The Historical Jesus

History might be subjectively fascinating and important, but it does not belong anywhere near the forefront of legitimate epistemology.  The unverifiability of historical events means that one can never actually establish any particular past occurrence (with the exception of the physical world and time having a beginning, since this beginning is logically necessary).  In fact, one cannot even prove that the past has existed for more than a moment!  In this light, anyone who thinks they can know that Jesus existed is delusional.  But so is the person who thinks they can actually know that George Washington, Julius Caesar, or Susan B. Anthony existed.

In this deficit of historical certainty, which leaves us short of even having absolute certainty about the histories of our own lives, we are left only with evidences for past events.  These evidences, if they support events prior to our existences, take the form of documentation and artifacts.  There is something that never serves as evidence for a historical event, though it is often mistaken for evidence: the consensus of historians.

Some Christian apologists, like William Lane Craig, repeatedly appeal to the agreement of current historians as if this demonstrates that Jesus was an actual historical figure.  When investigating historical matters, thoroughly rational people will have no concern for whether or not there is any kind of agreement among contemporary or past historians.  Instead, they will look directly to historical documents themselves.  The consensus of historians is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not Jesus existed.

There is evidence that Jesus existed and resurrected, yes.  None of this evidence is related to an overlap of belief among any historians; this evidence is exclusively comprised of the documentation that strongly supports, but cannot prove, the existence of Jesus.  The puzzlement of average Christians at this kind of nuance never fails to amuse me!  They want the fallacious but easy epistemological road.  They want historical evidence to be as simple as someone they respect affirming what they already believe.  Ultimately, they undermine the very defensibility of their commitment to Christianity in doing so.

No one has any basis for concerning themselves with petty matters like consensus.  If a person wants to understand the evidence for Jesus' existence, they will look to the contents of documents, not what people say about those documents.  This is the only sound form of apologetics pertaining to the historical Jesus.  Does this make pursuing the most informed historical estimations harder?  Certainly.  Nevertheless, this difficulty comes with knowledge of the evidence itself, not knowledge of unverified claims about the evidence.