
Vietnatalians:
Thanks for the response. I was not looking for the evidence for Jesus though. I’ve been surfing around and finding much of the same things. Josephus, Tacitus, etc.
Click to expand...
I would think Josephus would be un-biased being a Jew and not a Christian. He would LOVE to have been able to prove that all those crazy fish-lovers were chasing after a false man-god.

Notworthy
 
I am much more certain about Jesus’ existence than my own. I have no historical sources to prove the existence of my great-grandparents much less anything further back. So there’s no proof my ancestors existed.

But seriously, the gospels themselves are reliable history, and much more than we have on comparable public figures of the time, such as Julius Caesar. There is an enormous amount of history of the church, beginning with the new testament writings and the apostolic fathers. It is unlikely that there would be this much material concerning a person who never existed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top