What is the actual evidence for the existence of Jesus?

[Longfellow]

I am simply making the point that you are making two claims that appear contradictory.

You present Jesus as someone who was well-known for performing miracles and attracted large crwods and performed miracles in front of them. People heard about what he had done and sought him out to ask for miracles themselves, which he would do.

You also present Jesus as a nobody who wasn't worth being recorded by any historians at the time he actually lived.

These are quite contradictory.

That doesn't answer my question. Do you think that if people in that area at that time were claiming that someone was doing those miracles, no matter if he really was doing them or not, do you think that if people in that area at that time were saying that, that we would have documents or artifacts today from that area at that time, naming that person? If that's what you think, what are your reasons for thinking that?

If that were true, if we had documents or artifacts from that area at that time, naming every person that people thought was doing miracles, there would be more than one, possibly many of them, and very likely more than one named Jesus, so it wouldn't actually prove anything about the Jesus of Christianity.

 

[Kylie]

Well that's my reasoned view, so take it or leave it.

That's fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion.

However, I will expect you support your claim that there is "strong evidence" for Jesus.

Nevertheless, your particular argument is still classed as a fallacy.

But that in itself is not enough to show that I am wrong.

Isn't that strong enough for you? He was crucified, ergo he existed.

My understanding is that the records of his crucifixion were simply that people who lived later believed he was crucified. Is there a record of him being ordered to be crucified? Any eyewitness accounts? No. Just that several decades later, there were people who believed it would happen.

This only proves there were people who believed it. It does not prove that their beliefs were accurate.

Yes, which is strong evidence in itself.

Hearsay is not evidence.

This is not a valid argument. It requires discernment.

What are the arguments for Jesus, for Xenu, for faeries, for unicorns ... and what are the arguments against, then weigh up on balance, which is what scholars do, and in the light of that the answer is:
1: Jesus – Yes, there is sufficient evidence to say he existed.
2: Xenu – quite unlikely.
3: faeries – unlikely, but not out of the question.
4: unicorns – most unlikely.

Hold on.

I am simply pointing out that claiming "There are people who believe in X" does not mean "X is true."

People believing a thing to be true can not be taken as evidence of that thing being true.

OK, for you ... for the broad range of informed scholarship, it is sufficient.

+++

Thomas L. Thompson, Professor of Theology, National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow and editor of biblical studies journals, wrote in 2005 that historical Jesus scholars have always just assumed that Jesus existed:

"Twentieth-century scholarship, with its faith in history, assumed a historical Jesus as its starting point. It shared Schweitzer’s personal dilemma: a choice between a Jesus who fits modern visions of Christianity and Mark’s failed prophet. But they always assumed there was a historical Jesus to describe." (p. 7, The Messiah Myth (2005) by Thomas L. Thompson)

And Bart Erhman has said that he believes he is the first scholar who has actually tried to put forward a sustained argument for the existence of Jesus:

"I realized when doing my research for the book that since New Testament scholars have never taken mythicists seriously, they have never seen a need to argue against their views, which means that even though experts in the study of the historical Jesus (and Christian origins, and classics, and ancient history, etc etc.) have known in the back of their minds all sorts of powerful reasons for simply assuming that Jesus existed, no one had ever tried to prove it. Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived. To my knowledge, I was the first to try it, and it was a very interesting intellectual exercise. How do you prove that someone from 2000 years ago actually lived? I have to say, it was terrifically enlightening, engaging, and fun to think through all the issues and come up with all the arguments. I think really almost any New Testament scholar could have done it. But it ended up being lucky me."

Ehrman Confesses: Scholars Never Have Tried to Prove Jesus Existed

Thomas L. Thompson, Professor of Theology, National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow and editor of biblical studies journals, wrote in 2005 that historical Jesus scholars have always just assumed that Jesus existed: Twentieth-century scholarship, with its faith in history, assumed a historical J

vridar.org

(Please note, the links to Ehrman's blog aren't working as I post this as his blog reports it is down for maintenance. Hopefully it will be back up soon.)

