jonasaberg

I'm currently involved in a debate about a historical Jesus. My position is simply that the available material is extremely poor and there is no way you can say with certainty that Jesus of the bible actually existed.

I see where the discussion inevitably is going; that such a position is equal to not being able to claim that other historical figures existed, such as Julius Ceasar or Alexander the Great. My question is; is there any widely accepted historical figure whose existence is based on similar (i.e poor) evidence as Jesus is?
How should one create a good rebuttal to claims like this?

Malachi151

This isn't really the proper argument though. The problem isn't a lack of information about Jesus, the problem is that the claims about Jesus can be shown to have been derived from other literary sources and other pre-existing ideas. This is combined with the lack of "proof" to show that "given the lack of other proof", then based on the fact that all of the descriptions of Jesus are based on scritpures it is more reasonable to conclude that "Jesus" is actually a personification of scriptural ideas.

See:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Issues arise from the heavy use and repetition of scriptural references.

For example, the use of Psalm 22 for the crucifixion narrative. Not only was Psalm 22 used by the author of the Gospel of Mark to provide the details of the narrative, but these same details show up in every single narrative about the crucifixion.

This means basically that either:
A) Psalm 22 was a prophecy for the crucifixion and these things really happened

B) These things didn't really happen, but they were just added on for whatever reason to the actual historical account

C) There never was any historical account, thus a narrative was crafted from Psalm 22

While fundies will argue for A, most scholars will argue for B, but the problem is that these details were added by the author of Mark and are repeated in the accounts of Matthew, Luke, and John.

So, if any of those authors had any "real" information and were trying to write an account of "what actually happened", and they did indeed know what actually happened, then they wouldn't have repeated these details since they didn't really happen.

The fact that everyone repeated these details indicates that all of the narratives stem from the Markan narrative, that the Markan narrative was fabricated, and that none of the other writers were witnesses to anything because they had no better "information" than the Markan narrative either.

That this would be the case strongly indicates that Jesus never existed, or that at the very least the account of his crucifixion in the Gospels has no basis in reality. What are the chances that there would be no authentic account of his crucifixion recoded if he actually existed? Pretty slim I'd say.

Paul gives us no historical account of the crucifixion and the Gospels all give us accounts that are be clearly demonstrated to be fabricated.

schilling.klaus

LaoZi, Chenghis Khan, Siddharta Goddama Buddha, Charles the Great, Moses, David, Solomon, Pythagoras, John Ben Zakkai, Paul of Tarsus, Pontius Pilatus, John the Baptist, Simon Kephas, James the Righteous, Confucius, Zaratustra, ...
and many many many many many more

Klaus Schilling

Toto

Did Klaus misunderstand?

Lao Zi is not "widely accepted as historical." Even Confucius might have been made up by Christian missionaries as a founding figure for Chinese tradition, according to the latest scholarship.

Ghenghis Khan left a lot of hard evidence behind him.

Gautama Buddha might have been a literary creation, but the Buddhists don't seem to care one way or the other.

Charles the Great I am not familiar with.

Moses and Solomon are not generally accepted as historical. David is only accepted as possibly historical based on one archeological find.

I don't know if Pythagoras is generally accepted as historical; like the Buddha, it may not be relevant.

Paul of Tarsus is accepted as historical based on his surviving writings,

Pontius Pilatus is accepted as historical based on historical references in Philo and Josephus, plus an archeological find.

John the Baptist is accepted based on a description in Josephus that is at variance with the Biblical description.

Simon Kephas and John Ben Zakkai are not generally accepted as historical outside of Christian circles.

James the Righteous is accepted as historical based on a supposed reference in Josephus.

Zarathustra might or might not be historical.

In short, there is no other person who is considered historical based on the flimsy third hand evidence available for Jesus. Historians usually have either some writings left by the person, some archeological evidence, or some historical account by a neutral or hostile third party. The closest case is Socrates, who is known primarily throught the writings of his follower Plato - but even there, Socrates was mentioned in a satirical play, and historians consider the possibility that Plato invented him. Apollonius of Tyana is close.

Jesus left no writings, no impression on a contemporary who wrote about him, and no archeological evidence. Of the two mentions of Jesus in Josephus, one has been clearly altered, so there is no way to be sure of what it originally said, and the other is brief and possibly a marginal note from a later Christian scribe. The mention in Tacitus is possibly forged, possibly based on third hand evidence from Christians.

In every other case of a legendary figure with this lack of evidence, historians calmly admit the possibility that the figure might not have existed, and no one throws a fit about it.

No Robots

Many people who are mentioned only in the Talmudic literature, which is the same literary context for the NT, are generally accepted as historical.

The difference is that we are dealing here with someone who has had and is having a tremendous cultural impact. It is disingenuous to put concern about this individual on a par with others. After all, there are many figures who are generally considered historical on the basis of similar evidence, and no one throws a fit about it, do they?

xunzian

Laozi almost certainly is not a historical figure. His name means "The Old Master(s)". Hardly likely to be a real person! Far more likely he is a composite of many, many people. Kinda like Homer. Since Confucius left behind descendants, it seems reasonable that he existed. Now, the connection between the historical Confucius and the Confucius of the Analects is an entirely different thing entirely, there may be only the faintest connection there. The historical Confucius almost certainly didn't edit the Book of Songs, the Spring and Autumn Annals, and the Book of Changes, for example. But belief in his existence certainly predates contact with the west, Ssuma Qian (145BCE-85BCE) wrote extensively on Confucius and Hanxue (the literati philosophy most prevalent during the Han) wrote all sorts of things on Confucius. For a good laugh read about the "Uncrowned Emperor" movement, silly stuff. Now, the idea of Confucius being the founder of Confucianism (or even the idea of "Confucianism") is a Western concept, though it did eventually affect how China saw the tradition, but that is another story.

And there is plenty of contemporary evidence for Charles the Great, both in writings within his Empire, from the Vatican, as well as from Byzantine sources. Oh, and, you know, buildings that say they were built by him like his palace-cum-cathedral in Aachen. Pretty solid evidence there in a way there isn't for Jesus.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Jonasberg,

This is a good question and problem.

I would approach it by looking at three historical time periods to give some historical context to the question.

In ancient times, it was widely and nearly universally believed that fictional/mythological characters such as Hercules existed. There was social pressure and even legal pressure to believe in their existence.

After Christianity became the state religion in the Roman Empire and by the late fourth century there was social pressure to believe in Jesus and not to believe in many other mythological characters, except as demons. The legal pressure included death for non-believers and even those suspected of being non-believers.

In Medieval times, these restrictions spread throughout all of Europe. While belief in the old gods died out, belief in the existence of other supernatural creatures such as dragons and witches was nearly universal.

In modern times, it was really not until the eighteenth century and the age of enlightenment that severe legal penalties for non-belief were lifted in some places. Still the social consequences of disbelief continued, even in the most secular and academic places. Percy Shelly was thrown out of Oxford University in 1811 for espousing atheism. Bertand Russell was denied a teaching position at a public educational institution -- City College -- in New York City,in 1938, at least, partially because of his open atheism. Kathy Griffin's Emmy Awards speech was censured on American Cable television last year for making a joke about Jesus.

As far as modern cases of belief in fictional characters is concerned, the best examples are probably Adam and Moses. They are still widely believed to be historical figures. It was not until the 1700's that the existence of Adam was seriously questioned. It was not until the 1990's that archaeologists and historians seriously started questioning the existence of Moses.

Hundreds of letters a year were sent to the fictional home of Sherlock Holmes (invented 1887) for nearly half a century from people seriously wishing to employ him. A literary invention of Benjamin Franklin from the mid-1700's, Polly Baker, was cited in serious academic works as an actually existing historical person until well into the mid-1900's.

I hope this is helpful.

No Robots

It is quite trendy to disparage the role of the talented or genial individual in social progress. Many writers are cheerleaders for the common folk, and spend their time trying to eliminate genius from history. This is being done with the history of science (A People's History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and "Low Mechanicks" (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Clifford D. Conner), where the historicity of Pythagoras and Hippocrates is put into question. How long before it hits art, and we see Beethoven considered a hack who stole everything worthwhile from Austrian peasants?

xunzian

Non-sequitur. Did you read what I wrote? Do you think that "The Old Master(s)" is likely to represent an individual?

Ben C Smith

I think Hillel and Shammai are often put forward as possible parallels to Jesus.

Ben.