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]

Craig is skilled at throwing so much out to be responded to, that a proper response cannot be given in the time frame.
...

The Gish gallop for those unaware.

A most uninformed tactic in the hands of em unaware, a most devilish tactic in the hands of em who are.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I trust anyone who's seen your arguments within this thread will understand that division did indeed pass you by.

A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinions of sheep.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Just out of curiosity, when you watch or listen to Dr. Craig's debates, do you think that he's honest when he summarizes his opponents' arguments? If we accept that certain kinds of dishonesty are legitimate tactics in forensic debate, do you think that he is, in fact, being dishonest when paraphrasing his opponents' arguments?

I consider Dr. Craig as an honorable, Christian scholar. I cannot even imagine him deliberately misrepresenting his opponent, or his opponent's argument.

Now, he may be mistaken about something...but if he is, he will apologize. But even his mistakes are rare, because he is well-familiar with his opponent's work, which goes back to his meticulous preparation.

That being said, I'd like you to provide examples/references of any dishonesty on Dr. Craig's part.

[JoeyKnothead]

I trust anyone who's seen your arguments within this thread will understand that division did indeed pass you by.

A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinions of sheep.

Nor can they understand division.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I trust anyone who's seen your arguments within this thread will understand that division did indeed pass you by.

A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinions of sheep.

Nor can they understand division.

Nor can the sheep understand the problems with infinite regression.

You can have the last word here

[AgnosticBoy]

Interesting arguments from both sides. OK, I am now convinced. Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist. What next?

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.

I gotta say that you two are being very extreme. By that I mean your views are far far away from the scholarly consensus and the available evidence for Jesus's existence.

I recommend that you guys watch the following video to see how bad this guy makes skeptics (he's also an atheist) look:

[brunumb]

I consider Dr. Craig as an honorable, Christian scholar. I cannot even imagine him deliberately misrepresenting his opponent, or his opponent's argument.

He may have a silver tongue when it comes to debating, but his arguments are heavily laced with unsupported assertions and untruths. There are numerous sites you can visit to see them thoroughly debunked. You could start here:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularwo ... -debunked/

https://www.answers-in-reason.com/scien ... -debunked/

[Ataraxia]

Hi, new guy here. Just read this thread. Maybe we can steer it back on topic if you think there's there more substance to this. Here’s what I thought were the most salient arguments so far. Feel free to pick up where you left off on one of these points, or introduce a fresh argument in a new direction.

A. PERSPECTIVES OPPOSED TO A TRADITIONAL HISTORICAL JESUS

If folks wanna think he 'probably' existed, I don't much fret.

Very underrated point. One side argues that Jesus maybe didn’t exist. The other side argues that Jesus absolutely did exist. This is a much higher bar, evidence-wise. Maybe impossibly high for a lower class mystical religious figure.

...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.

Yes, no way around this and even the secular NT scholars who believe Jesus existed admit this.

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.

The entire post this quote is from is probably this thread’s strongest and most nuanced take on the issue.

B. THE EXPERT CONSENSUS ARGUMENT

[T]hose 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.

Isn't any argument from authority at best a weak argument or at worst a completely fallacious argument?

Unlike Jesus authorities who have requisite degrees in Biblical studies and teach New Testament at respected universities...

While this is plausible, one thing that didn’t come up is whether it’s possible for someone who views the Christian Jesus as less than fully historical to get a New Testament professorship and tenure at a respected university, or published in a New Testament peer reviewed journal, or admitted into a graduate program? Institutions have an interest in keeping radical divergent views to a minimum, and many ways of gatekeeping their organizations.

Would it be more accurate to describe the situation as the consensus of experts being able to argue that "a Jesus" existed?

No one responded to this, but I thought it was one of the more relevant points of the entire thread.

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

These are good books, but I think that last line is dubious. Many professional scholars have a vested interested in the assumptions and conceptual framework that their field of study operates under, and if a certain prevailing assumption/viewpoint is dominant within a field, there is a lot of social, economic, and institutional pressure to conform.

I think it's fair to raise the point that if something was so well evidenced (e.g. the mythicists view), then why is it that not one expert in the field accepts it. That is not definitive proof that it is wrong, but that would be a red flag.

I agree, even though by itself it's an extremely weak argument.

