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.

[Paul of Tarsus]

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.

When I spoke of the disciples, I meant very broadly any of the earliest individuals who held what we today recognize as Christian beliefs and who were aware of the theological implications of the crucifixion and what their Jewish and Greek critics thought of it. So the writers of the New Testament would qualify as disciples.

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.

Paul, at least, was well aware of the shamefulness of a crucified Messiah. He wrote that Christ crucified was "to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness." (1 Corinthians 1:23)

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?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Greek Gods and Jewish Messiahs are very different animals. The Greeks portrayed their gods as being very imperfect while the Jews made their God out to be, if not perfect, then as free of faults as they could imagine him to be. That God's Messiah, then, could not have been killed as far as the Jewish imagination was concerned. So if their imaginations could not produce a crucified Messiah, then history must be the explanation.

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.

Real people can be portrayed as heavenly figures. Do you doubt Lincoln's historicity because he was portrayed as a heavenly figure?

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.

Josephus or at least Tacitus were known as astute historians. Why do you think they would be dumb enough to use questionable sources? Tacitus in particular would not be quick to trust Christians as sources of information, and we can safely rule out his using them as his basis for testifying to the execution of Jesus.

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 Paul referred to James as "the brother of the Lord" as a mere member of the sect, then why didn't Paul refer to other individual members of that sect in the same way? It seems that there was something special about James, and his being Jesus' sibling explains well that unique status.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21

...
You're comparing apples to oranges. Greek Gods and Jewish Messiahs are very different animals. The Greeks portrayed their gods as being very imperfect while the Jews made their God out to be, if not perfect, then as free of faults as they could imagine him to be. That God's Messiah, then, could not have been killed as far as the Jewish imagination was concerned. So if their imaginations could not produce a crucified Messiah, then history must be the explanation.
...

Or, folks want em a Messiah, and they don't care what tales they have to tell to get em one.

It's like being an ugly kid... Ya want ya a girlfriend, only there it is, you're ugly and all. You're a good boy, you mean well, you're just uglier'n a babirusa that done got beat down with an ugly stick, and not the fishing rod. What do? Invent a girlfriend, only she goes her to a different school, in a different hemisphere, and don't it beat all, they ain't got em no service where we can call her up and get her to tell about what a handsome feller ol ugly there is.

'History' is not a hard and fast truth, as testified by all them GOPers denying there was an insurrection.

[Difflugia]

When I spoke of the disciples, I meant very broadly any of the earliest individuals who held what we today recognize as Christian beliefs and who were aware of the theological implications of the crucifixion and what their Jewish and Greek critics thought of it. So the writers of the New Testament would qualify as disciples.

Which NT writers were embarrassed by the crucifixion?

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.

Paul, at least, was well aware of the shamefulness of a crucified Messiah. He wrote that Christ crucified was "to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness." (1 Corinthians 1:23)

Once again, you're conflating the authors with characters in the story and in this case it's Paul and the potential converts he's writing about. Stories of persecution and martyrdom have been part and parcel of the Christian message, arguably before it was even Christian.

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?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Greek Gods and Jewish Messiahs are very different animals.

Obviously. On an unrelated note, remind me again what language the New Testament was written in, what "Hellenism" means, and what syncretism is.

Real people can be portrayed as heavenly figures. Do you doubt Lincoln's historicity because he was portrayed as a heavenly figure?

No, but neither is portrayal as a heavenly figure evidence that a character was a real person.


Michael, the totally real neighbor from next door.

Josephus or at least Tacitus were known as astute historians. Why do you think they would be dumb enough to use questionable sources? Tacitus in particular would not be quick to trust Christians as sources of information, and we can safely rule out his using them as his basis for testifying to the execution of Jesus.

It's strange, then, that Tacitus referred to Jesus as "Christus," as Christians presumably would have, rather than "Jesus" as Roman records presumably would have.

If Paul referred to James as "the brother of the Lord" as a mere member of the sect, then why didn't Paul refer to other individual members of that sect in the same way?

It can't have meant "mere member of the sect." As you point out, the other named members aren't referred to that way. That's why I didn't suggest that it meant a "mere member of the sect."

It seems that there was something special about James, and his being Jesus' sibling explains well that unique status.

