What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Stone]

Here is the problem - where did we ever get the Jesus story from in the first place? Answer - we really only know it from the NT bible, ie really from what was said by Paul and the Gospel authors. Every other mention of Jesus, almost certainly derives from that.

Oh? So show me where the account of Ananus in Antiqs. 20 derives from?

Stone

 

[IanS]

Last time I checked, it wasn't "skeptical" to believe that amateur speculators are in some position to know more than degreed professionals publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

That depends on whether your "degreed professionals" in this rather unique and unusual field of study, are as a result of their particular educational qualifications and beliefs (in many cases probably including religious faith beliefs) in a better position than numerous other academics from different fields who have examined the claimed "evidence" for Jesus and pointed out that it's not actually reliable or objective evidence at all.

It seems to me quite obvious that this is a field of study populated not so much by typical academic historians in general, but overwhelmingly by theists and theologians and others all of whom are educationally characterised by having mainly if not entirely qualifications in, a long history of involvement in, and frequently religious belief in, specifically religious studies of Jesus and ancient Judeo-Christian writing (eg OT and NT).

There are for example, plenty of authors who are highly qualified academics in fields outside religious studies, who have written to express very serious doubts and objections to the beliefs and conclusions formed within the field of “scholarship” that you are relying on.

 

[IanS]

Here is the problem - where did we ever get the Jesus story from in the first place? Answer - we really only know it from the NT bible, ie really from what was said by Paul and the Gospel authors. Every other mention of Jesus, almost certainly derives from that.

.

Oh? So show me where the account of Ananus in Antiqs. 20 derives from?

Stone

Why on earth are you going on about people called Josephus and Ananus?

Look at the highlighted bit that you quoted yourself. It says the “Jesus story” … not any story of anyone called Ananus from the writing of someone called Josephus.

 

[Piggy]

Oh? So show me where the account of Ananus in Antiqs. 20 derives from?

Stone

It's amazing that the mythicists believe that it's a "problem" that our earliest references to Jesus come from his followers.

It boggles the mind.

Of COURSE his followers were the ones who wrote about him. Why would anybody else, at least until the movement grew large enough for others to take notice?

And of COURSE they told miracle tales about him. These are ancient writers writing about a religious figure they thought was chosen by God.

The question is WHY did they write about him at all.

So far, there is NO coherent account which describes WHY these folks wrote what they did about him if he had never lived.

On the other hand, the MAV, as I've described it here, is entirely non-problematic.

The original followers of Jesus thought they were the prophesied righteous remnant and Jesus would lead them in the New Jerusalem after the Day of the Lord. When he was crucified, rather than admit they were wrong, in typical end-time cult fashion they determined that there were hidden clues in the scripture -- which they cite! -- revealing that the Chosen One would be shamed and killed, but would then be the first to be resurrected, and would return as the Son of Man to resurrect the rest of the remnant.

See how simple that is?

And it fits everything we know, including all the loopy stuff they believed about Jesus.

It is in no way a "problem" that his followers wrote about him, nor is it a "problem" that they thought he performed miracles and was raised from the dead and would return from Heaven, nor do we somehow need other sources besides these to make a basic determination that Jesus lived.

The only "problem" is that the mythicists don't understand how history works, haven't read the actual research, and largely don't even bother to know what, for example, Paul actually wrote before attacking it.

It's astounding that these folks consider themselves skeptics.

In fact, the ball is in their court. To be taken seriously THEY need to craft a hypothesis that can stand the test I'm putting HJ to.

Lay it out, then go through the 1st century writings about Jesus very closely, and explain WHY those people would write what they wrote if Jesus never lived.

But they won't. First off, because they don't know enough to do it, and second, if they did it would reveal that they don't even have a hypothesis.

 

[davefoc]

The three that I gave as examples, Ehrman, Lane-Craig, Crossan, seem to be typical in respect of their academic qualifications. But those are not the qualifications of a mainstream neutral historian. They are entirely the qualifications of people specialising in religious issues. As far as I have seen, all the people described as "expert academic scholars" appear to have those sort of qualifications. It seems those are the sort of people we are talking about.

I see few if any "expert scholars" with much different mainstream history degrees and doctorates instead of religious studies qualifications.

...

I agree with this. The use of a presumed scholarly consensus as a basis for disparaging anybody that doesn't agree with what the presumed consensus is has been repeated many times in this thread without any detailed information about what that consensus is or who are the people that this consensus exists in.

I think your idea that a lot of the people that are being used to judge that this consensus exists have some sort of religious background is probably correct, but there are other issues.

