A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

[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

[Clownboat]

Would you expect a historian of the time and geographical area to mention a phenominon where 500 dead bodies got out of their graves and roamed the streets?

First of all, who said anything about 500 dead bodies getting out of their graves and roaming the streets, besides you.

I did and we both know that. Will you now answer the question?
"Would you expect a historian of the time and geographical area to mention a phenominon where 500 dead bodies got out of their graves and roamed the streets?"

Second, I would expect a historian of Christianity who lived at the time and geographical area to write bout resurrections as it relates to Christianity.

Great! Now which historians wrote about the 500 tombs of godly men and women that magically opened according to the Bible?

Matthew 27:52 and tombs opened. The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead.

Sure..but where is those 500 dead bodies that you mentioned above; where are they in this scripture? I sure as heck don't see'em.

Then you need to look better.
Again:
Matthew 27:52 and tombs opened. The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead.
(53) They left the cemetery after Jesus' resurrection, went into the holy city of Jerusalem, and appeared to many people.

Surely you would agree that historians would have mentioned such an event.

[liamconnor]

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

A better question: Is R. Carrier or those who love him online (no published historian follows him) really qualified to assess the historical data?

My answer, No. I have read numerous scholars on the historical Jesus, most of which do not believe in miracles or the resurrection. None, I repeat, None, quote Carrier.

Carrier has no grasp of the historical imagination; by which I mean the ability to ask, "Why would someone back then, given all we know about their lives, do or say someting?'

For instance, the question is asked:

Was Jesus so small-time that nobody bothered to write about him while he yet lived,

Why would anyone "write" about Jesus while he lived?! Do we really imagine Peter, or James, saying to Jesus, "Hey, great knowing you; but I gotta take a break and write a book. Pray for me that Zondervan accepts the submission."?

The arguments of Carrier and those who follow him (i.e., hyperskeptics of the internet) are without historical merit and only demonstrate that historical imagination (the ability to imagine the past with historically informed restraints) is very difficult.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 191 by Clownboat]

Clownboat, I think FtK is asking you where you're getting the 500 dead bodies number from. Matthew mentions dead bodies rising from their graves, but not a specific number.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 192 by liamconnor]

Why would anyone "write" about Jesus while he lived?!

Let's pretend for a moment that the Jesus of the New Testament is indeed historical.

Didn't Jesus teach or command his followers to spread a gospel about him? Yes or No?

Wouldn't one of, if not THE, best ways to do so be via writings? Yes or No?

I'd say yes to both questions. This way, the apostles don't need to be everywhere at once. Writings from Peter can reach crowds far and wide, while Peter himself is physically in only the one location, for example.

Do we really imagine Peter, or James, saying to Jesus, "Hey, great knowing you; but I gotta take a break and write a book. Pray for me that Zondervan accepts the submission."?

You make it seem like hanging around Jesus and writing a book about Jesus are mutually exclusive activities...
Couldn't they write it as they hung around Jesus? Bit by bit?

Is R. Carrier or those who love him online (no published historian follows him) really qualified to assess the historical data?

He's got a doctorate in ancient history. I honestly don't know if no-one quotes him in their own papers, but assuming it's true, he's got to have at least some level of competency what with that doctorate.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 191 by Clownboat]

Clownboat, I think FtK is asking you where you're getting the 500 dead bodies number from. Matthew mentions dead bodies rising from their graves, but not a specific number.

Ahhhhh.
So to avoid addressing the question of dead bodies being resurrected and roaming the streets, he is asking about the number 500 instead.

To be honest, I thought the Bible gave the figure of 500 somewhere (My bad). Probably just a number I heard as a kid. However, the quantity is hardly the point.

Whether it was 'many' or 500, it would be worthy of note that dead people got out of their graves and made themselves known, yet it seems to have gone unnoticed. Like the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus.

Imagine the impact that would happen on this planet if Elvis got out of his grave and made himself known. It seems to me that the claim that Jesus, Lazarus and many of the saints coming back to life were taken no more seriously than claims we have today of people seeing Elvis. It seems reasonable that Jesus sightings were no different than Elvis sightings of today. However, back in such superstitiuos times, people were probably more likely to accept such a claim. Afterall, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus were also believed to have returned to life.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 191 by Clownboat]

Clownboat, I think FtK is asking you where you're getting the 500 dead bodies number from. Matthew mentions dead bodies rising from their graves, but not a specific number.

