Why the "criterion of embarrassment" is an invalid argument for the historicity of Jesus

When the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth actually existed comes up, as a real person who the writings of the New Testament are based on, quite often Christian apologists and scholars will present the argument of the "criterion of embarrassment": If someone had just made up the story of Jesus, the promised Messiah of the Jewish people, prophesied in the Jewish scriptures, who would come to liberate his people from their oppression, then surely such a person would not have made this savior Messiah a weak figure who not only was unable to liberate anybody, but moreover was ignominiously killed by the very people who were oppressing the Jewish, executed in the most ignominious and degrading manner like a common criminal? What kind of Savior Messiah is that? Someone who completely failed in his prophesied mission and got executed in the most embarrassing manner by their enemies? Certainly nobody would invent such an embarrassing story about the Messiah. The only credible alternative is that the story is based on true events, because nobody would invent such a disappointing outcome and such a weak "Messiah"if it didn't actually happen.

The problem is, that argument does not hold water in the least.

As far as I know, the entire concept of the "criterion of embarrassment" was actually invented by Christian apologists for the explicit purpose of trying to defend the historicity of Jesus. This "criterion" had never been used to argue for the existence of any other person and, also as far as I know, it has never been used to defend the existence of anybody else, ever. Jesus of Nazareth is the only allegedly historical figure for whom this argument has ever been used. It was invented to defend his existence, and has never been used for anything else.

Of course that in itself doesn't make it an invalid argument. However, it's an interesting thing to point out.

There are other reasons why the argument is very weak.

For starters, if someone had made up a story, in that time period, about a victorious Messiah who came and liberated his people, crushing the oppressors and leading his people to freedom and prosperity... well, who would have believed such a story?

Everybody, especially Jews, living in Judea and all surrounding areas would have seen and experienced with their own personal lives that that hadn't happened: Nobody had liberated them from the oppression of the Romans. Nobody had conquered and defeated the Romans. The Romans were still well in power, and nobody had done anything to them, and the Jewish people were still as oppressed as they had ever been.

Whoever wrote the story that eventually became the Gospels (as directly one of them or, possibly, as the original source that served as the inspiration for the four Gospels), assuming that he made up the entire story, was probably not an idiot. He would have known that if he made up a story about a victorious conquering Messiah, then nobody would believe it because they would see with their own eyes and their own experiences that it wasn't true.

However, write a story about a suffering Messiah, a Messiah who came to Earth to save his people spiritually and who ended up as a martyr, in events that happened over half a century prior in some city hundreds of miles away... and suddenly it becomes a lot more believable. Back then news didn't travel fast, nor were historic events well known and preserved. Almost nobody would have known what happened half a century, or even a century prior, in some city somewhere, hundreds of miles away. The story of a Messiah who was martyred by the Romans was believable. It helps that this also has support in the Jewish scriptures, and one common interpretation at the time was indeed that of a suffering Messiah rather than a conquering one. (Isaiah 53:5 is the most famous of these passages.)

There is an additional possible reason to write a story about a martyred Messiah: It is possible that the original Gospel text was written with the intent to rally the Jewish people to raise up against the Romans. Resentment towards the Romans was a quite common sentiment among many Jews living in that region at the time, and there had been several rebellions recorded in history (and probably a lot more smaller ones, records of which have not survived to this day.) Thus, it would have made a lot of sense to tell a story about a Jewish Messiah who came to save his people and was then ignominiously executed by the Romans, even though he was completely innocent of any crimes. What better way to make people angry at the Romans?

The idea of the "criterion of embarrassment" also kind of implies that fictitious martyr stories were somehow non-existent or at least uncommon back in those days, and thus it wouldn't have made sense for someone to make up a fictitious heroic figure who nevertheless becomes a martyr and is killed by the enemy, without any repercussions to said enemy.

This is, of course, very far from the truth. Heroic figures suffering defeat, making mistakes, being embarrassed and even killed by their enemies was a quite common narrative trope, and had been for centuries and centuries. Even several of the revered prophets of the Old Testament died as martyrs at the hands of their enemies.

