What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Belz...]

"This" is known as "just asking questions"

No... "this" is known as agreeing with another poster.

 

[pakeha]

...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.
...

Actually, that first letter does read like a phoney religious scam, Piggy, IMO.

 

[The Norseman]

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.

SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORICITY OF A CERTAIN PERSON, THEN THE HISTORICAL UNRELIABILITY OF THE WRITINGS IS QUITE PERTINENT. Dontcha think?

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.

Since the precise question is the existence of this executed Jewish holy man, you're needing to show how the writings support this existence and not just supposition.

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.

We're talking two thousand years later (give or take). Often, we cannot fully comprehend other cultures which exist right now. Again, there is way too much certitude being expressed for something which has so very little evidence but a lot of supposition and guesswork.

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.

At this point, you're still just saying "trust me, I know what I'm talking about and you don't" and then hand-wave all objections away.

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.

Okay, super. None of this has any bearing on whether or not Yeshua existed. If it does, you may have missed connecting these dots.

 

[tsig]

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.

you're claiming that the gospels were written by the members of the movement? Sorry Piggy but we don't know who wrote the gospels, we do know that they were edited and redacted by the church to serve the churches' dogmatic purposes so when you read some punchy little scenario you can know that it was put in to illustrate some point or prove a dogma the church felt important.

Trying to determine what's the most likely to be actually true will inevitably be nothing more than a reflection of your own wishes.

 

[The Norseman]

@Piggy

I'm also disappointed that you refused to address my continuation of your analogy regarding knowledge of Hitler.

I find it to be quite a good analogy in that supposing we only had Mein Kampf and nothing else regarding what kind of person Hitler was. Can you still tell truth from fiction? What is the truth?

You see, in this case of an historical Yeshua, there simply isn't enough information there to reliably draw any conclusions regarding his beliefs or what he said or how he felt or even if he existed. That's the issue mainly that I have. You can call me a mythicist or whatever term you want; I believe the term is being used as a simple method of dismissing questions or issues that I raise. It's even now being gleefully flung about in a noticeably disparaging manner by certain posters.

It's something I've noticed. Also I've noticed a lot of suppositions and hand-waving and very little in quotable evidence or even a structure that JaysonR had brought up and even thoughtfully provided an example for anyone to follow.

Follow that structure and I, for one, will be able to understand the points being made and can certainly change my mind once again regarding the historicity of Yeshua ben Yoseph.

 

[Acleron]

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.

No, I don't know more about this evidence than anybody else, hence asking for it. But I do know that speculating in the absence of such evidence is useless. (Thanks, Doyle).

Here you have copies of something. You don't know what those copies were made from or even how many intermediate copies were made. This evidence is extremely poor. So what I do know is that making statements of certainty is wrong.

Earlier you made a telling statement that your story fits the evidence. All this tells us is that your story is based on poor evidence.

HJ may have existed, the point is that according to the evidence you have provided nobody knows this for certain. And through the bluster, straw men and appeals to authority I think you know that too.

 

[annnnoid]

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

Acleron said quite explicitly that there appeared to be all-but no evidence to support the HJ position. Hard to reconcile that with the apparently indisputable fact that virtually every credible academic in the field disagrees with him / her. Idiots …frauds …charlatans …how exactly would Acleron describe these academics who seem, at best, incompetent and at worst, outright academic frauds?

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.

Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Robert E. Van Voorst "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".

" Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed."^wp

These three individuals (and the relevant wiki page) presumably summarize the consensus of the academic fields relating to the HJ (they explicitly make that very claim). Based on the above statements it is possible to conclude with far-above-average certainty that Jesus did, in fact, live on this planet 2,000 or so years ago.

It may be reasonable to wonder about the conclusions and how they were arrived at. What is not reasonable…is to dispute the academic integrity or credentials of those who study in the various relevant fields…or to question the dimensions of the consensus (unless, of course, you have some means of substantiating your claims).

Thus…the very fact that there is such an overwhelming consensus is, itself, evidence of the robust nature of what is being agreed upon. There is, IOW, no equivocation. ‘…certainly existed’ …’ non-existence effectively refuted’…’ universal assent’ … ‘virtually all agree’. Doubt…apparently…is not evident.

