Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

Now if you ask me the whole thread made me think there is a slightly higher chance a guy jesus existed, than i had before, 70% HJ / 30% MJ, but from all what has been gathered here, there really not enough to say HJ is the 95+% null. It is still way too indirect , inferred, textually analyzed.

I see the MJ position as weak, but not invalid, and I see the HJ position as strong but not "proved".

If you think the HJ position is "strong", then what evidence led you to that conclusion?

What evidence do you think there is for anyone ever writing to reliably claim they had ever seen Jesus?

The reason I put the question to you in that exact way, i.e. asking "who wrote ever to say they had known Jesus", is because -

- if nobody who ever wrote about Jesus actually ever met him, then it means all of that early writing amounts to no more than legendary religious belief in a messiah that none of them ever knew! That is not evidence of Jesus. That is only evidence of peoples religious messianic beliefs. But those messiah beliefs were not new - the Jewish people had held those messiah prophecies as central to it’s faith since as back as the time of Moses c.1000BC!

Of course people can if they wish believe without evidence. But that is usually what is known as a faith position. And in this case it is trusting to the faith of 1st century religious fanatics who reported the supernatural/miraculous.

 

[Craig B]

... But those messiah beliefs were not new - the Jewish people had held those messiah prophecies as central to it’s faith since as back as the time of Moses c.1000BC!

Nonsense. Unhistorical balderdash.

Of course people can if they wish believe without evidence.

To believe that the messianic beliefs go back to Moses is "without evidence", I agree. Or that Moses is supposed to have lived around 1000 BC.

 

[IanS]

Nonsense. Unhistorical balderdash. To believe that the messianic beliefs go back to Moses is "without evidence", I agree. Or that Moses is supposed to have lived around 1000 BC.

We already discussed many pages back where Moses was supposed to have prophesised that his successor would be someone named “Jesus”. And as you well know, the references to messianic ideas go back to people like the prophet Elijah who was supposed to have lived in the 9th century BC, and King David (supposedly c.1000BC), amongst others.

And much of that was actually in written form about Moses and others as early as Deuteronomy apparently from 7th century BC -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomic_Code

Almost the entirety of Deuteronomy is presented as the last few speeches of Moses, beginning with an historical introduction as well as a second introduction which expands on the Ethical Decalogue, and ending with hortatory speeches and final words of encouragement. Between these is found the law code, at Deuteronomy 12-26.[4] In critical scholarship, this portion, as well as the majority of the remainder of Deuteronomy, was written by the Deuteronomist.

It is for these reasons that the unanimous opinion of modern biblical criticism is that Deuteronomy is not the work of Moses, as is the traditionally held opinion, but that it was, in its main parts, written in the seventh century B.C., during the reign of Josiah

It should be noted, though, that traditionalists generally maintain that the Deuteronomic code was, indeed, the work of Moses. As regards the contention that the earlier books do not emphasize the centrality of the Temple worship in Jerusalem, those books primarily discuss the service in the desert Tabernacle. Nevertheless, Leviticus 17 clearly mandates a centralized venue of sacrifice. The similarity to the works of Jeremiah appears to be a result of the renewed interest in Deuteronomy during the reign of King Josiah, but with Jeremiah borrowing from the conventions of Deuteronomy - not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

Moses (Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה‎, Modern Moshe Tiberian Mōšéh ISO 259-3 Moše ; Syriac: ܡܘܫܐ Moushe; Arabic: موسى‎ Mūsā ) was, according to the Hebrew Bible, the Qur'an, and Baha'i scripture, a former Egyptian prince and warrior,[citation needed] later turned religious leader, lawgiver, and prophet, to whom the authorship of the Torah is traditionally attributed. Also called Moshe Rabbenu in Hebrew (מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ, Lit. "Moses our Teacher/Rabbi"), he is the most important prophet in Judaism.[1][2] He is also an important prophet in Christianity and Islam, as well as a number of other faiths.


Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Jerome gives 1592 BCE, and Ussher 1619 BCE as his birth year.[7]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
Messiah
The literal translation of the Hebrew word mashiach (messiah) is “anointed,” which refers to a ritual of consecrating someone or something by putting holy oil upon it.[1 Sam. 10:1-2] It is used throughout the Hebrew Bible in reference to a wide variety of individuals and objects; for example, a Jewish king,[1 Kings 1:39] Jewish priests,[Lev. 4:3] and prophets,[Isa. 61:1] the Jewish Temple and its utensils,[Ex. 40:9-11] unleavened bread,[Num. 6:15] and a non-Jewish king (Cyrus king of Persia).[Isa. 45:1]
In Jewish eschatology, the term came to refer to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who will be "anointed" with holy anointing oil, to be king of God's kingdom, and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. In Judaism, the Messiah is not considered to be God or a pre-existent divine Son of God. Belief in the eventual coming of a future messiah is a fundamental part of Judaism, and is one of Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith.[8]
Maimonides describes the identity of the Messiah in the following terms:
And if a king shall arise from among the House of David, studying Torah and occupied with commandments like his father David, according to the written and oral Torah, and he will impel all of Israel to follow it and to strengthen breaches in its observance, and will fight God's wars, this one is to be treated as if he were the anointed one. If he succeeded and built the Holy Temple in its proper place and gathered the dispersed ones of Israel together, this is indeed the anointed one for certain, and he will mend the entire world to worship the Lord together, as it is stated: "For then I shall turn for the nations a clear tongue, so that they will all proclaim the Name of the Lord, and to worship Him with a united resolve (Zephaniah 3:9)."[9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism
Historical
In Jewish eschatology, the term mashiach, or "Messiah," came to refer to a future Jewish King from the Davidic line, who is expected to be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age.[1][2][3] The Messiah is often referred to as "King Messiah" or, in Hebrew, מלך המשיח (melekh mashiach), and in Aramaic, malka meshiḥa.[4]
Orthodox views have generally held that the Messiah will be descended from his father through the line of King David,[5] and will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, father a male heir and re-institute the Sanhedrin, among other things. Jewish tradition alludes to two redeemers, both of whom are called mashiach and are involved in ushering in the Messianic age: Mashiach ben David and Mashiach ben Yosef. In general, the term Messiah unqualified refers to Mashiach ben David (Messiah, son of David).[1][2]

 

[Brainache]

We already discussed many pages back where Moses was supposed to have prophesised that his successor would be someone named “Jesus”. And as you well know, the references to messianic ideas go back to people like the prophet Elijah who was supposed to have lived in the 9th century BC, and King David (supposedly c.1000BC), amongst others.

And much of that was actually in written form about Moses and others as early as Deuteronomy apparently from 7th century BC -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomic_Code

Almost the entirety of Deuteronomy is presented as the last few speeches of Moses, beginning with an historical introduction as well as a second introduction which expands on the Ethical Decalogue, and ending with hortatory speeches and final words of encouragement. Between these is found the law code, at Deuteronomy 12-26.[4] In critical scholarship, this portion, as well as the majority of the remainder of Deuteronomy, was written by the Deuteronomist.

It is for these reasons that the unanimous opinion of modern biblical criticism is that Deuteronomy is not the work of Moses, as is the traditionally held opinion, but that it was, in its main parts, written in the seventh century B.C., during the reign of Josiah

It should be noted, though, that traditionalists generally maintain that the Deuteronomic code was, indeed, the work of Moses. As regards the contention that the earlier books do not emphasize the centrality of the Temple worship in Jerusalem, those books primarily discuss the service in the desert Tabernacle. Nevertheless, Leviticus 17 clearly mandates a centralized venue of sacrifice. The similarity to the works of Jeremiah appears to be a result of the renewed interest in Deuteronomy during the reign of King Josiah, but with Jeremiah borrowing from the conventions of Deuteronomy - not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

Moses (Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה‎, Modern Moshe Tiberian Mōšéh ISO 259-3 Moše ; Syriac: ܡܘܫܐ Moushe; Arabic: موسى‎ Mūsā ) was, according to the Hebrew Bible, the Qur'an, and Baha'i scripture, a former Egyptian prince and warrior,[citation needed] later turned religious leader, lawgiver, and prophet, to whom the authorship of the Torah is traditionally attributed. Also called Moshe Rabbenu in Hebrew (מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ, Lit. "Moses our Teacher/Rabbi"), he is the most important prophet in Judaism.[1][2] He is also an important prophet in Christianity and Islam, as well as a number of other faiths.


Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Jerome gives 1592 BCE, and Ussher 1619 BCE as his birth year.[7]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
Messiah
The literal translation of the Hebrew word mashiach (messiah) is “anointed,” which refers to a ritual of consecrating someone or something by putting holy oil upon it.[1 Sam. 10:1-2] It is used throughout the Hebrew Bible in reference to a wide variety of individuals and objects; for example, a Jewish king,[1 Kings 1:39] Jewish priests,[Lev. 4:3] and prophets,[Isa. 61:1] the Jewish Temple and its utensils,[Ex. 40:9-11] unleavened bread,[Num. 6:15] and a non-Jewish king (Cyrus king of Persia).[Isa. 45:1]
In Jewish eschatology, the term came to refer to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who will be "anointed" with holy anointing oil, to be king of God's kingdom, and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. In Judaism, the Messiah is not considered to be God or a pre-existent divine Son of God. Belief in the eventual coming of a future messiah is a fundamental part of Judaism, and is one of Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith.[8]
Maimonides describes the identity of the Messiah in the following terms:
And if a king shall arise from among the House of David, studying Torah and occupied with commandments like his father David, according to the written and oral Torah, and he will impel all of Israel to follow it and to strengthen breaches in its observance, and will fight God's wars, this one is to be treated as if he were the anointed one. If he succeeded and built the Holy Temple in its proper place and gathered the dispersed ones of Israel together, this is indeed the anointed one for certain, and he will mend the entire world to worship the Lord together, as it is stated: "For then I shall turn for the nations a clear tongue, so that they will all proclaim the Name of the Lord, and to worship Him with a united resolve (Zephaniah 3:9)."[9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism
Historical
In Jewish eschatology, the term mashiach, or "Messiah," came to refer to a future Jewish King from the Davidic line, who is expected to be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age.[1][2][3] The Messiah is often referred to as "King Messiah" or, in Hebrew, מלך המשיח (melekh mashiach), and in Aramaic, malka meshiḥa.[4]
Orthodox views have generally held that the Messiah will be descended from his father through the line of King David,[5] and will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, father a male heir and re-institute the Sanhedrin, among other things. Jewish tradition alludes to two redeemers, both of whom are called mashiach and are involved in ushering in the Messianic age: Mashiach ben David and Mashiach ben Yosef. In general, the term Messiah unqualified refers to Mashiach ben David (Messiah, son of David).[1][2]

But the Palestinian Messianism that Jesus was supposedly part of didn't get rolling until the first century.

Josephus tells us it started with Judas the Galilean around the time of Quirinius' census. The same time that Luke gives for the birth of Jesus.

ETA: You will also note that being a descendant of a King and being a flesh and blood human being are requirements of the Messiah job. No ghosts need apply...

 

[dejudge]

I quite agree the graffito Pompeii graffito isn't evidence of an HJ. Dejudge claims there's no evidence of a Christian cult before 70 and to amuse myself, I brought up one of the few bits of evidence there actually existed such a cult in the 1st century- a graffito scribbled on a brothel's wall, preserved by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79.

It's about all we have, as far as I know.

Please, please, please!!! I am not amused by your mis-representation of what I have argued.

I did not ever write that there is no evidence of a Christian cult before 70.

Why do you persist in making fallacious statements?

