Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

That is not however the case with Christian Bible Scholars today – firstly, none of them are scientists

Well, historians are not scientists, either. Are there any actual historians who study the historicity of Jesus? I ask because as I noted you seem to simply dismiss the experts on the matter by the use of an ad hominem. So far you've not actually made the demonstration that I'm asking for.

On your second highlighted sentence – what are the other factors that you think I must consider when I say that where Bible Scholars are known to be practising Christians, that inevitably introduces and unacceptable bias immediately for any belief they express for the existence of Jesus upon claims that the biblical writing is a reliable enough source of evidence?

Ian, you really should realise that your claim that this bias is inevitable and overwhelming is the thing I'm questioning. I do not accept that your claim, on its face, is sound. Can you demonstrate that it is, or not?

 

[Belz...]

I don't think it is fair to dismiss them outright. We'd know even less without them. But I find it unreasonable to simply accept their opinions on the historicity of characters in ancient writings. The biblical stories resemble fan fiction a little too much to simply accept that the characters were real.

But that's the issue I'm raising. Whenever other posters discount the experts because something feels too much X or not enough Y to them, we call them woo-woos and tell them to read expert opinions on the matter. But in the case of Jeebus, suddenly our doubts about expert opinions is entirely sound. I am questioning this reasoning.

I just said that it seems very, very unlikely this fabulous discovery that you imagine.

Do you not understand the point of hypotheticals in a discussion?

 

[David Mo]

Do you not understand the point of hypotheticals in a discussion?

The Da Vinci Code, The Last Temptation of Christ, O Evangelio segundo Jesus Cristo... I like specially the last one.

 

[David Mo]

In case peopel could not be bothered to read the admittedly long reply that I gave to Belz above -

- the problem with both Josephus and Tacitus as evidence for Jesus, is that despite Christians (and others, inc. all Bible Scholars) saying that their writing comes not long after the time of Jesus, in fact it turns out that the earliest copies we have from either Tacitus or Josephus are not from around 100AD, but actually from the 11th century! ... ie 1000 years after the fact!!

The problem is not the dating of the first manuscripts. The problem is that Josephus is manipulated and Pliny is a second-hand testimony. Like Tacitus and others.

Getting stuck with objecting to the date of the first manuscripts leads to a stupid discussion that would eliminate the possibility of at least half of ancient history. Pliny's first manuscripts - only six pages of them - date back to the 6th century. Is Pliny also of no use in studying the history of Rome?

 

[acbytesla]

I expect most people were indeed illiterate prior to the 18th century (note that I had suggested the start of the 19th century, rather than up to the 18th). But it was not necessary for those people to read the bible themselves. Afaik, they were most definitely taught about Christianity, God and Jesus by vast numbers of preachers, priests, vicar, bishops, cardinals, popes etc.

If you read the book “Galileo's Daughter” by Dava Sobel, which is actually a fascinating book that was compiled entirely from a large mass of still existing letters written by Galileo to his two daughters and the letters that one daughter in particular wrote in return to Galileo, then you will read there how the church bells in Florence and elsewhere, rang out constantly all day long, and also even all night long! … people could not get away from the call of the church and it's preachers at that time, at least in the major cities of Italy … from the description in that book, you are struck by the fact that people could barely have a normal conversation on the streets without being constantly drowned out by the call of the church.

If you make a Google search, or just search in Wikipedia, then I think you will find that the Christian church was responsible for almost all eduction in Europe from at least around 1200 AD, so that children were taught all about the bible in church schools. I don't think there can really be any doubt that since the time of Galileo (c.1600) up until say 1800, people all across the developed parts of the world such as all over Europe, certainly did all know about what was claimed in the bible for the life of Jesus as the miraculous son of God. People did believe that the biblical teaching was unquestionably factual truth. And that religion really dominated the lives of everyone at the time.

I have no doubt about the long arm of the church. It was the quasi-arm of the governments. But I have my doubts about what "most" of the citizens believed. Maybe almost everyone bought it hook line and sinker or maybe many just went along because they didn't want to suffer the inquisition.

