Peanut Gallery thread -- Formal Debate on the Existence of the Historical Jesus

[Resha Caner]

Small world factoid of the day: Ron was on my spouse's Ph.D. committee.

That's cool. So what is your wife's degree / what does she study?

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

Interesting debate.

In my opinion, Jesus most definitely was an historical person.

1.) From a secular perspective, Jesus was not an important person. There had been individuals before (and after) him who even claimed to be the "messiah." As such, it wasn't likely that Jesus would have warranted too much attention from the higher echelons of Jewish or Roman society.

An objection to this might be, "Well, if Jesus was so well-known, then why are there no eyewitness accounts of him?"

I would reply with the fact that historical figures of decidedly greater importance in their society than the historical Jesus have less evidence for their existence.

Consider Pontius Pilate, for instance. He was prefect of Judea for an entire decade, and yet there are absolutely no "eyewitness" accounts or official government records of the man known to have survived. Until the so-called Pilate Stone was discovered in 1961, which bears Pontius Pilate's name, the only evidence for Pilate's existence (outside of the New Testament) is from the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, and a brief mention by Tacitus.

(I should also mention that Josephus was not as astute as we like to think. Consider the Jewish temple shield incident during Pilate's reign, mentioned only in the Gospels and in Philo's writings. Josephus is completely silent on such a shocking event.)

If the only evidence we have for the most important government official in Israel who reigned for ten whole years is a a stone discovered in 1961, a mention by one contemporary writer who lived in way down in Egypt, and mention by two writers decades after his reign, then why should we be surprised when there is no "eyewitness" or government record of a Jewish carpenter who claimed to be the Messiah and travelled around the equivalent of first-century ghetto neighborhoods separated by miles of wilderness?

Are we seriously going to consider the lack of "contemporary eyewitness testimony" a bad thing?

Before I get to my next point, allow me to remind anyone reading this that the absolute majority of historians view Jesus as an historical person who was crucified.

2.) In the year 155 AD, Justin Martyr, a philosopher who had converted to Christianity, was asked to write a defense of his newfound faith before Emperor Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate. In this "Apology," Justin defends the historicity of Jesus by mentioning a now lost document called "Acts of Pilate" (not to be confused with a fourth century forgery bearing the same title). In section 35 of his Apology, Justin writes the following:

"...And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, 'They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots.' And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you [Emperor Pius and the Roman Senate] can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." --Justin Martyr, First Apology 35

Now, let us consider this for a moment. We know from history that Roman governors, whenever they had encountered an extraordinary event or a weird situation, or really anything of note, would write an official report on it to the Emperor. We know this because several "Acts of" by other Roman governors have been found by historians.

Why would Justin Martyr refer to such a document, and then recommend the Emperor and Senate to examine its testimony for themselves, unless such a document really existed?

But wait! There's more. A few sections later, Justin references the "Acts of Pilate" once again. Only this time, he does so to defend more than the mere historicity of Jesus:

"And that it was predicted that our Christ should heal all diseases and raise the dead, hear what was said. There are these words [of our Scriptures]: 'At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about." And that He did those things, you [the Emperor and Senate] can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." --Justin Martyr, First Apology 48

It seems clear that there not only existed an official government record of an historical Jesus freely available to Justin Martyr, the Emperor and the Senate, but that such a document also claims that that this Jesus fellow performed extraordinary deeds.

It would appear that this Jesus caused a huge enough commotion for Pontius Pilate to write an official report about.

3.) To question the existence of Jesus is to call into question so many other historical figures. How do we know that Socrates existed? He never wrote anything. The only person to write about him was his "student" Plato, and even that "account" was written years later. Maybe Plato made up Socrates.

How do we know Alexander the Great existed? He may very well have been a fictitious creation invented by his "inner circle" of generals to motivate troop morale and strike fear in enemies. The first bio of Alexander was written by Diodorus of Sicily a few centuries after his "death." (The first known bio of Jesus, the Gospel was of Mark, was written in the 60s or 70s, which would put it in the time frame of people who would have been alive to have witnessed Jesus. And since scholars consider Mark to be based on even earlier texts, who knows how early the earliest bio of Jesus was written and by whom.) According to Wikipedia, "The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments."

So many people who lived prior to the advent of the printing press can be "proven" to have "never existed" given enough effort.

Or, considered from another angle, the amount of evidence for Jesus as an historical person would be unquestionably accepted for Socrates or Alexander or Pilate or any other ancient person.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ancient history (Greek & Roman). Currently teaching high school history -- didn't like academia.

 

[Resha Caner]

Ancient history (Greek & Roman). Currently teaching high school history -- didn't like academia.

Cool. Once I hang up my engineering credentials I'd like to teach history at the college level. Not ancient history, though. My current program is American history with an emphasis on the Lutheran church in America. So, it requires some familiarity with ancient and European history, but just to fill in the background.

 

[Resha Caner]

From a secular perspective, Jesus was not an important person.

I wouldn't agree with that. The impact of Christianity has been huge. I understand many reject him as the Christ and many more don't understand the extent of Christianity's impact, but it's there nonetheless. Even if Jesus were not the Christ, his impact on history is still huge.

2.) In the year 155 AD, Justin Martyr, a philosopher who had converted to Christianity, was asked to write a defense of his newfound faith before Emperor Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate. In this "Apology," Justin defends the historicity of Jesus by mentioning a now lost document called "Acts of Pilate" (not to be confused with a fourth century forgery bearing the same title). In section 35 of his Apology, Justin writes the following:

Well, most think that even the work Justin Martyr refers to was apocryphal. Given the amount of gnostic material available by that time, it's a good possibility, but I'd never be so bold as to say no authentic Acta Pilati ever existed.

It doesn't matter. From wherever you start someone will question the historical validity of your evidence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

One thing about Josephus is that he turned on his fellow Jewish community. He had a pension and a life of luxury as a citizen of Rome. He had no reason to mention Jesus whatsoever. He likely did not mention him in that he had to be careful with what he said in that his writings were scrutinized by those in high power in Rome. Josephus did not want to ruin his life of high esteem among those Romans in power. Romans hated Jesus and any mention of them by Josephus could have spelled doom for Josephus.

However, there was a controversy over a statement that Josephus may or may not have said concerning Jesus being more than a man and that Jesus was the messiah that the Jews rejected. Here is what he may have said:

"About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvelous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased."

Flavius Josephus

Some New Testament scholars have taken a 2nd look with this passage, and may very consider that this was from Josephus and not made up by some Christians in order to have more proof of Jesus' as God's son. I suggest that you read the book titled "Searching For Jesus." The author is Robert J. Hutchinson. It is very new book that I picked up about a week ago. He presents all of the pro and con New Testament scholars throughout the book. In all, this book presents compelling evidence that Jesus was what who he said he was throughout the New Testament. Also, try reading books written by Lee Strobel called "The Evidence For Faith", "The Evidence For A Creator", and "The Evidence For Jesus." Lee was an avid Atheist. He received a Law Degree from Harvard, and was the Legal Editor for the Chicago Tribune. Lee did his homework and through his 2 year journey, he found that there was far too much evidence for God and Jesus of which moved Lee to become a Christian. I wish you the best and hope that the Lord will help you to find the information you are looking for my friend! If you seek the truth you will find God. My first cousin was a Marine during the Vietnam war, and saw far too many avid atheist soldiers that prayed for Gods help when their life was on the line. You may have heard that their are no atheist in a fox hole taking gun fire and mortar rounds. I find that a lot of atheists do not want to be held accountable for their deeds, and being an atheist gives them the delusion of non accountability. There is just far too much evidence if you look in the right places for the existence of Jesus and God. If I was in your shoes, I would be worried in that what if all of this is true and that you could very well spend eternity apart from God and your loved ones who are Christians. There is a wealth of near death experiences from Christians and non Christians that will make you lay in bed and fear of what is coming down the road for your life.

If Jesus came down from heaven and slapped you silly in the face over and over again, you would still not believe in him or his existence. Can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus never existed? Do you have any historical documentation that can prove 110% beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus never existed? Being the atheist as you claim, can you prove to me and others beyond a shadow of doubt that God does not exist as well as Jesus not existing? I need cold hard facts that you should readily have access to my friend.

You say that the entire Josephus paragraph is a fake. Can you prove this beyond a shadow of doubt? I will agree that there are parts of the paragraph that may have been tampered with, but there are sentences within this paragraph that follow extremely close to that of what Josephus wrote. These sentences have passed the truth test by Jewish and Christian scholars and are genuine. Every so often this pops up, but usually subsides when folks realize that this is a non issue. There are those that insist that this is a forgery regardless of it passing the scrutiny of those far more knowledgeable than you and me.

I am a highly educated and successful person as is my spouse who is a doctor. We do our homework when confronted with issues of faith. I have a few bits of information for you. Do you believe that Saul of Tarsus existed? Do you believe that Caiaphas existed? Do you believe that Cesar Augustus existed? I do have information that proves that Jesus existed and I will share this with you once you have answered my questions. I am sorry for being so brash with my opening sentence, but felt that this needed saying. I realize that it is your soul that is in grave condition of spending eternity apart from God and I will pray for you to find God and have peace for your soul my friend. I think that you have totally missed the boat on this one. Can you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that you are 110% certain that Tacitus had it wrong? You have no iron clad information to back up what you are saying. If Jesus never existed, we would not be having this conversation whatsoever. I suggest that you read the following book written by Robert Hutchison. It is titled: Searching For Jesus. I think this will help you to figure out for yourself whether Jesus existed or not.

I considered responding to the questions you put to me in these two posts...but to do so substantively would require posts that go beyond what I've even posted in the formal debate itself. Instead, please take a second look at my opening statement...particularly the first part.

You're taking this debate far too personally. It's not an attack on you or your intelligence. It's not an attack on christianity itself. It's not even a matter of certainty...it's a matter of plausibility. History isn't a story of certainties. Yes, there are things that we can be far more assured of than others...because of evidence. Other things we should be far more critical of...because of a lack of evidence.

The very real possibility that Jesus never existed is an increasingly common conclusion. Notice I say "common" and not "popular" for reasons that are obvious in merely reading your posts to me. To point out the fact that there is abysmally little evidence of a historical Jesus is to open yourself up to personal attacks. Your motives, character, intelligence and more are instantly questioned by the mere suggestion that a character so beloved by so many probably never existed. Yet, despite this, more scholars are advocating this view...and even more who don't are at least willing to admit that it's a view that has merit and is worthy of consideration.

I understand that my view is a minority one...it's not uncommon for an unpleasant truth. It is truth, however, which matters more to me than your approval or popularity in general.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interesting debate.

In my opinion, Jesus most definitely was an historical person.

1.) From a secular perspective, Jesus was not an important person. There had been individuals before (and after) him who even claimed to be the "messiah." As such, it wasn't likely that Jesus would have warranted too much attention from the higher echelons of Jewish or Roman society.

An objection to this might be, "Well, if Jesus was so well-known, then why are there no eyewitness accounts of him?"

I would reply with the fact that historical figures of decidedly greater importance in their society than the historical Jesus have less evidence for their existence.

Consider Pontius Pilate, for instance. He was prefect of Judea for an entire decade, and yet there are absolutely no "eyewitness" accounts or official government records of the man known to have survived. Until the so-called Pilate Stone was discovered in 1961, which bears Pontius Pilate's name, the only evidence for Pilate's existence (outside of the New Testament) is from the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, and a brief mention by Tacitus.

(I should also mention that Josephus was not as astute as we like to think. Consider the Jewish temple shield incident during Pilate's reign, mentioned only in the Gospels and in Philo's writings. Josephus is completely silent on such a shocking event.)