I specifically wrote "a million" times that there is NO pre 70 CE evidence of JESUS, the disciples and PAUL and that there is NO pre 70 CE of the JESUS cult of Christians.
I have specifically stated that it cannot be assumed that all Christians in antiquity believed the Jesus story.

Justin Martyr claimed people called Christians worshiped Simon Magus, a magician, as a God, since the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE.

Justin's First Apology

All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians.

There were MULTIPLE cults of Christians who did NOT believe the Jesus story ----See "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus, "Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian and writings attributed to Justin Martyr and Origen.

And again, the word 'CHRIST' [the Anointed] predates the Jesus story and was applied to High Priests and Kings of the Jews.

MULTIPLE persons in the Septuagint were called 'CHRIST' [the Anointed] before the Jesus story was composed.

Please get familiar with the word CHRIST [ Anointed] because it is NOT a name for Jesus alone in the Bible.

King David was CHRIST [Anointed]

High Priests were CHRIST [Anointed]

 

[maximara]

What?

How is that evidence for what you claim?
The Emperor describes the worshippers of Serapis and Chrestians/Christians, as two separate groups, equally as superstitious as each other. How can this be evidence that they are one and the same?

You have been asked this before, but I don't recall your answer.

Did you actually read the letter?

The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Chrestians

And you say they are two different groups?!?

 

[pakeha]

Please, please, please!!! I am not amused by your mis-representation of what I have argued.

I did not ever write that there is no evidence of a Christian cult before 70.

Why do you persist in making fallacious statements? ...

Mis-representation?
Interesting.
Here the post where you wrote

There is no actual evidence for a Jesus cult pre 70 CE.

Hadrian was emperor c 117-138 CE.

Hadrian's letter supports 2nd century Christian cults if it is historically credible.

It is simply naïve to believe that only persons who believe the Jesus story were called Christians.

Please, get familiar with writings AGAINST the so-called Heretics.

According to Justin Martyr even those he considered ATHEISTS and Blasphemers were being called Christians in antiquity.

Are you quite certain I've mis-represented your words?
If so, I deeply apologise, dejudge.

 

[Brainache]

Did you actually read the letter?

The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Chrestians

And you say they are two different groups?!?

It also says that when the Patriarch visits he was: "forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus".

And you say that Serapis' and Christ's followers were the same group?

 

[maximara]

You have indeed given evidence, and I will look at it, as I think we have before; but my first observation is the same as Brainache's: "forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus".

Also that Chrestus is not necessarily Christus, and that Serapis is not Osiris, although he is derived from that earlier divinity.

And yet the letter also clearly states "The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Chrestians" in one version and in other "The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians"

The "evidence" that has been given for a HJ is on par with that given for the Bermuda Triangle: questionable accounts written many years if not decades after the events with a mixture of fact and fiction.

The Raifuku Maru is a prime example of the sort of nonsense going on there. In the legend version all that was heard from the ship before she disappeared was the message "Danger like dagger now! Come quick!" In realty the message was "Now very danger! Come quick!" and the Homeric sent a message to the coast guard station that she saw the Raifuku Maru sink in a raging storm.

In other cases no evidence that the supposed event even happened can be found. This is the case with Ellen Austin and the derelict she supposedly found in 1881. In the legend Ellen Austin on way to St. John’s Newfoundland finds a derelict ship totally abandoned and puts a prize crew aboard. A squall separates the two ships and neither the derelict of the prize crew are ever seen off again. In one variant you have two squalls and the derelict is recovered after the first with the prize crew gone so a second prize crew is put aboard.

The reality is that Ellen Austin sailed only once in 1881: From London December 5, 1880 to New York February 11, 1881. Any loss of crew would have to beed reported but no such record has been found.

 

[Aepervius]

If you think the HJ position is "strong", then what evidence led you to that conclusion?

What evidence do you think there is for anyone ever writing to reliably claim they had ever seen Jesus?

