What counts as a historical Jesus?

[The Norseman]

... less likely, more likely. These are useful when you're trying to guess what's your best option. But you still have to be honest and say you don't really know.

To be fair, however, Piggy does say that the MJ theory makes no sense, not just isn't likely.

It makes sense if you come at it from the null hypothesis.

It was originally HansMustermann who started me thinking down this path a year or so ago in another historical Yeshua thread. There really isn't enough evidence to show conclusively one way or another; if a person wishes to get into probabilities, they need to show their work and explain how their conclusion is best supported.

So far, I don't see anything that the historicists have said that conclusively destroys the idea that Yeshua could have been made up.

 

[JaysonR]

Exactly, a point sadly being deliberately ignored by those proponents of an historical Yeshua.

Actually; that's ignored by history as a whole.

This is why we have the phrase: "History is a set of lies agreed upon."

For instance, the battle of Kadesh between Egypt and the Hittites was only known to us by Egyptian assertion that they had fought the Hittites there and won.
We have tons of documentation on the battle, but it's all from the Egyptians.

That was all we had until we found the library of Hattusa, and then we had the Hittite record of the event; and that account claimed it was more a stalemate than a victory for Egypt.

We have not one single secondary non-bias citation of how this battle took place, or that this battle ever occurred.

The bias is pushed further when we recall that the Hittites had a political marriage to Egypt shortly before the Hittite empire downfall.
As such, this entire event could be complete fabrication.

We have no hard evidence for a battle in Kadesh in the 1200's BCE.
We have, instead, accounts by the alleged participating two sides.


That falls remarkably far lower in verification than what we have regarding either Hippocrates or Jesus.


If you want to push against history, it's not hard to invalidate nearly all ancient history.

 

[JaysonR]

It occurs to me that folks talking in here may not be familiar with the standard methods used in humanities (of which, History is a sub-sect) for comparative research (the standard method employed in the historicity of an event or figure).

These general standards are broke into two parts:

1. Stages of research
2. Criteria

The Stages are:

1. Identify a phenomena
2. Develop an assertion for the investigation (including the assertions of events, concepts, figures, etc) that may explain the phenomena
   -- 3 through 4 may repeat per multiple components to test 2 --
3. Choose a case (cases) to examine
4. Examine similarities and differences
5. Propose a causal explanation for the phenomena

The Criteria during examination (3 through 4 of the above, mostly):

1. There must be an association between two variables, and the change in one variable must logically, or through data, show to be related to a change in another variable (if P event was Y, then B article would state C; if P event was Z, then B article would state D - also; B article would change dependent on X article of P event).
2. The cause of an examined phenomena must be shown to occur before an effect (X article cannot occur after B article if B article is being used as a dependent associative variable to X article for phenomena P event, and neither X or B article may precede event P if X and B article are dependent associative variables of event P).
3. The association of two variables must not be related to a third variable (X and B article cannot be dependent associative variables to verify event P by relying on Q article as an interim of X and B articles).
4. An explanation of how associations (any described) are considered to have occurred.
5. Assertion (back up at stage 2 above) and explanation of associations must result in sympathy with the context of the variables and phenomena examined (all variable's relationships must fit within the cultural contexts of each related variable, as well as the overall assertion must fit within the cultural context).

These are the general standards of humanities studies when using comparative data to discern a matter (which is one of the most common methods used in historicity).
The examples I listed above were tailored to historicity specifically since this is the context for which we are discussing.


As can be seen from this outline; this is far from being "hard" or "empirical" evidence, equally there is not discussion on mathematical probability or computations thereof.
History is a humanities branch of study that does not argue its case by mathematical probability, but instead by logical arguments largely compiled from circumstantially dependent variables drawn together in a given proposition.

When such occurs in a manner where the majority of the field feels confident in a given assertion; it is granted a validation status for inquiry of historicity.

 

[The Norseman]

Actually; that's ignored by history as a whole.

This is why we have the phrase: "History is a set of lies agreed upon."

For instance, the battle of Kadesh between Egypt and the Hittites was only known to us by Egyptian assertion that they had fought the Hittites there and won.
We have tons of documentation on the battle, but it's all from the Egyptians.

That was all we had until we found the library of Hattusa, and then we had the Hittite record of the event; and that account claimed it was more a stalemate than a victory for Egypt.

We have not one single secondary non-bias citation of how this battle took place, or that this battle ever occurred.

The bias is pushed further when we recall that the Hittites had a political marriage to Egypt shortly before the Hittite empire downfall.
As such, this entire event could be complete fabrication.

We have no hard evidence for a battle in Kadesh in the 1200's BCE.
We have, instead, accounts by the alleged participating two sides.


That falls remarkably far lower in verification than what we have regarding either Hippocrates or Jesus.


If you want to push against history, it's not hard to invalidate nearly all ancient history.

So one might say in all honesty, "we believe this battle happened based on these two independent records, but we can't be certain" but what I've been reading so far is "yes, it's inconceivable why anyone would lie about this battle and all historical records point to this event so therefore it happened as a matter of certainty."

 

[Stone]

Can we find a single citation from an alleged reference to Jesus by Josephus in any pre-Eusebian commentator? I don't think there is such a thing. I may be wrong. Do you know of one?

Of course, I know of one: Origen. You're being circular.

Stone

 

[The Norseman]

The Stages are:

1. Identify a phenomena
2. Develop an assertion for the investigation (including the assertions of events, concepts, figures, etc) that may explain the phenomena
   -- 3 through 4 may repeat per multiple components to test 2 --
3. Choose a case (cases) to examine
4. Examine similarities and differences
5. Propose a causal explanation for the phenomena

The Criteria during examination (3 through 4 of the above, mostly):

1. There must be an association between two variables, and the change in one variable must logically, or through data, show to be related to a change in another variable (if P event was Y, then B article would state C; if P event was Z, then B article would state D - also; B article would change dependent on X article of P event).
2. The cause of an examined phenomena must be shown to occur before an effect (X article cannot occur after B article if B article is being used as a dependent associative variable to X article for phenomena P event, and neither X or B article may precede event P if X and B article are dependent associative variables of event P).
3. The association of two variables must not be related to a third variable (X and B article cannot be dependent associative variables to verify event P by relying on Q article as an interim of X and B articles).
4. An explanation of how associations (any described) are considered to have occurred.
5. Assertion (back up at stage 2 above) and explanation of associations must result in sympathy with the context of the variables and phenomena examined (all variable's relationships must fit within the cultural contexts of each related variable, as well as the overall assertion must fit within the cultural context).

Okay cool. Now all Piggy or Stone has to do is to plug in all the reams of evidence supporting an historical Yeshua and I'll go with it.

As I've said, I changed my mind on this very topic before due to logic and evidence and am willing to change it again.

 

[Stone]

Well the reason I am banging on about it, is because we do not even need to speculate on the above (see highlight). Because the fact of the matter is, at the very least, the copies which Stone and Piggy are relying upon, are not in any measure reliable anyway!

For crying out loud, I'm not even "banging on" about the apologetic texts at all. I'm talking about the non-apologetics!


Stone

 

[Belz...]

As I've said, I changed my mind on this very topic before due to logic and evidence and am willing to change it again.

Isn't it insulting, when you're actually undecided about a topic, to be called close-minded or something of that sort, or being accused of being on one side, by people on the other side of the discussion ?

 

[Stone]

Isn't it insulting, when you're actually undecided about a topic, to be called close-minded or something of that sort, or being accused of being on one side, by people on the other side of the discussion ?

Not when you're agnostic on whether or not the world is round or flat, or whether or not the Nazi Holocaust took place, or whether or not evolution explains the abundance of species, or whether or not fornication makes babies.

Stone

 

[Craig B]

Well, there is the part of Josephus where he says that the Jews waiting for the Messiah were wrong because Vespasian was the great leader referred to in scripture.

So maybe Origen saw that and concluded (as you would), that Josephus was calling Vespasian "The Christ", not Jesus.

Exactly. After reading the passage cited below, Origen would have concluded that Josephus did not think Jesus was the Messiah. No explicit reference to Jesus in Josephus' works would have been required. And of course neither Origen nor any other pre-Eusebian commentator cites any such reference. War of the Jews 6.5.4:

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.

 

[The Norseman]

Isn't it insulting, when you're actually undecided about a topic, to be called close-minded or something of that sort, or being accused of being on one side, by people on the other side of the discussion ?

It can be at times. Personally, I'm pretty well decided at this point, but certainly open to change.

As JaysonR pointed out, the methodologies are different when applied to a field such as history compared to biology (say). However, nothing of the sort that he outlined has so far been presented; nothing in a style of biology nor history.

 

[The Norseman]

Not when you're agnostic on whether or not the world is round or flat, or whether or not the Nazi Holocaust took place, or whether or not evolution explains the abundance of species, or whether or not fornication makes babies.

