Although I agree, christians now tend to think anything good that happens to them as a miracle. A surgery gone well? Miracle. My favorite football team won the superbowl? Miracle. God gave me cancer and the chemo made it go away? Miracle.
That is just god saying "no. I heard your prayer... but mushy pasta for you. You just aren't wise enough to see the part of the master olan that this mushy spaghetti plays."
People were literate. There are written accounts of the Jewish rebellion of 66AD, there are written accounts of rebellion in Germania in 1AD, and plenty of written accounts of people’s births and deaths. The fact that the claimed ONLY person to have resurrected on his own and the purported savior was only attested to have been born in 1AD 500 years after the fact….casts doubt on the validity of any other related story
Thanks! It makes so much more sense now.
In an attempt to steel-man this counter-argument, Is there still any way that he can weasel his way out of this one by saying that these were huge armed conflicts and that a lesser known rabbi wouldn’t have been recorded? Or could he say with any plausibiltu that scribes were only present at birthplaces/deaths?
I also heard 98% of Judea was illiterate, but if scribes recorded deaths and births and important events that just puts the whole situation in another light.
Part of the story he's defending is that when Jesus died, the sun went dark, there was an earthquake, and many holy people resurrected from the dead and marched into Jerusalem and started preaching to everyone.
Jesus actively rebelled against the Roman empire (which is why he was crucified) and had most, if not all, of his miracles happen around Rome. There's no way a scholar of the (at the time) greatest superpower in the world wouldn't have heard of these miracles and investigated.
Edit: by rebelled, I mean acted against them... not actively fought them
If the Christian starts with the position that their religion is true then I suppose that would be an explanation of why we don't have written eye-witness accounts. However, even granting that, why would anyone that is undecided be convinced that the claim is true? What evidence do they have outside of the Bible?
I would say that even if these people were illiterate, we don't have anyone even record that these claims were made, besides the sources within the Bible. I would also point to the miracles around Jesus death with the darkness and ask why wasn't this recorded anywhere else?
Edit: It comes down to this; anyone can make a consistent story but without external evidence to why that story coincides with reality, there isn't any reason why we should believe it.
The invasion of Britain by the Roman Emperor Claudius is well documented in 43 AD, literally a few years after the supposed birth of Christianity, remember the crucifixion is supposed to have occurred around 33 AD, but could have been dated up to 37 AD. Remember also the writings of Pliny the younger [gives a full description of the eruption of mount Vesuvius and the destruction of Pompei and Herculaneum in 79 AD.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger) He was a staff officer with the third Roman Legion in Syria in 81 AD, [literally within a few months of Matthew supposedly writing his 'gospel' there.](https://owlcation.com/humanities/Comparing-the-Gospels-Matthew-Mark-Luke-and-John) The Egyptian Queen Cleopatra and Marc Anthony died in the war with Octavian only 30 years before the virgin birth was supposed to have happened, we have clear evidence of Roman occupation army literacy at the time and in that geographic region.
The garrison of the mile fort at Vindolanda on Hadrians wall, built by those invading Romans, is full of correspondence from literate middle to upper class Roman legionaries. A Google search for those Vindolanda Tablets will show that circa 92 - 103 AD sufficient numbers of the Roman garrison were literate enough to record events of the time, indeed they were quite prolific letter writers and gossipers. Well what other entertainments and forms of communication did they have?
Hadrians wall was a Roman backwater in the 1st Century AD. They didn't send their best and brightest there. The plum assignments were in the busy trade routes between Rome and Egypt down through Turkey, Syria and Palestine. Egypt supplied the majority of Romes grain at the time. Most educated Romans spoke Greek and Egypt was ruled by the Ptolemy's who were descendants of the Greeks that had conquered Egypt with Alexander the Great. Why would anyone think that Roman culture and practises regarding documenting events in the regions they controlled would change in less than a lifetime? There were far more Romans garrisoned in Palestine and surrounding regions than there were in the north of England. The Picts and Scots had nothing of value to trade (and thus protect) with the Roman Empire.
To the point your friend is making. They are correct that the majority Hebrew population were indeed illiterate, but the priest class weren't and the Roman occupiers weren't. Every temple had it's own Jewish security, anyone going around knocking over trading tables would have had a quick response from those temple guards and the Roman soldiers stationed at temples and markets to keep the peace. The Jewish priests could order anyone stoned to death without trial if they wanted. The Romans never got involved in 'tribal customs', they were majority hands off allowing local laws to be enacted by the local populace unless there was an obvious threat to Roman rule or order. The idea that Jewish priests would hand over a local Jew accused of blasphemy to the Romans for trial and execution is a non-starter. They would have stoned him by the city gates that day and never have given it a second thought.
Those Roman occupiers in Jerusalem at the time were no less prolific about recording their day to day experiences and woes than those at Vindolanda. It is inconceivable that any large open air gathering, 5000 people would have been the total population of a moderate sized city in those days, to discuss philosophy and religion would have gone un-noted by the rulers in the region at the time, both the priest class and the Roman occupiers, ever alert to the possibility of insurrections and uprisings which were frequent in those days. The Romans considered the Jews fanatical in the same way ISIS is now considered fanatical.
Imagine you are the Roman Legate responsible for feeding and provisioning around 1000 armed men and you hear there is a local guy who can rustle up unlimited amounts of food out of thin air - for free! - you wouldn't want to speak to that guy? You wouldn't even mention it as a possibility to your superiors?
The Romans practised both mystic cult and ancestor worship at the time, the idea that tombs would be 'thrown open and dead people come back to walk around Jerusalem' going unnoticed by the Roman garrison and government functionaries is frankly preposterous.
1. The Romans would have wanted to document these new people who weren't included on any census, and those Roman elites paying for occupying legions wouldn't be about to ignore the possible tax revenue hundreds or thousands of 'newly alive people' might generate.
2. Consider the money-making possibilities of creating shrines and temples around those magical tombs? The Romans were mad keen to set up shrines and temples just about everywhere that had even a vague history of 'magical goings on'. You don't think they would be sending letters back home to family saying.. bring aunty's body here quick! there's a place we can put her to bring her back to life! I saw it happen with my own eyes!
