Historical Jesus

[IanS]

Ian's been asking me both: evidence of a consensus, and evidence for HJ. The latter's outside of what I want to discuss here, and the former has been defined out of existence.



Well, there is some extra-biblical stuff, but not for Jesus directly. In oany case, that we individually are convinced or not about the evidence that exists, weak as it is, is irrelevant to the larger point I'm trying to make.

.


Re. the highlight - actually No!! ... check back and see if you can quote where I have ever asked you to a show a "consensus" ... because I don't think I have never asked you for that!

I am not interested in any "consensus". I am only interested in whether anyone has produced genuine compelling evidence to show Jesus was probably real. That's all.

But because it was you who said real “Historians” exist as what you called “the Experts” in this subject, I asked you to tell us who any of those individuals are and what they were using as their source for evidence sufficient to conclude that Jesus was real. And your response to that has been a total refusal to produce any of it.

 

[Belz...]

That's fair enough but you (and others) arrived at the conclusion that it is more likely than not. So it's a legitimate question to ask what sources of information you (and they) have used to reach that conclusion, true?

Yes, but that would send us into a weeks-long discussion and, to be frank, I've participated in numerous threads on the topic before so I know I don't want, right now, to get into it. And the other reason is that I know Ian isn't convinced by said evidence, and we both know what the evidence is, so there's no point in going through it again.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole thing seems to collapse down to the fact that we can be pretty sure Christians existed around the time of Christ and it seems unlikely that they would have existed had there not been some kind of person that sort of fits the bill of Jesus?

That's part of the reasoning, sure. That from what we know of the time and of religions in general, a founder is more likely. More likely, that is, not certain by any means.

No, we don't. And I just gave an example of where we don't. CAM.

I must've misunderstood your point, then. What's "CAM"?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This is one of the lines of reasoning for why Jesus probably existed. The Gospels are so clearly written to make seem like Jesus was fulfilling prophecy. If he were just fictional, it would have been a lot more....cohesive story. Things like the trip to Bethleham and the Roman census are mean to shoe horn a Nazerene into the old testament prophecies. If you were just going to make it up, you'd start with a family from Bethleham. There's some other stuff like that off course.

This is the kind of analysis that I find problematic as it is just guesswork about what a writer would do and nothing more. I mean you could just as easily argue that a clever writer would make it incoherent so as to make it appear not to have been faked.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I must've misunderstood your point, then. What's "CAM"?

Ah sorry that might be the confusion. Complementary and Alternative Medicine

 

[Belz...]

I am not interested in any "consensus".

Well, that's very unfortunate because that was the crux of my whole purpose here.

This is one of the lines of reasoning for why Jesus probably existed. The Gospels are so clearly written to make seem like Jesus was fulfilling prophecy. If he were just fictional, it would have been a lot more....cohesive story. Things like the trip to Bethleham and the Roman census are mean to shoe horn a Nazerene into the old testament prophecies. If you were just going to make it up, you'd start with a family from Bethleham. There's some other stuff like that off course.

There's a school of thought that Jesus was first a mythical being who was then made into a man and then back into God incarnate. While that's certainly possible, we don't even have a narrative for that, and Occam makes short work of that hypothesis as a consequence.

Re. the highlight - actually No!! ... check back and see if you can quote where I have ever asked you to a show a "consensus" ... because I don't think I have never asked you for that!

May have confused you with Yuppy.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's part of the reasoning, sure. That from what we know of the time and of religions in general, a founder is more likely. More likely, that is, not certain by any means.

Is this true?

I mean we know there are Jews but we are fairly certain that there is no Moses, Abraham, etc

And how is this any different than saying that we know a historical Sherlock Holmes existed because there were detectives in London around 1900

 

[Belz...]

Ah sorry that might be the confusion. Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Ah, gotcha. Well, in this case we have other experts in the same fields telling us that CAM is wrong. It's not like you and I made the double-blind tests or anything. What other historical experts are contesting the HJ hypothesis?

This is the kind of analysis that I find problematic as it is just guesswork about what a writer would do and nothing more. I mean you could just as easily argue that a clever writer would make it incoherent so as to make it appear not to have been faked.

Yeah but that's also guesswork that the writer would know what would be credible to historians 2000 years later. I think that in some cases, some of the things in the stories make more sense if there was an underlying truth to them. An obvious example is the birth in Bethlehem, and another is Paul's claim of clashing with the disciples over dogma. There's little reason for those twists in the story unless there was something already present at the time that the story's trying to match with.

 

[Belz...]

Is this true?

I can only speak for myself, here.

I mean we know there are Jews but we are fairly certain that there is no Moses, Abraham, etc

Do we? There are no writings from that time.

 

[IanS]

First of all: inadmissible according to who?

Also:
Do you think that people who have spent decades studying and working professionally in a field know better than you or I what constitutes evidence in favour or against a hypothesis relating to that field?

"Inadmissible" to any neutral honest objective observer. Because the bible is discredited throughout by it's constant claims of the witnesses confirming all manner of impossible miracles.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the bible is a credible source of reliable factual evidence for the life of Jesus??

It took nearly 2000 years after the time of Jesus, before the advent/development of science got to the point of showing beyond all credible doubt that such miracles are simply untrue myth ... and the problem with the bible is that the people cited there as the witnesses to all that Jesus ever did, are the ones who are so totally unreliable as to have been making claims of constantly witnessing the impossible miracles. That makes all the gospels inadmissible by virtue of being proved to be filled from end-to-end with untrue accounts of Jesus.

Do you want me to explain to you yet again why the letters of Paul are also not admissible as evidence of a real living Jesus ever known to Paul or known to anyone else named in those Pauline Epistles?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Ah, gotcha. Well, in this case we have other experts in the same fields telling us that CAM is wrong. It's not like you and I made the double-blind tests or anything. What other historical experts are contesting the HJ hypothesis?

Well we have other experts in different fields. But there are many doctors who will concur that CAM works also. And by the methods of CAM and the experts within the field it possibly does. But we agree that we don't think those methods are credible and we have the double-blind test to provide a better method.

Is there a double-blind equivalent for the HJ hypothesis? I don't think there is.

And as I said earlier, yes I think the fact that there aren't many historians contesting the HJ hypothesis does suggest that at least there is no strong objection to it. But it could be also that they don't care.

Yeah but that's also guesswork that the writer would know what would be credible to historians 2000 years later. I think that in some cases, some of the things in the stories make more sense if there was an underlying truth to them. An obvious example is the birth in Bethlehem, and another is Paul's claim of clashing with the disciples over dogma. There's little reason for those twists in the story unless there was something already present at the time that the story's trying to match with.

Yes, it's guesswork. But I think when you have competing sets of guesswork the correct conclusion is 'we don't know' rather than 'this guess seems more plausible to me'

 

[IanS]

Well, that's very unfortunate because that was the crux of my whole purpose here.

Well then perhaps you'd like to apologise to me!? Because as you now realise, I have never asked you (or anyone else) for, or about, any such "consensus", and you have spent the last however many pages trying to berate me for something that you now realise I have never said or done at all !!

 

[David Mo]

But we don't just accept the word of experts in other fields. I can find you a consensus of CAM experts to tell you it works and you won't believe them either. I think it's legitimate in that case to ask 'hmm... what do actual doctors think rather than those with a vested interest in the conclusion?' so when it comes to HJ I think its also valid to ask 'what do actual historians think rather than Theologians?'

If the response to the enquiry on CAM was 'why are you ignoring the consensus of the CAM experts in the field? You are defining away their expertise' would you take it seriously as a legitimate counter?

There's a fundamental difference. CAM practice interferes with regulated medicine. The theme of the historical Jesus functions outside the circuits of ancient history (to mention the closest part of normal history). And I tell you this because I know something about ancient history and the "historical Jesus". Do you think it would take a special branch of the history of Rome and specialized faculties to study the "historical Julius Caesar"? Just saying it sounds like laughter.

And, of course, the issue of consensus on the historical Jesus is almost an obligatory argument in articles and books about "it". It is something similar to the subject of the historicity of David's Kingdom. Historians who hold the sacred book in one hand and pretend to make history with the other. History and religion mixed. Bad marriage.

Therefore, if the skeptics of the historical Jesus bring up the issue of what an authentic historian is, it is because historian-theologians wield the supposed consensus as irrefutable argument. We act in self-defense.

 

[Belz...]

"Inadmissible" to any neutral honest objective observer.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Who determines what is admissible or not? Are you a neutral, honest and objective observer? Are any of us? If not, perhaps a body of experts on the subject of history would be better suited, no? That way their opinions would be averaged out.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the bible is a credible source of reliable factual evidence for the life of Jesus??

Didn't you ask me that question yesterday? Did I not respond in the negative? Did I not point out that this is a misrepresentation of what constitutes evidence for HJ? So why do you ask again?

 

[Belz...]

Well then perhaps you'd like to apologise to me!? Because as you now realise, I have never asked you (or anyone else) for, or about, any such "consensus"

Some day you'll have to explain why you get so excited by such an academic discussion. It's like you have high stakes in it.

I already said that I probably had you confused with Yuppy. That's retraction enough.

you have spent the last however many pages trying to berate me for something that you now realise I have never said or done at all !!

I _once_ stated this. That doesn't constitute many pages. Why misrepresent the facts?

 

[Belz...]

Well we have other experts in different fields. But there are many doctors who will concur that CAM works also.

Yes, but what is the general consensus of doctors and health pros on this?

Is there a double-blind equivalent for the HJ hypothesis?

That... that wasn't my point. The point was that you and I are not knowledgeable much in the field of medecine. As such we might not recognise things that the experts see as evidence.

Yes, it's guesswork. But I think when you have competing sets of guesswork the correct conclusion is 'we don't know' rather than 'this guess seems more plausible to me'

As stated earlier, history doesn't work like the hard sciences.

 

[IanS]

Yes, but that would send us into a weeks-long discussion and, to be frank, I've participated in numerous threads on the topic before so I know I don't want, right now, to get into it. And the other reason is that I know Ian isn't convinced by said evidence and we both know what the evidence is, so there's no point in going through it again.

I don't think you are “convinced by the said evidence” either, are you?

Rather, I expect you are probably taking the view that whilst no individual argument or piece of evidence is really “convincing”, nevertheless you find some of it (probably just a tiny minority of it?) that sounds credible as a description of a real person (i.e. Jesus), actually known to some of these biblical figures, is that right?

For example, see your following in reply to Archie Gemmill -

Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole thing seems to collapse down to the fact that we can be pretty sure Christians existed around the time of Christ and it seems unlikely that they would have existed had there not been some kind of person that sort of fits the bill of Jesus?

That's part of the reasoning, sure. That from what we know of the time and of religions in general, a founder is more likely. More likely, that is, not certain by any means.

Here (above) you are not so much saying that there is anything actually “convincing”, but that you are really saying that you cannot think of a better explanation for the existence of people that came to be called “Christians” unless there was really a person such as Jesus as the founder, right? That's what your reply to Archie says there.

But, that (as I pointed out to Scorpion before), is a type of logical fallacy known as “The Argument from Incredulity”. That is – it's a known fallacious, i.e. mistaken and invalid argument, to say that just because you can't think of a better explanation, therefore you decide it's true that a real person was needed in order for people to form a religious group that were later called “Christians”.

And the reason that such arguments are a fallacy, is because there are numerous ways in which such religious groups could form around the idea of a completely mythical deity.

Do you want me to set those out for you? Can you not easily think of them yourself?

 

[Belz...]

I don't think you are “convinced by the said evidence” either, are you?

I'm leaning towards bare historicity i.e. that a person or persons were the inspiration for the story, based on the sum total of what we know about said story, the period, the people, religion in general, humans, etc. You find that no credible evidence exists for that. Fair?

But, that (as I pointed out to Scorpion before), is a type of logical fallacy known as “The Argument from Incredulity”. That is – it's a known fallacious, i.e. mistaken and invalid argument, to say that just because you can't think of a better explanation, therefore you decide it's true that a real person was needed in order for people to form a religious group that were later called “Christians”.

That's not really what the fallacy is about, however. Regardless, it's not that I can't find a better explanation -- after all, it's not for me to determine what explanations there may be -- but rather than it's the explanation that, to me, best fits the facts, if only by a relatively small margin.

And the reason that such arguments are a fallacy, is because there are numerous ways in which such religious groups could form around the idea of a completely mythical deity.

I find that they are not all equally likely.

 

[llwyd]

The study of ancient history is actually bloody difficult: you have very sparse sources, you need to understand long dead languages often in very damaged forms and you have to use a very sophisticated methodology combining many specialities and fields of study. If you read papers and books on any particular ancient subject you will amazed at the skill and learning of historians. The scholarly consensus - as well as the common sense Occamist view - is that the mythological biblical Jesus is based on an actual charismatic preacher of whose real life and deeds very little is known. We mostly know the legend, not the life. I really wonder at the various amateurs who want to insist otherwise - I think they have somewhat irrational and unacademic motivations.

 

[acbytesla]

I already said that 60% was NOT a hard figure arrived via calculations but just an expression of how my I leant towards that conclusion. Please don't give the impression that it means anything more. Hell, even acbytestla, who disagrees with me on this issue, is at 70%.

Yea, but admittedly I pulled that figure from my ass. There really is no way to set a probability. What we know is there are writings about someone named Jesus and nothing more.

 

[Belz...]

Yea, but admittedly I pulled that figure from my ass.

So did I. From my ass, I mean, not yours. Which is why I find it odd that it's brought up as if it were a hard number.