What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Stone]

Evidently, applied mathematics isn't your metier.


If the sayings are true or useful, then what difference does it make who said them?

In making that reply, I do not concede that remarks attributed to Jesus, like that you should love your enemies (Matthew 5: 43-48), are unprecedented. The Buddha, or his early followership, is credited with

Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching. ~ Majjhima-Nikkaya 21

As I've already pointed out elsewhere -- and recently -- in this very thread (you haven't been paying attention), there are plenty of examples in which thinkers have urged their followers to refrain from hostility no matter what. What you cite is no different from that and does not surprise me. The dictum in the Q saying is more pro-active and extreme: "Love your enemies". This carries with it the implication that one should love everyone. That kind of dictum is not found in any other thinker. It makes Jesus -- in this one respect -- original, if highly eccentric -- and possibly cuckoo.

Stone

 

[eight bits]

This carries with it the implication that one should love everyone.

I see logic isn't your metier, either. It doesn't imply that at all.

What you cite is no different from that and does not surprise me.

The Buddhist matter which I cited concerns the would-be disciple's state of mind, not his overt behavior. In fact, any possibility of much behavior has already been thoroughly removed; all that remains is the person's attitude towards the enemy.

But as you say, many similar ideas were in play besides the Buddha's. Of particular interest to a Jewish rabbi would be Proverbs 25: 21-22

If your enemies are hungry, give them food to eat, if thirsty, give something to drink; For live coals you will heap on their heads, and the LORD will vindicate you.

So, Jesus does indeed follow the Buddha and abstract out emotional stance from overt behavior, but he keeps the "for live coals you will heap on their heads," but playing to the petty satisfaction of how much better the disciple's reward will be than his enemy's. The Buddha did, indeed, miss that angle.

However, there is no reason to suppose that anybody has ever taken Jesus' advice, including Jesus himself. So, even if this remark were at all original and less superficial, its absence from history would not be noticed. Much like Jesus himself. That is the puzzle.

 

[IanS]

But you are moving the goalposts, now. You said "human" not "ordinary". Many fictional and historical figures are given supernatural powers in various stories. It does not make them not human. It does make the powers, and the story written around them, unbelievable

You are confusing reality with belief. That person's followers may believe that he or she has supernatural powers. It doesn't follow that, because said powers don't exist in reality, that the person they are associated with also did not exist.

No I have not moved any goalposts at all. And I am not confusing anything here. However, I think you are getting confused over your attempts to make analogies to Jesus.

Look at the highlight in your quote above -

- if you are claiming there, that “many other historical figures" are given as many supernatural powers as Jesus, where like Jesus they are known purely and entirely because of their claimed constant production of almost daily miracles, then frankly those figures who you have in mind are not real “historical” figures as described either!

What you seem to be thinking of is real historical figures who are known primarily for all sorts of real human activities, but of whom it is said by some that they sometimes performed miraculous deeds. People like certain ancient philosophers, or emperors like Caesar or Caligula, who were for 99% of their historical accounts doing ordinary everyday human things, but of whom sycophantic courtiers would tell them they were actually gods and would surely have a special place in heaven etc.

But that is utterly different from the description of Jesus in the bible. Jesus is described and known really entirely because of, and in terms of, his constant impossible miracles.

If you took any miracle claims away from Caesar or Caligula, then you would still have 99% of their human everyday story left (plus all the vast written and archaeological evidence of their actual existence).

But the exact opposite is the case for Jesus. If you take away his miracle descriptions, Then what is left is a very different person indeed. And not one that it would ever have been worth any bible author ever bothering to even mention, let alone ever write about.

So then you have to ask - what is the evidence for that Jesus figure that is left after we take away all the miracles and other supernatural stuff? And the answer appears to be … no evidence at all. Absolutely nothing!

Whereas, as I say, if you take away any supernatural claims from people like roman emperors, then what is left is still 99% of everything they ever said and did, and for which the evidence, both written and archaeological, is sky high.

 

[IanS]

Dear me! I can only agree that such a gold touch Midas didn't exist. Therefore no Midas could possibly exist.

The gold touch Midas did not exist.

If the same Midas was thought to exist without any gold-touch, then we should expect clear & reliable evidence of that ... if no such evidence, then best not to assume he really existed.

