Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

[paarsurrey1]

Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

Regards

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 61 by historia]

I'm still not sure what you mean by this.

You don't understand the difference between "conceivable doubt" and "reasonable doubt"? "Conceivable doubt" is any doubt you can think of. "Reasonable doubt" is any doubt that can sensibly be raised. If I can raise objections to the claim that Jesus existed that any sensible person might think of, then I call that skepticism "reasonable doubt." To point out that the bulk of the evidence for Jesus is tainted by Christian bias is a quite sensible reason to doubt his existence. So to prove Jesus existed, apologists must explain how doubting his existence should not be based on seeing the evidence for Jesus as biased. So far I do not see apologists providing any good explanations why biased testimony should be trusted as evidence for a historical Jesus.

How then can anyone meaningful ask for "proof" for people and events from ancient history?

Again, provide evidence for the existence of Jesus that a sensible person might accept.

Indeed, my comment here isn't directed at Carrier.

Indeed, that's a good idea. Carrier is in my opinion the most skilled mythicist. He argues very cogently and convincingly.

Rather, it's directed at your arguments in this thread, which have largely consisted of a subjective appraisal of the quality of the available historical sources and the assertion that they don't meet some arbitrary standard you've set.

What you've posted here, if accepted as a legitimate way of assessing arguments, would defeat anybody's arguments including your own. All appraisals are subjective, and all standards are arbitrary. Appraisals are something people do to judge something in some way. Appraisals are inherently subjective. Moreover, standards are something people create or adopt from what somebody else has created and are inherently arbitrary.

It would be far better if the discussion instead focused on which hypothesis best explains the available evidence, as that is the relevant standard.

That's my standard. Notice that you used the word "best." What is "best" is very subjective. So what is the "best" hypothesis for the existence for Jesus? For me it's probably mythicism.

Scientists follow the scientific method, but don't all agree on every hypothesis. In the same way, historians follow the historical method, but don't all agree on every hypothesis.

Yes, and in those cases we should not be too quick to believe what either scientists or historians are saying.

But not following the historical method in the first place is a surefire way to reach biased and erroneous conclusions.

Like I just pointed out, this "historical method" of yours results in biased and erroneous conclusions. So what good is it? You also have neglected to tell me exactly what your historical method is and how errors can be recognized and corrected.

This is why I think your musings about your opponents having an emotional attachment to a belief that Jesus existed (both here and in other threads) is entirely unhelpful.

If historicists have an emotional attachment to a real Jesus, then their supporting his existence should not be readily trusted. This kind of bias is why we should take care not to appeal to authority.

You're entitled to your private opinion, of course.

Thank you! You are entitled to your private opinion, too.

That leaves the rest of us wondering whether you are simply employing a double-standard here, and so your arguments against the historicity of Jesus constitute special pleading. Or you are now forced to doubt the existence of all these other historical persons, which seems entirely unreasonable.

I gave detailed explanations why I do not think the evidence for Jesus is convincing. I have no firm opinions on the historicity of other figures because I have not yet studied the evidence for those figures. You need to realize that introducing those other figures into the discussion is a red herring. The historicity of those figures is irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus.

Not quite.

Why do you reject the burden of proving Jesus' existence? Do you lack confidence in your ability to do so?

The burden lies with anyone who disagrees with the consensus of experts.

OK, then what evidence would you accept that Jesus never existed? Let me know, and I'll see what I can do to come up with it.

Just as it lies with those who claim that Bigfoot is real or aliens have visited the earth...

If the burden of proof lies with those who claim Bigfoot is real, then why does the burden of proof not lie with those who claim Jesus was real? Do you think that a consensus of "experts" would be adequate to support as fact the existence of Bigfoot or the historicity of alien visitations?

[JP Cusick]

Firstly, I have to confess that I had been reading a thread debating the historical fact of Jesus and got mixed up - in that my comment was refereeing to that thread not this one.

I too sometimes get confused about the threads or get the content mixed up with other threads.

It is said to be a show of strength when a person can admit our mistakes and move on.

For me when I turned 50 then my short term memory started to misfire and malfunction.

