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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 110 by liamconnor]

Perhaps it is time to abandon this thread?

Yes, Jagella, congratulations on a debate well won!

In the end you had the religious folks asking you to prove the common assumptions of their religion for them. If you simply don't, that's your victory.

Well played, well played!

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 110 by liamconnor]

Find any classical historian who will say that 'secular' historians of that time period (a false dichotomy there too, for the split between 'state' and 'religion' was centuries in the making) were innocent of propaganda.

Yes, propaganda can be nonreligious, and I'm sure that the first century had its share of propaganda that was not of a religious nature. Nevertheless, I'm arguing that if we can cut religion out of the evidence, then we have one less possibility for the evidence being contaminated by propaganda. So my argument for the historical Jesus has that advantage: there is no possibility of it being swayed by religion.

Many of us have applied historical methods to what we acknowledge as propagandist literature (if by 'propagandist' we mean 'writers who believe in something and therefore want others to believe in it) and have come up with some bedrock history: one of them being, Jesus was crucified.

If Jesus was crucified, and he surely may have been crucified, then we should base that knowledge on unbiased evidence. Unfortunately for your case, the New Testament writers were obviously biased and were busy creating a new religion. Their testimony is therefore essentially of low value as evidence for Jesus or his crucifixion.

Perhaps it is time to abandon this thread?

You may abandon it any time if you see your arguments sinking.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 111 by Willum]

Yes, Jagella, congratulations on a debate well won!

Thanks. Mayweather and I score a knockout!

In the end you had the religious folks asking you to prove the common assumptions of their religion for them. If you simply don't, that's your victory.

Isn't that strange? The historicists were trying to challenge my reliance on history to make my case! Evidently historical evidence is only valid if its used to support their argument. They destroyed their own position by special pleading.

Well played, well played!

I do believe our celebration may be premature. Our ideological opponents truly love their beliefs and won't allow logic and evidence to get in the way of all that.

[historia]

I thought that what I posted was common knowledge. At least what I said seems uncontroversial. Everybody seems to accept those historical claims. Why are you asking?

I'm genuinely interested in the rationale behind your argument.

So, you believe certain things about the past because those ideas are "relatively uncontroversial" and widely accepted. Why is that sufficient warrant to believe some things about the past but not the historicity of Jesus? After all, the historicity of Jesus is also relatively uncontroversial and widely accepted.

The thrust of my questions, though, is to ask how you are getting from these premises:

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.

. . . to this conclusion:

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.

Based solely on your premises, how have you come to the conclusion that there was someone named Jesus who had something to do with early Christianity? How do you know he preached an apocalyptic end to the age? How do you know he claimed to perform miracles or that he was crucified by the Romans?

How do you know any of these things based solely on the observation that the Romans crucified people and there were Jewish sects like the Essenes? There appear to be several hidden assumptions in your argument.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 114 by historia]

I'm genuinely interested in the rationale behind your argument.

Good. I will try to clarify the issues.

So, you believe certain things about the past because those ideas are "relatively uncontroversial" and widely accepted.

Yes, although there's more to it than that. For example, I've seen archaeological evidence for crucifixion including ankle bones that were impaled by nails.

Why is that sufficient warrant to believe some things about the past but not the historicity of Jesus? After all, the historicity of Jesus is also relatively uncontroversial and widely accepted.

I think that Jesus may have lived. I give it an even chance. I have already explained why I'm suspicious about the Christian sources for Jesus. Unlike the historicity of the Roman occupation of Judea which as far as I know is not widely contested, the historicity of Jesus is currently undergoing significant scrutiny and has been found wanting by people like Robert Price and Richard Carrier.

If you recall that I guesstimated Jesus' historicity at 50 percent probable, then I think my conclusion follows from my premises. If in first-century Israel the Romans crucified Jewish men who were suspected to be seditious, then it's quite reasonable to conclude that there's an even chance that Jesus, a Jewish man with a common name who preached an impending apocalyptic end to the age and an end to Rome, would have been crucified and did exist.

Based solely on your premises, how have you come to the conclusion that there was someone named Jesus who had something to do with early Christianity? How do you know he preached an apocalyptic end to the age? How do you know he claimed to perform miracles or that he was crucified by the Romans?

I don't know if there was a Jesus who inspired the New Testament. I'm just trying to come up with what I think is reasonable. Since the evidence for Jesus is so weak, I am forced to speculate.

It seems very strange to me that you don't understand what I'm saying. I thought that it was very obvious.

[historia]

So, you believe certain things about the past because those ideas are "relatively uncontroversial" and widely accepted.

Yes, although there's more to it than that. For example, I've seen archaeological evidence for crucifixion including ankle bones that were impaled by nails.

Unlike the historicity of the Roman occupation of Judea which as far as I know is not widely contested

Before getting to the bulk of my response, I just want to point out that you have (inadvertently, no doubt) shifted these questions away from what I actually asked above.

Note that I didn't ask how we know that the Romans occupied Judea or if they crucified people. Rather, I asked: How do we know that Christianity emerged in the first century during the Roman occupation of Judea? And how do we know that Jews were crucified for various offenses including religiously inspired sedition?

