Zerowing21 has posted on the evidence for Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon compared with the evidence for Jesus. Specifically . . . .
Christian apologist Douglas Geivett’s claim that the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection meets “the highest standards of historical inquiry,” and is as certain as Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.E.
N. T. Wright might agree with that. But read the blog post for an excellent run down of the sorts of evidence historians work with as opposed to theologians who think they are historians.
The blog post begins with a few links to other sites that will interest some who read this:
I was reading cracked.com this morning (Five Things You Won’t Believe Aren’t In The Bible), when I was reminded of David Fitzgerald’s recent post on Atheism Resource in which he shows us an excerpt of his book, NAILED: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All. In it, David goes through some preliminary explanations for how we can know a historical Jesus never existed. Enjoy.
I know, some will instinctively respond with some quip that Jesus wasn’t a great political figure so we can’t expect the same evidence for him as for the other JC. Exactly, but what some such instinctive respondents want to do is change the rules to allow us to use different material as “evidence” so we can write just as much about Jesus with the same assurance. They want to change the rules, that is. But real historians do not change the rules. What they do is change the scope of their inquiries. That is why you will find most books on ancient history covering broad sweeps of civilization or political and social developments. There are fewer exhaustive biographies than can be, and are, written for persons who dot later historical periods.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!