 

[maximara]

Yep, and the distinction that Stone cannot acknowledge (or will not acknowledge) is that Jesus was supposedly famous far and wide in his own time. The historical characters he mentions would not likely have been widely known public figures; would the average "Joe Public" of that time have really cared about mathematics or science. Did thousands of people gather in great crowds to hear Pythagos talk about the the properties of a 3-4-5- triangle?. Did Leukippos or Democritus hold great gatherings numbering in the tens of thousands while they spoke about their theory of Atomism?

I doubt it, but many thousands are supposed to have cared about Jesus and attended his meetings.

(Gospel examples snipped)

As pointed out before the Gospels were written very late 70-120 CE so anything they give us must be viewed with suspicion.

Paul is our only known possible contemporary and he doesn't give the impression of the wildly popular Jesus seen in the Gospels. In fact, he doesn't give us anything useful about Jesus the man in the 7 letters that were accepted as his.

As I said before Mark seems to be our go to for the Gospel Jesus and if his sources were Paul and some fragmented oral traditions of a Jesus thent he huge popularity (even if it didn't exist) is logical--Jesus not Paul is the one that spread the Word therefore Jesus must have had hundreds if not thousands of followers.

Again we can see this with John Frum who supposedly has an army of 5,000 to 20,000 men...on an island that has perhaps 20,000 total. And we have not one but at least three flesh and blood "John Frums" in a five year period to choose from as the founder if people insist a religion must have a founder.

 

[maximara]

Stone, you tried this claim once before and I totally trounced it in Post 3039

All you have added is a few more names for me to play with.

Thales: It is accepted that even the written accounts before before 320 BCE are likely exaggerations and those are part with other Milesian philosophers such as Anaximander and Anaximenes. After 320 BCE the myth machine went into overdrive.

==================

So how is the documentation any more or less sparse for him than for Jesus the rabbi?

Thales was considered a MINOR philosopher until 320 BCE. The tack we have been given is that stripped of their supernatural stuff the Gospels are reasonable historical documents. How does one attract thousands and not be noticed and mentioned by a single contemporary?

Pythagoras: other then founding Pythagoreanism (a way of life rather than religion) which thanks to it secretive nature we know little about there isn't much regarding him until the 4th century when the myth machine kicks in.

=====================

So how is the documentation any more or less sparse for him than for Jesus the rabbi?

Jesus was supposedly very public with his religion so unless you want to address the Jesus 100 BCE issue by going Christianity was actually a mystery cult there is no comparison.

Confucius (Kong Qiu): the Records of the Grand Historian used archives and imperial records as source material (which themselves have not survive). Its author Sima Qian noted the problems with incomplete, fragmentary, and contradictory sources stating in the 18 volume of the 180 volume work "I have set down only what is certain, and in doubtful cases left a blank." Moreover, Kong Qiu was the governor of a town in Lu and ultimately held the positions of Minister of Public Works and then Minister of Crime for the whole Lu state not exactly minor potions one could create a fictionous person to fill.

=======================

Some recent scholarship casts serious doubt on Kung-fut-zu's ever being a Minister of Crime, positing that the truest picture of him may simply have been the itinerant tutor of Chaps. 3 - 9 of the Analects.

That shows that a Kong Qiu existed. NEXT.

Apollonius: Fragments of Apollonius' own writings are part of the Harvard University Press edition of The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (1912) ISBN-13: 978-0674990180 as documented in Carrier's Kook article.

=========================

So how is the documentation any more or less sparse for him than for Jesus the rabbi?

What fragments of Jesus own writings can you cite? Oh yes the answer is NONE. Nevermind the Life of Apollonius of Tyana was in part using sources (now lost) that were contemporaneous to Apollonius. The best we got for Jesus is NONCONTEMPORANEOUS documents.

Sun Tzu (Sun Wu): some questioning of his very existence in scholarly circles (Sawyer, Ralph D. (2005), The Essential Art of War, Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-07204-6) despite reference in the Records of the Grand Historian and Spring and Autumn Annals which used earlier official records that haven't survived.

==========================

So how is the documentation any more or less sparse for him than for Jesus the rabbi?

Since Sun Tzu'svery existence is doubted I fail to see the point of your question

Brhaspati: Uh, what is a Hindu god and a Vedic deity doing in this list?

==========================

LOL!! This is not Brhaspati the Vedic deity! This is Brhaspati, the pioneer in the ancient Indian Lokayata doctrine, the earliest entirely materialist school of thought that has survived. His reflections are preserved in Sarvasiddhantasamgraha (by Samkara); Sad-Darsana-Samuccaya (by Haribhadra Suri); Sarvadarsanasangraha (by Madhavacarya)

Perhaps you better tell wikipedia as they have Brhaspati the Vedic deity as the founder of Cārvāka! Seriously, this Brihaspati had writings of his time which have not survived the centuries but were recorded in later works.

