What counts as a historical Jesus?

[tsig]

It should be clear that telling miracle stories about Jesus to convert others doesn't in any way provide any support for the notion that Jesus never lived.

The miracle stories simply do not cast doubt on Jesus's existence as a Jewish holy man of the early first century.

That's because telling such stories is exactly what we would expect if these people really did follow such a holy man. Others at the time did much the same.

So the miracle stories support a HJ?

 

[tsig]

No, seriously--I do appreciate you presenting your opinion. It almost makes it sound as if it is reasonable of you to label anyone who disagrees with you a crank. I really appreciate your pointing out that the concepts of nuance and continuum are not welcome in your boolean formulation.

See, you're not really disagreeing with Piggy but all those scholars whose word he accepts as gospel truth who unfortunately are not here.

 

[Piggy]

So the miracle stories support a HJ?

Absolutely.

Under the circumstances, it is infinitely more likely that the miracle stories were told about a real holy man than that they were about someone who never existed.

 

[Piggy]

See, you're not really disagreeing with Piggy but all those scholars whose word he accepts as gospel truth who unfortunately are not here.

Let me get this straight.

You admit you don't know the first thing about the actual scholarship in this area.

Yet you accuse someone who has studied this stuff of accepting the research merely on faith, despite the fact that you know nothing at all about either the research or his experience with it.

You don't bother to find out anything about the field before chiming in on this thread, then claim that the absence of primary researchers on the thread is somehow evidence of someone else's gullibility rather than your own cluelessness.

Do I have that right?

Yeah, I do.

 

[Piggy]

I appreciate your time, really. How refreshing of you to proclaim your opinion as definitive, without all that ambiguity. I makes dismissing other opinions so much easier.

That might bother me if you were making any sense.

However, you're coming on here admitting you don't know a thing.

When someone makes posts that are based on research you haven't even bothered to check out, despite it being necessary to actually have an opinion about the topic, you try to snark them.

And you keep at it, apparently thinking you're on some high ground.

That's why these threads mystify me. Behavior like that would be shot down in a second on just about any other thread.

I think it's just because there aren't enough skeptics who bother to study the legitimate field of inquiry into human religion.

In any case, please, carry on, you're doing a great job. Please continue to opine about these issues which seem to you to be solely my opinion.

Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

 

[davefoc]

It should be clear that telling miracle stories about Jesus to convert others doesn't in any way provide any support for the notion that Jesus never lived.

The miracle stories simply do not cast doubt on Jesus's existence as a Jewish holy man of the early first century.

That's because telling such stories is exactly what we would expect if these people really did follow such a holy man. Others at the time did much the same.

Kind of and kind of not it seems to me.

I think the problem with the miracle stories with regard to the existence of an HJ is not that they directly cast doubt on the existence of an historical Jesus. It is that they cast doubt on the credibility of the sources that mention an HJ. It doesn't prove those sources were wrong, but it provides evidence that they might be.

If secular sources could be found to support the existence of Jesus or any of the NT characters most directly associated with him in time and place then I could see a basis for a strong belief in the existence of an HJ. However the sources we have about the nature of an HJ are all of a religious nature (excluding the problematic Josephus stuff). Some people routinely lie when it is in their interest to do so. How do we know that people who are known to have been wrong about quite a few things didn't just make up stories about the HJ to provide a back story for the religion they were promoting?

There are lots of clues here that cast doubt on the reliability of NT. Why is it such a stretch to imagine the things that aren't provably wrong with the information that is available to us, are wrong?

I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but to repeat, I used to see the dispute between the law abiding Jews and the gentile oriented Paul as evidence that there was some truth buried in Paul's letters since it seemed like an admission against the interest of the early Christianity promoters that there would have been any disputes between people who were inspired by their close association with Jesus Christ. However, it now seems plausible to me that this is exactly the kind of narrative that a smart story teller would have worked into the NT because it mirrored the conflict in his community between the God-fearers and the Jewish groups they interacted with.

