Why Jesus (probably) existed
In my previous post I wrote about how the best explanation for God seems to be "fictional meme". The way that God is described - the vague terms, the shifting definitions, the non-demonstrable, impossible-to-disprove, epistemologically gerrymandered criteria - have none of the hallmarks of credible stories and sound an awful lot like what you'd make up if you were trying to say a false thing was true.
The same is not true of Jesus Christ. There are several lines in a consilience of evidence, but one of the most fascinating is the Criterion of Embarrassment. How well Jesus's life doesn't fit the prophecies and traditional narrative of a supernatural messiah, and how the various gospels adapt their stories to fit. When people make up stories they make up relatively straightforward stories that say what they want them to say. But if someone is describing a real event, they include a fuller history including stuff that might be embarrassing but true.
For example in the old testament, Micah of Moresheth says that "one who will be ruler over Israel" will come from "Bethlehem Ephrathah". Matthew agrees, saying that Jesus was born in Bethlehem after which the family escaped to Egypt and then settled in Nazareth city, Galilee. But Luke disagrees, saying that the family came from Galilee to Bethlehem before giving birth for census/tax reasons, which doesn't make sense even in that time. Why couldn't Caesar Augustus have counted everyone where they lived? If needed to register in "their town", why would the Joseph family not register in the city where they lived? Both authors seem interested in explaining why Jesus's family was either coming from or going to Nazareth, which wouldn't have been necessary if they were just making it up. Matthew even goes back and tries to claim that the prophecies said he would be from Nazareth, even though that city was never mentioned in the Old Testament, which was a problem for Christians even during that time.
In the previous post I asked "does this sound like something true, or something that someone just made up?" Here, it actually sounds like the New Testament authors are telling the real life history of a real guy and trying to square it with their expectations. This doesn't necessarily mean that the entire New Testament is historically accurate and factually correct, but if Jesus was a fictional, mythological figure like other divinely-fathered, virgin-birthed, miracle-performing, heaven-ascending figures they probably would have made up a more convenient story. Ironically it's when the facts aren't convenient that the story becomes credible. Jesus calling himself a sinner and his insistence that he be baptized. John's omission of this event in his own gospel. Luke's avoidance of naming the baptist. The denial of Jesus by Peter. The fleeing of Jesus' followers after his arrest. Even Jesus's crucifixion would have been embarrassing at that time. Many savior/messiah legends have the hero just ascending to heaven, but the shame of public execution points toward an actual guy being crucified.
The "criterion of embarrassment" is the exception that proves the rule. (More or less.) If I told you the Superman story about an orphan who grows from humble midwestern farming origins to be the champion of the world you'd say it probably sounds like fiction. But if the story ends with Superman falling off a horse and becoming a quadriplegic we can tentatively assume, not necessarily that the entirety of the Superman myth is true, but that a real historical person was at least closely tied to his story in a significant way.
(Caveat: I'm not very much of a biblical scholar, other people obviously get into this WAY more than I do, and much of this may be wrong. The Jesus Seminar, discussed here, seems to be a particularly good group. Try taking their Bible Quiz.)
The same is not true of Jesus Christ. There are several lines in a consilience of evidence, but one of the most fascinating is the Criterion of Embarrassment. How well Jesus's life doesn't fit the prophecies and traditional narrative of a supernatural messiah, and how the various gospels adapt their stories to fit. When people make up stories they make up relatively straightforward stories that say what they want them to say. But if someone is describing a real event, they include a fuller history including stuff that might be embarrassing but true.
For example in the old testament, Micah of Moresheth says that "one who will be ruler over Israel" will come from "Bethlehem Ephrathah". Matthew agrees, saying that Jesus was born in Bethlehem after which the family escaped to Egypt and then settled in Nazareth city, Galilee. But Luke disagrees, saying that the family came from Galilee to Bethlehem before giving birth for census/tax reasons, which doesn't make sense even in that time. Why couldn't Caesar Augustus have counted everyone where they lived? If needed to register in "their town", why would the Joseph family not register in the city where they lived? Both authors seem interested in explaining why Jesus's family was either coming from or going to Nazareth, which wouldn't have been necessary if they were just making it up. Matthew even goes back and tries to claim that the prophecies said he would be from Nazareth, even though that city was never mentioned in the Old Testament, which was a problem for Christians even during that time.
In the previous post I asked "does this sound like something true, or something that someone just made up?" Here, it actually sounds like the New Testament authors are telling the real life history of a real guy and trying to square it with their expectations. This doesn't necessarily mean that the entire New Testament is historically accurate and factually correct, but if Jesus was a fictional, mythological figure like other divinely-fathered, virgin-birthed, miracle-performing, heaven-ascending figures they probably would have made up a more convenient story. Ironically it's when the facts aren't convenient that the story becomes credible. Jesus calling himself a sinner and his insistence that he be baptized. John's omission of this event in his own gospel. Luke's avoidance of naming the baptist. The denial of Jesus by Peter. The fleeing of Jesus' followers after his arrest. Even Jesus's crucifixion would have been embarrassing at that time. Many savior/messiah legends have the hero just ascending to heaven, but the shame of public execution points toward an actual guy being crucified.
The "criterion of embarrassment" is the exception that proves the rule. (More or less.) If I told you the Superman story about an orphan who grows from humble midwestern farming origins to be the champion of the world you'd say it probably sounds like fiction. But if the story ends with Superman falling off a horse and becoming a quadriplegic we can tentatively assume, not necessarily that the entirety of the Superman myth is true, but that a real historical person was at least closely tied to his story in a significant way.
(Caveat: I'm not very much of a biblical scholar, other people obviously get into this WAY more than I do, and much of this may be wrong. The Jesus Seminar, discussed here, seems to be a particularly good group. Try taking their Bible Quiz.)