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]

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.

Moderator Comment

I get your humor, but sometimes it can be interpreted as getting personal. Best to avoid making such statements when it could be taken as a personal snide remark.

Please review the Rules.


______________

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

I preciate the correction. I struggle to even see the line sometimes, much less to know when I've crossed it.

I pologize to all affected.

[Goose]

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?

It's kind of like the evidence for Jesus, except much, much higher quality:

How exactly are you arriving at and incorporating a value for the quality of the evidence into your probability calculation? Show your statistics and math.

When you made your original assertion you implied a Bayesian interpretation of probability where we assign to a hypothesis a posterior probability falling between the range of 0 to 1 (1 being certain). The probability that Caesar existed and that Hercules did not exist being nearly certain (or nearly 1). The probability that Jesus existed being uncertain falling “somewhere in the middle” of the range between 0 to 1. If that’s not what you meant, what on earth did you mean?

As for the argument itself that the evidence for Caesar is “much, much higher quality.” Perhaps it is higher quality. But is it really that much higher quality though? So much higher that Caesar’s existence is “almost certain” whereas Jesus’ existence must be lost “somewhere in the middle”? A “pretty big middle” was it? I don’t see how you will avoid making Special Pleas galore in trying to make that argument. You’ve got your work cut to prove the premise that’s for sure. Remember you are arguing it’s “much, much higher quality” evidence. It’s so much higher, in fact, you had to double up on “much” in order to adequately convey how much better it really is. A single “much” simple wasn’t sufficient. Well, good luck with that.

All I have to do is show the evidence for Caesar’s existence isn’t so much better that it prevents me from inferring Jesus’ existence at least falls in the probable range (>.5) of the spectrum which won't be difficult at all given you've asserted Julius Caesar’s existence was "almost certain" based on evidence you've already conceded is "kind of like the evidence for Jesus."

Extant writings reputedly and plausibly to be by Julius Caesar himself (The Gallic Wars).

I don’t think you are applying the same level of scepticism to the authorship of the Gallic War Commentaries as you do to, say, the Gospels. Do we really have the writings of Caesar? The Gallic War Commentaries are, strictly speaking, just as anonymous as the Gospels, written primarily in the third person, and contain several contradictions which are inconsistent with Caesarean authorship.

For instance, there are numerous contradictions that shouldn’t be there if Caesar had written the Gallic Wars. The first example is regarding the status of the Boii. They are made to be on par with the Aeduan (1.28). Later the Boii are understood to be subservient to the Aeduan (7.10).

The second example which is similar is regarding the Suessiones who are again made equal to the Remi (2.3) but later are made to be clients of the Remi (8.6). The first contradiction, relating to the Boii, as evidence against Caesar’s authorship is strengthened once we consider that book 8 was written by a different unknown author. The contradiction is what we might expect if the Gallic War was a compilation of various authors rather than a single author with firsthand knowledge.

The third example is regarding the Nervii. They were reduced to 500 men (2.28). But only three years later we find the army of the Nervii is so “vast” that, “in less than three hours they completed a fortification of ten miles in circumference; and during the rest of the days they began to prepare and construct towers of the height of the ramparts, and grappling irons, and mantelets, which the same prisoners had taught them” (5.42). How could such a small decimated army become so large in such a short period? Surely if Caesar had written the Gallic War he wouldn't have contradicted himself on so many obvious points.

Add to this, Suetonius, an ancient authority you appealed to for Caesar and implied you trust, asserts that some of the books traditionally attributed to Caesar (Alexandrian, African, and Spanish Wars) were disputed and that at least the final book of the Gallic War was not written by Caesar but rather by Hirtius (Caesar 56).

”[Caesar] left memoirs too of his deeds in the Gallic war and in the civil strife with Pompey; for the author of the Alexandrian, African, and Spanish Wars is unknown; some think it was Oppius, others Hirtius, who also supplied the final book of the Gallic War, which Caesar left unwritten.”

If by Suetonius’ time there was confusion over who wrote some of the books attributed to Caesar and the final book of the Gallic War was known to have not been written by Caesar, why should we think any of the Gallic War Commentaries were written by Caesar?

The letters of Cicero. Cicero apparently knew Julius Caesar, wrote to him during Caesar's lifetime, wrote of arguing legal cases before him, and wrote to the men that assassinated him.

