What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Belz...]

We're getting boringly off-topic, here.

 

[pakeha]

...OK, first off, do you think there's a distinction between a "folk" healer, and a "faith" healer?

Sure. But does mixing spit and dirt make Jesus a "folk healer"?
I don't think so.
The healings as reported in Mark are all bog standard faith healings.

Second, you are perfectly correct, there are only two healings in Mark that are not also in Luke and/or Matthew. What is important here is the way they are dealt with. ...

No, what is important is that they are faith healings.

Aren't faith healing on Youtube all about hernias, varicose veins, incurable cancers etc? Although I agree it does seem somewhat galling for God to spend his time doing minor cosmetic surgery for wealthy americans while the rest of the world etc etc... ...

No.
Where did you get the idea about 'wealthy americans' from?

The subject at hand was the faith healings as mentioned in Mark and your claim they are examples of psychological treatments.
I'm saying they're straight up faith healings touted as miracles.

In any case, the healings are no proof there was an historical Jesus, are they?

 

[tsig]

One might compare Matthew's addition to the passion story that he presumably inherited from mark. These include things like the resurrection of the saints at the crucifixion, the miraculous swooning of the guards around the tomb, etc. these all lok like clearly secondary additions.

And the resurrection of Jesus was just hearsay and wishful thinking?

Probably that whole crucifixion thing was just a misunderstanding about a traffic ticket.

(riding a donkey without a permit)

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Once more, I find this, in the strict sense, unanalytical.

Of course both the content, aims and sources of Acts vary. For example, for a long time the first 12 chapters have been seen as something differently sourced from the rest. It's clear at the very least that Luke did not have many good sources about the later church Jerusalem (which is hardly surprising).

Which still makes Luke a piss-poor source. Since he's not citing any of his sources -- something which, btw, was kinda standard practice for historians even back then -- you're left with no way to tell which parts are the real thing, and in which he just filled in the blanks himself, and in which is he writing just third hand hearsay.

On Corinth: the page you link to is another example of advocacy. It wants to show that Paul never went to Corinth, etc etc, and thus presents a set of (rather circumstantial) evidence to show that he didn't. Even by its most most fervent admirer, it could hardly be said to be an objective overview - it just simply presents stuff that the author wants us to believe to be true.

1. Maybe, but that's an irrelevant tangent anyway, since MY point wasn't whether or not Paul was in Corinth or not, but merely that LUKE makes a hash of Corinth. Different topic.

And there I find that his evidence about what Corinth really was like in the 50's is actually making a pretty strong case that Luke had no clue, and is making an anachronistic mix of it.

2. You know, while far from me to be against some skepticism, it kinda comes across as a double standard from the same guy who is all for incredibly weak conjectures and little more than faith in scripture as a historical narrative, when it supports his preconceived conclusion. I mean, really, here you pick on an author for making a less than airtight argument on a whole other topic, and ok, maybe you should, but where is applying the same strict standard when it comes to Luke, for example? Isn't it there too just "stuff that the author wants us to believe to be true"?

To analyse the work for a moment, what is wrong with saying the following?:

i) the author (i.e. Luke) wants to present the origin of christianity in the gentiles, and this is thus obviously a spun tale. Acts makes no attempt at impartiality, and (indeed) when placed next to Paul's letters, which it often or sometimes contradicts or at least places different emphases on, allows us to see that the work was not written from the perspective of *Paul* at least. But that doesn't rule out an associate of paul, of course.

Even if I'm to grant that, we still have an author which is obviously writing, in your words, "a spun tale", and it is loaded with falsehoods and stuff distorted to say something else than actually happened. Works for me. Then why should I take such an author as a source, in the absence of any corroboration or ANY historical necessity for any of that to be true?

And sure, he could be an associate of Paul, but then he's a liar. Because there's a name for presenting something as true, even while being in a position to know first-hand that it never actually happened: lie. And sure enough, he COULD be doing just that. Wouldn't even be the only one. But that just lowers his credibility one more notch. It's not the kind of thing that makes me think, "oh, ok then, if he's just a liar, then I obviously CAN take him as a good source." In fact, quite the opposite.

ii) The five "we" passages may well respond to a fellow-traveller's voyage.Why not? The whole thing is rather subtle to say the least.

