Many people insist that Jesus was a historical person. They are sometimes referred to as "historicists." Historicists, including Bart Ehrman, an atheist, argue that Jesus was probably historical because the early Christians would not have made up an embarrassing story like the crucifixion. A crucified messiah is just too hard for people to believe!
It's not hard to counter this argument. It assumes that the early Christians were embarrassed by their savior being crucified. Do we know this assumption to be true? Yes, some of us today might see such an event as embarrassing, but we project our own feelings onto first-century Jews living in a culture much different from our own. We are remiss to assume that an unorthodox sect of Jews would feel like we do today.
Another difficulty for the embarrassment theory is that the Romans crucified many Jews and were hated for it. The early Christians may have made up the crucifixion story to create sympathy for Jesus among the Jews and even gentiles who may have lost loved ones to the horror of crucifixion. Christians could claim then as they do today that "Jesus died for you" as they might say to a potential convert. Laying guilt trips on people can be a powerful motivation to unbelievers to join a religious group.
Yet another rationale for fabricating the crucifixion story is that it sets up the resurrection of Jesus. Without a crucified Christ his followers could not have claimed Jesus' rose from the dead, perhaps the greatest miracle of the New Testament.
Finally, if we are smart enough to assume that a presumably embarrassing story like the resurrection is unlikely to be made up and hence is likely to be true, then perhaps the early Christians thought the same way. They may have fabricated the crucifixion to lead unbelievers to conclude that Jesus was real because nobody would make up an embarrassing story! If so, then their trick is having its intended effect on modern historicists.
In any event, it is not difficult to come up with reasons for fabricating the crucifixion story. There are probably many you can think of. I should point out that the crucifixion story hasn't hurt Christianity much; Catholic churches proudly display paintings of the crucified Christ and place crucifixes in all their churches. Few if any will leave the church over this belief.
So does this "criterion of embarrassment" lend authenticity to the story of Jesus making him more likely to be historical?
Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #101
[Replying to post 99 by Willum]
Seriously, I don't know if absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case. Two thousand years is plenty time to have solid evidence disappear. So to claim that the lack of physical evidence for Jesus proves he did not exist is a stretch. If we did have solid evidence, then that evidence would make his historicity much more probable.
We should expect at least a bookshelf or chicken coop!Sure you do, there are no relics, there are no recordings, there is no Lazarus left around to tell us what being dead was like. Jesus was a carpenter, isn't there a table or something around, "made by Jesus?"
Seriously, I don't know if absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case. Two thousand years is plenty time to have solid evidence disappear. So to claim that the lack of physical evidence for Jesus proves he did not exist is a stretch. If we did have solid evidence, then that evidence would make his historicity much more probable.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #102
[Replying to post 101 by Jagella]
Without evidence, you can't know anything.
No, he'd get audiences with the Caesars, kings, everyone would know what being dead was like. His words and wisdom would be recorded: We'd all know what death was like/
He should have been a beacon of Christianity more powerful than Christ himself, in his own way.
But...
no.
Of course if he were a charlatan, he might just hide himself away after a fiasco.
File this one in the stories bin.
Without evidence, you can't know anything.
is fine if you have something to start with, but are you going to tell me that Lazarus, a man back from the dead, is simply going to disappear?absence of evidence is [not[ evidence of absence
No, he'd get audiences with the Caesars, kings, everyone would know what being dead was like. His words and wisdom would be recorded: We'd all know what death was like/
He should have been a beacon of Christianity more powerful than Christ himself, in his own way.
But...
no.
Of course if he were a charlatan, he might just hide himself away after a fiasco.
File this one in the stories bin.
Re: Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?
Post #103[Replying to post 100 by historia]
I thought that what I posted was common knowledge. At least what I said seems uncontroversial. Everybody seems to accept those historical claims. Why are you asking? Is there some doubt about the historicity of the Roman occupation of Israel or that the Romans crucified Jews that the Romans thought were trouble makers?Let's probe this point a little deeper.
How do you know that Christianity originated in first-century Israel during the Roman occupation?
How do you know that the Romans crucified some Jewish men for various offenses including religiously inspired sedition?
How do you know that there were sects like the Essenes?
On what "solid evidence" can you say that a fellow named Jesus preached an apocalyptic messages, claimed to perform miracles, and was crucified by the Roman who suspected he was a troublemaker?
Post #104
[Replying to post 89 by evilsorcerer1]
Sorcerer, please be more concise. Your post is 9832 words long.
Sorcerer, please be more concise. Your post is 9832 words long.
-
Mithrae
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4326
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 112 times
- Been thanked: 195 times
Re: Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?
