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?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

I simply find your historical method to be wildly imaginative. It is strange how many here think that because their theory is 'possible', it is therefore strong. "possibility" is the lowest criterion of historical method. If we do not demand a more stringent criteria, then any 'maybe x' is on the table.

We are remiss to assume that an unorthodox sect of Jews would feel like we do today.

To 'assume', yes. But once we look into the evidence we see that a crucified Messiah would have been antecedently embarrassing.

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.

It is typically not a good way to gain sympathy by laying the responsibility for Jesus' death at the feet of both Jews and Gentiles: betrayed by the Jewish people into the hands of Gentiles.

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.

This fails to explain why his followers wanted a 'Resurrected Messiah' in the first place.

So does this "criterion of embarrassment" lend authenticity to the story of Jesus making him more likely to be historical?

Yes. It is beyond reasonable doubt. So far I have seen only unreasonable doubt, and a whole lot of 'maybe's' thrown out. The above 'theories' are guilty of ad hoc assumptions.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 10 by historia]

Moreover, the idea that early Christians simply invented a mythical crucified Messiah out of whole clothe has a very low prior probability, as it runs completely contrary to our background knowledge of Second Temple Jewish messianic expectations.

Incredibly HIGH probability.
People make things like that up all the time.
Things like that happen never.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 7 by Mithrae]

...which I provided. So the answer to the question asked by your thread title is "Yes."

OK, good.

I'm still wondering, though, if the embarrassment argument is a weak argument, then why is it so prevalent when we have presumably better reasons to believe Jesus was historical?

We have (compared to many other ancient teachers) overwhelming evidence that Jesus was historical. His mere existence means very little though; what interests historians and apologists alike are the details of his life, teachings and death. The embarrassment argument isn't a weak argument - it's quite a compelling argument in the case of Jesus' baptism and Galilean origins - but it can't stand alone: It has to be demonstrated that some detail actually was uncomfortable to the writers. That may well have been the case of Jesus' crucifixion, as some other posters have argued, but I've merely pointed out that (unlike his baptism and origins) the actual textual evidence for embarrassment of the crucifixion is almost non-existent; a single line in Paul's epistles, at least as far as I can think of off the top of my head.

However it's an easy argument to present and understand, so even though it's not the strongest evidence that James' brother died by crucifixion (the strongest evidence being all the early sources unanimously and unequivocally confirming that to be the case) it's not surprising that it is commonly used - especially when there are many folk all too eager to simply dismiss the sources' credibility out of hand.

[alwayson]

We have (compared to many other ancient teachers) overwhelming evidence that Jesus was historical.

False.

Remember the Gospels and Acts were composed AFTER Paul's letters.

Encyclopedia Britannica: "The books are not arranged chronologically in the New Testament. The Epistles of Paul, for example, which address the immediate problems of local churches shortly after Christ's death, are considered to be the earliest texts."

According to Richard Carrier, Paul's letters indicate that Peter etc. only knew Jesus from VISIONS/DREAMS, based on the Old Testament scriptures. Not what we would consider real life.

1 Cor. 15.:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."

The Scriptures Paul is referring to here are:

Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact Greek name of Jesus, describing him as confronting Satan, being crowned king in heaven, rising from his place below, and building up Gods house, given supreme authority over Gods domain and ending all sins in a single day.

Daniel 9 describes a messiah dying before the end of the world.

Isaiah 52-53 describes the cleansing of the world's sins by the death of a servant.

Psalm 22-24, which Mark copies the language of, describes the death-resurrection cycle.

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."

Furthermore, Richard Carrier points out Paul viewed the death of Jesus (who had a human body manufactured by God) as occurring in outer space.

[Mithrae]

We have (compared to many other ancient teachers) overwhelming evidence that Jesus was historical.

False.

Remember the Gospels and Acts were composed AFTER Paul's letters.

Encyclopedia Britannica: "The books are not arranged chronologically in the New Testament. The Epistles of Paul, for example, which address the immediate problems of local churches shortly after Christ's death, are considered to be the earliest texts."

According to Richard Carrier, Paul's letters indicate that Peter etc. only knew Jesus from VISIONS/DREAMS, based on the Old Testament scriptures. Not what we would consider real life.

I remember that. I also remember that you demonstrated an unwillingness to coherently discuss the issue when I pointed out the numerous failures of Carrier's reasoning earlier this month.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 15 by Mithrae]

I responded to nearly everything there.

The problem is that you genuinely believe the falsehoods you are putting forth are facts.

And if someone doesn't accept your "facts", you deem that as not reasonable, willing, coherent etc.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 15 by Mithrae]

I responded to nearly everything there.

You posted one-liners, yes.

[dio9]

I have never thought of his crucifixion as an embarrassment. I rather think of it as a horrible trajectory that should never have happened.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 15 by Mithrae]

I responded to nearly everything there.

You posted one-liners, yes.

Your assertions don't need more than one line in response.

For example, Paul says the Last Supper was a dream he had.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 11 by liamconnor]

I simply find your historical method to be wildly imaginative.

While I realize you mean this comment to be negatively critical, a healthy imagination can be very useful in discovering truth especially when solid evidence is lacking. Since we have essentially no solid evidence for Jesus, we must rely on our imaginations to come up with explanations for what we read in the New Testament.

It is strange how many here think that because their theory is 'possible', it is therefore strong. "possibility" is the lowest criterion of historical method. If we do not demand a more stringent criteria, then any 'maybe x' is on the table.

And that's one of the main reasons why the criterion of embarrassment fails to be a valid way to assess the historicity of Jesus. Yes, it's possible that the early Christians may have been too embarrassed to make up a story like the crucifixion of Jesus, but we should go on more than mere possibility if we can.

But once we look into the evidence we see that a crucified Messiah would have been antecedently embarrassing.

A crucified messiah may indeed have been embarrassing to the early Christians, but would embarrassment prevent them from making up the story? That's one of the key questions I am pondering here.

It is typically not a good way to gain sympathy by laying the responsibility for Jesus' death at the feet of both Jews and Gentiles: betrayed by the Jewish people into the hands of Gentiles.

I might agree that making all the Jews appear to be responsible for Jesus death may not have been a good way to create sympathy for Jesus among most of the Jews, but obviously the Jews were a very divided people under the Roman occupation. Many Jews could have blamed the Pharisees for Jesus' execution which is essentially what the Gospel writers did.

Regarding the role of the gentiles in the crucifixion, the Gospels portray the Romans as crucifying Jesus. As you should be aware, many gentiles may have hated the Romans as much as the Jews did. What better way to create sympathy for Jesus than to have him crucified by the hated Romans?

This fails to explain why his followers wanted a 'Resurrected Messiah' in the first place.

But I did explain why the early Christians may have wanted a crucified messiah. It set up the resurrection. A messiah who can overcome death may have impressed many. As you should be aware, the resurrection perhaps more than any other miracle is the reason Christians believe that Jesus was and is the promised messiah.

So good try. The criterion of embarrassment still seems like a poor reason to believe the crucifixion story and that Jesus was historical.