Historical Jesus

[steve_bank]

There have been dozens of Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster sightings.

Dozens of people who say they were abducted by ETs.

There are millions of people who think Trump is a skilled businessman, despite his history of business failures.

People are gullible. Myths get started. Stories even today on social media change as they are told and retold. And 'fake news' even by estranged news outlets, aka FOX News.

People spin political stories, embellish, and invent stories to support a political agenda or politician.

We can see today the same social processes that led to the original gospel Jesus supernatural stories.

Mormons today believe the mythology created by Smith. An angel Maroni gave him golden tablets.

Angel Moroni - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Angel Moroni (/moʊˈroʊnaɪ/[1]) is an angel whom Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, reported as having visited him on numerous occasions, beginning on September 21, 1823. According to Smith, the angel was the guardian of the golden plates, buried in the hill Cumorah near Smith's home in western New York; Latter Day Saints believe the plates were the source material for the Book of Mormon. An important figure in the theology of the Latter Day Saint movement, Moroni is featured prominently in its architecture and art. Besides Smith, the Three Witnesses and several other witnesses also reported that they saw Moroni in visions in 1829.

Scientology and its bogus E-Meter. Founded by a hack scifi writer.

 

[Swammerdami]

Origin of the Resurrection Story
and other Jesus miracles

What got it started?
The straightforward answer is that those events simply happened, and then it was told to others, it was passed on orally, then written down. Like other events of history.

I think your thesis is that the Resurrection really happened. Your evidence is that this is attested in three of the four canonical Gospels and by Paul.

I do not choose to debate this now. I just want a Yes/No answer: Do I understand your thesis?

The Resurrection is attested by three of the Gospels, not four. The earliest versions of Mark ended at (what is now called) verse 16:8. (16:7 implies a future Sighting.)

All four Gospels assert that Jesus fed five thousand men (not counting women and children) with five loaves of bread and two fishes; leftovers filled 12 baskets. Should we assume this really happened?

He followed up by feeding four thousand men (not counting women and children) with seven loaves of bread and "a few little fishes"; leftovers filled 7 baskets. But this is reported in only two Gospels (Matthew and Mark). Should we assume this really happened but, being less impressive (1 loaf per 571 men vs 1 loaf per 1000 men), assume that Luke and John didn't bother with this "small potatoes" miracle?

(this Wall of Text to be continued)

I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.

The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter.

"It is a miracle that we know anything at all about" him (if he did not do the miracle acts).

Big difference of opinion here at IIDB! The Carrierites insist that the NON-miraculous Jesus should have been well documented even by non-Christians IF HE EXISTED AT ALL! You seem to agree with Aslan that it {is,would be} surprising to have any documentation at all for a NON-miraculous Jesus. (My position -- probably the same as Aslan's -- is that we know about him BECAUSE he inspired major cult(s). Obviously you and I must agree to disagree about that.)

 

[steve_bank]

Is Lumpy taking the gospels as independent observers?

 

[bilby]

Is Lumpy taking the gospels as independent observers?

He can't answer that in fewer than ten thousand words.

Basically, you can measure his degree of confidence in any position by the length of his posts - when he isn't utterly terrified that he might be completely wrong, he's perfectly and demonstrably capable of brevity; But when he knows he's not got a leg to stand on, his posts become interminable screeds, that deserve the slur "walls of text", which he doesn't seem to grasp (or perhaps care) implies that nobody is ever going to read them.

Indeed, he seems unaccountably proud that he is spamming the board with posts that will inevitably be ignored simply because they're too large and yet too vacuous to even read.

Apparently Jesus loves a bore, and the more boring a person is, the less likely they are to be rebutted - and as everyone knows, if nobody bothers to explain in detail why you're wrong, then you're right, and have won both the debate, and the gratitude of your God (who would be impotent without your help).

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Origin of the Resurrection Story
and other Jesus miracles

What got it started?
The straightforward answer is that those events simply happened, and then it was told to others, it was passed on orally, then written down. Like other events of history.

I think your thesis is that the Resurrection really happened. Your evidence is that this is attested in three of the four canonical Gospels and by Paul.

I do not choose to debate this now. I just want a Yes/No answer: Do I understand your thesis?

Yes, historical events did happen. I.e., that which is reported in the written record of the time, in multiple sources, and is not contradicted by other evidence, probably happened and should be believed. Unless we want to toss out most of the ancient history record.

No one gives any reason why these written sources should be singled out for rejection as sources for the events.

The Resurrection is attested by three of the Gospels, not four. The earliest versions of Mark ended at (what is now called) verse 16:8. (16:7 implies a future Sighting.)

It's all four, including Mark, which attest to the Resurrection. The odd ending of Mark is difficult to explain, but it's consistent with the others. It doesn't confirm the appearances as well as the others. But all 4 and Paul confirm the appearances = 5 sources = very good evidence.

What's another ancient history reported event confirmed by 5 sources which is rejected as fiction? ("source" = some written account near the time of the reported event, like less than 100 years later)

All four Gospels assert that Jesus fed five thousand men (not counting women and children) with five loaves of bread and two fishes; leftovers filled 12 baskets. Should we assume this really happened?

There's reason to disbelieve the fish-and-loaves story, because it seems to be borrowed from an ancient legend, II Kings 4:42-44. The resemblance to this earlier legend is too conspicuous. There is no other Jesus miracle than the fish-and-loaves story which resembles an earlier miracle legend.

A perfectly good explanation for this miracle which might be fiction (and likely borrowed from II Kings) is that Jesus quickly became widely-recognized as a miracle-worker, after some period of doing his miracle healing acts, and after that point it became possible for the Jesus story to be embellished with some fictional stories.

Once his unique miracle-power status was recognized, it became very easy for mythologizing to get started. Usually miracle-mythologizing requires many generations or even centuries to take place. But if the hero legend gets established early, as someone who achieved unique recognition, extra stories could evolve, even early after the reported events.

No one can name what made Jesus stand out as distinct so that miracle legends would evolve in his case but not in any other case -- if it's assumed he did no miracle acts. No one can identify what caused the miracle stories to get started unless it's that he actually did perform the healing acts as something unique which distinguished him from all the other thousands of apocalyptic teachers or dissidents or prophets, etc.

But once his reputation as a miracle-worker was well established, which happened early, then other stories, fictional ones, could develop also. It's likely that only the miracle healing acts of Jesus are authentic (and also the Resurrection), while the others are fiction, caused by mythologizing.

He followed up by feeding four thousand men (not counting women and children) with seven loaves of bread and "a few little fishes"; leftovers filled 7 baskets. But this is reported in only two Gospels (Matthew and Mark). Should we assume this really happened but, being less impressive (1 loaf per 571 men vs 1 loaf per 1000 men), assume that Luke and John didn't bother with this "small potatoes" miracle?

They possibly believed there was really only one such actual event. There could have been a real event where a multitude was present. And the miracle legend emerged over some period of time, and a second version of the story also emerged. None of this legend-building could have ever got started in the first place if Jesus had not performed many unique healing acts which created his reputation as a miracle-worker.

The Carrierites insist that the NON-miraculous Jesus should have been well documented even by non-Christians IF HE EXISTED AT ALL!

Did you ask them WHY they think something so stupid? Why would writers document a NOBODY? which Jesus was if he did not do the miracles? Why would they write about someone who did absolutely nothing of importance?

What did he do that was important? Name something!


They wrote about him because of the
Good News

the power to give health and Eternal Life, which he demonstrated, and there was an imperative for people to believe this.

Why write of someone, document him even in the slightest, if he was nothing but one more of a hundred or thousand preacher-apocalypticists whining about the Establishment? And, of course, why write about someone who didn't even exist? That goes in the Nutcase category.

Don't your Carrierites know how to think critically? The ancient writers did not go around documenting every dime-a-dozen sidewalk-preacher crusader shooting his mouth off, having a couple dozen "disciples" as his only claim to fame. And obviously they did not document someone who didn't exist. The ancient writers and readers went to this expense, of writing and copying and distributing and reading to a group when it was about someone important, who stood out as distinct in some way, noteworthy, having performed something worth telling others about.

You seem to agree with Aslan that it {is,would be} surprising to have any documentation at all for a NON-miraculous Jesus. (My position -- probably the same as Aslan's -- is that we know about him BECAUSE he inspired major cult(s).

Yes, that's the same thing. The only way he could have inspired them is that he did the miracle acts, which amazed everyone, including various crusaders or truth-seekers or dissidents or revolutionaries or social discontents, etc., who were seeking truth, and recognized the unique power he had by virtue of his doing these acts which no one else could do.

And after he was martyred, because of doing these things, he continued to inspire them, especially as he apparently was still alive -- though now he was gone -- but he must be alive somewhere, they figured, and will do something more in the future, considering that very unique power he demonstrated. So they were motivated by the reasonable hope Jesus inspired in them, hoping for something more in the future, including the "Kingdom of God" or "Eternal Life" he promised, which was something to hope for -- even though there were different interpretations of what this meant.

 

[Swammerdami]

The Resurrection is attested by three of the Gospels, not four. The earliest versions of Mark ended at (what is now called) verse 16:8. (16:7 implies a future Sighting.)

It's all four, including Mark, which attest to the Resurrection. The odd ending of Mark is difficult to explain, but it's consistent with the others. It doesn't confirm the appearances as well as the others. But all 4 and Paul confirm the appearances = 5 sources = very good evidence.

It really is THREE, not Four. The original Mark contains Zero mentions of any sightings of a post-crucifixion Jesus. That's Zero with a Z. A rather conspicuous and peculiar absence, I think, since the Resurrection is ABSOLUTELY critical to the Christianity of both Peter and Paul.

What's another ancient history reported event confirmed by 5 sources which is rejected as fiction? ("source" = some written account near the time of the reported event, like less than 100 years later)

As I explained in some detail earlier, it is RIDICULOUS to treat the three synoptic Gospels as independent sources. The relevant portions of Matthew and Luke are essentially WORD-FOR-WORD identical to Mark. These accounts CLEARLY came from a SINGLE source -- If you're claiming otherwise you are badly misinformed and/or devoid of common-sense.

He followed up by feeding four thousand men (not counting women and children) with seven loaves of bread and "a few little fishes"; leftovers filled 7 baskets. But this is reported in only two Gospels (Matthew and Mark). Should we assume this really happened but, being less impressive (1 loaf per 571 men vs 1 loaf per 1000 men), assume that Luke and John didn't bother with this "small potatoes" miracle?

They possibly believed there was really only one such actual event. There could have been a real event where a multitude was present. And the miracle legend emerged over some period of time, and a second version of the story also emerged. None of this legend-building could have ever got started in the first place if Jesus had not performed many unique healing acts which created his reputation as a miracle-worker.

. . .

. . .

You left the quote labels intact but deleted Twain's and Pascal's words. Did you read them at least? Did they inspire you at all?

The Carrierites insist that the NON-miraculous Jesus should have been well documented even by non-Christians IF HE EXISTED AT ALL!

Did you ask them WHY they think something so stupid?

Carrierites believe stupid things because they are gullible fanatics led by a charlatan or a fool -- Carrierite atheists remind me of nothing more than fundamentalist Christians! I think you and I, Lumpen, can enjoy common ground on that topic.

A professional historian states that his job is to determine what is likely. Historians, if they are honest, will be explicitly or implicitly weighing probability estimates.

Carrierites have VERY mistaken ideas of how to estimate probabilities. Yesterday, by coincidence, I made a brief post in a Mathematics thread on a correct technique for probability estimation. I can "kill two birds with one stone" by using that approach to show why scientists are reluctant to accept the truth of the miracles.

IV Let me mention briefly an oft-ignored approach to correct probability estimation. I will use for example "VERE WROTE THIS" as found in a Cardano cipher in a context likely to relate to the authorship ("Vere" is the main candidate).

I assign it the Roman numeral IV for clarity -- it's quite important, BUT completely unrelated to any of I, II or III.
Encipherments can arise by chance, though a LONG message in a LIKELY key, if sufficiently so will have HUGE probative value. How do we form a guess to the clue's probative value, and how do we then interleave this knowledge with other independent clues?

The method of probability ratios is useful. Here we'll start with the Vere vs NOT-Vere issue, and assume Vere becomes 50x (or 5x) as likely as NOT-Vere per this clue; it is not correlated with the "a priori" probability. We stipulate that the a priori chance of Vere is p (we'll work p = .001, p = .01, p = .1). Here a priori means the reaction to all evidence except the alleged Cardano-cipher clue.

50X clue weight for Cardano clue. Never mind for now how we finalize these clue weights.
.001 999 --> ÷50 --> 19.98 --> 4.77%
.01 99 --> ÷50 --> 1.98 --> 33.56%
.1 9 --> ÷50 --> .18 --> 84.75%

5X clue weight for Cardano clue
.001 999 --> ÷5 --> 199.8 --> 0.50%
.01 99 --> ÷5 --> 19.8 --> 4.81%
.1 9 --> ÷5 --> 1.8 --> 35.71%

A.Actuary? Do you ever use this sort of arithmetic in your probability calculations?