Have to say…I find it downright bizarre…this vociferous, obstinate, refusal to acknowledge the academic conclusions on this matter. Especially on a skeptic forum. It’s blatantly irrational (is there another word to describe a refusal to agree with a group of experts who are that certain ["universal assent"] of their conclusion???) and suspiciously unreasonable. Speaking as one acutely familiar with all manner of neurosis…I’d say we ought to invent one for this situation. Maybe start a thread offering counseling.

 

[The Norseman]

Acleron said quite explicitly that there appeared to be all-but no evidence to support the HJ position. Hard to reconcile that with the apparently indisputable fact that virtually every credible academic in the field disagrees with him / her. Idiots …frauds …charlatans …how exactly would Acleron describe these academics who seem, at best, incompetent and at worst, outright academic frauds?

Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Robert E. Van Voorst "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".

" Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed."^wp

These three individuals (and the relevant wiki page) presumably summarize the consensus of the academic fields relating to the HJ (they explicitly make that very claim). Based on the above statements it is possible to conclude with far-above-average certainty that Jesus did, in fact, live on this planet 2,000 or so years ago.

It may be reasonable to wonder about the conclusions and how they were arrived at. What is not reasonable…is to dispute the academic integrity or credentials of those who study in the various relevant fields…or to question the dimensions of the consensus (unless, of course, you have some means of substantiating your claims).

Thus…the very fact that there is such an overwhelming consensus is, itself, evidence of the robust nature of what is being agreed upon. There is, IOW, no equivocation. ‘…certainly existed’ …’ non-existence effectively refuted’…’ universal assent’ … ‘virtually all agree’. Doubt…apparently…is not evident.

Have to say…I find it downright bizarre…this vociferous, obstinate, refusal to acknowledge the academic conclusions on this matter. Especially on a skeptic forum. It’s blatantly irrational (is there another word to describe a refusal to agree with a group of experts who are that certain ["universal assent"] of their conclusion???) and suspiciously unreasonable. Speaking as one acutely familiar with all manner of neurosis…I’d say we ought to invent one for this situation. Maybe start a thread offering counseling.

Since davefoc suggested that you produce the evidence which convinced you that Yeshua was real and you post an appeal to authority, great. Claims of near-complete consensus and a wiki page are what it takes to convince you; it does save the trouble and effort of straining your brain trying to actually investigate the evidence I suppose. For others, it takes substantially more.

 

[tsig]

Acleron said quite explicitly that there appeared to be all-but no evidence to support the HJ position. Hard to reconcile that with the apparently indisputable fact that virtually every credible academic in the field disagrees with him / her. Idiots …frauds …charlatans …how exactly would Acleron describe these academics who seem, at best, incompetent and at worst, outright academic frauds?




Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Robert E. Van Voorst "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".

" Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed."^wp

These three individuals (and the relevant wiki page) presumably summarize the consensus of the academic fields relating to the HJ (they explicitly make that very claim). Based on the above statements it is possible to conclude with far-above-average certainty that Jesus did, in fact, live on this planet 2,000 or so years ago.

It may be reasonable to wonder about the conclusions and how they were arrived at. What is not reasonable…is to dispute the academic integrity or credentials of those who study in the various relevant fields…or to question the dimensions of the consensus (unless, of course, you have some means of substantiating your claims).

Thus…the very fact that there is such an overwhelming consensus is, itself, evidence of the robust nature of what is being agreed upon. There is, IOW, no equivocation. ‘…certainly existed’ …’ non-existence effectively refuted’…’ universal assent’ … ‘virtually all agree’. Doubt…apparently…is not evident.

Have to say…I find it downright bizarre…this vociferous, obstinate, refusal to acknowledge the academic conclusions on this matter. Especially on a skeptic forum. It’s blatantly irrational (is there another word to describe a refusal to agree with a group of experts who are that certain ["universal assent"] of their conclusion???) and suspiciously unreasonable. Speaking as one acutely familiar with all manner of neurosis…I’d say we ought to invent one for this situation. Maybe start a thread offering counseling.

So the evidence that HJ existed is the overwhelming consensus that he existed.

 

[Craig B]

Since davefoc suggested that you produce the evidence which convinced you that Yeshua was real and you post an appeal to authority, great.

Unfair. What davefoc asked for was this.

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.

And what he received in reply was a justification of that conclusion, exactly as had been requested.

 

[IanS]

Unfair. What davefoc asked for was this. And what he received in reply was a justification of that conclusion, exactly as had been requested.

It's true that Dave's question only actually asked for a list of authors names. I don't know if that's what Dave really wanted, since a bare list of names does nothing to tell us what those people had claimed to be their evidence.

Perhaps Dave really wanted was to know what Annnnnoid believed to be the evidence stated by those authors.

Many pages back I asked Piggy to post quotes from his academic papers (the papers he is insisting we must all read) where any of his "scholars" detail the evidence that has lead them to believe that Jesus certainly existed. Predictably he flatly refused to even attempt that (despite insisting repeatedly that "mythers" here should quote from the same academic papers).

If Annnnoid is relying on someone like Bart Ehrman, then perhaps he would like to quote what Ehrman claims to be the overwhelming evidence of a living Jesus?

 

[Craig B]

Let us make a comparison between the earliest sources of information about the James Gang, and about the Merry Men. The latter are the definitely imaginary companions of a mythical Robin Hood, while the former are cited as evidence for the historicity of their deceased leader, Jesus.

The early ballads give specific names to only three companions: Little John, Much the Miller's Son, and William Scarlock or Scathelock, the Will Scarlet of later traditions. Joining them are between 20 and "seven score" outlawed yeomen. The most prominent of the Merry Men is Robin's second-in-command, Little John. He appears in the earliest ballads, and is mentioned in even earlier sources, such as Andrew of Wyntoun's Orygynale Chronicle of around 1420 and Walter Bower's expansion of the Scotichronicon, completed around 1440.

These are late - and not even English - sources. And even then, they precede the earliest extant English ballads!

Later ballads name additional Merry Men, some of whom appear in only one or two ballads, while others, like the minstrel Alan-a-Dale and the jovial Friar Tuck, became fully attached to the legend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merry_Men. Let us imagine that we had a chronicler living at the time of Robin Hood, who recounted meeting Little John and Will Scarlet not long after Robin's death, and that they went about spreading the message of Hoodianity "steal from the rich and give to the poor". And that the existence of this chronicler, and the authenticity of some of the writings attributed to him, are unchallenged; and that these writings were addressed to communities whose existence need not be doubted. Moreover the chronicler was in dispute with these surviving Merry Men on occasion. Would we not take this seriously as evidence of Hood's existence, even if the records of public transactions during the reign of Bad King John contained no notice of these people? But we have no such chronicler. We have foreign commentators writing more than two centuries after Bad King John, and a bunch of popular ballads; the extant ones of even later date.

 

[Craig B]

Early references to a very similar mythical character follow precisely the same pattern. William Tell legends are associated with events in the last decades of the thirteenth century, but according to wiki:

The first reference to William Tell appears in the White Book of Sarnen (German: Weisses Buch von Sarnen). This volume was written in 1475 by a country scribe named Hans Schreiber. It makes mention of the Rütli oath (German: Rütlischwur) of 1291, the Burgenbruch and Tell's heroic deeds.
A roughly equally early account of Tell is found in the Tellenlied, a song composed during the 1470s, its oldest extant manuscript copy dating to 1501. This song begins with the Tell legend, which it presents as the origin of the Confederacy, calling Tell the "first confederate". The narrative presented includes Tell's apple-shot, his preparation of a second arrow to shoot Gessler in the event of his killing his son, and his escape, but it omits the assassination of Gessler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tell

Tell has no "Paul" either.

 

[IanS]

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.

You should read the posts before making completely irrelevant and ill informed replies. The people I described as "religious fanatics", were those who were writing and preaching the biblical accounts in 1st cent. AD.

 

[Acleron]

Acleron said quite explicitly that there appeared to be all-but no evidence to support the HJ position. Hard to reconcile that with the apparently indisputable fact that virtually every credible academic in the field disagrees with him / her. Idiots …frauds …charlatans …how exactly would Acleron describe these academics who seem, at best, incompetent and at worst, outright academic frauds.

...

There are university departments that specialise in homeopathy. They write articles in magazines which they peer review themselves, they author books. When asked for evidence, they react with the same tactics as seen here. They smear opponents, often by mislabelling them, they cite themselves, they attempt to redefine the rules of evidence. Finally, and here the parallels become eerie, they fail to provide the evidence for their belief. Fortunately, we can examine independent and accepted evidence to show their beliefs are wrong.

