I’m well aware of ancient history. In the 1st thru 3rd centuries anyone criticizing Christianity, Jesus, etc. would have been praised and rewarded by the Romans and the Jews. There is an extant letter from Pliny the Younger (Roman Governor of Pontus and Bithynia from 111-113 AD) to the Roman Emperor Trajan stating that those Christians who he interrogated that wouldn’t renounce their Christianity, that he had them executed. He asked the Emperor whether this policy was appropriate and what to do with lists of suspected Christians that he had received…Doesn’t seem to me that in the 1st and 2nd centuries (the only period relevant to the discussion) that anyone would have been at any risk for questioning the historical existence of Jesus, indeed per Pliny the Younger people were running to him to give him lists of suspected Christians.
So my point remains, no contemporary to the first and second century hostile witnesses claimed that Jesus was not a historical person. As a matter of fact they confirmed that he was.
If Jesus wasn’t a historical person, no one especially the Romans and Jews would have hesitated to say so. Persecution by the Catholic Church didn’t start until after Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire much later. All 1st and 2nd century non Christian sources confirm that Jesus was an historical figure and they were under no compulsion to say he was. As a matter of fact if Jesus had not been an historical figure they had every reason to deny his existence. They did not.
Give me your top 5 historical inaccuracies from the Book of Acts. Once we have discussed those, I will give you a list of items from the Book of Acts that have been verified historically. We can examine this evidence that supposedly doesn’t exist.
If Rome hated Christianity so much it would not have ever been placed favorite later on. It would not have spread so far. I just watched a documentary the other day about the history of man kind and an episode about religious. Christianity in Rome was practiced secretly at first. So no one can tell me that they would not have documented Jesus Christ. Such documents would provide evidence to support the position of him being historically physical and real, but that isn’t the case. Real documentation anyways.
Did the trend reveal the world was flat and the Earth the center of the universe? lolol
^ Whole point of this comment is to reveal the trend is a lot of the times wrong. So why care for it. Don’t people ever learn? Instead they repeat history, following trends.
See letter from Pliny the Younger and the following from Tacitus (Annuals 116AD):
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind”.
And why do you think Christianity was practiced secretly if the Romans were ambivalent about Christianity?
There are no writings from when Alexander the Great was alive. The earliest extant writings for Alexander the Great were over 200 years after his death. Therefore Alexander the Great wasn’t a real person?
I think all historical scholars would be shocked to learn that this isn’t historical evidence. They would also be shocked to learn that Alexander the Great doesn’t exist either.
Tacitus isn’t claiming it either and he is much closer to the time of Jesus than Diodorus Siculus was to Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great didn’t claim anything, everything extant that we have on him was written over 200 years after his death.
So applying the same rules of evidence to Alexander the Great that you are for Jesus we have to conclude that Alexander the Great was not a real historical person because “Hearsay is rumor, Not evidence”.
Well, that’s why I limit my aggregate view to just post-Englightenment. When the Englightenment hit, acdemia was in such a tizzy to toss off the shackles of superstition that they were ready to call all religion myth and pure fantasy whether the evidence actually backed the conclusion or not. So, starting there, when the furor died down and people began to think instead of congratulate themselves, we can see a cooling return to reason and with it a return to belief in Jesus as a real person.
Except Alexander has a city/country named after him. He conquered the known world. Jesus performed miracles and was magical. Two completely different figures.
Jesus is only mentioned in one book with hardly anything thing else to support his existence other than interpretations in few writings. Alexander was a great King, but supposedly being the son of god one would think Jesus would have been equally documented.
Professional historians don’t agree with you. This is ancient history, the following methods apply.
From the video, Principles of Historic Method:
2. First-hand information is more credible than second-hand, which is more credible than third-hand, etc.
From the two Swedish historians I mentioned earlier:
4. An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
Notice that neither say that second-hand information (third-hand and so on) is not evidence, or that it’s not credible, it says that it’s not AS credible as first hand information.
There were many cities named after Greek Gods, therefore these gods were real people? At any rate who ever claimed that the city was named after someone named Alexander the Great is just repeating hearsay information.
