Value of Historical Evidence

[Ana the Ist]

First off, I'm posting this here and not in the history section because it involves beliefs about a historical type of evidence and it's value regarding history. I'm certainly not just posting it here because I'm more likely to get responses than in the relatively dead history section. That said...

When I say historical-type evidence, I'm speaking of a very specific type of evidence...not just any type of evidence. We all know several different types of historical evidence. There is the very basic archeological type evidence of physical objects and what they can tell us about the past. There are ancient writings, documents of different kinds that can tell us all sorts of things about the past. What I'm speaking of is neither of those. It's the evidence that is left by certain actions and their impact on history itself. Allow me to explain if you don't understand...

We have lots of evidence of Julius Caesar. We have physical archeological evidence that suggests he once existed. We have many writings, some by him, some by his enemies, some by historians...all which give us varying degrees of evidence that Julius Caesar once lived. The "historical-type" evidence that I'm speaking of would be when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and brought his army into Rome. This act changed the course of Roman history so much...it would be nearly impossible to explain all those changes without it. We would have to invent some Julius Caesar-like figure to explain why/how all those changes took place. What I'm getting at is even if we could make a case for Julius Caesar not existing, if we explained away all the archeological and documentation evidence...we would still be stuck trying to explain away his impact on Roman society. That evidence (crossing the Rubicon) basically cements the case for Julius Caesar's existence.

Well, as it turns out, I don't believe Jesus Christ ever existed. There are many reasons, but I'd like to focus on this one. During a recent conversation with another poster, I explained this "Rubicon-type" evidence and explained that Jesus has no evidence of this kind. There is no act in Jesus's life that changed history in a way that the mere story of his life couldn't. This person replied that the christian church couldn't have been founded had Jesus not lived in the flesh. I replied that many religions were based upon people whom the followers believed existed in the flesh...but we know they were nothing more than mythology. I then gave the Cult of Hercules as an example.

I would like to know if anyone here can think of a "Rubicon-type" of historical evidence of Jesus's existence. I'd also like to know if you think that this type of evidence is valuable or important in any way.

Thank you.

 

[bhsmte]

This will be an interesting thread.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This will be an interesting thread.

Either interesting or short lol. I'll gladly admit I'm wrong if any evidence of this type is presented...but I've never found any. Of course, the fact that there's no evidence of this type doesn't dismiss a historical Jesus by itself. It is however, part of the reason I doubt he was asreal person. IMO this is the best type of evidence for the existence of a historical figure, and if someone can come up with some, I'd have to change my beliefs.

 

[Chesterton]

There is no act in Jesus's life that changed history in a way that the mere story of his life couldn't.

The mere story of his life is in itself Rubicon-esque. Someone once said "to invent Jesus would take someone greater than Jesus".

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I've always found it interesting that the most important man to ever have lived has almost no evidence to support his existence. Nothing but a book written centuries after this man supposedly lived.
The. Most. Important. Human. Ever.

You could find better records of a random Roman citizen than you can for Jesus Christ.

 

[bhsmte]

Either interesting or short lol. I'll gladly admit I'm wrong if any evidence of this type is presented...but I've never found any. Of course, the fact that there's no evidence of this type doesn't dismiss a historical Jesus by itself. It is however, part of the reason I doubt he was asreal person. IMO this is the best type of evidence for the existence of a historical figure, and if someone can come up with some, I'd have to change my beliefs.

IMO, the traditional "historical method" and the sources the method typically calls for, have been loosely applied to Jesus and the NT as a whole. This would even apply to some atheist historians as well, as it isn't easy for a historian to deny the existence of likely the most important character in the history of man.

As of now, I still side with Jesus "likely" existed and I would put my certainty at somewhere between 75-80%. With this said, it is also my opinion, that a whole bunch of the NT, is simply made up.

 

[Loudmouth]

We also have to be aware that cultures will invent grandiose stories to explain or embellish their history, as well.

For example, the late S. Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il was the head of the state cult, with him as its "god" of sorts. It is said that Kim picked up pine cone and threw at the enemy during their cultural revolution. It turned into a grenade in mid flight, and helped win the war. Now, does this tale have to be true given the massive impact the S. Korean regime has had on the world stage? How does this fit into ideas about historical evidence?

