-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
What counts as a historical Jesus?
- Thread starter Humes fork
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus
- Status
The real answers would probably be found in the Book of Judas Iscariot
Say what? None exists? How come
You mean this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
Very nice work on supplying me with this info. Could you please read all of it now and supply me with the answers I seek as well?
At least that seems to be a common thing to ask on this forum. I claim Biblical Jesus was a real PERSON, even if his name might have gotten spelled wrong here and there.
Just pointing out that in fact the Gospel of Judas Iscariot does exist. As far as the gnostics were concerned, Judas was a hero because without him there would be no crucifixion, resurrection or salvation. In this gospel Judas betrays Jesus because Jesus tells him to.
I too think Jesus was a real person, but I think the picture of him in the gospels is a Romantic Hellenised portrait sanitised for Roman consumption.
If Jesus was an Apocalyptic preacher in 1st century Palestine, that means he was anti-Roman, anti-Herodian and a Jewish Fundamentalist ultra-nationalist, not some peacenik Hippie. He was anti-establishment like those Survivalist types; more like Tim McVeigh than John Lennon...
Eight, I think you better go find better source material because what you said is basically wrong:
The proper references are Federal Rules of Evidence ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY.
and
Military commissions
To save you some slogging here are summations:
"The Federal Rules of Evidence generally govern civil and criminal proceedings in the courts of the United States and proceedings before U.S. Bankruptcy judges and U.S. magistrates, to the extent and with the exceptions stated in the rules." (Federal Rules of Evidence)
"Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination:
(1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful.
(2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand.
(3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify.
In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy."
"Hearsay evidence is inadmissible"
"Unless, the witness is unavailable, and then only with notice to the opposing party, and only if it is material, probative, reliable and the interests of justice will be served by admission" (Military Commission)
Court Marshall and Article III courts have "Unless the witness is unavailable, and then only if it falls within one of approximately 25 exceptions, including a “catch-all” exception and meets other constitutional requirements"
Ie a more limited version of Federal Rules of Evidence's Rule 804!
So civil court follow the same rules as criminal courts (or at least are supposed to) and the military courts add even more restrictions.
---
Back to evidence for Jesus in a legal setting we have the issue of Chain of custody which roughly equates to provenance in archeology. As mentioned before the primary provenance is a total disaster and the secondary provenance is not much better and any inferred (ie Mark talks about the destruction of the temple so odds is it was written after 70 CE) gives us useless ranges.
Paul: talking about visions so you have no idea how much is the flesh and blood Jesus and the one in his head and he doesn't give you any real details (actual name of Jesus parents, the name of the town he born, etc) in any case. Out he goes on his ear.
Gospels: only know they were most likely written between 70-180 CE with evidence that at least Mark and "Luke" were written c 140 CE. No idea who wrote them. Out they go.
Josephus: The Testimonium Flavianum has been tampered with and every expert has his own idea what (if any of it) is genuine and the only supporting document is some 500 years after the tampering is thought o have happened. Out it goes.
The James Passage is in conflict with the majority of other accounts in terms of time (62 CE vs 69 CE) and cause of death (stoning vs being thrown from the temple, being stoned, and being clubbed to death by passing laundrymen...and will the defense please stop making clean death jokes. Arthus indeed) Now where oh yes. So this seems to the court this is an attempt to make another James also stoned to death to appear to be the brother of Jesus Christ and therefore useless. Out it goes.
Per John Frum example already in evidence everything else is too old to be considered evidence.
Last edited:
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Belz
My belief that Paul had dreams about Jesus is based on hearsay: texts that are offered as copies stemming from his supposed first-hand reports of his mental state in letters. And what all of that contributes to my opinion about the existence of Jesus is my guess whether Paul is talking about his dream character as being based on a person whom the dreamer accepts as real (Tia Carrere has been mentioned nearby in this regard), or as an ungrounded archetypal sort of dream character (a reasonable enough interpretation of "Smokin' Hot Lady" or "The Son of God.")
I believe that I can form an uncertain opinion about that based largely on the hearsay in hand. Whether I think Paul is talking about some man he thought was real, or somebody who existed only in his dreams, I have used hearsay as evidence. It is not even an unusual thing to do, and in thinking about historical questions, it is practically inevitable.
max
Evidence, by its nature, varies in weight. The issue was whether hearsay is evidence at all. Reporting seeing somebody in a dream, as such, isn't hearsay anyway. But, fine.
