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?

[Mithrae]

Where Paul got his information about Jesus is not the question - though we know that he spent plenty of time in contact with Jesus' brother James, and with Cephas, John and the rest of the Jerusalem church.

I think it is of note that according to Galatians, the author only visits Jerusalem for about two weeks after several years of ministry. And then after more than a decade visits again for an unspecified period of time. Of note is that the author alludes to the fact that there are contemporary doubt surrounding his claim (I do not lie!). Additionally, the matter of appealing to the so-called Pillars is complicated by the documents that we do have penned in their name. The Petrine epistles are almost certainly pseudonymous, the epistle of James has a similar dubious pedigree, and the Johannine epistles could very well be the work of a John, but it is doubtful that they are the work of the disciple John (we can also put aside Jude). This gives us a least a muddled picture of what the Jerusalem apostles actually did believe and, moreover, shows something of a cottage industry of attributed works to them (why?). Of course, there was a large body of pseudonymous work produced in this period that was attributed to various NT figures, but the orthodox do not consider these to be of historical value as they conflict with orthodoxy.

take care,
TFV

It's been many moons since I've looked at the arguments for authorship of the NT's later epistles. 2 Peter seems to have the perspective of a later author, which at least puts a big question mark over its authorship, but if memory serves 1 Peter could go either way (allowing the possibility that he used and was advised by a more educated writer), at least from what little I remember of it. The theology of James' epistle emphasizing the importance of good works is arguably consistent with the apparent tension implied in Galatians between Paul's salvation-by-faith, liberty-in-Christ doctrines and the Jerusalem church's adherence to the Law; allowing the possibility that James was humble enough to make no big deal of his relationship to Jesus (and indeed the greater possibility that a pseudonymous author would make a big deal of it!), that one also might go either way. As for John (the gospel) and by implication 1 John - not necessarily the two attributed to 'the elder' - I would argue and have argued at length that while there is some uncertainty, particularly with speculation about later redactions, the balance of evidence decidedly favours original authorship by the disciple John.

Paul's point of emphasis - which could be interpreted as suggesting doubt amongst his readers - was not that he'd been to Jerusalem, but rather that his gospel was "neither received from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:12). That was the issue he's defending in that chapter; as you said, that he'd spent several years preaching before he even went to Jerusalem, and that on his first visit the only key figures he saw were Peter and James ("the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie," Gal 1:18-20).

There's no question that Paul's theology is his own - even Luke doesn't try to put Pauline terms or doctrines in Jesus' mouth. But we're not talking about the theological specifics here, only
A > whether or not Paul claimed to meet Jesus' brother (he did),
B > whether his theology involved an earthly, human Jesus (it does) and then
C > whether his beliefs/knowledge on those two specific points was adequately justified; whether his letters are a reliable source for them.

Two weeks in Jerusalem with Cephas and unspecified meetings with James, along with another visit seeing James, Cephas, John and the rest of the Jerusalem church are more than enough to confirm whether Jesus existed and whether someone is known as his brother. And that's even assuming that he hadn't already acquired that knowledge as an opponent of the church, or indeed from all his Christian interactions not explicitly mentioned in his extant epistles.

So the possibilities are that Paul was lying about all this, or that the Jerusalem church were deceiving him about it all and he somehow didn't realise it. I would suggest that both are highly unlikely: The latter because if the early church's story of a historical Jesus was entirely fictitious, Paul would probably never have converted in the first place; the latter because Paul had no incentive whatsoever to say that James was Jesus' brother if it wasn't true (quite the opposite if anything), nor to hold a theology which he knew to be false.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 91 by Mithrae]

Excellent, now you simply need to demonstrate Paul and other apostles existed in the first place, and you are on your way.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 92 by Willum]

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.

