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]

None of the mentions of Jesus in the New Testament are of a historical Jesus. Most of them are of generic, peasant Jewish preachers, or people that looked like the mythical Jesus fabricated by Paul, or the common god of the pagans.

I'm not sure why you think that lying makes a good argument. All of the sources provided specify a Jewish fellow named Jesus who was called Christ. As with reports of sea monsters, some of the details of those accounts may be embellished or exaggerated (in fact in some cases we can prove that later authors changed material from earlier authors), and again as with reports of sea monsters there is a possibility that that any given report is entirely fictitious. But it is improbable that all such reports are entirely fictitious; many if not most of those sailors probably did see giant oarfish or squids or whales or sharks (the 1905 description sounds like a rarely-seen frilled shark for example).

In any case, it seems evident that you have given up trying to deal with the actual issue here, which your would-be counter-examples never really came to grips with in the first place. As I commented earlier:

• In short, these would-be counter-examples do not change the fact that this reasoning - "How many things would need to be false for this conclusion to be wrong, and how likely is that?" - is the only rational approach to knowledge outside our own personal experience (at least as far as I've ever seen).
  
  Underneath our unconscious heuristics, that is how we evaluate pretty much everything from media reports (if they're all saying this and no-one is disputing it, it must be true) to scientific conclusions and consensus. Any individual report has a non-zero possibility of being false, but we rely on information which is confirmed by numerous sources or lines of evidence.
  
  The fact that there are cases in which numerous sources provide apparently false information does not refute that; it simply means that we should rise to the challenge of justifying our disbelief in those cases.

I realize you didn't start the thread to get into a discussion about epistemology of course So if you don't want to talk about that, that's fine.

But without dealing with that issue, it's clear that the view of a lower probability for Jesus' existence requires either
- assumptions about absurdly high probabilities of each source/line of evidence being false or misleading, so they might all be false, or
- some actual compelling evidence to the contrary, to lower the final result.

Neither of these has yet been justified.

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]

[Replying to post 71 by Mithrae]

The earliest source for Jesus, Paul, does provide evidence to the contrary.

Paul explicitly says his Jesus info is from the Scriptures and believed he existed since Peter and himself had dreams of Jesus.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 72 by alwayson]

Please see our discussion earlier this month for a comprehensive refutation of that view:
viewtopic.php?t=32970&start=10

Paul in various places says that Jesus:
A) Was descended from Abraham and Israel
B) Came of a woman, came under the law to redeem those under the law
C) Had a brother named James who was first among the 'pillars' of the church and other brothers who were married like the apostles
D) Broke bread and shared wine on the night he was betrayed, likening them to his own flesh and blood, before he was crucified and buried

That's not a "jump" to a biological Jesus, it's both the most obvious and the only reasonable way to understand his views - particularly his broader theological views with regards to B, as I noted above.


Josephus also confirms the existence and death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," in the same city where Paul locates him (and in similar circumstances as mid 2nd century Jewish Christian chronicler Hegesippus records James' death).

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. But even if he ignored (or at least didn't write in his extant letters) much of what they'd told him, and instead referred to his own theology and spiritual experiences, it remains indisputable that he believed there'd been a real, earthly, human Jesus.

Even today some people believe that their relatives contact them after death through dreams or apparitions, but pretending that this is evidence they believe their relatives only ever existed in "outer space" would be patently absurd.

[liamconnor]

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?

The OP is anachronistic, and not attuned to modern attitudes. The 'embarrassment criterion' of the crucifixion could not possibly be retrojected onto the past, for none today are embarrassed by it. The theology that shameful death is the doorway to glorious rebirth has become a part of western culture. All arguments for the 'embarrassment criterion' are based on readings of the ancient past.

Indeed, the ease with which the OP can suggest that the ancients were not embarrassed by the notion of a crucified god or king, is based on the fact that WE are not embarrassed by the notion.

[alwayson]

Paul in various places says that Jesus:
A) Was descended from Abraham and Israel
B) Came of a woman, came under the law to redeem those under the law

Galatians 4 is explicitly an allegory.

And in Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4, Paul uses the Greek word genomenos, "to happen, become, be made."

In his letters, Paul uses this word when stating God manufactured something directly. For example Adam.

In the HUNDREDS of times he uses the word, Paul NEVER uses this word for being born/descended.

His preferred word for being born/descended is gennao (Rom. 9:11 and Gal. 4:23, 29).

If you look at the literal reading of Old Testament 2 Samuel 7.12-14a, it says God extracted David's sperm.

Paul is saying Jesus' human body was manufactured from that sperm.

C) Had a brother named James who was first among the 'pillars' of the church and other brothers who were married like the apostles

No.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516

D) Broke bread and shared wine on the night he was betrayed, likening them to his own flesh and blood, before he was crucified and buried

Paul says this was a dream he had.

The themes of the dream are similar to the Ascension of Isaiah and the Old Testament.

[tfvespasianus]

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

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 71 by Mithrae]

None of the mentions of Jesus in the New Testament are of a historical Jesus. Most of them are of generic, peasant Jewish preachers, or people that looked like the mythical Jesus fabricated by Paul, or the common god of the pagans.

I'm not sure why you think that lying makes a good argument.

So now I'm lying? Maybe you missed it, but I was mirroring what you said. My point is that anybody can argue for anything the way you argue.

But it is improbable that all such reports are entirely fictitious

Again, you are merely asserting that it is improbable that what all people claim is false. I disagree and think it may be very possible that all reports are false. Historicists just don't seem to understand this basic fact of human nature. Humans can be deluded and deceptive not only as individuals but in organized groups. These deluded and deceptive organized groups are known as "religions." People are fully justified in doubting the claims of these groups including the early Christians.

In any case, it seems evident that you have given up trying to deal with the actual issue here...

Well, I do seem to be repeating myself a lot. If I've given up "trying to deal with the actual issue," then maybe that says something about your arguments.

Speaking of repeating myself, let me reiterate that 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.

[dio9]

Yes crucifixion is actual history. You might say every crucified Jew is Jesus but the one the story is about is the one who was betrayed specifically by the temple authorities around the year 30 CE. I say the words of Caiaphas are probably most accurate, where he said 'tis better that this one Jew die , so the Romans don't slaughter thousands of us. You might think his intention was the best interest of the people since he didn't believe in the whole Messiah thing anyway . Did it happen? probably yes .

The question we should be asking is not did the crucifixion of Jesus really happen but rather how would history have unfolded if Jesus had been accepted, believed in as the expected Jewish Messiah.

Just imagine a historic Jesus going to Rome with Peter and Paul. Peter and Paul did pretty good but imagine what Jesus could have done there. The whole history of Christianity and western civilization would have been hugely different. Unfortunately for us , It appears the world was not ready for one as beautiful as Jesus.

[evilsorcerer1]

I'd say another reason the story was made up (although I believe in many of the writers minds jesus was real) was so people could believe someone is taking away their sins, when really the only thing that is being sacrificed is a normal person's chance to live a full lifespan. The whole religion is about a savior who forgives all the bloodshed of man so they can continue with their own diluted religion.

[alwayson]

Yes crucifixion is actual history. You might say every crucified Jew is Jesus but the one the story is about is the one who was betrayed specifically by the temple authorities around the year 30 CE.

Do you understand the Gospels were composed AFTER the letters of Paul?