Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[dejudge]

I know what Bayes Theorem is. I never said you or Richard Carrier invented it. Where did you get that idiotic idea?

It is not useful in the study of History. Unless you already know all of the facts of a given event, in which case it is even more useless because: why would you need it, if you already have all the facts?

Where do you get that idiotic idea that Bayes Theorem is not useful in the study of history? You did not get that idea from Richard Carrier an historian who uses Bayes Theorem in the study of history.

 

[Brainache]

Where do you get that idiotic idea that Bayes Theorem is not useful in the study of history? You did not get that idea from Richard Carrier an historian who uses Bayes Theorem in the study of history.

It isn't an idiotic idea.

I know I didn't get it from Richard Carrier, because he is the only idiot who thinks Bayes Theorem is useful for answering this question.

Which University does he teach History at?

Oh, that's right, he isn't associated with a University...

 

[dejudge]

It isn't an idiotic idea.

I know I didn't get it from Richard Carrier, because he is the only idiot who thinks Bayes Theorem is useful for answering this question.

Which University does he teach History at?

Oh, that's right, he isn't associated with a University...

You come across as very anti-intellectual. You seem to think that Richard Carrier is an idiot because he uses Bayes Theorem.

Bart Ehrman uses the Bible to claim his Jesus was baptized by John and crucified by Pilate without corroboration outside the Bible and Apologetics.

Why is Bart Ehrman not an idiot?

Bart Ehrman admitted the NT is riddled with historical problems, discrepancies and events that could NOT have happened.

 

[Belz...]

Are you a mathematician? Are you an historian? Have you any idea how to apply Bayes Theorem?

Bayes Theorem does not ever, ever, ever start from a negative. It starts WITH DATA.

Maybe you should read the entire post before hitting "submit."

 

[Belz...]

Oh, Oh!!! Here you go again. Now you are claiming that Bayes Theorem is a stupid argument.

Maybe you should read the entire post before hitting "submit."

Don't you even realize that Bayes Theorem was not developed by me or Richard Carrier?

What a stupid question.

 

[The Norseman]

Applying Bayes' Theorem is starting from a negative.
Starting from a negative isn't using a null hypothesis; using a null hypothesis is to run a test forced to be false as a result for comparison of the actual test against for verification that the result of the actual test is significant to the positive in deviation worth noting - beats the null hypothesis.

Starting from a negative is to take the position that something isn't until it is proven true.
Applying the probability of Bayes is doing just this, and it is really a bad idea to apply to History.

It sounds great, I know, but it really is worse than helpful if adopted as a standard.
Most folks don't know how History is conducted, nor what the historical method is or how it works; let alone why.

History is not a hard science (except for Archaeology, which would be an appropriate field to apply Bayes Theorem).
Applying Bayes Theorem, firstly, would make History worse because it would give false confidence and convert History into a pseudoscience as History is not a science and should never attempt to be such.

Secondly, application of Bayes is impractical for History because, for example, if I found a piece of inscription in Egypt from ancient times, Bayes' Theorem would quite loudly produce a probability that what I am holding is filled with lies.
Does that mean that what I am holding is an account that never took place?
No.

It would only mean the probability is that it contains a lie since so many inscriptions in Egypt are filled with outright lies.

I didn't need Bayes' Theorem to figure that out, though, and it doesn't help me accomplish figuring out if what I'm holding is a true account or not.
Why not?

Because to functionally use Bayes' Theorem, I need to have all of the information regarding the proposition available to run the probability.
If I leave out a piece of information, or enter the information in with the wrong premise, then the probability comes out entirely wrong.

And here is the point of my concern here: most of History is entirely vacant to us.

Take Jesus, for example.
Many times people say, "What's the likelihood that someone would make an embarrassing story like this of a fictional character they wanted to use as their champion hero?"

One of the problems with this proposition is assuming that the story is embarrassing, or that seemingly mundane content within are not symbolic.
This is an issue of not knowing the cultural tendencies and values, anthropology.

What appears to be one thing in History can be entirely another.

Furthermore, running Bayes Theorem on Jesus assumes we have all of the information there is to have on Jesus.

However, if I ran that Theorem in 1930, then again in 1960, then again in 1990, and then again in 2020, I will result with an entirely different result for each run as we have repeatedly found more material related to the Jesus cults over time and we full well know that we have not made our way through half of the texts from the early centuries from early and diverse Christian movements.

History is never "done", so applying a probability statistic with hopelessly incomplete information is erroneous before we even begin.

All it would do is fill up conventions with Historians arguing over who did their math better than the other, or who ran their probability with the wrong information or premises, or left out a given piece of information.

