What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Belz...]

I'm warning everyone here -- from experience -- that anyone who drags in the subject of the Gospel magic-man Jesus in _this_ context(!) is plainly following an all-too-familiar playbook of plenty of mythers elsewhere on the Net who habitually tar serious professional secular historians with fundie-ism by pretending that such professional historians believe in the Gospel magic-man Jesus as historical rather than the human Jesus found in the extra-biblical literature like Josephus, etc. Once someone raises the Gospel magic-man Jesus as somehow pertinent to this sort of discussion, that's a sure sign that you have a myther who's out to kick up dust and move goal-posts. This isn't just a frequent pattern; it's an invariable pattern, and some of us with long experience in dealing with these threads are on to it and can see it coming. I do not propose to let these typically sneaky myther tactics slip under the radar, and I know plenty of agnostics and atheists, both on and off the web, who are now energized and who feel the same way and who have had it with these cultish mythers and are ready to take action and smoke them out. It's past time to call mythers out on these despicable little games.

Stone

As you can see, people on both sides of the fence, and even fence-sitters like myself, which you ridiculously label "mythers" (a clear case of 'with us or against us' mentality) find your ramblings nonsensical.

 

[llwyd]

It'd be nice if those experts could show their work..... Provide facts and evidence to support their conjectures.


I'm well aware of the different standards between the sciences and the humanities, I've published in both and hold a doctorate in physics and am finishing by history doctorate this term.

So then you have no difficulty locating the literature and reading it? I think many of the references have been provided in this thread.

 

[maximara]

As you can see, people on both sides of the fence, and even fence-sitters like myself, which you ridiculously label "mythers" (a clear case of 'with us or against us' mentality) find your ramblings nonsensical.

To be fair to Stone defenders of the historical Jesus position throw the terms "mythist", "myther" and equivalents around with total abandon to the point that they are used on people who accepted the existence of a 1st century Jesus.

"In relation to the rejection of miracles, the English and Scotch deists, the rationalist Paulus, and the mythist Strauss, all stand on the same ground." (The Christian examiner 1847)

"The gist of his position was in a large measure like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held that there was verily a historic Christ, but that a vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges that there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth." (The Times 1910)

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion." Out of my life and thought: an autobiography By Albert Schweitzer (pg 125; 1931)

While Frazer did not doubt that Jesus had lived, or claim that Christians had invented the Jesus myth, his work became a source book of ideas and data for many who did. In fact, Schweitzer included Frazer in a list of scholars who 'contested the historical existence of Jesus...John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arther Drews' (above cited; Bennett, Clinton (2001) In search of Jesus: insider and outsider images pg 205)

Wells accepted that there was a 1st century Jesus in both Jesus Myth (1996) and Jesus Legend (1999)--yet these books were labeled as examples of the Mythical Jesus Thesis (defined as the idea of "Jesus tradition is virtually--perhaps entirely--fictional in nature" (sic)) in Eddy and Boyd's 2007 The Jesus Legend Baker Academic on pp. 24.

Like it or not for over 180 years the apologists have thrown the terms "mythist", "myther" and equivalents around to the point they really have no meaning. The moment they labeled David Strauss and James George Frazer "mythists" ("who contested the historical existence of Jesus") they lost all credibility in later claiming the term only applies to those who say Jesus the flesh and blood man didn't exist.

 

[llwyd]

Well, once you accept the scholarly consensus that there most likely was a concrete historical figure behind the Jesus stories, the main point has been settled - it seems likely that we can never advance much further than that without new sources, though textual analysis can give at least some new insights. It is actually quite inspiring how sophisticated the methods are these days.

 

[Robrob]

Well, once you accept the scholarly consensus that there most likely was a concrete historical figure behind the Jesus stories, the main point has been settled - it seems likely that we can never advance much further than that without new sources, though textual analysis can give at least some new insights. It is actually quite inspiring how sophisticated the methods are these days.