These examples are just to show how the arithmetic of probability ratios works; elsewhere I argue that if properly constructed this approach will give the best available estimates. In the context of IMDB discussions, such probability analysis is most relevant in the Jesus Historicity threads.

How much weight should we give to the argument that the UNIQUENESS of Jesus' miracles suggests that they were REAL. A clue weight of 10 or 20 is very large as clues go, but let's assign a clue weight of 10,000 since this is your hobby-horse. The problem is that most of us with a science background will put the a priori chance of a Jesus performing SUPERNATURAL miracles to be 0.00000001 or less. Following the same arithmetic as in the Math thread:
0.00000001 99999999 --> ÷10000 --> 9999 --> 0.01%

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

5 sources for the Jesus Resurrection
(unless you apply a double standard to the NT accounts)

Lumpen: It's all four, including Mark, which attest to the Resurrection. The odd ending of Mark is difficult to explain, but it's consistent with the others. It doesn't confirm the appearances as well as the others. But all 4 and Paul confirm the appearances = 5 sources = very good evidence.

Swam: It really is THREE, not Four. The original Mark contains Zero mentions of any sightings of a post-crucifixion Jesus.

The "Resurrection" refers to 1) the missing body, 2) the rising, and 3) the appearances later. Mark contains 1 and 2 ("He is risen") but is not explicit about the appearances, though Mk does hint also at this, as something to happen later.

So Mark also confirms the Resurrection along with the other 3, plus Paul = 5 sources. If we were discussing anything other than the Jesus Resurrection and the Gospel accounts, you would not be claiming that these are only 3 sources rather than 4. You would not apply such a biased standard to any other written source. If 4 sources mention something like this, and it's anything other than this topic, you'd call this 4 sources, not reduce it to 3 or 2.

That you are so insistent to reduce the number of sources like this indicates that you do realize that this is unusually strong evidence for a reported event -- i.e., ancient historical event, for which it is rare to have 5 sources, and you are uncomfortable that such an event which you're sure can't ever happen should have such heavy evidence like this.

That's Zero with a Z. A rather conspicuous and peculiar absence, I think, since the Resurrection is ABSOLUTELY critical to the Christianity of both Peter and Paul.

Nothing about this ending means there weren't any appearances, or that the author/editor believed the appearances did not happen.

(Mk 16) -- 6 And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
8 And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

There's nothing here which contradicts the resurrection appearances. It totally confirms the missing body, that Jesus had risen, and suggests that the appearances will happen later without narrating those. There's room for wide speculation why he did not narrate any appearance event. Most Christians who dismiss the remainder of Mk 16 tend to believe that maybe the author/editor made a mistake, or an omission. But no matter what the explanation is, nothing about it gives reason to doubt the appearances mentioned elsewhere. There can be much confusion about the details of the appearances, but they are explicitly stated in all the other accounts, so they probably happened. And Mark doesn't contradict it at all simply by omitting an explicit narration of it.

Mark's last sentence "and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid." does not read like the final ending. The best interpretation is that the author intended something more.

What's another ancient history reported event confirmed by 5 sources which is rejected as fiction? ("source" = some written account near the time of the reported event, like less than 100 years later)

As I explained in some detail earlier, it is RIDICULOUS to treat the three synoptic Gospels as independent sources.

And as I explained the term "independent" here is just jargon. No such standard as this is applied to other literature or sources for history events. There is nothing wrong with a source which quotes from other sources. The source does not suddenly become invalid simply because it quotes from some other source and so suddenly becomes "dependent" and thus nonlegitimate.

Matthew and Luke are actually more credible by the fact that they quote from the earlier sources, because it shows they respect other written accounts and want to rely on them in order to be more accurate.

And we need an answer to the above question: What's another example of an ancient history reported event which is rejected as fiction even though it's attested to in 5 sources? i.e. in 5 sources less than 100 years later than the reported event? or 200 years later?

The relevant portions of Matthew and Luke are essentially WORD-FOR-WORD identical to Mark.

No, 90% of their content is NOT from Mark but from different sources than Mark. There is nothing wrong with them that they quote word-for-word some of Mark's text. They are just as reliable and credible as sources, regardless of this quoting from Mark, and also quoting from the Q source. It increases the reliability of both Mt and Lk that they quote from these other sources.

The truth is that there's no such thing as an "independent" source. What does it mean? Any ancient author had to rely on some earlier source. Virtually none of them is "independent" but relies on sources, oral or written, for 99% of their content. In a very tiny few cases a writer tells his own direct experience, but that is virtually none of our ancient history.

These accounts CLEARLY came from a SINGLE source --

Only the quoted text can be called a "single source" for that particular text. But 90% of Mt and Lk are not those quotes, but are other content not from Mark. You can't say Matthew is identically the same source as Mark when 90% of it originates from something other than Mark.

. . . came from a SINGLE source -- If you're claiming otherwise you are badly misinformed and/or devoid of common-sense.

What is devoid of common-sense is to insist that Matthew is identically the same source as Mark when 90% of it is not from Mark. You would never apply this false standard to any other literature. How often have you rejected any other source for something simply because it contains in it some long quotes from another source?

IV Let me mention briefly an oft-ignored approach to correct probability estimation. I will use for example "VERE WROTE THIS" as found in a Cardano cipher in a context likely to relate to the authorship ("Vere" is the main candidate).

I assign it the Roman numeral IV for clarity -- it's quite important, BUT completely unrelated to any of I, II or III.
Encipherments can arise by chance, though a LONG message in a LIKELY key, if sufficiently so will have HUGE probative value. How do we form a guess to the clue's probative value, and how do we then interleave this knowledge with other independent clues?

The method of probability ratios is useful. Here we'll start with the Vere vs NOT-Vere issue, and assume Vere becomes 50x (or 5x) as likely as NOT-Vere per this clue; it is not correlated with the "a priori" probability. We stipulate that the a priori chance of Vere is p (we'll work p = .001, p = .01, p = .1). Here a priori means the reaction to all evidence except the alleged Cardano-cipher clue.

50X clue weight for Cardano clue. Never mind for now how we finalize these clue weights.
.001 999 --> ÷50 --> 19.98 --> 4.77%
.01 99 --> ÷50 --> 1.98 --> 33.56%
.1 9 --> ÷50 --> .18 --> 84.75%

5X clue weight for Cardano clue
.001 999 --> ÷5 --> 199.8 --> 0.50%
.01 99 --> ÷5 --> 19.8 --> 4.81%
.1 9 --> ÷5 --> 1.8 --> 35.71%

A.Actuary? Do you ever use this sort of arithmetic in your probability calculations?