In any case, it seems that the "consensus among scholars" is little more than scholars just starting with the assumption that Jesus existed and not really challenging that position.

In any case, you woul;dn't be attempting an "argument from popularity" fallacy, would you? Of course, you'll no doubt tell me that it's not always a fallacy to say that lots of people believe something as a reason why it should be considered true, but then you didn't seem to be interested in such subtleties when it came to that argument from silence thing you accused me of earlier, did you?

So, to reecap, for the world at large, there is sufficient evidence that points to the existence of an historical person known as Jesus, who hailed from Nazareth, was something of a wonder-worker and prophet, a teacher of profound spiritual insight, who perhaps claimed a direct and personal relationship with God, who attracted a sufficient enough following for the authorities to deem it necessary to remove him, and so he was crucified.

(This is the Jesus of history. It's a long way short of the Jesus of the New Testament, but that's a whole different world ... )

I think you've made your point that despite all the scholarly reasoning, and despite your very unsound arguments, you still seem to doubt his very existence.

OK ... You've made your point.

What now?

And yet you have utterly fgailed to show a single piece of this "strong evidence" to me, and I have presented reasons why the "scholarly consensus" is not as convincing as you would pretend it is.

 

[Kylie]

I want to try again to see if I understand your question. Are you asking for documents or artifacts dated from that time, about a person such that we can be sure that the gospel stories were passed down from stories about him?

I am asking for evidence that shows that the existence of Jesus can be reasonably taken to be factual.

I want anything that can be checked, anything that actually supports his existence.

So sources which only show that people believed he existed will not be sufficient.

 

[Kylie]

Now I'm wondering, if we don't have any documents or artifacts from that area at that time, about a person named "Jesus," Is that a reason for you to think that the gospel stories were not handed down from stories about a real person?

If there were such a person and all we had were stories handed downm from person to person, how could we trust that the stories we have today are accurate after they'd been passed down so many times?

 

[Kylie]

He had maybe a thousand people who came to see Him? Maybe more. But when He was up for execution nobody seemed to even care about Him. Pontius Pilate had never heard of Him. Neither did King Herod. So He wasn't famous. Most definitely didn't believe He was the Messiah. He was a commoner. Plain and simple.

If he wasn't famous, how did he get a thousand people or more to turn up?

We actually covered this in another thread (not sure which one). There is no census naming commoners from that area. For over 20 years I have put people to the test and challenged them to find one. One user on here claimed one existed. He retracted that claim when he realized there is no such thing. If you can find one do let us know. We would all love to see it. But you won't find one.

Doesn't the Bible talk of Mary and Joseph needing to go back home for their census? Were they not commoners?

 

[iBrian]

The writings of the person, contemporary records of them, coins minted with their faces on them, etc.

This really only applies to kings and emperors, so outside of that group it can be difficult to prove a figure actually existed.

And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by saying that we can't view written documents as being objective representations. I mean, it's fair enough to say something like, "We can't be sure these documents provide an objective account of what was really going on" and then take the existence of Jesus as truth whenm we have even less evidence for him!

I read a recent debate about Thucydides, whose "History of the Peloponnesian War" is our only account for it, and effectively the only proof it ever occurred. Because of this, some classical scholars insist that Thucydides was there at every speech, furiously writing down every word and then copying it into his book - as otherwise we have to question it's reliability. And this panics some people, because it we question Thucydides's account, we have to question whether the Peloponnesian War ever existed.

 

[Longfellow]

If he wasn't famous, how did he get a thousand people or more to turn up?


Doesn't the Bible talk of Mary and Joseph needing to go back home for their census? Were they not commoners?

Do you honestly think that you might possibly see any arguments here that you haven't seen many times before? I ask you again, why are you wasting our time, if it isn't only just to debate about it, going in the same circles that we've all seen many times before?

