We know what would be good evidence against the Jesus miracles.
But no one yet has found any.
I have no belief either way with regards to the existence of a man who formed the starting point for the Jesus myth. Perhaps there was one, perhaps the character is an amalgam of many, perhaps the character is entirely fictional. The supernatural aspects of the character are obviously fiction.
That conclusion cannot be disproved, except in the sense that it's obvious only to those who begin with the premise that any miracle stories must be fiction, regardless of any evidence; or, perhaps, that they must be fiction unless accompanied by an abundance of evidence greater than the evidence we have for most events in ancient history (maybe 90% of them, or more). So, the "obviously fiction" conclusion is not based on any evidence from the historical record, but on a rejection of the existing evidence, all of which indicates that the miracle acts really did happen (but is rejected anyway because it's still not enough).
So, there is no evidence from the ancient record to indicate that the supernatural aspects are fiction, as all the evidence which exists indicates that the events did happen; but, one can reasonably reject all the existing evidence on the ground that it's not enough evidence, because a certain uniquely high threshold of evidence is required for miracle claims, unlike for 90% of events generally, which are accepted on a vastly lower quantity of evidence. If this is what "obviously fiction" means, i.e., that vastly more evidence is required, beyond the already-abundant evidence (though still not abundant enough for miracle claims), then the "obviously fiction" conclusion is difficult to refute.
But there's absolutely no way to know whether there was ever a real person onto whom those aspects were later grafted . . .
You could say that about almost any historical figure earlier than 500 or 1000 years ago. There are a few standouts we might KNOW were real -- perhaps 1% of all the historical figures named, or 5% of all the ones mentioned a few times. So we know Julius Caesar and Charlemagne and Alexander the Great and a few dozen others were real, but certainly the vast majority cannot be determined absolutely as real, because of legend-building and discrepancies in the record. We assume the large majority of them were real, but we have "absolutely no way to KNOW" it for sure.
So, even though this can be said about the historical Jesus, it can also be said about most, probably 90%, of all the historical figures we "know" of, and so it doesn't mean much. Because the evidence that Jesus was real is greater than for most of the ancient historical figures we "know" existed -- and yet don't really know for sure.
. . . and to be honest, I can't understand why anyone would even care.
Obviously no one can dictate to anyone else what to care about. But there are reasons why some do care.
A good simple reason to care is that if he really existed and did perform those miracle acts, including the Resurrection, and if he promised salvation or eternal life to believers, as the accounts suggest, then it's "good news" for all those who hope there is something beyond this life. There's no reason why someone should NOT hope for this, but also no reason to insist that everyone has to hope for it if they don't hope for it. But that there is this hope does explain why some do care.
Certainly it's pointless to care, as the evidence is so scant that nobody alive today will ever know.
No, the evidence is not "scant" except in the sense that one can demand a vast quantity of evidence for any miracle claim, and in this sense the abundant evidence we have is still not enough, as it must be so vastly greater than for normal (non-miracle) events.
In the end, a Christ-believer willing to be skeptical has to admit that the quantity of evidence could be greater still, even though the quantity that does exist is greater than required for normal events, even much greater -- but still probably less than a believer would prefer. (Although there might be some reason for a limit to the evidence, such that if it was too overwhelming there would be something lost, i.e., "faith" = the evidence is less than one would wish. Or, "faith" inherently is diminished if the evidence is overwhelming beyond a certain point.)
But "so scant that nobody alive today will ever know" suggests the possibility of some future evidence turning up. What about the possibility of such future evidence? This can't be ruled out. What kind of future evidence might turn up?
evidence against / for the Resurrection
This is a good occasion to note some evidence which already exists but is largely ignored, and about which something more could be learned in the near future.
This evidence goes mostly unmentioned by the critics and propagandists and by believers and non-believers alike. It's a piece of literature placed in the category of Greek Romance novels. The title is
Callirhoe, or
Chaereas and Callirhoe,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariton by a Greek author, Chariton, before 200 AD, and possibly mid-first-century (or even earlier!).
If any new evidence turns up on this novel, which is able to fix its date more firmly, then it would constitute additional evidence to either help confirm, or to undermine, the Resurrection of Jesus as historical.
This novel combines elements which are difficult to explain unless it had some connection to the Jesus story in its early form. I.e., a
CAUSAL connection, such that one inspired the other. It contains both a resurrection scene AND a crucifixion scene, which exists nowhere else in any earlier literature. It's difficult to find any resurrection or crucifixion scenarios in any ancient literature. There's mention of crucifixion, but no narratives telling an individual experience, of an
innocent victim being crucified, or almost crucified, and somehow escaping, or being rescued.
