What counts as a historical Jesus?

[eight bits]

Norseman

Then how do you arrive at your 60-40 split in favor of historicity?

I think that's me, not Jayson. It is, like all subjective probability, a representation of some person's beliefs, mine in this case.

There are a lot of ways to explain it, but all are statements about me, and don't bind anybody else in any way. For example, If I owned a lottery ticket that paid $1 just when a historical Jesus who counts existed, and the correct answer will be revealed in five minutes, then if you pay me 60 cents right now, or anything more than that, then the ticket is yours, with my best wishes. Fifty-five cents? No, I'd rather play. Don't ask about 59 cents, my statement isn't that precise.

I offered it for disclosure, since I have been repeatedly accused of being a myther-mythicist. I am not, and am happy to state what I am instead. It is the "60" that would take time to explain. If my recent posts are such that I can be accused of mythicism, then it must already be clear why the "40" isn't any smaller number.

Brainache

Good catch on Origen, seconding or thirding the accolades you have received. What Josephus volunteers about the Emperor precisely parallels what actual Christians back then were choosing death instead of mouthing under duress.


Jayson

Are you saying that if a figure is important to our culture that there needs to be a larger sample size of material from previous cultures to judge their historicity from?

Size matters when the size is one, yes. The smaller the sample, even when taken randomly, the better the chance of fnding atypical features. There are well known trade-offs, esepcially in multi-attribute inference, which is what Piggy is presenting, between optimizing the average error over the suite of inferences, and accurately estimating a specific attribute of a specific member of the population.

Importance as such isn't the difficulty. Selecting a particular example to look at because it is atypical would raise questions about inferences from what is typical.

What I object to is the estimation of an attribute of a case chosen for its atypicality by inheritance from what is typical of a group that includes the case of interest. The problem is aggravated when the reference group is assembled around a case already selected, and mitigated when there is a specific reason to think that the atypicality is unrelated to the typicalness of the group feature.

For example: A. Jewish people of the time and place usually spoke Aramaic. Estimate that Jesus, if he lived, spoke Aramaic.
That's child play to constuct an argument where native language is unrelated to why we selected Jesus for examination.

B. Galilean people typically did not speak Greek as a second language. Conclude that Jesus did not speak Greek.
Wait a minute, we selected Jesus, in part, because he connected with Greek speakers. Literally everything original we have about him reaches us from Greek-speaking authors. This inference needs further examination.

C. All other ancient homeland Messianic figures with surviving followers really lived. Conclude Jesus did.
Say what? Jesus reaches us with 3 billion professed believers in his historicity, by way of (easily) tens of billions of people being or having been persuaded, in a chain that reaches back almost 2,000 years. Perhaps made-up people are more believable than real people are (ask a successful realist fiction writer about that - and know that the last Nantucket whaling captain whose name is lost to history will be Captain Ahab.)

At the very least, the possibility that synthetic lube is better than the natural stuff needs to be addressed. In Piggy's case, asking for lube of any kind is met with abuse.

 

[annnnoid]

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.

So essentially you’re saying that every academic who supports the HJ conclusion (which, according to every source I have encountered, is pretty close to 100% of them) is a charlatan, a fraud, and an idiot? Is that what you’re saying….cause I really can’t see how you can be saying anything else. In the real world, that’s called slander (though of course, in the real world, these same academics are intelligent enough to realize that the threat to their conclusions is no more substantial than the qualifications of those making the accusations).

The rest of you are the same. You make what can only be described as, at the most, superficial objections to the entire HJ case (with a few exceptions). Arguments from ignorance for the most part. I took some time to explore some of the links that JasonR (and Piggy) provided. I can only conclude that most of those who object to the HJ case simply don’t like the fact that the evidence (yes…it is actual… confirmable… reasoned…. rational… logical… sensible… substantial… EVIDENCE) simply cannot be reduced to simple single sentence summaries.

For example….this nonsense…

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.

…has been responded to innumerable times. The ‘evidence’ does NOT consist only of ‘devotional biblical documents’. And upon what specific basis are you able to characterize (and thus dismiss) their authors as “fanatical Christian theists”? And what, exactly, does that mean about what they wrote? And what are the innumerable ‘unknowns’ that these writings are fraught with…and how…specifically…do you arrive at all these exhaustive conclusions? And how, specifically and explicitly, do you come to the conclusion that they are all completely unreliable? Unreliable in what specific ways? We need references and accepted and substantiated theories of sociology, history, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, etc. etc. (not to mention confirmation theory). And how is it that so many extremely credentialed academics are able to make honest deductions from all of it when you come to the exact opposite conclusion? Are they all (as I suggested to Acleron) charlatans, frauds, and idiots?

(in case you're wondering...these are all rhetorical questions)

…and did you even notice what JasonR posted:

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.

How is it possible to explore the ‘Hebrew ideals’ of the time…and how on earth does that provide evidence for the HJ. And what about the ‘cultural witness of social movements within the society’? What the hell does that even mean (…that’s a rhetorical question Jason…I don’t need an answer…but I can’t speak for anyone else here).?....and how might that entire subject area (a subject area which, by the way, probably requires [at the very least] a minimum of one advanced degree to fully appreciate [or the shoulders of advanced degrees to stand upon]) provide evidence to support (directly or indirectly) an HJ?

 

[Belz...]

So essentially you’re saying that every academic who supports the HJ conclusion (which, according to every source I have encountered, is pretty close to 100% of them) is a charlatan, a fraud, and an idiot?

Belz...'s First Law of Non-Sequiturs.

 

[maximara]

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.

To be fair as I have shown before the terms "mythicist”, "Christ myth theorist", and any other synonym you want to imagine have been thrown around with with all the gay abandon of an alcoholic in a brewery.

Take these examples:

"The gist of his position was in a large measure like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held that there was verily a historic Christ, but that a vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus." (1910 The Times)


"My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" (Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412)

"In wide circles the doubt grows as to the historical character of the picture of Christ given in the Gospels. (...) If in spite of this anyone thinks that besides the latter a Jesus cannot also be dispensed with, this can naturally be opposed; but we know nothing of Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology, he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow. Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this 'unique' and 'mighty' personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness." (Drews, Arthur (1910) The Christ Myth)

An historical Jesus may have "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and . . . thereby met his death "; and Christian writers concerned to conciliate the Romans may have suppressed the facts. (Robertson, John (1916) The historical Jesus, a survey of positions")

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion." (Schweitzer, Albert (1931) Out of my life and thought: an autobiography pg 125)


Ah Schweitzer old bean, three of those guys were contesting the historical accuracy of the Gospel Jesus not if Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man.

Things basically go downhill from there.

 

[davefoc]

So essentially you’re saying that every academic who supports the HJ conclusion (which, according to every source I have encountered, is pretty close to 100% of them) is a charlatan, a fraud, and an idiot? Is that what you’re saying….cause I really can’t see how you can be saying anything else. In the real world, that’s called slander (though of course, in the real world, these same academics are intelligent enough to realize that the threat to their conclusions is no more substantial than the qualifications of those making the accusations).

...

I don't think there are any JREF forum rules that prevent you from posting the evidence that has led you to believe that the HJ existed. You could even reference which academics you've included in your survey of the field to draw your conclusion that almost 100% of academics support the HJ conclusion.

 

[davefoc]

...
B. Galilean people typically did not speak Greek as a second language. Conclude that Jesus did not speak Greek.
Wait a minute, we selected Jesus, in part, because he connected with Greek speakers. Literally everything original we have about him reaches us from Greek-speaking authors. This inference needs further examination.

...

I've wondered about the possibility that the HJ could have been a Hellenistic Jew. I'd like to see some discussion of it. Is it completely inconsistent with the NT story?

It makes the transition from the beliefs of the hypothetical Jesus sect to the early gentile Christianity a little smoother perhaps, but it isn't consistent with the way I see things now. I think it's because the Gentile Greek community was a bit isolated from the time, language, and location of the HJ that they were able to make up stories about the fellow with out the opportunity for a lot of cross checking.