If the only evidence we have for the most important government official in Israel who reigned for ten whole years is a a stone discovered in 1961, a mention by one contemporary writer who lived in way down in Egypt, and mention by two writers decades after his reign, then why should we be surprised when there is no "eyewitness" or government record of a Jewish carpenter who claimed to be the Messiah and travelled around the equivalent of first-century ghetto neighborhoods separated by miles of wilderness?

Are we seriously going to consider the lack of "contemporary eyewitness testimony" a bad thing?

Before I get to my next point, allow me to remind anyone reading this that the absolute majority of historians view Jesus as an historical person who was crucified.

2.) In the year 155 AD, Justin Martyr, a philosopher who had converted to Christianity, was asked to write a defense of his newfound faith before Emperor Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate. In this "Apology," Justin defends the historicity of Jesus by mentioning a now lost document called "Acts of Pilate" (not to be confused with a fourth century forgery bearing the same title). In section 35 of his Apology, Justin writes the following:

"...And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, 'They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots.' And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you [Emperor Pius and the Roman Senate] can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." --Justin Martyr, First Apology 35

Now, let us consider this for a moment. We know from history that Roman governors, whenever they had encountered an extraordinary event or a weird situation, or really anything of note, would write an official report on it to the Emperor. We know this because several "Acts of" by other Roman governors have been found by historians.

Why would Justin Martyr refer to such a document, and then recommend the Emperor and Senate to examine its testimony for themselves, unless such a document really existed?

But wait! There's more. A few sections later, Justin references the "Acts of Pilate" once again. Only this time, he does so to defend more than the mere historicity of Jesus:

"And that it was predicted that our Christ should heal all diseases and raise the dead, hear what was said. There are these words [of our Scriptures]: 'At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about." And that He did those things, you [the Emperor and Senate] can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." --Justin Martyr, First Apology 48

It seems clear that there not only existed an official government record of an historical Jesus freely available to Justin Martyr, the Emperor and the Senate, but that such a document also claims that that this Jesus fellow performed extraordinary deeds.

It would appear that this Jesus caused a huge enough commotion for Pontius Pilate to write an official report about.

3.) To question the existence of Jesus is to call into question so many other historical figures. How do we know that Socrates existed? He never wrote anything. The only person to write about him was his "student" Plato, and even that "account" was written years later. Maybe Plato made up Socrates.

How do we know Alexander the Great existed? He may very well have been a fictitious creation invented by his "inner circle" of generals to motivate troop morale and strike fear in enemies. The first bio of Alexander was written by Diodorus of Sicily a few centuries after his "death." (The first known bio of Jesus, the Gospel was of Mark, was written in the 60s or 70s, which would put it in the time frame of people who would have been alive to have witnessed Jesus. And since scholars consider Mark to be based on even earlier texts, who knows how early the earliest bio of Jesus was written and by whom.) According to Wikipedia, "The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments."

So many people who lived prior to the advent of the printing press can be "proven" to have "never existed" given enough effort.

Or, considered from another angle, the amount of evidence for Jesus as an historical person would be unquestionably accepted for Socrates or Alexander or Pilate or any other ancient person.

So....regarding Pilate....

We have an inscription commissioned by Pilate himself. Details and references to him in his own day by a historian who clearly isn't a fan (Philo) and even more references to him by a historian (Josephus) within 40 years of his death which are almost (?) universally regarded as genuine.

If we had as much evidence for Jesus, I wouldn't hold the position I do in this debate.

Your response to this is to refer to the gospel of Nicodemus (what part of the NT is that in again?) of which *ahem* Wikipedia has to say this....

"The oldest sections of the book appear first in Greek. The text contains multiple parts, which are uneven in style and would seem to be by different hands. The Acts of Pilate does not purport to have been written by Pilate (thus is not pseudepigraphical), but does claim to have been derived from the official acts preserved in the praetorium at Jerusalem.