These examples are just to show how the arithmetic of probability ratios works; elsewhere I argue that if properly constructed this approach will give the best available estimates. In the context of IMDB discussions, such probability analysis is most relevant in the Jesus Historicity threads.

How much weight should we give to the argument that the UNIQUENESS of Jesus' miracles suggests that they were REAL. A clue weight of 10 or 20 is very large as clues go, but let's assign a clue weight of 10,000 since this is your hobby-horse. The problem is that most of us with a science background will put the a priori chance of a Jesus performing SUPERNATURAL miracles to be 0.00000001 or less. Following the same arithmetic as in the Math thread:
0.00000001 99999999 --> ÷10000 --> 9999 --> 0.01%

I confess to ignorance of the above.

I don't want to argue that "the uniqueness of Jesus' miracles suggests that they are real" -- although I've emphasized that he was unique, or that we don't have evidence of other miracle-workers.

But I've said that we need an explanation why he got depicted as doing so many miracle acts, all packed into these gospel accounts, in a manner unlike anywhere else. Why is there no other example of such a thing? We need an explanation why we have such a description of him doing these things and yet there's otherwise no other such historical figure in all the literature.

There has to be an answer to this. And the best answer -- if no one offers anything else -- is that Jesus actually must have done such acts, and no one else did. So John the Baptist is never described as doing such acts because he never did them. But Jesus is so described because he actually did those acts.

This is a good argument, unless someone can offer some other explanation why we have these written accounts, this evidence, saying it happened, and yet no record of anyone else performing any similar miracle acts. Not even anything close to this.

What is likely to have happened is whatever is described in the written accounts from the time saying certain events happened. We apply that general rule to all the writings as the way to determine the ancient events. So, why shouldn't it apply in this case also, as long as we have so many sources, so much more than is usually the case for history events we routinely accept because they're reported in the sources?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There are plenty of claims of miracle workers to be found. Alexander of Aboneutia, a notorious faker. Appolonius of Tyana. Emperor Vespasian who healed blind men. Or so attest Suetonius, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio.

 

[TomC]

We apply that general rule to all the writings as the way to determine the ancient events.

I'm not sure who "we" is in that assertion, but it certainly doesn't include bona fide historians. They know better than to accept historical documents as accurate. They are a record of what someone wrote, that's it. The less plausible the claims the bigger dose of salt necessary.

Then, as now, people commonly wrote what they wanted to be true whether it was or not. Fervent religious folks are among the least reliable. That's still the case.

They're hardly the only ones. From the BLM to the Teaparty to Russian nationalists, the list is just endless. People will believe and write ridiculous things when it's important to their self image.
Tom

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"WE" should rely on the EVIDENCE,
not on prejudice or dogmas about what is possible or impossible.

What is likely to have happened is whatever is described in the written accounts from the time saying certain events happened. We apply that general rule to all the writings as the way to determine the ancient events.

I'm not sure who "we" is in that assertion, but it certainly doesn't include bona fide historians.

You can't name one historical fact that is not based on the above "general rule" about where our historical facts come from. Name one fact you know which is not based on what is described in the written accounts from the time.

Even the facts uncovered by archaeology etc. are impossible without having also the written accounts of the time to explain what those findings relate to. Name a historian who tells us facts which he did not get from the written accounts of the time.

To make it less extreme, let's just say 99.9% (or just 99%) of our ancient history facts are from the ancient documents, believing what the writer reports. So name an historical fact you know which is not based on believing what the writer says in the written account.

They know better than to accept historical documents as accurate.

So have you burned all your history books? since everything in them is based on what is reported in the ancient writings? If all those ancient documents are inaccurate, what "history" can we possibly know? How can we have any history books, or history classes, or historians?

They are a record of what someone wrote, that's it.

And it's reasonable to believe them as long as it's not contradicted by other evidence. Otherwise there's no "history" and you can toss all your history books into the trash heap. Why do you believe any "history" before your time if you reject all the past writings from people reporting what happened?

The less plausible the claims the bigger dose of salt necessary.

Of course. The more unlikely claims require more sources. There's no reason to believe the implausible claims when there's not extra sources to verify it. Many/Most of the ancient history facts have only one source, and yet we believe them anyway, because they're "plausible" and are not contradicted by any other source.

But the ones which are less plausible require extra sources:

Claims that Apollonius of Tyana did miracle acts are not supported by any extra sources -- there's one only source, and it's at least 120 years later than the reported miracle events = not plausible, not verified. (Plus his best miracle of all is a story lifted out of the Gospel of Luke from 100+ years earlier.)

Claims that Hanina ben Dosa did miracles are not supported by any sources until 300 years later, in the Talmud = not plausible, not close enough to the time of the reported events.

Claims that the prophet Elisha did miracles are reported in one source only, 300 years later than the reported events = not plausible, not close enough to the time of the claimed miracle events.

Claims that Hercules did miracles and resurrected are not reported until 500-1000 years later than it happened, if he really existed = not plausible, not close to the time of the claimed miracle events.

Claims that Emperor Vespasian did a miracle (healing 2 victims) are more plausible, reported by 2 historians 30-50 years later. However, there are reasons to question this as possibly an example of mythologizing in the case of a famous widely-popular powerful hero-celebrity worshiped by millions during his own lifetime (and who, in this case, submitted to the entreaties of religious worshipers begging him to perform a religious ritual for them). So this example of hero-worship during his life might explain why he got exaggerated into a miracle hero by a fiction rumor which might easily have caught on and spread.

But by contrast, the case of Jesus is that of an unknown peasant of no status whatever, and yet there are 4 sources 40-70 years later which report his miracle acts/Resurrection, plus a 5th source only 20 years later which verifies the Resurrection.

So you're right that this "bigger dose" of evidence is necessary and yet is lacking in virtually all cases of claimed miracle-workers. But in the singular case of Jesus in Galilee-Judea about 30 AD we do have the necessary "bigger dose" of evidence to make the claims credible.

Then, as now, people commonly wrote what they wanted to be true whether it was or not.

In some cases yes, which is why you're right that we need the "bigger dose" of evidence for the cases which are less plausible. And in the singular case of Jesus in 30 AD we do have the "bigger dose" of evidence to verify that the claims are likely true, unlike most/all the other cases of reported miracle-workers, where the evidence is lacking.

Fervent religious folks are among the least reliable. That's still the case.

