Historical Proofs for the Existence of Jesus

[Linusthe2nd]

strangenotions.com/did-jesus-exist-an-alternate-approach/

Jimmy Akin has a very interesting article dealing with historical proofs for the existence of Jesus. Here is just a bit of it. Well worth reading.

" References to Christianity
Instead of looking, in the first instance, for references to Jesus, we can look at references to the Christian movement itself and see what we can learn about it.

Of course, the same sources that refer to Jesus tend to refer to the Christian movement. That means that we can quickly establish a number of quite early references to Christianity.

It is mentioned by:

◦Suetonius, writing around A.D. 121
◦Tacitus, writing around A.D. 116
◦Pliny the Younger, writing in A.D. 110 or 111
◦The Emperor Trajan, writing back to Pliny in A.D. 110 or 111
◦And Josephus, writing around A.D. 93
The inclusion of Josephus in this list is not dependent on the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in his Antiquities 18:3:3.

Even setting aside that reference, which is partially corrupted, Josephus elsewhere refers to Jesus having followers (noting that he “was called Christ”) in a passage for which we have no evidence of manuscript corruption (Antiquities 20:9:1).

We thus have multiple references for the existence of a Christian movement that date to the end of the first century and the beginning of the second. "

Linus2nd

 

[LisaA]

Also the histories and writings were done very proximate to the time Christ was on earth. Many other well respected historical accounts were written hundreds of years AFTER the event and with a story passed through several hands. Presumably much of the NT came from direct contact with Christ’s disciples.

It’s always entertaining to ask a skeptic how long after certain events were there historical writings and compare this to the few decades between Chrsit’s death and many of the NT books.

Lisa

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Is there a rational movement that solidly denies this?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Is there a rational movement that solidly denies this?

Not sure what you mean? The article makes it clear that there are many who deny this evidence. It is merely making the point that there is evidence which support the historical fact of Christ’s existence.

Linus2nd

 

[cornbread_r2]

I don’t see how the existence of the Christian movement – no matter how widespread, no matter how organized, no matter how many followers – proves the Earthly existence of its founder, Jesus. A mystical figure existing in a spiritual realm can inspire movements with all of those attributes as well, e.g. the angel, Moroni.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t see how the existence of the Christian movement – no matter how widespread, no matter how organized, no matter how many followers – proves the Earthly existence of its founder, Jesus. A mystical figure existing in a spiritual realm can inspire movements with all of those attributes as well, e.g. the angel, Moroni.

There is no evidence for the " Angel Maroni " or of the Angel Gabrial appearing to Muhammed comared to that for Jesus Christ. For Christ we have thousands of witnesses of unimpeachable character from the very beginning. Christ appeared to thousands and thousands who witnesses His miracles. Further, His coming was widely foretold in the Jewish Scriptures, as was his birth to a virgin and that He would come in power and that He would take our sins upon Himself and that He would be the Son of the Most high.

And the success of the Christian movement has never depended on force of arms.

Your comparison pales.

Linus2nd

 

[LisaA]

I don’t see how the existence of the Christian movement – no matter how widespread, no matter how organized, no matter how many followers – proves the Earthly existence of its founder, Jesus. A mystical figure existing in a spiritual realm can inspire movements with all of those attributes as well, e.g. the angel, Moroni.

Did you read the list of VERY credible historians who made specific reference to the existence of Jesus? Apparently not. Do you know of any credible modern historians who debunk the writings of such as Josephus? Are you aware of how close in time the writings of the New Testament vis a vis the historical reports of other great events? There is nothing comparable.

As a former resident of SLC and friend to a number of LDS, I assure you that there is not a fraction of evidence for Moroni, the white salamander or the tablets Joseph Smith claims he found.

Not a particularly good analogy. Do you have anything else?

Lisa

 

[cornbread_r2]

There is no evidence for the " Angel Maroni " or of the Angel Gabrial appearing to Muhammed comared to that for Jesus Christ. For Christ we have thousands of witnesses of unimpeachable character from the very beginning. Christ appeared to thousands and thousands who witnesses His miracles. Further, His coming was widely foretold in the Jewish Scriptures, as was his birth to a virgin and that He would come in power and that He would take our sins upon Himself and that He would be the Son of the Most high.

