A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #1

Post by Jagella »

Some of you may be familiar with the argument from silence advanced by many mythicists in which it is claimed that the historians of the early first century never mentioned Jesus. If he really lived, then how could they have missed him? One person in particular who might be expected to have mentioned Jesus is Philo of Alexandria. Richard Carrier writes:
Philo made pilgrimages to Jerusalem and knew about Palestinian affairs and wrote about the Herods and Pontius Pilate. And Christians must have begun evangelizing the Jewish community in Alexandria almost immediately: it was the single largest population center, with a large and diverse Jewish Community, almost directly adjacent to Judea, along a well-established trade route well traveled by Jewish pilgrims. So it's not as if Philo would not have heard of their claims even if he had never left Egypt; and yet we know he did, having traveled to Judea and Rome. Moreover, Philo just happens to be one Jew of the period whose work Christians bothered to preserve. He would not have been alone. (1)
To counter this argument, historicists have come up with an ad hoc explanation: Jesus was a small-time preacher who would not have been noticed by historians like Philo. Although this argument might seem superficially convincing, it argues against another historicist claim: Jesus inspired the New Testament writers to make a god out of him decades after he died.

So will the real Jesus please stand up? Was Jesus so small-time that nobody bothered to write about him while he yet lived, or was he such a powerful, big-time figure that many years after his death he was deified?

(1) Carrier, Richard, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield, Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014, Page 294

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #41

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 40 by liamconnor]
I doubt he even heard about it. It is near 80 miles from the Sea of Galilee to Jerusalem.
Ah...so communication is a problem then? So what does this point, raised by yourself, do to Christian claims of Jesus being well known far and wide? Of people seeking his counsel and healing?

Indeed, what does this distance do to the problem of the 500 witnesses talked about by Paul in Corinthians, with the standard Christian apologetic being something along the lines of "If Paul was just making it up, someone could or would have simply checked"?
My guess is, if a soldier wasted Pilate's time with news of a 5,000 men hanging out in a GAlilean wilderness, Pilate would have had him executed.
Roman Soldier: "Sir, I noticed a gathering of Jews, thousands of them, in the wilderness. Alas, I could not infiltrate the group, being of good Roman stock. I feared that if they were rebels, which is a possibility, they would have noticed me more or less immediately"
Pilate: "Off with your head!"

Sorry, but I don't buy what you guess. Are we to presume that Pilate was so incompetent a general (or equivalent military rank) that he would execute soldiers merely for saying that there is a gathering of Jews who may or may not be rebels?
Do we honestly think Pilate had nothing better to do than investigate gatherings?
Have I or people like me worded our responses in such a way as to indicate that we think Pilate can ONLY do one thing?
Thus far the arguments against Jesus' historicity are flagrantly ad hoc and lack historical perspective (i.e., putting oneself back in the context as much as possible).
I'm working off the assumption that Pilate was a trained military officer, who would have made some sort of effort to discharge the duties of his office. Such a hypothetical officer would, almost by definition, pay attention to reports of gatherings of his subject population and NOT execute his soldiers merely for reporting such.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #42

Post by Danmark »

Jagella wrote: So will the real Jesus please stand up? Was Jesus so small-time that nobody bothered to write about him while he yet lived, or was he such a powerful, big-time figure that many years after his death he was deified?
This puts me in mind of Saul/Paul who is the author of the earliest accounts in scripture that reference Jesus of Nazareth. Yet 'Paul,' who was a contemporary of Jesus, was fanatically obsessed with him, and lived in the same area, never saw this Jesus.

Instead, after suffering from conditions that would make a person susceptible to delirium and hallucinations, claims a supernatural sighting. Later, the gospels are written, supporting Paul's claims. It is hard to imagine a shakier foundation for the claims of the church.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #43

Post by Mithrae »

rikuoamero wrote: Mithrae says
In other words, even the biggest crowds described in the gospels could plausibly have gathered simply from a quarter of the folk from some local villages going for an afternoon stroll.

I don't think there's any particular reason to suppose that the Roman authorities would be specifically informed every time that happened.
I found this article
https://web.archive.org/web/20101219011 ... minist.htm

The governors of Judaea did have small auxiliary forces of locally recruited soldiers stationed regularly in Caesarea and Jerusalem and temporarily anywhere else that required a military presence. The total number of soldiers at their disposal numbered in the range of 3000.
According to the Gospels, Jesus on at least two occasions fed crowds (4,000 and 5,000). These are numbers greater than the total number of soldiers available to Pilate, the governor. Now granted, these would be civilians, without training or weapons...but does Pilate know this? Would he be the type of man to just brush off news of gatherings this large? Could he afford to ignore the possibility that these crowds are actually soldiers or insurrectionists?
It's not a large gathering, that's the point. It would have been the size of an average town meeting. Or a fraction of the villages' populations within a couple of hour's walk. You're trying to argue that the authorities must have spent all their time literally jumping at shadows.