Show your methodology and evidence for establishing that the letters which you would appeal to that are attributed to Cicero really were written by Cicero. You don’t get to just assume they were in a comparative debate about the quality of the evidence without Begging the Question.

You earlier tried to equate the testimony of Cicero to that of Paul. To be clear and re-establish the value of Paul's writings (I mentioned this just a few posts ago), I think that at least some of what we call the Pauline letters were actually written by Paul and that the people he spoke of meeting in the flesh (James, John, Cephas) actually existed. That's not evidence that any of the later, legendary material about them has any value, but I'm willing to trust that Paul was lucid enough to describe meeting real people in non-magical ways before their deaths. Maybe he wasn't, but I'm willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt.

Paul is equal to Cicero on the grounds of being a contemporary. Paul says he met James, John, and Cephas and spent time with Cephas in particular. All people who knew Jesus. Historically speaking, that’s more than sufficient to establish Paul as a strong historical source for the existence of Jesus.

We have extensive, non-magical, non-theological, non-polemic accounts by historians that we otherwise trust (Livy, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Plutarch).

This statement is simply untenable. Half the sources you appeal to here (Livy History and Plutarch Theseus) also refer to Hercules in an historical context. You know, the guy you asserted almost certainly did not exist. But Hercules shows up in at least two of the sources you implied you trust. All one need do is take the time to actually read these authors and it becomes self evident they often reference the supernatural, they have theological undertones, they are biased, they report hearsay, and they are sometimes unreliable.


As for Livy.

”The History of Livy is extraordinarily full references to the gods and their worship.”- The Religious Position of Livy’s History

Granted in the preface to book one Livy says the traditions prior to the foundation of the city of Rome are more suited to the poet than the historian and that he has no intention of establishing their truth or falsehood. Nevertheless, he clearly thinks Rome had divine origins.

”Now, if any nation ought to be allowed to claim a sacred origin and point back to a divine paternity that nation is Rome.” – Livy, book 1. preface, History of Rome.

Chapter one goes on to give the account of the founding of Rome by the demi-god Romulus. References to Remus, Jupiter, Hercules, omens, prophecies, etc. in historical contexts are numerous (see for example 1.7).

Livy also asserts...

”As to the origin of Rome, it was well known that whilst it had received divine assistance, courage and self-reliance were not wanting. “ 1.9.4

”These were the principal events at home and in the field that marked the reign of Romulus. Throughout-whether we consider the courage he showed in recovering his ancestral throne, or the wisdom he displayed in founding the City and adding to its strength through war and peace alike-we find nothing incompatible with the belief in his divine origin and his admission to divine immortality after death.” – 1.15.6

Finally, Livy admits his belief that Romulus descended from heaven and appeared to Proculus Julius (1.16.5).

Livy’s History of Rome is loaded with supernatural references. He referenced the “gods” at least thirty times in the first book alone. I don’t think anyone who has actually read Livy’s History of Rome would even attempt to defend the premise his accounts were “non-magical, non-theological, non-polemic.”

As for Livy’s accounts of Caesar those books are lost to us. However, fragments quoted by later authors have come down to us. And some of those fragments suggest Livy attributed the supernatural to the life of Caesar. Plutarch, for instance, records in Caesar (47).

”Moreover, at Patavium, Caius Cornelius, a man in repute as a seer, a fellow citizen and acquaintance of Livy the historian, chanced that day to be sitting in the place of augury. And to begin with, according to Livy, he discerned the time of the battle, and said to those present that even then the event was in progress and the men were going into action. And when he looked again and observed the signs, he sprang up in a rapture crying: "Thou art victorious, O Caesar!" The bystanders being amazed, he took the chaplet from his head and declared with an oath that he would not put it on again until the event had borne witness to his art. At any rate, Livy insists that this was so.”

Incidentally, since you’ve appealed to Livy it opens the door for me to appeal to Peter’s words recorded in Acts attesting to the existence of Jesus. That gives me eyewitness testimony. The reason being, the books in Livy’s History containing the accounts of Caesar are not extant. They come down to us in fragments found in the writings of later authors such as Plutarch. If later authors such Plutarch are reliable for transmitting the accounts of earlier sources like Livy, then Acts is a reliable source for transmitting the accounts of earlier sources such as Peter. You don’t get it both ways.


As for Plutarch.

I had previously provided a sampling of the numerous references to the supernatural in his Life of Caesar. But I will provide them again since you ignored them last time.

