Best evidence against the miracles of Jesus: The DOGMA that miracle events can never happen.
Independence of the gospel sources has never been an issue.
What is an issue is that we have more than one source for the miracles of Jesus. A greater number of source increases the credibility. And they are separate sources, not copies of each other. And that 1 or 2 of them quoted or paraphrased from another does not change the fact that these are multiple separate sources for the same reported events. Quoting from an earlier source in no way reduces the credibility of the account or reduces its reliability as a separate source.
That is a red herring introduced by you attempting to argue that multiple variations of a tale somehow make an incredible story more believable.
So then, having additional evidence for a reported event does NOT increase the credibility of it? Extra sources attesting to the event do NOT increase its credibility?
If this is your argument, then you are admitting that there is evidence for the miracles of Jesus for those who think that extra sources DO increase the credibility. Many do believe reasonably that extra evidence, such as extra sources, increases the credibility, and so for them there is good reason to consider the Jesus miracle accounts as more reliable or more credible than the stories of the pagan gods, for which there are fewer sources, or actually none at all, near to the actual events.
And the only reason you reject this reasoning is that you think extra sources or extra evidence, near to the events in question, do nothing to add any credibility to claims of events that took place. You must understand that many others disagree with that and believe reasonably that extra sources, or extra evidence, does help to increase the credibility. It is normal for people to think that more evidence does strengthen the case, even if you think it does not.
And the
proximity of the evidence to the events is also important. Some responders here noted that the reference to Christ in Tacitus should be discounted because it was too far removed from the events, being 80-90 years later. Those making this argument apparently do believe that closer proximity of the sources to the events increases the credibility. So this confirms the point that the gospel writings, being much closer to the events -- the miracle acts of Jesus -- have more credibility than the sources we have for the miracles of Horus or Hercules or Perseus etc., which are removed from the actual events by many centuries.
It doesn't any more than multiple versions of the Hercules myth make his stories more believable.
YES IT WOULD make the Hercules events more credible if there were multiple sources about this person within a few decades after the reported events are said to have happened. Such multiple sources certainly would increase the probability that those reported events, or some of them, actually did happen.
I.e., if there were accounts of his adventures written only 50-100 years after the events, then there would be more credibility to the legend, or more of it might be reasonably considered as true. There's nothing wrong with supposing that Hercules really existed as an historical figure around whom the later legends evolved. If the sources of those legends were closer in proximity to the actual historical figure, then they would have more credibility.
If it were so then the 1917
Miracle of The Sun would be reported in history books alongside the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand.
No it wouldn't be. Just because there is additional evidence doesn't eliminate all doubt. The increased evidence reduces the doubt, but there may still be enough doubt to prevent the report from being included in history books. But the increased evidence does reduce the amount of doubt and increase the amount of the story that might be true.
The miracles of Jesus are made more probable by the fact of the additional sources. However, the evidence is still not enough for these events to be included in the history books as known established fact.
There are many examples of historical "facts" that cannot be established sufficiently and have to be put into the unknown category. But reasonable persons can and do believe some of these "facts" for which there is evidence and thus a greater probability of being true than if there was less evidence or fewer sources (or NO sources near to the actual events).
Instead of swallowing the miracle tale whole, rational people accept that something possibly did happen and search for reasonable explanations of what may have happened.
Of course, and in some cases the "reasonable explanation" may be that a miracle event really did take place, if the evidence is strong.
The evidence is strong that the mad monk Rasputin did have the ability to heal a child with an apparent blood disease. In most cases of reported miracle healings the best explanation would NOT be that a miracle really took place. But in some cases that might be the best explanation. It is not rational to dogmatically exclude any possibility that a miracle event really happened. What is rational is to demand extra evidence, or more evidence than in the case of normal events, e.g., more than only one source, like the 4+ sources we have for the miracles of Jesus.
However, there's only one sun and it is visible over a large portion of the planet at any given time. If independent observations of the sun dancing around in the sky were noted in other countries and continents on the same day there would be good reason to accept this independent corroboration as evidence that something more worthy of investigation than a mere atmospheric phenomenon observed by thousands of hysteria-crazed people had occurred.
But there is no such evidence corroborating the events described in the gospel narratives.
The existence of multiple sources does help to corroborate these events. The corroboration is greater than if there were only one source, as in the case of Apollonius of Tyana, for whom there is only one source.
The reported miracle healings of the emperor Vespasian are given extra credibility by the fact that they are reported in
two sources rather than only one. Nevertheless, it can still be explained how these reports came about without the actual miracle event having happened. But the reported miracle acts of Jesus cannot be easily explained. The lack of an explanation how the accounts could come about as fiction increases the possibility that the events really happened rather than being fictional.