 

[IanS]

There are two things I have to say about that

1. A religious organisation teaching the masses about their religion is not "education", its distribution of propaganda; the teaching dogma to the gullible.

2. Even if you do regard it as "education", it does not balance out the other terrible things the Christian church was responsible for; the bloody genocidal wars of religion, the Inquisition, the systematic and brutal oppression of woman, the murders of people who dissented from Church dogma, such as burning William Tyndale at the stake for translating the Bible into English, burning Joan D'Arc for dressing like a man, the razing of Palestrina, and the orchestration the systematic murder of the Knights Templar, among many, many other reprehensible acts.

Sure. I did not mean it was a neutral unbiased non-religious education (you did not think I was saying that, did you?). I'm just saying (in reply to what acbytesla said), that afaik (eg from a simple check with a Google search), from at least about 1200AD onwards, until probably at least 1700 to 1800, throughout educated parts of Christian Europe it was the churches and the religion that set up most schools ... where they no doubt taught all sorts of stuff from the bible ... afaik it's undeniable that children and adults were taught about, and did know very well, what the Christian church proclaimed as the truth from God, Jesus and the Holy Bible.

And I don't know of any substantial evidence to suggest that the general mass of the population (or indeed the priests and bishops themselves) took any other view except to believe that the bible was certainly all true.

 

[acbytesla]

The problem is not the dating of the first manuscripts. The problem is that Josephus is manipulated and Pliny is a second-hand testimony. Like Tacitus and others.

Getting stuck with objecting to the date of the first manuscripts leads to a stupid discussion that would eliminate the possibility of at least half of ancient history. Pliny's first manuscripts - only six pages of them - date back to the 6th century. Is Pliny also of no use in studying the history of Rome?

Nonsense. I'm not sure you can study anything about ancient history without a truck load of salt.

Dates are important. If they weren't, then we can assume all the characters in the Old Testament were also real.

The further the documents are away from the events in time and distance, the more questionable they become. When they are written 30, 50 100 a 1000 years later the more ridiculous they grow as a source. When people point to Josephus and Tacitus as proof, it really is ridiculous.

It would be like me attesting to the life of William McKinley and having only oral stories to call upon. I didn't know McKinley and neither did anyone telling me about him.

 

[autumn1971]

I just want to say that the few “Biblical Scholars” that I have discussed this with, one a Lutheran pastor and the other studying to be a Presbyterian minister, were both able to compartmentalize their faith separately from their academic knowledge.

They both academically said that someone kinda like Jesus inevitably existed in first-century Palestine, probably more than one, and various stories and legends grew from him/them.

They were not convinced of a single historical figure who would be recognizable as the Jesus of the Bible.

They also had faith in the existence of the Jesus of the Bible as their savior.

So that is a small bit of evidence that the faithful can do scholarship without their beliefs tarnishing the work.

 

[acbytesla]

I just want to say that the few “Biblical Scholars” that I have discussed this with, one a Lutheran pastor and the other studying to be a Presbyterian minister, were both able to compartmentalize their faith separately from their academic knowledge.
They both academically said that someone kinda like Jesus inevitably existed in first-century Palestine, probably more than one, and various stories and legends grew from him/them.

They were not convinced of a single historical figure who would be recognizable as the Jesus of the Bible.

They also had faith in the existence of the Jesus of the Bible as their savior.

So that is a small bit of evidence that the faithful can do scholarship without their beliefs tarnishing the work.

I doubt you can entirely separate their faith from their scholarship. I'm not saying that to dismiss their work. But faith is belief without evidence. Itself an irrational idea.

 

[IanS]

Well, historians are not scientists, either. Are there any actual historians who study the historicity of Jesus? I ask because as I noted you seem to simply dismiss the experts on the matter by the use of an ad hominem. So far you've not actually made the demonstration that I'm asking for.

We are not talking about "historians". The people you are claiming as "experts" are Christians who are employed as Biblical Studies teachers.

