Burden of Proof
by Frank R. Zindler
Although what follows may fairly be interpreted to be a proof of the non-historicity of Jesus, it must be realized that the burden of proof does not rest upon the skeptic in this matter. As always is the case, the burden of proof weighs upon those who assert that some thing or some process exists. If someone claims that he never has to shave because every morning before he can get to the bathroom he is assaulted by a six-foot rabbit with extremely sharp teeth who trims his whiskers better than a razor - if someone makes such a claim, no skeptic need worry about constructing a disproof. Unless evidence for the claim is produced, the skeptic can treat the claim as false. This is nothing more than sane, every-day practice.
Unlike N. T. Wright, quoted at the beginning of this article, a small number of scholars have tried over the centuries to prove that Jesus was in fact historical. It is instructive, when examining their "evidence," to compare it to the sort of evidence we have, say, for the existence of Tiberius Cæsar - to take up the challenge made by Wright.
It may be conceded that it is not surprising that there are no coins surviving from the first century with the image of Jesus on them. Unlike Tiberius Cæsar and Augustus Cæsar who adopted him, Jesus is not thought to have had control over any mints. Even so, we must point out that we do have coins dating from the early first century that bear images of Tiberius that change with the age of their subject. We even have coins minted by his predecessor, Augustus Cæsar, that show Augustus on one side and his adopted son on the other. Would Mr. Wright have us believe that these coins are figments of the imagination? Can we be dealing with fig-mints?
Statues that can be dated archaeologically survive to show Tiberius as a youth, as a young man assuming the toga, as Cæsar, etc. Engravings and gems show him with his entire family. Biographers who were his contemporaries or nearly so quote from his letters and decrees and recount the details of his life in minute detail. There are contemporary inscriptions all over the former empire that record his deeds. There is an ossuary of at least one member of his family, and the Greek text of a speech made by his son Germanicus has been found at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. And then there are the remains of his villa on Capri. Nor should we forget that Augustus Cæsar, in his Res Gestæ ("Things Accomplished"), which survives both in Greek and Latin on the so-called Monumentum Ancyranum, lists Tiberius as his son and co-ruler.
Is there anything advocates of an historical Jesus can produce that could be as compelling as this evidence for Tiberius? I think not, and I thank N. T. Wright for making a challenge that brings this disparity so clearly to light.
There is really only one area where evidence for Jesus is even claimed to be of a sort similar to that adduced for Tiberius - the area of biographies written by contemporaries or near contemporaries. It is sometimes claimed that the Christian Bible contains such evidence. Sometimes it is claimed that there is extrabiblical evidence as well. Let us then examine this would-be evidence.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
There is substantially more evidence for Jesus than any other Jewish man during that time period. That's good enough for me.
Really? I am curious about this "substantial evidence". There is no birth certificate, no record of birth, there certificates or official records of any kind that I know of. I know there are "writings" and "stories". Let me out it like this, there are more stories and writings about Santa Claus than there are for Jesus, thus, I am wondering, who were these poor souls for whom there is even less evidence? Saying "there is evidence" does not magically create this evidence, you have cite the evidence (i.e. tell us who wrote it, when they wrote it, where we can read it or see it, etc). It is no good quoting Biblical sources as your evidence, for as we all know...In early Christianity, there are few materials between the time of Christ's crucifixion (around 30 CE) to the first gospels (after 70 CE). It is as if "people forgot, and then remembered again". Paul does not speak of many historical details of the life of Jesus, e.g. Mary, Judas, etc. Paul doesn't believe that Jesus was ever a human being. In fact, he doesn't even appear to be aware of the idea. I suggest you read your Bible with more awareness.
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php /Existence_Of_Jesus
"Jesus obviously was born, and he did die." - Prof. Bart Ehrman, The Historical Jesus, lecture 3 time 00:02, The Teaching Co
"the extreme historical skepticism that has marked most Jesus study in this century is abating." - Jesus: A New Vision, Marcus Borg, p. 15
"Classicists have remarked that if the canons for historical reliability that have been erected for the Bible had been required in their studies, our view of the Greco-Roman world (which seems to be reasonably in place) would be in shambles." - The World's Religions, Huston Smith, p. 318.