And the success of the Christian movement has never depended on force of arms.

Your comparison pales.

Linus2nd

Did you read the list of VERY credible historians who made specific reference to the existence of Jesus? Apparently not. Do you know of any credible modern historians who debunk the writings of such as Josephus? Are you aware of how close in time the writings of the New Testament vis a vis the historical reports of other great events? There is nothing comparable.

As a former resident of SLC and friend to a number of LDS, I assure you that there is not a fraction of evidence for Moroni, the white salamander or the tablets Joseph Smith claims he found.

Not a particularly good analogy. Do you have anything else?

Lisa

The only point I was attempting to make was that even if the conditions Akin cites can be used to prove that a religious movement had a founding figure, they can’t be used to prove that that founding figure was necessarily a figure who walked the Earth. To support that contention, I note that all of the conditions Akin cites for the Christian movement (leaders, organization, evangelism, geographical spread, mention by historians, etc.) also apply to Mormonism. In the case of Mormonism however, that founding figure, the angel Moroni, was a spiritual figure and didn’t walk the Earth (at least not at Mormonism’s inception). Consequently, that argument apparently won’t work against some of the modern hypotheses of Jesus mythicism since they posit a spiritual founding figure who, like Moroni, was known to his followers through the scriptures, visions and revelation.

---

In regards to the historians who mention Christ and/or Christianity, you may want to reread Akin’s article as to why those references are problematic. He, like many other apologists, speculates that those references may be based on official Roman records of some sort, but like those others he can’t actually point to any such records to move that point beyond mere speculation.

In regards to Josephus, Akin again follows the typical apologetic explanation that even though some of the passage regarding Christ may be a later Christian addition, there still may be something of an authentic passage that may be salvaged. It’s been my experience that that argument doesn’t get much traction outside apologetic circles.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The only point I was attempting to make was that even if the conditions Akin cites can be used to prove that a religious movement had a founding figure, they can’t be used to prove that that founding figure was necessarily a figure who walked the Earth. To support that contention, I note that all of the conditions Akin cites for the Christian movement (leaders, organization, evangelism, geographical spread, mention by historians, etc.) also apply to Mormonism. In the case of Mormonism however, that founding figure, the angel Moroni, was a spiritual figure and didn’t walk the Earth (at least not at Mormonism’s inception). Consequently, that argument apparently won’t work against some of the modern hypotheses of Jesus mythicism since they posit a spiritual founding figure who, like Moroni, was known to his followers through the scriptures, visions and revelation.

---

In regards to the historians who mention Christ and/or Christianity, you may want to reread Akin’s article as to why those references are problematic. He, like many other apologists, speculates that those references may be based on official Roman records of some sort, but like those others he can’t actually point to any such records to move that point beyond mere speculation.

In regards to Josephus, Akin again follows the typical apologetic explanation that even though some of the passage regarding Christ may be a later Christian addition, there still may be something of an authentic passage that may be salvaged. It’s been my experience that that argument doesn’t get much traction outside apologetic circles.

In my view there is no comparison. But note that Akin is just trying to point out that there are ancient documents that testify to the existence of a man called Jesus known as the Christ. He does not claim that these demonstrate the Divinity of Christ. For that I personally think the Scriptures are sufficient. It is beyond credibility, in my opinion, that the Scriptures are the result of mere human contrivance.

Linus2nd

 

[Ethan_Kershner]

Of course Jesus existed; hardly anyone doubts that.

What is really doubted is the miracles he supposedly preformed, considering there are only a few accounts of those miracles, which were recorded hundreds of years after Jesus was even around.

 

[Lochias]

Of course Jesus existed; hardly anyone doubts that.

What is really doubted is the miracles he supposedly preformed, considering there are only a few accounts of those miracles, which were recorded hundreds of years after Jesus was even around.

I find it a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that Jesus would have gained the following (and notoriety) he did without the ability to demonstrate who he was.