Virtually all the ancient writers were fervent religious folk. So it's good to be skeptical for all miracle claims and require the extra evidence, such as we have in the case of the Jesus miracle healings and Resurrection.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Many "miracle workers" parallel to Jesus

There are plenty of claims of miracle workers to be found. Alexander of Abonoteichus, a notorious faker.

There is no written source of the time saying that he actually did perform any miracle acts. Rather, the only source reports him as a fraud whose miracle performances were fake. So this is a case where there is no evidence, such as in the case of Jesus for whom we have 5 sources attesting that he resurrected. And 4 which say he performed the miracle healings. And there is none which reports him as a fraud, as there are reports of some others who were charlatans.

Apollonius of Tyana.

There's no source for him (for any miracles he did) other than one single written account, about 120 years after his death. If you should read this biography, by Philostratus, you'd see it's pathetic as an analogy to compare to Jesus in 30 AD.

But there is slight evidence that he might have had some psychic power.

The most striking miracle, other than the one Philostratus plagiarizes from the Gospel of Luke, is about Apollonius commanding his disciples to stone to death an old man beggar who the sage claims is a demon causing a recent plague in the town of Ephesus. When they do this, killing the old geezer, they watch him turn into a monstrous hound foaming at the mouth. This is the miracle -- an old beggar who morphs into a growling hound and yuchy fluid oozes out from his mouth as his dying body twists and twitches and quivers.

This is your miracle-worker you think is similar to Jesus who heals the blind and lepers and lame, and for whom we have 4 (5) sources written during a period of 20-70 years from the time of the reported miracle events.

It's because of pathetic examples like this, claiming this is similar to Jesus in the Gospels, that we have good reason to believe Jesus is the only case of a documented miracle-worker (healer, and having resurrected) to be found in all the ancient literature. This disgusting example, Apollonius of Tyana, is paraded out again and again as the best example anyone can come up with.

Emperor Vespasian who healed blind men.

There were 2 victims, one partly blind and one with a sore hand.

Vespasian was the most famous man in the world at that time. Most powerful, most popular hero, arguably most popular ever of all the Roman Emperors.

So there is one miracle healing story attributed to him, in the popular publicity about him, resulting from a request by 2 worshipers of the ancient god Serapis, who appealed to the Emperor to perform an ancient healing ritual on them.

The 2 historians reporting this say that Vespasian's advisors suggested that he do what was requested, because this would please religious believers, and if the ritual act failed to heal these victims, it would be these Serapis worshipers who would be blamed and not Vespasian. Such rituals were done frequently, by Serapis priests, and it was commonly accepted that if the ritual did not cure them, it was the fault of the victims and not the priests doing the ritual, meaning the worshipers should do more praying and repeat the ritual further. (The Emperor was qualified to perform the ritual, because of his official status, and so having the same authority as an official priest.)

So it was good PR for Vespasian, and nothing could go wrong. And the worshipers seemed to say later that it had cured them.

Or so attest Suetonius, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio.

The ritual almost certainly was performed by Vespasian, done according to the rules of the Serapis cult. And it was standard for the worshipers having this ritual done on them to claim that it had helped them recover from their ailment.

There are 2 sources for this, while Cassius Dio dates about 150 years later, so too far removed to be a source for the alleged miracle event.

The evidence here is that a religious ritual was performed, and the worshipers reported some kind of successful outcome, as was common for worshipers receiving such prescribed rituals from an ancient deity they worshiped regularly.

 

[bilby]

Name one fact you know which is not based on what is described in the written accounts from the time.

Roman cavalrymen based at Hadrian's Wall slept in a combined barracks and stable, alongside their horses. This is now believed to have been standard practice for cavalry units in the Roman period.

This was unknown until a few years ago, when it became clear from archaeological evidence that it was the arrangement; No written evidence of this exists, likely because it was considered by people at the time to be too obvious and mundane to bother to mention.

A lot of historical facts are derived from archaeological evidence, and not from written sources.

 

[Swammerdami]

"WE" should rely on the EVIDENCE,
not on prejudice or dogmas about what is possible or impossible.

What is likely to have happened is whatever is described in the written accounts from the time saying certain events happened. We apply that general rule to all the writings as the way to determine the ancient events.

I'm not sure who "we" is in that assertion, but it certainly doesn't include bona fide historians.

You can't name one historical fact that is not based on the above "general rule" about where our historical facts come from. Name one fact you know which is not based on what is described in the written accounts from the time.

Even the facts uncovered by archaeology etc. are impossible without having also the written accounts of the time to explain what those findings relate to. Name a historian who tells us facts which he did not get from the written accounts of the time.

To make it less extreme, let's just say 99.9% (or just 99%) of our ancient history facts are from the ancient documents, believing what the writer reports. So name an historical fact you know which is not based on believing what the writer says in the written account.

The easiest way to refute this is to cite facts gleaned by archaeologists from BEFORE the appearance of written language.
Deductions about ancient artifacts like Stonehenge, and about various ancient tombs are necessarily made without any written corroboration.

One interesting example, perhaps, is the evolution of the wheeled wagon. These were not trivial inventions; axle fixed rigidly to frame vs rigidly to wheels; rotating steering axle; spoked wheels. IIUC, the chronology of the wheeled wagon's evolution is knowable only from artifacts.

Claims that Apollonius of Tyana did miracle acts are not supported by any extra sources -- there's one only source, and it's at least 120 years later than the reported miracle events = not plausible, not verified. (Plus his best miracle of all is a story lifted out of the Gospel of Luke from 100+ years earlier.)

The uniqueness of Jesus as a miracle worker is central to your thesis. If hypothetically there were TWO, or even three, qualified miracle workers, how would this affect your confidence in your solution?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What matters is many ancient believers thought some peoplecworked miracles, and were in communication with real Gods. Not that any of these miracles were miracles. In the case of Alexander the "Miracle Monger", it was all fakery. Much as today's Christian faith healers. As for Jesus and his purported miracles, all we have is contradictory tall tales told by anonymous writers of doubtful honesty. I have no more reason to believe any of these tales than I do of Joseph Smith's golden plates, or Mohammad's miraculous splitting of the moon.

The Old Testament has many examples of God himself coming down to Earth and exhibiting himself to mankind in rather unambigous manners. But God does not do these tricks nowadays. Because he never did. Ancient lying priests made up outrageous religious lies still belived by many to this day.

Today's thoroughly dishonest TV Evangelists lie daily and many do not seem to learn, religious fanatics lie. And so did ancient religious fanatics.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No written evidence = virtually no "history"

Name one fact you know which is not based on what is described in the written accounts from the time.