The notion of pious innocent prophets of God being ignominiously tortured and killed by their evil enemies was a very common story. It was, in fact, more common than prophets of God who came and conquered and destroyed their enemies (with perhaps only Moses being the most prominent example of this.)

The "criterion of embarrassment" just does not hold any water on scrutiny. It is, possibly, one of the weakest possible arguments for the historicity of Jesus. Personally, I find it astonishing that even some atheists and skeptics consider it a valid credible argument, and that it is being seriously presented in many secular sources.

Did a historic Jesus exist? Addendum

I have previously written two articles about my views on the credibility of the existence and historicity of Jesus of Nazareth:

• A critical view on the historicity of Jesus
  
• Did a historic Jesus exist?

In this article I would like to address some of the views by skeptics and atheists on the subject in question.

You see, I have seen many outspoken atheist activists eg. on YouTube state that the historicity of Jesus is at the same level as those of, for example, Julius Caesar, Plato and Alexander the Great. They consider the historicity of Jesus an almost indisputable fact, and the only question is how many of the claims written about him are actually true.

This genuinely baffles me. I don't have an objection to them believing that Jesus of Nazareth, who the Christian scriptures talk about, actually existed as a real person. I do have an objection, however, to elevating this certainty to the same level as those other historic figures such as Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. There might be some arguments to be made for the historicity of Jesus, but the level of evidence for this in no way, shape or form comes even close to that of the historicity of those other people.

There is an overwhelming amount of surviving physical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar. And this is not evidence from centuries after his death, but contemporary evidence. Statues, coins, monuments, inscriptions in those monuments, contemporary written accounts by numerous contemporary authors, both Roman and foreign. All of which can be traced with a high degree of reliability to being contemporary, ie. created when Julius Caesar was alive. We even have surviving texts written by Julius Caesar himself.

The same is true for Alexander the Great: There is overwhelming contemporary evidence of his existence that has survived to this day, including coins, buildings, monuments and contemporary writings by domestic and foreign authors.

In contrast, there is no contemporary evidence of any kind for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. None. No statues, no coins, no monuments, no works by the man himself, no writings about him, either Christian or non-Christian. There are no Roman documents about the man they allegedly executed (at least none that has survived), nor even mention or references to any such documents anywhere. There are no contemporary accounts of his life or teachings, written during his lifetime.

The earliest sources that we have that mention him in any way, shape or form are either the original source for the Gospels (as it's commonly accepted that either none or at most one of the Gospels is original, the others are just rewritings of the same story) or the letters of Paul, both of which were written many decades after the alleged death of the man. The latter are more reliable because they can be traced better to a particular author, but they were written by a person who, by his own words, never met Jesus, never even saw him in person, and only had second-hand accounts (if even that). Non-Christian sources are much more recent than that, written about a century later by authors who were born after the alleged death of Jesus.

The amount of contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus is absolutely abysmal. As in none. This is quite in contrast to the amount of physical contemporary evidence for eg. Julius Caesar.

It is, thus, incomprehensible why so many skeptics consider the certainty for the historicity of Jesus to be on the same level as that of those other people.

Jesus might have actually been a real person, but the quality of evidence for this is in no way even close to be reliable, not even close to that of Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great.

Is religion useful to humanity?

A type of debate is sometimes held between atheist skeptics, sometimes between skeptics and religious people (usually Christians), whether religion is good for humanity or not, whether it has done more bad ore more good for humanity, whether humanity would have been better without any religion.

In this discussion (especially when it's held among skeptics) the premise is that religious beliefs are false, incorrect and just fantasy. That's not the debate at hand. The debate is whether this fantasy has done more good or bad for humanity, and whether it has any redeeming qualities and if it would be better if it didn't exist at all.

In order to get a better perspective on this question, one has to remember that humans are a highly social species. We have survived and thrived for millions of years by forming groups, tribes and societies that cooperate and work together. It's very hard for humans to survive on their own, and our best chances of survival have always been to live and work together in moderately-sized groups and societies.

