Have you ever noticed that Christians and creationists have a weird obsession with something they clearly don’t understand? Josh McDowell, J. Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel…they’ve built careers around writing books that purport to provide “evidence” for Jesus, yet when you look at the cases they make, they fall apart pathetically. Let’s talk about what good evidence is on Thursday.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
They also have a weird tendency to pluralize it as “evidences.” Does that make it more significant?
I suspect that’s a product of historical contingency. They all cite the very same sources, so it can probably be traced back to some archaic, obsolete source that writes it that way.
@ ^ anthonybarcellos : Isn’t evidence already its own plural form in which case theyare being unmgrammatical for whatever little that is worth?
Also (obligatory?) Inigo Montoya – they keep using that word ..
Yeshua ben Joseph was one of several religious activists that got killed by the Roman Propraetor Pontius Pilate in that era.
His movement survived until 70 AD in Palestine, and in the greater Roman empire thanks to Saul aka Paul who re-invented the movement almost from scratch to attract gentile converts.
To the best of my knowledge, the original post-Jesus church was exterminated during the Jewish uprising (an event that caused Christians to rewrite the gospels to cast the blame for Jesus’ death in the Jews, from which Christians distanced themselves to escape persecutions).
Re. Jesus:
Qutham – who later took the name Muhammed- claimed Jesus, Moses and all the rest had been prophets for islam.
As he had almost no knowledge about Jesus, he claimed Jesus had written the gospels. He also claimed Jesus had not been killed. The “Jesus” of islam is a violent prophet who one day will return and kill the Jews.
He also claimed that the Jews venerated Uzair (Ezra) the way the Christians venerate Jesus.
He also confused Miriam of the family of Moses with Mary the mother of Jesus.
And he believed the Christian trinity included Mary.
He was an ignorant con artist, but nevertheless successful.
He was the first iteration of Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard.
“Dum dum dum dum dum”.
Well there are the Ebionites though what we know about them is scanty. They seem to have been a group who considered Jesus to be the messiah but not God and who followed Jewish law. They seemed to have survived for a few centuries but never in great numbers.
birgerjohansson@5,
Actually, we have very little definite knowledge about what Mohammed said or believed, because the Quran was not written until after his death. The majority of Muslims believe it reached its definitive form around 650 CE, which would be 18 years after that death, but recent non-Muslim scholars are sceptical of this, as none of the accounts of how the Quran came into being date from less than 150 years after Mohammed’s death.
birgerjohansson @ #4
What’s your evidence of this claim that there was a Yeshua ben Joseph, that he was a religious activist, that he was executed by Pilate, or that there was a religious cult based around him in first century Palestine? (That last does not require the existence of an actual person.)
From what I have read, all the purported references to these things…outside the NT of course…are questionable, and possibly interpolations by later redactors. The NT reference are unreliable even among themselves, and the non-NT references, if they aren’t interpolations, are so brief and vague that about all you could take from it is that someone had heard of the cult and its holy man.
I would agree that if such a person and religious sect did exist, it would have been largely wiped out in the revolt of 70 AD, or some of the later revolts.
@1, 2, re: “evidences”
LIkely candidates would be William Paley’s View of the Evidences of Christianity (1794) and Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (1809), in which he makes the watchmaker analogy.
A bit of light searching seems to indicate that “evidences” is faily common in Christian apologetics.
robro@8,
The evidence for Jesus/Yeshua ben Joseph’s existence is as good at that for the great majority of individuals of that time whose existence is seldom if ever questioned. Jesus Mythicism is just a silly piece of “Atheier than thou” nonsense, as far from the consensus of relevant experts as creationism and climate change denial. Only one of the two references in Josephus (the nearest to the time in question outside the NT) is likely a partial interpolation, there is actually no reason to expect any such contemporary or near-contemporary references to such an obscure (in his time) figure, inconsistencies among the NT accounts are no greater than one would expect for a person who clearly began to be mythologised very soon after his death, and in fact show stages in that process of mythologisation e.g. in accounts of Jesus’ death and burial. For more detail on all this, see the series on Jesus mythicism by the atheist historian Tim O’Neill.
Bart Ehrman has written many books on the subject of early Christianity, BTW he stopped being a believer as he learned more.
The books are accessible even for non-scholar readers, there is considerable overlap between individual books, but that comes with the territory. Much recommended
.