The reason I put the question to you in that exact way, i.e. asking "who wrote ever to say they had known Jesus", is because -

- if nobody who ever wrote about Jesus actually ever met him, then it means all of that early writing amounts to no more than legendary religious belief in a messiah that none of them ever knew! That is not evidence of Jesus. That is only evidence of peoples religious messianic beliefs. But those messiah beliefs were not new - the Jewish people had held those messiah prophecies as central to it’s faith since as back as the time of Moses c.1000BC!

Of course people can if they wish believe without evidence. But that is usually what is known as a faith position. And in this case it is trusting to the faith of 1st century religious fanatics who reported the supernatural/miraculous.

Pls note that I am only speaking of the human existence, not the religious mythic crapola.

There is no strong evidence of Jesus life, but there is some weak evidence, textual criticizism, and that people believing in its existence. Not much by any standard, but the explanation he existed as a human is a bit stronger than it is all a myth. But is it to state that it is a historical fact ? nope it is overstating the evidence IMNSHO.

 

[maximara]

It also says that when the Patriarch visits he was: "forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus".

And you say that Serapis' and Christ's followers were the same group?

You are aware that Chrestos had been used as an adjective and even a title going back to the 5th century BCE, right (Mitchell, James Barr (1880) Chrestos: a religious epithet; its import and influence; Pleket, H.W.; Stroud, R.S.. "Egypt. Funerary epithets in Egypt.(26-1702)." Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Current editors: A. T. R.S. R.A. Chaniotis Corsten Stroud Tybout. Brill Online, 2013)?

In fact there is an inscription that says ΙΣΙΔΙ ΧΡΗΣΤΗ or Isis Chreste so Chrestus Serapis as a full name and title is well within reason.

So you have Chrestus not only being a common name but a title as well.

I should mention while similar in spelling Chrestians and Christians have totally different origins and meanings akin to Chef and Chief in modern US English. Chrestian would quite literally mean good men while Christian would quite literally mean anointed men ie they were all claiming to be priests...doesn't sound likely in movement that was supposedly still Jewish until 130s.

For what ever reason our oldest intact Bible use Chrestian not Christian and only use the term three times and yet ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ (Christ) also appears in those very same bibles. In fact the very term "Christian" doesn't appear in any Bible until c450 CE.

Epiphanius expressly states "For this group did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus’ own name, but "Natzraya." However, at that time all Chrestians were called Natzraya in the same way. They also came to be called "Jessaeans'' for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Chrestians at Antioch. And no wonder the apostle admitted to being a Natzar!"

Acts 11:24-26 becomes more logical if you read the oldest version of it:

"For he [Barnabas] was a good [man], and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called good men first in Antioch."

For all this it would seem that "Chrestian" was a generic term for good men that the followers of Jesus used (along with other terms) before the movement finally settled on Christian far latter.

It has gotten to the point that some people even say Jesus was NOT called "Christ" (ie messiah) in his time but Chrestos (or good) and his followers later purposely confused the two terms to give the impression of the movement having older origins. It certainly would explain how a movement supposedly born out of Judaism became was so anti-Jewish from the Gospels on.

 

[Brainache]

Pls note that I am only speaking of the human existence, not the religious mythic crapola.

There is no strong evidence of Jesus life, but there is some weak evidence, textual criticizism, and that people believing in its existence. Not much by any standard, but the explanation he existed as a human is a bit stronger than it is all a myth. But is it to state that it is a historical fact ? nope it is overstating the evidence IMNSHO.

It really comes down to your definition of "Historical Fact".

Jesus is as well, or better attested than many ancient people that no one has any problem accepting as a fact. My favourite example is Pythagoras, look him up: No contemporary accounts. All writings about him are from centuries later and full of mystical religious nonsense.

Yet, no one is campaigning for a "Mythical Pythagoras", even though Historians use exactly the same kinds of analyses to determine the Historical "fact" of his existence.

 

[Brainache]

You are aware that Chrestus is a title as well as a name and that nofri-Osiris went rendered into Greek became Chrestus Serapis, right?

Not at all. But I am aware that the terms Chrestus and Christus were pretty much interchangeable in Roman writings from the period.