Such a society has a much higher chance of succeeding and thriving when all of its members cooperate and work together, agree with each other, and there's very minimal disagreement, in-fighting and schisms. It, thus, helps greatly if the members of the society share a common culture, customs, traditions, beliefs, opinions. It helps when there's an underlying unifying culture and belief system which the majority of people agree on, and thus minimizes the amount of in-fighting and schisms.

From an evolutionary perspective humans have a propensity to religious and quasi-religious beliefs, even when those beliefs are objectively and demonstrably false. This may well stem from an animistic instinct, ie. attributing sentience to unexplained natural phenomena. (The core reason for this is that if you assume that a phenomenon is caused by some kind of living being, such as a predatory animal, that will induce you to be careful and eg. flee, rather than investigate and possibly get killed by the predator.)

If unknown mysterious phenomena, such as wind, thunder, the source of rain, the nature of the Sun and so on and so forth are instinctively attributed to live sentient beings, perhaps some kind of supernatural beings, it's very natural and easy for this to be taken to its natural conclusion and attribute them to some kind of superior supernatural beings that are higher in power and abilities than humans themselves (after all, humans cannot create thunderstorms, rain, sunlight and so on).

And since people living in a primitive society very easily agree with each other (because fundamental disagreements are ultimately detrimental to the very survival of the society, meaning that societies with a high degree of disagreement and distrust got naturally selected out), it's very easy and natural for religion to arise in such societies.

And it may well be that such religions have been during the millions of years that humans have been able to communicate with each other, a driving force behind cooperation and camaraderie among the members of tribes and societies. It gives the people a common set of beliefs, customs and traditions. It gives them a sense of community and belonging. When everybody engages in the same rituals and customs, it joins people together and gives them a feeling of companionship, and a desire to work together and help each other.

So it may well be that, no matter how false religious beliefs may be, it has overall helped humanity survive and thrive, and that without religious beliefs humanity would not be even nearly as advanced, or even exist, today.

Of course religion has been used innumerable times for absolutely heinous atrocities. But what hasn't? Pretty much every single societal phenomenon, every single belief system, has been abused for atrocities, to oppress people, to destroy other people seen as "enemies".

Ray Comfort is a pathological liar

Ray Comfort is one of the most famous (or, should I say, infamous) Christian preachers and proselytizers who loves to interact with skeptics and atheists, and who also loves to present such outlandish and ridiculous arguments and assertions that he has been pretty much a celebrity among skeptics and atheists for the last two or three decades (if not even longer. Indeed, his proselytizing and, especially, his completely outlandish and silly laughable arguments go back to the 1990's, if not even earlier.)

One of the most common personality traits that Comfort is very often accused of by skeptics is that he's a pathological liar. Is this just throwing random insults at a good honest humble Christian, or is there some veracity to this claim?

Honesty is one of the virtues that the vast majority if not all Christians, regardless of denomination, agree with, especially when it comes to Christians themselves: Lying and dishonesty is widely considered a sin, and honesty and openness is considered a virtue. There are many Christians who take this so much to heart that they are outright honest to a fault, being almost incapable of telling a lie, even if telling the truth would severely harm them. (It depends a lot on the individual Christian whether they would lie in order to save another person from harm, and it's one of those interesting moral and ethical dilemmas for them. Anyway, this is not here nor there.)

And most certainly if you asked Ray Comfort if he considers lying to be a sin and honesty to be one of the highest virtues that a Christian should aim for, he would wholeheartedly agree. (This can be said for certain because one of his favorite tactics when proselytizing is trying to make the other person to admit that he or she has lied in the past, which according to Comfort is a sin against God.)

Thus, if Ray Comfort himself would exhibit dishonesty, deception and lying, it would show an extraordinary degree of hypocrisy.

Most often when skeptics claim that Comfort is a liar, they often refer to him keeping repeating all the same old tired arguments (especially those against the theory of evolution), over and over, for years and decades, even though he has been explained why those arguments are clearly wrong, and he quite arguably at least at some point has understood the explanations. In other words, even though he knows that his arguments (eg. against evolution) are invalid, because he has been clearly explained the reason, he keeps repeating those same arguments again and again, implying that the arguments are valid, even though he knows they are not.

