What counts as a historical Jesus?

[JaysonR]

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

*shrug*
We can try to tell historians to stop using that word, but I don't think Vicini will 'stop-a-using that word-a'.

 

[The Norseman]

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.

In the meantime, perhaps you'd be willing to apply some of the documented evidence to your sociology format to show how it works. I'd be interested in seeing it in action, as it were; it helps me to understand better.

 

[tsig]

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.

There goes Piggy's argument.

 

[tsig]

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 ?

Exactly, when I ask for evidence and instead I get insults and hand waving accompanied by just-so stories and I'm told that "all the authorities agree" I associate that form of argumentation with woo.

I feel that we're being told that while none of the NT stories are true when taken as a whole the tell us the Truth.

Rather like losing a dollar on each widgit but making it up in volume.

 

[JaysonR]

In the meantime, perhaps you'd be willing to apply some of the documented evidence to your sociology format to show how it works. I'd be interested in seeing it in action, as it were; it helps me to understand better.

I'll make sure that when I toss my hat in, that I show how that works as well (somewhat difficult to show without an actual presentation).

It should also be noted that a good proposition also lists the limitations and weaknesses of the proposition, and not just the material in support of the proposition.

 

[tsig]

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

Stone

I'm sure that not citing those texts is just an oversight.

 

[JaysonR]

There goes Piggy's argument.

Perhaps I should clarify: by that comment, it is meant that a proposition cannot be made on such material exclusively, or as the primary material of the proposition when a bias is evident (such as politics or religion; i.e. we can't take the Egyptian's word alone for their actions, and we can't take the writers of religious text's word alone for the alleged actions within their texts).

We can use them comparatively in the same way that we use secondary material (in this single instance, by "secondary", it is referring to work by other authors; for example, using a Professor's work is "secondary" material).
It is, instead, that such material cannot be used as the primary material.

 

[The Norseman]

I'll make sure that when I toss my hat in, that I show how that works as well (somewhat difficult to show without an actual presentation).

It should also be noted that a good proposition also lists the limitations and weaknesses of the proposition, and not just the material in support of the proposition.

Okay. Would you be willing to use an example of your own devising? As I said, it would help me to understand your POV better.

 

[JaysonR]

Sure, I can make a mock-up to show how that works....I don't know if it will be tonight or not (I'm at work and tonight is pretty busy).

 

[The Norseman]

Sure, I can make a mock-up to show how that works....I don't know if it will be tonight or not (I'm at work and tonight is pretty busy).

My sincere thanks!

 

[JaysonR]

Alright, so; for the mock-up, we'll imagine that we're investigating the historical accuracy of an alleged murder that took place in the late 1800's in New York.

I placed the mock-up in spoiler because I don't want to flood the thread with it.

What we do know is that Margret McCleary was murdered in May of 1891.
No one was ever prosecuted for the murder because there was a lack of material witnesses regarding the events.
All reports indicate that no witnesses were found available.
The McCleary family has a family legend handed down over the generations that asserts that Giovani Rossi murdered Margret McCleary over jealousy, but we cannot use this assertion as evidence because the McCleary family has a bias towards Margret McCleary, and even if there were jealousy events involved, we cannot use that in itself to verify that Giovani Rossi therefore murdered Margret McCleary (this is similar to not being able to use the Gospels alone to prove Jesus).

The assertion that we are going to make, and therefore test, is that Margret McCleary was murdered by Giovani Rossi.

So the event (P) is not simply that Margret McCleary was murdered, but that Margret McCleary was murdered by Giovani Rossi.

This gives us an event to test variables against.
We do allot (I mean...allot) of digging and find two journals written by two individuals that discuss the event of the murder.

Neither author reports being at the scene of the murder when it happened.
Neither author is related to either Margret McCleary or Giovani Rossi.
Considering that we do know that Giovani Rossi was much later on arrested in connection to early Italian mob crime connections (where he gained the nick-name, "Pickey", due to his favor of using ice picks), we also have to question whether or not either author shows evidence of being connected to the Italian crime circles of the time.

The first author is Oliver Turner.
The second author is Lara Paterson.

Turner's heritage is Brittish, while Paterson's heritage is Scottish.
Considering the the context of culture regarding the close-set ties of Italian crime circles during this time, it is uncommon for non-Italian heritage individuals to have connections to the Italian crime circles.

Oliver Turner was a young boy during the time of the murder.
Lara Paterson wasn't born yet, and was born much later; about 15 years after the event.

Oliver Turner's journal entry of the event as told to him by his father, Charlie Turner.
Lara Paterson's journal entry of the event was told to her by a friend who was told by her mother. We only know Paterson's friend's first name: Ella.

Ella is not a common Italian name, so we do not have an immediate requirement to remove this report by bias of affiliation.

In Oliver's account, we gather the following:
"My father left town in 1891, by his own account about a month after the murder of McCleary by Rossi, for his trip back to London..."

This is the extent of the entry.

In Paterson's account, we gather the following:
"Being new to the area, the crime and filth are remarkable! Ella warned me to stay away from the <racist slur for Italians>, especially; she says her mother told her once of a McClarey that was murdered by one of them - buried an ice pick deep in her skull while doing unspeakable acts unto her, such brutality! I fear I may never leave if not soon. Why did I come? What promise is this?..."

Neither are first-hand accounts.
So we are now attempting to piece together the assertion based on 'second-hand' information.
What these journals offer is the possibility of community dialogue on the matter, as given the context of the culture at the time, it was not odd for individuals to not speak to the authorities, but instead to speak among each other of crimes.

The first account is remarkable in accuracy, and a great source; but alone we cannot rely upon it.

The second account contains a few issues: firstly, This entry isn't even second hand, but instead, now legend.
The entry does not mention Rossi's last name, but instead used a (common) racist slur for Italian immigrants.

The last name is listed as, McClarey. It is very possible for a spelling error to occur, as if Paterson was receiving the information orally (especially if through an accent, which may be possible), then the difference between McCleary and McClarey is understandable.

Even though Paterson's accounts are more detailed than Turner's, we cannot accept the details in this account, as the timeline causes it to be unlikely that such detail would be so available to an individual this far removed in time and affiliation to the event, and there is a level of hysterics and racism involved in the writing as well.

We know that the McCleary family doesn't report any other family members having been murdered around this era other than Margret, and no authority records indicate a McClarey being killed.
So it can be held that this entry is capable of error, but possible for referring to the right event.

What we can pull from this second article is that McCleary is said to have been murdered by an Italian.


As such, we now have article B (Turner) and X (Paterson) regarding event P (Margret McCleary was murdered by Giovani Rossi).


If we alter the event P, imaginatively, then we can compare the effects upon articles B and X.
Therefore, we are claiming B and X to be dependent variables of event P.

If "Rossi" did not kill McCleary, then would B be a possible entry of community knowledge?
No. This entry uses explicit names.

If "Rossi" did not kill McCleary, then would X be a possible entry of community knowledge?
Yes. This entry only highlights an Italian individual by racist slur; we cannot rest upon this account for direct dependency to event P regarding this aspect entirely.

However, Paterson's possibly exaggerated details do account for an ice pick being related to the Italian individual, and Rossi is known to favor ice picks as his choice of weapon in conflict.

As such, X becomes a dependent variable to event P, not by name, but by description.


The associations between article B and X to event P are thus explained in showing that if we remove event P, then neither article B or X, each independent of each other, would be present.


The conclusion reached through this process is that Rossi murdered McCleary.
We base the historicity of this event on journal entries within the neighborhood community which remark on the event in notation dependent on the event taking place.


The weakness of this proposition is that we cannot rule out the possibility that Rossi did not murder McCleary because the information available is very limited, second-hand and fragmentary.

For instance, we could create a theory that the neighborhood was wrong about event P, and that we are only looking at general gossip that does not, itself, reflect reality even partially.

This is a very crude example.
Real working examples are much more tedious, with allot more context involved in the consideration (though it is not uncommon for these types of sources to be what's being compared).

 

[IanS]

Everybody accepts that they are unreliable, the issue is what part of them is reliable enough to sustain a belief that an HJ existed. It doesn't advance the discussion to just state as fact that which is contested. Piggy believes there is some aspect of the NT which is reliable based on textural analysis, internal comparison, comparison with known facts based on extra-biblical sources, the consensus of experts that he believes exists and perhaps other factors. The issue being discussed is just how reliable Piggy's analysis and evidence is.

Well that is the point. No part of them can be truly claimed to be "reliable enough to sustain a belief that a HJ existed".

OK, so to re-state this another way - if you/I/Piggy/anyone tries to determine anything at all about Jesus from documents as completely and utterly unreliable as the extant copies of the gospels and Paul’s letters, eg perhaps thinking they can discard the miracles but still retain things like the names of places and the names of people etc., and from there, proceed to conclusions saying something like “we know, or it’s highly likely, or even to say “it’s possible” that Paul met James in Jerusalem about 40AD, and that James was “probably/possibly/etc. the actual brother of Jesus … then we can conclude A, B, C about Jesus” … OK, well that sort of conclusion is simply WRONG lol!

You cannot realistically make any such deduction about Jesus at all. And if you try to make such deductions, in that way, from that copied biblical writing, then you are in serious danger of fooling yourself, and thereby also, unintentionally or otherwise, fooling other people too.

I know it’s prosaic to the point of “banging on”, and you are not happy about that, but I’m afraid it’s the bottom line where this particular buck-$ stops (whether any of us like it or not). That is - you cannot make valid deductions from biblical material which is not valid in the first place …

… and the reason it’s "not valid in the first place", is the “banging on” reason. Namely, that we have zero provenance for who actually wrote any of the extant copies, or for who their informants were, nor any idea at all of whether any of these writers or their sources were reliable and accurate to any degree whatsoever. And just to make matters even worse, what we actually do know for a fact, is that they were so terribly unreliable as to be repeatedly claiming all sorts of untrue things about miracles being seen by almost everyone almost all of the time. And as if that were not enough, it also turns out that almost all these unverifiable anonymously written copies from unknown informants, were describing Jesus completely in terms of beliefs that they had obtained from prophecies already written centuries before in the OT.

As a basis for drawing any credible conclusion about Jesus, or any other named character in the bible, that sort of “evidence” is a complete non-starter.

Now, it may be that, that sort of biblical mss (and non-biblical mms, eg Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) is all that historians/”scholars” have available to them, and they may wish to make a study and a living from trying to deduce things from that sort of ancient devotional writing, but objectively speaking (ie, “honestly” speaking), the unpalatable fact is that nothing at all can be confidently or reliably deduced from a basis as totally unreliable as that.

That’s the problem!

 

[IanS]

Then you can't possibly support mythicism, which relies at every juncture on accepting possible scenarios which are LESS likely than those upon which HJ theory is based.

Here you are getting yourself into a complete fiction due to your own insistence on calling people “mythicists”.

That is - the people here who you call “mythicists”, are not as you just claimed “relying at every juncture on accepting possible scenarios which are LESS likely than those upon which HJ theory is based.”.

People here are not, in general, proposing or endorsing any particular myth theory or any particular scenario.

All that the sceptics here are doing, is pointing out that the so-called “evidence” of Jesus - which appears to consist only of the devotional biblical documents produced by fanatical Christian theists themselves, and in fact written by anonymous copyists using anonymous sources, none of whom ever actually met Jesus anyway - is fraught with so many unknowns and so completely unreliable, as to be quite useless as a basis for anyone genuinely attempting to make any honest objective deductions from any of it.

 

[davefoc]

...
… and the reason it’s "not valid in the first place", is the “banging on” reason. Namely, that we have zero provenance for who actually wrote any of the extant copies, or for who their informants were, nor any idea at all of whether any of these writers or their sources were reliable and accurate to any degree whatsoever. And just to make matters even worse, what we actually do know for a fact, is that they were so terribly unreliable as to be repeatedly claiming all sorts of untrue things about miracles being seen by almost everyone almost all of the time. And as if that were not enough, it also turns out that almost all these unverifiable anonymously written copies from unknown informants, were describing Jesus completely in terms of beliefs that they had obtained from prophecies already written centuries before in the OT.

...

Most of the above seems like it is true to me, but I don't think it is what you are most famous for banging on about. I think what you have gained fame for banging on about is your point that we don't have original copies of any part of the NT and that is a serious issue as regards the reliability of the NT as we know it today. I agree that it is an issue. But I think all the stuff you mentioned above is so much more important than copying errors, interpolations and deletions that I thought you have overstated the importance of the copying error issue. My guess is that the scholars have done a fair job of sorting out something close to what was originally written, but the problem is that what was originally written isn't all that reliable.

Of course, if an associate of the HJ originally wrote something that got mangled into Mark then you'd really have a good point The original text that was used to create Mark would be very informative. I don't think we know for sure that didn't happen, but it seems very unlikely to me. There might have been a proto Mark but my guess it was still a gentile Greek work of mostly fiction.

I think what happened is that for reasons that are unknown today a belief that a messiah had come and gone began to spread (PIggy and Stone seem to think they know the reason). This created an enormous demand for information about the messiah. The author of Mark seized the opportunity and created the first Gospel. The problem for him was that he knew little or nothing about this Messiah, but he didn't let that detail get in his way and pounded out a megahit using bits and pieces of information that he could get his hands on including perhaps some sort of an outline for his hero from stories that were circulating orally in his community. After his creation established the profit opportunity for Jesus stories writing Jesus fiction took off and quite a few guys (maybe some women?) exploited the opportunity and poured out lots of Jesus fiction.

 

[davefoc]

...
People here are not, in general, proposing or endorsing any particular myth theory or any particular scenario.

...

I think that's true and it is a bit disappointing, especially for the people claiming strong evidence for the existence of an HJ. What is the path between the hypothetical HJ and his associates and the early Gentile Christians.

Earlier I put together what I thought was a reasonable scenario for the beginning of Christianity that didn't involve a real HJ. What I got from Piggy was a snarky comment and no discussion.

OK, maybe my scenario was half baked, but what evidence was there to shoot it down or more interestingly what is the alternative scenario?

When does Christianity as we know it arise? Did it begin when the sect associated with the HJ moved from a sect devoted to the teachings of Jesus to a sect devoted to the worship of a supernatural superhuman? Was there some intermediate Jewish group that formed in the Palestinian area that was the first group to move in the direction of a super natural or at least super praise worthy Jesus? Did Christianity as we know it begin in a Jewish group not associated with Jesus or his disciples? Piggy may well have begun to address this kind of issue, but I'm not sure where. To be candid, I got a little burned out on reading Piggy's posts. He may very well be the most informed of the individuals participating in this thread but my brain isn't quite attuned to his posting style.

My current view is that there is not enough information to answer these questions reliably, but it seems like if one is claiming that an HJ definitely existed then one has got a narrative in mind that takes us from the hypothetical HJ to the early Gentile Christians that we know existed.

One part of the Piggy's scenario seems to be the idea that Paul founded churches. How does he think that worked? Did Paul show up in a town and start shouting out to people passing by that they should start a church devoted to Jesus. Did the people passing by already know who Jesus was or was Paul founding churches completely from scratch? Maybe the rise of Scientology or Mormonism would serve as a model for how he could have started a new religion from scratch?

 

[Belz...]

And just to make matters even worse, what we actually do know for a fact, is that they were so terribly unreliable as to be repeatedly claiming all sorts of untrue things about miracles being seen by almost everyone almost all of the time.

Yeah, but they totally wouldn't make up stuff about Jesus' real life, because then people who knew him could tell that it really didn't happen... right ?

 

[JaysonR]

For me, it's a matter of seeing what Hebrew ideals were possibly being explored at this time; not whether Jesus existed or any event described occured.

I actually think the historicity focal misses the notice of the cultural witness of social movements within the society.