1. What is the nature of this consensus that many of us are being criticized for disagreeing with? If a bunch of historians think that an HJ probably existed are they necessarily in line with Piggy's degree of certainty about that fact? Most of the participants in this thread believe that an HJ probably existed. Without some sort of objective data here I am not sure that the nature of this alleged consensus is knowable. Is it a consensus that an HJ probably existed or is it a consensus that it is almost certain that an HJ existed?

2. The notion that people here aren't qualified to disagree with this alleged consensus and when they do they are engaging in kook behavior.

The problem with this notion is that there are people that are more informed with more impressive degrees on this subject than anybody that is participating in this thread that think the evidence for an HJ is very weak. So why aren't the people participating in this thread that disagree with the highly trained and educated scholars that question the evidence for the existence of an HJ kooks? It appears that the decision of who is a kook is based more on the person doing the accusing than any kind of objective criteria

3. The comparison is often made here about how not agreeing with the consensus of experts in other fields is a evidence of engaging in kook behavior so that is true here as well.

The example of the consensus of homeopathic experts is often put forth as a reason to be skeptical of expert consensus. But even if the argument is restricted to other mainstream fields is it a valid point? It might be, except that nobody participating in this thread has advocated a view that doesn't have some support by mainstream academics. This is a very different situation than exists for that of an internet physics blogger pushing his own theory. For him there might be zero support for his ideas in the mainstream physics community. This isn't a matter of examining the evidence and leaning towards the views of a particular expert whose views are outside the generally accepted norm. This is making up your own science and believing your ideas are right in the face of all expert opinion. You might be right but the odds are very long against it. Regardless, nobody participating in this thread has made up their own science.

 

[Belz...]

It's amazing that the mythicists

Your labeling of people who are not mythicists are mythicists is bordering on incivility. I've made this point often enough, I believe.

 

[Belz...]

[...] believe that it's a "problem" that our earliest references to Jesus come from his followers.

It boggles the mind.

Followers but not witnesses. Mark does not mention his sources, and he's a tad too late to have been an eyewitness (plus he seems unfamiliar with the area). The fact is that the narrative of Jesus' life is, at the earliest point we're sure of, in Mark. The other gospels and works derive from it, and Paul doesn't give us a narrative.

 

[eight bits]

Piggy

When he was crucified, rather than admit they were wrong, in typical end-time cult fashion...

So, when max talks about modern cults, that's irrelevant, but when you talk about them, it's evidence.

See how simple that is?

Simpler still, Paul had a direct experience of Jesus. He inferred from this that Jesus was alive. One living guy who used to be dead means the general resurrection is in progress. If Jesus is the first guy back up, then he he must be somebody really special, or maybe the vision simply told Paul that Jesus was the Messiah.

See, it's just like your "scholarship:" inference builds on conjecture builds on fantasy. Then Paul hit on the marketing miracle: tell goyim that a formerly dead Jew will teach them to fly.

I mean, who knew the Hula Hoop^(R) would sell until somebody tried to sell it?

Much simpler, all of it based directly on the "testimony" in hand, and as well grounded in human psychology as Festinger's analysis of cognitive dissonance in failed cults.

 

[IanS]

Yes, it's tempting to think that. But then, what is the point of such a story?

You'd then be left with sentences that originally said (before your postulated later addition of the miracle) - "Jesus met James and Peter in Galilee" ... full stop!

Still seems possible? OK, well, remember the bible is filled with scenarios like that. So for every single one, we'd now need to postulate that the original versions said -

"Jesus met James and Peter in Galilee". "Then, Jesus went to the church in Jerusalem". Later "Peter spoke to Cephas". "Another day the disciples fished on the lake at Galilee" ... etc. etc., on and on like that ...

... in other words - as soon a you take all the miracles out, the whole thing collapses into pointless drivel.

I agree with you on this.

I considered trying to edit Mark with the idea of taking out all the supernatural and implausible aspects. I quickly decided it was too subjective a task. The supernatural and implausible aspects are just too deeply embedded.

The three that I gave as examples, Ehrman, Lane-Craig, Crossan, seem to be typical in respect of their academic qualifications. But those are not the qualifications of a mainstream neutral historian. They are entirely the qualifications of people specialising in religious issues. As far as I have seen, all the people described as "expert academic scholars" appear to have those sort of qualifications. It seems those are the sort of people we are talking about.

.

I agree with this. The use of a presumed scholarly consensus as a basis for disparaging anybody that doesn't agree with what the presumed consensus is has been repeated many times in this thread without any detailed information about what that consensus is or who are the people that this consensus exists in.

