Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

What you say does not mean Bible Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

I've never said he was. Merely that it is more probable that there was an historical figure at the core of X'tianity than a completely invented character.

You still will never ever be able to provide any historical evidence to support your assumed probability.

Your imagination is not historical evidence.

It is completely reasonable to argue that Bible Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of fiction based on the existing evidence.

In that case you have to explain why, at this particular moment in history the Jesus movement began.

My argument is that the Jesus story and cult are all post c 70 CE or after the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

It was the Fall of the Jewish Temple that triggered conspiracy theories by non-Jews using Hebrew Scripture as supposed prophecies about the coming of the Messiah.

It was claimed that the Jewish prophesied Messianic ruler must have already come before the Fall of the Temple and that the reason for the fall of the Temple was because the Jews killed their Messiah.

This is documented in Christian writings of antiquity.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0503.htm

Hippolytus Expository Treatise Against the Jews

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?

Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf?
Was it on account of the idolatry of the people?
Was it for the blood of the prophets?
Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel?

By no means, he says; for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation.

For Daniel says, that both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.
And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His.

All NT stories of Jesus are written after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Nobody is arguing that thousands of people were X'tians. The movement, like most movements, began very small.

You still cannot and never will present any historical evidence to show that the Jesus cult started before c 70 CE whether or not the Jesus cult was initially a small movement.

Bible Jesus, his family, the apostles, Paul and the supposed thousands of Jewish believers in Acts of the Apostles are all undocumented.

None of them can be found in any historical writings from c27-110CE.

Jesus as god is a concept that evolved over several centuries as the Doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. three persons in one god) and the Hypostatic Union (i.e. Jesus as fully god and fully man) was formulated.

Your claim is baseless.

In the earliest NT fables of Jesus of Nazareth the character was the son of God.

Mark 1:11

And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mark 9:7

And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him

Jesus of Nazareth was always a non-historical character, a water-walking, transfiguring and resurrecting Son of God.

 

[Jerrymander]

In the quest to find such an external connection, what we do have so far does not look like it supports the conventional early dates. In fact it points toward everything in the story having happened a few decades later than is usually said.

• Jesus is supposed to have been crucified in 33, but secular sources indicate a period from 4 to 44 with no crucifixions.
  [*]He was included among a group identified as rebels against Rome (often mistranslated as "robbers", which wasn't a crucifying offense like rebellion was), but rebellion against Rome wasn't an early-30s thing.
• His story resembles a couple of guys Josephus wrote about, but their stories happened in the 60s (maybe 50s for one of them).
• Other minor side-points that don't affect the main plot of the story much & don't get noticed much but are in there, such as the civil unrest over a mob attack on a man named Stefanus, also look like equivalent stories that are found in secular sources, but, again, those are dated to decades later than the Biblical counterparts are usually said to have happened.
• I think one New Testament book claims that Paul met Nero, but Nero was such a classic icon of pure evil to Christians for the first few centuries that meeting him is exactly the kind of story that would be added as an embellishment whether the rest of the story it got added to was true or not.
• The New Testament's Jesus story also includes several details about the history & culture of the years 1-33 that are so wildly wrong and unrealistic that they wouldn't have been accepted so soon after the times they were supposed to have happened in. These include, for example, the census (ordered by the wrong Emperor and involving travel which it wouldn't and couldn't have involved based on thousand-year genealogies which nobody had), the behavior of Pilate and the crowd at crucifixion, and the slaughter of Palestine's male babies & toddlers. You couldn't get away with trying to sell such stories for the first few generations after the alleged events because everybody would think "Wait, I've heard my parents/grandparents/great-grandparents who were around at the time talking about life back then, and that's not what they said happened". So the fact that these tales got accepted anyway indicates that they weren't being told that way until a safely long interval afterward, when audiences could think of them as part of a distant past that they had no other contact with and no way to refute.
• The New Testament has Saul persecuting Christians at a time when they weren't really having anything in particular done to them. The earliest historical era in which Roman power came down on them in any form is the Jewish rebellion in the late 60s, which, again, would put everything a few decades later than it's usually said to be.
• Speaking of the Jewish revolt: the New Testament books that are usually said to have been written after it don't react to it at all; the before & after books show no difference as if they'd been written before & after such an upheaval. That makes perfect sense, but only if it didn't need to be referred to as a separate new thing from the Jesus story because it wasn't a separate new thing; it's what they were already talking about in the first place so none were written before it.

That tells me that the writing of the books, like the entire rest of this story, happened a few decades later than the usual consensus. A sound case for the usual standard dating will need to give us more to go on than just "well, it's what they all say". It will need to make the case for why they say that.

Those are strange statements. Josephus mentions Pilate clashing with rebellious Jews during his reign, which was 26-36 AD.

 

[dejudge]

........Jesus is supposed to have been crucified in 33, but secular sources indicate a period from 4 to 44 with no crucifixions...