 

[Longfellow]

I am asking for evidence that shows that the existence of Jesus can be reasonably taken to be factual.

I want anything that can be checked, anything that actually supports his existence.

I can't think of any examples of what that could be, if it isn't documents or artifacts from that area at that time with his name in them or on them. Can you?

So sources which only show that people believed he existed will not be sufficient.

That's one thing we agree on.

 

[Longfellow]

Doesn't the Bible talk of Mary and Joseph needing to go back home for their census? Were they not commoners?

Wait ... you believe that there was a census, because the Bible says so?

Do you have any other reasons for thinking that there was a census that would have the name of Jesus in it? And what would that prove even if there was? What could there be in the census that would prove that it was one of the Jesuses of Christianity?

None of the examples that you've given of evidence would be evidence of anything, because there would be no way to know if that person was one of the Jesuses of Christianity.

 

[Longfellow]

If there were such a person and all we had were stories handed down from person to person, how could we trust that the stories we have today are accurate after they'd been passed down so many times?

Good question. My answer is that we couldn't. I've never seen or heard of any historian, or anyone here, saying that they are accurate.

Now I'm confused again about what your question is. What Jesus are you talking about? Are you asking for evidence that a person named Jesus did miracles? Are you asking for evidence that people said that there was a person named Jesus who did miracles? Are you asking for evidence that there was a person named Jesus giving talks and teaching private lessons in and between Galilee and Jerusalem? Which Jesus are you talking about, when you ask for evidence? Oh. Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe you're asking for evidence of the existence of any person that anyone might be thinking about, when they say that he existed? But how can we even know all the ways that people are imagining him, when they say that he existed?

Hm. Let's say that there really was some person like one or another of the Jesuses that people are thinking about, when they say that he existed. For the kind of evidence you're asking for, we would need documents or artifacts from that area at that time, with his name on them, that could not possibly by any stretch of imagination have been fabricated or modified by Christians or anyone under their influence, and some way to know that those were referring a person who was the person that some people think that their Jesus was. How would that even be possible? I can't think of any way for that to even be possible. Can you?

 

[Kylie]

This really only applies to kings and emperors, so outside of that group it can be difficult to prove a figure actually existed.


I read a recent debate about Thucydides, whose "History of the Peloponnesian War" is our only account for it, and effectively the only proof it ever occurred. Because of this, some classical scholars insist that Thucydides was there at every speech, furiously writing down every word and then copying it into his book - as otherwise we have to question it's reliability. And this panics some people, because it we question Thucydides's account, we have to question whether the Peloponnesian War ever existed.

I think this misses my point.

 

[Kylie]

Do you honestly think that you might possibly see any arguments here that you haven't seen many times before? I ask you again, why are you wasting our time, if it isn't only just to debate about it, going in the same circles that we've all seen many times before?

Because there may be some people who don't know the full story, and for whom a thorough examination of the evidence could be eye opening.

 

[Kylie]

I can't think of any examples of what that could be, if it isn't documents or artifacts from that area at that time with his name in them or on them. Can you?

You seem determined to quibble about words rather than addressing the issue.

That's one thing we agree on.

I'm glad about that!

 

[Kylie]

Wait ... you believe that there was a census, because the Bible says so?

Do you have any other reasons for thinking that there was a census that would have the name of Jesus in it? And what would that prove even if there was? What could there be in the census that would prove that it was one of the Jesuses of Christianity?

I'm pointing out the contradiction. Believers can't very well claim that there was no census and then claim the Gospels mention such a census.

None of the examples that you've given of evidence would be evidence of anything, because there would be no way to know if that person was one of the Jesuses of Christianity.

So once again, we have a big loud silence from the real world on this issue.

 

[Longfellow]

Because there may be some people who don't know the full story, and for whom a thorough examination of the evidence could be eye opening.

So your purpose in this thread is only to try to convince Christians that Jesus did not exist. I don't see any reason then for me to respond any more to your posts. I would if it were in some other forum, but not in the Christian forum.