However, if you follow what Ray Comfort actually does, what he preaches and how acts when he's proselytizing, what kind of arguments and tactics he uses, and what he does when running his ministry (Living Waters), you'll quickly notice that his dishonesty and deception goes well beyond just those arguments against evolution. In fact, you could even give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he keeps repeating those anti-evolution arguments because he doesn't actually understand the answers, and it wouldn't really change the fact that he's a profoundly dishonest person.

Dishonesty is so deeply entrenched in his psyche that he seems unable to do anything that doesn't have deception, dishonesty and trickery attached to it in one way or another.

As seen by his very own videos, when he proselytizes to people on the streets or elsewhere, his fundamental proselytizing tactic almost always entails deception and trickery of some kind: Instead of just being forthcoming and open about what he wants to say, he always wants to trick the listener by leading him or her into some argumentative trap. Most often he tries to make his listeners admit that they have committed some sin, or admit that they don't know this or don't know that, or ask them to explain something very complicated and then confuse them by responding to their overly simplistic answers (you really can't expect random people on the streets to be highly educated and experienced scientists, biologists, etc) with complicated counter-arguments to which the average person can't really come up with a proper answer in those few seconds that they have to answer.

He has made many videos and written many books on, pretty much effectively, "how to trick a random person into agreeing with your arguments" (obviously not with those words, but pretty much in essence that). It's always some kind of trickery, some kind of deception, some kind of laying an argumentative trap instead of being forthcoming and direct from the very start. He has made tons and tons of videos both demonstrating these tricks, as well as instructing others on how to do it. (Most of these argumentative tricks are extremely silly and simplistic, and any skeptic who has even a modicum of experience in conversing with Christian apologists would never fall for them, but the point is that Comfort just loves to use these tricks constantly in order to try to fool random people on the street.)

His dishonesty and deception permeates almost everything he does, no matter how small or mundane. Take for example, this video of his:

What is this? A box full of cash? As you might have guessed, those are just Christian proselytizing booklets with just a cover that looks like money.

The idea is, of course, as silly as it is deceptive: To leave these booklets laying around, fooling random passersby to think that there's a wad of cash there, who will then take it and notice that it's not actually cash, but some booklet, in the hope that the person will then read the proselytizing inside it and be moved by the Holy Spirit and something something.

In the video Comfort just gushes about these, describing how wonderful they are.

He seems completely unaware that it's, once again, showcasing his most fundamental deeply ingrained personality trait: That of dishonesty and deception. Trying to spread his message by tricking people, by lying to people, by deceiving people.

Even in such a small thing he just can't help but to lie and to be deceitful.

And he just doesn't understand his own hypocrisy in all this.

Christian proselytizing is essentially magic incantation

Everybody knows about Christian street proselytizers, who speak or, at a very minimum, will carry some kind of placards containing short Christian messages. The intrusiveness and loudness of this street proselytizing depends on the individual. Some Christians also engage in other forms of "activism", such as for example going to random online forums and social media to "preach the Gospel", posting random Christian stuff about how to be "saved", in forums that have nothing to do with religion (or even science).

While there have probably never been any comprehensive studies about this kind of activism, the general experience (especially revealed by those who have later left the religion) is that such proselytizing extremely rarely, if ever, brings new converts to the congregation. The vast, vast majority of it is just noise that gets ignored (and, on the contrary, is often seen as annoying and intrusive, driving people even further away from even considering what's being said).

But why do they keep doing it, especially given its demonstrably poor track record? I'm not here referring to any underlying psychological phenomena that makes people do such thing, but what their own rationale and thinking is for doing it. Why go out there and pester people with the proselytizing?

The reason is that there are many Christians, especially those from certain churches of certain Christian denominations (usually the "charismatic Christianity" denominations), who strongly believe that the Word of God, the written and spoken word of the Gospels, have the power to influence people. That God acts through these words, through these messages, that through them God speaks to people in a manner that drives them towards God. They believe that if there's a person who still does not believe in God, merely by hearing or reading these words, the Gospel, the good message of salvation, will make God influence that person to convert, to be drawn to God, to become a believer.

