What counts as a historical Jesus?

[IanS]

Even if they are not reliable, they contain information about what their authors believed. .

But we are not talking about what gospel authors may have believed.

We are discussing what evidence exists to show that their beliefs about Jesus were true.

If you are again thinking here about what they wrote about Pilate as the executioner of Jesus, then of course they may have believed that. But that’s never been what anyone here was talking about. What’s under discussion (eg in that case re. Pilate) is where they may have got that belief from.

And as I just spelt out to you in detail, if they knew anything at all about the earlier letters of Paul, which I think everyone agrees they certainly did, then they would have already had that information about Pilate and the likely/rough date of execution before any of them ever even thought of writing a gospel, let alone actually put pen to paper.

 

[Craig B]

Even if they are not reliable, they contain information about what their authors believed. We are entitled to ask why these beliefs were held by these groups of people at that time. Some of the beliefs (e.g. Jesus' death at the hands of Pilate That Joeseph Smith was a prophet of god/BoM was inspired) may best be explained by the supposition that they are true. Others (e.g. the birth in Bethlehem Jesus appearing in the Americas) may best be explained as interpretations of supposed prophecies about the Messiah. But it is possible to examine this material and make cogent suppositions about its origin, authorship, sources, and historical probability, even if only on the basis of internal evidence. This on the supposition, of course, that the authors did not write truths and falsehoods at random because they had chosen not to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.

FTFY

How have you fixed it? We know that Pilate did exist, and that he was given to executing people. We have ample textual evidence for the latter, including Philo's denunciation of Pilate in the Embassy to Gaius. We know that crucifixion was practiced, and even have the excavated remains of a victim of this mode of execution. We have an inscription containing Pilate's name and title.

We know that elements of the Jesus story were confected from scriptural passages believed to be prophecies of the Messiah. Even mistaken readings, giving rise to Mary's virginity and the two donkeys Matthew makes Jesus ride simultaneously, along with many others.

Thus, the two things I have mentioned are plausible reasons for the existence of certain elements of belief. But there is nothing like this in the Book of Mormon. Consider its provenance, which stamps it with indelible marks of fraud and deceit. The beliefs you mention are not best explained by the assumption that they are authentic.

Are you not able to distinguish one thing from another? Do you have to say that because religions are false, then all statements within religious belief systems must necessarily be false? Or that all elements of the belief systems of religions are equally implausible? Or that a true historical fact cannot be transmitted within a religious tradition because it is of interest to religious believers, while disappearing from the general public record because it is of little interest to people in general?

 

[Craig B]

Craig - your posts here have become utterly ridiculous. And also beginning to sound like a rampant personalised vendetta.

I am sorry you think my arguments are utterly ridiculous. That is a very harsh judgement indeed. However I am at a loss to know how you can believe I am pursuing a personal vendetta against you, far less a "rampant" one. I am simply in disagreement with your ideas.

 

[JaysonR]

Which assumes that the standard of "long enough ago" is some set number of years, rather than the practical impossibility of verification in situ. That is what we disagree about. As I've mentioned, it is sufficiently clear that that disagreement will not be resolved here, and that I cannot proceed without being repetitious, so that I withdraw from pursuit of this point - not tfrom he thread, not from engaging you, but from pursuing this point.

I'm not very clear on this.
I'm not determining a timeline for the quality of their verification of the information they are writing about.

I leave it open for the possibility to be that everything written was erroneous in this tangent.

The timeline I was speaking of that is a relative set of years, loosely a generation, only applies to the qualifier for the contemporary fiction class of literature.

This class of purposefully fictional writing is quantifiable as within one generation of time.
That does not then prove the existence of Jesus in itself.

All that it does qualify is that these are not examples of contemporary fiction.
They can be examples of apocalyptic literature, and I leave open the possibility that these tales may be derived from errant accounts in spite of any possible author possibly believing them to be authentic.

I'm confused because I'm not attempting to lay down a timeline for gauging authenticity.


I'm continuing the tangent because I'm confused; I do not understand.

 

[davefoc]

There are two different issues being discussed in this thread which over lap a bit.

1. Is the evidence for an HJ good enough to sustain a strong belief that he existed?
2. What is the likely situation with regard to an HJ assuming that the evidence relevant to the issue of the existence of an HJ is unreliable and ambiguous?

Question 2 can be addressed by relying on supposition and unreliable evidence. People addressing question 2 can put forth hypothesis for which the main argument might be that they are plausible and that they are about as reliable as some other hypothesis.

I wonder if the recent dispute between IanS and Craig B isn't partially the result of a conflation of the two questions. Craig B has been clear that his view is that an HJ probably existed and not that he has very strong evidence to support that view.

 

[davefoc]

...
They can be examples of apocalyptic literature, and I leave open the possibility that these tales may be derived from errant accounts in spite of any possible author possibly believing them to be authentic.

...

This is what I understand your point to be. It is at best a weak argument for the HJ. It only suggests that Mark believed an HJ existed or that Mark believed that there was a belief in his target audience that an HJ existed.

That doesn't mean that it wasn't an interesting point. I hadn't considered that the creation of purely fictional writing that was admitted to be purely fictional didn't go back to deep antiquity.

 

[JaysonR]

Yes; the only interest that I was offering was the mild correction that we can't go so far as to posit these to be overt acts of fictional character writing.

We can posit all of the other possibilities, but that one would require proving an anthropological case that hasn't yet been proven.

 

[Piggy]

1 Corinthians, another part

I don't know how much time I have tonight, but let's see what I can do….

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul practiced celibacy, and claimed it as one of his spiritual gifts, and apparently others have asked him, in the letter to which he's responding, if they should do the same even if they're married.

It's uncertain, however, if they're asking this because they think they should emulate Paul, or because Apollos is advocating a brand of wisdom practice in which the adherent is "wedded" to "Sophia".

In any case, Paul says no, if you're married, don't practice celibacy because doing so is depriving another person of their natural rights, and if you don't have the spiritual gift of celibacy then attempting to be celibate can lead you into temptation of Sin.

Note Paul's usual inclusiveness when it comes to gender.

He continues in the same vein:

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

But then we get an actual citation by Paul from Jesus himself.

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

This is interesting. Paul is saying that Jesus preached against divorce.

This does not seem to be related to his "call" by Jesus in the vision, so it is most likely a saying or doctrine of Jesus which was known to Jesus's students.

Paul then adds another bit of advice which he is careful to say comes from him and was not preached by Jesus -- that believers in the resurrection of Jesus should stay married to nonbelievers, if they'll stick around… a big "if", as you can imagine!

It's not difficult to understand why Jesus didn't teach about this particular point -- he had no idea that there would ever be such a group of believers!

Then he goes on to say that everyone should stay as they were when they were "called". Even if a person is a slave, that person should not attempt to leave their master.

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

"The present crisis" is, of course, the impending end of the world.

Again, there is no citation from Jesus himself on this point, at least as far as Paul knows. But Paul's attitude seems to be, why bother?

And it's interesting that there are no quotes from Jesus on these latter points, and that fact may indicate that Jesus believed the Day of the Lord to be imminent, but perhaps not as imminent as Paul believes, since Paul sees Jesus as the "first fruits" of the harvest, which means the harvest is now underway, and the scythe could descend at any moment.

On the other hand, perhaps it's just that divorce is a common topic of religious contention, and Jesus simply had no opinion about these smaller matters about which the Corinthian congregation has specifically inquired.

There's no way to really know.

So how soon does Paul think the end will be?

What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

Paul expects to see Jesus return at the head of God's army in his own lifetime.

I'm going to leave it there because in the next passage, on whether or not it's OK to eat food sacrificed to pagan gods, we get into a bit of theology that deserves a closer look than I have time to give it right now.

Thanks again for your patience.

 

[maximara]

Now, as far as the gospels which you are relying upon, are concerned - Luke (which you are referring to) is generally dated as the 3rd of the 4 canonical gospels, and generally given an original date of about 80 or 85 AD to 100AD. Though again, no copy from anywhere near that early date is known. And in fact, the first relatively complete copies of any of the 4 canonical gospels date from the 4th century onwards, and mostly from the 6th century onwards.

IanS while your argument on primary evidence is solid it ignores secondary evidence mainly Irenaeus' Against Heresies and Demonstration (both c180 CE):


"But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar... (Against Heresies 1:27:2)

"For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him (ie Jesus) to be crucified." (Demonstration (74))

Ignoring the anachronistic nature of the Demonstration passage (wrong Herod and wrong Caesar) we see that Pontius Pilate being a key part of Jesus ministry and crucifixion was firmly established in the sect Irenaeus belonged to by c180 CE so any search for where the idea came from must focus on the period between no later then 37 CE (Paul conversion) and c180 CE

The fact that Irenaeus views (Jesus being 50+ years old when crucified and it being done under Claudius being the two of the biggies) conflicted with known 3rd to 4th century theological doctrine IMHO indicates these passages are genuine Irenaeus and not some later Christian tampering.

 

[eight bits]

Jayson, and to some extent davefoc

Yes; the only interest that I was offering was the mild correction that we can't go so far as to posit these to be overt acts of fictional character writing.

And yet we have in hand Plutarch's Lives, a work of the late First or early Second Century CE, thus a work of literature composed roughly contemporary with the Gospels, in a culture served by Paul. Lives freely mixes fact and fancy, and its author acknowledges doing so.

Moreover, its author makes a frank, black-letter comparison between the literary effect of distance in space and remoteness in time, and finds them analogous. The substituability of space for time to mitigate a reader's aversion to impossibility and narrative caprice, now well known, was known to a writer in that time, too.

As in books on geography, Sossius Senecio, the writers crowd the countries of which they know nothing into the furthest margins of their maps, and write upon them legends such as, "In this direction lie waterless deserts full of wild beasts;" or, "Unexplored morasses;" or, "Here it is as cold as Scythia;" or, "A frozen sea;" so I, in my writings on Parallel Lives, go through that period of time where history rests on the firm basis of facts, and may truly say, "All beyond this is portentous and fabulous, inhabited by poets and mythologers, and there is nothing true or certain." ... Putting aside, then, the mythological element, let us examine [Theseus') story, and wherever it obstinately defies probability, and cannot be explained by natural agency, let us beg the indulgence of our readers, who will kindly make allowance for tales of antiquity.


(Theseus 1)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14033/14033-h/14033-h.htm

Mark, unlike the later Luke or John, provides us no statement of the author's intent or beliefs about his material. If, however, Plutarch is capable of finding value in examining a mixed story (both mythological and factual elements), then anthropology be damned - Mark may do the same.

Luke took Mark to have been writing history, but there is no reason to think that John did. Eusebius thinks that tradition held that Mark had considerably intruded into his material, arranging it chronologically as he thought best, not as it happened.

All attitudes that any author has ever had to their material were available to Mark. We can exclude none of them, and each of them underpins a hypothesis about the historicity of the Jesus whom Mark portrays.

 

[JaysonR]

I'm sorry, but I'm more confused than before.

The examples of mythological poetics regarding the vast reaches of the uncharted lands of the world aren't classed as contemporary fictional literature.

There is a vast difference between those simple legendary rumors and myths, disorganized and each an individual scenery, and a narrative with multiple acts and a full cast of characters following a motive.

When such a structure of writing as the latter is placed into the present time of the author writing the tales, then such a structured narrative is referred to as contemporary fiction.

If someone made up Jesus and intentionally wrote of Jesus as an intended fictional story set in their own time, then this would be the first incident of contemporary fiction in the human timeline, and not the 6th or 7th century; which means that we would accept the responsibility of proving how they were contemporary fiction, which means accepting the responsibility of proving that Jesus did not exist.

If someone conspired to create a trick in creating Jesus entirely for some agenda of theirs, then this would not be contemporary fiction, but falsified historical claims and the evidence would need to be established that proved that the Jesus character was created as a lie intentionally, and the agenda shown to be evident.

If someone considered Jesus to be real, but embellished on top of it to embue the telling with ritualized symbolism, perceived to be holy, to adorn the account with, so to summon a believed purity of foretelling, then this would be apocalyptic literature, and the stories would have to be shown to not conflict with the attributes of apocalyptic literature of the time.

If the last was the case, and Jesus never-the-less did not exist, then it would change nothing about the texts in this regard.

It doesn't prove Jesus did or did not exist if we do not classify these texts as contemporary fiction, and the amount of work that is required to approach the matter from this angle adds more work to the process than it removes.

To make this claim, we would have to switch from requesting proof of a positive, to proving a negative and a positive.
We would have to prove that literary anthropology is wrong (damn them all we want; it would eventually come up and be pointed to as a giant hole in the proposition) and then we would have to prove that this implies that Jesus did not exist. At the same time, to prove that this is contemporary fiction would require proving that Jesus did not exist.

That's more work than just sitting back and stating that there's not enough material evidence to rest on the assertion that Jesus existed.

I'm not sure why these texts must be contemporary fiction, when they don't bear the markings of such, but do compare to known works of the era, and do not inherently imply Jesus' historicity in being classed as the type of literature in which they are already classed as; apocalyptic literature.

 

[IanS]

I am sorry you think my arguments are utterly ridiculous. That is a very harsh judgement indeed. However I am at a loss to know how you can believe I am pursuing a personal vendetta against you, far less a "rampant" one. I am simply in disagreement with your ideas.

Craig - the reason it's ridiculous to suggest that the gospel writers had eye-witnesses to the execution of Jesus, is because (amongst other reasons) that is exactly the same as simply proposing that Jesus existed. It's just a way of trying to claim that Jesus existed, whilst having zero evidence.

On the other hand, what I have explained to you is that even before the gospels were written, Christians already knew of Paul’s preaching circa.30-36AD, and where his very early letters already said that Jesus had been executed, and gave a strong impression that the execution was dated around 30-36AD with Pilate named as the acting governor.

If you are being honest with yourself on this point, then you really do have to accept that as far as anynone knows, Paul’s preaching and his written letters already contained all the necessary information about the crucifixion long before the extant copies of any gospels.

 

[Craig B]

Craig - the reason it's ridiculous to suggest that the gospel writers had eye-witnesses to the execution of Jesus, is because (amongst other reasons) that is exactly the same as simply proposing that Jesus existed. It's just a way of trying to claim that Jesus existed, whilst having zero evidence.

On the other hand, what I have explained to you is that even before the gospels were written, Christians already knew of Paul’s preaching circa.30-36AD, and where his very early letters already said that Jesus had been executed, and gave a strong impression that the execution was dated around 30-36AD with Pilate named as the acting governor.

If you are being honest with yourself on this point, then you really do have to accept that as far as anynone knows, Paul’s preaching and his written letters already contained all the necessary information about the crucifixion long before the extant copies of any gospels.

I do not accept what you say, but if it is true, then Paul is a source of information about Pilate's execution of Jesus. If Paul states that Pilate executed Jesus, then we have a further attestation. My point is that the gospel writers didn't need this, as such a datum was capable of being transmitted to them by Jesus' surviving companions and their subsequent disciples, and it is in addition intrinsically probable. My contention is not that Paul contained all the necessary information (please give me the relevant verses, by the way) but that in all probability reality (a good "source" in itself) contained that information.

 

[IanS]

IanS while your argument on primary evidence is solid it ignores secondary evidence mainly Irenaeus' Against Heresies and Demonstration (both c180 CE):


"But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar... (Against Heresies 1:27:2)

"For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him (ie Jesus) to be crucified." (Demonstration (74))

Ignoring the anachronistic nature of the Demonstration passage (wrong Herod and wrong Caesar) we see that Pontius Pilate being a key part of Jesus ministry and crucifixion was firmly established in the sect Irenaeus belonged to by c180 CE so any search for where the idea came from must focus on the period between no later then 37 CE (Paul conversion) and c180 CE

The fact that Irenaeus views (Jesus being 50+ years old when crucified and it being done under Claudius being the two of the biggies) conflicted with known 3rd to 4th century theological doctrine IMHO indicates these passages are genuine Irenaeus and not some later Christian tampering.

I don’t mention writers like Irenaeus for the simple reason that there really can be no evidential value in hearsay writing from people who were not even born at the time of the events.

Their later writing is unnecessary anyway. Because the story of Pilate and the execution was already in circulation from a very early date in the preaching and writing of Paul.

 

[eight bits]

Jayson

I seem to have embraced a tar baby. We disagree, we have always disagreed, and there is no lively prospect that we shall ever cease to disagree. What more is there to understand in this?

The examples of mythological poetics regarding the vast reaches of the uncharted lands of the world aren't classed as contemporary fictional literature.

What Plutarch is saying is that there is no bright and shining line for his literary production purposes between what you call "mythological poetics" and history. He will use both to make his points. In fact, his work from which I quoted spans a range from the frankly mythological Theseus to Galba and Otho, real men who ruled during Plutarch's life.

It is a fact, upon which money has changed hands throughout that two millemnnium interval, that prose which uses either spatial or temporal distancing techniques will enjoy a high degree of reader acceptance as a believable story, despite being loaded with magical content. Space and time are freely substitutable distancing devices to achieve this effect. This fact of craftwork was known to a craftsman of the required time and culture, and was discussed by him.

Nor was Plutarch alone. Another story in Pliny's famous "ghost story" letter concerns the encounter of a named near-contemporary with a beautiful giant soothsaying goddess. Time? The recent past. Place? Exotic Africa. Did it happen? Give me a break.

http://www.vroma.org/~hwalker/Pliny/Pliny07-27-E.html

You are entitled to prune the hypothesis space however you like to arrive at your own estimate of the propsects for a historical Jesus. However, I will be not be browbeaten by an unfounded claim that an anthropologist knows more about literary production than an elite practitioner from the time and place being discussed.

It is a strong fact claim that a human being of the First Century could not knowingly, or with indifference to veridical rigor, or with the intent of conveying a "higher truth," write prose which asserts literal falsehoods. Plutarch is at peace with himself that he has done so. Moreover, he expects his reader to accept the resulting fact-myth cocktail as edifying.

An early proponent asserts Mark displays crucial artisitic license, and was long known to have done so. Unlike Plutarch, Mark does not explain what his intentions were. Fiction, then or now, does not imply the necessary intention to deceive, although deception may be the effect anyway. All this variety of serious possibility is fair grist for my mill.

Whatever Plutarch can do, Mark can do. Whatever Pliny can do, Mark can do. As a result, my hypothesis space includes that Mark may have knowingly composed fiction.

 

[Craig B]

... Their later writing is unnecessary anyway. Because the story of Pilate and the execution was already in circulation from a very early date in the preaching and writing of Paul.

May I renew my request that you cite the passages you have in mind, so that they can be discussed if necessary?

 

[maximara]

I don’t mention writers like Irenaeus for the simple reason that there really can be no evidential value in hearsay writing from people who were not even born at the time of the events.

But that is not how I am using Irenaeus. I am using him to show the ideas and Gospels (in some form) were existent c180 CE.

Their later writing is unnecessary anyway. Because the story of Pilate and the execution was already in circulation from a very early date in the preaching and writing of Paul.

Actually we don't know that. The majority of modern scholarship says that First Timothy, Second Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul and are late 1st century to mid 2nd century creations ie later then the Gospels. (Collins, Raymond F. (2004) 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 4 ISBN 0-664-22247-1)

This means that the idea that Pilate was involved with the crucifixion of Jesus came after Paul's supposed martyrdom c67 and before the writing of the first Gospel, Mark sometime after 70 CE...we don't when and some have suggested as late as 85 CE for it.

 

[Belz...]

Actually we don't know that. The majority of modern scholarship says that First Timothy, Second Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul and are late 1st century to mid 2nd century creations ie later then the Gospels.

What are the dates of the Gospels, and how did we determine them ?

 

[davefoc]

...

This means that the idea that Pilate was involved with the crucifixion of Jesus came after Paul's supposed martyrdom c67 and before the writing of the first Gospel, Mark sometime after 70 CE...we don't when and some have suggested as late as 85 CE for it.

This is an interesting point and it wouldn't surprise me that the association of the crucifixion with Pilate didn't begin until around the time Mark was written. But we can't know that can we? Is there a basis to rule out the possibility of an earlier oral tradition making it in to Mark?

FWIW, I lean to the idea that Mark's fiction was a major element in the transitioning the nascent Christianity from a small movement that few had heard of to a religion of more general appeal. I think Mark could get away with writing fiction about the HJ because before him very few details were circulating about the life of the HJ so there wasn't any information available to contradict his creation. Still, I don't see how a preexisting oral source for any aspect of his story can be ruled out.

 

[IanS]

I do not accept what you say, but if it is true, then Paul is a source of information about Pilate's execution of Jesus. If Paul states that Pilate executed Jesus, then we have a further attestation. My point is that the gospel writers didn't need this, as such a datum was capable of being transmitted to them by Jesus' surviving companions and their subsequent disciples, and it is in addition intrinsically probable. My contention is not that Paul contained all the necessary information (please give me the relevant verses, by the way) but that in all probability reality (a good "source" in itself) contained that information.

Craig - you have already had the relevant sources, and their full references!

Please look again at my posts on the previous page where you will find full references and even quotes from 3 of Paul’s letters (not one, but three!), where Paul had described at a very early date his vision of the risen Jesus, telling everyone (preaching it) that Jesus had risen on the third day. And in his letter 1-Timothy, also telling people that Pilate had heard a ”good confession” from Jesus before the execution.

So please do not tell me again (it’s now about 4 times already!) that you have not had references. Because you most certainly have.

And please do not tell me that a careful reading of Paul’s letter describing his vision of Jesus does not literally or certainly claim that his vision was also on that same “3rd day”, because we have been through all of that too over the past few pages. The point on that (for the 4th or 5th time), is that readers of those letters in the first century, and certainly listeners hearing a verbally preached version of what had been said by Paul, could very easily and very obviously have understood it to mean that Paul who was one day on the road to Damascus between 30-36AD saw a vision of Jesus who had risen on the 3rd day after his crucifixion. That is very obvious.

Also whilst we now regard 1-Timothy as one of the “fake” letters, to people hearing or reading that preaching of 1-Timothy in the 2nd century, they would naturally understand that Pilate had been the official in charge at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion.

To say that instead of that fully and completely referenced early writing from Paul, you would prefer instead to invent the idea that if Jesus existed then there must have been eye-witnesses to his execution and hence when the gospels say that Pilate executed Jesus, that must be because the gospel authors had heard it from those eye-witnesses, is so patently absurd … and if it did not sound like an insult I would say it was beneath you and rather sad that you can believe such obviously illogical reasoning (perhaps you are letting religious faith colour your judgement here?).