Along with this crucifixion scene is mention of innocent persons BEARING A CROSS and complaining of their suffering. There's nothing like this to be found in any earlier literature. The only other mention of anyone "bearing" a cross is to be found later in Plutarch, written about 100 AD.
But then add to this also a RESURRECTION scenario, even including an
empty tomb -- even with a stone moved away from the entrance! What is the probability of having a written narrative of such a thing, as just another random story, combining both of these two elements -- both a resurrection scene and a crucifixion scene -- in the same single narrative account?
This is not likely a coincidence.
Whichever story was first probably inspired the later one.
And yet the apparent connection of this novel to the Jesus death-and-resurrection story is mostly ignored by the scholars, both by believers and non-believers. For some reason they don't want to draw attention to the unusual parallel of these two stories. The fact that one is historical and the other fiction is beside the point.
What we can't explain are these two narrative accounts in written documents from the time (although the dating of the
Callirhoe novel is more difficult), with no other literature having similar subject matter. There's nothing else known which could have inspired both of these, such as a unique interest in resurrection tales at this time, or hysteria over missing bodies. There's no evidence that crucifixion-and-resurrection tales were some kind of literary fad during this period. Other than copycat stories appearing 100 or 200 years later.
Additional evidence could turn up to fix the date of this novel more precisely. If it is even pre-Christian, such as before 30 AD, then it is very awkward for the Jesus Resurrection as a historical event at around 30 AD, because such an earlier narrative has to cause suspicion that the Jesus Resurrection belief was inspired by this earlier romance novel, known by someone who knew of the Jesus crucifixion and then combining the resurrection element in this novel to the Jesus story.
But,
if the Callirhoe novel is later, such as after 40 or 50 AD, then one has to suspect that this novel was inspired by the already-existing Jesus story, which contained the crucifixion-and-resurrection of Jesus by this time, or no later than 50 AD when Paul mentions it.
The Callirhoe author lived in Asia Minor near Ephesus and other towns where Christ-belief was spreading in the first century (the 7 Churches of Asia Minor mentioned in Rev. 1-3), so he could have known the basic Jesus crucifixion-resurrection story, probably only in a rudimentary form (the Gospels didn't exist yet). However, if this author lived much earlier, then this could not be what inspired him.
So, the new evidence which could either support or undermine the Resurrection story would be something to better fix the date when this novel was written. If later than 40 AD, then it's evidence of the spread of the "gospel" at that time, in a region where early Christian missionary activity was happening; but if earlier than 30 AD, it's evidence that the Jesus Resurrection might have been inspired by this earlier story.
It is difficult to explain how the later story would not have been inspired by the earlier, whichever is the correct chronology or sequence of the two.
And, a strong possibility is that the Gospel of Mark borrowed the "empty tomb" scenario from the
Callirhoe novel, if this was written in mid-century while Mark was written about 70 AD. It's reasonable to believe Mark was knowledgeable of Greek literature and used some symbolism or themes from some earlier Greek legends. However, it's not possible that Paul could have borrowed the crucifixion-resurrection idea from reading any Greek literature. His story must have been based on an earlier version of the Jesus story, whatever its origin.
Of the two possibilities, the more likely is that the Jesus event happened first -- the crucifixion and death and resurrection -- cited by Paul no later than 50 AD, and then about the same time the
Callirhoe author heard of this and used the two scenarios in his novel. And then later Mark borrowed the "empty tomb" scenario which too strongly resembles a similar scene in the
Callirhoe novel. Though it's also possible that the
Callirhoe novel is much later and borrowed this scene from Mark.
Why do both believers and non-believers want to ignore the
Callirhoe novel?
Non-believers ignore it, and even wish it would go away, because it is strong evidence that the Jesus Resurrection story was circulating pretty far west, and testifies to the early origin of the Resurrection claim and how the Christ-belief was spreading as a result of this unusual claim, or rumored event from Galilee-Judea.
However, one debunker-pundit who uses the
Callirhoe novel in his crusade against the Jesus miracles is Robert Price:
His presentation of the
Callirhoe novel begins at about 24 minutes in.
Price's argument is that there were all kinds of these stories sloshing around the Roman world in the 1st century, resurrecting bodies everywhere, the dead rising or being raised, empty tombs, on and on. And yet the truth is that this
Callirhoe novel is absolutely the ONLY such story anywhere which might be 1st century, and might even be prior to Jesus.
There are no other such stories -- just these two only.
All the others are much later, even centuries later, and are copycat stories of either Jesus in the Gospels, or are copycat stories taken from the
Callirhoe novel, which had some popularity. What all the evidence tells us is: The first resurrection story is that of Jesus in the Gospels, happening about 30 AD and first mentioned in writing by Paul. Then, after this miracle stories begin appearing, mostly after 100 AD, of resurrections and other miracles, some of them obviously copycat versions of the Jesus miracles, even lifted out of the Gospel accounts. But prior to 100 AD, there is NOTHING of it.
