No, not all historians accept Jesus' existence

[_Trevor]

And he still hasn't come to grips that we have "nothing" written within several centuries of Alexander the Great, exists either. But real historians do not count this as evidence against the existence of Alexander anymore than it is counted against the existence of Jesus.

And for a good reason. Evidence for the life of Alexander is abundant. These later historians to which you refer make use of (i.e. quote) source material written by identifiable authors who actually accompanied Alexander on campaign. Other evidences include the coins minted under Alexander that bear his name.

The case is quite different for Jesus. So much so that I would say that questioning the existence of Jesus is at least a worthwhile hypothesis to explore. The absence of texts between the purported dates for Jesus' life and the appearance of the first Gospels is only one reason to forward it. The absence of other evidences of his existence is another reason. The real historical problems with the sources we do have would be another.

I do not know whether Jesus existed or not. I do not see those who argue he did, or those who argue he did not, as being unreasonable and as lacking any ground to stand on. The question of Jesus' existence is fraught with problems.

[_dartagnan]

And this statement is correct:

"The fact that nothing was written of Jesus until 30 to 110 years after his death is strong evidence that there never was an 'historical Jesus'."

Then prove it. You cannot seem to comprehend the fact that this is an argument from silence. It is about as meaningless as saying nobody within a century of Moses used leaves for toilet paper, and then as your evidence, mention the absence of any archeaological indication that they did. That is an argument from silence. You're basing an conclusion on what hasn't been found, without any educational background to understand that a lack of said evidence is precisely what we would expect if Jesus did exist. In this case, you think that just because no writings have been discovered dating to 30 AD., that this proves nothing was in fact written. This is so sophomoric and unsound.

And we do know there is significant disagreement even among claiments for Jesus

You keep reiterating the same things as if they mean a hill of beans. None of this matters for historians. These are molehills made into mountains by the "unbiased" Christ mythers. They do not serve as a legitimate reason to reject the existence of Jesus.

Historians are by no means limited to only those who endorse one of the many claims made about and for the alleged Jesus.

Why do you present a citation of what I say, and then don't address anything I said? When are you going to come to grips with the fact that you are arguing from silence? When are you going to retract your straw man and apologize for intellectual dishonesty? You lied about what I have claimed no less than twice within a week. Is your position so weak that you have to fall back on blatant misrepresentations to score quick straw man points?

All the filibustering diatribes and irrelevant hyperlinks aren't going to free you of this obligation. Unless of course, you have no intention of building your credibility back up.

Verbal retelling of stories does not make for reliable information or reliable detail.

You're still avoiding the elephant in the room, while trying to make a big deal of these irrelevant and inconsequential anecdotes. Yes, there are some discrepancies in the gospel accounts, regarding the chronology of when things happened, how they happened, certain details are mentioned in one account while absent in the others, etc. Only to the untrained eye are these supposed to serve as evidence against the history therein. Historians understand these textual phenomena for what they are: perfectly expected. There are no real surprises here. None of these phenomena can be explained in a Christ myth model.

To meet the burden of proof, we require exact quotations of the alleged Jesus from reliable

Who is "we"? Certainly not historians.

impartial observes of those words quoted in the New Testament. We don’t have that.

Well geez, anything from a Christian will be considered "partial" and "biased" from a "skeptic." And anything from biased and rabid skeptics will be welcomed by other skeptics. That's because you have an agenda that you want to see through, evidence be damned. This says more about a said skeptics' familiarity with scholarship than it does the value of the evidence. You're no different when it comes to the objectivity factor, and you still haven't addressed the point that most non-Christian historians accept the historicity of Jesus. You have no leg to stand on here, so why are you even trying to maintain it? It is a dead argument.

For support, we require strong evidence that reliable eye witnesses recorded at the time of events exactly what those events were. We don't have that.

This has nothing to do with establishing the existence of Jesus. Go ahead and keep pumping out web links written by idiot anti-religionists. Nothing changes the fact that you have not established any reasonable basis for rejecting the existence of Jesus.

Now, when do you plan on addressing that elephant JAK?

Will you please prove that I argued Paine was pro-Christian, or at least have the integrity to apologize and retract?

Will you at least accept the fact that Paine was brought here as a witness against the historicity of Jesus, and that nobody has been able to provide a scrap of evidence that this is what he believed?

JAK:
In addition, it’s not terribly relevant what Paine believed since his focus was on the American colonies and the American Revolution.
It's tangent to the issue of GoodK's post: "not all historians..."

But where is the evidence that Paine rejected the existence of Jesus? Why is this such a horrid request? What was all that noble discoursing about? You said those who make claims have the burden of proof? It seems it took you only a day before you denounced one of your own principles.

It does not matter that no quote is found by Paine which states [GoodK's] conclusion.

WHAT??????