Roman cavalrymen based at Hadrian's Wall slept in a combined barracks and stable, alongside their horses. This is now believed to have been standard practice for cavalry units in the Roman period.

This was unknown until a few years ago, when it became clear from archaeological evidence that it was the arrangement; No written evidence of this exists, likely because it was considered by people at the time to be too obvious and mundane to bother to mention.

Thanks for making my main point for me (even though you're refuting my above exaggeration that there are NO facts whatever from archaeology). With this example you prove that the vast majority of our history is from the written evidence, the documents which have survived, because even this archaeological evidence would mean nothing without the written documents telling us who Hadrian was and who the Romans were. If there was nothing but simply these findings from diggings near the wall, we wouldn't even know they were Roman, or were from the outside imperial forces dominating Britain from Rome.

The facts from archaeology alone, without written evidence to explain those findings, constitute a tiny fraction of our ancient history. We know that history mainly from the written evidence, which we believe, regardless of any verification from diggings which also add a few further facts to the vast store of historical facts based on the written documents from the time.

Where there is little or no written evidence, there is also very little history. There are archaeological findings from the Minoan and Indus Valley civilizations, but very little history, and historians on these periods of history always have to remind us how little we know, they even apologize to us, for their lack of knowledge and the extreme guesswork that is necessary to try to piece together some "history" of these periods where the written accounts are absent, or in some cases where ancient writings are indecipherable or untranslatable. They always point out the huge difference it makes for history when we have the ancient writings to explain to us what happened.

A lot of historical facts are derived from archaeological evidence, and not from written sources.

"A lot"? Yes, a few dozen facts are from archaeological evidence, compared to the dozen billion from written sources. A dozen is much more than zero, so maybe that's "a lot" of facts.

"A lot" is a relative term. "A lot" compared to what? Compared to the written sources, the archaeological evidence is very minor. The historians are glad to have that extra evidence, because they want every extra detail they can get. They love the archaeologists, to help confirm their theories, to add a tiny % more to their millions of facts from the written evidence.

The main point is: WE BELIEVE the ancient written documents from the time the events happened, and because of this belief we have "history" -- If we reject the written evidence, then we have virtually no history at all. With the archaeological evidence alone, we have virtually no ancient history, probably less than 1%. BUT, with the written documents, even without the diggings -- none at all -- we still have 99% of our ancient history. There's so very few actual historical facts which are added by those earth-dig findings, compared to what we know from the writings.

And "the writings" = ALL the ancient written documents, no matter what kind. ALL are evidence for the historical events. There's none which you can exclude (unless you're prejudiced and have a need to ban whatever you find offensive or subversive).

Of course those who are archaeology buffs might be offended at this, but the fact is that the written documents are 99% of our source for ancient history -- i.e., from about 1000 AD back to 3000 or 4000 BC. If we go way back, our reliance is more on the archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, etc. That's called Pre-History, Stone-Age, etc.

The carbon dating is helpful to the historians, and other natural science. ALL the evidence has to be taken into account. Nothing can be excluded, including the Gospel accounts, including any other writings about gods doing miracles, intervening into history, determining who wins a battle. Every claim a writer makes has to be considered, because we can't be sure exactly what happened, even though we have theories. Often the theories have to be set aside in favor of the reports from that time saying something happened which we theorize could not have happened.

Observed happenings from the time, attested to by multiple sources, should usually over-ride our theories about what is supposed to happen, or not to happen.

So, five 1st-century written sources attest that the Resurrection happened, and no sources of the time contradict this. What other example is there of a reported fact of (ancient) history which did not really happen, even though it's attested to in 5 sources, and contradicted by none?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The "Historical Jesus"
(like about 2000 years ago?)

Not "Pre-history"
Not "Stone Age"
Not Sagan's BIILLions and BIILLions of STAR STUFF Cosmos Aeons & Aeons.
------------- beeeeelions and beeeeelions ----------

What is likely to have happened is whatever is described in the written accounts from the time saying certain events happened. We apply that general rule to all the writings as the way to determine the ancient events.

I'm not sure who "we" is in that assertion, but it certainly doesn't include bona fide historians.

Who's a bona fide historian who does not rely on the ancient written accounts to determine the ancient events?

You can't name one historical fact that is not based on the above "general rule" about where our historical facts come from. Name one fact you know which is not based on what is described in the written accounts from the time.

Even the facts uncovered by archaeology etc. are impossible without having also the written accounts of the time to explain what those findings relate to. Name a historian who tells us facts which he did not get from the written accounts of the time.

To make it less extreme, let's just say 99.9% (or just 99%) of our ancient history facts are from the ancient documents, believing what the writer reports. So name an historical fact you know which is not based on believing what the writer says in the written account.

The easiest way to refute this is to cite facts gleaned by archaeologists from BEFORE the appearance of written language.

That's PRE-history. Science can give us facts about the formation of stars etc. billions of years ago. Let's stick to "history" which goes back to 2000 or 3000 or 4000 BC, not way back to the Big Bang, which is a sort of "history" also -- but not about such topics as "The Historical Jesus" etc.

Deductions about ancient artifacts like Stonehenge, and about various ancient tombs are necessarily made without any written corroboration.

One interesting example, perhaps, is the evolution of the wheeled wagon. These were not trivial inventions; axle fixed rigidly to frame vs rigidly to wheels; rotating steering axle; spoked wheels. IIUC, the chronology of the wheeled wagon's evolution is knowable only from artifacts.

Of course there are discoveries about the stone axes and spears etc., going back 100,000 years or more, the stone weapons, "knives" for carving, etc. And also ancient fossils a million years ago.

How about that first stone ax swung by a certain man-ape in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey -- did an anthropologist dig up that first stone ax? Is that an historical fact?

Again, that's all "pre-history":

pre-historic meaning - Google Search

adjective: pre-historic

1. relating to or denoting the period before written records.

But Pre-history is not the topic.

The term "historical" in "Historical Jesus" obviously refers to the period after about 2000 BC, or maybe even 3000 BC, from when the first writings date. Can we stick to this common terminology, so there's a common basis for communicating.

Claims that Apollonius of Tyana did miracle acts are not supported by any extra sources -- there's one only source, and it's at least 120 years later than the reported miracle events = not plausible, not verified. (Plus his best miracle of all is a story lifted out of the Gospel of Luke from 100+ years earlier.)

The uniqueness of Jesus as a miracle worker is central to your thesis. If hypothetically there were TWO, or even three, qualified miracle workers, how would this affect your confidence in your solution?