The authenticity of the document is unlikely and there is no historical basis that Roman governors wrote reports about non-citizens who were put to death.[4] Most modern scholars view the Acts of Pilate as not authentic and as a Christian composition designed to rebut pagan sources.[3]"

The rest of your post is basically a big red herring. Questioning the existence of one historical figure is not the same as questioning the existence of another. Each case is (and should be) unique to the factors, circumstances, and evidence of each case.

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

I wouldn't agree with that. The impact of Christianity has been huge. I understand many reject him as the Christ and many more don't understand the extent of Christianity's impact, but it's there nonetheless. Even if Jesus were not the Christ, his impact on history is still huge.

I agree completely. I was saying that, in his own time, Jesus was not anybody important in the secular world.

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

So....regarding Pilate....

We have an inscription commissioned by Pilate himself. Details and references to him in his own day by a historian who clearly isn't a fan (Philo) and even more references to him by a historian (Josephus) within 40 years of his death which are almost (?) universally regarded as genuine.

If we had as much evidence for Jesus, I wouldn't hold the position I do in this debate.

Your response to this is to refer to the gospel of Nicodemus (what part of the NT is that in again?) of which *ahem* Wikipedia has to say this....

"The oldest sections of the book appear first in Greek. The text contains multiple parts, which are uneven in style and would seem to be by different hands. The Acts of Pilate does not purport to have been written by Pilate (thus is not pseudepigraphical), but does claim to have been derived from the official acts preserved in the praetorium at Jerusalem.

The authenticity of the document is unlikely and there is no historical basis that Roman governors wrote reports about non-citizens who were put to death.[4] Most modern scholars view the Acts of Pilate as not authentic and as a Christian composition designed to rebut pagan sources.[3]"

The rest of your post is basically a big red herring. Questioning the existence of one historical figure is not the same as questioning the existence of another. Each case is (and should be) unique to the factors, circumstances, and evidence of each case.

Hey! I thought the debaters weren't allowed to post in the Peanut Gallery until the debate was over lol.

Oh, and did you actually read my post before replying to it? It seems like you briefly scanned it and missed everything I said.

Anyway, I never used the gospel of Nicodemus as an argument for anything. In my post, I explicitly said that the Acts of Pilate referred to by Justin in 155 is not to be confused with the fourth century fake bearing the same name. (Maybe you missed this?) Since Justin Martyr wrote his Apology circa 155, it would have been physically impossible for him to reference a fourth century text unless he had a time machine.

In fact, if we're going to be *completely* honest, let's go to that Wikipedia page and see what it has to say about both the gospel of Nicodemus and Justin Martyr.

Under the "Dating and Readership" section of that Wikipedia article, the third paragraph states:

WIKIPEDIA: Justin Martyr wrote, "And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." The Apology letters were written and addressed by name to the Roman Emperor Pius and the Roman Governor Urbicus. All three of these men lived between 138–161 AD.

It's entirely possible that the fourth-century author of the gospel of Nicodemus, whoever he was, may have read Justin Martyr's Apology and then was inspired to write a fictitious Acts of Pilate as a "re-imagining" of whatever document Justin may have been referencing two centuries earlier.

Regarding Pilate, I would recommend that you actually read what I wrote. It seems you didn't. Yes, I mention the Pilate Stone and Philo and Josephus.

Regarding my "red herrings," my point was to show that you hold the historicity of Jesus to a far higher level of criticism than is right and that the same extreme level of criticism can be used to "prove" any ancient figure never existed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hey! I thought the debaters weren't allowed to post in the Peanut Gallery until the debate was over lol.

Oh, and did you actually read my post before replying to it? It seems like you briefly scanned it and missed everything I said.

Anyway, I never used the gospel of Nicodemus as an argument for anything. In my post, I explicitly said that the Acts of Pilate referred to by Justin in 155 is not to be confused with the fourth century fake bearing the same name. (Maybe you missed this?) Since Justin Martyr wrote his Apology circa 155, it would have been physically impossible for him to reference a fourth century text unless he had a time machine.

In fact, if we're going to be *completely* honest, let's go to that Wikipedia page and see what it has to say about both the gospel of Nicodemus and Justin Martyr.

Under the "Dating and Readership" section of that Wikipedia article, the third paragraph states:



It's entirely possible that the fourth-century author of the gospel of Nicodemus, whoever he was, may have read Justin Martyr's Apology and then was inspired to write a fictitious Acts of Pilate as a "re-imagining" of whatever document Justin may have been referencing two centuries earlier.

Regarding Pilate, I would recommend that you actually read what I wrote. It seems you didn't. Yes, I mention the Pilate Stone and Philo and Josephus.

Regarding my "red herrings," my point was to show that you hold the historicity of Jesus to a far higher level of criticism than is right and that the same extreme level of criticism can be used to "prove" any ancient figure never existed.

You're assuming a lot about me here...that I'm holding Jesus to some standard I don't hold other historical figures to. Did you ask me what I think about Alexander the great before assuming my position on him? Alexander along with Julius Caesar is one of the historical figures that gets brought up quite a bit in these discussions about a historical Jesus...and as such, I know a little bit about the evidence for him (though not nearly as much as Caesar).

So I don't mind saying that I believe Alexander probably existed. As to his exploits, I have serious doubts about the validity of many of them. I accept it's entirely possible he's some sort of legendary/mythological figure...I've just never come across a particularly good argument for that position.

You're right...I'm guilty of not reading your entire post. My sincerest apologies. I've probably heard about Nicodemus half a dozen times before now and I just assumed that was what you were referring to. I completely forgot about Justin. In response...

Justin isn't a very good historian. He knows that Romans keep rather good/extensive records...so he's assuming that an Acts of Pilate exists. Just as he assumed there's a record of Quirinius (probably spelled that wrong) having a census....which there isn't. He believes these things happened...so he believes there's a record of it. Modern scholarship doesn't believe the census ever happened...for good reasons. Modern scholarship also doesn't believe Pilate wrote about Jesus...for good reasons. Do you really want to go into them?

Let's suppose that a neutral third party reference to the acts of Pilate showed up one day...and it mentioned Jesus....and was considered genuine....

I'd probably be switching my position on this debate. We don't have that though...we have Justin and Nicodemus. I consider the acts of Pilate to be about as real as Pilates letter to Tiberius....which is to say I don't consider it as evidence of anything except the desperation and deceptive behavior of early christians. I fully intend to bring up Eusebius in my final post.

You seem like you've looked into this more than the average person. Doesn't it bother you in the least that it appears that early christians seemed so ready to forge, fake, and alter ancient documents in order to provide some sort of "real" record of their savior? Doesn't that strike you as odd behavior for a group of people who believe that someone actually existed?

And just out of curiosity...what do you think of those gnostics who believed that Jesus wasn't actually a physical flesh-and-blood person?

If it's against rules for me to post here...I didn't know it.

 

[Resha Caner]

I agree completely. I was saying that, in his own time, Jesus was not anybody important in the secular world.

I see. I misunderstood you. As a little nit pick, I would probably phrase that as: During Jesus' ministry on earth, Roman officials took little notice of him ... something like that.

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

I should say that I'm not a Christian. (I might become one the future, but for now I'm definitely not.) So I have nothing to gain by proving or disproving anything.

Justin isn't a very good historian. He knows that Romans keep rather good/extensive records...so he's assuming that an Acts of Pilate exists. Just as he assumed there's a record of Quirinius (probably spelled that wrong) having a census....which there isn't. He believes these things happened...so he believes there's a record of it. Modern scholarship doesn't believe the census ever happened...for good reasons. Modern scholarship also doesn't believe Pilate wrote about Jesus...for good reasons. Do you really want to go into them?

