Historical Questions about Jesus

[liamconnor]

Here is an exchange that exhibits a common historical lack of perspective among skeptics:

Jesus performed many miracles and if He did it before He can also do it now.

RESPONSE: Let's be a little more precise. Jesus was executed around 30 AD. The gospels were written between 70 and 95 AD by non-witness "believers" 40 to 65 years after the event was said to have occurred.

What might be the logical objection to their accuracy?

This is a popular attack against the gospels: they were written later than the events they describe (and apparently, 40 years is a long time. One does wonder whether those who use this argument are younger than 25!!). And... they were not written by eye-witnesses.

I do not think such conclusions are the result of serious historical inquiry. Here are some other questions:

1) How likely is it that a Jewish rabbi who did nothing but wander around and preach moral platitudes eventually acquire the reputation of performing numerous, NUMEROUS, miraculous healings: a) within 40 years of his life, b) by both friend and foe alike (it is highly significant that enemies of Jesus did not deny his ability to perform miracles; they merely attributed them to the power of the devil or to magic. Such attributions are made within and without the bible).

We have examples of numerous Jewish Rabbis, and to almost all, zero miracles are ascribed. Thus "non-miracle worker" is the default position for most Jewish Rabbis, indeed most teachers at all. Plato never said Socrates performed miracles; and Plato was by no means adverse to the miraculous, as anyone who has read him will acknowledge.

So why did friend and foe ascribe miracles to Jesus? What historical reason can we give for this unanimous concensus?


2) general consensus has the synoptics being published between 69 and 90 A.D. Many scholars think Mark began circulation prior to the destruction of the Jewish temple.

A major objection of skeptics is that the gospels were written by non-witnesses. That is fine; most of our historical beliefs are based on the work of non-witnesses: after all, do any of us really believe that what we believe about ancient Greece or Rome is based entirely on autobiographies? Do we really believe Livy, or Plutarch, or Herodotus, were personal eyewitnesses of what they report? Or even that what they report occurred ten years within writing it?

The real questions we should be asking are a) how likely is it that zero eyewitnesses of Jesus were alive and available for interview within a mere 40 years of his death? Why or why not?

b)how likely is it that the gospel writers did not consult a single eyewitness of Jesus, but were fine "making it all up"? Why or why not?

c) Are we really to believe it plausible that the author of Mark, who published his work by 70 A.D., had zero motivation to travel and interview someone who knew something about the most significant topic of his life?! Why or why not?

d) Is it plausible that people who knew Jesus simply sat at home in isolation their entire lives, never talking about their experiences with him? Why or why not?

e) Is it plausible that the closest associates of Jesus knew he was just a teacher; and yet invented stories of miracles and a resurrection? Why or why not?

These are a mere sampling of historical questions which those truly interested in historical research would ask.

[Zzyzx]

.
Uncle Ralph says that when he was a mere snip of a lad, fifty years ago, he heard that someone flew by flapping his arms. Some of his buddies said that they actually saw the flapping; unfortunately, they are all senile or dead now – but we can take their word that it actually happened. There was an article written about the flapping: although the original is lost someone made notes about what it said.

Let’s make life decisions based on that story -- and build monuments.

[liamconnor]

.
Uncle Ralph says that when he was a mere snip of a lad, fifty years ago, he heard that someone flew by flapping his arms. Some of his buddies said that they actually saw the flapping; unfortunately, they are all senile or dead now – but we can take their word that it actually happened. There was an article written about the flapping: although the original is lost someone made notes about what it said.

I noticed you have not answered a SINGLE question asked in the OP. I regard this as insulting and UNMANLY. Please answer the questions.

If you wish to draw an analogy from your bit above, then make it an ANALOGY; if you do not know how, then ask someone.

In short, do more than merely CAPITALIZE and give loose analogies.

Here are some points to consider when you next revise your analogy:

1) In your analogy, Uncle Ralph is reporting something spectacular; he is not performing something spectacular, yes? He is thus parallel not to Jesus but the disciples of Jesus. And thus your "flapping" guy does not pertain to anyone.

2) Was the "flapping" of someone was reported to have occurred again and again and again? That is, "some of his buddies" did not say, "oh yeah, on such and such a date, we saw it." RAther, they said, "Oh yeah, we followed this guy for several months and he flapped his arms every couple of days and would fly, EVERY COUPLE OF DAYS".