 

[Thomas]

However, I will expect you support your claim that there is "strong evidence" for Jesus.

The evidence for the existence of Jesus is stronger than your argument to the contrary, so on balance, I do not feel the need to 'support' my claim, they are supported by sound scholarly study, which argues a belief that Jesus existed is quite reasonable.

Is there a record of him being ordered to be crucified? Any eyewitness accounts? No. Just that several decades later, there were people who believed it would happen.

Is there a record of anyone being ordered to be crucified at all?
By name, as far as I know, only Jesus.

6,000 slaves were supposedly crucified along the Appian Way after the collapse of the Spartacus revolt, but we have only two accounts, written more than a century after the event, but no contemporary or archaeological evidence such as you seek.

(Josephus offers an account of executions of Jewish prisoners during the Siege of Jerusalem, but this was a particularly brutal episode during a siege, and the Romans became quite inventive in their methods ... )

Crucifixion was considered a taboo subject and not documented. Considering the numbers supposed to have occurred, we have not one, detailed, eye-witness account throughout the history of the Empire. So it's no surprise that we have no account of Jesus' execution. The lack of detailed official Roman documentation is due to the nature of crucifixion – it was a brutal and humiliating method of execution, an exercise is terrorising the lower orders and criminals. So the absence is not significant of anything.

Is there a record of any of Pilate's actions when he was Governor of Judea 26-36/7CE – a ten-year period?
No. Not one single official record.

Philo of Alexandria was 10 when Pilate was dismissed. Flavius Josephus was born in 37CE, and although he offers details, these are 'hearsay'. Tacitus briefly mentions Pilate 30 years at least after the events. So none of these, by your measure, are reliable sources to assume Pilate actually existed.

We have 'The Pilate Stone' discovered in 1961, a partial inscription that identifies him as Governor... and that's it. So, the only actual evidence we have is a name on a stone, and this man was a Roman Governor, and I'm informed we know more about him than any other holder of the position in Judea. There is no contemporary record of his activities.

So if all we have to validate Pilate, a Roman Governor with ten years in post, is an insciption on a dedication stone, why should we expect to have anything on an itinerant Jewish preacher of the same era, who arose from obscurity, travelled mainly in the countryside, and was dead three years later?

To say the historical record is scant is an over-statement.

And yet you have utterly failed to show a single piece of this "strong evidence" to me, and I have presented reasons why the "scholarly consensus" is not as convincing as you would pretend it is.

That you find it unconvincing is no proof of anything. Your own arguments however are ill-founded and insufficient, in light of the paucity of materials. Your criterion of proof is unreasonable.

 

[Thomas]

Because there may be some people who don't know the full story, and for whom a thorough examination of the evidence could be eye opening.

OK, what's the story?

 

[Thomas]

I'm pointing out the contradiction. Believers can't very well claim that there was no census and then claim the Gospels mention such a census.

There's no contradiction. There was no census in the dates Luke offers – he was mistaken (There was a census, but outside the timeline.) Furthermore, people were not obliged to travel to the place of their ancestral origin, that would render the census pointless. Rome ordered a census to count population and location to establish taxation.

So once again, we have a big loud silence from the real world on this issue.

Your Apparent lack of knowledge and understanding of both the era in question and of biblical scholarship speaks volumes.

 

[iBrian]

I think this misses my point.

No, it doesn't. You've asked a question which has been taken in good faith to be about the hisoricity of Jesus. Instead of listening to the replies, however, you are simply intent on arguing against others for no other reason that you don't believe, have no interest in an honest discussion, and simply want to berate people of faith. Really you need to ask why you've joined an interfaith community in the first place.

 

[Longfellow]

Because there may be some people who don't know the full story, and for whom a thorough examination of the evidence could be eye opening.

There might be people who haven't seen all the reasons for thinking that Jesus did not exist. Is that what you mean? If so, then it seems to me that the best way for them to see those reasons is just explain them. I'll do some research and try to do that, myself.