Post #105This seems to be an appeal to popularity. An appeal that "so many people believe this, they can't all be wrong"Jagella wrote:I thought that what I posted was common knowledge. At least what I said seems uncontroversial. Everybody seems to accept those historical claims.
Why not answer the questions? Perhaps you sense some difficulty on the horizon.historia wrote:How do you know that Christianity originated in first-century Israel during the Roman occupation?
How do you know that the Romans crucified some Jewish men for various offenses including religiously inspired sedition?
How do you know that there were sects like the Essenes?
On what "solid evidence" can you say that a fellow named Jesus preached an apocalyptic messages, claimed to perform miracles, and was crucified by the Roman who suspected he was a troublemaker?
Re: Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?
Post #106[Replying to post 105 by Mithrae]
Do you dispute my saying that we know that the Roman occupation of Israel really happened? Maybe saying we know it happened is a bit strong. Can you accept that the occupation of Rome is "relatively uncontroversial"?
My main point is that arguing for Jesus' historicity the way I did has the advantage in that we don't need to rely on the word of Christian propagandists. I see that as a distinct advantage. So to make your case, you need to demonstrate that believing what the Christians wrote in the Bible makes a better case for Jesus' historicity than relying on secular evidence.
No, I said that it's common knowledge. In the same way I can rely on common knowledge that Washington DC is the capital of the USA, I can safely assume that the Romans crucified some Jews for sedition while the Romans occupied Israel in the first century.This seems to be an appeal to popularity.
Do you dispute my saying that we know that the Roman occupation of Israel really happened? Maybe saying we know it happened is a bit strong. Can you accept that the occupation of Rome is "relatively uncontroversial"?
My main point is that arguing for Jesus' historicity the way I did has the advantage in that we don't need to rely on the word of Christian propagandists. I see that as a distinct advantage. So to make your case, you need to demonstrate that believing what the Christians wrote in the Bible makes a better case for Jesus' historicity than relying on secular evidence.
-
Mithrae
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4326
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 112 times
- Been thanked: 195 times
Re: Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?
Post #107[Replying to post 106 by Jagella]
I can't help but notice that you haven't answered the questions. They were Historia's questions, so I'll keep my speculation to myself.
I can't help but notice that you haven't answered the questions. They were Historia's questions, so I'll keep my speculation to myself.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?
Post #108[Replying to post 106 by Jagella]
Historia asks questions so that the language you use in your answers becomes a game of "but you said," or "but I said....", they seem uncontroversial to be, as assumptions go, however the first cannon Bible was written in the fourth century, and the first Jewish Bibles were written in the ninth.
They destroyed all references before that, meaning you have to take Constantine's word for it, and thousands of years of verbal tradition's word for it.
And then believe a twice dead language, etc., got it right.
I would just leave them as assumptions, unless they have some reason to doubt them.
Historia asks questions so that the language you use in your answers becomes a game of "but you said," or "but I said....", they seem uncontroversial to be, as assumptions go, however the first cannon Bible was written in the fourth century, and the first Jewish Bibles were written in the ninth.
They destroyed all references before that, meaning you have to take Constantine's word for it, and thousands of years of verbal tradition's word for it.
And then believe a twice dead language, etc., got it right.
I would just leave them as assumptions, unless they have some reason to doubt them.
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Re: Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?
Post #110[Replying to post 106 by Jagella]
It should also be noted that historians today (and members of this forum) have not taken wholesale the claims of the N.T. Many of us have applied historical methods to what we acknowledge as propagandist literature (if by 'propagandist' we mean 'writers who believe in something and therefore want others to believe in it) and have come up with some bedrock history: one of them being, Jesus was crucified.
Perhaps it is time to abandon this thread?
False dichotomy. Find any classical historian who will say that 'secular' historians of that time period (a false dichotomy there too, for the split between 'state' and 'religion' was centuries in the making) were innocent of propaganda. You won't. All historians of that time period had an ax to grind. For that matter, all historians in every period till today have an ax to grind.My main point is that arguing for Jesus' historicity the way I did has the advantage in that we don't need to rely on the word of Christian propagandists. I see that as a distinct advantage. So to make your case, you need to demonstrate that believing what the Christians wrote in the Bible makes a better case for Jesus' historicity than relying on secular evidence.
It should also be noted that historians today (and members of this forum) have not taken wholesale the claims of the N.T. Many of us have applied historical methods to what we acknowledge as propagandist literature (if by 'propagandist' we mean 'writers who believe in something and therefore want others to believe in it) and have come up with some bedrock history: one of them being, Jesus was crucified.
Perhaps it is time to abandon this thread?