Not one of your three references amounts "evidence". They are opinions.
Evidence, for example:
Question:
Did Julius Caeser exist?
Answers:
1. An unflattering portrait of Caesar found near Tusculum, carved during Caesar's own lifetime. Later portraits invariably showed Caesar wearing a laurel crown – to hide his receding hairline.
2. There are coins surviving from the relevant period with Julius Caeser's name and portrait.
3. Contemporary Witnesses to Caesar
i. Cicero - Orations and Letters provide eyewitness evidence of Caesar
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was almost an exact contemporary of Julius Caesar. In Caesar's struggle with Pompey, Cicero, governor of Cilicia, sided with Pompey but was subsequently pardoned by Caesar.
In March of 44 BC Cicero was a witness to Caesar's murder, though he was not a part of the conspiracy.
Following the assassination, Cicero made a series of speeches known as the "Philippics" which called on the Senate to support Octavian against Mark Antony. Cicero's "Second Phillipics" was an eulogy of Caesar's conquest of Gaul.
Unfortunately for Cicero Octavian reached a temporary rapprochement with Antony, who then ordered Cicero's murder.
Among some 900 preserved letters to and from Cicero are correspondence both about and with Caesar.
"... if Caesar does lose his head all the same, Pompey feels only the deepest contempt for him, trusting in his own and the state's troops..."
Cicero to Atticus, 7.8, 50BC.
ii. Sallust - Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history "Bellum Catalinae".
iii. Nepos - Cornelius Nepos (c100-24): "Life of Atticus".
iv. Catullus - Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): "Carmina".
v. Asinius Pollio - Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD) was an ally of Caesar and founder of the first public library in Rome. He was a source used by Plutarch.
vi. Virgil - Virgil (70BC-17AD): "Aeneid".
vii. Ovid - Ovidius Naso (43BC-17AD): Metamorphoses".
Near Contemporary Witnesses
i. Velleius Paterculus (c19 BC-32 AD): "Historiae Romanae".
ii. Lucan (Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, 39-65 AD) followed the example of his grandfather, Seneca the Elder – a young contemporary of Caesar – who in later life wrote a history of Rome. Lucan wrote his own Pharsalia approximately a century after the civil war it chronicles, using Seneca's work as an eye-witness source.
iii. Plutarch of Chaeronea (45-120 AD) was a Greek moralist, historian and biographer (and priest of Delphi). He wrote his Parallel Lives (matching Greek with Roman lives) during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. He describes in detail the life and assassination of Julius Caesar (as well as Marcus Brutus and Mark Antony).
iv. Appian of Alexandria (c.95-165 AD): Civil Wars.
v. The most famous biographer of Caesar, Tranquillus Suetonius, wrote his Lives of the Twelve Caesars during the reign of emperor Hadrian (117-138). Suetonius was in charge of the imperial archives and in this capacity, had access to some of the best possible information.
When you can find "evidence" of that caliber then you have proof. But "Jesus: A New Vision" by Marcus Borg was published in 1991, and not 2,000 years ago. It is not evidence. Likewise, "The World's Religions" by Huston Smith; 1991 (if I have the correct version). I cannot verify your lecturer.
There is no evidence for the existence of anyon called Jesus Christ who did all those things we read about in the Bible. It is a myth. And one based upon many previous versions of the same myth. Tell me, do you think that all those previous telling so this myth were the work of your Devil?
"Not one of your three references amounts "evidence". They are opinions. "
- They are the professional opinions of individuals who are trained in gathering the evidence and critically evaluated that evidence. I trust their evidence-based opinions oh so much more than I trust the ideology-based opinions of anti-Christians. Further, citing the date of those two books to argue against Jesus is just as logical as citing the date of The Origin of Species to argue against evolution because, as you know, Darwin wasn't around when life developed.
"And one based upon many previous versions of the same myth."
- I do not have sufficient evidence for this hypothesis. Good luck providing me with evidence that I consider adequate. I will be critiquing it according to the very standards anti-rationalists use to argue against the historical Jesus.
Bart Ehrman source: http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=643
The whole point of "contemporary evidence" is that it was written down by people who were there. Your three sources were not there. Thank you for your responses. I give up. You win. Jesus existed.
