Reasonable evidence cerca 0 CE

[achilles12604]

I have been butting heads with a few people here about demanding more, or "better" evidence for Jesus and Christian claims, than for the rest of contemporary history. So I am starting this thread.

The first example I can think of which indicates that the evidence surrounding Jesus is BETTER than other contemporary history is a comparison of the evidence of Jesus with that of Alexander the Great. The biographies of Jesus are 300 years closer to the events, and so is the contemporary external evidence. In addition to this, if we lost all the biographies of Jesus, we would still have a great deal of evidence about Christianity from the beliefs of the Nazarenes, Paul, James, etc. However if we lost all the accounts of Alex' life, we would know very little about him other than he was a powerful man who conquered in many places.

Two questions:

What contemporary person has superior evidence to that of Jesus?

Why is this evidence superior?


For the Theists

What other examples do we have of people lacking evidence until much later?

What are the differences between the evidence for this person, and the evidence for Jesus?

[olivergringold]

The source I linked to agrees that Plato's back-and-forths with hypothetical questioners probably reflected his own philosophy more than Socrates', however Plato's account of Socrates' death does coincide with the other written account. Moreover there are no known religious motivations for elaborating on, let alone fabricating, the life of Socrates. Motive plays a very important role in these matters.

Did Socrates ever truly tell a poet that they were divinely inspired because they only liked the works of Homer? Probably not. Was he born, lived, and sentenced to death? Probably yes. We still haven't been shown exactly what sources for the existence of Jesus we're supposed to be comparing this information to. Is it the Gospels? Is it secular? If the latter, what secular sources? Plato's works, for all their presumable inaccuracies about the life of Socrates, can not be said to have been subjected to the unceremonious insertion of Socrates as the Orthodoxy might have with Jesus into Josephus'.

If that statement is not agreeable, then defend the Testimonium. If it is agreeable, then what other secular sources are available for the life of Jesus? If there are none, what makes the Gospels a valid source for deducing that Jesus was a living man? If they are not, then where is the bloody argument?

[Goat]

This is a good example.
So what is the earliest copy of Plato's writings that we have? What outside sources can confirm Plato's accounts of Socrates, his teachings, and his life events?

(428/427 BC[a] – 348/347 BC), Plato's life.

469 / 471 BC–399 BC , Socrates' life.

We know Plato didn't write anything about Socrates, until after his death, but I can't find an exact date. Would have had to have been between 399-347 BC. That's a 52 year span.

"Plato was not the only author whose personal experience of Socrates led to the depiction of him as a character in one or more dramatic works. Socrates is one of the principal characters of Aristophanes' comedy, Clouds; and Xenophon, a historian and military leader, wrote, like Plato, both an Apology of Socrates (an account of Socrates' trial) and other works in which Socrates appears as a principal speaker. Furthermore, we have some fragmentary remains of dialogues written by other contemporaries of Socrates (Aeschines, Antisthenes, Eucleides, Phaedo), and these purport to describe conversations he conducted with others."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#Soc

"Evidently, the historical Socrates was the sort of person who provoked in those who knew him, or knew of him, a profound response, and he inspired many of those who came under his influence to write about him. But the portraits composed by Aristophanes, Xenophon, and Plato are the ones that have survived intact, and they are therefore the ones that must play the greatest role in shaping our conception of what Socrates was like."

Sounds like Jesus and his follower's accounts.

"Perhaps the most celebrated philosophical row in the Hellenistic period (323-30 B.C.), that followed Socrates' death (399 B.C.), was between the Stoics and the Academic Skeptics. The Skeptics aimed at systematically undermining the theses the Stoics put forth. But one thing the Stoics3 and Skeptics4 (who actually wished to be called Socratics5) had in common was that each traced their lineage back to Socrates. Since these two schools arose well after Socrates had died, neither founder could have known Socrates personally;6 their information, like our own, was second-hand."
http://agora.stanford.edu/agora/cgi-bin ... ry=mahoney