 

[jond]

Forgive me in advance for being a doofus, but it's been 30+ years since I last sat in a college history class.

As I understand it, the facts are that there was an existing cult, named after a purportedly real person, who preached "the way" and who had been dead for some indeterminate time before an interloper came along. Said interloper claims to have channeled messages from the dead namesake of the cult, and began spreading the word. The evidence in support of this is a series of letters between the interloper and the existing cult.

As I further understand it, the letters are one sided--interloper writing to cult. Nowhere does it state that any of the existing cult members actually knew the person for whom the cult is named. Nor do we have reciprocal communication from the cult to the interloper. Nothing along the lines of, "I knew Jack Kennedy, and you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy." Though we can infer such sentiment from the letters from the interloper to cult.

Subsequent to these communications, a series of books were written telling the story of the namesake's life and teachings. Several of these books have common elements, but also have contradictory elements. Much obvious fiction abounds, but we are still given to understand that some of it is factual.

Correct? So, given that this is all we have to work with as historians, we conclude with absolute certainty that the namesake exists. And, that anyone who doesn't have 100% certainty is a crank.

Hmm. A modern parallel:
A cult exists, with a leader claiming to have information from a real, though deceased person who teaches us "the way." The cult the encounters an interloper, who also claims to be channeling the namesake of the cult. We have communications between the existing cult and the interloper on issues regarding the teachings and how things are to be done. This results in a lawsuit between the cult and the interloper. We also have recordings of the teachings in the form of videos and indeed a movie.

Have we just proved with 100% certainty the existence of Ramtha?

(In fairness, Ramtha has been dead for thousands of years, not just a few years, but there is exactly the same amount of archeological evidence for Atlantis as there is for Jesus.)

 

[IanS]

The rest of you are the same. You make what can only be described as, at the most, superficial objections to the entire HJ case (with a few exceptions). Arguments from ignorance for the most part. I took some time to explore some of the links that JasonR (and Piggy) provided. I can only conclude that most of those who object to the HJ case simply don’t like the fact that the evidence (yes…it is actual… confirmable… reasoned…. rational… logical… sensible… substantial… EVIDENCE) simply cannot be reduced to simple single sentence summaries.

For example….this nonsense…

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.

…has been responded to innumerable times. The ‘evidence’ does NOT consist only of ‘devotional biblical documents’. And upon what specific basis are you able to characterize (and thus dismiss) their authors as “fanatical Christian theists”? And what, exactly, does that mean about what they wrote? And what are the innumerable ‘unknowns’ that these writings are fraught with…and how…specifically…do you arrive at all these exhaustive conclusions? And how, specifically and explicitly, do you come to the conclusion that they are all completely unreliable? Unreliable in what specific ways? We need references and accepted and substantiated theories of sociology, history, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, etc. etc. (not to mention confirmation theory). And how is it that so many extremely credentialed academics are able to make honest deductions from all of it when you come to the exact opposite conclusion? Are they all (as I suggested to Acleron) charlatans, frauds, and idiots?

(in case you're wondering...these are all rhetorical questions)…

Well since you say your questions and only rhetorical, that at least saves me from the tiresome job of having to explain the answers to your questions all over again for what must now be dozens of times if not scores of times already throughout this thread.

If you disagree with the reasons that I, and many other people here, have already explained in detail numerous times already, then that is a matter for you, and I expect you will probably have to stick with your present opinions on the issue, because it looks as if no amount of crystal clear explanation is going to persuade you why you need to re-think the matter.

But for the sake of others here, just to explain the comments highlighted above -

- the reason I say that all the so-called evidence is coming from the “devotional biblical writing”, is that none of the non-biblical authors such as Josephus and Tacitus etc., could possibly have themselves been eye-witnesses to anything Jesus ever said or did, and none of them claim to name any personal eye-witness who was claimed to have given them their accounts. That leaves the biblical writing as the only other known source of the Jesus stories.

IOW, as far as we can honestly tell, it looks as if all roads always lead back to that same set of biblical accounts.

- why do I say that the Christians who wrote, or commissioned the writing of, the extant copies of such things as the gospels from around (say) the 4th century onwards, were all “Christian religious fanatics”? Answer - because writing such as the gospels and Paul’s letters, is very openly eulogising a particular figure, “Jesus”, as the supernatural true messiah of God, whom everyone should worship and to whom everyone should henceforth devote their entire lives.

- “the innumerable unknowns that these biblical writings are fraught with", include - we don’t know who wrote any of the extant copies of anything in the bible, we don’t know who were the sources for those unknown biblical authors, and we have no idea how reliable any of those sources were. We don’t know what any of the named disciples were actually supposed to have witnessed when they apparently saw miracle after miracle (unless you think the miracles really happened?). We have no idea who any of these people were, except for what it says in the bible itself. Since we only have much later copies for any of this biblical writing, ie some centuries after the originals are claimed to have been written, we really have no idea what any original writing actually said.

In fact, almost everything about the biblical writing is actually unknown. All we can really say for sure about it, is - it was first written sometime beginning around 70AD to 400AD, by unknown individuals who believed in a religion we now call Christianity, in a mainly Jewish region around the wider area of Jerusalem and Galilee.

 

[Stone]

the so-called “evidence” of Jesus - which appears to consist only of the devotional biblical documents

And it is statements like this that show up the difference between simply dismissing the data in the non-devotional texts as insufficient -- which is one thing -- versus pretending that those texts don't exist at all -- which is quite another. Ian S is emphatically doing the latter here. That is misleading at best, and Ian S knows that very, very, very well. It is just the sort of tactic that I've seen among so many a-historicists on the web again and again and again -- and posters wonder why I'm so fed up to the eye teeth with all of them by now. It's because of shenanigans like this, which are so TYPICAL of a-historicists throughout the web, that I now view a-historicists as often sneaky when they're not being hopelessly ignorant. It's as if they're deliberately spreading misinformation. No words are sufficient to fully underscore just how sleazy this is. And yes, I have seen other a-historicists do precisely this: pretend that the non-devotionals don't even exist for purely rhetorical effect, facts be damned. It's part of their "playbook", again and again, and I've had it.

I'm calling Ian S on this tactic now until he responds. How can anyone here take tactics like this as anything other than deliberate misdirection, particularly considering that Ian S has been fully privy to all the ongoing discussions on the non-devotionals for weeks now? We all know that he knows about the non-devotionals perfectly well. He can't suddenly pretend he's just overlooking them here. That won't wash.

And evading this by filibustering instead about how insufficient the non-devotionals may be as evidence won't wash either and is totally irrelevant here. It's just evading the question.

The question is not about the sufficiency of the non-devotionals as evidence. The question is about whether or not these non-devotionals exist as physical data in the first place. They emphatically do. Whatever one may think of that data as evidence is irrelevant here. Ian S has stated here that "only" the devotionals constitute the "so-called evidence".

That's.

Not.

True.

Whether that "evidence" is inadequate or not, non-devotionals emphatically do constitute part of the "evidence" as well, something that Ian S is deliberately sweeping under the rug here, purely as a misdirection tactic at best, and he well knows it.

[Ian S] "- the reason I say that all the so-called evidence is coming from the “devotional biblical writing”, is that none of the non-biblical authors such as Josephus and Tacitus etc., could possibly have themselves been eye-witnesses to anything Jesus ever said or did, and none of them claim to name any personal eye-witness who was claimed to have given them their accounts. That leaves the biblical writing as the only other known source of the Jesus stories."

Neither is Luke an eyewitness, while at the least Josephus may possibly be an eyewitness for James, and yet you're folding Luke in your "so-called evidence" without Josephus(!), aren't you? That's upside down.

Bottom line: You're addressing here -- as I expected you would -- only your call on the sufficiency of the non-devotionals as evidence, not whether or not such non-devotionals exist in the first place. They emphatically do exist, and in your previous remark you say they simply don't. That is misdirection, at best, and what you're saying here doesn't begin to address or cover that.

Stone

 

[tsig]

And it is statements like this that show up the difference between simply dismissing the data in the non-devotional texts as insufficient -- which is one thing -- versus pretending that those texts don't exist at all -- which is quite another. Ian S is emphatically doing the latter here. That is misleading at best, and Ian S knows that very, very, very well. It is just the sort of tactic that I've seen among so many a-historicists on the web again and again and again -- and posters wonder why I'm so fed up to the eye teeth with all of them by now. It's because of shenanigans like this, which are so TYPICAL of a-historicists throughout the web, that I now view a-historicists as often sneaky when they're not being hopelessly ignorant. It's as if they're deliberately spreading misinformation. No words are sufficient to fully underscore just how sleazy this is. And yes, I have seen other a-historicists do precisely this: pretend that the non-devotionals don't even exist for purely rhetorical effect, facts be damned. It's part of their "playbook", again and again, and I've had it.

I'm calling Ian S on this tactic now until he responds. How can anyone here take tactics like this as anything other than deliberate misdirection, particularly considering that Ian S has been fully privy to all the ongoing discussions on the non-devotionals for weeks now? We all know that he knows about the non-devotionals perfectly well. He can't suddenly pretend he's just overlooking them here. That won't wash.

And evading this by filibustering instead about how insufficient the non-devotionals may be as evidence won't wash either and is totally irrelevant here. It's just evading the question.

The question is not about the sufficiency of the non-devotionals as evidence. The question is about whether or not these non-devotionals exist as physical data in the first place. They emphatically do. Whatever one may think of that data as evidence is irrelevant here. Ian S has stated here that "only" the devotionals constitute the "so-called evidence".

That's.

Not.

True.

Whether that "evidence" is inadequate or not, non-devotionals emphatically do constitute part of the "evidence" as well, something that Ian S is deliberately sweeping under the rug here, purely as a misdirection tactic at best, and he well knows it.

[Ian S] "- the reason I say that all the so-called evidence is coming from the “devotional biblical writing”, is that none of the non-biblical authors such as Josephus and Tacitus etc., could possibly have themselves been eye-witnesses to anything Jesus ever said or did, and none of them claim to name any personal eye-witness who was claimed to have given them their accounts. That leaves the biblical writing as the only other known source of the Jesus stories."

Neither is Luke an eyewitness, while at the least Josephus may possibly be an eyewitness for James, and yet you're folding Luke in your "so-called evidence" without Josephus(!), aren't you? That's upside down.

Bottom line: You're addressing here -- as I expected you would -- only your call on the sufficiency of the non-devotionals as evidence, not whether or not such non-devotionals exist in the first place. They emphatically do exist, and in your previous remark you say they simply don't. That is misdirection, at best, and what you're saying here doesn't begin to address or cover that.

Stone

Are you reading the same thread the rest of us are? No one is denying that Tacitus and Josephus exist is just that the Josephus text has him calling Jesus the Messiah and Tacitus is talking about an existing cult. The HJ proponents try to huff and puff and blow these trivialities into some overwhelming evidence.

 

[Piggy]

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.

That's not actually what I think.

What I've said several times is that if you're taking a historical approach, you don't ask "Is this reliable history?" then use it if the answer is yes and discard it if the answer is no.

The questions you do ask are, who wrote this, and when, and why, and for whom, and what does it reveal about them and their times?

It may be that it was written because it was true and the writer wanted to get the truth out. Or it may be a complete lie. But either way, it is useful.

So let me repeat: ALL THE WRITINGS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS ARE USEFUL IN UNDERSTANDING WHO THEY WERE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR (UN)RELIABILITY AS HISTORY.

As we go through the letters of Paul and on to the Gospels, what we'll see is that these writings fit the pattern of a group of apocalyptic 1st century Jews, then later gentile converts, who were followers (then followers of the followers) of an executed Jewish holy man.

We'll also see that as the picture of these people and their beliefs becomes more complete and more clear, none of the mythicist claims fit -- they in fact do not behave like a mystery cult, or like people running a phony religious scam, for instance.

Just looking at Paul's first letter should start clueing us into that.

As we go, we'll see that the theory of a HJ answers our questions about why these folks would write and believe these things, while no mythicist hypothesis fits the big picture.

But it's very important to understand that this process does NOT involve trying to pick out the history from among the legend, then ignoring the legend and trying to build history out of the rest.

 

[Piggy]

Okay, then show us the numbers. Everyone loves to use the words "more likely" and "less likely" but then have no rational basis upon which they rest the likelihood.

Or you can just acknowledge that these are purely guesses, because, as I've already said, if even one fact that is "more likely" actually didn't happen, then everything built upon that fact fails. In other words, to reach 'c', then 'a' and 'b' are assumed to be correct. If one is not, then the rest cascade into failure.

The issue is that NOBODY KNOWS which is correct and which is not; therefore, to say that "it is likely" that Yeshua is historical simply fails due to the complicated nature of the incomplete issues surrounding the story.

You are wrong.

And the only reason you can, in your mind, get away with thinking this is simply because you are unfamiliar with the research.

For you, it's an empty crossword puzzle that could be filled in all sorts of ways.

For scholars of the Ancient Near East, there's a lot already filled in, and although it's not completely filled in, and never will be, there's enough to know that MYTHICISM doesn't fit anywhere.

I've already dealt with pretty much all the essential mythicist claims and shown why it's not at all likely that:

• Paul made up the religion
• Early Xians were a mystery cult, or influenced by one
• The Jesus school was in any way non-Jewish
• Paul's lying about the Pillars or the missionary network
• James never knew Jesus
• Paul didn't think Jesus was human
• Jesus was based on a god or folk hero that people came to believe was a real person
• And pretty much every other point they make

So now it's time for you to pony up.

Show me a mythicist claim that IS more probable than the corresponding claim in HJ theory.

Then, show me a coherent mythicist theory in which MOST of the claims are more likely than the corresponding HJ claims.

You'll have to exclude all of the above.

Good luck.

 

[Aepervius]

Are you reading the same thread the rest of us are? No one is denying that Tacitus and Josephus exist is just that the Josephus text has him calling Jesus the Messiah and Tacitus is talking about an existing cult. The HJ proponents try to huff and puff and blow these trivialities into some overwhelming evidence.

This is the gist of the problem. Once you eliminate the gospel/bible, there is not much left.

Which is why I am stuck at 55% J existed , 45% chance J did not exists.

No matter the huff and puff, once you eliminate gospel/bible , there is next to nothing left, and certainly no direct indication of the existence of Jesus, they rather show the existence of a cult of jesus.

 

[Piggy]

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?

I don't know of any historian of the ANE who doubts that Paul founded churches.

I don't know of any coherent scenario that can be built in which he didn't.

We've already seen part of the answer to this in our examination of 1st Thessalonians. His pattern was to go to a town and drum up a group for a charismatic service, then convert them in some kind of ecstatic moment when the Holy Spirit entered into them.

It was this experience, apparently, that converted people, not any rational argument.

As we proceed, we'll hear Paul talk more about this, but he never discusses the details of those services, no doubt because everyone he was writing to already knew what they were like.

And we don't know to what extent his conversions occurred at synagogs among the God-fearers, in the streets as a street preacher, or by conversing with people for whom he was working.

 

[Piggy]

This is how we expand our knowledge of earlier times.

I know that.

But your problem is that you assume that nobody knows anything more than you do about this subject, despite your having no experience with the research.

That's all.

 

[Piggy]

^^^^
This

"This" is known as "just asking questions" and failing to read the actual research while trashing the people whose research you don't read.

It's the signature strategy of 9/11 Truthers and other such misguided folks.

If you utterly fail to attempt to fit your pet ideas into the framework of what's known, then you can believe all kinds of stuff that's not true.

It is critically important that mythicist ideas -- which is not my term, it's their term for no-Jesus notions -- don't add up.

