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.

[Tcg]

They should be able to argue why that evidence is evidence that Jesus existed using valid logic (no special pleading, no begging the question, etc.).

Claiming that they should be able to do this is quite different than providing evidence that they do so. Of course given that you've not provided evidence of this group, we are jumping the gun a bit.


Tcg

[Tcg]

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.

The disciples were embarrassed by the crucifixion? What is that claim based on?

There is rarely and perhaps never only one sensible answer. Perhaps the disciples invented the crucifixion story to explain why their Messiah didn't actually conquer all. It is also a good excuse for why they created a new religion when it seems that Jesus' goal was to reform Judaism. The crucifixion is a great cover for both.


Tcg

[Paul of Tarsus]

They should be able to argue why that evidence is evidence that Jesus existed using valid logic (no special pleading, no begging the question, etc.).

Claiming that they should be able to do this is quite different than providing evidence that they do so. Of course given that you've not provided evidence of this group, we are jumping the gun a bit.

In case you don't trust Christian Bible authorities to assure us Jesus existed, then I'd recommend two such authorities who happen to be atheists who have written books to defend the historicity of Christ. There's Maurice Casey's Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? and Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Since both authorities are atheists, they cannot have a pro-historical-Jesus bias.

The disciples were embarrassed by the crucifixion? What is that claim based on?

There is rarely and perhaps never only one sensible answer. Perhaps the disciples invented the crucifixion story to explain why their Messiah didn't actually conquer all. It is also a good excuse for why they created a new religion when it seems that Jesus' goal was to reform Judaism. The crucifixion is a great cover for both.

The disciples must have been embarrassed by the crucifixion because a dead Messiah is no messiah at all! I don't see how a made-up crucifixion story would be a good explanation for Jesus' failure to free Israel from Rome. Do you think the disciples wanted to tell people he failed to do so because the Romans killed him? And how is the crucifixion an excuse for accidently starting a new religion after failing to reform Judaism? Why would Christians want to make an excuse for starting their new faith?

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

Kicking off your argument with an argumentum ad populum is not a great start, not a surprising one though.


Tcg

I don't believe that the point was so much about the number of scholars but rather the emphasis was put on the level of education/expertise. While being an expert alone does not always make you right but their views would be more informed than a layman. This should be at least one factor when considering credibility, esp. when you have experts with different ideologies and beliefs agreeing on the same thing (e.g. agnostic Dr. Bart Ehrmen accepts that Jesus existed).

[Difflugia]

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.

The evangelists and Paul were not the disciples. The disciples were characters in the stories. For this argument to hold water, you have to establish that Mark or Paul was embarrassed by the crucifixion, rather than that the characters of Peter and James were.

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.

For giving humanity fire, Prometheus was punished by having his regenerating liver torn out every day by a giant eagle. Why would someone create such a shameful punishment for a god if it weren't true?

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.

The Jesus of Revelation has little to do with the Jesus of the Gospels and is entirely a heavenly figure.

The Jesus of Paul is weird and mystical, but the genuine epistles are earlier than the Gospels.

The sources may not be independent. Bart Ehrman sees six independent sources (Paul, Mark, Q, Matthew's "M," Luke's "L," John). Mark Goodacre argues that the Synoptics share a single historical source (Mark). A number of scholars argue that Mark is dependent on Paul. Opinions on John range from complete independence (Dodd) to several authors arguing for near-complete dependence.

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.

Josephus and Tacitus together offer the most weight for a historical Jesus, with Tacitus generally considered to be genuine and Josephus at least partially, both including references to Jesus and Josephus referring to James.

The main question is whether either was influenced by Christian tradition. Neither is old enough to be based on firsthand knowledge and we have no other information, so we must speculate on their sources. It's possible that they're independent, but possible that they're not. Again, since we have no information about their sources, arguments either are speculative or based on simple incredulity.

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.

Paul calls James "the brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19. This is the same phrase as in 1 Corinthians 9:5 (ἀδελφὸν/ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου). It's unclear from Paul alone if this is a spiritual or literal brotherhood. Bart Ehrman argues that both references mean literal brotherhood, but his argument is from incredulity.

If that were what he meant, then the rest of the statement would make no sense because it would mean that the apostles themselves and even Cephas (Peter) were not the “spiritual brothers” of the Lord since they are differentiated from those who are brothers.

If this is odd, then it seems just as odd that Cephas is, contradictory to the Gospels, excluded from both the Twelve and the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). If Paul has such a different view of those terms than the Gospels do, I don't find it a stretch that "brother of the Lord" also has a different meaning. It's not necessary, but neither is it incredible.

So it looks like we can safely conclude that Jesus mythicists have no leg to stand on.

When presented by apologists, conclusions always look this way. Apologists in general, as here, present possible conclusions as established fact in order to shore up inferences based on those conclusions ("There were more than five hundred witnesses!"). It's not unreasonable to judge the weight of evidence toward a historical Jesus, but "Jesus mythicists have no leg to stand on" is gross hyperbole.

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.

That's like saying that Republicans are made up primarily of those without Political Science degrees. It's true and sounds damning, but doesn't mean much. The opposing camps (Christian apologists and Democrats respectively) are also "made up primarily" of non-specialists 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.

Trolls say a lot of things.

It's also worth remembering that these various bits of evidence are disconnected. It's entirely possible that there was a real Jesus upon whom the story was based, but that he had no brother James. Much of what Paul wrote was apparently based on earlier creeds and much of Paul's writing only makes sense when filtered through the Gospels, but there are significant differences that are both factual and theological. Reading them harmoniously isn't unreasonable, but on the other hand, seeking corroboration after accounts are harmonized becomes a circular exercise.

[AgnosticBoy]

So it looks like we can safely conclude that Jesus mythicists have no leg to stand on.

