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]

...
So far, in my experience, most atheists demonstrate a strange, almost pathological resistance to admitting, "Given those premises, that conclusion does seem more reasonable than its denial"—like something bad would happen if they ever allowed anything to be a given. Personally, I have no problem granting things for the sake of argument and admitting that a particular conclusion follows (if it does); I also have no problem following that up with, "However, I would challenge this or that premise."
...

Where you'd end with questioning a premise, this atheist'd question the premise to begin with. Why bother fussing about something, to then end up questioning the premise the discussion is built upon?

Sure, it's fun to speculate and pretend, but ultimately, that's just make believe.

This does seem problematic from the perspective of those who've accepted biblical claims as truth, but when asked to show those claims are truth, the claims fall apart like so much fairy dust, blown into the wind.

I see no need to indulge arguments built on premises I question, just to then hafta turn around and ask, "But can your premise be shown to be truth / valid?" That's how horses come to trip em over carts.

[John Bauer]

Where you'd end with questioning a premise, this atheist'd question the premise to begin with. Why bother fussing about something, to then end up questioning the premise the discussion is built upon?

Why bother? It's called evaluating an argument. That just seems important and worthwhile—at least to me, but maybe you are content to not bother fussing about that.

"It's important to understand that the purpose of evaluating any argument is not typically in the first place to assess whether its conclusion is true but rather to determine whether or not the premises provide adequate support for the conclusion" (Foresman et al. 2017, 32). It may be the case that the premises and conclusion are true, but if the structure is wrong then it fails to support the conclusion; that is, we are bereft of good reasons for justifying the conclusion as true. That's why the first thing one must do is determine whether the premises support the conclusion (valid/strong). If they do, then one may proceed to the next step. But if they do not (invalid/weak), then one should proceed no further (ibid.).

I see no need to indulge arguments built on premises I question, just to then hafta turn around and ask, "But can your premise be shown to be truth / valid?" That's how horses come to trip em over carts.

No, that's how arguments are evaluated to determine whether or not they justify the conclusion. But go ahead and skip that part and just assert things as automagically true.

___
References:

Foresman, G., Fosl, P., and Watson, J. (2017). The Critical Thinking Toolkit. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

[JoeyKnothead]

Where you'd end with questioning a premise, this atheist'd question the premise to begin with. Why bother fussing about something, to then end up questioning the premise the discussion is built upon?

Why bother? It's called evaluating an argument. That just seems important and worthwhile—at least to me, but maybe you are content to not bother fussing about that.

Evaluating the premise is evaluating the argument.

"It's important to understand that the purpose of evaluating any argument is not typically in the first place to assess whether its conclusion is true but rather to determine whether or not the premises provide adequate support for the conclusion" (Foresman et al. 2017, 32). It may be the case that the premises and conclusion are true, but if the structure is wrong then it fails to support the conclusion; that is, we are bereft of good reasons for justifying the conclusion as true. That's why the first thing one must do is determine whether the premises support the conclusion (valid/strong). If they do, then one may proceed to the next step. But if they do not (invalid/weak), then one should proceed no further (ibid.).

In evaluating an argument, mine is a step by step approach...

"God ain't him proud ya did that."

1 - I must first determine if the god in question exists
2 - and has him feelings
3 - and one of em's pride
4 - and his pride's hurt over something I did

If step one, a premise, can't be shown to be true, the rest of the argument falls without my even having to fret em.

I understand fretting a premise is upsetting to Christians, because so often their premises are where their arguments fail.

Also, had you not snipped it out, you'da seen where I said engaging in make believe arguments (those built on failed or faulty premises) can be fun, but are, ultimately, arguments about make believe.

I see no need to indulge arguments built on premises I question, just to then hafta turn around and ask, "But can your premise be shown to be truth / valid?" That's how horses come to trip em over carts.

No, that's how arguments are evaluated to determine whether or not they justify the conclusion. But go ahead and skip that part and just assert things as automagically true.
<snip references>

I have no doubt Christian'd prefer we all address arguments in a manner that provides the Christian comfort. As for me, I'll do my best to use a proper, methodical approach that doesn't rely on engaging in make believe.

Of course, I've promised the mods I wouldn't challenge the "God exists" premise, as come to find out, several Christians were saying that by my doing so, in my methodical way, I was "shutting down debate".

And don't that beat all - a proper analyisis of so many Christian claims shuts down debate.

Ya see, that's what we all have to do in order to fuss over the claims of theists... So often we have to pretend their God/s exist, just to then fuss over how goofy are their 'arguments' about that god they can't show exists.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #154]
I'm really finding it hard to figure out what your goal is here. You've acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of experts accept that Jesus exist. You yourself said you accepted that a Jesus probably existed. No one here has claimed that Jesus has been "proven" to exist.


What other rational position is there to debate here?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #154]
I'm really finding it hard to figure out what your goal is here. You've acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of experts accept that Jesus exist. You yourself said you accepted that a Jesus probably existed. No one here has claimed that Jesus has been "proven" to exist.

What other rational position is there to debate here?

I don't think I acknowledge it so much, as said yeah, a bunch of em believe it. Remember, awhile back I was afussing about how just cause a bunch believe em something, that don't make it true.

I did allow that I think it likely a non-supernatural person by the name of Jesus may have existed within the referenced time frame and localities. Much as there's Jesus' walking around many hispanic neighborhoods. That doesn't mean I accept any claims beyond just that bit there.

Now at least my part in these conversations has shifted into fussing over premises...

Please see post 151, and post 153.

What we've got now is one saying we shouldn't fuss about premises, until after we done fussed about conclusions based on those premises.

I propose that's a kinda goofy way to go, when if the premises are faulty, any conclusions drawn from em are most apt to be faulty. While accepting that engaging make believe can be fun.

What say you?

[JoeyKnothead]

Delete dupe

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #154]
I'm really finding it hard to figure out what your goal is here. You've acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of experts accept that Jesus exist. You yourself said you accepted that a Jesus probably existed. No one here has claimed that Jesus has been "proven" to exist.

What other rational position is there to debate here?

I don't think I acknowledge it so much, as said yeah, a bunch of em believe it. Remember, awhile back I was afussing about how just cause a bunch believe em something, that don't make it true.

I did allow that I think it likely a non-supernatural person by the name of Jesus may have existed within the referenced time frame and localities. Much as there's Jesus' walking around many hispanic neighborhoods. That doesn't mean I accept any claims beyond just that bit there.

What say you?

Well for now, I see that you're making it harder on yourself based on the way you choose to word things. I assume that you know that scholars based their acceptance of Jesus's existence on logic and evidence.

Carry on.

[John Bauer]

Evaluating the premise is evaluating the argument.

You asked a question, and I answered it directly with supporting material from a relevant and qualified source. Your one-sentence response here barely acknowledged the material presented by that source, certainly failed to address it in any meaningful sense, and left the impression that you possibly didn't even understand it. I guess this is an example of you doing your best at using "a proper, methodical approach."

The Christian presented a careful explanation with supporting material from a relevant source.

You replied with a one-sentence response that failed to address the material.

You know what? I'm totally okay with that.

In evaluating an argument, mine is a step by step approach...

"God ain't him proud ya did that."

[snip the ordering of steps]

Yeah, that's not an argument. I guess it's a bit easier to see where the problem is for you. I mean, if that's what you consider an argument, it's little wonder that your reasoning does not cohere with basic textbooks on critical thinking.

The Christian relies upon and adheres to contemporary philosophy texts on epistemology and critical thinking—and can properly identify an argument.

You basically wing it, with a wink and an aw-shucks Southern charm—and you call a proposition an "argument."

Yeah, I'm definitely okay with this, too.

If step one, a premise, can't be shown to be true, the rest of the argument falls without my even having to fret em.

Please show the following premise to be true: "Human reasoning is reliable."

(Hint: You can't without arguing in a circle.)

I understand fretting a premise is upsetting to Christians, because so often their premises are where their arguments fail.

So your response to my criticism is, "Look over here at Christians."

I probably don't have to point this out to others but that's not a response to my criticism. It's called a red herring; most others here probably already know that it's a fallacious attempt to distract people's attention elsewhere. For a really great description and explanation of this fallacy, see Heather Rivera, "Red Herring," in Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy, eds. Robert Arp, Steven Barbone, and Michael Bruce (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2019), 208-211.

The Christian tries to argue a narrow and specific issue.

You attempt to sidetrack attention to a separate issue.

I feel pretty good about how the Christian side of this is making out so far.

Also, had you not snipped it out, you'da seen where I said engaging in make believe arguments (those built on failed or faulty premises) can be fun, but are, ultimately, arguments about make believe.

Just because I did not include it in the quote, that doesn't mean I didn't see it. Your aw-shucks charming wit wasn't relevant, so I didn't include it in the quoted material.

And I have no idea what "make-believe arguments" are supposed to be. An argument with false premises is nevertheless a real argument.

(It amuses me that you essentially just said, "Make-believe arguments are ultimately arguments about make-believe." Apparently, we need to go over how tautological statements are empty.)

No, that's how arguments are evaluated to determine whether or not they justify the conclusion. But go ahead and skip that part and just assert things as automagically true.

I have no doubt Christian'd prefer we all address arguments in a manner that provides the Christian comfort.

Again with the red herring, and completely unrelated to what I had said. Maybe you can't bear having the spotlight aimed at your claims and arguments. Fair enough. Okay, so let's look at Christians instead of you.

All better?

Of course, I've promised the mods I wouldn't challenge the "God exists" premise, as come to find out, several Christians were saying that by my doing so, in my methodical way, I was "shutting down debate".

And don't that beat all - a proper analyisis of so many Christian claims shuts down debate.

See? You just keep sidetracking attention toward Christians. Go ahead and pretend it's not a red herring. Don't forget to click your heels together three times.

[otseng]

it's little wonder that your reasoning does not cohere with basic textbooks on critical thinking.

You basically wing it, with a wink and an aw-shucks Southern charm—and you call a proposition an "argument."

Don't forget to click your heels together three times.

Moderator Comment

It's OK to point out fallacies, but avoid making personal comments or ridiculing other posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
[Replying to John Bauer in post #159]

[historia]

The OP is not framed in terms of probability.

The OP was written by an atheist who doubts Jesus' existence.

So we have no good reason to assume that biblical scholars working at secular institutions are under some kind of "imperative" to reach the conclusion that Jesus existed.

Sure they do. The intro of Ehrman’s book on this subject gives good insights as to why.

Hold up a second. The "imperative" I was quoting here was your assertion that the "imperative necessity of their faith" drives many Christians to believe Jesus existed.

Nowhere in the introduction to Did Jesus Exist? does Ehrman even suggest that an "imperative necessity of faith" drives him and other scholars to conclude Jesus existed. In fact, he says just the opposite (pg. 5):

Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leaning, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed.

This is not just true of secular scholars, like Ehrman, but also Jewish and liberal Christian scholars.

My point here is that while taking a controversial academic stance is normal even among historians of Christianity . . .

Let's not gloss over this point too quickly.

How is it that critical scholars can conclude -- as many do -- that the nativity stories and resurrection accounts are legendary, that many of the sayings attributed to Jesus were invented by the early church, that any claims to his divinity were a late theological development, etc. But, when it comes to the question of Jesus' existence, these same scholars are now suddenly kowtowed by Christian tradition?

How does that work exactly?

. . . the fact that he sees all doubt of Jesus' historicity as a fringe non-academic movement means he knows it’s one that would weaken a scholars' reputation, risk one’s position and future career prospects, etc.

On the contrary, in both the introduction and the body of the book, Ehrman identifies a few scholars (both historical and contemporary) who have taken this position, and so he is not arguing that this is merely a "non-academic movement." He also says that these writers need to be taken seriously.

At any rate, none of this substantiates your claim that the "prevailing institutional norm" that Jesus existed is due to the fact that many Christians view Jesus' existence as an "obvious, absolute, imperative necessity of their faith." There are lots of things that conservative Christians think are imperatives that historians and scholars do not agree with.

Every bit of evidence that is suggested to exist on the life of Jesus could definitely be quoted and described in a single relatively short book.

Perhaps, but historians don't merely "quote and describe" historical evidence. They also have to critically analyze that evidence in the light of our background knowledge, which is why there are numerous book-length and multi-volume works on the historical Jesus, as the issues there are rather complex.

What’s a fact about Jesus’ life that has been most recently discovered through historical Jesus research?

History is more often about providing new interpretations of the evidence than discovering new "facts."

Non-Mormons ARE tolerated/accepted within the circles of historians of Mormonism. In 1972 they opened most of the LDS historical archives to non-Mormon scholars for the first time.

Right, so our hypothetical non-Mormon scholar at the University of Virginia has access to the same primary sources as our hypothetical Mormon scholar at BYU. There are also several journals and university presses where each can publish their research. And so there is no reason why the believing Mormon scholar is in a uniquely superior position to relay information to us about the life of Jospeh Smith.

Consider that the two best biographies of Smith are Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling and Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History, written by a practicing Mormon and an ex-Mormon, respectively. They agree on more than they disagree -- even on points that many believing Mormons today would deny about Smith -- in large part because they both were attempting to write dispassionate, secular history.

Of the University of Virginia’s 81 history professors, zero specialize in mormon history.

Sure, because the University of Virginia's Mormon Studies program is housed in the Religious Studies Department.

Look, I appreciate the point you're trying to make here. The LDS Church exerts an outsized influence over its members, and that naturally is going to curb how practicing Mormon historians approach their work, unless they are willing to risk excommunication, which some have done. You'll find that to varying degrees among evangelical Christian and conservative Muslim scholars as well.

But you won't find this among liberal Christian scholars, Jewish scholars, and secular scholars. And when it comes to prominent religious figures like Joseph Smith, Muhammad, and Jesus, we have an ample number of critical scholars who can serve as a kind of reality-check on the scholars within those religious traditions.

And where those scholars all (or nearly all) agree, that consensus is both meaningful and significant. It cannot be simply dismissed out of hand.