EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF
JESUS[i]
Stephen Law
Abstract
The vast majority of Biblical
historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence
beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents 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 independent
evidence for an historical Jesus, remain sceptical about his existence.