If you wish, you can impose a high standard for credibility which virtually rules out any possibility that any miracle healing event could ever have happened. But there is no necessity for a rational person to adopt such a dogmatic standard. And the additional sources, at least 4 rather than only one, does increase the credibility for all those who accept the principle that additional evidence does strengthen the case.
Not one letter home from someone among the 7,000 who said "Mom, I just saw the most incredible thing today - a man fed thousands of people out in the desert with only 5 loaves and 2 fishes. And the most incredible thing of all is that even though nobody was carrying anything in them and had no reason to be toting them around out there in the desert like that, they were able to produce twelve empty bushel baskets and fill them with leftover food after everyone had eaten all they wanted."
In those days the number of people who had the wherewithal to write and send letters of this nature was too small to suggest that we should expect to see any letters like this for a particular event witnessed by commoners, no matter how unusual the event might be.
This kind of testimony or attestation to particular events 2000 years ago is virtually non-existent. Such writings, in addition to being rare, were not copied and recopied, because only writings of recognized poets and philosophers and prophets and rulers etc. were preserved, not something like private letters to one's parents. Only copies survive, not original manuscripts, and
only recognized and highly important documents were copied for the benefit of future readers.
So virtually no historical events of that period are corroborated in the fashion you're demanding here. But the events did happen. The evidence is more than sufficient for us to believe that they happened, without needing "such evidence corroborating the events" as personal letters to mom and dad.
And of course that's just the tip of the iceberg. In spite of how extraordinary every one of the miracle events would have been; in spite of the alleged huge numbers of witnesses there were to many of them; not one shred of corroborating evidence that any of them happened.
There is more corroborating evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus than there is for most historical events. We have at least four sources, which is more than we have for most historical events that far back. Many events in the historical record are reported by only one source from more than a century later.
And that the miracle acts of Jesus are "extraordinary" events is why we have any accounts of them at all. There is no basis for insisting that there should be a greater number of accounts of these events if they really happened. We already have more than the normal amount of evidence and sources for these events.
We have copies of the most mundane sorts of correspondence imaginable from the time period in question.
No we don't, not for events generally. By far the vast amount of actual happenings, even unusual events, gets no mention at all. What is actually reported of the actual events is a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny minute infinitessimally small fraction of the total noteworthy events that happened.
The only "mundane" correspondence that has been preserved are a few letters from famous people, like Cicero and Pliny. These were preserved, i.e., copied, only because the writers were famous. The number of people who actually saw Jesus of Galilee was a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of 1% of the total population, and they were unknown commoners who had no recognition whatever and zero chance that anything they wrote would be preserved. And of them, only a tiny fraction had the means to write anything down.
Artifacts dated at or near the time the events would have occurred are numerous pre . . .
No, virtually no artifacts have survived. 99.9% of all events in history leave no "artifacts" to later centuries that can be used to verify them. Virtually nothing remains to us that can attest to any of the events. Of course there are some statues and tombs etc., but 99.9% of everything that happened left nothing behind in the form of any artifacts.
The idea that if Jesus really existed or those events really happened then we should have "artifacts" verifying it makes no sense and is totally unwarranted. The fraction of the total events which left behind any "artifacts" is miserably small.
. . . precisely because of all the interest and money well-meaning Christians have poured into archaeology in vain attempts to corroborate their favorite invisible friend's existence. What we do not have is a single sausage of actual corroboration that any of this occurred.
We have the written record, which is all we have for virtually all historical events that long ago. If only that which is verified by "artifacts" is accepted, then virtually all the historical record has to be discarded -- all the history books and all the history classes are teaching fiction, because virtually all of it left behind no artifacts.
From non-Christian history we have the reference in Josephus to the Jerusalem church figure James, who is identified as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" (
Antiquities 20:9:1), which is the
genuine Josephus reference to Christ (not the famous one which is dismissed as an interpoloation). And there is also the reference in Tacitus who names Pontius Pilate as the Roman governor of Judaea who ordered the execution of Jesus (
Annals 15.XIV).
And there is also a reference in Suetonius (
Lives of the 12 Caesars, V.25.4) which names a "Christus" or "Chrestus" (same spelling as in Tacitus) which most historians connect to the reputed Jesus "Christ" of the gospel accounts or followed by the early Jerusalem Church.
This Suetonius reference also corroborates an obscure event mentioned in Acts 18:2 about Jews being expelled from Rome by the emperor Claudius. Also, in
Antiquities 5.2, Josephus confirms the beheading of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas, as related by the synoptic gospels.
