What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Piggy]

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

OK, who do you think he's scamming, and how, and why?

 

[Piggy]

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

No.

For example, if Saturday Night Live runs spoofs of President Clinton for 8 years, then runs spoofs of President Bush for 8 years, then runs spoofs of President Obama for 8 years, that's a pretty good indication of when these presidents were in office.

The question is WHY are they running those spoofs.

Of course SNL has a slew of made-up characters and personas. But are Clinton and Bush and Obama made-up characters?

Well, no. There's a difference between skits about outrageous characters who are cheerleaders, vagrants, little girls, self-help coaches, and such, and skits lampooning major political figures known to everyone.

Miracle stories accrued to emperors in the 1st century as well, and those stories tell us something about those rulers, despite being false.

I'm sorry, but as much as y'all want to ignore the writings of the followers of Jesus, you just can't get away with it.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Well, now you're just lying, because I provided clear posts about those topics, with evidence, such as citations directly from Paul showing he believed Jesus was human.

And there's no point engaging folks who debate that way.

 

[Piggy]

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.

And don't forget Levine's synopsis of the consensus from her introduction to "The Historical Jesus in Context", which contains articles by many prominent scholars.

So far, we have had not one single drop of evidence provided for the claim that any significant doubt exists among historians, anthropologists, linguists, archaeologists, or any other legitimate academic field studying the Ancient Near East.

Nor have we had any substantiation of the blind claims that the entire field is somehow occupied by crackpots or incompetents.

As you say, sufficient evidence of the consensus has been provided.

No evidence of any legitimate challenge has been put forward.

 

[Piggy]

Brother of The Lord.

Not only that, but we know that in this culture generally proximity is valued.

We only have to look at Paul's claims regarding his bona fides for an example.

As has been mentioned before, Paul would not have accepted James' authority, and James could never have been a "pillar" along with 2 disciples, if he had not known Jesus personally.

Had James been a second-hander, he would not have been head of the Jerusalem assembly.

 

[eight bits]

Piggy

OK, who do you think he's scamming, and how, and why?

You've read the letters. Gentiles who sign up will never die because an imagined Jesus said so to Paul. While we're waiting for lift-off, Paul is taking up a collection to help some people whom you'll meet for the first time when we're all flying to meet Jesus. That's when you can check that Paul really gave your money to these people.

Is there some part of that seems to you to be out-of-place within a scam?

For example, if Saturday Night Live runs spoofs,,,

Then SNL assumes the audiece knows who the characters are. Just as SNL would know if it ran a skit about Robin Hood, Little Red Riding Hood, or the Boys in the 'Hood.

Are the objects of the skits real or imagined or exaggerations of real people or ...? Well, lucky us, we do know which is which. Jesus? Not so much. But even so, we know who the character is, so SNL can still do a Jesus skit if it likes.

All analogies have limits, Piggy. Yours fails on one of the chief points of contention: what else we know about SNL skit characters apart from SNL skits. Note, however, that real, disputed and imaginary alike work equally well for SNL, as long we the audience can follow the gag.

Miracle stories accrued to emperors in the 1st century as well, and those stories tell us something about those rulers, despite being false.

Yes, but as with SNL skits, we understand how the miracle stories managed to stick to the emperors. That stickiness, however, isn't why we think the emperors were real. It is not even any part of why we think the emperors were real.

The Jesus miracle stories tell us lots about the Jesus school, but the existence of these stories do not bear on whether the miracle worker was real or imagined.

As has been mentioned before, Paul would not have accepted James' authority...

Paul didn't say he accepted James' "authority." Paul made a market sharing agreement with him. What Paul accepted was that his own product didn't sell to Jews, and he hoped that James would stop fishing in Paul's pond (or bothering Paul while Paul was fishing,,, the text isn't very clear what James' obstructive behavior was exactly) if Paul would cede the Jewish market. So, a deal was made.

 

[tsig]

Well, now you're just lying, because I provided clear posts about those topics, with evidence, such as citations directly from Paul showing he believed Jesus was human.

And there's no point engaging folks who debate that way.

Using the bible to prove the bible.

You're not debating, you're preaching.

