Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

[Kapyong]

Gday pavurcn,

Or, perhaps....

• The validity of trustworthy and honorable witnesses in continuity over time,

Nope.
There are no contemporary witnesses to Jesus or the Gospel events. The documents we have are corrupted, often completely forged, included in then un-canonized out, and were changed and edited many times. None of them were written by anyone who ever met Jesus. None of the books' authors are known for sure.

• the corporate witness of the churches with many historical connections to the earliest generations (--in certain respects they had much more information than we can possibly have),

No.
There is no historical evidence of the earliest generations e.g. the twelve apostles, or Mary and Joseph, or Joseph of Arimathea, or Lazarus. There are no connections to them at all - we have no writings from them, there is no contemporary historical evidence for any of them, and not one single Christian writer ever actually met any of these early Christian characters from the Gospel stories.

There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus.
There is no contemporary historical evidence for any of the Christian characters in the Gospel stories.

• respect for the truth, especially when it has been verified by multiple sources, even in the face of persecution and death,

Nah.
Christians have disagreed about the truth from the very beginning, splitting into numerous branches, sects and cults - apparently 33,000 in total so far.
There are no contemporary historical sources at all for Jesus or the Gospel events or characters.
And people die for false beliefs all the time - e.g. Islamic suicide bombers - so what ?

• the satisfaction of rejecting irresponsible, fanciful, self-interested error and the human tendency to deny and escape reality,

Exactly what sceptics say about you believers.

• the desire for the social unity and fulfillment of the human vocation that they sense is implicated in this revelation and partially experienceable in the lives of the authentically converted,

Most religions say that - my Mormon visitors recently said much the same.

• and, as I said before, the datum of a brilliant new voice and vision that makes sense of and builds on the past revelation into a larger and deeper range of spiritual life full of faith, hope, love.

Well -
that's a faithful Christian belief that faithful Christians faithfully believe and faithfully preach.

But this forum is more about facts and evidence - preaching faithful beliefs won't get you far here

Kapyong

[pavurcn]

Nope.

Ah, but the question was "Why so certain?" Certainty involves all kinds of factors (personal, psychological, existential, philosophical, sociological, religious), not just whichever material fragments happen to survive to our day.

Unless you look beyond the chemical composition of paint in the Mona Lisa, you will never appreciate the Mona Lisa or understand why people admire and honor it. Of course if you base all your understanding on the chemical composition of the paint, you will be perpetually puzzled about what all the fuss is about.

And it seems to me you have done some "disbelieving anti-preaching" that involves some similar factors---you say that it is just the weight of tradition, social conformity, fear of chaos, etc... Surely if you are going to give a comprehensively cynical explanation, it is only fair to look at what another approach would suggest.

And the fact remains: the ancients had some people just as critical and intelligent as we consider ourselves to be, and they were also far far closer to the original witnesses, evidences, and traditions. Not preaching...but highly likely, virtually certain fact. There is also a record of critical apologetic engagement with the classical world, and the Christians seemed to have persuaded a great swathe of the oikoumene.

You shouldn't get far on this list without being able to look at the whole picture. The early Christian tradition probably did.

[MrMacSon]

• the corporate witness of the churches with many historical connections to the earliest generations (--in certain respects they had much more information than we can possibly have),

Such as?

• respect for the truth, especially when it has been verified by multiple sources, even in the face of persecution and death,

What multiple sources?

"in the face of persecution and death" seems to be a qualifier. What does it mean?

[pavurcn]

• the corporate witness of the churches with many historical connections to the earliest generations (--in certain respects they had much more information than we can possibly have),

Such as?

It seems there was a fair sized body of people following Jesus of Nazareth (12 apostles, another larger group of steady disciples, people like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea, Martha and Mary and Lazarus, et al.). Then we know of the churches mentioned by Paul and Acts and the Apocalypse. Lots of people, a good number of historical communities. It is only reasonable to assume many historical connections to the earliest generations. Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses can tell you more.