I think your idea that a lot of the people that are being used to judge that this consensus exists have some sort of religious background is probably correct, but there are other issues.
.

Thanks for the agreement. And I appreciate that you’d probably come to similar conclusions from your own reading on this subject, long before this thread even started.

The other issue in this thread is the amount of personalised abuse that’s now being spewed out in almost every post from Piggy and at least one other on the real-HJ side. That’s almost always a sign of how badly the abusive side have lost the argument. In which respect, after god knows how many pages of Piggy’s enormous historical reviews, we are yet to see even a single speck of the promised “evidence”.

We keep being told that we must believe the expert scholars when they tell us they are quite sure in their own mind that Jesus was real. But you have to wonder what on earth actually is “in their own mind” when they apparently believe that it’s evidence of Jesus to say such things as "they feel sure Paul’s Letters must be right when they say that Paul met the actual disciples of Jesus and the real brother of Jesus, hence it’s certain that Jesus lived".

Frankly, conclusions like that are so naïve as to be laughable (or else extremely sad …. or both).

 

[Piggy]

The problem with this notion is that there are people that are more informed with more impressive degrees on this subject than anybody that is participating in this thread that think the evidence for an HJ is very weak.

Who?

The guy with the article in the Anthropology of Consciousness journal?

The retired grammarian?

Who?

Who are they, what are their degrees, and what articles have they published in relevant journals, and what percentage of the publication on the subject do their contributions constitute?

 

[Piggy]

The three that I gave as examples, Ehrman, Lane-Craig, Crossan, seem to be typical in respect of their academic qualifications. But those are not the qualifications of a mainstream neutral historian. They are entirely the qualifications of people specialising in religious issues.

IOW, we can't trust the experts because they are experts, therefore we must trust the outsider contrarians.

Pure Trutherism.

ETA: If some actual tangible claim were being made, if some actual errors in the methodologies of these, as well as Reed, Levine, Fredriksen, and others were mentioned, then there might be something worth talking about here.

ETA2: Go look at Dale Martin's Yale courses on NT lit and his lecture on HJ and tell me exactly what he's doing wrong.

 

[tsig]

IOW, we can't trust the experts because they are experts, therefore we must trust the outsider contrarians.

Pure Trutherism.

ETA: If some actual tangible claim were being made, if some actual errors in the methodologies of these, as well as Reed, Levine, Fredriksen, and others were mentioned, then there might be something worth talking about here.

ETA2: Go look at Dale Martin's Yale courses on NT lit and his lecture on HJ and tell me exactly what he's doing wrong.

He's not citing any actual evidence, it's all speculation.

The accounts of Paul's travels in The Acts of the Apostles and Galatians seem to contradict each other at many points. Their descriptions of a meeting in Jerusalem--a major council in Acts versus a small, informal gathering in Galatians--also differ quite a bit. How do we understand these differences? A historical critical reading of these accounts does not force these texts into a harmonious unity or accept them at face value. Instead, a historical critical reading carefully sifts through the details of the texts and asks which of these is more likely to be historically accurate.


Notice the underlined and bolded.

 

[Stone]

There are for example, plenty of authors who are highly qualified academics in fields outside religious studies, who have written to express very serious doubts and objections to the beliefs and conclusions formed within the field of “scholarship” that you are relying on.

That is just not so, especially when it comes to specialists in the entire field of ancient history, both Middle Eastern and Mediterranean.

Stone

 

[Belz...]

IOW, we can't trust the experts because they are experts, therefore we must trust the outsider contrarians.

That is a complete strawman of what Ian said. He said that he suspects that many of them are devout Christians. I disagree with him, but he didn't say what you claim he said.

 

[tsig]

That is just not so, especially when it comes to specialists in the entire field of ancient history, both Middle Eastern and Mediterranean.

Stone

None of those scholars disagree with each other? Sounds more like the dogma of a church than an academic endeavor.

 

[Piggy]

That is just not so, especially when it comes to specialists in the entire field of ancient history, both Middle Eastern and Mediterranean.

Stone

Dude, didn't you see the quotation marks around the word "scholarship"?

That's a slam dunk right there!

 

[Belz...]

Okay, could we please stop tapping each other on the back and actually see some evidencin' here ?

 

[Piggy]

What would mythicists have to do to be taken seriously?

As we've seen, there's a broad scholarly consensus regarding a historical Jesus who was active in Galilee and Judea in the early 1st century, was baptized by John (who was later executed by Herod Antipas), preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God on Earth as per Jewish scripture (as did the community at Qumran, although they differed on the details) among other things, was crucified by Pilate, and came to be re-imagined by his followers as one who was resurrected by God and who would return at the Day of the Lord to save them.