If you've ever tried taking the 'pro' side against a mythicist (one who actually engages in discussion, I mean) you'll understand. Cite one ancient source as evidence, and they'll declare that it's either a forgery or doesn't mean what it seems to mean; cite another ancient source to demonstrate what we know about the first source, and they'll link to some site saying that it's either a forgery or doesn't mean what it seems to mean. Everything from Josephus to Tacitus to Seutonius must be 'a later Christian interpolation' if it mentions Jesus or Christians in the slightest, assertions often made without the slightest shred of evidence or even wildly illogical and counter-productive 'reasoning.' For example I was frankly amazed to discover earlier in the month that in order to deny that "James, the Lord's brother" (Gal 1:19) refers to James the brother of Jesus, Richard Carrier instead insists that James "is just a rank-and-file Christian" - the fellow who Paul names first of the three pillars of the church (Gal 2:9). He similarly argues that if Josephus' reference to the death of James (Ant. 20.9.1) was genuine we'd expect further explanation about it - despite Josephus' otherwise apparent reluctance to comment on the Christian sect, given the reasonable view that the TF is wholly fake - and so instead (get this) figures that it makes sense to assume that the passage is about priests killing other priests, without any explanation from Josephus! I've met otherwise intelligent forum-folk who follow all the same reasoning to insist that even Paul didn't exist at all, that he was a mythical hero-evangelist to go with a mythical saviour. You can't even make that kind of stuff up

The existence of Paul and other first generation apostles is confirmed by the generation of Christians after them (eg. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp, pseudoepigraphs written in their names which presuppose their existence, and so on).

But I suppose next we must assume that none of those existed either?


Edit: I will say that the canon of the New Testament is a rather unfortunate fact when it comes to amateur historical discussion of its contents, because it too easily leads to the presumption that that's all we've got, or (at best) relative unfamiliarity with other early Christian and non-Christian sources about 1st century Judea and Christianity. When I was a Christian I'd read the whole bible several times over, but as a mere hobbyist debater I've never managed to bring myself to actually read the Didache or Shepherd of Hermas or letters of Clement or Ignatius, so all I know of them are scraps encountered from various arguments and my own occasional Ctrl-Fing of their contents.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 93 by Mithrae]

The existence of Paul and other first generation apostles is confirmed by the generation of Christians after them (eg. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp, pseudoepigraphs written in their names which presuppose their existence, and so on).

But I suppose next we must assume that none of those existed either?

No, but they didn't actually see these folks did they? So their testament is equal to yours or mine!

How about someone of similar authority, a scholar, a king, who lived at the same time as Jesus. who said something about them...

After all, 33AD or so is when the miracles were happening, when the iron was hot, so to speak, yet despite healings, resurrections, walking on water, nobody who was anyone has peep to say...

A reasonable person would dismiss this out of hand.

[Mithrae]

No, but they didn't actually see these folks did they?

They reportedly did, yes. That is, of the remnants we have from whatever fractions of their total experiences that 2nd generation Christians committed to writing, there is still some confirmation that some of those individuals were personal acquaintances of some of the key 1st generation Christians. For example Clement of Rome was said to have known Peter, quite probable considering he became head of the church at Rome some 24 years after Peter and Paul died there. Both Ignatius and Polycarp were said to have been disciples of the apostle John. The scant fragments remaining of Papias' writings explicitly refer to what he was taught by 'the elder' John, author of 2 and 3 John in the NT (who may be, or I'd guess is not, the same as the disciple John).

Of course probably the best evidence for the existence of Paul et al comes from within the New Testament from the author of Luke and Acts; explicitly disavowing himself as a witness of Jesus' life, but showing himself a companion of Paul, the earliest extant manuscripts with its beginning attributing the gospel to Luke, and Paul's own works acknowledging Luke as his acquaintance.

But given the all-too-easy assumption of many critics that everything in the New Testament is forged or dishonest, it's useful to know that there are those other late 1st and early 2nd century sources from outside the canon.

[Jagella]

So you don't believe a historic Jesus existed?

I have my doubts that Jesus was historical, but there just isn't enough evidence to prove he was a myth, either.

