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.

[brunumb]

And this is what Brunumb considers to be an example of Craig's arguments being "thoroughly debunked"?

Heh. Okay then.

William Lane Craig relies predominantly on piling on heaps of unsupported assertions that believers buy unquestioningly. If one takes off their bible-tinted glasses and focuses on what is being said it becomes patently obvious that it is ultimately all just smoke and mirrors. Believers usually find that sort of thing impressive.

The two links I provided do not constitute the entire case against Craig. Google is your friend. Anyway, I am brunumb, and I find Craig's arguments thoroughly debunked. Make of that what you will.

[Ataraxia]

No, this is a straw man argument. No one here is making a claim to absolute certainty on either side of this debate, and it is disingenuous to frame the discussion in that way.

It's not an argument at all, simply a larger context of the issue. Most people with an interest in Jesus are Christians who view his historical existence as an obvious, absolute, imperative necessity of their faith. Hence the prevailing institutional norm on this issue. That’s why I liked Joey’s comment. It does seem like most people here in this thread could agree that there is “probably” some historical person at the root of the Jesus story.

No, the consensus of experts is a compelling argument in favor of a position, as experts are far more likely to be correct than non-experts.

I agree with this statement. Expert consensus does suggest what is likely true, even if it can never prove anything. However, expertise is not the same as authority (although they often overlap).

I’m skeptical of the notion that anyone can really be an expert on the history of the life of Jesus. The data is too limited, and the religious nature of the topic lends itself to influence from authorities/institutions/tradition. Compare to the historiography of Muhammad and Joseph Smith, of whom quite a bit more is known. Academic authorities operating within Islamic and LDS institutions ARE perhaps the best chance of approaching some accurate knowledge of the life of those figures. But would anyone outside of those religions assume that their scholarly consensus on any historical question about Muhammad and Joseph Smith are likely true by virtue of their authority and expertise? Perhaps, but suspicion would be reasonable. As with Jesus, the capacity of scholars (even secular ones) to provide useful comprehensive mastery on the details of his life is incredibly minimal and vulnerable to institutional conformity when compared to experts on subjects where actual mastery is possible and expected (agricultural science, art history, contract law, dentistry etc. etc.).

Maybe it's possible to be an expert on ancient Greek language, the history of the Roman Empire, Hellenistic Judaism, the history of early Christianity, or on the New Testament texts. But do any of these things make anyone an expert on the history of the life of Jesus? I highly doubt it. Appealing to authority that does not have mastery of the topic at hand is when doing so becomes fallacious.

[JoeyKnothead]

I hope you'll reconsider watching and give your honest opinion.

Why the need to emphasize 'honest', but to imply I wouldn't be?

Actually, no. I offered my opinion on the video and you rejected it on the grounds that it was opinion.

Are we to now assume that opinion is a valid representation of fact

What's so scary for you about providing support for your reference? Why do you so fear supporting your reference? What is so problematic in your reference, that you'd not wish support it?

I contend your reference doesn't support your position, and for your claims in such regard, Halloween is it an hourly occurance.

Does the truth hurt that much?

I only brought up the "honest" part because I thought an honest opinion would carry more weight than an ordinary opinion.

I ain't buying me your attempt to pull the poison out the well after you done poured you it in.

The scoundrel's only sorry he done got him caught.

I apologize for upsetting the gods of absolute certainty.

Are these gods you know to exist, or are these gods believed to exist by scholars, and you're you really proud of em for it?

...Opinions are not worthy... opinions are not worthy (I've repeated this 10x in hopes of gaining your forgiveness).

Don't need ya no forgiveness from me, ya just need to start accepting that fact is a thing.

No matter how proud anyone is on their beliefs, no matter how many scholars agree with that belief, the thing is, belief don't mean it's a fact.

[Goose]

So we're all clear, here's my claim, then:

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

You’ve got an uphill battle facing you. For it to be “non-magical” using your own contrived standard you would have to show every single reference to the supernatural had a qualifier of “they say” or “it is said” and so on that contextually can’t be shown to not apply to it. All I have to do to falsify your entire argument using your own standard is produce one counter example. That is, show one supernatural reference without the qualifier. And there are several in just Life of Caesar alone.

Let’s also be clear you claimed that evidence is “much, much higher quality” than the evidence for Jesus.

When we looked at Nicolaus' account of Caesar's assassination, you claimed that it assumed the truth of supernatural claims. The devil, it turned out, was in the details and Nicolaus qualified his supernatural claims in a way that separated beliefs of the characters from beliefs of the narrator.

Your argument regarding Nicolaus was forced. I didn’t respond to your final post and those arguments in that thread so I will not comment further here. Suffice to say I see here the same kind of circular interpretation I saw in the Nicolaus debate. What I will do, when I have time, is dig that thread up and address your arguments properly.

In that light, I read Plutarch's Life of Caesar in one sitting (it's about 24,000 words, roughly the length of the Gospel of Matthew) and examined each reference to the supernatural.

That seems to confirm my earlier suspicion that you had not read Plutarch’s Caesar prior to appealing to him as “non-magical” and “non-theological” evidence for Caesar. I further suspect what has happened is that you made a claim about the evidence prior to examining the evidence and then attempted to interpret the evidence on the assumption that the claim is true. That much seems pretty obvious.

Before we wade into your arguments defending Plutarch it’s important that we gain some background knowledge on him. Without that background knowledge we are in danger of holding false starting assumptions.

”As a priest of Apollo at Delphi, Plutarch of Chaeronea is an invaluable source on the state of the Delphic oracle in the second century CE. The oracle appears in nearly all of his Greek Parallel Lives, either in the form of oracular responses or journeys to the sanctuary itself, as well as being the setting, and occasionally the subject, of a number of Plutarch’s dialogues. And yet, by Plutarch’s day, the Delphic oracle had long since lost the political clout it once wielded. Consequently, the prominence of the oracle in Plutarch’s writings has prompted speculation as to why Delphi holds such a visible position in his works.” - Rebecca Frank,
The Didactic Oracle: The Delphic Oracle in Plutarch’s ‘Delphic Dialogues’

Given our background knowledge that Plutarch was a priest who also wrote theological works we ought to expect him to not only report the supernatural but hold supernatural views. Further we ought to expect him to interpret natural phenomenon as having theological significance given that he was a member of a priestly order which even interpreted the letter E as theologically significant. In short, we have no a priori reason to think Plutarch would be sceptical of a supernatural claim solely on the grounds it was a supernatural claim.

”Now, our friend Apollo appears to cure and to settle all difficulties connected with life, by giving responses to such as consult him; but of himself to inspire and suggest doubts concerning what is speculative, by implanting in the knowledge-seeking part of the human soul an appetite that draws towards the truth; as is manifest from many other things, and from the dedication of the E. For this is not likely to have been done by chance, nor yet by lot only, in settling the precedence of all the letters of the alphabet before the god, did it obtain the rank of a sacred offering and object of admiration: but either those that first speculated about the god saw in it some peculiar and extraordinary virtue of its own, or else they used it as a symbol of some important mystery, and admitted it on those grounds.” – Plutarch, The Letter E at Delphi

Though in a slightly different way, Plutarch did the same thing. Nicolaus attributed dubious beliefs to characters, while Plutarch attributes them to sources, often unnamed ("they say" or "it is said").

You’re 1) circularly assuming Plutarch thought the belief was dubious without any explicit statement in the text, 2) badly cherry picking your evidence to make it fit your explanation rather than making your explanation fit the evidence, and 3) glossing over evidence which stubbornly refuses to fit the pattern thereby falsifying your argument.

Plutarch’s use of “they say” and “it is said” is not itself an ipso facto admission of scepticism. You’re incorrectly arguing that Plutarch is attributing a belief to his sources. Rather he is drawing material from his sources. Indeed, his entre biography of Caesar is an exercise in “they said” since he is writing over a century later and drawing on written material of earlier sources (and possibly on oral traditions still in circulation). Without an explicit admission that he does not believe the report the natural understanding is that he is simply introducing a report taken from his source material. When he says “they say” he means more than one person has made the claim. To turn “they say,” “it is said,” etc. into a literary device which is a tacit admission of scepticism meaning something like take what I’m about to say with a very large grain of salt is to take the natural meaning of those terms and argue they mean something that is not only not explicitly stated but is not supported by the evidence.

A broader sampling of Plutarch’s use of “it is said” shows he often uses this qualifier to introduce material that is not only mundane but is found in earlier written material.

”Such, then, is said to have been the course of Caesar's life before his Gallic campaigns.” – Caesar 15

”And it is said by some writers that although Caesar defended himself against the rest and darted this way and that and cried aloud” – Caesar 66

”In that city's temple of Victory there stood a statue of Caesar, and the ground around it was naturally firm, and was paved with hard stone; yet from this it is said that a palm-tree shot up at the base of the statue.” – Caesar 47 (cf. Caesar’s Civil Wars 3.105)

”And it is said that Caesar, when he first heard Brutus speak in public, said to his friends: "I know not what this young man wants, but all that he wants he wants very much."” – Brutus 6 (cf. Cicero To Atticus. XIV.1).

Again, a broader sampling of Plutarch’ uses of these qualifiers reveals, by my count, that “it is said” (or “is said’) occurs twelve times and “they say” seven times in Caesar. Plutarch uses “it is said” nine times and “they say” four times in Brutus. The qualifier “it is said” and “they say” are used to introduce mundane natural reports far more often than the supernatural. The total uses of both qualifiers combined in both biographies is roughly about thirty-two. Of those thirty-two they are used to introduce mundane natural events about twenty-eight times. These events were either widely known, found in other source material, or were not in and of the themselves difficult to accept. A small sampling...

