What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Piggy]

You don't accept as coherent, then, IanS' proposal

Paul is certainly drawing a lot from scripture. But why?

The most likely explanation is that he belonged to a group who believed that their executed leader was going to return at the Day of the Lord.

And that explanation is not surprising or odd or strange or unlikely in the least. It is entirely non-controversial.

If you say that Paul made him up, then you also have to say he's lying about the brothers of Jesus and the Twelve, which means he also must be lying about the pattern of missionary activity, which means he couldn't have actually sent any of those letter to churches (who would see the lies right away), which means the letters are hoaxes.

But there's no plausible scenario for why Paul would write hoax letters to nobody, and why Christians would somehow have preserved such documents.

Like all mythicist notions, it becomes untenable very quickly.

 

[Bad vibe]

Why did they preserve those letters when so much was destroyed or lost? why keep those? Even Gnostic texts the early church quotes, disappeared why save copies of trivial correspondence? Any books you think worth reading would be appreciated btw us mere mortals do find this stuff interesting too even if we have no intention of challenging the establishment.

 

[Locknar]

All, though especially Slowvehicle and Piggy, please stop the bickering. Those posts in breach of rule 0, rule 12 (or were otherwise off-topic) have been moved to here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259005

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Piggy]

Why did they preserve those letters when so much was destroyed or lost? why keep those? Even Gnostic texts the early church quotes, disappeared why save copies of trivial correspondence? Any books you think worth reading would be appreciated btw us mere mortals do find this stuff interesting too even if we have no intention of challenging the establishment.

The correspondence was not trivial, even though some of the contents are (e.g. sending greetings).

The letters address key church issues, such as whether people can marry or divorce (Paul says stay as you are, after all, the world's ending), what to do about freeloaders, what about people who die before Jesus returns (an event for which they were apparently not prepared), what was the meaning of Christ's death, do pagan converts need to follow the Jewish covenant, and so forth.

They also contain some powerful writing about the new faith.

It's not surprising that they were preserved.

But their preservation by the churches is inexplicable if Paul is lying about the existence of the Jerusalem group and the missionary travels.

It would be like me sending you a letter discussing people who came to visit you and my dealings with leaders of our group in New York, but nobody has ever come to visit you and you've never heard of those folks in New York.

It's entirely implausible.

And that's the problem with all the Jesus Myth stuff. When you tease it out, none of it is plausible.

That's why mainstream scholarship ignores it. There's nothing to see.

 

[kblood]

The question really is, how many Jesus archetypes might there be? And if so what are their attributes to tell them apart? Hmmm...

 

[Piggy]

Why did they preserve those letters when so much was destroyed or lost? why keep those? Even Gnostic texts the early church quotes, disappeared why save copies of trivial correspondence? Any books you think worth reading would be appreciated btw us mere mortals do find this stuff interesting too even if we have no intention of challenging the establishment.

Here's a response I gave in a PM a while back:

If you're interested in a direct response to the "Jesus myth" claims, perhaps the best place to start is Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" It covers the basics, although it is nowhere near complete if you're looking for all the evidence in favor of a historical Jesus.

Paula Fredricksen has some interesting books on the subject... I'd recommend "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews", although I have to warn you that she makes a tremendous mistake in her dating of the Gospel According to Mark, which does effect her argument somewhat, but still she raises some important points that Ehrman does not deal with.

You can also check out Dale Martin's undergrad lecture on the topic at Yale on YouTube, although it's much easier to follow if you watch all the videos leading up to it (it is number 13 in a series of lectures in his Intro to the New Testament course).

When you're ready to dig deeper into more details, such as discussions of the significance of recent archaeology in Galilee, the implications of parallels between the gospels and the targumim, the influence of the Enoch writings, the importance of rhetorical conventions in 1st century Palestine, and so forth, then I'd recommend a compilation edited by Amy-Jill Levine, "The Historical Jesus in Context".

If you just read those 3 books and watch Dale's videos, you'll have as well-rounded a view of the current scholarship as you're likely to get without taking graduate courses.

Hope that helps.

 

[Belz...]

Or do you think that they believe Luke's writing is factual history?

I think nothing in the gospels is history and I don't think Paul's writings are history, either.

he's unrecognizable when compared to Paul's Jesus.

Paul's Jesus is not very recognizable either.

Pointing out the existence of false stories and contradictions in the Biblical texts and other texts DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN PROVIDE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that there was no historical Jesus.

The point is not to prove that there was no historical Jesus but to cast doubt on the assertion that there was.

I don't care how unconvincing it is.

