Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[pakeha]

Thanks, Davefoc.
I need to see arguments an reasoning written out so I can mull over them at my own pace, rather than being 'herded' via a video.

 

[Brainache]

Thanks, Davefoc.
I need to see arguments an reasoning written out so I can mull over them at my own pace, rather than being 'herded' via a video.

There is a transcript of the first video on the Youtube link.

Underneath the video where it says "About" there is a row of options like "Share" and "Add To", one of those will give you a transcript of the whole thing with a time mark.

He starts getting into the evidence around the 27 minute mark, if you don't want to hear the set-up.

 

[dejudge]

....At around 16:00 minutes he claims that all reputable scholars believe Jesus existed. He mentions some nineteenth century guys that posited that Jesus might not have existed but today he says only internet cranks think that an HJ might not have existed.

Isn't it amusing--an internet crank who believes there was an HJ CLAIMS only internet cranks think HJ might not have existed.

That HJ internet crank just contradicted himself as soon as he went on the internet.

1. If there are far more people who believe there was an HJ than MJ.

2. If there are internet cranks.

3. It is far more likely that an internet crank believes there was an HJ than MJ.

 

[Craig B]

Isn't it amusing--an internet crank who believes there was an HJ CLAIMS only internet cranks think HJ might not have existed.

That HJ internet crank just contradicted himself as soon as he went on the internet.

1. If there are far more people who believe there was an HJ than MJ.

2. If there are internet cranks.

3. It is far more likely that an internet crank believes there was an HJ than MJ.

That is the most hilarious reasoning I have ever seen. Wonderful. Let us suppose you manage to convince the general public of the truth of your weird theories, then you will have created this situation:

1 Most people believe that the NT was fabricated by forgers in the late second century.
2 There exist complete raving lunatics.
3 Complete raving lunatics are people.
4 Therefore most complete raving lunatics believe that the NT was fabricated by forgers in the late second century.
5 Therefore if you are a complete raving lunatic you are more likely to believe that the NT was fabricated by forgers in the late second century.
6 Therefore the theory is complete raving lunacy.

 

[JaysonR]

You mean this is not a subject area which has research journals where research papers of theories, findings and data are examined by independent peer review, and either published or rejected? This is field of study which operates instead by publishing it’s own books for fellow academic bible scholars to read?

That seems extremely poor to say the least.

However, if I understand Norseman’s suggestion correctly, and given that Jayson says these “historians” publish academic books rather than papers, what Norseman is asking for boils down to either a new thread, or else a new approach here where we stop all the extraneous debate about who said what or about what variously interpreted highly ambiguous sentences might mean in 1st to 5th century Christian writing, and just have the HJ side post whatever they claim is the "expert historians" evidence of a human Jesus … and then we can see just how valid that claimed "expert" evidence is.

Unfortunately, this idea is functionally impossible.
Entire courses do not even cover everything written on the matter.

Beyond this, however, there is a problem with the idea in that History inherits the positive and proves the negative; opposite of empirical fields.
Folks writing about the positive do so in critique of someone asserting the negative.

No one sat down and collected everything together and then proved Jesus existed into the positive to overturn a default negative, and therefore gained entry into the historical record.

I went over how and why it works opposite of the empirical fields a page or two back.

For your idea, it would be that we create a thread citing authors asserting the negative and then critique their arguments, or cite critique of their arguments.

That may seem silly, but that's the reality of the field.

 

[Brainache]

Isn't it amusing--an internet crank who believes there was an HJ CLAIMS only internet cranks think HJ might not have existed.

That HJ internet crank just contradicted himself as soon as he went on the internet.

1. If there are far more people who believe there was an HJ than MJ.

2. If there are internet cranks.

3. It is far more likely that an internet crank believes there was an HJ than MJ.

You think a History Professor from Yale University is an "internet crank"?

Coming from you, that is hilarious.

What is Oxford? Yahoo Answers?

 

[David Mo]

Why do you assume that gMark's Jesus is a figure of history when everything about Jesus is either total fiction or implausible from baptism to resurrection?

'Figure of History' is a vague term. I affirm that there must have been someone who was crucified by the Romans and had some kind of religious and political activity. And I think this is more plausible than the hypothesis of a first-century sect that had invented a crucified messiah. This seems pretty unlikely to me.

On the story that was later attributed to this person, I find it very difficult to take out nothing of it from the historical point of view. Apart from the miracles and other hagiographic stories that are unlikely or impossible.

I would like you understand that this particular point of view is not incompatible with atheism, agnosticism or secularism, even it is maintained by some non-confessional historians that are very critical with Christian ideology.

You and others on this forum seem insist on a crusade that makes no sense.