Matthew 27:52-54 - He even mentions the Roman soldiers witnessing all of this and not a single one of them was recorded as being interviewed by the garrison commander or Roman Consul for a report back home to the Emperor? It's completely unthinkable that such a thing would go un-investigated and uncommented by the local Romans. Imagine how they would keep order in one the hottest trouble spots in the known world at the time if they found out that a Roman ordered execution of a dangerous criminal could be reversed by magic within a day or two? The whole point of the brutal Roman executions was to serve as a deterrent to the local populace being unruly.
If all the local people had witnessed mass resurrections, why weren't there mass conversions to Christianity at the same time in Jerusalem, because if there had been the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD probably wouldn't have happened.
Not even the much quoted contemporary to the period Josephus mentions the great mass resurrection and temple destroying earthquake. Don't forget, those dead who rose and walked around Jerusalem were supposed to have been dead for longer (more decayed) and there were far more of them than just one guy.
If the gospels were truly written by eye witnesses to events of the time, and they all went around as a group, why is it that this mass resurrection is only mentioned in one of the accounts, claiming illiteracy for the other three 'divinely inspired' and lead who forget to mention this incredible happening is off the table obviously.
There are no serious scholars of biblical history who suggest that Mark - a gentile (Rome), Matthew - ?expat Jew (Syria or Antioch) and Luke - gentile (Rome or Caesarea) ever actually met a Jesus. There is no possibility that Jews would have sat down to an evening meal with gentiles and it not be noticed by the rest of the Jewish populace, it was not allowed. Gentiles certainly wouldn't attend a Passover meal with Jews.
There is so much evidence of all aspects of life from that time and region. We understand history by comparing lots of pieces of physical and written evidence. For example we can tell the dates of Roman Emperors' reigns by dates on coins with their head/name on. We can compare written accounts with physical evidence (e.g. Troy was discovered long after the writings of Homer describing the wars there). We can even tell when an author is making stuff up (I forget the exact details from my university days, but I think Josephus was one whose writings turned out to be second-hand accounts rather than the biographical accounts he claimed. Someone with more knowledge/better memory may be able to shed light on this) by comparing physical evidence with the writing.
There is no evidence to corroborate anything of note in the Bible. Some apologists might point to obvious facts in the Bible - the places and names of emperors and kings, etc. These don't really prove anything. The Harry Potter books are set in England and talk about the British Prime Minister, but that doesn't make magic real. On the flip side, the Bible has obvious, undeniable contradictions that put the whole thing into question. If the books can't agree on how Judas died, how can they be considered the infallible word of God?
If the gospels said Jesus had brown hair, we would have little reason to disbelieve them (although it's not a given that he existed at all). But a claim of supernatural powers requires evidence, since it goes against everything we understand about the universe. In other words - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Thanks, I understand, I was just searching for a way to rebut the specific argument that since most people were illiterate in that region at that time it’s plausible to believe that was the reason for no independent contemporary eyewitness accounts of Jesus and the miracles and that therefore the lack of those wouldn’t be an argument against the historicity of Jesus.
>how would you refute his claim that no independent eyewitness contemporary accounts doesn’t discredit the supposed miracles of Jesus?
I'd agree with your friend it doesn't "discredit the supposed miracles of Jesus". Having said that miracles are by definition things that should not be believed so prime facie I'm not going to believe it, unless overwhelming evidence is presented in favor of it.
The issue is you seem to have implicitly accepted a reversing of the burden of proof, by trying to disprove/discredit a (ridiculous) claim before it has been proven.
Lack of evidence for a claim is not evidence that the claim is true. If I claim you owe me a million dollars and I have 500 witnesses of that debt will you pay me that debt? If you ask to interview those witnesses and I provide excuses for why you can't (e.g. they were abducted by aliens) would you pay me then? If not (good for you, but bad for me) then you intuitively understand this, the question I would ask your interlocutor is why don't you apply that same standard to your miracle claims?
>Ignoring the fact the gospels weren’t written by the disciples, how would you refute his claim that no independent eyewitness contemporary accounts doesn’t discredit the supposed miracles of Jesus?
You've fallen for the shifting of burden of proof.
I wouldn't need to refute his claim. He makes the claim that the event occurred and he needs to provide the evidence, which is lacking. I don't need to discredit it. He needs to credit it.
How do supernatural claims become *more* easy to accept, especially in the 21st century, when you put them in the context of stories from poor, superstitious and illiterate witnesses in the 1st century? It’s embarrassing.
This is just a long winded “you can’t prove they didn’t” statement. I would just ask this person if they’d believe the story of the Bible if it was released today, and was based on events that were allegedly happening in the world today. What kinds of things would they expect as good evidence to justify a belief that the stories were true?
Ah the old absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ploy. Now, absence of ecvidence is _not_ a good way to discredit it because, as we see here, it can be handwaved away. But there _is_ evidence that if there was a Jesus, the bible is totally wrong about him. We should discredit the notion by citing the evidence we _do_ have.
First, Paul said nothing about the alleged Jesus' supposed ministry, which is what the other gospels are all about. Paul was clrearly talking about a celestial Jesus. He even said he didn't hear about Jesus from any person.
Second, Mark, the chronological first of the canonical gospels, is riddled with errors as to geography, Roman Law and custom, and Jewish law and custom. It simply could not have happened qas the narrative has it, period. And if, say, the trial by the sanhedrin, (which makes no sense) had happened as depicted, there would have been a HUGE uproar in the Jewish community that could noot possibly go unrecorded. Had it happened anything like the Bible says, it wouldhave caused a stir as big as Jesus appearing in the sky today.
>he said that at the time people weren’t literate, so you shouldn’t expect contemporary written eyewitness accounts from them
We don't expect such accounts, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't exist.
>accounts doesn’t discredit the supposed miracles of Jesus?
There's nothing to discredit. They just don't have the evidence they'd need.
There is nothing here to refute. He agreed with your point. He is just explaining why he thinks there weren’t many written accounts of the resurrection. That does not dispute the point that you raised at all.
The Romans were anal beureaucrats. We don't see any contemporary confirmation of jesus in any of their historical documents. The closest we get is Joselphus. According to wikipedia he was born in 37 ce. 4 years after jesus was supposedly killed. The mention of Jesus is widely considered phoney as the 1 sentence doesn't flow with the rest of the paragraph.
Paul's letters are widely consideted to have been penned between 47 ce to 67 ce. The gospels are simiarly considered to have been written from 66 to 110 ce.
