Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?

[Jagella]

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?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 29 by alwayson]

Which is false.

Paul, who writes before the Gospels, never says Jesus was a preacher.

Always on, I think you might be off on this one. I said that Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher is Ehrman and Crosson's view of Jesus. I didn't mention Paul.

[alwayson]

What evidence was available to Josephus and Tacitus that testifies about Jesus yet did not originate from Christians?

There is no independent fact in Josephus and Tacitus.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 29 by alwayson]

Which is false.

Paul, who writes before the Gospels, never says Jesus was a preacher.

Always on, I think you might be off on this one. I said that Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher is Ehrman and Crosson's view of Jesus. I didn't mention Paul.

Paul is the earliest record of Jesus we have.

Do you understand the Gospels were composed AFTER Paul?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 22 by Mithrae]

So while there are a few credentialed historians out there who've made a name for themselves and garnered some book sales by advancing the notion that Jesus did not exist, and perhaps have even managed to convince themselves of that, the reality is that the kind of approach which must be used to reach that conclusion would wipe out a substantial minority if not a majority of ancient history as we know it.

In other words since the evidence for other historical figures is presumably even worse than the evidence for Jesus, we should then accept the evidence for Jesus? The fallacy in this argument is that citing worse evidence for other figures does not make the evidence for Jesus good evidence. If the historical evidence for Jesus is poor, then worse evidence for other figures does not make the evidence for Jesus any better.

You mentioned Hillel as an example of just such a figure. If you are correct that the evidence for Hillel is as bad or worse than for Jesus, then Hillel's historicity to me is also unproved. So I am being consistent.

If you've ever tried taking the 'pro' side against a mythicist (one who actually engages in discussion, I mean) you'll understand.

I'm not a mythicist. I don't argue that Jesus did not exist. In fact, it is possible that there was more than one "Jesus." The Jesus posited by some historicists like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan appears to me to be very generic. An "apocalyptic preacher" living in Judea under the Roman occupation may be a description that applied to many Jews at that time. So it seems possible that yes, there was a historical Jesus; we just need to pick the one we are thinking of.

To sum up, historicists just don't make a case for a real Jesus that I find convincing. I'm sorry if my unbelief frustrates them.

I'm quite certain that they couldn't give a flying banana what you believe

I'd say that the evidence for Jesus' existence roughly in order of value consists of:
A > Paul's account that he was a personal acquaintance of Jesus' brother James
B > Josephus, who recorded (and resided in Jerusalem at the time of) James' death
C > The theology of Paul (a resident of Jerusalem around the time Jesus died there and a personal acquaintance of many of Jesus' disciples) involving, among more far-fetched things, a Jewish man who was betrayed and crucified
D > A fourth gospel written by one of Jesus' disciples (John 1:14 and 19:35), despite being a highly theological work
E > Probably, a written account of Jesus' final hours which circulated in Judea before 44CE and was incorporated into Mark's gospel
F > The rest of Mark's gospel probably written by Peter's interpreter (as related by Papias)
G > The 'argument from embarrassment,' particularly with regards to Jesus' baptism by John and his origins in Galilee
H > Probably, the Q source of 'sayings of Jesus' from the 60s or 50s CE (possibly by the disciple Matthew, as suggested by Papias)
I > The only named gospel, by Luke, a would-be historian who drew on earlier sources including Mark, Q, Paul, Josephus and some traditions common with John
J > The gospel attributed to 'Matthew,' which has very little historical value but helps round out our understanding and, being the second-earliest extant gospel and addressed to Jewish Christians, helps highlight the impossibility of the view that early Christianity had a mythical view of Jesus
K > Reference by Tacitus to Jesus' death and a large enough presence of his followers in Rome in the 60s CE that they were 'hated' and served as an adequate scapegoat for Nero; the first part might be only based on Christian gossip, or may have been independently confirmed (which would put it at #3 or #4 on the list if it had been)

Maybe someone can let me know if I've forgotten anything. Only the first six or seven points really have much value of course, but even the later ones contribute to our understanding. Anyone is welcome to simply shake their head and say "Nuh uh, not good enough" of course, but that would simply be expressing an opinion on what they want to see, rather than any kind of reasonable evaluation of what we should expect to see. The comparison with other ancient teachers highlights the kind of evidence we should be expecting, and while there may be some ancient teachers for whom the evidence is stronger, Jesus really holds up very nicely in that field.

As for those who insist it's just not good enough, it's worth noting that Creationists take a similar stance regarding the paucity of evidence remaining in the fossil record

[alwayson]

C > The theology of Paul (a resident of Jerusalem around the time Jesus died there and a personal acquaintance of many of Jesus' disciples) involving, among more far-fetched things, a Jewish man who was betrayed and crucified

Why do you keep repeating this?

Paul never says Jesus had disciples.

Gerd Ldemann:
"Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words as teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples."

"Moreover, when Paul himself summarizes the content of his missionary preaching in Corinth (1 Cor. 2.1-2; 15.3-5), there is no hint that a narration of Jesus earthly life or a report of his earthly teachings was an essential part of it. . . . In the letter to the Romans, which cannot presuppose the apostles missionary preaching and in which he attempts to summarize its main points, we find not a single direct citation of Jesus teaching."

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 35 by alwayson]

Yes he does.

[alwayson]

C > The theology of Paul (a resident of Jerusalem around the time Jesus died there and a personal acquaintance of many of Jesus' disciples) involving, among more far-fetched things, a Jewish man who was betrayed and crucified

Paul says the Last Supper scene is a dream he had.

And the betrayal and crucifixion is straight out of the Old Testament.

And the same stuff is found in the Ascension of Isaiah.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 35 by alwayson]

Yes he does.

If we search for the words disciple, disciples, or discipleship we will not find any of these terms in the Pauline corpus. However, the term apostle is found throughout. There is however I problem in conflating these two terms.

Take care,
TFV

[paarsurrey1]

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?

Jesus son of Mary who died a natural death did exist but Jesus the literal "Son of God" or the literal "God" who got crucified for the sins of others, died on the Cross and got raised up from the dead and then sat on the right hand of God, didn't exist. The latter Jesus is the creation of Paul and the Church.
I like the First Post.
Regards

[alwayson]

Jesus son of Mary who died a natural death did exist but Jesus the literal "Son of God" or the literal "God" who got crucified for the sins of others, died on the Cross and got raised up from the dead and then sat on the right hand of God, didn't exist. The latter Jesus is the creation of Paul and the Church.
I like the First Post.
Regards

You got things backwards. Paul's letters are BEFORE the Gospels.