Actually, in Josephus' 'Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.4, the very next paragraph after the forgery in AJ 18.3.3 [Testmonium Flavianum] it is claimed about the same time Pilate was governor c27-37CE Isis Priests and a freed woman named Ide were crucified in Rome.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm
Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.4

.... So he discovered the fact to the emperor; whereupon Tiberius inquired into the matter thoroughly by examining the priests about it, and ordered them to be crucified, as well as Ide, who was the occasion of their perdition, and who had contrived the whole matter, which was so injurious to the woman.

 

[maximara]

Do you guys see the lengths you are going to defend your faith in the Mythical Jesus?

You have condemned an entire branch of Academic Study as completely biased. They have to be, right? Otherwise they would agree with all the internet experts who spent a few hours watching youtube videos, instead of relying on years of tedious study...

You keep demanding a different standard for Jesus than for anyone else, why? Are you worried that if he existed as some kind of charismatic preacher, that it would be evidence for the truth of Christianity? Why?

Did you even read Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ and followed the related links?

From the related Jesus much Theory article:

"There is more evidence for Jesus than for X"
When discussing the evidence for Jesus' existence, a common claim made by apologists is that there is "more evidence for Jesus than X".[244]
[...]
While it is is impossible to cover all the ancient figures and events Jesus has been compared to there are a few popular ones that show just how shaky the position really is (It should be noted that this sometimes mixed with the more accurate than Homer argument).

*Sun Tzu (Sun Wu) (544–496 BCE?): his very existence is debated in scholarly circles [246] despite reference in the Records of the Grand Historian and Spring and Autumn Annals which used earlier official records that haven't survived.

*Confucius (Kong Qiu) (551–479 BCE): the Records of the Grand Historian used archives and imperial records as source material (which themselves have not survived). Its author Sima Qian noted the problems with incomplete, fragmentary, and contradictory sources stating in the 18th volume of the 180-volume work "I have set down only what is certain, and in doubtful cases left a blank." Moreover, Kong Qiu was the governor of a town in Lu and ultimately held the positions of Minister of Public Works and then Minister of Crime for the whole Lu state, not exactly minor positions one could create a fictitious person to fill.

*Leukippos (shadowy nearly legendary figure of early 5th century BCE): very existence doubted by Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE).[247]
Socrates (c469 – 399 BCE): written about by contemporaries Plato, Xenophon (430 – 354 BCE) and Aristophanes (c446 – 386 BCE).

*Plato (428 – 347 BCE): written about by contemporaries Aristotle (384 – 322 BC), Xenophon, and Aristophanes.

*Alexander the Great (July 20, 356 – June 11, 323 BCE)[248]: official historian Callisthenes of Olynthus, generals Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Aristobulus and helmsman Onesicritus were all contemporaries who wrote about Alexander. While their works were eventually lost, later works that used them as source material were not. Additionally there are known contemporary accounts that survive: Isocrates, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Hyperides, Dinarchus, Theocritus, Theophrastus, and Menander.[249] And on top of all that there are the contemporary inscriptions and coins.

*Hannibal (247 – 182 BCE): Written about by Silenus, a paid Greek historian who Hannibal brought with him on his journeys to write an account of what took place, and Sosylus of Lacedaemon who wrote seven volumes on the war itself. Never mind the contemporary Carthaginian coins and engraved bronze tablets.

*Julius Caesar (July 100 – 15 March 44 BCE): Not only do we have the writing of contemporaries Cato the Younger and Cicero but Julius Caesar's own writings as well (Commentarii de Bello Gallico a.k.a. The Gallic Wars and Commentarii de Bello Civili a.k.a. The Civil War). Then you have the contemporary coins, statues and monuments.

*Pontius Pilate (unknown – c 37 CE): Some apologists try to imply that people at one time thought this person didn't exist. In reality, no evidence of anyone having ever stated that Pontius Pilate didn't exist could be found.[250] In fact, known contemporary Philo does mention Pontius Pilate in what survives of Embassy to Gaius (c.40 CE) and near contemporary Josephus describes in detail several conflicts that Pilate had with his Jewish subjects.

*Apollonius of Tyana (c15 CE – c100 CE): Often referred to as the "Pagan Christ". Fragments of Apollonius' own writings are part of the Harvard University Press edition of The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (1912) ISBN-13: 978-0674990180 as documented in Carrier's Kook article. Interestingly some people are suggesting that the Gospels are actually based on Apollonius' exploits though there are some obvious problems with this idea (key of which is Paul was writing about a dead and resurrected Jesus about 40 years before Apollonius died.

*Boadicea (d. 60 CE): Tacitus himself would have been a 5-year old boy when she poisoned herself c. 60 CE, making him contemporary to her. Furthermore, his father-in-law Gnaeus Julius Agricola served under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus during the revolt. So Tacitus was not only an actual contemporary, but he had access to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus' records and an actual eyewitness.