You mean someone singled out as an "esteemed pillar," whose "men" had the authority and influence to completely change Cephas' behavior at Antioch, and was the leader of Church in Acts? What could be special about a guy like that?

Furthermore, treating "brother of the Lord" as meaning a flesh-and-blood sibling of Jesus causes more interpretive problems than it solves. The reason it's considered a good explanation isn't because the harmonization itself is satisfying, but because it's old, well-known one.

Matthew and Mark each mention three different men named James:

• the son of Zebedee/brother of John
• the son of Alphaeus
• brother of Jesus (Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3), son of Mary (Mt 27:56, Mk 15:40, Mk 16:1), and "James the Less/Younger" (Mk 15:40)

Luke conspicuously scrubs the corresponding reference to James, brother of Jesus (Luke 4:22). He retains a "Mary, mother of James," but (Lk 24:10), but there is no longer any context linking that Mary to the mother of Jesus, so Luke/Acts only has two men named James, the sons of Zebedee and Alphaeus.

That brings us to Paul. Paul only knows one James, which if we're going to harmonize with Acts, can only mean James, son of Alphaeus, head of the Church after the execution of the son of Zebedee. If James, "brother of the Lord" refers to the brother of Jesus in Matthew and Mark, then further harmonization leads to the awkward situation where two apparently different men in Matthew and Mark must now be the same person, James brother of Jesus and son of Alphaeus (Mary's next husband after Joseph's death? We can only speculate.).

Finally, Paul doesn't qualify "brother of the Lord" as being "of the flesh" (κατὰ σάρκα) the way he does for other discussions of eartly kinship (for example, "descendant of David" in Romans 1:3). Overall, then, treating the already strangely worded "brother of the Lord" as meaning Jesus' earthly brother leaves us with more difficult understandings of the Synoptics as well as a glaring exception to Paul's use of language. It's not a proof of Paul's meaning by any means, but neither does the contrary "explain well" the context that you'd like it to, especially to the exclusion of an overall reading of both the Synoptics and Paul that is more straightforward.

[AgnosticBoy]

No, but neither is portrayal as a heavenly figure evidence that a character was a real person.

What exactly is your position? I ask because I am seeing you switch position between Jesus not being fiction (post 19) and Jesus being fiction (your latest point).

Which do you consider more probable, that Jesus is a historical figure (perhaps with some mythical elements added, like Julius Caesar who was deified) or that he was a complete myth?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21

...
You're comparing apples to oranges. Greek Gods and Jewish Messiahs are very different animals. The Greeks portrayed their gods as being very imperfect while the Jews made their God out to be, if not perfect, then as free of faults as they could imagine him to be. That God's Messiah, then, could not have been killed as far as the Jewish imagination was concerned. So if their imaginations could not produce a crucified Messiah, then history must be the explanation.
...

Or, folks want em a Messiah, and they don't care what tales they have to tell to get em one.

It's like being an ugly kid... Ya want ya a girlfriend, only there it is, you're ugly and all. You're a good boy, you mean well, you're just uglier'n a babirusa that done got beat down with an ugly stick, and not the fishing rod. What do? Invent a girlfriend, only she goes her to a different school, in a different hemisphere, and don't it beat all, they ain't got em no service where we can call her up and get her to tell about what a handsome feller ol ugly there is.

'History' is not a hard and fast truth, as testified by all them GOPers denying there was an insurrection.

Here's a coinkydink, the Nazis had their own scholars fret on the whole bible deal there, and those scholars decided the bible needed it to be told in light of the scholars' understanding, thusly.

Regardless of how correct, or truthful, or some such similar terms these scholars were, they were held up in their notions by several, many, a good bunch of German churches, and we can reasonably assume a good bunch of the members of those churches (where one might argue this thing from numbers of acceptorers).

So we see that there's scholarly research on biblical matters where the bible is seen through the lens of that society. My point being that history shows us that political and even thelogical motives have been applied to the bible, in its writing, its interpretation, and all such as that.

With that right there in mind, we shouldn't fuss us up one bit if someone says they reject claims of Jesus' alleged 'historicity'. We simply do not know, can not know if the dude ever actually existed, no matter how upset some folks become upon encountering that fact.

