Shanefield

Q: What do Robin Hood, King Arthur, Jesus, and Moses have in common?
A: There's no evidence whatsoever that any of them ever actually existed. Encyc. Britannica says no evidence that Robin and Arthur really existed, and it says no existence evidence for Jesus, St. Peter, Moses, or Soloman other than the Bibles.

For more about these points, see
http://oldnnew.blogspot.com . For comparative dates of Bible stories versus same stories in writings of much older (1,000 yrs. older!) Ugarit and Zoroaster, see listing at
http://historylist.blogspot.com and check Encyc. Brit. about those items.

Dan S.
(But I am a scientist, not a historian or philospher.)

Simon Ewins

Someone existed to inspire the stories. They are very unlikely to have simply been developed completely from imagination. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) probably heard stories and embellished them to serve his own agenda. It is probably he that should bear most of the blame.

Jesus was probably a religious revolutionary who lived from around 6 B.C.E. to about 32 C.E. He was the bastard son of an adultress and as such was considered an outcast by the members of his religious community. He was quite charismatic and more than a little bitter and by using his charisma, fed by his bitterness, he attempted to change the dominant religious beliefs of the area where he lived.

Ultimately he failed and was stoned to death by the leaders of the mainstream religious community and his body was hung on a tree. It appears that the body was lost for a brief period of time and rumours began to be circulated by his remaining followers that he had risen from the dead. There is one report (in the Toldoth Jesu) that his body was later found and dragged through the streets of Jerusalem behind a horse.

A chap by the name of Paul (Saul) heard the rumours about Jesus and became quite confused (partly due to a lack of concrete information about Jesus, and partly due to the fact that he was little unbalanced). Feeding off the rumours about Jesus, his own mystical religious beliefs, and his general confusion (some of which may have been due to a blow to the head when he fell from a horse), Paul invented most of what is now assumed to be about Jesus.

There may be references to Jesus other than in the Bible. The Toldoth Jesu mentioned above and the following:


Tacitus

"...derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate." [Tacitus, Annals 15.44]

First, let's note that Tacitus wrote this shortly before his death in 120 A.D. Therefore he is not an eyewitness of the times, and is obtaining his information from other sources (assuming that this entry is not a Christian interpolation which is entirely possible). What are these sources? We know that they are not Roman sources since Pilate was a prefect not a procurator. If we assume that this passage was written by Tacitus, then he most likely received his information from Christian sources. This entry is highly suspect and cannot be considered an independent source confirming the historicity of Jesus.


Suetonius

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome" [Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesers]

Again, written around 120 AD. This passage probably does not even refer to Jesus Christ. It mentions "Chrestus" which was the Latin form of a common greek name. It probably refers to one of the leaders of the many Jewish messianic groups that were common in 49 AD.


Pliny

In a letter to emperor Trajan (112 AD), Pliny asks for instructions on how to deal with Christians that lived in the area that he governed. He describes the Christian practices and ceremonies of the time. His letter simply confirms that there were Christians in 112 AD.


Thallus

Thallus' writing (now lost) is referred to by Juluis Africanus in the third century. The work alleges that Jesus' death was accompanied by an earthquake and an unusual darkness which Thallus, according to Africanus, wrongly attributes to an eclipse of the sun. To my knowledge there is speculation that Thallus wrote as late as the second century.


Josephus

As far as Josephus is concerned the passage most often quoted is most likely a Christian interpolation since it sits in isolation and breaks the narrative flow at that point. Josephus mentions John the Baptist more often than he does Jesus and the two times that he does mention Jesus are both awkward and break the flow. If (and its a very big if) the two passages are not Christian interpolations then the most that they can be said to indicate is that someone named Jesus existed.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth of the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucifed, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
[Flavius Josephus, Antiquities 18:63-64]

The biggest single difficulty with this passage is the way that it is phrased or its style. It sounds like the writing of a Christian and not of a Jewish (later Roman) historian and it is stylistically completely different from what immediately precedes and follows it. If Josephus thought that he was writing about a man (Jesus) who could work of miracles and was resurrected from the dead then he would surely have mentioned him more than twice (and once only in passing).

One must note that writers such as Origen who were well acquainted with the works of Josephus fail to make any mention of this passage. This indicates that it was inserted after Origen had read it.