In other words, these Christians essentially believe that the Gospel, these proselytizing messages, "the Word of God", are for all intents and purposes magical incantations that have the supernatural power to influence people. That these magical incantations have the power to enable God to act and supernaturally affect people.

In other words, in essence they believe that these words are a magical summoning spell, and incantation to call God to supernaturally affect people that hear the words. That merely hearing or reading these words people may be supernaturally affected and influenced by God.

This is highly ironic given that one of the core beliefs of Christianity (pretty much all denominations of it) is that sorcery, witchcraft, supernatural magic, incantations and summoning spells are evil and the work of Satan. Yet, this is essentially what they are trying to do when they proselytize.

Did a historic Jesus exist?

In my previous blog post I criticized in detail the evidence given for the existence of Jesus as a real person, which I find exceptionally weak. I made three major points that can be summarized as:

1. Appealing to an "overwhelming consensus among historians", which is what many Christian apologists do, is nothing but an appeal to authority and an argument from popularity. Also, the claim itself (ie. that the overwhelming majority of historians and scholars agree that Jesus did exist) is dubious given that I'm not aware of any study or research done on the opinion of secular non-Christian historians.
2. No matter what Christian apologists say, there are no non-Christian historic sources for the existence of Jesus. Not a single one. Every single non-Christian source that mentions Jesus in any way, shape or form, even the oldest ones known, were written by people who were born after Jesus's alleged death, and were thus hardly contemporary eyewitnesses. There exist no contemporary records or writings mentioning Jesus or even Christianity. There exist eg. no Roman records or histories mentioning Jesus or Christians. Every single non-Christian source mentioning him was written well over half a century after Jesus' alleged death, by people who weren't even born at the alleged time of Jesus.
3. Even the Christian sources are highly dubious. Even Christian scholars agree that the gospels were written at least 50 years after Jesus's alleged death by unknown authors. From a secular point of view they are quite clearly almost or fully 100% fictional. The scriptures that can be most reliably attributed to an actual nameable person are Paul's letters, and they were written by a person who according to his own writings never met Jesus in person and never witnessed any of his life, acts or speeches.

There are also many other arguments made for the historicity of Jesus that are very weak and illogical, such as the "criterion of embarrassment". The argument is that if some people merely invented the person of Jesus, the promised Messiah, the Son of God himself, the Savior and hero that would liberate them, surely they wouldn't make him weak and ignominiously humiliated and killed by the oppressors who he was supposed to oppose and liberate the people from. Why would anybody invent a hero and a Messiah who gets humiliated, tortured and killed by the enemy, achieving absolutely nothing to combat their oppression?

This argument ignores the fact that the martyr trope has been a staple in mythology and fiction since ancient times. Martyrdom has always been seen as a virtue, for thousands and thousands of years, for pretty much as long as there have been myths and fictional stories. Storytellers have understood since early antiquity that people empathize with the underdog, with the martyr, with the person who exudes virtue and good deeds and who nevertheless gets harshly punished and even killed by evil people, even without them getting any sort of retribution or punishment for their evil actions. In fact, if you want to rile people up against those in power, what better way to do that than to vilify them by having them commit an atrocious heinous act and not get any sort of punishment for it? If the enemy gets no punishment for a heinous crime, that only makes the listeners crave to raise up against the enemy all that more.

From this perspective it actually makes more sense to make a fictional Jesus a martyr who was ignominiously killed by the oppressors, rather than make him a triumphant hero. The "criterion of embarrassment" works in the exact reverse here, as it's the most logical approach at making Jesus a revered figure to be admired and defended, and to rile people up against the Romans.

But, to the question at hand: Did an actual real-life person exist who these stories are based on (no matter how embellished, fictional and mythological they might be)?

I'm inclined to say that probably. A quite weak "probably", but still a somewhat high probability. But not for any of the reasons listed above, nor anything that the Christian apologists often give as an argument.

I'd say "probably" because of the mere reason that I find it somewhat unlikely that Paul would have tried to invent a completely fictional Messiah out of thin cloth. It's possible that's what happened, but I would say that it's somewhat improbable. I'm somewhat convinced (not strongly, but somewhat) that Paul genuinely believed Jesus to have been a real person, even though he himself (according to his own words) never met the man. If that's the case, I think there are only two possibilities:

1. Somebody else, or a group of people (eg. a religious sect) invented a completely fictional Jesus and then convinced Paul that he was real, or
2. there actually was some kind of Jewish preacher or cult leader, perhaps even named Yeshua, and Paul's knowledge and claims about him are based on that person (likewise by having been told and taught by the cult members).

I find the second option more plausible. What I think is most probable is that there was indeed a man named "Yeshua" (or something similar, which might or might not have been his original name) and he was some kind of cult leader, and Paul's letters are based on the beliefs of that cult that were relied to him by the cult members.

Most likely, however, the cult was relatively small and inconspicuous (so inconspicuous as to not having been written about in any non-Christian sources, records or histories, at least not any that have survived). It's also very likely that much of the ideas, words and speeches attributed to this man by Paul and other authors were invented by these authors or by other cult members. Some ideas may be based directly on what this Jesus person did actually say.

It may even be that this cult leader was actually executed by Roman authorities, and the crucifixion story is based on this. (However, once again, even if this happened it was most likely such an insignificant event that no Roman or other historic record of it has survived. Most likely he was just executed among many other criminals and dissenters, without much show or ruckus.)

However, as mentioned, it's highly, highly likely that the gospels are pretty much completely fictional. A fictional "origin story" by a couple of authors (who may have concocted these narratives based on the oral myths that had quickly formed around the man and spread among the congregations of early Christians).

Thus, even if an actual person did exist, he most probably was nothing like what the scriptures describe him to be like, and quite probably most of the speeches and ideas attributed to him were embellished or even invented by later authors.

Of course it's still not completely out of the realm of possibility that the initial sect, or even Paul himself, just invented Jesus out of thin cloth because he wanted a Messiah figure to make his new religious ideas to gain traction.

A critical view on the historicity of Jesus

Consensus among historians and scholars?

The Wikipedia page (as of writing this) about "Historicity of Jesus" seems strangely unencyclopedic, and almost seems to have been written by a Christian apologist rather than unbiased editors. Indeed, it makes strong claims that use rather unencyclopedic language. Much of the article is worded like it were someone's opinion piece in an online forum or blog, rather than an encyclopedia article.

And, indeed, almost all of the citations refer to Christian scholars and historians, almost none of them to secular historians. The amount of bias in these sources is undeniable (as no Christian scholar would ever argue against the historicity and existence of Jesus, as that's the most fundamental core tenet of their belief system.)

It is, thus, very strange for the article to make strong claims such as "virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain", when almost every single "scholar" being cited is a Christian theologian or apologist. It would be much more accurate and honest to write "virtually all Christian scholars", as those are almost exclusively the ones being cited.

It is indeed an extremely common, almost universal, argument among Christian apologists that the existence and historicity of Jesus is not only undeniable, but also very widely agreed upon among historians, and that pretty much no scholar of any repute, no matter what their personal belief system, doubts this.

Yet, both their evidence of this (ie. that the vast majority of historians, even secular ones, agree with them) and their arguments for the historicity of the man, are extremely weak and lacking. I have not found any survey, study or paper that would investigate what the percentages are on the opinions of professional scholars and historians, especially secular ones, about this subject. The only thing I have found (and what the Wikipedia article is able to cite) is claims by Christian apologists and theologians that this is the case. Claims with little supporting evidence. This is being asserted with strong conviction, but not much proof is being provided. Only a small handful of (alleged) non-Christian scholars are ever cited as evidence that this is a vast majority consensus among the academia. And the only people I have ever seen make these assertions are Christians themselves.

Non-Christian evidence for the historicity of Jesus?