... aspects of GOD-consciousness can be controlled through controlling the belief systems of human beings.

Humans have had their God-consciousness mixed up and distorted forever.

If the realities of God were subject to the human beliefs then we would already be doomed long ago.

What I see is that by the early 7th century (622 CE) the Roman Christianity had survived the fall of Rome and God sent another Prophet Messenger in Muhammad to show and to tell humanity the truth that Christianity had lost.

I am unfamiliar with that branch of the 'Abrahamic' religions, so cannot agree or disagree with what you say about it.

In that case you are missing out on some really cool fun stuff.

Not just Islam, but try the 4 Noble Truths of the Buddha, and the Tao Te Ching, and the the dark wisdom of the Sanskrit in the Gita, because the real God is so much bigger than just Christianity.

Also, ROME never fell - at least not as a system of disparity. It just went underground until it could establish its dominance more openly again.

Any political system/culture/religion which uses the same symbolism and ideals that Rome used, can be see to be 'Roman'.

There is a lot of truth in that, and I see it as a warning of danger for anything associated with old Rome.

People glamorize old Rome as a success story, when it was really a very prolonged failure.

As to the Roman Catholic Church then it is equated with Cain who killed his brother Abel, so the Roman Church was given the mark to protect it, see Genesis 4:15, and Jesus too backed this up by saying to let the dead bury the dead, Luke 9:60

Agreed. Intent is always involved as the key approach. What is the intent, determines probable outcomes. "By their fruits" their intent is revealed.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 71 by Jagella]

Again, provide evidence for the existence of Jesus that a sensible person might accept.

This begs a good many questions. Is a sensible person, "a priori" antagonistic to the historicity of a historical figure, or is the person neutral. It seems to me that you are antagonistic, and therefore demand a degree of proof which HISTORICAL INQUIRY cannot provide....that is, if you were antagonistic against Hannibal's journey through the alps, no one, not the brightest historian in the field, would be able to answer your objections....for you attack not this or that historical claim, but the very foundations of historical analysis.

But to answer the question, Historical inquiry wants to meet certain criterion: Scope, Explanation, Plausibility, and a minimal number of ad hocs (what I call "well, maybe this....".


Jesus' actual existence meets the data, or answers the question of "What is the easiest explanation for why historical documents beginning in 50 AD and extending to 150 AD would all attest to the existence of someone dying in 33 AD, and not a single contemporary dissenter can be found among them."

Fact is, we have zero historical documents......not even a written doubt...about the historicity of someone named Jesus of Nazareth.


Contrast this with, say, King Arthur's historical credentials.

[William]

[Replying to post 72 by JP Cusick]

I too sometimes get confused about the threads or get the content mixed up with other threads.

Looks like it was this thread I was commenting on after-all...

Members Jagella and historia are involved in a dispute about whether Jesus was an historical reality or fictional.

As I say, the evidence is there regarding the Roman reaction to the new movement, so - whoever started the movement must have been a real person, although as I said, he wouldn't have called himself 'Jesus'.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that all of the things in the bible attributed to him are true historical facts though. Certainly some of them would be.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 73 by liamconnor]

Is a sensible person, "a priori" antagonistic to the historicity of a historical figure, or is the person neutral.

A "sensible" person can have any position on any issue. As far as prudence is concerned, what matters isn't so much the conclusion one arrives at but how one gets there. Generally, I think it's sensible when discussing an issue to take care to use sound logic and cite evidence that truly supports a conclusion. A "sensible" person would not arrive at a conclusion because it's consistent with that person's predispositions. Moreover, a "sensible" person does not engage in group think to fit in with the majority.

It seems to me that you are antagonistic, and therefore demand a degree of proof which HISTORICAL INQUIRY cannot provide....

This comment is an ad hominem. It isn't relevant to the issue of Jesus' historicity.

if you were antagonistic against Hannibal's journey through the alps, no one, not the brightest historian in the field, would be able to answer your objections....

If I found fallacious reasoning and weak evidence for Hannibal, then I probably wouldn't be too quick to believe he was historical either.

...for you attack not this or that historical claim, but the very foundations of historical analysis.