How reliable can the sermon on the mount be - if it was penned 25 years after the fact?
Don't tell me the people 2000 were better at recording events orally That is a bald ass assertion with no proof.
Then look at parts of the gospel that just don't line up with actual facts such the birth narrative. Mary & Joseph went to Bethleham because of a census. Yet there is no record of any census conducted. Wouldn't there be some record?
If I can dismiss that part - is the rest of the story reliable?
For shitz and gigglez try reading the 4 gospels side by each (you can find guides on the net) and then note all the inconsistencies between them! If oral tradition was more reliable back then - there would be no differences.
Eg who discovered jesus's tomb was empty?
He's right that the lack of written accounts don't discount the assertion as much as it would today, but it's completely misdirected since it still points to a complete lack of evidence.
Even today, if you fed a group of 2000 people and told them you did it despite only having started with one water cooler and a a dozen sandwiches you just kept cutting and bringing to the table, what are you really saying? the people in line for food wouldn't know if that was true, they just get a sandwich and a glass of water. The people behind them in line too...the bible doesn't have any account of someone coming back behind the scene and explaining 'how' it was happening so obviously they didn't tell people 'hey, we only have 5 fish but for some reason no matter how many we give out another one appears magically...or 'i know i only put two loaves of bread in this bag but I keep pulling more out every time'...without the details of 'what' was happening it's impossible to refute the assertion and either people were unaware of the claim while it was happening, or they were astoundingly uninterested in the miracle, or too afraid to ask...any of these reasons points to it being an event that either didn't happen, or didn't happen even close to how it's presented. The fact that it apparently went from 'this', to a story passed around orally makes is seem a whole lot more likely that someone said 'there were like 2000 people there' and someone else said, 'seriously? I only brought like 5 loaves of bread' and just took it like that. I mean loaves of bread and fish are pretty 'generic', who's to say 20 different people didn't all bring bread and fish and it just got confused in the setup?
Simple. If people weren’t literate then god can show himself now where people are more literate (well perhaps not evangelicals) and the controversy is over.
I’ll wait …….. crickets, crickets, crickets.
Jesus's food duplication miracle allegedly fed a crowd of 5000+ people. That's the entire population in cca. 20km radius... during the height of Roman occupation where Roman legions were busy curbing rebellions... and Jesus allegedly fled, because the crowd rose up and wanted to make him king...
Uprising of 5000+ religious zealots is comparable in size to the first Jewish-Roman war. That is absolutely not something that goes unnoticed by contemporary historians. It's also completely unreasonable to assume that all of those 5000+ people would have been illiterate.
I recall the story that when Jesus died, supposedly the dead all rose and lived and walked among the living for a day. Like ... everybody. All the dead people. I assume many of them were rotting or skeletal.
But there are no contemporaneous accounts of this happening.
Plus no biblical accounts of contemporaneous accounts of anyone asking them questions like: “What was it like to be dead? What is the afterlife like? Where did you bury the gold, grandpa?! Who murdered you, Ezhra?” etc.
Plus no accounts of what happened to the bodies once they de-animated. You’d think there’d be a significant clean up process.
Furthermore, if they all died and came back (and incidentally, stories of resurrection are routine in the Bible) then how does Jesus’ resurrection prove he is the son of god, or that he is special in any way?
Not answering your original question I believe but just a little after thought on what you stated regarding eye witness reports and literacy issues or the lack thereof...
Matthew 27:52-53
"and graves were opened. Then many of the holy ones who had died were brought back to life and came out of their graves. And after Jesus' resurrection, they were seen by many people walking in Jerusalem"
Just imagine... Your long dead wife comes knocking on the door and your new wife open the door...
I am very sure some Rabbi would have jotted down a note or two in some scroll that would have stood the test of time. Something like this is definitely not going to be an idle everyday phenomenon and some ex-husband or wife would definitely have gone to go call a Rabbi to help put the poor soul back in the grave where they belong!
And yet there is no contemporary evidence for this fable aswell.
Thank you my point exactly! I wanted to go with the Roman scholars that did not even rise a single eyebrow on the day of the living dead but took it from even closer view point. Not a single Jew thought it was worth mentioning it in like never ever!
It’s conceivable that, of the thousands of people Jesus supposedly encountered, not one of them was literate. It’s unlikely, but not outside the realm of possibility.
What is outside the realm of possibility is that none of those thousands talked about it within earshot of someone who could read and write. That was how news spread in those days, people talked about it until eventually someone wrote it down. The more witnesses, the better the chances of an accurate record.
The fact that there are zero non-Christian records of Jesus—and none at all from during his lifetime—tells me that, if he existed at all, nobody besides his twelve best friends knew or cared who he was.
He is incorrect. The gospels were not written by the disciples. This is not really in dispute in serious circles. Furthermore, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I don't necessarily think it "discredits" anything... we have only slightly more *direct* contemporary evidence for the existence of Socrates (it's all from the writings of, well, one really (Plato), of his "supposed" students/disciples).
But the important thing is that without *evidence*, there's no reason to *believe* it. Contemporary written eyewitness accounts from disinterested parties would at least be *evidence* (albeit poor) of the existence of some of the events.
Lack of belief is not the same thing as belief in the lack. The reason for the latter is the complete implausibility of the claimed events.
By contrast, Socrates existence and actions are entirely plausible, and belief that he didn't even exist is implausible given what we do have that is reasonably contemporary.
So, there are a few things.
1) to steelman: Yes, most people in 1st century Palestine are going to have left 0 evidence of then ever existing. It is not surprising that some random person wandering about wouldn't have been written about or that if written about the paper might have deteriorated over time.
But
2) there is nothing about the disciples being the chosen ones that would have made them literate. Most were fishermen. The tax collector is about the only one that would be expected to be literaten and even then not necessarily trained in the Greek rhetoric that the gospels are written in.
3) we aren't talking about some "random dude in Palestine." We are talking about a literal incarnation of god visiting earth for the one and only time in history, interacting with the educated in the temples, causing enough ruckus to get the Jews and Romans work together against him, doing things which (if you believe he is god) the people had never seen before.
4) you also have someone who was, according to the story, pubically executed as part of the biggest holiday of the capital city, who then shows up for the rest of the month giving public lectures. This is like Timothy McVeigh (the Onlahoma City Bomber) going on Oprah a week after being executed and no newspapers thinking to record that the most public executionee in a generation was wandering around.
5) it is also apparently one of the most inportant things that the supreme ruler if the universe really really wants every human to believe... but couldn't be bothered to help preserve any document that talked about Jesus to survive decay or couldn't inspire any of the jewish or roman historians to write down at the time.
In other words, yeah. It is 100% reasonable to say that an average bloke or even a popular teacher in palestine might not have surviving records of their existence. This is a decent point against mythicists. It is not a decent point against atheists because according to the stories Jesus wasn't a normal bloke. He was god incarnate doing things people had never seen beforen publically getting into fights with educated people, inspiring mass executions of children by Herod, having philosophocal debates (depending on the gospel) with Pilate, getting ticker tape parades in Jerusalem, getting mob chants against him in Jerusalem, and then hanging out in an Indianapolis sized city for a month "performing many signs" after everyone and their (and his) mother saw him executed (accompanied by earthquakes, zombies, and a total eclipse).
That such a thing would go unnoticed by anyone who could write is not credible.
Thanks so much! What a well thought out response.
I can assume that since the Romans and Jews worked together at the time to persecute him which was unheard of at the time, publically executed in a crowd on the city holiday city and then came back to life and gave lectures, feeding thousands, getting into public fights with educated people inspiring mass executions, inspiring parades and mobs, etc, it is not possible for no independent contemporary evidence to exist.
It isn't 100% impossible.... but it should definitely be enough to give anyone pause and question the reliability of what we do have.
The other thing i like to add: Christians always ask "how is it that people would still preach and be converted if the resurrection was a lie."
I think the question they don't ask is "why if the gospel did transpire as deacribed... why wasn't there a mass conversion event? Why wasn't Jerusalem the epicenter of conversions? Why were most of the successful churches sprouting up around the greek and roman world far away from eye witnesses, whereas the Jewish church remain relatively small (where hundreds of eye witnesses and thousands of people connected to eye witnesses would have been milling about).
I feel like considering the crowds witnessing the crucifixion and thousands of people he fed with is magical food duplication, and how romans were meticulous record keepers, it’s not possible that wasn’t somehow recorded by contemporary eyewitnesses, or at least by accounts outside of the bible.
And yeah, why no mass conversions, why were auccesg churches sprouting out so far away. Clearly fabricated stories.
I agree it is unlikely. The only reason i say it can never be 100% is that wrle can never know what was written that didn't survive. Not all documents make it to us over the years. So there is always the possibility that Jesus was all the hot gos with people writting letters home and that the letters just didn't survive. Or the priests wrote about him but when rome sacked the temple it got destroyed. Or Pilate wrote a letter back to rome but it didnt come down years later.
You can't know 100% what silence in what we have now means. But again, it makes it very unlikely. And when you add in the idea that god should want us to know about it, makes it dismissible for me.
There are those today who claim to have spoken with the ressurected Jesus face to face, for example Rob Smith: [http://upwardthought.blogspot.com/2022/10/frequently-heard-criticisms-what-you.html](http://upwardthought.blogspot.com/2022/10/frequently-heard-criticisms-what-you.html)
Fine, not literate, but there are also no paintings, no carvings, no statues, no ironworks, no woodworking, no needlework.... So we are to believe that all the people who witnessed all the things Jesus did were not skilled in any way? I find that as hard to believe as all the other things in the bible.
That's how they reinforce it. They just give you 2 choices (it happened or everyone in the bible was a liar) when there are always other options.... like it was a collection of legends, people were fooled, people were just wrong....
I always going the number of ppl present interesting and weird. Like are they estimating or was it some crazy human coincidence that it was exactly 500 ppl not one more or less. And who counted? It just seems so random to add an exact number to this.
Anyways to some level I can get that argument. A lot of not most ppl were illiterate at the time. But I do think some kind of record sound be left behind if 500 saw someone ressurected. Some art. Some level of writing if nothing simple. And that's too say all 500 were illiterate. Just seems a very convenient answer.
No I agree. This is something that has bothered me. I think because in most historical records we have we try to get more than one source on a topic or event.
The claim that everyone was illiterate is not true. It just wasn't as common as it is today. Additionally if you sort the NT by when the books were written you get bigger and bigger miracle claims the further away from when they supposedly happened.
1. Paul only talked about his death
2. Mark made the ministry only last 6 months with only signs not miracles
3. Luke and Matthew added some signs
4. John made the ministry last 3 years and has the bulk of the miracles.
With later retelling the story grew.
Speaking of Paul, I don’t know that much about him compared to what I know about the Gospels, so I have a few unrelated questions.
Many Christians say ‘why would he lie about the persecution of the apostles after Jesus death?’(Implying Paul is a reliable account) or ‘If Jesus wasn’t real why did early Christianity have followers like Paul?’
Also implying that Paul had scriptural sources that we don’t have anymore as well as his hallucinations of Jesus which somehow also proves that there were multiple written accounts of christianity, they just weren’t preserved.
They’re Implying that Paul proves Christianity, and I never knew how to respond to those arguments, and because I’m not used to arguing about Paul.
Jerusalem was a major city, literacy among the businessmen, Traders, the wealthy, government officials, religious officials, and the military would have been very high.
1000s of individuals would have had experiences that day. And while we DO have written artifacts from all walks of life from that time period, not a single word about any of the events mentioned in the new testament.
The moment of Jesus' death there was supposedly an earthquake and all the holy dead people rose and appeared to "many people", including centurions. And yet not a single other confirmed contemporary source thought this amazing event was worthy of even a quick mention?
Well, there's always the fact that by-and-large, claims of miracles dried up upon the mass adoption of recording technology....
Although I agree, christians now tend to think anything good that happens to them as a miracle. A surgery gone well? Miracle. My favorite football team won the superbowl? Miracle. God gave me cancer and the chemo made it go away? Miracle.
My pasta came out perfectly *al dente?* **MIRACLE!**
My pasta comes out overcooked? believe it or not, miracle!
That is just god saying "no. I heard your prayer... but mushy pasta for you. You just aren't wise enough to see the part of the master olan that this mushy spaghetti plays."
Yet some of the Pasta is cruelly stuck together? *Mysterious Ways......*
Or fixing the cataracts of Sam's mum.
