This Sunday in Ventura, Atheists United will host author and historian Richard Carrier at the Foster Library, as he endeavors to convince his audience that an actual Jesus never existed. To put it in the exact words of his spokesman: He will be “Suggesting there is a reasonable case to be made that Jesus might not have been a historical person, but was instead a mythical hero character who became "historicized," generally believed to have actually existed, over time like other Greco-Roman gods and heroes.” (emphasis mine)
Brian Parra, AU Hosts Author and Historian Richard Carrier, Ph.D. "Did Jesus Even Exist." Feb 16, 2009. Atheistsunited.org
http://atheistsunited.org/home/press-releases/176-au-hosts-author-and-historian-richard-carrier-phd-qdid-jesus-even-existq
I want you to bypass the poise of the sentence, and pay special attention to what his claim actually is: To show that it is possible that Jesus might not have existed.
I want you to cling to this word for a good reason. An historian seeks to reveal what is MOST PROBABLE. Why do I say this? A historian cannot always PROVE what they put forth as history, can they? They cannot PROVE without any doubt whatsoever that Emperor Nero existed. Indubitable proof might consist of video footage of Emperor Nero, a photograph of him, an autograph by his hand, or something of that nature. But to throw out the possibility of his existence because there is a slight possibility that he did NOT exist is improbable and silly. (Just re-read that last sentence to see what I mean). But that's what historians have at their disposal. They rarely seem to have indisputable proof, but what they do have is evidence which leads them to believe in the event, person, or fact that is most probable, most reliable, and that in which they are able to trust happened or existed.. In the case of Emperor Nero, we don't have video footage of him, but we have writings and histories about him by Roman Historians, Jews, and Christians. We might not have photographs of him, but I've seen sculptures of him that show his likeness. I have read literature dealing with the impact he has had on the course of humanity. It seems highly IMPROBABLE that Emperor Nero was a myth, when so much evidence seems to tell us that he was real. Anyone can stand up on a podium and claim that since none of us saw Nero ourselves, he must not have existed. The rest of us would probably laugh, because while we cannot PROVE that Nero existed, the evidence that he did makes any contrary claim extremely laughable. The burden is on the shoulders of the person on the podium to prove wrong the outstanding evidence we have for Nero.
Did Jesus exist? History seems to divulge sufficient evidence:
1) The first-hand sources of the Gospel writers
2) Multiple attestation by secular historians that were hostile to Christianity (Tacitus 55-120 A.D., Suetonius 117-138 A.D., Josephus 37-97 A.D., Thalus, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Lucian, etc...)
3) Oral Tradition
I have not heard Dr. Carrier speak. But I have have heard several arguments that Jesus did not exist and so far, they always seem to be similar:
1) The gospels were written roughly 40 years after Jesus was on the Earth
2) Nothing was written about Jesus by historians during his life, only after the fact
3) There are many historical accounts of Jesus after his death, but no accounts of his life by his contemporaries.
Let me offer some brief answers..
1) The JFK assassination was about 40 years ago. Do we believe the histories of that event, or of his life? What have the videotapes taught you about the culprit? You weren't there, so why should you believe them? Ah! Because others were there, and the transmission of this information through these witnesses serves you well. In the same way, there were eyewitnesses of Jesus life (See #3).
2) Little (if anything) was written about Barack Obama during his appointment to the senate. After the run for the presidency, however, his fame skyrocketed to unprecedented heights. Jesus wasn't a renegade warrior, trying to cause trouble for the Roman Empire. He was not on the scope of their notice until later on (when histories were written by Lucian, Pliny the Younger, etc.). It also does not follow that because someone of importance exists, that every historian or writer must rush to the papyrus and write something, or anything for that matter. [Notice that I am not using the example of Barack (who is alive) to prove Jesus' existence, only to point out that the lack of writings during a persons' lifetime does nothing to disprove his existence]. ---{{thank you frumious, for your submitted corrections. You make me a better thinker every time.}}
3) There were no written accounts by his contemporaries. There was a HUGH oral tradition in play (when things of importance are passed on by word of mouth through trained communities).
It seems as though many atheists when addressing the issue of Jesus' existence, will deny all of this available evidence for the possibility that it might not be true. It's important to remember that simply because something is possible does not mean it's probable. It's possible that I may eat a bucket full of tomatoes right now...but highly, highly improbable because I hate tomatoes. So if anyone writes and asserts that I may have done that sometime in my life, you will know that this is far-fetched.
"But is something like oral tradition reliable when it comes to remembering Jesus' teachings?"
Well, unlike the sketchy method of memorization that we play in a game like Telephone, Oral Tradition can actually be a very reliable method. I guess it would have to be for Jewish culture to preserve their own history.
In a nutshell, here's how it worked:
First of all, the first century Jews lived in an oral culture. A very few percentage of Jesus' followers were literate, so people needed good memories. They memorized much of everything. Jewish boys were required to memorize huge parts of the Old Testament by the time they were 13 years old. Teachers and Rabbi's were expected to hand down their information accurately, and it wasn't being handed down to one person at a time (like in the game of Telephone). "Since they did their work in community gatherings, if they got the story substantially wrong, the community in which they functioned would hold them accountable for their mistake" (Roberts, 73). And since the followers of Jesus believed He had very important things to say, they would have had incredible incentive to pass on this information with great precision and accuracy.
Unconvinced? Consider Jan Vansina, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor and the Vilas Professor in History and Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin. He is a renown historian and anthropologist, and his 1961 book, Oral Traditions, was hailed internationally as a pioneering work in the field of ethno-history. He might know some things.
He has this to say about Oral Tradition:
In order to establish whether an oral tradition contains a kernal of historical truth or not, it is necessary to discover the oldest attested form in which the tradition was handed down. -J. Vansina
Should a tradition contain some internal contradiction, or go against facts established from other sources, it must be regarded as unreliable. [The scholar] then proceeds to examine....and concludes that some second-hand traditional material can be subjected to scrutiny by the methods employed in historical criticism. This amounts to saying that if the reliability of a tradition has been established, it can be regarded as valid source material. -J. Vansina
That's good news. There are no internal difficulties in the Bible that cannot be adequately resolved, and the oral tradition that was later written down by the gospel writers, or by second-hand witnesses (like Luke) does not go against facts or other sources, as seen above.
As was put forth at the beginning, there is PLENTY of reliable evidence that Jesus existed. That's why I believe beyond recognizable doubt that He did. And that's why Paul L. Maier, the Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, once said in the case of the historicity of Jesus Christ, that the evidence is "so overpowering, and so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence." Now I have yet to hear Dr. Carrier's presentation. I encourage you to go if you can, and hear for yourself. Perhaps he will bring a different approach to this discussion.
Friends, you may be asked tough questions about your faith in Christ, and even given "proof" to discount what you hold to be true. Don't let this shake you up. Just roll up your sleeves, and assume that if God does exist as we believe to be true, He will provide answers, evidences, and truth for us to discover. You may even find that when all the facts and evidences are examined, it's often the opposing viewpoints to Christianity that require the most faith to believe.
Works Cited:
Vansina, Jan, H.M. Wright, Selma Leydesdorff, and Elizabeth Tonkin. Oral Tradition. Pg. 3
Ibid. Pg. 4
Maier, Paul L. Did Jesus Really Exist? Pg. 1
Roberts, Mark D. Can We Trust the Gospels? 73
Posts