There are some difficulties with the study of history itself. Many people don't seem to be aware of this fact. It's important to understand that "factual" and "credible" are not synonymous with "historical." As knowledge advances, it is subject to revision. The study of history is no different. We need to be open to new evidence and the proper way to assess that evidence. If we react with hostility to new ideas because those ideas take us out of our comfort zone, then we may well be missing out on important discoveries.

But to answer the question, Historical inquiry wants to meet certain criterion: Scope, Explanation, Plausibility, and a minimal number of ad hocs (what I call "well, maybe this....".

I'd agree that any historical claims need to be not only plausible but probable. Regarding the Jesus of the New Testament, almost everything said about him is either implausible or improbable. I'd be happy to discuss any event in his story to see how probably true those stories may be.

Jesus' actual existence meets the data, or answers the question of "What is the easiest explanation for why historical documents beginning in 50 AD and extending to 150 AD would all attest to the existence of someone dying in 33 AD, and not a single contemporary dissenter can be found among them."

I know of no documents that say Jesus died in 33 AD. Even if some documents did say that he died in 33 AD, we would still need to examine those documents for credibility.

As for the "ease of explanation," I think mythicism more easily explains the evidence or the lack of evidence. For example, mythicism trumps historicism in that it more readily explains the pagan mythology and Old Testament midrash in the New Testament. A mythical Jesus can easily have been patterned after pagan gods, and it would be a cinch to make up stories about him that are based on stories in the Old Testament. If there was a real Jesus, then the writers of the New Testament would have needed to contend with the "facts."

Fact is, we have zero historical documents......not even a written doubt...about the historicity of someone named Jesus of Nazareth.

You need to go no further than the New Testament itself to find objections to the historicity of Jesus. 2 Peter 1:16:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Obviously, somebody from the very outset thought that Christians were making up stories.

[historia]

I'm still not sure what you mean by this.

You don't understand the difference between "conceivable doubt" and "reasonable doubt"?

No, I'm not sure what you mean by "proof." That's not a term often employed by historians.

How then can anyone meaningful ask for "proof" for people and events from ancient history?

Again, provide evidence for the existence of Jesus that a sensible person might accept.

But at what point does the evidence reach the level of "proof"? And who decides that?

Approaching the question in this way is deeply problematic.

Carrier is in my opinion the most skilled mythicist. He argues very cogently and convincingly.

I agree Carrier has made the best argument to date for the mythicist hypothesis. However, his argument rests on several dubious premises and his analysis has been shown to be systematically biased. That, I'm afraid, does not make for a very convincing argument.

Rather, it's directed at your arguments in this thread, which have largely consisted of a subjective appraisal of the quality of the available historical sources and the assertion that they don't meet some arbitrary standard you've set.

What you've posted here, if accepted as a legitimate way of assessing arguments, would defeat anybody's arguments including your own. All appraisals are subjective, and all standards are arbitrary.

I'm afraid you may have misread my comment here. I'm not suggesting that a proper historical analysis has to be free of all subjectivity -- that's impossible. Rather, I'm pointing out that such an analysis cannot focus solely on an appraisal of the quality of the sources, as you have done.

Additionally, we have to agree to a common standard, rather than one set by each individual.

So what is the "best" hypothesis for the existence for Jesus? For me it's probably mythicism.

Again, I think you're posing the question the wrong way. It should be: Which hypothesis best explains the available evidence.

Like I just pointed out, this "historical method" of yours results in biased and erroneous conclusions. So what good is it?

It helps mitigate against biased and erroneous conclusions. That is doesn't do so perfectly is the result of nothing being perfect.

You also have neglected to tell me exactly what your historical method is and how errors can be recognized and corrected.

You might start by reading the Historical Method article on Wikipedia. In particular, we are discussing "argument to the best explanation." C. Behan McCullagh's Justifying Historical Descriptions (1984) is a classic work in the field, so is useful for more information.

Peer review tends to weed out errors. And the consensus of scholars tends to weed out weaker hypotheses.

Not following this method, nor subjecting your analysis to peer-review, nor failing to win over the consensus of scholars, on the other hand, will greatly increase your likelihood of reaching biased and erroneous conclusions.