The sheer violence of any criticism of an HJ position, if repeated in academia, would stifle any dissenting voices. So if you want my opinion on these studies rather than putting words in my mouth, it would that they are misguided and entrenched in their opinion and hardly providing an environment for free and active discussion.

The position of the critics in this thread is mainly that the evidence precludes the certainty of the conclusions given. That the pro-HJers have not admitted any uncertainty is telling. That is unfortunate because such a caveat on their statements would improve the accuracy of the statement of their conclusions.

 

[Belz...]

Acleron said quite explicitly that there appeared to be all-but no evidence to support the HJ position. Hard to reconcile that with the apparently indisputable fact that virtually every credible academic in the field disagrees with him / her. Idiots …frauds …charlatans …how exactly would Acleron describe these academics who seem, at best, incompetent and at worst, outright academic frauds?

Or just plain wrong. You're the one who is making more of this than there is, ergo, the First Law.

This is also an appeal to authority _and_ an appeal to emotion, rather than just provide some evidence to counter Acleron's claim.

Quite telling.

 

[Belz...]

Let us imagine that we had a chronicler living at the time of Robin Hood, who recounted meeting Little John and Will Scarlet not long after Robin's death, and that they went about spreading the message of Hoodianity "steal from the rich and give to the poor". And that the existence of this chronicler, and the authenticity of some of the writings attributed to him, are unchallenged; and that these writings were addressed to communities whose existence need not be doubted.

Is that what we have with Paul ? Does he explicitly say that Peter and James are people who knew Jesus personally, or is that our interpretation because of the much later Gospels ?

 

[Craig B]

Is that what we have with Paul ? Does he explicitly say that Peter and James are people who knew Jesus personally, or is that our interpretation because of the much later Gospels ?

Brother of The Lord.

 

[Belz...]

Haven't we already addressed that ?

So basically we have a possibly metaphorical "brother", and that's it. Assuming the Gospels were written much later and possibly loosely based on A) Paul and B) tradition, it's possible that James and Peter were retconned as actual brother and disciple, respectively. And that means our interpretation of Paul's letters is coloured by works written based on a possible interpretation of Paul.

That's what I find dangerous about this line of reasoning. We don't know what sources who used, and we're not even sure what Paul meant when he said this and that.

 

[eight bits]

davefoc

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?

I think that is a great angle to discuss, with the potential to explain many features of the problem.

Belz...

... Does he explicitly say that Peter and James are people who knew Jesus personally, or is that our interpretation because of the much later Gospels ?

This, too, is an important methodological point that distinguishes the HJwC case from many other historical reconstructions. The canonical literature is visibly written by an multi-generational advocacy group, with the intention to persuade readers that the group's underlying story is factually correct. Part of that conscious intention may be for later writers to shape the reader's perception of earlier writing.

For example, by "filling in" a backstory for Paul's James Gang, a later author like Mark can create the impression that "Paul said" that the James gang were former personal associates of Jesus. Maybe they were, but Paul didn't say that in what reaches us. It is a seriously possible interpretation of what Paul wrote, but not the only seriously possible interpretation. It is, however, the unique serious possibility that harmonizes Paul and Mark.

If I'm looking at whether Pythagoras lived, and examining earlier and later Pythagoras stories, then I needn't worry that any later author was looking at the earlier material and thinking "Holy crap, they've left a hole in their story. I'd better plug that up, making both of us seem more credible."

This is not just dependence among sources, but an adpative dependence among the sources. Maybe a skilled adaptive dependence. After all, the New Tetsament tells the story of a gifted master psychological manipulator who gets killed when he overplays his hand, alienating his own supporter(s) and momentarily uniting Jews and Romans in a common cause. Great stuff.

It is at least possible that the various authors were able to achieve their realistic portrait of such a character because they themselves weren't too shabby in the psychological manipulation department. Such a skill set could easily include Marks' appreciation that Paul's introduction of a sketched-in James Gang creates a narrative opportunity to shore up the overall story. The target audience is already asking "Who are the James Gang?" Why, those are the really-truly brother of the Lord and his very best friends.