Why do skeptics question whether the Biblical Jesus Christ ever existed?

[tabibito]

There's also the mention of earthquakes and darkness in the vicinity at that time by the pagan historian Thallus (as well as, IIRC, Phlegon), as reported by Julius Africanus, and IIRC Eusebius also mentions historical records of earthquakes in Judea at the time.

Yes. Nonetheless, the New Testament doesn't record an earthquake as such.

According to the NT scholars Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh, in their Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, "the saints who had fallen asleep" designates Jesus' followers, so the image of thousands of dead men and women rising from the graveyard like some sort of zombie apocalypse is wholly inaccurate. Instead, it would have been followers of Jesus who had lived in Jerusalem and who had recently died being referenced to.

So, just how many of his Jerusalem-based followers had died during his ministry? Not likely a whole lot. While Matthew says they were many, by many Matthew has shown he means anywhere from roughly a half dozen on up. Six followers raised from the dead would likely be considered "many" by most folks.

Now given that the dead returning to life is, while incredibly rare, something that is recorded in the OT and accepted by the people at large, then, if Matthew is referring to somewhere around six recently deceased followers of a Jewish cult leader coming back to life, it might not get as much contemporary attention as a lot of people think it should, although the ECFs such as Ignatius discuss it.

That has been my assessment - until now, I never had anything but my own opinion to support the idea.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Do any of them provide a certain (not approximate) date for his birth and death, or say where it was that he was born or died?

As Niehoff notes in her biography:

Where shall our intellectual biography start? Philo’s childhood can hardly be our starting point, as we know next to nothing about it. Given that he was a mature man in 38 CE when he embarked on the embassy, he must have been born around 20–10 BCE. Josephus tells us that he belonged to an eminently rich family in Alexandria, with Alexander the Alabarch as his brother. Philo’s numerous references to Classical Greek literature suggest that he received a thorough Greek education. In a rare autobiographical passage he says that he went through the usual curriculum of Greek education in his “early youth” and complemented his studies by philosophy. [...] Unlike Josephus, he did not write an autobiography, which would provide some guidelines. We must avoid reconstructing his childhood, as it is methodologically unsound to draw conclusions from our general knowledge about Alexandria to his particular life. Alexandrian culture was so diverse that we cannot know which aspects applied to Philo’s infancy and youth. The only reliable evidence we have is his written work, which allows us to appreciate his perception of things as an adult. To his mature period also date the two certain events of his life: his embassy to Rome and his brief visit to the Jerusalem Temple.[ [see Maren R Niehoff, Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography, YUP, 2018, chapter 1]

[rogue06]

As Carrier notes:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/...rrier-thallus/

That a solar eclipse should mark the death of a king was common lore among Greeks and other Mediterranean peoples (Herodotus 7.37, Plutarch Pelopidas 31.3 and Aemilius Paulus 17.7-11, Dio Cassius 55.29.3, John Lydus De Ostentis 70.a), and that such events corresponded with earthquakes was also a scientific superstition (Aristotle Meteorology 367.b.2, Pliny Natural History 2.195, Virgil Georgics 2.47.478-80). [...]

We know next to nothing about Thallus or his works. We don’t even know if he wrote only one book or several. The only information we have about him, even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late 2nd century, and that information is plagued with problems.

Like so many others, most of Thallus' works are lost to us -- a phenomena that is the norm for works from antiquity, as has been pointed out numerous times. For the overwhelming majority of works from that time all we have are snippets recorded by others, or if we are extremely lucky and have the whole thing (or at least most), then it is a copy of a copy of a copy dating from centuries later.

The point being, what we have for Thallus (and I noticed that you totally ignored Phlegon) is typical what we have for a huge percentage of ancient writers -- and nobody summarily tries to discount that. It is only when it deals with Christianity that some seek to carve out numerous exceptions and declare it isn't good enough.

As an aside, as the historian Edward Musgrave Blaiklock put it:

"From the forties A.D., through the sixties, very little survives. Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from those significant years."

IOW, the reason we have a lack of extant non-biblical documentation is due to nothing more than a lack of extant non-biblical information -- about anything.

[rogue06]

As Niehoff notes in her biography:

Where shall our intellectual biography start? Philo’s childhood can hardly be our starting point, as we know next to nothing about it. Given that he was a mature man in 38 CE when he embarked on the embassy, he must have been born around 20–10 BCE. Josephus tells us that he belonged to an eminently rich family in Alexandria, with Alexander the Alabarch as his brother. Philo’s numerous references to Classical Greek literature suggest that he received a thorough Greek education. In a rare autobiographical passage he says that he went through the usual curriculum of Greek education in his “early youth” and complemented his studies by philosophy. [...] Unlike Josephus, he did not write an autobiography, which would provide some guidelines. We must avoid reconstructing his childhood, as it is methodologically unsound to draw conclusions from our general knowledge about Alexandria to his particular life. Alexandrian culture was so diverse that we cannot know which aspects applied to Philo’s infancy and youth. The only reliable evidence we have is his written work, which allows us to appreciate his perception of things as an adult. To his mature period also date the two certain events of his life: his embassy to Rome and his brief visit to the Jerusalem Temple.[ [see Maren R Niehoff, Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography, YUP, 2018, chapter 1]

A long-winded way of saying "no."

And employing the same criteria that you and some others wish to impose upon Christianity, this means we can not confirm that he ever really existed

[tabibito]

IOW, the reason we have a lack of extant non-biblical documentation is due to nothing more than a lack of extant non-biblical information -- about anything.

If I remember rightly, he also pointed out ... even at that, some of the collection would be comprised of nothing more than fragments. If I remember rightly (not always guaranteed) this point has been made on TWeb somewhen in the distant past. Yesterday?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Like so many others, most of Thallus' works are lost to us -- a phenomena that is the norm for works from antiquity, as has been pointed out numerous times.

[My emphasis] You cannot have a phenomena. That is akin to announcing I have just seen a mice in the pantry.

For the overwhelming majority of works from that time all we have are snippets recorded by others, or if we are extremely lucky and have the whole thing (or at least most), then it is a copy of a copy of a copy dating from centuries later.

Just like the Christian canonical gospels and other texts in the NT they likewise are copies of copies of copies that were made centuries later. Your point?

The point being, what we have for Thallus (and I noticed that you totally ignored Phlegon)

Phelgon recorded an earthquake in Bithnyia that Origen tried to harmonise with the [unknown] date of the crucifixion.

"But," continues Celsus, "what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what was designed against him?" Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that "there was an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light?" [see Contra Celsum II. XXXIII

As a point of interest if the three Synoptics are alleging a solar eclipse re the darkness at noon it would have been an impossibility during a full moon [i.e. Passover].

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

A long-winded way of saying "no."

I provided for you a little background information. However, in that regard Philo's birth and death dates are as speculative as those of Jesus of Nazareth. They fall roughly into a particular time period but we cannot give the precise year for either.

[tabibito]

As a point of interest if the three Synoptics are alleging a solar eclipse re the darkness at noon it would have been an impossibility during a full moon [i.e. Passover].

They are not alleging a solar eclipse: if they had been, the appropriate word, ekleipsis, would have been used. Other events where it is dark enough to see the stars during a term of day-time darkness are not unknown, as pointed out by Rogue only a page or so back, and confirmed by sun darkened but not during an eclipse. So - even assuming that Koine Greek does not use "the sun was darkened" to indicate the same state that an English speaker indicates by "the sky was darkened," the sun being darkened for a few hours does not refer to a solar eclipse (for which the appropriate word was already well established.)

[shunyadragon]

A long-winded way of saying "no."

And employing the same criteria that you and some others wish to impose upon Christianity, this means we can not confirm that he ever really existed

'Impose on Christianity;' more useless insulting rhetoric. The conclusion is NOT 'he never really existed.'

[tabibito]

'Impose on Christianity;' more useless insulting rhetoric. The conclusion is NOT 'he never really existed.'

Really? The conclusion being promoted is that nothing said about him (beyond his existence) is factual, which is within the ambit of "He never really existed." He is, by that assessment, a fictional character loosely based on a real person.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

[My emphasis] You cannot have a phenomena. That is akin to announcing I have just seen a mice in the pantry.


Just like the Christian canonical gospels and other texts in the NT they likewise are copies of copies of copies that were made centuries later. Your point?

Phelgon recorded an earthquake in Bithnyia that Origen tried to harmonise with the [unknown] date of the crucifixion.

"But," continues Celsus, "what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what was designed against him?" Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that "there was an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light?" [see Contra Celsum II. XXXIII

As a point of interest if the three Synoptics are alleging a solar eclipse re the darkness at noon it would have been an impossibility during a full moon [i.e. Passover].

Correction Phelgon should read Phlegon - the former sounds like some sort of stain remover!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Really? The conclusion being promoted is that nothing said about him (beyond his existence) is factual, which is within the ambit of "He never really existed." He is, by that assessment, a fictional character loosely based on a real person.

Is that a reference to Philo or the biblical Jesus of Nazareth?

[tabibito]

"But," continues Celsus, "what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what was designed against him?" Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that "there was an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light?" [see Contra Celsum II. XXXIII

The citation does not show that Celsus thought the gospels were claiming that there was an eclipse. Had Celsus thought that, he would most likely have used the appropriate word.

As a point of interest if the three Synoptics are alleging a solar eclipse re the darkness at noon it would have been an impossibility during a full moon [i.e. Passover].

I can't see how that could possibly rate as a point of interest, unless of course someone happened to be so short of reading comprehension skills as to think that is what the gospels declare.

[Tassman]

It certainly seem hard to take Matthew's claim about dead people rising from their graves and wandering into Jerusalem seriously, given its complete absence of mention by Josephus, Philo, and everyone else.

Well exactly - especially Philo as an exact contemporary of Jesus with relatives living in Jerusalem at the time. Even in that jaded era of miracles and magic, dirty corpses arising from their graves and wandering into the city surely would have aroused comment if it had actually occurred..

Josephus's writings are useful IMO because they make it clear that percentage of the inhabitants of Jerusalem who were Christian was small (perhaps ~1%). What this tells us is that the vast vast majority of the people who lived in the area at the time had not found there to be any convincing evidence regarding Jesus's alleged miracles, resurrection or anything else of that nature. It seems a favorite argument of some modern apologists that the events of the resurrection as reported in the gospels are so convincing that we now, 2000 years later, should believe it happened. Yet is it worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of the people who were living in the area at the time were not convinced and didn't find the events or the testimonies of those involved to be convincing.

Not only that but the likes of Pliny and Tacitus etc. confirm the existence of Christians but not the miracle-working, resurrected Jesus himself.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well exactly - especially Philo as an exact contemporary of Jesus with relatives living in Jerusalem at the time. Even in that jaded era of miracles and magic, dirty corpses arising from their graves and wandering into the city surely would have aroused comment if it had actually occurred..



Not only that but the likes of Pliny and Tacitus etc. confirm the existence of Christians but not the miracle-working, resurrected Jesus himself.

I think the references to the dead rising up can be most probably be attributed to Jewish apocalyptic literature - most likely the Book of Daniel, while not forgetting Ezekiel 37.1.