My belief that Paul had dreams about Jesus is based on hearsay: texts that are offered as copies stemming from his supposed first-hand reports of his mental state in letters. And what all of that contributes to my opinion about the existence of Jesus is my guess whether Paul is talking about his dream character as being based on a person whom the dreamer accepts as real (Tia Carrere has been mentioned nearby in this regard), or as an ungrounded archetypal sort of dream character (a reasonable enough interpretation of "Smokin' Hot Lady" or "The Son of God.")
I believe that I can form an uncertain opinion about that based largely on the hearsay in hand. Whether I think Paul is talking about some man he thought was real, or somebody who existed only in his dreams, I have used hearsay as evidence. It is not even an unusual thing to do, and in thinking about historical questions, it is practically inevitable.
max
Sound it out, max. You know this word. You can get it.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
That's besides my general point: hearsay isn't as good as discovering, say, the body of the man.
But to answer your question, I would like some contemporary account of his life, which would switch me from a 60-70% guy to a 80-90% one.
Belz...
Fiend God
Well, it is evidence, just very weak. But was that really the issue ? I thought you said:
This is what I was addressing. You included hearsay in the set of things that are evidence, which I did not question. Please do not move the goalposts.
Spectral evidence (which is what we are talking about here) was so maligned after the Salem Witch trials (see Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating Men, Witchcrafts, Infallible Proofs of Guilt in Such as are Accused With That Crime (Boston: Benjamin Harris, 1693) that I find it hard to accept that any US court after that point would accept it.
You ignored the relevant parts: "material, probative, reliable and the interests of justice will be served by admission"
Also you have must meet "one of approximately 25 exceptions, including a “catch-all” exception and meets other constitutional requirements"
There is nothing that shows Paul's hearsay testimony is reliable so out it goes.
Last edited:
The only account a person who could be contemporary would be Paul and even he writes decades after the events.
Paul gives no real details to the name of Jesus parents, how long he preached, the name of the person who crucified him, or anything that we can really use to put him in a specific time or place.
While we are on that point if the Gospels were around when is normally claimed why didn't Josephus use them to give ups more regarding Jesus. We get more on Simon of Peraea and Athronges then we get on Jesus.
Belz...
Fiend God
maximara said:
I like the sound of that.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Belz
That helps? Well, no. What would help is that is on the lid of the ossuary it said "Herein are the bones of the Jesus whom Paul of Tarsus dreamt about." And is that not an unsworn statement made outside of court? It is, unless we also fantasize that there's the intact seal of a Roman notary securing the lid to the box. That isn't going to happen.
max
Unless was a harder voabulary word for you than I thought. Oh well, Paul's purported testimony isn't being offered to a United States court. We never reach the question of its admissibility in a court proceeding.
Whether it is plain-language evidence, however, has long since been settled. Posters on both sides have relied upon it to volunteer answers, some saying probably yes and others saying probably no, about whether Paul's Jesus was only a dream figure.
An observation which contributes to the formation or evolution of an opinion; that's what evidence is. It has already happened, max. Try to shoot somebody besides the messenger.
Compared with what that is actually available to us for the on-topic problems?
I think that knowing only that one obervation is hearsay and another is not doesn't determine the relative bearing of the two observations. There has been no change in my position about that, the same for years.
We don't have the body of the man. And what if we did find it? Find what, specifically? Best case, we'd have an ossuary with bones inside, of a middle-aged First Century man, maybe somebody who likely grew up in Galilee, based on mineral compositon or something.
That helps? Well, no. What would help is that is on the lid of the ossuary it said "Herein are the bones of the Jesus whom Paul of Tarsus dreamt about." And is that not an unsworn statement made outside of court? It is, unless we also fantasize that there's the intact seal of a Roman notary securing the lid to the box. That isn't going to happen.
The location of the goalposts seems to be the subject of hearsay. If what you're saying is that you and I are now more nearly in agreement, compared with a different position that has been advanced by other posters, then being closer together is good, not anything to complain about.
max
Unless was a harder voabulary word for you than I thought. Oh well, Paul's purported testimony isn't being offered to a United States court. We never reach the question of its admissibility in a court proceeding.