Well, the near-silence on the life of Pilate outside of the NT shows that most historical records simply disappear over time. Until the Pilate Stone was discovered in 1961, researchers were doubtful of Pilate's historicity. I know this because I've read books published before 1961 and the general consensus pre-1961 was that there was zero reliable evidence of his existence. Even today, a few doubt that the Pilate Stone actually says his name and that he existed.

Modern scholarship? Well, modern scholarship believes that Jesus was an historical person, and for good reasons. Modern scholarship denies your entire premise that an historical Jesus is a myth. Any "evidence" you provide for your premise is automatically suspect; if all serious researchers reject such evidence, then why should I not reject it? I admit that I haven't done serious reading into the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis, but that's only because all the books on Amazon seem to be written by dubious people with an agenda. (I won't read "science" books by Evangelicals and Muslims who deny evolution for the same reason.)

It seems that you're cherry-picking reason to accept or reject "modern scholarship" when it suits your agenda. When it comes to evidence of a census, you say, "modern scholarship this and that," but when it comes to Jesus' historicity, you turn around and say, "Modern scholars are wrong." How is that any different than creationists who cherry-pick the science that they like and reject what they don't like? It's funny how, when I google the phrase "Jesus Myth," a good number of hits come from atheist websites. That's a bit telling, at least regarding the motives of this movement. (In other words, how is such a conspiracy theory so popular among those self-proclaimed paragons of reason?)

Regarding the census in the gospel of Luke, this subject has always been of interest to me. It's true that there is legitimate reason to think that the census never occurred, but I wouldn't call it a "modern scholarship consensus." For a long time, I thought that it was simply a fabricated event, but when I did a bit of book reading through material from those who claim to provide evidence of a census (and there is a significant minority of scholars who now make this claim), the evidence for an historical census is [somewhat] compelling. I won't go into it here, but one website lays out a very brief survey of some of the evidence. http://www.askelm.com/star/star014.htm (It's a religious site, but the points in this particular article are legitimate.)

I've read all of Justin's writings. It's been a while, so my memory is a bit rusty, but I can assure you that Justin was not some wacky loon making up stuff. In Trypho, we see that, prior to his conversion to Christianity, he was a well-educated philosopher. According to his Martyrdom, we know he lived in Rome and therefore possibly had access to the records he mentions. I don't think it's correct to assume that Justin "lied" about or "naively believed" in the existence of an Acts of Pilate and a record of the census. He wasn't a moron who converted to Christianity "willy nillly," and his Apology was an intelligent defense of his newfound faith. Since he (and Tertullian) seemed absolutely confident such records existed, I have no reason to think that he didn't personally confirm their existence. Sure, it's possible that what he saw was pseudepigraphical or whatever, but I don't think he just "assumed" it was there.

Doesn't it bother you in the least that it appears that early christians seemed so ready to forge, fake, and alter ancient documents in order to provide some sort of "real" record of their savior? Doesn't that strike you as odd behavior for a group of people who believe that someone actually existed?

That's a pretty loaded question.

Can you give any evidence of this having happened? Where did these conniving Christians "alter ancient documents"? Can you give some examples of this happening? The only example I can think of is Josephus' mention of Jesus, and even the actual extent of that is debatable. But I certainly don't equate pious fiction written centuries after Christ as being a willingness to "provide a real record" of Christ.

Maybe the end of the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus mentions baptism in a Trinitarian formula? Eusebius leaves this part out when he quotes the passage, but what some forget to mention is that, during Nicaea, he was of the party representing semi-Arianism. And more importantly, there are earlier Christian sources quoting that passage of Matthew with the Trinitarian formula intact.

Perhaps you're making the mistake of lumping early Christian texts with those of later centuries. It's true that, in the 2nd-5th centuries, many extravagant texts were written, but the texts we have in the NT were regarded as authoritative for a couple of reasons: they were known universally, and they were known since ancient times. People back then were not "stupider" than us "moderns." Critical thought didn't magically come into being in the 19th century.

