3 ms·

That says more about historical consensus than about the existence of Jesus.

by tgv 4y ago

bllguo 4y ago
exactly what, pray tell, does it say about historical consensus?
- notahacker 4y ago
  That most of the historians involved in studying that period and forming that consensus were Christians (or Muslims) before they started... There's no particular reason to believe that a historical Jesus-figure didn't exist, but the attestations to his existence are the New Testament, written some decades after he is believed to have existed (generally believed to be based on a single document which has been lost despite its obvious significance to early Christians), a couple of secular Roman references to him as the figure the Christian cult was centred on also written some decades later, and a couple of lines in Antiquities of the Jews whose wording varies greatly depending on which of the much later copies you read... On the one hand, that's more attestations to his existence than most of the people who lived in classical antiquity. On the other hand, we have plenty of references to the angel Moroni that Joseph Smith met from a wider variety of sources written within a few decades of the meeting supposedly taking place, and I'm still completely comfortable doubting that the angel Moroni was a real historical figure.
  - bllguo 4y ago
    compiling an argument that Jesus did not exist seems like one of the most obvious routes to take for a nonbeliever seeking to discredit Abrahamic religions, so I hardly think the historicity of Jesus is something of interest only to religious historians. Not to mention the significance of Christianity in Roman history - or do you also claim little non-Christian representation among scholars of Rome? and your final comments seem like a disingenuous comparison when you yourself point out the difference in standards we have when talking about the existence of figures in ancient history vs. the 19th century
    - notahacker 4y ago
      > compiling an argument that Jesus did not exist seems like one of the most obvious routes to take for a nonbeliever seeking to discredit Abrahamic religions, so I hardly think the historicity of Jesus is something of interest only to religious historians. There are more obvious routes to discrediting religious belief systems than searching for definitive proof that a particular individual 2000 years ago definitely didn't exist, something experts on the period would struggle to prove conclusively for Brian the Very Naughty Boy! The argument works better flipped on its head: proving the existence of the historical Jesus is of the utmost importance to the predominant belief systems of the Western World that preserved, transcribed or found the historical records throughout most of history and founded the academic institutions that studied them, and they believe his impact upon humanity was seismic. So far, they haven't found a single contemporary textual reference to his existence but have managed to allow the earliest and most detailed known source describing him to slip out of existence, and adulterate what might have been the most impressive secular reference to his existence. And all the purported physical evidence of his existence in the form of "holy relics" that have been scrutinised have failed the test Absence of primary source material or detailed secular accounts is not evidence of absence of the historical Jesus, but it is evidence that the "historical consensus" really doesn't have much to go on, and consists mostly of people with a keen interest in Biblical texts (apart from the New Testament there's not much evidence to study) not finding anything that particularly conflicts with their faith. > your final comments seem like a disingenuous comparison when you yourself point out the difference in standards we have when talking about the existence of figures in ancient history vs. the 19th century The difference in standards we have means we can't conclusively prove that minor historical figures referred to in legends did or didn't exist, not that we must abandon scepticism about religious texts and others' references to them if the belief is much older. Seems a bit disingenuous to accuse someone of making a "disingenuous comparison" whilst you yourself point out that I explicitly acknowledged the differences...
      - bllguo 4y ago
        I do not dispute that there are more obvious routes, nor that this is a topic of significant interest to believers. But I difficult for me to believe that secular historians have overwhelmingly less interest in the subject to the point where if there _were_ more representation, there would not be such a consensus. Or that there is some religious/secular split in opinion on this issue. > Seems a bit disingenuous... I'm more confused as to why you made this comparison right after poking holes in this argumentation
- tgv 4y ago
  Well, the evidence is pretty thin (and people have been looking hard, everywhere), and isn't necessarily even about the same person. Strong claims require strong evidence. If that is consensus on the historical existence of Biblical Jesus (because that's what the discussion is about, not some random dude who happened to be named Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus), it would make one lose faith. In history as an academic discipline.
  - Veen 4y ago
    The evidence for Jesus's existence is about as strong as for any individual of the era, excepting some very prominent Romans. The standards of evidence for ancient history are necessarily somewhat looser than for modern history because so much evidence has been lost over the years. (There's really little point discussing stuff like this in vague generalities. If you aren't knowledgable enough to talk about the specific evidence and arguments ancient historians use, you can't expect to reach a conclusion anyone should take seriously).

That says more about historical consensus than about the existence of Jesus.

by tgv 4y ago

That says more about historical consensus than about the existence of Jesus.

bllguo 4y ago

exactly what, pray tell, does it say about historical consensus?

notahacker 4y ago
That most of the historians involved in studying that period and forming that consensus were Christians (or Muslims) before they started... There's no particular reason to believe that a historical Jesus-figure didn't exist, but the attestations to his existence are the New Testament, written some decades after he is believed to have existed (generally believed to be based on a single document which has been lost despite its obvious significance to early Christians), a couple of secular Roman references to him as the figure the Christian cult was centred on also written some decades later, and a couple of lines in Antiquities of the Jews whose wording varies greatly depending on which of the much later copies you read... On the one hand, that's more attestations to his existence than most of the people who lived in classical antiquity. On the other hand, we have plenty of references to the angel Moroni that Joseph Smith met from a wider variety of sources written within a few decades of the meeting supposedly taking place, and I'm still completely comfortable doubting that the angel Moroni was a real historical figure.
- bllguo 4y ago
  compiling an argument that Jesus did not exist seems like one of the most obvious routes to take for a nonbeliever seeking to discredit Abrahamic religions, so I hardly think the historicity of Jesus is something of interest only to religious historians. Not to mention the significance of Christianity in Roman history - or do you also claim little non-Christian representation among scholars of Rome? and your final comments seem like a disingenuous comparison when you yourself point out the difference in standards we have when talking about the existence of figures in ancient history vs. the 19th century
  - notahacker 4y ago
    > compiling an argument that Jesus did not exist seems like one of the most obvious routes to take for a nonbeliever seeking to discredit Abrahamic religions, so I hardly think the historicity of Jesus is something of interest only to religious historians. There are more obvious routes to discrediting religious belief systems than searching for definitive proof that a particular individual 2000 years ago definitely didn't exist, something experts on the period would struggle to prove conclusively for Brian the Very Naughty Boy! The argument works better flipped on its head: proving the existence of the historical Jesus is of the utmost importance to the predominant belief systems of the Western World that preserved, transcribed or found the historical records throughout most of history and founded the academic institutions that studied them, and they believe his impact upon humanity was seismic. So far, they haven't found a single contemporary textual reference to his existence but have managed to allow the earliest and most detailed known source describing him to slip out of existence, and adulterate what might have been the most impressive secular reference to his existence. And all the purported physical evidence of his existence in the form of "holy relics" that have been scrutinised have failed the test Absence of primary source material or detailed secular accounts is not evidence of absence of the historical Jesus, but it is evidence that the "historical consensus" really doesn't have much to go on, and consists mostly of people with a keen interest in Biblical texts (apart from the New Testament there's not much evidence to study) not finding anything that particularly conflicts with their faith. > your final comments seem like a disingenuous comparison when you yourself point out the difference in standards we have when talking about the existence of figures in ancient history vs. the 19th century The difference in standards we have means we can't conclusively prove that minor historical figures referred to in legends did or didn't exist, not that we must abandon scepticism about religious texts and others' references to them if the belief is much older. Seems a bit disingenuous to accuse someone of making a "disingenuous comparison" whilst you yourself point out that I explicitly acknowledged the differences...
    - bllguo 4y ago
      I do not dispute that there are more obvious routes, nor that this is a topic of significant interest to believers. But I difficult for me to believe that secular historians have overwhelmingly less interest in the subject to the point where if there _were_ more representation, there would not be such a consensus. Or that there is some religious/secular split in opinion on this issue. > Seems a bit disingenuous... I'm more confused as to why you made this comparison right after poking holes in this argumentation
tgv 4y ago
Well, the evidence is pretty thin (and people have been looking hard, everywhere), and isn't necessarily even about the same person. Strong claims require strong evidence. If that is consensus on the historical existence of Biblical Jesus (because that's what the discussion is about, not some random dude who happened to be named Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus), it would make one lose faith. In history as an academic discipline.
- Veen 4y ago
  The evidence for Jesus's existence is about as strong as for any individual of the era, excepting some very prominent Romans. The standards of evidence for ancient history are necessarily somewhat looser than for modern history because so much evidence has been lost over the years. (There's really little point discussing stuff like this in vague generalities. If you aren't knowledgable enough to talk about the specific evidence and arguments ancient historians use, you can't expect to reach a conclusion anyone should take seriously).