It’s not your/my obligation to find evidence to support Dart’s view, it’s his burden of proof.

WHAT????

Will you ever comprehend what's going on?

I'm not expecting you to find evidence to support my view. You have demonstrated that you're incapable of grasping what my view really is. What I'm expecting is for you to find evidence to support your view. The view initially expressed was that Thomas Paine rejected the existence of Jesus. My view is that this has not been demonstrated. I simply noted that no evidence has been presented to suggest this. You've responded with the usual defense mechanisms, by filibustering and misrepresentation. The two of you have been twisting and turning, throwing up smoke and mirrors with long-winded diatribes and flashing us hyperlinks, but nothing changes the fact that this is an unsubstantiated claim.

Well, we see that JAK is not being intellectually honest. For in one breath he says, "Burden of proof lies with one who makes the assertion," and in the next breath, after GoodK presents Thomas Paine as a historian who rejected the existence of Jesus, JAK says,"It does not matter that no quote is found by Paine which states [GoodK's] conclusion."

Now who here cannot see the contradiction here?

In other words, all of JAK's ranting about burden of proof and evidence was just for show. He never really believed it should apply to him and his cohorts. It is a double standard he applies only to those who believe something he doesn't. The "skeptics" are free to use whatever fallacy with reckless abandon, and JAK is there waiting to congratulate them for doing so. He is not interested in any scholarly standard because he doesn't know of any that he believes to be worth observing.

GoodK,

Because we would know nothing of Jesus if it weren't for the New Testament, and Paine clearly states he does not trust the New Testament.

But you're jumping to an illicit conclusion. Many people, even some Christians, believe the New Testament has been tinkered with by biased scribes. This is a fact. Hell, the whole lot of Mormonism accepts that premise gladly. That doesn't mean that by extension, they reject it as evidence for historical events that it documents.

It is one thing to say it has been tinkered with, and it is another to say the entire thing is untrustworthy on that basis alone. It is an unreasonable leap that historians simply don't accept. The fact is the irrefutable examples of tinkering are relatively few, considering it is a religious text. There are only two or three clear examples of a doctrine being altered due to a scribal change, but this is not understood as evidence that the entire narrative was made up from thin air.

[_GoodK]

GoodK,

Because we would know nothing of Jesus if it weren't for the New Testament, and Paine clearly states he does not trust the New Testament.

But you're jumping to an illicit conclusion. Many people, even some Christians, believe the New Testament has been tinkered with by biased scribes. This is a fact. Hell, the whole lot of Mormonism accepts that premise gladly. That doesn't mean that by extension, they reject it as evidence for historical events that it documents.

It is one thing to say it has been tinkered with, and it is another to say the entire thing is untrustworthy on that basis alone. It is an unreasonable leap that historians simply don't accept. The fact is the irrefutable examples of tinkering are relatively few, considering it is a religious text. There are only two or three clear examples of a doctrine being altered due to a scribal change, but this is not understood as evidence that the entire narrative was made up from thin air.

I see what you are saying, but Paine does not say

it has been tinkered with

He says

I detest the Bible...

and

... a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes

That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.

Is it not a species of blasphemy to call the New Testament revealed religion

[_Trevor]

You're basing an conclusion on what hasn't been found, without any educational background to understand that a lack of said evidence is precisely what we would expect if Jesus did exist.

Er, what? Just why should we expect no evidence of Jesus in the near aftermath of his death if he did exist? How does the absence of such evidence actually bolster claims of his historicity? Would the case be harmed if something like this was discovered? You can't have it both ways!

So, if the Thallus guy, writing, say, in the early 50s CE, did refer to the darkness at the crucifixion, which I do not believe he does, would you prefer that this evidence not exist?

[_Micky]

Just why should we expect no evidence of Jesus in the near aftermath of his death if he did exist?

Because he was hardly a blip on anyone's radar at the time. There is no reason to believe he would have been documented or even mentioned by the historians of the day. So what kind of evidence would one expect? The documents written in the day didn't stand the test of time.

How does the absence of such evidence actually bolster claims of his historicity?

No, it doesn't bolster historicity, but it does fall in line with what we know of other historic figures. I think that was the point, that there is nothing surprising with the lack of evidence, even assuming Jesus existed. There is no reason to assume evidence must follow the existence of real individuals, and remain extant through the ages simply because the subject was real.

Trevor, do you believe Jesus existed as a real individual? If you had to guess, what would say?

[_Nevo]

You're basing an conclusion on what hasn't been found, without any educational background to understand that a lack of said evidence is precisely what we would expect if Jesus did exist.

Er, what? Just why should we expect no evidence of Jesus in the near aftermath of his death if he did exist? How does the absence of such evidence actually bolster claims of his historicity?

Maybe Martin Hengel can help here:

This absence of early literary witnesses is all too easy to understand: one who awaits the end of the "old, evil world" in the near future is not at first interested in a literary consolidation of history for posterity. It is enough to proclaim orally what the disciples and he himself have from their experience with Jesus. It is therefore no coincidence that the summarizing narrative presentation of Jesus-history did not begin until the late 60s with Mark after the death of the first generation's great witnesses.

-- Martin Hengel, "Eyewitness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels: Form Criticism, Community Tradition and the Authority of the Authors," in The Written Gospel, ed. M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 73.

Of course, there probably were some written sources prior to 70 CE--small collections of Jesus' sayings or miracles in notebook form that could be used by missionaries.

It's quite remarkable that any first-century writings about Jesus are extant, given the small number of Christians and the difficulties inherent in writing, copying, circulating, and preserving texts before the advent of the printing press. As New Testament scholar Pheme Perkins points out, "in order for copies of a text to survive, it must have been widely used" (Pheme Perkins, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007], 41).

It should also be noted that most Greco-Roman religions didn't write anything down. Jews and Christians were anomalies in the ancient world in that regard.

[Guest]

Roman governors wrote commentarii, copies of which were kept in the provinces, but which also found their way back to Italy. Anyone who knew this basic fact might have used it long ago to argue in favor of the Tacitus reference to Jesus. One problem with that theory is that he calls Pilate a procurator, when the man was a prefect. Be that as it may, Pilate might have written about Jesus in his commentarii, if indeed the man made the kind of stir the New Testament authors describe. Subsequent historians could have used his account to write about Jesus. It is not at all impossible or even improbable.

Tacitus refers to several rebels of minor note. His account of the summary execution of the Nero impostor in Histories book 2 probably relies in part on the commentarii of the governor who trapped and killed him. If Jesus did exist, it could very well be that a missing Roman or Greek historian earlier than Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus mentioned him. It is also possible that a fragment of such a history could be found among the carbonized papyri of Herculanaeum, or in the desert sands of Egypt. The kinds of things that have been found are simply amazing. I wouldn't assume something like this couldn't be found. Certainly I would not rely upon your argument that the fact it hasn't been found is exactly what we would expect. New things are uncovered all of the time.

[_Trevor]

It should also be noted that most Greco-Roman religions didn't write anything down. Jews and Christians were anomalies in the ancient world in that regard.

What would you call the works of Homer and Hesiod? What would you call Ovid's Fasti? Or Cicero's De Natura Deorum? What would you call the Derveni Papryus or the other surviving Orphic literature? What would you call the biographies of Pythagoras and Apollonius? What would you call the many inscriptions on votive offerings or the Orphic gold tablets?

Do you know very much about "Greco-Roman religions"? Apparently not.

[_Nevo]

It should also be noted that most Greco-Roman religions didn't write anything down. Jews and Christians were anomalies in the ancient world in that regard.

What would you call the works of Homer and Hesiod? What would you call Ovid's Fasti? Or Cicero's De Natura Deorum? What would you call the Derveni Papryus or the other surviving Orphic literature? What would you call the biographies of Pythagoras and Apollonius? What would you call the many inscriptions on votive offerings or the Orphic gold tablets?

Do you know very much about "Greco-Roman religions"? Apparently not.

I appreciate the correction. I was thinking of statements I'd recently read that "most ancient religions did not have anything comparable to the Jewish or Christian Scriptures" (Pheme Perkins, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels, 32) and that the literary character of early Christianity (and Judaism) was unusual in the Greco-Roman world since "books played virtually no role in the polytheistic religions of the ancient Western world"--these being "almost exclusively concerned with . . . ritual acts of sacrifice" (Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 17, 19). And ritual instruction being passed down orally (s.v. "ritual" in The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, ed. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth).

[_Trevor]

I appreciate the correction. I was thinking of statements I'd recently read that "most ancient religions did not have anything comparable to the Jewish or Christian Scriptures" (Pheme Perkins, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels, 32) and that the literary character of early Christianity (and Judaism) was unusual in the Greco-Roman world since "books played virtually no role in the polytheistic religions of the ancient Western world"--these being "almost exclusively concerned with . . . ritual acts of sacrifice" (Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 17, 19). And ritual instruction being passed down orally (s.v. "ritual" in The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, ed. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth).

I think the gap between Judaism, Christianity, and Greco-Roman religions in the use of texts is something that is overstated. In the Roman Empire, it was a small minority that had the ability to read and write. For most, writing existed as a kind of durable symbol, decipherable only to an elite minority. Christianity and Judaism happened to be living religions in an age when literacy and publication were accelerated and proliferated on a scale unimaginable in Greco-Roman antiquity. It is for this reason that overwhelming emphasis is placed on the difference. Not to say there aren't important differences, but, as I said, they tend to be overstated.