"...and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others..." [Josephus Flavius, Antiquities]

This second mention of Jesus by Josephus could also be another Christian interpolation. Regardless, Jesus is only mentioned once (in passing). Josephus mentions others (such as John the Baptist) more times than he mentions Jesus. If Jesus was the public figure that he was alleged to be, this is highly unlikely.

All that considered I think that there is enough scattered and circumstantial evidence to indicate that someone, by whatever name, did something that excited people at the time enough to start some pretty serious (and long-lasting) rumours.

goldenroad

Why is this source considered reliable?

Shanefield

So what? Suppose there really was a "Moses" in old Israel (or in Judah or wherever), and there really was a Jesus of Nazareth (or Joshuah of Naz. or whoever). There were lots of crazies (and still are) who claim to speak directly to God (or Gods). There's no evidence that a Moses or Jesus had any special connections to God (or Gods), or that any of the elaborate stories were true, even slightly.

If there was somebody faintly similar to Robin Hood or King Arthur, those highly detailed stories and characters are still pure fiction. Very analogous to the characters of Moe, Sol, Dave, Josh --- Just plain fiction.

The hisorical facts (verified by many old written records) that Egyptians and Assyrians, and Persians, and later the Romans went charging back and forth thru old Isreal and Judah, recording many, many details of taxes collected and battles fought, and never even slightly mentioned Sol's temples or palaces (or Dave's), or revolts by followers of Jesus or even Jesus-like leaders, or their punishments --- that's the evidence. Those characters were the Robin Hoods and King Arthurs of the ancient days --- well-crafted fictions. (And the Captain Jensenhurst of my link-story --- not in any of the old records, so just fiction.)

Dan Shanefield

Gawen

Moving this to BC&H

Gundulf

Out of curiosity, what would one consider the absolute minimum evidence that would be accepted as "historical evidence" that someone existed.

That is, I doubt that most historical figures that we have great confidence in have much more evidence about them than Jesus, etc. I imagine that evidence that a historical figure existed, particularly in antiquity, are more on a spectrum, than simply that evidence does or does not exist. Are we asking for a letter that Jesus himself wrote? a used toothbrush? An inscription that says "Jesus was here?" DNA?

Gundulf

Plus, I just looked on one of the links you provided, which claims that there is no evidence "outside the New Testament" for the existence of Paul.

As if the 7 undisputed letters that he wrote, which happen to have been collected and preserved in this thing we now call "The New Testament" are totally irrelevant.

Whoop de do.

If someone truly claims that Paul, therefore, did not exist, then I have the absolutely undeniable, incontrovertible proof of theism/supernaturalism. Since we have all these parts of the Bible that were written by a man that did not exist What other logical explanation could there be than divine origin???


Out of curiosity, what automatically makes any document from antiquity that the church 400 years later happened to like enough to collect into this thing called "The New Testament" somehow automatically dismissed and irrelevent for historical inquiry?

ughaibu

Did Archimedes exist? Why is it that there are millions of followers of a trivial doomsday cult 2000 years beyond it's sell by date, but no religion celebrating one of the outstanding geniuses of antiquity? I think there's a moral here about the worthlessness of religion.

Shanefield

Proof that Jesus (or Archimedes, etc.) existed would be writings by other people, who were not followers, preferably in other countries, that reported seeing and hearing him, etc.

But the Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc. left no such writings, altho they did leave such about many lesser leaders, criminals, rebels, etc.

Same for Moe, Sol, Dave, et al. of the OT --- no reports about them by the Egyps., Assyrs., et al.

For a logical analogy, see my Jensenhurst story at
http://oldnnew.blogspot.com . Of course, that's inductive reasoning, which can't "prove" a negative statement. But if you had a good test for arsenic, whch never failed in thousands of uses, and it showed no arsenic in a sample, with independent repetitions, you ought to "believe" there's no arsenic there. It's a logical system that is not perfect, but it's practical and it "works." The inductive reasoning tests for Moses and Jesus say "none were ever there."

Dan S.

Iasion

Greetings,

Really?

So,
every story was inspired by a real person?

Such as, say -
Hercules ?
Harry Potter?
Luke Skywalker?
Frodo Baggins?


Iasion