Whether it is plain-language evidence, however, has long since been settled. Posters on both sides have relied upon it to volunteer answers, some saying probably yes and others saying probably no, about whether Paul's Jesus was only a dream figure.
An observation which contributes to the formation or evolution of an opinion; that's what evidence is. It has already happened, max. Try to shoot somebody besides the messenger.
Of course no single piece of archaeological evidence would “confirm” a HJ in the sense of being anything like a proof. Though a tomb or grave with skeletal remains might be pretty useful.
So too would be any contemporary records of Jesus from a primary source other than the biblical writing itself. Eg, it would be more convincing if there existed genuine contemporary Roman records confirming that Jesus had been judged and executed at a particular date and place etc.
But afaik, there is no genuine contemporary corroboration like that for the existence of Jesus.
In the case of famous rulers of that time, eg Roman emperors, there are not just single isolated artefacts for each, but many thousands of pieces of physical evidence. It’s the entirety and diversity of that sort of evidence which becomes convincing. Eg, everything from stone inscriptions on arches, to palaces and entire cities, to coins, to the remains of very extensive armies across foreign lands etc. etc.
Now you may say that Jesus was not well known enough for any of that. Fine, but that hardly helps in the quest for evidence then, does it! Ie, it’s not an argument in favour of Jesus just to say, as many people do, that we should not expect much if any such evidence of Jesus.
In any other situation (other than the messianic Son of God), you might accept the biblical writing as evidence that a preacher named Jesus could quite easily have existed at that time. After all, we do believe there were thousands of such street preachers in biblical times. But the problem with this particular one is -
1. The stories about what witnesses say Jesus said and did, can often be traced back to statements written hundreds of years earlier in the OT.
2. None of the people who wrote about Jesus, ever met him. They all believed Jesus had died at some earlier time.
3. The biblical authors who wrote about him all appear to be themselves anonymous (expect perhaps, whoever wrote Paul‘s Letters?)
4. None of the anonymous people who wrote about him, name any sources for their stories. So the entire thing is anonymous and unconfirmed outside it’s own writing.
5. The basic nature of Jesus is that of a dying and rising god. Which is something people in that region had surely been exposed to as a belief system coming from earlier Greek influences which predominated in the region at that time.
6. Although first century dates are often claimed for the four gospels and for Paul’s letters, we do not actually have any relatively complete and fully readable versions of those things until about the 4th century onwards. Before that, all that exists are some fragments of various writing. That is really too late, ie too long after the believed events, for us to be confident about it’s veracity.
7. The non-biblical historical writing of period barely makes any mention of Jesus. But where authors like Josephus and Tacitus do make very brief mention of Jesus, it‘s only presented as anonymous hearsay which comes to us not from those authors themselves, but instead from Christian copyists writing 1000 years after Josephus and Tacitus and the rest had all died! As reliable evidence, that is a complete non-starter.
8. It would hardly be any great surprise if the Jesus story turned out to be only mythical, because throughout all of history, from long before Jesus and right up to the present day, religious fanatics have always claimed to witness all manner of miracles and miraculous figures. There must have been many millions of such claims since Jews in that region began writing their OT and NT. So it would hardly be a surprise if a supernatural but un-evidenced Jesus turned out to be one of the many millions of mistaken faith beliefs.
Those are the sort reasons why the Jesus story is suspicious.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
You are moving the goalposts again. Let me remind you of the statement, AGAIN, that you made, which I had issue with:
I have bolded the relevant part. Yes, by its nature, hearsay is weaker than other forms of evidence.
You don't think that someone telling you "I heard X murdered Y" is weaker than finding a bloody knife with Y's DNA on it in X's drawer ?
Irrelevant. The body would be stronger evidence than hearsay.
Then we can't draw conclusions.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Belz
Martha calls the motel. Why? George said he will take care of it. Martha has her own memory and a sworn eyewitness account that the billing is in error. The billing itself is hearsay (it is a business record). Well, silly Martha, not blessed with the knowledge that, by its nature, hearsay is weaker than the other forms of evidence which she has, she calls the motel anyway.