Signs, apparitions, omens, men on fire who do not burn, and animals without hearts.

”But destiny, it would seem, is not so much unexpected as it is unavoidable, since they say that amazing signs and apparitions were seen. 2 Now, as for lights in the heavens, crashing sounds borne all about by night, and birds of omen coming down into the forum, it is perhaps not worth while to mention these precursors of so great an event; 3 but Strabo the philosopher says that multitudes of men all on fire were seen rushing up, and a soldier's slave threw from his hand a copious flame and seemed to the spectators to be burning, but when the flame ceased the man was uninjured; 4 he says, moreover, that when Caesar himself was sacrificing, the heart of the victim was not to be found, and the prodigy caused fear, since in the course of nature, certainly, an animal without a heart could not exist... And when the seers also, after many sacrifices, told him that the omens were unfavourable, he resolved to send Antony and dismiss the senate.” – 63

Once again the gods are responsible.

”So far, perhaps, these things may have happened of their own accord; the place, however, which was the scene of that struggle and murder, and in which the senate was then assembled, since it contained a statue of Pompey and had been dedicated by Pompey as an additional ornament to his theatre, made it wholly clear that it was the work of some heavenly power which was calling and guiding the action thither.” – 66

A seven day comet, a darkened sun and weird weather for a whole year. And oh yeah, a giant scary phantom who shows up at Brutus’ door to talk with him. All orchestrated by the gods of course.

”and among events of divine ordering, there was the great comet, which showed itself in great splendour for seven nights after Caesar's murder, and then disappeared; also, the obscuration of the sun's rays. 5 For during all that year its orb rose pale and without radiance, while the heat that came down from it was slight and ineffectual, so that the air in its circulation was dark and heavy owing to the feebleness of the warmth that penetrated it, and the fruits, imperfect and half ripe, withered away and shrivelled up on account of the coldness of the atmosphere. 6 But more than anything else the phantom that appeared to Brutus showed that the murder of Caesar was not pleasing to the gods... And now [Brutus] thought he heard a noise at the door, and looking towards the light of the lamp, which was slowly going out, he saw a fearful vision of a man of unnatural size and harsh aspect. 10 At first he was terrified, but when he saw that the visitor neither did nor said anything, but stood in silence by his couch, he asked him who he was. 11 Then the phantom answered him: "I am thy evil genius, Brutus, and thou shalt see me at Philippi." At the time, then, Brutus said courageously: "I shall see thee;" and the heavenly visitor at once went away” – 69

As for Suetonius.

In Life of Caesar Suetonius references omens, the gods, a flute playing apparition who blew a horn leading Caesar’s charge across the Rubicon.

”As he stood in doubt, this sign was given him. On a sudden there appeared hard by a being of wondrous stature and beauty, who sat and played upon a reed; and when not only the shepherds flocked to hear him, but many of the soldiers left their posts, and among them some of the trumpeters, the apparition snatched a trumpet from one of them, rushed to the river, and sounding the war-note with mighty blast, strode to the opposite bank. Then Caesar cried: "Take we the course which the signs of the gods and the false dealing of our foes point out. The die is cast," said he.” (32)

In life of Caesar Suetonius also mentions apparitions wielding swords, torches, and setting fires.

”...on a sudden two beings with swords by their sides and brandishing a pair of darts set fire to it with blazing torches...” (84)

And then there’s Caesar’s deification and a seven day Caesar soul comet.

”[Caesar] died in the fifty-sixth year of his age, and was numbered among the gods, not only by a formal decree, but also in the conviction of the common people. For at the first of the games which his heir Augustus gave in honour of his apotheosis, a comet shone for seven successive days, rising about the eleventh hour, and was believed to be the soul of Caesar, who had been taken to heaven; and this is why a star is set upon the crown of his head in his statue. “ (88)

As for Pliny the Younger.

Pliny doesn’t make many references to Caesar and provides very little in the way of details about his life. In one instance, in a letter to Montanus, when referring to Julius Caesar Pliny uses the terminology “the divine Julius Caesar.”

To summarize these sources you mentioned (Livy, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Plutarch). With the exception of Livy they are all later than the primary sources we have for Jesus, are anonymous, often reference the supernatural, and are biased. I just don’t see how anyone without an axe to grind against Christian sources would even consider arguing the above authors were “non-magical” and “non-theological.”

Now, you can try to counter argue along the lines that sometimes these ancient historians report the supernatural but they do so with a degree of scepticism at times as though that elevates their credibility as historians above the Gospel writers for example. But that’s a trivial distinction that isn’t always the case with these secular writers. Further, it does not belay the simple fact the author in question has reported the supernatural which undermines the notion these accounts were “non-magical” and “non-theological”. Even if these authors were sceptical of the supernatural events they report they must have believed the source material was credible enough that the report should be mentioned.

You can try to counter argue, as you did with Nicolaus of Damascus, that the author is reporting the beliefs of other people as though that trivial distinction is somehow meaningful as well. But that again, as with Nicolaus of Damascus, is not always the case and does not belay the fact the supernatural has been recorded flying in the face, once again, of the notion these accounts are “non-magical” and “non-theological” as you asserted. It also fails to appreciate that sometimes, at least in the interest of maintaining narrative consistency, these events must necessarily be reported as the beliefs of other people even though the author himself may believe the account. Which seems to be implied by the simple fact the supernatural account has been included when it could have been simply excluded altogether. It also fails to consider that without an explicit statement to the contrary the author may be projecting his own beliefs by attributing them to the characters in the narrative. It fails to appreciate that the authors of these texts, although they weren’t attempting to write religious texts per se, were religious people in their own right and believed in the existence of the supernatural. Evidenced by numerous references to their religion and the supernatural throughout these works. It’s not at all a stretch to think these writers believed much of the supernatural reports they provide given that, for example, Plutarch was a priest and so was Pliny.

”As I am convinced. Sir, that the best testimonial to and appreciation of my character is to receive marks of distinction from so upright an emperor as yourself, I beg you to add to the dignity to which you have so kindly advanced me, by giving me the role either of augur or of septemvir, now that they are vacant, so that by virtue of my priesthood I may publicly entreat the favour of the gods for you which now I implore in my private devotion.” – Pliny to Trajan

You can try to shift the goal posts by counter arguing along the lines of a subjective and arbitrary degrees of supernatural as though that is a meaningful distinction as well. Something like the supernatural events these secular authors reported, although supernatural, weren’t egregiously supernatural and are thus, presumably, excusable. I mean, hey, omens, apparitions, and demi-gods are okay but raising the dead and walking on water is where we have to draw the (arbitrary supernatural) line, right? Not only is that another blatant attempt to shift the goal posts it, once again, does not over turn the simple fact the supernatural has been recorded in the text.

The accounts are apparently independent of each other (or if they are dependent, they at least didn't repeat each other verbatim).

Plutarch used the Gallic War Commentaries (Caesar 22). As mentioned Suetonius explicitly refers to the Gallic War commentaries which he attributes to Caesar. So neither Plutarch nor Suetonius can be considered independent of the anonymous Gallic War Commentaries. It’s the same kind of reasoning that is used to argue John is not independent from the synoptic Gospels and Matthew and Luke are not independent from Mark, after all. That they may not have repeated each other verbatim is irrelevant and another attempt to shift the goal posts. The bottom line is that they are not independent.

We have examples of coins with his image issued both during his lifetime and later commemoratives, including by his immediate successor, Augustus.

How does this carry any more historical weight than some anonymous documentary source mentioning Caesar? And how do you know the images are those of Caesar? Besides, we also have lots of coins bearing the image of Hercules.

[Difflugia]

How exactly are you arriving at and incorporating a value for the quality of the evidence into your probability calculation? Show your statistics and math.

I've made a case, even if you think it's poor. If you have a counterclaim, go ahead and present it.

To try to narrow the discussion a bit, though, maybe tell us first if you're arguing that the evidence for Jesus is as good as that for Caesar and should be trusted or that the evidence for Caesar is as bad as the evidence for Jesus and shouldn't be.

But is it really that much higher quality though? So much higher that Caesar’s existence is “almost certain” whereas Jesus’ existence must be lost “somewhere in the middle”? A “pretty big middle” was it? I don’t see how you will avoid making Special Pleas galore in trying to make that argument. You’ve got your work cut to prove the premise that’s for sure. Remember you are arguing it’s “much, much higher quality” evidence. It’s so much higher, in fact, you had to double up on “much” in order to adequately convey how much better it really is. A single “much” simple wasn’t sufficient. Well, good luck with that.