Of course, if you don't care to notice that, you can conveniently fail to see if they add up, and instead keep "just asking questions" and looking at it through a soda straw.

 

[Piggy]

This is the gist of the problem. Once you eliminate the gospel/bible, there is not much left.

If you want to understand who the founder of a movement was, the very earliest writings of the members of the movement are one of your best sources, regardless of whether those writings are history or fiction or propaganda or whatever.

Eliminating your best sources of information is not wise.

 

[JaysonR]

Jayson
Size matters when the size is one, yes. The smaller the sample, even when taken randomly, the better the chance of fnding atypical features. There are well known trade-offs, esepcially in multi-attribute inference, which is what Piggy is presenting, between optimizing the average error over the suite of inferences, and accurately estimating a specific attribute of a specific member of the population.

Oh, I see.
Basically, you would just appreciate more citations than those which have been presented since those which have been presented are drawn into question; and having more would aid the sampling.

If that's what you meant; sure.

Importance as such isn't the difficulty. Selecting a particular example to look at because it is atypical would raise questions about inferences from what is typical.

What I object to is the estimation of an attribute of a case chosen for its atypicality by inheritance from what is typical of a group that includes the case of interest. The problem is aggravated when the reference group is assembled around a case already selected, and mitigated when there is a specific reason to think that the atypicality is unrelated to the typicalness of the group feature.

Hmm.
If this is specifically in regards to just the historicity of Jesus, then I can sympathize with the issue.
If this is just in general, then I'd have to point out that what you just described is incredibly common in anthropology; it's actually a method of comparative research for cultural descriptions.
In a few instances, sometimes folks will take knowingly atypical constructs to specifically bounce against another known typical (yet atypical to the inquiry) construct of some fashion, which then establishes a form of control for filtering some constructs.

For instance: let's say we're looking at Hittite philosophical culture.
Let's say we only have the Hittite philosophical culture from a later Asia Minor Hellenistic collection from Alexander the Great's campaigns.
To discern the Hittite philosophical culture from the Hellenistic, we take Plato's Republic and compare it to the better known [than Hittite] Babylonian philosophy. Then we take the Hittite text and bounce it against the same.

This provides a sort of filtering system, as the range of constructs that bounce back (does not match) at us in Plato's Republic give us a representational standard for seeing what bounces back in similar fashion out of the Hittite philosophical material from Hellenistic record.
The Hittite material should bounce back from the Babylonian material differently than the Hellenistic material, and the manner of expectation of what the bounce back will look like for the Hellenistic material would be the previous comparative of Plato to Babylonian material.

This kind of system is sometimes used if someone has problematic material to work from to discern a social culture.

It can also be used more specifically than a broad cultural inference.
For example, when attempting to discern whether the Peshitta was post-Greek or pre-Greek translations (in response to the inquiry of which was translating which), the Peshitta was tossed against the Textus Receptus and Codex Vaticanus, each separately.
This gives a comparative tool to help aid the conversation of whether Peshitta texts were earlier or later.

For example: A. Jewish people of the time and place usually spoke Aramaic. Estimate that Jesus, if he lived, spoke Aramaic.
That's child play to constuct an argument where native language is unrelated to why we selected Jesus for examination.

B. Galilean people typically did not speak Greek as a second language. Conclude that Jesus did not speak Greek.
Wait a minute, we selected Jesus, in part, because he connected with Greek speakers. Literally everything original we have about him reaches us from Greek-speaking authors. This inference needs further examination.

Maybe; don't forget the Peshitta texts just mentioned above, of which are in debate to challenge the Greek-first theory.

It remains possible that the Peshitta style type texts may have been earlier and that the Greek were the transitional.

(There's those who still hold the fort down for a Hebrew original, but that is a very difficult case to make.)

C. All other ancient homeland Messianic figures with surviving followers really lived. Conclude Jesus did.
Say what? Jesus reaches us with 3 billion professed believers in his historicity, by way of (easily) tens of billions of people being or having been persuaded, in a chain that reaches back almost 2,000 years. Perhaps made-up people are more believable than real people are (ask a successful realist fiction writer about that - and know that the last Nantucket whaling captain whose name is lost to history will be Captain Ahab.)

