What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Piggy]

As I said before, one clue to that scenario is the fact that all the gospel writing comes from anonymous individuals none of whom had ever met Jesus and all of whom considered the HJ to have died at some unspecified time in what was by then the quite distant past. None of those authors really knew who Jesus was. I suspect the same may apply to the letters of Paul … afaik, the earliest copy we have of anything from Paul is from about the start of the 2nd century (or quite probably later) … would a wandering street preacher such as Paul really have been able to write such educated accounts? It seems to me, that like the gospels, Paul’s letters would more likely have been written by someone else in the name of Paul (ie so-called “Pseudepigrapha”?)

This has already, of course, been studied extensively.

Some of the letters attributed to Paul are not by Paul, but some certainly are.

There is really no doubt among scholars of ancient near-eastern literature and history that Paul personally knew people who personally knew Jesus, and that his letters were written to Christian congregations during the time when some of Jesus's relatives and disciples were still alive.

 

[IanS]

Scholars agree, with very good reason, that Jesus existed, and that he was executed by Pilate. That guy is the historical Jesus.

Piggy, I don't want to get into any sort of personalised argumentative stuff here (and I'll just drop out if that starts happening), but just from an objective impartial point of view - aren't these scholars almost entirely either historically interested theologians or theologically interested historians?

That is - how many of these scholars have a personal commitment to belief in the existence of Jesus, versus how many are truly independent? How many of them have their educational background mainly in theology, religious studies, and the history of Christianity .... as opposed to being, say, mainstream historians with no particular background or interest in Christianity/Jesus/Theology but who just happened at some point to turn their academic historical expertise away from their usual non-religious historical research to investigate what is truly known about verifiable evidence for Jesus?

Bart Ehrman for example, is afaik, someone whose academic qualifications are mainly in religious studies, rather than neutral non-religious academic history?

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, I don't want to get into any sort of personalised argumentative stuff here (and I'll just drop out if that starts happening), but just from an objective impartial point of view - aren't these scholars almost entirely either historically interested theologians or theologically interested historians?

No.

That is - how many of these scholars have a personal commitment to belief in the existence of Jesus, versus how many are truly independent? How many of them have their educational background mainly in theology, religious studies, and the history of Christianity .... as opposed to being, say, mainstream historians with no particular background or interest in Christianity/Jesus/Theology but who just happened at some point to turn their academic historical expertise away from their usual non-religious historical research to investigate what is truly known about verifiable evidence for Jesus?

Bart Ehrman for example, is afaik, someone whose academic qualifications are mainly in religious studies, rather than neutral non-religious academic history?

You're wrong about Ehrman. He started out in confessional apologetics when he was young, but when he got into an accredited program, that worldview fell apart for him.

Folks who are out to prove this theory or discredit that one from the get-go are not scholars, they are apologists, and I don't make reference to their work.

Objective historical analysis of Biblical literature began in Germany in the 1800s, and has made great strides from then til now.

Scholars of the ancient near east treat scripture as artifacts, just like all other artifacts. Their job is to put those artifacts into context with everything else we know about the people and place and time, and draw whatever conclusions are warranted.

Those are the people I study.

Just because someone studies religion doesn't mean that they are religious (Ehrman is not) or that they are apologists.

 

[IanS]

There is really no doubt among scholars of ancient near-eastern literature and history that Paul personally knew people who personally knew Jesus, and that his letters were written to Christian congregations during the time when some of Jesus's relatives and disciples were still alive.

When you say there's really no doubt, that does not sound very scientific.

You presumably do not literally mean that. After all, scientists, if they are not being loose with their language, would not claim that QM or even Evolution is a matter of absolute certainty, and those things are surely much more likely than the far more subjective pursuits of historical study into anonymously written copies of 2000 year old religious writing.

 

[tsig]

Dorothy is a fictional character.

The different views of Jesus in the Biblical literature and related literature are blends of fact and fiction.

The historical Jesus is simply the actual person who lived, or more accurately what we can tease out about his life.

It's not that difficult, really.

I believe that's called begging the question.

The question is whether or not he lived.

 

[tsig]

No, Hans, it's just that you're not qualified to judge.

You seem to think it's "silly", for instance, that Paul's letters clearly demonstrate that he viewed Jesus as a living, breathing man who was crucified in Jerusalem and who had biological family.

And this despite my showing you the quotes which clearly prove this fact.