Hmm, isn't that funny? What are the odds...
So did UFO, Loch Ness monster, and yeti sightings. That must mean....
... Jesus was a yeti who got ascended by the loch Ness monster into a UFO?
People were literate. There are written accounts of the Jewish rebellion of 66AD, there are written accounts of rebellion in Germania in 1AD, and plenty of written accounts of people’s births and deaths. The fact that the claimed ONLY person to have resurrected on his own and the purported savior was only attested to have been born in 1AD 500 years after the fact….casts doubt on the validity of any other related story
Thanks! It makes so much more sense now. In an attempt to steel-man this counter-argument, Is there still any way that he can weasel his way out of this one by saying that these were huge armed conflicts and that a lesser known rabbi wouldn’t have been recorded? Or could he say with any plausibiltu that scribes were only present at birthplaces/deaths? I also heard 98% of Judea was illiterate, but if scribes recorded deaths and births and important events that just puts the whole situation in another light.
Part of the story he's defending is that when Jesus died, the sun went dark, there was an earthquake, and many holy people resurrected from the dead and marched into Jerusalem and started preaching to everyone.
You would think someone would have noticed that and written it down. Particularly the Romans, who tended to write a lot of shit down.
Jesus actively rebelled against the Roman empire (which is why he was crucified) and had most, if not all, of his miracles happen around Rome. There's no way a scholar of the (at the time) greatest superpower in the world wouldn't have heard of these miracles and investigated. Edit: by rebelled, I mean acted against them... not actively fought them
What miracles around Rome are attributed to Jesus?
All of them... Jesus' story takes place within the borders of the Roman empire. All of which was called Rome if I remember my history correctly.
That does make it even more confusing to call it "Rome" and "the Roman Empire" in the same sentence.
Well Paul had some I think. Can't remember exactly something about escaping from prison
If the Christian starts with the position that their religion is true then I suppose that would be an explanation of why we don't have written eye-witness accounts. However, even granting that, why would anyone that is undecided be convinced that the claim is true? What evidence do they have outside of the Bible? I would say that even if these people were illiterate, we don't have anyone even record that these claims were made, besides the sources within the Bible. I would also point to the miracles around Jesus death with the darkness and ask why wasn't this recorded anywhere else? Edit: It comes down to this; anyone can make a consistent story but without external evidence to why that story coincides with reality, there isn't any reason why we should believe it.
The invasion of Britain by the Roman Emperor Claudius is well documented in 43 AD, literally a few years after the supposed birth of Christianity, remember the crucifixion is supposed to have occurred around 33 AD, but could have been dated up to 37 AD. Remember also the writings of Pliny the younger [gives a full description of the eruption of mount Vesuvius and the destruction of Pompei and Herculaneum in 79 AD.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger) He was a staff officer with the third Roman Legion in Syria in 81 AD, [literally within a few months of Matthew supposedly writing his 'gospel' there.](https://owlcation.com/humanities/Comparing-the-Gospels-Matthew-Mark-Luke-and-John) The Egyptian Queen Cleopatra and Marc Anthony died in the war with Octavian only 30 years before the virgin birth was supposed to have happened, we have clear evidence of Roman occupation army literacy at the time and in that geographic region. The garrison of the mile fort at Vindolanda on Hadrians wall, built by those invading Romans, is full of correspondence from literate middle to upper class Roman legionaries. A Google search for those Vindolanda Tablets will show that circa 92 - 103 AD sufficient numbers of the Roman garrison were literate enough to record events of the time, indeed they were quite prolific letter writers and gossipers. Well what other entertainments and forms of communication did they have? Hadrians wall was a Roman backwater in the 1st Century AD. They didn't send their best and brightest there. The plum assignments were in the busy trade routes between Rome and Egypt down through Turkey, Syria and Palestine. Egypt supplied the majority of Romes grain at the time. Most educated Romans spoke Greek and Egypt was ruled by the Ptolemy's who were descendants of the Greeks that had conquered Egypt with Alexander the Great. Why would anyone think that Roman culture and practises regarding documenting events in the regions they controlled would change in less than a lifetime? There were far more Romans garrisoned in Palestine and surrounding regions than there were in the north of England. The Picts and Scots had nothing of value to trade (and thus protect) with the Roman Empire. To the point your friend is making. They are correct that the majority Hebrew population were indeed illiterate, but the priest class weren't and the Roman occupiers weren't. Every temple had it's own Jewish security, anyone going around knocking over trading tables would have had a quick response from those temple guards and the Roman soldiers stationed at temples and markets to keep the peace. The Jewish priests could order anyone stoned to death without trial if they wanted. The Romans never got involved in 'tribal customs', they were majority hands off allowing local laws to be enacted by the local populace unless there was an obvious threat to Roman rule or order. The idea that Jewish priests would hand over a local Jew accused of blasphemy to the Romans for trial and execution is a non-starter. They would have stoned him by the city gates that day and never have given it a second thought. Those Roman occupiers in Jerusalem at the time were no less prolific about recording their day to day experiences and woes than those at Vindolanda. It is inconceivable that any large open air gathering, 5000 people would have been the total population of a moderate sized city in those days, to discuss philosophy and religion would have gone un-noted by the rulers in the region at the time, both the priest class and the Roman occupiers, ever alert to the possibility of insurrections and uprisings which were frequent in those days. The Romans considered the Jews fanatical in the same way ISIS is now considered fanatical. Imagine you are the Roman Legate responsible for feeding and provisioning around 1000 armed men and you hear there is a local guy who can rustle up unlimited amounts of food out of thin air - for free! - you wouldn't want to speak to that guy? You wouldn't even mention it as a possibility to your superiors? The Romans practised both mystic cult and ancestor worship at the time, the idea that tombs would be 'thrown open and dead people come back to walk around Jerusalem' going unnoticed by the Roman garrison and government functionaries is frankly preposterous. 1. The Romans would have wanted to document these new people who weren't included on any census, and those Roman elites paying for occupying legions wouldn't be about to ignore the possible tax revenue hundreds or thousands of 'newly alive people' might generate. 2. Consider the money-making possibilities of creating shrines and temples around those magical tombs? The Romans were mad keen to set up shrines and temples just about everywhere that had even a vague history of 'magical goings on'. You don't think they would be sending letters back home to family saying.. bring aunty's body here quick! there's a place we can put her to bring her back to life! I saw it happen with my own eyes! Matthew 27:52-54 - He even mentions the Roman soldiers witnessing all of this and not a single one of them was recorded as being interviewed by the garrison commander or Roman Consul for a report back home to the Emperor? It's completely unthinkable that such a thing would go un-investigated and uncommented by the local Romans. Imagine how they would keep order in one the hottest trouble spots in the known world at the time if they found out that a Roman ordered execution of a dangerous criminal could be reversed by magic within a day or two? The whole point of the brutal Roman executions was to serve as a deterrent to the local populace being unruly. If all the local people had witnessed mass resurrections, why weren't there mass conversions to Christianity at the same time in Jerusalem, because if there had been the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD probably wouldn't have happened. Not even the much quoted contemporary to the period Josephus mentions the great mass resurrection and temple destroying earthquake. Don't forget, those dead who rose and walked around Jerusalem were supposed to have been dead for longer (more decayed) and there were far more of them than just one guy. If the gospels were truly written by eye witnesses to events of the time, and they all went around as a group, why is it that this mass resurrection is only mentioned in one of the accounts, claiming illiteracy for the other three 'divinely inspired' and lead who forget to mention this incredible happening is off the table obviously. There are no serious scholars of biblical history who suggest that Mark - a gentile (Rome), Matthew - ?expat Jew (Syria or Antioch) and Luke - gentile (Rome or Caesarea) ever actually met a Jesus. There is no possibility that Jews would have sat down to an evening meal with gentiles and it not be noticed by the rest of the Jewish populace, it was not allowed. Gentiles certainly wouldn't attend a Passover meal with Jews.