And just out of curiosity...what do you think of those gnostics who believed that Jesus wasn't actually a physical flesh-and-blood person?

A certain school of modern scholars do what the atheists today do when categorizing Christians. They essentially put them all on equal footing and make them out to be equal claimants to the Christian name. They say that the Catholic Church is just "another denomination," like the Baptists or whomever, but the Catholic Church clearly has historical precedence over Protestants.

Regarding the Gnostics, they were disregarded by ancient Christians for a few reasons. One reason is that they existed before Christianity and merely latched onto the rapidly-growing religion. Another is that they taught things that contradicted the Christian scriptures (that there were two gods, that salvation required gnosis, that the god of Jesus was "out of touch" with reality, etc). A third reason (and the most important reason) is that, while the Christian faith existed uniformly and universally (yes, it did, contrary to the school that claims otherwise), the Gnostics existed in isolated groups whose beliefs contradicted one another, all of which were novelties anyway.

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a famous book Against Heresies (circa 180) in which he argues against the Gnostics directly. In Book 1, Irenaeus pretty much demolishes various gnostic groups and their various beliefs by showing their origins and absurdity. In Chapter 10 of Book 1, he clearly makes a point that the above-mentioned school like to ignore, which is that

"...the church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it...as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions."

According to Irenaeus, in a book addressed particularly to heretics, there was a "mainstream" Christian church in ancient times and these gnostic groups were objectively inferior to it due to their lack of universality, their contradictions between one another, and the novelty of their doctrines.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems that a.p. has broken the rules. His latest post exceeds 1000 words.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Beyond that, he also appears to have copied-and-pasted those quotes from elsewhere (1). Even the wording is exactly the same. So when he says "I will leave you with some quotes of my own," what he really should say is: "Here are some quotes I copied-and-pasted from other websites."

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm perplexed, Ana. You said you didn't plan to debate anyone else on this topic, yet here you are debating Man_With_A_Plan - the debate between unbelievers that I said would be very interesting ... and indeed it is.

So I don't see that I'd be spoiling anything to link to what I thought was an interesting commentary on Jesus' historicity by an atheist: http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

Then, I would ask you these 3 questions:
1. How much of the information you are citing comes from peer-reviewed historical publications? And how much of it is used in those publications to support a claim that Jesus is not historical?
2. How many times have you studied the historicity of an ancient religious figure? Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus' contemporaries, etc.?
3. How much primary historical evidence have you studied? Or is all your information coming from the work of others?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So I don't see that I'd be spoiling anything to link to what I thought was an interesting commentary on Jesus' historicity by an atheist: http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

Great article. The point about Bethlehem/Nazareth was one I was going to discuss. But obviously, he brings even more to the table.

 

[anonymous person]

It seems that a.p. has broken the rules. His latest post exceeds 1000 words.

Yes my post exceeded 1000 words. My opponent's last post also exceeded 1000 words. I like to give my opponent an unlimited and unrestricted final round/closing remarks post because often times it is hard to fit all one wants to fit into a last post if it is restricted in length.

 

[anonymous person]

Beyond that, he also appears to have copied-and-pasted those quotes from elsewhere (1). Even the wording is exactly the same. So when he says "I will leave you with some quotes of my own," what he really should say is: "Here are some quotes I copied-and-pasted from other websites."

I referenced the quotes. If I missed one then I will supply a reference for it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Great article. The point about Bethlehem/Nazareth was one I was going to discuss. But obviously, he brings even more to the table.

Thanks.

There's also a meta quality to the article. As he's talking about all the stuff promoted by Jesus Myth enthusiasts that Jews wouldn't do, I was noticing all the aspects of his essay that a Christian wouldn't do. It was definitely written by an atheist ... or was it a Christian who is excellent at pretending to be an atheist (cue dramatic music).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I referenced the quotes. If I missed one then I will supply a reference for it.

No, someone else referenced them. You copied-and-pasted.