V
Vox_Borealis
Guest
James Cody:
But your main point is well taken. Ultimately this is one of those irresolvable issues. There is as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for many other minor figures (and by this, I mean of little political importance at the time) in antiquity. We have four “official” accounts of his life dating to within 50-70 years or so of his death, as well as numerous noncanonical accounts of his life (mostly dating later). Moreover, the Gospel accounts are consistent with other literary and epigraphic evidence (references to Christians in Tacitus and Pliny, the reference to Jesus in Josephus, the possible mention of Christ (“Chrestus”) in Suetonius, literary and epigraphical evidence for Pontius Pilatus, etc.
However, if someone is so skeptical that he or she rejects the historicity of the Gospels completely–whether or not one believes Jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead–then all of the suporting evidence also crumbles. In other words, if the Gospels were just made up and Jesus was a fictional character concocted to “sell” some new cult, then the fact that Pliny mentions Christians does not prove the historicity of Jesus. All it proves is that by c. 110 people had bought the story of this fictional character.
I have little patience for this sort of hyper-skepticism, since it usually smacks of special pleading. There were many people in the ancient world, including pagans, who claimed to be or were reputed to be miracle workers. Some of them appear in no more than a single reference in some or other ancient source, but these same skeptics don’t usually argue that these figures did not exist (even if they disbelieve their supernatural abilities). Yet with Jesus we have a far stronger historical tradition and they insist its all part of some sinister conspiracy or flim-flam job.
Unfortunately, there is little we can do to change their minds if they reject completely and out of hand the strongest evidence for the historicity of Jesus–the actual accounts of his life.
Bad example–most credible scholars do not believe there was an historical individual named Homer who wrote the Iliad and the Odessey.
But your main point is well taken. Ultimately this is one of those irresolvable issues. There is as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for many other minor figures (and by this, I mean of little political importance at the time) in antiquity. We have four “official” accounts of his life dating to within 50-70 years or so of his death, as well as numerous noncanonical accounts of his life (mostly dating later). Moreover, the Gospel accounts are consistent with other literary and epigraphic evidence (references to Christians in Tacitus and Pliny, the reference to Jesus in Josephus, the possible mention of Christ (“Chrestus”) in Suetonius, literary and epigraphical evidence for Pontius Pilatus, etc.
However, if someone is so skeptical that he or she rejects the historicity of the Gospels completely–whether or not one believes Jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead–then all of the suporting evidence also crumbles. In other words, if the Gospels were just made up and Jesus was a fictional character concocted to “sell” some new cult, then the fact that Pliny mentions Christians does not prove the historicity of Jesus. All it proves is that by c. 110 people had bought the story of this fictional character.
I have little patience for this sort of hyper-skepticism, since it usually smacks of special pleading. There were many people in the ancient world, including pagans, who claimed to be or were reputed to be miracle workers. Some of them appear in no more than a single reference in some or other ancient source, but these same skeptics don’t usually argue that these figures did not exist (even if they disbelieve their supernatural abilities). Yet with Jesus we have a far stronger historical tradition and they insist its all part of some sinister conspiracy or flim-flam job.
Unfortunately, there is little we can do to change their minds if they reject completely and out of hand the strongest evidence for the historicity of Jesus–the actual accounts of his life.