"Plato was not the only writer of dialogues in which Socrates appears as a principal character and speaker. Others, including Alexamenos of Teos (Aristotle Poetics 1447b11; De Poetis fr. 3 Ross [=Rose2 72]), Aeschines (D.L. 2.60-63, 3.36, Plato Apology 33e), Antisthenes ( D.L. 3.35, 6; Plato, Phaedo 59b; Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.4.5, 3.2.17), Aristippus ( D.L. 2.65-104, 3.36, Plato Phaedo 59c), Eucleides ( D.L. 2.106-112), Phaedo ( D.L. 2.105; Plato, Phaedo passim), Simon ( D.L. 122-124), and especially Xenophon (see D.L. 2.48-59, 3.34), were also well-known "Socratics" who composed such works. A recent study of these, by Charles H. Kahn (1996, 1-35), concludes that the very existence of the genre-and all of the conflicting images of Socrates we find given by the various authors-shows that we cannot trust as historically reliable any of the accounts of Socrates given in antiquity, including those given by Plato."
Charles H. Kahn is Professor of Philosophy at the University of PA. Interesting ??

It seems that one difference then that people who wrote about Socrates actually knew of him during his lifetime. That is in contrast to the Christian writings, where the only writings we have from within 30 years or more of his life were from someone whose sole contact was in visions.

[justifyothers]

The source I linked to agrees that Plato's back-and-forths with hypothetical questioners probably reflected his own philosophy more than Socrates', however Plato's account of Socrates' death does coincide with the other written account. Moreover there are no known religious motivations for elaborating on, let alone fabricating, the life of Socrates. Motive plays a very important role in these matters.

Did Socrates ever truly tell a poet that they were divinely inspired because they only liked the works of Homer? Probably not. Was he born, lived, and sentenced to death? Probably yes. We still haven't been shown exactly what sources for the existence of Jesus we're supposed to be comparing this information to. Is it the Gospels? Is it secular? If the latter, what secular sources? Plato's works, for all their presumable inaccuracies about the life of Socrates, can not be said to have been subjected to the unceremonious insertion of Socrates as the Orthodoxy might have with Jesus into Josephus'.

If that statement is not agreeable, then defend the Testimonium. If it is agreeable, then what other secular sources are available for the life of Jesus? If there are none, what makes the Gospels a valid source for deducing that Jesus was a living man? If they are not, then where is the bloody argument?

Both Plato and the gospel writers seem to have some things in common:

1) The internal desire to document the lives and philosophies of someone they admired, loved, learned much from and considered "inspired" and wise. In other words, someone they felt could be a positive influence on others around them at the time.
2) The idea to share this information freely with others - pass on what they felt was important enough to write down.
3) To my knowledge, neither group charged money for these writings.
4) In both cases, we have very little else to go by. There is some vague writing of Jesus outside the bible - it is controversial. And there are the writings of a few other than Plato concerning Socrates. These are also looked at skeptically by historians.

One thing may differ concerning the objectivity involved here between these two examples:
Plato may have altered some of the philosophies of Socrates to better fit some of his own ideas - he would have had much to gain from doing this.

But, in the case of the gospel writers, the opposite is true. Given the message being relayed, I can only imagine severe diligence being used to try with their human minds to recall every word as it were exactly spoken by Jesus. Now this may or may not seem important to some of us, but I can see how it would have been a very serious matter to these guys, trying to spread this good message.

Do I think Socrates existed? Absolutely
Do I think Jesus existed? Absolutely

[Goat]

The source I linked to agrees that Plato's back-and-forths with hypothetical questioners probably reflected his own philosophy more than Socrates', however Plato's account of Socrates' death does coincide with the other written account. Moreover there are no known religious motivations for elaborating on, let alone fabricating, the life of Socrates. Motive plays a very important role in these matters.

Did Socrates ever truly tell a poet that they were divinely inspired because they only liked the works of Homer? Probably not. Was he born, lived, and sentenced to death? Probably yes. We still haven't been shown exactly what sources for the existence of Jesus we're supposed to be comparing this information to. Is it the Gospels? Is it secular? If the latter, what secular sources? Plato's works, for all their presumable inaccuracies about the life of Socrates, can not be said to have been subjected to the unceremonious insertion of Socrates as the Orthodoxy might have with Jesus into Josephus'.

If that statement is not agreeable, then defend the Testimonium. If it is agreeable, then what other secular sources are available for the life of Jesus? If there are none, what makes the Gospels a valid source for deducing that Jesus was a living man? If they are not, then where is the bloody argument?

Both Plato and the gospel writers seem to have some things in common:

1) The internal desire to document the lives and philosophies of someone they admired, loved, learned much from and considered "inspired" and wise. In other words, someone they felt could be a positive influence on others around them at the time.
2) The idea to share this information freely with others - pass on what they felt was important enough to write down.
3) To my knowledge, neither group charged money for these writings.
4) In both cases, we have very little else to go by. There is some vague writing of Jesus outside the bible - it is controversial. And there are the writings of a few other than Plato concerning Socrates. These are also looked at skeptically by historians.

One thing may differ concerning the objectivity involved here between these two examples:
Plato may have altered some of the philosophies of Socrates to better fit some of his own ideas - he would have had much to gain from doing this.

But, in the case of the gospel writers, the opposite is true. Given the message being relayed, I can only imagine severe diligence being used to try with their human minds to recall every word as it were exactly spoken by Jesus. Now this may or may not seem important to some of us, but I can see how it would have been a very serious matter to these guys, trying to spread this good message.

Do I think Socrates existed? Absolutely
Do I think Jesus existed? Absolutely

Do I think Socrates existed, possibly.

Do I think Plato accurately represented all of Socrate's teaching, absolutely not.
However, he was mentioned by several within a few years of his life.

Do I think Jesus existed? As written in the Gospels, unlikely.. as a person, possibly. However, the earliest reference was to someone who saw him in a vision,
and did not discuss his theology or message. He was not mentioned until you have someone writing about him being God 35 years later.


Do I think that the message of Jesus was transmitted accurately, absolutely not.

[justifyothers]

Do I think Socrates existed, possibly.

Do I think Plato accurately represented all of Socrate's teaching, absolutely not.
However, he was mentioned by several within a few years of his life.

Do I think Jesus existed? As written in the Gospels, unlikely.. as a person, possibly. However, the earliest reference was to someone who saw him in a vision,
and did not discuss his theology or message. He was not mentioned until you have someone writing about him being God 35 years later.


Do I think that the message of Jesus was transmitted accurately, absolutely not.

Do you think Moses existed?
Do you think Moses parted the red sea?

[Goat]

Do I think Socrates existed, possibly.

Do I think Plato accurately represented all of Socrate's teaching, absolutely not.
However, he was mentioned by several within a few years of his life.

Do I think Jesus existed? As written in the Gospels, unlikely.. as a person, possibly. However, the earliest reference was to someone who saw him in a vision,
and did not discuss his theology or message. He was not mentioned until you have someone writing about him being God 35 years later.


Do I think that the message of Jesus was transmitted accurately, absolutely not.

Do you think Moses existed?
Do you think Moses parted the red sea?

It is highly unlikely that Moses existed. The 'drawn from the water' was taken
from the Legend of Sargon.

It is extremely improbable that Moses 'parted' the red sea as described by the Bible.

[olivergringold]

Both Plato and the gospel writers seem to have some things in common:

At last, the naming of a source: The Gospels. Let us venture!

1) The internal desire to document the lives and philosophies of someone they admired, loved, learned much from and considered "inspired" and wise. In other words, someone they felt could be a positive influence on others around them at the time.

This assumes that the Gospels were written by the apostles. Unless one assumes that the writing about the destruction of the Temple is a prophecy, this is not the case. Let us assume both that and nothing, but the latter first: This places the Gospels at no earlier than 70AD, a full human generation after Jesus supposedly lived and died. Since parenthood and death began much earlier due to the lack of modern medicine, it was more like two human generations, but we'll let that slide. That alone would invalidate the Gospels as an even halfway accurate source. Plato's works were written immediately proceeding the life of Socrates.

