Is the argument from embarassment evidence for historical crucifixion?

[neilgodfrey]

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.

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.

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.

[yakovzutolmai]

I have thought that Mark is a vindicating parody. Specifically, the Alexandrian Jews and Roman allies who follow Philo's conception of Christ as a personal savior who are making fun of a defeated messianic faction who expected Christ to be a bloody conqueror. It mocks the entire idea of Christ coming to Earth, but then simultaneously bends toward the preferred theology. This is post Jewish Revolt, and they are celebrating the downfall of this rival faction while asserting their own beliefs.

The reason why the embarrassment of the narrative is adopted by later Christians is due to a number of factors. First, Mark did not begin as a serious religious document and was never circulated until almost a century later. The environment for this would feature a paucity of Christian documents, and the general nature of the conflict between the Alexandrian Jews and the messianists would have been forgotten by the common people, if they had ever been aware in the first place.

Second, I favor a highly contextual and idiosyncratic origin for Christianity. Everything happened during a sudden and intense religious revival in Western Asia. Early Marcionite beliefs were born of contact with the East, and there was intense competition with the remnant of the Hellenized Jews - the latter decisively playing catch-up. This sort of intensely local and competitive environment would not be affected by embarrassment. The competitive stakes are too high and the perspective of outsiders isn't relevant. If one side starts using Mark to promote their theology, the other must take the path of least resistance and adopt Mark, arguing over the details concerning who is correct and who isn't.

I wonder if there's a analogous example? We do see this in politics. The right will give mouth service to environmentalism, the left will give mouth service to welfare reform. This kind of thing.

If Mark, or Q, or Luke - whatever - was a deliberate parody that never faced wide circulation, and later proto-Marcionites are using it successfully to proselytize, then later Christians wouldn't be able to fight Mark itself.

We do IN FACT see that Christian doctrines are very embarrassing. Pagan critics have a field day with the religion. But we have to ask whether these critics were present at the birth of the doctrines. If they were born of an entirely different debate, then embarrassment wouldn't be an issue at that time.

[Paul the Uncertain]

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.

That's a great answer to "Was Jesus a real person who actually lived?," Including your acknowledgment of your uncertainty, and that you are giving your best estimate based upon the available evidence.

(In American lawyerspeak, "by a preponderance of the evidence," Jesus was not a real person who actually lived. Other professions might express the same or nearly the same thought differently.)

There are people who could benefit from hearing that there's a big difference in the quality of the evidence for Julius Caesar versus the quality of the evidence for Jesus. Therefore, these things are worth saying even if an academic historian wouldn't offer them in their professional capacity, and even if that difference isn't news to you or me personally.

[neilgodfrey]

(In American lawyerspeak, "by a preponderance of the evidence," Jesus was not a real person who actually lived. Other professions might express the same or nearly the same thought differently.)

Surely a matter of fundamental logic applies in all serious professions, is a constant in all of them. I would be very surprised to learn that there is any profession that fails to distinguish the difference between a fact and a hypothesis -- and on logical grounds common to all.

There are people who could benefit from hearing that there's a big difference in the quality of the evidence for Julius Caesar versus the quality of the evidence for Jesus. Therefore, these things are worth saying even if an academic historian wouldn't offer them in their professional capacity, and even if that difference isn't news to you or me personally.

No, there is a big difference in quantity of evidence. But even a single piece of evidence is sufficient to prove the historicity or existence of someone without any serious doubt.

The term "quality of evidence" blurs over the simple fact that if evidence leaves us uncertain about the historicity of a figure then we by definition have to remain uncertain and we simply cannot answer the question of historicity of that person with any definiteness. We can't say he exists 50-50 or 20-80. We can ony say that the evidence is unclear. So we remain ignorant of "the fact" that he existed or did not exist. We can choose to think the evidence for historicity is stronger than not and then follow up with a hypothesis that it is more likely that X existed than he did not, but that's all. Existence will remain a hypothesis.

[Paul the Uncertain]

We can't say he exists 50-50 or 20-80. We can ony say that the evidence is unclear. So we remain ignorant of "the fact" that he existed or did not exist.

It's not a question of "saying," it is simply an autobiographical fact that I think that it is more likely than not that Jesus (suitably defined) was a real person who actually lived. It's about 2:1 for me. I'm not interested in a precise number; it's function is to represent my confidence. The confidence itself is an attribute of me; on this question it's pretty close to equipoise, but with a definite "lean."

I doubt no academic historian has ever entertained an opinion about an uncertain proposition. All of them have applied for jobs. Prior to hiring or being passed over, not a single one of them has ever believed "I have a good chance here" or "I have only a poor chance here?"

Uncertainty exists. How to manage it is at least debatable, but manage it we all will.

We can choose to think the evidence for historicity is stronger than not and then follow up with a hypothesis that it is more likely that X existed than he did not, but that's all. Existence will remain a hypothesis.

No problem. I know very little else with certainty; were I deprived of my estimates of relative confidence among uncertain propositions, then I'd hardly know anything at all.

Which perhaps is so anyway.

[neilgodfrey]

We can't say he exists 50-50 or 20-80. We can ony say that the evidence is unclear. So we remain ignorant of "the fact" that he existed or did not exist.

It's not a question of "saying," it is simply an autobiographical fact that I think that it is more likely than not that Jesus (suitably defined) was a real person who actually lived. It's about 2:1 for me. I'm not interested in a precise number; it's function is to represent my confidence. The confidence itself is an attribute of me; on this question it's pretty close to equipoise, but with a definite "lean."

Okay, so it is a fact that you hold a hypothesis about the existence of Jesus. That does not turn his existence itself into a fact -- which remains based on uncertain evidence that you believe is best interpreted in favour of historicity. But that doesn't make his historicity a fact. It is your hypothesis that the evidence is best interpreted that way.

I doubt no academic historian has ever entertained an opinion about an uncertain proposition. All of them have applied for jobs. Prior to hiring or being passed over, not a single one of them has ever believed "I have a good chance here" or "I have only a poor chance here?"

I have no doubt that historians are as human as anybody else and they have all "entertained an opinion about an uncertain proposition" and that just about all of them have indeed felt just the way you describe on applying for jobs. That's how we all usually feel when applying for jobs -- historians like anybody else.

Uncertainty exists. How to manage it is at least debatable, but manage it we all will.

That's what I'm saying. So what's the problem?

[Paul the Uncertain]

That does not turn his existence itself into a fact

Of course not. It's an uncertain proposition.

And if I (literally me) said "It is a fact that Jesus existed" then I would be lying, because I know that it is not a fact (in the sense we are both using the term), and because my actual opinion, 2:1 in favor of HJ, is a very low confidence compared with many other uncertainties I deal with. (So is 4:1 in your example, more confident than 2:1, but not all that confident.)

I have no doubt that historians are as human as anybody else and they have all "entertained an opinion about an uncertain proposition" and that just about all of them have indeed felt just the way you describe on applying for jobs. That's how we all usually feel when applying for jobs -- historians like anybody else.

Yes ... but that isn't based on evidence in my case (maybe it is in yours). It's based on background information, including personal experience.

I assume (and am happy to be charged with making an assumption) that people are pretty much the same in this regard. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, maybe they are but the field of history attracts the tiny minority of people who aren't ... it isn't "logic," it's an opinion, but I am more confident of that opinion than that Jesus was a real person who actually lived. (Much more confident.)

That's what I'm saying. So what's the problem?

Apparently we differ about (1) how best to manage uncertainty and (2) whether or not the answer to (1) is fundamentally domain-dependent.

Point (2) is just there for completeness; it is obviously dependent on (1), which is problem enough.