Not sure that's actually quite as settled as you make it but regardless, what does it matter if at some point in or around 2,000 years ago one of many Jeudean street prophets was named "Jesus?" Or maybe even executed as many others were, by the Romans? How is that any different than postulating there was a real "Robin Hood" or a real "King Arthur?" There actually was a Troy, that doesn't mean the Greek gods were real or that Achilles was bullet-proof.

Myths and legends are built on grains of sand.

 

[maximara]

Why is that a problem? If Josephus says: "Jesus who was called "The Annointed"", surely any Roman reading it would see that there was a bloke named Jesus who was called "The Anointed" by his followers.

But Josephus isn't calling Jesus Messiah, he is saying that others ("the "Tribe" known as Christians") called Jesus the Messiah. So I don't see what would be suicidal about that.

You clearly didn't read the two links I provided so there they are again:

Anointing in Josephus

The Anointed One, Or The Ointment?

"Here, χριστος doesn't mean "anointed", it means the substance that does the anointing! Or something that is rubbed on. In other words, χριστος means something like "ointment", not "anointed one". "

So 18.3.3 (the Testimonium Flavianum) ο χριστος ουτος ην quite literally reads "this was the ointment"

20.9.1 (the James brother of part) is τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομένου Χριστου, Ιάκωβος ονομα αυτω quite literally reads "the brother [of] Jesus called Messiah, his name Jacob"

Less you try to claim this is not correct translation I point you to Matthew 1:1:

Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ -- This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

So the Testimonium Flavianum, which is KNOWN to be tampered with to the point we don't know what it originally said, uses a term totally nonsensical to the average Roman and the second has basically the same problem.

One suggestion that has been put forth is that 20.9.1 actually said τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομένου χρήστω, Ιάκωβος ονομα αυτω and a later copyist changed χρήστω to Χριστοῦ.

 

[maximara]

Well, once you accept the scholarly consensus that there most likely was a concrete historical figure behind the Jesus stories, the main point has been settled - it seems likely that we can never advance much further than that without new sources, though textual analysis can give at least some new insights. It is actually quite inspiring how sophisticated the methods are these days.

That same "scholarly consensus" at one time said continental drift, the existence of Troy, heliocentrism, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and the Big Bang Theory were all "crackpot theories":

Bell, David, 2005, Science, Technology and Culture, Open University Press, p. 134, ISBN 978-0-335-21326-9

Oreskes, Naomi (2003) Plate tectonics: an insider's history of the modern theory of the Earth pg 72

Conklin, Wendy (2005) Mysteries in History: Ancient History Page 39

Hunt, Patrick (2007) Ten Discoveries That Rewrote History

JDobrzycki J Editor (1973) The reception of Copernicus' heliocentric theory pg 311

Lemonick, Michael D. (2003) Echo of the Big Bang Princeton University Press pg 7

As Horace Miner and James Burke have both shown despite what it claims there are far too many times in Science where the theories drive the data rather than the data driving the theories.

 

[Brainache]

That same "scholarly consensus" at one time said continental drift, the existence of Troy, heliocentrism, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and the Big Bang Theory were all "crackpot theories":

Bell, David, 2005, Science, Technology and Culture, Open University Press, p. 134, ISBN 978-0-335-21326-9

Oreskes, Naomi (2003) Plate tectonics: an insider's history of the modern theory of the Earth pg 72

Conklin, Wendy (2005) Mysteries in History: Ancient History Page 39

Hunt, Patrick (2007) Ten Discoveries That Rewrote History

JDobrzycki J Editor (1973) The reception of Copernicus' heliocentric theory pg 311

Lemonick, Michael D. (2003) Echo of the Big Bang Princeton University Press pg 7

As Horace Miner and James Burke have both shown despite what it claims there are far too many times in Science where the theories drive the data rather than the data driving the theories.

I guess that is why llwyd keeps saying that if you want to overturn this consensus you need to publish and deal with the Scholars on their own terms.

None of those "Crackpot" theories you mention ever became mainstream by just whingeing about the mean old consensus, they had convincing evidence on their side.

I happen to be a fan of a "Crackpot Theory" as well: I think it is possible that the Dead Sea Scrolls were left behind by the community led by James the brother of Jesus. Unfortunately, the man pushing this theory (Robert Eisenman) also seems to go a bit far in some of his other speculations and so people label him a Kook.

I'd like to see Grahbudd and TimO'Neill2's take on that idea, but I guess this isn't the thread for that...

 

[llwyd]

That same "scholarly consensus" at one time said continental drift, the existence of Troy, heliocentrism, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and the Big Bang Theory were all "crackpot theories":

Yeah, exactly. And that's why I said that I trust not in authority but in the self-corrective nature of the scientific method as it is applied in the study of history. So, study, and go and publish, change the consensus. That's what those others did.

 

[maximara]

I guess that is why llwyd keeps saying that if you want to overturn this consensus you need to publish and deal with the Scholars on their own terms.

None of those "Crackpot" theories you mention ever became mainstream by just whingeing about the mean old consensus, they had convincing evidence on their side.

I happen to be a fan of a "Crackpot Theory" as well: I think it is possible that the Dead Sea Scrolls were left behind by the community led by James the brother of Jesus. Unfortunately, the man pushing this theory (Robert Eisenman) also seems to go a bit far in some of his other speculations and so people label him a Kook.

I'd like to see Grahbudd and TimO'Neill2's take on that idea, but I guess this isn't the thread for that...

Uh you do know the time periods involved, right?

continental drift - proposed by Abraham Ortelius in 1596; accepted in 1958. In fact Scheidigger (1953), "Examination of the physics of theories of orogenesis", GSA Bulletin 64: 127—150 was the last formal rejection of the theory. In Carey, S. W. (1958), "The tectonic approach to continental drift", in Carey, S. W., Continental Drift—A symposium, Univ. of Tasmania, pp. 177—355 the scientific community finally got with the program.

the existence of Troy - proved by Schliemann who was a total amateur in archaeology Later professionals have complained about the quality of his work equating it more to treasure hunting then true archaeology.

heliocentrism - proposed by Philolaus (d. 390 BCE); accepted as a "mathematical convenience" by the Catholic Church during the Council of Trent (1545–1563) but when Galileo Galilei proved it in 1600 the Catholic Church couldn't suppress the information fast enough. The Catholic Church didn't accept heliocentrism as a reality until 1835. Only in 1992 did the Church finally admit it totally botched the handling of Galilei.

The Norse colonization of the Americas - known nearly from the beginning through the "Eirik the Red's Saga" and the "Saga of the Greenlanders" both written about three centuries after the events happened. Dismissed largely because the experts saw it as harkening to the Imperial Synthesis Era of the 19th century. Finally accepted in the 1970s.

Big Bang theory; suggested or implied by John Philoponus (6th century), Abu Yūsuf Yaʻqūb ibn ʼIsḥāq aṣ-Ṣabbāḥ al-Kindī (9th century); Saʻadiah ben Yosef Gaon (9th to 10th century) Abū Ḥāmed Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (11th to 12th century) and Immanuel Kant (19th century); dismissed as crackpot as late as 1963!

 

[maximara]

I guess that is why llwyd keeps saying that if you want to overturn this consensus you need to publish and deal with the Scholars on their own terms.

None of those "Crackpot" theories you mention ever became mainstream by just whingeing about the mean old consensus, they had convincing evidence on their side.

I happen to be a fan of a "Crackpot Theory" as well: I think it is possible that the Dead Sea Scrolls were left behind by the community led by James the brother of Jesus. Unfortunately, the man pushing this theory (Robert Eisenman) also seems to go a bit far in some of his other speculations and so people label him a Kook.

I'd like to see Grahbudd and TimO'Neill2's take on that idea, but I guess this isn't the thread for that...