So, what would mythicists have to do in order to have publishing scholars in the field of Ancient Near East studies take seriously the idea that Jesus wasn't real?

Well, that depends on the flavor of mythicism we're talking about, so let's examine a few....

1. Paul invented the religion

As we've seen, this notion is implausible on its surface, because Paul's letters spend a great deal of time defending his version of the religion against competing versions, and defending his credentials against detractors. And despite his obvious megalomania, he nevertheless defers to others -- some of whom were known personally to his congregation -- as the "pillars" of the group.

It's also not plausible that all of Paul's letters are faked, because they have been subject to decades of close scrutiny by scholars in a variety of fields, and in any case, if all of the Pauline epistles are fake, then there goes any hope of any evidence showing that Paul invented anything.

The only hope of working around those walls would be to take the accepted letters of Paul, point by point (not just cherry-picking quotes out of context) and show how they comport in their entirety with a theory of Pauline invention.

Then they would have to explain the Xian traditions of the 1st century among groups who show no evidence of being familiar with Paul's theology or writings.

Good luck.

2. Jesus was a god whom people came to believe was a real person.

Red flags automatically go up for this one, because how many times in history has any group come to mistake a god for a mere human?

But at the very least, even to get this notion off the ground, mythicists would have to IDENTIFY this god -- not simply imagine him -- and demonstrate that there was belief in such a god by some group of people who had an influence within 1st century non-diaspora Judaism.

Good luck.

3. Jesus was a folk hero whom some people came to believe was a real person.

This doesn't send up the same red flag as scenario #2, because we do have examples of this kind of thing here and there.

However, the same criteria apply here. To even begin to craft a hypothesis, mythicists would have to identify this folk hero, show that he is highly similar to Jesus, and demonstrate some channel of influence between those who told stories of this folk hero and non-diaspora Jews of the early 1st century.

Good luck.

4. The earliest Xians were a mystery cult.

To make this notion anything but a non-starter, proponents would have to explain why the theology of early Xians is based in Jewish prophecy and traditions, explain why a supposed mystery cult was extremely evangelical and even copied and distributed letters describing their rituals, and provide some evidence of mystery cult influence among non-diaspora Jews of the early 1st century.

Good luck.

5. Early Xianity was a kind of proto cargo cult.

To get any traction with this notion, proponents would have to explain why no early Christians espouse the notion that following rituals would lead to future wealth, but instead universally embraced the idea that being humble and kind would cause God to save them from the coming wrath.

Good luck.

6. Xianity was a scam perpetrated by Paul and the other apostles.

To support ths idea, we'd need to see some profit motive -- the collection for the poor and Paul's appeal for help with missions won't suffice because both of these are consistent with HJ theory -- and we'd need some plausible explanation for why a group of scammers would be in such disagreement about the basic tenets of the scam, not to mention why the early writings appear to be centrally concerned with dogmas which in no way profit the group leaders.

Good luck.


And for any of these, given the mythicists' insistence on lots of hard evidence and horror at the appearance of speculation, we need some solid evidence, not mere imaginings of unlikely scenarios backed by purely imaginary evidence or clearly cherry-picked citations.

Of course, they can't even begin to do any of the above.

Perhaps that's why they so often fall back on the canard that there is a "lack of evidence" for Jesus -- whille at the same time refusing to read the mainstream research, a refusal based on entirely unevidenced aspersions cast at an entire field of study. The lack of evidence is in their heads -- which is called an argument from ignorance.

But I'm open to new evidence. (Seriously, I am -- I'm an atheist and I have no dog in this race.)

So if anybody can meet the above criteria, great.

Just make sure you're holding yourselves to your own criteria -- actual evidence, not speculation.

Good luck.

 

[Belz...]

I really don't care about mythicists, Piggy. I want the vaunted evidence you said you'd show that explains why we're certain that Jesus was a person who was and did the things you claimed.

No more delays.

 

[The Norseman]

What would mythicists have to do to be taken seriously?

Wrong question.

I really don't care what your opinion is regarding the mythicist position and what they need or don't need to do. Your bias is blatant and petty.

Tell us what, in your opinion, is an historic Yeshua (be specific; after all, this is the purpose of the thread) and name the evidence you know of, including links even if those links are behind paywalls (some of us do have access to various resources to get these peer-reviewed papers), in a manner similar to what JaysonR laid out a little earlier.

This is what you or your good buddies have to do to be taken seriously at this point.

Remember that evidence changes minds; it will mine. Ridiculous posturing won't.