Responding to something with a lie, is still a lie.

I mean, just as an analogy, I have a friend who leaves tomorrow on a vacation in Greece. Imagine that when he comes back and tries to tell me about his vacation in Greece, I were to go, "Oh yea? Well I've been in Thailand." It's a response, but it's still a lie.

And even if you mean "corresponding", it's still a lie. I mean, in the above example, imagine I come next week and say "we went to Greece." There is no "we". That guy is going. I'm not. That's not a "we".

iii) But that doesn't mean the author was kicking around with Paul the whole time - indeed, quite the contrary. his sources for the rest were bound to be more sketchy.

Ok, now roll that around in your head and I'm sure you'll see what's ridiculous about it.

So we have a close associate of Paul, and traveling with Paul and other close associates of Paul. He's literally there when Paul dictates at least one epistle, and several visits to churches and talks with the elders there, and generally the whole months of dicking around on the way to Jerusalem. He may very well be on scene when Paul runs into all sorts of trouble in Jerusalem. Plus, you know, he's Paul's personal physician in the traditional church BS, so it's not like he's some guy in the back who never gets anywhere near Paul and the rest of the gang. But that's only half the time.

The other half he suddenly has no more clue what happened, and is apparently too shy to ask Paul or Barnabas or the church elders he met while traveling with Paul about what really happened. Suddenly the poor guy has to write third hand rumours from dubious sources and his own wild confabulations.

Doesn't that sound, you know, kinda weak?

iv) The lack of reference to, or correspondence with Paul's letters, makes it highly unlikely that Acts was produced after the Pauline letters started being in general circulation. This means that contrary to all the "it was written to annoy Marcion" stuff, it was written before or around 100AD.

... and more confabulation and weak personal conjecture.

No, seriously, We have an author who doesn't cite ANY of his sources, and you build a case based on his not citing Paul either? As opposed to what?

 

[IanS]

As I said before, the miracles of John are of a different type to those of the earlier mark. In the raising of Lazarus the miraculous nature is heightened deliberately. However, for various reasons, most people do not take John as a serious source for the life of Jesus, even if it contains some very interesting snippets indeed.

Similarly, mark has no ascension. That's not to say there's no basis for this, but I simply think it is hard to discuss usefully from a historical perspective.

The nature miracles in Mark (feeding of the 4 and 5 thousand, cursing of the figtree, walking on water, stilling of the storm and transfiguration) are another matter. These are certainly highly miraculous in nature, and if there is real history behind them is now, I think, impossible to say. However, what is notable about them is their utterly clear references to the OT. The role they play in mark is, I think, to display mark's christology (which is in these instances surprisingly high). It might even be the case that mark thought of these pericopes as symbolic, midrashic-like commentary.

No time to discuss now!!

OK, so we agree these things are supposed to be miracles. Unlike your example of the man with the shrivelled hand, who in your speculation, could be healed by faith, because in your speculation there was really never anything wrong with the man's hand and he was actually suffering from a mental issue instead.

Whereas the walking on water etc. is not in that possible class of imaginary affliction, and is not explicable by any such speculation about mental illness, is it.

So whichever way you look at it, and no matter how extreme your speculation becomes, these are indeed supposed to show that Jesus had supernatural powers. Which is what I and others here said in the first place.

But despite what ignorant people believed 2000 years ago, we now know that such miracles are impossible, and supernatural figures like that are fiction.

OK, so we agree these things are in fact supposed to be miracles.

Good. So now we can get back to asking how any of this is supposed to be evidence to show that Jesus existed?

 

[Brainache]

OK, so we agree these things are supposed to be miracles. Unlike your example of the man with the shrivelled hand, who in your speculation, could be healed by faith, because in your speculation there was really never anything wrong with the man's hand and he was actually suffering from a mental issue instead.

Whereas the walking on water etc. is not in that possible class of imaginary affliction, and is not explicable by any such speculation about mental illness, is it.

So whichever way you look at it, and no matter how extreme your speculation becomes, these are indeed supposed to show that Jesus had supernatural powers. Which is what I and others here said in the first place.

But despite what ignorant people believed 2000 years ago, we now know that such miracles are impossible, and supernatural figures like that are fiction.

