What counts as a historical Jesus?

[nudger1964]

I cant wade through the whole thread, but just want to comment on the question posed in the opening post.
The way I look at it is this.
We have modern day historians portrayal of Alexander the Great, and then we have several romanticised versions from various cultures.
By examining and comparison of text, study of context and use of language and cross referencing from other sources, it is possible to see the silhouette of the reality that inspired the myths. With Alexander the Great, this is of course made easier by having better historical accounts available to scholars, but the principle still applies. You can use myth to deduce a plausible origin, and tell that story as best you can.
That plausible foundation of the story would be the case for the historicity of jesus, and also determine your idea of the Historical Jesus - Your concept of the Historical Jesus will of course be determined by subjectively deciding who's account you like best.

 

[IanS]

To be fair... and I'm speaking as an atheist here (who's also new to the site and hasn't read the entire thread and so doesn't know if this has been mentioned so far) the first century Roman historian Tacitus claims that Christianity was named after a person that the Romans executed.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Tacitus was famously anti-Christian, so surely we can certainly consider him as an unbiased 'supporting' source for the crucifixion event?

In addition to CraigB's reply above, it's also apparently the case that earliest copies we have of Tacitus, actually date from around 1100AD, and not from anywhere near the actual lifetime of Tacitus. That leaves 1000 years of continuous copying in which anything might have been added, removed, altered etc. (and note that Tacitus, like Josephus, actually says very little about Jesus).

 

[Belz...]

Tacitus was famously anti-Christian, so surely we can certainly consider him as an unbiased 'supporting' source for the crucifixion event?

Depends. Was he relying on Christians' claims or some other source ?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I've actually addressed that before, but here comes the short version again:

Tacitus was indeed probably not trying to advertise xianity, but what are his sources?

Well... Tacitus writes in Rome, the same city where (as an educated guess that's generally accepted) Mark had been written some decades before. And in turn Mark was presumably written by and/or for the local Xian cult. So, you know, there were a number of Xians in town and heir belief was that Jesus died under Pontius Pilate.

I dunno, it seems to me like Tacitus is just repeating what the Christians are saying about Jesus.

Plus, while Tacitus is a pretty good historian, you have to realize (A) there's only so much research a guy can do in a couple of years, especially when we're talking stuff from a century ago in a different place and in an age before internet or telephones or anything, and (B) that Christians were never his main topic. The topic there is Nero. The Christians only get a brief mention as to who were those guys that Nero made a scapegoat of. There is no reason to believe Tacitus would go to Palestine and dig out records from a city destroyed decades ago, just to make sure he has independent confirmation for such a comment.

Now I can allow that he may have asked around, may have talked to other officials who had dealt with Christians, maybe even consulted trial records of Christians in Rome. But all that comes from Christians, and more precisely from a church that used Mark as its primary scripture.

So what we really get from there is basically that some Xians in Rome in Tacitus's time BELIEVED that there was a Jesus and he died under Pontius Pilate. Which nobody denies, really. But it isn't the same thing as confirmation that it actually happened.

 

[Craig B]

In addition to CraigB's reply above, it's also apparently the case that earliest copies we have of Tacitus, actually date from around 1100AD, and not from anywhere near the actual lifetime of Tacitus. That leaves 1000 years of continuous copying in which anything might have been added, removed, altered etc. (and note that Tacitus, like Josephus, actually says very little about Jesus).

Personally I'm inclined to admit the Tacitus reference as genuine, while acknowledging that he obtained it from Christian sources; but I reject the Josephus references as interpolated and entirely fictitious. Interestingly, the Jewish author Philo (c20 BC to c50 AD), an exact contemporary of Jesus, an abundance of whose works have survived, never mentions him. And neither does Justus of Tiberias, another Galilean and author of a chronicle of Jewish history, who lived shortly after. Jesus first appears in Paul's epistles, as a voice in the sky - not in the writings of his contemporaries as a person they knew or even met.

 

[pakeha]

...That plausible foundation of the story would be the case for the historicity of jesus, and also determine your idea of the Historical Jesus - Your concept of the Historical Jesus will of course be determined by subjectively deciding who's account you like best.

What do you consider to be the case for the historical Jesus?

 

[nudger1964]

But Paul also is clear that he is talking of a real earthly man of flesh and blood

 

[nudger1964]

What do you consider to be the case for the historical Jesus?

I am inclined to accept the one portrayed by the overwhelming consensus of secular scholars that study that period of history - until such time as a good argument is presented that gets some traction amongst scholars.
The case is one of scholarly study of history - arriving at the most plausible interpretation of ancient accounts

 

[pakeha]

Great.
Could you explain it in your own words, or link to the papers that have most influenced your thinking?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

We've been through that before, too, and there are a bunch of problems with taking Paul's word for it too. Starting with the fact that Paul's choices of words are a lot less clearly in that direction in Greek than they seem in English.