 

[David Mo]

I'm with you there, David Mo.

However, the criteria used for sifting the NT for data
1. Criterion of Multiple attestation
2. Criterion of embarrassment
3.Criterion of dissimilarity

seem more likely to come up with plausible (even unto very plausible) conjectures rather than data.

Of course, Pakeha. These and other criteria are used by the religious experts (theologians or historians) with a manifest lack of objectivity. First, they are defined rather vaguely and so result contradictory to each other. Then, they can choose the one that best fits with their personal beliefs. Second, because they are criteria for discerning different levels of text or authorship. But they use them with a dogmatic clause: if contradictory accounts appear in the Gospels that refer to different traditions or writings, then one of them is coming from Christ himself and is "historical". This clause has no basis. In a text may appear different traditions that need not be chronologically diverse or refer to a specific date, and much less be "true".

Frequently, this manipulated "scientificism" results very ingenuous for the extern viewer.

Personally, I just see something clear the criterion of difficulty (or "embarrassment") that at least serves to rule out later additions to a text or to track a plurality of voices. The criterion of multiple attestation would make sense if we had external evidence, but having to limit ourselves to texts that have been produced by a sect of believers, the criterion loses all effectiveness.

 

[Craig B]

... Personally, I just see something clear the criterion of difficulty (or "embarrassment") that at least serves to rule later additions to a text or to track a plurality of voices. The criterion of multiple attestation would make sense if we had external evidence, but having to limit ourselves to texts that have been produced by a sect of believers, the criterion loses all effectiveness.

I agree with this, both points. However I have a slight reservation about your view that the principle of multiple attestation loses "all" effectiveness because the sources are "believers". Different members of, or sources within, the spectrum of Jesus belief, tended to believe different things. So if, nonetheless, they agree on a particular thing, then we may cautiously propose that this agreement may not arise from a general tendency to agree, but may be from a common source, or be multiple attestation of a real event. They may not be copying it one from another. Of course they may be copying a now lost source, like Q, which means it's not multiple attestation at all. But something in Mark, Q, and John ought to be looked at, because these sources by no means always exhibit common beliefs.

 

[pakeha]

There is a transcript of the first video on the Youtube link.

Underneath the video where it says "About" there is a row of options like "Share" and "Add To", one of those will give you a transcript of the whole thing with a time mark.

He starts getting into the evidence around the 27 minute mark, if you don't want to hear the set-up.

I must be ending the year in stupid mode, as I can't find any transcript.

ETA
Found!
Fantastic.
I'm ending the year in discovery mode!

 

[Belz...]

Isn't it amusing--an internet crank who believes there was an HJ CLAIMS only internet cranks think HJ might not have existed.

That HJ internet crank just contradicted himself as soon as he went on the internet.

I don't think you have the slightest clue what "contradiction" means.

 

[pakeha]

Of course, Pakeha. These and other criteria are used by the religious experts (theologians or historians) with a manifest lack of objectivity. First, they are defined rather vaguely and so result contradictory to each other. Then, they can choose the one that best fits with their personal beliefs. Second, because they are criteria for discerning different levels of text or authorship. But they use them with a dogmatic clause: if contradictory accounts appear in the Gospels that refer to different traditions or writings, then one of them is coming from Christ himself and is "historical". This clause has no basis. In a text may appear different traditions that need not be chronologically diverse or refer to a specific date, and much less be "true".

Frequently, this manipulated "scientificism" results very ingenuous for the extern viewer.

Personally, I just see something clear the criterion of difficulty (or "embarrassment") that at least serves to rule out later additions to a text or to track a plurality of voices. The criterion of multiple attestation would make sense if we had external evidence, but having to limit ourselves to texts that have been produced by a sect of believers, the criterion loses all effectiveness.

Thanks for your take on those methodologies, David Mo.
They seem like overt special pleading to me, but I'm an amateur, not professional historian.

I'm also frustrated by the academic pay-walls which severely limit my access to the directions of the academic mainstream.
Bloggers are entertaining and often very well-informed, yes, but it's not the same.
On the other hand, Brainache has posted up some excellent lectures from Yale that are worth viewing or reading the transcripts. If you haven't followed the links, they're well worth the time.

I agree with this, both points. However I have a slight reservation about your view that the principle of multiple attestation loses "all" effectiveness because the sources are "believers". Different members of, or sources within, the spectrum of Jesus belief, tended to believe different things. So if, nonetheless, they agree on a particular thing, then we may cautiously propose that this agreement may not arise from a general tendency to agree, but may be from a common source, or be multiple attestation of a real event. They may not be copying it one from another. Of course they may be copying a now lost source, like Q, which means it's not multiple attestation at all. But something in Mark, Q, and John ought to be looked at, because these sources by no means always exhibit common beliefs.