Hearsay
Not according to Tacitus and the Jews.
By your standards only Hearsay so therefore Alexander the Great never existed.
And the Information for Jesus is closer to his life (over twice as good) than Alexander the Great, so it’s qualitatively better per the Principles of Historical method.
From the video:
3. The more time that transpires before recording an event, the less reliable that narrative becomes.
Swedish historians:
3. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
Sorry bud… Alexander has much more evidence than Jesus.
Student of Aristotle? Boy of a king? recorded by tons? Sorry, but that’s good evidence. Jesus has none of that. In fact you can’t even explain where Jesus went for 10+ years and was missing. You miss chunks of your story in the story, then miss evidence of your story as well.
Supernatural events occurring aren’t proved to exist at all. If one writes Jesus existed then they imply his supernatural events existed as well.
Your story contains statements of Jesus having actually done supernatural things. Not just claiming it either. Doing is a lot different from claiming.
Relics, physical evidence, etc. Much better than story.
Neither did Diodorus Siculus speak to any eyewitnesses unless they were still alive over 200 years later. That’s still second hand information at best and possibly third hand. You are still assuming that what these second hand writers are saying about what their source was is true. It’s still Hearsay which according to you is worthless. The writings of Tacitus are of far greater quality than those of Diodorus Siculus. The writings of Tacitus are far closer to the actual events than his so per the Principles of Historical Method it is to be considered more reliable. Tacitus more than likely got his information from the official documents of the Roman government based on correspondence from Pontius Pilate. Information from the Roman government records is considered completely reliable and is where the letters of Pliny the Younger came from. Unfortunately much of it has been lost to history. The earliest extant work from Diodorus Siculus is 1st century BC and that isn’t even considered the most reliable source. Arrian (1st to 2nd century AD), is considered the most reliable, over 300 years past.
Sorry Bud, but it’s a fact that there are currently NO eyewitness accounts extant on Alexander the Great, it’s all hearsay as you say. There are very, very, very few documents in ancient history that are the original eyewitness accounts or what’s called the original autographs. Even the very, very, few documents we do have from original eyewitnesses are copies of copies of copies over thousands of years.
But, just so I’m clear as to what you’re now saying is that Hearsay evidence is now “evidence” that needs to be considered and evaluated using standard historical methods and is no longer worthless as you were previously claiming?
I don’t see anywhere where anything in the tombs directly identifies the tomb as belonging anyone. They are “thought” to have held the body of Alexander the Great’s father or half brother. And on what basis do these Archaeologists “think” that “this may mean” that the artifacts found in the tomb belonged to Alexander the Great. It’s based on the “testimony” of these second and third hand writings on the life of Alexander the Great that you call hearsay and are therefore worthless. I don’t see were the helmet had a tag in the back that said this belongs to Alex the Great and accompanied by a signed copy of his biograpy, so the archaeologists are making these claims based on hearsay testimony.
This is all the archaeologists could possibly say about the tomb (they could also date it) without what you call worthless hearsay evidence provided 200-300 years later.
All these assumptions come from the worthless hearsay sources. They “believe” (based on hearsay) that this material was Alexander’s, they “know” the dating of the tombs. Without the hearsay evidence they couldn’t possibly say anything about who was in the tomb.
So just so I’m clear, you’re now agreeing that second and third hand testimonial information can be used to validate and establish what the identity and meaning of archaeological information? And second and third hand information and archaeological information are used together to establish historical truth?
Once again, so second and third hand information is now acceptable evidence? This is all based on hearsay you realize?
There are coins with greek gods on them. What establishes the reality and the story of Alexander the Great is this hearsay evidence that you find worthless. Coins are corroborating evidence that helps establish the credibility of the hearsay evidence as you call it.
But just so I understand your new position, you’re saying that relics, writings, and inscriptions from the correct time period even if not directly corroborating, provide “good evidence” for proving the accuracy of second and third hand information? Therefore using second and third hand testimony can be acceptable evidence, is this now your position?