My point here is not that such a thing happened, but rather that the possibility can't be disproved based on the available evidence.

 

[tsig]

Absolutely.

Under the circumstances, it is infinitely more likely that the miracle stories were told about a real holy man than that they were about someone who never existed.

So when I see miracle stories told about Thor I can be sure there's likely a real Thor behind the story?

 

[Piggy]

Kind of and kind of not it seems to me.

I think the problem with the miracle stories with regard to the existence of an HJ is not that they directly cast doubt on the existence of an historical Jesus. It is that they cast doubt on the credibility of the sources that mention an HJ. It doesn't prove those sources were wrong, but it provides evidence that they might be.

I've found that this is something which people who've never studied or worked in the field have a very hard time with.

Most folks want to know if a thing is true or false, and if someone says a thing that is false, they (naturally) suspect that the person is unreliable and tend to be suspicious of whatever they say.

This is, fortunately, not how historians approach texts.

Historians place texts in their contexts, asking who wrote them, and where, and when, and for whom, and in what format and genre, and within what conventions, and to what purpose.

A rigorous approach to texts as artifacts requires that we suspend our human emotional tendency to short-cut our rational decisions and cast doubt on everything written by someone who has written a thing we know to be false.

Instead, we must ask of each statement, why it is most likely that the writer wrote it down?

It is often the case that, within the same document, the answer for some passages is "It was true, and the author wanted others to know", while the answer for other passage is ""The author was lying for self-serving purposes" or "The author was mistaken about the facts".

For the historian, the presence of the latter sort of passage in a text does not necessarily cast doubt on other passages. It might, or it might not.

If an author lies about his accomplishments, for example, then we probably should doubt grand claims about other achievements of his, but we have no need to be particularly suspicious when he says that he was glad it rained on Tuesday because the pollen was bothering him.

 

[Piggy]

So when I see miracle stories told about Thor I can be sure there's likely a real Thor behind the story?

No, why would you think that?

What an odd thing to think.

 

[tsig]

So the miracle stories support a HJ?

Absolutely.

Under the circumstances, it is infinitely more likely that the miracle stories were told about a real holy man than that they were about someone who never existed.

So when I see miracle stories told about Thor I can be sure there's likely a real Thor behind the story?

No, why would you think that?

What an odd thing to think.

Your hilited text.

According to you the miracle stories make a HJ more likely so why wouldn't miracle stories make Thor more likely.

 

[Piggy]

Your hilited text.

According to you the miracle stories make a HJ more likely so why wouldn't miracle stories make Thor more likely.

I see you avoided highlighting "under the circumstances".

Are you going to play like Hans, and pretend that there's no difference between a church letter and a horror novel or sci-fi TV series?

Nobody ever said Thor was some dude they knew who got killed.

All the stories about Thor are stories about a god. OK?

So they have nothing to do with Paul's letters which portray Jesus as a Jewish holy man who lived a few years ago.

Are we surprised to find that miracle tales are told about a god? No. So those stories don't make us doubt that Thor is a mythical god.

Are we surprised to find that miracle tales are told about ancient emperors? No. So those stories don't make us doubt that Julius Caesar was an ancient emperor.

Are we surprised to find that miracle tales are told about a first century Jewish holy man? No. So those stories don't make us doubt that Jesus was a first century Jewish holy man.

But do I really need to explain that?

 

[tsig]

I see you avoided highlighting "under the circumstances".

Are you going to play like Hans, and pretend that there's no difference between a church letter and a horror novel or sci-fi TV series?
Nobody ever said Thor was some dude they knew who got killed.

All the stories about Thor are stories about a god. OK?

So they have nothing to do with Paul's letters which portray Jesus as a Jewish holy man who lived a few years ago.

Are we surprised to find that miracle tales are told about a god? No. So those stories don't make us doubt that Thor is a mythical god.

