What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Aepervius]

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.

No the problem is that there are quasi no source for any information on Jesus except for a religious document called the bible and that is the main problem. You realize that there are more varied source of description of the life of say, Siddhārtha Gautama ? 500 BCE ? The problem is that the source used, the NT, more or less the single source, is a mythical recollection some of which happened long time after the fact (ETA and were not present there , just heard the story, and/or dreamt about it).

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.

I am personally split on this. Looking at all side of the argument, historian never made a good case for historicity, even Ehrman. I tend to think there is more probability that some errant human preacher existed, which spouted banality that some group of people thought were great and new (and in reality aren't either) but i place it at 51% historical 49% mythical.

There is simply no real evidence compared to other historical figures which make it more than a loaded coin toss.

 

[Belz...]

I think the problem here is that you are using a definition of evidence that dosnt apply to ancient history.

Of course it does. I agree that history is not like physics, but no evidence is no evidence.

 

[pakeha]

..."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

Why do you take Paul as a source about the historical Jesus?

... 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. ...

Could you explain those practices and how they apply to Jesus, please?

 

[nudger1964]

Both Paul and those practices apply to Jesus because the "story" came from somewhere, and historians are applying those practices to give the best fit as they see it.
As to what those practices are - i suspect you know perfectly well
Its examining the sources you do have and using knowledge of language, context, culture relating them to what other perspectives you have and building a picture of the most plausible account as to how they relate to each other

 

[HansMustermann]

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

Well, there are various flavours of "mythicism". I can't possibly address them all, but, yes, at least the cosmic ghost Jesus ones don't meet their burden of proof either.

Ultimately MY position is that we don't really know wth happened there. It's POSSIBLE that there was some wandering rabbi who did preach turning the other cheek, but then it's also very possible that there wasn't, or that his views were nothing like the ones of the gospel Jesus. We can't really tell.

Both Paul and those practices apply to Jesus because the "story" came from somewhere, and historians are applying those practices to give the best fit as they see it.
As to what those practices are - i suspect you know perfectly well
Its examining the sources you do have and using knowledge of language, context, culture relating them to what other perspectives you have and building a picture of the most plausible account as to how they relate to each other

Oh, the story most definitely comes from SOMEWHERE, but then so does Cinderella. And it turns out that while you might (or might not) be tempted to take it at face value and assume it comes from someone observing one or more mis-treated medieval or renaissance step-daughters, we actually have the original story that dates all the way to Ancient Egypt and it's about a slave. AND it wasn't about a historical incident back then either, but was a parable that offered a moralizing opinion about the tensions between Greek mercenaries and native Egyptians at the time. So I suppose it was in a sense historical in that it illustrates a problem back then, but there still isn't a historical Cinderella.

And so does Robin Hood, but see the analysis I made somewhere else. It all started about A highwayman, and "robin hood" was really just a term for highwayman at some point. There are dozens mentioned across more than a century. Then stories start to form and change, and eventually we get the modern one that not only is substantially different from the evil but pious bandit of the original story, but has been shifted back in time by a couple of centuries too. So, sure, it started from somewhere, but that "somewhere" was itself no more than a moralizing pious fiction. And sure, there were highwaymen, but there was no historical Robin Hood, or rather, not one on which the modern version of the story is based.

And ultimately I think there is NO analysis of language or style or changes that can make a story true. And not just at a theoretical level, but I've actually applied the main criteria for Jesus before, and they also make Darth Vader true. They're really that broken.

 

[pgwenthold]

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.

My question is, and I'm not the first person to ask this, if you think that Paul describes a "historic Jesus," could you, without having them stuffed in the same bible, recognize the gospel Jesus based on what Paul describes?

IOW, in light of this thread, what are the characteristics that Paul describes that make you think he is referring to the same person described in the Gospels? 1) Died, and 2) Rose from the dead, and 3) was named Jesus?

 

[HansMustermann]

And 4) telling the followers to break the bread at the last supper.

But yes, that's it.

 

[nudger1964]

And ultimately I think there is NO analysis of language or style or changes that can make a story true. And not just at a theoretical level, but I've actually applied the main criteria for Jesus before, and they also make Darth Vader true. They're really that broken.

The analysis of language, style context isnt attempting to make any particular story true...it is trying to find the seed of reality behind the story.
If you are suggesting that the scholarly pursuit of the study of ancient history is near worthless, then at least your view is consistent.
I just dont agree.