Uh you do know the time periods involved, right?

continental drift - proposed by Abraham Ortelius in 1596; accepted in 1958. In fact Scheidigger (1953), "Examination of the physics of theories of orogenesis", GSA Bulletin 64: 127—150 was the last formal rejection of the theory. In Carey, S. W. (1958), "The tectonic approach to continental drift", in Carey, S. W., Continental Drift—A symposium, Univ. of Tasmania, pp. 177—355 the scientific community finally got with the program.

the existence of Troy - proved by Schliemann who was a total amateur in archaeology Later professionals have complained about the quality of his work equating it more to treasure hunting then true archaeology.

heliocentrism - proposed by Philolaus (d. 390 BCE); accepted as a "mathematical convenience" by the Church during the Council of Trent (1545–1563) but when Galileo Galilei proved it in 1600 the Catholic Church couldn't ban the information fast enough. The Catholic Church didn't accept heliocentrism a reality until 1822

The Norse colonization of the Americas - known nearly from the beginning through the "Eirik the Red's Saga" and the "Saga of the Greenlanders" both written about three centuries after the events happened. Dismissed largely because the experts saw it as harkening to the Imperial Synthesis Era of the 19th century. Finally accepted in the 1970s.

Big Bang theory; suggested or implied by John Philoponus (6th century), Abu Yūsuf Yaʻqūb ibn ʼIsḥāq aṣ-Ṣabbāḥ al-Kindī (9th century); Saʻadiah ben Yosef Gaon (9th to 10th century) Abū Ḥāmed Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (11th to 12th century) and Immanuel Kant (19th century); dismissed as crackpot as late as 1963!


As for the whole published nonsense that has already been dealt with:

"Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum." Worsley, Peter (1957) The trumpet shall sound: a study of cargo cults in Melanesia" quoted and cited in the University of Wollongong Thesis collection.


"There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality." (Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16)

Both peer reviewed and both saying the same thing.

 

[IanS]

This is _not_ a ^%$^#&%$ discussion of the "Gospel Jesus". It's a discussion of the perfectly normal human Jesus as found in Josephus and the other Roman documents, not the magic abracadabra figure of the Gospels.

Josephus and other later non-biblical writers (eg Tacitus etc.) were not even born when Jesus was alive, and for the very brief mention that any of them make about Jesus they can only be reporting hearsay from sources unnamed and unknown (presumably just repeating the faith stories being told by Christians at that time).

That's apart from the fact that we have no idea what such authors ever wrote about Jesus, if indeed they wrote anything at all about him. Because we do not actually have anything they ever wrote. Instead all we have is Christian copies made 1000 years and more after those authors had all died!

The extremely brief references to Jesus in the later Christian copies of Josephus and Tacitus, do of course very obviously refer to precisely the same Jesus who was the subject of the gospels. It's not supposed to be some entirely different person we are talking about.

There is no earthly human Jesus described there at all. Josephus and Tacitus cannot be describing any "earthly human Jesus", because they did not know any earthly human Jesus! Those authors were not even born at the time.

 

[pakeha]

... I do indeed think that the healings and exorcisms as portrayed in mark are indeed totally credible accounts of the sorts of things that a first century would be expected to....

I'd be interested in knowing what sources you base this idea on.

I'm still looking forward to grahbudd's reply to my request.

...For example: I might, today, be a secret devotee of Winston Churchill. And to this end I make a secret and anonymous blog up that gushes about how marvelous a person he was. I might even include some apocryphal stories about him (which are of course legion). And yet, it could still contain much true information (albeit seen sympathetically) about him.

Now, I've obviously never met Winston Churchill, even though my father is old enough to remember hearing him on the radio etc. And actually, the time scale between today and the death of Churchill (1965, 47 years ago) is less than between a reasonable date for the crucifixion (AD33) and the date of Mark (c. AD70). ...

By a curious coincidence, this reference to Winnie finds a mirror in TimONeill2's link-
http://www.quora.com/Jesus/Do-credi...e-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

Here

...So if someone claims their grandfather met Winston Churchill yet a thorough search of the grandfather's letters and diaries of the time show no mention of this meeting, an argument from silence could be presented to say that the meeting never happened. This is because we could expect such a meeting to be mentioned in those documents. ...