The clerk, whose first day of work it is, makes an inquiry in the motel's automated billing system, and tells Martha, over the phone, that the room was occupied from 1 in the afternoon until 6:30 that night, when the bill, for a room and dine-in service for two, was settled with the credit card in question. The clerk's saying so is hearsay. He offers to send her a printout of the transaction record, which is also hearsay, another business record....
You either see where this story is going, or you don't. If you don't, then you might profitably start paying less attention to the goalposts, and more attention to the ball.
George and Martha are a married couple. Martha is going over the couple's credit card bill, and sees a charge for a one-night motel stay at a local hostelry. She asks George about it. George swears on his mother's grave that he didn't stay at this motel ever, it must be a mistake. He says he will clear it up.
Martha calls the motel. Why? George said he will take care of it. Martha has her own memory and a sworn eyewitness account that the billing is in error. The billing itself is hearsay (it is a business record). Well, silly Martha, not blessed with the knowledge that, by its nature, hearsay is weaker than the other forms of evidence which she has, she calls the motel anyway.
The clerk, whose first day of work it is, makes an inquiry in the motel's automated billing system, and tells Martha, over the phone, that the room was occupied from 1 in the afternoon until 6:30 that night, when the bill, for a room and dine-in service for two, was settled with the credit card in question. The clerk's saying so is hearsay. He offers to send her a printout of the transaction record, which is also hearsay, another business record....
You either see where this story is going, or you don't. If you don't, then you might profitably start paying less attention to the goalposts, and more attention to the ball.
Who's we? If you can't draw conclusions, then don't. Other people can and do. As I recall, another poster has already explained the concept of probabilistic (uncertain) conclusions to the community. Not your cup of tea? No problem. Martha takes hers, however, with lemon and sugar. Smart girl.
Eight, the unless was QUALIFIED
One of the requirements was that the hearsay evidence was reliable
There is nothing to even suggest anything Paul tells us is reliable so the unless here DOES NOT APPLY.
You are trying to salvage what a poorly thought out and poorly researched potion to begin with ie "Hearsay is admissible in both the military and civilian systems, because it is often reliable."
I showed that the highlighted parts you claimed are NOT true. In fact one of the sources expressly stated "Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy."
--
By the standard of provenance (ie the rough equivalent of Chain of custody) the evidence for Jesus is a total and complete train wreck. Primary and secondary provenance look like pieces of swish cheese and implied provenance is only marginally better.
Paul is babbling about visionary version of what may be a historical person gives us not one single actual detail we can use.
The Gospels anonymous works written between sometime between 70 CE and 140 CE then when they can be checked against actual geography, social political reality, or known history spectacularly blow up showing they are useless.
The Testimonium Flavianum is known to be tampered with so it is useless from the get go even if it wasn't far after the supposed events.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Ayuh, the provenance sucks, too. There is no other bearing evidence, max. Try not to take it personally. It was 2,000 years ago. We're all in the same boat.
Regardless of what anyone want's to say about the validity of hearsay testimony, the unmistakable fact of this matter is that authors like Josephus and Tacitus cannot be regarded as reliable evidence in the case of Jesus, because -
1. They were not even born at the time of the events, and hence cannot be telling anything they themselves knew to be true from their own experience.
2. They are therefore only reporting what they had heard from others, but they make no mention of who those "others" were. So we have no way of knowing if the “others” were credible sources or barking mad idiots.
3. We do not in fact know what Josephus or Tacitus or the rest ever wrote about Jesus, because we have nothing at all that Josephus or Tacitus ever did write on the subject. All we have (apparently) is what Christian copyists wrote 1000 years after all these individuals had died.
4. The only earlier known source from which Josephus and Tacitus et al could have got those Jesus stories, is afaik, the biblical writing itself, ie IOW - it presumably came originally just from what Christians themselves were claiming at the time ... in which case, this is not actually information about Jesus coming from Josephus and/or Tacitus et al, but is only the same information coming again from the same original religious sources where all roads seem to lead back to Paul, and perhaps also to Mark if we think Mark was not entirely dependent on Paul ...