Furthermore, as I've mentioned before, running History this way would (to the student's delight) make History a far thinner account as the largest chunks of History would be ripped out and tossed into the gutter as "discounted" and non-applicable to entry into the human timeline.

Based on what?
Based on probability; probability ran without all of the information.

Ancient History doesn't work on probability in the sense of actuality.
It runs on relative association of behavioral tendency (humanities), and usually only finds proof from Archaeology.

For example, Troy was attested, and behavioral tendency first favored earnestness, then favored fiction or error, and it was only Archaeology that rested the case as proven.

Applying Bayes' Theorem would not have altered those events gainfully.
Without supporting Archaeology, Troy would have been claimed probable or improbable based on the theorem, and that decision would have been made in error (regardless of which probability it produces) as it would have done so without all of the information, since more information about Troy was still sitting in the ground unknown to all.

For this reason, History inherits a positive (mostly) and requests a negative be proven.
Tossing a probability at Jesus is not proof of a negative; it's a probability.
That probability doesn't help conclude anything, however, because we don't have all of the information available yet - we may never have all of the information.

Some times, the straight answer, in regards to proof, is...we don't know.
As much as people hate that answer, that is the most honest answer, regarding proof, for most of ancient History.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the historical method as it is, aside from that most people don't understand what the historical method is and think that any documentary with historians on it means the contents discussed are proven true.

The one good thing that I see in Carrier, is that at least the general public is learning what the historical method is.
The problem I see, however, is that many are learning what it is from the position of expecting History to be air tight like science, or logically applicable to systems such as court law.

None of this would be a huge shock if general History classes in basic schooling were more thorough in discussing what History is and how it is formed.

Heck, folks could learn a basic understanding of this in an hour or two watching Crash Course World History by John Green on youtube.

When looking at History, everyone needs to remember that we cannot ever fully know the reality of ancient times; we can only simulate it to our best ability imagining (as in, to conceive of) how people behaved and by dating clay pots.

Don't have a clay pot for us to date you with?
Then we can only inherit your story and imagine the behavior within it and parse out what is akin to social behaviors of your people and what does not fit to what we know of your people...what we know.

That's History; that's it.

I do again appreciate your reply. Because it is such a lengthy post, I will have to wait until I can get to a normal computer with keyboard. Currently all I have is my cell phone and a tablet both of which are quite difficult to communicate on ( well, difficult for me).

I will revisit this.

 

[The Norseman]

So, basically you are saying that Richard Carrier thinks he knows it all. No surprises there...

You can stop saying these ridiculous things any time now.

 

[The Norseman]

It isn't an idiotic idea.

I know I didn't get it from Richard Carrier, because he is the only idiot who thinks Bayes Theorem is useful for answering this question.

Which University does he teach History at?

Oh, that's right, he isn't associated with a University...

Your historical method has developed probably more than a dozen different Jesuses if not more. I highly doubt that using any other method of achieving some sense of validity in history is any worse than what it already been done with the historical method.

Perhaps when you get the book you can try to read it before continuing to making ridiculous statements.

 

[Brainache]

Your historical method has developed probably more than a dozen different Jesuses if not more. I highly doubt that using any other method of achieving some sense of validity in history is any worse than what it already been done with the historical method.

Perhaps when you get the book you can try to read it before continuing to making ridiculous statements.

It isn't the Historical Method that produces all of these "Reformer", or "Stoic" Jesuses (Jesii?), it is the speculations of various Scholars that produces them.

Do I have to tell you what the Consensus HJ is again? This is getting ridiculous.

 

[IanS]

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.

You don’t need any “entire courses written on the matter“. No university course covers anywhere near “everything written” on any aspect of any subject. And there are subjects vastly more complex than the religious history of Jesus.

What’s needed is any evidence at all of a living Jesus. And that means credible reliable evidence, not unbelievable and wholly unreliable evidence of something else entirely (such as peoples 1st century religious beliefs).

This seems to be the only academic subject where it’s supporters cannot post any genuine reliable evidence of what it claims to be true.

If there is no evidence of Jesus, then there is nothing else left to discuss here.

 

[Brainache]

You don’t need any “entire courses written on the matter“. No university course covers anywhere near “everything written” on any aspect of any subject. And there are subjects vastly more complex than the religious history of Jesus.

What’s needed is any evidence at all of a living Jesus. And that means credible reliable evidence, not unbelievable and wholly unreliable evidence of something else entirely (such as peoples 1st century religious beliefs).

This seems to be the only academic subject where it’s supporters cannot post any genuine reliable evidence of what it claims to be true.

If there is no evidence of Jesus, then there is nothing else left to discuss here.

You have been shown where you are wrong about this. You have been shown the evidence, it wasn't awesome enough for you, so you ignored it. It hasn't gone away, just because you won't look at it.