OK, so we agree these things are in fact supposed to be miracles.

Good. So now we can get back to asking how any of this is supposed to be evidence to show that Jesus existed?

My bold: Not always. There are lots of cases of real people having impossible stories told about them.

 

[IanS]

IanS: Irenaeus was the first preserved writer (eh, not him, his texts ) to list out these names. However, there's also the Muratorian Fragment the writing which is traditionally dated to around 170 from internal clues. If so its the first known comprehensive list.

Papias, whose dating is also uncertain but probably comes from the first third of the second century, is cited by people like Eusebius, and may be a source for Irenaeus. There is evidence from the fragmentary information preserved that he too knew and discussed all for canonical gospels. He certainly mentioned mark and Matthew by name: what he says about them, however, has been delightfully and endlessly controversial

Thank you for that information. But which of those fall into the same sort of category as the writing of Tacitus and Josephus, whereby although people often like to say that the author wrote around the end of the first century (or some similar early date), in fact what we actually know of their writing is not from any such early date at all, but instaed only from what was written by Christian copyists from about the 11th century onwards?

IOW - what is the date for the earliest extant readable copy of Iranaeus or Eusebius? Is the actual date more like 11th century?

 

[maximara]

My bold: Not always. There are lots of cases of real people having impossible stories told about them.

Right, I have often pointed to the Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn story as an example of this. The problem is that in some cases these stories take so much liberties that they are on par with Shakespeare's version of Richard III where the gulf between the character described and the real person is so wide they might as well be two different people.

 

[IanS]

My bold: Not always. There are lots of cases of real people having impossible stories told about them.

Well that particular Jesus, ie the supernatural person of the miracles, cannot exist, because although they did not know it 2000 years ago, we now do know that supernatural miracle figures are fictional.

So as far as that goes, that miracle working Jesus is fictional.

When you say there are " lots of cases of real people having impossible stories told about them ", I presume you are talking about more modern individuals who are known to be real?

But, remember, that is emphatically not the case for Jesus. Instead, Jesus is a figure who is not actually known to be real. And the biblical accounts that we have of Jesus, are accounts of a supernatural person who is characterised in terms of fictional miracles.

However, the biblical accounts do not describe any other Jesus. They only describe an impossible miracle worker who, as far as the gospel writers were concerned, was an individual who had died at some unknown & unspecified time in the past and who was now known to them only as the stuff of legend .... legends which we now know are impossible fiction.

There may have once been a real figure who was the basis of the later Jesus stories in the gospels, but if so then he was not the figure described in that gospel writing or in Paul’s letters etc., because that figure of Jesus is a supernatural entity who, according to our modern scientific understanding, has to be fictional.

Put it another way - if you are talking about a Jesus who you assume to have been an ordinary mortal man and not a supernatural worker of impossible miracles, then you are talking about someone entirely different who is not the Jesus described in the Bible.

 

[maximara]

Well that particular Jesus, ie the supernatural person of the miracles, cannot exist, because although they did not know it 2000 years ago, we now do know that supernatural miracle figures are fictional.

So as far as that goes, that miracle working Jesus is fictional.

When you say there are " lots of cases of real people having impossible stories told about them ", I presume you are talking about more modern individuals who are known to be real?

But, remember, that is emphatically not the case for Jesus. Instead, Jesus is a figure who is not actually known to be real. And the biblical accounts that we have of Jesus, are accounts of a supernatural person who is characterised in terms of fictional miracles.

However, the biblical accounts do not describe any other Jesus. They only describe an impossible miracle worker who was, as far as the gospel writers were concerned, was an individual who had died at some unknown & unspecified time in the past and who was now known to them only as the stuff of legend .... legends which we now know are impossible fiction.

There may have once been a real figure who was the basis of the later Jesus stories in the gospels, but if so then he was not the figure described in that gospel writing or in Paul’s letters etc., because that figure of Jesus is a supernatural entity who, according to our modern scientific understanding, has to be fictional.

Put it another way - if you are talking about a Jesus who you assume to have been an ordinary mortal man and not a supernatural worker of impossible miracles, then you are talking about someone entirely different who is not the Jesus described in the Bible.

