Hacker News Reader

Comment by CapitalistCartr | Hacker News Reader

We don't know any of that. He didn't write anything down, nor did anyone else at the time. The Gospels were written decades later.

View on HN

This is an entirely separate argument. My problem with Russell is that he reads the gospels and concludes that Jesus was a great moral teacher which is not one of the conclusions you can draw, no matter what you think of the reliability of the text or the events it describes.

Russel does not conclude that Jesus was a great moral teacher; he rather concludes that some (3 specifically called out here) of his teachings had good moral value while disagreeing with most of the rest.

We don't even really have good evidence that such a person as Jesus even existed. There are literally no mentions of him in documents of the time. People say "what about Tacitus? Or Joseph Flavius?" but like the Gospels, these people weren't writing at the time but decades later.

> We don't even really have good evidence that such a person as Jesus even existed.

Current consensus is that such an individual did exist:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

The belief that Jesus was a myth is the fringe theory. Tim O'Neill has a series posts breaking down how most of the points that 'Mythicists' are wrong:

* https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/

(Tim O'Neill is himself an atheist.)

> People say "what about Tacitus? Or Joseph Flavius?" but like the Gospels, these people weren't writing at the time but decades later.

So argument from silence:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

O'Neill goes over this:

> What is essential to all historiographical formulations of an argument from silence, however, is that it is not the silence that is key, it is the argument that there should not be silence. The strength of this kind of argument lies in showing that there is silence in the sources where silence should not exist. Any attempted argument that does not do this or does not do it competently will immediately fail. And here is where the naïve Mythicist argument always collapses.

[…]

> Another illustrative example can be found in our earliest references to the Carthaginian general Hannibal. As one of the greatest military commanders in the ancient world and the general who came close to defeating the Roman Republic in the Second Punic War, Hannibal (247- c. 182 BC) was justly famous in his own time and has remained so ever since. His career was also fairly long, beginning at around the age of 18 in 229 BC and spanning about 40 years until at least 190 BC. Yet, despite all this, we have precisely zero references to him in any literary source dating to his lifetime.

* https://historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-...

I don't think that's correct. I have no sources on me. But I think historians generally agree - son of god or not - he did exist.

> I don't think that's correct. I have no sources on me. But I think historians generally agree - son of god or not - he did exist.

PSA:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

With regards to the idea of "no contemporary sources":

* https://historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

It should be noted that while Jesus was still alive he was a nobody: just another itinerant teacher in some backwater Roman province. It was only after he was executed (and supposedly resurrected) that that he perhaps became more noteworthy. And the 'cult' around that grew only later was when people started to notice.

We only care about [Hh]im now because of what that 'personality cult' became, but then (between 1AD and 32AD) why would anyone care to write things down about him?

The closest agreement you're likely to get is that a person existed who was a model for the accounts that follow.

His divinity is a matter of opinion and nothing more.

I realize that, but I object to the idea that the historical Jesus had to exist and that there is "no debate" to it when there don't seem to be any documents mentioning him from when he was supposed to have lived. I realize there could be reasons for this -- the Romans and/or Jewish authorities could have found and destroyed all such documents, but the fact is without the existence of such documents even the historical Jesus is dubious.

Please give a citation of a source mentioning Jesus that can be dated during his supposed lifetime. I'd be glad to know of such a case, but seriously the earliest documents commonly known are Tacitus' Annals book 15, chapter 44 (AD 116), and Joseph Flavius' The Jewish War (AD 75). Both are long after Jesus was said to have lived (dying sometime in the AD 30's).

> Please give a citation of a source mentioning Jesus that can be dated during his supposed lifetime.

Why would such a citation even exist? While Jesus was still alive he was a nobody: just another itinerant teacher in some backwater Roman province. It was only after he was executed (and supposedly resurrected) that that he perhaps became more noteworthy. And the 'cult' around him that grew only later was when people started to notice.

We only care about [Hh]im now because of what that 'personality cult' became, but then (between 1AD and 32AD) why would anyone care to write things down about him?

You are arguing there is silence when there should not be. Can you explain why you expect there to be citations?

Well, he was said to have followers (unless you say having disciples isn't part of the "historical" Jesus), and they seemed to think he was pretty great. Wouldn't they write something about him and try to spread it? (And no, the Gospels aren't that even if they are named after some of the people who were said to have been disciples as they were written much later).

Eh, this is only up for question in non-academic debate. Virtually all academics regardless of their position have moved beyond this, sounds like you're working with 80s and 90s talking points still. We have Roman, Jewish, and other contemporaries who have written either directly of Jesus or have spoken of the events that occurred in such a way that it's really no point arguing against the existence of the person named Jesus.

I think the consensus is that there is no particular reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus. He was a minor troublemaker in a distant province 2000 years ago, and his legacy only became important long after his death. Given the circumstances, the existence of Jesus is documented as well as one could reasonably expect. When a simple explanation suffices, there is no need for more complicated theories.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com