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

I'm no expert, but I found Ehrman's book to be pretty convincing as to the existence of the historical Jesus. He doesn't make any claims that Jesus is divine, in fact he's not a believer himself.
Amazon.com: Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth eBook: Bart D. Ehrman: Books

 

[bhsmte]

I'm no expert, but I found Ehrman's book to be pretty convincing as to the existence of the historical Jesus. He doesn't make any claims that Jesus is divine, in fact he's not a believer himself.
Amazon.com: Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth eBook: Bart D. Ehrman: Books

I would agree. Ehrman is one of a few NT historians that really explains the evidence in detail, is highly knowledgeable and comes across as very objective.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I would like to know if anyone here can think of a "Rubicon-type" of historical evidence of Jesus's existence. I'd also like to know if you think that this type of evidence is valuable or important in any way.

Thank you.

Someone wrote the words attributed to Jesus. Someone wrote about throwing first stones, beams and motes, and so on.

'We would have to invent some Jesus-like figure to explain why/how all those words arose and were transmitted and had an impact on later society'

This Jesus-like figure would not have to be crucified and resurrected, but there had to be some human source of the words of Jesus. A pseudo-Jesus, if you like.

Sorta like the joke that "Shakespeare was not written by Shakespeare but by someone else of the same name."

 

[Chesterton]

Someone wrote the words attributed to Jesus. Someone wrote about throwing first stones, beams and motes, and so on.

'We would have to invent some Jesus-like figure to explain why/how all those words arose and were transmitted and had an impact on later society'

This Jesus-like figure would not have to be crucified and resurrected, but there had to be some human source of the words of Jesus. A pseudo-Jesus, if you like.

Sorta like the joke that "Shakespeare was not written by Shakespeare but by someone else of the same name."

Yes, and if you were the one who wrote such beautiful wisdom, why would you not take credit for it yourself?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, and if you were the one who wrote such beautiful wisdom, why would you not take credit for it yourself?

Maybe the Jesus consortium hired a good ghostwriter for their religious text.

 

[Chesterton]

Maybe the Jesus consortium hired a good ghostwriter for their religious text.

What was the ghostwriter's name?

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe the Jesus consortium hired a good ghostwriter for their religious text.

Well, the four gospels are considered to be anonymous authors by most scholars.

 

[super animator]

We also have to be aware that cultures will invent grandiose stories to explain or embellish their history, as well.

I don't think we have to worry about that when discussing the existence of Jesus.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The mere story of his life is in itself Rubicon-esque. Someone once said "to invent Jesus would take someone greater than Jesus".

I'm not sure what you mean here. You're saying the story itself produced an effect on history that his story wouldn't have produced?

 

[Ana the Ist]

We also have to be aware that cultures will invent grandiose stories to explain or embellish their history, as well.

For example, the late S. Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il was the head of the state cult, with him as its "god" of sorts. It is said that Kim picked up pine cone and threw at the enemy during their cultural revolution. It turned into a grenade in mid flight, and helped win the war. Now, does this tale have to be true given the massive impact the S. Korean regime has had on the world stage? How does this fit into ideas about historical evidence?

It's an interesting question, but different from mine. I'm not really concerned with anything Jesus did unless it had some lasting effect on history. For example, if a meteor was falling to earth and Jesus miraculously stopped it by freezing it in midair...and we could still see this meteor hovering in the air today...that would be Rubicon-type evidence.

 

[Johnnz]

I've always found it interesting that the most important man to ever have lived has almost no evidence to support his existence. Nothing but a book written centuries after this man supposedly lived.
The. Most. Important. Human. Ever.

You could find better records of a random Roman citizen than you can for Jesus Christ.

That is sheer ignorance. The principal evidence of Jesus are the Gospels and the development of the Christian community, including church leaders in the subsequent century, following His life, death and resurrection. A modern history such as N T Wright's 3 volume set complies the historical basis for Christian belief. And, al the NT books were written by the end of the 1st Century.

Read The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Rodney Stark and get some concepts about how Christian thinking impacted society.

John
NZ

 

[Chesterton]

I'm not sure what you mean here. You're saying the story itself produced an effect on history that his story wouldn't have produced?

I'm not sure what you mean. The story obviously produced an effect on history.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It's an interesting question, but different from mine. I'm not really concerned with anything Jesus did unless it had some lasting effect on history. For example, if a meteor was falling to earth and Jesus miraculously stopped it by freezing it in midair...and we could still see this meteor hovering in the air today...that would be Rubicon-type evidence.

Is there anything a little less miraculous that could have happened that passes as Rubicon-type?
I don't disagree with you here, I'm just trying to think of what he personally could have done that would leave a lasting impression on the world. Some refer to the story as that kind of evidence, even saying that there wouldn't be any mention of the guy if he didn't actually exist and do the things they say he did.