I've had plenty "useful to say" on these threads, but you go blithely on with your little conspiracy theories, ignoring the overwhelming evidence of real scholarship.

You look at the hard work of historians and archaeologists, and simply dismiss it, preferring your "In Search Of" version instead.

[SNIP]

But that's not going to stop me from posting.

Granted, I have very little time, but maybe I can stick around awhile.

It's a shame to leave folks in the hands of your ilk... the Jesus Truthers.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

This has already, of course, been studied extensively.

Some of the letters attributed to Paul are not by Paul, but some certainly are.

There is really no doubt among scholars of ancient near-eastern literature and history that Paul personally knew people who personally knew Jesus, and that his letters were written to Christian congregations during the time when some of Jesus's relatives and disciples were still alive.

No.




You're wrong about Ehrman. He started out in confessional apologetics when he was young, but when he got into an accredited program, that worldview fell apart for him.

Folks who are out to prove this theory or discredit that one from the get-go are not scholars, they are apologists, and I don't make reference to their work.

Objective historical analysis of Biblical literature began in Germany in the 1800s, and has made great strides from then til now.

Scholars of the ancient near east treat scripture as artifacts, just like all other artifacts. Their job is to put those artifacts into context with everything else we know about the people and place and time, and draw whatever conclusions are warranted.

Those are the people I study.

Just because someone studies religion doesn't mean that they are religious (Ehrman is not) or that they are apologists.

Still using that argument from authority with a soupcon of ridicule I see.

 

[Piggy]

When you say there's really no doubt, that does not sound very scientific.

You presumably do not literally mean that. After all, scientists, if they are not being loose with their language, would not claim that QM or even Evolution is a matter of absolute certainty, and those things are surely much more likely than the far more subjective pursuits of historical study into anonymously written copies of 2000 year old religious writing.

To be blunt, I don't have much patience with that kind of philosophical musing.

I mean, you could also say that, technically, it's an open question from a scientific point of view whether the earth is round or flat.

But in reality, there's no doubt.

There's also no real doubt among historians that the Nazis did, in fact, build extermination camps and murder thousands of people.

To go into those topics and try to nit-pick by saying, "Whoa, wait, hold on... what do you mean there's no real doubt... scientifically, everything is in doubt" is a tactic which simply attempts to put a roadblock down and contributes nothing at all.

The notion that a historical Jesus is controversial is as valid as the notion that there are genuine controversies over whether evolution is real. Nobody who is familiar with the actual scholarship believes there's any controversy at all.

 

[Piggy]

I believe that's called begging the question.

The question is whether or not he lived.

No, it's not begging the question.

I was replying to someone about a definitional matter. And that's the definition. The question of whether a historical Jesus existed is not the same question.

Of course, that question has been studied for well over a century now, and there is an overwhelming consensus that the Christian religion grew out of a small group of Jewish end-timers led by a man called (in translation) Jesus, who was crucified by Pilate.

There simply is no other coherent scenario which explains all of the evidence at hand.

And nobody on this thread or any other such thread on this forum has ever offered one.

 

[Piggy]

Still using that argument from authority with a soupcon of ridicule I see.

Why is it that people who don't understand logical fallacies are so keen to trot them out?

Pointing out the fact that all the available scholarship converges on one conclusion is not an "argument from authority". Nor is it "argument from consensus". If you think it is, then you don't know what those terms mean.

I mean, seriously, the number of mythicists (those who doubt the existence of a historical Jesus) among publishing scholars in academic journals can literally be counted on one hand.

Think about that.

You try to dismiss this fact by saying, well, that doesn't matter, it's "argument from authority".

You are wrong.

There's a difference between citing authority and the fallacy of which you apparently know the name but not the definition.

And btw, ridiculous ideas merit ridicule. As do people who are shown conclusive evidence and deny it, as Hans has done for example in the case of Paul's opinion regarding the humanity of Jesus.

 

[HansMustermann]

Oh gee, another thread where Piggy's arguments boil down to
A) Argument from authority, and
B) just postulating that anyone who might disagree is some kind of CT-er.

Now that's new and unexpected. No, really

Well, anyway, I wasn't asking you to shut up. I was asking you to present the actual arguments instead of such ego-wank proclamations of who's crank. Not that I have high hopes, but I had to ask.