Are there any actual neutral independent historians who normally write about research into the "historicity of Jesus"? Answer is - I do not know if they are any or not. But if there are any, and if they follow Bible Scholars in presenting the bible as evidence for a Jesus who they claim is certain upon such evidence, then they too would be making a claim that is entirely unwarranted and without credible foundation.

What other "demonstration are you asking for?

Ian, you really should realise that your claim that this bias is inevitable and overwhelming is the thing I'm questioning. I do not accept that your claim, on its face, is sound. Can you demonstrate that it is, or not?

What do you mean by a "demonstration". You have asked me to explain why Bible Scholars would "inevitably be biased" in concluding that Jesus was "definitely" real, and I have explained exactly that to you in detail several times now ...

... do you want that same explanation again?

The explanation is that almost all those Bible Studies scholars who you are relying upon as "experts" whose opinions we should trust and whose conclusions we are not qualified to dispute (according to you), are lifelong practising Christians ... which means that even before they knew any detailed evidence at all from degrees in biblical studies, they were already totally comitted to a belief in Jesus, God, and the truth of the bible as their source of belief ...

... as a practising worshipping Christian, you cannot do anything else other than to insist that Jesus must have existed (if only as a mere mortal human), otherwise if as a Christian Bible Scholar you do ever finally admit that having studied all that has been offered as evidence for Jesus, you must now in all honesty conclude that he did not ever exist (or that it's quite possible that he never existed), without making a complete mockery of your position of still claiming to be a Christian believer! The two positions are completely incompatible with one another.

What other “demonstration” are you realistically demanding? Look – the situation is that we have tens of thousands of devout Christians who pursed their religious interests far enough to forge a career lecturing Biblical Studies. If you ask any of them for evidence that Jesus was a real person, every last one of them will present to you first as their primary most convincing evidence, the gospels and letters of the bible …

… but unless they are entirely blinded by their own religious faith, then they really must know that the bible is not a credible source of reliable evidence for a real “historical Jesus”. So why do they all insist on repeatedly using the bible as their evidence? Is the answer because they are all liars and frauds? I don't think so. I think they do all really believe that the bible is a fine source of the evidence. Or is it because the bible truly is a reliable source of credible factual evidence for the life of Jesus? Well … if you think the bible is such a factual reliable source then we can stop right there, because only the most deluded of the faithful could believe that. Or is it because without clearly realising it themselves, those Christian Bible Scholars have deluded themselves by such things as “Confirmation Bias” into believing that at least some scraps of vital truth about Jesus can be teased out from a huge mass of what is now known to be quite obvious, and quite unarguably, a huge pile of untrue religious miraculous myth-making?

I think it's the latter. i.e., Christian bible studies teachers are showing unintentional but nevertheless quite massive levels of delusional bias when they believe that a source such as the bible can be credibly presented as evidence sufficient to claim “Jesus definitely existed” (and that's a direct quote from Bart Ehrman, who has kept on repeating those words long after it has been pointed out to him that he really cannot truthfully make such a claim upon any known evidence).

 

[IanS]

I just want to say that the few “Biblical Scholars” that I have discussed this with, one a Lutheran pastor and the other studying to be a Presbyterian minister, were both able to compartmentalize their faith separately from their academic knowledge.

They both academically said that someone kinda like Jesus inevitably existed in first-century Palestine, probably more than one, and various stories and legends grew from him/them.

1. They were not convinced of a single historical figure who would be recognizable as the Jesus of the Bible.
2. They also had faith in the existence of the Jesus of the Bible as their savior.

So that is a small bit of evidence that the faithful can do scholarship without their beliefs tarnishing the work.

Did you not ask them why they were making those two highlighted statements (1 and 2)? Because those two statements are incompatible with one another ...

... that is - you are saying that these bible scholars all told you (1) I am not convinced that a historical Jesus existed, but (2) I am convinced Jesus existed.