What an odd thing to say. You are in this thread, trying to convince us that the consensus is true, but you don't care how unconvincing your posts are ?

 

[Piggy]

The question really is, how many Jesus archetypes might there be? And if so what are their attributes to tell them apart? Hmmm...

There are no true Jesus archetypes.

After the crucifixion, the Jesus movement invented a new theology which had never existed before. One that's thoroughly Jewish.

That original vision grew in many different directions, as it spread through various pagan communities and afield to areas such as Egypt where Judaism had quite a different flavor.

After Jesus's death, his followers -- of course -- looked back at scripture to figure out why this unexpected event occurred, and they looked not only at the officially sanctioned scriptures (those accepted by priests, scribes, and sadducees) but also the rabbinic commentaries (accepted by pharisees and others, but not the priests, scribes, or sadducees).

They concluded that Jesus's crucifixion was all part of the plan, and that it had actually been prophesied by scripture, most notably in Daniel, Enoch, Esdras, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the Psalms.

In this new view, Jesus was still a Son of God (one adopted by God for a special relationship for a certain purpose -- in this case, to prophesy the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God on Earth), still an anointed one (a christ, a messiah), but his mission wasn't just to lead the righteous remnant who would survive God's wrath.

No, Jesus would be the one to come back from the celestial sphere where God had taken him up to, and he was the one who would judge everyone.

But from the outset, there were disputes over exactly what role the crucifixion played (was it sacrifice for sin, or a message to wake people up?) when Jesus became a Son of God (at birth? at his baptism? at the resurrection?) and what exactly he'd do when he returned (was he the Son of Man who would lead God's army, or would he be a judge after the battle?).

But all of those later views of Jesus shared the common core of the theology which his followers crafted from scripture after the crucifixion -- Jesus was intended to die as part of the plan of the arrival of the Kingdom of God, which would happen in their lifetimes... then just soon... then who knows when.

One of the reasons Christianity failed as a Jewish movement, but succeeded with gentiles, is that the mental gymnastics required to continue to paint Jesus as a messiah (an anointed one) were too much for Jews who lived in that tradition -- it was easy for them to see that the prooftexts and the theology just didn't add up.

But it was much easier to accept for pagans, who had no such objections from tradition.

And of course the pagans took the traditions and morphed them further.

 

[Piggy]

I think nothing in the gospels is history and I don't think Paul's writings are history, either.

Nothing?

Think about that a while longer. I don't believe you mean it.

Btw, how recently have you read those documents, and do you have a good translation with accurate notes?

 

[Craig B]

Piggy

If you're interested in a direct response to the "Jesus myth" claims, perhaps the best place to start is Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" It covers the basics, although it is nowhere near complete if you're looking for all the evidence in favor of a historical Jesus.

Dear me. There was a thread on that recently and it nearly drove me bananas.

 

[Belz...]

You're asking for the impossible.

That's because you think I'm asking for something different than what I'm actually asking for. I don't want the whole scholarship, here. But something would be better than appeals to authority.

You're saying, "What if Paul were lying about all that", and I point out that this would mean the letters are a fraud, and point out that there is no research in existence to support that conclusion, and that it doesn't even make sense.

Considering the amount of religious fraud that exists and existed at the time, I find that, again, an odd thing to say. And considering that we have no corroboration for this 'Jesus' whatsoever, it's even weirder.

For what it's worth, I find it quite probable that there was a man who was the source of Christianity. I just don't find it terribly more probable than the alternative.

A case for what?

I don't have to make any case for non-controversies.

You know, this is getting tiresome. If I ask a question in the science forum about relativity and Sol Invictus answers "well you should read up on the literature about this" rather than straight up answer my question, do I go out and get a physics doctorate ? No, Sol doesn't have to answer my question or make a case, but he can and he should if he wants the question answered.

 

[Belz...]

Nothing?

Think about that a while longer. I don't believe you mean it.

Fitting your personal god into historical context is not like making a historical document.

There is no real history in the recent Sherlock Holmes movies, for instance, even though it's in a historical context.

 

[eight bits]

Piggy

What he says with regard to the missionary travels is perfectly consistent with what we would expect to be the case.

Funny, the impression I got was that Paul himself was arguing that his mission was an unusually courageous and committed program.

And if we do doubt it, then we're forced to claim that the entire letters are frauds and were never sent to anyone.

And so we do just that with at least three of "Paul's" letters, and probably three more besides. That there are four to seven other letters that survive scrutiny, in the absence of much evidence about them either way, is a mighty wobbly stool to rest much weight upon. And yet, if there is a historical Jesus, that's where his butt sits - as hearsay from a guy whose radio isn't always tuned into the Reality Channel.

But NOBODY has EVER come up with any plausible scenario in which that would be the case. Ever. It's a non-hypothesis.

Then what's your take on the Pastorals?

 

[Piggy]

Paul's Jesus is not very recognizable either.

Yet recognizable enough for our purposes, as a holy man (human, Jew) whose sacrifice on the cross and subsequent resurrection are the "first fruits" of the coming Kingdom.

The point is not to prove that there was no historical Jesus but to cast doubt on the assertion that there was.

it's called "doubtcasting" and it's not very productive, if you don't mind my saying.

Because here's the thing... to cast such doubt, you have to present complete and coherent alternative explanations, given the fact that the current explanation -- a historical Jesus -- is completely non-problematic and has been upheld by decades of rigorous research.

Saying, "well, I don't personally know that that the research supports it" doesn't change that fact.

What an odd thing to say. You are in this thread, trying to convince us that the consensus is true, but you don't care how unconvincing your posts are ?

It's just a fact of logistics.

And btw, I'm NOT trying to convince you that the consensus is true. As I've explained, the evidentiary base is so vast, I couldn't possibly do that.

Why?

Well, it's kind of like if I were showing you pictures of my family, and I pick one out and say, "This is my grandmother's birthday party in Iowa..." and you say, "Were you there?"

I say, "no", so you say, "then how do you know that's what it's a picture of?"

I say, "Aunt Gertie wrote on the back, 'Evelyn's b'day, Gene's house, April 85'."

So you say, "Did you see her write it?"

"No, but she mailed it to me with this written on it."

"So you don't KNOW that she wrote that, or even if it was her who really mailed it, right?"

"Well, no, but look, there's a banner in the photo, says, 'HAPPY BIRTHDAY, NANA'."

"Do you know how many people are called 'Nana'? Millions. And what if that's staged?"

"Why would this be staged?"

"I don't know, but it MIGHT have been! And how do you know which 'Gene' is being referred to, there are THOUSANDS of people with that name."

See what I mean? That kind of thing can go on forever. There's just no end to it.

So no, I'm not here to convince you that the scholarship is correct.

What I'm here for is asking the mythicists for a coherent narrative that fits the evidence. Ideally, it should fit BETTER than the current paradigm of a historical Jesus, but at least it should fit AT ALL, which so far no hypothesis does.

Along the way, I'm happy to answer questions and to give the outlines of the standard theory, but I cannot PROVE the standard theory to you here.

To that end, I simply cannot get caught up in endless discussions like the one above about grandma's birthday photo.

Take the whole Son of Man discussion upthread....

That was a tar baby that there's no use getting into.

Why? Because even if Hans were right and the Christians were the first to use "Son of Man" to refer specifically to the leader of God's army at the Day of the Lord, it wouldn't change anything.

(If he's saying that they didn't use it that way, then he needs to explain what their references to "the guy" who comes in power on the clouds of heaven are all about, and why that language is coincidentally the same as that used in apocalyptic writings of the time to refer to the figure leading God's army at the coming of the Kingdom.)

Even if that usage is original with them, it's STILL true that the title as they applied it to Jesus is a bigger claim than is the claim that he's a Son of God.

That's why there was no point in getting into that fracas.

Like I said, without some respect for the research and some effort to become familiar with the basics of the mainstream ideas, the arguments go nowhere forever.

 

[Piggy]

That's because you think I'm asking for something different than what I'm actually asking for. I don't want the whole scholarship, here. But something would be better than appeals to authority.

But giving you something short of the full scholarship, if you keep approaching this as you have been, won't work, because you'll just say "They could be wrong" or something similar.

For example, I've outlined why we can be confident that Jesus was from Nazareth and was baptized by John.

What did that cause?

A flurry of "Your sources could be lying!"

It's a grandma's birthday photo scenario.

And btw, let's be clear -- again -- citing legitimate research is not an appeal to authority.

My question to YOU is: What is YOUR challenge to the mainstream scholarship?

"Could be wrong" doesn't count as a legitimate challenge that needs to be taken seriously.

 

[Piggy]

Considering the amount of religious fraud that exists and existed at the time, I find that, again, an odd thing to say. And considering that we have no corroboration for this 'Jesus' whatsoever, it's even weirder.

See what I mean.

You're doing it right there.

The existence of religious fraud has NOTHING TO DO with what we were even talking about.

What fraud? How could it be "religious fraud" for Paul to write letters that would make no sense to anyone? Who would they be sent to?

And why in the world would early Christians, who could see at a glance that they were phony if in fact there were no Jesus and no brothers and no Twelve and no Jerusalem church, preserve these letters which Paul produced for no apparent reason and sent to nobody?

IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE, even on its face.

That's like saying that you doubt the photo really is from my grandma's party because "people lie sometimes, you know".

That's simply not a valid objection.

If you think Paul invented those people to perpetuate a fraud, then YOU are going to have to explain what that fraud is and how these letters would have formed part of it, and that explanation needs to fit ALL the available evidence we have.

Short of that, I really do have no reason to even address this speculation.

 

[Piggy]

You know, this is getting tiresome. If I ask a question in the science forum about relativity and Sol Invictus answers "well you should read up on the literature about this" rather than straight up answer my question, do I go out and get a physics doctorate ? No, Sol doesn't have to answer my question or make a case, but he can and he should if he wants the question answered.

But I've already explained that, and even made this same comparison.

In physics, there are broad theories -- like gravity and electromagnetism -- which can be demonstrated with experiments. So if you doubt, say, one of the laws of thermodynamics, I can say, go look at this published experiment here and you'll see that the law is neatly confirmed.

You can't do that with ancient history.

Ancient history is a mess, a tangle of evidence. It is not neat, it is not in English, it relates to long vanished cultures and their norms, and it pulls evidence from a dizzying array of artifacts.

That's why I can't tell you "Here's the evidence" in a way that will convince you, as long as you continue to counter with soda-straw objections.

I can't prove to you that the photo of my grandma's birthday is that, if you distrust everything.

Ditto for this.

Without SOME respect for the work of mainstream scholars, I can't convince you of anything at all, no matter what I do.

 

[Piggy]

Fitting your personal god into historical context is not like making a historical document.

There is no real history in the recent Sherlock Holmes movies, for instance, even though it's in a historical context.

Oh, you mean those documents aren't in the history genre.

Well, that's true.

But nobody thinks they are. At least, not in the academic community.

And anyway, that fact provides no support at all for any Jesus Myth ideas.

But it sounds to me like you're saying "Paul is wrong about some things, so we should think he's wrong about everything", which is unworkable, non-scholarly, and non-skeptical.

 

[Piggy]

Funny, the impression I got was that Paul himself was arguing that his mission was an unusually courageous and committed program.

That's not what we were discussing.

Paul did believe that HIS mission was unique.

What we were talking about, though, was his reference to missionaries -- himself and others -- traveling around and staying in the homes of fellow Christians in various places.

That's important, because if that's accurate -- and there's no reason to doubt it and every reason to believe it -- then Paul can't possibly be lying about the existence of the leaders in Jerusalem, because he couldn't get away with it.

So if he's lying about those guys, then he's lying about the habits of the missionaries, including those he says are on their way to the groups he's writing to, which is entirely implausible.

That would mean that Paul never sent those letters to the churches at all.

So why did he write them? And how did the churches get them, and why did they preserve them?

It quickly gets too ridiculous to bother with, especially when you consider that the alternative answer -- that Jesus's brothers and disciples did have a church in Jerusalem -- is entirely non-problematic and non-controversial.

So we have mainstream scholarship which supports an entirely non-problematic position, versus an implausible scenario that requires us to believe ridiculous things.

Do we really need to waste time on the latter?

 

[Piggy]

And so we do just that with at least three of "Paul's" letters, and probably three more besides. That there are four to seven other letters that survive scrutiny, in the absence of much evidence about them either way, is a mighty wobbly stool to rest much weight upon. And yet, if there is a historical Jesus, that's where his butt sits - as hearsay from a guy whose radio isn't always tuned into the Reality Channel.

Oh, so suddenly, when the mainstream scholarship fits your views, then it's reliable.

Come on.

It's the scholarship which determine that some letters were false and some were authentic, but you think that the researchers were correct about the false ones, but wrong about the authentic ones... based on nothing?

What am I supposed to do with that?

There's nothing I can do with that.

Keep in mind, we don't accept a historical Jesus because Paul says so. That's not how it works, even remotely.

We accept a historical Jesus because that is the best theory -- and currently, the only coherent plausible theory -- to explain how the Jesus movement started and why it believed the particular things they believed, regardless of the fact that much of what they (and Jesus) believed was dead wrong.

If you want to counter the accepted scholarship, then please, tell me how that group got started and believed what it believed despite the fact that the man who they say was their founder and leader never really existed.

And your explanation better add up. It better explain the entire known trajectory of that group's history.

So far, nobody's been able to do that.