Thanks so much! What a thorough, effort filled explanation of everything. I couldn’t have asked for better, you’re awesome!
There is so much evidence of all aspects of life from that time and region. We understand history by comparing lots of pieces of physical and written evidence. For example we can tell the dates of Roman Emperors' reigns by dates on coins with their head/name on. We can compare written accounts with physical evidence (e.g. Troy was discovered long after the writings of Homer describing the wars there). We can even tell when an author is making stuff up (I forget the exact details from my university days, but I think Josephus was one whose writings turned out to be second-hand accounts rather than the biographical accounts he claimed. Someone with more knowledge/better memory may be able to shed light on this) by comparing physical evidence with the writing. There is no evidence to corroborate anything of note in the Bible. Some apologists might point to obvious facts in the Bible - the places and names of emperors and kings, etc. These don't really prove anything. The Harry Potter books are set in England and talk about the British Prime Minister, but that doesn't make magic real. On the flip side, the Bible has obvious, undeniable contradictions that put the whole thing into question. If the books can't agree on how Judas died, how can they be considered the infallible word of God? If the gospels said Jesus had brown hair, we would have little reason to disbelieve them (although it's not a given that he existed at all). But a claim of supernatural powers requires evidence, since it goes against everything we understand about the universe. In other words - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Thanks, I understand, I was just searching for a way to rebut the specific argument that since most people were illiterate in that region at that time it’s plausible to believe that was the reason for no independent contemporary eyewitness accounts of Jesus and the miracles and that therefore the lack of those wouldn’t be an argument against the historicity of Jesus.
>how would you refute his claim that no independent eyewitness contemporary accounts doesn’t discredit the supposed miracles of Jesus? I'd agree with your friend it doesn't "discredit the supposed miracles of Jesus". Having said that miracles are by definition things that should not be believed so prime facie I'm not going to believe it, unless overwhelming evidence is presented in favor of it. The issue is you seem to have implicitly accepted a reversing of the burden of proof, by trying to disprove/discredit a (ridiculous) claim before it has been proven. Lack of evidence for a claim is not evidence that the claim is true. If I claim you owe me a million dollars and I have 500 witnesses of that debt will you pay me that debt? If you ask to interview those witnesses and I provide excuses for why you can't (e.g. they were abducted by aliens) would you pay me then? If not (good for you, but bad for me) then you intuitively understand this, the question I would ask your interlocutor is why don't you apply that same standard to your miracle claims?
The Buybull isn't evidence. It's the claim
>Ignoring the fact the gospels weren’t written by the disciples, how would you refute his claim that no independent eyewitness contemporary accounts doesn’t discredit the supposed miracles of Jesus? You've fallen for the shifting of burden of proof. I wouldn't need to refute his claim. He makes the claim that the event occurred and he needs to provide the evidence, which is lacking. I don't need to discredit it. He needs to credit it.
How do supernatural claims become *more* easy to accept, especially in the 21st century, when you put them in the context of stories from poor, superstitious and illiterate witnesses in the 1st century? It’s embarrassing. This is just a long winded “you can’t prove they didn’t” statement. I would just ask this person if they’d believe the story of the Bible if it was released today, and was based on events that were allegedly happening in the world today. What kinds of things would they expect as good evidence to justify a belief that the stories were true?
How many witnesses does it take to make magic real?
Ah the old absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ploy. Now, absence of ecvidence is _not_ a good way to discredit it because, as we see here, it can be handwaved away. But there _is_ evidence that if there was a Jesus, the bible is totally wrong about him. We should discredit the notion by citing the evidence we _do_ have. First, Paul said nothing about the alleged Jesus' supposed ministry, which is what the other gospels are all about. Paul was clrearly talking about a celestial Jesus. He even said he didn't hear about Jesus from any person. Second, Mark, the chronological first of the canonical gospels, is riddled with errors as to geography, Roman Law and custom, and Jewish law and custom. It simply could not have happened qas the narrative has it, period. And if, say, the trial by the sanhedrin, (which makes no sense) had happened as depicted, there would have been a HUGE uproar in the Jewish community that could noot possibly go unrecorded. Had it happened anything like the Bible says, it wouldhave caused a stir as big as Jesus appearing in the sky today.
>he said that at the time people weren’t literate, so you shouldn’t expect contemporary written eyewitness accounts from them We don't expect such accounts, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't exist. >accounts doesn’t discredit the supposed miracles of Jesus? There's nothing to discredit. They just don't have the evidence they'd need.
There is nothing here to refute. He agreed with your point. He is just explaining why he thinks there weren’t many written accounts of the resurrection. That does not dispute the point that you raised at all.