Thanks. When I have to defend against a claim beyond "lol nope," I'll consider your critique.

All I have to do is show the evidence for Caesar’s existence isn’t so much better that it prevents me from inferring Jesus’ existence at least falls in the probable range (>.5) of the spectrum which won't be difficult at all given you've asserted Julius Caesar’s existence was "almost certain" based on evidence you've already conceded is "kind of like the evidence for Jesus."

I look forward to it.

Extant writings reputedly and plausibly to be by Julius Caesar himself (The Gallic Wars).

I don’t think you are applying the same level of scepticism to the authorship of the Gallic War Commentaries as you do to, say, the Gospels.

OK.

Add to this, Suetonius, an ancient authority you appealed to for Caesar and implied you trust, asserts that some of the books traditionally attributed to Caesar (Alexandrian, African, and Spanish Wars) were disputed and that at least the final book of the Gallic War was not written by Caesar but rather by Hirtius (Caesar 56).

OK.

Show your methodology and evidence for establishing that the letters which you would appeal to that are attributed to Cicero really were written by Cicero. You don’t get to just assume they were in a comparative debate about the quality of the evidence without Begging the Question.

Is your claim that Cicero didn't write them? Let me know exactly what your debate position is and I'll try earnestly to counter it.

Paul is equal to Cicero on the grounds of being a contemporary. Paul says he met James, John, and Cephas and spent time with Cephas in particular. All people who knew Jesus. Historically speaking, that’s more than sufficient to establish Paul as a strong historical source for the existence of Jesus.

Emphasis mine. You don't get to sneak claims from dubious sources into the ones from sources we're accepting as good ones without support. That James, John, and Cephas knew the historical Jesus and spent time with him is a claim from the Gospels and not Paul. Is that a specific claim that you'd like to debate?

We have extensive, non-magical, non-theological, non-polemic accounts by historians that we otherwise trust (Livy, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Plutarch).

This statement is simply untenable. Half the sources you appeal to here (Livy History and Plutarch Theseus) also refer to Hercules in an historical context. You know, the guy you asserted almost certainly did not exist. But Hercules shows up in at least two of the sources you implied you trust. All one need do is take the time to actually read these authors and it becomes self evident they often reference the supernatural, they have theological undertones, they are biased, they report hearsay, and they are sometimes unreliable.

Are you claiming that Heracles is real, isn't real, or that we can't reasonably conclude either way?

As for Livy.

Are you claiming that Livy should be trusted or shouldn't be?

As for Plutarch.

Are you claiming that Plutarch should be trusted or shouldn't be?

As for Suetonius.

Are you claiming that Suetonius should be trusted or shouldn't be?

As for Pliny the Younger.

Are you claiming that Pliny should be trusted or shouldn't be. Or perhaps that Pliny doesn't contain enough information about Caesar to rise to the characterization as a "source?"

To summarize these sources you mentioned (Livy, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Plutarch). With the exception of Livy they are all later than the primary sources we have for Jesus, are anonymous, often reference the supernatural, and are biased. I just don’t see how anyone without an axe to grind against Christian sources would even consider arguing the above authors were “non-magical” and “non-theological.”

So, none of them should be trusted? Or is that not your claim?

Now, you can try to counter argue along the lines that sometimes these ancient historians report the supernatural but they do so with a degree of scepticism at times as though that elevates their credibility as historians above the Gospel writers for example. But that’s a trivial distinction that isn’t always the case with these secular writers. Further, it does not belay the simple fact the author in question has reported the supernatural which undermines the notion these accounts were “non-magical” and “non-theological”. Even if these authors were sceptical of the supernatural events they report they must have believed the source material was credible enough that the report should be mentioned.

That's an interesting direction. I'll look forward to you fleshing it out.

You can try to counter argue, as you did with Nicolaus of Damascus, that the author is reporting the beliefs of other people as though that trivial distinction is somehow meaningful as well.

I look forward to your argument that it isn't.

tl;dr I'm willing to discuss historiography with you. In fact, I started a thread for that specifically, but here's fine, too. I'm not chasing another tedious and ax-grinding Gish gallop, though. If you want to present and support a specific counter-claim to something I wrote earlier (even if it's simple negation, like, "It is not almost certain that Caesar existed."), then I'll try to address it, especially if it's manageably narrow.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit cause in no way is 'this' ever spelled it with an 'r'.

I note Goose is responding to someone else, I just wanna get at this bit here...

All I have to do is show the evidence for Caesar’s existence isn’t so much better that it prevents me from inferring Jesus’ existence at least falls in the probable range (>.5) of the spectrum which won't be difficult at all given you've asserted Julius Caesar’s existence was "almost certain" based on evidence you've already conceded is "kind of like the evidence for Jesus."

If only for me, if someone wanted to prove (my term) Jesus existed, that stands outside of anyone ever existing.

So we swear up and down Caesar never existed. We swear it he's fictional as them three gruff billy goats.

How's that get us to Jesus existed?

It's my contention this whole "But.. But Caesar" deal is the product of the kind of errant thinking that has folks believing this Jesus feller did him all that magic.

I dare say, if there was compelling, irrefutable evidence this Jesus feller existed, we'd not have to us suffer through the fussing on if Caesar did.

[Difflugia]

If only for me, if someone wanted to prove (my term) Jesus existed, that stands outside of anyone ever existing.

So we swear up and down Caesar never existed. We swear it he's fictional as them three gruff billy goats.

How's that get us to Jesus existed?

It's a standard apologetic argument that's supposed to counter critiques of the Gospels trustworthiness as history, mostly variations on the Gospels showing discrepancies and that they're religious storytelling rather than history. Craig Blomberg writes this in The Historical Reliability of the New Testament:

Still other individuals raise the question of the miracle stories in the Gospels. Our last chapter will address the problem of miracles in some detail. For the debate about genre, suffice it to say that in the ancient Roman world, the presence of miracles in a narrative did not by itself disqualify it from being considered historical or biographical. A striking analogy appears with the four existing accounts of Julius Caesar deciding to cross the Rubicon River between Gaul and Italy, thereby committing himself to the civil war that would lead to the Roman republic becoming an empire and to Julius becoming its emperor. Among many historians Julius’s crossing the Rubicon has been used as the classic example of an incontrovertible historical fact from antiquity, better attested than any other. Yet, exactly as with the four Gospels, the four narratives that include this event are not identical, they choose varying items to emphasize, they have small apparent discrepancies among them, and they even include the occasional account of a miracle. Historians who do not believe in miracles or who think these miracle stories to be too poorly supported simply discount them and extract reliable history from the rest of the accounts. They do not attach a new generic identification to the works, calling them something other than biography or history.

Basically, it makes for a good slippery slope, with the slickness and angle dependent on the intended conclusion (anything from "Jesus was a real guy" at one end to "Jesus literally walked on water and bodily rose from the dead" on the other). Historical trustworthiness is a continuum from complete fiction to an unvarnished retelling of the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Coupled with the fact that historiographical judgement necessarily involves at least some subjectivity, that means that there's no bright line between good and bad history for even a single researcher, let alone as some sort of consensus. The apologist, then, will try to take what is considered to be trustworthy history and find problems with it, thence sliding it along the slope until it meets the Gospels. Then, despite the argument having just been for how bad the history is, the conclusion is that since the history is acknowledged as good history and we've just admitted that it suffers from the same flaws as the Gospels, the Gospels must be good history, too.

[Goat]

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

It's pretty much the only argument that is out there. That, and hearsay testimony from decades later.

[Paul of Tarsus]

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.

It's pretty much the only argument that is out there. That, and hearsay testimony from decades later.

Very good, Goat. Many of the arguments I made in the OP for a historical Christ, are, I humbly admit, problematical. However, they are the most prominent arguments for the historicity of Jesus that I'm acquainted with. Feel free to critique the OP and look for logical fallacies.

[historia]

Many of the arguments I made in the OP for a historical Christ, are, I humbly admit, problematical.

Trust me when I say this, Jagella, some of us knew from the outset that the OP was not made in good faith.

I had a good laugh at the "internet atheist" reference, though. That was a nice touch.

[historia]

If only for me, if someone wanted to prove (my term) Jesus existed, that stands outside of anyone ever existing.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

For starters, historians don't set out to "prove" what happened in the past. Rather, they evaluate which hypothesis best explains the available evidence in light of our background knowledge.

And that last part, the background knowledge, necessarily requires historians to generally assess the evidence that exists for historical figures from a given time period before they can evaluate the evidence for any one person.

So we swear up and down Caesar never existed. We swear it he's fictional as them three gruff billy goats.

