What counts as a historical Jesus?

[IanS]

I defy any mythicist to put together a unified theory which is more probable and which so succinctly explains the known history.

The "known history"? You mean known historical "facts" about the life of Jesus? What known facts are those?

The gospels and Paul’s letters are clearly not factual historical accounts. Neither are they original. Neither are they contemporary. They are not from any eye-witness who ever met Jesus either. And they are filled with imaginary visions of an impossible supernatural god. That is apparently the “history”. And it is not factual.

To fit with a history like that, the only thing a myth theory would need is to say exactly what the gospels and Paul’s letters actually do say. Namely that Jesus was a supernatural god who was only known to have been seen in imaginary visions by uneducated religious fanatics like Paul who thought his visions and the voices he heard were confirming the religious prophecies written centuries before in the OT. That is itself more the description of a mythical creature, rather than a description of any real living human.

 

[eight bits]

max

Apparently there's a Luke-first theory, too. I was just going with what seems to be the most common position.

How does this Church tradition deal with Mark 6:14 which has Herod regarding Jesus as John the Baptist returning from the dead?

I wasn't aware that any Christian church regarded Herod as an authority on such matters. However, his remark is a nice illustration of how little Mark thought that it would take to get a resurrection story going (6:14-15), spontaneously and without a promotional group, and once going, how the tale might pick up some traction in high places (6:16). No doubt Piggy will explain how that isn't evidence against his pontifications about the James Gang, when he gets to Mark.

Mark 1:14 seems to put Jesus ministry very close to John being in prison so while the timeline is a little wonky you can tease bit and pieces out.

That's what there's church tradition about: Mark didn't know the sequence of events, and he made one up.

According Yliyah Paul's The Message of the Kingdom: Is the Yahweh Seed The Passover of 36 CE is March 30 so we have a cutoff date for the Crucifixion of Jesus: no later then March 30, 36 CE.

Paul doesn't say anything about Passover. Mark doesn't know the timeline. Passover's good from a literary point of view. Marks' making it up anyway, the sequence at least, so why not Passover? If ever a story could use a little holiday cheer, it's this one.

 

[The Norseman]

Well spotted.

Thanks. I'd had the same impression that others had; when Piggy started heatedly denying it, I wanted to see if I was mistaken in my impression.

I think we were all correct in believing that Piggy has actually been displaying a level of certainty that is completely unwarranted, just as Yeshua-fanbois annnnoid and Stone have also been displaying.

 

[tsig]

Thanks. I'd had the same impression that others had; when Piggy started heatedly denying it, I wanted to see if I was mistaken in my impression.

I think we were all correct in believing that Piggy has actually been displaying a level of certainty that is completely unwarranted, just as Yeshua-fanbois annnnoid and Stone have also been displaying.

It was that certainty that got me into the discussion in the first place. I've been in these type discussions here and elsewhere and it always came down to Josephus and Tacitus as the best non biblical sources of HJ so I was curious what else was there to allow such absolute statement of fact. I also wondered about the vehemence with which the "mythicists were scorched and called every name in the book, it looked more like a defensive reaction than any reasonable disagreement.

I see that the whole thing is hermeneutics rather than history.

 

[Brainache]

I think this whole HJ subject does strange things to people.

I live behind a church and last night, as they do every saturday, they had a band playing christian rock music. Normally I don't care, it doesn't go for long or too late and I put up with it. But, last night I got annoyed because the band was loud and I was trying to concentrate on a Youtube video of Dale Martin's lecture on the book of Acts.

I'm an Atheist FFS. Now, thanks to this HJ thread, I'm spending Saturday night at home cursing a bunch of teenage wanna-be Bonos because I can't hear a bald academic preach the freaking Gospel!!!

What the hell is happening to me?

 

[JaysonR]

Brainache;

LOL!
Oh, man; have I been there many times!

 

[Piggy]

Thanks for that beginning to Corinthians, Piggy.
I'm looking forward to reading more.

Thanks for reading it.

Btw, did you ever get back to me on the quotes from Paul? You said you were wondering about a contradiction, and I wasn't sure exactly what you thought the contradiction was.

 

[The Norseman]

It was that certainty that got me into the discussion in the first place. I've been in these type discussions here and elsewhere and it always came down to Josephus and Tacitus as the best non biblical sources of HJ so I was curious what else was there to allow such absolute statement of fact. I also wondered about the vehemence with which the "mythicists were scorched and called every name in the book, it looked more like a defensive reaction than any reasonable disagreement.

I see that the whole thing is hermeneutics rather than history.

What really gets me is the whole "we can disregard all the miracles of course, but everything else is true because why would they lie?" concept that seems to be floating around.

Okay... so people who are inclined to believe that some dude literally walked on water are suddenly incredulous that the water walker was also made up?

 

[JaysonR]

I wouldn't consider it a conclusive argument point, Norseman, but it shouldn't be dismissed outright that if such is the case, it would be the only such instance of this demographic sample whereby such occurred.

If such is the case, then it really needs to be culturally examined and well noted and attributed, as it would mark a remarkable event culturally for either society (Hellenistic or Hebrew).

It would be up there with the advent of historical literature tradition in Polybius.

 

[Belz...]

What really gets me is the whole "we can disregard all the miracles of course, but everything else is true because why would they lie?" concept that seems to be floating around.

Well that's not the actual argument, mind you. It was my impression that it was all about the historical context, and the evolution of the religion and of its writings, etc.

Unfortunately that can only give you a certain amount of confidence, like say 65% or 70% for HJ. Anyway, percentage doesn't matter. But even if it were 95% it wouldn't matter because it's all an educated guess, nothing more.

In order to be certain you need evidence. Piggy certainly implied he was pretty certain, even if that wasn't his intention, so naturally we asked for evidence, which we were promised. But instead we got more historical context and the evolution of the religion and of its writings. Which we already said couldn't give us certainty.

So we're right back where we started, except that we're even less sure about the evidentiary weight of the writings themselves.

 

[annnnoid]

Thanks. I'd had the same impression that others had; when Piggy started heatedly denying it, I wanted to see if I was mistaken in my impression.

I think we were all correct in believing that Piggy has actually been displaying a level of certainty that is completely unwarranted, just as Yeshua-fanbois annnnoid and Stone have also been displaying.

Yeshua fan-boy???? I'm guessing that's supposed to be an insult.

Have you even bothered to look at the academic consensus around this issue? Are you capable of understanding the words ‘universal assent’ ??? If not, simply admit your ignorance and I’m sure some helpful skeptic will chime in and provide you with an education.

It’s not Piggy…it’s not Stone…it’s not annnnoid… who are presenting the parasites with this evidence. It is the entire academic historical community. Whether they use the words ‘absolutely certain’, or almost absolutely certain’, or ‘just about all-but-certain’, or ‘pretty damn confident’, or ‘positively convinced’, or ‘utterly satisfied’, or ‘assuredly undoubting’, or ‘undoubtingly assured’, or ‘certain except for the fact that no one has actually been able to travel back in time and chat with the guy’….is what’s known as a

….strawman…

In other words…it’s not even irrelevant (but doesn’t it just make some folks think they’ve hit a home run!!!).

There are thousands of universities around the world. The vast majority of them include some variety of department of history. The majority of the academics who toil in those departments (specifically…the departments of classical history) have agreed that the evidence (which…if this thread is any example …is likely best left to credible experts to adjudicate) supports the conclusion that there was an individual named Jesus around whom the religion known as Christianity somehow developed. The fact that this conclusion commands ‘universal assent’ suggests that there is little doubt as to its provenance.

IOW…use whatever version of ‘certain’ that doesn’t make you throw up.

Deal with it!

If you…with your superior scholarship…can present some reason to doubt the accepted conclusion of an entire international academic community…please lay it on us!

If not…STFU!

Ian has also hurled invective and vitriol at the academic consensus. A tale of two arguments…it appears.

On the one hand…Ian has consistently and vehemently proclaimed that there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to support the HJ position! Wow! I’d say Ian is a guy for whom substantial evidence really matters when arguing an important issue.

When presented with the academic consensus….Ian scoffs and accuses those who support the HJ of fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, etc. Ian claims they’re all stupid, cowering, zealots…or something like that (feel free to correct me if I have mischaracterized your slander Ian). Others have expressed support for this position.

….but…and this is what is interesting…Ian provides not a shred of evidence to support his dismissal of an entire academic community. All Ian has said…is that this is his opinion. Apparently there are vigilant and astute individuals following this thread (…well spotted…etc. etc.). Where else have the words ‘not a shred of evidence’ appeared?

Why don’t we ask Norseman…or Belz…or TSIG…or one of the attendant chorus. Is Ian’s opinion sufficient to dismiss the acknowledged consensus of an entire academic community? Or should we expect some actual evidence to support his contention that they’re all biased religious idiots?

 

[Piggy]

Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick, are they still at it with the accusations of "certainty"?

I mean, what do you do with that?

Despite the fact that I've never said it was certain, and that I've repeatedly explained that HJ is both the first explanation we should consider (given the time and place) and the explanation which all the evidence points to, and that so far no mythicist scenario has been able to pass sufficient muster for peer review, which makes HJ currently the only game in town, but that historians don't deal in certainty, only in probability.

And yet, in their reality-free universe, I'm peddling "certainty".

If anyone wonders why I have come to simply stop responding to these guys, well, there you have it.

When repeated clear statements are simply blown off and a fantasy version substituted, there's no option except to go the Barney Frank route. I, too, have no interest in conversation with dining room tables.

And "fan-boi"? C'mon. What serious person resorts to the "fan-boi" card? Maybe next they'll accuse me of posting from my mother's basement? Or perhaps they'll start throwing up some meme-graphics?

Well, I guess that's what you do when you have no serious challenge to offer, when there simply is no mythicist theory which can handle the treatment I'm giving to HJ theory.

It's really bizarre, I mean, here we have a group whose writings and theology are entirely drenched in Jewish prophecy, which make no sense in fact outside of that environment, and yet they believe that it makes more sense to look to "cargo cults" centuries later and thousands of miles away in order to understand this group rather than to look at the actual time and place and culture in which these people actually lived.

That smacks of searching for your keys under the streetlamp because the light is better. After all, cargo cults are much easier to understand than ancient cultures.

And when we note that some of the most important features of cargo cults are entirely absent from the Jesus movement, Jewish Xianity, and the earliest gentile Xianity, well, again… what do you do with that?

I don't think there's anything you can do with that.

Sometimes you just gotta opt out of the woo.

 

[tsig]

Well that's not the actual argument, mind you. It was my impression that it was all about the historical context, and the evolution of the religion and of its writings, etc.

Unfortunately that can only give you a certain amount of confidence, like say 65% or 70% for HJ. Anyway, percentage doesn't matter. But even if it were 95% it wouldn't matter because it's all an educated guess, nothing more.

In order to be certain you need evidence. Piggy certainly implied he was pretty certain, even if that wasn't his intention, so naturally we asked for evidence, which we were promised. But instead we got more historical context and the evolution of the religion and of its writings. Which we already said couldn't give us certainty.

So we're right back where we started, except that we're even less sure about the evidentiary weight of the writings themselves.

Well, I had never thought about it but I see no reason to give the "authentic" letters of Paul any more credence that the BoM. I mean why would JS make up all those places and events if they weren't real?

 

[tsig]

What really gets me is the whole "we can disregard all the miracles of course, but everything else is true because why would they lie?" concept that seems to be floating around.

Okay... so people who are inclined to believe that some dude literally walked on water are suddenly incredulous that the water walker was also made up?

The whole conceit that anyone can sort out the real from the unreal and parse out what the writers of the gospel really meant and what is really true springs more from faith than reason.

 

[JaysonR]

Goodness...well, there's definitely 'name calling' on both sides going on, so I'm not going to address that.

After the last couple posts, I can already imagine the responses might be aimed at pointing out that the responsibility of "proof" rests on the asserting party, and that the asserting party would be identified as the pro-Jesus-existed group under the definition that an assertion of the positive is the responsible party and not the assertion of the negative.

Typically; this is true.
However, with history and anthropology; this isn't actually the case.

Because of the disheveled state of material that is regular fare for history and anthropology, the standard in the field is actually that both sides have to present a propositional theory, and the proposition that best fits all of the known material is the one the consensus will agree to in publication.

For example, we'll take the Q document theory.
The Q document theory refuted the traditional theory that was before it, and offered a proposition that best satisfied all known material regarding the historicity of the state of textual evolution regarding the gospels.

The refuting side to the Q document theory doesn't just sit there and tell the Q theory side that their theory isn't satisfactory and that they need to prove their case better.

Instead, the anti-Q theory side has to show a counter-theory that shows how the gospel texts could have evolved without requiring the Q theory, and has to show how it better fits the known material than the Q theory does.



In the same light; within the historical society, the "Jesus did not exist" side actually doesn't just sit back and shoot holes in the "Jesus did exist" side.
Instead, just like the Q theory example, the "Jesus did not exist" side has to show how all known material could have occurred without the existence of Jesus and produce a more convincing argument anthropologically than the "Jesus did exist" side's presented proposition.

This is why, before, I stated that taking logic courses is a good idea for anyone going into History or Anthropology; because the field works more like a philosophical debate infrastructure than an empirical science infrastructure.


Instead of a one-way system of propositions that is common in empirical fields; history and anthropology work on a two-way proposition like many court cases do, and the best supplied proposition (for or against) is the one that will gain the accepted consensus within the academic circles.


So even if the best proposition is only 65% likely; if it's the best proposition, then it is the position that is held as historically accurate.



I hope this may aid in clearing up some confusion.

 

[Piggy]

Goodness...well, there's definitely 'name calling' on both sides going on, so I'm not going to address that.

Yeah, but you just did.

I admire your high-mindedness. Don't share it, tho.

 

[JaysonR]

OK, well; I suppose my point was that I'm going to dismiss that portion and call it null since, while that may emotionally be interesting to folks to respond to, it doesn't really hit the analytical point.

 

[Piggy]

OK, well; I suppose my point was that I'm going to dismiss that portion and call it null since, while that may emotionally be interesting to folks to respond to, it doesn't really hit the analytical point.

I disagree, actually.

It goes to methods.

As I've said before, there is always a push by outsider contrarians to portray themselves as something other than that. Often, the stance is taken -- as we've seen here -- that the scholarship is corrupt, or incompetent, or in some other way tainted, and that the contrarian position is the real research, or as has been said here, the "serious" research.

I understand why you're taking the tack that you're taking, and I think it's good that you're doing that.

But I am also glad that not everybody is.

Now, would I take this angle in front of a classroom? No, of course not.

But hey, this is an online forum, it's a bit rougher around the edges, and I like that. Here, I don't think it's out of line to point out when false claims are (repeatedly) being made against the mainstream argument, or when one side has failed to make a coherent proposal, while attempting to claim otherwise, and dismissing (often bashing) scholars who have done just that, and all the while refusing to actually read, much less address, the research.

And I just can't resist making fun of "fan-boi" slinging. Gotta keep my spirits up somehow.

Keep up the good fight, Jayson, I'm glad you're doing it. I really am.

But what can I say, I'm a Southern boy. We like mud wrestling.

 

[maximara]

It was that certainty that got me into the discussion in the first place. I've been in these type discussions here and elsewhere and it always came down to Josephus and Tacitus as the best non biblical sources of HJ so I was curious what else was there to allow such absolute statement of fact. I also wondered about the vehemence with which the "mythicists were scorched and called every name in the book, it looked more like a defensive reaction than any reasonable disagreement.

I see that the whole thing is hermeneutics rather than history.

Well Josephus and Tacitus are the best non biblical sources of HJ...which just goes to show how weak the evidence really is. Even if both were genuine they are so late that per John Frum they don't prove anything.

Nevermind that everything points to the Testimonium Flavianum being an out and out forgery:

1) No one referencing Josephus before Eusebius makes reference to anything even resembling the Testimonium Flavianum.

2) Right after the Testimonium Flavianum Josephus states "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder," which structurally makes no sense....unless you having it come right after the "And thus an end was put to this sedition." passage before the Testimonium Flavianum.

3) The Greek in the passage has 4th century elements. For example poietes (the doer in "doer of wonderful works") is NOT used in this manner anywhere else in Josephus: everywhere else Josephus uses poietes to mean "poet". But Eusebius does use poietes to mean "doer" (Mason, Steve (2003) Josephus and the New Testament ISBN 1-56563-795-X page 231)

4) "Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus." (Drews, Arthur, (1912) Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus)

5) Eusebius states very clearly the Testimonium Flavianum he saw came after Josephus' description of John the Baptist...yet in every copy we have it comes BEFORE! (Mason, Steve (2003) Josephus and the New Testament ISBN 1-56563-795-X page 231)

6) Also if Jesus and John the Baptist had even been rumored to have met certainly Josephus would have mentioned it...he doesn't.

Strangely in the early 1900s even pro-HJ scholars held the Testimonium Flavianum was a total fake and I don't understand how the Schlomo Pines changed anything as it is an 10th century document.

 

[Greediguts]

I think this whole HJ subject does strange things to people.

I live behind a church and last night, as they do every saturday, they had a band playing christian rock music. Normally I don't care, it doesn't go for long or too late and I put up with it. But, last night I got annoyed because the band was loud and I was trying to concentrate on a Youtube video of Dale Martin's lecture on the book of Acts.

I'm an Atheist FFS. Now, thanks to this HJ thread, I'm spending Saturday night at home cursing a bunch of teenage wanna-be Bonos because I can't hear a bald academic preach the freaking Gospel!!!

What the hell is happening to me?

Brainache;

LOL!
Oh, man; have I been there many times!

Ha! I'm right there with you guys!