The Historical Search for Christ
In my last article, I discussed why the scientific method is not appropriate for conducting analysis of the historical Jesus. Science is objective, but history requires us to consider the subjective as well. We need to look at the content of written sources, but also authorial intent and reliability of said author. Chemists and physicists can reproduce experiments in a lab, but historians have a more static, albeit growing body of data to work with.
So, with the question of the historical Jesus, we need to ask what evidence we have and what we can trust. To make these determinations, historians look for multiple attestation from independent sources and how the facts relate to the intent of the author. If the facts work against authorial intent, then they are less likely to be exaggerations or fabrications stemming from personal bias. Put another way, people tend to be skeptical of facts that conflict with their world view. This insight allows us to use the biases of authors as a way of screening out rather than adding dubious information.
Knowing that, let's examine the claim of skeptics that Nazareth did not exist until the middle of the 1st century, after the time of Jesus. We know that both John and these Synoptic Gospels identify Jesus as being from Nazareth. We also know that this fact complicates the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. After all, the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem. Luke explains that Jesus' family was visiting for the purpose of the census. John does not address this fact directly, be we can see how this cuts against Christ's image as savior. "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" (John 1:46) In this way, Christ defies expectations rather than fulfilling Messianic prophecies in a way that would be readily accepted by the people of his time. A reasonable person applying the normal standards of historical analysisJohn 1:46would have to conclude that Nazareth existed at the time of Christ, that Jesus truly existed, and that Jesus came from Nazareth.
So what is the basis for skepticism here? To the skeptics, the source material may be completely invalid because of its religious character. Specific allegations are thrown at the different Gospels. Matthew is accused of intending to write a work of fiction. Luke is condemned for having an anti-Marcion agenda. John is dismissed as a non-Christian or semi-Christian Gnostic. These claims can be demolished individually (say, by studying the meaning of Gnosticism and reading the first chapter of John's Gospel), but taken together as rapid fire New Atheist apologetics, they can create the desired confusion and uncertainty.
In short, the strategy is to cast doubt on each book of the New Testament using piecemeal tactics, until no evidence is left at all. This is good technique in the hard sciences, where bad methodology can invalidate a study. This is not how historians do, or at least should work. Rather than look only for discrepancies as evidence of corruption, an historian is trained to look for commonalities. Human error is the norm with historical sources, and historians must cope with this limitation.
Now that we know why "reputable historical scholars all admit that Jesus of Nazareth existed", we need to ask: so what? We can painstakingly prove a number of facts about Christ, but we Christians do not worship a fragmentary collection of facts about Christ. The historical Jesus is, in a sense, not a person at all. The real Jesus, the Jesus that matters is the Jesus of faith. This means ultimately letting down our guard and trusting in the Gospels as a representation of the Christ's person rather than as secular historical documents.