But as I have pointed out before this is exactly what the majority of "Christ Mythers" are really arguing!
The "Christ Mythers" are not saying that there wasn't a flesh and blood man behind the Jesus story but rather that there is nothing to show that the Gospel version leads back to any such man. It is asking to looking for King Arthur or Robin hood based on the stories of Arthur Pendragon and Robin of Locksley respectively--the stories are so mythologized that the project is doomed from the start.

The same is true of Jesus--there is nothing to suggest Gospels tell anything even remotely resembling historical events. In fact, every time they bring up something we can check they fall flat on their faces describing event no one else see or knows of or talk about events that are social-politically insane.

 

[MaGZ]

What if there was no real man behind the religion and someone made the story up saying this Jesus lived 50 years earlier even though he never had?

That would involve a Jewish conspiracy to get the Gentiles to worship Yahweh and undermine Aryan belief systems.

 

[grahbudd]

Thank you for that information. But which of those fall into the same sort of category as the writing of Tacitus and Josephus, whereby although people often like to say that the author wrote around the end of the first century (or some similar early date), in fact what we actually know of their writing is not from any such early date at all, but instaed only from what was written by Christian copyists from about the 11th century onwards?

IOW - what is the date for the earliest extant readable copy of Iranaeus or Eusebius? Is the actual date more like 11th century?

The oldest more or less complete mss of Irenaeus are medieval yes. The oldest fragment as far as I know is Oxyrhynchus papyrus 405 that is dated to around 200-250.

The mss of Eusebius are also medieval, but there are some earlier fragments and two Syriac mss. The oldest of these is (for once!) dated at 462AD. It's in St Petersburg.

 

[grahbudd]

Which is something you are making up, and that's weird coming from a Christian. Jesus The Mundane !

Hmm I sense there is some subtle resistance to the view I am expounding here

The man with the withered hand (actually, more properly, arm, as the Greek word used has a greater extent than the English word hand) incident comes straight after another sabbath incident, and it's thus reasonable to take theo two together (another reason for this will shortly become apparent as well). In the first instance, Jesus and his disciples are going for a sabbath toddle along the fields, presumably within the restrictions imposed by no travelling on the sabbath. Here they bump into the Pharisees whom they are in dispute with (not impossible given its a small place). Here the Greek is a chaos that has never made sense without some emendation, and indeed this is a place that suggests or even demands translation from an aramaic original.

As Jesus goes along with his disciples, they (but not him) pluck corn as they were hungry. This is in accord with OT principle, that the poor and hungry were allowed to take grain from the corners (and by extension, edges) of fields which were to be left unharvested for the purpose. All good so far, but of course they were doing this on a sabbath, which the opponents of Jesus were horrified to see - it's doing work (they think). This is because as part of their revivalist programme they wanted to extend the law into all aspects of everyday life.

When challenged, Jesus points to OT precedent involving David, and vigorously defends the right of the hungry to eat, even by plucking grain on a sabbath.

The very next bit is the healing of the man with the withered hand/arm, also on a sabbath, and it is reasonable to see the author as presenting them as taking place on the same day. Once again, the Pharisees are appalled to see Jesus heal on the sabbath, and once again Jesus defends himself vigorously. Now something different happens: his opponents stand silently, and Jesus does the healing (which once again, has no need to be a miracle, is not presented as such, and plays no role as a miracle in the unfolding drama).

It is clear the opponents are out to get him. For the penalty of a single breach of the sabbath law is a warning; for a second, it is (at least nominally) death, although convictions were unheard of. By not opposing Jesus the second time, his opponents have now at least formally got what they want: a reason to condemn him to death. However, as their exegetical basis for this is dodgy (Jesus is in fact on firm grounds in both cases) they wouldn't be able actually to get a conviction, let alone a death sentence. It is at this point they start intriguing with the herodians, with the aim of persuading the authorities that Jesus is a dangerous trouble maker.

Now if this is what the context of the text means, a few things stand out. First off, it is not a text written for Gentiles, but rather contains two detailed and quite complex disputes about sabbath law and how it should be kept. Second, as already mentioned, it seems to rely on an Aramaic original (otherwise it doesn't make sense in the Greek). And thirdly, all put together, this looks like an accurate description of a real event, not one made up to cheer up later gentile Christians for whom mark was writing.