Are you saying that they were only convinced of a Jesus who somehow existed only as a spiritual figure of religious belief in the bible? Because that's not a real existing figure at all ... is it?

 

[acbytesla]

Sure. I did not mean it was a neutral unbiased non-religious education (you did not think I was saying that, did you?). I'm just saying (in reply to what acbytesla said), that afaik (eg from a simple check with a Google search), from at least about 1200AD onwards, until probably at least 1700 to 1800, throughout educated parts of Christian Europe it was the churches and the religion that set up most schools ... where they no doubt taught all sorts of stuff from the bible ... afaik it's undeniable that children and adults were taught about, and did know very well, what the Christian church proclaimed as the truth from God, Jesus and the Holy Bible.

And I don't know of any substantial evidence to suggest that the general mass of the population (or indeed the priests and bishops themselves) took any other view except to believe that the bible was certainly all true.

I doubt it would exist considering what they did to non-believers. I live in the US. There is a coercive nature with religion. Even in our society and yet we're free to disbelieve. I've probably not believed in this hokum most of my life. And yet I would identify as a Christian most of that time. It was only recently that 8 began to make it clear that I think religion is bs.

The masses in Europe had little choice.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

But at what point do you accept that the evidence or argument is sufficient, if we're ignoring the experts?

When the evidence is sufficient and the techniques applied to the evidence can be demonstrated to work. And if the experts are as stupid as the hypothetical ones you asked you reject them as experts and recognize them as idiots.

Can I ignore the conclusions of physicists if I don't think the evidence for QM is sufficient? Or chemists?

Yes, you're allowed to be stupid. And it would be stupid because the evidence physicists and chemists have can be demonstrated to be sufficient and the techniques can be shown to work.

If not, why in this case can we ignore them? Do you agree with Ian that they are not actual experts? Not a single one of them? There's not a single real historian who concludes HJ?

No one has identified who these experts are other than citing less than a handful of people, none of whom are historians outside of what appears to be a very narrow discipline.

The best "evidence" cited so far for this consensus appears to be the wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Compare, I mean contrast, those two pages. On the first one, I can tell that the consensus has actually been measured and demonstrated multiple times. I can tell who was asked what, how many people were asked, and what organizations they represent.

The second one? Total crap. Three assertions that there is a consensus. A vague description of who the members of that consensus are. No explanation of who the specifically members they are, what institutions they represent, or how their opinion was determined. Clicking on the sources for those claims takes you to references that can't be verified online and the say so of three people. And you can't tell anything about how those three people formed their opinions that a consensus exists.

 

[IanS]

That's certainly true but that's a far cry from dismissing all experts on the topic as biased beyond credibility, especially without qualifying that with some sort of evidence. I think that's why Ian's now saying that they are not actual experts. It's easier to dismiss them that way.

Without checking back, I don't think I have said that Bible Scholars are not experts on what they study. Can you quote where I said that, because I don't recall that?

Nor was it me who first started to say that what I was claiming was "bias". Iirc, it was you who first described it as a claim of bias.

However, what I have said about it is this - the people that you were describing in this thread as "experts", where you then added that we are not qualified to question or disbelieve what these "experts" claim, was that the people you are talking about as the "experts" are actually Bible Studies teachers and not actually neutral mainstream independent (non-Christian) historians.

That is - the people you are talking about as experts who have written extensively about the Historicity of Jesus, are people like Bart Ehrman, E.P. Sanders, Dominic Crossan, Burton Mack, Mark Goodacre, Craig Evans etc. etc. Those people are all Bible Scholars, i.e. teachers of biblical studies. They are not neutral independent historians who amongst other things just happened to write at some point about the history of Jesus.

I have never said that people like Ehrman or Sanders or Crossan or Goodacre have not studied very deeply into the gospels and epistles, their earliest origins, the sources and the languages used etc. etc. I am sure they have read every extensively into all of that.