Anyway, off to read more about TimONeill2's claims about Josephus' and Tacitus' references to an historical Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

Well, once you accept the scholarly consensus that there most likely was a concrete historical figure behind the Jesus stories, the main point has been settled

That's like saying that in a thread named "how much money to you have to make per year to be considered rich," you think it's settled when it's established that some people are rich.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, exactly. And that's why I said that I trust not in authority but in the self-corrective nature of the scientific method as it is applied in the study of history. So, study, and go and publish, change the consensus. That's what those others did.

But that's a bit of a cop-out, isn't it ? As I said before, no one in this thread claims to be able to overturn the current consensus. This is a discussion about what we consider a historical Jesus to be/mean. Some people disagree with the consensus, but instead of pitching in, you dodge the discussion by telling them to publish.

I mean, sure enough, if they can, they should, but it's bad form, in my opinion, to just go with that rather than participate.

 

[Belz...]

We must also remember that even if the consensus is that there probably was a real human behind the sayings and traditions that eventually led to mark (phew!) it's based on estimated probability, and in any case it's just about as likely that the reverse is true. It's not like Physics, now. Consensus is not quite the same, as it was pointed out to me, by Hans I believe, a while ago.

 

[llwyd]

But that's a bit of a cop-out, isn't it ? As I said before, no one in this thread claims to be able to overturn the current consensus. This is a discussion about what we consider a historical Jesus to be/mean. Some people disagree with the consensus, but instead of pitching in, you dodge the discussion by telling them to publish.

I mean, sure enough, if they can, they should, but it's bad form, in my opinion, to just go with that rather than participate.

Well, of course, anyone can make guesses and have an opinion about everything. I could have an opinion about the string theory, but largely don't as it is gibberish to me except on a level somewhat meaningless to the scope of the subject. But Jesus is admittedly more approachable.

So, I would personally guess that there probably was a charismatic preacher that probably did make some miracles (the premodern era abounds in miracles and the supernatural) and came to a bad end at the hands of the religious establishment and the Romans. He probably didn't claim to be the Messiah or the Son of God in any very radical meaning, but might have gotten more grandiose and defiant during the final days. I think the grave might really have been empty, that would explain the hysteria of the pentecostal and the beginning of the wider movement. Then Paul came and made some contradictory theology out of it all. One thing that rings very true are the words "my God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?". That would be the final realization that there isn't anything there...

Anyway, the actual research I will leave to the actual researchers - let the scientific method be our chosen tool here.

 

[Belz...]

So, I would personally guess that there probably was a charismatic preacher that probably did make some miracles (the premodern era abounds in miracles and the supernatural) and came to a bad end at the hands of the religious establishment and the Romans. He probably didn't claim to be the Messiah or the Son of God in any very radical meaning, but might have gotten more grandiose and defiant during the final days. I think the grave might really have been empty, that would explain the hysteria of the pentecostal and the beginning of the wider movement.

Speaking of wild guesses without any evidence...

 

[IanS]

Anyway, the actual research I will leave to the actual researchers - let the scientific method be our chosen tool here.

The fact that you think this is science, tells a great deal more about you than ever it does about Jesus.

Do you know what proportion of these so-called "expert scholars" are actually mainstream non-religious historians working in mainstream non-religious sections of academic university history departments?

Afaik, the majority of so-called "academics" who publish in this area are actually theists and theologians.

And the remaining minority who are often being described here as "historians", are not usually what most of us might think of as typical non-religious academics working in ordinary university history departments.

Instead they appear to be "historians" who happen to be qualified as much in religious studies as in anything else, and who are working if not from purely religious institutes, then more from specifically religious wings of academic history departments rather than in the mainstream neutral history department itself.

Afaik, the vast majority of genuine academic historians do not publish in this field at all.

 

[pakeha]

...So, I would personally guess that there probably was a charismatic preacher that probably did make some miracles (the premodern era abounds in miracles and the supernatural) and came to a bad end at the hands of the religious establishment and the Romans. ...

You'll find there are plenty of 'miracles' even today.
Faith healers specialise in them.
But perhaps I've misunderstood you-
Are you saying this charismatic preacher was just a 1st century Sai Baba?