If historicists have an emotional attachment to a real Jesus, then their supporting his existence should not be readily trusted. This kind of bias is why we should take care not to appeal to authority.

Your argument here seems confused. You just said in your previous post that trying to "mind-read" those who disagree with you is a dubious practice, but here you are doing exactly that. Why the about-face?

I have no firm opinions on the historicity of other figures because I have not yet studied the evidence for those figures. You need to realize that introducing those other figures into the discussion is a red herring. The historicity of those figures is irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus.

On the contrary, these other cases are relevant to establishing a consistent standard in approaching the question of the historicity of Jesus. If you aren't employing a consistent standard, then your analysis can easily lapse into special pleading, as you appear to have done above.

Why do you reject the burden of proving Jesus' existence?

I thought Carrier explained this well in the quote above. The fact that we have a consensus of qualified experts on this topic meets the initial burden of proof. The burden now shifts to anyone who doubts that consensus.

Do you lack confidence in your ability to do so?

Nope.

OK, then what evidence would you accept that Jesus never existed? Let me know, and I'll see what I can do to come up with it.

This again is posing the question the wrong way. What I would be looking for is an argument as to why the mythicist hypothesis best explains the available evidence in the light of our background knowledge.

If the burden of proof lies with those who claim Bigfoot is real, then why does the burden of proof not lie with those who claim Jesus was real?

Again, because the consensus of qualified historians is that Jesus existed, and that meets the initial burden of proof. We have no such consensus among qualified biologists that Bigfoot exists, so the burden lies with those who say it does.

Do you think that a consensus of "experts" would be adequate to support as fact the existence of Bigfoot or the historicity of alien visitations?

The phrase "support as fact" is problematic, of course. We are considering here where the initial burden of proof lies, not a final conclusion of "fact."

If the consensus of modern biologists was that a large primate along the lines of the Bigfoot folklore does exist somewhere in North America, then, yes, that would meet the initial burden of proof, as we would expect such experts to only reach that conclusion after careful consideration of the evidence. The same would apply to any other topic.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 76 by historia]

But at what point does the evidence reach the level of "proof"? And who decides that?

You failed to provide any evidence for the existence of Jesus that a sensible person might accept. I must then assume that you have no such evidence. If you would post evidence such as archaelogical evidence for Jesus or unbiased eyewitness testimony for him, then I think we would be well on our way to "proving" he existed. Unfortunately for your position, there is no such evidence for Jesus.

Who decides what is proof? I make that decision, of course, which is a good idea unless you can point to somebody who is better qualified to decide what proof might be.

I agree Carrier has made the best argument to date for the mythicist hypothesis. However, his argument rests on several dubious premises and his analysis has been shown to be systematically biased. That, I'm afraid, does not make for a very convincing argument.

At least Carrier is trying to apply a methodology to his stance on the historicity of Jesus. Despite all the rhetoric coming from the real-Jesus apologists, I see no attempt on their part to apply any kind of historical method.

Again, I think you're posing the question the wrong way. It should be: Which hypothesis best explains the available evidence.

Yes, that's what I meant. We need to find a hypothesis for the available evidence. What is your hypothesis, and how does the evidence support it?

It helps mitigate against biased and erroneous conclusions.

But how do you weed out errors? For example, if I err in concluding that the crucifixion of Jesus never happened, then how can we know I'm wrong?

You might start by reading the Historical Method article on Wikipedia. In particular, we are discussing "argument to the best explanation."

I was hoping you could post in your own words based on your knowledge what the historical method is and how it has been used to conclude that Jesus was real. Can you post that explanation?

I see from that article that the first criteria for "the best explanation" is:

The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data.

So if the statement "Jesus was a real person" survives this test, then together with other statements assumed to be true (like Paul of Tarsus was one of the first Christians) it must imply other statements describing present, observable data like the New Testament or the Christian religion. I see no advantage in positing a real Jesus over a mythical Jesus in this regard. A mythical Jesus is quite adequate in explaining the New Testament and the Christian religion.

As for criterion 3:

The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.

Mythicism easily beats historicism in this regard. Almost any of the stories about Jesus are more probably myth than history.