However what I am saying is negative or unsatisfactory, is that the material they present as evidence is completely unconvincing. And in fact, almost all of it is vastly worse than merely unconvincing – it's bordering on claims so absurd as to be quite shocking (ie claims from the bible). And that seriously undermines their credibility for what they conclude when (conveniently for them as believing Christians) they conclude that the evidence does indeed show that Jesus must have been real (just as they had always believed).

You talked about whether we should accept the authority and opinions of other experts in other fields such as physics. Well the answer is that we should accept it, providing they can show really solid testable and independently confirmed evidence for whatever they claim. But the problem in the case of Jesus is that the “expert” bible scholars cannot provide any such credible or reliable independent confirmed tested evidence of Jesus at all … and yet we are (according to you) nevertheless duty bound to accept what they say despite the complete lack of evidence … or in fact it's vastly worse than a mere complete lack of reliable evidence, because the actual position is that these “experts” are presenting material and sources as evidence when those sources and that material is the very opposite of being in any way credible as evidence to support their claim that Jesus “definitely existed” (see the footnote re. that quote, and re. what is being used as “evidence).




Footnote – the claim that Jesus certainly existed was made several times by Ehrman in his 2013 book Did Jesus Exist (DJE). But note also, in that book when Ehrman gives his position of claiming Jesus certainly existed, he widens that claim to include virtually all his academic colleagues by saying -

“Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and a teacher ...” (page 12 of DJE) …

“I agree with Schweitzer and virtually all scholars in the field since his day that Jesus existed ...” (page 14, DJE) …

“For now I want to stress the most foundational point of all … Jesus himself was not a myth, he really existed” (page 14, DJE) …

“Schweitzer himself knew full well that Jesus actually existed.” (page 13, DJE) …

“But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time. And we can know what he was like.” (page 13, DJE) …

“I will set out the evidence that has persuaded everyone else, amateur and professional alike, that Jesus really did exist” (page 34, DJE) …

“even though there are innumerable historical problems in the New Testament, they are not of the scope or character to call seriously into doubt the existence of Jesus. He certainly lived, ...” (page 37, DJE) ….

“He may have been only semi-literate, but he certainly lived” (page 37 DJE),


What is the point of me reproducing for you the exact quotes from Ehrman's book? Well I hope you don't really have to ask that, because the point is blindingly obvious and really very damming for Ehrman – what the quotes show is (a) that Ehrman was repeatedly claiming to know for certain that Jesus existed, (b) that he claims this certainty comes from evidence he finds in the bible, and (c) he says that virtually all scholars in the field agree with him about the reality and evidence showing certainty for Jesus.

Keep in mind here that Bart Ehrman is by far the best known and most widely quoted expert in this exact field of historicity of Jesus. And he is by far the most frequently quoted and claimed expert from people on the internet who say they believe Jesus was real and who dismiss all people they call “mythicist's” as not fit to have any useful opinion. Ehrman has been in this field as an academic for over 30 years, and he knows very well indeed vast numbers of colleagues in this field, i.e. the people he describes as “virtually all scholars” who he says agree with what he says about Jesus.

So what is this evidence that Ehrman has uncovered which shows Jesus to be a “certainty”? Well it's actually two things, both of which come specifically from the bible. The first is that famous half-senetence that I referred to before in one of Paul's letters where it says “other apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother”. Ehrman says that sentence means that we know Jesus had actual brothers and family, and we know that Paul had actually met one of his brothers. So he concludes that is proof that Jesus must have been real, and he says of that to his readers and/or listeners (where he gave a public reading from that book when it was first published, i.e. to a room of about 30 people in a book-store) “you would think his own brother would know if Jesus was real!” … he probably thought that was an amusing remark, but he's also telling his audience that in order to make them think “oh yes, obviously his own brother would know that for certain, and Paul actually met this brother, so any idea that Jesus was not real is clearly just some mysticist anti-Christian nonsense”.

The other piece of evidence that Ehrman claims in his book, is something that he mentioned to that audience at his book reading, where he said (just from memory, but it's on YouTube) “the other piece of evidence is too complicated to explain to you here”.