Go talk to the university, if you don't like the way they study History. Leave us alone.

 

[JaysonR]

So, basically you are saying that Richard Carrier thinks he knows it all. No surprises there...

I don't think I would go that far.
I understand where Carrier is coming from, truly, and I admire the pursuit to aid in achieving a better quality of historical record.
I don't think the theorem is entirely useless, but I wouldn't suggest replacing the entire Historical method with it, or relying more on it than the standard method.

To me, that would be like replacing the entire Scientific Method with a Ruler; one is a tool, another is a method.
The tool can help the method, but I would hazard outright replacing one for the other.

 

[JaysonR]

You don’t need any “entire courses written on the matter“. No university course covers anywhere near “everything written” on any aspect of any subject. And there are subjects vastly more complex than the religious history of Jesus.

What’s needed is any evidence at all of a living Jesus. And that means credible reliable evidence, not unbelievable and wholly unreliable evidence of something else entirely (such as peoples 1st century religious beliefs).

This seems to be the only academic subject where it’s supporters cannot post any genuine reliable evidence of what it claims to be true.

If there is no evidence of Jesus, then there is nothing else left to discuss here.

No, Jesus is not strangely unique.
There are several figures of history where evidence is just as thin or thinner.

Is the historical field the only field that accepts evidences thinner than other fields?
Absolutely.
Why?

Because to not do so is, effectively, not to have history in large part.
Most of the ancient record is fragmentary and bias; on a good day.

Because of the ignition of the cults surrounding Jesus, we actually have more content to look at regarding the cults and their ideas of this figure than we typically do of most figures.

Does that prove existence?
Nope.

Is Jesus historically proven to exist or to not have existed?
Nope.

Is Jesus accepted into the historical record as existent by inheritance of the positive?
Yep, like everything.

Has Jesus been proven to the negative successfully yet?
Nope; and complaining that the "evidence for Jesus is poor or non-existent" doesn't prove a negative. It just begs justification for the positive, and that just means someone doesn't understand how the Historical method works.

Round and round we go...I think you probably full well understand all of this at this point.
You may not like it; but that's how it is.

The historical method, due to the crappy quality of material we find and the crappy quality of our ability to find material, is horribly incapable of working in the opposite position.

 

[dejudge]

Nope; and complaining that the "evidence for Jesus is poor or non-existent" doesn't prove a negative. It just begs justification for the positive, and that just means someone doesn't understand how the Historical method works.

What negative are you talking about? The claim that Jesus is a figure of mythology based on the description of Jesus in the NT and having no known history is completely reasonable and has been done for hundreds of characters of antiquity.

There are hundreds of figures of mythology before and after Jesus.

To make Jesus in the Bible a special case is completely illogical.

Anyone who have studied ancient culture would know of the vast amount of mythological figures including major and minor deities in Greek, and Roman mythology.


We simply have two opposing arguments like any matter under consideration.

1. Jesus of the NT was likely a figure of history.

2. Jesus of the NT was likely a figure of mythology.


The next stage is the PRESENTATION of evidence.

Those who argue that Jesus was likely a figure of history cannot yet present any historical evidence.

Their argument is dead. It could NOT be sustained.

The conditions to argue for an historical Jesus are missing.

1. No known history.

2. No known credible source.

Anyone can assume Jesus existed but NO argument can be made today--there is no evidence right now.

On the other hand, those who argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology can PRESENT evidence that Jesus was conceived by a Ghost and was Publicly DECLARED to be God Creator and can show that ALL Non-Apologetic sources did not mention Jesus of Nazareth or claimed to have met him.

The conditions to argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology are presently met.

1. Virtually all mythological characteristics.

2. No known history.

3. Virtually all fictional accounts or accounts that did not happen.

4. Christians themselves argued that their own Jesus did NOT and could NOT have a human father.


The argument for a myth Jesus is by far the strongest argument, it is extremely well supported by the evidence and can be sustained for infinity provided no new evidence surfaces.

If anyone has been to a court trial it is known that a guilty verdict does not exclude the possibility of actual innocence but only that the evidence does NOT support a not guilty verdict..

A GUILTY verdict means the evidence for Guilt is Far STRONGER the evidence for innocence or that the argument for innocence cannot be maintained based on the evidence.

It is precisely the same with arguments for and against a figure of mythology.

The argument for a Myth Jesus is FAR SUPERIOR to the argument for HJ because there is ONLY evidence for Myth Jesus.

 

[pakeha]

... An analysis of the gospels can indeed yield credible, though not conclusive, evidence for Jesus. This has been discussed, including the criteria by which it is discerned.