It's this sort of detail that makes Mark's gospel more, and not less, convincing as a record of the life of Jesus. And as you will see, the supposedly miraculous nature of the incident plays no role in it at all.

 

[IanS]

But as I have pointed out before this is exactly what the majority of "Christ Mythers" are really arguing!
The "Christ Mythers" are not saying that there wasn't a flesh and blood man behind the Jesus story but rather that there is nothing to show that the Gospel version leads back to any such man. It is asking to looking for King Arthur or Robin hood based on the stories of Arthur Pendragon and Robin of Locksley respectively--the stories are so mythologized that the project is doomed from the start.

The same is true of Jesus--there is nothing to suggest Gospels tell anything even remotely resembling historical events. In fact, every time they bring up something we can check they fall flat on their faces describing event no one else see or knows of or talk about events that are social-politically insane.

Well if you look back over my posts in this thread, you'll see that's exactly what I said before. And in at least one of those posts I specifically spelt it out in words of one syllable. That is ....

.... I'm not saying the story of Jesus was not based on a real preacher. It might have been. But the problem is that there is little if any reliable or verifiable evidence of any such mortal human Jesus in any of the biblical writing, nor in any of the later copies of the few non-biblical accounts which make only very brief mention of the biblical Jesus.

Of course I’m being slightly pedantic pursuing this line of argument, but it is perhaps useful in so far as it re-focuses attention back on the original question of " what actually counts as a historical Jesus? ".

 

[IanS]

The oldest more or less complete mss of Irenaeus are medieval yes. The oldest fragment as far as I know is Oxyrhynchus papyrus 405 that is dated to around 200-250.

The mss of Eusebius are also medieval, but there are some earlier fragments and two Syriac mss. The oldest of these is (for once!) dated at 462AD. It's in St Petersburg.

Well in that case it would be wholly wrong to say that we know from the writing of Irenaeus and Eusebius that the canonical gospels had been selected and named as early as (say) 100-300AD. Because we do not in fact know what Ireneus or Eusebius actually wrote at that early date.

Instead what we actually know about that selected cannon seems to come to us only from Christian copy’s dating from about the 11th century onwards?

 

[grahbudd]

Well in that case it would be wholly wrong to say that we know from the writing of Irenaeus and Eusebius that the canonical gospels had been selected and named as early as (say) 100-300AD. Because we do not in fact know what Ireneus or Eusebius actually wrote at that early date.

Instead what we actually know about that selected cannon seems to come to us only from Christian copy’s dating from about the 11th century onwards?

I wish I could persuade you how uber-wrong you are about this point about manuscript transmission in general. However, I rather doubt I can.

 

[grahbudd]

I could however recommend reading the excellent intro to Stephen Carlson's thesis on the topic, which is here:

http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5597/Carlson_duke_0066D_11426.pdf?sequence=1

 

[IanS]

I wish I could persuade you how uber-wrong you are about this point about manuscript transmission in general. However, I rather doubt I can.

I could however recommend reading the excellent intro to Stephen Carlson's thesis on the topic, which is here:

http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5597/Carlson_duke_0066D_11426.pdf?sequence=1

Well first - I am not "uber wrong", because I am not actually making any definitive statement on this. I am actually asking you if you (or anyone) knows with reasonable certainty, the date of the documents that we actually have, which clearly say the canonical gospels are chosen to be Mark, Mathew, Luke and John, with those names, and with their contents in the form that we know them today.

If instead, what is being offered is only, for example an 11th century copy of (say) Eusebius and/or Iranaeus, where the 11th cent. copy mentions those 4 named gospels as canon, then that is very clearly NOT the same as finding that statement written in any mms actually dated anywhere near the 1st century. Is it?

I looked at your link, for which I thank you, and I'm sure that under other circumstances, if I had infinite time or interest to lavish on this, then I could read that guys PhD thesis. But at present, even reading his introduction risks completely wasting my time, (a)because on my PC that thesis does not scroll easily from page to page, and worse (b)I might easily find that I read it all, only to decide that it did not provide the evidence that you imply!

I don't want to waste my time on a religious wild goose chase like that, and especially not since it's your role here to simply explain what that PhD thesis proves/shows/demonstrates about that dating ... and then by all means give the link for anyone who wants to check in detail that you have correctly represented the text ... but don't just a give a link to someone's PhD thesis in religious studies and say "read this!".