Do you know what John's letters say of someone who says Jesus didn't historically exist? anti-Christ.

From 1 John 4:2,3 we have:

By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.

This passage indicates that some people from the very inception of Christianity did not believe he was was a real man. Historicists insist on relying on the writings of the New Testament to demonstrate that Jesus was an actual man, but even those writings in some places tell us otherwise.

[Mithrae]

From 1 John 4:2,3 we have:

By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.

This passage indicates that some people from the very inception of Christianity did not believe he was was a real man. Historicists insist on relying on the writings of the New Testament to demonstrate that Jesus was an actual man, but even those writings in some places tell us otherwise.

Actually it's quite possible (according to sources such as Irenaeus c. 180CE) that John wrote in opposition to the doctrines of Cerinthus, who reportedly taught that Jesus was a more or less ordinary good human upon whom the Christ descended at his baptism, and departed before his death. If so, the emphasis of what you quoted would be on the identity of Jesus=Christ=flesh rather than a controversy whether "Jesus Christ" was flesh or spirit.

Docetism ("the doctrine that the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality") does not imply a non-historical Jesus to begin with, since it merely implies an appearance of Jesus on earth rather than denying an earthly Jesus altogether. Furthermore, while historical knowledge is sketchy (and my own knowledge even moreso) as far as I'm aware the earliest unambiguous evidence of docetism is that of Marcion in the 140s CE, with full-fledged gnostic Christianity not demonstrable until a decade or two later.

Cerinthus might have represented a median point; from the human Jesus Christ seen in Paul and the gospels, to a human Jesus but non-human Christ, to the docetics' not-really-human Jesus Christ. But reliable information on Cerinthus is hard to come by: He seems to have been admired by some later gnostics (some in the 4th century for example suggested that the gospel of John was actually written by him), but at the least from what I've read, his notion of the Christ descending at baptism and departing before death from Jesus seems to be among the earliest/most reliable information available about him.

If so, the absence in John's gospel of explicit reference to the two main Christian sacraments in Jesus' life - baptism and Lord's Supper - actually makes a lot of sense. The link in post #91 might lead to some interesting discussion on this topic if you look for my discussions with Shermana, though that was 2011 so I can't vouchsafe for it without going back and reviewing it all again



Edit: On reviewing some of the January 2011 discussion with Shermana it seems evident that my intentions were more on 'winning' the debate than on learning more Still, there's some interesting references there from both myself and my counterparts that I'd forgotten, so potentially worth the time of anyone bored enough!

[Willum]

[Replying to post 95 by Mithrae]

With the average age of Jerusalem being 41 or so years, and of course that would not be so generous for felons on the run, that makes your "possible" into another miracle.

Besides they would have been young children when they were dying, at best.

"And Jesus went to the mountain..." he gasps.
"Ga-ga-go-go."

But I think you'll believe what you want.
On the other hand, I am perfectly content assuming Luke doesn't exist.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 96 by Jagella]

I have my doubts that Jesus was historical, but there just isn't enough evidence to prove he was a myth, either.

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?"

You can look up even kooks and quacks at the time of Jesus, you should be able to look up Jesus and his 12 apostles.

Kooks and quacks

[historia]

I don't so much disagree with historicists that there may have been a real Jesus as I disagree with the way historicists come to that conclusion. Their logic is sloppy and their evidence is weak.

Finally, if we want to know if the Jesus of the New Testament was a real guy, then we can say we do know that Christianity originated in first-century Israel during the Roman occupation. We know that the Romans crucified some Jewish men for various offences including religiously inspired sedition. Apocalyptic sects including the Essenes grew up at that time. So some Jewish peasant named "Jesus," a common Jewish name at that time, was influenced by all this, preached an apocalyptic end to the age, claimed he could perform miracles, and was eventually crucified by the Romans who suspected he was a trouble maker.

My argument has the advantage of being backed up by solid evidence, has no faulty logic or manufactured probabilities, and does not rely on the word of fanatically religious and unknown cultists.

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?