You just said in your previous post that trying to "mind-read" those who disagree with you is a dubious practice, but here you are doing exactly that. Why the about-face?

I didn't read any minds. The emotional attachment to a real Jesus on the part of people who want to believe he was real is readily observable.

...these other cases are relevant to establishing a consistent standard in approaching the question of the historicity of Jesus.

Hmmm. A consistent standard you don't seem able to articulate.

Again, because the consensus of qualified historians is that Jesus existed...

You'll need to clarify this claim. First, how do you know what the consensus of "qualified historians" is? Were they polled? If so, what percentage of them maintain that Jesus existed? 51 percent? In what way are they qualified to assure us there was a real Jesus?

If the consensus of modern biologists was that a large primate along the lines of the Bigfoot folklore does exist somewhere in North America, then, yes, that would meet the initial burden of proof, as we would expect such experts to only reach that conclusion after careful consideration of the evidence. The same would apply to any other topic.

Really? In the absence of any other evidence you'd believe that Bigfoot exists merely because a majority of biologists said so? Personally, I would never be so credulous. I'd want to see a live specimen or at least a carcass to believe Bigfoot exists. Even then I might suspend judgment for a while as the evidence is investigated by other parties.

The same goes for Jesus. Any consensus of scholars is very weak evidence for his existence especially when I can examine the other evidence myself and see how weak that evidence is.

[otseng]

It seems to me that you are antagonistic

Moderator Comment

Please avoid commenting on another person.

Please review the Rules.


______________

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

[historia]

You failed to provide any evidence for the existence of Jesus that a sensible person might accept.

Right, because our conversation is focused on methodological and epistemological concerns.

If we can't first agree on how to frame the question or how to approach the evidence, then discussing the evidence itself will be an exercise in frustration.

If you would post evidence such as archaelogical evidence for Jesus or unbiased eyewitness testimony for him, then I think we would be well on our way to "proving" he existed.

Archeology mostly provides information on the material culture of past civilizations, and so rarely produces evidence about a specific individual. Likewise, eyewitnesses are rarely 'unbiased'. And most of what we know about the ancient world comes from authors writing about events that they themselves didn't witness.

Given the nature of ancient sources, then, we wouldn't expect either physical evidence or 'unbiased' eyewitnesses for the vast majority of ancient figures. Therefore, it is unreasonable to use that as some kind of threshold of "proof."

This is a good example of why framing the question in this way is problematic. It's easy for someone who is unfamiliar with ancient historical sources to approach this topic with naive expectations, and thus set an unreasonable threshold.

Again, setting an arbitrary threshold of "proof" is not how historical inquiry works. Instead, the relevant standard here is determining which hypothesis best explains the available evidence in the light of our background knowledge.

But how do you weed out errors?

As already mentioned above: peer-review.

At least Carrier is trying to apply a methodology to his stance on the historicity of Jesus. Despite all the rhetoric coming from the real-Jesus apologists, I see no attempt on their part to apply any kind of historical method.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "apologists" -- that seems like a bit of rhetoric of your own. But within the scholarly literature there are scores of journal articles, book chapters, and even whole book devoted just to discussing methodology in historical Jesus research.

...these other cases are relevant to establishing a consistent standard in approaching the question of the historicity of Jesus.

Hmmm. A consistent standard you don't seem able to articulate.

On the contrary, I've repeated this so many times, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. The consistent standard we apply for any historical question is: Which hypothesis best explains the available evidence in the light of our background knowledge.

Ideally, the evidence would consist of multiple, independent sources as close to the events as possible, as that way our job is easier and we can ascribe greater certainty to our conclusions. But we rarely have that for ancient history.

For many, if not most, historical figures from the ancient world, we have just a single historical source, often written 50-100 years after the events of their life, recorded by a biased non-eyewitness with an agenda who believed in the supernatural.

And yet, despite that, we conclude that most of the people mentioned in these sources actually existed, even if some of the information about them is exaggerated or invented, because that hypothesis best explains the available data.

In the case of Jesus, we have multiple sources written within 50 years of his life, which is better than what we would typically expect for a figure of the ancient world, especially for someone who was not part of the ruling elite.