IS THAT WHAT YOUR STORY IS SAYING?

Or have you presented an anecdote that has no parallel with the gospels OTHER than that you don't believe either; in which case, you have presented an entirely SUBJECTIVE argument...?


I've read it again, and am dissapointed by the lack of contact with the current topic. Did people actually say, "yes, I saw George, the local mechanic, flap his arms and levitate?"

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

So why did friend and foe ascribe miracles to Jesus? What historical reason can we give for this unanimous concensus?

Who, specifically, are these friends and foes and where can we see their testimony?

[Divine Insight]

These are a mere sampling of historical questions which those truly interested in historical research would ask.

The questions you ask are NOT historical questions. We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the "Jesus" described in the Gospel rumors reflects the actions or verbatim words of any actual person.

1) How likely is it that a Jewish rabbi who did nothing but wander around and preach moral platitudes eventually acquire the reputation of performing numerous, NUMEROUS, miraculous healings: a) within 40 years of his life, b) by both friend and foe alike (it is highly significant that enemies of Jesus did not deny his ability to perform miracles; they merely attributed them to the power of the devil or to magic. Such attributions are made within and without the bible).

But this simply isn't true. All we have that makes these claims are the Gospel rumors. There isn't any independent texts that back up the Gospel rumors.

Also many of the claims made by the authors of the Gospel rumors don't even add up with respect to a larger picture. If Jesus really was as well-known for having done all those miracles we should most definitely expect to see a lot of independent historical rumors written about this man. But the fact is that we don't.

2) general consensus has the synoptics being published between 69 and 90 A.D. Many scholars think Mark began circulation prior to the destruction of the Jewish temple.

I agree that the belated writings of these rumors is highly suspicious. But it really wouldn't even matter if they were written right after Jesus had died. They still wouldn't be compelling.

The real questions we should be asking are a) how likely is it that zero eyewitnesses of Jesus were alive and available for interview within a mere 40 years of his death? Why or why not?

This isn't even a consideration for me. The Gospel rumors aren't compelling even if told by people who claimed to have been eyewitnesses.

b)how likely is it that the gospel writers did not consult a single eyewitness of Jesus, but were fine "making it all up"? Why or why not?

I don't think they had to "make it all up". I would suspect that many of these rumors were already "in the air". Just like there were rumors about Elvis Presley being seen after he had died too.

c) Are we really to believe it plausible that the author of Mark, who published his work by 70 A.D., had zero motivation to travel and interview someone who knew something about the most significant topic of his life?! Why or why not?

Who cares what Mark's motivation might have been? His Gospel rumors clearly contain obvious falsehoods:

Mark 16:
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

We know that these claims are not true. So why should we trust anything attributed to this author?

d) Is it plausible that people who knew Jesus simply sat at home in isolation their entire lives, never talking about their experiences with him? Why or why not?

I think it's far more plausible that they were very sociable and were easily influenced by superstitious rumors and conspiracy theories. I doubt very much that they made up their stories in isolation. In fact, Matthew and Luke were clearly regurgitating many of the rumors that had been previously attributed to Mark, and we already know that Mark's words cannot be trusted as he clearly said things that are definitely not true as I pointed out above.

e) Is it plausible that the closest associates of Jesus knew he was just a teacher; and yet invented stories of miracles and a resurrection? Why or why not?

It's far more than merely plausible. This is typical human behavior. Did you ever hear of the myths of the Greek Gods and Goddesses?

Why would you think those people made up stuff that wasn't true?

It's human nature to tell whoppers. Face it.

So yes, it more than just plausible, it's actually quite common. Let's not forget that Islam is based on similar rumors about Muhammad. And there are many other cultures that have many rumors about their imagined gods as well. The Aztecs, the Incas, the North American Indians, and even the Egyptians.

Making up stories about Gods is apparently a very common pastime for a lot of people.

So there's nothing surprising about people making up stuff about "Jesus". Yes, there may indeed have been a real person who sparked these rumors, but this is true of a lot of fictional characters. I've heard historians claim that there most likely were people associated with the rumors of Apollo, and Hercules, etc. In fact, I've even heard that there may very well have been a real logger named Paul Bunyan. Of course the tales told about him were no doubt highly exaggerated.

