What counts as a historical Jesus?

[IanS]

The discussion here is interesting in so far as it shows a different approach by those convinced of an HJ, general historical research and those with a more scientific background.

I think that's probably true. And it's something I've noticed in other threads here that deal with aspects of religious belief.

It's probably one of the factors that keeps leading to posters failing to understand one-another and getting hot under the collar about it ...

... it's supposed to be a constructive respectful discussion guys ... it's not a battle for who can "win" a war of words.

 

[Belz...]

I scare quote the word because in this context it means it is not a question that can lead to any further knowledge.

I think that's an important point to make. I don't see why history is held to different standards than science. If we don't have anywhere near a good amount of evidence for a claim, we simply shouldn't reach a conclusion, tentative or otherwise. It doesn't help us understand history by making stuff up just because we feel it's more likely. Furthermore, if someone wants to argue that "we can't get anywhere" without reaching said conclusions, as Piggy said at some point in this thread, I'd like to point out that any further analysis of related events, based in part or wholly on this tentative conclusion, is bound to be even more speculative, so what's the use ?

 

[H'ethetheth]

A very preliminary description of what I think some of that evidence might consist of is:

Opinion of experts

[...]

Paul's description of meeting with people that knew the HJ

[...]

There is some truth about an HJ that can be ascertained in the Gospels

[...]

I will try to out-succinct you and propose, from what I've learned from this thread and previous threads:

The evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth is that a handful of the implications of the huge collection of fairy tales about him make more sense if one assumes there was a natural person behind it all.

Now, how this amounts to things like...

The notion that a historical Jesus is controversial is as valid as the notion that there are genuine controversies over whether evolution is real. Nobody who is familiar with the actual scholarship believes there's any controversy at all.

...I'm not sure.

 

[Craig B]

I will try to out-succinct you and propose, from what I've learned from this thread and previous threads:

The evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth is that a handful of the implications of the huge collection of fairy tales about him make more sense if one assumes there was a natural person behind it all.

Yes, essentially that is a valid statement, I think. My main opposition is to the positive mythicists who claim that there was a cult of a non-human Jeshua figure in the period BCE and that Paul never believed that Jesus had lived recently on earth and so on. I don't think such theorists have proved their case.

So we have a choice: the Jesus referred to in the gospels and Acts, was he

- a complete hallucination based on nothing at all?
- a conflation of real Jesus figures with no central definable core figure?
- a real but obscure person to whom all manner of supernatural stories have been attached?

The probability it seems to me is weighted towards the third of these hypotheses. I am the more inclined towards this because as the stories progress from Mark to John the Jesus figure becomes more and more grandiose and godlike, albeit of course that Mark already has plenty of obviously mythical material.

Piggy's comparison of the certainty of HJ with that of the theory of evolution seems a little exaggerated to me. Perhaps Dawkins was nearer the mark in stating merely that the theory of Jesus' non existence is not widely supported.

 

[Belz...]

- a complete hallucination based on nothing at all?

I'm not sure this is something anyone is proposing; at least not here. I think it should be something like "A sincere belief that a mythical, divine character was actually flesh and blood."

I'd also like to say that I don't think anyone here has expressed any amount of certainty towards any possibility except Piggy and Stone.

Again: didn't the Spartan kings believe they were actual descendants of Herakles ?

 

[gsmonks]

I can't help but have noticed several pieces of fraudulent history in this thread, some of which still stinks up otherwise reputable history books.

An example of which is this: the Romans were very tolerant of non-Roman religious beliefs and practices. The stories of both Jews and Christians we're all familiar with, and which are still touted as being factual, are after-the-fact fabrications.

According to the historical record, the Christians were notorious disturbers of the peace, and were notorious for interfering with both Roman religion and customs as well as that of other people's customs and religions.

When the Christians eventually provoked everyone to the point where the Romans were sick of them, and sick of receiving complaints about them, the authorities cracked down.

The Christians immediately began their little campaign of disinformation, referring to the Romans as tyrants and aggressors, and referring to the odd offender being put to death as "martyrs".

What the Christians really were was an unruly gang of disruptive kooks. This is an important point because it has been the backbone of the Christian cult from the very beginning. The acts of disinformation, lying, social disruption, general contentiousness and so on have all been part of the Christian cult since the very beginning.

In terms of lying, the early well-organised Christian leaders advocated lying as a means to advancing their cult. Dishonesty is pervasive in the Christian cult and always has been.

That the Christian cult is nasty and disagreeable at its core is seen in the nasty, disagreeable talk and behaviour of its elders and members. From the beginning Christianity has been nasty and disagreeable towards non-Christians. I live in the Canadian version of the Bible Belt, and the local Christians are nasty, disagreeable people towards non-believers, just as they are in the US and pretty much everywhere else.

They also keep their own in "line" by being nasty and disagreeable, using nasty, disagreeable peer-pressure.

Their talk of "love" and "tolerance" is a matter of being two-faced, if not an outright lie. Their talk of "love" and "tolerance" ends at the mouth and disappears altogether in practice.

For example, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, there is a building called the Union Gospel Mission. In it, Christian-cult types do "good works", namely feeding the destitute. However, there is zero "tolerance" and "altruism" at work here. The destitute are deemed to be "sinful wretches", and must sit through much berating and preaching before they finally get to eat.

A good many Christian-cult "good works" are a matter of preying upon poor people. Food, shelter and clothing are used as a lure to get at hapless people who have no other choice.

And so it goes.

 

[Craig B]

... Again: didn't the Spartan kings believe they were actual descendants of Herakles ?

Did they claim that Herakles had lived recently on earth and that they had met his brother?

 

[gsmonks]

Did they claim that Herakles had lived recently on earth and that they had met his brother?

No, it was always a vague matter shrouded in myth, chewed by a monkey.

 

[Craig B]

No, it was always a vague matter shrouded in myth, chewed by a monkey.

The Jesus story has a greater immediacy and it is located within the known recent political environment of the places in which it circulated.

 

[maximara]

Yes, essentially that is a valid statement, I think. My main opposition is to the positive mythicists who claim that there was a cult of a non-human Jeshua figure in the period BCE and that Paul never believed that Jesus had lived recently on earth and so on. I don't think such theorists have proved their case.

So we have a choice: the Jesus referred to in the gospels and Acts, was he

- a complete hallucination based on nothing at all?
- a conflation of real Jesus figures with no central definable core figure?
- a real but obscure person to whom all manner of supernatural stories have been attached?

The probability it seems to me is weighted towards the third of these hypotheses. I am the more inclined towards this because as the stories progress from Mark to John the Jesus figure becomes more and more grandiose and godlike, albeit of course that Mark already has plenty of obviously mythical material.

Piggy's comparison of the certainty of HJ with that of the theory of evolution seems a little exaggerated to me. Perhaps Dawkins was nearer the mark in stating merely that the theory of Jesus' non existence is not widely supported.

From the stand point of possibility John Frum shows the "a complete hallucination based on nothing at all" option is not as off the wall as the apologists make it. If the cult's claim of being founded in 1931 ala vision is true then it was missed by the officials for 9 years until a native took up the name "John Frum" and galvanized the movement into action in 1940. But a century of no one steeping into the role? Unlikely.


The "a real but obscure person to whom all manner of supernatural stories have been attached" option has one huge logical problem.

Again if we are to take the stories about Paul seriously there had to be enough Christians for him to persecute through three Roman provinces up to his conversion before 37 CE. But if Jesus was "obscure" which logically meant he had few followers just who was Paul persecuting?

Logically the "conflation of real Jesus figures with no central definable core figure" is the one that makes the most sense.

 

[IanS]

- a complete hallucination based on nothing at all?
.

Not that anyone here has claimed "a complete hallucination", but even if Jesus was entirely mythical, the biblical description of him was not based on "nothing at all" ... whatever his existence or non-existence, in any form at all, the biblical stories of Jesus were quite clearly taken from the ancient OT writing.

That's one of the few things that does appear to be a known fact here.

 

[Craig B]

Not that anyone here has claimed "a complete hallucination", but even if Jesus was entirely mythical, the biblical description of him was not based on "nothing at all" ... whatever his existence or non-existence, in any form at all, the biblical stories of Jesus were quite clearly taken from the ancient OT writing.

That's one of the few things that does appear to be a known fact here.

Yes you're right, and it's known to me too. I mean the proposition that the name and person and historical location of the "Nazarene" have absolutely no reality whatsoever, and (as you say) are founded on presuppositions created by religious belief, and not on any person or group of living people. "Nothing at all" meaning no living being at all.

 

[IanS]

Yes you're right, and it's known to me too. I mean the proposition that the name and person and historical location of the "Nazarene" have absolutely no reality whatsoever, and (as you say) are founded on presuppositions created by religious belief, and not on any person or group of living people. "Nothing at all" meaning no living being at all.

I think we discussed before how the later gospel writers may have got the idea of Jesus coming from Nazareth, from a simple misunderstanding in translations of the ancient Hebrew OT word Nazirite - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite. Remember, that’s where the gospels writers (and Paul) were looking for their stories about what Jesus said and did.

 

[Craig B]

I think we discussed before how the later gospel writers may have got the idea of Jesus coming from Nazareth, from a simple misunderstanding in translations of the ancient Hebrew OT word Nazirite

And of course that's why I put "Nazarene" in inverted commas. Samoson was a Nazirite.

 

[maximara]

The Jesus story has a greater immediacy and it is located within the known recent political environment of the places in which it circulated.

So? The same is true of the John Henry ballad (at least as early as 1915) but there is debate regarding if he was in 1869 West Virgina or September 20, 1887 Alabama.

If we use the John Henry ballad as a base line then Paul's vagueness regarding Jesus makes sense if all he is going on is oral tradition. Throw in Paul's apparent desire to push the Jesus inside his own head then whatever Jesus actually existed the reason for Paul's vagueness become clear.

But details about Jesus have to wait until 70-85 CE and we are not sure of that date. The best thing outside of Paul is the Gospel of Thomas (40 140 CE) which as Crossan puts it is basically "Jesus the Talking head" Gospel ("it is the living Jesus as scripture")

 

[Stone]

Seriously? It's like Jasonr never went over this exhaustively just a few pages back. Yes, but has anyone ever suggested that Arthur Conan-Doyle believed Sherlock Holmes was a real person?

When will historicists get it through their heads that a-historicists are NOT in this for the give-and-take of further elucidation from the likes of Jayson. Absolutely, Jayson duly submitted here that it is anachronistic to view any account prior to the 6th century that depicts the milieu of the time in which it's written as anything other than an account by its author of something the author believes did happen. But that has nothing to do with what a-historicists are in this for, once a Jayson or a Piggy have momentarily left a thread: AT THAT POINT, A-HISTORICISTS SIMPLY REPEAT WHAT THEY'VE AAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLWAYS SAID --

REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY HISTORICIST HAS BOTHERED TO CLARIFY.

A-historicists are here to repeat their points again and again, so long as no one is around to challenge them.

THAT IS THEIR CALLING.

If you doubt that, look at this huge thread here --

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219.html

Once the more scholarly and thorough historicists left that thread, the remaining mythers went right back to their previous anachronistic and just plain ignorant assertions of the start of that huge thread, AS IF NONE OF THE MORE SCHOLARLY POSTERS HAD EVER CONTRIBUTED OR EVEN EXCHANGED TWO WORDS WITH ANY OF THE MYTHERS.

Jayson is no longer around, buddy. Get used to it. That means that ignorant anachronistic idiocies about Sherlock Holmes will once more pop up here ad nauseum AS THOUGH JAYSON HAS NEVER BEEN AROUND HERE AT ALL. You historicists will learn that about the a-historicists sooner or later here, if you stick around long enough.

Answer this simple question: Have you ever seen any a-historicist or myther, once becoming an a-historicist or myther, revise any single aspect in their stance? Any aspect at all? I haven't -- ever. Have you? I bet you haven't. And you wonder why these guys give me the creeps. They are bots, impervious to the least change in their screed.

Stone

 

[Belz...]

Did they claim that Herakles had lived recently on earth and that they had met his brother?

Seriously, have you missed the entire thread ? We've already discussed the "brother" reference.

No one in any of the Christian writings makes any claim to being a witness, nor a convincing case of meeting anyone who did.

My point is that claiming that the person in question was real, recent or otherwise, is not evidence that this person was real.

 

[Stone]

Seriously, have you missed the entire thread ?

YOU have missed the entire thread. Any accounts in contemporary settings are presented by an author as historical until the 6th century. Go back and tackle Jayson's points one by one if that is inconvenient for you. Don't just ignore his points as though he never submitted any of his expertise here at all. ADDRESS THEM point by point if you don't like them. To pretend instead that they weren't submitted here at all is the act of a bot or a spammer. I wonder there's anything left at all of that tired old axe of yours.

Stone

 

[IanS]

When will historicists get it through their heads that a-historicists are NOT in this for the give-and-take of further elucidation from the likes of Jayson. Absolutely, Jayson duly submitted here that it is anachronistic to view any account prior to the 6th century that depicts the milieu of the time in which it's written as anything other than an account by its author of something the author believes did happen. But that has nothing to do with what a-historicists are in this for, once a Jayson or a Piggy have momentarily left a thread: AT THAT POINT, A-HISTORICISTS SIMPLY REPEAT WHAT THEY'VE AAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLWAYS SAID --

REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY HISTORICIST HAS BOTHERED TO CLARIFY.


Stone

Piggy has left? I didn't notice that ... oh, well.

As far as Jayson saying anything to the effect that people at the time of Jesus always believed what they were writing - as I have pointed out a number of times, authors like Helms have shown how the stories of what Jesus said and did, actually come from what was written centuries before in the OT.

Did the evangelising preachers like Paul and the gospel writers actually believe their interpretations of OT passages were literally real events acted out by a messiah who none of them knew? Probably they did. This was a time when, as we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls, fanatical religious Jews in that region interpreted their imagination and visionary concepts of a long awaited god-given messiah, as real happenings fulfilling the ancient words of the OT.

They preached that the faithful must believe that, as being gods fulfilment of the inerrancy of the OT.

To that extent, they probably had no concept of any difference between fact and fiction where their fanatical religious beliefs were concerned.

 

[davefoc]

YOU have missed the entire thread. Any accounts in contemporary settings are presented by an author as historical until the 6th century. Go back and tackle Jayson's points one by one if that is inconvenient for you. Don't just ignore his points as though he never submitted any of his expertise here at all. ADDRESS THEM point by point if you don't like them. To pretend instead that they weren't submitted here at all is the act of a bot or a spammer. I wonder there's anything left at all of that tired old axe of yours.

Stone

Is this in reference to JaysonR's claim that fiction similar to modern contemporary fiction in which the characters are presented as fictional, in a story that is represented as fictional, and that takes place in a time roughly contemporary to the author didn't exist as early as the first century?

If that is what you are referring to, do you have any thoughts about the various pieces of fiction that seemed to provide counter examples to JaysonR's claim. I summarized some of them in an earlier post:

...
There seem to be some exceptions that have been put forth and I am not sure why they don't falsify JaysonR's claim.

Aesops fables - Don't count because they're about animals?
Classic Greek Plays - Don't count because the main characters were always Gods or people that were otherwise believed to have existed?
Terence's plays - Not sure why they don't count. The Wikipedia summary of Andria certainly makes it sound like it's a completely fictional work.
Plutarch - Not sure I understood why eight bits brought this up as a counter example. It seems like he wrote fiction about real people. [eight bits did clarify his view about this in a subsequent post]
Satyricon - Not sure why this doesn't count. It seems like it is a complete work of fiction, intended to be taken as a work of fiction set roughly in the time of the author.
...

Regardless of whether there are exceptions or not, if I haven't completely misunderstood JaysonR's claim with regard to this, the issue seems to be moot with regard to this thread. Nobody participating in this thread has claimed that the Gospels were written to be read as fiction or that the author intended the reader to view any of the characters in the Gospels as other than real people who existed or had existed. In this thread, the opposite situation seems to be the case, people that have commented about this have stated that they believe the author of Mark intended his work to be perceived as non-fiction.

JaysonR seemed to agree the issue was moot with regard to this thread when he wrote:

We would now have to prove a case to the historical society as well as the literary anthropology society; rather than just the historical society.

This is even more difficult considering Davefoc's noted point [...it seems very likely that Mark intended his audience to believe that an HJ existed because that was the point of what he wrote.]; the text certainly seems convinced that Jesus existed and doesn't appear to be talking about Jesus as a form of entertainment.