5 ms·

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 s

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.
        dorchadas 8y ago
        Except Paul explicitly states he met James, brother of Jesus. And there's plenty of differences between how those documents are written and the ways myths are told. Try actually reading an introductory New Testament text, like Ehrman's (who himself is agnostic, and went through an atheist period), and you'll see.
        owens99 8y ago
        I have read many translations and interpretations of the actual text. There is significant debate about whether Paul is saying James is Jesus's biological brother. So this passage is far from rock solid evidence. Many experts believe Paul is referring to James's name/tagline as a preacher, "Brother of the Lord." Meaning James was not Jesus's biological brother, but metaphorical. Any priest today could say he is the brother of the lord in a metaphorical sense. The idea that Jesus had siblings does not make sense in and of itself. Overall, the evidence supporting Jesus as a historical person is very sparse and all evidence is contested (Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries, this example not mentioning James as a biological brother). One would think if he was living there would be many more examples to support it.
owens99 8y ago
This article explains why quite well: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924

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.
        dorchadas 8y ago
        Except Paul explicitly states he met James, brother of Jesus. And there's plenty of differences between how those documents are written and the ways myths are told. Try actually reading an introductory New Testament text, like Ehrman's (who himself is agnostic, and went through an atheist period), and you'll see.
        owens99 8y ago
        I have read many translations and interpretations of the actual text. There is significant debate about whether Paul is saying James is Jesus's biological brother. So this passage is far from rock solid evidence. Many experts believe Paul is referring to James's name/tagline as a preacher, "Brother of the Lord." Meaning James was not Jesus's biological brother, but metaphorical. Any priest today could say he is the brother of the lord in a metaphorical sense. The idea that Jesus had siblings does not make sense in and of itself. Overall, the evidence supporting Jesus as a historical person is very sparse and all evidence is contested (Josephus and Tacitus being forgeries, this example not mentioning James as a biological brother). One would think if he was living there would be many more examples to support it.

owens99 8y ago

This article explains why quite well: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924