*Muhammad (570 – c. June 8, 632 CE): Contrary to the picture some apologists like to paint, there are non-Muslim references by people who would have been contemporary with Muhammad. The earliest is the personal notes of an unnamed monk c. 636 CE mixed in with his copying of the gospels which mentions that "many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives"[251] and in 661 CE Sebeos writes about Mụhammad and is believed to be an eyewitness to many of the events he recorded. As if that wasn't enough, the Quran and other writings about Muhammad can be traced to identifiable people who actually were with him during his lifetime (as in the case of Alexander the Great).[252]

Now compare those to Jesus:

The only known possible contemporary is Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) who not only writes some 20 years after the events but seems more intent on the Jesus in his own head than any Jesus who actually preached in Galilee. In fact, even though in his own account Paul meets "James, brother of the Lord" we get no details of Jesus' life, not even references to the famous sermons or miracles. And in any case, Paul never met or even saw Jesus in person.
The Gospels are anonymous documents written sometime between 70 CE to 140 CE and there are no references to any of them until the early 2nd century.
"A viable theory of historicity for Jesus must therefore instead resemble a theory of historicity for Apollonius of Tyana or Musonin Rufus or Judas the Galilean (to list a few very famous men who escaped the expected record more or less the same degree Jesus did.)"[253]

In his article "So What About Caligula? How Do You Know HE Existed!?"[254] Richard Carrier demonstrated the total non sequitur of these arguments with N.T. Wright's comparison of the material regarding Jesus being on par with Caligula. Saying the evidence for these two people is not even in the same ballpark is generous; more realistically they aren't even in the same solar system in terms of evidence. Carrier concludes this blog with "All that this shows is how incompetent and irrational defenders of historicity are. Incompetent, because a real historian would know these claims weren’t true, or know they’d better check first (and thus would discover they aren’t true, before saying they are). And irrational, because they have no grasp of how evidence works or that they should check, yet feel the desperate need to hyperbolically assert total confidence in completely ridiculous things."

Holocaust comparison
Or, how to scrape the bottom of a barrel in the stupidest way possible.
Comparing the quality of Jesus to that of any major person after the invention of the printing press in the west (1436) is bad enough but when people compare denying Jesus as a historical person to Holocaust denial[255][256][257][258][259][260] they are either ignorant of just how much material evidence there is for the Holocaust or are making a strawman...and simultaneously flirting with Godwin's Law.

For the record there were 3,000 tons of truly contemporary (i.e. between 1938-1945) records presented at the 1945-1946 Nuremberg Trials.[261] The 1958 finding aids (eventually the index to the Holocaust evidence) was 62 volumes--just 4 books shy of the number of books (66) traditionally in the entire Bible! Then between 1958 and 2000 they added another 30 volumes, bringing the total to 92.[262]

It is an emotional argument and a totally unfair one as Jesus to the best of our knowledge never had the quantity or quality of evidence that shows the Holocaust happened.

 

[Brainache]

Did you even read Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ and followed the related links?

No. Why would I? I've already read all I need on the subject.

From the related Jesus much Theory article:

It is an emotional argument and a totally unfair one as Jesus to the best of our knowledge never had the quantity or quality of evidence that shows the Holocaust happened.

Well of course not. We don't have evidence like that for anything in the ancient world. The fact remains that we have as much evidence for Jesus as we do for many other ancient individuals whose historicity is unquestioned.

You guys want to change the rules for Jesus. Why?

Is it because you think he is special somehow? Why?

 

[maximara]

No. Why would I? I've already read all I need on the subject.

All you think you need.

Well of course not. We don't have evidence like that for anything in the ancient world.

But that is what the pro historical Jesus crowd is claiming. Since they are, as you admit, claiming something that is insane nonsense then they're very premise (Jesus reasonable recognizable) is on shaky ground. QED.

The fact remains that we have as much evidence for Jesus as we do for many other ancient individuals whose historicity is unquestioned.

As I showed with the examples that is untrue unless you assume that the NT material is so historical mythical that it is effectively useless as a reference.

You guys want to change the rules for Jesus. Why?

You're projecting. If the existence of Sun Tzu, a person whose written work (The Art of War) you can hold in your hand and was documented by a paid historian using now lost official documents, as a historical person is questioned then it logically follows that Jesus, who has evidence that when you can cross check with known historical event either blows up or requires special pleasing, should be in the same wheelhouse (ie of questionable historical existence).

Is it because you think he is special somehow? Why?