But that's an issue for a different topic. What we're talking about here is what would count as a historical Jesus, which at least for me means a minimum set of attributes/views/events that would identify a specific person. Or at least a very small pool of potential candidates.

If we get for example just that he was probably a man, over 13 years old (i.e., adult), who may have gone once or twice to the temple (but didn't drive anyone out or impress anyone with his knowledge of scripture), was at least once at a wedding (where nothing noteworthy happened), etc... well, that fits a few million Jews from that time. It's not specific enough to be a historical Jesus (worth anything.)

And that's kinda the problem with Paul's Jesus. Paul doesn't say almost ANYTHING about his Jesus. There is the mention of the last supper, but otherwise Paul manages to write 20-page letters about Jesus... and still manage to not convey any opinion, parable, physical characteristic, or anything else about Jesus. Even when he meets Peter or James, he shows no interest in conveying anything THEY knew about Jesus. Even when he admonishes his congregation about something, or gives them New Rules like an ancient Bill Maher , in many cases it's stuff that according to the later gospels Jesus had already ruled about. Yet even though that would have solved the problem right there and then, Paul doesn't seem to be aware that Jesus already gave a rule there, or at least he's not conveying it.

So basically even if you read Paul as that there was A guy who was flesh and blood and got nailed... that's about all you get from Paul. We don't really know if his Jesus did or said anything that the Gospels later make him do and say. I.e., something that would make him be the historical Jesus in any meaningful sense.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I am inclined to accept the one portrayed by the overwhelming consensus of secular scholars that study that period of history - until such time as a good argument is presented that gets some traction amongst scholars.
The case is one of scholarly study of history - arriving at the most plausible interpretation of ancient accounts

Oh great, another "just believe the scholars" argument from authority. But see, the validity and soundness of an inference doesn't have anything to do with who said it. Either it is a sound argument, or it isn't.

So far I haven't seen any of those experts do anything even vaguely resembling a sound argument. Usually what they do is something completely different and fully irrelevant, like cladistics studies of the bible texts, and then you're supposed to believe them when they do a leap of faith to the "historical Jesus"... apparently just because of their expertise and study in something that doesn't and can't support that conclusion.

But I might have missed something. If you did run into a sound argument for Jesus, please do be a sport and point us at it.

 

[nudger1964]

An argument from authority is only a fallacy when you are using false authority. Giving weight to expertise in a field is not an argument from authority fallacy.
You mythicist would do well to actually listen to Carrier. He tells you that a plausible Mythicist case has yet to be made, and that the onus is on the mythicist to make that case. Which is what he is attempting to do.
I await the discussion to be had amongst those who are in a better position to judge it

"So basically even if you read Paul as that there was A guy who was flesh and blood and got nailed... that's about all you get from Paul"
That is all I do take from Paul - the only position I support

 

[Craig B]

But Paul also is clear that he is talking of a real earthly man of flesh and blood

I agree, although some contributors to these threads don't. But what I say is: Paul did not know that man!

 

[Belz...]

You mythicist would do well to actually listen to Carrier. He tells you that a plausible Mythicist case has yet to be made, and that the onus is on the mythicist to make that case. Which is what he is attempting to do.

Question is: in the total absence of evidence, what's the null hypothesis ? Cause that's pretty much where we are.

 

[nudger1964]

Question is: in the total absence of evidence, what's the null hypothesis ? Cause that's pretty much where we are.

I think the problem here is that you are using a definition of evidence that dosnt apply to ancient history. The consensus is arrived by standard historiography practices. The evidence in this case is an interpretation of what evidence there is ie the text.

I agree, although some contributors to these threads don't. But what I say is: Paul did not know that man!

Thats true enough ... I just dont see what that changes.
The case for historicity of Jesus is the basic discipline of historiography. If you accept its historicity, as I have already said, a historical Jesus is subjective. I find little reason to doubt he existed as a fairly unremarkable migrant preacher man that gathered a small following.
Thats all I would claim, and its a rather unremarkable claim derived by standard historiography practices.
Now it might be wrong, but in order to make that case you essentially have to demonstrate the whole field of historiography is fundamentally flawed and needs radical reform.
That itself might be true also ... but it requires a bit more than revisionists with an agenda on the internet to make that case.

 

[Craig B]

Question is: in the total absence of evidence, what's the null hypothesis ? Cause that's pretty much where we are.

Yes, it's very difficult. We can't show that there was a man, and we can't show that there was a myth either, in the period during and immediately after the years when Jesus is supposed to have lived. My hypothesis (and even this I do not hold with any tenacity) is: some people believed that there had been a man. The most economical way of explaining this belief is to suggest that there was a man. Is that a null hypothesis? Or the absolute minimum "non-null" hypothesis?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

An argument from authority is only a fallacy when you are using false authority. Giving weight to expertise in a field is not an argument from authority fallacy.

