What do we really know about Jesus?

I'm asking because I'm getting different opinions from different people. Feel free to comment.

According to Josephus, Jesus was the brother of James. His book, "Antiquities of the Jews", was published around 94CE.

The only problem with this piece of information is that the oldest preserved text is from the eleventh century[1].

This is the only piece of information about the "historical" Jesus.
  • Absent from Josephus is his birth, his death and all events from his life.
  • Absent from Josephus is the massacre of the infants.
  • Absent from Josephus is the cleansing of the Temple.
  • Absent form Josephus is an earthquake when Jesus died, and the opening of tombs in Jerusalem.
The New Testament describes all kinds of events that would have been noted by independent writers, if they had happened.

Both the Romans and the Jews knew how to write, yet there are no written documents of the events portrayed in the bible. You'd think there would have been letters if Jesus had disrupted the temple, wouldn't you?

I can only conclude that Jesus was not a historical figure (he was not an important public figure) in his time even if he existed.

Side note: According to the gospel of Mathew, Jesus was born during Herod's reign. Herod died 4BCE. According to the gospel of Luke, Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius 6CE... ten years later.

Further reading:
Plague of mice - Did Jesus ever exist?
Rosa Rubicondior - The Historical Evidence For Jesus.
Daily Mail - Jesus NEVER existed

[1] Clare K. Rothschild, "Echo of a Whisper": The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus' Witness to John the Baptist, in David Hellholm, Tor Vegge, Ayvind Norderval, Christer Hellholm (editors), Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, page 273 (Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2011). ISBN 978-3-11-024751-0

*Post updated October 28th, 2017

Comments

  1. Rosa Rubicondior23 October 2016 at 09:59

    Thanks for the link. As well as the claimed witness not actually being witnesses, there is the silence of contemporary witness to account for. Not a single historian living and writing at the time of the life of the alleged Jesus mentions him or any of the events associated with his birth, life and death in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown6 September 2018 at 14:25

    So far, I ask on Twitter about contradictions in the text, from people who are well informed, they both bring up Quirinius before 6 CE. I know it's a tangent from the above.
    As to to points between Luke and Josephus, Luke can be argued to be much closer to the events and access to the witnesses prior to let's say 45 CE. Other links are available but not yet accessible. I e pleaseconvinceme.com, a Warner Wallace site, ex atheist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elholandesdelacasa10 September 2018 at 09:50

      The thing here, Daniel, is that there is a clear contradiction in the text no matter how you turn it.

      No amount of apologetics will change that.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Formal logic

Genesis 1:1 * describes the following logic Informally Premise P1: God exists. Premise P2: If P1 then "the universe is as old as the earth**". Conclusion C1: The universe is as old as the earth. Formally P1 → C1, P1        C1 This form of logic is called Modus Ponens. The truth of C1 doesn't imply the truth of P1 because there may be other explanations for C1. Lets look at the following classical example Premise P3: It rains Premise P4: If P3 then "the streets are wet". Conclusion C2: The streets are wet There are other possible explanations for wet streets: A cleaning crew just passed, there were games with water, the dikes were broken, etc ... However, we can say that, if the streets are not wet then it doesn't rain. Formally P3 → C2, ¬C2        ¬P3 This form of logic is called Modus Tollens and is the inverse of Modus Ponens. To return to Genesis 1:1. C1 is false and Modus Tollens applies. P1 → C1, ¬C1        ¬
Read more

Abortion

Image
You want your freedom - By Ashvin Harrison with permission In my opinion, the "abortion debate" isn't actually a debate. Some people want to give rights to fetuses that don't have cognitive abilities to exercise those rights while taking away the right of self-determination from women who do have cognitive abilities. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Is a fetus a human being? I really don't care if it is, or isn't. Does a fetus have the right to live? No, it doesn't. Human rights begin at birth according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let's imagine we give a fetus the right to live. How can we determine whether a fetus wants to exercise that right? We can't. That is not a right, but an obligation. These people want to force fetuses onto the world whether these fetuses want, or not. Let's imagine we take away women's right of self-determination, a right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Hu
Read more

Scientism

Image
" Scientism " means misusing the word " science ". You can misuse it either by calling something that can't be measured "scientific", or by claiming that something without sufficient supporting evidence is "scientific". It is a word that's thrown around by people who hardly know what it means and who certainly don't know what the word "science" means or what the scientific method is. "Scientism" is also a word used in philosophy to denote an excess of confidence in science, and has legitimate uses. However, the people who accuse others of "scientism" are not at all interested in philosophy. They are solely interested in delegitimizing the scientific method. They are anti-science . Period. Why are they against science? Is it because they are not scientifically literate? Do they have economic motivations? What worries me is the number of people that are anti-science. There's a war on science g
Read more