Ahhhhh.
So to avoid addressing the question of dead bodies being resurrected and roaming the streets, he is asking about the number 500 instead.

To be honest, I thought the Bible gave the figure of 500 somewhere (My bad). Probably just a number I heard as a kid. However, the quantity is hardly the point.

Maybe you were thinking of this story instead:

1 Corinthians 15:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Unlike many, you have at least admitted your error. Like you said, it makes little difference to the point, but FtK was right to at least point out the number was wrong.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 191 by Clownboat]

Clownboat, I think FtK is asking you where you're getting the 500 dead bodies number from. Matthew mentions dead bodies rising from their graves, but not a specific number.

Ahhhhh.
So to avoid addressing the question of dead bodies being resurrected and roaming the streets, he is asking about the number 500 instead.

To be honest, I thought the Bible gave the figure of 500 somewhere (My bad). Probably just a number I heard as a kid. However, the quantity is hardly the point.

Maybe you were thinking of this story instead:

1 Corinthians 15:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Unlike many, you have at least admitted your error. Like you said, it makes little difference to the point, but FtK was right to at least point out the number was wrong.

Unfortunately, that was all that was addressed.
For example:
Matthew 27:52 and tombs opened. The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead.
(53) They left the cemetery after Jesus' resurrection, went into the holy city of Jerusalem, and appeared to many people.

Surely you would agree that historians would have mentioned such an event.
Seems to have gone unnoticed.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 195 by Clownboat]

To be honest, I thought the Bible gave the figure of 500 somewhere (My bad). Probably just a number I heard as a kid. However, the quantity is hardly the point.

Off the top of my head, Paul mentions that Jesus appeared to 500 people, the apostles and then himself. There has been much debate on this forum over the years about just who these 500 people were, how come Paul is the only person who mentions them, did they even exist etc.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 195 by Clownboat]

To be honest, I thought the Bible gave the figure of 500 somewhere (My bad). Probably just a number I heard as a kid. However, the quantity is hardly the point.

Off the top of my head, Paul mentions that Jesus appeared to 500 people, the apostles and then himself. There has been much debate on this forum over the years about just who these 500 people were, how come Paul is the only person who mentions them, did they even exist etc.

I would speculate... for the same reason Joseph Smith claimed to be given special golden plates and magic decoder glasses.

When men invent religious ideas, providing followers and potential followers with 'claimed assurances' of just how true the idea is should be expected.

Is anyone surprised that Mohammed is said to have flown off to heaven on a winged horse? Of course a Christian, who has placed their faith in statements such as Paul's will regard the claim of Mohammed as not being true. Just another reason as to why living by faith is foolish. We literally get to choose what we want to place our faith in. Therefore, applying faith is nothing more than choosing what you want to believe when there is no evidence to justify said belief. Faith is used as the justification, but faith is a requirement in order to believe in false things.

[historia]

Let's pretend for a moment that the Jesus of the New Testament is indeed historical.

If I may butt in here:

Didn't Jesus teach or command his followers to spread a gospel about him? Yes or No?

Yes, that seems likely.

Wouldn't one of, if not THE, best ways to do so be via writings? Yes or No?

No. Remember, this is the ancient world where copying and distributing texts is very time consuming and expensive. Literacy levels were also relatively low for that reason. Very few people could read, let alone write, a literary text like the gospels, for example.

Conversely, the ability to memorize and recite information orally was much more developed in the ancient world than today. It would be far easier for a nascent Jewish sect composed largely of peasants to spread its teachings orally than through writings.

Eventually Jesus' teachings were written down, of course. But the earliest surviving texts come largely from the second generation of Christians. And even then, oral tradition remained very strong.

I'd say yes to both questions. This way, the apostles don't need to be everywhere at once. Writings from Peter can reach crowds far and wide, while Peter himself is physically in only the one location, for example.

Passing the message along orally also accomplishes this, of course.

We live in a time and place where it is trivially easy and inexpensive to write and distribute texts. Literacy levels are also very high for that reason. So it's easy to assume that's the best way to spread a message. But that is clearly anachronistic when talking about the first century.