Except possibly the
Callirhoe novel. Which is what makes this particular document interesting. Aside from this one, there is NO JESUS PARALLEL miracle/resurrection account of any kind. So, it matters when this
Callirhoe novel was written.
Both believers and non-believers are embarrassed by the Callirhoe novel.
But believers also ignore it, and are uncomfortable with the existence of other literature having such elements in it resembling Jesus in the Gospels. They think any such parallels suggest that the Jesus Resurrection was a fictional story pattern of the time, common in other literature, and thus undermining the Jesus story as something produced by the general culture rather than being an actual event.
And yet, there is really NOTHING in any other literature claiming any resurrection event, prior to Jesus -- unless this
Callirhoe novel dates before 30 AD -- this is the only possible exception. So it's most likely that the Jesus Resurrection was itself the inspiration for the later miracle stories,
Callirhoe being the first, which began using this theme. And before this there was no such reported event anywhere -- including in fiction -- describing a person in history as coming back to life soon after his death and being seen by witnesses.
Debunker-scholars are starving, chomping at the bit, to find any such story, and yet they can come up with nothing, and it's even hilarious to see the attempts they make to produce parallels of resurrections, of "dying and risen" gods and so on, and trying to distort and paint these as being similar to Jesus in the Gospels, when there is no comparison.
copycat stories as negative evidence
It's important to point out the possibility of negative evidence -- something which would show the Jesus miracle acts as fiction. Of course it's possible to find fictional elements in the Gospels. It would be amazing if there was none. There is no ancient literature of any kind, including historical accounts, which does not contain some fiction. It's easy to explain how some legend/myth elements would be added -- i.e., added to factual accounts reporting what really happened. That's not good negative evidence, unless it can be shown that many or most of the reported miracle acts are fictional, e.g., such as showing that they are copycat stories based on earlier legends.
There is one and only one such example of it in the Gospel accounts, which is the fish-and-loaves story, having too much resemblance to II Kings 4:42-44. That there is only this one is actually strong evidence that the Jesus miracle acts are not based on earlier legends, because if they were, there would be more than only this one.
Mark borrowing from Homer
A further indication that the Jesus miracle stories are not borrowed from the earlier culture is the fact that no miracle story in the Gospel of Mark is taken from anything earlier, such as from Homer, even though there's general agreement that Mark borrowed heavily from Homer for subject matter and symbols:
http://vridar.info/xorigins/homermark/mkhmrfiles/index.htm
And there are many other sites which give parallels of Mark's accounts to Homer, and yet not one of Mark's miracles contains anything from Homer. Why would that be? If Mark was making it up, why didn't he borrow miracles from Homer like he borrowed other elements? What was driving Mark? The only explanation: He had good evidence of miracle acts Jesus really did, he had to report this, and in his account he made use of his knowledge of Homer to help him present his account in a familiar literary style. But he didn't need to borrow any miracle stories from Homer, because he had so many already, from real events. And these must be what inspired him. What better explanation is there?
Sure he might have made up some stuff to put in his story. But what was his basic story to which he wanted to add stuff? It was the already-existing reports of Jesus the miracle-worker, to which no fiction needed to be added, from Homer or elsewhere. All he borrowed from Homer was some extra literary style stuff to help present his account of the true facts of those miracle acts which happened and for which he already had plenty of material. After all, there has to be a starting point, doesn't there? What was Mark's starting point? It must have been the many reports he received of Jesus the miracle-worker. That explains his motivation and everything he wrote, including the bits of message or theology he included as his interpretation.
On the other hand there are several later miracle stories which are copycat stories based on Jesus in the Gospels. Robert Price in the video above mentions several of them, noting the parallels, but failing to point out that these later stories must have been inspired by the earlier Jesus stories (though he wishes so desperately at times to take the Jesus miracles out of the 1st century and claim they are a product of 100 or 200 years later, contrary to virtually all the scholarship on the dating of the Gospel accounts).
We know what negative evidence would be,
and there isn't any.
But what would be good negative evidence is anything casting doubt on the entire crucifixion-and-resurrection narrative, because if this were fictional, then there's not much left. If the Resurrection did not really happen, then too much is removed, and there's not enough left to believe or upon which to base the hope for eternal life. So the
Callirhoe novel would be very damaging evidence, if it was written very early, like before 30 AD.
So virtually all the evidence is that the Jesus miracle acts really did happen, with nothing yet found to indicate otherwise. But for this to be legitimate, it's necessary to
acknowledge what would be good contrary evidence, if it should ever exist. So here's an example: if some new manuscript should be discovered -- which is a possibility -- which would date the
Callirhoe novel very early, and if it's definite, then that would be good negative evidence against the Resurrection.