Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?

[Jagella]

Many people insist that Jesus was a historical person. They are sometimes referred to as "historicists." Historicists, including Bart Ehrman, an atheist, argue that Jesus was probably historical because the early Christians would not have made up an embarrassing story like the crucifixion. A crucified messiah is just too hard for people to believe!

It's not hard to counter this argument. It assumes that the early Christians were embarrassed by their savior being crucified. Do we know this assumption to be true? Yes, some of us today might see such an event as embarrassing, but we project our own feelings onto first-century Jews living in a culture much different from our own. We are remiss to assume that an unorthodox sect of Jews would feel like we do today.

Another difficulty for the embarrassment theory is that the Romans crucified many Jews and were hated for it. The early Christians may have made up the crucifixion story to create sympathy for Jesus among the Jews and even gentiles who may have lost loved ones to the horror of crucifixion. Christians could claim then as they do today that "Jesus died for you" as they might say to a potential convert. Laying guilt trips on people can be a powerful motivation to unbelievers to join a religious group.

Yet another rationale for fabricating the crucifixion story is that it sets up the resurrection of Jesus. Without a crucified Christ his followers could not have claimed Jesus' rose from the dead, perhaps the greatest miracle of the New Testament.

Finally, if we are smart enough to assume that a presumably embarrassing story like the resurrection is unlikely to be made up and hence is likely to be true, then perhaps the early Christians thought the same way. They may have fabricated the crucifixion to lead unbelievers to conclude that Jesus was real because nobody would make up an embarrassing story! If so, then their trick is having its intended effect on modern historicists.

In any event, it is not difficult to come up with reasons for fabricating the crucifixion story. There are probably many you can think of. I should point out that the crucifixion story hasn't hurt Christianity much; Catholic churches proudly display paintings of the crucified Christ and place crucifixes in all their churches. Few if any will leave the church over this belief.

So does this "criterion of embarrassment" lend authenticity to the story of Jesus making him more likely to be historical?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Many people insist that Jesus was a historical person. They are sometimes referred to as "historicists." Historicists, including Bart Ehrman, an atheist, argue that Jesus was probably historical because the early Christians would not have made up an embarrassing story like the crucifixion. A crucified messiah is just too hard for people to believe!

It's not hard to counter this argument.

Why would anyone feel the need to counter the argument? What is the antecedent 'reason for doubt'? Miracles and what not? But then we can dismiss Mohammed and Joseph Smith and any number of people: it is not hard to construe their entire history as fictitious.

It seems to me that those who attempt to argue Jesus into fiction, WANT to argue him into fiction, and so set about doing so.

But what are the grounds for even attempting this enterprise?

[Mithrae]

Many people insist that Jesus was a historical person. They are sometimes referred to as "historicists." Historicists, including Bart Ehrman, an atheist, argue that Jesus was probably historical because the early Christians would not have made up an embarrassing story like the crucifixion. A crucified messiah is just too hard for people to believe!

I think you'll find that they argue Jesus' existence because the evidence for his existence - compared to many other ancient teachers - is overwhelming. Jesus' brother James was known personally to Paul (Gal. 1:19), and Josephus was a resident of Jerusalem in the year that "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" was killed there (Antiquities 20.9.1).

There is also compelling evidence that the content in the last few chapters of Mark comes primarily from an early written 'passion narrative':
> More new people are identified in these chapters than anywhere else in the gospels besides the naming of the Twelve (Pilate, Barabbas, Simon of Cyrene - and his sons Alexander and Rufus! - Mary Magdalene, Salome, Joseph of Arimathea) a level of detail and implied relevance to those names not found elsewhere
> The use of backwater town names like Magdala and Arimathea to identify people implies familiarity with those places (14:10, 14:67, 14:70, 15:21, 15:40, 15:43)
> Unlike all other gospels and contrary to the pattern above, in Mark "the high priest" is not explicitly named, suggesting the story was circulated within his sphere of influence (he died c.37CE) or at least his family's influence (ie. Judea before the revolt)
> The two anonymous believers mentioned in the story - the bystander who cuts off the ear of the high priest's slave with a sword (Mk 14:47) and a young man who escapes arrest by running away (Mk 14:51-52) - suggests protection of their identities, which would be unnecessary in a later work
> In Mark and later Matthew and Luke Jesus eats the Passover meal with his disciples and was killed on the feast's first day (the day considered to start in the evening and end at sunset), but there are indications of an underlying story in which (like John) he was killed on the Preparation day before the feast; Simon of Cyrene is coming in from the country, implying work which could not be done on Passover; Jesus' burial is said to be on Preparation day (with a parenthetical clause making it preparation for the Sabbath) and Joseph hurries to get the burial done before evening, which makes no sense if it was already Passover; Jesus' trial itself could not have happened on the day of Passover, and if it actually had Mark surely would noted the priests' hypocrisy, so more likely that was an inadvertent consequence of the new chronology