To add - If 2 billion people thought that Cinderella was the Messiah then I think it would be perfectly legitimate for Historians to attempt to trace the story to its origins, and provide an assessment of the historical basis around which the story evolved. The reason they dont is because its just a fairy tale that no one live their lives by. In the great scheme of Anthropology, its not very significant.

 

[Craig B]

My question is, and I'm not the first person to ask this, if you think that Paul describes a "historic Jesus," could you, without having them stuffed in the same bible, recognize the gospel Jesus based on what Paul describes?

No I could not recognise anyone from what Paul has to say. That is my point. But the question I was addressing was whether Paul believed that there had been a real person alive in the recent past, and that the sky voice and light (seen at mid day in Syria!) were posthumous manifestations of that deceased person. I think he did believe that, albeit that he didn't know much about the biography of that person when alive on earth. The next obvious question is, whatever Paul may have believed, whether there really had been such a person. This is the point at which I think Paul's evidence is inadequate for us to come to a firm conclusion.

IOW, in light of this thread, what are the characteristics that Paul describes that make you think he is referring to the same person described in the Gospels? 1) Died, and 2) Rose from the dead, and 3) was named Jesus?

Knew Peter. Had a brother called James. Surviving associates resident in Jerusalem. This group, observant Jews worshipping in Temple.

 

[IanS]

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.

My view is that any brief words about Jesus appearing in Tacitus and Josephus that comes to us only from copies written 1000 years after those authors had died, is so hopelessly late as to be worthless as reliable evidence anyway (regardless of where it might have come from).

 

[Craig B]

My view is that any brief words about Jesus appearing in Tacitus and Josephus that comes to us only from copies written 1000 years after those authors had died, is so hopelessly late as to be worthless as reliable evidence anyway (regardless of where it might have come from).

If you were rigorously consistent in that view of the value of copies of ancient texts, you would be a latter-day version of Jean Hardouin. See http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/jean_hardouins_theory_of_universal_forgery.

 

[IanS]

If you were rigorously consistent in that view of the value of copies of ancient texts, you would be a latter-day version of Jean Hardouin. See http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/jean_hardouins_theory_of_universal_forgery.

Nah, I don’t think that's relevant at all.


The problem with 11th century copies of works like Tacitus and Josephus is that they were apparently produced by Christian copyists in a very long chain of continual copying. And both those authors only make very brief hearsay mention of Jesus anyway.

It's obvious that Christian copyists, with a 1000 years to spare, could have made any number of changes, deletions, additions, and alterations to a minimal passage of that sort about their believed messiah from the distant past.

Brief sentences like that, about a miracle worker from 1000 years in the past, are worthless as reliable evidence.

 

[TimCallahan]

Nah, I don’t think that's relevant at all.


The problem with 11th century copies of works like Tacitus and Josephus is that they were apparently produced by Christian copyists in a very long chain of continual copying. And both those authors only make very brief hearsay mention of Jesus anyway.

It's obvious that Christian copyists, with a 1000 years to spare, could have made any number of changes, deletions, additions, and alterations to a minimal passage of that sort about their believed messiah from the distant past.

Brief sentences like that, about a miracle worker from 1000 years in the past, are worthless as reliable evidence.

The Testamentum Flavianum in Josephus' Antiquities is an obvious forgery. As to his mention in passing of the execution of James, the brother of "Jesus, who was called the Christ," the italicized portion has been called into question.

Ultimately, whether Jesus was or was not historical may be of little importance, since every narrative in the gospels derives from material that was around before the time of Jesus. For example, his miracles are reworked versions of those performed by Moses, Elijah and Eisha - or attributed earlier to Dionysus or Osiris / Horus.

About the only thing we can say about a historical Jesus is that he was a minor messianic pretender with a strong apocalyptic belief, who may well have had a form of Cynic philosophy.

 

[Aepervius]

The analysis of language, style context isnt attempting to make any particular story true...it is trying to find the seed of reality behind the story.

Good luck with that. As far as I can tell language analyzis can at best show how story change, whether the language was probably made by different persons, how the version evolved, etc... But at no point can it say whether the story have a basis in reality or not.

For that you would need independent verification from language analyzis. Which you do not have with JC.

 

[davefoc]

...Knew Peter. Had a brother called James. Surviving associates resident in Jerusalem. This group, observant Jews worshiping in Temple.