Narayana: what is the Vedic Supreme God doing in this list?

============================

Touche: I should have simply said the author of the Purusha Sukta, traditionally ascribed to Narayana, which gives the first "divine" imprimatur to the vicious hereditary caste system. A minority view supposes that there was a real Narayana who was later deified, but the jury -- academe -- is still out on that one

In short this is not comparative to Jesus because the majority consider him a fictional person.

As I said before one get less the impression of a serious dialog and more the one of wild thrashing about in search of someone, anyone on par with both the level of importance Jesus has and also has as bad or worst evidence for their existence. Quite frankly we have more evidence for Imhotep's existence of c2650-2600 BCE then we do for Jesus at 6 BCE - 36 CE.

 

[eight bits]

The assertion that Jesus was regularly producing miracles says as much about the reader as the text. Mark's Jesus mostly travels around and talks, then he dies. These are not supernatural pastimes.

Ah, but Jesus travels by walking on water. Really? One of the reasons why Mark isn't much esteemed as a prose stylist is that he is a sloppy user of pronouns. Basilides of Alexandria was able to get within a single noun-reference of showing that Mark documents the crucifixion of Simon of Cyrene.

So it is with Jesus being seen on the water. The pericope is 6: 45-54. Up through verse 52, it is a ghost story. Yes, this is what Jesus is famous for; people see him when he isn't there - in fact the same people see him here as will be among the first to see him later, after he's died. This is not a supernatural power, Jesus chose these people to be his suggestible followers. Stage hypnotists do this every night, two shows on Saturday.

Where the possibility of a "miracle" outside some disciple's skull occurs is at the end, verses 51-54. The transitional verse, the one that ends the purely visionary expereince is verse 51:

He got into the boat with them and the wind died down. They were astounded.

So then what happens? Continuing (with the chapter, but not necessarily with the same story),

They had not understood the incident of the loaves. On the contrary, their hearts were hardened. After making the crossing, they came to land at Gennesaret and tied up there.As they were leaving the boat, people immediately recognized him.

Who's they? If it is the disciples who don't understand the incident, then they seem to have given Jesus a ride the rest of the way, and Jesus is physically with the disciples. This resolution of the pronoun reference may be partially justified by 8: 14-21, where Jesus later accuses his disciples of not understanding the by-then two mass feedings.

But the author of John, who is a better prose stylist by far, differs. At his 6: 19-21, the wet walk, Jesus is not said to have gotten into the dsiciples' boat. In the verses mmediately following this, it is clearly the people being fed who didn't understand the feedings, and Jesus is peeved with those who are following him for the free food.

All that Mark definitely depicts, then, is that Jesus left to cross the water at a later time than his disciples left. That's it. The same people who will soon lose track of his dead body lose track of his living body here. The people who will soon see his ghost after he dies see his ghost now, too. And in between then and now, three of them will see Jesus chatting with Moses and Elijah.

There can be no factual report of a miracle. A reporter can only narrate an experience that somebody had, a natural event. Miraculousness is an interpretation of the event by the reporter. How a reporter interprets an experience is irrelevant to whether someone had the experience.

All of the "supernatural" content of Mark is the reporter's interpretation of events that may well have been naturally experienced. It is misleading to say that supernatural incidents have been added to the story - what's on the page in Mark may very well have happened, all of it. What's been added may only be commentary, spin and artful juxtaposition which suggests more to some readers than is actually said.

Midas is not a close parallel. Jesus does not change any living being into a golden statue, and then stash the object in his treasury. Nobody experienced Midas doing so, or anything that might have seemed like that. If Midas lived, then the entire series of incidents is an accretion, not actual events being interpreted as to how they were understood by actual obervers.

The people in the so-called "walking on water" story are world-famous for seeing somebody's ghost after losing track of him. They did so here. There is nothing supernatural in the events depicted, only in how the story is told, and the reader's assumption that a dangling pronoun reference continues the first story rather than marks a break where the next story begins.

 

[IanS]

Eight-Bits … I don’t want another argument about this, and I hope we have both had enough of that sort of thing.

But if what you have written above is supposed to be saying that the gospels do not describe a constant list of miracles and supernatural events, then I think I you must be talking about some personal interpretation you are making which is not in fact what’s directly & actually written as the words on the pages of those gospels and letters of the bible.