The only real thesis is that Jesus did perform these acts, and these reports of him doing these things is not something produced by the culture of the time. In other words, these miracle stories are not some FAD about miracles of the ancient world which were happening everywhere, because others were making up such stories and attributing them to imagined miracle-workers. There is no evidence of any such fad. There are no other cases of this. So the explanation how the Jesus miracle stories originated cannot be that it was some ancient FAD, or something borrowed from the culture of the period.

In fact, the evidence is that there were FEWER examples of miracle claims during the time of Jesus (or leading up to him), from 300 BC to about 50/100 AD. During this time there are virtually ZERO miracle stories or miracle-workers reported in the literature. (Whereas centuries earlier there are a few stories in the "miracle" category, and also later, after 200 or 300 AD there is a flood of "miracle" stories developing. Into the Dark Ages we see Christian stories appearing more and more. But no one has any explanation what caused the sudden uncharacteristic appearance of the Jesus miracle-worker in the 1st century. This is one of the most jarring sudden phenomena in history.

I want someone to try to prove me wrong on this. Someone please offer an example of any other reported miracle-worker of this period (about 300 BC to 50/100 AD). Or even back to 500 or 1000 BC also. Going back earlier there is a tiny amount of this phenomenon. Would the prophet Elisha be the closest example (most closely resembling Jesus in 30 AD)?

What this proves is not necessarily the UNIQUENESS of Jesus, but mainly that this report of the Jesus miracle-worker of 30 AD cannot be attributed to something in the general culture of that time, or of ancient history -- As if the culture produced such hero legends. It did not produce any such thing. So then, what is the explanation for this unusual out-of-place appearance in the literature of such a hero figure? if no such person really happened?

So far no one is able to give an answer to this question.

 

[Swammerdami]

The easiest way to refute this is to cite facts gleaned by archaeologists from BEFORE the appearance of written language.

That's PRE-history. Science can give us facts about the formation of stars etc. billions of years ago. Let's stick to "history" which goes back to 2000 or 3000 or 4000 BC, not way back to the Big Bang, which is a sort of "history" also -- but not about such topics as "The Historical Jesus" etc.

Yes, we all know what "prehistoric" means. And indeed it is harder to come up with counterexamples to your claim from "historic" times. But bilby comes to the rescue!

Name one fact you know which is not based on what is described in the written accounts from the time.

Roman cavalrymen based at Hadrian's Wall slept in a combined barracks and stable, alongside their horses. This is now believed to have been standard practice for cavalry units in the Roman period.

This was unknown until a few years ago, when it became clear from archaeological evidence that it was the arrangement; No written evidence of this exists, likely because it was considered by people at the time to be too obvious and mundane to bother to mention.

A lot of historical facts are derived from archaeological evidence, and not from written sources.

@Lumpen -- You did address bilby's example, but basically just conceded that such examples exist. How many of these counterexamples will you need before you stop blathering about the Big Bang, and just weaken your claim?

The task of a historian is to determine What is likely. This does NOT mean blindly believing all written documents.

-- -- -- -- --

And I would be happy to admit that if there were FOUR independent Gospels, describing miracles worked by Jesus, then that would strengthen your case.

But there are not. I posted a comparison of the Pilate accounts in Mark and Matthew. Did you peruse that? It should be VERY clear that these two narratives derive from a SINGLE account. (I worked the Pilate narrative specifically, but results are similar throughout the biographies of the living adult Jesus.) If you still cannot acknowledge that then I'm afraid you'll be filed under "Too obstinate for the bother."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What matters is many ancient believers thought some people worked miracles, and were in communication with real Gods.

"some people"? Who were the "some people" they believed worked miracles? No one wants to give an example of this. Or, when an example is given, it's clear this has nothing whatever to do with the case of Jesus, in about 30 AD, whose miracle acts are reported in multiple written accounts 20-70 years later.

You can cite stories about Hercules or other ancient hero who had lived 1000 years earlier and whose legend evolved over all those centuries. Yes, there were "believers" 1000 years later who believed it. But not about a recent miracle-worker 50 years earlier.

So, what this refers to has nothing to do with the HISTORICAL JESUS who is reported in the sources to have done these acts 50 or so years earlier. Even 20 years earlier, in the case of the Apostle Paul reporting the Resurrection of Jesus (Paul reporting in the 50s AD a miracle event of about 30 AD). There are no other examples of such miracle-worker reports in the ancient world. Everyone keeps repeating the falsehood that there were such reported miracle-workers, but no one can give an example of it. Why is this? Why do people keep repeating this same falsehood over and over and over and over and over? Why doesn't anyone ever correct this error that keeps getting repeated again and again?

Not that any of these miracles were miracles. In the case of Alexander the "Miracle Monger", it was all fakery. Much as today's Christian faith healers.

In the case of Alexander, the only source we have for him is the writer who said it was fake. There's not one source from that time which says this character actually did perform any such miracles.

As for today's faith healers, there are more sources which say it's fake than there are sources which say it's genuine. When the sources say it's fake, then it's probably fake. But when all the sources say it's real, and no sources say it's fake, why isn't it reasonable to believe it? What's another example where all the sources say something did happen and yet it probably did not happen? Can anyone give an example of this? 5 sources say it happened, and no sources contradict it? --- And yet still it did not happen? What's an example of that?

As for Jesus and his purported miracles, all we have is contradictory tall tales told by anonymous writers of doubtful honesty.

No, the stories told contain discrepancies only in the details, in some cases, but they all agree that the healing acts and the Resurrection did happen, with none contradicting this. This is normal, for a true event to be told by all the sources, with minor discrepancies in the details. That's the description of reported events which really did happen. Whereas those which are fiction are the ones where some sources say it happened and others say it did not happen.

. . . tall tales told by anonymous writers of doubtful honesty. I have no more reason . . .

"tall tales" = Name-calling is not an argument/reason. You can simply pre-judge that it's all lies, but that is prejudice, not facts or reasoning. You can also start out with the a priori premise that all miracle claims are automatically lies and therefore prove your argument by circular reasoning = Your conclusion is identical to your premise. It's a lie because any miracle claim by definition is a lie, regardless of any evidence.

"anonymous"? There is no evidence that "anonymous" authors are less honest, or that their reports are likely fiction. There are anonymous sources for history which are accepted as credible for telling us what happened. Some contain miracle stories and are doubted, but the doubt is not because they're anonymous, but simply because all miracle stories are doubted and require extra sources in order to be credible.

