2011/01/01 by Stephen Law, The Society of Christian Philosophers · 1 citation
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #American Constitutional Law and Politics #Biblical Studies and Interpretation #Contemporary philosophy #Epistemology #Historical and Linguistic Studies #Philosophy #Theology
paper · doi:10.5840/faithphil20112821
crossref issued 2011/01/01 · crossref published 2011/01/01 · crossref published-online 2011/01/01 · openalex publication_date 2011/01/01 · crossref created 2013/05/02 · crossref deposited 2020/07/31 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref indexed 2026/08/01 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/02
The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testamentdocuments alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed—a principle I call the contamination principle—entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of good independent evidence for an historical Jesus, remain sceptical about his existence