Clearly, archeology by itself cannot establish either claim. Are there other reasons, then, that you believe these things? Or is the consensus of scholars enough in these cases?

I have already explained why I'm suspicious about the Christian sources for Jesus.

Are you suspicious about the Roman and Jewish sources that relay information about why people were crucified in Judea?

the historicity of Jesus is currently undergoing significant scrutiny and has been found wanting by people like Robert Price and Richard Carrier.

In virtually every field of academic study you can find a handful of people who disagree with the consensus. The Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, for example, is currently undergoing "significant scrutiny" and has been found wanting by various biologists. Amazingly, there are a handful of academics who doubt the Holocaust, or at least generally accepted aspects of it, and even some who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I'm guessing you don't find the mere existence of these contrarian scholars to be sufficient to seriously doubt any of these other claims about the past. So why do you find it compelling (or at least important to note) in the case of Jesus?

If in first-century Israel the Romans crucified Jewish men who were suspected to be seditious, then it's quite reasonable to conclude that there's an even chance that Jesus, a Jewish man with a common name who preached an impending apocalyptic end to the age and an end to Rome, would have been crucified and did exist.

I agree that this is entirely reasonable. This account of Jesus of Nazareth coheres with our background knowledge of Second Temple Judaism and first century Judea under the Romans.

However, my concern here is that you made two claims about this argument that seem unfounded.

First, you said this is not the kind of argument 'historicists' make. But that's clearly mistaken. Historical Jesus scholars make this point all the time. It's sometimes referred to as the criteria of coherence.

Second, you said this argument doesn't rely on any Christian sources. But, if so, then where did this account of Jesus come from in the first place?

Obviously, the mere fact that people were crucified by the Romans doesn't in and of itself mean the founder of Christianity was crucified, let alone that he preached an apocalyptic messages or claimed to perform miracles. What, then, is the source of these claims?

Based solely on your premises, how have you come to the conclusion that there was someone named Jesus who had something to do with early Christianity? How do you know he preached an apocalyptic end to the age? How do you know he claimed to perform miracles or that he was crucified by the Romans?

I don't know if there was a Jesus who inspired the New Testament. I'm just trying to come up with what I think is reasonable. Since the evidence for Jesus is so weak, I am forced to speculate.

I'm not sure I understand. Just a few pages ago you said your argument for the historicity of Jesus was "backed up by solid evidence." But here now you seem to be saying it's purely "speculation." Please clarify.

It seems very strange to me that you don't understand what I'm saying.

I think I understand what you're saying. It's also clear to me that you are a thoughtful and articulate poster.

But it's also pretty clear to me that there are some unstated assumptions in your argument that you've simply glossed over in your earlier posts -- we all tend to do this, so I'm not trying to single you out or anything. Rather than simply assume what those are, however, I'm asking questions to suss these hidden assumption out so we might discuss them directly.

[liamconnor]

Jagella,

There is a question which I think you have not asked. Let us go back to a time before the birth of Christianity, but not too far back. Say 1st AD.

Let us consider all the literature, Roman and Jewish, which contribute to our reconstruction of that day and age.


Then let us ask what the antecedent probability is that some Jew, or some Jews, in Palestine, would in 30 or so years make up a story about a godly, pacifistic man, getting rejected by his people, crucified by Rome, only to be resurrected some hours later, and whose death and resurrection somehow made the world alright, though nothing seemed to change about the world.

Now, historical probability does not admit percentages, as historical probability is more intuitively perceived. But by way of metaphor, I think it fair to assign this probability, based on what we know of Jewish culture and thought, to be .0001%.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 117 by liamconnor]

Now, let us consider Rome, with a history of using religion to usurp the local religion and rule through it, taking history, such as their failed attempt to use religion to take over Palestine in 30AD, and write this and other details into their religion 300 years later.

The probability, is much higher, obviously, 30% perhaps?

[Jagella]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Then let us ask what the antecedent probability is that some Jew, or some Jews, in Palestine, would in 30 or so years make up a story about a godly, pacifistic man, getting rejected by his people, crucified by Rome, only to be resurrected some hours later, and whose death and resurrection somehow made the world alright, though nothing seemed to change about the world.

I think I'm done guessing probabilities, but I should point out that the story of Jesus uses at least one common literary device: irony. The Gospel story is the ultimate rags to riches story. It posits a poor peasant man born in a barn to a father who was a simple carpenter. His mother became pregnant with him while she was unwed. All that saved Jesus from illegitimacy was the virgin-birth miracle story. Jesus grew up quietly and as a young man took up preaching. His ministry was one of miracles, yet he always remained poor and a friend of the lowly. He was unjustly accused of calling himself the king of the Jews and crucified for it. All was not lost, and on the third day he rose from his tomb to glory! Shortly after that he ascended to the sky promising to be with his followers to the end of the age.

That looks like a great work of fiction to me.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 116 by historia]

I believe I've already covered all this material and answered all these questions. Have you read what I've posted on this thread? If not, then please go back and read my posts. If you have read it, then I will try to clarify anything you are confused about.