So there is corroboration of some events in the NT, about Jesus and others. Not as much corroboration as one would like, but more than "a single sausage of actual corroboration that any of this occurred"; what we have is a small amount of corroboration of an event limited to about a 2-year period, 29-30 AD, about this one person who had no widespread fame or status and who was surrounded by no one of any repute.
There is no other person in history whose public life was so short and had no contact with anyone of status who has been mentioned even just once in any preserved record. It is amazing that we have ANY record of him at all, and thus we need an explanation why he got included in the historical record. Though he became famous and widely-reputed 100-200 years later, he was not of any status in 30 AD. So, how did such a person of no status before his death get placed into the historical record?
Instead we have dozens of storybooks about a character that appear over several decades, written anonymously, none of which can be dated to within less than 40 years of the events they describe.
That we have
writings so close to the actual events is extremely remarkable. For most other historical figures from so far back in history the accounts about them are far more distant from the described events. For any accounts of miracle acts, the accounts are usually centuries later, except in very rare cases where the figure was someone of power or wide reputation established by a long recognized public career spanning several decades.
That the writings are "anonymous" actually INcreases their credibility. Because this means they did not come from people of high status and connected to those in power who used them for propaganda purposes, or with a reputation to promote, or for commercial gain -- like the writer of the Apollonius legends, Philostratus, who was commissioned by the wife of Emperor Septimius Severus. We have more reason to doubt the credibility of this NON-anonymous book, subsidized by those in power and motivated by politics, than that of the gospel writers, who had no political power or the backing of the empire which could dictate to them what to write.
The Gospel of Peter has Jesus being killed 100 years before many of the other gospels have him being born.
No it does not. This might be a confusion with some misinterpretations of some Talmud quotes which have tried to set the death of Jesus back to the 2nd century BC, all of which claims are totally baseless, and for which the sources cited have nothing to do with the Jesus of Galilee reported in the gospel accounts.
But the Gospel of Peter puts the death of Jesus during the traditional period around 30 AD because it connects this event to the reign of Herod Antipas. Here is the opening text of the Gospel of Peter:
[1] But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod nor one of his judges. And since they did not desire to wash, Pilate stood up. [2] And then Herod the king orders the Lord to be taken away, having said to them, 'What I ordered you to do, do.'
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html
Also:
A major focus of the surviving fragment of the Gospel of Peter is the passion narrative, which is notable for ascribing responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus to Herod Antipas rather than to Pontius Pilate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter
Herod Antipas was contemporary to Pilate and is said in Luke 23 to have been involved with the trial of Jesus. He's also the one who had John the Baptist beheaded during this period. So the Gospel of Peter agrees with the canonical gospels in placing the death of Jesus at around 30 AD.
It's like in its formative years it's little else besides a nebulous myth searching for a place in the history books. Which is exactly what it is.
What "formative years"? When? What is the source? No "formative years" can be established for our account of Jesus in the gospels.
There is no connection of the Jesus in the gospel accounts to anything that happened in the 2nd century BC. There is no 2nd century BC myth or legend or account in any text having any connection. All such claims are baseless. If you say there is a connection to some 2nd century BC event or account, find the text or the source and show the connection. There is none.
One of the earliest of these storybooks, "Mark," appears to be pure fiction, written with a style more allegorical than real.
The only basis for saying this is the miracle events reported in Mark. Judging Mark as "pure fiction" or allegory is based on the dogmatic premise that there can be no such thing as any miracle events such as we find in the gospel accounts. If you do not start out with this dogmatic premise, there is no reason to relegate Mark to the category of pure fiction. There are probably some fictional elements in addition to the factual, but it is not "pure fiction" or allegory.
The geographic and cultural gaffes in that book belie only superficial familiarity with the setting in which the story takes place.
Any problems with Mark's geography have no bearing on whether the events really happened. It isn't necessary to believe the writer himself was an actual witness. There could easily be some confusion on the exact locations or the exact routes traveled from one point to another without the basic facts of the events being altered.
And those actually present at the events, including witnesses who later reported them, might have been confused about the location of Tyre and Sidon in comparison to Galilee and events that happened near to the Sea of Galilee. Getting these details nailed down precisely is incidental to the real issue, which is whether the events happened or not.
The witnesses did not necessarily know the geography of the general region beyond that of the immediate events they reported. And it might have been many years later when they or someone they told it to reported it to someone who finally wrote it down. In this process it would be normal for some geographical facts to become confused.
It is a hero-god tragedy story that ends with the death of the hero and a young man telling the ladies he has risen from the dead, as hero-gods were wont to do in such stories.
