What I think needs to be made more clear is the difference between a hypothesis and a fact. Too often -- and here we can recall McGrath once again -- biblical historians will blend the two as if they are the same thing for all intents and purposes. McG, for example, will say that Jesus "probably existed" -- more probably than not, very strong probability, etc -- all very correct philosophically. But we know damn well that he means that he is speaking of Jesus' existence as a fact. And for a fact to be a fact it is a fact, not probably a fact.Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:28 am But in the long run, "Did Jesus exist? More likely than not, but the available evidence is meager, equivocal, and of poor quality." isn't a stupid answer to the question.
A probably speaks of a hypothesis, not a fact. A probably is an idea that is proposed to explain evidence that we can see, or to explain "facts" if you will.
This is one of the few areas where I find myself in agreement with Carrier: the historicity of Jesus is a hypothesis put out there to explain the evidence we have for early Christianity.
The gospel stories are not facts though they contain facts, like probably most stories -- including outright fiction -- do: Galilee, Jerusalem, temple, Pilate -- these are facts and can be established as facts.
Julius Caesar, Cicero, Seneca, Titus, Josephus, the War.... more facts. But not everything they write is a fact: e.g. I'm willing to bet my house that Jesus ben Ananias was a fictional addition to Josephus's history because he adds such a nice dramatic and supernatural touch to the history. That Jesus ben Ananias is a fictional addition is a hypothesis, though, that I can argue on the basis of how his function in the story conforms to similar figures in other stories of the day.
Did Jesus exist? No-one knows. No-one left us the unambiguous record to tell us the answer.
I believe that all the evidence points to the figure of Jesus in our earliest records being a theological-literary construct. I believe the evidence we have points to Jesus originating in the minds of exegetes of Scriptures. But that is a hypothesis and I can't make it a fact. I believe (I'm doing a lot of believing in this comment) that the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist has more going for it than the hypothesis that he did exist.
But hypotheses can be overthrown with the discovery of more evidence.
It's going to be pretty hard to find more evidence that will overthrow the historicity of Julius Caesar or Cicero.