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.

[AgnosticBoy]

My point was to show that we shouldn't think 'non-existers' are any more wrong, or right, regarding Jesus' non/existence. We simply cant know.

If folks wanna think he 'probably' existed, I don't much fret. Just like there's probably teapots in orbit around Mars. We just don't know either way.

Teapots in orbit would not be "probable" since there is ZERO evidence for that claim. Therefore, the claim that Jesus probably existed and the claim about teapots orbiting Mars are not the same. A claim having evidence or more evidence is more right or probable than a claim with no evidence.

Your standard opens the door for science and history to be equated with nonsense.

[JoeyKnothead]

My point was to show that we shouldn't think 'non-existers' are any more wrong, or right, regarding Jesus' non/existence. We simply cant know.

If folks wanna think he 'probably' existed, I don't much fret. Just like there's probably teapots in orbit around Mars. We just don't know either way.

Teapots in orbit would not be "probable" since there is ZERO evidence for that claim. Therefore, the claim that Jesus probably existed and the claim about teapots orbiting Mars are not the same. A claim having evidence or more evidence is more right or probable than a claim with no evidence.

Your standard opens the door for science and history to be equated with nonsense.

I was just funning around with that, and will plow it under. I meant it more along the lines of both Jesus' non/existence and the teapots are 'attested to', but neither can be known to be non/truth.

To clarificate my position, I can kinda see how a non-supernatural person named Jesus may have existed. I could even go so far as to say it's more probable than not. But at the end of the day, we can't know either way, so we have no reason (beyond our penchant for debate) to fuss too much if people don't believe Jesus ever existed. That's really what I mostly wanna tell.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Teapots in orbit would not be "probable" since there is ZERO evidence for that claim. Therefore, the claim that Jesus probably existed and the claim about teapots orbiting Mars are not the same. A claim having evidence or more evidence is more right or probable than a claim with no evidence.

You are correct that history is the effort to discover or at least come up with sensible explanations for what probably happened in the past. Orbiting teapots are not nearly as likely as a Jewish preacher named Jesus crucified by the Romans in 33 CE. So Jesus is much more likely to be historical than said teapots.

Your standard opens the door for science and history to be equated with nonsense.

Based on what I've seen argued on this thread, it should come as no surprise that Jesus mythicism is a hypothesis that most Biblical authorities do not accept. It's at least conceivable that good arguments can be offered that Jesus did not exist, but equating him to Greek gods and orbiting teapots doesn't make the grade, in my opinion.

[JoeyKnothead]

Teapots in orbit would not be "probable" since there is ZERO evidence for that claim. Therefore, the claim that Jesus probably existed and the claim about teapots orbiting Mars are not the same. A claim having evidence or more evidence is more right or probable than a claim with no evidence.

You are correct that history is the effort to discover or at least come up with sensible explanations for what probably happened in the past. Orbiting teapots are not nearly as likely as a Jewish preacher named Jesus crucified by the Romans in 33 CE. So Jesus is much more likely to be historical than said teapots.

Your standard opens the door for science and history to be equated with nonsense.

Based on what I've seen argued on this thread, it should come as no surprise that Jesus mythicism is a hypothesis that most Biblical authorities do not accept. It's at least conceivable that good arguments can be offered that Jesus did not exist, but equating him to Greek gods and orbiting teapots doesn't make the grade, in my opinion.

You mighta been awriting up your post as I was aputting up my retraction about the teapots. I was mostly just funning around about it. I meant it more in terms of there being attestations about stuff.

[Difflugia]

Avoiding dead Messiahs was no doubt a priority among the Jewish sects of that day.

At least if those messiahs were real people and not theological constructions whose deaths were important to their soteriologies.

Your claim was that an assertion of Jewish difficulty implies that Christians were ashamed of the underlying reason. If Christians were instead proud of such declarations (Matthew 19:23-24, anyone?), it just becomes a non sequitur.

I have little idea of what you're talking about here.

Your only presented evidence has been that one non sequitur.

What non sequitur?

Now I seem to be carrying both sides of the debate.

You presented Paul's claims that Jews find Christianity difficult as evidence that early Christians (and Paul in particular) were ashamed of the crucifixion. That only works under the unstated (and undemonstrated) assumption that contemporary Jews finding Christianity difficult was considered a negative by Christians. Since a very similar mention of difficulty was placed in the mouth of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, it can't be inferred that they were ashamed of it.

Since your conclusion doesn't follow from your argument, it's a non sequitur.

What's self evident with no other support?

Your repeated assertion that Hellenistic Jews wouldn't have invented a shameful punishment like crucifixion for their hero. You haven't offered any reasons aside from your own incredulity, even when specifically asked, so I can only assume you consider it self-evident.

As far as I'm aware, I listed enough diagnostic details to satisfy "Greek" and "god." If you now want argue that Olympus creates an important difference, then I'm interested to see where you go with it.

You mentioned something about Hellenism and syncretism; is that what you mean by "diagnostic details"? If so, I think it's obvious that those who wrote of Jesus tossed in some Greek theological motifs to their stories, but that hardly qualifies Jesus as a Greek god.

Yes, but you didn't seem to understand what I meant, so I was more explicit in my following post. Here's what I wrote:

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.

Perhaps we disagree about what either "Greek" or "god" means. Or possibly both.

The Romans had a thriving empire, and to make that empire possible required record keeping. Tacitus, then, probably had non-Christian sources available to him regarding the execution of Jesus. As such, he was not merely repeating what Christians believed, and his testimony about Jesus is corroboration that there was a Jesus.

Since you haven't established beyond your own speculation that any of these statements follows from its predecessor, they're worthless as evidence and there's no need to rebut them further. I will anyway.

First, that the Romans had a bureaucracy doesn't imply that summary decisions by a provincial adminstrator affecting only non-citizens would have been important enough to record. From The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed:

The complex Roman legal system was applicable only to citizens. Provincials, or non-citizens, were tried according to cognitio extra ordinem, which meant that the governor had sole discretion in how to hear a case, what witnesses to call (if any), and what sentence to impose. Jesus, of course, fell into this category, and though there might have been commonly held principles, there would have been no fixed rules for the way in which Pilate held his interrogation.

Second, even if such a record did exist, it was presumably among many, many others. Mentions of crucifixion by historians indicate that it was a common punishment, particularly in the provinces (Roman citizens were beheaded). Josephus mentions thousands of crucifixions. If the "required record keeping" required notes of each crucifixion, then did Tacitus, again with no indication that he even knew the name "Jesus," pore through at least thousands of records (presumably copied and transported; he was in Rome, rather than Syria) to find a line verifying that one "Jesus," perhaps even "son of Joseph," was crucified by Pilate? Since Tacitus doesn't tell us his sources, the suggestion that he used "Roman records" is entirely speculation and on reflection, a logistically implausible one at that.

No, I'm saying that James (Galatians 1:19) was special and notable because he was Jesus' brother. He could have been notable for other reasons, but that's beside the point I'm making.

That's not "beside the point" because your point is, as you say, that James' notability is evidence that he was Jesus' brother. If there are "other reasons," then James was notable whether he was Jesus' brother or not, which makes your assertion valueless.

Yes, Paul could be difficult to understand, but it's still a good idea to interpret what he said using the most obvious explanations.

That Paul deviated from his pattern in this one single case is not "the most obvious" explanation. In fact, it's kind of the opposite of that.

All I have to prove is that there's a reasonable chance Paul didn't mean that.

No, you need to demonstrate that when Paul referred to James as "brother of the Lord," he meant something other than sibling.

You apparently don't understand the burden of proof. If your stance is only that it's possible that Paul meant a sibling and I disagree with you, then yes, that's my burden. Is that your stance? That it's merely possible that Paul meant an actual sibling? If it is, then I don't even disagree with you. Anything is possible, remember?

[Goose]

Julius Caesar almost certainly existed and Heracles almost certainly didn't. Jesus is somewhere in the middle, but that's a pretty big middle.

Since you've provided examples of the ends of the spectrum and Jesus being somewhere in the middle of that spectrum in your view, what is the evidence that establishes the existence of Julius Caesar as almost certain?

[JoeyKnothead]

Julius Caesar almost certainly existed and Heracles almost certainly didn't. Jesus is somewhere in the middle, but that's a pretty big middle.

Since you've provided examples of the ends of the spectrum and Jesus being somewhere in the middle of that spectrum in your view, what is the evidence that establishes the existence of Julius Caesar as almost certain?

Your repeated invoking of his name whenever the issue of an historical Jesus gets brought up has not only convinced me Caesar existed, but that he's also your favorite uncle.

[HarlanGeorge]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #11]

Are there still questions about the actual exitance of Jesus? Is it not generally understood, excluding the Bible and Josephus, that you can obtain other sources of proof? Tacitus a Roman Historian speaks to the execution of Jesus. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus also mentions Jesus. The greater question, why is there so little information about him in the NT? The gap between birth and crucifixion other than a mention at the age of twelve seems inexcusable for a character of this importance. Does it not? Nearly three decades of unaccountability seem out of character for the center of the Christian Church as we know it. Granted Jesus most likely could not read or write, but he did not inspire anything? Something?

This is my first post and a novel on this topic only motivated by the desire to learn.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Avoiding dead Messiahs was no doubt a priority among the Jewish sects of that day.

At least if those messiahs were real people and not theological constructions whose deaths were important to their soteriologies.

Please post using complete sentences. Otherwise, I have difficulty understanding you.

You presented Paul's claims that Jews find Christianity difficult as evidence that early Christians (and Paul in particular) were ashamed of the crucifixion. That only works under the unstated (and undemonstrated) assumption that contemporary Jews finding Christianity difficult was considered a negative by Christians.

Obviously since the earliest Christians were Jews they would share the embarrassment that other Jews would feel over a crucified Messiah. Gentiles would feel the same way. People tend to feel shame over fallen heroes. It's just common knowledge that needs no proof.