Again, because the consensus of qualified historians is that Jesus existed...

You'll need to clarify this claim. First, how do you know what the consensus of "qualified historians" is? Were they polled? If so, what percentage of them maintain that Jesus existed? 51 percent? In what way are they qualified to assure us there was a real Jesus?

This is determined by a review of the scholarly literature. This is also not a controversial point: The handful of scholars who actually hold the mythicist hypothesis readily acknowledge that the scholarly consensus is that Jesus was an historical figure, as we've already seen above from Carrier.

If the consensus of modern biologists was that a large primate along the lines of the Bigfoot folklore does exist somewhere in North America, then, yes, that would meet the initial burden of proof, as we would expect such experts to only reach that conclusion after careful consideration of the evidence. The same would apply to any other topic.

Really? In the absence of any other evidence you'd believe that Bigfoot exists merely because a majority of biologists said so? Personally, I would never be so credulous.

Again, we are talking here about where the initial burden of proof lies, not any final conclusions we might draw. In all cases where we have an effective consensus of qualified experts, the burden of proof lies with those who doubt that consensus.

Moreover, in this hypothetical world we are imagining where there is a consensus of qualified biologists regarding Bigfoot, other facts would necessarily have to follow as well: There would also have to be actual evidence to establish that claim, otherwise the consensus would not have formed in the first place. The existence of a large primate in North America would also be of great interest to the general public, so there would also be books, documentaries, and museums highlighting this evidence.

In such an imaginary world, then, it would not be credulous at all to believe in Bigfoot. In the real world, however, no such evidence exists, of course, so this all seems fanciful and far-fetched. Which is why this kind of hypothetical question does little except distract from the discussion.

The same goes for Jesus. Any consensus of scholars is very weak evidence for his existence especially when I can examine the other evidence myself and see how weak that evidence is.

The problem, though, is that it is not enough simply to "examine the evidence." A proper historical examination requires assessing the evidence in the light of our background knowledge -- in this case, Second Temple Judaism, Greco-Roman culture and religion, and the history of First Century Palestine.

Without a deep knowledge of that background information, any analysis of the evidence is going to be shallow and easily skewed by bias and error. For that reason, we should always take into serious consideration the analysis of historians (who have that background knowledge, which is why they are experts), and thus also the consensus of historians, as that is a more reliable guide.

You might start by reading the Historical Method article on Wikipedia. In particular, we are discussing "argument to the best explanation."

I was hoping you could post in your own words based on your knowledge what the historical method is and how it has been used to conclude that Jesus was real. Can you post that explanation?

As the Wikipedia article mentioned, the best explanation is the hypothesis that is the most plausible, has the greatest explanatory power and scope, and requires the fewest ad hoc suppositions. (You can also phrase this is Bayesian terms, the concepts are interchangeable.)

Explaining which hypothesis best does that in the case of the historicity of Jesus would require a lengthy response that surveys the relevant evidence, and therefore is perhaps better addressed in a new thread (rather than continuing to hijack this one) or even a head-to-head debate, if you are so inclined.

Before we do that, though, we need to agree to two points:

• 1. The goal is to determine which hypothesis best explains the available evidence, rather than "prove" what happened.
  
  2. The burden of proof lies with anyone who doubts the scholarly consensus, and so lies with mythicists.

Can you agree to those two points?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 79 by historia]

Archeology mostly provides information on the material culture of past civilizations, and so rarely produces evidence about a specific individual.

I can think of a lot of archaeological evidence for individuals. Coins, buildings, busts, tombs, weapons and tools, scrolls...there's so much such evidence that is lacking for Jesus. You can makes excuses for this dearth of evidence, but the dearth of evidence still remains.

Likewise, eyewitnesses are rarely 'unbiased'. And most of what we know about the ancient world comes from authors writing about events that they themselves didn't witness.

Was it common for ancient writers to be advancing a religious faith like the writers of the New Testament were doing? If any of them were advancing such a religious faith, then should we believe them? Do we believe Plato when he spoke of Zeus? If not, then why believe the New Testament writers when they speak of their god, Jesus?