 

[IanS]

Piggy - I accept that there are various reasons why those who, like you, believe religious scholars when they say that Jesus definitely existed, would be critical of Richard Carrier. I also find it irritating that he tries to sell himself as a world renowned expert (or however he puts that), and that in every filmed appearance he always suggests that people buy his books etc. etc. But ….

…. whether you have watched and listened to the following clip before, or not, I would ask you to have another very careful listen to this. And also for others here to do the same ... take a careful and un-biased look at all of the following -


Richard Carrier on why Jesus probably did not exist -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

 

[Thomas Bowers]

To be blunt, I don't have much patience with that kind of philosophical musing.

I mean, you could also say that, technically, it's an open question from a scientific point of view whether the earth is round or flat.

But in reality, there's no doubt.

There's also no real doubt among historians that the Nazis did, in fact, build extermination camps and murder thousands of people.

To go into those topics and try to nit-pick by saying, "Whoa, wait, hold on... what do you mean there's no real doubt... scientifically, everything is in doubt" is a tactic which simply attempts to put a roadblock down and contributes nothing at all.

The notion that a historical Jesus is controversial is as valid as the notion that there are genuine controversies over whether evolution is real. Nobody who is familiar with the actual scholarship believes there's any controversy at all.

I agree. Proof of the real historical Jesus, as a man, exists in the scriptures, if one takes the time to think about the events and takes off one's blinders. For example, Jesus' family members are recorded as saying he was "nuts" and they were worried about him. This is a standard reaction of many families when a member rejects their traditional beliefs.

But why would Mary react this way if she was the Virgin Mary and had been told by an angel that she was to bear the messiah? Shouldn't she have expected her offspring to have been different and made excuses for his behavior? The Virgin Mother stuff was obviously a pagan insertion into the story of Jesus later in an effort to change the nature of the story.

But the story of the reaction of Jesus' family to their wayward son rejecting Jewish traditions rings absolutely true in the context of a real historical Jesus and his mission.

 

[Piggy]

I agree. Proof of the real historical Jesus, as a man, exists in the scriptures, if one takes the time to think about the events and takes off one's blinders. For example, Jesus' family members are recorded as saying he was "nuts" and they were worried about him. This is a standard reaction of many families when a member rejects their traditional beliefs.

But why would Mary react this way if she was the Virgin Mary and had been told by an angel that she was to bear the messiah? Shouldn't she have expected her offspring to have been different and made excuses for his behavior? The Virgin Mother stuff was obviously a pagan insertion into the story of Jesus later in an effort to change the nature of the story.

But the story of the reaction of Jesus' family to their wayward son rejecting Jewish traditions rings absolutely true in the context of a real historical Jesus and his mission.

Well, that's not actually how scholars approach the subject.

All that we can glean from the documents is that certain members of Jesus' family are attested to, and that one of his brothers continued the ministry in Jerusalem.

And btw, Jesus never abandoned Judaism. He was operating squarely within the Jewish traditions of his time. Nobody who knew Jesus, or heard him preach, would have thought he was turning away from Judaism in any way.

 

[Piggy]

Oh gee, another thread where Piggy's arguments boil down to
A) Argument from authority, and
B) just postulating that anyone who might disagree is some kind of CT-er.

Now that's new and unexpected. No, really

Well, anyway, I wasn't asking you to shut up. I was asking you to present the actual arguments instead of such ego-wank proclamations of who's crank. Not that I have high hopes, but I had to ask.

Perhaps you could define an issue and then we could examine the evidence.

I don't know why you would think I would avoid presenting evidence, given that I wrote an entire thread debunking one mythicist's entire argument with evidence.

Of course, when I present you with evidence -- such as for the "Paul didn't think Jesus was human claim" -- you simply ignore it and insist that your crank theories are right anyway.

So by all means, tell me what you want to discuss.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy - I accept that there are various reasons why those who, like you, believe religious scholars when they say that Jesus definitely existed, would be critical of Richard Carrier. I also find it irritating that he tries to sell himself as a world renowned expert (or however he puts that), and that in every filmed appearance he always suggests that people buy his books etc. etc. But ….

…. whether you have watched and listened to the following clip before, or not, I would ask you to have another very careful listen to this. And also for others here to do the same ... take a careful and un-biased look at all of the following -


Richard Carrier on why Jesus probably did not exist -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

Which claims do you think have merit?

That video is an hour long. Since I've already heard all the mythicist arguments, I don't need to listen to them again. It gets tedious.