When presented by apologists, conclusions always look this way. Apologists in general, as here, present possible conclusions as established fact in order to shore up inferences based on those conclusions ("There were more than five hundred witnesses!"). It's not unreasonable to judge the weight of evidence toward a historical Jesus, but "Jesus mythicists have no leg to stand on" is gross hyperbole.

I can agree that even the case for Jesus existing has holes in it, but then again doesn't any historical explanation?! I'd wanna know which has more holes, as in which explanation involves making greater leaps, has more assumptions, etc. Having some documentation about Jesus or his brother, even if with holes, is better than not having anything. At best, we could remain agnostic instead of making an additional claim that it was a complete myth.

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.

That's like saying that Republicans are made up primarily of those without Political Science degrees. It's true and sounds damning, but doesn't mean much. The opposing camps (Christian apologists and Democrats respectively) are also "made up primarily" of non-specialists who "can use the internet to say what they want without regard to credibility."

This may be a stretch, but perhaps Paul's point is like comparing explanations of conspiracy theorists (non-experts) with the views of experts. Of course, many would give the latter more credibility. I think it's fair to raise the point that if something was so well evidenced (e.g. the mythicists view), then why is it that not one expert in the field accepts it. That is not definitive proof that it is wrong, but that would be a red flag.

[Difflugia]

I can agree that even the case for Jesus existing has holes in it, but then again doesn't any historical explanation?!

In general, I suppose, but without qualification, that's still just the beginning of a common slippery slope even if we only consider antiquity. Julius Caesar almost certainly existed and Heracles almost certainly didn't. Jesus is somewhere in the middle, but that's a pretty big middle.

I'd wanna know which has more holes, as in which explanation involves making greater leaps, has more assumptions, etc. Having some documentation about Jesus or his brother, even if with holes, is better than not having anything. At best, we could remain agnostic instead of making an additional claim that it was a complete myth.

Then remain agnostic. "Jesus existed" is no more agnostic than "Jesus didn't." Anytime you say, "Jesus probably existed, but maybe not," then I'll accept that you're agnostic about it.

This may be a stretch, but perhaps Paul's point is like comparing explanations of conspiracy theorists (non-experts) with the views of experts. Of course, many would give the latter more credibility.

Of course, that's the intended comparison. My point is that it's not a fair one.

I think it's fair to raise the point that if something was so well evidenced (e.g. the mythicists view), then why is it that not one expert in the field accepts it.

If that were the case, you might have a valid point.

[AgnosticBoy]

I think it's fair to raise the point that if something was so well evidenced (e.g. the mythicists view), then why is it that not one expert in the field accepts it.

If that were the case, you might have a valid point.

I've found some problems after following up on your references. The first link leads to Thomas L. Thompson. Based on your source, he has no degree in New Testament studies, certainly nothing to be called an expert on that subject. Also, there is some information from your source that suggests he's agnostic on the issue:

Thompson and Thomas Verenna coedited the 2012 book Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus.[18][19] The introduction defined the purpose of the collected essays: "Neither establishing the historicity of an historical Jesus nor possessing an adequate warrant for dismissing it, our purpose is to clarify our engagement with critical historical and exegetical methods."[20]

In 2012 Thompson responded with the online article, Is This Not the Carpenter’s Son? A Response to Bart Ehrman, in which he rejects Ehrman's characterization of his views, stating that Erhman "has attributed to my book arguments and principles which I had never presented, certainly not that Jesus had never existed."[17]

Your other reference, Philip R. Davies, also seems to be more of an expert on the era covering the Old Testament.

[Difflugia]

Based on your source, he has no degree in New Testament studies, certainly nothing to be called an expert on that subject.

Your idea of an expert is too narrow to include a professor of theology with a research focus on the historiography of Israel and the Ancient Near East?

Also, there is some information from your source that suggests he's agnostic on the issue:

Regardless of how they're presented by opponents, you'll be hard-pressed to find a Jesus mythicist that doesn't self-identify as agnostic on the issue. If your idea of a "Jesus mythicist" affirmatively claims that Jesus didn't exist, you're chasing a straw man.

Your other reference, Philip R. Davies, also seems to be more of an expert on the era covering the Old Testament.

You do realize that you're once again claiming that a professor of biblical studies wasn't qualified to have an opinion about the New Testament, right? Even in whatever narrow way you're using the word "expert" and if we were to assume that scholars never stray from a singular focus, one of Davies' specific areas of research was the history of Second Temple Judaism, which has more than a little overlap with New Testament studies.

[AgnosticBoy]

Your idea of an expert is too narrow to include a professor of theology with a research focus on the historiography of Israel and the Ancient Near East?

A neurologist is a medical doctor but I don't expect him or her to be an expert of the kidneys. There are kidney specialists for that. In the same way I don't need and Old Testament expert to tell me about the NT when there are New Testament experts for that.

Also, there is some information from your source that suggests he's agnostic on the issue:

Regardless of how they're presented by opponents, you'll be hard-pressed to find a Jesus mythicist that doesn't self-identify as agnostic on the issue. If your idea of a "Jesus mythicist" affirmatively claims that Jesus didn't exist, you're chasing a straw man.

There is not much to debate with an agnostic. No one here has advocated for the mythicist position.

Your other reference, Philip R. Davies, also seems to be more of an expert on the era covering the Old Testament.

You do realize that you're once again claiming that a professor of biblical studies wasn't qualified to have an opinion about the New Testament, right? Even in whatever narrow way you're using the word "expert" and if we were to assume that scholars never stray from a singular focus, one of Davies' specific areas of research was the history of Second Temple Judaism, which has more than a little overlap with New Testament studies.

He's not an expert of the New Testament.