So far from your answers on this point I have to take it that you do not in fact know of any such "clear" confirmation of that canon of 4 named gospels from anything actually extant from anywhere near the 1st-3rd century (say)?

And I only said "clear" confirmation, because I don't want to be offered something as a "confirmation", only to later discover that it was far from clear and only really amounted to a "possible hint".

 

[Belz...]

Hmm I sense there is some subtle resistance to the view I am expounding here

The man with the withered hand (actually, more properly, arm, as the Greek word used has a greater extent than the English word hand) incident comes straight after another sabbath incident, and it's thus reasonable to take theo two together (another reason for this will shortly become apparent as well). In the first instance, Jesus and his disciples are going for a sabbath toddle along the fields, presumably within the restrictions imposed by no travelling on the sabbath. Here they bump into the Pharisees whom they are in dispute with (not impossible given its a small place). Here the Greek is a chaos that has never made sense without some emendation, and indeed this is a place that suggests or even demands translation from an aramaic original.

As Jesus goes along with his disciples, they (but not him) pluck corn as they were hungry. This is in accord with OT principle, that the poor and hungry were allowed to take grain from the corners (and by extension, edges) of fields which were to be left unharvested for the purpose. All good so far, but of course they were doing this on a sabbath, which the opponents of Jesus were horrified to see - it's doing work (they think). This is because as part of their revivalist programme they wanted to extend the law into all aspects of everyday life.

When challenged, Jesus points to OT precedent involving David, and vigorously defends the right of the hungry to eat, even by plucking grain on a sabbath.

The very next bit is the healing of the man with the withered hand/arm, also on a sabbath, and it is reasonable to see the author as presenting them as taking place on the same day. Once again, the Pharisees are appalled to see Jesus heal on the sabbath, and once again Jesus defends himself vigorously. Now something different happens: his opponents stand silently, and Jesus does the healing (which once again, has no need to be a miracle, is not presented as such, and plays no role as a miracle in the unfolding drama).

It is clear the opponents are out to get him. For the penalty of a single breach of the sabbath law is a warning; for a second, it is (at least nominally) death, although convictions were unheard of. By not opposing Jesus the second time, his opponents have now at least formally got what they want: a reason to condemn him to death. However, as their exegetical basis for this is dodgy (Jesus is in fact on firm grounds in both cases) they wouldn't be able actually to get a conviction, let alone a death sentence. It is at this point they start intriguing with the herodians, with the aim of persuading the authorities that Jesus is a dangerous trouble maker.

Now if this is what the context of the text means, a few things stand out. First off, it is not a text written for Gentiles, but rather contains two detailed and quite complex disputes about sabbath law and how it should be kept. Second, as already mentioned, it seems to rely on an Aramaic original (otherwise it doesn't make sense in the Greek). And thirdly, all put together, this looks like an accurate description of a real event, not one made up to cheer up later gentile Christians for whom mark was writing.

It's this sort of detail that makes Mark's gospel more, and not less, convincing as a record of the life of Jesus. And as you will see, the supposedly miraculous nature of the incident plays no role in it at all.

It's a very long post just to say "It's my opinion", don't you think ?

It's irrelevant what the point of the story was. The question is: is the healing miraculous or not. It was. It's also a derail of the thread, which is not about whether the miracles are miraculous.

 

[IanS]

It's a very long post just to say "It's my opinion", don't you think ?

It's irrelevant what the point of the story was. The question is: is the healing miraculous or not. It was. It's also a derail of the thread, which is not about whether the miracles are miraculous.

I understand why you think this stuff about miracles is taking us off topic. But just in case it's not obvious can I explain what’s actually going on here ....

... what Grahbudd is trying to argue (he may nitpick about this, but frankly I don't want an angels-on-a-pinhead argument from him about the nature of arguments about arguments about disagreements about ... on & on without end) is to say that in the Gospels, what appear to appear to be Jesus miracles, are in fact not Jesus miracles, and therefore the gospels are not miracle accounts and hence become credible as real history, and hey presto, therefore Jesus becomes a perfectly believable historical figure .