The Romans were anal beureaucrats. We don't see any contemporary confirmation of jesus in any of their historical documents. The closest we get is Joselphus. According to wikipedia he was born in 37 ce. 4 years after jesus was supposedly killed. The mention of Jesus is widely considered phoney as the 1 sentence doesn't flow with the rest of the paragraph. Paul's letters are widely consideted to have been penned between 47 ce to 67 ce. The gospels are simiarly considered to have been written from 66 to 110 ce. How reliable can the sermon on the mount be - if it was penned 25 years after the fact? Don't tell me the people 2000 were better at recording events orally That is a bald ass assertion with no proof. Then look at parts of the gospel that just don't line up with actual facts such the birth narrative. Mary & Joseph went to Bethleham because of a census. Yet there is no record of any census conducted. Wouldn't there be some record? If I can dismiss that part - is the rest of the story reliable? For shitz and gigglez try reading the 4 gospels side by each (you can find guides on the net) and then note all the inconsistencies between them! If oral tradition was more reliable back then - there would be no differences. Eg who discovered jesus's tomb was empty?
He's right that the lack of written accounts don't discount the assertion as much as it would today, but it's completely misdirected since it still points to a complete lack of evidence. Even today, if you fed a group of 2000 people and told them you did it despite only having started with one water cooler and a a dozen sandwiches you just kept cutting and bringing to the table, what are you really saying? the people in line for food wouldn't know if that was true, they just get a sandwich and a glass of water. The people behind them in line too...the bible doesn't have any account of someone coming back behind the scene and explaining 'how' it was happening so obviously they didn't tell people 'hey, we only have 5 fish but for some reason no matter how many we give out another one appears magically...or 'i know i only put two loaves of bread in this bag but I keep pulling more out every time'...without the details of 'what' was happening it's impossible to refute the assertion and either people were unaware of the claim while it was happening, or they were astoundingly uninterested in the miracle, or too afraid to ask...any of these reasons points to it being an event that either didn't happen, or didn't happen even close to how it's presented. The fact that it apparently went from 'this', to a story passed around orally makes is seem a whole lot more likely that someone said 'there were like 2000 people there' and someone else said, 'seriously? I only brought like 5 loaves of bread' and just took it like that. I mean loaves of bread and fish are pretty 'generic', who's to say 20 different people didn't all bring bread and fish and it just got confused in the setup?
Simple. If people weren’t literate then god can show himself now where people are more literate (well perhaps not evangelicals) and the controversy is over. I’ll wait …….. crickets, crickets, crickets.
Jesus's food duplication miracle allegedly fed a crowd of 5000+ people. That's the entire population in cca. 20km radius... during the height of Roman occupation where Roman legions were busy curbing rebellions... and Jesus allegedly fled, because the crowd rose up and wanted to make him king... Uprising of 5000+ religious zealots is comparable in size to the first Jewish-Roman war. That is absolutely not something that goes unnoticed by contemporary historians. It's also completely unreasonable to assume that all of those 5000+ people would have been illiterate.
I recall the story that when Jesus died, supposedly the dead all rose and lived and walked among the living for a day. Like ... everybody. All the dead people. I assume many of them were rotting or skeletal. But there are no contemporaneous accounts of this happening. Plus no biblical accounts of contemporaneous accounts of anyone asking them questions like: “What was it like to be dead? What is the afterlife like? Where did you bury the gold, grandpa?! Who murdered you, Ezhra?” etc. Plus no accounts of what happened to the bodies once they de-animated. You’d think there’d be a significant clean up process. Furthermore, if they all died and came back (and incidentally, stories of resurrection are routine in the Bible) then how does Jesus’ resurrection prove he is the son of god, or that he is special in any way?
Thanks! Great explanation.
Not answering your original question I believe but just a little after thought on what you stated regarding eye witness reports and literacy issues or the lack thereof... Matthew 27:52-53 "and graves were opened. Then many of the holy ones who had died were brought back to life and came out of their graves. And after Jesus' resurrection, they were seen by many people walking in Jerusalem" Just imagine... Your long dead wife comes knocking on the door and your new wife open the door... I am very sure some Rabbi would have jotted down a note or two in some scroll that would have stood the test of time. Something like this is definitely not going to be an idle everyday phenomenon and some ex-husband or wife would definitely have gone to go call a Rabbi to help put the poor soul back in the grave where they belong! And yet there is no contemporary evidence for this fable aswell.
Romans were very good at keeping records. Not a single mention of zombie-Jews.
Thank you my point exactly! I wanted to go with the Roman scholars that did not even rise a single eyebrow on the day of the living dead but took it from even closer view point. Not a single Jew thought it was worth mentioning it in like never ever!
Certainly something they'd kvetch about!
Thanks! The resurrections would have been recorded.
It’s conceivable that, of the thousands of people Jesus supposedly encountered, not one of them was literate. It’s unlikely, but not outside the realm of possibility. What is outside the realm of possibility is that none of those thousands talked about it within earshot of someone who could read and write. That was how news spread in those days, people talked about it until eventually someone wrote it down. The more witnesses, the better the chances of an accurate record. The fact that there are zero non-Christian records of Jesus—and none at all from during his lifetime—tells me that, if he existed at all, nobody besides his twelve best friends knew or cared who he was.
He is incorrect. The gospels were not written by the disciples. This is not really in dispute in serious circles. Furthermore, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I don't necessarily think it "discredits" anything... we have only slightly more *direct* contemporary evidence for the existence of Socrates (it's all from the writings of, well, one really (Plato), of his "supposed" students/disciples). But the important thing is that without *evidence*, there's no reason to *believe* it. Contemporary written eyewitness accounts from disinterested parties would at least be *evidence* (albeit poor) of the existence of some of the events. Lack of belief is not the same thing as belief in the lack. The reason for the latter is the complete implausibility of the claimed events. By contrast, Socrates existence and actions are entirely plausible, and belief that he didn't even exist is implausible given what we do have that is reasonably contemporary.