People love to make up stories and claim they are real. So there's nothing surprising about that.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 3 by liamconnor]

It almost seems as though you doubt that the tale is true -- after applying critical thinking and asking about sources.

Good start toward understanding the real world vs fiction

Another potential consideration: the likelihood of flying by flapping arms.

[Difflugia]

I do not think such conclusions are the result of serious historical inquiry.

So, let's do some serious historical inquiry.

1) How likely is it that a Jewish rabbi who did nothing but wander around and preach moral platitudes eventually acquire the reputation of performing numerous, NUMEROUS, miraculous healings: a) within 40 years of his life, b) by both friend and foe alike (it is highly significant that enemies of Jesus did not deny his ability to perform miracles; they merely attributed them to the power of the devil or to magic. Such attributions are made within and without the bible).

You're already mischaracterizing the evidence a bit just by your wording. "Friend and foe alike" weren't claiming miracles within 40 years, at least in what we have preserved.

Thea earliest foe that I'm aware of is Celsus, who wrote in the latter half of the second century, about a hundred years after the Gospels. Celsus wrote that Jesus was a sorcerer, but was merely responding to the content of the Gospels themselves. At least that's how it appears, because we don't actually have the writings of Celsus. Origen wrote a comprehensive refutation, though, and we do have that ("history is written by the victors" and all that). Origen's Contra Celsum ("Against Celsus") is Origen's reply to Celsus' A True Discourse. Origen claims, and we have little reason to doubt, that both Celsus' accusations and Origen's responses were from the Gospel stories themselves.

The Gospels claimed miracles within (perhaps) forty years or so, but opponents whose claims were preserved didn't do so until the mid-to-late second century. By that time, the Gospels were already considered to be historical sources themselves. This is exactly counter to your argument.

2) general consensus has the synoptics being published between 69 and 90 A.D. Many scholars think Mark began circulation prior to the destruction of the Jewish temple.

And many don't. According to The New Oxford Annotated Bible:

Early church tradition saw ties to the Christian community in Rome, where Nero punished Christians as scapegoats for the fire in 64 ce, which raged for nine days and devastated much of the city (see Tacitus, Annals 15.44). Most scholars today opt for a different context in the same time period. They argue that specific details in Mark 13.9–13 are better suited to a setting in Syria-Palestine, where Jesus's followers may have been hated by both Jews and Gentiles for not taking sides, in the Jewish War (66–72 ce).

As you can see, it's an open question, with "most" scholars taking the post AD 70 view.

The real questions we should be asking are a) how likely is it that zero eyewitnesses of Jesus were alive and available for interview within a mere 40 years of his death? Why or why not?

Keep in mind that the Romans sacked Jerusalem in AD 70 such that "the Temple courts ran with blood." This was after a Roman siege. Between the siege-induced famine and the Roman breach, Josephus claimed that over a million people were killed. So, let's just say that the answer to your question is that it's reasonably likely.

As a corollary, perhaps you might think about why the documents we have were written in Greek, the language of Paul's gentile churches that were based outside of Jerusalem.

b)how likely is it that the gospel writers did not consult a single eyewitness of Jesus, but were fine "making it all up"? Why or why not?

How many eyewitnesses did Homer consult when he wrote his history of Odysseus' journey?

Again, you're assuming that the Gospels were meant to be read as history rather than fictionalizations, even if of a historical series of events. When the story involves a dead guy coming back to life, at least part of it is probably made up. If your question is going to be meaningful, then you're first going to have to convince us that the Gospels were meant to be nonfictional history in the first place.

c) Are we really to believe it plausible that the author of Mark, who published his work by 70 A.D., had zero motivation to travel and interview someone who knew something about the most significant topic of his life?! Why or why not?

Yes. First, it matters if Mark was written before or after AD 70. If after, the eyewitnesses were probably dead.

Second, Mark's Gospel is the worst one for an apologist to pick for that question. Mark's Gospel is all about events that were kept secret from outsiders. Mark's Jesus exhorts nearly every character within the story to "tell nobody." The Gospel originally ends with the women telling nobody, but fleeing in terror. That's how Mark answers his readers' anticipated question about why they hadn't heard about this before. Mark's Gospel is addressed to a small group that were lucky enough to hear the story in time to gain their salvation.

Mark's Gospel was written with the assumption that the story isn't common knowledge and provides plausible excuses. It's almost like Mark was making excuses for the lack of witnesses. Why would he write like that if there actually were?

d) Is it plausible that people who knew Jesus simply sat at home in isolation their entire lives, never talking about their experiences with him? Why or why not?

Of course not. They talked about it with all of the other people in Jerusalem. Until AD 70, anyway.

e) Is it plausible that the closest associates of Jesus knew he was just a teacher; and yet invented stories of miracles and a resurrection? Why or why not?

Is it plausible that after the closest associates of Jesus were gone, that members of Paul's churches would want details of Jesus' life and ministry? Paul's letters were notoriously deficient in such details. Would people be so hungry for information that they might invent stories?

Before you answer that, at least skim the Protevangelium of James. The canonical Gospels contained very little information about Jesus' childhood. The Prootevangelium supplied it. The details are almost certainly made up, but were considered canonical by many Christians. Whether the canonical Gospels were invented or not, the very existence of the Protevangelium and others means that it's plausible that the canonical Gospels include fabrications.

These are a mere sampling of historical questions which those truly interested in historical research would ask.

Or at least a sampling of historical questions worded the way an apologist wants them to be asked.

[Goose]

[bluegreenearth]

Here is an exchange that exhibits a common historical lack of perspective among skeptics:

Jesus performed many miracles and if He did it before He can also do it now.

RESPONSE: Let's be a little more precise. Jesus was executed around 30 AD. The gospels were written between 70 and 95 AD by non-witness "believers" 40 to 65 years after the event was said to have occurred.

What might be the logical objection to their accuracy?

This is a popular attack against the gospels: they were written later than the events they describe (and apparently, 40 years is a long time. One does wonder whether those who use this argument are younger than 25!!). And... they were not written by eye-witnesses.

I do not think such conclusions are the result of serious historical inquiry. Here are some other questions:

1) How likely is it that a Jewish rabbi who did nothing but wander around and preach moral platitudes eventually acquire the reputation of performing numerous, NUMEROUS, miraculous healings: a) within 40 years of his life, b) by both friend and foe alike (it is highly significant that enemies of Jesus did not deny his ability to perform miracles; they merely attributed them to the power of the devil or to magic. Such attributions are made within and without the bible).

We have examples of numerous Jewish Rabbis, and to almost all, zero miracles are ascribed. Thus "non-miracle worker" is the default position for most Jewish Rabbis, indeed most teachers at all. Plato never said Socrates performed miracles; and Plato was by no means adverse to the miraculous, as anyone who has read him will acknowledge.

So why did friend and foe ascribe miracles to Jesus? What historical reason can we give for this unanimous concensus?

2) general consensus has the synoptics being published between 69 and 90 A.D. Many scholars think Mark began circulation prior to the destruction of the Jewish temple.

A major objection of skeptics is that the gospels were written by non-witnesses. That is fine; most of our historical beliefs are based on the work of non-witnesses: after all, do any of us really believe that what we believe about ancient Greece or Rome is based entirely on autobiographies? Do we really believe Livy, or Plutarch, or Herodotus, were personal eyewitnesses of what they report? Or even that what they report occurred ten years within writing it?

The real questions we should be asking are a) how likely is it that zero eyewitnesses of Jesus were alive and available for interview within a mere 40 years of his death? Why or why not?

b)how likely is it that the gospel writers did not consult a single eyewitness of Jesus, but were fine "making it all up"? Why or why not?

c) Are we really to believe it plausible that the author of Mark, who published his work by 70 A.D., had zero motivation to travel and interview someone who knew something about the most significant topic of his life?! Why or why not?

d) Is it plausible that people who knew Jesus simply sat at home in isolation their entire lives, never talking about their experiences with him? Why or why not?

e) Is it plausible that the closest associates of Jesus knew he was just a teacher; and yet invented stories of miracles and a resurrection? Why or why not?

These are a mere sampling of historical questions which those truly interested in historical research would ask.

What are your answers to these historical questions? Is it possible to reasonably test your proposed explanations to determine if they might be false? What would those tests look like?

[Difflugia]