 

[annnnoid]

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.

…sorry…I guess I forgot to mention the part where I travelled back in time and had a beer with Jesus…or the four years I spent studying classical history…or the four years I spent studying ancient languages…or the four years that I spent on archeological digs in the middle east…and sometime in the middle of all that I got a degree in accounting and a job in the local government and bought a house and had a life.

Just because you have the ability to parrot the phrase ‘appeal to authority, appeal to authority, appeal to authority’ ad inifinitum does it therefore follow that we should question the credibility of the authority?

How about we use the LHC as an analogy. Tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours of expertise went into its design, construction, and operation. Similar resources have gone into the lives of those who plan and analyze the experiments that are done with it. Are you going to accept the conclusions of these folks…or are you going to insist on going out and getting your own degrees in theoretical physics and the multitude of other disciplines that are required to deal with the issues related the LHC?

Point being…when the consensus in the field of theoretical physics is that a Higgs Boson exists…I (and, presumably, the other 6 billion people on the planet who don’t have a physics degree) accept the results presented to us by the relevant authorities. When those at the pinnacle of a very specialized discipline use words like ‘universal agreement’ it is reasonable for those of us who are not experts to conclude that there is a satisfactory degree of consensus on the issue.

The same analogy can be applied to an almost infinite range of issues. This is a world overflowing with information and specialization. The moment you open your eyes in the morning you immediately become utterly dependent, to one degree or another, on means and mechanisms derived from some variety of authority. But not you…you make the effort to “strain your brain” because you require “substantially more.” Congratulations.

There’s a difference between debating different propositions in an effort to challenge, enlighten and entertain…and actually dismissing (and disparaging) the conclusions of the professionals in the field you are debating. This is what is happening here.

Acleron, for example, is flatly accusing the entire field of academic fraud. Many of the rest of you are suggesting or implying similar positions.

…a convenient example fortuitously presents itself…

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

So the evidence that a Higgs Boson exists is that there is an overwhelming consensus that it does??????

…or did you come across one in your morning sludge?

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?

The fact that authorities and experts in a very very very specialized field feel compelled to use words like ‘universal agreement’ when describing a certain conclusion is, itself, evidence of the veracity of the conclusion. I don’t have multiple years to waste getting a degree in all the disciplines required to come to a thoroughly informed and credible conclusion on the issues. Therefore, I, like the majority of intelligent human beings, refer to the conclusions of credible authorities (some of whom post at JREF). When there is an obvious consensus on an issue (as there is in this case), it makes that process much simpler.

Thing is…if you folks are going to make these ridiculous accusations (that the entire field of biblical scholarship is riddled with frauds) then present something more than your own obviously biased opinions to substantiate the position.

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.

Where have the pro-HJers not admitted any uncertainty? About the only thing they do agree on (from the various links that I have explored) is that Jesus did exist (along with one or two major events in his life). When it comes to just about everything else in his life, there are varying degrees of conflict.

So basically you are suggesting that those who support this ‘universal agreement’ (a group that would, at present, appear to include multiple academics at virtually every university on the planet) are both academic and personal frauds. Academic frauds because they ‘cite themselves’, they ‘redefine the rules of evidence’, they ‘fail to provide evidence for their conclusions’, they ‘stifle opposition’, they are ‘misguided and entrenched’, they do not encourage ‘free and active discussion’. Personal frauds because they ‘smear opponents’… and personal frauds because their professional behavior seems to be just about entirely in question.

Perhaps this discussion should be moved over to the conspiracy thread….cause that’s what this sounds like. What is the first rule of conspiracies? Investigate the accuser.

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.

They’re ‘just plain wrong’. Yeah…that’s the first conclusion I come to when I hear words like ‘universal assent’.

I’m making more of this than there is????? I’m not the one slandering thousands of academics and disputing the clearly accepted conclusion of an entire field of scholarship. I notice you’re quite happy to defend this position.

Quite telling.

 

[Belz...]

They’re ‘just plain wrong’. Yeah…that’s the first conclusion I come to when I hear words like ‘universal assent’.

Who cares if it's the first or last ? You're deliberately removing it from your list in order to be outraged.

