The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

[outhouse]

For me, the best case for Jesus historicity can be summed up in a few small paragraphs anything else places to much certainty on said past events.

A minimalist perspective carries the most credibility.

[Bernard Muller]

A minimalist perspective carries the most credibility

http://historical-jesus.info/49.html
http://historical-jesus.info/47.html

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

There is no evidence to verify that Jesus was crucified. There are only hearsay reports from decades after the supposed event.

But, isn't it true we 'know' of many (maybe most) events in antiquity by writings done decades later?

We believe of many events in Christian writings by Christian writings done decades later.

Many non-Christian events in antiquity have more than one source for them.

[outhouse]

We believe of many events in Christian writings by Christian writings done decades later.

Many non-Christian events in antiquity have more than one source for them.

All non sequitur to the actual historicity involved.

Its almost all cross cultural traditions, by people very close to the actual events who wrote what was important to them.

This was not fictional in any way

[MrMacSon]

Its almost all cross cultural traditions

• Yep

by people very close to the actual events

• Nope

[people] who wrote what was important to them.

• Yep

This was not fictional in any way

• Maybe more myth than fiction, in most cases.

[neilgodfrey]

There is no evidence to verify that Jesus was crucified.

There is a mountain of evidence, you just refuse it all.

You know better then to use a word like verify anyway.

There is none. There are claims but no evidence. The difference is as stark as black and white. I can verify Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 bce, I can verify Japan bombed Pearl Harbour in December 1941, I can verify Alexander's conquests, I can verify just about any other historical event or person you want to name. The rules for the verification of Jesus' historicity are the exception to how historians verify historical persons and events.

[neilgodfrey]

There is no evidence to verify that Jesus was crucified. There are only hearsay reports from decades after the supposed event.

But, isn't it true we know of many (maybe most) events in antiquity by writings done decades later?

Yes and no. Events reported decades later are verified by independent primary evidence from the time of the events or persons. Jesus is the only exception I know of.

And the first of these do not tell us that Jesus was crucified as a historical or biographical fact, but that the crucifixion was a theological concept that had theological meaning.

Paul (and other contemporaries) did consider the Crucifixion as embarrassing:
1 Co 1:23 YLT "... Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness ..."
Gal 5:11 "... the offense of the cross ..."
2 Co 13:4 "... He was crucified in weakness ..."

Paul boasted in the crucified Christ. He was never embarrassed by the crucified Christ. Offence is not embarrassment. The offence was over the significance of the crucifixion -- what Paul said it meant for the Law.

an atheist who thinks that by siding with believer scholars adds to one's credibility as a rationalist.

Gee, I didn't know I was thinking that!

Cordially, Bernard

Well now you know what your inner Freudian was secretly thinking all this time.

[neilgodfrey]

Classicists do not assume the historicity of ancient figures if all they have to go on are accounts after the figure's death. One example: the philosoher Demonax. We have a biography of Demonax by a known author and one claiming that he was actually a student of Demonax. That is, we have a known author declaring he was an eyewitness to Demonax.

But classicists are not sure if Demonax really existed. What is critical for them is the absence of any contemporary record testifying of Demonax. If Demonax was as significant as his biographer claimed, or did half the things he said he did, then we would expect some contemporary notice to exist.

Does that argument sound familiar?

So classicists debate the historicity of Demonax. They are not dogmatic about his existence -- despite a biographical account by one claiming to have been an eyewitness. And I don't think they insult colleagues who doubt his existence, either.

I have a blog post summing up the arguments at http://vridar.org/2017/08/15/did-demona ... ate-rages/

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

Yes and no. Events reported decades later are verified by independent primary evidence from the time of the events or persons. Jesus is the only exception I know of.

I beg to differ: what is that primary evidence from the time of the events or persons? orally transmitted knowledge? eyewitnesses verbal account or writings not available to us? What else?
How can you be sure Paul and "Mark" did not have access to at least one of the aforementioned?

What about Honi the circle drawer, a figure comparable to (the real) HJ?
Many decades later, we know about him through Josephus and the Talmud (but they do not agree on the manner of his death).

Paul & HJ:
http://historical-jesus.info/6.html

Paul boasted in the crucified Christ. He was never embarrassed by the crucified Christ. Offence is not embarrassment. The offence was over the significance of the crucifixion -- what Paul said it meant for the Law.

Yes, at the same time Paul was adopting the Crucifixion as the glorious sacrifice for atonement of sins. But still, at the time, the Crucifixion was considered an embarrassment by many, that Paul hoped (and succeeded) to overlay with that glorious theological concept.

Also from 'Hebrews':
Heb 6:6 "if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame."
Heb 12:2 "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

Also from gMark:
Mk 15:34 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ("Mark" had Jesus thinking his crucifixion is a sign of God abandoning him).

Well now you know what your inner Freudian was secretly thinking all this time.

For your information, I am not siding with believer scholars. You can be an atheist and still think a very minimal HJ existed. Are you suggesting a true atheist has to be a mythicist?

[outhouse]

The rules for the verification of Jesus' historicity are the exception to how historians verify historical persons and events.

False.

The methods used applies to almost all history from this time period where there is less textual evidence.