In dating that earlier 'passion narrative' there are two distinct elements which strongly suggest that it was circulated in Judea prior to 44CE:
- The use of "James the younger" to identify Jesus' brother (Mark 15:40; cf 6:3) suggests a common term distinguishing him from James son of Zebedee who died in the mid 40s (Acts 12:2), and
- "the text speaks quite simply of 'the rebels,' who were taken prisoner during 'the insurrection' (15:7) . . . . We can only suppose that the text was composed before the next great uprising; after that, the author would have 'historicized' the account by distinguishing the previous 'stasis' from the more recent one. The next unrest with bloody clashes that struck Jerusalem was the apperance of Theudas under Cuspius Fadus (44-45 C.E.; cf. Acts 5:36, Ant. 20.97-98)."

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 2 by liamconnor]

Why would anyone feel the need to counter the argument?

Arguing that the supposed embarrassing nature of the crucifixion story means that Jesus is historical is misleading, in my opinion.

But then we can dismiss Mohammed and Joseph Smith and any number of people: it is not hard to construe their entire history as fictitious.

You're missing the point of the OP. I'm not arguing that Jesus was made up although it is entirely possible that he was made up. I'm arguing that the "criterion of embarrassment" is misleading. The embarrassment-of-the-crucifixion argument does not provide good evidence for his historicity, in my opinion.

If you want to stay on topic, then please argue for the embarrassment theory. Does any supposed embarrassment on the part of the New Testament writers over the crucifixion story make the story more likely to be true?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 3 by Mithrae]

I think you'll find that they argue Jesus' existence because the evidence for his existence - compared to many other ancient teachers - is overwhelming.

I'd be happy to argue against Jesus historicity later, but for now I'd like to discuss the "criterion of embarrassment" that some people use to assess Jesus' historicity. Is it proper to insist that the crucifixion story makes Jesus more likely to be historical because his followers would not be likely to make up such an embarrassing story? Is the logic of this claim sound? Were the early Christians truly embarrassed over the crucifixion story? Even if they were embarrassed over the crucifixion story, might they have made it up for other reasons?

I contend that this argument does not make Jesus more likely to be historical. If we want to lend credibility to his historicity, then we need to look for better evidence.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

JESUS OF NAZARETH: The Unlikely Hero

I think it is not without merit to say if you are going to make up a leader,a hero and a Messiah it would be somewhat perverse to make up one that was convicted of blasphemy and executed as a vile criminal without convincing many, even of his own nation, that he was anything but a charleton (save some uneducated and presumably gullible peasants) who made promises that went unfulfilled.



It's a way to go but for a Jew to be executed as Jesus was would be the equvalent of being found guilty of pedophilia today, it would be seen as reseverved for only the grossest of criminals. Jesus was convicted by what was seen as the highest and most respected religious body in the Jewish system, it is indeed stretching credulity that such a figure would be considered a good central figure for a new religious movement, especially for a deeply religious people no doubt awaiting a victorious military leader that would free them from their much hated Roman oppressors.

I think its fair to say that, given the above, it would quite unlikely that such a figure as Jesus as depicted in the gospels was dreamt up in the hope that people would find his story appealing enough to risk losing their standing in the Jewish community, their livlihoods and possibly their lives for; and if he were, that would probably be a first.



