The Historical Jesus III

[Leumas]

Never do I accept invitations from people to read huge lists of books and videos. Give me your arguments. In your own words.Don't be lazy. Do I give you huge reading lists? No. Nor will I ever do so.

So you want me to write a book for you right here on this forum?

Educated people formulate opinions out of reading books about the topics of interest and attend lectures and seminars.

If you cannot read the books then watch the videos of lectures and seminars.

If you cannot watch lectures and seminars then it is certainly your prerogative to just carry on making opinions based on a litany of illogical fallacies and ignorance of the facts.... just don't expect educated people to take you seriously.

 

[Craig B]

Every stride and leap in knowledge has been initially against the "consensus".

Scientists ridiculed and marginalized Alfred Wegener for proposing the Continental Drift theory and the "consensus" derided and ignored him for a fool who was not qualified in the field of the "consensus".

From here

Despite much opposition, the view of continental drift gained support and a lively debate started between "drifters" or "mobilists" (proponents of the theory) and "fixists" (opponents).​

Belz, you wondered

So the consensus is HJ, and the consensus is that the testimonium is an interpolation, but it's their piltdown man anyway? I don't follow.

Do you follow now? If you're touting a fringe woo theory, or are a victim of one, something like this is what you've got to say:

All correct changes of theory started off against the consensus. (Which is an obvious tautology, by the way, as well as being self-evidently true.) Fine. But then the woo merchants try to imply that the contrary is also true - that all statements made against the consensus are correct. Or at the very least, that statements are more likely to be correct if they are against current scholarly consensus.

There is a huge advantage in this if you want to make money by selling nonsensical books. You make the readers feel like geniuses by flattering them that the know it all wise guys of the Academy don't know zilch, but if you read this book by Acharya S (or whoever) you'll be better informed than the consensus of scholars, without the necessity of all that boring study process.

I really do feel that some posters here have fallen victim to this kind of intellectual scam.

 

[Craig B]

So you want me to write a book for you right here on this forum?

No.

Educated people formulate opinions out of reading books about the topics of interest

I do read books about topics of interest. Tom Paine, for example, is one of my favourite authors.

 

[Leumas]

...You could not have chosen a less appropriate source of support for your argument than Paine, one of the great men of history, as you rightly call him. With regard to Jesus (the topic of this thread), he and you are on entirely opposite sides.

Rubbish... educated people can agree with some aspects of a person's writings and disagree with others.

For instance take Bart Ehrman, all of whose books I read and own and like despite his last one being a load of rubbish.

I can cite Ehrman's books when I think his writing is correct in support of an argument despite his last book being a load of illogical fallacies.

 

[Leumas]

No. I do read books about topics of interest. Tom Paine, for example, is one of my favourite authors.

Educated people read books for and against a certain topic.

 

[Leumas]

Belz, you wondered Do you follow now? If you're touting a fringe woo theory, or are a victim of one, something like this is what you've got to say:

All correct changes of theory started off against the consensus. (Which is an obvious tautology, by the way, as well as being self-evidently true.) Fine. But then the woo merchants try to imply that the contrary is also true - that all statements made against the consensus are correct. Or at the very least, that statements are more likely to be correct if they are against current scholarly consensus.

There is a huge advantage in this if you want to make money by selling nonsensical books. You make the readers feel like geniuses by flattering them that the know it all wise guys of the Academy don't know zilch, but if you read this book by Acharya S (or whoever) you'll be better informed than the consensus of scholars, without the necessity of all that boring study process.

I really do feel that some posters here have fallen victim to this kind of intellectual scam.

What a pathetic straw man standing on a slippery slope ending in a poisoned well full of foul dissimulation and illogical fallacies.

 

[maximara]

So the consensus is HJ, and the consensus is that the testimonium is an interpolation, but it's their piltdown man anyway? I don't follow.

Actually the consensus is that some part of the Testimonium is genuine and it is THAT is why it is a Piltdown man.

The consensus cannot accept that odds are the ENTIRE Testimonium is an interpolation and so try to save some of it...just like people tried to save Piltdown when a handful were say it was NOT evidence of a human ancestor.

As been commented the paragraph after the Testimonium begins "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder". Modern critics go "What 'sad calamity'? We just got a commercial for Jesus!"

You know perhaps from now we should called it Testimonium Flavianum Piltdownium just to hammer the point home.

 

[IanS]

Like physicists. They keep talking about "dark matter" and such nonsense. "Dark" matter? That sounds like magic. How credible is their expert consensus?

Pretty good, actually, since they are the experts and I am not. Unless we start doubting relevant expert opinion on the basis that we disagree. Now, I know what you're going to say: the nature of the evidence is different, and all. But I'm discussing, as you were, expertise: does the fact that _you_ find the evidence unconvincing somehow disqualify the experts?

Instead, you should show that they are not experts.

I missed the above post first time round, and only noticed it when it was quoted in a post above, but I think it deserves a reply. So -

- if by “expert” we mean people who have studied a subject in great depth and have great detailed knowledge in that subject, then that is not necessarily a guide to such “experts” always making logical sensible unbiased deductions about what the evidence of their studies actually shows.

So whilst bible scholars like Bart Ehrman are no doubt great experts in the sense of having very extensive knowledge about the New testament bible, as we saw in his 2013 book, that by no means ensures that he will meet any reasonable standard of un-biased objectivity when he concludes that evidence from the bible proves that Jesus "certainly" existed.

For example in that book, the only clear unambiguous statement of evidence that Ehrman could show that was not full of "if's & buts'" and all sorts of subjective vagaries, was to say that Jesus must have existed because in the bible it says that Paul met "the lords brother". That is actually the standard of objectivity and rationality being offered by even the most expert and most sceptical of leading academic bible scholars, as Ehrman undoubtedly is.

So expertise or not, it always comes down to a matter of genuine credible evidence. And in that book, whilst attempting to show overwhelming evidence of Jesus such as to conclude “certainty”, Ehrman unwittingly did the exact opposite and showed how utterly devoid of evidence his exceptionally weak case for Jesus actually is.

 

[Belz...]

It means that consensus of scholars is worthless. Do you understand the examples now? If you want the truth, go to the margins and listen to the small number of dissidents.

Hummm... now, what does that remind me of?

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument have been exposed as a farce.

There was NEVER EVER any historical data for Jesus of Nazareth.

Josephus and Tacitus did NOT write about Jesus of Nazareth.

Christian writings of antiquity have been found dated BEFORE the Roman Government took control of the Christian religion.

Papyri 46 [part of the Pauline Corpus] and Papyri 75 [parts of gLuke and gJohn] have been found where Jesus is DOCUMENTED as a Transfiguring Water Walking Son of a God, God Creator and born of a Ghost.


The Christian writings state that THEIR Jesus was From heaven, God Creator, the Logos, a Transfiguring Water Walker.

The Roman Government would NOT have conceded that Jesus was born of a Ghost and God Creator if there was KNOWN historical data that Jesus was really a CRIMINAL who SUFFERED the ultimate penalty in the time of Pilate.

The Roman Government and HUNDREDS of Jesus cult BISHOPS formed a general CONSENSUS in the 4th century that Jesus was from HEAVEN, God of God and born of a Ghost.

Such a CONSENSUS [that Jesus was God of God] could not have been formed if the Roman Government had historical DATA for Jesus of Nazareth.

In writings about the Council of Nicea, there is NO mention of Tacitus' Annals or Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

In order to get a consensus with the Roman Government that Jesus was FROM HEAVEN and born of a Ghost Tacitus Annals and Josephus Antiquities of the Jews must have been rejected or was NOT yet manipulated.

The Roman Government had NO historical data for Jesus of Nazareth when they CONCEDED that Jesus was FROM HEAVEN, God of God and born of a Ghost.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS without historical data.

Jesus of Nazareth was ALWAYS a figure of FAITH.

Jesus of Nazareth and ROMULUS were born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

In the Roman Empire--Ghosts were FIGURES of history.

 

[Belz...]

Every stride and leap in knowledge has been initially against the "consensus".

Ah, now I remember what it reminds me of: conspiracy theorists and woo-woos, who say exactly the same thing, citing Einstein and Galileo.

 

[Belz...]

Actually the consensus is that some part of the Testimonium is genuine and it is THAT is why it is a Piltdown man.

Odd, that's not what I heard about it. More like, opinions are divided on the topic.

So expertise or not, it always comes down to a matter of genuine credible evidence.

I agree, and certainly never meant to imply that it was. What I meant is simply that when laymen don't have the expertise to recognise, sift through and analyse the evidence, it's more than a bit presumptuous of them to imply that the experts can't, either.

 

[maximara]

Odd, that's not what I heard about it. More like, opinions are divided on the topic.

Here are the references wiki gives to back up claim that the consensus is that some part of the Testimonium Flavianum Piltdownium (yes that name fits it SO well) being genuine:

Schreckenberg & Schubert 1992a, pp. 38–41.
Kostenberger, Kellum & Quarles 2009, pp. 104–108.
Evans 2001, p. 316.
Wansbrough 2004, p. 185.
Dunn 2003, p. 141.
The Jesus Legend by G. A. Wells 1996 ISBN 0812693345 page 48: "... that Josephus made some reference to Jesus, which has been retouched by a Christian hand. This is the view argued by Meier as by most scholars today particularly since S. Pines..."

----

Adam Fahling in his 1946 The Life of Christ unknowingly summed up the mindset at work here: "It is very likely that Josephus made some reference to Jesus, but most writers agree that the passage, if not entirely spurious, has been the subject of Christian revision."