How's that get us to Jesus existed?

It wouldn't directly, of course. But it would tell us that you have an unreasonable standard for assessing the existence of any historical figure from the ancient world, which means there's no point in engaging you in a discussion.

If, on the other hand, you're willing to conclude that some people from the ancient world existed, then we necessarily have to engage in the process I outlined above.

[Goose]

Initially I wasn't going to bother responding to your post because you’ve offered virtually no counter argumentation. But, I thought about it again and decided to respond anyway. It will be brief.

How exactly are you arriving at and incorporating a value for the quality of the evidence into your probability calculation? Show your statistics and math.

I've made a case, even if you think it's poor.

So you think your historical case for the existence of Caesar was strong then? You’ve appealed to anonymous sources written decades later (and in some case centuries later) that reference in an historical context numerous supernatural events and at least one character who you think is almost certain to have not existed. Further, the sources you appealed to show bias, legendary development, are not independent, report hearsay, and contradict one another on various details. Does any of that sound familiar? Yet, you claim that evidence is “much, much, higher quality” than the evidence for Jesus. That kind of evidence is trustworthy enough to help establish the existence of Caesar as “almost certain.” But the existence of Jesus on the other hand...

To try to narrow the discussion a bit, though, maybe tell us first if you're arguing that the evidence for Jesus is as good as that for Caesar and should be trusted or that the evidence for Caesar is as bad as the evidence for Jesus and shouldn't be.

I’m not arguing either.

All I have to do is show the evidence for Caesar’s existence isn’t so much better that it prevents me from inferring Jesus’ existence at least falls in the probable range (>.5) of the spectrum which won't be difficult at all given you've asserted Julius Caesar’s existence was "almost certain" based on evidence you've already conceded is "kind of like the evidence for Jesus."

I look forward to it.

Look back. It was done here.

Show your methodology and evidence for establishing that the letters which you would appeal to that are attributed to Cicero really were written by Cicero. You don’t get to just assume they were in a comparative debate about the quality of the evidence without Begging the Question.

Is your claim that Cicero didn't write them?

I will take this attempt at shifting the burden as a tacit admission you can’t show or don’t want to show your methodology and evidence for establishing the claim that Cicero wrote the letters in question.

Paul is equal to Cicero on the grounds of being a contemporary. Paul says he met James, John, and Cephas and spent time with Cephas in particular. All people who knew Jesus. Historically speaking, that’s more than sufficient to establish Paul as a strong historical source for the existence of Jesus.

Emphasis mine. You don't get to sneak claims from dubious sources into the ones from sources we're accepting as good ones without support.

Well why not? You’ve appealed to sources that I’ve shown don’t seem to be much better.

We have extensive, non-magical, non-theological, non-polemic accounts by historians that we otherwise trust (Livy, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Plutarch).

This statement is simply untenable. Half the sources you appeal to here (Livy History and Plutarch Theseus) also refer to Hercules in an historical context. You know, the guy you asserted almost certainly did not exist. But Hercules shows up in at least two of the sources you implied you trust. All one need do is take the time to actually read these authors and it becomes self evident they often reference the supernatural, they have theological undertones, they are biased, they report hearsay, and they are sometimes unreliable.

Are you claiming that Heracles is real, isn't real, or that we can't reasonably conclude either way?

I’ve argued, and supplied the evidence, that some of the sources you implied you trust and claimed were “non-magical” and “non-theological” contain references in an historical context to Hercules, a character you claimed almost certainly did not exist. Yet those sources are still trustworthy enough to help establish Caesar’s existence as “almost certain,” right?

Are you claiming that Livy should be trusted or shouldn't be?

Are you claiming that Plutarch should be trusted or shouldn't be?

Are you claiming that Suetonius should be trusted or shouldn't be?

Are you claiming that Pliny should be trusted or shouldn't be.

I'm claiming these sources don't seem to be much better quality than sources we have for Jesus. You tell me if they should be trusted and tell me why. They are the sources you appealed to.

You can try to counter argue, as you did with Nicolaus of Damascus, that the author is reporting the beliefs of other people as though that trivial distinction is somehow meaningful as well.

I look forward to your argument that it isn't.

It’s not meaningful because it’s trivial. If something is trivial, then it’s by definition not meaningful. I gave you the arguments as to why it’s a trivial distinction. You ignored them.