Topher

Many people cite the lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus, indeed we should have some if the events of the gospels point to history, however is the need for contemporary evidence an actual requirement of the historical method? I've been told by many Christians that no historian demands only contemporary evidence, and so the historicity of Jesus shouldn't be any different. (Obviously that does explain the lack of such evidence when it seems there should some, given the claims.)

aa5874

This is expected of Christians. It is their faith in Jesus that matters, not evidence.

See Hebrews 11.1

Huon

All the serious history books mention the creation of the universe in 7 days by a guy named God, or something like that, because these serious history books do not demand contemporary evidence...

If no contemporary evidence is not demanded, every fantasy could be taken as history.

On the other side, there are evident facts which do not belong to history. You and I have ancestors living around 1 CE. Perhaps, some of these ancestors are mentioned in history, but their link to us is not a historical fact (at least, as far as I am concerned !).

Roger Pearse

What we want, of course, is *well-informed* testimony from the period in question. Living at the same time as George W. Bush does not necessarily mean that the writer is well-informed; someone living later with access to family sources from the inside might be better informed. But other things being equal, the closer to events -- in time and space -- a writer is, the better.

Now ancient history is done differently from modern history.

In the latter, there are vast amounts of sources. For practical reasons, historians have to cut down the quantity. As such, imposing a criterion of "only contemporary" makes sense. I believe that this tends to happen, although you'd have to ask someone qualified and I have no special knowledge.

But for ancient history, we often have very little evidence at all. We have, for instance, only one source for events in Roman Britain after 396 AD. That source is Zosimus, a Greek living in Constantinople ca. 520 AD. At that time the Western Roman Empire had ceased to exist, and Britain was somewhere incredibly far away. But... Zosimus had access to the lost history of Dexippus, which discussed how the Roman magnates took advantage of the death of Theodosius the Great in 396 to expel the Roman officials.

Do we ignore this, simply because Zosimus lived over a century later and never saw Britain? We'd be crazy to, surely.

Likewise for first century history, and the reign of Tiberius in general, we rely on Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio, plus Josephus for Jewish affairs. Why? Because they are what exists.

For any ancient historical event, we must use the same standards. Inventing standards in order to deny that something happened is irrational; but we do see this where religion comes into it. Resist!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

So, those unknown writers of the NT were WELL-INFORMED when they wrote that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost, was tempted by the devil on the pinnacle of the Temple, received the Holy Ghost like doves when baptised, used spit to make people see, walked on water, raised a man from the dead after four days, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

What is ancient history in the NT? The Holy Ghost conception, the transfiguration, Jesus walking on water, the resurrection or the ascension through the clouds?

But, there are TONS of information about Jesus, there hundreds of volumes written about him and the evidence or written text overwhelmingly claimed Jesus was a God that existed before the world began and it was Jesus who created the world and that he was concieved of the Holy and ascended through the clouds.

It is CRAZY indeed that HJers are ignoringing the evidence.

spin

Zosimus goes reads well in conjunction with the coin evidence obtained from Britain. Tacitus goes well with the epigraphic, archaeological and coin evidence available. The process is one of constructing a past based initially on materials from the era, coins, epigraphy and inscriptions, statuary, and anything else in the archaeological record that sheds light on the period. These are the backbone of history.

However all sources are liable to being challenged and reconsidered for their value, so you do well to challenge the classical texts. You know though that texts are not the backbone. They are the flesh that can be put on the backbone, if they fit the data already available.


spin

Roger Pearse

It is certainly possible to hold that texts are secondary and only archaeology really matters. It is also possible to take the other view, since the findings of archaeology are so limited in what they tell us.

The great value of the archaeology is that what they do say, we can rely on. The great weakness of it is that what it says -- as opposed to being inferred to support -- tends to be limited.

For instance, a military belt-buckle in a stratum of 55BC is merely a lump of iron, perhaps lost, perhaps traded, perhaps many things; until we know that Caesar's legions passed this way at that time.

I have no special perspective to offer on a matter on which the professionals disagree. There are points to be made on both sides, and the truth somewhere in between.

However I would suggest that we deprecate the tendency that I sometimes see to diminish the importance of the literary record. Does not almost everything of importance that we know about the past come to us from the literary record? If we compare what we know about Roman times with what we know about pre-history, how little the latter is! We know what the politics of the forum was; we can only imagine what motives led to the building of Silbury Hill.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

It doesn't work the other way around. You don't have the solid evidence in text that hard evidence provides.

This is actually what I'm talking about. The hard evidence is necessary and the text gives coherence. However, without the former, you can't say much as a starting point.

Can you give examples of historiographers coming down on the side of texts as a starting point?

You can have no doubt about the existence of the site, can you? (You just don't have any back story.)

But I may not have been clear enough with regard to texts. Once a text has been shown through hard evidence to reflect a solid supported view of the past, one can take more of the text as evidence for historical reconstruction on the past. The source is vetted for its historical content through the hard evidence and it can tentatively supply further historical evidence, as a species of expert witness.


spin

Roger Pearse

If it could be done, it would be most interesting to see the output of such a process. But I have a feeling that the results would be inconclusive at best. Most things of importance leave little in the archaeological record. But then again it depends what we consider important.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

It is what can be seen in many scholarly historical works nowadays. The archaeological evidence has radically reshaped the ancient history of Israel. Much of the analysis of the great classical historians has been reduced to the level of propaganda through the use of hard evidence.

Historians started with narrative texts and so they are the traditional fodder for history, but these texts are being forced to make way for hard evidence as more comes in. Much of the historian's work now deals with the forces of history rather than the great figures and celebrated events. This has caused the historian to become more resourceful with evidence and then to understand better the importance of what is evidence. Nevertheless, narrative texts will always remain the meat for much history, just not the bones.


spin