”It is said, too, that Caesar had the greatest natural talent for political oratory, and cultivated his talent most ambitiously, so that he had an undisputed second rank...” – Caesar 3

”He fought this victorious battle on the day of the festival of Bacchus, on which day also it is said that Pompey the Great had gone forth to the war; a period of four years intervened.” - 56

”For it is said that he received twenty-three; and many of the conspirators were wounded by one another, as they struggled to plant all those blows in one body.” – 66

”However, what he said was not true; on the contrary, he was very desirous of rising to receive the senate; but one of his friends, as they say, or rather one of his flatterers, Cornelius Balbus, restrained him, saying: "Remember that thou art Caesar, and permit thyself to be courted as a superior." – 60

”He did not fall in battle, however, but after the rout retired to a crest of ground, put his naked sword to his breast (while a certain friend, as they say, helped to drive the blow home), and so died.” – 69

”It was then, they say, that Pompey was so filled with delight and admiration that he rose from his seat as Brutus approached, and in the sight of all embraced him as a superior. “ – Brutus 4

Sometimes when introducing the supernatural Plutarch does not use any qualifier at all but rather asserts the supernatural.

“Among events of man's ordering, the most amazing was that which befell Cassius; for after his defeat at Philippi he slew himself with that very dagger which he had used against Caesar; 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.”

If your argument held water we would expect Plutarch to interject some qualifier such as “it is said” or “they say” right around the point where he introduces the supernatural. We don’t see that, therefore your argument holds no water. What we see is Plutarch asserting these events as divine ordering which he contrasts with the preceding events of man’s ordering.

When Plutarch uses the qualifier “they say” but does not believe the report he takes the time to explicitly deny it and instead offers his own view.

”In the case of Cassius, then, they say this was the chief reason for his plotting against Caesar; but it is not so. For from the outset there was in the nature of Cassius great hostility and bitterness towards the whole race of tyrants, as he showed when he was still a boy and went to the same school with Faustus the son of Sulla.” – Brutus 9

The qualifier “some say” is more often used in reference to natural mundane events and is often offset with a contradicting view.

”Some say that Caesar made this deposition honestly; but according to others it was made to gratify the people, who were determined to rescue Clodius.” – Caesar 10.

”As for the war in Egypt, some say that it was not necessary, but due to Caesar's passion for Cleopatra, and that it was inglorious and full of peril for him. But others blame the king's party for it, and especially the eunuch Potheinus, who had most influence at court...” - Caesar 48

”Some, however, say that this was not the vision which the woman had; but that there was attached to Caesar's house to give it adornment and distinction, by vote of the senate, a gable-ornament, as Livy says, and it was this which Calpurnia in her dreams saw torn down, and therefore, as she thought, wailed and wept.” - Caesar 63

”The ancestor of Brutus, they say, was a plebeian, son of a steward by the name of Brutus, and had only recently risen to office. Poseidonius the philosopher, however, says that the two sons of Brutus who were of age perished according to the story, but that a third son was left, an infant, from whom the family descended “ – Brutus 1

”...and some say that the two men, who were already slightly at variance for other reasons, were still more estranged by this circumstance, although they were relatives, since Cassius was the husband of Junia, a sister of Brutus. But others say...” - Brutus 7

Notice an explicit statement of denial and/or an alternate or contradicting view is absent from Plutarch’s use of “they say” when reporting the supernatural events in Caesar. He reports them as though they are part of the narrative like many of the mundane events. Which is not at all surprising given that Plutarch was a priest at the Temple of Apollo in Delphi.

As was evident in Nicolaus, the distinction (or its lack) is important when comparing Plutarch with a Gospel.

But the lack of the contrived distinction is also present in all the sources you appealed to, including Plutarch.

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.

And once again, our historian makes clear that he is quoting other sources and not opining on their truth either way. This is a convention that is adopted by Greek historians, but notably absent in the Gospels.

Of course he’s quoting other sources. His entire biography of Caesar depends on other sources. And Plutarch does offer a theological opinion on their truth, later. It’s a bit you glossed over. We’ll get to that.

As stated in Acts in its Ancient Literary Context (which I've quoted before):

I speak of a blurring of boundaries here (rather than a deliberate crossing from 'fact' to 'fiction') because I think it is clear from passages like those quoted that ancient historians were aware that a commitment to methodological truth (the historian's duty to pass on ancient tradition) might conflict with the truth of the narrative's content - especially where, as so often with the later antiquarians, the historian fails to subject the tradition to critical analysis.

And from your previous quote Acts in its Ancient Literary Context:

”But the authorial persona can also be used to create an (equally reassuring) buffer zone of scepticism between 'what is reported' and the reader. It speaks the language of reason, of conjecture and probability and calculation (e.g. 2.31). It proposes rationalistic, physical explanations for the marvellous phenomena of legend and travellers' tales (e.g. 2.24-28).”

