One of the fun articles that keeps coming up is that some new atheist book comes out on existence of Jesus Christ, or more accurately his non-existence. Usually, it tends to rely on the same lack of evidence, and so it tends to get a little tired. So, in an effort to help future writers, here are some considerations:
1) Stop looking for a paper trail. Too many researchers are looking for some of the same proof that a person would leave today, such as birth certificates, death certificates, or even identification papers. This is apparently based on the idea that since the Romans kept excellent records, those records should exist somewhere. And, hey, Jerusalem was the center of learning, so Jesus would have been mentioned in books, right? The reality is that Jerusalem was still a pre-literate society where an amazing 10% of the populace could read. Yeah: 10%. As such not a lot of records would have been kept. More to the point, if the records did ever exist they were likely destroyed at some point, either to keep paperwork down or simply due to age.
Another consideration is that we see value in keeping those records as they from part of the historical legacy from previous generations, but also help in the legal system. Back then it simply didn't matter. If a man was alive he was alive, but if he was declared dead it was up to him to prove he wasn't before his belongings were split up. Births were pretty obvious who the parents were so that didn't matter. As punishments were carried out almost as quickly as they were handed down, there was no real court of appeals so there was no need of paperwork for the potential appeals judge. As such, between the lack of need and sheer age, there is unlikely to be an actual paper trail.
2) Stop aging The Gospels. You can tell the agenda of the writer by when the writer says that The Gospels were written. This applies both ways: a believer will average about fifty years after the passing of Jesus, while an atheist will average about two hundred years. Most historians place the average closer to one hundred, and I emphasize "the average". The reality is that there is a lot of doubt, even though they were written between 50-150 years after Jesus.
It also needs to be noted that this was standard operating procedure back then. In order to make the records more objective the books were written well after the event, "after the passion had gone". It wasn't uncommon for a book to be written on an event twenty or more years after the event. Yeah, this has created issues with other historical events as well.
3) Take a more analytical approach to The Gospels. Here's the deal: Historians don't worry too much about the details of an event, only that it happened. They know that numbers are going to be increased or decreased in order to make the teller look better, that events will be "enhanced" or forgotten to make the teller look better, and that there will even be differences between tellers as they emphasize different details. As such, while The Gospels do contradict each other on details, they contradict themselves on details about the same events. For most historians, that works, and that also works in a court of law.
4) Take contemporary records with a grain of salt. You need to realize that Jerusalem was considered the armpit of the Ancient World. Although it was well-located port and there was a lot knowledge available, you did have to deal with a local population that was constantly revolting or threatening to, and part of the problem with knowledge is that you had to deal with those seeking it; Jerusalem was full of "wise men" that could make some of our modern conspiracy theorists look sane. If the Weekly World News had been around there would have been a lot of stories coming out of it. All told, Jerusalem was something for those whose careers had ended or were jut starting, but overall was not a place you wanted to be stationed.
This means that there would have been little focus on what was happening here, and it would have had to be major for anyone to care. Yet another wise man leading a revolt, even a peaceful one, would have been mentioned but that's about it. Historians do find these mentions but because of how limited they are, usually just a lone or two, they tend to get ignored and rightfully so. Yes: You have a Christian telling you to disregard some of the proof of Jesus Christ's existence. Darn honesty and all that.
So....when it comes down to it, when someone publishes yet another book about how Jesus Christ never existed, I'll make the bet that it ignores one of those four things, if not all of them. Just something to consider.
1) Stop looking for a paper trail. Too many researchers are looking for some of the same proof that a person would leave today, such as birth certificates, death certificates, or even identification papers. This is apparently based on the idea that since the Romans kept excellent records, those records should exist somewhere. And, hey, Jerusalem was the center of learning, so Jesus would have been mentioned in books, right? The reality is that Jerusalem was still a pre-literate society where an amazing 10% of the populace could read. Yeah: 10%. As such not a lot of records would have been kept. More to the point, if the records did ever exist they were likely destroyed at some point, either to keep paperwork down or simply due to age.
Another consideration is that we see value in keeping those records as they from part of the historical legacy from previous generations, but also help in the legal system. Back then it simply didn't matter. If a man was alive he was alive, but if he was declared dead it was up to him to prove he wasn't before his belongings were split up. Births were pretty obvious who the parents were so that didn't matter. As punishments were carried out almost as quickly as they were handed down, there was no real court of appeals so there was no need of paperwork for the potential appeals judge. As such, between the lack of need and sheer age, there is unlikely to be an actual paper trail.
2) Stop aging The Gospels. You can tell the agenda of the writer by when the writer says that The Gospels were written. This applies both ways: a believer will average about fifty years after the passing of Jesus, while an atheist will average about two hundred years. Most historians place the average closer to one hundred, and I emphasize "the average". The reality is that there is a lot of doubt, even though they were written between 50-150 years after Jesus.
It also needs to be noted that this was standard operating procedure back then. In order to make the records more objective the books were written well after the event, "after the passion had gone". It wasn't uncommon for a book to be written on an event twenty or more years after the event. Yeah, this has created issues with other historical events as well.
3) Take a more analytical approach to The Gospels. Here's the deal: Historians don't worry too much about the details of an event, only that it happened. They know that numbers are going to be increased or decreased in order to make the teller look better, that events will be "enhanced" or forgotten to make the teller look better, and that there will even be differences between tellers as they emphasize different details. As such, while The Gospels do contradict each other on details, they contradict themselves on details about the same events. For most historians, that works, and that also works in a court of law.
4) Take contemporary records with a grain of salt. You need to realize that Jerusalem was considered the armpit of the Ancient World. Although it was well-located port and there was a lot knowledge available, you did have to deal with a local population that was constantly revolting or threatening to, and part of the problem with knowledge is that you had to deal with those seeking it; Jerusalem was full of "wise men" that could make some of our modern conspiracy theorists look sane. If the Weekly World News had been around there would have been a lot of stories coming out of it. All told, Jerusalem was something for those whose careers had ended or were jut starting, but overall was not a place you wanted to be stationed.
This means that there would have been little focus on what was happening here, and it would have had to be major for anyone to care. Yet another wise man leading a revolt, even a peaceful one, would have been mentioned but that's about it. Historians do find these mentions but because of how limited they are, usually just a lone or two, they tend to get ignored and rightfully so. Yes: You have a Christian telling you to disregard some of the proof of Jesus Christ's existence. Darn honesty and all that.
So....when it comes down to it, when someone publishes yet another book about how Jesus Christ never existed, I'll make the bet that it ignores one of those four things, if not all of them. Just something to consider.
No comments:
Post a Comment