All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s essentially what the gospels were - the story and beliefs of Jesus passed on in the oral tradition of the rabbis before being written down a few generations later

    That’s the thing, we really don’t have evidence of that. The Gospel of Mark shows borrowings from the letters of Paul, Greek and Roman stories, and Jewish writings. We can even see parts where the author looks to be siding with James over Paul like the curtain ripping.

    As for the other three they all borrowed from Mark and again from different stories around. There just isn’t a need to invent an oral tradition when we have a written one.

    As for like, bureaucratic forms? It was 2000 years ago, so by the time we started to care we basically are left with only whatever happened to be preserved in a collapsed building no one cared to demolish or rebuild - libraries and record halls tend to get burned down over the years. This is at a time when writing was expensive and a rare skill - it would be extremely strange for a record of a trial of a revolutionary run by a Pontius (basically the lowest rank of administrator sent to back water provinces) to have kept detailed records of executions (the Romans were extremely hierarchical and did a lot of executions)

    That really isn’t my problem. You can’t produce evidence doesn’t mean I have to lower my standards of evidence. Besides which the Gospels you are invoking mention word of Jesus spreading all over the province and yet silence. Everyone likes to quote that one sentence in Josphius but no one likes to mention that he went into multiple paragraph details about other would be Messiahs. And again Paul was in Jerusalem during the events and yet he saw nothing.

    Plus, the movement grew big enough to catch the attention of the local ruler (and the collaborating religious leadership who pushed for his execution) in the span of months. There was every incentive for uprising to be suppressed - it would be an embarrassment that they’d have every incentive to keep quiet

    Oh? Because we have letters of Pilot’s enemies talking about other acts of cruelty. What evidence do you have that the Romans would have destroyed records of an uprising? They don’t seem to have a problem with noting other ones.

    By the time anyone even started to consider that this Jesus guy was more than a run of the mill revolutionary in some backwater the empire barely cared about, it was because the ideas had spread to the point they started to threaten Roman rule. Probably through the Roman legions, who were largely conscripts sent to the other side of the empire “earning” the right to be Roman (part of the reason why there were so many uprisings)

    Speculation. You have no proof of this bonfire of the evidence.

    During the time he was alive, no one took up arms or disrupted trade. By the time the nobility even heard his name, it was decades later - and at this point, we do have the odd surviving correspondence mentioning the issue

    That doesn’t prove that there was a Jesus that proves that Christians existed a century later.

    Frankly, I would be extremely skeptical of any document describing Jesus when he was alive - I think the only record there was a Pontius Pilates is some military discharge record of someone with that name in the right time and with enough honors to corroborate his existence

    Ok? I mean we have more than that might want to look into Pilot a bit.

    I am not following your logic here. I am too accept lower standards of evidence because if better evidence exists it would be too hard to find so…yeah help me out with this one. If tomorrow someone digs up say a family genealogy that lists Jesus being born in Nazareth that would disprove he existed? This sounds a bit like the Babble Fish logic in the Hitchhiker’s guide to the universe.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      With the gospels, I don’t think there’s any debate that it comes from an oral history. As for their influences - ever notice the old testament has 2 overlapping creation stories? People spend their lives analyzing the text through various lenses, there’s tons of material on how Jewish oral tradition worked and picking apart the markers of it. The rest of the new testament starts to diverge, there’s a pretty stark difference between them and the rest of the books

      As for lowering your standards of evidence, I really don’t understand your point. There’s no pictures of Caesar or George Washington, if they existed today the lack of pictures would be pretty suspect.

      Jesus was an artisan and orator from an age when writing was expensive and only available to the nobility, and the vast majority of it was lost to time. It’s expected that there’s no written records of him during his lifetime - he was just some backwater carpenter whose importance wasn’t clear until after his death

      Context is everything in history. It’s like asking “where is his birth certificate?” when someone is born in a time and place where that wasn’t a thing

      The time frame matters because Pompeii is a time capsule - human hands couldn’t have manipulated the evidence past that date up. That’s one generation - there would have been people around who met the guy (or should have).

      And yet, neither followers or opposing institutions ever questioned his existence, details of the account of his life line up with historical records

      Ultimately, what’s more likely: there was a man known as Jesus of Nazareth (even if he took up the name and role in someone else’s plan), or there was a conspiracy to fake the existence of a man who was a threat to both the Jewish leadership and Roman rule, and neither of those parties (who had people still alive as the movement became a problem) “what do you mean I had him executed? I never met the guy”

      Maybe he died, maybe a stand in died, maybe he faked his death with the help of Roman soldiers and fled to Asia. But someone had to have played the role - otherwise a lot of people would have had to flawlessly keep up a conspiracy, many of which weren’t believers

      You can spend hours digging into every single detail I’ve brought up, it’s literally the most studied historical subject ever with a ton of secular historical work done in the last century. But the consensus is that he definitely existed, there’s just too many corroborating details that line up

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        With the gospels, I don’t think there’s any debate that it comes from an oral history. As for their influences - ever notice the old testament has 2 overlapping creation stories? People spend their lives analyzing the text through various lenses, there’s tons of material on how Jewish oral tradition worked and picking apart the markers of it.

        I didn’t mean to imply that there was an oral component I mean I don’t see a need for one. You can pretty much trace every single thing those authors said to texts. Also you are comparing writing that was about 900 years apart from each other. 900 BCE Israel Kingdoms are not 1st century Roman province.

        The rest of the new testament starts to diverge, there’s a pretty stark difference between them and the rest of the books

        Not really. You see the NT writers constantly referencing the OT. In fact most of the Jesus story is an combo of Jeremiah, Elisha, and (especially in Matthew) Moses.

        As for lowering your standards of evidence, I really don’t understand your point. There’s no pictures of Caesar or George Washington, if they existed today the lack of pictures would be pretty suspect.

        We have contemporary records of both men.

        Context is everything in history. It’s like asking “where is his birth certificate?” when someone is born in a time and place where that wasn’t a thing

        Show me where I asked for one.

        The time frame matters because Pompeii is a time capsule - human hands couldn’t have manipulated the evidence past that date up. That’s one generation - there would have been people around who met the guy (or should have).

        Again. I just explained this to you. The two events are separated by decades. You are about as far from the Moon Landing as they were from supposed Jesus. And again Paul did a missionary trip there.

        And yet, neither followers or opposing institutions ever questioned his existence, details of the account of his life line up with historical records

        And can people be wrong?

        Ultimately, what’s more likely: there was a man known as Jesus of Nazareth (even if he took up the name and role in someone else’s plan), or there was a conspiracy to fake the existence of a man who was a threat to both the Jewish leadership and Roman rule, and neither of those parties (who had people still alive as the movement became a problem) “what do you mean I had him executed? I never met the guy”

        The group James led was never a threat to Rome which is why he was left alone. He was a threat to the Pharisees but being a threat doesn’t mean that they could do anything about it. Making up a dead leader would have made perfect sense.

        Maybe he died, maybe a stand in died, maybe he faked his death with the help of Roman soldiers and fled to Asia. But someone had to have played the role - otherwise a lot of people would have had to flawlessly keep up a conspiracy, many of which weren’t believers

        Maybe James and Peter made him up. Two people can keep a secret.

        You can spend hours digging into every single detail I’ve brought up, it’s literally the most studied historical subject ever with a ton of secular historical work done in the last century. But the consensus is that he definitely existed, there’s just too many corroborating details that line up

        And yet you can’t find a single piece of contemporary evidence.