[AgnosticBoy]

It's strange, then, that Tacitus referred to Jesus as "Christus," as Christians presumably would have, rather than "Jesus" as Roman records presumably would have.

Unless the author is stating something that would not have been known during his time period or not part of his belief system or a contemporary reports that the information was an interpolation, then I find it hard to accept points about what someone would have or should have said.

I've looked at the term you referenced in context of Tacitus statement and I don't see that he was showing any respect or reverence to that title. He was simply bringing up a point about where the word "Christian" originated from. Tacitus would not have used "Jesus" because it doesn't go with his point about the origins of the word Christian.

[Difflugia]

No, but neither is portrayal as a heavenly figure evidence that a character was a real person.

What exactly is your position?

In the post that this quote came from, I was responding to the argument that the Jesus of Revelation was evidence that Jesus was a real guy. Whether or not I think there are other reasons for thinking Jesus was real, the Jesus of Revelation isn't one of them.

Broadly, I think that the Gospels and Acts are fiction based on Pauline and perhaps a pre-Pauline Christianity. There might have been a real Jesus behind the Christianities that Paul knew, but there might not have been. It's possible that there are echoes of that Jesus in some of the traditions in the Gospels and Acts, but so much of that material is legendary that a real Jesus offers almost no explanatory power for anything that is now in the Bible.

I ask because I am seeing you switch position between Jesus not being fiction (post 19) and Jesus being fiction (your latest point).

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but you've apparently misunderstood my points in both posts. My point in post 19 was that we essentially can't know if Jesus was real, so I'm not claiming that he wasn't or even probably wasn't. I do think that the Gospels are so fictionalized that if Jesus was real, any reconstruction from Gospel material is mostly wrong and we have no way of knowing which, if any, details are historical.

As I said, the statement in my most recent post was responding to the claim that Jesus of Revelation is evidence of a historical Jesus.

Which do you consider more probable, that Jesus is a historical figure (perhaps with some mythical elements added, like Julius Caesar who was deified) or that he was a complete myth?

I think what is most likely is that the Jesus we know is a nearly completely mythical construction based on a historical figure about whom we know virtually nothing. I think the genuine Pauline epistles are likely the only source we have for reconstructing first century Christianity. James and John were leaders of a rival, more Jewish sect of Christianity and Cephas was a somewhat independent, travelling preacher. The apostles, of which Paul considered himself one, were charismatics receiving divine revelation through visions and pesher-like readings of the Old Testament. James and John were wary of Paul's more Hellenized Christianity, but all three were likely gone within a few years of each other (Paul in the AD 60s, James and John shortly thereafter, perhaps in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem). Acts is a fictionalized, allegorical description of the merging of the two forms (the James and John version became what is now known as "Petrine") of Christianity by the end of the first century, with Johannine Christianity, a post-70 rabbinic offshoot of Petrine Christianity, re-merging in the early second century to form what later became Christian orthodoxy.

He was simply bringing up a point about where the word "Christian" originated from. Tacitus would not have used "Jesus" because it doesn't go with his point about the origins of the word Christian.

Which means that he's simply repeating what Christians believed, obviating the point that he was such a careful historian that he would have ignored what Christians had to say; what Christians had to say was the point. It was what the Christians believed about their own origins that Tacitus was in a position to present authoritatively.

[Paul of Tarsus]

When I spoke of the disciples, I meant very broadly any of the earliest individuals who held what we today recognize as Christian beliefs and who were aware of the theological implications of the crucifixion and what their Jewish and Greek critics thought of it. So the writers of the New Testament would qualify as disciples.

Which NT writers were embarrassed by the crucifixion?

Probably all of the writers of the New Testament were embarrassed by the crucifixion story. They reported Christ's crucifixion in the interest of historical integrity even while knowing that the story would not make for good public relations.

Paul, at least, was well aware of the shamefulness of a crucified Messiah. He wrote that Christ crucified was "to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness." (1 Corinthians 1:23)

Once again, you're conflating the authors with characters in the story...

That's because the authors of the New Testament as well as those they document in the story of Jesus were of one mind all of them knowing that a crucified Messiah would meet with scorn.

...in this case it's Paul and the potential converts he's writing about. Stories of persecution and martyrdom have been part and parcel of the Christian message, arguably before it was even Christian.