And (again) this is all on the basis of the dubious assumption that the claim in Luke - not in Mark, and not in Matthew, and not in John, only in Luke - about Pilate's ignorance of Jesus is historically sound information to begin with! Luke wasn't there; he wasn't a Jew; his only known apostolic connection was with Paul, not even with a follower of Jesus. Why do you think that his gospel is such a reliable source about Pilate?


#####
#####

Danmark wrote: This puts me in mind of Saul/Paul who is the author of the earliest accounts in scripture that reference Jesus of Nazareth. Yet 'Paul,' who was a contemporary of Jesus, was fanatically obsessed with him, and lived in the same area, never saw this Jesus.
Suppose Saul had been among the alleged crowd of Jews howling for Jesus' death. Do you really expect that he should have mentioned that so frequently in his letters that it would be found among those that have survived? As with this thread topic in general, it's quite amazing how much faith some folk sometimes place not in flimsy evidence, but in no evidence at all.
Last edited by Mithrae on Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #44

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 43 by Mithrae]
And (again) this is all on the basis of the dubious assumption that the claim in Luke - not in Mark, and not in Matthew, and not in John, only in Luke - about Pilate's ignorance of Jesus is historically sound information to begin with!
Umm...that's not my position. In fact, all of what I've said here is to argue against that!
Why do you think that his gospel is such a reliable source about Pilate?
I don't, which is why I've been pointing out that going by what the gospels say about him, we have Pilate acting nothing like the trained military officer he was supposed to be.
It's not a large gathering, that's the point. It would have been the size of an average town meeting
As I indicated, these numbers were greater than all of Pilate's own forces. Which makes it very odd indeed that not only was Pilate apparently unaware of them, but that we have people here arguing that even if he had been aware, he wouldn't have cared.
You're trying to argue that the authorities must have spent all their time literally jumping at shadows.
When one is a foreign born governor of a nation under military occupation...one had better be.
If someone told me that American generals didn't pay attention to gatherings of thousands of Iraqis during the 2,000s...I would've been questioning their (the generals') competency.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #45

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 42 by Danmark]
This puts me in mind of Saul/Paul who is the author of the earliest accounts in scripture that reference Jesus of Nazareth. Yet 'Paul,' who was a contemporary of Jesus, was fanatically obsessed with him, and lived in the same area, never saw this Jesus.
I noticed that too. Why would Paul not mention that he knew or at least knew about Jesus prior to the death of Jesus? The only explanation that seems to fit is that Paul became acquainted with Jesus many years after Jesus died. This getting acquainted with Jesus came to Paul not through any human testimony but through visions and revelations. We can conclude, then, that the Christian religion got off the ground with a celestial Jesus. The earthly Jesus was placed into history on earth decades later.
Instead, after suffering from conditions that would make a person susceptible to delirium and hallucinations, claims a supernatural sighting. Later, the gospels are written, supporting Paul's claims. It is hard to imagine a shakier foundation for the claims of the church.
The gospels support some of Paul's claims but make their own new and unique claims. The foremost of these new claims is that Jesus walked the earth as a man.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #46

Post by Mithrae »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 43 by Mithrae]
And (again) this is all on the basis of the dubious assumption that the claim in Luke - not in Mark, and not in Matthew, and not in John, only in Luke - about Pilate's ignorance of Jesus is historically sound information to begin with!
Umm...that's not my position. In fact, all of what I've said here is to argue against that!
Why do you think that his gospel is such a reliable source about Pilate?
I don't, which is why I've been pointing out that going by what the gospels say about him, we have Pilate acting nothing like the trained military officer he was supposed to be.
Which gospels? I thought we had just established, with your agreement, that only a single later gospel suggests anything about Pilate's ignorance of Jesus.
rikuoamero wrote:
It's not a large gathering, that's the point. It would have been the size of an average town meeting
As I indicated, these numbers were greater than all of Pilate's own forces. Which makes it very odd indeed that not only was Pilate apparently unaware of them, but that we have people here arguing that even if he had been aware, he wouldn't have cared.
You're trying to argue that the authorities must have spent all their time literally jumping at shadows.
When one is a foreign born governor of a nation under military occupation...one had better be.
If someone told me that American generals didn't pay attention to gatherings of thousands of Iraqis during the 2,000s...I would've been questioning their (the generals') competency.
Supposing for the sake of argument that you're the governor of Galilee (which Pilate wasn't), are you really trying to claim that you would become immediately and personally informed about the details of every town meeting that occurred? It's absurd on the face of it. Maybe you'd have someone stationed in all or most of the 240 towns and villages in the region to keep an eye out for trouble, and they'd provide weekly or monthly reports to someone further up the chain of command. And when the reports are nothing more than "bunch of Jews gathered to discuss their religion," that's probably where it'd stop. That's a weekly occurrence, for Jews. If someone speaks out against your administration, or starts gathering weaponry, or some kind of paramilitary training, or advocates insurrection or non-payment of taxes, then it would be something important to nip in the bud.