Perhaps we disagree about what either "Greek" or "god" means. Or possibly both.

Jesus was never included in the Greek pantheon or in their mythology, so it's absurd to categorize him as a Greek god.

First, that the Romans had a bureaucracy doesn't imply that summary decisions by a provincial adminstrator affecting only non-citizens would have been important enough to record...
...Second, even if such a record did exist, it was presumably among many, many others. Mentions of crucifixion by historians indicate that it was a common punishment, particularly in the provinces (Roman citizens were beheaded). Josephus mentions thousands of crucifixions. If the "required record keeping" required notes of each crucifixion, then did Tacitus, again with no indication that he even knew the name "Jesus," pore through at least thousands of records (presumably copied and transported; he was in Rome, rather than Syria) to find a line verifying that one "Jesus," perhaps even "son of Joseph," was crucified by Pilate? Since Tacitus doesn't tell us his sources, the suggestion that he used "Roman records" is entirely speculation and on reflection, a logistically implausible one at that.

Your error in reasoning here is that you assume Jesus was just another schmuck crucified by the Romans with little or no impact on both the Jews and the Romans. Jesus, of course, was a very notable figure among both camps. That's how Christianity got started in the first place. Since Christianity was well known by the Romans from its earliest stages, they had independent knowledge of its history and no need to use Christians as sources for the historical Jesus. Tacitus, then, as a historian would have knowledge of Jesus that he did not get from any of the Christians of his day. His mention of Jesus is then corroboration of the existence of Jesus.

...your point is, as you say, that James' notability is evidence that he was Jesus' brother.

No, James is notable because Paul mentions him as "brother of the Lord." Note that Paul often referred to Jesus as "Lord." Paul most likely then referred to James as the brother of Jesus.

...you need to demonstrate that when Paul referred to James as "brother of the Lord," he meant something other than sibling.

You apparently don't understand the burden of proof.

Forgive my stupidity. Fill us all in, Mr. Expert.

If your stance is only that it's possible that Paul meant a sibling and I disagree with you, then yes, that's my burden. Is that your stance? That it's merely possible that Paul meant an actual sibling? If it is, then I don't even disagree with you. Anything is possible, remember?

Since there's no obvious reason to assume that when Paul said "brother" he meant something other than sibling, the most common understanding of the word, then it's just common sense to interpret the word as meaning sibling. I should also point out that most scholars interpret "brother of the Lord" as a sibling of Jesus. That's the prevailing position. If you wish to challenge it, then you have the burden to make your case that it's wrong.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #11]

Are there still questions about the actual exitance of Jesus?

In short, yes.

The first issue is what do we mean by "Jesus". Do we mean one of the many preachers that wandered around during the era in question or do we mean the exact figure portrayed in the Bible, miracles and all.

Is it not generally understood, excluding the Bible and Josephus, that you can obtain other sources of proof?

The word 'proof' is not often used when talking about history, perhaps you mean evidence. There is very little evidence of the Jesus of the Bible outside the Bible. Most, if not all of it, is simply other people writing down what Christians were saying about Jesus.

Case in point, the message you just posted to this discussion is now 'written record' that is probably going to be around for a very long time. Does the fact that you used the word 'Jesus' mean that we now have good evidence that the Jesus of the Bible existed?

Tacitus a Roman Historian speaks to the execution of Jesus.

This is the entirety of what Tacitus wrote about Jesus:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

It's certainly a good data point, but now the question is how did Tacitus come to this information? If he had access to some currently unknown Roman records that detail the execution, it's certainly quite a solid reference. However, if Tacitus simply heard about Jesus through other people describing the story that Christians were spreading, it's hardly more than copying hearsay.

The point being, we can't just take this data point and assume it's good or bad. History loves many disconnected sources. Sadly we don't always have that.

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus also mentions Jesus.

From what I understand, this is another gospel. i.e. religious writing, not a historian simply mentioning details.

It's great to have as many early writings as possible to try and piece together actual history, but religious writings about the topic at hand are hardly great at informing us if a character existed. Surely we don't think Zeus existed do we?

The greater question, why is there so little information about him in the NT? The gap between birth and crucifixion other than a mention at the age of twelve seems inexcusable for a character of this importance. Does it not? Nearly three decades of unaccountability seem out of character for the center of the Christian Church as we know it. Granted Jesus most likely could not read or write, but he did not inspire anything? Something?

An excellent question. The Bible essentially starts the story when Jesus becomes an adult i.e. at 12 would be his bar mitzvah. The birth narrative was likely tacked on in later gospels to try and tie Jesus to prophesy. His childhood likely seemed unimportant as far as convincing people he was special in the gospel narratives. Remember that the gospels are trying to convey a religious message here. They are not 'mere' historical accounts.

This is my first post and a novel on this topic only motivated by the desire to learn.

Welcome! Hopefully we all learn something from each other. Or at least have some fun arguing ... oops, I mean debating