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]

[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!

I'm not entirely sure who "the religious folks" are meant to be, but this post appears to be nothing more than flag-waving for one perceived 'side' against another.

There have been many posts in the thread with interesting arguments for all perspectives and plenty of useful information. But it seems the flag-waving has garnered more approval, likes and token exchanges than anything else in the thread.

[paarsurrey1]

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?

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.

But it does not fulfill the Sign of Jonah that was to be shown to the Judaism people, as promised to them by Jesus. Jonah went in the belly of the fish alive, Jonay remained alive in the belly of the fish, Jonah did not die in the belly of fish, rather Jonah was in the near-dead position in the belly of the fish. Jonah came out of the fish alive. If Jesus died on the Cross, then the "Sign of Jonah" becomes unfulfilled in Jesus. It does not remain the greatest sign of Jesus.Right, please? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 122 by paarsurrey1]

But it does not fulfill the Sign of Jonah that was to be shown to the Judaism people, as promised to them by Jesus. Jonah went in the belly of the fish alive, Jonay remained alive in the belly of the fish, Jonah did not die in the belly of fish, rather Jonah was in the near-dead position in the belly of the fish. Jonah came out of the fish alive. If Jesus died on the Cross, then the "Sign of Jonah" becomes unfulfilled in Jesus. It does not remain the greatest sign of Jesus.Right, please? Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are correct in that the Jonah story does not say that Jonah ever died in the belly of the great fish or the whale. Nevertheless, Jesus is quoted as comparing his death and resurrection to Jonah in the whale. Obviously, the story of Jesus' death and resurrection need not be identical to the story of Jonah, just similar. So the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus claiming that Jonah's three days in the whale predicts Jesus' three days in "the heart of the earth." Many Christians therefore see Jesus' death and resurrection as a "fulfillment" of Jonah even though Jonah didn't die in the whale.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the New Testament writers, especially the writer of Matthew, believed that Jesus was predicted in various passages in the Old Testament. This belief may have served as a reason why the crucifixion story may have been made up to make Jesus' life appear to fulfill prophecy.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 122 by paarsurrey1]

But it does not fulfill the Sign of Jonah that was to be shown to the Judaism people, as promised to them by Jesus. Jonah went in the belly of the fish alive, Jonay remained alive in the belly of the fish, Jonah did not die in the belly of fish, rather Jonah was in the near-dead position in the belly of the fish. Jonah came out of the fish alive. If Jesus died on the Cross, then the "Sign of Jonah" becomes unfulfilled in Jesus. It does not remain the greatest sign of Jesus.Right, please? Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are correct in that the Jonah story does not say that Jonah ever died in the belly of the great fish or the whale. Nevertheless, Jesus is quoted as comparing his death and resurrection to Jonah in the whale. Obviously, the story of Jesus' death and resurrection need not be identical to the story of Jonah, just similar. So the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus claiming that Jonah's three days in the whale predicts Jesus' three days in "the heart of the earth." Many Christians, therefore, see Jesus' death and resurrection as a "fulfillment" of Jonah even though Jonah didn't die in the whale.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the New Testament writers, especially the writer of Matthew, believed that Jesus was predicted in various passages in the Old Testament. This belief may have served as a reason why the crucifixion story may have been made up to make Jesus' life appear to fulfill prophecy.

the crucifixion story may have been made up to make Jesus' life appear to fulfill prophecy

Sorry, there is no similarity between a dead and a living person. Obviously, the Christians who "see Jesus' death and resurrection as a "fulfillment" of Jonah" are wrong and they believe the teachings of Paul and the Church instead of following the truthful teachings of Jesus.
It is a made-up story as one has rightly observed above, not the correct one that Jesus was raised from the dead. They made a wrong case of fulfillment of the prophecy. The prophecy fulfills most strongly if Jesus survives the death on the Cross, please.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 71 by Mithrae]

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.

Since Historia seems to be temporarily absent, I may as well revisit this post which I skipped in the midst of responses to Alwayson, TFVespasianus and Willum.

My thoughts on initially reading the post were simply this:

• 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 "Ananias," 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.

Is this an argument based on "solid evidence" suggesting the existence of a 1st-century crucified apocalyptic preacher/miracle worker named Ananias? Or (as I suspect Historia's still-unanswered questions were intended to highlight) do we actually need more specific historical sources to reasonably make such a suggestion?

For all the protestation, the argument above seems to be purely probabilistic and not based on specific evidence!

[Willum]

[Replying to post 125 by Mithrae]

This is the one where J- took the field, right?
It seems to me that I don't need the answers to those questions:

I know the facts surrounding them,
I know what others believe, sans facts.
and I know what people believe despite the facts.

Putting the onus on the opposition to prove their own points seems like a concession to me.
Unless of course J wants to prove that it was actual history. Which does not seem to be his goal.

[Mithrae]

Putting the onus on the opposition to prove their own points seems like a concession to me.
Unless of course J wants to prove that it was actual history. Which does not seem to be his goal.

I don't know what Jagella's goal is, I am simply asking him to substantiate his own points. (I think you may have misunderstood that nuance.)

Specifically, while he doesn't so much disagree with the historical existence of Jesus, he asserts of historicists in general that "Their logic is sloppy and their evidence is weak." In contrast to that he claims that he provided an argument for the existence of Jesus which is
- "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"

Yet as I responded, without using the 'weak' evidence he has so colourfully dismissed, what he provided actually seems to be a purely probabilistic argument devoid of specific evidence, which could just as easily (and just as weakly/invalidly) be used to suggest the existence of a 1st-century crucified apocalyptic preacher/miracle worker named Ananias. And I suppose one named Simeon and one named Lazarus too...

Furthermore (as Historia had already pointed out) the broader contextual plausibility of a given report is certainly a major and common concern of historical enquiry, with Christian origins being no exception; it just isn't the be-all and end-all implied by Jagella's argument.

So it would seem that both Jagella's claim of historicists' sloppy logic/weak evidence and his claim to have provided something better are incorrect. On face value, at least.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 125 by Mithrae]

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 "Ananias," 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.

That might be a good argument for the historicity of Ananias. Is there an Ananias that people say fit that profile?

I don't know what Jagella's goal is, I am simply asking him to substantiate his own points.

I cannot substantiate my argument for the historicity of Jesus because there is little substance for his existence. The best I can do is use the best reasoning I can come up with. I should point out, though, that if you criticize my argument for relying on historical studies and what I think is probably true, then you destroy your own argument for Jesus' historicity.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 125 by Mithrae]

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 "Ananias," 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.

That might be a good argument for the historicity of Ananias.

It might be? How do you decide whether or not it is a good argument for the historicity of Ananias?

As I asked... do we actually need more specific historical sources to reasonably make such a suggestion?



Edit:

I don't know what Jagella's goal is, I am simply asking him to substantiate his own points.

I cannot substantiate my argument for the historicity of Jesus because there is little substance for his existence. The best I can do is use the best reasoning I can come up with. I should point out, though, that if you criticize my argument for relying on historical studies and what I think is probably true, then you destroy your own argument for Jesus' historicity.

As I explained more fully in that post to Willum, my concern is not specifically how or whether you can substantiate your particular argument for Jesus' existence. It is the apparent falsity of your claims
- that historicists' generally provide sloppy logic and weak evidence, and
- that your argument is better than (and does not rely on) those.

It seems obvious that your argument does rely on the same evidence - the reports by Paul, Josephus, Mark etc. - to confirm the existence of a 1st century crucified Jewish apocalyptic preacher/miracle worker named Jesus (in contrast to the existence of a 1st century crucified Jewish apocalyptic preacher/miracle worker named Ananias).


Going a step further in relation to your question, suppose that an anonymous source from 400 years after his alleged crucifixion declared that there had in fact been such an Ananias, would that then mean that it is a good argument for the his existence?

Obviously not: And we can therefore ascertain that the conclusion actually depends entirely on the strength of the specific historical information, against which context might be used to evaluate the plausibility of available sources, but not to replace them. In itself, the contextual plausibilities you have suggested are not evidence or an argument for the existence of such a specific individual at all. If that's the case, the sloppy logic here would be all in your court

[tfvespasianus]

Since Historia seems to be temporarily absent, I may as well revisit this post which I skipped in the midst of responses to Alwayson, TFVespasianus and Willum.

It does seem that the discussion itself has lost a bit of focus (which is fine as discussion neednt be laser-focused) and we find ourselves in eddies of varying degrees of relevance. Nonetheless, I would like to say as an aside that I do always enjoy historias contributions and would agree that his statements deserve consideration. Additionally, Mithrae has made serious and detailed contributions.

However, it occurs to me that if we are discussing The Crucifixion and whether it is history we are in a sense talking about the historicity of the Passion narrative. As is well documented, the Passion narrative is largely a pastiche of OT passages literarily formed into something like a dramatic cento. On my previous religious discussion site, I had posited in an exchange with a very learned apologist that the sheer volume of allusions to the Psalms and prophets in the narrative leads to two possibilities: either there is literary artifice at work in the narrative OR the god of the bible intervened in human history to cause events to transpire just so. He accepts the latter, but one has to take a side.

Take care,
TFV