The video starts off doubting Jesus even existed. That's a bias red-flag right off the bat. No serious scholar claims this.
Consider Alexander the Great (tutrored by Aristotle). The earliest report of him is from 330 BC, plus 300 years after his death. Plutarch is considered the best source for him and he wrote over
400 years after Alexander died.
There doesn't seem to be much controversy about Alexander the Great, his famed Phalanx war techniques nor about how he died.
So how do historians determine the likelihood of historicity?
*
Primary Sources - These are documents written in the period under
examination. For ancient
history, primary sources are very rare.
*
Secondary Sources - Documents written after the period being researched.
Usually more plentiful but theoretically less reliable
*
Eye-Witness Testimony – Testimony from firsthand witnesses to an event.
(Especially if there is a lack of rebuttal from the same area and time frame)
*
Embarrassing Testimony – Ex. A Pastor who told his congregation that he
was too busy to visit a sick person last week. Then, later in the talk he let it slip
that he had been playing golf on multiple occasions that week. Such a statement
is embarrassing therefore, increases the reliability that such a statement was true.
*
Enemy Attestation - Gary Habermas and Michael Licona note that “If
testimony affirming an event or saying is given by a source who does not
sympathize with the person, message, or cause that profits from the account, we
have an indication of authenticity.”
So,
if a person’s mother said that her child had integrity, one could claim the
mother spoke out of bias for her child. But if a person’s enemy said something
like - this person is an idiot, I don’t like him, but he’s not a liar. The claim of integrity
would hold greater weight.
There
are at least 6 sources for Jesus that qualify as enemy attestation:
1.
Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44), c. 100AD.
Christus,
from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the
reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and
a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out
not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome
2.
Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.3), c. 90AD.
Now,
there was about this time Jesus, a wise man...a doer of wonderful works—a
teacher. when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake
him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets
had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and
the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
3.
Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a), c. 220AD but reports an earlier tradition.
They
hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover....he practiced sorcery and seduced
Israel and lead them away from God.
4.
Mara Bar-Serapion, c. 73-100AD (Syrian and Stoic philosopher)
What
advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after
that that their kingdom was abolished.
5.
Thallus (from Julius Africanus fragment), c. 52AD
Thallus
“wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his
own time…Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this
darkness as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably, as it seems to me
(unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the
time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that
Christ died).”
6.
Acts of Pilate (from Justin Martyr, First Apology 35), Justin wrote in the mid
2nd century but records a text from the first-century AD.
And
the expression, ‘They pierced my hands and my feet,’ was used in reference to
the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was
crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted
it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the
Acts of Pontius Pilate.
7.
I might also add the Nazareth Inscription (middle 1st Century) from Caesar which mentions the death penalty for anyone found moving sepulcher-sealing stones and stealing the body.
This inscription was found in Nazareth.
Now, where have we heard an account about a man from Nazareth who was placed in a tomb that was sealed with a big roll stone that was later found to be empty? Keep in mind that tomb raiders don't steal dead bodies... just the valuables that are frequently buried with them, making this imperial edict even more ridiculous if is wasn't about Jesus.
So, just
from enemy attestation sources, (not counting the Nazareth inscription) the historian can know the following:
1)
Jesus existed;
2)
Jesus was a teacher from Judea;
3)
Jesus was thought to have been wise;
4)
Jesus performed miracles, although attributed to sorcery by his adversaries;
5)
Jesus was crucified at the command of Pontius Pilate;
6)
Darkness surrounded the area at Jesus’ crucifixion;
7)
Jesus was crucified around the time of the Passover;
8)
One can assume from the information given that Jesus was buried;
9)
Jesus was believed to have been resurrected;
10)
and Jesus’ followers accepted suffering and death while still holding on to the
belief of Jesus’ resurrection.
From
enemy attestation alone, one can know a great deal about the fundamentals of Jesus’
life.
There
are many other guides and lines of reasoning that historians use to establish the historicity of events. This is but
a very small sampling