I'm not sure what the relevance of citing martyrdom stories is regarding the crucifixion of Christ. Are you arguing that if there were stories of other people martyred for the cause of Christianity, then the early Christians could not have felt shame over Jesus' execution?

On an unrelated note, remind me again what language the New Testament was written in, what "Hellenism" means, and what syncretism is.

You remind me. It's your argument.

Real people can be portrayed as heavenly figures. Do you doubt Lincoln's historicity because he was portrayed as a heavenly figure?

No, but neither is portrayal as a heavenly figure evidence that a character was a real person.

I must disagree. Any historical figure can be portrayed in a supernatural setting, and if we know of figures recorded that way, then they may have existed. King Arthur is but one example of a person whose story is filled with supernatural elements but who may have existed.

Josephus or at least Tacitus were known as astute historians. Why do you think they would be dumb enough to use questionable sources? Tacitus in particular would not be quick to trust Christians as sources of information, and we can safely rule out his using them as his basis for testifying to the execution of Jesus.

It's strange, then, that Tacitus referred to Jesus as "Christus," as Christians presumably would have, rather than "Jesus" as Roman records presumably would have.

That might seem odd to you, but it's not good evidence that Tacitus used Christian sources for mentioning Christ and his execution. Who knows--maybe Tacitus was using the name Christus mockingly.

It seems that there was something special about James, and his being Jesus' sibling explains well that unique status.

You mean someone singled out as an "esteemed pillar," whose "men" had the authority and influence to completely change Cephas' behavior at Antioch, and was the leader of Church in Acts? What could be special about a guy like that?

If James was the blood-brother of Jesus, then that fact explains well everything you've cited here. Thanks for helping me make a case for a historical Christ!

Paul only knows one James, which if we're going to harmonize with Acts, can only mean James, son of Alphaeus, head of the Church after the execution of the son of Zebedee.

How do you know Paul only knew one James? That's very presumptuous. As you have pointed out, there were many men named James at that time, so it was obviously a common name. The James in Acts and the James "brother of the Lord" could easily have been two different men.

Finally, Paul doesn't qualify "brother of the Lord" as being "of the flesh" (κατὰ σάρκα) the way he does for other discussions of eartly kinship (for example, "descendant of David" in Romans 1:3). Overall, then, treating the already strangely worded "brother of the Lord" as meaning Jesus' earthly brother leaves us with more difficult understandings of the Synoptics as well as a glaring exception to Paul's use of language. It's not a proof of Paul's meaning by any means, but neither does the contrary "explain well" the context that you'd like it to, especially to the exclusion of an overall reading of both the Synoptics and Paul that is more straightforward.

These "writing-style" arguments are weak because they assume that when people write, they always write the same way. I think that's a false assumption. Do you always write the same way speaking of people the same way? I don't. Paul may simply have altered his way of referring to kin in the two epistles not being perfectly consistent.

[Difflugia]

Which NT writers were embarrassed by the crucifixion?

Probably all of the writers of the New Testament were embarrassed by the crucifixion story. They reported Christ's crucifixion in the interest of historical integrity even while knowing that the story would not make for good public relations.

"Probably?" So far, that's just an assertion. Show your work.

Once again, you're conflating the authors with characters in the story...

That's because the authors of the New Testament as well as those they document in the story of Jesus were of one mind all of them knowing that a crucified Messiah would meet with scorn.

Rewording the same assertion doesn't really count as evidence.

...in this case it's Paul and the potential converts he's writing about. Stories of persecution and martyrdom have been part and parcel of the Christian message, arguably before it was even Christian.

I'm not sure what the relevance of citing martyrdom stories is regarding the crucifixion of Christ. Are you arguing that if there were stories of other people martyred for the cause of Christianity, then the early Christians could not have felt shame over Jesus' execution?

What? No. Have you lost sight of your own argument? You said that the crucifixion was embarrassing to early Christians and used Paul's words as evidence that Paul must have (or even a softer "probably") felt some sort of shame over the crucifixion. Considering Christianity's history of proudly proclaiming itself as the "narrow way," though, that assertion doesn't carry much weight, your attempt to shift the evidentiary burden notwithstanding. They could have felt shame, you just haven't established a valid reason to think that they did.