A little nobody with nothing special going on doesn’t garner the kind of attention that Christ did. That’s just logic.

 

[Ethan_Kershner]

I find it a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that Jesus would have gained the following (and notoriety) he did without the ability to demonstrate who he was.

A little nobody with nothing special going on doesn’t garner the kind of attention that Christ did. That’s just logic.

Hitler? Or now did he do miracles. Also, 1000s of other man/deities are supposed to have preform miracles and have gained as much following.

 

[Lochias]

Hitler? Or now did he do miracles. Also, 1000s of other man/deities are supposed to have preform miracles and have gained as much following.

Hitler was the leader of a country. Jesus was an unknown son of a carpenter. Your comparison doesn’t work.

The rest is a red herring; you’re trying to prove that Jesus didn’t perform any miracles, not show how many others have or have not performed them. Let’s stick with it, here.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Of course Jesus existed; hardly anyone doubts that.

What is really doubted is the miracles he supposedly preformed, considering there are only a few accounts of those miracles, which were recorded hundreds of years after Jesus was even around.

Of course there are only a few accounts of them. The authors of the New Testament were too busy to write. It didn’t occur to them that it was necessary that they do so. One reason was that they were convinced that the Second Coming was just around the corner. But withing the New Testament itself there are references to thousands of witnesses. Most of whom were common people who were uneducated. Only the higher classes could read and write and most of these were the very Jews who rejected Jesus and persecuted both Him and His followers.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t see how the existence of the Christian movement – no matter how widespread, no matter how organized, no matter how many followers – proves the Earthly existence of its founder, Jesus. A mystical figure existing in a spiritual realm can inspire movements with all of those attributes as well, e.g. the angel, Moroni.

The problem with this is that the claims about Jesus were historical and not “mythical.” His life, works, trial, crucifixion, empty tomb and resurrection appearances were claimed to have happened within the lifetime of those who were in a position to debunk all of the claims, yet no where does contradictory evidence exist to cast reasonable doubt on the claims.

The Gospel was proclaimed in words and deeds soon after Jesus’ life and death - and in writing shortly thereafter - within a time that individuals who could have debunked such outrageous claims could easily have done so, but no one did. Why not? It should have been an easy task within those few years to question the miracle claims, the trial, the crucifixion, the empty tomb, etc., especially when the Early Church posed a threat to those with the means and power to show the historical claims could not have been true - the Jewish Sanhedrin and Roman authorities. No counter evidence of the kind exists.

 

[cornbread_r2]

The problem with this is that the claims about Jesus were historical and not “mythical.” His life, works, trial, crucifixion, empty tomb and resurrection appearances were claimed to have happened within the lifetime of those who were in a position to debunk all of the claims, yet no where does contradictory evidence exist to cast reasonable doubt on the claims.

The Gospel was proclaimed in words and deeds soon after Jesus’ life and death - and in writing shortly thereafter - within a time that individuals who could have debunked such outrageous claims could easily have done so, but no one did. Why not? It should have been an easy task within those few years to question the miracle claims, the trial, the crucifixion, the empty tomb, etc., especially when the Early Church posed a threat to those with the means and power to show the historical claims could not have been true - the Jewish Sanhedrin and Roman authorities. No counter evidence of the kind exists.

Your argument restated as I see it:

P1 - The events recorded in the Gospels actually happened.

P2 - There is no extant evidence that anyone proved that those events didn’t happen.

C1 - Therefore those events actually happened.

---

Rather than make a hash of an existing rebuttal of these and other objections, I offer Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?, by Richard Carrier. See especially chapters 7 and 13 of this work.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your argument restated as I see it:

P1 - The events recorded in the Gospels actually happened.

P2 - There is no extant evidence that anyone proved that those events didn’t happen.

C1 - Therefore those events actually happened.

---

Rather than make a hash of an existing rebuttal of these and other objections, I offer Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?, by Richard Carrier. See especially chapters 7 and 13 of this work.

Actually, my argument is more like:

P1 - The events recorded in the Gospels were claimed to have been historical and recorded as such by credible authors.

P2 - There lived, at the time the Gospels were written, a number of invested parties who were antagonistic to the Gospel message who had the means, motives and opportunities, and who held positions of influential power who could have easily demonstrated that the events in the Gospels were not historical.

P3 - There is no extant evidence from any of these antagonistic parties that prove or even attempt to prove that the Gospel events didn’t happen.

C1 - Therefore there is a strong prima facie case to accept, barring evidence otherwise, that key events in the Gospels actually did happen based upon the otherwise credible eyewitness statements contained in the Gospels.

 

[Peter_Plato]

---

Rather than make a hash of an existing rebuttal of these and other objections, I offer Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?, by Richard Carrier. See especially chapters 7 and 13 of this work.

You do realize that Richard Carrier is far out on a limb with his claims relative to a mythical interpretation of the origins of Christianity.

The fact that you have bought into his claims holus bolus is a further indicator that serious scholarship is not your intent. Carrier’s work has been seriously contended by many scholars even those such as Bart Ehrman who is far from sympathetic to Christian claims.

I’ll see your Carrier and raise you an Ehrman!

ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

 

[cornbread_r2]

Actually, my argument is more like:

P1 - The events recorded in the Gospels were claimed to have been historical and recorded as such by credible authors.

As I understand it, we don’t know who wrote the gospels, when they were written and, most importantly, why they were written or how they were intended to be read.

More than a few respected Bible scholars, including some Catholics, posit that the gospels are a form of midrash, or an allegorical retelling of OT themes, intended for theological and not historical purposes and would have been understood as such by 1st century readers familiar with those forms.

It therefore seems premature to claim that the anonymous authors were credible historians attempting to write history as we understand that field of study.

P2 - There lived, at the time the Gospels were written, a number of invested parties who were antagonistic to the Gospel message who had the means, motives and opportunities, and who held positions of influential power who could have easily demonstrated that the events in the Gospels were not historical.

Most bible scholars accept that the first gospel was composed about 65 AD. Further, there is no indisputable evidence that all of the gospels were in wide circulation before the middle of the 2nd century. If those things are true, it does not follow that anyone could have easily proven that events didn’t occur many decades after the events were alleged to have occurred.

P3 - There is no extant evidence from any of these antagonistic parties that prove or even attempt to prove that the Gospel events didn’t happen.

This assumes that we have all of the writings of the alleged antagonistic parties to review and that credible counter evidence was allowed to survive. Also assumes that the gospel claims were regarded as being real historical events (see response to P1) that needed to be refuted. Further assumes that the miniscule, fringe 1st century Christian movement warranted a sustained investigation and a published refutation of its claims.

C1 - Therefore there is a strong prima facie case to accept, barring evidence otherwise, that key events in the Gospels actually did happen based upon the otherwise credible eyewitness statements contained in the Gospels.

Obviously, I don’t agree. I note also that the “credible authors” in P1 have also now become credible eyewitnesses which, of course, is also something that has not been established.

 

[cornbread_r2]

You do realize that Richard Carrier is far out on a limb with his claims relative to a mythical interpretation of the origins of Christianity.

The fact that you have bought into his claims holus bolus is a further indicator that serious scholarship is not your intent. Carrier’s work has been seriously contended by many scholars even those such as Bart Ehrman who is far from sympathetic to Christian claims.

I’ll see your Carrier and raise you an Ehrman!

ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

Aside from the fact that your linked article has nothing in particular to do with the topic under discussion, I’ll note that in that exchange between Ehrman and Carrier, Carrier appears to have gotten more of the facts correct. I’ll also note that it’s more than a little odd that in a discussion on the historical reliability of the gospels you would choose to reference a scholar who has made a career of demonstrating that the gospels are unreliable as history.

It has been observed that not only are many of the elements of the better mythicists’ arguments not contended by many bible scholars, they are actually supported by many of those scholars’ own works and it is only when mythicists draw the conclusion that the gospel Jesus of Nazareth did not exist that the axes are brought out.

I have a much lower tolerance for insult and ad hominem than some on these forums so I’ll be declining to respond further to your offerings.

Have a good one.