I see your point, Craig B. about the common beliefs.
My own reservation with your idea would be that such a small sample of the writings has survived to make reconstituting a context for them is very difficult indeed. Are the attestations independent or taken from a common source?

Mark, Q and John represent different phases of the belief system of the early Christians AFAIK.
Can they be called independent?

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

then we may cautiously propose that this agreement may not arise from a general tendency to agree, but may be from a common source, or be multiple attestation of a real event.

Or be multiple adaptations of the first written account, which a variety of authors find convenient for their purposes. Both the crucifixion and a period of close association with John the Baptist serve to grind many axes. What is useful for many storytellers gets incorporated into many stories. That includes audience expectation - we would not recognize as Jesus a man who died of cholera, or somebody who had never had any friendly relations with John the Baptist. There's no point writing a Jesus story unless the reader recognizes the focal figure as "the Jesus."

Nobody proposes not looking at what appears in several places among the four Gospels, Paul and maybe "core" Thomas (there is nothing in you beloeved Q that is not already in those). A prose narrative is a craft object. If it includes a feature, then the feature is included because it advances the author's intention. If you don't know the author's intention, then that's a problem.

What an amazing coincidence that the historian, finding common features, decides that the authors' intention was to solve the historian's problem.

 

[Craig B]

Craig B ... Nobody proposes not looking at what appears in several places among the four Gospels, Paul and maybe "core" Thomas (there is nothing in you beloeved Q that is not already in those).

Yes, I know. When I wrote Q it was shorthand for nothing else except "the things common to Matthew and Luke". I referred to Mark and John separately. Because we were discussing these common elements, Q was a useful concept to invoke in that context.

 

[IanS]

I am not quite sure what people mean by this. I certainly have read articles that have been published in professional journals about this period. Several of the people involved in researching the James ossuary wrote articles for scientific journals. There are tons of articles about specific aspects of Christian history that seem to have been published in peer reviewed journals. Richard Carrier talks about submitting his work for peer review.

Well it was not me that said it. In the above I am asking if Jayson was saying that in his earlier post.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

I referred to Mark and John separately. Because we were discussing these common elements, Q was a useful concept to invoke in that context.

OK, not you, but others sometimes point to Q as a supposed "independent source" in its own right. It can easily get confusing, then, where the attestations actually are in a multiple attestation argument.

 

[IanS]

Not true (yet again!). What I have said all through, is that anything presented as evidence of a human Jesus, must be credible and genuinely evidence of what is being claimed (not evidence of something else, such as merely evidence of 1st century religious beliefs). It also has to be independent of the biblical writing, because that writing is completely discredited since we discovered that almost every significant story it tells of Jesus is in fact impossible.

Nonsense. The "biblical writing" is not a uniform mass of conscious lies and fabrications composed for the purpose of deception.

Who said that the biblical writing was “a uniform mass of conscious lies and fabrications composed for the purpose of deception”? I did not say that. Those words come for you!

What I have said all through all of these threads is that the bible cannot be a credible source of evidence for Jesus, because (amongst many other fatal reasons) -

- none of the biblical authors ever knew anyone called Jesus. And therefore, at the very best, they could only be reporting hearsay. But where none of them could ever produce any named traceable or verifiable individual who ever gave them any such hearsay stories anyway.

As “evidence”, that is a complete non-starter (not to mention the fact that almost every significant claim any of them ever made about Jesus has since been shown to be certainly untrue).


You have failed ever to produce any genuine credible evidence of a human Jesus whatsoever. And nor (apparently) can you cite any such evidence from any of these “expert scholars” that you keep saying we must rely on.

 

[Craig B]

... You have failed ever to produce any genuine credible evidence of a human Jesus whatsoever. And nor (apparently) can you cite any such evidence from any of these “expert scholars” that you keep saying we must rely on.

Reject whatever evidence you like. Fine. But it's still evidence, it is generally regarded as plausible, and your contemptuous quotation marks round expert scholars simply makes you look foolish.

 

[The Norseman]

I'm game, and I do agree.

Okay, excellent. I'll do my part and check my online resources for papers (both peer-reviewed and not) and post it here. I think we can both continue to ask others for these kind of responses in lieu of nothing but bible quotes.

 

[Brainache]

Reject whatever evidence you like. Fine. But it's still evidence, it is generally regarded as plausible, and your contemptuous quotation marks round expert scholars simply makes you look foolish.

He has also apparently decided that the letters of James and Jude are "Forgeries" too.