JW

FURTHER READING: Did Jesus really exist?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... 6-october/




FABRICATED

Why would someone invent such an unlikely hero as Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 35#p881535

Were the nativity narratives allegorical?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 61#p831861

Was the resurrection of Christ fabricated?
viewtopic.php?p=1110258#p1110258

Would someone die for a lie?
viewtopic.php?p=1089375#p1089375

FRAUDULENT

Does the gospel narrative indicate those in Jesus local community believed him to be " fraud"?
viewtopic.php?p=980509#p980509

Did Jesus local kinsmen expose him as a "con artist"?
viewtopic.php?p=1019943#p1019943

Was Jesus a "fake Messiah" instigated by the Romans to counteract insurgency?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 82#p933982

Did Jesus manoeuvre events so he only appeared to be the Messiah?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p847881

Why did the Jews reject Jesus's Messiahship?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 53#p886853

[Mithrae]

I contend that this argument does not make Jesus more likely to be historical. If we want to lend credibility to his historicity, then we need to look for better evidence.

...which I provided. So the answer to the question asked by your thread title is "Yes."

As far as I know there is little textual evidence of 'embarrassment' among early Christians over Jesus' crucifixion. About the only suggestion of that which I can think of off the top of my head is in 1 Corinthians 1 where Paul calls Jesus' crucifixion "a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles."

However in two other cases - that he was from Galilee, and that he received John's baptism "for the remission of sins" - there are clear indications in later gospels that these were indeed facts uncomfortable to the authors: Matthew and Luke have creative nativity stories trying to show that Jesus wasn't really from Galilee, that he was actually born in the same place as David. Likewise, Matthew has John protesting that he should be the one baptized by Jesus, while the fourth gospel omits any direct mention of Jesus' baptism at all. Therefore these are among the more confidently-known facts about the life of James' brother Jesus.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

...it is indeed stretching credulity that such a figure would be considered a good central figure for a new religious movement, especially for a deeply religious people no doubt awaiting a victorious military leader that would free them from their much hated Roman oppressors.

Thanks for the response, but you're not addressing my arguments in the OP. How do you know that the early Christians would not think that a crucified Christ would be a good figure for their movement? Like I already stated, the crucifixion sets up the resurrection. The story of the crucifixion then might play an important role in a story that is meant to impress people with a mighty person whom not even death can overcome. Don't you see how plausible my argument is?

I think it is not without merit to say if you are going to make up a leader,a hero and a Messiah it would be somewhat perverse to make up one that was convicted of blasphemy and executed as a vile criminal...

Yes, and that's exactly what the Gospel writers and Paul may have been thinking. They may have reckoned that their readers would think that an embarrassing element in a story means that the writers could not have lied! So they placed the story of the crucifixion in the story of Jesus to make it seem more authentic. If so, then their trick appears to be working.

I should say in closing that I do not know if Jesus was really crucified or not. I don't know if he really existed. All I know is that some people wrote about him.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 7 by Mithrae]

...which I provided. So the answer to the question asked by your thread title is "Yes."

OK, good.

I'm still wondering, though, if the embarrassment argument is a weak argument, then why is it so prevalent when we have presumably better reasons to believe Jesus was historical?

[historia]

So does this "criterion of embarrassment" lend authenticity to the story of Jesus making him more likely to be historical?

Yes, whenever historical sources relay information that appears to run contrary to their interests, there is a greater likelihood that they are relaying accurate information.

Moreover, the idea that early Christians simply invented a mythical crucified Messiah out of whole clothe has a very low prior probability, as it runs completely contrary to our background knowledge of Second Temple Jewish messianic expectations.

It's not hard to counter this argument.

I disagree. It seems to me your counter argument here consists of little more than the observation that it's possible to imagine ad hoc explanations in which early Christian sources fabricated information to make it appear that Jesus was an historical person.

This is not a strong objection, since virtually all historical persons and events are subject to such alternative "explanations": NASA fabricated the moon landing, Jews exaggerated the Holocaust, the government covered up the real reasons for 9/11, and so on and so forth.

The issue is not whether we can imagine other possible explanations for an historical event, but whether such explanations provide better explanatory scope and power than competing hypotheses. Ad hoc explanations, such as the ones you provided above, are inherently less probable, and so aught to be rejected in favor of less ad hoc explanations.