We see Plutarch do the opposite. We see Plutarch take natural phenomena and propose supernatural explanations with theological implications. We’ll get to that too.

That's what we have here. Plutarch is reporting on the legends, but separating them out as perhaps (at the discretion of the reader) requiring skepticism.

Except Plutarch doesn’t say they are legends nor does he explicitly caution his readers to be sceptical. You added those bits.

Compare such disclaimers in what you quoted ("it would seem," "Strabo the philosopher says," "when the seers also, after many sacrifices, told him") with places where Plutarch presumably doesn't see a reasonable need for such skepticism.

Those aren’t necessarily admissions of skepticism. “it would seem” can mean that one thinks there are reasons which suggest something is the case. Plutarch is offering his own interpretation of these reported events.

”But destiny, it would seem, is not so much unexpected as it is unavoidable, since they say that amazing signs and apparitions were seen.”

“Strabo the philosopher says” is an appeal to a contemporary source which is an attempt to strengthen the case. The “told him” is just part of the narrative here.

Here's a humorous anecdote that must be derived no less from hearsay, yet Plutarch apparently considered it mundane enough to report himself in the persona of the narrator (10):

You should read Plutarch’s E at Delphi.

Your argument is that supernatural claims are being incorporated in a way indistinguishable from undeniably (as presented) historical events (or at least that such distinctions are "trivial"). That's pretty obviously not the case.

Pretty obviously not the case? Far more often Plutarch uses “it is said” or “they say” as a qualifier for mundane natural events than for supernatural events. Sometimes when introducing a supernatural event he doesn’t use the qualifier at all and asserts the supernatural event which falsifies your entire argument that he’s “non-magical” using your own standard.

”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

This is part of a long list of legends (both mundane and supernatural) surrounding Caesar's assassination that are presented as being legends.

Plutarch says nothing about the account surrounding Caesar’s assassination being legends. You added that bit too. You also glossed over the bit where Plutarch attributes these events to the “work of some heavenly power which was calling and guiding the action thither.” That’s Plutarch explicitly making not only a supernatural claim but providing a theological interpretation of otherwise natural events. In fact he even seems to be rejecting his own notion that “So far, perhaps, these things may have happened of their own accord” in favour of the supernatural explanation that “the place, however,...made it wholly clear that it was the work of some heavenly power.”

It begins in section 62 and includes the long paragraph you quoted earlier:

• For Caesar, as we are told, ...
• But destiny, it would seem, is not so much unexpected as it is unavoidable, since they say that amazing signs and apparitions were seen.
• but Strabo the philosopher says
• The following story, too, is told by many.
• Some, however, say that this was not the vision which the woman had;
• And when the seers also, after many sacrifices, told him that the omens were unfavourable,
• But if he was fully resolved (Albinus said) to regard the day as inauspicious,
• Some, however, say that another person gave him this roll

Drawing from source material.

Then, picking up immediately where you leave off (emphasis mine):

Indeed, it is also said that Cassius, turning his eyes toward the statue of Pompey before the attack began, invoked it silently, although he was much addicted to the doctrines of Epicurus; but the crisis, as it would seem, when the dreadful attempt was now close at hand, replaced his former cool calculations with divinely inspired emotion.

"it is said" is Plutarch drawing on earlier source material about Cassius. "but the crises as it would seem...divinely inspired emotion." That’s Plutarch taking the material and making another theological interpretation.

Compare these sections with earlier ones about which Plutarch is apparently in less doubt. Whenever Plutarch qualifies his statements with "some say," "they say," or "according to," it's suggested by the context that it's something that Plutarch considers dubious.

You are assuming Plutarch thought they were something dubious.

Some say that Caesar made this deposition honestly; but according to others it was made to gratify the people (10)

Right. ”some say” is often offset with a contradicting view as I covered above.

It is said, moreover, that on the night before he crossed the river he had an unnatural dream (32)

There’s nothing supernatural happening here or even anything particularly difficult to accept. It was just a dream after all. In any case, Plutarch is drawing from written material that apparently Suetonius used as well as he reports the same dream (Caesar 7).

In that city’s temple of Victory there stood a statue of Caesar, and the ground around it was itself naturally firm, and was paved with hard stone; yet from this it is said that a palm-tree shot up at the base of the statue. (47)

Plutarch is drawing from earlier written material here.

”Also at Tralles in the temple of Victory, where they had dedicated a statue of Caesar, a palm was pointed out as having grown up during those days from the pavement between the joints of the stones.” – Caesar, Civil War 3. 105

A seven day comet, a darkened sun and weird weather for a whole year.

Whether historical or not, none of these is supernatural or particularly implausible.

”...events of divine ordering...” You conveniently glossed over that bit. Funny how you’ve added bits and left bits out. But that tends to happen when one is attempting to force the evidence to fit the explanation.