All or most of history fits your point, but we don't find historians remaining agnostic about history. If they applied your standard then nothing could be known, so they obviously have to scale their standards and go with the best of what they have. At least in the 1st century, Dr. Bart Ehrman has stated that we have more documentation for Jesus than we do for any other historical figure from that time period.

For that last sentence, can you cite the claim you’re referring to? I haven’t read everything that Dr Ehrman has ever written, but I have closely read and annotated his one book on this subject and I don’t recall him ever making this point and in fact he’s pretty open that none of the Biblical or extrabiblical sources on Jesus are themselves strong evidence for his existence (even though he eventually makes a broader contextual argument for his existence).

[N]o matter how many folks believe something, and no matter their expertise, their belief in something doesn't establish that belief as fact.

Yep.


C. JAMES AS EVIDENCE

The existence of James (Jesus's brother), who is attested for in multiple sources, does it for me. And he was killed for spreading his brother's faith if I'm recalling Josephus correctly. If someone proclaims that even James was a myth, then we may as well make the same charge towards Paul and the other apostles. Where does that leave us when it comes to the cause of Christianity?

What sources do you find so compelling for the existence of James? As far as Paul, if Paul was real and Jesus was not, then isn't it quite plausible that a man who could fabricate claims about seeing Jesus could just as easily fabricate claims about seeing James and whoever else as well?

D. JOSEPHUS AND TACITUS AS EVIDENCE

A lot of relevant back and forth about Tacitus. I don’t have anything to add, but I think these were the key takeaways:

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.

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.

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?

The argument is that Tacitus corroborates a particular Christian claim, but it can only be confirmation if it's an independent source. If there are reasons to think that Tacitus relied on Christians for his information in the first place, he's not an independent source.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

I gotta say that you [...] are being very extreme. By that I mean your views are far far away from the scholarly consensus and the available evidence for Jesus's existence.

In what way is stating the truth "extreme"?

Or do you wish to try to argue against my statement being true?

If all the scholars in all the world thought grits wasn't groceries, would they suddenly disappear from the pantry?

I recommend that you guys watch the following video to see how bad this guy makes skeptics (he's also an atheist) look:

^snipped vid for...

I'm not wasting my time wading through a video in search of what you might find pertinent to the issue at hand.

How bout you wade through and report back how he refutes my statement of fact[/].

[AgnosticBoy]

For that last sentence, can you cite the claim you’re referring to? I haven’t read everything that Dr Ehrman has ever written, but I have closely read and annotated his one book on this subject and I don’t recall him ever making this point and in fact he’s pretty open that none of the Biblical or extrabiblical sources on Jesus are themselves strong evidence for his existence (even though he eventually makes a broader contextual argument for his existence).

Watch this video at the 4:20 to 4:30 minute marks.

C. JAMES AS EVIDENCE
The existence of James (Jesus's brother), who is attested for in multiple sources, does it for me. And he was killed for spreading his brother's faith if I'm recalling Josephus correctly. If someone proclaims that even James was a myth, then we may as well make the same charge towards Paul and the other apostles. Where does that leave us when it comes to the cause of Christianity?

What sources do you find so compelling for the existence of James? As far as Paul, if Paul was real and Jesus was not, then isn't it quite plausible that a man who could fabricate claims about seeing Jesus could just as easily fabricate claims about seeing James and whoever else as well?

Josephus. Take for instance, Antiquities book 20 reference to James being the brother of Jesus. You can read that here.

I'll let even a skeptic explain it. Richard Carrier considers the reference to James as being strong evidence, although he ends by offering an alternative explanation regarding the word "brother" mentioned in Galatians 1:17-19 as not referring to a biological brother. Dr. Carrier didn't cover the Josephus reference to James.

Here's Dr. Richard Carrier critiquing a debate between Dr. Ehrman and Richard Price (mythicist).

Ehrman outlines a logically valid argument:

"The historical man Jesus from Nazareth had a brother named James. Paul actually knew him. That is pretty darn good evidence that Jesus existed. If he did not exist he would not have had a brother."

I agree. Hence I’ve long noted this is the best evidence there is for historicity. I even count it as 2 to 1 in favor of historicity in OHJ. The problem, however, is not the validity of the argument, but its soundness.

Source: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11516