Stone

LOL

If you think that Yeshua ben Yoseph has the same level of evidence that evolution has or the Holocaust, then trot all the reams of evidence out here and start changing minds!

I, of course, believe that you'll just continue to post indignant, faux-rage rather than evidence.

 

[JaysonR]

So one might say in all honesty, "we believe this battle happened based on these two independent records, but we can't be certain" but what I've been reading so far is "yes, it's inconceivable why anyone would lie about this battle and all historical records point to this event so therefore it happened as a matter of certainty."

Yes.
Historical certainty, when dealing with Ancient times, should always be kept separate from empirical certainty.

This is why most in favor of the position within the field will state that the case for the historicity of Jesus is as certain (implying validity check) as any claim can be; as opposed to stating an 'absolute-absolute' position.

Okay cool. Now all Piggy or Stone has to do is to plug in all the reams of evidence supporting an historical Yeshua and I'll go with it.

As I've said, I changed my mind on this very topic before due to logic and evidence and am willing to change it again.

I don't think there's going to be reams of supporting material, because we cannot use any of the texts by adherents.

Mostly, at best, we can aim for one to two cases based on a few citations that are not party to the 'adherent' group.


Most of what I see, so far, is a pretty common debate over the accuracy of the non-adherent citations being used regarding Josephus and Origen; which reduced the confidence for the position of the historicity of Jesus made using those dependent variable articles.

It would seem to me that either a debate continues forward attempting to establish the validity of these articles, or a different set of article variables are to be used that do not have a separate validation debate attached to their citations.

 

[The Norseman]

Yes.
Historical certainty, when dealing with Ancient times, should always be kept separate from empirical certainty.

This is why most in favor of the position within the field will state that the case for the historicity of Jesus is as certain (implying validity check) as any claim can be; as opposed to stating an 'absolute-absolute' position.


I don't think there's going to be reams of supporting material, because we cannot use any of the texts by adherents.

Mostly, at best, we can aim for one to two cases based on a few citations that are not party to the 'adherent' group.


Most of what I see, so far, is a pretty common debate over the accuracy of the non-adherent citations being used regarding Josephus and Origen; which reduced the confidence for the position of the historicity of Jesus made using those dependent variable articles.

It would seem to me that either a debate continues forward attempting to establish the validity of these articles, or a different set of article variables are to be used that do not have a separate validation debate attached to their citations.

Then how do you arrive at your 60-40 split in favor of historicity? How did you arrive at those numbers out of the scant "it's likely thus" and "this is highly likely to have occurred" and so on?

 

[JaysonR]

I didn't; that was Eight Bit's general guess of the position in the field.

I haven't actually put forward a position in either direction directly yet.

 

[Belz...]

Not when you're agnostic on whether or not the world is round or flat, or whether or not the Nazi Holocaust took place, or whether or not evolution explains the abundance of species, or whether or not fornication makes babies.

Stone

I see your point, but you really do have to admit, we're not talking about the same level of evidence, here.

 

[Belz...]

Yes.
Historical certainty, when dealing with Ancient times, should always be kept separate from empirical certainty.

I don't think we should use the same word, then. "Certainty" has certain connotations.

 

[The Norseman]

I didn't; that was Eight Bit's general guess of the position in the field.

I haven't actually put forward a position in either direction directly yet.

I apologize for the mixup!

 

[Olowkow]

"faux rage" is a good description of some of the arguments in this thread.

I really have no dog in this kerfuffle, but the historicity of Jesus is a really interesting question. I had never even considered the possibility that the whole Christian thing was based on a myth until I heard a debate between Bart Ehrman and Bob Price on the Reggie Finley podcast years ago. I remember Ehrman's oddly indignant tone when Price suggested that Jesus may have never even existed. I got the impression at the time that the only argument that Ehrman really had was his rage.

Frankly, I don't care one way or another, but I always greatly enjoyed Bob Price's take on religion and found his arguments pretty convincing on the whole.

 

[JaysonR]

I apologize for the mixup!

No worries.

At some point, I'll toss my hat into the ring, but I'm more waiting for the dust to settle on the events already in motion before I showed up.
If the tangent continues, for a bit more, to be a debate over accepting the same citations as has already been established back and forth, then I'll probably just jump in and toss out my position; as such a back/forth over citation acceptance argument would indicate that nothing new is likely to be intruded upon.