Plutarch takes natural phenomenon and explicitly attributes them to divine ordering.

”Among events of man's ordering, the most amazing was that which befell Cassius; for after his defeat at Philippi he slew himself with that very dagger which he had used against Caesar; 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 it was on this wise.” – Caesar 69

There is no “they say” or “it is said” qualifier here. There’s no direct admission of scepticism. Plutarch asserts his own supernatural interpretation of these events rather than simply report the natural phenomena. Of course this isn’t at all surprising when we consider Plutarch was a priest.

And oh yeah, a giant scary phantom who shows up at Brutus’ door to talk with him. All orchestrated by the gods of course.

"So they say," anyway. While the translator makes it appear that the "as they say" (ὥς φασι) only applies to a single clause, Plutarch separately qualifies each part of the same story in Life of Brutus.

Let’s look at the phantom episode in Caesar again, shall we?

”But more than anything else the phantom that appeared to Brutus showed that the murder of Caesar was not pleasing to the gods; and it was on this wise. As he was about to take his army across from Abydos to the other continent, he was lying down at night, as his custom was, in his tent, not sleeping, but thinking of the future; 8 for it is said that of all generals Brutus was least given to sleep, and that he naturally remained awake a longer time than anybody else. 9 And now he 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. 12 Subsequently, however, when arrayed against Antony and Caesar at Philippi, in the first battle he conquered the enemy in his front, routed and scattered them, and sacked the camp of Caesar; 13 but as he was about to fight the second battle, the same phantom visited him again at night, and though it said nothing to him, Brutus understood his fate, and plunged headlong into danger. ” -69

First we see that Plutarch begins, once again, giving his own theological interpretation of the event.

”But more than anything else the phantom that appeared to Brutus showed that the murder of Caesar was not pleasing to the gods; and it was on this wise.“

A few sentences after we see that “it is said” applies to Brutus’ propensity to stay awake which is an anecdotal fact that explains why Brutus was awake in his tent but has nothing to do with the phantom episode itself.

“it is said that of all generals Brutus was least given to sleep, and that he naturally remained awake a longer time than anybody else.[/b]”

Then Plutarch moves into the narrative account of the phantom.

”And now he thought he heard a noise at the door...”

When they were about to cross over from Asia, Brutus is said to have had a great sign. (Brutus, 36)

”it is said” - Plutarch is drawing from the material of one of his sources without an explicit denial.

On that night, they say, the phantom visited Brutus again, manifesting the same appearance as before, but went away without a word. (48)

”they say” - Plutarch is drawing on his source material with no explicit denial or alternative view.

Plutarch recognizes that those are good and important parts of the story, but might be just that: a good story. Each time, he offers a "so they say" or similar as a wink or nod to the reader.

Not in the phantom account found in Life of Caesar he doesn’t which makes that account not “non-magical” using your own standard.

Plutarch took the time to tell his readers that a report of an apparition was dubious when he thought so.

”There were many reports of signs and apparitions, most of which were of uncertain and dubious origin” – Life of Otho 4

Which of course implies Plutarch thought at least some reports of signs and apparitions were not dubious. Ghost stories are a reoccurring theme throughout Plutarch’s biographies. Here’s a sampling...

”5 And at night, after he had entered the open sea and was enjoying a favouring wind, the heavens seemed to burst open on a sudden above his ship, and to pour forth an abundant and conspicuous fire. 6 From this a torch lifted itself on high, like those which the mystics bear, and running along with them on their course, darted down upon precisely that part of Italy towards which the pilots were steering. 7 The soothsayers declared that the apparition bore witness to the dreams of the priestesses, and that the goddesses were taking part in the expedition and showing forth the light from heaven; 8 for Sicily, they said, was sacred to Persephone, since mythology makes it the scene of her rape; and the island was given to her as a wedding present. 9 1 Such, then, were the signs from Heaven which encouraged the expedition; and making haste, since they were crossing the open sea, they skirted the coast of Italy.” – Timoleon 8-9

”But the Deity gave him most unmistakeable foretokens of his successes. 4 For after he had sacrificed at once where he landed at Tarentum,48 the victim's liver was seen to have an impression of a wreath of laurel, with two fillets hanging from it.49 And a little while before he crossed over from Greece, there were seen on Mount Tifatum in Campania, in the day time, two great he-goats fighting together, and doing everything that men do when they fight a battle. But it proved to be an apparition, and gradually rising from earth it dispersed itself generally in the air, like vague phantoms, and then vanished from sight.” – Sulla 27

”Then Damon, who was ravaging the country with predatory forays and threatening the city, was induced by embassies and conciliatory decrees of the citizens to return, and was appointed •gymnasiarch. But soon, as he was anointing himself in the vapour-bath, he was slain. And because for a long while thereafter certain phantoms appeared in the place, and groans were heard there, as our Fathers tell us, the door of the vapour-bath was walled up, and to this present time the neighbours think it the source of alarming sights and sounds.” – Cimon 1

”It would seem also that a phantom appeared to his nurse and foretold that her charge would be a great blessing to all the Romans. 2 And although these presages were thought to be mere dreams and idle fancies, he soon showed them to be true prophecy” – Cicero 2

”As the plot was ripening, Dion saw an apparition of great size and portentous aspect. He was sitting later in the day in the vestibule of his house, alone and lost in thought, 2 when suddenly a noise was heard at the other end of the colonnade, and turning his gaze in that direction he saw (for it was not yet dark) a woman of lofty stature, in garb and countenance exactly like a tragic Fury, sweeping the house with a sort of broom.” – Dion 55

If Plutarch gave no credence whatsoever to any of these ghost stories, why on earth do they feature so prominently and frequently in his writings? I mean why report them at all?

So that we can see how slippery our slope has to be if we're going to consider these stories as magical as the ones in the Gospels, let's look at Matthew 15:30-31:

Great multitudes came to him, having with them the lame, blind, mute, maimed, and many others, and they put them down at his feet. He healed them, so that the multitude wondered when they saw the mute speaking, the injured healed, the lame walking, and the blind seeing—and they glorified the God of Israel.

That's the narrator speaking without qualification.

We’ve already seen that Plutarch and your other sources which you haven't dealt with do the same thing. Besides, “they say” or “some say” or “it is said” without an explicit reference to who those sources are is also speaking without qualification. In fact, it could be seen as worse in that it’s little more than one anonymous source referencing other anonymous sources.

"Some say that Brutus saw a ghost" isn't magic. "Jesus made the lame walk and the blind see," is.

You’re still splitting hairs as though this distinction is meaningful and not trivial. Without an explicit statement of denial or scepticism toward the account, "Some say that Brutus saw a ghost" is a tacit endorsement of the supernatural. Moreover, “some say” doesn’t remove the presence of a supernatural element in the narrative. The narrative still contains a reference to the supernatural and is therefore not “non-magical.” For it to be “non-magical” it would have to contain no references to the supernatural in the narrative.

So let’s have a quick review of Plutarch’s Life of Caesar as a source:

1. It references the supernatural in an historical context on numerous occasions.
2. It shows theological undertones.
3. It is formally anonymous. It doesn’t claim authorship in the body of the text (that’s the same standard that makes the Gospels anonymous).
4. It was written somewhere between about 110 and 160 years after Caesar died.
5. It blatantly reports hearsay (“they say,” “some say,” “it was said,” etc.)
6. It shows legendary development from earlier accounts such as Nicolaus of Damascus’ Life of Caesar.
7. It shows bias.
8. It contradicts other accounts on various details.

As for Plutarch himself:

9. He references in an historical context characters you believe almost certainly did not exist (i.e. Hercules) in his other works (e.g. Theseus).
10. He references the supernatural often in his other works (Lives, Moralia).
11. He wrote a biography of mythological demi-god Romulus and Hercules (now lost).
12. He was a priest.

Despite all that. Not only have you appealed to Plutarch but you have gone so far as becoming a Plutarchean apologist defending him as a reliable source for the existence of Caesar. So reliable, in fact, that he helps establish Caesar existence as “almost certain.”

You don’t see just a teensy-weensy double standard in all of this?

Because I sure do.

[Mithrae]

ya just need to start accepting that fact is a thing.

No matter how proud anyone is on their beliefs, no matter how many scholars agree with that belief, the thing is, belief don't mean it's a fact.

You keep making this assertion or variations thereof, but so far have not shown it to be true. When asked to do so, the best you could manage was declaring that you would "challenge" anyone who asserted otherwise and asking some questions about if/when/to what extent belief might shape reality.

As a wise fellow once said:
"Make claims in debate? Prove you speak truth or forever risk folks being em sceptical of any claim you ever make!"

This seems to be the sort of double standard which might make one re-examine the process which led up to it. Even if you don't accept the existence of Caesar or the like, clearly you do accept some things which you (or I suspect anyone else) are unable to "show to be true"; you're even repeatedly emphasizing as "fact" something which you're unable to show to be true!

Unless and until you can prove your claim that belief can never create real facts, logically there must either be something wrong with your supposed 'fact' (which would make it a rather weak opinion to offer as a counterpoint to the weight of expert consensus) or else, more likely IMO, something wrong with your "show to be true" criterion/rhetoric and the occasions on which you choose to apply it.

[JoeyKnothead]

ya just need to start accepting that fact is a thing.

No matter how proud anyone is on their beliefs, no matter how many scholars agree with that belief, the thing is, belief don't mean it's a fact.

