We get YouTubes (Historicity of Jesus part 2)

As mentioned in the previous post, this is the video posted by Aaronk1994.

A little after the one minute mark, Aaron accused Jen of misrepresenting the argument that she was trying to address. Jen said: "The claim is the Jesus must have been divine because his disciples wouldn't have died for something that they knew was a lie. So they must have known that he was the son of God, and was resurrected." Aaron calls this a straw man, claiming that no apologist would say such a thing. Then he goes on to rephrase almost precisely the same argument.

The point, Aaron says, is that "because they died for it, that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they really believed it. Which, then, you have to explain the origin of the belief in the resurrection." And of course, Aaron's explanation is that they were correct. Maybe you can tell the distinction between this and Jen's "straw man," but I think it's beyond splitting hairs and into splitting nanoneedles.

Why does anyone have to explain anyone else's belief? In the next clip, Jen points out, correctly, that the 9/11 hijackers died for their beliefs. As George from NY mentioned when he called, there's the Heaven's Gate cult. There's Jonestown. If you asked me whether those people died because they sincerely believed whatever nonsense their leaders were peddling, I would say "Absolutely yes!" Does that require me to explain that belief? Certainly not. Should the default position in that case be "They believed it because it's true"? It's a judgment call, but in that case I would certainly say no.

Aaron dismisses the reference to the hijackers by using the magic words "straw man" again, and describes it as "another stupid analogy." He explains that the difference between a disciple of Jesus and a 9/11 hijacker is that the disciples were eye witnesses to the events of their religion, while the hijackers were not.

Which, of course, is the whole problem. We have no way of knowing that, and no amount of eye-rolling, sarcastic inflection, or dismissal of the opposing claims as "ridiculous" is going to fill that knowledge gap. As I was saying in my previous post, whether or not you accept that a guy named Jesus existed doesn't say anything about whether the rest of the stories in the Bible were true. If the stories about Jesus' miracles were embellished after the fact, the martyrs who died wouldn't have been dying for "a lie," they would be dying for some holy cause that they believed to be true because they had been told that it was without requiring strong evidence for it.

Yes, just like Muslim suicide bombers. Just like Jonestown cultists. Just like Japanese kamikaze pilots who believed that Hirohito was a god. You simply can't make any claims about what they supposedly knew to be true without providing solid evidence for the specific part of the Bible that says that Dead Jesus showed up before the apostles. And folks, a brief mention in passing by a historian reporting secondhand information eighty years later is simply not going to do that, any more than a story told by a Greek poet will establish that there is an island where men get turned into pigs.

When Aaron actually called into the show, starting at around the nine minute mark of this clip, he took issue with Matt's point that Tacitus was not a contemporary of Jesus. Aaron challenged: "Contemporary evidence is not a requirement. You don't have to have a contemporary source. If you'd like to claim that, then could you please cite me a historian who specifically says that you need contemporary evidence?"

Aaron goes on to say, back in his framing video, that Matt had said earlier that contemporary evidence is the ONLY kind that can establish a claim. Then he accuses Matt of being hypocritical.

There's a problem with Aaron's understanding of historical standards here, and it goes way beyond what historians say. It really comes down to what people regard as proof of something. Yeah, it's true. Not everything in history needs to be verified by a contemporary source. There is a lot of secondhand information that is regarded as solid. But not uncritically. Once again, there's a huge difference between the kind of evidence it requires to insert Julius Caesar into the history books, and the kind it requires to insert "Julius Caesar was a God" into the history books. There's a difference between saying that Jeff Dowd is "The Dude," and saying that Jeff Dowd foiled a kidnapping plan orchestrated by a fake millionaire poseur. One is fact, and the other is embellishment.

Aaron tries to gloss over this detail by quickly blurting out that you certainly don't need a contemporary source to prove that something as commonplace as a crucifixion took place. Haw haw! How silly anyone must be to suggest that! But come on, be serious here. Aaron, like other apologists, wants to use the text of the Bible to prove a thoroughly unprecedented, unique, and unbacked-up claim like the resurrection. He wants to prove that this Jesus chap rose from his grave.

And in this case, I'm sorry, it's going to take more than a few passing remarks to prove that. If I told you, right now, today, that I saw a guy rise from the dead, I don't think you would believe me. And that's not even getting into the fact of whether I'm a primary source or whether I'm contemporary with the event. I suspect that even Aaron would balk at the suggestion that he should accept this claim on my say-so, and would want to hear more information before accepting this as true.

The fact that it didn't get written down until 70 AD is, in actuality, the least of the problems with this claim. And to say that the written word in the book is in any way proof that it happened, or that historians reporting several decades later about what Christians claimed of their savior provide independent corroboration of an event they never saw... yeah, that's gonna be good enough for the modern history books.

Just ask Julius Caesar, the god.