Perhaps. It depends how close we have texts arriving.
It takes some time for a cultural mythology to evolve in a time without a printing press and telephone system.

It seems somewhat a stretch to have Jesus stand as the only example of a mythological figure created and followed as real within the lifespan of adherents, by either culture (Hellenistic or Hebrew).

At the very least, the possibility that synthetic lube is better than the natural stuff needs to be addressed. In Piggy's case, asking for lube of any kind is met with abuse.

I see no problem in recognizing that there's a grand amount of elaboration involved that is only rivaled by the tales of Egyptian rulers by the Egyptians.

 

[Piggy]

And upon what specific basis are you able to characterize (and thus dismiss) their authors as “fanatical Christian theists”?

Are they still on about that?

Amazing.

They've already been informed that HJ is supported by Jewish scholars in Israel, European liberals in Germany, and academic liberals in the US.

In fact, the most prominent writers on the subject whose work is accessible to non-academics are Ehrman, Levine, Crossan, and Fredriksen. Of those, only one is a Christian. Ehrman is agnostic (he was Xian as a kid but abandoned the faith after entering an accredited program of ANE studies), and both Levine and Fredriksen are Jewish.

And no one would classify Crossan as "fanatical".

I think it speaks volumes that the mythicists (self-avowed or not) continue to make this phony charge despite the fact that even a casual glance at the field demonstrates that it's not in any way true.

 

[JaysonR]

How is it possible to explore the ‘Hebrew ideals’ of the time

We know quite a bit regarding Hebrew culture in general, and we can make comparative tests against other similar movements (such as the Dead Sea Scroll texts), and see which concepts retain similar to Hebrew cultural ideals and which conflict with Hebrew customs too strongly.

Aside from this, however, we can also take the texts and have in them a cultural witness of what the Hellenistic culture of cultural acquisition was like.
We have some examples of what this was like in their acquisition of Egyptian mysticism, as well as Persian mysticism, and here again, we have another acquisition of Hebrew culture into the Hellenistic fold.

…and how on earth does that provide evidence for the HJ.

It doesn't.
My statement was that, for me, I always somewhat feel that the ongoing excited arguments for and against the historicity of Jesus consumes so much social attention that some other cultural education regarding both Hebrew and Hellenistic cultures is overlooked.

And what about the ‘cultural witness of social movements within the society’? What the hell does that even mean?

Example: The music from the mid-to-late 1960's in America is a cultural witness of a social movement within the American society.

....and how might that entire subject area provide evidence to support an HJ?

It doesn't.
Again, my point was more that focusing on the historicity of Jesus so much, I feel, often neglects the opportunity to learn something about two social events that took place in time.
1. A clear social unrest in the Palestinian (a.k.a. 'Judean') province region.
2. A clearly new social acquisition trend in Hellenistic regions.

That was the point in making that comment; that to me, proving Jesus existed or didn't is a distraction.
But that's me; my amateur hobby is anthropology so I do actually spend way more time, than most probably do, just looking at cultures of ancient peoples and learning as much as I can about them; especially if its the Near-East Asia region. Any demographic society (even in prehistory) in this region is just really exciting and awesome to study.
It's really unique, as unique as China is to China, South America to South America; this area is unique to itself, even with its relative differences - and its geographic location mixing between the three hubs of Asia, the Mediterranean, and Africa is just that much more exciting (for me at least).
We don't have many of these kinds of nexus regions of such culture in the world.

I mean; 0 comes from this regional area. Algebra earns its infant legs here.
Almost all religions in the world come from this region: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity (last one by proxy, granted).
A huge amount of linguistic cultural influence begins in this region.
It is this region where we capture the transitional periods from nomadic groups to city-State philosophies being established.
Remarkable plumbing systems and trade systems that predate the Hellenistic culture's equals later...just really cool stuff just about anywhere you turn.
I mean...Petra! I could stare at Petra for a decade.