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 13 by Mithrae]

We have (compared to many other ancient teachers) overwhelming evidence...

A sense of being overwhelmed by evidence is a purely subjective experience. I keep hearing about this "overwhelming evidence" only to be presented with the criterion of embarrassment and other fallacious arguments. Overwhelming evidence for a historical Jesus, in my opinion, would be far more robust than assuming we can read the minds of the Gospel writers and Paul. A bust of Jesus, sculpted around 30 AD by a Roman, would be overwhelming evidence for a historical Jesus. Documents dated to 30 AD written by nonChristians mentioning Jesus would be overwhelming evidence for Jesus. Some archaeological evidence for something Jesus did would be overwhelming evidence for his historicity.

But all we have are documents written by members of a first-century cult originating in Israel under the Roman occupation. They could have easily made up Jesus both as individuals and as a group. I am underwhelmed by the "overwhelming" evidence.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 13 by Mithrae]

We have (compared to many other ancient teachers) overwhelming evidence...

A sense of being overwhelmed by evidence is a purely subjective experience. I keep hearing about this "overwhelming evidence" only to be presented with the criterion of embarrassment and other fallacious arguments. Overwhelming evidence for a historical Jesus, in my opinion, would be far more robust than assuming we can read the minds of the Gospel writers and Paul. A bust of Jesus, sculpted around 30 AD by a Roman, would be overwhelming evidence for a historical Jesus. Documents dated to 30 AD written by nonChristians mentioning Jesus would be overwhelming evidence for Jesus. Some archaeological evidence for something Jesus did would be overwhelming evidence for his historicity.

But all we have are documents written by members of a first-century cult originating in Israel under the Roman occupation. They could have easily made up Jesus both as individuals and as a group. I am underwhelmed by the "overwhelming" evidence.

And assuming objectivity on your part, you would be as or more underwhelmed by, and assume an equal or greater probability that the likes of Pythagoras and Socrates also did not exist. Busts and coins and unambiguous archaeological evidence are left behind by kings - sometimes - but rarely by sages and teachers. As I said, it is in terms of that comparison of apples to apples that the evidence regarding Jesus' existence is extremely strong.

Probably the most perfect figure for comparison against Jesus is Hillel the Elder: A Jewish teacher (like Jesus) who died in the early first century in Jerusalem (like Jesus) and was hugely influential in one of the two main directions Judaism took after the temple's destruction (like Jesus). In fact as head of the Sanhedrin Hillel would have been far more important in his own lifetime than Jesus ever was in his:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder
  Hillel (Hebrew: "; variously called Hillel HaGadol, or Hillel HaZaken, Hillel HaBavli[1] or HaBavli,.[2] was born according to tradition in Babylon c. 110 BCE, died 10 CE[3] in Jerusalem) was a famous Jewish religious leader, one of the most important figures in Jewish history. He is associated with the development of the Mishnah and the Talmud. Renowned within Judaism as a sage and scholar, he was the founder of the House of Hillel school for Tannam (Sages of the Mishnah) and the founder of a dynasty of Sages who stood at the head of the Jews living in the Land of Israel until roughly the fifth century of the Common Era. . . .
  
  Some time later, Hillel succeeded in settling a question concerning the sacrificial ritual in a manner that showed his superiority over the Benei Betheira (literally, sons of Betheira), who were at that time the heads of the Sanhedrin. On that occasion, it is narrated, they voluntarily resigned their position as Nasi (President) in favor of Hillel. After the resignation of the Benei Betheira, Hillel was recognized as the highest authority among the Pharisees (predecessors to Rabbinic Judaism). Hillel was the head of the great school, at first associated with Menahem the Essene, who might be the same Menahem the Essene as the one mentioned by Flavius Josephus in relation to King Herod, afterward with Shammai, Hillel's peer in the teaching of Jewish Law.

Yet for all that, the evidence for Hillel's existence and deeds is quite literally pathetically weak compared to the evidence for Jesus. Whereas Josephus mentions the death of Jesus' brother James - admittedly more by coincidence than anything else - he doesn't mention Hillel at all:

• http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/hillel/
  The problem scholars have had to face in attempting to put together a biography of Hillel is that the major sources for Hillel and his activity are the Talmud and the Midrash and a good deal of the material in these sources dates from no earlier than the time of their compilation, often centuries after Hillel. Great caution is therefore necessary when using these sources for a reconstruction of Hillels life and work.
  
  For instance, much has been made of the Talmudic story (Shabbat 31a) in which Hillel, when asked by a prospective convert to Judaism to teach him the whole Torah while he stood on one leg, replied: That which is hateful unto you do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole of the Torah, The rest is commentary. Go forth and study.
  
  Theologians, Jewish and non-Jewish, have compared this version of the Golden Rule, stated in negative form, with that of Jesus, in the positive form. There is a total failure to appreciate that this story is told, in Babylonian Aramaic, at least 200 years after Hillel and probably much later. Moreover, in the same set of stories related in a Midrash, the hero is not Hillel at all but Rabbi Joshua.
  
  Similarly, when it is said of Hillel and other key figures that they lived for 120 years, it is as obvious as can be that this is not factual but a way of saying that these teachers followed in the footsteps of Moses who was 120 years old at his death (Deuteronomy 34:7).
  
  Yet while there is little authentic information about Hillel and Shammai themselves, the Mishnah and Talmud are full of the great debates between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai, Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai.

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

[alwayson]

Even if Josephus and Tacitus are authentic, they are merely regurgitating info from the
Gospels.

So it doesn't help that they are authentic.

[Mithrae]

Even if Josephus and Tacitus are authentic, they are merely regurgitating info from the
Gospels.

So it doesn't help that they are authentic.

They're not regurgitating.

[alwayson]

Even if Josephus and Tacitus are authentic, they are merely regurgitating info from the
Gospels.

So it doesn't help that they are authentic.

They're not regurgitating.

Goldberg showed that Josephus is reliant on Luke.

[Mithrae]

Goldberg showed that Josephus is reliant on Luke.

The problem is that you believe these falsehoods.

[Jagella]

[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.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 26 by Mithrae]

I don't believe Josephus is reliant on Luke.

Because its been established that Luke is reliant on Josephus.

The Jesus stuff in Josephus is a forgery.

[alwayson]

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 .......

Which is false.

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

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."

[Jagella]

Even if Josephus and Tacitus are authentic, they are merely regurgitating info from the
Gospels.

So it doesn't help that they are authentic.

There are two possibilities here: extraBiblical writers like Josephus and Tacitus "regurgitated information from the Gospels" (simply repeated what Christians told them about Jesus), or writers like Josephus and Tacitus used nonChristian sources of information that were independent of Christian influence. If the first case is true, then the testimony of Josephus and Tacitus does not count as corroboration, and historicists are misleading us if they claim that we have extraBiblical corroboration for Jesus.

The second case I find very interesting. What evidence was available to Josephus and Tacitus that testifies about Jesus yet did not originate from Christians? Was there a nonChristian orally transmitted tradition of Jesus? Were any documents written about Jesus that were independent of Christians that Josephus and Tacitus may have read and used as a source for their own work? I do not recall any historicists mentioning such sources.