Given the nature of ancient sources, then, we wouldn't expect either physical evidence or 'unbiased' eyewitnesses for the vast majority of ancient figures. Therefore, it is unreasonable to use that as some kind of threshold of "proof."

So if you don't have the evidence I'm asking for, then I'm unreasonable for asking for it?

Again, setting an arbitrary threshold of "proof" is not how historical inquiry works.

Aren't all "thresholds" arbitrary? If not, then please tell me how your standards are not arbitrary but come from some law of nature that's not a product of human decision making.

Instead, the relevant standard here is determining which hypothesis best explains the available evidence in the light of our background knowledge.

And that hypothesis is mythicism. It does a much better job of explaining the available evidence than historicism does. It takes into consideration the background knowledge and shows how a historical Jesus is improbable.

As already mentioned above: peer-review.

I understand that Richard Carrier's mythicist hypothesis has survived peer review. So even by your own standards mythicism is a credible hypothesis.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "apologists"...

Historicists argue for a historical Jesus very much like Christian apologists do. Two of the first historicists I became acquainted with are D. James Kennedy and William Lane Craig. They were/are Christian apologists. They argue that we can know Jesus lived because the New Testament says so. That's why I refer to historicists as "real-Jesus apologists."

But within the scholarly literature there are scores of journal articles, book chapters, and even whole book devoted just to discussing methodology in historical Jesus research.

I'll need to disagree with this characterization of Biblical scholars. Their work is based more on Christian tradition and personal professional interests than any rigorous methodology. Sure, they do a lot of good work, but that work must fall within some boundaries set by the Christian organizations they work for. That's why we need to scrutinize their work for credibility.

In the case of Jesus, we have multiple sources written within 50 years of his life, which is better than what we would typically expect for a figure of the ancient world, especially for someone who was not part of the ruling elite.

But the sources for Jesus are almost all Christian sources. If they all spoke of Jesus, then they did so because Jesus was a god they all believed in. Moreover, the sources we have survived centuries of Christian editing and very possibly distortion. All the sources that did not become accepted by the surviving orthodoxy were either excluded from the canon or even destroyed. You don't seem to understand how the sources for Jesus were tainted by Christian chicanery.

This is determined by a review of the scholarly literature.

OK, then you don't know that there is a consensus of scholars who maintain a historical Jesus. You are merely assuming there is a consensus.

Again, we are talking here about where the initial burden of proof lies, not any final conclusions we might draw. In all cases where we have an effective consensus of qualified experts, the burden of proof lies with those who doubt that consensus.

Let's say I'm using brand X toothpaste and get one cavity per year using it. I read in a medical journal that four out of five dentists say that brand Y toothpaste results in fewer cavities than brand X. Placing my faith in this "dentist consensus" because I have nothing else to go on, I stop using brand X and start using brand Y. I do nothing else differently. After one year I visit my dentist only to discover I have two cavities! I then conclude that the dentists that recommend brand Y toothpaste are wrong.

What does this parable illustrate? If we have nothing else to go on, then a consensus of experts may form the basis for the wisest course of action. However, if that consensus proves to be wrong because it does not survive scrutiny, then we should conclude it is wrong. That's why I disagree with any consensus of historians who might claim Jesus was historical: I've scrutinized the evidence and have concluded that a historical Jesus is not supported by that evidence.

The problem, though, is that it is not enough simply to "examine the evidence." A proper historical examination requires assessing the evidence in the light of our background knowledge -- in this case, Second Temple Judaism, Greco-Roman culture and religion, and the history of First Century Palestine.

I have done exactly that and so far a mythical Jesus seems more likely than a historical Jesus. So what's the problem?

Before we do that, though, we need to agree to two points:

1. The goal is to determine which hypothesis best explains the available evidence, rather than "prove" what happened.

2. The burden of proof lies with anyone who doubts the scholarly consensus, and so lies with mythicists.

Can you agree to those two points?

Sure. If you don't wish to take up the burden of proof for a real Jesus (I thought that historians don't work with proof), then I 'll be glad to make a case for a mythical Jesus. I've been doing that all along, anyway.