That is the position of the pro historical Jesus camp not the Christ Myth theory camp which has the following range:
*Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community. (Effectively Dupuis' position)
*The Christ myth may be a form of modern docetism.[7]
*Jesus agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical.[8]
*Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.[9][10] (Effectively Volney's position)
*The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.[11][12]
*Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.[13][14]
*The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this.[15] Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price and Eddy-Boyd,[16] while Richard Carrier has used them as examples of an ahistorical Jesus.[17]
*Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."[18] A Jesus who died of old age, only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups, or was killed outside the 26-36 CE reign of Pontius Pilate would fit under this version.
*The Christ myth is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition.[19] For Ehrman a Jesus who existed but didn't found Christianity would be a "mythical" Jesus.[20] (This would make Remsburg's position "mythic" even though he accepted Jesus existed as a human being because Remsburg believed Jesus preached a form of Judaism which was turned into Christianity by his followers. It would also make Isræl Knohl's Jesus who used ideas and the followers from a previous 1st BCE messiah "mythical".)
*"This view [Christ Myth theory] states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."[21][22] Remsburg held to the idea that Jesus the man existed (in some manner) but the various accounts that survive tell us nothing truly historical about that person. There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes" -- George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories, as told, are almost certainly fictional in nature.
*Christ myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."[23]
*Jesus actually existed "but had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity"[24] In other words Jesus either took over an already existing Christian movement or his movement was turned into Christianity after he died. Michael O. Wise, points to a messiah in 72 BCE[25] while Israel Knohl points to a messiah who died 4 BCE[26] who could have left movements in their wake that Jesus directed into what became Christianity by the 2nd century.

See those little numbers? They are called references.

 

[Brainache]

All you think you need.




But that is what the pro historical Jesus crowd is claiming. Since they are, as you admit, claiming something that is insane nonsense then they're very premise (Jesus reasonable recognizable) is on shaky ground. QED.

I'm not claiming that. No one in this thread who is arguing for the HJ has made that claim. I have no doubt that you can find a quote of some pro HJ guy saying something like that somewhere, but so what? It is not now nor has it ever been part of the debate on this thread.

As I showed with the examples that is untrue unless you assume that the NT material is so historical mythical that it is effectively useless as a reference.

Re the bold: What does that mean? Are you saying that Scholars are unable to glean useful information through critical analysis of these texts?

You're projecting.
...

See those little numbers? They are called references.

We've been through this before. Richard Carrier is useless (see GDon's demolition of his central premise in this very thread).

And the rest of your list seems to be an attempt to redefine the mainstream concept of the HJ as "Mythical," because he was just a mortal and not a divine being as described in the gospel.

You are arguing for a HJ, but calling it MJ for some unknown reason.

 

[maximara]

Re the bold: What does that mean? Are you saying that Scholars are unable to glean useful information through critical analysis of these texts?

If you had followed the link instead of going into Know Nothing mode you would know the answer.

A Historical myth is "a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical." (The author seems to be saying that real history got mixed with ancient concepts of the Supernatural and the divine. The story may be essentially true or largely legend and largely untrue.)

0We've been through this before. Richard Carrier is useless (see GDon's demolition of his central premise in this very thread).

The only thing in that list that involved Carrier was the bolded part of this:
"The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this.[15] Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price and Eddy-Boyd,[16] while Richard Carrier has used them as examples of an ahistorical Jesus.[17]"

And the rest of your list seems to be an attempt to redefine the mainstream concept of the HJ as "Mythical," because he was just a mortal and not a divine being as described in the gospel.

I am not attempting anything. That is how the referenced works define Christ Myth Theory and yes it is total FUBARed mess. Please note that some of the definitions come from the Pro historical Jesus camp. What is a real hoot is how Albert Schweitzer grouped Sir James George Frazer ("My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth") and John M. Robertson was grouped with those "who contested the historical existence of Jesus"

One of the biggest problems is thanks to Volney and Dupuis having different views regarding the Christ myth the term (be it "Jesus myth theory", "Christ myth theory", or "Ahistorical Jesus") includes ideas that accept Jesus existed as a human being. The terms of "myth", "historical" and "fiction" are no help either as what exactly they mean varies from author to author. In fact the very term "historical Jesus" has a huge spectrum of hypothesis. Touched on by Remsberg in 1909,[note 15] by Rudolf Bultmann in 1941 (and used by Richard Carrier in 2014[171]), and reiterated by Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall in 2004,[172] the two ends of this range (the italicized clarifiers are from Marshall) are:

1) Reductive theory (Remsburg's Jesus of Nazareth): "Jesus was an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a religious movement and copious legends about him" rather than being a totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Doctor Who
2) Triumphalist theory (Remsburg's Jesus of Bethlehem): "The Gospels are totally or almost totally true" rather than being works of imagination like those of King Arthur.

Of course if the Hisotiral Jesus position has a range then its counter, the Christ Myth Theory, has a similar range. Which was demonstrated by the list of positions originally provided.

You are arguing for a HJ, but calling it MJ for some unknown reason.