Of course if you want to be super-skeptical and accept none of the documents or records we do have, then no one can help you. You are on your own. Notice that the whole idea of witnessing and witnessing to the truth gets a great deal of attention (as with the man born blind). Testimony was a big theme from the beginning. John the Baptist is presented as a witness himself. Then there's the Hebrew scriptures constantly evoked as another source of verification and witness. The works done by Jesus are presented as testimony too.

• respect for the truth, especially when it has been verified by multiple sources, even in the face of persecution and death,

What multiple sources?

Well there are the several sources we have (evangelists, surmised Q, epistolary writers) and the documents included within them, like the passion narrative in Mark, the titulus from Pontius Pilate, and so on. Luke's opening refers to many who had attempted accounts. (Possibly a literary device...and quite possibly not, to be fair about it.) There are the verifications that came from the people who heard the apostles (as mentioned by Papias, for example).

You may say that they do not affirm all or exactly the same historical events in all the documents. True. But there is evidence of a community of belief that feels it is a coherent community, based on the shared confession that Jesus is Lord. Ultimately the universally united community fairly soon come up with common texts. Out of many, one.

"in the face of persecution and death" seems to be a qualifier. What does it mean?

Tradition (and some texts) point to the persecution of early Christians: Stephen martyred, Paul stoned and later martyred (as were James and Peter), Ignatius slain.

Again, if you reject all traditions as unreliable or false in toto, you might as well just drop the entire enterprise altogether. There will still be a lot of explaining you need to do.

[MrMacSon]

"in the face of persecution and death" seems to be a qualifier. What does it mean?

Tradition (and some texts) point to the persecution of early Christians: Stephen martyred, Paul stoned and later martyred (as were James and Peter), Ignatius slain.

Again, if you reject all traditions as unreliable or false in toto, you might as well just drop the entire enterprise altogether. There will still be a lot of explaining you need to do.

I did not write those things -

"in the face of persecution and death" seems to be a qualifier. What does it mean?

Tradition (and some texts) point to the persecution of early Christians: Stephen martyred, Paul stoned and later martyred (as were James and Peter), Ignatius slain.

Why have you falsely attributed them to me?

[pavurcn]

Sorry. Revising the error of formatting:

"in the face of persecution and death" seems to be a qualifier. What does it mean?

Tradition (and some texts) point to the persecution of early Christians: Stephen martyred, Paul stoned and later martyred (as were James and Peter), Ignatius slain.

Again, if you reject all traditions as unreliable or false in toto, you might as well just drop the entire enterprise altogether. There will still be a lot of explaining you need to do.

[Ulan]

I did not write those things -

[....]
Why have you falsely attributed them to me?

It's kind of funny that this happens exactly when the topic is about reliable witnesses.

[pavurcn]

It's kind of funny that this happens exactly when the topic is about reliable witnesses.

Yes, reality has ways of keeping us humble.

[pavurcn]

There is no historical evidence of the earliest generations e.g. the twelve apostles, or Mary and Joseph, or Joseph of Arimathea, or Lazarus. There are no connections to them at all - we have no writings from them, there is no contemporary historical evidence for any of them, and not one single Christian writer ever actually met any of these early Christian characters from the Gospel stories.

And yet, John 21 says

21:24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

And Paul, a Christian writer, in Galatians 1 says

1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

And then there is the titulus from Pontius Pilate (in the years 28 to 30), the earliest writing about Jesus (a non-Christian text, but linking Jesus to messiahship during his lifetime):

Luke 23:38 (paralleled in all evangelists) There was also an inscription over him,[a] “This is the King of the Jews.”

John 19:22 Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.”

[John T]

The historian Josephus who witnessed first hand the Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation wrote that one of the main causes of the war was due to the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus.

The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 20, chapter 9, 1.

Therefore, a historical Jesus existed.

Of course the mythicists will claim the references to Jesus by Josephus are all interpolations yet, they have no proof, only wishful thinking.

Academic double standards abound in the make-believe world of the mythicist.