What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Piggy]

Isn't that not just the "no true scotsman" fallacy? I really can't see why it has to be one or the t'other. For a more recent example look at Jim Jones - he scammed whilst also seemingly believing in his own end-times predictions.

Show me a credible scammer scenario that fits all the evidence -- not a gloss cobbled together in a low-info environment -- and then there will be something to talk about.

So far, I don't know of anyone in the SOANE community (scholars of the Ancient Near East) who believes Paul was a scam artist, and I've heard no plausible scenarios to that effect.

Also, the "scam artist" scenario smacks of retrofitting contemporary sociology onto the ancient past.

As far as I can see, it's a non-contender.

 

[Piggy]

Remsburg the darling of the armchair Christ myther stated it clear as day in 1909: "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

You may not like it but that are the cards you have been dealt regardless of it being 1909 or 1982

I think we need to start some forum pool to guess how many times this single point will need to be explained to you before you pay attention.

The MAV (mainstream academic viewpoint) is precisely that.

Jesus of Nazareth, the human Jesus, had a humble life and a tragic pathetic death.

He was not born in Bethlehem. He was not the anointed one of God. He was not what modern Christians imagine him to have been.

What you describe here is not the mythicist point of view, it is the MAV. (With the exception that the evidence points to something a bit firmer than simply "may have existed".)

So if you agree with that, then you agree with the people arguing for the mainstream view, and against the no-Jesus mythicists.

That said, it's still not a good idea to rely on scholarship in this area that's over 100 years old. There have been a few new discoveries made and techniques developed in the last century which have improved our understanding of the ANE.

But please, do stop confusing academic researchers with confessional apologists. Nobody is arguing the apologist point of view here.

 

[Piggy]

Then why is the request to supply the evidence on which this consensus should rest constantly ignored and those who ask for it insulted?

It hasn't been ignored. And no one's been insulted, except for thousands of researchers of the Ancient Near East, who've been called biased and incompetent and even fanatical multiple times on this thread without ONE SINGLE SHRED of evidence to support such claims.

Look at Jayson's summary of the situation upthread.

Citations by scholars are shouted down as "argument from authority".

Attempts to provide context so that evidence can be understood are decried as pointless rhetoric.

Arbitrary demands are made for extremely rare types of evidence and for evidence which no one actually expects (e.g. writing from Jesus's own hand).

Demands are made to produce the actual core evidence so people can make up their own minds, despite the fact that (a) this is physically impossible, (b) the people making the demands aren't qualified to examine it anyway, and (c) doing so would take hundreds of pages of posts, making the mere background posts look like tweets.

This is blatantly untrue.

No, it's perfectly true.

Go back to my last "pimp post" and start clicking.

It's been shown clearly that Paul did believe Jesus was human.

It's been shown why it makes no sense to claim that Paul made up the other apostles (the letters could not have been sent to anyone had that been the case).

It's been shown why James is most likely Jesus's actual brother, and that even if the term is honorific he still would have known Jesus.

It's been shown that the early table ritual cannot be something abhorrent to Jews (i.e. they knew they were drinking wine in remembrance of a martyred prophet, and had enough sense to know they weren't drinking blood) and that the Jewish flavor of it was only later dropped by gentile groups (e.g. the community of Mark).

And much more.

And now you try and divert attention from your failure to support the purported supporting evidence for your argument by claiming people would be unable to understand it.

If you think that you can actually evaluate raw evidence from the Ancient Near East without a boatload of explanation and background, then you flatter yourself.

We're talking about a dead culture speaking dead languages thousands of years ago.

And you imagine that you can simply drift in, glance at a few artifacts, and come to some reasonable conclusion.

That's a bit delusional.

 

[pakeha]

Show me a credible scammer scenario that fits all the evidence -- not a gloss cobbled together in a low-info environment -- and then there will be something to talk about.

So far, I don't know of anyone in the SOANE community (scholars of the Ancient Near East) who believes Paul was a scam artist, and I've heard no plausible scenarios to that effect.

Also, the "scam artist" scenario smacks of retrofitting contemporary sociology onto the ancient past.

As far as I can see, it's a non-contender.

Oh, Piggy.
I'm in enforced retirement, so I can't show you anything specific about particular scams.
All I can openly say is that from what you yourself have posted, I, pakeha, would have no doubts about considering this Paul person as a scammer.
None.

If he were alive and operating today I'd have at least four personas leading him on to beguile him into revealing the infors for a possible police intervention.

However, as you say, the danger of retrofitting is real and obvious.
It's why I'm willing to read more.
And learn.

I hope my confessed POV doesn't prevent you from posting up more information about the writings of Paul.

 

[Craig B]

Show me a credible scammer scenario that fits all the evidence -- not a gloss cobbled together in a low-info environment -- and then there will be something to talk about.

So far, I don't know of anyone in the SOANE community (scholars of the Ancient Near East) who believes Paul was a scam artist, and I've heard no plausible scenarios to that effect.

Also, the "scam artist" scenario smacks of retrofitting contemporary sociology onto the ancient past.

As far as I can see, it's a non-contender.

It's not new though. It was quite strongly argued by Jeremy Bentham in Not Paul But Jesus (1823) http://archive.org/details/notpaulbutjesus00bentgoog

 

[Belz...]

It's been shown clearly that Paul did believe Jesus was human.

Clearly the most likely explanation, yes.

It's been shown why it makes no sense to claim that Paul made up the other apostles (the letters could not have been sent to anyone had that been the case).

Have we established that Paul wrote that they actually knew Jesus ? This is a question I asked not long ago.

It's been shown why James is most likely Jesus's actual brother, and that even if the term is honorific he still would have known Jesus.

How so ?

 

[pakeha]

...So, we know the current academic consensus - which represents the views of the best experts on these subjects. It will not be changed by unsceptical crankish nicks on a random internet forum. If you think you can change this consensus, go and publish. Otherwise this is just lots of hot air, stupidity, stubborness and crankery. I'm sorry, it's a tough old world, and then we all die, but you really have to go through a peer review process and publish your new findings to have any significance beyond amateur self-importance on this subject. Go and publish.

Dear me, llwyd, I had no idea disagreeing with the academic concesus would earn me this advise: go publish!

 

[Piggy]

Oh, Piggy.
I'm in enforced retirement, so I can't show you anything specific about particular scams.
All I can openly say is that from what you yourself have posted, I, pakeha, would have no doubts about considering this Paul person as a scammer.
None.

If he were alive and operating today I'd have at least four personas leading him on to beguile him into revealing the infors for a possible police intervention.

However, as you say, the danger of retrofitting is real and obvious.
It's why I'm willing to read more.
And learn.

I hope my confessed POV doesn't prevent you from posting up more information about the writings of Paul.

Oh, don't worry. I'm going to keep going.

But I hope you understand why someone's feeling that Paul sounds kinda scammy doesn't actually serve as a counter-argument to the mainstream academic view.

 

[Piggy]

It's not new though. It was quite strongly argued by Jeremy Bentham in Not Paul But Jesus (1823) http://archive.org/details/notpaulbutjesus00bentgoog

Thanks for the link.

However, I'm not digging around in the 18th or 19th century closets. Kinda pointless.

 

[Craig B]

... Also, the "scam artist" scenario smacks of retrofitting contemporary sociology onto the ancient past.

As far as I can see, it's a non-contender.

Whether or not Paul was one, and I have no rigid opinions in this matter, the breed did exist. We may recall Lucian of Samosata and his account of Alexander the "false prophet". http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/lucian_alexander.htm

ETA Piggy, our posts crossed and I took you back even further before I read your last.

 

[Piggy]

This is patent BS. Anybody that starts out a list of evidence for the HJ like this makes it hard for me to take anything else he says seriously.

Dave, I have to point out that you're embarrassing yourself.

What Jayson says is correct -- Jesus is amazingly well attested, and has I believe an unrivaled quality of attestation for any commoner in that period or earlier.

If you don't know that, well, then you don't know that.

But for you to pretend that you do know enough to object to that statement -- well… I'll just say it doesn't reflect well, especially on a skeptical forum.

 

[pakeha]

Oh, don't worry. I'm going to keep going.

But I hope you understand why someone's feeling that Paul sounds kinda scammy doesn't actually serve as a counter-argument to the mainstream academic view.

More than 'kinda', Piggy.
However, I'm sincere in hoping you'll continue to post up such interesting commentaries on Paul's and the early church's progress.

 

[eight bits]

Piggy

So far, I don't know of anyone in the SOANE community (scholars of the Ancient Near East) who believes Paul was a scam artist, and I've heard no plausible scenarios to that effect.

And what are the qualifications peculiarly enjoyed by a scholar of the ancient Near East to assess this question? What elevates this scholar's opinion above that of other people, some of whom might have law enforcement or private security experience, or indeed, common sense?

As far as I can see, it's a non-contender.

Fortunately, there are eyeglasses that can help with that.

 

[Darat]

Show me a credible scammer scenario that fits all the evidence -- not a gloss cobbled together in a low-info environment -- and then there will be something to talk about.

It's your claim that he can't be both, I'm not making a claim about that.

If you'd like my opinion - he reads no different to the public stuff we have about many other religious scammers. But that is not proof, I think it is just one further thing that we can only say "we don't know".

So far, I don't know of anyone in the SOANE community (scholars of the Ancient Near East) who believes Paul was a scam artist, and I've heard no plausible scenarios to that effect.

Recall that it took a magician to educate mainstream scientists about the likes of Uri Geller. Unless the "SOANE" community are also experts regarding scam artists then their conclusions about whether he was a scam artist or not is what you accuse others of doing - i.e. not being experts in the field they are making a claim about.

Also, the "scam artist" scenario smacks of retrofitting contemporary sociology onto the ancient past.

As far as I can see, it's a non-contender.

Not sure why you think this is retrofitting anything - human behaviour has not changed so fundamentally in just 2000 years that we can say folk did not try to scam others 2000 years ago.

 

[Piggy]

A scam doesn't have to be highly organised, you know, but rather roll with events and the perceived desires of the marks as time goes by.
And believe me, scammers are capable spouting of any number of self-righteous justifications for their predatory activity.

But it goes farther than that. Have you ever known a scam in which several dozen scammers are running around and arguing with each other in front of the marks about what it is they're actually doing?

Or a scam in which the scammers live in poverty?

I haven't.

 

[Piggy]

I tried to find the thread in which I debunked Price's mythicist claims point by point a few years ago.

Unfortunately, I can't locate it.

I've had that same problem before with some old threads. I wonder if there's been any parallel to the "winter of our missed content" on Straight Dope.

OK, gotta do real work now for a while.

 

[Piggy]

It's your claim that he can't be both, I'm not making a claim about that.

No. That's not my claim.

What I'm saying is that he clearly appears to be an end-timer. And a megalomaniac.

But since the "scammer" idea has been studied and rejected, and since the evidence does not point in that direction, then until and unless someone comes up with a real hypothesis -- something more than "boy, that sounds dodgy to my 21st century ears" -- I see no need to discuss it.

Paul is certainly a strange person. But his letters reveal someone who seems to believe that he has been appointed by God to bring about the Day of the Lord by converting a critical mass of gentiles.

And he doesn't seem to be getting much of anything from his congregations.

In fact, he reminds them of how he and his companions worked while in their cities so as not to be a burden -- something that could not plausibly be a lie.

Aside from the collection for the poor in Jerusalem -- which happens to fit perfectly into the MAV of Paul as a true believer -- there doesn't appear to be any sort of money involved here, and it's doubtful that Paul intended to keep that money, given his conversations about it.

As always, if we go with the most likely scenarios indicated by the evidence we have, then Paul is not a scammer.

But even if he were running a scam, how would that contradict HJ theory? Just because a scam artist starts pulling affinity fraud among a group of believers, this does not somehow indicate that this pre-existing group of believers formed around an imaginary person.

If I pretend to be a skeptic in order to run some kind of affinity fraud among JREF'ers, does this cast doubt on the reality of James Randi?

I think not.

 

[Craig B]

But it goes farther than that. Have you ever known a scam in which several dozen scammers are running around and arguing with each other in front of the marks about what it is they're actually doing?

Is that a reference to Paul's disputes with the "James Gang"? But the argument is that Paul was a charlatan, not that the James Gang were such. And Paul had different "marks", ie the Gentile God fearers and others. That is, if they were marks. Paul may indeed have been entirely sincere in all he did. But the argument that he was a swindler is not completely insane, and it has some evidence in its favour.

Or a scam in which the scammers live in poverty?

Whom do you have in mind here?

 

[pakeha]

But it goes farther than that. Have you ever known a scam in which several dozen scammers are running around and arguing with each other in front of the marks about what it is they're actually doing?

Or a scam in which the scammers live in poverty?

I haven't.

I have, Piggy.
Indeed, those staged arguments are used to convince the marks of the scammers' honesty.

Scammers whining about their poverty on one hand, and on another living a life of utter and decadent luxury is a reality that would be off-topic to explore.

However, as I've reiterated, I'm more interested in your take on Paul than posting up my adventures in ladland.

 

[llwyd]

Dear me, llwyd, I had no idea disagreeing with the academic concesus would earn me this advise: go publish!

Really - I thought that you might be interested in pursuing your studies of these ancient texts! Well, stay at least "open" for this radical course of action.