Are we surprised to find that miracle tales are told about ancient emperors? No. So those stories don't make us doubt that Julius Caesar was an ancient emperor.

Are we surprised to find that miracle tales are told about a first century Jewish holy man? No. So those stories don't make us doubt that Jesus was a first century Jewish holy man.

But do I really need to explain that?

Since both are products of the human imagination the only difference is the church letter purports to have authority from god.

I see no reason to treat one different than the other.

So miracles helps prove HJ but we can't use that same criteria for anybody else.

 

[davefoc]

I've found that this is something which people who've never studied or worked in the field have a very hard time with.

Most folks want to know if a thing is true or false, and if someone says a thing that is false, they (naturally) suspect that the person is unreliable and tend to be suspicious of whatever they say.

This is, fortunately, not how historians approach texts.

Historians place texts in their contexts, asking who wrote them, and where, and when, and for whom, and in what format and genre, and within what conventions, and to what purpose.

A rigorous approach to texts as artifacts requires that we suspend our human emotional tendency to short-cut our rational decisions and cast doubt on everything written by someone who has written a thing we know to be false.

Instead, we must ask of each statement, why it is most likely that the writer wrote it down?

It is often the case that, within the same document, the answer for some passages is "It was true, and the author wanted others to know", while the answer for other passage is ""The author was lying for self-serving purposes" or "The author was mistaken about the facts".

For the historian, the presence of the latter sort of passage in a text does not necessarily cast doubt on other passages. It might, or it might not.

If an author lies about his accomplishments, for example, then we probably should doubt grand claims about other achievements of his, but we have no need to be particularly suspicious when he says that he was glad it rained on Tuesday because the pollen was bothering him.

This entire post is along the line of what I would call a plausibility argument. I might not be an historian, but it is exactly the kind of reasoning that I try to apply when I am making an estimate about the truth of a particular historical claim. I roughly applied this approach to the issue of whether an HJ or not and I decided that it was more likely than not that one existed. What I can't see is how this kind of argument in this case leads to the degree of certainty that you have about this issue.

It is absolutely possible to put together a reasonable scenario that explains all the facts available to us that includes an HJ. It is possible to make reasoned guesses about what part of the NT is reliable and what is not. However, where I disagree is that something in this process results in the basis for a solid conclusion that an HJ existed.

The evidence for an HJ looks very tenuous to me. It primarily depends on the writings of Paul. After that the evidence thins out significantly and might include Mark, Q, James and the possibility that there is a legitimate reference to an HJ in Josephus. What in that group provides evidence that doesn't have plausible alternative explanations to explain it?

Mark - Inspired by stories of the risen Messiah wafting through the God-fearer community and a knowledge of the characters in Paul's letters.
Q - May not have existed, but even if it did what does it prove except that writing Jesus fiction took hold early
James - Theoretically the work of Jewish Christians but hard to tell and even if it was were these Jewish Christians one's from the hypothetical Palestinian Jesus sect or were these one's displaced in time, distance and language from any hypothetical Jesus.
Josephus - discussed endlessly in these threads. I used to hold out more hope that the James reference was legitimate than I do now. Somebody in this thread linked to an article that put forth an argument that resonated with me that even the James reference is unlikely to be legitimate.

 

[tsig]

This entire post is along the line of what I would call a plausibility argument. I might not be an historian, but it is exactly the kind of reasoning that I try to apply when I am making an estimate about the truth of a particular historical claim. I roughly applied this approach to the issue of whether an HJ or not and I decided that it was more likely than not that one existed. What I can't see is how this kind of argument in this case leads to the degree of certainty that you have about this issue.

It is absolutely possible to put together a reasonable scenario that explains all the facts available to us that includes an HJ. It is possible to make reasoned guesses about what part of the NT is reliable and what is not. However, where I disagree is that something in this process results in the basis for a solid conclusion that an HJ existed.
The evidence for an HJ looks very tenuous to me. It primarily depends on the writings of Paul. After that the evidence thins out significantly and might include Mark, Q, James and the possibility that there is a legitimate reference to an HJ in Josephus. What in that group provides evidence that doesn't have plausible alternative explanations to explain it?

