padib said:
Why are you so pompous though, do people you talk to enjoy that about you? It's trashy. Did you even read the quora commentary? It's filled with answers. Stand by your lulz I couldn't care less. Definitely doesn't make my opinion of you any brighter. Read and educate yourself a bit: To answer, this is a list of contemporary* sources that mention Jesus:
*Within 100 years roughly. Peregrinus is slightly farther than that but it’s close enough so I’ll count it. Now, you’ve probably noticed a couple main things: 1: I listed the gospels The gospels are considered historical sources by historians. Be careful whenever anyone asks a question saying “aside from the Gospels…” That person is trying to selectively choose the data to suit their theories (Texas sharpshooter fallacy). This is a big no-no in intellectual fields (especially the sciences), although armchair historians still attempt it on a semi-regular basis. Furthermore, each of these sources has an impressive historical certification. For instance, we have 5,000 gospel manuscripts dating to within 40 years of authorship. In contrast, we have 33 within 750 years for all of Tacitus’ writings combined. Additionally, four biographies is not a small number. Tiberius has only that many, and he was the emperor of Rome. (And Cassius Dio, the author of one of these, was not even born until a century after Tiberius’ death). It’s also worth noting that the gospels explicitly state which people were present at the main events so that the stories could be corroborated. This virtually guarantees that they are primary sources. 2: I listed all four gospels separately This is not a mistake. While it’s obvious the Gospels are inter-related, they are also clearly four separate historical accounts, not just one divergent text. This diagram is helpful: This is called the synoptic problem, but the TLDR is that it’s virtually impossible to reduce the 3 first gospels to anything fewer than 3 original sources. John is off on his own because his gospel is nothing like the other 3. People will tell you the Bible was “written” in 300s AD, but that is false. The Bible was not “written” at all. It is basically an anthology, a collection, of other written works. The actual accounts of Jesus were all written separately before 100AD, and only assembled in the 100s-300s. Further, we have manuscripts dating to pre-300, so we know they were not edited at the time of assembly. 3: Half the sources for Jesus are in the Bible This makes it very difficult to argue that “historical Jesus” is any different from “bible Jesus,” because MOST of the information we have of Jesus was later incorporated into the Bible. Any way you slice it, the Bible should carry as much weight as any of the other sources. 4: None of the other sources are specifically aimed at Jesus. Tacitus’ Annals cover the entire state of the Roman Empire at the time. Josephus’ Antiquities likewise mostly covers the Judeo-Roman war. Mara’s letter is just a letter, not a history, and Lucian mostly wrote satire about Roman life. While the gospels each dedicate a small book to the life of Jesus, the other documents spend, at most, a few paragraphs describing him. This makes it hard to construct a “historical Jesus” aside from the gospel So, what’s the takeaway? The sources all agree on 3 main points:
Obviously, not all historians are Christian (or atheist), but if you question any of these 3 you’ll probably be laughed out of any serious discussion, because all the documents agree on these 3. Additionally, no ancient sources largely question the Bible account of Jesus. This is not a statement in favor of Christianity; as I mentioned earlier, only 4 sources dedicated to the life of Jesus exist. The others all mention him offhand or briefly. And yes, I’m aware of several small disagreements with other historical sources (such as the census). But those are largely immaterial. DISCLAIMER: I did my best to answer this question purely as a historian with as little bias as possible. Please keep your comments in the same light. Some Common Questions:
This is a very common misconception, but no. In fact, the Council of Nicea did not even discuss biblical canon. It was not even on the agenda. Why should it be? Those who have been paying careful attention will have noticed that the manuscripts we have date to 130AD. This means that the documents were already written by that point… two hundred years before the council convened. Why should they re-discuss what had already been canon for two hundred years? And even if they did, why should we listen to them? We have the original document, who cares what people two centuries later had to say about it.
Well, mainly because four full accounts is considered a very good record. No, scratch that. Four full accounts is considered a spectacular historical record. Let me put this into comparison: Tiberius Caesar, the Emperor of Rome from 14–37 AD (Jesus’ time) has only 5 biographical accounts:
In comparison, Jesus, an itinerant preacher from backwater Judea, has four accounts all dating before 110 AD. In essence, he has about as much written about him as the Roman Emperor.
Well, most of the Old Testament is, and those who are intellectually honest will admit that. The problem is that the New Testament, specifically the Gospels, cannot be considered folklore by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the author of Luke explicitly states that he’s writing a history. Paul says that if Jesus didn’t actually die “all our faith is meaningless,” and several of the accounts actually name eyewitnesses to the events, and go to great trouble to point out that some of them are still alive as of the time of the writing. Now, obviously, they aren’t still alive 2000 years later for us to go and ask them, but the fact that the accounts mention specific eyewitnesses still living is a huge blow to the “folklore” argument. Furthermore, we have to remember that Christianity was illegal in Rome until 313 AD (punishable by death for much of that period). One could argue that the Gospels are an elaborate hoax, but a casual campfire story which spread out of control simply does not hold water: people don’t casually spread stories which lead to them being executed.
Well, the whole reason to bring up the number of manuscripts is precisely so we know the record hasn’t been changed. Since we have so many manuscripts, we have a very good idea of what the story looked like in 100AD, 200AD, 300AD, and so forth. We just have to look at the manuscripts we found from 100, 200, 300 (respectively). From here: https://kevinschristianity.quora.com/Historical-Sources-for-Jesus |
Why am I pompous? Because I feel like it. Couldn't give a fuck less if you think I'm trashy.
Actual photo of me. :)
Although, I don't see it as being pompous, I see it as calling out bad ideas and logic for what they are. I'm not going to respond to everything you want to copy and paste, because it takes about 2 seconds to copy and paste a website, and a lot more than that to actually explain why the logic is flawed. It is essentially a strategy of piling up more and more bullshit, because I cannot possibly address every bad argument on the internet. Especially when, again, this source does not actually support your argument as it is not claiming anything about the historicity of Jesus vs Caesar, or claiming that the resurrection is verified. So, lulz.
As for getting educated, I'm good on that. The sign of being educated is actually being able to synthesize information and turn it into something, i.e. your own argument. So, maybe try that... with someone else though. Because at this point I'm essentially just arguing with google search results, so...
