DrDale

How do historians determine whether a person referenced in an historical document was real or not? I ask this because often when debating the existence of Jesus (something I do not want this topic to turn into) the question about evidence used to determine the existence of other historical figures often comes into question.

For instance what evidence exists that points to Socrate's, Aristotle or Alexander the Great's existence being real rather than imagined? Is it simply the nature of the document in which the person is referenced in that adds authenticity? Is it multiple accounts from different documents? Accounts from different cultures?

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, DrDale

Dina Noun

First of all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences, and the life of Jesus - and Jesus Himself - are quite extraordinary, according to the tales told in the New Testament. And unlike the other people you listed, one cannot separate Jesus from the extraordinary claims made about Him, because, in essence, every source we have for Jesus tells fantastical tale after fantastical tale about Him. There is no gospel-length narrative about Jesus the human being: there is always tons of supernatural baggage attached.




Well, you said you didn't want it to turn into this, but...



Second, we don't have any legitimate non-Christian documentation for Jesus having been an actual person. Within the first 100 years after His death (up through 130 AD), there are only:

1) 2 pagan sources that mention Jesus.

a. Pliny the Younger (112 AD) merely says that Christians worshipped Christ as a God. This does nothing to confirm that Jesus actually existed: it just says what other people - Christians - had come to believe.

b. Tacitus (115 AD) says that Christians were persecuted by Nero back in 64 AD (which does not attest to Jesus having been an actual person) and that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. This second one is close, but it is mere hearsay: Tacitus was writing about 85 years after the alleged crucifixion, and did not eyewitness it: he is merely passing on what he had heard from others, who had heard it from others, and so on.



2) 1 Jewish source that mentions Jesus.

In his "Antiquities", Flavious Josephus mentions Jesus twice. One mention is only a brief passage. The second has been severely doctored by Christians, who stuffed Christian beliefs into Josephus's mouth, so is worthless as support.



Third, the few cases in which Jesus should be documented in secular history - such as King Herod's killing of children 2 years old and younger, and Jesus' trial before Pontius Pilate - are not written about in any non-Christian sources of the day.


All we have to attest to Jesus being an actual person who lived when the Bible claims are the fantastical stories told about Jesus in the Bible, and they contradict one another in many ways.

Peter Kirby

The previous post shows no respect to the O.P.

There are agreed-upon canons for determining existence of a historical figure to the extent that there are agreed-upon canons for determining history in general, and resolving doubts and counter-claims about history. Are there?

I attempt to delineate some in my contribution to the Wikipedia on "historical method", but perhaps they are not actually agreed-upon by others, and perhaps they are ill-defined in the first place. Perhaps we have no methodology, period.

regards,
Peter Kirby

DrDale

From what I've read of the Wikipedia article it sounds like there are generally accepted guidelines. I guess the next logical question would be how these guidelines have been used to establish the existence of historical figures such as Socrate's, Aristotle, Plato, Alexander the Great etc?


Cheers, DrDale

Dina Noun

Excuse me, but this is the Biblical Criticism and History forum, is it not?

Perhaps he should take it somewhere else if he doesn't want to discuss Biblical Criticism and History.

Peter Kirby

You can be on topic for the forum and still disrespect the thread, which is on topic for the forum also but specifically not for airing what you prattled on about (the hobby horse of Jesus ahistoricism).

regards,
Peter Kirby

Dina Noun

So he DOES want to discuss Biblical Criticism and History. Then I guess my post was fine.

sismofyt

forums don't work that way. yes, this is BC&H, but in _this_ thread we're discussing a specific topic, namely "Historical evidence for someones existence" not if jeebus existed or not

you might step down from your soapbox before pissing on kirby and get to know the forum, the rules and how it works :wave:

if you want to discuss x matter, fine, open a new thread

sorry for the derail

Ben C Smith

I think what Peter means is that DrDale specifically stated in the OP that he did not want to discuss the existence of Jesus himself; rather, it appears he was after general principles used by historians on other figures.

Your response went into detail about the (non)existence of Jesus almost exclusively, without honoring the request for information on broader historical methodology as applied to other figures (Socrates et alii). I think your response might be considered a derailment of the OP.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

It tends to come down to questions of genre. In anything which purports to be a history, we basically have to take it on trust until we get other information which suggests that it may not be worth that trust. We must also respect the conventions of the time, of course. So we have all these speeches in Livy, which are not authentic -- but we know from Justin's Epitome of Pompeius Trogus (I think that was the right source -- someone will correct me if I have misremembered) that for historians to compose speeches for characters in their histories was OK by their canons (although PT criticizes Livy for taking this to extremes). So one source enlightens another.

For rulers we can often also use numismatic and epigraphical evidence. But for most people, of course, we just accept it unless we have evidence to the contrary, or the work is clearly a work of fiction or the person is plainly intended to be fictional in a non-fiction work ('John Doe', for instance).

All the best,

Roger Pearse