Wells actual quote is "The most that can be claimed is that Josephus made some reference to Jesus, which has been retouched by a Christian hand. This is the view argued by Meier as by most scholars today..."

 

[IanS]

But consider this: in the scholarly world, Jesus was first known to be a mere dead man, and only later stated to be a god. In recent centuries, scholarship has recovered from Christian control and Jesus has stopped being a God and turned back into a mere dead man.

.

And Bart Ehrman notes that some Christians were "adoptionists", that is, God 'adopted' the man Jesus to be Christ; he wasn't born that way. From his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", page 48:

Christians of the second and third centuries generally--regardless of theological persuasion--claimed to espouse the views of Jesus' earliest followers. With regard at least to the adoptionists, modern scholarship has by and large conceded the claim.​

The letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark seem to support such views. It is only in the next generation that "Jesus was Son of God from birth" started to appear, and eventually won over other streams of Christianity.

Where is this evidence that the earliest Christian writers said that Jesus was just an ordinary man?

Paul's letters certainly say no such thing. As has often been pointed out here - Paul's letters describe Jesus as a supernatural spiritual scion of Yahweh in the heavens, who was known to Paul purely and entirely through divine revelation in the true meaning of ancient scripture.

There is no mere mortal ordinary human there ever known to Paul (or anyone else).

This appears to be yet another attempt to parachute Jesus into existence straight out of thin air.

 

[IanS]

So expertise or not, it always comes down to a matter of genuine credible evidence. And in that book, whilst attempting to show overwhelming evidence of Jesus such as to conclude “certainty”, Ehrman unwittingly did the exact opposite and showed how utterly devoid of evidence his exceptionally weak case for Jesus actually is.

I agree, and certainly never meant to imply that it was. What I meant is simply that when laymen don't have the expertise to recognise, sift through and analyse the evidence, it's more than a bit presumptuous of them to imply that the experts can't, either.

Sure. But that’s precisely why it comes down to that question of what their evidence is.

All the arguments can be short-circuited by just asking these experts what their evidence is ... but when you ask them, it turns out they can never produce any credible genuine evidence at all.

Experts or not, they simply have no evidence to support their beliefs (footnote).


Footnote - and that does not mean merely evidence of the existence of 1st century Christianity or evidence of unsupported 1st century Christian beliefs ... it means evidence showing that such beliefs were actually true and that Jesus was a real human in the 1st century.

 

[Craig B]

Educated people read books for and against a certain topic.

They don't simply read to inform themselves? They must read books that argue "for" or "against"? What a totally weird idea.

 

[Craig B]

Where is this evidence that the earliest Christian writers said that Jesus was just an ordinary man?

Nowhere, and you know perfectly well I didn't say that. I said

in the scholarly world, Jesus was first known to be a mere dead man

I meant Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius; as must be obvious to you.

This appears to be yet another attempt to parachute Jesus into existence straight out of thin air.

I am baffled to understand how you can have misrepresented me to this degree, and I will return to my policy of leaving your comments aside, while I think about that. Have a nice day.

 

[Craig B]

What a pathetic straw man standing on a slippery slope ending in a poisoned well full of foul dissimulation and illogical fallacies.

Thank you for that contribution to this sapient colloquy. Do you have a video or images to illustrate a straw man standing on a slippery slope ending in a poisoned well? I'd like to see that.

 

[Belz...]

Here are the references wiki gives to back up claim that the consensus is that some part of the Testimonium Flavianum Piltdownium (yes that name fits it SO well) being genuine:

Ah, productive conversation! It's so rare here, I'll have to take note of the date. Thank you.

 

[IanS]

It means that consensus of scholars is worthless. Do you understand the examples now? If you want the truth, go to the margins and listen to the small number of dissidents. Even if what they say sounds like woo. I think that's what we're being told.

In this particular subject of Jesus Historicity (the question of whether Jesus did, or did not, exist), the opinion of biblical scholars (whether as a consensus or not), is indeed worthless if they cannot show credible evidence for why anyone should believe that Jesus was more likely than not (i.e. probability above 50%) to have been a real person.

And the problem which was unintentionally highlighted by Bart Ehrman in his 2013 book, is that despite all his protests, he was completely unable to show any credible evidence of a human Jesus as all.

All that he could show, which is the same as all biblical scholars and Christians have ever shown, is that the biblical writing never offers anything except late copyist devotional writing of peoples un-evidenced religious beliefs in a messiah who they were all certain of via divine prophecy in the OT scriptures ... and where Helms and others (e.g., Gospel Fictions) have shown that all four of the gospels, and especially the most important two g-Mark and g-Mathew, were certainly creating Jesus stories from various passages in the OT.



Footnote - if you (Craig) really wanted to know what is wrong with biblical studies as a profession, then by now you should have read Hector Avalos's book "The End of Biblical Studies".