What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Dinwar]

OK, thanks for the explanation. Though I still fail to see how any such explanation can possibly work if you do not know what the original book said.

You could remove from your two copies all passages which are different from one-another. But that will still have no bearing at all on what any supposed original may or may not have ever said.

Indeed, if for example the claimed “original” did not even ever exist at all, then it would not have said anything that was contained in any claimed copies from a later date!


IOW - what you are describing appears to assume that the “copies” are indeed very close to what was written in this non-existent original. But if you don’t have the “original” then that assumption is completely unjustified in the first place.

Well, that's why I said there are risks to it. You can tell what the original said if you have enough copies (and assume that errors are rare)--but only in so far as you have extant text. If books were removed, this sort of method (as I understand it--and if I'm wrong, someone please correct me!) won't do anything to help you.

And it doesn't require that hte copies be very close to the original; merely that they not all have the same error in the same place. The REAL trick is what to do when you have multiple errors in the same place. That can get absolutely nightmarish.

 

[IanS]

???

It's not mumbo-jumbo. It's simple.

If you have, say, two copies of The Hobbit, one first edition and one second edition.

In 1990, you make a photocopy of the second edition, then sell the book.

In 2005, you make a photocopy of the first edition, then sell the book.

Your earlier copy contains the later text, your later copy contains the earlier one -- and you no longer have either of the books in your possession.

Photocopies of The Hobbit? You were not talking about The Hobbit. You were talking about an original book of the NT which you said does not now exist (if indeed a specific original ever existed) …

... do you have a photocopy of this non-existent "original" book of the NT?


How do you know what was written in a book you do not have?

If I say I have two later copies of a non-existent supposed “original”, how do you know which of those two copies is closest to the supposed non-existent original?

 

[JabbaPapa]

We are not discussing the literary merit of the Good Book, but the utility of that book as an archaeological source. We are asking an archaeological question, and therefore are obliged to utilize archaeological protocols.

Well, that's fair enough, anyway.

At least it explains your approach to the discussion.

It can NEVER prove it, period

I've never mentioned these or those contents of the Bible proving anything -- this is NOT a "word game".

your lack of interest in corroborating evidence

??? Whatever.

Caesar's works would be a primary source. If you need me to explain the difference, please accept that you don't know what you're talking about; this is basic stuff.

Your snarkiness notwithstanding, you are correct that genre plays a significant role in determining if source materials are primary, secondary, etc -- so that yes, the Gallic War by Caesar, which was deliberately and explicitly written as (among other purposes) a History of that War is a primary source for History and Archaeology, in a way that the Song of Solomon isn't ...

But this does NOT exclude works written for different purposes and for different genres from the category of "evidence" -- and particularly not when it is the contents of these works that are being examined for their veracity.

It is also very hard to see how the New Testament could be a "secondary source" of the stories about Jesus. Speaking from my literary point of view, such a suggestion would not be acceptable.

What you're actually suggesting would (from that POV) refer to the quality of the evidence in the New Testament -- that you have suggested as being poor -- rather than to its existence per se. If no evidence existed therein, this whole discussion topic would be as utterly absurd and pointless as a discussion about "the historical wombles".

Now, you can pull your whole schtick suggesting that I'm lying, for whichever odd reason, about not meaning "proof" when I use the word "evidence", but I really do NOT.

If I had the desire to contribute something along the lines of A + B + C proves X, I would certainly not hide behind such idiotic and hypocritical stratagems as you have accused me of.

I detest word games and do not play them. You act as though the evidence you see in the Bible were proof.

No -- this is not true.

The History Channel and pop culture magazines

You've made that accusation before, and it's always been false.

That must be why you've just demonstrated the truth in my analysis by writing :

"You want to use the Bible to support an idea (it's not worth calling a theory) ... SNIP ... you insist that we allow you to play by special rules"

Fantasy.

Oh, I should also point out that even referring to "The Bible" as one book is a historical error. In the past, Bibles were sets of books--someone would copy, say, the Book of Genesis, along with commentary and prayers and other such addenda, and bind it into a book.

I thought you didn't "play word games".

 

[IanS]

Well, that's why I said there are risks to it. You can tell what the original said if you have enough copies (and assume that errors are rare)--but only in so far as you have extant text. If books were removed, this sort of method (as I understand it--and if I'm wrong, someone please correct me!) won't do anything to help you.

.

Yeah, well I think we are getting closer to agreeing on this. And the above is largely the point I'm making. Namely ...

... it is being assumed that an original did once exist (even though we don’t have any such original), and further that it did indeed say more-or-less what is contained in later "copies" (eg assumes "errors are rare").

But that is a huge assumption. And completely unjustified.

For a start there may never have been any specific original book of the NT. And if even there was, it may quite easily have said something entirely different to what christain "copyists" decided they should write many centuries later in their supposed “copies”.

 

[Belz...]

What if pigs had wings, and we could shoot pork chops out of the sky ?

The difference being that we have no evidence for Jesus at all outside of the bible, while there's very good reasons to believe no pigs can fly.

Now there's an agenda for you !!!

Asking for corroborating evidence is agendra-driven ? Is it also cruel ?

Please can you demonstrate the validity of your apparent claim that the New Testament is evidence-free.

Well, yeah. It's a book without external confirmation; the very definition of "evidence-free", like the book of Mormon.

"There is no other ancient figure as well-attested by copies of ancient reports than the Christ" does not mean "Christ is better attested than Caesar"

Well, of course it does, since Caesar is also an ancient figure. Not only that, it's also a lie, since we have no documentation at all for Jesus outside the bible. It'd be more honest to say "There is no other ancient figure as poorly-attested by copies of ancient reports than the Christ".

They are found in later copies of earlier and more faithful copies that are no longer extant.

How can you know they are more faithful if they are no longer extant ?

 

[JabbaPapa]

If I say I have two later copies of a non-existent supposed “original”, how do you know which of those two copies is closest to the supposed non-existent original?

This would be difficult, if you only had two copies, and no internal nor external evidence existed to date them relative to each other -- but in a case such as the New Testament manuscripts, the texts will spontaneously degenerate over time, as copyists skip lines by mistake, or make other such copying errors, which will then be reproduced in later copies made from that same source.

Textual comparison becomes very useful in such cases, because the better preserved texts, that have numerically lower instances of such copying errors, can be deduced as being copies of texts that are closer to the original than those with greater numbers of copying errors -- regardless of the date when the copy was actually made.

When a certain number of good quality copies have been so identified, further comparative analysis between them will help to further eliminate any copying errors that may be present in even the better copies, with a goal to getting as close as possible to the likely state of the text as it was originally written.

Anecdotally, IIRC the oldest extant complete copy of the New Testament is not considered to be a very good copy of the texts, as it includes an overly large number of copying errors.

 

[JabbaPapa]

How can you know they are more faithful if they are no longer extant ?

"faithful to the original text"

The original author-approved manuscript of a text is obviously more faithful to that text than a 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc generation copy of it.

 

[JabbaPapa]

... it is being assumed that an original did once exist (even though we don’t have any such original), and further that it did indeed say more-or-less what is contained in later "copies" (eg assumes "errors are rare").

But that is a huge assumption.

No it isn't -- the basic assumption when studying ANY text is that an original version of it either existed or exists ; in fact, the opposite suggestion would be a total logical absurdity. Texts do not spontaneously appear ex nihilo.

You provide what a "huge assumption" looks like in the following :

For a start there may never have been any specific original book of the NT. And if even there was, it may quite easily have said something entirely different to what christain "copyists" decided they should write many centuries later in their supposed “copies”.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Without an original copy, we cannot assume that we've gotten all the errors out of the texts. All we can do is say that what we have removed are errors (and even then, I want an original to compare them agianst).

Correct, and the older a text is, and the smaller number of copies have survived, the greater the likelihood that not every error will be corrected.

Having said that, comparatively large numbers of copies of the New Testament have survived, including some very old ones.

That's the problem inherent in all statistical approaches to deriving previous forms.

Yes -- but this is not completely applicable to textual reconstruction.

It is applicable to minor variants (spelling, punctuation, minor syntax variants, and so on) in manuscript copies (which typically exist in abundance), but it is less applicable to the major ones (extra paragraphs/paragraphs missing, chapters, entire sequences, whole books, and so on) (which, from a mediaeval point of view, tend to be frequent in "non-serious" literature (Arthurian romances, cookery books, collections of legends, etc), and far less frequent in "serious" literature (books of Law, Accounting, Religion, Philosophy, and so on).

Which is quibbling with your point, not disagreeing with it, but the evolution of texts from one copy to the next is nevertheless variable on the basis of their genre, rather than on strictly statistical questions.

 

[JabbaPapa]

You should learn what words mean. And what science is. You fail at both.

Oh good GRIEF this is getting tiresome.

I have no interest in your pathetic ad hominems nor your posing of them as if they were "arguments".

 

[JabbaPapa]

That is what I understood him to mean also, but I don't see the relevance to a discussion about the nature of a historical Jesus.
Would a copy of a biblical text that was an exact representation of what the original author wrote provide better evidence about the nature of the historical Jesus than what is available today?

Yes -- such a copy would by definition be free of any later transcription errors or additions.

This would not necessarily require that the best possible textual evidence must be considered as being of "good quality", but it would eliminate at least the question that other authors/editors had introduced any extraneous elements decades or centuries later.

 

[catsmate]

Oh good GRIEF this is getting tiresome.

I have no interest in your pathetic ad hominems nor your posing of them as if they were "arguments".

Before using terms like ad hominem you would do well to understand what they mean. Pointing out your atrocious ignorance is not an argument ad hominem.

As in the shroud thread, you appear to be militantly unwilling to accept that your knowledge of the subject under discussion is inadequate and flawed; I suggest you do the necessary work to bring your knowledge up to a reasonable standard.

 

[Dinwar]

Oh good GRIEF this is getting tiresome.

I have no interest in your pathetic ad hominems nor your posing of them as if they were "arguments".

The irony of this is astounding. This is nothing but you going "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!"

Grow up or go away. I don't care which. I've dealt with the Philosophy 101 crowd before. Guess what? To someone who's been involved in REAL debates, what you're doing is a joke. You use the words, but improperly. For example, I shouldn't have to explain to you why a secondary source that includes text a man says while everyone else was asleep (Jesus in the garden) doesn't count as archaeological evidence. YOU want to use the Bible as evidence; YOU provide the justification to do so. Until then, the default position is it's not, not because it's the Bible and I'm an atheist but because it's a secondary source at best.

Secondly, nothing I've said thus far is an ad hom attack. I've never said "You're wrong because you smell funny" (or, obviously, the equivalent). I've pointed out systematically and very politely (for me, anyway) the errors in your reasoning. If you consider THAT an ad hom attack, you obviously aren't willing to examine your reasoning objectively.

Which is quibbling with your point, not disagreeing with it, but the evolution of texts from one copy to the next is nevertheless variable on the basis of their genre, rather than on strictly statistical questions.

Tell me, what do you know of n-dimensional statistical analysis? Or tempos and modes across genera?


ETA: And I really, REALLY hope you call my second paragraph an ad hom attack. Because that'll more or less make my argument for me.

 

[Cainkane1]

Suppose that the true story of Jesus was that of a Jewish apocalyptic preacher in 1st century Palestine who angered the religious establishment and eventually became crucified under the supervision of Pontius Pilate.

If it could be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that this was in fact what gave rise to the Jesus story and eventually Christianity, would it count as the "historical Jesus"? I think it would be most uncharitable not to, as it is essentially what the Gospels tell, except for there being no miracles and supernatural mumbo-jumbo. And it really wouldn't be a particularly odd series of events (except for the crucifixion part), because there were plenty of Jewish Messiah claimants during this time. The whole idea of a Messiah is really rather childish, as it is basically the idea that one guy will fix all your problems.

Suppose instead that the Jesus-as-rebel hypothesis is true. That is, the idea that Jesus was really a rebel/bandit/revolutionary (who could well have claimed to be the Messiah as such, like Simon bar Kokhba) who was crucified by the Romans, and the legends then remade him into a Messiah who preached peace. Would this be a close enough fit to talk about a historical Jesus?

What if the Jesus story sprung from the lives of several individuals whose life stories eventually merged into one story (plus the mythological stuff)? If that is the case, would it then be reasonable to talk about a historical Jesus?

In other words, how close to the Bible story would a historical individual's life have to be to be considered a (or the) historical Jesus?