One thing is reasonably certain; the eschatological preacher on which the gospels were poshumously based (maybe a century after the fact) never intended to convert the gentiles, that was on Saul/Paul.
Then Christianity split into just about as many interpretations of the gospels as is possible, and writing apochrypical gospels (or shorter insertions in older works) became a cottage industry.
#10
“The evidence for Jesus/Yeshua ben Joseph’s existence is as good at that for the great majority of individuals of that time whose existence is seldom if ever questioned.”
So, the lack of evidence of the existence of a particular 1st century Judean is evidence for the existence of said person?
No. But the absence of evidence for his existence is not evidence for his non-existence, either. Cf. the fallacy of the excluded middle. We don’t know (and probably can’t know) either way. As with so many things in life, there is no certainty possible.
What bores me about all these discussions is the obsession with “proving” this or that detail about a non-prominent person from two millenia ago. One need not believe in a supreme being in order to accept as a possibility that this individual existed, and even that he did some of the non-miraculous things ascribed to him. Even if someone were able to provide convincing proof that such a person existed and that Christianity is based on tales told about him, it would not prove that he was divine or that a supreme being exists.
birgerjohansson @ # 5: Qutham – who later took the name Muhammed…
Maybe, maybe not. Others claim Mo had a cousin/disciple named Qutham (spellings vary, of course), and the Islamophobes have jumped into the debate and muddied everything already.
KG @ # 10: …see the series on Jesus mythicism by the atheist historian Tim O’Neill.
And bring your salt-shaker: O’Neill’s arrogance & tendency for assertions based on his own authority rival those of R. Carrier.
Oops and damnit and apologies for my html fail @ # 14!
@11. Ehrman wrote a book to counter the atheists who said that Jesus did not exist at all. Besides Josephus, there was Peter, who knew Jesus and talked about him, and he certainly did exist. His upside-down crucifixion in Rome is well-known.
Pierce R. Butler
“And bring your salt-shaker: O’Neill’s arrogance & tendency for assertions based on his own authority rival those of R. Carrier.”
Really? I work hard to make sure I only ever present consensus or at least widely-accepted scholarly views and make sure I indicate it if am presenting any position that is more marginal. And I try to avoid presenting anything as mere assertion – I write very long articles precisely because I work to back up everything with detailed argument based on evidence, sources and scholarship, with references and citations as needed. And I make a particular point of not presenting myself as any kind of “authority”. Or making arguments that are purely my own.
So can you now support your claim above with examples? Let’s see those please.
Tim O’Neill
Qutham was Muhammad’s cousin. He is well known in Islamic circles for spreading Islam to Uzbekistan. As for the Qur’an there is solid evidence that sections of it were written down in the lifetime of the Prophet while it was also committed to memory. Within two years of the death of Muhammad it was compiled in written form and not long after multiple authorised reference copies were prepared to be used as a source for producing further copies. There are three of these copies still existing today. Thats the trouble with pseudo-academic critics of Islam they don’t trust reliable Muslim sources and pull evidence for their claims out of their own ass.
Tim O @ # 17 – Thanks for the direct reply.
I truly don’t have the time to review your entire online corpus, but will start by citing comments by others, such as this and its follow-ups. (Note particularly the points about whether “St” Helen actually found the “historical Nazareth” or bought into a hustle from her guides.)
I write very long articles precisely because I work to back up everything with detailed argument …
Yeah, you do, and you present it as a wall of text with no trace of consideration as to whether your opponent of the moment may actually have a point. Serious historians, of the stripe that I respect more, usually acknowledge unknowns with a much less lawyerly approach.
moarscienceplz:
“So, the lack of evidence of the existence of a particular 1st century Judean is evidence for the existence of said person?”
No. There isn’t a “lack of evidence”. We have evidence and we have enough of it to safely conclude a historical Jesus most likely existed. We actually have more for him that we have for any analogous early first century preacher, prophet or Messianic claimant. Clearly we don’t have as much as we’d like, but that’s the case for pretty much everything and everyone in this period – welcome to ancient history. Nor do we have as much as we have for very well-attested figures like Augustus, Caesar or Alexander, but expecting that for a peasant preacher in back of nowhere is clearly silly. But we have sufficient evidence to conclude his existence is the most likely position to take. I go into more detail on why in my video here:
Pierce R. Butler:
“will start by citing comments by others, such as this and its follow-ups.”