You keep making this assertion or variations thereof, but so far have not shown it to be true. When asked to do so, the best you could manage was declaring that you would "challenge" anyone who asserted otherwise and asking some questions about if/when/to what extent belief might shape reality.

The claim is based on unassailable logic. Beliefs ain't facts.

Can you show that belief alone provides fact?

As a wise fellow once said:
"Make claims in debate? Prove you speak truth or forever risk folks being em sceptical of any claim you ever make!"

See above provided statement.

And I preciate ya calling me wise. I'm gonna tell the pretty thing ya did. Hopefully she'll interpret your belief as fact

This seems to be the sort of double standard which might make one re-examine the process which led up to it.

Do you wish to argue that beliefs are facts?

If not, I can't understand your objection to my claim.

Even if you don't accept the existence of Caesar or the like, clearly you do accept some things which you (or I suspect anyone else) are unable to "show to be true"; you're even repeatedly emphasizing as "fact" something which you're unable to show to be true!

See logic 101.

Beliefs are not facts. We can believe in facts, we just can't magically make us some of our beliefs into em.

Unless and until you can prove your claim that belief can never create real facts, logically there must either be something wrong with your supposed 'fact' (which would make it a rather weak opinion to offer as a counterpoint to the weight of expert consensus) or else, more likely IMO, something wrong with your "show to be true" criterion/rhetoric and the occasions on which you choose to apply it.

If all the experts believed the earth wasn't here, would we all float us all away?

What belief has ever created a fact? How does that even work?

I don't doubt many claimants consider asking em to show their claims are truth is some kind of "rhetoric".
In fact, my position is that theists'll stick to their beliefs in spite of fact. I propose theist belief to be a coping mechanism, whereby difficult and challenging notions, even unanswerable questions, can be considered as "God works in mysterious ways".

The double standard there being how some to many theists'll reject the consensus of scientific experts in one field of study, such as geology, where the consensus is the earth is a billion years and some weeks old, and theists who put it at six thousand years or so. Theists who'd then climb on a plane,with all the science behind flight and all.

[Goose]

So let’s have a quick review of Plutarch’s Life of Caesar as a source:

6. It shows legendary development from earlier accounts such as Nicolaus of Damascus’ Life of Caesar.

Oops. That should be Nicolaus' Life of Augustus.

[historia]

One side argues that Jesus maybe didn’t exist. The other side argues that Jesus absolutely did exist.

No, this is a straw man argument. No one here is making a claim to absolute certainty on either side of this debate, and it is disingenuous to frame the discussion in that way.

[...]

It does seem like most people here in this thread could agree that there is “probably” some historical person at the root of the Jesus story.

Right, everyone in this thread is arguing in terms of probability. That's why your original asssertion that one side is claiming that Jesus "absolutely" existed is inaccurate and misframes the debate.

Most people with an interest in Jesus are Christians who view his historical existence as an obvious, absolute, imperative necessity of their faith. Hence the prevailing institutional norm on this issue.

You're jumping to an unfounded conclusion here. The fact that some people in a society believe X does not, in itself, demonstrate that there is an "institutional norm" for X.

In fact, secular academic institutions in general, and biblical scholars in particular, are well known for going against Christian tradition on a variety of issues. So we have no good reason to assume that biblical scholars working at secular institutions are under some kind of "imperative" to reach the conclusion that Jesus existed.

I’m skeptical of the notion that anyone can really be an expert on the history of the life of Jesus. The data is too limited

This, I think, is simply ill-informed. There is considerably more data for Jesus of Nazareth than for the average historical figure from the ancient world -- certainly more than enough to warrant book-length and even multi-volume works analyzing the data and the myriad issues it presents for historical analysis.

[T]he religious nature of the topic lends itself to influence from authorities/institutions/tradition.

Compare to the historiography of Muhammad and Joseph Smith, of whom quite a bit more is known. Academic authorities operating within Islamic and LDS institutions ARE perhaps the best chance of approaching some accurate knowledge of the life of those figures.

I see no reason to accept this premise of your argument.

There are, for example, several non-Mormon scholars who have written about Joseph Smith and early Mormonism. Why would a believing Mormon scholar at BYU be in a uniquely superior position to write about Smith compared to a non-Mormon scholar working on the same topic at the University of Virginia?

But would anyone outside of those religions assume that their scholarly consensus on any historical question about Muhammad and Joseph Smith are likely true by virtue of their authority and expertise?

This analogy is confused. No one is suggesting that you only consider the consensus of believing Christian scholars working at (conservative) Christian institutions on the issue of Jesus' historicity.

In fact, if you only want to take into consideration non-Christian scholars working at secular (or perhaps Jewish) institutions, you would find the same consensus that Jesus most likely existed.

Maybe it's possible to be an expert on ancient Greek language, the history of the Roman Empire, Hellenistic Judaism, the history of early Christianity, or on the New Testament texts. But do any of these things make anyone an expert on the history of the life of Jesus?

