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]

...
His fourth point largely already assumes -- as you have yourself -- that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and that the primitive Christian sect was founded by him. It's hard to explain why Christianity exists at all if there weren't people who witnessed what Jesus said and did.
...

Here we must wonder about the accuracy of their recollectings when they present claims of supernatural occurances.

There's a notion that tall tales are built around likely real people, but grow and grow on each retelling.

History Channel: Paul Bunyon:

Historians believe Bunyan was based in large part on an actual lumberjack: Fabian Fournier, a French-Canadian timberman who moved south and got a job as foreman of a logging crew in Michigan after the Civil War. Six feet tall (at a time when the average man barely cleared five feet) with giant hands, Fournier went by the nickname “Saginaw Joe.” He was rumored to have two complete sets of teeth, which he used to bite off hunks of wooden rails, and in his spare time enjoyed drinking and brawling. One November night in 1875, Fournier was murdered in the notoriously rowdy lumber town of Bay City, Michigan. His death, and the sensational trial of his alleged killer (who was acquitted), fueled tales of Saginaw Joe’s rough-and-tumble life—and his lumbering prowess—in logging camps in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and beyond.

Over time, Fournier’s legend merged with that of another French-Canadian lumberman, Bon Jean. Jean had played a prominent role in the Papineau Rebellion of 1837, when loggers and other working men in St. Eustache, Canada, revolted against the British regime of the newly crowned Queen Victoria. The French pronunciation of Jean’s full name is believed to have evolved into the surname Bunyan.

Especially as these alleged eyewitnesses are no longer here to question, we have some compelling reason to think the same processes has occurred.

Like how I caught me that fifty pound trout, on that three pound cricket.

[bluegreenearth]

What if we were visited by aliens?

Such speculations are fun and interesting but don't seem to demonstrate the consistent application of Dr. Craig's line of reasoning to the Roswell literature. At least, I am not able to make the connection anyway. Would you mind providing a more directly paralleled analysis?

[William]

What if we were visited by aliens?

Such speculations are fun and interesting but don't seem to demonstrate the consistent application of Dr. Craig's line of reasoning to the Roswell literature. At least, I am not able to make the connection anyway. Would you mind providing a more directly paralleled analysis?

I was really just going along with the idea that in either case, it is speculation...but confess I did not read the interactions between you and historia.



I suppose to attempt an answer to your question re speculation, I think if the dots can be joined, the speculation is made more interesting for its possibility being true, which is what I am saying in my posts about "Aliens" in that linked thread.

So what post has the info re Dr. Craig's line of reasoning to the Roswell literature, that I might take a look and see?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to William in post #184]

My apologies, but I wasn't paying close enough attention and thought you were responding directly to something I had posted to you. In any case, the link to Historia's post is viewtopic.php?p=1044163#p1044163

[William]

[Replying to William in post #184]

My apologies, but I wasn't paying close enough attention and thought you were responding directly to something I had posted to you. In any case, the link to Historia's post is viewtopic.php?p=1044163#p1044163

Thanks for that.

From the link;

As with the second point about folk tales, it seems to me you're reading too much into Craig's argument here.

With this fifth point, he is not saying -- as you seem to imagine -- that, because an account contains historically accurate information, therefore everything it says is true. Rather, he's trying to argue that our disposition toward the gospels should be one of "innocent until proven guilty" -- that is, accurate unless we have good reason to think it is inaccurate -- rather than the other way around, as some skeptical scholars would have it.

In other words, we should not simply dismiss the gospels out-of-hand as pure fabrications for the reasons (all of them together, not just individually) he's given. That does not logically entail the further claim that everything they say is therefore true.

From an agnostic position, I can understand the "innocent until proven guilty" plea, but it is more a case of "unproven until proven" which in itself is an act of faith, if one chooses to believe.

As to joining the dots between humans and [supposed] non humans [aliens], the biblical account of YHWH and Jesus [etc] does connect in that way.
This, because I see the only explanation for the so-called "supernatural" incidence described in the scripts, which keeps things in the realm of physics, [natural] is "possible unknown advanced technology" ["Aliens"].

Not that I have met many [if any] Christian folk admitting to that connect.

But those are deeper things beneath the surface scratching of religious beliefs.

[AgnosticBoy]

It's weak according to the definitions of what evidence is. There is nothing that is contemporary

I disagree. I mean Jesus's life was short lived (33 year span?) and the important aspects (his ministry) was even shorter (3.5 years?). I wouldn't have expected for people to be thinking about documenting his life given his low socioeconomic status (he wasn't important or part of the ruling class) and his short lived life. Even by modern standards, my expectations are reasonable. If I were famous, and my fame lasted a very short time, then I wouldn't expect for a historian to already have documented my full life details because a) the historian would not even take notice of me until I became famous b)he would not have had time to fully research my life in 3 years, especially if he's just starting to focus on how my fame is developing.

Either way, to claim that "nothing is contemporary" is a misleading. We can say that nothing written was contemporary but that does not mean that the information and the sources were not contemporary which is possible when or if they existed prior to being written. They were likely made into creeds or confessions (i.e. summary statements of the Christian faith) to help the early Christians remember key information about their faith. One of the earliest creeds has been dated back to being within months or a few years from the time of Jesus's death. I'll let a skeptic explain it to you:

A member asked:

I keep hearing Christian apologists insisting the Corinthian Creed (1 Cor. 15:3-8) can be reliably dated to the 30s A.D., just years or even months after Jesus died. Can you direct me to a solid refutation of that claim?

Dr. Richard Carrier responds:

The answer is no. Because there is no refutation of this claim—other than “maybe possibly it originated later,” which is the logical fallacy of possibiliter ergo probabiliter (“it’s possible, therefore it’s probable,” see Proving History, index). In fact the evidence for this creed dating to the very origin of the religion is amply strong; and there is no reasonable basis for claiming otherwise.

Yes, maybe Paul’s letters are a forgery. But that’s very unlikely. Yes, Paul added at least one line (verse 8, appending his own conversion years later to the original). But the first three lines certainly are original components of the sect’s founding creed (written in non-Pauline style). Yes, the text may have become corrupted (I suspect verse 6 originally said something like, “then he appeared to all the brethren together at the Pentecost” and not “then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once”; and verse 7 looks like a post-Pauline scribal addition, as it breaks the logic of the sequence and is too redundant, just repeating the same information already conveyed in verses 5 and 6, since everyone who saw Jesus was already an apostle and James the pillar was already one of the twelve: see Empty Tomb, pp. 192-93). But the essential elements of the creed (especially verses 3 to 5), even if we have to account for some transmission error (in verses 6 and 7), still dates to the sect’s origin. It’s what distinguishes Christianity from any other sect of Judaism. So it’s the only thing Peter (Cephas) and the other pillars (James and John) could have been preaching before Paul joined the religion. And Paul joined it within years of its founding (internal evidence in Paul’s letters places his conversion before 37 A.D., and he attests in Galatians 1 that he was preaching the Corinthian creed immediately thereupon: OHJ, pp. 139, 516, 536, 558).

Source: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11069

[Difflugia]

Either way, to claim that "nothing is contemporary" is a misleading. We can say that nothing written was contemporary but that does not mean that the information and the sources were not contemporary which is possible when or if they existed prior to being written.

No evidence is no evidence. As Richard Carrier wrote in the quote you used later in your post, "it's possible, therefore it's probable" isn't a valid argument. An expected lack of contemporary evidence doesn't somehow take the place of the missing evidence.

They were likely made into creeds or confessions (i.e. summary statements of the Christian faith) to help the early Christians remember key information about their faith. One of the earliest creeds has been dated back to being within months or a few years from the time of Jesus's death.

Creeds are, as you put it, statements of faith; they're doctrine, not history. Historically, creeds are what separate one group from another. All of the other Christian creeds we know separate orthodoxy from at least one Christian heresy that is or was practiced. We may just as easily speculate that the Pauline Christians (and whoever Paul "received" the creed from) were separating themselves from Christians that believed that Jesus didn't die and that he wasn't raised. As long as neither of us is justifying our speculations, I'll go so far as to say that it's "likely."

[AgnosticBoy]

Either way, to claim that "nothing is contemporary" is a misleading. We can say that nothing written was contemporary but that does not mean that the information and the sources were not contemporary which is possible when or if they existed prior to being written.

No evidence is no evidence. As Richard Carrier wrote in the quote you used later in your post, "it's possible, therefore it's probable" isn't a valid argument. An expected lack of contemporary evidence doesn't somehow take the place of the missing evidence.

You are technically right if your claim is that that no contemporary of Jesus wrote details about Jesus. But your point does not address nor refute this part of my statement which you quoted, "but that does not mean that the information and the sources were not contemporary". There is evidence that some of Paul's information came from Jesus's contemporaries. In Galatians 1:18-19, he clearly states two apostles that he met with. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, he likely got his information from the first generation of Christians, of which some or most would've been alive during Jesus's time and witnessed him.

So at least with Paul's writings, what we have is documentation of first-hand accounts.

[Difflugia]

You are technically right if your claim is that that no contemporary of Jesus wrote details about Jesus. But your point does not address nor refute this part of my statement which you quoted, "but that does not mean that the information and the sources were not contemporary".

You're "technically right" that it doesn't mean the information wasn't contemporary, but it doesn't mean that the sources were conteporary with (or proximate to) Jesus, either. It can't mean either one, because no evidence is no evidence.

There is evidence that some of Paul's information came from Jesus's contemporaries. In Galatians 1:18-19, he clearly states two apostles that he met with.

Who, as far as we know from Paul, only saw Jesus after he "died" and "was raised." Paul never mentions anyone experiencing Jesus in any way prior to his death and resurrection. Even if Jesus was a real guy, Paul may have never spoken to anyone that knew him before he died. To claim that Paul's information came from people that knew the living Jesus requires that one assumes that the Gospels are reliable, which is what we're trying to establish.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, he likely got his information from the first generation of Christians, of which some or most would've been alive during Jesus's time and witnessed him.

There's that unsupported "likely" again. Here's what Paul said, first Galatians 1:11-12:

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Emphasis mine. Now 1 Corinthians 15:1-3a:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:

Again, emphasis mine to point out two things. First, "the gospel I preached" is more formulaic in Greek than it sounds in English. The word translated "preached" is the verb form of "gospel." In Greek, the phrase is "the gospel that I gospelled" (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην) and aside from using the passive voice ("the gospel that was gospelled by me"), it's exactly the same phrase that he used in Galatians. Second, Paul is claiming that the gospel he "received" didn't come from any people at all, Christian or otherwise, first generation or otherwise.

The creed is described in the same context and using the same language as his gospel, so we have every reason to treat it as part of that gospel. Paul's gospel was received "through a revelation of Jesus Christ." That's exactly the sort of thing Pauline Christians would express as a creed to differentiate themselves from other Christians.

So at least with Paul's writings, what we have is documentation of first-hand accounts.

According to Paul, the knowledge came to him via divine revelation. That's what Paul documented. That it's evidence of anything else is nothing more than speculation on your part.

[AgnosticBoy]

You are technically right if your claim is that that no contemporary of Jesus wrote details about Jesus. But your point does not address nor refute this part of my statement which you quoted, "but that does not mean that the information and the sources were not contemporary".

You're "technically right" that it doesn't mean the information wasn't contemporary, but it doesn't mean that the sources were conteporary with (or proximate to) Jesus, either. It can't mean either one, because no evidence is no evidence.

I'd rather say that we don't know what it means when there is no evidence. Making a claim, such as what it can or "can't", without evidence is simply an argument from ignorance. Based on Paul's writings, we can reasonably conclude that he met with those who witnessed Jesus.

There is evidence that some of Paul's information came from Jesus's contemporaries. In Galatians 1:18-19, he clearly states two apostles that he met with.

Who, as far as we know from Paul, only saw Jesus after he "died" and "was raised." Paul never mentions anyone experiencing Jesus in any way prior to his death and resurrection

The apostle Paul affirms that Jesus had a brother. The apostle Paul does have to say it exactly in the way you want it said to indicate that people knew Jesus prior to his death. Logic would dictate that if Jesus had a brother, then he would have to exist, and that someone knew him before his death. Also, Josephus mentions that Jesus had a brother.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, he likely got his information from the first generation of Christians, of which some or most would've been alive during Jesus's time and witnessed him.

There's that unsupported "likely" again. Here's what Paul said, first Galatians 1:11-12:

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Emphasis mine. Now 1 Corinthians 15:1-3a:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:

Again, emphasis mine to point out two things. First, "the gospel I preached" is more formulaic in Greek than it sounds in English. The word translated "preached" is the verb form of "gospel." In Greek, the phrase is "the gospel that I gospelled" (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην) and aside from using the passive voice ("the gospel that was gospelled by me"), it's exactly the same phrase that he used in Galatians. Second, Paul is claiming that the gospel he "received" didn't come from any people at all, Christian or otherwise, first generation or otherwise.

There are some similarities between the Galatians passage and the 1 Corinthians passages, but the latter passages do not specify that Paul received anything from Christ. Furthermore, I tend not to put too much stock into personal interpretations of how the Greek reads or functions unless you can back it up with experts who share your view. So far, most of the expert material I've read, including that of skeptics such as Dr. Richard Carrier, all view 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as being an early Christian creed that even predates Paul. If such a creed existed before Paul, then he did not have to get it from divine revelation. Let's look at 1 Corinthians 15 again:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas.

This clearly shows Paul alluding to information that is found in "Scripture" and not divine revelation. Divine revelation is not needed for something that's already documented.