On the Reliability of Historical Evidence for the Existence of Jesus: A Critical Analysis of the Sources - WORKER CRITIQUE OF THE CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA SITE ALETEIA.ORG
LINK TO OUR PREVIOUS ARTICLE " JESUS A MYTH THAT NEVER EXISTED HISTORICALLY! RELIGION A MENTAL PLAGUE"
Our video interventions and the publication of our previous article are provoking violent opposition... We risk being shot... Failing that, we end up at the stake.
The question of the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth is hotly debated, arousing passionate reactions because of its enormous importance on a global and even intergalactic scale. Indeed, questioning the dogmatic foundations of the Catholic Church would represent a major victory for the revolutionary workers' movement. This is why we are tirelessly investing ourselves, including on weekends, to achieve this end.
While some provide evidence that is considered solid, others point out the biased and questionable nature of these sources. This article aims to analyze the main references used to defend the historicity of Jesus, while highlighting gaps in their credibility. We will also address the issue of historical methodology, as well as the position of the evidence concerning the figure of Julius Caesar, often cited as an analogue.
Table of Contents
Why Jesus never existed and why Caesar existed and why Saint Marx and Saint Bakunin also existed… WORKER CRITIQUE OF THE CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA SITE ALETEIA.ORG .. 1
1. Gary Habermas: A Biased Apologist
Gary R. Habermas is often cited as an authority on the historicity of Jesus. His status as a Christian apologist raises questions about the neutrality of his research. Habermas has never hidden his goal of defending the Faith. To this end, he will produce works such as The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ where he sets out his convictions:
"My aim is to show that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, rather than to offer an exhaustive analysis of the historicity of the figure of Jesus" (Habermas, 1996).
His theological bias is a recurring element in criticism of his books. Scholars such as Richard Carrier, a historian and philosopher who combats the Jesus myth, have pointed out that Habermas' conclusions often rest on an inappropriate and biased selection of data. In his book Proving History , Carrier states:
“The appeal to historical evidence by apologists like Habermas is often limited to sources that support their thesis, neglecting those that might contradict their account” (Carrier, 2012).
2. Flavius Josephus: A Suspicious Source
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus is frequently cited as evidence for the existence of Jesus, particularly for his Testimonium Flavianum (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 3). However, the authenticity of this passage is disputed by many scholars. The reasons for this dispute include:
Christian Interpolation: It is widely believed that this passage was altered by Christian scribes to make Jesus appear more favorable. Scholar Louis Feldman mentions:
"It is widely believed that this passage was altered to present Jesus as a notable figure, making it suspect as historical evidence" (Feldman, 1984).
Lack of independent sources: Josephus is often the only historian to mention Jesus in this way, without corroboration from other contemporary sources. The lack of other mentions of such an important historical figure seriously calls into question the credibility of his writings.
Anachronistic language and style: The manner in which Jesus is described is considered overly favorable and inconsistent with Josephus' usual style, reflecting a Christian interpretation rather than a neutral observation (Maier, 1980).
These elements make Josephus' testimony, although interesting, insufficient to establish the historicity of Jesus.
3. The Gospels: Biased Testimonies
The Gospels are often cited as fundamental documents concerning the life of Jesus. However, their credibility is also contested, because:
Later writings: The Gospels were written several decades after the events they narrate, allowing the legend to develop (Bauer, 2004). This subjects their contents to theological adjustments rather than to factual reporting.
Internal contradictions: The Gospels present divergent narratives, which calls into question their reliability. For example, the accounts of Jesus' birth differ radically between Matthew and Luke, suggesting narrative construction rather than factual reporting:
“The differences in the Christmas narratives clearly show that each writer had a theological purpose, which influenced their presentation of the events” (Ehrman, 2012).
4. Reply to Objections on Caesar
There is also a common objection that must be addressed: that if the historicity of Jesus is disputed, then it makes sense to question the historicity of historical figures like Julius Caesar. Although some argue that the evidence for Caesar is also weak, this claim does not stand up to rigorous analysis.
4.1. Sources on Caesar: A Different Context
The sources concerning Caesar, although not numerous, are more diverse and substantial than those concerning Jesus. Several historical documents, including his own writings such as Commentarii de Bello Gallico , as well as references by contemporaries or shortly after his death, such as Suetonius and Plutarch, offer converging testimonies on his life and actions.
"Archaeological evidence, inscriptions, and contemporary writings make Caesar far more historically sound than Jesus" (Wells, 1992).
This highlights a more rigorous research method where the multiplicity of sources reinforces historical veracity.
5. Historiographic Methods
Historians have established methods for evaluating historical sources and establishing the reliability of accounts. These methods include:
Corroboration criterion: An assessment of the number and diversity of sources that speak about the same event or person. The more independent sources, the higher the probability of truth.
Embarrassment criterion: If sources admit information that is embarrassing to the author, this implies a greater probability of truthfulness. In Caesar's case, his own writings include criticism of his decisions.
Authenticity criterion: This aims to establish the degree of probability that a statement was made by the person to whom it is attributed.