Again it is not me but how others have defined the term "Christ Myth Theory" form its very inception with "For Ehrman a Jesus who existed but didn't found Christianity would be a "mythical" Jesus" one such example. It isn't my definition by that of a I]Pro[/I] historical Jesus scholar.

The linked article stated:

Discounting the idea that docetism is part of the Christ myth, the concept goes back to the 1790s with the ideas of Constantin-François VolneyWikipedia and of Charles-François DupuisWikipedia.

However, Volney and Dupuis did not agree on a definition of the Christ myth. Dupuis held that there was no human being involved in the New Testament account, which he saw as an intentional extended allegory of solar myths. Volney, on the other hand, allowed for confused memories of an obscure historical figure to be integrated in a mythology that compiled organically.[2] So from nearly the get-go the modern Christ Myth theory had two parallel lines of thought:

1. There was no human being behind the person portrayed in the New Testament.
2. Confused memories of an obscure historical figure became woven into the mythology.
For the most part, the no human being behind the New Testament version is presented as the Christ myth theory, ignoring Volney's confused memories of an obscure historical figure version.

In fact, as the John Frum cargo cult shows, even in as short a time as some 11 years after a message starts being noticed by unbelievers, the question of the founder being an actual person or a renamed existing deity is already unclear[3] and in a few more years the oral tradition has forgotten the possible human founder (illiterate native named Manehivi who caused trouble using that name from 1940 to 1941 and was exiled from his island as a result) and replaced him with a version (literate white US serviceman who appeared to the village elders in a vision on February 15, late 1930s) better suited to the cult.[4][5]

In the Jesus Myth Theory page there is this:

In contrast, people who accept that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood man have been called Christ mythers. The most infamous of these was Sir James George Frazer[10] ("My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth"),[11] who along with John M. Robertson was grouped with those "who contested the historical existence of Jesus" by no less than Albert Schweitzer[12][13]

Regarding John] Robertson's position:
"[John] Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one, having contributed something to the Gospel story. "A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs" (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels.[29]

1) The Jesus of the Talmud, who was stoned and hanged over a century before the traditional date of the crucifixion, may really have existed and have contributed something to the tradition.
2) An historical Jesus may have "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and thereby met his death"[30]; and Christian writers concerned to conciliate the Romans may have suppressed the facts.
3) Or a Galilean faith-healer with a local reputation may have been slain as a human sacrifice at some time of social tumult; and his story may have got mixed up with the myth.
4) The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [Jesus existing as a actual person]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"[18]

 

[maximara]

It's only really in the last 100 years or so that educated people have understood why modern science has shown that such miracles are probably an impossibility, and that none of those Jesus stories in the bible could have actually happened.

So is that evidence against the reality of Jesus? Well, in a way it is. And it's fairly direct way too. It's very clear evidence that the Jesus stories were invented ... people made them up.

First the Christ Myth Theory goes back to the 1790s in France but you are forgiven as it really didn't get to critical mass in the English speaking world until the later half of the 19th century.

Second, you really can't prove a negative. I use what I call Kusche's Parrot:
"Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid and if they have left anything out."

Finally, when you sit down with the evidence of a Historical Jesus and cross check it against actual known social political events it spectacularly blows up. And that is when it doesn't conflict with actual history.

The quality is so problematic that some scholars even go as far as to move Herod the Great's death to 1 BC despite Josephus leaving three temporal markers that clearly sets Herod's death in 4 BC.

The efforts by many scholars to get Luke and Mathew to agree would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic and counter to how the historical method is to be used.

Let's face it the Jesus didn't exist as a human being at all part of the Christ Myth theory wouldn't have the traction it does if the scholarship was good and when the layman can figure out that it isn't that good you know you have a problem.

 

[dejudge]

.........
4) The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [Jesus existing as a actual person]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"[18]

There is no historical evidence to trace Christianity to an actual human being named Jesus of Nazareth who supposedly lived during and died in the time of Pilate 27-37 CE.

There is no evidence that any writing in NT are historical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul.

The argument that Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of fiction cannot be overturned.

 

[Tassman]

There is no historical evidence to trace Christianity to an actual human being named Jesus of Nazareth who supposedly lived during and died in the time of Pilate 27-37 CE.

There is no evidence that any writing in NT are historical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul.

The argument that Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of fiction cannot be overturned.

This really is getting tiresome. You persistently misrepresent the argument. NO-ONE is arguing that the divine, miracle-working Jesus of the gospels existed. Merely that the probability is that, given the Jesus movement began at a particular time in history, it was grounded in an actual mortal man, albeit NOT the divine being as described in the gospel.

Cue a load of spam from dejudge about “Jesus of Nazareth the son of a Ghost” etc. etc. etc.

 

[dejudge]

This really is getting tiresome. You persistently misrepresent the argument. NO-ONE is arguing that the divine, miracle-working Jesus of the gospels existed. Merely that the probability is that, given the Jesus movement began at a particular time in history, it was grounded in an actual mortal man, albeit NOT the divine being as described in the gospel.

Cue a load of spam from dejudge about “Jesus of Nazareth the son of a Ghost” etc. etc. etc.

I am arguing that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of fiction [he never ever existed]

I am arguing the Jesus movement, where an invented character called Jesus of Nazareth was worshiped as a God, did not begin before at least c 110 CE or before the Pliny letter to Trajan c 110 CE about Christians.

In effect, the entire NT are not historical accounts of the character called Jesus of Nazareth, his supposed family, the apostles and Paul.

All we have for the invented Jesus, his family, the apostles and Paul are forgeries or fiction in accepted historical writings of antiquity.

 

[Tassman]

I am arguing that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of fiction [he never ever existed]

I am arguing the Jesus movement, where an invented character called Jesus of Nazareth was worshiped as a God, did not begin before at least c 110 CE or before the Pliny letter to Trajan c 110 CE about Christians.

In effect, the entire NT are not historical accounts of the character called Jesus of Nazareth, his supposed family, the apostles and Paul.

All we have for the invented Jesus, his family, the apostles and Paul are forgeries or fiction in accepted historical writings of antiquity.

Despite your fringe theories to the contrary there is actually some written evidence for Jesus existence 2,000 years ago as attested by scholars on all sides of the fence. The evidence is not limited to centuries later folklore as are accounts of say, king Arthur.

It is significant that several mainstream historians who are highly critical of the Jesus Myth theories are atheists, e.g.: Maurice Casey (Nottingham University). He has nothing to personally gain by defending the existence of Jesus the man as an historical figure.

https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-maurice-casey/

 

[dejudge]

Despite your fringe theories to the contrary there is actually some written evidence for Jesus existence 2,000 years ago as attested by scholars on all sides of the fence. The evidence is not limited to centuries later folklore as are accounts of say, king Arthur.

Your statement is false. There is no historical evidence for the character called Jesus of Nazareth. All we have are forgeries or fiction with respect to Jesus, his supposed family, his apostles and Paul.

..It is significant that several mainstream historians who are highly critical of the Jesus Myth theories are atheists, e.g.: Maurice Casey (Nottingham University). He has nothing to personally gain by defending the existence of Jesus the man as an historical figure.

https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-maurice-casey/

Being an atheist is not evidence of an historical Jesus.

 

[maximara]

Despite your fringe theories to the contrary there is actually some written evidence for Jesus existence 2,000 years ago as attested by scholars on all sides of the fence. The evidence is not limited to centuries later folklore as are accounts of say, king Arthur.

It is significant that several mainstream historians who are highly critical of the Jesus Myth theories are atheists, e.g.: Maurice Casey (Nottingham University). He has nothing to personally gain by defending the existence of Jesus the man as an historical figure.

https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-maurice-casey/

It was written in 2012 and Carrier's scholarly peer reviewed On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt which was inspired by Doherty (which was the only Christ Myth Theory Carrier didn't feel was a steaming pile of crap) came out in 2014 ie two years later.

I won't call it an old dodge of historical Jesus supporters because the majority of Christ mythers pull the same blasted stunt. I'm to the point where the only ones that I take seriously are Carrier and the real old school like Drews, Robertson, and Remsburg who, when you actually read them, did NOT throw the possibly of a human Jesus out with the mythical bath water. What they actually said that there was such a disconnect there was nothing to connect Paul and the Gospels to an actual flesh and blooded preacher who, odds were, preached...something.

In fact, I was the one to draw Carrier's attention to Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177 which was an even better supporter of his John Frum evidence that stories of a potential non-existent with-in living memory founder can happen then the source Carrier did use (Worsley, Peter (1957). The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of "Cargo" Cults in Melanesia. London: Macgibbon & Kee.)

The ridiculously long (and at this stage likely too long but countering the BS has resulted in it being that long despite having daughter articles out the wazoo) Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ over at rationalwiki just rips the evidence nonsense to shreds and shows just how poor it is and the amount of social pleading involved to make much of it even work. When you have historical Jesus supporters resort to comparing the evidence for a historical Jesus to the freaking Holocast you know the evidence is a steaming pile of BS because why else would they make such a emotional and irrational claim?!?

To rephrase New Testament scholar Ian Howard Marshall's statement: '[W]e shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus and its Christ myth counter argument if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about.' Oh and it is Ian Howard Marshal, not me, to compare Jesus to King Arthur: "'The story of Jesus in the BIble is like the lengends of King athur'. Arthur existed, but the stories about him are works of imagination" p. 27. He even goes into page and a half on what can be meant by "historical" which is why I like him above nearly all other pro historical Jesus supporters (Eddy, Paul R.; Boyd, Gregory A. (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic comes close but he screws up by leaning far too much to the Gospel Jesus existed camp)

If you really look at the supposed evidence it is severely lacking:

1) Paul never met Jesus outside of visions and is more intent on the Jesus in his head then any than any actual human preacher.

2) The Gospels are such a train wreak when cross referenced to actual evens that they fall about like cheap suits. Acts is even worst in this regard.

3) Even if we accept Mark's 70-80 dating that is well outside the John Frum and Ned Ludd examples Carrier gives. Hack, Guiart shows that even Paul was within the time frame of a totally non-existent/totally distorted to the point of disconnected founder (<12 years for John Frum)

4) Irenaeus, citing the Gospels in c180 clearly and solidly put Jesus' crucifixion no earlier then 41 CE citing Luke and John in Against Heresies. In Demonstration (74) he flat out states this was done by a "governor of Claudius Caesar" and under "Herod the king of the Jews" (Herod Agrippa I, the only Herod to rule during the time of Claudius). The throws in Pontius Pilate (or as I like to call him the Arrogant Aviator; yes it is a bad pun) in as a filled so thing match the Gospels...clearly not knowing Arrogant Aviator had been called back to Rome by 37 CE and never returned to rule the region.

5) There is evidence of a pagan Chrestian cult going back to the 1st century BCE. In fact, In fact, there is a inscription dated from 36 BCE - 37 CE that uses the Latin form "CHRESTIANI" when at best the followers of Jesus weren't calling themselves Chrestians until c 44 CE.

And the hits to the supposed evidence keeping on coming.

 

[Brainache]

It was written in 2012 and Carrier's scholarly peer reviewed On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt which was inspired by Doherty (which was the only Christ Myth Theory Carrier didn't feel was a steaming pile of crap) came out in 2014 ie two years later.

I won't call it an old dodge of historical Jesus supporters because the majority of Christ mythers pull the same blasted stunt. I'm to the point where the only ones that I take seriously are Carrier and the real old school like Drews, Robertson, and Remsburg who, when you actually read them, did NOT throw the possibly of a human Jesus out with the mythical bath water. What they actually said that there was such a disconnect there was nothing to connect Paul and the Gospels to an actual flesh and blooded preacher who, odds were, preached...something.

In fact, I was the one to draw Carrier's attention to Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177 which was an even better supporter of his John Frum evidence that stories of a potential non-existent with-in living memory founder can happen then the source Carrier did use (Worsley, Peter (1957). The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of "Cargo" Cults in Melanesia. London: Macgibbon & Kee.)
...

And the hits to the supposed evidence keeping on coming.

Please read this post from GDon and follow the links. Carrier is not the visionary you imagine him to be...

In fact, it isn't ambiguous at all. In all three of the extant versions of the Ascension of Isaiah, the Beloved (Christ) comes to earth and is found 'dwelling among men'. So Dr Carrier is wrong if he suggests otherwise. I go into this in detail on the Early Writings forum where I created a thread a couple of years ago on the topic:
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4640

Jesus is crucified on earth according to the Ethiopic version, which has Jesus born to Mary and is crucified in Jerusalem. The Slavonic/Latin texts have the Beloved come to earth, to dwell among men. While the location of the crucifixion in the Slavonic/Latin texts is missing, it is clearly below the firmament, since the Beloved descends below the firmament before the story hits the fragmented sections. But the passages earlier in the text implies that the crucifixion takes place on earth, though Ben C Smith -- a man who knows much more than me! -- suggests in the thread that the original author possibly had Hades in mind. But it seems to be either earth or Hades, and not the firmament.

So in the three extant versions of the Ascension of Isaiah, we have:
1. the Beloved descending to earth and dwelling among men in all extant versions
2. No crucifixion in the firmament

That's clear in the extant texts. The text that Carrier refers to in his books and videos is a 'reconstruction', but people reading his book and viewing his videos on the topic come away with the idea that Carrier has actually found a variant text that supports a heavenly crucifixion. However, no such text exists outside of Carrier's imagination.

If anyone doubts this, read the link. I've cited all the pertinent passages so you can check this for yourself.

Carrier's book was not peer reviewed.

 

[maximara]

Carrier's book was not peer reviewed.

Yes it was Peer-reviewed per the standards in the UK:

"On the Historicity of Jesus was formally peer reviewed by numerous professors of biblical studies, and was published by a major respected academic press in biblical studies."

Raphael Lataster's "Carrier, Richard: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014; pp. xiv + 696." even acknowledges Carrier work passed peer review - https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9809.12219 on the Wiley Online Library (yers, that Wiley) - "The Journal of Religious History is an international peer-reviewed academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Religious History Association."

IT'S OFFICIAL: WE CAN NOW DOUBT JESUS' HISTORICAL EXISTENCE
Raphael Lataster
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175616000117Published online by Cambridge University Press effectively says the same blasted thing.

"Interestingly, Lataster points out that the only serious attempts by scholars to publish arguments for the historical existence of Jesus — those by Erhman, Casey and McGrath — have done outside the scholarly peer-review process. On the other hand, the two serious attempts by scholars to publish reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus — Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster — have gone through the scholarly peer-review process. The irony of that little datum is not lost on anyone who is aware of the complaints of “historicist scholars” (those arguing for the historicity of Jesus and against the mythicist hypothesis) that mythicism does not subject itself to scholarly peer-review."

"All SPP’s titles are peer-reviewed, and authors are promised that their work will be kept in print indefinitely" - summation of Sheffield Phoenix Press

"It’s important to note that clarification: Sheffield-Phoenix selected its own peer reviewers to vet my book, as they do all academic treatises they publish. That’s the entire point of an academic press. This was after I also submitted peer review reports from multiple prominent professors of Biblical studies I had used to pre-vet my manuscript, to ensure it would pass any peer review a publisher engaged. It’s also not uncommon for academic presses to ask the submitter of a manuscript to supply a list of suitable peer reviewers. But whether Sheffield-Phoenix relied on any of the peer reviewers I selected, I won’t have been told.

(...)
In Sheffield Phoenix’s case, the editors were all required to be Sheffield University faculty, and it was housed on the Sheffield campus. But peer reviewers may or may not have been Sheffield professors or emeriti; no academic press limits its peer reviewers to their associated school. And what the manager of Sheffield Phoenix said about UK presses is also true in the US: there are academic and trade publishers; and academic publishers all use peer review for most of what they produce. Anyone who doesn’t know this is just ignorant." - Richard Carrier

Basically a 'we cannot refute this peer reviewed book so we'll throw some BS FUD about it not being peer-reviewed' by the Pro historical Jesus crowd. SHEESH. They are desperate.

 

[Brainache]

Yes it was Peer-reviewed per the standards in the UK:

"On the Historicity of Jesus was formally peer reviewed by numerous professors of biblical studies, and was published by a major respected academic press in biblical studies."
...

Basically a 'we cannot refute this peer reviewed book so we'll throw some BS FUD about it not being peer-reviewed' by the Pro historical Jesus crowd. SHEESH. They are desperate.

OK. I apologise I should have checked. I was just repeating something people were saying when the book came out.

I now accept that his book was reviewed using the same process as other Scholarly works in this field.

Now explain to me why you think that is important, given that you think the entire field is biased and incompetent...

 

[maximara]

OK. I apologise I should have checked. I was just repeating something people were saying when the book came out.

I now accept that his book was reviewed using the same process as other Scholarly works in this field.

That as Carrier points out this is the problem with the majority of material on both sides of the historical Jesus debate - they just blindly report what has previously been said without checking to see if the original source knew that the sam hill it was talking about (and the answer is a resounding no). The Christ Myth Theory side is as Carrier points out a total train wreck repeating material that that later research has invalidated (the whole Dec 25, virgin birth, and Osiris connection - at best they are traditions added long after the Gospels were written and had circulated for at least a century). But the pro historical Jesus is in as bad if not worse shape as not only does it repeat material that that later research has invalidated but it for some insane reasonkeeps trying to go for the Gospels are historical documents route.

Now explain to me why you think that is important, given that you think the entire field is biased and incompetent....

That statement is such an obvious Catch 22 that it isn't funny. If the field is biased and incompetent then the whole historical Jesus thing has no merit and if it isn't then Carrier's book is relevant and the whole historical Jesus thing has no merit.

Though I wouldn't say the entire field biased and incompetent just the majority is. Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, states that Biblical Studies in its current state doesn't properly follow the historical method, and has major systemic problems so bad that the field needs a total overhaul on how it does things. ( Avalos, Hector (2007) The End of Biblical Studies )

Also if you want to be really technical Carrier is actual using Historical anthropology more then history and there is at least one anthropology paper that states in both its abstract and main text "there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived". (Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16)

 

[Brainache]

That as Carrier points out this is problem with the majority of material one both sides of the historical Jesus debate - they just blindly report what has previously been said without checking to see if the original source knew that the sam hill it was talking about (and the answer is a resounding no)



That statement is such an obvious Catch 22 that it isn't funny. If the field is biased and incompetent then the whole historical Jesus thing has no merit and if it isn't then Carrier's book is relevant and the whole historical Jesus thing has no merit.

If the field is so hopeless that every other peer reviewed Scolar is wrong, what is so great about peer review when applied to Carrier?

Though I wouldn't say the entire field biased and incompetent just the majority is. Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, states that Biblical Studies in its current state doesn't properly follow the historical method, and has major systemic problems so bad that the field needs a total overhaul on how it does things. ( Avalos, Hector (2007) The End of Biblical Studies )

Whatever.

You still haven't commented on GDon's comprehensive demolition of Carrier's central argument about the Ascents of Isaiah.

Are you happy to agree with Carrier, even after he has been shown to be lying?