Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 05-22-2006, 06:33 PM

It seems to me that defenders of a historical Jesus have some pretty significant problems when it comes to the record of historical authors.

I have seen several people, including non-Christians or anti-Christains, make claims that Jesus could have lived and died earlier than the accepted 2-1ish BC to 33ish AD.

Some skeptics try to put a mortal "Jesus" back farther in time, but this seems to have many problems.

The biggest problem is that if Jesus lived earlier then we should expect more non-Christian writers from the 1st century BC and AD to have written about him.

I find it particularly impossible to believe that any "Jesus" figure could have lived before Philo without Philo having known and written about him.

So, it seems that the only way to defend a historical Jesus is to either claim that he lived later than what people think he did, to explain why there are no writings from his supposed time, but then you have the problem of the claims about his time of birth and death by Pilate no longer matching up, or to claim that he was so insignificant that no one noticed him during his lifetime, except for the apostles.

This later one seems to be the only viable defense, but its a defense that forces one to pretty much refute all of the supernatural claims about Jesus.

So, it seems to me that the "silence of the historians" evidence is pretty much irrefutable.

The only way to counter the silence of the historians argument is to claim that Jesus lived later than is believed, in which case, the story falls apart because Pilate is dead by that time and there are all kinds of other problems with the texts, or claim that Jesus was simply obscure, which pretty much goes against any claims of him being observed by thousands of people and being God on earth. What kind of God on earth is so little known that no one notices him?

I just don't see any way around this argument that preserves the Christian identitiy of Jesus as described in the Bible.

Either he didn't exist at all, or he was an obscure unknown mortal didn't attract attention.

In either case the Jesus of the Bible never existed.

I can't imagine any argument for an earlier Jesus.

Doug Shaver · 05-22-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

or to claim that he was so insignificant that no one noticed him during his lifetime, except for the apostles.

This later one seems to be the only viable defense, but its a defense that forces one to pretty much refute all of the supernatural claims about Jesus.

The supernatural claims are not a problem for a majority of historicists. Stories with supernatural elements were told about lots of people known to have been real.

Amaleq13 · 05-22-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The biggest problem is that if Jesus lived earlier then we should expect more non-Christian writers from the 1st century BC and AD to have written about him.

This is avoided if one suggests that this "early Jesus" lived a life of obscurity and only became known through divine revelation during the first half of the 1st century CE.

Who argues that the Gospel Jesus lived earlier?

Quote:

What kind of God on earth is so little known that no one notices him?

The kind who wishes to be sacrificed without his executioners realizing his identity?

jeffevnz · 05-22-2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

So, it seems to me that the "silence of the historians" evidence is pretty much irrefutable....Either he didn't exist at all, or he was an obscure unknown mortal didn't attract attention.

This is stronger wording than I would have used. It is possible that he had substantial reputation but still escaped mention by historians of the time, or that he was noted in some contemporary literature that has since been lost.

But I emphasize the word "possible". You're basically right that if his popularity was anything like what is described in the Gospels, you would expect to find volumes about him from the time.

Toto · 05-22-2006, 10:46 PM

Another possibility is that some early historians did mention Jesus - but in terms so unflattering that later Christians expunged what they wrote from history.

Clivedurdle · 05-23-2006, 01:33 AM

Quote:

This is avoided if one suggests that this "early Jesus" lived a life of obscurity and only became known through divine revelation during the first half of the 1st century CE.

Who argues that the Gospel Jesus lived earlier?

But that perspective has been rubbished as "preposterous"!

Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

From Library Journal
These two books offer an enormous contrast. While Fredriksen provides a balanced, carefully reasoned, scholarly study of the historical Jesus, Ellegard's conclusions can only be described as preposterous. Ellegard (formerly dean, Univ. of G?teburg, Sweden) is clearly familiar with some mainline biblical scholarship, but he always opts for the minority view and stretches it beyond reason. For example, he believes that the Gospels were written in the second century C.E. and traces the origin of Christianity to "a group of pious Jews called the Essenes" (the Dead Sea Scrolls group). Then, based on this highly questionable and twisted "evidence," he leaps to several unjustified conclusions: that Jesus lived long before he was supposed to have and that his disciples had only "ecstatic visions" of him and never knew him in the flesh. The Gospel writers, he suggests, then mistook their visions for real events and created fictitious accounts of Jesus' life. Fredriksen (scripture, Boston Univ.), on the other hand, explores the conundrum of a well-established historical fact--namely, that Jesus was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate as a political insurrectionist while his followers were not. She concludes that it was the volatile mix of excited pilgrims in Jerusalem for Passover and their acclaim of Jesus at a time when Pilate was especially interested in keeping the peace that led to his death. Her balanced, well-written work could serve as a kind of introduction to the content and methodology scholars use in the study of the historical Jesus and is highly recommended for any library. Ellegard's work would only be useful as an example of the false conclusions that result when questionable opinion is stretched beyond reasonable limits.
-David Bourquin, California State Univ., San Bernardino
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc. --

Argumentum by insultum?