... but in either case, Paul and Mark are very clearly obtaining their Jesus stories from their beliefs about what they thought was written as messiah prophecy centuries before in the OT ... Paul even tells his readers repeatedly that that is where he is getting his messiah beliefs from. And Mark is very clearly a sloppy expansion of that same approach, fleshing out Paul’s messiah beliefs with much more from what Mark believed to be written in the OT...
... "sloppy", because after Mark, Mathew then apparently tries to check back into the OT and "corrects" much of Mark, ie same stories, but with slightly more accurate OT transcriptions throughout g-Mathew.
The other two gospels are, afaik, just variations of the same idea, following Mark.
But that appears to be the means by which later non-biblical authors such as Josephus and Tacitus obtained the miniscule sentences they wrote about Jesus. It certainly was not from anything they themselves knew.
1. They were not even born at the time of the events, and hence cannot be telling anything they themselves knew to be true from their own experience.
2. They are therefore only reporting what they had heard from others, but they make no mention of who those "others" were. So we have no way of knowing if the “others” were credible sources or barking mad idiots.
3. We do not in fact know what Josephus or Tacitus or the rest ever wrote about Jesus, because we have nothing at all that Josephus or Tacitus ever did write on the subject. All we have (apparently) is what Christian copyists wrote 1000 years after all these individuals had died.
4. The only earlier known source from which Josephus and Tacitus et al could have got those Jesus stories, is afaik, the biblical writing itself, ie IOW - it presumably came originally just from what Christians themselves were claiming at the time ... in which case, this is not actually information about Jesus coming from Josephus and/or Tacitus et al, but is only the same information coming again from the same original religious sources where all roads seem to lead back to Paul, and perhaps also to Mark if we think Mark was not entirely dependent on Paul ...
... but in either case, Paul and Mark are very clearly obtaining their Jesus stories from their beliefs about what they thought was written as messiah prophecy centuries before in the OT ... Paul even tells his readers repeatedly that that is where he is getting his messiah beliefs from. And Mark is very clearly a sloppy expansion of that same approach, fleshing out Paul’s messiah beliefs with much more from what Mark believed to be written in the OT...
... "sloppy", because after Mark, Mathew then apparently tries to check back into the OT and "corrects" much of Mark, ie same stories, but with slightly more accurate OT transcriptions throughout g-Mathew.
The other two gospels are, afaik, just variations of the same idea, following Mark.
But that appears to be the means by which later non-biblical authors such as Josephus and Tacitus obtained the miniscule sentences they wrote about Jesus. It certainly was not from anything they themselves knew.
Ok, Eight, this statement shows you haven't the first clue what hearsay is.
Hearsay: Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor. (Oxford dictionary definition)
As a general rule a business record is NOT hearsay but evidence. It can be adequately substantiated or refuted depending on the business that charge the card which brings up the next point.
You know what any hotel with a functioning brain in its business skull does regarding credit cards?
They have a procedure.
Odds are the first thing they do is ask for a picture id (preferably driver license) to confirm that the customer is the actual owner of the card.
The second thing they do is enter address information and any special codes on the id (even military ID have these...you just have to know where to look)
The third thing they do is swipe the card or if they are still in the dark ages use a "knuckle buster"
The fourth thing they do would have the customer sign a license agreement.
Now you may ask why would a hotel do all this?
In case somebody like your George calls up and tries to claim they didn't stay there. Well thanks to the above procedure the hotel can prove:
1) The credit card was actually present at the time of check in.
2) They have person's address information from their driver license proving it had been actually present at the time of check in.
3) They have the signature of the person who gave us the credit card and driver license.
In short the hotel can adequately substantiate if a particular person that used a credit card stayed there.
Eight, stop wasting our time with ridiculous scenarios in your attempt to salvage what was a poorly thought out comparison and more on.
Last edited:
Except there are other older figures who we have much better provenance.
For example there is Pharaoh Tutankhamun who lived over 3300 years ago ie 1300 before Jesus supposedly lived. Despite a concentrated effort by later generations of Pharaohs to memory hole him out of existence we have far more provenancal material for him then for Jesus.
Hippocrates we have Aristotle and some parts of the Hippocratic Corpus both contemplates...not much but certainly better then what we have for Jesus.
The point is provenance is a hit or miss with many ancient figures.
- Status