7 ms·

That seems to contradict the consensus among historians [1]: > Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of

That seems to contradict the consensus among historians [1]: > Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels. While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed. Can you point to where the podcast makes such a claim? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

malvosenior 8y ago
The whole podcast is dedicated to going over what historical evidence might exist that documents Jesus. Just as per your link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Sources) there were no sources that mention him until after his death during the first push for Christianity.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  There is no sources that mention many, many figures in Antiquity until after their deaths. And yet, no one disputes that, say, Heraclitus, Hesiod, Plautus, or some of the Ten Thousand’s generals existed. Why hold Jesus to a different standard?
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    > And yet, no one disputes that, say, Heraclitus, Hesiod, Plautus, or some of the Ten Thousand’s generals existed From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Life: "The main source for the life of Heraclitus is Diogenes Laërtius, although some have questioned the validity of his account as "a tissue of Hellenistic anecdotes, most of them obviously fabricated on the basis of statements in the preserved fragments"." Obviously some people do dispute the existence of these figures. If there is no proof that someone existed, it's safe to say their existence should be disputed.
    - Mediterraneo10 8y ago
      You misunderstand the debate around Heraclitus. Scholars dispute the biography attributed to him. Yet virtually no one disputes that the author of the fragments existed. Heraclitus in this regard is little different from e.g. Jaufre Rudel, to whom is also ascribed a biography that is probably largely fictional in spite of historians’ certainty that the poet himself existed.
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        Of course not all of these figures have the same amount of historical evidence to back them up. Jesus in particular has literally no evidence for existing other than from people with very vested interests in promoting his existence as the basis for their religion. If you can point to some evidence that suggests he actually did exist, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
        ZanyProgrammer 8y ago
        The burden is actually on you to go against the virtual entirety of professional historians.
        dorchadas 8y ago
        Not to mention that Jesus has more evidence to back up his historicity than most. Unless, of course, you just dismiss all of the Gospels and Pauline letters as not being evidence. And even then there still is quite a bit of evidence, really.
        owens99 8y ago
        Actually, nowhere in the Gospels or Pauline letters does it say Jesus was a living person. These documents are written in the same way as the stories of Hercules or any other mythological figure.
        8y ago
  - owens99 8y ago
    This article explains why quite well: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > there were no sources that mention him until after his death during the first push for Christianity. There are no known sources that do so; concluding that there were no such sources is unwarranted. The thing is that that isn't all that uncommon for figures that are less controversially historical (IIRC, the nearest to contemporary documentation for Socrates is writings of other philosophers probably dating from shortly after his death, mainly his students Plato and Xenophon, but also Aristotle and a couple others.) Even in ancient societies that were, comparatively, obsessive about documentation [0] the level of documentation was nothing like the modern developed world, and survival of documents over a couple of millenia is spotty, at best. [0] And while Rome proper might have been, Roman Judea was, AFAIK, not, particularly (or even particularly administratively stable.)
