Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]Paul is writing 20 years after Jesus’s death — extremely early by ancient-history standards.

Paul says explicitly that he:
	•	Met James, the brother of the Lord
	•	Met Peter
	•	Joined the movement that already existed shortly after the crucifixion

Historians ask:

How is there a movement centered around a non-existent person within a single generation, led by his “brother”?

Mythicists try to argue that “brother” meant “spiritual brother,” but this collapses because:
	•	Paul uses the term differently elsewhere
	•	It appears specifically in a context of identifying a biological family connection

This alone is one of mythicism’s biggest fatal blows.

Historians look for multiple independent attestations — stories that come from different lines of tradition.

For Jesus we have:
	•	Paul (independent of the Gospels)
	•	Mark (earliest Gospel)
	•	Q-like material (sayings source used by Matthew/Luke)
	•	M material and L material (unique to Matthew and Luke)
	•	Josephus
	•	Tacitus
	•	Early rabbinic traditions

These sources disagree on plenty — which proves they didn’t all copy each other.
But they agree that:
	•	Jesus was a real Jewish preacher
	•	He had followers
	•	He was executed by Roman authority

When multiple hostile or indifferent sources confirm a person existed, historians treat it as strong evidence.

Ancient writers rarely invent things that weaken their own case.

For Jesus:
	•	Being executed as a criminal is not something early Christians would invent.
	•	His family not fully believing in him early on.
	•	His baptism by John (implies inferiority).

These are embarrassing, meaning historically likely.

A mythic figure normally has:
	•	Glorious birth narrative
	•	Death in battle
	•	Triumph

Jesus has:
	•	Obscure origins
	•	A humiliating execution

That’s the opposite of typical myth creation.

If Jesus never existed, why did a Jewish sect form instantly around the belief that he was the Messiah?

Mythic heroes usually develop over centuries (e.g., Hercules, Romulus).
But Jesus’s movement exploded:
	•	In Jerusalem, where he supposedly lived
	•	Within a few years of his death

Movements based on nonexistent people don’t spring up immediately among people who supposedly knew them.

Here’s the harsh academic truth:
Mythicism fails the basic rules of ancient historical method.

Historians ask:
	•	What is the simplest explanation that fits the evidence?
	•	Does this explanation require extra assumptions?

Mythicism requires:
	•	Reinterpreting Paul unusually
	•	Dismissing all embarrassing material
	•	Suggesting coordinated literary invention without motive
	•	Ignoring how Jewish messianic movements actually worked

It becomes more complicated than simply accepting that a preacher lived and was executed.

When Carrier and Price present mythicist arguments, historians from:
	•	Princeton
	•	Yale
	•	Harvard
	•	Brown
	•	Cambridge
	•	Oxford

…all say the same thing:

“This isn’t how ancient history works.”

Mythicism relies on special pleading, hyper-skepticism, and reading texts against normal linguistic/historical usage.

That’s why scholars in the field consider it fringe.

Tacitus (Roman historian) writes about:
	•	“Christus” who was “executed under Pontius Pilate”
	•	The origin of the movement in Judea

Tacitus hated Christians.
He had no reason to repeat Christian myths — he got his information from Roman archives or non-Christian sources.

Josephus (Jewish historian) also mentions Jesus twice.
Even removing Christian edits, the core reference remains widely accepted.

Hostile witnesses rarely treat fictional characters as real recent people.

Bart Ehrman (agnostic/atheist):

“There is no serious historian who doubts Jesus existed.”

Paula Fredriksen (Jewish, non-Christian):

“I don’t know any full professor of ancient history who doubts his existence.”

Maurice Casey (agnostic):

“Mythicism is an embarrassment to real scholarship.”

Michael Grant (secular classical historian):

“The denial of Jesus’s existence is not tenable.”

When even scholars opposed to Christian theology uphold his existence, that’s telling.

Modern mythicism arose from:
	•	19th-century anti-Christian activism
	•	Non-scholarly writers
	•	People pushing sociopolitical agendas

It didn’t come out of universities or trained historians.

That origin matters.

Why Scholars Reject Mythicism

Because it requires ignoring:
	•	Early eyewitness-proximate sources
	•	Embarrassing historical details
	•	Hostile sources referencing Jesus
	•	Historical method
	•	How ancient movements form

…and instead replacing them with a complex conspiracy-like theory without evidence.

The simplest, strongest-supported conclusion is:
A Jewish preacher named Jesus lived and was executed.

Everything else Christians claim is a separate debate — miracles, theology, divinity — but the man himself?
For historians, that part is not controversial.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics