65
Jesus was a historical person. This doesn’t mean Christianity is correct, but there is sufficient historical evidence and most mainstream scholars of the era agree on this. (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
143 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I think Lemmy has a problem with history in general, since most people on here have degrees/training in STEM. I see a lot of inaccurate “pop history” shared on here, and a lack of understanding of historiography/how historians analyze primary sources.

The rejection of Jesus’s historicity seems to be accepting C S Lewis’s argument - that if he existed, he was a “lunatic, liar, or lord,” instead of realizing that there was nothing unusual about a messianic Jewish troublemaker in Judea during the early Roman Empire.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your 1961 statement, but from Wiki on Pontius Pilate:

Surviving evidence includes coins he minted and the Pilate Stone inscription. Ancient sources such as Josephus, Philo, and the Gospel of Luke document several incidents of conflict between Pilate and the Jewish population, often citing his insensitivity to Jewish religious customs. The Christian gospels, as well as Josephus and Tacitus, attribute the crucifixion of Jesus to Pilate’s orders.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 10 months ago*

    The Pilate Stone is where his 1961 date comes from. The Josephus bit that mentions Pilate is the “Testimonium Flavianum” which is the reference to Jesus in Josephus that was likely edited by a later source. It does look like the numismatic evidence (coins) are ridiculously common though.

    Often, coins are the only evidence of historical figures. Lots of petty kings that never have anything written about them, but do have coins.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent