The historicity of Jesus Christ

Firstly, I wish to note this is a contentious issue, and there is no end to scholars on either side of the board claiming "every competent scholar. .. agrees" with them. Indeed, Carrier notably assaults Ehrman's 2011 book on Jesus Christ for dozens of historical innaccuracies or falsehoods. As such, I won't insult my opponent or readers by mentioning them. Instead, I shall focus on debating the facts of the matter. The topic itself that we are debating is a history one. History debates, or arguments on history, follow a simple formula. We take some source from the past, dispassionately analyse it, and come to a conclusion. However, this seems to skip over what history actually is. I propose what is called scientific history. Scientific history comes from the tradition of Von Ranke. He is well known as one of the greatest historians, for 3 major reasons. He practically invented source criticism for one and attacked historical presentism[1], he made history a subject, independent from philosphy or theology or literature. He is well known for saying that history of the past "has been assigned the office of judging the past, of instructing the present for the benefit of future ages. To such high offices [history] does not aspie: it wants only to show what actually happened"[2]. Von Ranke's study of history and source-criticism shall be the basis of my work here. I shall firstly refute what my opponent has said as reasonable evidence for the existence of Christ. Then I shall affirm a scientific history model. Finally, I'll see where this approach to history brings us. My opponent clearly uses secondary sources. Thus, my opponent has to affirm a form of history which values historical sources (for example, the historical system should tell us how valuable a secondary source is) followed by his proof (which he has already done). This is because I affirm the view that biblical historians lack the rigour of other historians, ignoring the modern revelations of the study of history. Indeed, from personal experience the local scholar in my local university knew little of Von Ranke or any of the postmodern movement and its effect on history (which Spiegel claims is leading to "the dissolution of history" and "necessarily jeopardizes historical study as it is normally understood"[3]). Firstly, let us consider Tacitus. I am glad we have started strongly, as I believe he is the closest we have got to evidence for Christ. To make the Tacitus quotation explicit (to use the favoured translation): "Therefore to squelch the rumour that Nero had started the Great Fire of Rome, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called "Christians," (a group) hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ[os], who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated. "[4] (emphasis added) Criticisms calling this an interpolation has some support, though it is a minority. However, I think there's no real reason to call it such. Compared to Josephus' works or The Hitler Diaries, there is no clear-cut evidence of forgery. My criticism instead comes from Ranke's criticism of secondary sources. That is, this is unreliable secondary sourcing: an incredibly unreliable piece of evidence. To put it simply, if this evidence comes from an unreliable source, then the evidence itself is even more unreliable. Simply, history before von Ranke was an art, with opinions of the author impressed into the writing - evident in this passage with the terms "squelch the rumour" obviously implying Nero was faultless, and a hatred for the Christians "for their abominable crimes". (The fact that this was an attack on Christianity is entirely accepted by scholars, and I defy my opponent to find one who claims this is a neutral account). So taking history from a secondary source would be Tacitus taking bias evidence, then correcting it for a new bias. Any truth becomes incredibly quickly lost. Is Tacitus likely to have taken this from a bias source? There are two possibilities: he took them from the common opinion eighty years after Christ, or from Imperial Records. Only the latter is good evidence. We have three reasons to believe it is the former. First, we are told that the knowledge of the Christians are from "the common people". To me, this is enough, for obvious reasons. Secondly, Tacitus tells us the execution was of Christ. If it were Imperial Records, the man's name would have been written, not a title which grants divine legitimacy to this man who Tacitus was so vitriolically against. Thirdly, Tacitus is well known for falling trap to rumours. Tacitus was only skeptical "on occasion" Grant concedes, and he "persisently and lamentably" accepted rumours as fact and "conducted extremely little independent research". Tacitean scholar Goodyear notes "[Tacitus] implants grave suspicions which he neither substantiates nor refutes. Their cumulative effect [is] damning and distorting. "[6] These three things together negates Tacitus as reliable for the historicity of Christ. I agree with France (scholar not country) on this: "I find Wells' argument entirely convincing. Tacitus' reference to 'Christus' is evidence only for what was believed about Christian origins at the time he wrote, and there is plenty of other evidence for that! [7]". The Talmud is always one of the stranger pieces of evidence. The sanhedrin (not sehredin) is widely agreed as unreliable as proof of Jesus' existence. Why? The Talmud directly contradicts with majy parts of Christianity to such an extent that this 'Yeshu' (a common name of the time[8]) "had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah", as well as turning to paganism and being a terrible preacher. It evidently is work of a jewish writer trying to discredit Jesus rather than give independent historical evidence. Combine this now with the time it was written. Though my opponent claims "70 AD to about 200 AD", many sources including Christian ones claim much later, as late as the 5th century AD[9]. Seeing as it holds no reference to any sources used, it is more likely that this is a point of hasty polemic to criticise Christianity, not holding any true historical value in itself. Finally, my opponent cites Josephus. I'll skip the second passage due to it being famous for being an interpolation, and focus on the former. The former passage from Josephus can be shrunk to "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ". What does this tell us about Jesus? There was a man called Jesus and people referred to him as Christ. This alone, even if conceded, is nowhere near the Jesus of which the rest of the debate has tried to affirm. Secondly, there are numerous objections to this evidence. For example, one of the strengths of Josephus here is that he is a non-Christian. However, there are two faults. Firstly, the interpolation of the second article tells us that Flavium Testimonium is untrustworthy on the front of Jesus Christ. Secondly, as G. A. Wells notes, "the Greek does not have 'so-called' but 'him called Christ,' and this, so far from being non-Christian, is the exact wording of Mt. 1:16. "[10]. With these two things in account, we have good reason to doubt the authenticity of this passage and thus the evidence. Now, what I'd have liked to do is go on to explore the power and importance of secondary evidence, and how secondary evidence alone is nothing near what we need to prove the existence of Jesus Christ. I would have liked to also discuss scientific history. However, I am out of characters, so I shall expand on this in my rebuttal. Sources in comment section.