 

[Acleron]

Then you can't possibly support mythicism, which relies at every juncture on accepting possible scenarios which are LESS likely than those upon which HJ theory is based.

And in fact, you're leaving out a key part of the process -- continually checking the evolving scenario against the facts.

When you do that, you prevent the process of analysis from leaving the ground and floating off into the air (as mythicism clearly does).

The strongest evidence for HJ theory is that it WORKS. It explains an enormous variety of questions in one swat.

Mythicism fails to do that, and in fact compounds the problems.

You should really read the postings of other people. As previously stated, I've been interested in how much evidence is available to support the HJ hypothesis. The answer appears to be almost none.

Stories fitting what copied texts are available on HJ are very weak conclusions. Historians interested in this particular area should just admit that not much evidence is available. If they are stating speculation as fact, which you have done, they are discrediting their own speciality.

In the news today there is archaeological discoveries about the city of Thonis-Heracleion. It was mentioned by Heredotus but was considered to be mythical. But now hard evidence has been found, real conclusions can be made. This is how we expand our knowledge of earlier times.

 

[IanS]

Most of the above seems like it is true to me, but I don't think it is what you are most famous for banging on about. I think what you have gained fame for banging on about is your point that we don't have original copies of any part of the NT and that is a serious issue as regards the reliability of the NT as we know it today. I agree that it is an issue. But I think all the stuff you mentioned above is so much more important than copying errors, interpolations and deletions that I thought you have overstated the importance of the copying error issue. My guess is that the scholars have done a fair job of sorting out something close to what was originally written, but the problem is that what was originally written isn't all that reliable.

Well I sincerely hope I am not "famous" for banging on about any of this lol .

But here is a serious point - I think you and I are actually at cross-purposes here. That is - over our last few posts, I was not actually referring to "interpolations". I was "banging on", mainly, about that issue of the extant copies being completely unreliable for reasons of anonymity and unknown accuracy etc.

But if we are going to say anything about what may be "interpolations" - then a very obvious additional problem (ie additional to the anonymity factors etc.) is that, where non-biblical writing such as that of Josephus and Tacitus comes to us only as copies made 1000 years (no less!!) after those authors had died, then that time gap is far too wide to say with any confidence what relation (if any) those 1000AD copies may or may not ever have had to whatever ultra brief few words those named authors had ever written about Jesus.

And secondly on that same issue of "interpolation", I was just making one specific observation (some pages back) in the case of one of Paul's Letters apparently having just one very short single sentence with the words "other apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother" ... where the structure and brevity of that sentence very clearly leaves wide open the possibility that the last 3 words "the Lords brother" (or the last 5 words "save James, the Lords brother") might easily & quite obviously be a later addition made by one of any number of Christian copyists, and especially so since we only have copies of Paul (no originals) dating from about 200AD onwards.

Dave - I’m really not arguing with you about any of the above, because I largely agree with all you have said in this thread. I’m probably a bit more dismissive than you of the so-called “biblical scholars", and perhaps leaning a little further than you towards concluding that it’s almost pointless to speculate about the likelihood of Jesus existing, because the evidence is just too weak (by far) to allow any conclusion (though in all honesty, in that case, it’s better to say there is no good evidence of his existence). But otherwise, I think our assessment of all this is pretty similar.

 

[Acleron]

Here you are getting yourself into a complete fiction due to your own insistence on calling people “mythicists”.

That is - the people here who you call “mythicists”, are not as you just claimed “relying at every juncture on accepting possible scenarios which are LESS likely than those upon which HJ theory is based.”.

People here are not, in general, proposing or endorsing any particular myth theory or any particular scenario.

All that the sceptics here are doing, is pointing out that the so-called “evidence” of Jesus - which appears to consist only of the devotional biblical documents produced by fanatical Christian theists themselves, and in fact written by anonymous copyists using anonymous sources, none of whom ever actually met Jesus anyway - is fraught with so many unknowns and so completely unreliable, as to be quite useless as a basis for anyone genuinely attempting to make any honest objective deductions from any of it.

^^^^
This