Thanks for your comments, Tricky. The evidence for Jesus' existence wasn't presented in this particular debate, so in that sense you are correct that additional evidence for Jesus' existence outside of Josephus was not presented in this debate. Do you think had you heard this evidence that it would have changed your mind?

Difficult to say without knowing what it is. As far as I know, there isn't any convincing evidence out there but I'd love to know what it is that you're referring to.

Well, let me give you a top 15 laundry list (but the list is very long since multiple attestation, criterion of embarrassment, and other criterions could be used to cite a list that is hundreds of items long). Remember, this evidence is cumulative. So, even if one of these pieces of evidence is in doubt, the likelihood that all of the evidence is in doubt is vanishingly small. I'll try to put this in the order the top 15 in some kind of priority sequence (but I'm rushing so this list might need later revision such as if I forgot something):

1) The historical references of Paul to Jesus (there's over 20 references)
2) Archaeological evidence: A fragment of the Gospel of John was found in Egypt dating to 125 CE (thus indicating that it was in circulation for a number of years prior to this date) [This is significant since John has all the earmarks of being written much later than the other synoptic Gospels.]
3) A few of the citations of Paul refer to an earlier church belief (called kerygma) that tells us what the church in 50 CE believed about Jesus in the mid-30's CE (and this is belief about a historical Jesus)
4) The compatibility of early Christian church kerygma with what we know of the Dead Sea scroll community's kerygma, combined with the sudden appearance of highly committed Christians (i.e., there is absolutely no evidence of a gradual evolution of the early Judaism evolving into a Christian religion that begins to refer to a crucified Jesus.)
5) The multiple citations of Josephus
6) The citation by Tacitus
7) The citation by Pliny the Younger
8) Multiple attestation of Jesus having a brother named James (e.g., Paul, Mark, Matthew, Josephus).
9) Multiple attestation of Jesus' crucifixion from a number of early sources (e.g., Paul, Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Acts, Josephus, Tacitus, Thomas, post-Pauline writers in the first century) and being condemned by Pontius Pilate (e.g., Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Acts, I Timothy, Josephus, Tacitus)
10) Multiple attestation of John baptizing from a number of early sources (e.g., Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Acts, Gospel of the Nazareans, Josephus), and multiple attestation of Jesus being baptized (e.g., Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Gospel of the Nazareans, Gospel according to the Hebrews). This is significant because it is highly embarrassing and yet thoroughly cited multiple times.
11) The specific dates of Jesus' ministry cited by Luke that "fit" well with everything else attested by Jesus (e.g., being crucified by Pontius Pilate, being interviewed by Caiaphas, being interviewed by Herod, being baptized by John, starting his ministry after John is killed, the beginning of Paul's ministry, etc.)
12) The citation by Suentonius
13) Historical references by I Clement probably written in the 90's CE
14) Historical references by Ignatius probably written around 110 CE
15) Historical references by Polycarp probably written around 110 CE

The type of evidence seen in (9) and (10) is really where the hardest evidence lies for Jesus' existence when you combine this with other pieces of evidence that a number of sources agree upon. (For example, that Jesus was mocked by Roman soldiers and dressed up as a Caesar and this is multiply attested to.) There's also small kinds of evidence that could take days to cite such as where Jesus is asked about divorce in the area where John was baptizing (i.e., complaining about Herod's divorce was the reason that John was killed by Herod, and it would have been a highly political question to ask Jesus in that region that could have resulted in Jesus' arrest had he taken the bait).

Much of the evidence is circumstantial, but as I said circumstantial evidence is cumulative. The "Jesus did not exist" quacks must account for this evidence with a consistent hypothesis that doesn't ask us to believe bizarre ideas.

Hi Harvey, thanks for the list. I won't mention any of the 15 points you made specifically but would agree that much (if not all) of the evidence is circumstancial. There are many people who are convinced that UFOs are constantly visiting earth and point us to the numerous videos and testimonies of 'abductees' as cumulative evidence. I for one, am not convinced but do not go the extra mile and claim that UFO's don't visit earth - I am just not convinced that they do. I think this is my position on the whole did 'Jesus exist?' thing.

Some take the position that the evidence is enough to believe he did exist. Some take the position that the lack of evidence is enough to believe he didn't and some (like me) take the 'don't know' position and are simply yet to be convinced.

I just don't find the evidence you cite convinces me enough although I would like to hear from any of the "Jesus did not exist" quacks reading this and hear what they have to say

One of the quacks here! Its always a bit of double standard when one presents a theory that goes against the norm, especially one that's been assumed for as long a time as the historical Jesus perspective, but one will notice the hypocrisy that often presents itself. For example, you may get a laundry list of the top 15 reasons for an historical Jesus, get them to admit the evidence is circumstantial (most of it internal, as well), and they will argue for it based on its "cumulative value". Yet, when the mythicist does the same thing, its "card stacking". When one attempts to discredit the evidence presented point by point, one is just deepening themselves into their delusion, just predictably denying the evidence on stubbornness, I guess.

Most people who vigorously defend the "historical Jesus" position are usually invested to some degree in it, emotionally, theologically, and/or philosophically. When the issue comes up, the goal is to denounce it as strongly as possible, try to discredit it before it "gets legs", and confound you that you simply don't have the rational fortitude to reason the evidence (or lack thereof) on your own. Only PhD experts should get to do that, I'm sure there's something shiny for you to look at somewhere else!

But, one thing I am sure of, is that most who throw their venom at it, have not really openly investigated it. I've at least read the books from the other point of view, and I haven't found one with the evidence, cumulative or otherwise, that was all that convincing. New theories take a while to get past the attacks of the establishment and gain some traction. But, I think you will start to see some of that traction start to take hold as the theory matures and becomes more cogent (and hopefully funded, you just know the people and organizations that donate to Religious Studies programs are not interested in seeing their donations go to fund projects that question their beliefs, only reinforce them).

If you would like some reading suggestions, let me know. Thank you for your comments and inquiries.

By the way, we're exploring some of those ideas on the Bible Study section of the Religious Debate Forum, if you want to check in there.

-TC

A question to both TC and H1.
Which of the above categories do you fit in to or is there a category that I haven't mentioned that you think would better describe your position?

TC, I don't think card stacking should be confused with the value of cumulative evidence. Cumulative evidence is an accumulation of evidence that is based on reasonable assumptions and conforms to well-accepted historical criteria. Card stacking is the accumulation of evidence that is not based on reasonable assumptions and does not conform to well-accepted criteria. Take for example your view that Paul was referring to supernatural entities for magistrates (or rulers) in I Cor. 2:8 when Paul said:


Here is a perfect example of a card stacking argument. There is no evidence whatsoever that I could find from Paul's time period and geographical location that the Greek word archon meant anything other than a human ruler. However, not only are we to deny all the evidence I cited for Jesus, we absolutely must believe in this very unlikely story about Paul referring to spiritual entities in order to believe your hypothesis. What happens if you are wrong (which is likely given the era and location)? You won't consider that possibility. Why? Obviously it contradicts your pet theory, so you must be right despite--that's why! However, such a view is completely ludicrous even for no other reason than Paul knew Satan recognized Jesus, and he would have believed that Satan would have wished for Jesus' death even if he didn't know Jesus was the Christ. This is pure common sense and only someone who is intent on believing something for the sake of preserving a pet theory could reject such common ability to reason.


And, there are no quacks in the world... Right? I'm not buying it. There are many, many quacks, and usually the way to identify them is that they hold positions that no expert in the field considers viable.


But, I've seen the way you approach these things. A good case in point is that you whole heartedly believed the Jesus Project was real, and didn't even critically investigate it even when I said that it was a phoney. As far as I know, you still believe the Jesus Project is on-going. (Btw, I asked a scholar in the field what was the status of the JP, and just as I thought there was never any attention given to it, even by the many non-Christians in the field.) This ought shake your faith in those (mostly) non-experts who lead efforts to investigate Jesus' existence...


You do realize that you are talking like any number of wacky religious people right now...?


I just hope Tricky demands of you that you cite only recent experts working in the field who teach at elite universities in the world in the area of their expertise.

Of course, I think that Jesus existed. (I'm not completely sure if that was your question...)

I looked at the lack of evidence and then searched for more convincing evidence to the contrary. The mythicist position seemed to account for more in my opinion, so I sided with that position. That does not mean that if further evidence was brought to light, I wouldn't change my mind. Nor does it mean I think it is unreasonable for people to hold the historical perspective. I don't think we'll ever find evidence that absolutely settles the question. In other words, we're not going to find a letter by Paul that says, "I made the whole thing up." That said, I have no reservations at this point of casting my vote with the mythicist position. I could say, each time, "Well, its possible that...", but if I feel that possibility is so slight not to be considered probable, why hedge around it?

-TC

Okay, I just provided off the cuff without so much as raising an eyebrow those 15 positive lines of evidence for a historical person (which amazes me that there should be any skepticism given how scanty evidence is to come by in ancient history). So, let's see your 15 positive lines of evidence that suggests that Jesus didn't exist. In other words, you can't put as a reason: "There is no evidence that Jesus said or did thus..." since that's not positive evidence. I might as well as include in my positive evidence, "no one in ancient history is recorded as denying Jesus existed despite having numerous testimony of early Christian criticisms."

I'm wondering if we'll hear the sound of crickets...