What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Acleron]

By that argument, nothing written by Hitler or the Nazis has anything to tell us about who they were and who Hitler was... nothing can be gleaned from their propaganda posters or Nazi defense testimony at war trials.

Which is grossly incorrect.

And if you disagree with the overwhelming academic consensus on this matter, perhaps you could provide some actual support for your contrarian views, based on something other than a misunderstanding of historical methods.

If in 2000 years time all that survived was copies of copies of translations of their testimony and posters would that be good evidence that Hitler existed?

 

[Craig B]

If in 2000 years time all that survived was copies of copies of translations of their testimony and posters would that be good evidence that Hitler existed?

Yes.

 

[Craig B]

Craig B;
I strongly disagree with G. A. Wells (as most of the field does), as there is nothing strange about mentioning the Christians in a list of Nero's actions.

In an appropriate context it would not be anomalous. Cheek by jowl with a reference to regulation of "pub grub" sales, it is preposterous. It's the same as the TF: if indeed Josephus had believed the Messiah had put in an appearance, he would not have inserted this datum (the most important event since the creation, as it would have seemed to him) between stories about a mediocre crime of Pilate and the shenanigans of a gang of Jewish mountebanks in Rome.

 

[JaysonR]

In an appropriate context it would not be anomalous. Cheek by jowl with a reference to regulation of "pub grub" sales, it is preposterous. It's the same as the TF: if indeed Josephus had believed the Messiah had put in an appearance, he would not have inserted this datum (the most important event since the creation, as it would have seemed to him) between stories about a mediocre crime of Pilate and the shenanigans of a gang of Jewish mountebanks in Rome.

My citation was from Claudius 25, not from Nero 16 (not that Nero 16 is errant in entry), and Nero 16 addresses the general matters of Christians and the undergoing's of Rome.
Similarly, so is the case of Claudius 25; the entry isn't about Jesus.
It's about Rome, and the references are related to what was done for what reason regarding which events motivated for what reason.

The reason we are given for the Jewish community turmoil that caused them to be kicked out of Rome was that they would not stop fighting over the Chrestus figure.

There is no coverage of the specific going on's of the prefects around Palestine in Suetonius' works, so I would not be expecting there to be any direct coverage of any such figure, unless by proxy in mention of what was being fought over in Rome by which communities of people that were causing enough social unrest to warrant which kind of recourse by which Emperor.

Or, if they had been an in favor group politically in Rome, then I would have expected some given individual in power that is cited to be mentioned as of that group and following, but since we know Rome (at this time) did not really care much for Jewish community squabbles (basically just tolerating the Jewish communities in general) or Christians in general, then I would only expect citation of either of them through recourse of issuance of reprimand of unrest.

If memory serves me correctly, I think there's only one section in all of Suetonius' work in this volume that notes anyone in any ruling position specifically over Judaea (break in tangent...I had to go check); yes, Claudius 28 is the only section where we really get any such notation, and that's in reference to a promotion mention and then that's it.

Suetonius is interested in Rome; not Judaea.

 

[Belz...]

You can't show particle evidence, literally, to someone over a forum medium.

I don't see why not. I've seen plenty of evidence over the internet.

 

[JaysonR]

I don't see why not. I've seen plenty of evidence over the internet.

Yep, and because we both agree on general physics (as 90% [guessing] of the population does), then it's not hard.

However, try talking to someone that wants you to prove that a photon splits into a positron and electron, or that EM only exists if photons are the gauge boson.

Try actually proving it, over the internet, using not a single shred of citation to any lab test anywhere ever.

 

[Belz...]

Yep, and because we both agree on general physics (as 90% [guessing] of the population does), then it's not hard.

However, try talking to someone that wants you to prove that a photon splits into a positron and electron, or that EM only exists if photons are the gauge boson.

Try actually proving it, over the internet, using not a single shred of citation to any lab test anywhere ever.

Why the extra condition ? No one here is saying that research and reasoning can't be quoted or linked to. But without evidence, it's not worth much. I completely disagree with you that the same is true of physics or other hard sciences.

 

[JaysonR]

That's not an extra condition. We're not resting on what the field thinks, or their findings presented in publications; if we were, then we wouldn't be talking right now as if we resort to publications from the field on the matter; then historicity is as established for Jesus as well as it can for any ancient figure who lacks archaeological material.

I can't tell you what someone else thinks, because that's not evidence.
That's someone else's publication and their reasoning and their citations.

Evidence for History, when dealing with events and people (transient objects), is most often writings from ancient times that refer to the events and people.
Texts written by ancient peoples (not referring to gospel texts here) are the lateral of a particle collision, and the lateral of comparative research in history is a particle accelerator for physics.

Lacking a particle accelerator on hand to take you to, and not having any means of supplying evidence in any other method than by direct presentation or citation of someone else's publication, I would be forced to have you sit with me at the particle accelerator to prove things to you...which is not something we can readily do (we can run through comparative research, but so far as I've gathered, folks aren't interested in that process being displayed).

Here, the equal of this is that all I can do is what I have done.
I can show you the material without spending any effort to elaborate on any lengthy contextual matter in the presentation since what's being asked for is strict evidence.

I have seen nothing indicating that I can just cite the many piles of publications and books on the matter by the field of history, and then just walk away and say that because they have their publications which tested their proofs within them, that the evidence stands as the standard and you need to prove to me why the standard is wrong.

This however, would be the expectation in physics; that I would just cite the Standard Model and a pile of other publications and books on the matter and tell someone that if they disagree with the evidence presented in the field standard material, that they would need to highlight all of the material that is presented already in the field, and show where the material publications are errant in their presented evidences.


Either way; I'm not in any sort of way referring to anyone directly as a reason of itself for assertion.
I just laid out two pieces of material that stand, to me, to be pretty good material evidences for the existence of Jesus.

I expect there to be challenges and discussion over them; as so far such is par for the course.

 

[eight bits]

Jayson

Well, we'll put aside that Chrestus is a well formed name, and that even if the passage is "accepted" as a reference to Jesus (I don't know what you mean by that; my reading is not solecist), then the passage places him in Rome after Pilate supposedly crucified him. Good news for the "swoon theory." However, if you're saying that the historical Jesus is somebody who was alive, say, when Paul was preaching his Jesus, then this would not, IMO, be a "historical Jesus who counts."

It's a citation of how the Jews in Rome were kicked out because they couldn't stop bickering over this Christ figure's issue.

As I recall the consensus, the Jews had many Messianic figures around that time, any of whom might be "Christus" from a Roman point of view. So, Jesus is the unique Messianic figure over whom three of more Jews ever came to blows?

Interesting. I don't believe that, though. Which, of course, is no reason for you not to.

Yes, some toss it upwards of the second century, but most do not...

Well fine. What I was responding to was

One Letter by Mara Bar-Serapion written no earlier than 73 CE and not later than the 1st c CE.

So, that "not later than" is disputed. Fine if you believe First Century, and fine if you feel you have a majority behind you.

I wouldn't know; I don't try to resolve factual questions by a show of hands. And, as I said, this passage has some problems if it refers to the historical Jesus. This "Wise King" needs to have been killed by the Jews before they lost their homeland. The historical Jesus who counts for me never was a king (indeed, much of the point of the installment plan messiah is that he wasn't actually a king, didn't make laws, etc.), was killed by Romans, and the Jews had already lost their country.

It doesn't say that they lost their country before the Wise King was killed, but after.

Yes, and so that doesn't describe the historical Jesus who counts, at least for me.

 

[annnnoid]

And yet people can explain quantum physics.

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics." Richard Feynman

 

[JaysonR]

Jayson
Well, we'll put aside that Chrestus is a well formed name, and that even if the passage is "accepted" as a reference to Jesus (I don't know what you mean by that; my reading is not solecist)

Accepted means it's considered a reference to Jesus by title, by most individuals in the field.
But that's not the resting point.

, then the passage places him in Rome after Pilate supposedly crucified him. Good news for the "swoon theory." However, if you're saying that the historical Jesus is somebody who was alive, say, when Paul was preaching his Jesus, then this would not, IMO, be a "historical Jesus who counts."

It doesn't place Jesus in Rome; it's an uproar regarding the instigative contention of Chrestus among the Jews in their community in Rome.

Or rather said, Suetonius blames the instigation as being derived from that as the matter of contention; we don't know if it was or wasn't the actual issue.
We only know that Suetonius is of the impression that this is the issue that caused the feuds in their community.

As I recall the consensus, the Jews had many Messianic figures around that time, any of whom might be "Christus" from a Roman point of view. So, Jesus is the unique Messianic figure over whom three of more Jews ever came to blows?

I don't know of another individual who was referred to by a declarative pseudonym absent their own name; and Chrestus was not a Jewish name that would explain in itself the events. If we take that as an entry, then we are oddly confused in the text where otherwise Suetonius does not tend to just toss folks in that are complete unknowns without supporting reference to their station in society.

Here, we have the title (which, yes, sometimes was spelled this way and sometimes Christus; it wasn't really solid yet as to which was to use - even when writing of Christians, some folks wrote with an e instead of an i; later this died off), and nothing else.
If we take it as a name of a Jew; then we have the issue of an atypical entry for Suetonius of throwing in an unknown without explanation of their social relation for context.

Since that doesn't appear as a habit for Suetonius in any of his entries, and we do know that e/i was flipped back and forth in spelling until later established i favor, and considering that we are looking at the Jewish community and feuds therein, then it is not at all unreasonable to take this as Suetonius blaming the events as those circling a feud over the standings of Jesus.

I wouldn't know; I don't try to resolve factual questions by a show of hands. And, as I said, this passage has some problems if it refers to the historical Jesus. This "Wise King" needs to have been killed by the Jews before they lost their homeland. The historical Jesus who counts for me never was a king (indeed, much of the point of the installment plan messiah is that he wasn't actually a king, didn't make laws, etc.), was killed by Romans, and the Jews had already lost their country.

The dispersion of Jews from their land was far later, after the destruction of the second Temple in around 70 CE (ergo the letter in duress).
Jesus wasn't killed after this period.

There was only one such individual sarcastically labeled as a wise king who also introduced new laws around this time period.
We have no record of any other individual's fitting this description; certainly no actual Kings fit this description.

 

[annnnoid]

No, The evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson is what the LHC was built to investigate. When do you suppose they will build a HJ detector?

Really.

Tell me tsig…does this remarkable LHC thing investigate stuff all by itself? Or does it require significant numbers of highly qualified individuals (aka: authorities) to operate it. And does the LHC just spit out results…like…

‘dig this dudes…I’ve just found a Higgs Boson’ …

…or does it produce vast amounts of data that highly qualified individuals (aka: authorities) process and analyze and generate conclusions from?

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.

It was my impression that you were equating the behavior of homeopathy academics to those academics who support the HJ position. Was this incorrect?

How is it relevant whether or not we have the names of individuals involved in research? It is certainly easy enough to get equivalent documentation for HJ studies. Presumably those involved in HJ studies also follow rigorous accepted academic practices….or are you suggesting that they don’t? As for alternate views on the data (and the ability to see it)…views on the data are only as good as the abilities of those studying it. 99% of the people on this planet wouldn’t know a piece of LHC data from a cereal box! That is the point. The fact that you believe the evidence to be poor is not shared by those who study the matter. Personally…my vote goes with those who have the qualifications to actually understand the evidence. I wouldn’t waste my time asking my plumber to give me the lowdown on a couple hundred terabytes of LHC data…and as JaysonR has pointed out…the evidence supporting the HJ position is of an equivalent degree of complexity and sophistication.

 

[Belz...]

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics." Richard Feynman

Oh, cool, a useless soundbite !

 

[maximara]

1. There is an overwhelming consensus among experts in all relevant fields that Jesus existed. That's a fact.

Actually the consensus is that a Jesus existed. Of course as pointed out before John M. Robertson stated that "The (Christ) myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility (that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood person)" but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."

2. No one in any of those fields takes any no-Jesus "alternatives" seriously because they've all long been debunked and therefore are not present in current peer-reviewed literature. This is also a fact.

Actually as demonstrated by Michael O. Wise and Israel Knohl any effort to show that Jesus wasn't unique is met with automatic ridicule and NO effort in debating the actual merits of that

3. No-Jesus ideas are absent in peer-reviewed literature, as they are considered debunked by historians, anthropologists, archaeologists, linguists, and all other professionals involved in ANE studies; yet they persist as contrarian notions in non-academic circles... which is what "crank" scholarship is. This, too, is a fact.

BZZZZ WRONG

"There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16)


Let me give you some other examples of "crank" scholarship:

Continental drift - crackpot for 362 years

The existence of Troy - crackpot until a total amateur discovered it.

Heliocentrism - crackpot for 1934 years if one is generous; 2224 years if one is not.

The Norse colonization of the Americas: known nearly from the beginning through the "Eirik the Red's Saga" and the "Saga of the Greenlanders" both written about three centuries after the events happened. Dismissed largely because the experts saw it as harkening to the Imperial Synthesis Era of the 19th century. Finally accepted in the 1970s.

Big Bang theory: crackpot for about 1450 years.

4. Evidence has been provided here for many, many points. And the process is ongoing. No one has refused to ever provide evidence.

Yes they have. The Gospels are not evidence (there is NOTHING to show they even existed before 140 CE). Tampered documents like Josephus are not evidence. Repeating of beliefs is not evidence.

John Frum shows the more conservative ideas of the Christ Myth crowd have merit.

5. Asserting that an entire field -- in fact, several interrelated fields -- of degreed professionals at accredited institutions publishing in peer-reviewed journals are all wrong about a conclusion for which there is an astoundingly broad consensus, insinuating that they're all incompetent or biased... yeah, that's "slandering thousands of people in the world who are more knowledgeable than you".

Steven C. Bitterman was fired from Southwestern Community College for saying the Adam and Eve story was a myth. With that kind of nonsense going on in academia do you think that anyone is going to rock the boat? John Schneider was forced into early retirement from Calvin College for the same thing.

Please note Southwestern Community College and Calvin College are ACCREDITED colleges (North Central Association of Colleges and Schools respectively). So if your are US taxpayer your tax money in the form of loans and grants is being used to push the idea that not only did Jesus exist but the story of Adam and Eve is historically accurate. We are supposed to take this form of academia seriously?!?

 

[Stone]

But when fundies ask for evidence to support the scientific status we give it to them, in fact we drown them in it. What we don't say is that you have to take our word for it now piss off you nasty people.

If they make claims that are bizarre we ask them for evidence, strange that isn't it.

Jayson and Piggy and I have all given you plenty of evidence. You just have no understanding of historiography, and so instead you grasp at straws that just show your own ignorance by choosing to LIE about our posts and say over and over "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE HERE". That's exactly the LIES that I've seen creationists do with my own eyes when confronted by posters who describe the science. The creationists grasp at straws in their ignorance and LIE about not being presented with any real evidence at all. The creationists repeat that as an incantation because they are no better at understanding real science than you flakes are at understanding real historiography.

Stone

 

[Stone]

There was only one such individual sarcastically labeled as a wise king who also introduced new laws around this time period.
We have no record of any other individual's fitting this description; certainly no actual Kings fit this description.

And this is another telling nugget that proves as awkward for the Gospelers as Jesus's being a native Galilean (quick, drag in Bethlehem), or the "perfect" Jesus being baptized (must do it to be "proper", you know [or some such feeble excuse]). The described inscription over the cross is "King of the Jews", and we even have a Gospel or two showing one character protesting that Jesus is merely claimed as a King of the Jews without really being one. But the brusque response is [paraphrase] "Can't change the inscription now". The whole exchange reads just as awkwardly as the baptism and the Bethlehem "birth". These are writers trying to get around stubborn details that won't go away (just like Galilee and a baptism for Jesus), and it would appear that the mocking inscription calling Jesus a "King" was also one of those awkward details that too many contemporaries knew about to be just swept under the rug.

Stone

 

[maximara]

Jayson and Piggy and I have all given you plenty of evidence. You just have no understanding of historiography, and so instead you grasp at straws that just show your own ignorance by choosing to LIE about our posts and say over and over "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE HERE". That's exactly the LIES that I've seen creationists do with my own eyes when confronted by posters who describe the science. The creationists grasp at straws in their ignorance and LIE about not being presented with any real evidence at all. The creationists repeat that as an incantation because they are no better at understanding real science than you flakes are at understanding real historiography

Let's be honest here; the "evidence" for Jesus is a joke.

There is no evidence that the Gospels existed in written form before 140 CE...a century after the supposed events. Brent Nongbri has shown that paleography is about as reliable as Tarot decks, tea leaves, and Ouija boards in determining dates

Paul gives us so few details that he boarders on the useless.

The pagan sources reminds one of the "Round up the usual suspects" comment in Casablanca:

Josephus has been tampered with to the point it is impossible to know what if anything he said about Jesus. Never mind that has been recorded that as late as the 16 century there was a copy of Josephus that contained not one reference to Jesus! (ie NO Testimonium Flavianum or James passage)

Tacitus in using the wrong title for Pontius Pilate seems to only repeating what the Christians believe.

Suetonius is quite clear that Jews (he shows elsewhere in the same work to know the difference from Christians) were creating disturbances at the instigation of a very much alive Chrestus

Pliny the Younger merely shows that there were Christians that venerated a "Christ" c112 CE He provides NO details regarding this Christ.

Thallus is total train wreck. The work referenced supposedly goes from from before the Trojan War to the 167th Olympiad...which was 112-109 BCE. Supporters claim that it should be to 217th Olympiad changing the character actually present...the old " it will fit it will fit we will make it fit" nonsense one has seen with Matthew and Luke:

1. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was fighting some two provinces to the east from 12 BCE to 1 BC so he could not have effectively done a census during this time.

2. Publius Quinctilius Varus oversaw the area covered by Herod the Great's kingdom from c8 BCE to 4 BCE as documented by Josephus.

3. In Antiquities chapter 17 verse 27 Josephus expressly stated as long as Herod the Great lived he province of Judea was exempt from Roman taxation. Ergo Luke's taxation census must have occurred after Herod's death while Matthew requires it to have happened before.

4. While Herod Archelaus removal as Ethnarch of Judaea made it subject to Roman taxation Herod Antipas remained Tetrarch of Galilee clear until 41 CE making its subject exempt from the Judaean census.

5. The Greek word "βασιλέως" used in Luke 1:5 doesn't always translate as "king" but also can translate as leader of the people, prince, commander or lord of the land. In fact, Mark 6:14 uses this word for Herod Antipas who was Tetrarch of Galilee and not king proving this point.

Do the scholars actually address this mess? No they come up with bizarre off the wall ad hoc theories to try and claim Matthew and Luke agree with each other.

Let not forget that by the 4th century things had hit rock bottom with Eusebius in his The History of the Church claiming "It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs."

Ok, if Philo "not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day" why did Philo not write one word on Jesus? Moreover why make such an outrageous claim at this stage of the game? Perhaps to led credibility to what were at best legendary stories.

Comparing the more moderate Christ mythers to the nonsense Creationist's do is dishonest. Creationism requires ignoring DOZENS of actual physical science theories and understanding of how the world it thought to work. Christ Mythers can point to real world example that shows credence to the more moderate version of their ideas: John Frum Cargo cult.

 

[davefoc]

...
Tacitus in using the wrong title for Pontius Pilate

Richard Carrier uses this as an example of a bad mythicist argument. He says that Pilate would have been both a prefect and a procurator.

[Tacitus] seems to only repeating what the Christians believe.

This is what it looks like to me. I don't see how Tacitus is evidence for anything except the existence of Christians (at a fairly early date as I recall).

Quote from the conclusion section of a long article by Carrier on this issue:

The abundant evidence adduced by Jones and Millar, and even Brunt, sufficiently confirms this. And not only confirms it, but confirms it had been that way in the time of Jesus (when Pilate governed Judaea, he was, and was known by his peers to be, both a prefect and a procurator, even if that fact was not always mentioned)and in the time of Tacitus (as inscriptions of his time attest), and in all years in be-tween. And thus nothing had changed, except at most the frequency of which title was mentioned when mentioning only one.

http://www.academia.edu/2211986/On_the_Dual_Office_of_Procurator_and_Prefect

Quote from Carrier's review of Did Jesus Exist by Ehrman

The Pilate Error: In the past I have noted that I don’t trust G.A. Wells to be sufficiently competent in ancient history because he makes mistakes that exhibit ignorance of basic background knowledge of Roman history. The example I often give is his argument that Tacitus’ passage about Christians cannot be from a reliable source because it “incorrectly” claims Pilate was a procurator, when in fact everyone knows he was a prefect. This betrays ignorance of the fact that provincial prefects were often also imperial procurators, and from his treatment of the scandal of this fact throughout the Annals Tacitus has a particular motive to emphasize that fact here (see my discussion in Herod the Procurator, particularly the section “So Was Pontius Pilate a Prefect or a Procurator?”). In other words, Pontius Pilate was both a procurator and a prefect. And the recent literature on the subject confirms this, as would any consultation with an expert in Tacitus or Roman imperial administration.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

 

[IanS]

No.
I'll show you the evidence that we have, just like I did for Jesus.

Jayson and Piggy and I have all given you plenty of evidence.

I think the HJ side must be living on another planet. What on earth do you think this evidence is that you are claiming to have provided? The whole point of this thread, thus far stretching over 70 pages, has been to show in the clearest possible terms that no such genuine evidence of Jesus has ever been provided here. Not the smallest microscopic speck.

What you are calling “evidence”, is not evidence that Jesus existed. But only evidence that centuries after the time, certain Christian theists wrote anonymously to say that although they had never seen Jesus, some unknown unnamed other people had told them stories of much earlier times, when they believed that a messiah named Jesus had once lived, had been accompanied by various faithful named disciples, and performed many miracles in front of numerous people.

But none of those writers actually knew any of that themselves. And nor apparently did any of their unnamed unknown informants. In all cases, what was being said was that these unknown Christian writers (the biblical writers) were writing to say that all this had once been believed about a messiah who was by the time of their writing, thought to have been dead since some unknown time in their distant past.

That is not evidence of Jesus.

That is merely evidence of what certain religious fanatics had come to believe centuries later.

And, as has been pointed out dozens of times before in this thread. It’s perfectly obvious where those Jesus stories had originally come from, it was not from Paul or any of the named gospel writers in the 1st century AD, because those messiah stories were already very well known from what had been written hundreds of years before as prophecies in the OT.

There is no evidence of Jesus in any of that.

But what is there as very clear and undeniable evidence, is evidence showing how the the biblical stories of Jesus were fiction drawn from religious “visions” and from belief in the prophecies of the ancient OT.

 

[llwyd]

I think the HJ side must be living on another planet.

Planet good to excellent knowledge about the study of ancient history, it seems...