3 ms·

Pretty sure the historicity of Jesus is not a controversial subject in mainstream historical circles. To be sure, the theological arguments as to whether He is

Pretty sure the historicity of Jesus is not a controversial subject in mainstream historical circles. To be sure, the theological arguments as to whether He is the Son of God who will return to judge the quick and the dead, etc. etc. are a matter of religion, not history. But based on what I understand of the documentary evidence, it seems fairly well-accepted by reputable scholars that a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua or Jesus was born in Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, preached in the Holy Land, and then was crucified under Pontius Pilate. I'd take arguments to the contrary more or less in the same vein as "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," or any other kind of woo-woo Dan Brown-esque kookery.

alsetmusic 2y ago
Again, I won't litigate the arguments of the authors. I was on the same side of historical "fact" as you before reading the books I mentioned. They do a good job of explaining their cases. One that I'll mention so that this isn't an empty rebuttal: Remove the verse about Jesus from Josephus's "Antiquities of the Jews" and the narrative about Pilate makes much more sense. Seems like a later revision. Still, beyond that, there appear to be revisions within the revision. Rad verse 2 and 4 without the verse about Jesus at 3 and it's better flow. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/B... I'd have to crack "On the Historicity of Jesus," to cite the lines that the author believes were added there, but they included the bit about him being called Christ and some other section. The argument was sound, in my opinion. And it wasn't mentioned in the writings of whatever apologetic a century later when it would have been to their advantage (Origen? Again, I'd have to crack the book.) And not mentioned by Philo, despite his writing about the cruelty of Pilate. This is all quite weak coming from me and I'm sure there are good arguments against how I've presented this. But the authors do a commendable job of presenting their arguments and evidence. Final thought: anything that disputed this stance either had to be reinterpreted (Paul and contemporary epistles) to mean something other than what they said or the works were destroyed as heretical. The Qumran caves gave us evidence of this with a handful of works that only remained in existence there (so far as we know). Apologists reference many other heretical works that no longer exist and we'd not know they'd been written had they not been decried. Once again, posting without proofreading as I have an after-work obligation and I'm only home for a short time in between.
- zifpanachr23 2y ago
  No worries and thank you anyway for sharing. We may disagree but it's a well thought out post you made.
zifpanachr23 2y ago
It's not, but as a Christian they did post some sources they would like us to consult with and also said they didn't wanna litigate so I think that's okay. Occams razor says Jesus was probably a real person that developed a following and caused a big commotion. That seems to be the general consensus from secular historians as well (no Dan Brown stuff here). But the theory about Paul that they brought up is at least an interesting alternative despite me not being convinced right now that it's as likely. So I appreciate them putting the time and effort in to share. I'm a fan of HackerNews being open minded to less popular scientific or historical or religious theories so long as they aren't in totally obvious crank territory (and I don't think what they said is in that territory, it makes at least some amount of intuitive sense).

alsetmusic 2y ago

Again, I won't litigate the arguments of the authors. I was on the same side of historical "fact" as you before reading the books I mentioned. They do a good job of explaining their cases. One that I'll mention so that this isn't an empty rebuttal: Remove the verse about Jesus from Josephus's "Antiquities of the Jews" and the narrative about Pilate makes much more sense. Seems like a later revision. Still, beyond that, there appear to be revisions within the revision. Rad verse 2 and 4 without the verse about Jesus at 3 and it's better flow. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/B... I'd have to crack "On the Historicity of Jesus," to cite the lines that the author believes were added there, but they included the bit about him being called Christ and some other section. The argument was sound, in my opinion. And it wasn't mentioned in the writings of whatever apologetic a century later when it would have been to their advantage (Origen? Again, I'd have to crack the book.) And not mentioned by Philo, despite his writing about the cruelty of Pilate. This is all quite weak coming from me and I'm sure there are good arguments against how I've presented this. But the authors do a commendable job of presenting their arguments and evidence. Final thought: anything that disputed this stance either had to be reinterpreted (Paul and contemporary epistles) to mean something other than what they said or the works were destroyed as heretical. The Qumran caves gave us evidence of this with a handful of works that only remained in existence there (so far as we know). Apologists reference many other heretical works that no longer exist and we'd not know they'd been written had they not been decried. Once again, posting without proofreading as I have an after-work obligation and I'm only home for a short time in between.

zifpanachr23 2y ago
No worries and thank you anyway for sharing. We may disagree but it's a well thought out post you made.

zifpanachr23 2y ago

It's not, but as a Christian they did post some sources they would like us to consult with and also said they didn't wanna litigate so I think that's okay. Occams razor says Jesus was probably a real person that developed a following and caused a big commotion. That seems to be the general consensus from secular historians as well (no Dan Brown stuff here). But the theory about Paul that they brought up is at least an interesting alternative despite me not being convinced right now that it's as likely. So I appreciate them putting the time and effort in to share. I'm a fan of HackerNews being open minded to less popular scientific or historical or religious theories so long as they aren't in totally obvious crank territory (and I don't think what they said is in that territory, it makes at least some amount of intuitive sense).