What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Belz...]

But that is NOT what the HJ people like Pro-HJ scholars like Van Voorst, Paul Rhodes Eddy, and Gregory A. Boyd are arguing for. They are arguing for the package deal--most of Jesus of Faith must be true for there to be a HJ. And for that position they need to the Gospels to be historical records...even though the Jesus Seminar chucked over 80% sayings and deeds of Jesus in said Gospels into File 13.

Well Piggy certainly isn't arguing for the package deal, here. Neither are Jayson or Stone.

 

[tsig]

It’s actually impossible to do otherwise. Unless you completely discard all the biblical writing, and all the non-biblical writing that was almost certainly hearsay repetition of the biblical writing.

There actually is no Jesus figure who can be separated from the miraculous accounts of the biblical writing.

The only reason that we, in the 21st century, now completely reject all the numerous 1st cent. AD miracle claims in the NT bible, is because, thanks to 400 years of increasing scientific progress, most educated people on Earth finally understand that such biblical claims are quite definitely untrue fiction.

But nevertheless, that fictional biblical account, is the figure described as Jesus.

As soon as you begin striping all that obvious fiction out, you are increasingly guilty of trying to invent a new and deliberately fictional Jesus figure who was never the figure of the ancient biblical descriptions in the first place.

Since the HJers have to destroy the Faith Jesus their campaign seems more than a mite quixotic.

 

[Greediguts]

Hi all,

Been awhile...

Considering that Anthropology of Consciousness is a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Anthropology Association has an article that flat out states "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived" this argument is in the dumpster.

Taken from the "Anthropology of Consciousness" website:

Our Interests

States of Consciousness and Consciousness StudiesDreams, possession, trance, dissociation, theories of mind and cognition, epistemology, methodology, evolution of consciousness, biosocial approaches, psychophysiology, psychotherapy, cultural psychology.

Shamanic, Religious, and Spiritual TraditionsEthnographic studies of shamanism; modern and core shamanism; Eastern, Western, and indigenous religions; healing practices; ritual; mediumistic, mystical, and transpersonal experiences; magic and witchcraft; music and dance.

Psychoactive SubstancesStudies of psychoactive plant use in traditional and contemporary settings, ethnopharmacology, psychopharmacology, healing, addiction and recovery.

Philosophical, Symbolic, and Linguistic StudiesMyth, oral traditions, language, archetypes, body and mind, comparative studies, visual anthropology.

Anomalous ExperiencePsychic phenomenon, reincarnation, near-death experiences, mediumistic communication, divination.

Link is here.
Do you bother to check what you post or do you just grab any old thing off the internet?

 

[JaysonR]

True but you also have the social sciences: Anthropology, Archaeology, Historical Anthropology, and Sociology to mention a few.

The field that really applies to to the whole historical Jesus debate is Historical Anthropology (sometimes called Ethnohistory) which is very young (dating at best to the 1960s)

To oversimplify Historical Anthropology attempts to create a "social profile" as it were as a benchmark to evaluate written documents.

Yes, Social Sciences are a shared venn circle of Humanities.
You'll find all of these courses listed under both headings in college catalogs.

The only one that really had a direct empirical scale involved is Archaeology...well...I didn't include Forensic Anthropology; that does as well.

Humanities is a larger umbrella; History, for instance, doesn't fit under Social Science, but Anthropology does, but is also listed as a Humanities.

Either way, the point was that there lacks a solid physical basis of measure for History proper when it comes to most cases of ancient historicity of events and persons.
It's not comparable to Physics.
At best, it might be similar to Theoretical Mathematics...but that's stretching the envelope I think, as Mathematics has boundaries and proofs; History doesn't really have "proofs" in that manner.

History is (in my opinion) part art and part deduction.
It's generally a good idea for anyone looking to go into the field to take Critical Logic courses and a few Philosophy courses so to get used to methods for regulating the flow of logical deduction where absent many inherent boundaries to a thought flow.
I don't really have to say that about Astronomy.

 

[Piggy]

Hi all,

Been awhile...



Taken from the "Anthropology of Consciousness" website:

Our Interests

States of Consciousness and Consciousness StudiesDreams, possession, trance, dissociation, theories of mind and cognition, epistemology, methodology, evolution of consciousness, biosocial approaches, psychophysiology, psychotherapy, cultural psychology.

Shamanic, Religious, and Spiritual TraditionsEthnographic studies of shamanism; modern and core shamanism; Eastern, Western, and indigenous religions; healing practices; ritual; mediumistic, mystical, and transpersonal experiences; magic and witchcraft; music and dance.

Psychoactive SubstancesStudies of psychoactive plant use in traditional and contemporary settings, ethnopharmacology, psychopharmacology, healing, addiction and recovery.

Philosophical, Symbolic, and Linguistic StudiesMyth, oral traditions, language, archetypes, body and mind, comparative studies, visual anthropology.

Anomalous ExperiencePsychic phenomenon, reincarnation, near-death experiences, mediumistic communication, divination.

Link is here.
Do you bother to check what you post or do you just grab any old thing off the internet?

Well, that about sums it up.

There are, of course, 2 or 3 degreed people who have hitched their wagon to this, but that's about as significant as, say, the existence of MDs who believe in homeopathy.

You won't see mythicist articles in JBL, for instance.

But, you know, if one has a pet theory to prop up, any port in a storm, as they say.

 

[maximara]

Well, that about sums it up.

There are, of course, 2 or 3 degreed people who have hitched their wagon to this, but that's about as significant as, say, the existence of MDs who believe in homeopathy.

You won't see mythicist articles in JBL, for instance.

But, you know, if one has a pet theory to prop up, any port in a storm, as they say.

Actually it doesn't sum it up and there is nothing in the list that is on par with homeopathy In fact the who are we section is more telling:

SAC publishes the peer-reviewed journal Anthropology of Consciousness; convenes an Annual Spring Conference that consists of individual papers, panel discussions, and experiential sessions; and hosts sessions at the Annual Meetings of the American Anthropological Association.

When is the last time the AMA hosted a homeopathy only journal (this IS what you are implying with your comment)?

Sure I know about the "American Medical Association offers physicians Continuing Medical Education credits (a certain number of which are required to maintain a medical license) for attending courses on homeopathy" idiocy (Forbes has a comment article on that nonsense) but your comments is as if the AMA was hosting homeopathy groups in its annual meetings.

SAC values interdisciplinary perspectives, respects diverse traditions, and prioritizes inclusiveness and open dialogue in the study of consciousness.

SAC supports rigorous and empirically-based inquiries into consciousness that utilize diverse methodologies – including ethnographic, scientific, experiential, historical, and alternative ways of knowing.

Ok "alternative ways of knowing" is kind of a 'uhhhh' except they spell out that the forms of alternative ways of knowing they are using are "rigorous and empirically-based inquiries" so they aren't using Tarot decks, reading tea leaves, or things like that.

 

[maximara]

Hi all,

Been awhile...



Taken from the "Anthropology of Consciousness" website:

Our Interests

States of Consciousness and Consciousness StudiesDreams, possession, trance, dissociation, theories of mind and cognition, epistemology, methodology, evolution of consciousness, biosocial approaches, psychophysiology, psychotherapy, cultural psychology.

Shamanic, Religious, and Spiritual TraditionsEthnographic studies of shamanism; modern and core shamanism; Eastern, Western, and indigenous religions; healing practices; ritual; mediumistic, mystical, and transpersonal experiences; magic and witchcraft; music and dance.

Psychoactive SubstancesStudies of psychoactive plant use in traditional and contemporary settings, ethnopharmacology, psychopharmacology, healing, addiction and recovery.

Philosophical, Symbolic, and Linguistic StudiesMyth, oral traditions, language, archetypes, body and mind, comparative studies, visual anthropology.

Anomalous ExperiencePsychic phenomenon, reincarnation, near-death experiences, mediumistic communication, divination.

Link is here.
Do you bother to check what you post or do you just grab any old thing off the internet?

So these are their interests. You did read the about us section that tells HOW they do this, right?

SAC publishes the peer-reviewed journal Anthropology of Consciousness; convenes an Annual Spring Conference that consists of individual papers, panel discussions, and experiential sessions; and hosts sessions at the Annual Meetings of the American Anthropological Association.

SAC values interdisciplinary perspectives, respects diverse traditions, and prioritizes inclusiveness and open dialogue in the study of consciousness.

SAC supports rigorous and empirically-based inquiries into consciousness that utilize diverse methodologies – including ethnographic, scientific, experiential, historical, and alternative ways of knowing.


For those who don't know the American Anthropological Association is THE primary professional society of anthropologists in the United States since its founding in 1902 as well as the largest professional organization of anthropologists in the world. They don't let any Tom, Dick, and Harry journal host at their meetings.

 

[jond]

Well, that about sums it up.

There are, of course, 2 or 3 degreed people who have hitched their wagon to this, but that's about as significant as, say, the existence of MDs who believe in homeopathy.

You won't see mythicist articles in JBL, for instance.

But, you know, if one has a pet theory to prop up, any port in a storm, as they say.

On the other hand, given where Paul claims to be getting his information from, it seems like just the kind of people who'd buy into his claptrap.

 

[maximara]

People accept that Queen Elizabeth exists. Presumably that would be because...she is the reigning queen of England and, as far as I'm aware, is not dead yet! Of course...you might be referring to QE1...as opposed to QE2 ...but, as with most things Maximara...details are in short supply.

To quote Two Stupid Dogs "Isn't that cute BUT IT IS WRONG"

Queen Elizabeth (ie Queen Elizabeth I) is DEAD. Been dead since 1603.

Seriously, as I have pointed out before this a familiar dodge among the extreme pro-HJ crowd. The flaws (again ) with such a comparison are many but let's hit the two major ones.

1) The Western printing press (c1436) has changed the landscape to the point that no realistic comparison to any person or event before its introduction can really be made. A single hand written account can be tampered with, distorted, or lost. The same is a lot harder with a thousand identical copies.

2) Famous people generally have contemporary accounts. Jesus doesn't have that.

 

[Stone]

Famous people generally have contemporary accounts.

ROFLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLMMFAO!!!!!!!!

O.K., hot-shot, where are the contemporary accounts for Hippocrates, Leukippos, Hillel, Hannibal, Boadicea, etc., etc., etc.

Waiting..........

Stone

 

[davefoc]

Well that raises an interesting question, which I asked yesterday but which went unanswered: what counts as a historical Jesus ? I mean, if we throw out the impossible stuf, the improbable stuff, the miraculous stuff, and most of the contradictory stuff, we're left with uncorroborated stuff. Paul certainly doesn't give us much to go on, and Mark is unreliable at best, and we have no information on Jesus beyond his possible existence in any other works.

Every now and then this thread has veered into the topic of what constitutes an HJ. I think the reason that you didn't get a more immediate answer might be that just about everybody that has participated in this thread has thrown their two bits into the answer. I would like to have seen an agreement that for the purposes of this thread we settle on a specific definition, but in lieu of that I think there is a limited consensus on the answer. I think Craig B and I at least agreed on this definition:

The HJ at a minimum satisfied these criteria:
1. Served as the inspiration for the creation of the NT Jesus stories
2 Lived in the Palestinian area
3. Lived in the first part of the first century
4. Was Jewish
5. Played a prominent role in a Jewish religious sect.
6. The Jesus associates Paul claimed to have met in his epistles were associates of the HJ.