I know one thing. Its been my experience that when you pray to Jesus nothing happens. So whether hes the "messiah" or not or whether he died for our sins or not he's pretty useless as far as healing sick people or helping you do something, anything worthwhile.

 

[maximara]

One paper seems to be unavailable without an institutional license for the journal and the other paper is only available for $25. (snip)

Huh? Goldburg's paper is freely and readily available at www.josephus.org something I found out using Google searching for "The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke". Mind telling us how you missed that if you were really interested in reading it?

 

[Dinwar]

I know one thing. Its been my experience that when you pray to Jesus nothing happens. So whether hes the "messiah" or not or whether he died for our sins or not he's pretty useless as far as healing sick people or helping you do something, anything worthwhile.

It's the "Yes/No/Wait" thing. No matter what you pray to, as long as those are the three options for response the result is always that the thing has answered your prayers. Because those are the only three ways TO respond to prayers.

No it isn't -- the basic assumption when studying ANY text is that an original version of it either existed or exists ; in fact, the opposite suggestion would be a total logical absurdity. Texts do not spontaneously appear ex nihilo.

I see your insanity and raise you one codex. (No, not that one--I wouldn't waste her on JP )

 

[maximara]

Well, of course it does, since Caesar is also an ancient figure. Not only that, it's also a lie, since we have no documentation at all for Jesus outside the bible. It'd be more honest to say "There is no other ancient figure as poorly-attested by copies of ancient reports than the Christ".

Another point glossed over in such comparisons is that there are truly contemporary collaboration of people like Caesar, Socrates, and even Alexander the Great. NONE exists for Jesus.

It gets really STUPID when comparisons to Holocaust denial and Moon Landing Hoax are made...again the amount of truly contemporary documenting these events (or nearly any event after the invention of the Printing Press) is staggering and yet Jesus has NONE.

 

[Dinwar]

Well, that's fair enough, anyway.

At least it explains your approach to the discussion.

Also known as "the proper approach to the discussion".

Please read the thread title: we're looking for evidence of a HISTORICAL Jesus. Not a LITERARY Jesus, not a MYTHOLOGICAL Jesus (say that reality can't be a mythology, I dare you--and I promise I won't respond, I'll just sit back and watch the postmodernist fireworks!), certainly not the BIBLICAL Jesus, but a HISTORICAL Jesus. That places this conversation squarely in the realm of archaeology--the same field that deals with all the other historical folks (to argue otherwise is Special Pleading). That, in turn, places it into the historical sciences. There are rules for evidence in historical sciences, rules we've learned through hard-fought battles and centuries of debate. And the Bible falls far, far short of reaching the status of acceptable evidence under those rules.

You want to debate the Bible as literature, that's a fair enough topic and certainly an interesting one (mostly in terms of how such a poorly-written book can be considered great literature). But no amount of literary analysis can possibly be relevant to the question at hand. The literary aspects simply don't matter, because it's always entirely possible that people made the stories up. Until you can prove that they didn't, the best course of action--given all the internal evidence that the Bible isn't historic--is to simply ignore it and look for REAL evidence.

 

[davefoc]

Huh? Goldburg's paper is freely and readily available at www.josephus.org something I found out using Google searching for "The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke". Mind telling us how you missed that if you were really interested in reading it?

I followed this link (http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/7/13/59.full.pdf+html) contained in the article you linked to originally (http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2946) to a site that was charging for a download of the article.

I also followed this link (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&ty...early_christian_studies/v020/20.4.carrier.pdf) to a site that seemed to be requiring an institutional license to see the other paper linked to in the article you originally linked to.

Thanks for the link to the article in question.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Before using terms like ad hominem you would do well to understand what they mean. Pointing out your atrocious ignorance is not an argument ad hominem.

Before providing critique of understandings that others have of certain rhetorical figures of speech, you should make sure that you fully understand the rhetorics yourself.

Your accusation of "ignorance" on such a basis is rather ironic.

As in the shroud thread, you appear to be militantly unwilling to accept that your knowledge of the subject under discussion is inadequate and flawed; I suggest you do the necessary work to bring your knowledge up to a reasonable standard.

Not interested. I do not care in the slightest if you believe in my lack of interest or not ; I view that thread as being mostly composed of intellectual masturbation, and some grossly unpleasant expressions of emotionalised hostility.