". . . of doubtful honesty" = more name-calling. The name-calling is not a legitimate approach to argue that someone is wrong, or that their claim is false. There is doubt about ALL the ancient writers, and so it's reasonable to be critical. But when all the sources agree and you have to malign all the sources and call them all liars, your argument is weaker and weaker. It's more reasonable to give the claims more credence as the sources increase in number and they continue to agree that the reported claims are true.

I have no more reason to believe any of these tales than I do of Joseph Smith's golden plates, . . .

There's nothing miraculous about golden plates. There's no reason to disbelieve a claim that there were some golden plates.

. . . golden plates, or Mohammad's miraculous splitting of the moon.

The moon-splitting is a battlefield vision, or portent, of which there are many examples in the literature. This is obviously poetry. In any case there's only one source for it. We don't have other writers reporting the same event. If there were separate witnesses to the same odd light pattern in the sky, it could have been a UFO sighting, but we need more than one source.

For the Jesus Resurrection there are 5 sources which report it.

If there really should be several witnesses to the moon breaking apart, and it was seen from others also, 500 miles away, then the conclusion to draw is that the miracle event really happened, and somehow the moon broke apart for a moment but then came back together. If multiple witnesses really do claim to have seen it, and no one contradicts it, then probably something did happen.

The occurrence of battlefield portents/signs is so common that we can assume that it's normal for soldiers on the battlefield to report such things and believe something happened because others claim to have seen it. If examined one by one, separately, it's likely the soldiers would contradict each other or would admit that it was only the other one who saw it. Of course one witness alone sometimes has a vision that no one else had, and this is usually what happened. And if it's only one who saw it and no one else, it's probably an illusion. Nothing like this can explain the Jesus appearances after the crucifixion, which were seen by several witnesses together.

Muslims do not agree on this miracle claim of the moon splitting. There were disbelievers at the time who denied that it happened. And some believers say it was not an event at that time but rather was a symbol of something to happen at the end of the world.

If there's anyone who claims that the moon really did split and was seen by witnesses, and has multiple sources reporting this miracle, then let's have a quote from them citing to us the multiple sources for this. We should keep an open mind in case there really is someone who wants to make the case for this miracle event. But if no one wants to seriously make the case, then there's no reason to believe it.

But the case can be made for the Jesus Resurrection, based on the evidence, the multiple sources, and the absence of any 1st-century source which denies that it happened (such as there are sources which refute some of the charlatans who made miracle claims).

The Old Testament has many examples of God himself coming down to Earth and exhibiting himself to mankind in rather unambiguous manners.

For any particular OT miracle claim there is only one source rather than several. Plus, in every case the only source we have is several centuries later than the reported event.

But God does not do these tricks nowadays. Because he never did.

In most cases there is no serious evidence. But because most miracle claims are false does not prove that no such event ever happened. It is prejudiced to condemn them all as fiction without considering the evidence in each case. What is honest is to consider the evidence in each case, and then to disbelieve all those for which there is no evidence but believe those which are attested in multiple sources and not contradicted by any source. But it's dishonest to say such an event NEVER happens even in cases for which there is evidence. It's honest to still doubt it, or withhold judgment, but when there's evidence from multiple sources and no sources contradicting it, it's reasonable to believe it. It's especially reasonable to believe it while still having some doubt.

Ancient lying priests made up outrageous religious lies still believed by many to this day.

There are debunkers today who tell lies in order to promote their disbelief. One of the lies is the claim that there were other reported miracle-workers during the period of Jesus (or earlier). E.g., the claim that Apollonius of Tyana performed miracles similar to Jesus, curing the blind or raising the dead or resurrecting after his death. This is a persistent lie told by many recognized experts, like Bart Ehrman. You don't prove your case by saying there are some others who tell lies. That they tell some lies doesn't prove that you're telling the truth.

There are many lies told on both sides, that miracle events did or did not happen.

Today's thoroughly dishonest TV Evangelists lie daily and many do not seem to learn, religious fanatics lie. And so did ancient religious fanatics.

And so do many anti-religious fanatics today tell lies. Jesus-debunkers today especially tell lies to promote their claim that Jesus was just one more of many reported miracle-workers invented by ancient story-tellers.

One lie told repeatedly is that we do not really have 5 sources for the Resurrection, or that the 4 Gospels are really only 2 sources, because Matthew and Luke quote from Mark, which means these are not "independent sources" and therefore are not separate sources.

Those who repeat this lie are distorting the 2-Source Hypothesis, claiming this means the 4 Gospels are really only 2 sources. This lie is repeated again and again, even though a source is not in any way downgraded just because it quotes from another source. ALL the sources are legitimate for the extra content they add which is not taken from another source. And Matthew and Luke both contain much more that is separate from Mark. This phony critical standard, to say it's not a genuine source simply because it quotes from another source, only demonstrates the dishonesty of the debunkers who are trying to falsely deny that we have these 4 (5) sources for the Jesus miracle acts. Proof that this is phony is that these same debunkers cannot name any literature or sources whatever, other than the Gospels only, to which they apply this phony standard. No one has ever named any other source for history which is rejected simply because it quotes from some other source. This double standard is blatant dishonesty just as egregious as any dishonesty of believers or priests or evangelists etc. who have told lies to promote their belief.

One debunker fanatic today who lies is Richard Carrier, who claims that the Egyptian God Osiris resurrected from the dead (according to the legend). This is "false" according to Bible scholar M. David Litwa (who disbelieves the Jesus miracle stories) and refutes Carrier in his book How the Gospels Became History. (Litwa doesn't use the "lie" or "liar" language. But when the same falsehood or exaggeration is repeated again and again, it goes into the "lie" category just as much as the Evangelists etc. who exaggerate or distort the truth.)

This is similar to Republicans and Democrats telling lies and accusing each other of lying. Neither side proves it's right just by pointing out lies told by the other side.

 

[bilby]

a few dozen facts are from archaeological evidence, compared to the dozen billion from written sources.

You're both wildly wrong and clearly innumerate.

Your inferences from my post are wild speculation at best, and utter drivel at worst; I suppose I could thank you for laying to rest any lingering doubts anyone reading this thread might have about your credibility, which you have shown unequivocally to be zero.

Sure, you can dismiss the entire field of archaeology; But in doing so you only demonstrate that you aren't even slightly interested in evidence, only in claiming (in as many words as possible) to be right, despite being demonstrably wrong.

Your grasp of the discipline of history is as weak as your grasp on the importance of archaeology; Ultimately, you don't care what happened in the past, you just want to believe that your fantasies about it are real.

They're not.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Some people, notably Seneca, Cicero, Celsus, Lucian, Epicurus, and others were very skeptical of tall tales of miracle workers. Your ignorance is showing.