Strict application of these criteria shows that the evidence for Caesar is superior to that for Jesus.
5.1. Analysis of Carsten Peter Thiede's Paleographic Study
Carsten Peter Thiede is a paleographer who attempted to date fragments of the New Testament, including a fragment of the Gospel of Matthew , which he claimed to date to the 1st century. However, his approach has been widely criticized by the scholarly community:
5.2. Fuzzy and Contested Methodology
Thiede has been accused of basing his analyses on unproven assumptions and of adopting a flimsy method that does not meet the standards of modern paleography. Bart Ehrman, a leading New Testament scholar, notes:
"Thiede's method is not based on any objective criteria, but rather on subjective judgments that do not take into account the complexity of manuscript transmission." (Ehrman, 2003).
Thiede's approach simplified the complexity of ancient manuscripts, ignoring the multiple factors that can influence dating, such as textual variants and copying contexts.
6. The Existence of Julius Caesar: Why Historians Agree He Existed Despite Limited Evidence
When it comes to analyzing the historicity of figures like Julius Caesar, historians apply rigorous methods to assess the quality and reliability of the available evidence. Although the records relating to Caesar are limited, several factors explain why the majority of scholars agree that he did exist.
6.1. Multiplicity of Sources
Historical research relies on the diversity of sources. In the case of Julius Caesar, even if his own writings, such as Commentarii de Bello Gallico , are among the earliest, other documents and authors also speak of him. Suetonius, in The Lives of the Twelve Caesars , and Plutarch, in his Parallel Lives , offer additional accounts that corroborate his existence:
"Caesar left indelible traces in contemporary and later writings, and his influence is felt in the acts and decisions of the Roman leaders after his death." (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar).
6.2. Authenticity and Corroboration Criteria
Historians use several criteria to determine the authenticity and truthfulness of accounts:
Corroboration criterion : This principle states that the more sources that corroborate an event, the more likely it is that it is true. In Caesar's case, there is enough independent evidence (inscriptions, coins, and documents from other historians) that strengthens the probability of his existence.
Contemporary Writings : Although Caesar's writings are somewhat biased, these documents were written shortly after the events they describe, making them more reliable than sources that appear decades later (Cline, 2014).
Historical contextualization : Historians examine the context in which documents were written, which includes the potential motivations of the author. In Caesar's case, his political and military role is accompanied by institutional documentation that testifies to the decisions and events of his time.
"The strength of the evidence for Caesar rests not only on the continuity of the narratives, but also on the ability of historians to contextualize them through methods of critical analysis." (Cline, 2014).
These criteria show that even when evidence is limited, historians have solid methodologies to establish the historicity of a figure.
7. Conclusion: Your Jesus Never Existed!
With this article, we have exposed the flaws and inadequacies of the historical evidence often cited to support the existence of Jesus. The sources used, such as the writings of Gary Habermas, Flavius Josephus, and Carsten Peter Thiede, reveal biases and limitations that make their positions unreliable. In contrast, historical references to figures such as Julius Caesar illustrate the importance of diversity and the absence of bias in testimony.
Research into the historicity of Jesus requires a rigorous scientific approach. Historiographical methods, such as the criterion of corroboration, embarrassment, and authenticity, are essential to assess the credibility of sources. Scholars must therefore exercise skepticism and verify the integrity of documents before claiming a certain historical truth.
In sum, the arguments and evidence put forward to support the historical existence of Jesus face a mountain of criticism. The sources are unreliable, biased, and often changed over time. Conversely, the evidence for historical figures such as Julius Caesar, while limited, benefits from a rigorous methodological basis that gives it well-established credibility.
It is time to give up this illusion and face the truth: your Jesus never existed. On the other hand, Saint Marx and Saint Bakunin did indeed walk this Earth, preaching emancipation and critical thinking!
It is time to give up this illusion and face the truth: your Jesus never existed. On the other hand, Saint Marx and Saint Bakunin did indeed walk this Earth, preaching emancipation and critical thinking!
As Comrade Marx would say,
"Philosophers have so far only interpreted the world, now it is a matter of changing it."
And as Bakunin would say,
“Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice!”
So let us free ourselves from these historical myths and build a world based on truth, reason and, above all, revolutionary common sense! Forward, comrades, the truth cannot be stifled by dogmas!
8. References
Cline, Eric H. 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed . Princeton University Press, 2014.
Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars .
Plutarch, Parallel Lives .
Cline, Eric H. 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed . Princeton University Press, 2014.
Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars .
Plutarch, Parallel Lives .
Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity . London: Routledge, 2004.
Bloch, Marc. The Historian's Craft . New York: Vintage Books, 1953.
Carrier, Richard. Proving History: Why Historians Might Be Wrong about Jesus. Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012.
Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium . New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth . New York: HarperOne, 2012.
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) . Brill, 1984.
Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ . Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing, 1996.
Maier, Paul L. In the Fullness of Time: A Christian Apologetic . Denver: Speculum Press, 1980.
Wells, GA The Historical Evidence for Jesus . The Mythicist Papers, 1992.
Comments