Where are you getting this fanciful translation of yours?

 

[Kathie Bondar]

To my mind the earliest reports of Jesus are not necessarily by fanatics. When there is political turmoil and repression, when dissenters are executed, people do not keep diaries, they pass on their information by word of mouth. Of course in time there will be many versions and the hunt for the real one may begin.
Ernest Renan, the french historian spent three years in Palestine researching his book "Life of Jesus" and anecdotal or not, this is the one that to me sounds the most believable.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge claims there's no evidence of a Christian cult before 70...

There is no actual evidence for a Jesus cult pre 70 CE.

You don't seem to understand that Christian cults may have existed before the Jesus cult.

 

[Gregoire]

There is NO consensus by Historians and Scholars and they have NOT conceded that there was an HJ.

Hello, everyone,

So with all this arguing, I wonder what Carrier would say. Well, at least in one interview/ debate, we already know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58dG-wWBPBI

I urge everyone to at least listen to the first few minutes to fully understand the context.

With that in mind, I will highlight a few quotes here:


He starts talking around 40 seconds into it. While clearly advocating mythicism, he says this:

"The consensus….the overwhelming consensus is that Jesus existed"

Hmmmm, doesn't sound like he agrees with some of the rhetoric here. What about Dougherty's book?

"He (Dougherty) had at least enough to make it (mythicism) plausibly to argue -- I mean it wasn't ridiculous."

Wait, I thought mythicist arguments were ironclad???? Saying something "wasn't ridiculous", although positive, isn't quite a ringing endorsement. He goes on….

"…the…. reason I'm defending it (mythicism) is because, I find it to be a persuasive case and something that I think needs more attention in the scholarly community, even if ultimately it gets refuted…."

Again, very interesting.

Now, of course to be fair, Carrier goes on in the interview to make a highly sophisticated, nuanced and technical argument. But clearly (at least in this case) his argument does not contain the usual venom we see in the typical mythicist arguments in the blogosphere, and I applaud Carrier for that. It is very….well, scholarly…...Sometimes, I wish the JREF forum could be like that.

 

[Brainache]

Hello, everyone,

So with all this arguing, I wonder what Carrier would say. Well, at least in one interview/ debate, we already know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58dG-wWBPBI

I urge everyone to at least listen to the first few minutes to fully understand the context.

With that in mind, I will highlight a few quotes here:


He starts talking around 40 seconds into it. While clearly advocating mythicism, he says this:




Hmmmm, doesn't sound like he agrees with some of the rhetoric here. What about Dougherty's book?




Wait, I thought mythicist arguments were ironclad???? Saying something "wasn't ridiculous", although positive, isn't quite a ringing endorsement. He goes on….





Again, very interesting.

Now, of course to be fair, Carrier goes on in the interview to make a highly sophisticated, nuanced and technical argument. But clearly (at least in this case) his argument does not contain the usual venom we see in the typical mythicist arguments in the blogosphere, and I applaud Carrier for that. It is very….well, scholarly…...Sometimes, I wish the JREF forum could be like that.

I like to quote from Richard Carrier's blog:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

Philosopher (and FtB alum) Dan Fincke has written a good, concise piece on why atheists need to don a little more sense and humility when claiming Jesus didn’t exist. In his article On Atheists Attempting to Disprove the Existence of the Historical Jesus, Fincke makes a sound case for two basic points: (1) amateurs should not be voicing certitude in a matter still being debated by experts (historicity agnosticism is far more defensible and makes far more sense for amateurs on the sidelines) and (2) criticizing Christianity with a lead of “Jesus didn’t even exist” is strategically ill conceived–it’s bad strategy on many levels, it only makes atheists look illogical, and (counter-intuitively) it can actually make Christians more certain of their faith.
I think his piece is a must-read. I’ll only briefly comment on some of its key arguments here.
I quite agree with (1) and (2). I’ve made both points myself over the years. But Fincke lays out the reasoning well. He concludes, for example, that until “secular historians…at least become widely divided over” the matter of historicity (emphasis on widely and the minimal benchmark of divided), atheists who are not themselves experts in the field should not be “advocating for one side or the other routinely and prominently.” (There is a growing division, BTW, but it’s not yet wide…although I know other historians who privately confess they are willing to concede agnosticism about historicity but who won’t admit it in public, so the division is wider than we know–but until more go public, we can’t know how wide.) Meanwhile, Fincke explains, “we should either be agnostic on the issue,” as Fincke is, or “defer to historical consensus,” or, “if we really find [e.g.] Carrier’s arguments compelling” then we should “still be cautious and qualified in our declarations, acknowledging that we are agreeing with a minority view (and one that even Carrier seems far from certain about).”
Amen.
...

