The Jesus of History Probably Existed - C

================== No Direct Eye Witnesses ================== Inquiretruth asks why we don't have traditions that assert different authors of the NT gospels than the ones attributed to them today. While that may be an interesting question to speculate on, it doesn't add any historical credibility to the attributions made by Papias in the 2nd century. Questions like this are an attempt at misdirection which can only lead to avenues of speculation and not historical evidence. He asks me to show extant manuscripts without the title which of course I cannot because the oldest version of the manuscripts available are post-Papias and therefore conform to his attributions. He asks me to deny the historicity of Alexander and other historical figures. While this, again, might be an interesting discussion, it doesn't add historical evidence to the question of Jesus and is another attempt at misdirection. In short, he has not provided any historical evidence to support Papias' attributions. He has also not denied by position that most scholars do not believe the NT gospels are direct eyewitness accounts (1). We must accept, therefore, that the NT gospels are written anonymously; that we have no hard evidence as to who the authors were; and we certainly cannot claim they are direct eyewitness accounts. ================== The Argument From Silence ================== My opponent claims the reason none of the scholars or historians living in and around Judea in the early 1st century wrote about Jesus was because he "was not a huge name during his lifetime". Considering the claims made in his name by the NT gospels - that he magically healed the sick, walked on water, multiplied fishes and loaves, raised the dead(! ) and, most importantly, claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, I find it beyond comprehension that at least the Jewish scholars of the day didn't mention his feats or his claims. Anyone claiming to be the Jewish Messiah who could also demonstrate unlimited magical powers would have attracted the attention of the Jewish scholars. In fact, isn't that why the NT claims he was executed? Because he offended the Jewish leadership of the day? Yet none of their historian mentioned him, not one word. ================== The Case of Tacitus ================== My opponent hasn't provided any response to my previous questions: 1. No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus. Why not? 2. Why do Tacitus' words first appear in Severus, copied almost word for word but without attribution? 3. The "scribal mistake" referred to is in our oldest extant copy of Tacitus and therefore the one that all other copies are likely to be based upon. As I mentioned earlier, the fraudulent reference to Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum is evidence that early Christians were prepared to doctor historical documents in order to bolster their case for a historical Jesus. We must acknowledge this when assessing the validity of any other document which has questions around it's authenticity. ================== The Case of Josephus ================== Again, we have undisputed proof that early Christians deliberately altered non-Christian documents in order to bolster their case for a historical Jesus. There is no reason to suspect they wouldn't have also added clauses to documents written by people known to be antagonistic to Christianity for the same reasons. Adding positive references to those documents would have been obviously fake, so it makes sense that the references are critical. As with the TF, the early Christians only motivation would have been to bolster the historicity argument. We have to wonder why they felt the need to fake documents if there was already existing proof? As I mentioned previously, the oldest versions we have of Josephus date from around 1000CE, so it is no surprise that all copies already show the Christian section. If it was doctored into the original document in the 4th century, all copies produce in 1000CE would already contain it. ================== Extrabiblical Accounts ================== My opponent claims that "Since the Bible is consistent in representing history and geography correctly, it stands to reason that it makes correct historical assertions regarding the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. " Would he also make the same claims about The Iliad by Homer? Historians have now decided that Troy and Athens were actual historical places and many believe the Trojan War is historical. Does it stand then that my opponent also then believes that Achilles was immortal except for his heel and was assisted in battle by the Athena? ================== Insufficient Time ================== My opponent still misses the point. If Jesus was not a historical character, then he HAD no actual date of death and therefore there is an indefinite amount of time for the mythology to develop. As we don't have a single direct eyewitness account of him AT ALL, the "insufficient time" excuse is completely invalid. It's like arguing there wasn't enough time between the death of Darth Vader for the filming of Star Wars to be mythology. A mythological character HAS no date of death to be used as a reference point. ================== The Rule of Parsimony ================== My opponent writes a list of "more probables" but they are pure speculation and none of them contradict the evidence presented earlier. We have no direct eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus' life and many of the details reflect other mythological figures. If it looks like a mystery cult and it smells like a mystery cult, and there is no firsthand eyewitness evidence to the contrary, then it probably *is* a mystery cult. ================== Comparisons with Mediterranean mystery religions ================== My opponent asks me to list details of the many parallels between Christianity and other Mediterranean mystery cults that preceded it. I actually provided a reference to a Christian-friendly comparison in my last response but will provide it again here for easy reference (2). I would add to this list, as I did in my previous response, the story contained in the Talmud of Yeshu Ben Pandera (3). ================== Conclusion ================== I feel confident in repeating my previous conclusion as my opponent has not refuted a single point. All he has done is speculate that the NT gospels *might* be genuine accounts of eyewitness testimony and that later historians *might* have had access to more data than we do to verify these accounts. Unfortunately, the bottom line today is that we do *not* have any hard evidence to verify Jesus' existence. We can only speculate and while that is good enough for people of "faith", it does not make for very good history. Here, again, are the basic facts as I understand them: 1. Not a single firsthand eyewitness account of Jesus exists. 2. Not a single contemporary account of Jesus exists. 3. The majority of historians writing in and around Judea in the 1st century make no mention of Jesus. 4. The few historians who do seem to mention him are either proven frauds or suspect. 5. The details of Jesus' life and his deeds are paralleled in the story of many other mystery gods that predated or co-existed with him. 6. Logic states that if it looks like a mystery cult and it smells like a mystery cult, and there is no firsthand eyewitness evidence to the contrary, then it probably *is* a mystery cult. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.bringyou.to... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...