If people here really want to argue about it then we can go over yet again those claims of evidence that Ehrman gets from the bible, though we have been over it many times before, and none of it is remotely convincing except perhaps to those who are already predisposed (“biased”?) towards wishing to simply accept Ehrman as an “expert” without bothering to look seriously at what he is claiming to be such convincing reliable evidence of Jesus that he can declare it be a “certainty”.

 

[Belz...]

We are not talking about "historians".

Excuse me. YOU may not be talking about historians, but I've been talking about them exclusively. I'm sorry if you thought I was talking about some other group.

Are there any actual neutral independent historians who normally write about research into the "historicity of Jesus"? Answer is - I do not know if they are any or not.

Then you honestly have no basis for your objection.

 

[Belz...]

When the evidence is sufficient and the techniques applied to the evidence can be demonstrated to work.

But the issue is that people who have a long expertise in a field can interpret the evidence better than you. That's why we have experts in the first place -- we can't each have all of that knowledge in all fields.

So what's the difference between these experts and others? You'll say that one has the evidence and the other not, but what makes you able to determine what evidence is enough if you are not, yourself, a historian, or a physicist? At some point you have to trust some authority on these topics.

The Da Vinci Code, The Last Temptation of Christ, O Evangelio segundo Jesus Cristo... I like specially the last one.

Why can't you answer the question?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So what's the difference between these experts and others?

I quite obviously just pointed out a major difference. Obviously no point in talking to you.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Ian, you really should realise that your claim that this bias is inevitable and overwhelming is the thing I'm questioning. I do not accept that your claim, on its face, is sound. Can you demonstrate that it is, or not?

He's got you there Ian. He can cite Christianity's impeccable record on creationism.

 

[abaddon]

I'm of the opinion that a physical person who was the inspiration for Jesus may have existed, and that this is likely, but there's no solid evidence for this.

Again, discussed to death on this forum.

Yeah. This is a matter that leaves me nonplussed.

It is possible that a historical Jesus existed. Whatever that is

It is certain that a plethora of jewish apocalyptic prophets existed, so jesus could well be an amalgam of some or more of those.

It is possible that no actual jesus existed.

I care not a whit.

Nevertheless whole scads of people get bent out of shape on the issue.

I fail to see why this is so important. Or why some atheists want to wrangle that hog.

 

[Belz...]

I quite obviously just pointed out a major difference. Obviously no point in talking to you.

Well, that escalated quickly.

Obviously -- to coin a phrase -- I have an issue with the distinction you made, for the reasons I mentioned, and that's why I'm digging further. It's like you didn't actually read my response. So I'll expand:

None of us have the time to be experts in everything. That's why in almost every case we trust authorities on a particular topic to be able to tell us how things work -- mechanics, doctors, physicists, historians, nail salon employees, you name it. We can read a few books on a topic but we'll not spend years of our lives to match the experts, because we simply don't have the time or the inclination. But if we trust the experts to know more than we do, then it's _they_, not us, who determine what's good evidence, and what the consensus is. Now, here you're saying that these experts are not experts because their evidence is BS. That would imply that experts in a field are actually not the ones who determine what's good evidence. So who does? Every one of us, regardless of our credentials? Sure, to a degree, but not to match their experience for sure. And such a position would make us all into mini-experts who can just hand-wave away any actual experts into any number of fields if we, individually, feel that the evidence is not up to our standards. See the issue? The only way to avoid a bit of circular reasoning is to essentially deny the very concept of experts. I take a bit of issue with that, which is why I reject your proposal. There must be something else that differentiates experts from non-experts.

He's got you there Ian. He can cite Christianity's impeccable record on creationism.

Yeah because if it's not entirely and completely unreliable, it's got to be impeccable, right? No other option. No, sir.

Talk about a false dichotomy! I don't know why this topic summons such strong feelings in you that you need to lie and twist the truth to get your way. How about you dispassionately discuss this instead? I'm requesting this because I'm concerned that you can't set aside your biases when it comes to this topic. Gee, where have I heard that before?