Granted, maybe you believe that you would be a supremely competent administrator happy to read hundreds of reports of town meetings and itinerant preachers, week after week after week, and never tell your underlings to only bother you with important stuff. But as Goose has pretty thoroughly explained, we have reasons to suspect that Pilate probably was not the cream of the crop. In his administration of Judea, that is... not Galilee.

Luke's portrayal of Pilate's ignorance doesn't seem convincing, but only because I'd assume he would have been briefed before commencing the hearing; not because I'd expect him to have been intimately familiar with every wandering rabbi from a territory which wasn't even his own!

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #47

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 46 by Mithrae]
Supposing for the sake of argument that you're the governor of Galilee (which Pilate wasn't),
Again, this point ignores that Jesus entered Jerusalem (according to Gospels) and was hailed as a king. The feeding of the multitudes (both of them) supposedly occurred in Galilee yes, but when did they occur? Before or after Jesus's entrance to Jerusalem?
Which gospels?
Slip of the tongue, so to speak.
are you really trying to claim that you would become immediately and personally informed about the details of every town meeting that occurred?
Since you're asking what I would do...yes. I would try to do that.
It's absurd on the face of it.
Why?
Maybe you'd have someone stationed in all or most of the 240 towns and villages in the region to keep an eye out for trouble, and they'd provide weekly or monthly reports to someone further up the chain of command.
Good idea! Now since you're presumably not a trained military officer, would not Pilate, who was, have thought of that?
And when the reports are nothing more than "bunch of Jews gathered to discuss their religion," that's probably where it'd stop.
No.
Remember what Jesus was charged with. Naming himself King of the Jews, which would have been seen as a political challenge and threat to Caesar.
For the Jews, especially back then, religion was mixed in with politics. Pilate, as governor, had the authority to name the High Priest of the Sanhedrin. So if Pilate had heard that there was a gathering of thousands of Jews, there's no reason for him to think "Oh, they're just talking about a man whom they claim is the King of the Jews, whom they say is prophesied to drive out all foreign invaders i.e. me and mine. No biggie, just religion, nothing to worry about".
That's a weekly occurrence, for Jews.
So then you agree, Pilate should have been keeping himself aware of this, and should have done something about it, since these gatherings are so common.
If someone speaks out against your administration, or starts gathering weaponry, or some kind of paramilitary training, or advocates insurrection or non-payment of taxes, then it would be something important to nip in the bud.
or starts claiming they have a leader prophesied by a prophet from hundreds of years in the past who will drive out foreign invaders...
Granted, maybe you believe that you would be a supremely competent administrator happy to read hundreds of reports of town meetings and itinerant preachers, week after week after week, and never tell your underlings to only bother you with important stuff.
I don't know how competent I myself would be, but I would certainly try the above, if I had been in that situation.
But as Goose has pretty thoroughly explained, we have reasons to suspect that Pilate probably was not the cream of the crop. In his administration of Judea, that is... not Galilee.
There's having unmotivated soldiers...and then there's just simply not doing your job.
Luke's portrayal of Pilate's ignorance doesn't seem convincing, but only because I'd assume he would have been briefed before commencing the hearing; not because I'd expect him to have been intimately familiar with every wandering rabbi from a territory which wasn't even his own!
Or of a rabbi who entered the most important city in Judaism hailed as a king, who, if Pilate was at all familiar with Jewish prophecy (which he almost certainly ought to have been, given his position) is supposed to drive out foreign invaders.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #48

Post by Mithrae »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 46 by Mithrae]
Supposing for the sake of argument that you're the governor of Galilee (which Pilate wasn't),
Again, this point ignores that Jesus entered Jerusalem (according to Gospels) and was hailed as a king. The feeding of the multitudes (both of them) supposedly occurred in Galilee yes, but when did they occur? Before or after Jesus's entrance to Jerusalem?
Jesus was crucified within a week of that event; you'd have a hard time arguing that Pilate hadn't heard about it.