There is no obligation for events to be written down by people who were there. Historians have taken into consideration Native American accounts of colonization, for example, even though these accounts were not written down by observers. Although historians prefer written over oral history, what matters most is that various accounts of the same event corroborate. William Whewell called this a consilience of evidence. An exception occurs when there are two conflicting sides to the same story, but even then both sides might be biased whether their history is written down or not. All of the accounts of Jesus point to his existence, and there is no evidence from that time period challenging this view. Now, one would think that the Jews of all people would have recorded Christians' deception if in fact there was one, yet no Jewish historian has stated that the Christians made up the existence of Jesus.
Every source before the 19th century concerning the existence of Jesus is in the affirmative. Contemporary evidence opposed to Jesus' existence is not only shaky, it is itself completely non-existent.
According to this reasoning and I quote you, "Every source before the 19th century concerning the existence of Jesus is in the affirmative. Contemporary evidence opposed to Jesus' existence is not only shaky, it is itself completely non-existent.", meaning that "if it was believed in the past, for hundreds or even thousands of years, then it must be true now,'" - then the following must be true:
1. The world is flat
2. The sun revolves around the earth
3. Infection is not caused by uncleanliness (surgeons did not wash their hands even when Dr Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis made the discovery that puerperal fever, which was highly contagious, and that its incidence could be drastically reduced by enforcing appropriate hand-washing behavior by medical care-givers
4. That if you tie up a woman accused of being a witch and throw her in a river she will sink if she is innocent and float if she is guilty, whereupon you can burn her alive
5. God uses birds to distribute Bubonic Plague
6. And so on and so on and so on.........
The absurdity of your arguments is only challenged by the absurdity of an adult believing in Santa Claus. Perhaps, if people believed in Santa Claus we would have a better world? And by the by there is ample evidence for the existence of various historical figures upon which the myth of Santa Claus is based...but that does not mean that the fat guy in a red suit ever really flew around in a magical sleigh and delivered gifts to well behaved children.
But my own sense of humour defeats me...because...I must repeat, that the myth of Jesus Christ may yet be one amongst many that may save human beings from each other. This story of forgiveness and compassion, full of love and hope, is what our ignorant selfish and vicious world really needs.
I do not really care whether the man existed or not but I do care that people should treat each other with respect. As far as I am concerned, there is only one rule, sometimes known as the golden rule, and this is: I should treat people in the manner that I would like to be treated.
I assume that if you believe in the existence of an historical Jesus, then you probably believe in god. Well, may your god bless you and keep you.
Betty
I don't understand why you are criticizing me for pointing out the evidence. My point is that arguments against Jesus' existence is a recent invention by people with an anti-religious ideology. Scholars without this bias do not deny Jesus' existence. I am not arguing that if someone has a belief, then the belief is true. That would be nonsense. However, evidence is evidence, and I am not going to ignore it. Yay evidence!
Sir or Madam, I want to let you know that I have come from severe poverty and violence as a result of which I became addicted to various drugs and alcohol. I am now clean and sober. As a young child I had several death experiences and as a result of which I used to have nightly visions of angels and heavenly music. No one around me was interested in my spiritual life, indeed I was disbelieved and called a liar, especially by members of the local christian church. Any sense of spirituality was driven out by their fear and anger. I have since come to understand the nature of such "spiritual experiences" by studying Taoist meditation with a Taoists priest. I am letting go of all my anger and resentment that I feel towards established multi-national religions such as christianity, for I now realize that, at heart, they are all the same: they propose that we should be compassionate and forgiving. Simple eh?
I do not wish to continue this discussion, for I feel that it will not lead to anything good.
I wish you well.
Betty
There is little doubt that there was a man by the name of Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate because he and his small sect of Judaism made both the Romans and the mainstream Jewish authorities nervous. He is mentioned both by his followers and his executioners. Whether or not he was the Messiah prophesied in the Torah/Old Testament, a Prophet, a magician, or a David Khoresh-style lunatic, or anything else are up for debate. Obviously, evidence for someone who at that time was some non-citizen nobody being crucified out in the provinces is going to be signifigantly less than that of an Emperor.