Those things certainly give one the necessary skills and background knowledge to properly assess the specific historical evidence we have for Jesus of Nazareth. But only scholars who have chosen to apply those skills to historical Jesus research should be considered experts (in the narrow sense you mean it here) on that topic.

Appealing to authority that does not have mastery of the topic at hand is when doing so becomes fallacious.

You've given us no good reason to think biblical scholars are not experts.

[Ataraxia]

Right, everyone in this thread is arguing in terms of probability.

The OP is not framed in terms of probability.

So we have no good reason to assume that biblical scholars working at secular institutions are under some kind of "imperative" to reach the conclusion that Jesus existed.

Sure they do. The intro of Ehrman’s book on this subject gives good insights as to why. He describes how he sees just two groups on this issue--those who believe Jesus obviously existed (which on page 2 he says includes all scholars, with no doubts) and then what he characterizes as a sometimes militant non-academic community of people mostly online who believe Jesus was completely constructed from myth. My point here is that while taking a controversial academic stance is normal even among historians of Christianity, the fact that he sees all doubt of Jesus' historicity as a fringe non-academic movement means he knows it’s one that would weaken a scholars' reputation, risk one’s position and future career prospects, etc. He's pretty blunt about how crappy the sources on Jesus are, and he admits that the reason why he wrote the book was to avoid being associated with that side.

There is considerably more data for Jesus of Nazareth than for the average historical figure from the ancient world -- certainly more than enough to warrant book-length and even multi-volume works analyzing the data and the myriad issues it presents for historical analysis.

There is almost no contemporaneous evidence of Jesus' existence, much less the life of Jesus. Not that historians would expect there to be much for a figure like Jesus. Reasonable conjecture based on poor evidence is typical in studies of ancient history. Every bit of evidence that is suggested to exist on the life of Jesus could definitely be quoted and described in a single relatively short book. One can easily survey all available historical data that exists about the life of Jesus. There is simply not enough material to warrant anyone being an expert on the historical life of Jesus. Suppose the consensus of physicists was that there are likely multiple universes, based on a plausible theoretical model and some mathematical calculations. Can a physicist who has theorized on this claim be an "expert on the multiverse?"

Why would a believing Mormon scholar at BYU be in a uniquely superior position to write about Smith compared to a non-Mormon scholar working on the same topic at the University of Virginia?

Networking, jobs, getting published. Non-Mormons ARE tolerated/accepted within the circles of historians of Mormonism. In 1972 they opened most of the LDS historical archives to non-Mormon scholars for the first time. But as with many niche cultural studies, one will have greater success in the field if they are part of that actual culture. One won’t be hired to teach history at BYU if they are not Mormon. The vast majority of professional historians of Mormonism work at BYU or for the LDS church itself. Likewise, try getting hired outside of Utah as a historian if you specialize in Mormon history. It’s possible, but history departments try to create a well-rounded array of specializations to meet the needs of their course offerings, and Mormon history is not a niche colleges are looking to fill. Of the University of Virginia’s 81 history professors, zero specialize in mormon history.

But only scholars who have chosen to apply those skills to historical Jesus research should be considered experts (in the narrow sense you mean it here) on that topic.

Ah, historical Jesus research. What’s a fact about Jesus’ life that has been most recently discovered through historical Jesus research?

[John Bauer]

William Lane Craig relies predominantly on piling on heaps of unsupported assertions ...

People who are more familiar with philosophy and reasoning understand those as premises, conditionals, propositions, and such. Assertions are what constitute arguments. The major premise is an assertion, the minor premise is an assertion, the conclusion is an assertion. So far, in my experience, most atheists demonstrate a strange, almost pathological resistance to admitting, "Given those premises, that conclusion does seem more reasonable than its denial"—like something bad would happen if they ever allowed anything to be a given. Personally, I have no problem granting things for the sake of argument and admitting that a particular conclusion follows (if it does); I also have no problem following that up with, "However, I would challenge this or that premise." I would sincerely love to see a pattern of atheists doing that, honestly. (If anyone is aware of an atheist doing that anywhere in these forums, please point me to where it can be found. I would sincerely enjoy reading that.)

... that believers buy unquestioningly.

Where are the data from which this conclusion is drawn? Or is this an unsupported assertion?

If one takes off their bible-tinted glasses and focuses on what is being said it becomes patently obvious that it is ultimately all just smoke and mirrors. Believers usually find that sort of thing impressive.

If one simply begs the question against the Christian apologist, yes, that would make things seem quite obvious and much easier. That is indeed the route atheists seem to prefer.

The two links I provided do not constitute the entire case against Craig.

No, but that's what you had chosen as an example thereof. In light of those examples, I don't think anybody needs to be terribly concerned about the so-called case against Craig.

Anyway, I am brunumb, and I find Craig's arguments thoroughly debunked. Make of that what you will.

Oh, believe me, it said a lot.