There are various criteria that people have included in the above that constrain it to a greater degree mostly with goal, I think, of making sure that the HJ played a significant role in the philosophy of Christianity,. I favor a definition that is as wide as possible without any requirement that the beliefs and behavior of the HJ played any role in the development of Christianity. A goal of this definition is that it is the minimum set of criteria that limits the possible HJ to people that would be recognizable as the HJ if we knew the details of their life.

Specifically excluded as requirements are things like super natural capabilities, the crucifixion, any specific role in the sect such as the leader (maybe he was just a very inspirational member), any of the details of his birth, the names of his parents, and just about any claims that might stem from the Gospels.

So even if we agree that there was probably a man (or more) who was the inspiration for the Jesus narrative (and I do agree with that), we still have a problem:if that man is nothing, and I mean nothing, like the one from the gospels, can we still call him the historical Jesus ?

Also excluded in the above list is any criteria about any HJ beliefs. Or any criteria that the teachings of the HJ played any significant role in the establishment of Christian practices or beliefs other than that he existed.

One of the things that I have come to believe about all this is that not only wasn't the HJ the supernatural superman of Christian belief, it is also unlikely that he played any significant role in the development of Christianity other than that he existed (assuming that he existed). Regardless of what I believe about the nature of the HJ, I think almost nothing about his beliefs and life are knowable. Obviously that is not a universal view of everybody participating in this thread. JaysonR speculated recently about the nature of an HJ and how that might have been morphed a bit to fit into Paul's message. So it seems at least possible that a bit of what Jesus believed and taught made it into the NT.

HM made the point awhile ago that the most significant fact about the HJ might be that he was in the right place at the right time to serve as the Messiah for a religion that was scheduled to go out of business very soon if the Messiah didn't show up. If HM's speculation on that is right, the nature of the HJ is truly a moot issue. It wasn't his charisma, or his brilliance, or his message, it was that he just lived and died at the right time and place for a religious leader to fit the needs of the religion that believed a Messiah was coming very soon.

 

[Greediguts]

So these are their interests. You did read the about us section that tells HOW they do this, right?

SAC publishes the peer-reviewed journal Anthropology of Consciousness; convenes an Annual Spring Conference that consists of individual papers, panel discussions, and experiential sessions; and hosts sessions at the Annual Meetings of the American Anthropological Association.

SAC values interdisciplinary perspectives, respects diverse traditions, and prioritizes inclusiveness and open dialogue in the study of consciousness.

SAC supports rigorous and empirically-based inquiries into consciousness that utilize diverse methodologies – including ethnographic, scientific, experiential, historical, and alternative ways of knowing.


For those who don't know the American Anthropological Association is THE primary professional society of anthropologists in the United States since its founding in 1902 as well as the largest professional organization of anthropologists in the world. They don't let any Tom, Dick, and Harry journal host at their meetings.

Um...SAC is a section of the American Anthropological Association. SAC holds their own meetings. Here is a link to what was on the agenda at their last meeting (taken from their site). You can follow the progression of their "journals" which started as the "Phoenix Journal of Transpersonal Anthropology" ( pdf example here - it's a larger file but soooo worth it for anyone who remembers the late 70's and early 80's) until they renamed themselves the "Association for the Anthropological Study of Consciousness" (example of their fine work in 1987 here - where you can find this quote "There is, of course, a well directed and important aspect of archaeology today that involves parapsychology and psychics used by archaeologists") which lasted until they became a section of the AAA and renamed themselves yet again.

You also left out what they say right after your quote about "rigorous and empirically-based inquiries".

They state part of their mission is to "Reflect on how consciousness and human transformation can be made relevant to the challenges of our age, with the aim of a praxis to catalyze a shift toward a more just world."

Does that sound objective to you?

 

[Piggy]

Um...SAC is a section of the American Anthropological Association. SAC holds their own meetings. Here is a link to what was on the agenda at their last meeting (taken from their site). You can follow the progression of their "journals" which started as the "Phoenix Journal of Transpersonal Anthropology" ( pdf example here - it's a larger file but soooo worth it for anyone who remembers the late 70's and early 80's) until they renamed themselves the "Association for the Anthropological Study of Consciousness" (example of their fine work in 1987 here - where you can find this quote "There is, of course, a well directed and important aspect of archaeology today that involves parapsychology and psychics used by archaeologists") which lasted until they became a section of the AAA and renamed themselves yet again.

You also left out what they say right after your quote about "rigorous and empirically-based inquiries".

They state part of their mission is to "Reflect on how consciousness and human transformation can be made relevant to the challenges of our age, with the aim of a praxis to catalyze a shift toward a more just world."

Does that sound objective to you?

Thanks for the links, Greediguts.

I especially enjoyed revisiting the old "Hundredth Monkey" lore!

 

[Stone]

Thanks for the links, Greediguts.

I especially enjoyed revisiting the old "Hundredth Monkey" lore!

Who'd a thunk it? Our Maximara is a woo peddler.

Stone

 

[Piggy]

n the real world, people lie, people are mistaken, people are misinterpreted, people are crazy, sometimes people didn't even write the stuff that is attributed to them. But in the Piggy world none of these things are possible for Paul. And in the Piggy world long winded, evidence poor narratives about what might have been serve as proof of what was.

In the world of real ANE scholarship, people lie, people are mistaken, people are misinterpreted, people are crazy, and sometimes people didn't even write the stuff that is attributed to them.

But you aren't aware of this because you don't bother to read the actual scholarship.

Who do you think it was who discovered, revealed, and explained all the above phenomena in the Biblical literature? Mythicists? Nope -- ANE scholars.

Reality check for you, Dave -- it was scholars of the ANE who determined that Paul did not in fact write all the letters attributed to him.

It wasn't mythicists, it wasn't Christian apologists, it was ANE scholars.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Yet you have no compunction about pretending that you're an expert in this field.

I'm not saying that Paul is correct about Jesus being a real person simply because Paul says so, or because it's impossible for Paul to be wrong. Paul says a lot of things which modern scholarship recognizes are not accurate.

The reason modern scholarship accepts that Paul is talking about a real person is simply because that is our best (by a long shot!) explanation for why Paul is writing about Jesus at all, and because nobody has been able to cobble together any coherent and complete explanation for Paul's letters which does not include a historical Jesus.

You find my posts "long winded"? Well, I'm sorry if I'm testing the limits of your attention span. Good thing you weren't in any graduate classes with me… you wouldn't have lasted ten minutes.

As for my posts being "evidence poor", as soon as you start accurately summarizing 12 centuries of Jewish history, providing synopses of the most recent archaeology in Galilee, or dissecting the letters of Paul, then I'll listen to you. But so far, all I've seen from you is a bunch of low-information "seems to me" arguments from ignorance.

The only reason that there seem to be many more possible scenarios from your point of view than there are from mine is that you aren't familiar with the field.

Rage on all you want about my alleged lack of evidence… I'll let the posts speak for themselves. I have provided evidence, and continue to. You, on the other hand, have provided absolutely zero evidence for any of your "what if…" speculations.

This isn't personal. I don't know you, and have no opinion about you one way or the other. But for you to come here and start disparaging me for allegedly providing no evidence is utterly laughable.

 

[Piggy]

Who'd a thunk it? Our Maximara is a woo peddler.

Stone

Shame on you, Stone.

Don't you know that mythicists are more skeptical than your average person and are making a concerted objective effort to find reliable evidence?

Unlike degreed professionals researching and publishing in the field, who are unskeptical and are not making an objective effort to find reliable evidence.

You gotta get your goggles on right here, Stone, or you're never going to see the wisdom of the outsider amateur contrarians. Only they know the truth.

 

[Piggy]

HM made the point awhile ago that the most significant fact about the HJ might be that he was in the right place at the right time to serve as the Messiah for a religion that was scheduled to go out of business very soon if the Messiah didn't show up.

Oh, really?

That's odd, because as far as I know there is no evidence of any such "religion" pre-dating the life of Jesus.

Do you? Do you have this evidence? If so, I'd love to see it. (And I'm sure you'll provide it because, after all, you hate evidence-free claims.)

In fact, the religion of Jesus was Judaism, as was the religion of Jesus's first followers. Even Paul, evangelist to the gentiles, uses exclusively Jewish scripture to argue his points.

Jesus, by all accounts, preached a specifically Jewish apocalyptic doctrine, based on Jewish prophetic traditions as reflected in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Enoch, and Esdras.

Please cite some archaeology here, some 1st century texts, something to support these wild speculations about a pre-existing religion into which Jesus fit.

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Stone]

Shame on you, Stone.

Don't you know that mythicists are more skeptical than your average person and are making a concerted objective effort to find reliable evidence?

Unlike degreed professionals researching and publishing in the field, who are unskeptical and are not making an objective effort to find reliable evidence.

You gotta get your goggles on right here, Stone, or you're never going to see the wisdom of the outsider amateur contrarians. Only they know the truth.

I know this is meant as a joke, and I applaud your attempts at sometimes maintaining a humorous perspective. I only wish I could share your amusement. I can't. And I have a feeling that if a time should come when history ignoramuses like the mythers, etc., might be able to indulge in the same "teach the controversy" tactics in our schoolrooms that creationists adopt today -- the mythers ultimately bullying whole history depts. the way science depts. are bullied in Texas and elsewhere -- this will all seem even less amusing. Mytherism is only one of the dog whistles employed to prod a burgeoning anti-intellectual bigotry and hostility toward specialists and academia further along. The only way to challenge such anti-specialist woo forcefully is right now, sharply, in the market place of ideas -- which, today, means the Internet -- before serious history researchers of every kind feel as intimidated throughout the U.S. and maybe beyond as the scientists specializing in evolution are already harassed today.

Stone

 

[maximara]

ROFLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLMMFAO!!!!!!!!

O.K., hot-shot, where are the contemporary accounts for Hippocrates, Leukippos, Hillel, Hannibal, Boadicea, etc., etc., etc.

Waiting..........

Stone

Hippocrates---Plato who himself has three contemporaries: Aristotle, Xenophon, and Aristophanes.

Leukippos---shadowy nearly legendary figure of early 5th century BCE. Existence doubted by Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE). So you are saying that about three hundred years after Jesus supposed life there were people contesting his very existence with this example?

Hillel--I assume you mean Hillel the Elder rather then the Hillel who does a blink and you miss him appearance in Judges. His Golden Rule is simply a simplifying the general views of the Torah so like Sun Tzu is it not critical if he really existed as an actual person.

Hannibal--Silenus, a paid Greek historian who Hannibal brought with him on his journeys to write an account of what took place and Sosylus of Lacedaemon who wrote seven volumes on the war. Never mind the Carthage coins and engraved bronze tablets.

Boadicea--Ironically Tacitus himself would have been a 5 year old boy when she poisoned herself c60 CE. Furthermore, more his father in law Gnaeus Julius Agricola served under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus during the revolt. So Tacitus was not only an actual contemporary but he had access to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus records and an actual eyewitness.

Not doing too well there are you?

 

[maximara]

In the world of real ANE scholarship, people lie, people are mistaken, people are misinterpreted, people are crazy, and sometimes people didn't even write the stuff that is attributed to them.

But you aren't aware of this because you don't bother to read the actual scholarship.

Who do you think it was who discovered, revealed, and explained all the above phenomena in the Biblical literature? Mythicists? Nope -- ANE scholars.

Actually they WERE Mythicists in the classical sense of the word ie historical mythology. Like it or not "Mythicist" does NOT always mean philosophical myth.