On an unrelated note, remind me again what language the New Testament was written in, what "Hellenism" means, and what syncretism is.

You remind me. It's your argument.

My argument is back where the goalposts started before you moved them. Your claim was that nobody would invent a shameful punishment for a messianic hero, but fictional savior figures being humiliated and punished is a common theme. You then attempted to shift the goalpost by asserting without support, as though it were self-evident, that a Jewish messianic figure can't be understood in similar terms to a Greek god. My response is that even aside from your claim being an unsupported argument from incredulity, it fails on its face. Jesus, Jewish or not, was presented in the Greek language, within a culturally and literary Greek milieu, and with both explicit and implicit allusions to a shared Greek mythology. Whatever else he might have been, Jesus was literally a Greek god.

I must disagree. Any historical figure can be portrayed in a supernatural setting, and if we know of figures recorded that way, then they may have existed. King Arthur is but one example of a person whose story is filled with supernatural elements but who may have existed.

When the opposing viewpoints are that Jesus was myth and Jesus was real, presenting an entirely mythic portrayal of Jesus isn't evidence that he was real.

It's strange, then, that Tacitus referred to Jesus as "Christus," as Christians presumably would have, rather than "Jesus" as Roman records presumably would have.

That might seem odd to you, but it's not good evidence that Tacitus used Christian sources for mentioning Christ and his execution. Who knows--maybe Tacitus was using the name Christus mockingly.

How are you arguing that Tacitus came to refer to Jesus as "Christus" without relying on Christian information? The best I think you can do is claim that some intermediary source learned from the Christians what they believed and passed that to Tacitus, but that doesn't somehow turn into a source independent of Christianity itself. Your argument was that Tacitus wouldn't have been so "dumb" as to rely on a Christian source, but I don't see a way to avoid that. You're making an argument from incredulity based on an assertion that's false on its face.

It seems that there was something special about James, and his being Jesus' sibling explains well that unique status.

You mean someone singled out as an "esteemed pillar," whose "men" had the authority and influence to completely change Cephas' behavior at Antioch, and was the leader of Church in Acts? What could be special about a guy like that?

If James was the blood-brother of Jesus, then that fact explains well everything you've cited here. Thanks for helping me make a case for a historical Christ!

[Sigh]

"James is special because he's special" doesn't buy you much. Your argument was that there was "something" special about James and that "something" was that he was the brother of Jesus. Since there are already enough "somethings" to go around, being the brother of Jesus loses the explanatory power you want it to have even if it happens to be true.

How do you know Paul only knew one James? That's very presumptuous. As you have pointed out, there were many men named James at that time, so it was obviously a common name. The James in Acts and the James "brother of the Lord" could easily have been two different men.

Unless you're trying to score points on a technicality and you're talking about James the Plumber or something, Paul only knew one important Christian James because he could refer to James without qualification (1 Cor 15:7) and his contemporary Christian audience knew exactly who he was talking about.

These "writing-style" arguments are weak because they assume that when people write, they always write the same way. I think that's a false assumption. Do you always write the same way speaking of people the same way? I don't. Paul may simply have altered his way of referring to kin in the two epistles not being perfectly consistent.

That's both a straw man and an apologetic hail Mary. The reasoning isn't an assumption that people always write the same way, but the observation that people do so in general. My claim wasn't proof that Paul meant something other than a natural sibling, but that Paul had particular patterns when writing about certain literal things. Since Paul also wrote a lot of weird, allegorical things, the absence of the patterns for literal writing increases the probability that he was writing figuratively. Since your exact argument is that Paul was most likely writing literally, those writing patterns are extremely relevant to the discussion.

[AgnosticBoy]

How are you arguing that Tacitus came to refer to Jesus as "Christus" without relying on Christian information? The best I think you can do is claim that some intermediary source learned from the Christians what they believed and passed that to Tacitus, but that doesn't somehow turn into a source independent of Christianity itself. Your argument was that Tacitus wouldn't have been so "dumb" as to rely on a Christian source, but I don't see a way to avoid that. You're making an argument from incredulity based on an assertion that's false on its face.

What other source, other than Christians, would Tacitus have needed to rely on? Even if he relied on Christians, wouldn't that at times yield accurate information? Wouldn't Christians know many details about their religion better than anyone else?