At the end of the day, that's about all there is, isn't it.
Truth to tell, I find the criteria themselves terribly wanting. In fact, as far as I can see, the criteria used in bible study are more or less unique to bible study, and therefore neither more nor less than special pleading.

...There are intriguing connections between the Gospels and first century Palestine and it seems like they may have really been influenced by a first century Palestinian sect who had a prominent member named the Aramaic equivalent of Jesus. But it also looks to me like they are so separated from first century Palestine that it is hard to see what could be used to separate history from fiction in them except external corroboration for which there is none that isn't disputed and reasonably so in my view. ...

ETA2: One significant question is whether there was an HJ that counts, meaning was there an HJ whose ideas and actions influenced Christianity. I think it is very unlikely that there was an HJ that counts. The most plausible connection to a real HJ in the NT is the writings of Paul and not much of the ideas of Paul's HJ made it into his writings. If we don't know what the ideas of the HJ were from Paul it seems much less likely that we could figure out what they were from the rest of the NT.

This seems like a fair summing up, Davefoc, at least to my eye.
Out of curiosity, how's the ossuary question going?

 

[Craig B]

At the end of the day, that's about all there is, isn't it.
Truth to tell, I find the criteria themselves terribly wanting. In fact, as far as I can see, the criteria used in bible study are more or less unique to bible study, and therefore neither more nor less than special pleading.

I don't know. It seems to me that multiple attestation and "embarrassment" would be applicable as criteria to any sources.

 

[David Mo]

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.

Strictly speaking, we have only two independent fonts: Mark and Q, if the most common opinion is admitted here. (Paul says very few on Jesus' life and John writes too late to be considered a reliable font). Two testimonies are very few to be considered as multiple attestation. Moreover, they are not independent fonts. It is true than they don't ever coincide with each other in relevant facts, but it is also true that the ideological coincidences between them are many and most important. Both are trying to communicate that Jesus was in some way divine, he did miracles, he was the most outstanding prophet of Israel, he was cleverer than his enemies, he was compassionate towards the poor and marginalized people, he was the compliance of ancient prophecies and so on.
The problem is that almost all the events related in the New Testament have these doctrinal motivations and we can't know if they are real or invented with doctrinal purposes if we only consider the multiple attestation criterion.
For example: the three synoptic involve the Sanhedrin in the Jesus' trial. We can consider this as acceptable if we consider the multiple attestation criterion. But we also know that the evangelists' agenda includes a strong anti-Judaism. The inclusion of Sanhedrin would likely be a result of intent to involve the representative institutions of Judaism in Jesus' death. We cannot solve this alternative by resorting to the multiple attestation criterion.

 

[davefoc]

...
Out of curiosity, how's the ossuary question going?

A little personal note: The first thread I ever started at JREF was on the James Ossuary. It was also the only time I've ever had a thread rejected. There was already a thread on it. This was about eight years ago.

As to the James Ossuary: I pretty much stopped following the story. Oded Golan was found not guilty a year ago or so. He managed to get the guy who had actually made the forgery out of the country so he didn't testify at the trial. Even with that I was surprised to see him found not guilty. Having a house full of forgery tools and a bunch of forged stuff lying around seem like it was incriminating enough for a guilty verdict to me. ETA: And of course the testimony of a lot of specialists on the various issues that they thought the ossuary inscription was forged as well.

Of course, the true believers circle around a story like this, so if the scammers can get any kind of push back against the conclusion that it is a forgery you can count on some support for the not a forgery side.

 

[David Mo]

Craig B and Pakeha:

But even the criterion of difficulty/embarrassment also has cracks. This approach involves two difficult things to maintain:

First, that we have sufficient knowledge of the ideology of the early Christians and we are able to know what they found difficult or embarrassing to admit.
Second, that religious beliefs are always developed under criteria of rationality. It is not clear that the believer of a religion always choose what suits him. There are a lot of examples to the contrary. And this may also be the case when choosing an incoherent and embarrassing belief.

Therefore, even when we apply the criterion that I consider stronger, the difficulty, it is always advisable to keep a reserve of doubt.

 

[Craig B]

Strictly speaking, we have only two independent fonts: Mark and Q, if the most common opinion is admitted here.

Yes that is probably right.

Both are trying to communicate that Jesus was in some way divine, he did miracles, he was the most outstanding prophet of Israel, he was cleverer than his enemies, he was compassionate towards the poor and marginalized people, he was the compliance of ancient prophecies and so on.
The problem is that almost all the events related in the New Testament have these doctrinal motivations and we can't know if they are real or invented with doctrinal purposes if we only consider the multiple attestation criterion.

One point here. Do these sources assert that he was in some way divine?