Which don’t actually support your claim about me. I cited and quoted Kuhnen. Since I’m not a mind-reader, I could only go on what Kuhnen said in his published work, not what he said in private correspondence with Salm. So how does that support your claim that I make “assertions based on [my] own authority”, exactly? And how is that evidence of “falsehoods” on my part made in those very weird comments? Is this the best you can do?
“Note particularly the points about whether “St” Helen actually found the “historical Nazareth” or bought into a hustle from her guides.”
Why am I “noting” this? Where did I make any claims about “St Helen”? I have no idea what this has to do with me. So, another strange comment. And nothing to back up your claim above.
” … you present it as a wall of text with no trace of consideration as to whether your opponent of the moment may actually have a point.”
What does this mean? “A wall of text”? I break my text into paragraphs and sections to make the structure of my arguments clear to the reader. So what is this “wall of text” claim? And I do consider if they have a point. And usually respond to their arguments because I conclude their point/s are bad, flawed or unconvincing and then respond in detail as to why, referring to evidence and citing scholarship. So, the exact opposite of your claim above.
“Serious historians, of the stripe that I respect more, usually acknowledge unknowns with a much less lawyerly approach.”
If they think the arguments in question are crap, no they don’t. They are often much more brisk and dismissive than me, because they are usually too busy to bother much with fringe and silly ideas. I take the time to detail why they don’t take these ideas seriously because I think it’s important for the broader public to understand why the professionals reject these ideas. It actually takes a lot of work to do this.
So, it seems you’ve completely failed to sustain your claim above. As I suspected.
In a few creationist books, there are those who claimed they found the ark or a remnant of it, but they ended up allegedly finding the ark in numerous places through the Ararat mountain range rather than in only one spot. As far as I can remember, those who claimed to have allegedly found bits and pieces of the ark later on admitted to collect some pieces of wood taken from some old railroad tracks and manipulated them to make them as if they’re much older than what they’re really are. Thus, all those ark claims were nothing more than hoaxes made up to get people’s attention and profit off of them.
Tim O @ # 21: … how is that evidence of “falsehoods” on my part …
Pls search this whole thread and find where I, or anybody, used that word “falsehood” before you did.
Where did I make any claims about “St Helen”?
My apologies for dropping the final “a” from Constantine’s momma’s name. I alluded to a very long thread at the “Geeky Humanist” blog @ my # 19, concerning the dubious historicity of the site she came to declare “Nazareth” – my apologies if none of those who debated the point cited your writings. Do you think she got all of her claims right?
So what is this “wall of text” claim?
The lengthy and uncompromising blasts against each quibble over your assertions.
… it seems you’ve completely failed to sustain your claim above.
You illustrate my point.
FWIW the Geeky Humanist blog by Dr Sarah has a good & relevant series on the whole Jesus historical or mythical here :
https://proxy.freethought.online/geekyhumanist/2022/09/30/deciphering-the-gospels-proves-jesus-never-existed-review-chapter-eight/
Sigh
Pierce R. Butler:
“Pls search this whole thread and find where I, or anybody, used that word “falsehood” before you did.”
You linked to some weird comments in another thread were strange claims were being made about me. They included things like “Why does O’Neill go to such lengths to publicly humiliate Salm and to write falsehoods about his argument?” So I noted this and asked what “falsehoods” and how these strange allegations support your original claim above. You were the one who linked to these comments in response to my request that you back up your claim I have “a tendency for assertions based on [my] own authority”. So what the hell … ?
“My apologies for dropping the final “a” from Constantine’s momma’s name. “
Whatever. I knew who you were referring to, so the spelling wasn’t the issue. The problems are (i) I have not made any claims about Helen/Helena in my articles and (ii) I can’t see how whatever it is being said in those comments somehow support your original claim above that I have “a tendency for assertions based on [my] own authority”. So – again – what the hell … ?
“Do you think she got all of her claims right?”
No. And I say as much in a comment on my Nazareth article. Not that this is even remotely relevant here.
So, again, you have provided absolutely nothing to back up your claim above that I have “a tendency for assertions based on [my] own authority”. How about you admit that claim is wrong and withdraw it.
“The lengthy and uncompromising blasts against each quibble over your assertions.”
Detailed 7-10k word articles with careful reference to the evidence, quotes and references to primary sources and substantiation by scholarly citations are not “quibbles”. They are substantive counter arguments. And I always refer to and draw on the work of experts and note that this is what I’m doing. So your claim that I have “a tendency for assertions based on [my] own authority” is dead wrong.
