Apologetic Review: "The Case Against Jesus' Historicity"

The video summarizes the arguments of Dr. Richard Carrier, a well-known proponent of "Jesus Mythicism," the idea that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as a historical person. Carrier’s main argument rests on comparing the evidence for Jesus with other historical figures like Spartacus, Socrates, and Caiaphas, claiming na mas marami tayong proof for them kaysa kay Jesus.

While the video presents these points as "provocative," it’s important to note that mythicism is a fringe view. The overwhelming consensus of historians, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, and Agnostic (like Bart Ehrman), is that Jesus definitely existed. Carrier’s standards for evidence are often considered "hyper-skeptical," meaning if we applied his rules to everyone, we’d have to delete many figures from ancient history, not just Jesus.

Below is the point-by-point response to the arguments in the video.

Argument 1: Mas matibay ang ebidensya kay Spartacus dahil sa contemporary references (Sallust, Cicero).

Claim: Sinasabi ni Carrier na we have contemporary accounts for Spartacus (Roman slave rebel) from people who lived at the same time, unlike Jesus na wala raw contemporary eyewitness accounts outside the Bible.

Apologetic Response:

Misleading Comparison: While it’s true na nabanggit si Spartacus nina Cicero, Spartacus led a massive army that threatened Rome itself. Jesus was an itinerant preacher in the rural province of Judea. Hindi fair i-expect na magsusulat ang mga Roman senators tungkol sa isang Jewish teacher during his lifetime unless he threatened the empire politically like Spartacus did.

We DO have contemporary evidence: Si Paul the Apostle is a contemporary of Jesus. Although hindi niya nakita si Jesus during His earthly ministry, Paul wrote his letters within 15-20 years after Jesus’ death. More importantly, Paul explicitly mentions meeting James, the brother of the Lord (Galatians 1:19), and Peter. Kung hindi totoo si Jesus, paano nagkaroon ng kapatid (James) ang isang fictional character? Sa history, meeting the brother of a person is virtually proof that the person existed.

Argument 2: Mas sigurado tayo kay Socrates dahil sa writings ni Plato at Xenophon.

Claim: Carrier argues that we have direct writings from Socrates' students (Plutarch, Xenophon) and a contemporary satire play by Aristophanes, whereas for Jesus, we only have the Gospels written decades later.

Apologetic Response:

The "Socratic Problem": Actually, historians admit na mahirap din malaman kung alin sa sinabi ni Socrates ang totoo, dahil he never wrote anything himself. We only know him through his followers, exactly like Jesus!

Timeline: Ang earliest Gospel (Mark) was written likely around AD 70 (about 40 years after Jesus). Ang pinaka-reliable biographies ni Alexander the Great (Arrian and Plutarch) were written 400 years after he died. Compared to Alexander, our sources for Jesus are incredibly early.

Genre: Carrier dismisses the Gospels as "religious," but Plato’s dialogues are philosophical constructs, often putting words in Socrates' mouth. If we dismiss the Gospels because they have an agenda, we have to dismiss Plato, too. Historians use biased sources all the time; tinatanggal lang nila ang bias to find the historical core.

Argument 3: May physical evidence (coins, statues, inscriptions) para kay Alexander the Great at mga Emperor, pero wala kay Jesus.

Claim: Walang naiwang coins, statues, or archaeological inscription si Jesus, unlike Roman Emperors.

Apologetic Response:

Category Error: This is an unfair demand. Jesus was a peasant carpenter-turned-preacher who had "nowhere to lay his head" (Matthew 8:20). He wasn’t a king or a general who minted coins. Bakit siya magpapagawa ng rebulto o barya?

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence: Just because walang archaeological physical trace (like a house sign saying "Jesus lived here"), it doesn't mean he didn't exist. Most people in antiquity left no physical trace. Even Pontius Pilate was doubted by some skeptics until the "Pilate Stone" was discovered in 1961. Archaeology often catches up later.

Argument 4: Even Caiaphas has an ossuary (bone box), but Jesus has none.

Claim: Nahanap ang burial box (ossuary) ni Caiaphas, proving he existed. Since wala tayong body o ossuary ni Jesus, mas less probable daw ang existence niya.

Apologetic Response:

The Theological Reason: As Christians, we believe the tomb was empty because He rose from the dead. Of course, walang "bone box" si Jesus, that’s the whole point of the Gospel!

Historical Context: Extremely rare ang makahanap ng specific ossuary ng isang tao. The fact that we found Caiaphas' ossuary is an exception, not the rule. To require an ossuary for Jesus to exist is an absurdly high standard.

Textual Evidence is Enough: We have Josephus (a Jewish historian born AD 37) mentioning Caiaphas. The same Josephus also mentions Jesus twice (Antiquities 18.3.3 and 20.9.1). While parts of the first passage might be edited, the reference to "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" is widely accepted by scholars as authentic. So, sa writings pa lang ni Josephus, established na si Jesus.

Argument 5: The Gospels are not valid historical sources.

Claim: Carrier discards the Gospels because they are religious texts and not "histories" like those of Sallust.

Apologetic Response:

Double Standard: Ancient historians almost always had an agenda (political, moral, or philosophical). We don't throw away Tacitus just because biased siya against certain emperors. The Gospels, while theological, contain accurate geographical, cultural, and historical details (verified by archaeology) about 1st-century Judea.

The Criteria of Embarrassment: The Gospels contain details that the early church wouldn't invent if they were making up a hero. For example, the women being the first witnesses to the resurrection (women's testimony was considered less valid then), or Jesus being crucified (a shameful death cursed by God in Jewish law). These "embarrassing" facts argue strongly for their historicity.

Conclusion

Ang argument ni Carrier ay nakadepende sa pag-set ng sobrang taas na standard para kay Jesus na hindi naman ina-apply sa ibang ancient figures. If we use standard historical methods:

1. We have multiple independent sources (Mark, Q, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus).

2. We have sources dating within the generation of the eyewitnesses.

3. We have the explosion of the early church in Jerusalem, exactly where Jesus was said to be crucified, something impossible to explain if He was just a myth made up overseas.

Gaya ng sabi ni Bart Ehrman (who is not a Christian): "Jesus existed, and those doubting it are not doing so because of the data." The historical Jesus stands on solid ground.
Follow us:

Ronald Obidos Pinoy Apologetics
https://www.facebook.com/roapologetics/

Help keep this content free for everyone. I am committed to sharing these truths and resources freely. If you have found value in my articles since 2021 and would like to partner with me in this ministry, your support on Ko-fi would be greatly appreciated. It helps cover the costs of maintaining this blog and creating new content.

❤️ Partner with me on Ko-fi
https://ko-fi.com/ronaldobidos
Gcash# 09695143944