TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
When it comes to the historicity of Jesus, evangelical Christian apologists usually trot out a number of well-worn canards. One of them is that Jesus is better attested to as historical than are the likes of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. This is sheer nonsense, but it often goes unchallenged. Attestation of the existence of Jesus, outside the Christian scriptures is quite thin and suspect.
Another canard is to claim that "most scholars accept x number of things to be true of Jesus," such as this site does. Here, from the site, are 12 things Gary Habermas claims most critical scholars believe:
12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
I have no basic quarrel with items 1 through 3. However, as to the empty tomb, I'm quite sure any honest scholar would point out that, owing to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in CE 70, it is impossible to even locate this tomb, even assuming it survived this destruction and that of CE 136 at the end of the Bar Kochba revolt. Furthermore, it's quite possible that the claim made in the gospels that Jesus was laid in the family tomb of Joseph of Arimathea is false. As one convicted of sedition and put to death by the Romans, Jesus may well have suffered a further, post-mortem, indignity, in that the Romans might have dumped his body either in a common grave or even in a trash heap, covering it with lime in the process.
Now let's consider items 5 through 10. If one were to go to India today, I have no doubt that one will find followers of this or that swami who claim miracles in his name and or claim to have seen their late teacher in the flesh. I sincerely doubt that any evangelical Christians would give credence to any such appearances. Yet, they expect others to give credence to their, likewise unsupported claim that, because his disciples claimed to have seen him alive after he was dead, the resurrection of Jesus was historical. It would, of course, follow that his followers were energized by their mystical belief, as, no doubt, worshippers in India are energized by theirs. It's also not surprising that the Resurrection was integral to their religious belief. Nor is it surprising that their church grew. That the worshippers, eventually creating a new religion, changed their holy day from Saturday to Sunday is likewise unremarkable.
As to the skepticism of James, supposedly the brother of Jesus, and the conversion of Paul; that latter's experience, assuming the account in Acts to be at least somewhat historical, was definitely visionary and is not in the least bit different from other conversion experiences. As to James being a skeptic, I'm not sure to what Habermas is referring.
So, assuming the historicity of Jesus, we can say of the list above that items 1 through 3 are generally true. Item 4 is unverifiable. Items 5 through 10 possibly true, but of no consequence in any attempt to establish the divinity of Jesus. Item 11 is doubtful, and item 12 amounts to a common conversion experience, several of which are well documented.
The whole thing is much like cotton candy: It looks rather large and impressive; but, once you dig into it, you find it's without substance.
ETA: At this site among the five most important Christian sites in Jerusalem are: #1 the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and #5 the Via Dolorosa, the way of sorrrows, the path Jesus walked carrying his cross. The one thing these two important tourist sites have in common is that they're bogus. Another bogus site is the upper room, where Jesus and his disciples had the Last Supper. According to this site, even though the room in question dates from the twelfth century, it might be built on the site of the original upper room(from the site, my bolding):
The site of the Last Supper is not known and the Gospel accounts provide few clues. It cannot be the present room, which was built in the 12th century. However, it is possible it stands over or near the original site of the Last Supper and/or Pentecost.
Beneath the floor of the building are Byzantine and Roman pavements and the foundations go back to at least the 2nd century AD. It is possible that the "little church of God" that existed on Mount Zion in 130 AD (mentioned by Epiphanius of Salamis) was on this site.
Danger and persecutions would have excluded Christian invention of a new holy place in the 2nd century, so if an active church existed in 130 it must have already been important for some time — perhaps because the upper room was nearby. In those times this was an affluent area of the city and a wealthy Christian may have opened his home for use as a church.
I have no idea why persecutions in the second century would have precluded inventing a new holy site. In any case, in CE 136 the Romans sacked the rebuilt city of Jerusalem at the end to the Bar Kochba revolt and built a classical city, replete with temples to the Olympian gods on the site of Jerusalem and called the city Aelia Capitolina. Again, we do not have either the Upper Room, the Via Dolorosa or the tomb in which the body of Jesus was supposedly laid.
Another canard is to claim that "most scholars accept x number of things to be true of Jesus," such as this site does. Here, from the site, are 12 things Gary Habermas claims most critical scholars believe:
12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
I have no basic quarrel with items 1 through 3. However, as to the empty tomb, I'm quite sure any honest scholar would point out that, owing to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in CE 70, it is impossible to even locate this tomb, even assuming it survived this destruction and that of CE 136 at the end of the Bar Kochba revolt. Furthermore, it's quite possible that the claim made in the gospels that Jesus was laid in the family tomb of Joseph of Arimathea is false. As one convicted of sedition and put to death by the Romans, Jesus may well have suffered a further, post-mortem, indignity, in that the Romans might have dumped his body either in a common grave or even in a trash heap, covering it with lime in the process.
Now let's consider items 5 through 10. If one were to go to India today, I have no doubt that one will find followers of this or that swami who claim miracles in his name and or claim to have seen their late teacher in the flesh. I sincerely doubt that any evangelical Christians would give credence to any such appearances. Yet, they expect others to give credence to their, likewise unsupported claim that, because his disciples claimed to have seen him alive after he was dead, the resurrection of Jesus was historical. It would, of course, follow that his followers were energized by their mystical belief, as, no doubt, worshippers in India are energized by theirs. It's also not surprising that the Resurrection was integral to their religious belief. Nor is it surprising that their church grew. That the worshippers, eventually creating a new religion, changed their holy day from Saturday to Sunday is likewise unremarkable.
As to the skepticism of James, supposedly the brother of Jesus, and the conversion of Paul; that latter's experience, assuming the account in Acts to be at least somewhat historical, was definitely visionary and is not in the least bit different from other conversion experiences. As to James being a skeptic, I'm not sure to what Habermas is referring.
So, assuming the historicity of Jesus, we can say of the list above that items 1 through 3 are generally true. Item 4 is unverifiable. Items 5 through 10 possibly true, but of no consequence in any attempt to establish the divinity of Jesus. Item 11 is doubtful, and item 12 amounts to a common conversion experience, several of which are well documented.
The whole thing is much like cotton candy: It looks rather large and impressive; but, once you dig into it, you find it's without substance.
ETA: At this site among the five most important Christian sites in Jerusalem are: #1 the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and #5 the Via Dolorosa, the way of sorrrows, the path Jesus walked carrying his cross. The one thing these two important tourist sites have in common is that they're bogus. Another bogus site is the upper room, where Jesus and his disciples had the Last Supper. According to this site, even though the room in question dates from the twelfth century, it might be built on the site of the original upper room(from the site, my bolding):
The site of the Last Supper is not known and the Gospel accounts provide few clues. It cannot be the present room, which was built in the 12th century. However, it is possible it stands over or near the original site of the Last Supper and/or Pentecost.
Beneath the floor of the building are Byzantine and Roman pavements and the foundations go back to at least the 2nd century AD. It is possible that the "little church of God" that existed on Mount Zion in 130 AD (mentioned by Epiphanius of Salamis) was on this site.
Danger and persecutions would have excluded Christian invention of a new holy place in the 2nd century, so if an active church existed in 130 it must have already been important for some time — perhaps because the upper room was nearby. In those times this was an affluent area of the city and a wealthy Christian may have opened his home for use as a church.
I have no idea why persecutions in the second century would have precluded inventing a new holy site. In any case, in CE 136 the Romans sacked the rebuilt city of Jerusalem at the end to the Bar Kochba revolt and built a classical city, replete with temples to the Olympian gods on the site of Jerusalem and called the city Aelia Capitolina. Again, we do not have either the Upper Room, the Via Dolorosa or the tomb in which the body of Jesus was supposedly laid.
Last edited:
