The Case for the Historical Christ

[Paul of Tarsus]

Can we make a case that Jesus really lived? Whatever else you might think of him, the answer to this question is not hard to come up with.

The first and perhaps most commonly cited reason to believe Jesus lived is that we know that the popular majority of New Testament authorities think he lived. So in the same way you can be sure that evolution has occurred because the consensus of evolutionary biologists think evolution happened, you can be sure Christ lived based on what his experts think about his historicity.

Now, one of the reasons New Testament authorities are so sure Christ existed is because Christ's followers wrote of his crucifixion. The disciples were very embarrassed about the crucifixion, and therefore we can be sure they didn't make up the story. Why would they create a Messiah who died such a shameful death? The only sensible answer is that they had to tell the whole truth about Jesus even if it went against the belief that the Messiah would conquer all.

We also have many people who attested to Jesus. In addition to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; we also have Paul and John of Patmos who wrote of Jesus. If Bible writers aren't convincing enough, then we have Josephus and Tacitus who wrote of Jesus, both of whom were not Christians. Yes, one person might write of a mythological figure, but when we have so many writing of Jesus, then we are assured he must have lived.

Finally, we have Paul's writing of Jesus' brother James whom Paul knew. As even some atheist Bible authorities have said, Jesus must have existed because he had a brother.

So it looks like we can safely conclude that Jesus mythicists have no leg to stand on. Unlike Jesus authorities who have requisite degrees in Biblical studies and teach New Testament at respected universities, Jesus mythicists are made up primarily of internet atheists and bloggers who can use the internet to say what they want without regard to credibility. They've been said to be in the same league as Holocaust deniers and young-earth creationists.

[JoeyKnothead]

It's still an argument from popularity.

It appears a few people are confused on this point.

Imagine how proud they must be that here I came along, I enlightened em!

Citing a consensus of experts is not a fallacious argumentum ad populum, as any Introduction to Logic course will inform you, such as this one (see section II.F).

As any -ahem- Introduction to Common Sense course'll tell ya, just because someone - even the experts - believe something to be true, that don't magically make it true.

[historia]

Citing a consensus of experts is not a fallacious argumentum ad populum, as any Introduction to Logic course will inform you, such as this one (see section II.F).

As any -ahem- Introduction to Common Sense course'll tell ya, just because someone - even the experts - believe something to be true, that don't magically make it true.

Nobody said that it did.

So, not only were you wrong about citing the consensus of experts being a fallacious appeal to popularity, but then you followed that error up by committing a straw man fallacy yourself. Impressive.

[JoeyKnothead]

Citing a consensus of experts is not a fallacious argumentum ad populum, as any Introduction to Logic course will inform you, such as this one (see section II.F).

As any -ahem- Introduction to Common Sense course'll tell ya, just because someone - even the experts - believe something to be true, that don't magically make it true.

Nobody said that it did.

So, not only were you wrong about citing the consensus of experts being a fallacious appeal to popularity, but then you followed that error up by committing a straw man fallacy yourself. Impressive.

I merely point to the fact that no matter how many folks believe something, and no matter their expertise, their belief in something doesn't establish that belief as fact.

If all the astronomers, in all the universities, in all the world believed the moon was made of green cheese, do we need to fear us giant moon eating mice?

That's all I'm getting at - belief does not establish fact. I can't help that bit of knowledge sets folks to being upset, but it's a fact that belief does not establich fact.

[historia]

That's all I'm getting at - belief does not establish fact. I can't help that bit of knowledge sets folks to being upset

Nobody is upset here, Joey, just as nobody is saying that belief establishes fact. You're attacking straw man arguments.

[JoeyKnothead]

That's all I'm getting at - belief does not establish fact. I can't help that bit of knowledge sets folks to being upset

Nobody is upset here, Joey, just as nobody is saying that belief establishes fact. You're attacking straw man arguments.

I don't just speak to you when I post, but seek as broad a spectrum of folks as I can.

With that in mind, it's my goal that anyone who reads all this, who might think otherwise, well there we go.

It ain't all about you.

[brunumb]

I merely point to the fact that no matter how many folks believe something, and no matter their expertise, their belief in something doesn't establish that belief as fact.

I'm sure all of the experts on unicorns would agree with you on that point.

[historia]

Nobody is upset here, Joey, just as nobody is saying that belief establishes fact. You're attacking straw man arguments.

I don't just speak to you when I post

Sure, that's why I'm pointing out to you that nobody here (not just me) is saying the things you are attacking.

With that in mind, it's my goal that anyone who reads all this, who might think otherwise, well there we go.

No, I get it. You can't mount a meaningful critique of what people in the thread are actually saying, so you have to resort to knocking down straw man arguments that someone somewhere might think. You do you.

[JoeyKnothead]

Nobody is upset here, Joey, just as nobody is saying that belief establishes fact. You're attacking straw man arguments.

I don't just speak to you when I post

That's why I'm pointing out to you that nobody here (not just me) is saying the things you are attacking.

I don't presuppose that every single person who reads a post is compelled to comment, or that every single poster is aware of the fact I present.

I post in an effort to ensure those who may not have the fullest understanding can have em a fuller bit of it.

What is so hard to understand about that?

With that in mind, it's my goal that anyone who reads all this, who might think otherwise, well there we go.

No, I get it. You can't mount a meaningful critique of what people in the thread are actually saying, so you have to resort to knocking down straw man arguments that someone somewhere might think.

Look, I've said it til I'm blue in the fingers...

It is a fact that belief does not establish fact, no matter how many folks are however proud of their belief and no matter if they're Einstein himself.

That's all I've been saying, that's all I'm saying.

If you 're incapable of understanding that I am indeed "critiquing" any and all arguments that state or imply that just because a whole great big, giant, heaping, steaming pile of experts believe em something, then that somehow points to the experts being right, or closer to right, well how bout that.

I'll say it again, extra loud, so anyone who thinks they can refute an everloving fact can either see it said, or hear it being hollered out from on top of my roof...

BELIEF ALONE, NO MATTER HOW PROUD YA ARE OF IT, OR YOUR EXPERTISE ABOUT IT, DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THAT BELIEF.

Now "critique" that, the one thing I've asserted about this whole mess. Go ahead, critique it til your fingers fall off!

[Mithrae]

I'll say it again, extra loud, so anyone who thinks they can refute an everloving fact can either see it said, or hear it being hollered out from on top of my roof...

BELIEF ALONE, NO MATTER HOW PROUD YA ARE OF IT, OR YOUR EXPERTISE ABOUT IT, DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THAT BELIEF.

Now "critique" that, the one thing I've asserted about this whole mess. Go ahead, critique it til your fingers fall off!

Just to clarify, are you asserting that this is something you can "prove" rather than just "swear up and down one way or the other"?

Your fact would obviously be indisputable given the assumption of physicalism/material monism, but such an assumption would obviously fall a little short of 'fact'! By contrast if reality were better described (as I think seems most reasonable) in terms of idealism/mental monism, we could readily conceive the possibility that belief shapes reality under the right circumstances - a viewpoint which can be found in perspectives as diverse as Christianity, Buddhism, New Age spiritualism, self-help 'Think and Grow Rich' proponents and so on.

Since you claim (correctly) that we cannot absolutely prove 100.00% whether or not Jesus existed, how would you know that Jesus' existence in history hasn't been retroactively instantiated by an overwhelming concentration of belief in his existence? Presumably the only possible way to know that, to establish it as an "everloving fact" would be to prove that the nature of reality makes it impossible.

Obviously if you personally accept some contrary reality as true - whether physicalism, or any other in which even an overwhelming concentration of belief cannot shape reality - even without being able to show it as true, that's on you, as you noted earlier. But if you cannot show it to be true, claiming it as a fact seems like a bit of a stretch. In fact I'd hazard a guess that there's pretty much nothing which you can prove to be true: All we've got are probabilities, but some people want to make an arbitrary, binary division at 90% or 99% or 99.9% confidence and say that this is "proof," this is when something is "shown to be true" and anything short of this can be dismissed or ridiculed at leisure.

This everloving fact you're so proud of, offhand I'd personally peg it as having maybe 90% plausibility (coincidentally about the same figure I'd give for Jesus' existence, give or take)... but maybe you can show it to actually be a fact?

[Difflugia]

It seems to have escaped you that I’m taking the counter position to your claim that the sources you appealed to are “non-magical”.

Perfect. I can work with that.

So we're all clear, here's my claim, then:

We have extensive, non-magical, non-theological, non-polemic accounts by historians that we otherwise trust (Livy, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Plutarch).

When we looked at Nicolaus' account of Caesar's assassination, you claimed that it assumed the truth of supernatural claims. The devil, it turned out, was in the details and Nicolaus qualified his supernatural claims in a way that separated beliefs of the characters from beliefs of the narrator. In that light, I read Plutarch's Life of Caesar in one sitting (it's about 24,000 words, roughly the length of the Gospel of Matthew) and examined each reference to the supernatural. Though in a slightly different way, Plutarch did the same thing. Nicolaus attributed dubious beliefs to characters, while Plutarch attributes them to sources, often unnamed ("they say" or "it is said").

As was evident in Nicolaus, the distinction (or its lack) is important when comparing Plutarch with a Gospel.

Here's the evidence you presented about Plutarch. It looks like you're quoting this translation, so I will, too:

As for Plutarch.

I had previously provided a sampling of the numerous references to the supernatural in his Life of Caesar. But I will provide them again since you ignored them last time.

Signs, apparitions, omens, men on fire who do not burn, and animals without hearts.

”But destiny, it would seem, is not so much unexpected as it is unavoidable, since they say that amazing signs and apparitions were seen. 2 Now, as for lights in the heavens, crashing sounds borne all about by night, and birds of omen coming down into the forum, it is perhaps not worth while to mention these precursors of so great an event; 3 but Strabo the philosopher says that multitudes of men all on fire were seen rushing up, and a soldier's slave threw from his hand a copious flame and seemed to the spectators to be burning, but when the flame ceased the man was uninjured; 4 he says, moreover, that when Caesar himself was sacrificing, the heart of the victim was not to be found, and the prodigy caused fear, since in the course of nature, certainly, an animal without a heart could not exist... And when the seers also, after many sacrifices, told him that the omens were unfavourable, he resolved to send Antony and dismiss the senate.” – 63

Once again the gods are responsible.

And once again, our historian makes clear that he is quoting other sources and not opining on their truth either way. This is a convention that is adopted by Greek historians, but notably absent in the Gospels. As stated in Acts in its Ancient Literary Context (which I've quoted before):

I speak of a blurring of boundaries here (rather than a deliberate crossing from 'fact' to 'fiction') because I think it is clear from passages like those quoted that ancient historians were aware that a commitment to methodological truth (the historian's duty to pass on ancient tradition) might conflict with the truth of the narrative's content - especially where, as so often with the later antiquarians, the historian fails to subject the tradition to critical analysis.

That's what we have here. Plutarch is reporting on the legends, but separating them out as perhaps (at the discretion of the reader) requiring skepticism. Compare such disclaimers in what you quoted ("it would seem," "Strabo the philosopher says," "when the seers also, after many sacrifices, told him") with places where Plutarch presumably doesn't see a reasonable need for such skepticism. Here's a humorous anecdote that must be derived no less from hearsay, yet Plutarch apparently considered it mundane enough to report himself in the persona of the narrator (10):

At the time of which I speak, Pompeia was celebrating this festival, and Clodius, who was still beardless and on this account thought to pass unnoticed, assumed the dress and implements of a lute-girl and went to the house, looking like a young woman. He found the door open, and was brought in safely by the maid-servant there, who was in the secret; but after she had run on ahead to tell Pompeia and some time had elapsed, Clodius had not the patience to wait where he had been left, and so, as he was wandering about in the house (a large one) and trying to avoid the lights, an attendant of Aurelia came upon him and asked him to play with her, as one woman would another, and when he refused, she dragged him forward and asked who he was and whence he came. Clodius answered that he was waiting for Pompeia’s Abra (this was the very name by which the maid was called), and his voice betrayed him. The attendant of Aurelia at once sprang away with a scream to the lights and the throng, crying out that she had caught aman. The women were panic-stricken, and Aurelia put a stop to the mystic rites of the goddess and covered up the emblems. Then she ordered the doors to be closed and went about the house with torches, searching for Clodius. He was found where he had taken refuge, in the chamber of the girl who had let him into the house; and when they saw who he was, the women drove him out of doors.

Your argument is that supernatural claims are being incorporated in a way indistinguishable from undeniably (as presented) historical events (or at least that such distinctions are "trivial"). That's pretty obviously not the case.

”So far, perhaps, these things may have happened of their own accord; the place, however, which was the scene of that struggle and murder, and in which the senate was then assembled, since it contained a statue of Pompey and had been dedicated by Pompey as an additional ornament to his theatre, made it wholly clear that it was the work of some heavenly power which was calling and guiding the action thither.” – 66

This is part of a long list of legends (both mundane and supernatural) surrounding Caesar's assassination that are presented as being legends. It begins in section 62 and includes the long paragraph you quoted earlier:

• For Caesar, as we are told, ...
• But destiny, it would seem, is not so much unexpected as it is unavoidable, since they say that amazing signs and apparitions were seen.
• but Strabo the philosopher says
• The following story, too, is told by many.
• Some, however, say that this was not the vision which the woman had;
• And when the seers also, after many sacrifices, told him that the omens were unfavourable,
• But if he was fully resolved (Albinus said) to regard the day as inauspicious,
• Some, however, say that another person gave him this roll

Then, picking up immediately where you leave off (emphasis mine):

Indeed, it is also said that Cassius, turning his eyes toward the statue of Pompey before the attack began, invoked it silently, although he was much addicted to the doctrines of Epicurus; but the crisis, as it would seem, when the dreadful attempt was now close at hand, replaced his former cool calculations with divinely inspired emotion.

Compare these sections with earlier ones about which Plutarch is apparently in less doubt. Whenever Plutarch qualifies his statements with "some say," "they say," or "according to," it's suggested by the context that it's something that Plutarch considers dubious.

• Some say that Caesar made this deposition honestly; but according to others it was made to gratify the people (10)
• It is said, moreover, that on the night before he crossed the river he had an unnatural dream (32)
• In that city’s temple of Victory there stood a statue of Caesar, and the ground around it was itself naturally firm, and was paved with hard stone; yet from this it is said that a palm-tree shot up at the base of the statue. (47)

A seven day comet, a darkened sun and weird weather for a whole year.

Whether historical or not, none of these is supernatural or particularly implausible.

And oh yeah, a giant scary phantom who shows up at Brutus’ door to talk with him. All orchestrated by the gods of course.

"So they say," anyway. While the translator makes it appear that the "as they say" (ὥς φασι) only applies to a single clause, Plutarch separately qualifies each part of the same story in Life of Brutus.

When they were about to cross over from Asia, Brutus is said to have had a great sign. (Brutus, 36)

On that night, they say, the phantom visited Brutus again, manifesting the same appearance as before, but went away without a word. (48)

Plutarch recognizes that those are good and important parts of the story, but might be just that: a good story. Each time, he offers a "so they say" or similar as a wink or nod to the reader.

So that we can see how slippery our slope has to be if we're going to consider these stories as magical as the ones in the Gospels, let's look at Matthew 15:30-31:

Great multitudes came to him, having with them the lame, blind, mute, maimed, and many others, and they put them down at his feet. He healed them, so that the multitude wondered when they saw the mute speaking, the injured healed, the lame walking, and the blind seeing—and they glorified the God of Israel.

That's the narrator speaking without qualification. "Some say that Brutus saw a ghost" isn't magic. "Jesus made the lame walk and the blind see," is.