Sir, First, I have not read through all of the comments on this site and concerning this issue, so I may be a little ill informed as to all their content. It is abundantly clear to me that Jesus is a myth, a powerful myth, but a myth nonetheless. There is so little so called historical evidence that it is laughable. Evidence has to be unbiased and quiet separate from any "religious" writings. There are a few references that could be construed as being about Jesus but unless you have seen and read these in their original form, I suggest that you treat them as suspect. I do not read Aramaic, ancient Greek or ancient Latin and do not trust christian translations of such texts and it is almost impossible to find any non-religious, non-christian, proof for the existence of Jesus Christ. The myth lives on and may still have some power to do some good...but it is undoubtedly a myth. I am not particularly christian in my outlook but then again I do not espouse non-christian ethics. I do like what I read within Taoist texts and incidentally The Tao Te Jing was written by Lao Tse and Lao Tse never existed. Lao Tse means Old Man and implies wisdom...Betty
The onus is on those challenging the prevailing paradigm. In this case, that would be mythicists.
We are not dealing with paradigms and history is not democratic. It is a tyranny based on whatever evidence can be brought to bear on the issue. Without evidence you can't claim historicity. An untested historical theory, whether it is popular or not, has no historical weight. History is only interested in the evidence, so, no matter the subterfuge, eventually it comes down to whether there is evidence for a historical Jesus or not.
Instead of committing to one view or another it is better to weight for the evidence and then make a rational decision based on that evidence. Until then it is wiser not to commit and, if you can't help committing, be prepared to change at the drop of a piece of evidence.
Sir, you cannot believe this to be logical argumentation. First, since NT Wright is such a prominent researcher of ancient history, I would think you’d take his opinion more seriously. I’m afraid your atheist bias is showing here. Bishop Wright’s statement is completely justified. The point is, denying Jesus existed, considering the huge body of evidence we have on him as a poor, Jewish, itinerant preacher of God’s Kingdom in the first half of first century Palestine, would be more difficult than denying Tiberius Caesar existence with all the evidence we have for him being the Roman emperor at that time. Moreover, since it is your opinion that goes against the vast scholarly consensus here, you carry the burden of proof. And again I must emphasize, it is you who has elected to choose the opinion of non-experts like Doherty, Wells, and Drews, rather than the work of recognized scholars of NT and ancient history. Therefore, you must provide the evidence to overcome this field-wide consensus. No silence argument admissible, as these show nothing more than, well, silence. But back to your comparison, you cannot seriously be trying to compare the archelogical/textual evidence for the Caesar of the Roman Empire to the archelogical/textual evidence for a poor Jewish peasant who was crucified as a heretic and seditionist, can you? These are two totally different people of two very different contemporary importance. Do you expect to find coins minted for Jesus? Walls erected in his honor? Perhaps you don’t know, but Christianity was outlawed in the Roman empire for the first three centuries of its existence and viciously persecuted. It is amazing that we have the vast body of evidence that we do when we consider how much the pagans destroyed in terms of Christian documents. It is not surprising that we find more textual evidence than anything else. And here, Jesus’ attestation far outweighs Casear’s. Fianlly, how do you know that scholars are not wrong or lying about the “evidence” they have for Tiberius Caesar? How do you know such evidence exists at all? Have you ever seen it? Held it? Perhaps your not being skeptical enough here. After all, if a handful of Jews could manufacture a story about another nobody Jew, than what about the whole of the Roman empires power attempting to re-write history?
Roman documents
Pliny the Younger wrote to the Emperor Trajan about the year 110 AD asks his superior what they should do with the Christians who’s impact has seen many of the pagan temples being abandoned. He admits that the Christians have a great many followers and that they sing hymns to Christ as if he were god. He wants to know what to do about the situation.
Suetonius, Roman historian, in his “Lives of the Twelve Caesars, speaks about the expulsion of the Jews from the city of Rome for causing disturbances at the behest of Chrestus.
The existence of Christ by the Roman historians is taken for granted
Tacitus writes about the burning of Rome and cruelly punishing the Christians. He also mentions the founder, Christus, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius.
Jewish historian Josephus. He refers to Christ twice about winning over many converts. Christ’s existence is never questioned.
The Talmund refers to Yeshu’a of Nazareth, that he practiced sorcery (performed miracles) and led Israel astray and mocked the wise, that he was crucified as a false teacher.