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.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

I am certainly no apologist for Paul of Tarsus, but I think his point is not that since X amount of people believe it, therefore, its true.

I think his point is that how much overwhelming the evidence must be, that the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed?

And not all of those historians are Christians, either. Historians as it pertains to this may not agree on much, but they do agree on that much.

And if that isn't the point that he is making, then guess what...it is the point that I am making.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
When people choose to hold on to views that go against the overwhelming majority of experts in the field, and then they apply their own personal standards (expecting history to function like science or leading to absolute certainty?) as opposed to those used in the field, then I have little choice but to conclude that their views are ill-informed.

When a claimant - historian or otherwise - accepts as true, that which can't be shown to be true, that's on them.

I, personally, and lacking the math, think it's probable a human, non-supernatural Jesus existed. But what I can't do is show he actually did. I just can't. And neither can any other claimant who'd espouse such a view. It doesn't matter what learning they think they have, what school they went, or if their daddy's the Mayor.

Granted, as many theists are wont to declare, "Ya cant show he didn't". Plenty fair - until we get us into claims that defy all we know about reality.

[JoeyKnothead]

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

I am certainly no apologist for Paul of Tarsus, but I think his point is not that since X amount of people believe it, therefore, its true.

I think his point is that how much overwhelming the evidence must be, that the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed?

And not all of those historians are Christians, either. Historians as it pertains to this may not agree on much, but they do agree on that much.

And if that isn't the point that he is making, then guess what...it is the point that I am making.

It's still an argument from popularity.

The fact is, we simply can't prove Jesus existed, or didn't. We can only swear us up and down one way or the other.

[benchwarmer]

I think his point is that how much overwhelming the evidence must be, that the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed?

And not all of those historians are Christians, either. Historians as it pertains to this may not agree on much, but they do agree on that much.

And if that isn't the point that he is making, then guess what...it is the point that I am making.

I don't think there is any disagreement that the majority of experts in the field believe that a Jesus (perhaps not as FULLY described) in the Bible existed. Even Richard Carrier, one of the experts who is often cited regarding disbelieving this view, agrees that he is 'on the fringe'. However, that doesn't mean the majority of experts are by definition correct. They may in fact be wrong as has happened in the past when the majority of experts were found to be wrong.

New data and new understanding are always a possible path to changing the majority opinion. We don't still believe, as a majority, in a flat earth do we?

[Goose]

Initially I wasn't going to bother responding to your post because you’ve offered virtually no counter argumentation.

You haven't presented a position to "counter."

It seems to have escaped you that I’m taking the counter position to your claim that the sources you appealed to are “non-magical”. I made numerous arguments and presented loads of evidence against your claim. But you chose to ignore it. Which you are free to do of course. What you aren’t free to do, however, is ignore the arguments and evidence against your claim and then claim I haven’t presented a position for you to counter as though that justifies ignoring the evidence and arguments.

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.

My "attempt" is a tacit admission that I've had these kinds of debates with you before and have seen that vagueness on your part is rarely innocent or accidental.

A personal slam doesn't excuse you from avoiding a request to provide the methodology and evidence to justify a claim.

Asking you to state your debate position up front could only be "shifting the burden" if part of my burden were to guess your position in the first place.

You asserted we have much, much higher quality evidence for Caesar than for Jesus. As a component of that higher quality evidence you asserted we have the letters of Cicero. I asked for the methodology and evidence that established Cicero wrote those letters attributed to him. Rather than provide the methodology and evidence you asked if I was claiming if Cicero did not write them. Which was an attempt to move me into the position of having to prove your claim wrong without you ever having provided anything to support your claim. That’s an attempt at shifting the burden.

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.

You've asserted that...

If you think this post was nothing more than an assertion then we are on such different wavelengths there’s little point continuing.

...but haven't set a standard for what "seems to be much better," let alone "shown" that you've met such a standard.

So complains the guy who’s standard is “much, much higher.”

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.

They are and I'm willing to defend them against a reasonably specific claim.

Are you though? I provided plenty of arguments and evidence against your position that these sources were “non-magical”. You ignored all of that evidence. Your entire response amounted to asking me what I was claiming.

You also ignored, twice, other claims I made which you can defend against. I gave them in this post...

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.

And again in a follow up post...

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?

Were those not reasonably specific enough?

Unless the vagueness and lack of specificity is important to your debate position, I don't understand why you're treating the request for a clearly stated position as some sort of trick.

I don’t know how much clearer I can state my position. I’ve not at all been vague about it. I think what’s happening here is that I’m not taking the position you want me to take. And rather than properly engage the arguments I have made, you are using this false claim that I have not stated my position as a kind of Red Herring to distract from the fact that you have been caught quite blatantly employing a double standard.

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.

"Jesus walked on water" is a supernatural claim. "Christians believe that Jesus walked on water" is not. That's not a trivial distinction.

While it’s strictly true that the former is an explicit supernatural claim whereas the latter is not, that truth alone doesn’t explain why the distinction is meaningful and not trivial. The distinction itself has no objective inherent value other than, perhaps, the former is a stronger claim than the latter and therefore might carry more historical weight depending on who made it. Is that what mean?

If your argument relies on the latter being a supernatural claim, it's fallacious.

The sources you appealed to don’t even meet your own standard of “X believe supernatural event Y.” I provided numerous instances where your sources make the assertion “supernatural event Y”.

[historia]

I don't think there is any disagreement that the majority of experts in the field believe that a Jesus (perhaps not as FULLY described) in the Bible existed. Even Richard Carrier, one of the experts who is often cited regarding disbelieving this view, agrees that he is 'on the fringe'. However, that doesn't mean the majority of experts are by definition correct.

Sure, but nobody said that it did. The folks here citing the consensus of experts are simply noting that this is a powerful argument in favor of the hypothesis that Jesus existed.

Moreover, in addition to recognizing that he is "on the fringe," Carrier also recognizes (rightly) that a consensus of experts meets the initial burden of proof* for a position. So those who believe Jesus existed need merely cite the consensus of experts. Now the burden of proof shifts to those who wish to challenge the consensus of experts.

Good luck!


--------------
* = "burden of proof" is just an expression, and doesn't literally entail "proving," in some absolute sense, one's position, which is impossible in many fields, such as history.

[historia]

I, personally, and lacking the math, think it's probable a human, non-supernatural Jesus existed.

Then what, exactly, are we debating here, Joey? You agree with the majority of scholars!

The fact is, we simply can't prove Jesus existed

Agreed. But nobody is saying we can "prove," in some absolute sense, that Jesus existed.

As I mentioned above, historians don't claim to be able to "prove" what happened in the past, and therefore to know the Truth™.

Rather, they simply determine which hypothesis best explains the available evidence. And the consensus of scholars is that Jesus most likely existed, because that hypothesis best explains the available evidence.

So what is the problem, then?

[JoeyKnothead]

I, personally, and lacking the math, think it's probable a human, non-supernatural Jesus existed.

Then what, exactly, are we debating here, Joey? You agree with the majority of scholars!

I endeavor to show a belief is not a fact.

The fact is, we simply can't prove Jesus existed

Agreed. But nobody is saying we can "prove," in some absolute sense, that Jesus existed.

I can't be certain how all who read these posts may respond.

As I mentioned above, historians don't claim to be able to "prove" what happened in the past, and therefore to know the Truth™.

Rather, they simply determine which hypothesis best explains the available evidence. And the consensus of scholars is that Jesus most likely existed, because that hypothesis best explains the available evidence.

I agree, but seek to ensure others don't draw em the wrong conclusions.

So what is the problem, then?

I have no problem responding to posts as I see fit - not counting my inability to always remain civil.

[historia]

Kicking off your argument with an argumentum ad populum is not a great start

It's still an argument from popularity.

It appears a few people are confused on this point.

Citing a consensus of experts is not a fallacious argumentum ad populum, as any Introduction to Logic course will inform you, such as this one (see section II.F).

[historia]

I can't be certain how all who read these posts may respond.

I agree, but seek to ensure others don't draw em the wrong conclusions.

I see. I will leave you to continue attacking straw man arguments, then.