The Best Case for Jesus

[Sheshbazzar]

When, exactly, DID a critic or non-believer come out with the assertion that Jesus never existed as a historical person?

Given the fact that for well over a thousand years any critic or non-believer who come out with such an assertion would have been quickly executed as a 'heretic', and that any 'heretical' writings that were found, were summarily destroyed, there is hardly no way that we, in this world, (short of inventing a functioning time machine ...or Jesus comes and exposes their dirty deeds)...are ever going to be able to find that first critic, Or those thousands of criticizing writings that, were they not destroyed, would thoroughly discredit the version of Christian 'history' the Church has spoon fed us on.
The Church oversaw the executions of hundreds of thousands of the critics and non-believers of its religions claims.
You ought to know this.

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

So perhaps they thought Jesus was a man? You've made several quotes there, but it's really beyond the scope of this essay.

That's the whole point: According to my quotes, Paul thought Jesus had been a man on earth. That's certainly within the scope of "The best case about Jesus".

The rest of it is not really worth discussing here because even a best case argument from the other references in the letters of Paul might chip away at the understanding of Doherty but could still admit the hypothesis championed by Wells, et al., of a Jesus who was placed in the indeterminate mythic past.
Do you disagree that these passages provide the only evidence in Paul against the NON-DOHERTY, NON-CARRIER, non-first-century-Jesus interpretation?

Paul having met the brother of Jesus does not put Jesus in a mythic past.
Yes the quotes I gave from Paul's epistles either assert (when in bold) or suggest a human/earthly Jesus.
And I think they are enough of them to prove the point.

Do you find evidence in Hebrews of a first century Jesus?

The evidence here (which I gave in section D) is only about an earthly/human Jew called Jesus having been crucified in the past.
Also, there are other items in the Pauline epistles and Hebrews which suggest that crucifixion was in the near past ("firstfruits" (1 Cor 15:20), "today" (Heb 3:15, 4:7)).
And neither Paul or the author of Hebrews were making excuses about an important delay between the crucifixion and the time of their preaching.

I'll admit that I could possibly have been more clear about my intent, but nowhere in this essay do I really take up the torch for Doherty/Carrier/etc.

I did not imply it either. But the points I made are mostly against Doherty/Carrier hypothesis, which keeps Paul's apostolic activities in the 50's.
There are so many mythicist cases nowaday, I cannot direct my arguments against all of them at once, more so the ones which have Paul as an invention in the second century (BTW, I already provided some arguments against these theories in the "The Myth of Jewish Christianity" thread).

I'm looking for evidence for Jesus in these epistles - the one that was killed in the first century and known to his first century disciples. I could point to 1 Cor 15 and Galatians 1 in this regard. I pointed marginally to 1 Thess 2 and Hebrews 13, though I'm not even sure why those would count. Can you find more?

Well, 1 Cor 15:3-11 is an interpolation in my book, so is 1 Th 2:15-16: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html & http://historical-jesus.info/4.html
Galatians 1 and 3:6-4:7 have very valid points supporting the existence of a human/earthly Jesus who lived in the near past.

This is interesting work, but you seem to be assuming that the Gospel of Mark wouldn't be anti-disciples. I completely disagree. It's the thematic intent of the Gospel of Mark to illustrate the failure of the disciples. Why? That's a good question. But the fact that it's a Markan theme is hard to argue against.

The gospel of Mark is not anti-disciples all the time: "Mark", at times, was finding excuses to explain why the disciples were not saying things of the utmost importance for supporting the new Christian beliefs (such as Jesus giving gag orders).
In other cases, he made the disciples look stupid (not seeing the miraculous feedings for example), but he did the same for Jesus also ("asking his disciples to provide a meal for 5000", "expecting a fig tree to have fruits in early spring").
Why, according to you, "It's the thematic intent of the Gospel of Mark to illustrate the failure of the disciples"? What failure? Why the theme? Why have Jesus surrounded by failed disciples of (allegedly) in own choosing?
Yes there is a theme, if you will. And it is that the disciples did not see or heard anything divine about Jesus. And the failure of the disciples is their failure to have their testimony in favor of Christian beliefs (because they had no reason to become Christians after what they saw & heard as eyewitnesses).
I wonder about your ideas on that. That would be a good topic to discuss for another thread.
As for me, the explanations I gave, despite your disagreement, explain very well the recurring "theme".

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

I'll admit that I could possibly have been more clear about my intent, but nowhere in this essay do I really take up the torch for Doherty/Carrier/etc.

I did not imply it either. But the points I made are mostly against Doherty/Carrier hypothesis, which keeps Paul's apostolic activities in the 50's.
There are so many mythicist cases nowaday, I cannot direct my arguments against all of them at once, more so the ones which have Paul as an invention in the second century (BTW, I already provided some arguments against these theories in the "The Myth of Jewish Christianity" thread).

That's the thing. Rejecting a particular explanation of Christian origins or a particular interpretation of Paul (whether mythicist or not mythicist, it does not matter) with evidence against it does not constitute positive evidence of the historicity of Jesus. (At least, not unless you can show that the things disproved exhaust the possibility space...)

When looking for positive evidence of a historical Jesus, the first century originator kind, I found 1 Cor 15 and Gal 1 to be suitable based on their meaning. The rest did offer indication that they believed in Jesus as a man (among other things!), but not necessarily one that they had known as their recent companion, which I find and consider to be the "boundary condition" between historicist and non-historicist hypotheses.

[Peter Kirby]

I'll admit that I could possibly have been more clear about my intent, but nowhere in this essay do I really take up the torch for Doherty/Carrier/etc.

I did not imply it either. But the points I made are mostly against Doherty/Carrier hypothesis, which keeps Paul's apostolic activities in the 50's.
There are so many mythicist cases nowaday, I cannot direct my arguments against all of them at once, more so the ones which have Paul as an invention in the second century (BTW, I already provided some arguments against these theories in the "The Myth of Jewish Christianity" thread).

That's the thing. Rejecting a particular explanation of Christian origins or a particular interpretation of Paul (whether mythicist or not mythicist, it does not matter) with evidence against it does not constitute positive evidence of the historicity of Jesus. (At least, not unless you can show that the things disproved exhaust the possibility space of alternatives...)

When looking for positive evidence of a historical Jesus, the first century originator kind, I found 1 Cor 15 and Gal 1 to be suitable based on their meaning. The rest did offer indication that they believed in Jesus as a man (among other things!), but not necessarily one that they had known as their recent companion, which I find and consider to be the "boundary condition" between historicist and non-historicist hypotheses.

The evidence here (which I gave in section D) is only about an earthly/human Jew called Jesus having been crucified in the past.
Also, there are other items in the Pauline epistles and Hebrews which suggest that crucifixion was in the near past ("firstfruits" (1 Cor 15:20), "today" (Heb 3:15, 4:7)).
And neither Paul or the author of Hebrews were making excuses about an important delay between the crucifixion and the time of their preaching.

For these additional references I thank you, but I'm not sure that they are entirely convincing, unlike the ones mentioned.

But yes I do think you can find evidence that the revelation regarding Christ to his apostles is not old news in some of these letters. No big surprise there, as every movement must have its start.

[Clive]

How did it spread like fire through the Empire.

Isn't that obvious?

Death, where is thy sting?

All our sins and grief to bear

In christ there is no Greek or Jew....

A new heaven and earth

Emmanuel

bride of christ

for God so loved the world

without a vision the people perish

[MrMacSon]

.
There is no primary source information:

• no suitable contemporaneous documentation of 'eye-witness' accounts;
• no archaeology sites* (for several centuries!!)
• no artifacts (no art; no objects of Christian practice; etc)

All we have is vague, dubious narratives (Josephus, Tacitus, etc) written many decades later.

The NT texts are of uncertain date and uncertain editing/redacted history.

It's a house of cards.

* There is, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, much more archaeology for Serapis in several places

[Clive]

There is importance to be placed on the fact so many did believe he walked and died for their sins, without a single naysayer

Why does this read like a theological assertion, almost a paraphrase of a credal statement?

[MrMacSon]

Great article. I think Jesus existed. But I'm not as confident as people like Ehrman and Casey who seemingly do think it's a slam dunk. For me, I see lots of pointers in the direction of the existence of a historical Jesus. None are slam dunks, but it seems unlikely that all of them are flawed.

eg. Mythicists love to insist that we can't be sure that Jospehus wrote anything about Jesus. And this is true. But we can't be sure that he didn't either. Same for Tacitus and his sources. Same for Paul's letters. Mythicists love to insist that we can't be sure that Paul really did meet brother James. And this is true. But we can't be sure that he didn't either. Same for the gospel traditions. Mythicists love to insist that we can't be sure of any story in the traditions. And this is true. But we can't be sure that none of them are either.

"But we can't be sure that he didn't either" & "But we can't be sure that none of them are either" are argumentum ad ignoratiam (which attempts to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to 'ignorance' claim that the converse of these facts can also also true. Therein lies the fallacy).

The DIFFERENCE then, for me, is that mythicist hypotheses basically require ALL of these potential pointers to be faulty, where as historicism only really requires one. As you said in your article, if Josephus did say something about a historical Jesus, then it's more or less a closed case. If Tacitus was simply repeating common knowledge ... then it's more or less a closed case. If Paul really did meet James (or refer to a known historical brother at least) then it's a closed case. If Paul did write 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 then it's more or less a closed case. If the gospels do contain some historical memory of a crucified cult leader ... then it's more or less a closed case. I have my doubts about some of these pointers. But I doubt more so that all of my doubts fall on the side mythicism requires.

So many "if"s its iffy3

Moreover, the proposition that "If Tacitus was simply repeating common knowledge , then it's more or less a closed case" is ridiculous - common knowledge in the early 2nd C does not verify the subject of the knowledge/narrative actually was a real person a hundred years previously.

If the alleged Paul met a James, there is no evidence said James was a sibling to the alleged Jesus.

If you believe the Pauline literature, you virtually have to believe Paul got his information from 'revelation'.

"historical memory" = weasel words

[MrMacSon]

You did a great job of providing evidence. Hats off great work. No real disagreement by me, nor should there be, by anybody.

None of it is evidence: not one piece of literature.

I think your personal interpretation of the evidence is a fine opinion, but one of many different credible opinion's available from these limited resources.

"opinion" is not the slam duck of sound deductive argument.

Yeah! Going through so many sources in whirlwind fashion, it is impossible really to address all the issues with every text, and everybody is going to find something to disagree with.

You didn't go through sources, Peter. You went through narrative-literature. There are dozens of issues with every one of those texts.

There is an explanation for the total of this evidence, and why we have it. Something happened in the past that created this evidence.

Yes, something happened for each piece of literature; and until each piece of literature is dealt with fully, there is no "total" and no 'evidence'

[toejam]

^"does not prove"

Stop misrepresenting me. I've never claimed "proof".