RUmike · 05-23-2006, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Another possibility is that some early historians did mention Jesus - but in terms so unflattering that later Christians expunged what they wrote from history.

That's a good point. I've always wondered if the TF (granted it was original in some form) contained anything negative about Jesus which was obviously removed or altered.

Magdlyn · 05-23-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

...explores the conundrum of a well-established historical fact--namely, that Jesus was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate...

Um, I beg her pardon?

Charles Wilson · 05-23-2006, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I just don't see any way around this argument that preserves the Christian identitiy of Jesus as described in the Bible.

Either he didn't exist at all, or he was an obscure unknown mortal didn't attract attention.

In either case the Jesus of the Bible never existed.

I can't imagine any argument for an earlier Jesus.

The Jesus "of the Bible" could have been a construct, an amalgam of several figures. If Jesus is a symbol for some other event, a rearranging of the stories would give "him" the appearance of a "real" person. Add a "time shift" to the stories so that any historic markers do not line up with any conceivable set of alternatives and you have a Mythic Jesus, a Jew who is in a no way a Jew, preaching the salvation of a mystery religion, a blasphemous religion, to a new set of people.

I argue for an earlier "Jesus", if you're interested, on this site - "Jesus vs. Archelaus".

Charles

Lugubert · 05-23-2006, 07:19 AM

Alvar Ellegård, former professor of English language and literature, pioneered computer methods in linguistics in Sweden. It should be noted that his entertaining Jesus books don't describe the presumed Jesus of the Gospels, but refer to a possible much earler wisdom teacher, the faint memories of whom served as a foundation to later fables. (My interpretation.) And Ellegård doesn't say that he describes what must have happened, but makes all the academically necessary "sounds possible, but" statements.

05-22-2006, 06:33 PM	#1
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	THe silence of ancient historians and dating the time of Jesus It seems to me that defenders of a historical Jesus have some pretty significant problems when it comes to the record of historical authors. I have seen several people, including non-Christians or anti-Christains, make claims that Jesus could have lived and died earlier than the accepted 2-1ish BC to 33ish AD. Some skeptics try to put a mortal "Jesus" back farther in time, but this seems to have many problems. The biggest problem is that if Jesus lived earlier then we should expect more non-Christian writers from the 1st century BC and AD to have written about him. I find it particularly impossible to believe that any "Jesus" figure could have lived before Philo without Philo having known and written about him. So, it seems that the only way to defend a historical Jesus is to either claim that he lived later than what people think he did, to explain why there are no writings from his supposed time, but then you have the problem of the claims about his time of birth and death by Pilate no longer matching up, or to claim that he was so insignificant that no one noticed him during his lifetime, except for the apostles. This later one seems to be the only viable defense, but its a defense that forces one to pretty much refute all of the supernatural claims about Jesus. So, it seems to me that the "silence of the historians" evidence is pretty much irrefutable. The only way to counter the silence of the historians argument is to claim that Jesus lived later than is believed, in which case, the story falls apart because Pilate is dead by that time and there are all kinds of other problems with the texts, or claim that Jesus was simply obscure, which pretty much goes against any claims of him being observed by thousands of people and being God on earth. What kind of God on earth is so little known that no one notices him? I just don't see any way around this argument that preserves the Christian identitiy of Jesus as described in the Bible. Either he didn't exist at all, or he was an obscure unknown mortal didn't attract attention. In either case the Jesus of the Bible never existed. I can't imagine any argument for an earlier Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-22-2006, 10:46 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Another possibility is that some early historians did mention Jesus - but in terms so unflattering that later Christians expunged what they wrote from history.

05-23-2006, 07:19 AM	#10
Lugubert Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Western Sweden Posts: 3,684	Alvar Ellegård, former professor of English language and literature, pioneered computer methods in linguistics in Sweden. It should be noted that his entertaining Jesus books don't describe the presumed Jesus of the Gospels, but refer to a possible much earler wisdom teacher, the faint memories of whom served as a foundation to later fables. (My interpretation.) And Ellegård doesn't say that he describes what must have happened, but makes all the academically necessary "sounds possible, but" statements.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.