But let us go back then and assume that the spelling out of the temple's destruction was the documentation of a prophecy. Even if these were written at the time of Jesus, we don't know who by: The Gospels weren't named until the fourth century. Moreover, at the time period you are placing the Gospels at, there was competition in the form of Paul's epistles, which speak very lucidly and unmistakably about reaching a spiritual Christ through gnosis. Christ is not a man to be emulated, but a Divinity to be worn. This directly conflicts the message told in the Gospels. The former, by the way, has not been torn to academic shreds by the greed and delusion of the Orthodoxy's penholders...the Gospels, by contrast, were.

2) The idea to share this information freely with others - pass on what they felt was important enough to write down.

You'll note that Plato never attempted to begin a ministry. He was interested in what at the time was considered to be academia, while the Gospel writers were interested in saving (by way of converting) souls. One would have to assume that the emotional stake one puts in the latter could make it more easily subjected to rationalized falsehood than the former.

3) To my knowledge, neither group charged money for these writings.

Aristotle, if I'm not mistaken, was a student of Plato, and at the time not everybody could afford an education. What fees Plato himself collected I do not know. To be frank I do not know if he even sought to publish his recollections and elaborations on Socrates. What I do know is that your ideas about education millenia ago are slightly skewed. If I am wrong, and can be shown to be, then I shall apologize, but in the meantime I'm fairly certain that you are wrong here.

4) In both cases, we have very little else to go by. There is some vague writing of Jesus outside the bible - it is controversial. And there are the writings of a few other than Plato concerning Socrates. These are also looked at skeptically by historians.

When the Gospels corroborate one another in early copies of the manuscripts, it was sometimes word for word. While there were only two prose sources for Socrates, their differences were highlighted by independently corroborating stories (in particular about the manner of Socrates' death). If you could point out why this other source for Socrates is considered more skeptically than Plato, I would love to hear about it. Also, what are these sources for Jesus? Tell me about them. I'm not being cynical...I'd like to know what you're going by.

One thing may differ concerning the objectivity involved here between these two examples:
Plato may have altered some of the philosophies of Socrates to better fit some of his own ideas - he would have had much to gain from doing this.

What would he have to gain? Most of the conversations Plato wrote about were back-and-forth musings on dozens of subjects. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.

But, in the case of the gospel writers, the opposite is true. Given the message being relayed, I can only imagine severe diligence being used to try with their human minds to recall every word as it were exactly spoken by Jesus. Now this may or may not seem important to some of us, but I can see how it would have been a very serious matter to these guys, trying to spread this good message.

That assumes far too much about the writers of the Gospels. Having read what I mentioned above regarding their validity, please tell me what holes you see in my argument, what (if anything) still remains untouched regarding the Gospels' status as historically accurate, and what evidence would be required regarding that to overturn their historical status.

Do I think Socrates existed? Absolutely

The correct answer is "probably."

Do I think Jesus existed? Absolutely

"
I see little reason from your argument to change my answer from "probably not."

[achilles12604]

Which four sources for Jesus? I've provided, in a different thread, a link which succinctly describes the three sources for Socrates and argues for their validity. How can I study or be convinced of the validity of these four Jesus-sources if I'm flying blind?

Which sources. What am I laying my benchmarks by? I can only accept this challenge if you can show me what evidence for the existence for Jesus you are using.

Ok. As OIG points out in order to be organized we must identify what are the primary sources for each so we are on the same page.

I offer the following:

Jesus: Book of Matthew, Book of Mark, Book of Luke, Book of John

Alexander the Great: Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius, Arrian and possible Justin

Socrates: Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes


Anyone have issues that these are the primary sources we need to compare for these three people?

[Furrowed Brow]

Here a link for the stone that is accepted as proof of Pilate’s existence. Pilate’s Stone

This is the inscription.