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    I don't doubt that record keeping was incomplete and that with great time passage, that any existing documentation may have been lost. That being said, since there is no known evidence of Jesus existing, it seems really strange and anti-academic to assume that he did.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > That being said, since there is no known evidence of Jesus existing That's untrue. There is plenty of evidence; there is no known contemporary (in the narrowest sense of “produced during his lifetime”) documentation, but that's not the only kind of evidence of a historical figure, and lots of historical figures are accepted as such without that form of evidence. > it seems really strange and anti-academic to assume that he did. It is really strange and anti-academic to adopt a higher standard of proof for the existence of Jesus than other ancient figures.
      - owens99 8y ago
        > There is plenty of evidence Such as? > but that's not the only kind of evidence of a historical figure, and lots of historical figures are accepted as such without that form of evidence This argument has been debunked pretty well: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 > It is really strange and anti-academic to adopt a higher standard of proof for the existence of Jesus than other ancient figures. See above.
- azeotropic 8y ago
  Given that the 'first push for Christianity' occurred immediately after Jesus' death, is this really a fair objection? The earliest manuscript fragment of the gospel of John dates to the first century. Josephus' Antiquites recounts the stoning of Jesus' brother James by the High Priest he would serve with in the Jewish Revolt. These are only one generation after Jesus' death. People who knew Jesus were still alive.
  - owens99 8y ago
    > Josephus' Antiquites recounts the stoning of Jesus' brother James by the High Priest he would serve with in the Jewish Revolt. The mention of James "brother of the Lord" does not actually refer to him as a biological brother. "Brother of the Lord" is believed to be the tagline/name for James as a priest. > These are only one generation after Jesus' death. Not true, the first source was born more than one full life-span later, making it two generations after. > People who knew Jesus were still alive. This is also not true. There is no evidence of this.
benatkin 8y ago
This is one of those times trusting Wikipedia is laughable. Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. No, really. Impressive, yes, but it's not correct 100% of the time. In fact sometimes it's crazy how wrong it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. Wikipedia is not (by design, one should note) an authority on anything. As a tertiary source, it summarizes and provided pointers to actual authority, when it's quality standards are being upheld. It is never more than that.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  The article I linked to is well-referenced. > Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. Are you attributing this view to me?
- anjbe 8y ago
  What, then, is the consensus view among New Testament scholars and Near East historians of the historicity of Jesus?
  - hughrlomas 8y ago
    What's the consensus view of homeopathy scholars on the efficacy of homeopathic "medicine"? A group of people with an agenda writing volumes of tautological speculation doesn't make it credible.
    - anjbe 8y ago
      > What's the consensus view of homeopathy scholars on the efficacy of homeopathic "medicine"? Near East historians have an agenda? News to me. What’s the proportion of Christians versus non‐Christians in that field? Even if that group is replete with biased theists (something you seem to be suggesting but haven’t presented any evidence for), surely there is some scholarly group whose views on historical science you can agree would be worth listening to. So what’s their consensus on the historicity of Jesus?
posterboy 8y ago
If you look closer at the wikipedia pages, all that historians agree on is that a guy called Jesus lived around the time. That's not very convincing to me. "virtually" is a weasel-word. Elsewhere the claim is even stronger, but surely not all historians of the ancient near east are experts on--or even care about--this highly specific matter. The basic claim rests on two documents, Tacitus' chronicles of Rome and Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written more than half a century after the fact, rewritten (copied) many times. Both rather refer to early Christians and their believes, viz. "brother of Jesus" and that they were persecuted for spreading lies. To quote from your link: "the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate." ... this solves nothing.