Paul's writings are the most significant evidence for an historical Jesus and I think the most significant evidence in them is his reference to people who were associated with the historical Jesus.

However, there are many possible explanations as to why there may not have been an historical Jesus despite what Paul says:
1. Paul lied.
2. Paul didn't exist. His writings were fabricated out of whole cloth by somebody working to establish a founding myth for Christianity.
3. Paul may not have been referring to a real human.
4. Paul's writings were only after the fact associated with the Jesus of the Gospels.
5. Paul existed but his writings were so highly manipulated that it is not possible to know what the original intent was.

My personal guess, which seems to be consistent with the view of several others that have participated in this thread, is that Paul's letters are roughly what they seem to be and there was a Jewish sect associated with an historical Jesus that existed in the first century Palestine area.

On a personal basis, my confidence in the correctness of my guess about all this has declined, largely as a result of participating in these threads. Some specifics on how my views have changed.

1. My view that at least some part of the Josephus writings on Jesus were probably genuine references to an Historical Jesus has changed. It seems likely to me now that they are interpolations or they didn't refer to the Jesus of the NT.
2. I originally considered the early existence of Jewish Christians as evidence that there was a Jewish Christian group in the Palestinian area contemporaneous with the life of a hypothetical historical Jesus. However, I never found any evidence to connect the early Jewish Christians that seem to have coexisted with the God Fearer groups to the hypothetical Jewish Christian sect contemporaneous with the historical Jesus.
3. The existence of the Gospels, in particular Mark still seems like it counts as evidence of an HJ to me, but there are very plausible ways to explain this evidence that don't involve an HJ.

I never considered Tacitus as good evidence for an HJ. As has been noted it, at best, is evidence of the existence of Christians at a fairly early date.

 

[IanS]

The Testamentum Flavianum in Josephus' Antiquities is an obvious forgery. As to his mention in passing of the execution of James, the brother of "Jesus, who was called the Christ," the italicized portion has been called into question.

Ultimately, whether Jesus was or was not historical may be of little importance, since every narrative in the gospels derives from material that was around before the time of Jesus. For example, his miracles are reworked versions of those performed by Moses, Elijah and Eisha - or attributed earlier to Dionysus or Osiris / Horus.

.

Yep. Does seem that way.

As reliable evidence of a real person, it falls too far short.

 

[IanS]

Paul's writings are the most significant evidence for an historical Jesus and I think the most significant evidence in them is his reference to people who were associated with the historical Jesus.

However, there are many possible explanations as to why there may not have been an historical Jesus despite what Paul says:
1. Paul lied.
2. Paul didn't exist. His writings were fabricated out of whole cloth by somebody working to establish a founding myth for Christianity.
3. Paul may not have been referring to a real human.
4. Paul's writings were only after the fact associated with the Jesus of the Gospels.
5. Paul existed but his writings were so highly manipulated that it is not possible to know what the original intent was.

Just to add a 6th consideration - if Paul was anything like his immediate predecessors who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, then he would have been in the habit of interpreting his own rapturous religious dreams as literal reality ... his encounter with Jesus was definitely a dream, as are his references to obtaining his information from no mortal man but instead directly from God. Perhaps all Paul‘s accounts come from his dreams/visions.

 

[Craig B]

Just to add a 6th consideration - if Paul was anything like his immediate predecessors who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, then he would have been in the habit of interpreting his own rapturous religious dreams as literal reality ... his encounter with Jesus was definitely a dream, as are his references to obtaining his information from no mortal man but instead directly from God. Perhaps all Paul‘s accounts come from his dreams/visions.

That is possible. But there were people from whom he did not receive information, as he says, and with whom he was on uneasy to bad terms. He doesn't seem to have dreamed or hallucinated them into existence: James, John, Cephas.

 

[pgwenthold]

No I could not recognise anyone from what Paul has to say. That is my point. But the question I was addressing was whether Paul believed that there had been a real person alive in the recent past, and that the sky voice and light (seen at mid day in Syria!) were posthumous manifestations of that deceased person. I think he did believe that, albeit that he didn't know much about the biography of that person when alive on earth.

But why think he has anything to do with Jesus in the gospels? Is there some great resemblance between them? Can you look at Paul's writings about Jesus and say, oh, he's talking about the same guy Mark is?

 

[Darat]

Just to add a 6th consideration -...snip...

Really more of an extended 6)


6a) Paul was a raving madman....