In fact I'm not sure what you are arguing, if you agree that Luke's portrayal of Pilate's ignorance is doubtful. Of the material recorded in multiple gospels, for just a single week of his life Jesus did stuff which might - might - have been important enough to register with, say, Philo of Alexandria. But then he was executed because of them, a meaningless flash of popularity and hubris, so why would anyone bother mentioning him at all?

Regardless of whether or not he actually had preached to crowds of thousands, the general argument from silence on that basis is extremely weak (and the argument from Luke's Pilate's ignorance obviously even weaker). Even Jesus' brother James ended up more noteworthy in his own lifetime, as the long-time head of an established community of thousands of Jewish Christians rather than an ephemeral crowd in a brief itinerant career: But it was still a comparatively small sect, so even James barely warranted a passing reference to his death from Josephus:
  • "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so [Ananus] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done..."

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #49

Post by Danmark »

Jagella wrote:...historicists have come up with an ad hoc explanation: Jesus was a small-time preacher who would not have been noticed by historians like Philo. Although this argument might seem superficially convincing, it argues against another historicist claim: Jesus inspired the New Testament writers to make a god out of him decades after he died.

So will the real Jesus please stand up? Was Jesus so small-time that nobody bothered to write about him while he yet lived, or was he such a powerful, big-time figure that many years after his death he was deified?
Neither of these alternatives are compelling. Tho' there was probably a 'Jesus' who fit some of the descriptions we see in the NT, I see no reason to accept any of them. The gospels were written after Paul wrote about his delirium inspired visions. The church then compiled 2d or 3d hand accounts of what had happened before Paul's hallucination.

Jesus was indeed a 'small time preacher,' a failed apocalyptic prophet whose claim of impending disaster and his miraculous return was proved false by about 70 CE, prompting revisionist writings by the church to try to put a different spin on the very clear statements on the Mount of Olives, attributed to Jesus about his return during "This Generation."

Jesus did not inspire the NT directly. Rather, it was Paul who never met Jesus, who for his own reasons and delusions promoted the Jesus myth.

liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post #50

Post by liamconnor »

[Replying to post 41 by rikuoamero]

Quote:
I doubt he even heard about it. It is near 80 miles from the Sea of Galilee to Jerusalem.

Ah...so communication is a problem then? So what does this point, raised by yourself, do to Christian claims of Jesus being well known far and wide? Of people seeking his counsel and healing?

Indeed, what does this distance do to the problem of the 500 witnesses talked about by Paul in Corinthians, with the standard Christian apologetic being something along the lines of "If Paul was just making it up, someone could or would have simply checked"?
What an odd attempt...

We were talking about official Roman knowledge and interest. Are you assuming that because the public heard and were interested, the government heard and were interested? How strange of an historical assessment.

May I ask, what historians have you been studying?

Quote:
My guess is, if a soldier wasted Pilate's time with news of a 5,000 men hanging out in a GAlilean wilderness, Pilate would have had him executed.
Roman Soldier: "Sir, I noticed a gathering of Jews, thousands of them, in the wilderness. Alas, I could not infiltrate the group, being of good Roman stock. I feared that if they were rebels, which is a possibility, they would have noticed me more or less immediately"
Pilate: "Off with your head!"
What in heaven's name are you attempting here?! One of Pilate's soldiers is in the Galilean wilderness alone? Did he get lost? Did he go out for a pee and wander too far (i.e. outside of Pilate's jurisdiction)?

Please, please, can we not all gain some historical perspective.

Even supposing the ridiculous situation you have presented (a single Roman soldier, wandering miles and miles from his post; coming across a crowd of Jewish peasants mingling about or listening to a man talk about morals; and then, feeling the absolute urgency to move....SOUTH....to a different province! 80 miles away!!)

Here is the conversation that would have happened (though it too is fictitious: Pilate would not be talking to this soldier one on one)):

Soldier: Sir, I was in the Galilean wilderness when...

Pilate: Wait, what? What the hell were you doing in the Galilean wilderness?

Soldier: Ah, well....


You can fill in the gaps; especially the one between his neck and head.

Post Reply