“You illustrate my point.”
Pardon? You made a claim that I have “a tendency for assertions based on [my] own authority”. You then posted a link to some confused and weird claims that – apart from being wrong and also irrelevant to anything here – don’t support that claim. So my noting this failure to substantiate your slur above somehow “illustrates” what point? Pardon?
You have consistently failed to make the slightest scrap of sense in this odd exchange. Perhaps now would be a great time to admit defeat and give up. Before you embarrass yourself further.
[Great responses, Tim. I’m seeing confidence, not arrogance]
John Morales:
“[Great responses, Tim. I’m seeing confidence, not arrogance]”
Thanks. I don’t care if my detractors call me names etc. But this guy tried to claim I do something that I make a point of NOT doing. So I gave him the opportunity to back up his claim. Not only has he failed, his responses are incoherent, totally confused and increasingly weird. What is pretty clear, however, is he thought he could get away with his original slur and is now floundering around in disarray because he’s been called on a false claim. Watch your words, people, or you’ll end up like this guy.
I think most people will be able to see that your rhetorical question is a blatant distortion of what I wrote in the sentence you quote from my #10. Tim O’Neill has given a perfectly good answer, but I’ll add mine as the question was addressed to me. The great majority of ancient individuals whose existence is generally accepted from textual accounts (as opposed to those named on artefacts dating from the time such as coins, monuments, tombstones, the Vindolanda tablets, etc.) are referred to by a small number of authors, in many cases just in passing, and often decades or centuries after their lives (assuming they did actually live). But there’s no movement of “Spartacus mythicists”, to give an example I argued with Pierce R. Butler about here, even though the sources for his existence postdate his lifetime by more than those for Jesus do his. It’s not possible to show conclusively from the available evidence that Jesus existed, but it’s much the simplest way to account for that evidence; and the bizarre contortions mythicists go through to justify their position are all too reminiscent of those of creationists and climate change denialists.
Personal situations have kept me offline for a couple of days, so probably nobody will read this, but just ftr:
Tim O @ # 25: You have consistently failed to make the slightest scrap of sense in this odd exchange. Perhaps now would be a great time to admit defeat and give up. Before you embarrass yourself further.
Belligerence, hyperbole, and (most of all) cherry-picking do not enhance your credibility, except possibly in your own eyes.
This is getting ridiculous. And tedious.
Pierce R. Butler:
“Belligerence, hyperbole, and (most of all) cherry-picking do not enhance your credibility, except possibly in your own eyes.”
More whining and no substance. Try to focus. You made a very specific claim about me:
“O’Neill’s … tendency for assertions based on his own authority”
I called you out on this slur and challenged you to produce examples to justify it or to withdraw it. You’ve failed to produce any. So here’s your last chance: either you meet my challenge and finally produce some examples or we will draw the only reasonable conclusion that this was a weak and baseless slur. Any further hand-flapping, subject-changing, weak whining and further baseless slurs (e.g. “cherry-picking”) as a substitution for real examples that substantiate your claim will be read by all of us as an admission of defeat. Over to you.
Tim O @ # 30: This is getting ridiculous. And tedious.
You just now noticed?
You made a very specific claim about me… produce some examples … [or] your claim will be read by all of us as an admission of defeat.
You just illustrated my point again. I doubt everyone here (if any but you ‘n’ me) feels any obligation to read comments through the Tim O mindset; possibly only one. Yet you assert “all of us” will, on no authority but your own lustrous self.
Yeah, whatever.
So, I started at your Nazareth page. Lo: I ran into a 12K-word screed, with some unsupported allegations in the first few ‘grafs. But of course prob’ly returned to in more detail later, and I really don’t feel much craving to critically cross-check each accusation with each ref, so I’ll cede your point to save my evening. (My apologies to any and all of your neighbors in range of your Tarzan yells of triumph…)
Meanwhile, could you maybe work on your false dichotomy problem for a bit?
Pierce:
So, you’re confident of shenanigans there, but to actually find them you’d have to scrutinise the source material. Rather amusing, given this post’s title.
His failure is complete.
Pierce R. Butler:
“I really don’t feel much craving to critically cross-check each accusation with each ref, so I’ll cede your point to save my evening.”
Translation: “Yes, my original claim was a weak and stupid slur and all my wriggling and shrieking above didn’t distract you or anyone from the fact I can’t back it up because it’s nonsense and basically a lie.”
We thought so. Game over.