 

[dejudge]

Pls note that I am only speaking of the human existence, not the religious mythic crapola.

There is no strong evidence of Jesus life, but there is some weak evidence, textual criticizism, and that people believing in its existence. Not much by any standard, but the explanation he existed as a human is a bit stronger than it is all a myth. But is it to state that it is a historical fact ? nope it is overstating the evidence IMNSHO.

There is NO weak evidence of Jesus life. There is NO ACTUAL evidence from antiquity of a human being with a human father from Nazareth named Jesus in the time of Augustus and Tiberius.

All manuscripts with the Jesus story are no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

It is a Myth that does NOT require any historical evidence.

Plutarch did not need any historical evidence for his version of Romulus, the myth founder of Rome.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

The author of Genesis did not need any historical evidence to write about the Creation of Adam and Eve.

See the book of Genesis.

The fact that there is no known evidence and that Apologetic writers documented their belief that their Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost is all that is required to support the MJ argument.

The HJ argument is un-evidenced [Faith based] and is maintained by those who believe the Bible is a credible source of history while they simultaneously discredit it.

 

[dejudge]

I like to quote from Richard Carrier's blog:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

You should first read the blog before you post because it actually contradicts itself.

There is NO consensus--the matter is STILL being debated and many are agnostic about the historicity of Jesus.

In his article On Atheists Attempting to Disprove the Existence of the Historical Jesus, Fincke makes a sound case for two basic points: (1) amateurs should not be voicing certitude in a matter still being debated by experts (historicity agnosticism is far more defensible and makes far more sense for amateurs on the sidelines) and (2) criticizing Christianity with a lead of “Jesus didn’t even exist” is strategically ill conceived–it’s bad strategy on many levels, it only makes atheists look illogical, and (counter-intuitively) it can actually make Christians more certain of their faith.

I think his piece is a must-read. I’ll only briefly comment on some of its key arguments here.

I quite agree with (1) and (2). I’ve made both points myself over the years. But Fincke lays out the reasoning well. He concludes, for example, that until “secular historians…at least become widely divided over” the matter of historicity (emphasis on widely and the minimal benchmark of divided), atheists who are not themselves experts in the field should not be “advocating for one side or the other routinely and prominently.” (There is a growing division, BTW, but it’s not yet wide…although I know other historians who privately confess they are willing to concede agnosticism about historicity but who won’t admit it in public, so the division is wider than we know–but until more go public, we can’t know how wide.

There was NEVER EVER any time when historians and Scholars conceded that there was an HJ [ a human Jesus with a human father].

From the earliest recovered manuscripts of the Jesus story, from the 2nd--18th century Jesus was a MYTH, the Son of God born of a Ghost--a Jesus of Faith.

From the 18th to the 21st century an HJ is still being debated, there is an On-Going Quest and there is a GROWING DIVISION.
It is confirmed again and again by historians and Scholars that there really was NO Consensus of an HJ.

 

[dejudge]

And frankly if there had been a direct evidence of christ that debate would have long been closed.

There are two fundamental scenarios that should close the debate.

1. Evidence for an HJ.

2. No Evidence for an HJ.

The debate is closed. There is no evidence for an historical Jesus.