Without going through all of the numerous claims of supernatural events from the gospels and Paul etc., here for the sake of other readers information is the very first thing anyone can find just in Wiki. re. your comments about g-Mark -


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

The Gospel of Mark narrates the Ministry of Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to his death and resurrection. It focuses particularly on the last week of his life (chapters 11–16) in Jerusalem. Its swift narrative portrays Jesus as a heroic man of action,[2] an exorcist, healer and miracle worker. An important theme of Mark is the Messianic Secret.[4] Jesus silences the demoniacs he heals, tries unsuccessfully to keep his messianic identity secret, and conceals his message with parables.[4] Meanwhile, the disciples fail to understand both the implication of the miracles of Jesus[2] and the meaning of the things he predicts about his arrest, death and resurrection. Most scholars believe that the original text of the gospel ends at Mark 16:8 with the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb and that the following account of his resurrection appearances is a later addition.[5]


What should be apparent there, even without wasting everyone’s time trawling endlessly back and forth through every supernatural element of all the biblical writing, is that g-Mark is largely describing the highlighted things about Jesus (re. supernatural events).

 

[Belz...]

No I have not moved any goalposts at all. And I am not confusing anything here. However, I think you are getting confused over your attempts to make analogies to Jesus.

That could be the case... IF I was making an analogy there.

- if you are claiming there, that “many other historical figures" are given as many supernatural powers as Jesus, where like Jesus they are known purely and entirely because of their claimed constant production of almost daily miracles, then frankly those figures who you have in mind are not real “historical” figures as described either!

The question is whether the supernatural (impossible) abilities of a historical figure mean that this figure didn't exist. Several Emperors and Kings were said to be born from virgins, which is clearly impossible, and yet we know these people existed. It seems to me that, yes, Jesus, if he existed, certainly didn't do all those miracles, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. The point of this thread is that we don't know whether or not he did exist because of the lack of evidence.

But that is utterly different from the description of Jesus in the bible. Jesus is described and known really entirely because of, and in terms of, his constant impossible miracles.

That could be an important distinction, but I don't see that it is.

 

[neilgodfrey]

You've just thrown out half of ancient history. . . . . THE FACT THAT PROFESSIONAL ANCIENT HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH FIGURES WHOSE DOCUMENTATION IS EQUALLY SPARSE. THAT'S MY CHIEF POINT.

Stone

This is an old canard. I have addressed it many times elsewhere so I paste here a small snippet from You've just thrown out half of ancient history. . . . . THE FACT THAT PROFESSIONAL ANCIENT HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH FIGURES WHOSE DOCUMENTATION IS EQUALLY SPARSE. THAT'S MY CHIEF POINT. Stone [/QUOTE]

This is an old canard. I have addressed it many times elsewhere so I paste here a small snippet from [URL="http://vridar.org/2013/01/29/the-historical-jesus-and-the-demise-of-history-2-the-overlooked-reasons-we-know-certain-ancient-persons-existed/"]one such discussion . . . .

We have strong confidence in the historicity of ancient persons whose names appear in a literary source

• that consists of a narrative that in key aspects is confirmed by external material/primary evidence (e.g. Josephus, Livy)
• whose contents can with confidence be traced to the times of events and persons narrated
• whose general reliability is confirmed by independently derived information in other literary works (e.g. we have five ancient historical works about Alexander the Great — Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius, Plutarch, Arrian and Justin, with Justin summarizing the works of another, Pompey Trogus)
• that can with confidence be reliably attributed to a creditable author or other provenance (the more precise the better)
• that is a genre that supports historicity (e.g. history, letter, edict).

No doubt there are many shades of grey, but I suspect that most of those people thought to be clearly historical and are known from ancient literature are derived from sources that meet most if not all of the above criteria. Nor am I saying that if a name does not meet all or even any of these criteria then we must conclude that that person did not exist. No, not at all.

If a figure cannot meet any of these criteria than the best we can say is that we have no secure evidence that they really did exist. We cannot be sure if they are a literary cipher or a real person.

And I suggest that if that is the case it really doesn’t matter as far as any significant historical explanations are concerned. So what if Socrates or Hillel turn out to be more literary than historical? It would make no substantial difference whatever to the history of Greek philosophy or Jewish thought. (I am not saying Socrates and Hillel are not historical. I’m quite prepared to accept that they very likely are. But I’m not going to bet my house, my right arm and my partner on it.)

It’s simple.

If I read a document, the first version of which without doubt originated from the pen of Seneca, and if I have independent verifiable reasons for knowing who Seneca was, and if the document is a personal letter complaining about the pompous attitude of a rival philosopher named Publius, then I can be reasonably confident that Publius really did exist and was another philosopher in Seneca’s time. (I’ve discussed this particular example in more depth at Stronger Evidence for Publius Vinicius the Stammerer than for Jesus.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

The issue is whether a reported event can be a fair rendering of a person's experience. A guy starving to death because his food turns into gold, mouthful by mouthful, cannot be such an event. A group of superstitious and disorganized people, chosen for their gullibility and lack of anything better to do, thinking they see a ghost in dim light? Yeah, thet could happen.

You read it differently, cool.

"I interpret the Gospel to have miracles in it" is your prerogative. "The events reported in the Gospels are supernatural" is a different statement, and is only true if it is understood that it is your personal reading, because there is no other kind of reading except personal reading.

I might ask why we are reading Wikipedia about the Gospel of Mark, when we have the Gospel of Mark itself, but... whatever floats your boat.

resurrection = people see his ghost

heroic man of action - that's supernatural? and on its face, it's somebody's interpretation of events

exorcist, healer = primary health care provider in First Century Palestine

miracle worker = on its face, somebody's interpretation of events

silences the demoniacs = prefers his patients shut up while he's working

disciples fail to understand - that's supernatural? (They weren't chosen for their smarts.)

predicts his arrest and death - that's supernatural? His buddy the Baptizer got arrested and executed, why the hell would anybody think Jesus was bulletproof?

predicts his resurrection = plants the suggestion that he'll be back, and his hallucinatory friends hallucinate as he had suggested. I can see it would be dangerous to take you to a hypnotist's stage show.

discovery of Jesus' empty tomb - putting aside Jesus didn't do that, we are discussing Mark, where the tomb isn't empty - there's a guy sitting in it. Do the math.

And, finally, the "resurrection appearances" aren't part of the original Mark

So even with Wikipedia's bottomless capacity to manufacture facts, the supernatural events score of Mark is zip.

 

[pakeha]

...snipped for space...Scholars tend not to trust the Matthew versions of the Q sayings as much. In this case, it's interesting that the Luke version reads --

"Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets."

This doesn't palliate the degree of animus against Jewish authorities, of course. But it's striking that Jesus in Matthew blames the same individuals for past behavior and for persecuting his followers, while in Luke he speaks of their fathers' persecutions in the past instead.



Excellent question! In fact, scholars disagree on that very point. One detail related to chronological priority is fascinating (although it doesn't involve the Q sayings): Even though Luke is apparently written later than Matthew, its account of the Last Supper is actually closer to Paul's 1 Corinthians account than to the one in Matthew! This is surprising, since Matthew is uniformly judged as later than any of the authentic Paulines (like 1 Corinthians) and closer to the time of Luke, though slightly earlier than Luke, and it's striking that Luke, a later text than Matthew, actually goes back to an (apparently) earlier source for its Last Supper account. It suggests that Luke, with all his superstition, was at least conscientious enough to try and make some kind of an attempt to use the earliest sources to the best of his (limited) ability.

Some scholars guess that the earliest versions of the Q sayings circulated orally, roughly during the same period that Paul was writing his seven authentic letters. Matthew may have been the first attempt to get them down in written form.



No. Widely varied as estimates of GThomas are (all the way from the '60s to the '90s), no one has supposed that Q was anything other than the very earliest collection of sayings of all. For those who date GThomas in the 60s, though, GThomas is important as the earliest extant Gospel of all, even earlier than GMark. But that is a minority view, and many scholars view GThomas as around the GMark date or maybe a bit later. To suggest there is any consensus around this is misleading. There is none, although the latest thinking tends to hug the latter decades of the 1st century rather than the 60s. It's all very fluid.

Stone

Thanks for the reply, Stone.
It gave me a lot to think about and I'm glad you take the time to answer my questions.

My own impression is that taken in the entirety of the verses, the 'Love your enemy' injunctions cannot be considered ground-breaking universal concepts. That tag about the Jewish ancestors and their treatment of the prophets all the injunctions include makes me think the reference is to someone wanting to distance themselves and their audience from traditional Judaism, rather than preaching Universal Love.
Again, this is MY impression, based on what I read here and there and elsewhere.

I'm here to learn, so my impression will obviously change as I learn more.
Thanks for the insights about the Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Thomas and Q.
I see I have some interesting reading ahead of me!

 

[IanS]

The question is whether the supernatural (impossible) abilities of a historical figure mean that this figure didn't exist. Several Emperors and Kings were said to be born from virgins, which is clearly impossible, and yet we know these people existed.

Well, as I explained above - those emperors were known overwhelmingly for the real human things they did during their lives ... eg debating new laws and civic procedures with their officials, sending armies into all sorts of battles, having thousands of buildings and monuments built etc. So any claims of them performing miracles or being gods etc. are only 1% of what they were actually known for and characterised by in the written and archaeological records. So that means we can discard the miracle claims in cases like that, and still be left with 99% of the entirely human things they did, and for which we have completely convincing supporting evidence.

That is emphatically NOT the case for Jesus though. In his case, almost everything he was said to have done is either completely fictional and impossible (miracles and other supernatural happenings), sayings which turn out to be taken in one form or another from the OT, and seemingly believable ordinary scenes such as real local places and real local rulers etc., but which actually turn out to be mostly scenes which are settings leading up to the miracles or the OT sayings.

If you discard all that unbelievable stuff from the Jesus story, then little or nothing is actually left. Maybe just a few percent of what might be a real human person .... but where (a)that is certainly no longer the messiah figure as described in the bible (our only actual source!), and (b)where totally unlike the Roman emperor examples above, there turns out to be no reliable evidence that even that few remaining percent was ever true anyway!

That's why that comparison (your earlier, "analogies") is not even remotely comparable. Because for emperors their actual lives and events remain almost unaffected if we chuck out the silly stuff ... whereas for Jesus, chucking out all the silly stuff leaves barely anything of the person at all, and certainly not a person of the type claimed/described in the bible writing, and where there is zero reliable evidence anyway even for the minimal remains.

It seems to me that, yes, Jesus, if he existed, certainly didn't do all those miracles, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist.

It means he definitely did not exist as the figure described in the biblical writing about him. And that is our only source of his claimed existence!

He might have existed as a human preacher from earlier pre-biblical times, who later became the basis of mistaken claims & beliefs in the gospels and Paul’s letters. But there are two fatal problems with that (1)no evidence of any such earlier basis figure, and (2)that would be a figure so completely different from the one described in the gospels, that it would be stretching credibility to say he was the same person believed and written about in the bible (written about there by people who had no idea who Jesus was, by the way!)

The point of this thread is that we don't know whether or not he did exist because of the lack of evidence.

It certainly is the point of this thread. So look again at the analogy to miraculous Roman emperors - take away their miracles and do you still have an overwhelmingly human ruler completely as described in the historical writing about them? Yes, you most certainly do! 100%. And supported by overwhelming and unarguable evidence.

But for Jesus? No. Nothing of the kind at all.

 

[Belz...]

Well, as I explained above - those emperors were known overwhelmingly for the real human things they did during their lives ... eg debating new laws and civic procedures with their officials, sending armies into all sorts of battles, having thousands of buildings and monuments built etc.

Sure, but the physical stuff they supposedly did is not why we think they existed, because Robin Hood certainly didn't cast magic spells. The reason why we think they existed or not rests entirely on the evidence, which is why we can't draw conclusions on Jesus. We can't say he existed, but we can't say he didn't, either.

 

[IanS]

IanS

The issue is whether a reported event can be a fair rendering of a person's experience. A guy starving to death because his food turns into gold, mouthful by mouthful, cannot be such an event. A group of superstitious and disorganized people, chosen for their gullibility and lack of anything better to do, thinking they see a ghost in dim light? Yeah, thet could happen.

You read it differently, cool.

"I interpret the Gospel to have miracles in it" is your prerogative. "The events reported in the Gospels are supernatural" is a different statement, and is only true if it is understood that it is your personal reading, because there is no other kind of reading except personal reading.

I might ask why we are reading Wikipedia about the Gospel of Mark, when we have the Gospel of Mark itself, but... whatever floats your boat.

resurrection = people see his ghost ... that is your interpretation trying to claim a miraculous resurrection is not "miraculous"

heroic man of action - that's supernatural? and on its face, it's somebody's interpretation of events it was just the rest of that same sentence which include the miracle parts, it's just the included "context".

exorcist, healer = primary health care provider in First Century Palestine. OK, good well people here can judge that sort of explanation for themselves and decide if Jesus exorcising Demons that speak to him and healing lepers by one mere instant touch etc, is as you say quite assuredly only perfectly normal "primary health care".

miracle worker = on its face, somebody's interpretation of events OK, good so ... miracles are not miracles. Brilliant. Again people can read that and decide if it makes sense to say that when the bible says all sorts of people witnessed the many miracles, that means the gospel writers were really saying they didn't see any such thing.

silences the demoniacs = prefers his patients shut up while he's working Fine, lets see if people think that's just another flippant joke remark.

disciples fail to understand - that's supernatural? (They weren't chosen for their smarts.) Same again, it was part of the sentence re the context of the miracle.

predicts his arrest and death - that's supernatural? His buddy the Baptizer got arrested and executed, why the hell would anybody think Jesus was bulletproof? He predicts the future, by divine knowledge.

predicts his resurrection = plants the suggestion that he'll be back, and his hallucinatory friends hallucinate as he had suggested. I can see it would be dangerous to take you to a hypnotist's stage show. Resurrecting dead persons appearing in the sky and talking to hundreds of people, that was a hypnotists trick that actually happened as stated in the bible?

discovery of Jesus' empty tomb - putting aside Jesus didn't do that, we are discussing Mark, where the tomb isn't empty - there's a guy sitting in it. Do the math. The person sitting there is supposed to be an Angel, not the risen dead zombie Jesus.

And, finally, the "resurrection appearances" aren't part of the original Mark Afaik, it is in copies of Mark. What was and was not original is completely unknown. We don't have any "original" copies of Mark.

So even with Wikipedia's bottomless capacity to manufacture facts, the supernatural events score of Mark is zip. We could dismiss anything that way. Try anything you like. Example, Einstein never said anything about Relativity ... people just thought he said it. Einstein's famous papers? Someone else wrote those. What about "reality" ... this is a philosophy section after all ... so lets say then, like you appear to be doing above, that "reality" is not real ... we don't know what reality means, things that happen don't happen...prove otherwise. Brilliant ... but in that case, better to start a different thread about the make-believe world of endless philosophical navel gazing.

In short, what you appear to be doing in the post above (and in your earlier post) is engaging in something more akin to the usual philosophical discussions in this forum, where philosophy lovers assert that what appears to be reality is not reality, and that we are, or should be, debating the meaning of “reality” … eg the miracles are described, but the described miracles only appear to be described miracles, but are in fact (via philosophising proposition) actually just 2000 year old misidentification & conceptual misunderstandings from whoever makes any of the described claims. Brilliant ...

 

[IanS]

Well, as I explained above - those emperors were known overwhelmingly for the real human things they did during their lives ... eg debating new laws and civic procedures with their officials, sending armies into all sorts of battles, having thousands of buildings and monuments built etc.

Sure, but the physical stuff they supposedly did is not why we think they existed, because Robin Hood certainly didn't cast magic spells. The reason why we think they existed or not rests entirely on the evidence, which is why we can't draw conclusions on Jesus. We can't say he existed, but we can't say he didn't, either.

Ha, ha …. Yep, and that is EXACTLY what I have just been explaining lol Namely …

….. any analogy to miracles from Roman emperors etc, will never work. Because we do have the evidence for them as real human people (and they are 99% known for the very real and human things they did) …

…. But that is NOT analogous to the Jesus case. Zero comparison at all. Because for Jesus (a)there is no evidence, even in stripped out non-miracle guise. And (b)if you strip off all his unacceptable stuff, there is nothing of the man left! Certainly nothing left of the messianic Jesus that we know from the gospels (and that is the only one we know! … that’s is the only descriptive source for him!).

The only proper analogy you could make to a figure like Jesus, would be with ancient stories of other gods of the time, eg Osiris or Dionysus etc. But then again, there is zero actual evidence for any of those as real existing figures on Earth … ie, just like the case of Jesus (but completely unlike any Roman Emperor).

 

[Belz...]

Yes, that's what I said: the miraculous nature of the character is secondary at best.

 

[davefoc]

I believe that there is almost universal agreement in this thread that:
1. Parts of the Gospel stories about Jesus contain details that would be typical facts for a normal human being.
2. Parts of the Gospel stories about Jesus contain detail that would suggest that Jesus has supernatural capabilities.
3. The fact that an individual has stories written about him that attribute supernatural capabilities to him does not mean that the individual didn't exist.
4. The available information about the hypothetical HJ is too ambiguous and unreliable to justify strong conclusions about the nature of an HJ including whether an HJ existed or not.
5. The fact that supernatural characteristics are attributed to Jesus does serve to reduce the credibility of the Gospel accounts .