What is the (unbiased) evidence provided for the historicity of Jesus? Why are these Christian scholars so sure that he was, in fact, an actual real person and that this is completely undeniable based on every source we have?

All the evidence provided seems extraordinarily weak, considering how strongly these apologists assert that his existence is "an undeniable historical fact".

The historians Josephus and Tacitus are two of the most commonly cited early non-Christian sources for the historicity of Jesus. These two names always appear when a Christian apologist is asked for historical evidence. Yet, curiously, you'll almost never hear them mention, without them being asked, when these two people were born. Almost invariably the apologists will leave it unstated and vague when these two historians lived, and when they wrote their texts mentioning Jesus. One has to wonder why.

It may well be that they leave that information out because if their listeners were aware of it, it might erode the credibility of their sources. Josephus was born in 37 AD, and Tacitus circa 56 AD. Well after Jesus's alleged death.

In other words, these two most famous non-Christian historians that are always brought forward when the question arises, were not even born during the (alleged) lifetime of Jesus. They were hardly contemporary witnesses to the events. The writings of Josephus that mention Jesus were written in around 96 AD, and the writings of Tacitus were written in around 115 AD. Both well over 50 years after Jesus's alleged death, neither historian having been even born at the time.

One would think that if, as the Christian apologists claim, there's an abundance of historic evidence for the existence of Jesus, they wouldn't need to resort to the writings of two historians who hadn't even been born at the time, and wrote their texts well over a half century after the alleged events. Certainly, if I were asked to give evidence for the existence of a famous person, like for example Albert Einstein, I wouldn't have to resort to citing the writings of some historian who was born 10 years after Einstein died. I would, rather obviously, cite texts written during Einstein's life.

Yet, such contemporary writings about Jesus seem suspiciously lacking. In fact, there exist no known nor surviving writings about Jesus that are contemporary to his alleged life and acts. Not even from Christian sources.

The fact is that both Josephus and Tacitus were simply writing about what Christians of their time believed and claimed. The only thing that their writing is evidence of, is that Christians, and their beliefs, existed by the year 96 AD (a claim that's hardly controversial). They are not evidence that the claims of the Christians of that time were real and accurate.

It is, thus, extremely strange for any self-respecting honest scholar or historian to give Josephus and Tacitus as evidence for the historicity of Jesus. They are evidence of Christianity having existed by that time, not that everything they claimed (eg. about Jesus) is factual. Josephus and Tacitus are very valid sources for the history of Christianity in the early second century, but they are extremely weak evidence for the existence of Jesus himself. Citing them as strong evidence for the latter is both fallacious and very dishonest.

Evidence from Christian sources?

Unsurprisingly, Christian apologists will use their own scriptures as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, regardless of the rather obvious bias of the authors. But even ignoring this blatant bias, do even these sources hold up to scrutiny?

Arguably, and without much controversy, the Pauline epistles are the earliest surviving writings to ever mention Jesus in any way, shape or form. However, even by the author's own admission, he never himself personally witnessed Jesus, never met him, never saw any of his acts. He only had second-hand accounts about the man. He was not, thus, an eyewitness to any of the alleged events, or even to the existence of the person himself.

Also it should be noted that Paul's writings are very lacking in any biographical detail about Jesus. Even if he was writing about a real person who actually existed, eg. some kind of Jewish preacher or cult leader, his writings do not reveal much about his life, only about his teachings. Even then, it's almost impossible to know how much of these teachings were the words of this Jesus person, and how much were the inventions of Paul himself.

The other letters of the New Testament, written by other people, probably much later than Paul's letters, are not much better in this regard either. They, too, reveal little to no biographical details about Jesus, and mostly deal with Christian doctrine (from which, once again, it's impossible to tell if they are the opinions of the writer himself, or the actual words of the supposed Jesus person they are attributing these thoughts to.)