[center]Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius[/center]
What does the stone tell us about the Pilate and about the author - in this case mason or the person who commissioned the mason. The stone shows us that the authors were attempting to record and event. So we ask: for which audience have the authors commissioned the stone? Well it seems the people of Caeserea. Maybe Pilate if he like to see his name record, maybe also other visiting Romans. But you have to pass the stone to read it. The purpose of the inscription is to get the reader to believe what it says. It could be a lie though. A bit of Roman PR. However it still only makes sense to see it as PR if Pilate existed, otherwise there would be no need for the PR to mention Pilate. It could mention another Roman, or just Tiberius. Roman hegemony would not be threatened by the non existence of Pilate. So if the inscription is true Pilate existed, if it is false he existed, therefore on the assumption that there is still not a more complicated scenario to consider, it is reasonable to presume Pilate existed. It should be also noted that other than marking some building as a temple the mention of Pilate’s name on the stone is not there to draw people into the Temple.

Now take the gospels. They make statements about JC. The texts exist like the stone exists. Again we ask: for what audience are the text written? Answer everyone and anyone anywhere who will read them. What is the purpose of the text? Like the stone it is to get the reader to believe what it says. If the text is true, then JC existed. If however the text is false then you have no Christianity. Unlike the case of the stone, Rome does not collapse without Pilate. On point of logic: we cannot reasonably equate Christian texts as evidence for JC as firmly as we can for Pilate for this reason alone.

That the Christian texts refer to Pilate is then interesting, it shows whoever wrote the texts was trying to either be historical accurate, or weave some real history into the story. If you are saying your story is true you are bound to be doing that.

[achilles12604]

Here a link for the stone that is accepted as proof of Pilate’s existence. Pilate’s Stone

This is the inscription.

[center]Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius[/center]
What does the stone tell us about the Pilate and about the author - in this case mason or the person who commissioned the mason. The stone shows us that the authors were attempting to record and event. So we ask: for which audience have the authors commissioned the stone? Well it seems the people of Caeserea. Maybe Pilate if he like to see his name record, maybe also other visiting Romans. But you have to pass the stone to read it. The purpose of the inscription is to get the reader to believe what it says. It could be a lie though. A bit of Roman PR. However it still only makes sense to see it as PR if Pilate existed, otherwise there would be no need for the PR to mention Pilate. It could mention another Roman, or just Tiberius. Roman hegemony would not be threatened by the non existence of Pilate. So if the inscription is true Pilate existed, if it is false he existed, therefore on the assumption that there is still not a more complicated scenario to consider, it is reasonable to presume Pilate existed. It should be also noted that other than marking some building as a temple the mention of Pilate’s name on the stone is not there to draw people into the Temple.

Now take the gospels. They make statements about JC. The texts exist like the stone exists. Again we ask: for what audience are the text written? Answer everyone and anyone anywhere who will read them. What is the purpose of the text? Like the stone it is to get the reader to believe what it says. If the text is true, then JC existed. If however the text is false then you have no Christianity. Unlike the case of the stone, Rome does not collapse without Pilate. On point of logic: we cannot reasonably equate Christian texts as evidence for JC as firmly as we can for Pilate for this reason alone.

That the Christian texts refer to Pilate is then interesting, it shows whoever wrote the texts was trying to either be historical accurate, or weave some real history into the story. If you are saying your story is true you are bound to be doing that.

It seems that you are trying to establish that the only validation Christians present for the whole of Christianity and Jesus is the logical fallacy appeal to emotions.

If this is really your position then you obviously have not been reading my posts. I want just exactly what you suggested in the other thread . . .

Now lets say I’m not an atheist, but more an agnostic. How do I approach the historical evidence. Answer: the same way.

Now lets say I’m a Hindu or a Muslim or any other theist other than Christian that believed in interventionist deities. How do I approach the evidence. Answer: the same way.

I want to approach the evidence the same way . . . not with the standard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"


the same way.

Is this a fair request?