Actually, it looks more like a case of your not having a clue about how informal logic works. (And it has to be informal logic, because formal logic doesn't work by giving weight to a person's statements.)

Informal logic does let you take some shortcuts like just cite a person and move on, but that doesn't mean they're right. And it's basically allowed only as long as everyone involved is ok with that shortcut, e.g., with believing that that guy was right. Or when you're doing it for yourself, which really is the same thing. It's the sub-case where only one person is involved.

Otherwise, that that guy was right is itself something that has to be supported.

E.g., I could say "more dilluted solutions are stronger; see, Hahnemann", and that's exactly that kind of shortcut. And it's allowed as long as it is agreed that there is no reason to doubt that Hahnemann, as an authority on homeopathy, is right.

But when the whole topic is basically whether Hahnemann was right about the homeopathy he invented, one can't insist that we trust Hahnemann because he's an authority.

So forking what? Authorities and experts have been wrong before. Even Einstein, who frankly was doing science and not the hare-brained handwaving that Jesus scholars do about the HJ, was wrong on occasion. E.g., about his own cosmological constant. Heck, every scientist who ever lived was technically wrong, to various extents.

And there are whole domains that have authorities which are wrong, because the domains themselves are bogus. E.g., there are experts in homeopathy, chiropractic, dowsing, astrology, acupuncture, feng-shui, or Star Trek canon. So what? It doesn't make any of that true just because some guys decided to call each other experts. Just because some deranged guy decided he wants to believe Captain Kirk is real, and he spent lots of times studying all ST episode, novels and fanfic, even to the extent where he could be considered an expert on ST lore, doesn't make Kirk real. Nor does it mean we should all listen to him because he's the expert.

But to return to the topic at hand, you're of course within your rights to decide to trust whatever authority you wish. But when you come tell us to just trust some guy because he's the expert, then you must be able to defend the idea that said expert is right. Otherwise, basically, it's not worth anything.

For science, well, that's easy, because the whole idea there is that people try hard to find anything that would disprove that guy's case. E.g., if someone decided to just not believe that GR or QM are right, well, we can know that it's been decades of lots of smart people actively trying to disprove GR and QM and failing. So we know they haven't been shown wrong yet.

But even there it's because people tried and failed to prove him wrong, not just because he just wrote some unverifiable stuff and some lemmings called him an expert.

But for bible studies, WTH is the equivalent thing that would give one a priori confidence in the experts? Is there some way to even falsify those HJ claims? Is anyone trying to? Or what? What makes that expert's opinion more important anyway?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think the problem here is that you are using a definition of evidence that dosnt apply to ancient history. The consensus is arrived by standard historiography practices. The evidence in this case is an interpretation of what evidence there is ie the text.

*Bzzt* Wrong. There is no provision in logic that if coming up with actual evidence is hard, then bullcrap and handwaving are just as unassailable a substitute.

Yes, you can form a conjecture if that's all you can, but that doesn't mean it's just as supported as the domains which do have evidence. If a domain doesn't and can't have just as good evidence, then that makes their conclusions less supported, and that's that. It doesn't mean you can't distrust them because they don't have evidence, it means that you're even more sane to doubt anything that is unsupported.

And unsurprisingly, actual historians writing about actual historical events, know that. No historian will tell you that you can't doubt Timaeus (who, for such a great philosopher, sure is never mentioned by anyone except Plato) as a real person. Every historian will be aware that where things are only very weakly supported, e.g., it comes only from one heavily biased source, then, yes, there is plenty of room for other interpretations, or even for the whole thing to be fiction. It's only Jesus and primarily from people who actually aren't historians (sorry, degrees in bible studies are not the same as being a historian) that such ridiculous arguments are produced, as that the fact that you can't have good evidence is somehow actually a plus.

 

[nudger1964]

your edit quite eloquently got the more generous interpretation of what I was saying better than the former.
I dont argue that its only weakly supported, and I dont accept there is any certainty.
OK I did previously say "I find little reason to doubt ....."
Let me clarify that by saying of the claims made for historicity or mythicism, I find little in the mythicist claim which makes it more plausible. I do agree that is tentative

 

[Craig B]

Thats true enough ... I just dont see what that changes.

It perhaps changes nothing, but it means that Paul, our earliest source, is not as informative as we might wish as far as Jesus' historicity is concerned. A light and a voice in the sky are imaginary phenomena. It may be a person who really existed, or a fictitious person, who is the subject of the hallucination. The experience would be the same either way.

The case for historicity of Jesus is the basic discipline of historiography. If you accept its historicity, as I have already said, a historical Jesus is subjective. I find little reason to doubt he existed as a fairly unremarkable migrant preacher man that gathered a small following.
Thats all I would claim, and its a rather unremarkable claim derived by standard historiography practices.

And if it could be sustained it would most certainly count as a historical Jesus. But can it be sustained? For my part I truly don't know. I really can not find enough evidence.