Mark - Inspired by stories of the risen Messiah wafting through the God-fearer community and a knowledge of the characters in Paul's letters.
Q - May not have existed, but even if it did what does it prove except that writing Jesus fiction took hold early
James - Theoretically the work of Jewish Christians but hard to tell and even if it was were these Jewish Christians one's from the hypothetical Palestinian Jesus sect or were these one's displaced in time, distance and language from any hypothetical Jesus.
Josephus - discussed endlessly in these threads. I used to hold out more hope that the James reference was legitimate than I do now. Somebody in this thread linked to an article that put forth an argument that resonated with me that even the James reference is unlikely to be legitimate.

If Piggy acknowledged that his life on this forum would be a lot easier, whacking everyone else in the shins with a club is bound to raise their hackles.

Yet he insists his opinion is the only opinion and anything else is not just mistaken but a crank opinion.

 

[maximara]

Well, I was actually trying to have that conversation, but it keeps getting derailed.

On page 38 I answered a question, laying out a pretty standard bio for a historical Jesus.

Someone asked for a summary of the evidence, so I did that for the first couple of bits about being from Nazareth and being a follower of John the Baptist.

Of course, then there's an assault by the Jesus Truthers -- I'm sorry to call them that, but seriously, that's what they are -- who start making pointless objections.

Post #1509 has practical problems:

"Born in Galilee some time before year 0, Jewish, raised in Nazareth, which was just a small cluster of huts, really." This brings up the whole Jesus of where? issue I pointed before. The now defunct pro-HJ site Jesus Police pointed out the flaws with assuming 'Nazarene' meant a place In fact they point out that Matthew and Luke call Nazareth a city, not a village, not a collection of guys living in cave but a full fledged city. They also point out:

"A Nazarene was someone who lived an ascetic life, known as much for what they did (a lot of praying) as for what they didn’t do (eat animals, sacrifice animals, shave, cut their hair, drink fermented beverages). Nazarenes were originally called Nazorenes, and they were a prominent sect in northern Palestine, and according to Epipanius, were also known as Mandaeans. They derived their name from the word “Nasrani” which referred to a school of small fish. The metaphor to the early Christians is obvious, as is their early symbol, the fish. Famous examples of Nazarenes included John the Baptist, the warrior Samson and the prophet Samuel."

This brings us to the "When Herod had John the Baptist beheaded, it must have been a terrible blow to Jesus, who would have viewed John as a prophet of God, and likely had no great love for Herod in the first place."

This is only true if John the Baptist was executed before Jesus' crucifixion. The problem is this both of these are a range: 28 – 36 CE for John's beheading and 30–36 for Jesus' crucifixion.

Luke 3:1-4 says John the Baptist "came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (ie 29 CE)

So if we go with the 28 CE death date for John the Baptist we have Jesus being baptized by a reanimated corpse. Uh, oops.

If we go with the Wikipedia's dates (funny how they changed after I pointed out that gaff but the sources being referenced didn't) you have the earliest date for John's beheading (31 CE) being AFTER the one for Jesus' crucifixion (30 CE) double oops.

Never mind there are clues in in Josephus that John the Baptist was executed no earlier than the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius or 34 CE but you have people saying Jesus was crucified 30-33 ie BEFORE John's beheading. Triple opps.

Throw in the range for Paul's conversion (31–36 CE) along with the claim that he had persecuted Christians ie followers of the crucified and risen Jesus long enough to become infamous in THREE provinces (ie for years) and you have very good odds that Paul converted BEFORE Jesus was crucified perhaps even before John the Baptist was executed! It's a Grand Slam of Opps.

It's going, going, it is gone. The logical ball is out of the park! The Christ Mythers win the Pennant! The Christ Mythers win the Pennant! (sorry I just couldn't resist the baseball tie in)

 

[davefoc]

...

Nice summary of some of problems discussed in this thread with relying much on the Gospels as a source of information about the hypothetical HJ. Well done, although given the fact that this thread borders on incivility already it might have been nice to avoid the gloating at the end.

ETA: That is not to say that your gloating was not well earned.

 

[maximara]

Nice summary of some of problems discussed in this thread with relying much on the Gospels as a source of information about the hypothetical HJ. Well done, although given the fact that this thread borders on incivility already it might have been nice to avoid the gloating at the end.

ETA: That is not to say that your gloating was not well earned.

The reality is no Church Father of the first century quotes extensively from the gospels and no such quoting occurs until c180 CE. Paul himself talks about other Gospels other Jesus in 2 Corinthians 11:4 (c 55 CE) so it is clear there was a division on what Jesus said and even what he was even at that early date.

There is nothing to suggest that the historical people referenced in the Gospels are nothing more then window dressing ala Zelig or Forest Gump.

We saw what appears to be this exact nonsense when Eusebius claimed "It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs."

There is no logical reason for this to be true and Philo not to write one word on Jesus but that is exactly what Eusebius claims. One gets this 'we're important so we are connected with known important people' vibe.

Yet at the time Jesus supposedly lived everybody seems to be in a Napoleon Bunny-Partest mode: "Hey, here is another Christ. That's the twelfth one today." Not a single person writes anything down even though some of Jesus followers included people who COULD write. Instead they sit around until Paul starts sending out letter to everybody and then decide 'hey I think we should write down this stuff' and that is assuming the Gospels were written in the 1st century (which there is NO proof of).

 

[Belz...]

The thing is, there's no reason to even ask for evidence aside from Paul when it comes to this point.

Forgive me, but that sounds like an unskeptical thing to say. Again I'll ask for the book of Mormon: is there reason to even ask for evidence aside from it ? Of course there is. Smith, like Paul, is making claims, but we have no corroborating evidence that any of that is true. It doesn't help that Paul peppers his works with miracles.

In other words, it's not that we take Paul's word for a claim, it's that Paul's letters reveal to us a world in which this network of missionaries is simply assumed.

At the risk of sounding stupid: isn't that the exact same thing ? I mean, you don't take Paul's word for it but you assume what he says is true.

 

[Belz...]

Let me get this straight.

You admit you don't know the first thing about the actual scholarship in this area.

Yet you accuse someone who has studied this stuff of accepting the research merely on faith, despite the fact that you know nothing at all about either the research or his experience with it.

You don't bother to find out anything about the field before chiming in on this thread, then claim that the absence of primary researchers on the thread is somehow evidence of someone else's gullibility rather than your own cluelessness.

Do I have that right?

Yeah, I do.

Here's my problem:

Yeah, I don't have much knowledge in this field. I find it interesting and I have some basic familiarity with it, but I'm going to have to rely on the evidence and arguments presented to me because I don't want to get a degree in this field.

So coming to threads like this I expect to have some interesting posts to read, so you'll understand that since most of your posts consist of "trust me, there is no controversy. Jesus existed. End of story." (and "you just don't know enough about this subject") I don't find that particularily convincing. In any other topic knowledgeable people literally swarm us with links and references, but not this one. In this special case we have to take alledged experts at their words.

Do you not see how unconvincing this is to laypeople ? You said a few posts ago that you didn't do a good job of explaining.... and then didn't explain further.

 

[Belz...]

So when I see miracle stories told about Thor I can be sure there's likely a real Thor behind the story?

To be fair, he did say "under those circumstances", now.

In my view, however, if the name of the character we are discussing was "Mithra" instead of "Jesus", nobody would claim that we are pretty sure he existed based on one uncorroborated source and four magical gospels made 75 years later and probably based on that one source. But "Jesus" is a lot of people's personal god, so I'm a bit suspicious that he may get a pass, here.