Why doesn't anyone ever give an example of "such stories"? Why doesn't anyone ever cite the text of "such stories" and show their similarity to the gospel accounts? In reality, there is very little resemblance of any earlier myths to what we have in the gospel accounts of Jesus. If there are any similar "such stories," why aren't they ever quoted? Why is there never anything specific, but just vague reference to "such stories" without ever giving one example? The legends or myths that are there have virtually no relevance or resemblance or any connection to the gospel accounts.
The original version ends there with the ladies "telling no one" what they had discovered.
This reflects the immediate event of their being silent, not that they never told anyone ever in the future, which would make no sense.
These women who found the tomb empty were part of a group of Galilean women who followed Jesus to Jerusalem. These were probably a large group, not just the 3 or 4 at the empty tomb. Where did they go from the tomb? Nothing suggests they disappeared and were never seen again.
No, they surely returned to that "upper room" in Jerusalem where the others were. And it makes no sense to interpret this verse in Mark to mean that they kept silent from everyone. No, it means
they didn't tell the men. But they almost certainly told some of the other Galilean women who were there. And soon the rumor spread around, and the men were also told about it.
Clearly there was an element of segregation of these women from the men, among the followers of Jesus, and an element of tension between the two groups, such that the women communicated among themselves more freely, and the men to each other separately. So the women returning from the tomb were afraid at first to tell the men.
That makes far more sense than some notion that they disappeared or somehow kept silent from everyone, which is surely not what the Mark writer intended.
As time passed the young man in "Mark" gets replaced with an earthquake and an angel rolling the stone away and sitting triumphantly on it, a scene so frightening that hardened Roman guards faint for fear. Then it's two angels. The story gets more unbelievable with each retelling.
Even if the details did change with the retelling of the event, this is incidental to the important fact of the empty tomb, which is the starting point. A real and important event happens, and this is followed by some changes in the story of it. This is normal for real events that are jarring and important. Such real events do lead to stories that take on some new fictional elements. But that initial important event DID HAPPEN. That initial true event is what explains the later stories that evolved.
The only miracle is that Christians continue to glaze their eyes over at what is really happening here and cling desperately to the belief that these stories are perfectly plausible and that these retellings, complete with their contradictory new details somehow corroborate each other.
The only mistake is the insistence to try to harmonize the gospel accounts in all the details. The basic overall narrative is plausible, but efforts to try to harmonize the gospels in detail and make them totally consistent are misguided. Some of the details beyond the original account are fictional, or are added elements, or embellishments of the original report which is accurate. There is no need to try to harmonize all the accounts as to the exact details.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
No, just extra evidence. More than one account is necessary. Preferably more sources than even two. But the evidence can be the same kind of evidence as we require for ordinary events. To demand a higher quality of evidence, rather than just extra evidence, is to impose the unnecessary dogma that miracle events just can't happen, and there really can't be any evidence for them, and so some new miracle is needed to confirm the extraordinary claim. There is no need for this dogmatic bias against the possibility of a miracle event.
More anonymous retellings with even more extraordinary details added is not extraordinary evidence.
Additional evidence always increases the credibility. The term "anonymous" means nothing. There is no reason why we should give less credibility to a source where the author cannot be identified.
To repeat this, we have good reason to give MORE credibility to such a source, because it's obvious that this source is someone who did not have power and influence and did not write his account in subservience to a ruler or someone with political authority. Most of the famous authors, the NON-anonymous types, were subservient to those in power and did not write independently of this influence upon them. Which means they were more subject to intimidation and to manipulating their account out of deference to those in power.
The base of a mountain neatly sheared off with its cap neatly placed in a nearby sea would be extraordinary evidence that one with a little faith could "Say to this mountain, be removed and cast into the sea."
It isn't necessary to believe that any mountain was literally lifted up and cast into the sea. However you interpret this, it is not related to the important fact that Jesus demonstrated his power to heal, and this was witnessed and eventually accounts of it were written. The "mountain cast into the sea" saying could be a later interpretation based on the initial reports of the power Jesus demonstrated in his healing acts.
Once Jesus became established in their minds as a miracle-worker, the additional saying about casting a mountain into the sea could easily have been added. But first he had to get his initial reputation as a miracle-worker. You have to explain where that reputation came from, if you assume he never did any miracle acts. The "legend" had to have a beginning in order for the later embellishments of it to take place.
What we lack is not just the extraordinary evidence that would corroborate the miraculous claims written in the gospel narratives, we even lack the mundane evidence necessary to ascertain that the individual in question ever existed as an ordinary itinerant preacher.