It is almost universally accepted by serious scholars and historians, even most Christian ones, that the Gospels were written much later than the Pauline epistles, by unknown authors. Most secular scholars would agree that these writings are by far and large completely mythological and fictitious, containing little to no accurate information about Jesus, even assuming they are loosely based on a real existing person. Even the more mundane parts of the Gospels (ie. those that do not deal with any supernatural events) are likely to be fictitious. It is quite likely that the gospels, which are probably based on one or two original sources, are a largely fictitious "origin story" for the (alleged) founder of Christianity. Due to their mythological nature, the Gospels are extremely weak evidence of a historical Jesus, even one who did almost nothing of what is described in the texts.

Using the Gospels as evidence for a historical Jesus is like using the Historia Regum Britanniae as evidence for a historic King Arthur, or the Kalevala as evidence for a historic Väinämöinen.

One of the strangest (and weakest) arguments often given for the veracity of the scriptures is that of "criterion of embarrassment" (also mentioned in the Wikipedia article): The claims about Jesus are believable because his followers wouldn't have invented a story about him being humiliated and ignominiously tortured and killed by the Roman oppressors, with him being unable to do anything about it, rather than him being a great victorious leader and inspiration. If early Christians simply invented the story of Jesus, who was supposed to be the promised Messiah that would liberate them from the oppression of the Romans, surely they would have not made him such a weak person who ended up being embarrassed and killed by those same oppressors?

This argument holds no water. Martyrdom was a very common trait in many contemporary and much older stories and writings, including biblical ones. The Old Testament scriptures themselves are full of stories of pious men of God who suffer at the hands of evil people. Being martyred, rather than being a conqueror, was a very common trait in the stories about God's chosen people. In fact, the fate of Jesus in the Gospels quite closely follows what many Jewish scholars interpreted the Messiah to be like, from the Torah scriptures, which describe a suffering Messiah who is tortured and killed. It is quite probable that the authors of the Gospels were fitting Jesus into what they interpreted the Torah scriptures to predict about the Messiah, which was probably a common story among Christians of the time. (This is precisely where you get all the "the Old Testament predicted Jesus" claims among Christian apologists. Of course it "predicted" him, because the authors of the Gospels made him fit those "predictions".)

Martyrdom, dying for the cause, is and was a very common heroic narrative. Many stories, even very old ones, have their heroes die ignominious deaths and meet shameful fates even after heroic acts. This is not something unusual. (In fact, it might even be more common in stories from antiquity than it is today.)

The man versus the myth

Many historians like to differentiate between real historic people, who actually existed, and the myths that were created around them. Myths may be formed around a real person, but the myth itself may have little to no resemblance to the actual person, or the actual events. Much of these stories may be complete fabrications or distortions.

Thus, many historians like to separate the actual person from the fictitious character invented loosely based on that person. As an example, Blackbeard, the famous 18th century pirate, was a real existing person, real name Edward Teach. However, much mythology surrounds the man, and it's dubious how many of the events and actions attributed to him are real, and how many are exaggerated or even completely fictitious. Thus, some historians like to differentiate between "Edward Teach the man" and "Blackbeard the fictitious pirate", even though the latter is largely based on the former.

Even if there existed some kind of Jewish preacher or cult leader, perhaps even named "Jeshua" (or who called himself as such), and even if the Christian religion, mostly built and spread by Paul, was based on some of the things that this person taught, a difference can be made between the real person and the mythological Jesus described in the Gospels and alluded to by the New Testament letters.

I think making this distinction is important, for intellectual honesty. When someone makes the claim "Jesus was a real historic figure who actually existed", it's deceiving and dishonest to equate this possibly existing real person with the mythological Jesus that Christianity believes in, described in the Gospels. For all intents and purposes, even if a real person existed, it was a completely different person than the "Jesus" that Christians believe in. Many historians like to separate "the man" from "the myth", and I think that should be done here as well.

Did a real person exist, perhaps even some kind of preacher and cult leader, on which the story of Jesus is based on? Maybe, maybe not. However, did the "Jesus" described in the New Testament exist? Probably not, in this sense.

Claiming that there's strong evidence for the historicity of Jesus, and that the vast majority of scholars and historians agree, is deceitful and dishonest.