OK, so what exactly is Ians' point that is not consistent with what Craig B has said? I don't see one. I don't think IanS is saying that an HJ couldn't have existed because supernatural characteristics are attributed to him. I imagine that Craig B would agree that the supernatural aspects of the Gospels taint the credibility of the entire document as a source for historical facts.

Sometimes these kind arguments when there is no substantive disagreement are fueled by some kind of haggling over semantics. In this case, there doesn't even appear to be a semantic issue that is being haggled over. There is just an argument that has been sustained for the purpose of sustaining an argument.

 

[eight bits]

Nevertheless, Ian, we're discussing a ghost story. We know this incident is a ghost story because the first thought of the people involved is that they were seeing a ghost:

But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out. (6: 49)

It is perfectly plain that Jesus rode in somebody else's boat across the water, somebody clever enough not to get caught in the weather. When Jesus reconnected with his superstitious sidekicks on the other side, they had by then convinced each other that they had seen him on the water, and even that he had calmed the storm.

Jesus had the presence of mind not to correct this potentially useful misfiring of small group dynamics. There's nothing supernatural about that decision, either.

Could it be an entirely fictional ghost story? Sure, that would be magical realism. Is it possible to tell whether the story is entirely fictional based on the text? No, because we know that some real people do use supernaturally loaded phrases when they describe their real-life experiences, however mundane those experiences actually are. Further, resort to that kind of language is a character trait of some of the people in this story. Maybe it's a job qualification, too.

When we "remove the supernatural elements," we lose no events at all, just interpretive mumbo jumbo, and can easily see what really could have happened: Jesus took another boat, in preparation for another day of running his jaw and eliciting the placebo effect from people with no other healthcare option.

Now, if your reading is that it is all supernatural, then that's fine. But in evaluating whether a text could arise from a sincere report of an actual experience, I try to focus on what a person is competent to judge: "I saw a ghost" is uninteresting. Nobody is qualified to make that conclusion, even if it were true, which I suspect that it is not. "I saw something on the water and then in the boat that looked like Jesus," on the other hand, is quite possibly true.

It is regretable that many people will use the uninteresting form when what they mean is quite possibly true. No necessary problem for a fellow human being to understand their meaning. It is an accommodation I am willing to make. I do not require others to make the same accommodation if they would rather not, but I will defend my exercise of the option to do so myself.

 

[IanS]

I believe that there is almost universal agreement in this thread that:
1. Parts of the Gospel stories about Jesus contain details that would be typical facts for a normal human being.2. Parts of the Gospel stories about Jesus contain detail that would suggest that Jesus has supernatural capabilities.
3. The fact that an individual has stories written about him that attribute supernatural capabilities to him does not mean that the individual didn't exist.
4. The available information about the hypothetical HJ is too ambiguous and unreliable to justify strong conclusions about the nature of an HJ including whether an HJ existed or not.
5. The fact that supernatural characteristics are attributed to Jesus does serve to reduce the credibility of the Gospel accounts .

OK, so what exactly is Ians' point that is not consistent with what Craig B has said? I don't see one. I don't think IanS is saying that an HJ couldn't have existed because supernatural characteristics are attributed to him. I imagine that Craig B would agree that the supernatural aspects of the Gospels taint the credibility of the entire document as a source for historical facts.

Sometimes these kind arguments when there is no substantive disagreement are fueled by some kind of haggling over semantics. In this case, there doesn't even appear to be a semantic issue that is being haggled over. There is just an argument that has been sustained for the purpose of sustaining an argument.

I think that's not far off. And perhaps even inc. the final highlighted part. So I'd agree, by all means lets end this part of the discussion after anyone else had has whatever final word they want.

However, I think point-1 is obscuring something important here which HJ supporters in general keep claiming.

Their constant claim is that a real Jesus is left even if you take out all the unacceptable stuff from the biblical writing. But what I'm saying is that if you take all that out, there is practical nothing of any substance left at all.

What you are left with is just biblical stories about an unknown preacher from earlier times (none of the authors ever knew who he was), who goes to various real named places where he says or does things that can often be found as writing from centuries before in the OT ... if you then chuck out all his sayings on the basis that it looks suspiciously like the gospel authors were just getting that from the OT, then all you are left with is the names of the local places, and virtually nothing else! ...

... and that would certainly not qualify as a "historical Jesus" as identified in the bible (which is our only source for identifying him at all). That’s just a figure so completely vague, tenuous and unknown as to be nothing of any substance at all.

That might be a different story if what was left was some reliable information about a real earthly life of Jesus. But I don’t think there is anything reliable left for that, is there?