Again, we have the authentic quote from Josephus,
Antiquities 20:9:1, naming Jesus "who was called Christ" as the brother of James. And we have the Tacitus quote,
Annals 15.XIV, identifying Christ as the "founder" of the "Christian" name and referring to his cult as a "superstition." So we do have evidence that he existed.
Historical documents are evidence. We have more evidence for Jesus than for many other facts of history that are accepted as authentic. More documents/sources and closer in proximity to the events reported.
Just a god-myth. There were hundreds of those predating this one, and there's nothing special about this one that separates it from the others.
And yet you don't name one and cite the evidence or the sources for them. Yes, there were "gods" and "miracles" which have no resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels and for which there is no evidence. Those who claim there are earlier ones who are similar must name them and quote at least one source telling of their exploits. As long as no previous "god-myths" are cited and the information about them provided, we can only assume there is too little similarity for such "god-myths" to be taken seriously as predating the Jesus of the gospel accounts.
It is popular to claim that the Jesus case is a copy of earlier "god-myths," but no one can give any serious example of such earlier "god-myths." This kind of claim is only a fad, not anything serious.
There was a time when many believed the others and few believed this one. Believers is not evidence.
The evidence for the Jesus events is the same as the evidence for any historical facts: Documents written near to the time of the events. Not just one source, but at least four. The evidence is not just "believers," but reports written near to the events, which we do not have for "the others" who supposedly were similar to Jesus but for whom no sources can be provided telling about them such as we have in the case of Jesus.
Popularity is not evidence.
Popularity over many centuries can easily be explained as due to mythologizing. Also popularity can be explained as due to a hero's power or influence or longstanding widespread reputation and distinguished career over a lifetime of teaching or other influence on people.
But instant popularity, without any such distinction or influence or power by the person in question, cannot be explained. This instant popularity, of a dead person with no distinction, evolving over a few decades, is unprecedented, and is evidence of something totally different than anything earlier. There is no earlier example of this. No one has named any earlier case of this.
Appeal to authority is not evidence.
Except the authority of the historical facts, the sources, the documents. Which we accept as evidence for virtually all historical facts. If these have no authority, then there was no Caesar and no Alexander the Great and no Charlemagne or any other historical figure or event. The written record is the authority or evidence for virtually all our knowledge of history.
The evidence for these Jesus myths is no better than the evidence for Santa Claus.
Santa Claus did exist and became mythologized over many centuries. In the original accounts about St. Nicholas, he was an unusual person, but not a miracle-worker or magic figure who flew through the sky.
That he was unusual or special is important, because this uniqueness or distinction is necessary in order for the legend to have its beginning. The original St. Nicholas was a bishop, giving him some prominence, and he distinguished himself in a special way as a gift-giver, which brought him unusual attention and made him popular and led to the later legend.
So we have evidence for the original St. Nicholas, and we can identify what made him unique to begin with, and also what led to the later mythologizing.
So, what led to the later mythologizing of the Jesus figure? He had to be distinguished originally, to get his legend started. What was the original Jesus who then became mythologized?
Until you can find a better explanation, the best one is that he did miracle healing acts. His "legend" emerged so quickly, in only a few decades, that there was not the normal amount of time for the mythologizing process to take place, as it did for other god-myths or heroes. The Santa Claus legend required several centuries to become that of the jolly old man flying through the sky and delivering gifts to every home on the planet.
So we do have evidence for Santa Claus. And the evidence is that the original Santa did not do miracles, and we can explain how he evolved into a miracle legend. But we cannot explain how Jesus became mythologized into a miracle-worker.
Both are stories invented by people, . . .
For Santa, only over many centuries, not only a few decades. But in the case of Jesus, the "legend" developed in only 40 or 50 years or so.
. . . both are still believed by some people.
It's very difficult to find any adults who believe literally in Santa, other than for fun only. But when we look at the evidence, it shows that the miracles of Jesus were part of the original account of him, not something that evolved over centuries as in the case of Santa.
Adults really believe in the Jesus miracles because of the evidence from the historical documents. But they discount the miracle Santa, other than for fun, because the evidence is that the original Santa was only a normal human, i.e., with normal human power, but who distinguished himself and made himself popular enough to eventually evolve into a magical hero legend.
Both are discarded by such people when they employ a bit of rational and critical thought to them.
No, the Jesus "legend" is believed because of the historical evidence, while the Santa myth is recognized as a product of mythologizing.
This is why in a court of law testimony from unknown persons is considered more credible than sworn witness from a cross-examined witness. Christian-think is a hoot.