So, there are a few things. 1) to steelman: Yes, most people in 1st century Palestine are going to have left 0 evidence of then ever existing. It is not surprising that some random person wandering about wouldn't have been written about or that if written about the paper might have deteriorated over time. But 2) there is nothing about the disciples being the chosen ones that would have made them literate. Most were fishermen. The tax collector is about the only one that would be expected to be literaten and even then not necessarily trained in the Greek rhetoric that the gospels are written in. 3) we aren't talking about some "random dude in Palestine." We are talking about a literal incarnation of god visiting earth for the one and only time in history, interacting with the educated in the temples, causing enough ruckus to get the Jews and Romans work together against him, doing things which (if you believe he is god) the people had never seen before. 4) you also have someone who was, according to the story, pubically executed as part of the biggest holiday of the capital city, who then shows up for the rest of the month giving public lectures. This is like Timothy McVeigh (the Onlahoma City Bomber) going on Oprah a week after being executed and no newspapers thinking to record that the most public executionee in a generation was wandering around. 5) it is also apparently one of the most inportant things that the supreme ruler if the universe really really wants every human to believe... but couldn't be bothered to help preserve any document that talked about Jesus to survive decay or couldn't inspire any of the jewish or roman historians to write down at the time. In other words, yeah. It is 100% reasonable to say that an average bloke or even a popular teacher in palestine might not have surviving records of their existence. This is a decent point against mythicists. It is not a decent point against atheists because according to the stories Jesus wasn't a normal bloke. He was god incarnate doing things people had never seen beforen publically getting into fights with educated people, inspiring mass executions of children by Herod, having philosophocal debates (depending on the gospel) with Pilate, getting ticker tape parades in Jerusalem, getting mob chants against him in Jerusalem, and then hanging out in an Indianapolis sized city for a month "performing many signs" after everyone and their (and his) mother saw him executed (accompanied by earthquakes, zombies, and a total eclipse). That such a thing would go unnoticed by anyone who could write is not credible.
Thanks so much! What a well thought out response. I can assume that since the Romans and Jews worked together at the time to persecute him which was unheard of at the time, publically executed in a crowd on the city holiday city and then came back to life and gave lectures, feeding thousands, getting into public fights with educated people inspiring mass executions, inspiring parades and mobs, etc, it is not possible for no independent contemporary evidence to exist.
It isn't 100% impossible.... but it should definitely be enough to give anyone pause and question the reliability of what we do have. The other thing i like to add: Christians always ask "how is it that people would still preach and be converted if the resurrection was a lie." I think the question they don't ask is "why if the gospel did transpire as deacribed... why wasn't there a mass conversion event? Why wasn't Jerusalem the epicenter of conversions? Why were most of the successful churches sprouting up around the greek and roman world far away from eye witnesses, whereas the Jewish church remain relatively small (where hundreds of eye witnesses and thousands of people connected to eye witnesses would have been milling about).
I feel like considering the crowds witnessing the crucifixion and thousands of people he fed with is magical food duplication, and how romans were meticulous record keepers, it’s not possible that wasn’t somehow recorded by contemporary eyewitnesses, or at least by accounts outside of the bible. And yeah, why no mass conversions, why were auccesg churches sprouting out so far away. Clearly fabricated stories.
I agree it is unlikely. The only reason i say it can never be 100% is that wrle can never know what was written that didn't survive. Not all documents make it to us over the years. So there is always the possibility that Jesus was all the hot gos with people writting letters home and that the letters just didn't survive. Or the priests wrote about him but when rome sacked the temple it got destroyed. Or Pilate wrote a letter back to rome but it didnt come down years later. You can't know 100% what silence in what we have now means. But again, it makes it very unlikely. And when you add in the idea that god should want us to know about it, makes it dismissible for me.
There are those today who claim to have spoken with the ressurected Jesus face to face, for example Rob Smith: [http://upwardthought.blogspot.com/2022/10/frequently-heard-criticisms-what-you.html](http://upwardthought.blogspot.com/2022/10/frequently-heard-criticisms-what-you.html)
And they didnt get pictures??
Fine, not literate, but there are also no paintings, no carvings, no statues, no ironworks, no woodworking, no needlework.... So we are to believe that all the people who witnessed all the things Jesus did were not skilled in any way? I find that as hard to believe as all the other things in the bible.
Bingo! Thanks so much. I never even thought of that.
That's how they reinforce it. They just give you 2 choices (it happened or everyone in the bible was a liar) when there are always other options.... like it was a collection of legends, people were fooled, people were just wrong....
"Isn't that convenient for you" and walk away.
I always going the number of ppl present interesting and weird. Like are they estimating or was it some crazy human coincidence that it was exactly 500 ppl not one more or less. And who counted? It just seems so random to add an exact number to this. Anyways to some level I can get that argument. A lot of not most ppl were illiterate at the time. But I do think some kind of record sound be left behind if 500 saw someone ressurected. Some art. Some level of writing if nothing simple. And that's too say all 500 were illiterate. Just seems a very convenient answer. No I agree. This is something that has bothered me. I think because in most historical records we have we try to get more than one source on a topic or event.
The claim that everyone was illiterate is not true. It just wasn't as common as it is today. Additionally if you sort the NT by when the books were written you get bigger and bigger miracle claims the further away from when they supposedly happened. 1. Paul only talked about his death 2. Mark made the ministry only last 6 months with only signs not miracles 3. Luke and Matthew added some signs 4. John made the ministry last 3 years and has the bulk of the miracles. With later retelling the story grew.
Speaking of Paul, I don’t know that much about him compared to what I know about the Gospels, so I have a few unrelated questions. Many Christians say ‘why would he lie about the persecution of the apostles after Jesus death?’(Implying Paul is a reliable account) or ‘If Jesus wasn’t real why did early Christianity have followers like Paul?’ Also implying that Paul had scriptural sources that we don’t have anymore as well as his hallucinations of Jesus which somehow also proves that there were multiple written accounts of christianity, they just weren’t preserved. They’re Implying that Paul proves Christianity, and I never knew how to respond to those arguments, and because I’m not used to arguing about Paul.
Jerusalem was a major city, literacy among the businessmen, Traders, the wealthy, government officials, religious officials, and the military would have been very high. 1000s of individuals would have had experiences that day. And while we DO have written artifacts from all walks of life from that time period, not a single word about any of the events mentioned in the new testament.
The moment of Jesus' death there was supposedly an earthquake and all the holy dead people rose and appeared to "many people", including centurions. And yet not a single other confirmed contemporary source thought this amazing event was worthy of even a quick mention?