malvosenior 8y ago

The whole podcast is dedicated to going over what historical evidence might exist that documents Jesus. Just as per your link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Sources) there were no sources that mention him until after his death during the first push for Christianity.

Mediterraneo10 8y ago
There is no sources that mention many, many figures in Antiquity until after their deaths. And yet, no one disputes that, say, Heraclitus, Hesiod, Plautus, or some of the Ten Thousand’s generals existed. Why hold Jesus to a different standard?
- malvosenior 8y ago
  > And yet, no one disputes that, say, Heraclitus, Hesiod, Plautus, or some of the Ten Thousand’s generals existed From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Life: "The main source for the life of Heraclitus is Diogenes Laërtius, although some have questioned the validity of his account as "a tissue of Hellenistic anecdotes, most of them obviously fabricated on the basis of statements in the preserved fragments"." Obviously some people do dispute the existence of these figures. If there is no proof that someone existed, it's safe to say their existence should be disputed.
  - Mediterraneo10 8y ago
    You misunderstand the debate around Heraclitus. Scholars dispute the biography attributed to him. Yet virtually no one disputes that the author of the fragments existed. Heraclitus in this regard is little different from e.g. Jaufre Rudel, to whom is also ascribed a biography that is probably largely fictional in spite of historians’ certainty that the poet himself existed.
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      Of course not all of these figures have the same amount of historical evidence to back them up. Jesus in particular has literally no evidence for existing other than from people with very vested interests in promoting his existence as the basis for their religion. If you can point to some evidence that suggests he actually did exist, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
      - ZanyProgrammer 8y ago
        The burden is actually on you to go against the virtual entirety of professional historians.
        dorchadas 8y ago
        Not to mention that Jesus has more evidence to back up his historicity than most. Unless, of course, you just dismiss all of the Gospels and Pauline letters as not being evidence. And even then there still is quite a bit of evidence, really.
        owens99 8y ago
        Actually, nowhere in the Gospels or Pauline letters does it say Jesus was a living person. These documents are written in the same way as the stories of Hercules or any other mythological figure.
        8y ago
- owens99 8y ago
  This article explains why quite well: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924
dragonwriter 8y ago
> there were no sources that mention him until after his death during the first push for Christianity. There are no known sources that do so; concluding that there were no such sources is unwarranted. The thing is that that isn't all that uncommon for figures that are less controversially historical (IIRC, the nearest to contemporary documentation for Socrates is writings of other philosophers probably dating from shortly after his death, mainly his students Plato and Xenophon, but also Aristotle and a couple others.) Even in ancient societies that were, comparatively, obsessive about documentation [0] the level of documentation was nothing like the modern developed world, and survival of documents over a couple of millenia is spotty, at best. [0] And while Rome proper might have been, Roman Judea was, AFAIK, not, particularly (or even particularly administratively stable.)
- malvosenior 8y ago
  I don't doubt that record keeping was incomplete and that with great time passage, that any existing documentation may have been lost. That being said, since there is no known evidence of Jesus existing, it seems really strange and anti-academic to assume that he did.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > That being said, since there is no known evidence of Jesus existing That's untrue. There is plenty of evidence; there is no known contemporary (in the narrowest sense of “produced during his lifetime”) documentation, but that's not the only kind of evidence of a historical figure, and lots of historical figures are accepted as such without that form of evidence. > it seems really strange and anti-academic to assume that he did. It is really strange and anti-academic to adopt a higher standard of proof for the existence of Jesus than other ancient figures.
    - owens99 8y ago
      > There is plenty of evidence Such as? > but that's not the only kind of evidence of a historical figure, and lots of historical figures are accepted as such without that form of evidence This argument has been debunked pretty well: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 > It is really strange and anti-academic to adopt a higher standard of proof for the existence of Jesus than other ancient figures. See above.
azeotropic 8y ago
Given that the 'first push for Christianity' occurred immediately after Jesus' death, is this really a fair objection? The earliest manuscript fragment of the gospel of John dates to the first century. Josephus' Antiquites recounts the stoning of Jesus' brother James by the High Priest he would serve with in the Jewish Revolt. These are only one generation after Jesus' death. People who knew Jesus were still alive.
- owens99 8y ago
  > Josephus' Antiquites recounts the stoning of Jesus' brother James by the High Priest he would serve with in the Jewish Revolt. The mention of James "brother of the Lord" does not actually refer to him as a biological brother. "Brother of the Lord" is believed to be the tagline/name for James as a priest. > These are only one generation after Jesus' death. Not true, the first source was born more than one full life-span later, making it two generations after. > People who knew Jesus were still alive. This is also not true. There is no evidence of this.

benatkin 8y ago

This is one of those times trusting Wikipedia is laughable. Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. No, really. Impressive, yes, but it's not correct 100% of the time. In fact sometimes it's crazy how wrong it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi...

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. Wikipedia is not (by design, one should note) an authority on anything. As a tertiary source, it summarizes and provided pointers to actual authority, when it's quality standards are being upheld. It is never more than that.
antidesitter 8y ago
The article I linked to is well-referenced. > Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. Are you attributing this view to me?
anjbe 8y ago
What, then, is the consensus view among New Testament scholars and Near East historians of the historicity of Jesus?
- hughrlomas 8y ago
  What's the consensus view of homeopathy scholars on the efficacy of homeopathic "medicine"? A group of people with an agenda writing volumes of tautological speculation doesn't make it credible.
  - anjbe 8y ago
    > What's the consensus view of homeopathy scholars on the efficacy of homeopathic "medicine"? Near East historians have an agenda? News to me. What’s the proportion of Christians versus non‐Christians in that field? Even if that group is replete with biased theists (something you seem to be suggesting but haven’t presented any evidence for), surely there is some scholarly group whose views on historical science you can agree would be worth listening to. So what’s their consensus on the historicity of Jesus?

posterboy 8y ago

If you look closer at the wikipedia pages, all that historians agree on is that a guy called Jesus lived around the time. That's not very convincing to me. "virtually" is a weasel-word. Elsewhere the claim is even stronger, but surely not all historians of the ancient near east are experts on--or even care about--this highly specific matter. The basic claim rests on two documents, Tacitus' chronicles of Rome and Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written more than half a century after the fact, rewritten (copied) many times. Both rather refer to early Christians and their believes, viz. "brother of Jesus" and that they were persecuted for spreading lies. To quote from your link: "the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate." ... this solves nothing.