 

[Thomas Bowers]

Well, that's not actually how scholars approach the subject.

All that we can glean from the documents is that certain members of Jesus' family are attested to, and that one of his brothers continued the ministry in Jerusalem.

And btw, Jesus never abandoned Judaism. He was operating squarely within the Jewish traditions of his time. Nobody who knew Jesus, or heard him preach, would have thought he was turning away from Judaism in any way.

I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar but, if they can't see what I have stated is true, then I don't know why you value their opinions so highly.

 

[HansMustermann]

Err, Thomas... much as I'm tempted to just grab some popcorn and watch the fireworks if you think you're gonna convince Piggy of your de-paganized Jesus... it helps if you actually use the actual text there instead of interpolating on the fly.

The paragraph in question is Mark 3:20-21:

20. Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat.

21. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”​

The immediate context is his just coming from the mountain where he named his disciples in Mark 3:13-19, and before being accused by some unspecified rabbis from Jerusalem of driving away demons by the power of Belezebub in Mark 3:22. His family actually arrives after that, in Mark 3:31.

What's worth noting is that he hadn't exactly been with his family in the last few days (in fact, he just took a trip from the Sea of Galilee to a mountain and presumably back down if he's now in a house in a city). He's also not really done much more than exorcisms at that point, as well as apparently give his disciples the authority to do exorcisms. (Mark 3:15.)

But basically the whole page around that part is really just about Jesus doing exorcisms and, a little earlier, some faith healings.

There is no reason in the text to believe that his family's concerns were the fine points of theology (most of which he hadn't yet taught anyway), or for that matter that they'd know the exact fine points of what he's been preaching.

A more natural reading IMHO is that they go after him just because they heard he's playing exorcist. (And drawing huge crowds at that. In fact, a literal reading of the text can be that what his family heard was just that he's drawing huge crowds for some reason.)

Which is equally a pretty normal reaction for a family.

ETA: mind you, not that I think it's based on any real event, but if you're determined to find something in what the text says, well, then that's what the text says.

 

[Piggy]

I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar but, if they can't see what I have stated is true, then I don't know why you value their opinions so highly.

I value their conclusions because they know much more than you do about the topic, and they back up their conclusions with evidence.

Jesus was simply not breaking away from the Jewish tradition. He was part of it. And he was not unique. There were others like him.

 

[Thomas Bowers]

Err, Thomas... much as I'm tempted to just grab some popcorn and watch the fireworks if you think you're gonna convince Piggy of your de-paganized Jesus... it helps if you actually use the actual text there instead of interpolating on the fly.

The paragraph in question is Mark 3:20-21:

20. Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat.

21. When his familyb heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”​

The immediate context is his just coming from the mountain where he named his disciples in Mark 3:13-19, and before being accused by some unspecified rabbis from Jerusalem of driving away demons by the power of Belezebub in Mark 3:22. His family actually arrives after that, in Mark 3:31.

What's worth noting is that he hadn't exactly been with his family in the last few days (in fact, he just took a trip from the Sea of Galilee to a mountain and presumably back down if he's now in a house in a city). He's also not really done much more than exorcisms at that point, as well as apparently give his disciples the authority to do exorcisms. (Mark 3:15.)

But basically the whole page around that part is really just about Jesus doing exorcisms and, a little earlier, some faith healings.

There is no reason in the text to believe that his family's concerns were the fine points of theology (most of which he hadn't yet taught anyway), or for that matter that they'd know the exact fine points of what he's been preaching.

A more natural reading IMHO is that they go after him just because they heard he's playing exorcist. (And drawing huge crowds at that.)

Which is equally a pretty normal reaction for a family.

ETA: mind you, not that I think it's based on any real event, but if you're determined to find something in what the text says, well, then that's what the text says.

As always, you are amazing but I respectfully disagree. Even if events transpired as you say, the expectations after a Virgin Birth and a visit by an angel should have been different and excuses were in order, not a statement that Jesus was "out of his mind".

 

[Thomas Bowers]

I value their conclusions because they know much more than you do about the topic, and they back up their conclusions with evidence.

Jesus was simply not breaking away from the Jewish tradition. He was part of it. And he was not unique. There were others like him.

I guess, for you, Jesus was just a run-of-the-mill apocalypse preacher and the growth of the Jesus movement was just a freak accident. I've heard this story before.