I’m making more of this than there is?????

Yes.

I’m not the one slandering thousands of academics and disputing the clearly accepted conclusion of an entire field of scholarship.

Disputing a conclusion is not slander.

I notice you’re quite happy to defend this position.

Have your eyes examined. I'm pointing out that your interpretation is wrong. Presumably, deliberately so.

 

[llwyd]

Yeah, it is irrational to refuse to give any credence to the consensus of the experts - just like in the case of collapsing skyscrapers...

This disrespect of specialists usually occurs when their findings are in conflict with the critic's deeply, even passionately held convictions. On this forum, I think some "sceptics" might have a tiny blind spot... It's not sceptical to be irrationally attached to your own amateur conclusions and convictions.

Anyway, on this thread it is not the historical Jesus that is on trial but the study of antiquity which to my mind has been mindbogglingly brilliant and incredibly painstaking in finding methods to extract information and reasonable and testable conclusions from very meagre source material. I don't know how these methods could be challenged without any thorough understanding of them. Of course the study of history is not a natural science, but it is nevertheless a securely established and rigorous discipline very far from any postmodern nonsense and relativism.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, it is irrational to refuse to give any credence to the consensus of the experts - just like in the case of collapsing skyscrapers...

This disrespect of specialists usually occurs when their findings are in conflict with the critic's deeply, even passionately held convictions. On this forum, I think some "sceptics" might have a tiny blind spot... It's not sceptical to be irrationally attached to your own amateur conclusions and convictions.

Except that here, we haven't seen anything resembling evidence that would pass muster in any field save history, or even any subfield of history except Jesus research. To compare architecture and history is misleading at best. No one is refusing to give credence to the experts. We're simply not taking them at their word blindly, just as we don't do it for physicists, physicians and other experts.

Anyway, on this thread it is not the historical Jesus that is on trial but the study of antiquity which to my mind has been mindbogglingly brilliant and incredibly painstaking in finding methods to extract information and reasonable and testable conclusions from very meagre source material.

Yes: meager source material. That's the problem, here. No one would object to the following statement:

"Based on what we know from the little that we have on Jesus, and on religious precedents, and from the cultural and historical background of that area, at that time, we are of the mind that it is more likely than not that the Jesus narrative was inspired, at least in part, by one or more real persons."

However, what we get is this:

"We are absolutely certain that Jesus existed. No one takes the alternatives seriously, and to say otherwise marks you as a crank. Furthermore, you should learn the whole field by yourself rather than ask me for evidence, and if not you are slandering thousands of people in the world who are more knowledgeable than you, are above reproach, and love their families. Won't you think of their families ?"

 

[annnnoid]

Who cares if it's the first or last ? You're deliberately removing it from your list in order to be outraged.

Disputing a conclusion is not slander.

Have your eyes examined. I'm pointing out that your interpretation is wrong. Presumably, deliberately so.

No…I’m deliberately placing it way down my list because the consensus seems quite substantial and the opposition is often biased. No different than if someone disputed any other clearly accepted academic conclusion.

Have my eyes examined! Indeed. Acleron is clearly questioning their academic and personal integrity (misrepresentation, duplicity, fraud, deception). That’s called slander. You are free to pretend otherwise, but ignorance is no defense.

No one is refusing to give credence to the experts. We're simply not taking them at their word blindly, just as we don't do it for physicists, physicians and other experts.

"We are absolutely certain that Jesus existed. No one takes the alternatives seriously, and to say otherwise marks you as a crank. Furthermore, you should learn the whole field by yourself rather than ask me for evidence, and if not you are slandering thousands of people in the world who are more knowledgeable than you, are above reproach, and love their families. Won't you think of their families ?"

Actually…there are many who are challenging the credence of the experts. Have your eyes not read what Acleron (and others) have clearly posted?

As for never taking experts at their word…what utopia do you live in? Everyone does this, everywhere, all the time.
.
Regarding your closing remark ( “we are absolutely certain”…etc. etc.)…I did a google search on that one and came up with nothing. Perhaps you could provide a link.

 

[llwyd]

Yes: meager source material. That's the problem, here. No one would object to the following statement:

"Based on what we know from the little that we have on Jesus, and on religious precedents, and from the cultural and historical background of that area, at that time, we are of the mind that it is more likely than not that the Jesus narrative was inspired, at least in part, by one or more real persons."

However, what we get is this:

"We are absolutely certain that Jesus existed. No one takes the alternatives seriously, and to say otherwise marks you as a crank. Furthermore, you should learn the whole field by yourself rather than ask me for evidence, and if not you are slandering thousands of people in the world who are more knowledgeable than you, are above reproach, and love their families. Won't you think of their families ?"

Yes, some formulations seem interestingly strongly put (meaning scholars and not commenters here) - I have a suspicion that might be connected to certain irrational crankery in evidence also on this thread... But the samples are small, and I suspect that far more common are more balanced views that fundamentally will speak of likelihood and not certainty. I would myself put it, after know getting to know the current consensus that "it is very likely there was a real historical figure behind the largely fictional person, the Messiah and Son of God, established by his followers". This is a minor question anyway in the current source situation, nothing of major importance.

 

[jond]

Yes, some formulations seem interestingly strongly put (meaning scholars and not commenters here) - I have a suspicion that might be connected to certain irrational crankery in evidence also on this thread... But the samples are small, and I suspect that far more common are more balanced views that fundamentally will speak of likelihood and not certainty. I would myself put it, after know getting to know the current consensus that "it is very likely there was a real historical figure behind the largely fictional person, the Messiah and Son of God, established by his followers". This is a minor question anyway in the current source situation, nothing of major importance.

Well, certainly Piggy and Stone have certainly put forth that it is an absolute fact that an historical Jesus did exist and anyone who doesn't think so is a crank. What Belz..., myself and others have been trying to get them to acknowledge is that if you remove the name Jesus and all the connotations associated with it, you're left without a whole lot to go on. And if it were anything other than Jesus the position would be much more like the sentence Belz... put forth: "Based on what we know from the little that we have, and on religious precedents, and from the cultural and historical background of that area, at that time, we are of the mind that it is more likely than not that the narrative was inspired, at least in part, by one or more real persons."

 

[Piggy]

Well, certainly Piggy and Stone have certainly put forth that it is an absolute fact that an historical Jesus did exist and anyone who doesn't think so is a crank. What Belz..., myself and others have been trying to get them to acknowledge is that if you remove the name Jesus and all the connotations associated with it, you're left without a whole lot to go on. And if it were anything other than Jesus the position would be much more like the sentence Belz... put forth: "Based on what we know from the little that we have, and on religious precedents, and from the cultural and historical background of that area, at that time, we are of the mind that it is more likely than not that the narrative was inspired, at least in part, by one or more real persons."

Sorry, but all of that is wrong.

What I've said is that all the evidence points to HJ, and so far nobody has been able to concoct a scenario without HJ that fits everything we know. Therefore, there is an overwhelming consensus that Jesus lived and was crucified.

I have also said that mythicism is crank, which is true -- it's an outsider contrarian idea which has been debunked by academic scholars but which lives on in the vanity press, homemade websites, and online videos but has no presence in peer-reviewed literature. That's what "crank" is.

Also, it makes no sense to say "if you remove the name Jesus and all the connotations associated with it, you're left without a whole lot to go on".

You seem to be implying that the "name Jesus" is somehow striking fear and confusion into the hearts of otherwise reliable scholars -- the same scholars who have debunked all the other traditional views about the Bible that have been discarded, many of whom are Jewish or simply not religious at all.

And if writings by his followers, dating back to a few years after his death, including letters from someone who knew his inner circle personally, is not "a whole lot to go on", then you're simply unfamiliar with history.

Belz's statement is OK for someone who hasn't studied the subject much, but it's simply not accurate for someone who has studied the topic, including the historical background.

 

[Piggy]

Just another note re. questioning the "official story" from an uninformed standpoint….

If I decided that, for some reason, I thought everyone who studied the 9/11 disaster and contributed to the investigation were somehow unreliable -- without actually knowing what their findings were -- would it be reasonable to demand that somebody show me the evidence upon which those findings were based, so I could make up my own mind?

No, of course not.

First of all, nobody COULD show me the evidence. It's not available to me. All they can do is cite the investigations.

Second, even if the actual evidence were available to me, I'm not a structural engineer or disaster scene investigator, so I wouldn't know what to do with it.

So with regard to the accepted letters of Paul, for example, nobody here could possibly post the evidence upon which experts on the Ancient Near East base their conclusions, and even if that evidence could be made available, nobody here would possess all the skills necessary to draw accurate conclusions from all of it.

Which means: A GIVEN PERSON'S LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE FIELD IS NOT A LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE CONCLUSIONS OF EXPERTS IN THE FIELD.

And since understanding the basis for such conclusions -- say, regarding which (if any) writings of Paul are good copies of originals by Paul -- depends on understanding a great deal about the customs, people, language, even geography of an ancient time and place and culture, the amount of evidence one would need to examine in order to come to a conclusion about any single point is tremendous.

This is why baseless objections to the credentials of everyone in the field of ANE studies, and baseless objections to their conclusions, are simply non-starters.

There are literally infinite possible arguments from ignorance to be made, and entertaining them only stops discussion.

If objections are to be made, they must have substance.

There must be some REASON, for example, to suspect that an entire field is populated with Christian religious "fanatics" (even the Jews and atheists), or that everyone in ANE studies forgets how to evaluate evidence when it comes to this point alone, or that widely supported conclusions are in error, before any time is wasted discussing such suspicions.

It's not enough to say "Well, I don't know anything about the research, therefore I might be correct that it's all bunk."

That's how Truthers operate. But it's not how skeptics should behave.

 

[Stone]

Well, certainly Piggy and Stone have certainly put forth that it is an absolute fact that an historical Jesus did exist

Oh?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9261295&postcount=2380

"a scholarly consensus that a strictly human Jesus the teacher is more likely historical than not"

You. will. take. back. what. you. said. NOW.

Stone

 

[Acleron]

Annnoid, thank you for giving an example of the very behaviour I was criticising. I have not accused anyone here of fraud and in fact gave a description of what I feel which you quoted but you felt it necessary to put different words in my mouth again.

Your analogy to the LHC fails on a few points. We know many of the workers on the LHC data. We know that they work to the scientific method. We see people who have alternative views on the data and conclusions and can see the debates. We even see the data. Finally, the conclusions are given with confidence levels. Compare that to your analysis which is based on poor evidence, which is still given with utmost certainty that HJ existed. According to Piggy there is other evidence but he states that no-one can see it all. Alternative explanations are dismissed with insults and calls to authority.

Without genuine discussion of the evidence rather than the opinions you just aren't convincing no matter how many degrees you have.

 

[jond]

Oh?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9261295&postcount=2380

"a scholarly consensus that a strictly human Jesus the teacher is more likely historical than not"

You. will. take. back. what. you. said. NOW.

Stone

You're right. Sorry. I missed that bit in the midst of all the invective within your post. But, you might want to tone that stuff down, because if all you are saying is "more likely than not" then there's no disagreement at all, but it certainly *appears* that there is.

 

[Belz...]

No…I’m deliberately placing it way down my list because the consensus seems quite substantial and the opposition is often biased.

Quite possibly. I'm trying to not let my atheism get in the way, which is why I'm of the opinion that "Based on what we know from the little that we have on Jesus, and on religious precedents, and from the cultural and historical background of that area, at that time, we are of the mind that it is more likely than not that the Jesus narrative was inspired, at least in part, by one or more real persons.".

Actually…there are many who are challenging the credence of the experts. Have your eyes not read what Acleron (and others) have clearly posted?

Well I haven't had them examined lately, but I haven't read all of Acleron's posts. I or tsig or Hand or Ian or anyone else haven't, to my knowledge, accused the experts of anything except maybe making leaps in their conclusions.

As for never taking experts at their word…what utopia do you live in? Everyone does this, everywhere, all the time.

Everyone does what ? Take them at their word ? Or not ?

Regarding your closing remark ( “we are absolutely certain”…etc. etc.)…I did a google search on that one and came up with nothing. Perhaps you could provide a link.

Cute.