• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did Jesus exist?

Did Jesus exist?


  • Total voters
    193
  • Poll closed .
zugzwang

And the internet has given carte blanche to people to diss experts and academics and professionals, and say, no, they are all talking trash, because I read a couple of paperbacks, and watched a couple of youtubes, and here is the low down.
If your experts were secure that they had some impersonally valid insight into the uncertainties about which they expound, then why all the trash talk?

And what do you propose as an alternative to "carte blanche," formerly known as free speech? (Forgive my lapse into oldthink).

Do you have some manageable standard for determining what preparation is to be required for questioning (as "dissing" used to be called) "experts, acadmeics and professionals" (formerly known as... oh wait, it's "dissing" to point out how many of them are active in Christian or Muslim ministry).
 
zugzwang


If your experts were secure that they had some impersonally valid insight into the uncertainties about which they expound, then why all the trash talk?

And what do you propose as an alternative to "carte blanche," formerly known as free speech? (Forgive my lapse into oldthink).

Do you have some manageable standard for determining what preparation is to be required for questioning (as "dissing" used to be called) "experts, acadmeics and professionals" (formerly known as... oh wait, it's "dissing" to point out how many of them are active in Christian or Muslim ministry).

You will have to spell out your last sentence in monosyllables, as I can't really understand it. Do you mean, what should be the basis for questioning academics?
 
zugzwang

You will have to spell out your last sentence in monosyllables, as I can't really understand it. Do you mean, what should be the basis for questioning academics?
Not quite. In your trash talk, you eliminated a kind of reading and seemed to propose, literally, to judge books by their covers.

So, I asked whether or not you have a manageable standard for what qualifies a dissenter to speak or share writing in public. That's a yes-or-no question. If you do, then by all means, please move on to the obvious next question, what is that standard, in your view?
 
zugzwang


Not quite. In your trash talk, you eliminated a kind of reading and seemed to propose, literally, to judge books by their covers.

So, I asked whether or not you have a manageable standard for what qualifies a dissenter to speak or share writing in public. That's a yes-or-no question. If you do, then by all means, please move on to the obvious next question, what is that standard, in your view?

I'm still not sure what you are saying. Dissenters can do whatever they want, and others are free to criticize them. I'm not trying to shut them down, but surely one should feel free to criticize rubbish when one sees it.
 
zugzwang

I'm still not sure what you are saying. Dissenters can do whatever they want, and others are free to criticize them. I'm not trying to shut them down, but surely one should feel free to criticize rubbish when one sees it.
By all means. But you didn't confine your remarks to the contents of speech; you also commented on the speakers and their activities before speaking. In particular, you described your concerns about the speakers' preparation.

Please choose one from between:

* Yes, I have a standard which, in my view, suffices to prepare an author to criticize findings of "experts and academics and professionals," without complaint from me about the author's standing to make such criticism.

* No, I don't have an actual standard for that.

If your answer is yes, then please continue on to answer the follow-up question that you proposed,

... what should be the basis for questioning academics?
 
pakeha

Oh, I agree with you that most people here are interested and curious. The scorn for academics is not prevalent here really, but you do find it in the anti-HJ movement.

Anti-HJ movement?
Here?
And if not here, why even mention it?

In any case, main stream historians DO change views and opinions, just take the example of Troy as an obvious and familiar example. Why is it so threatening to question current POVs?
 
zugzwang


By all means. But you didn't confine your remarks to the contents of speech; you also commented on the speakers and their activities before speaking. In particular, you described your concerns about the speakers' preparation.

Please choose one from between:

* Yes, I have a standard which, in my view, suffices to prepare an author to criticize findings of "experts and academics and professionals," without complaint from me about the author's standing to make such criticism.

* No, I don't have an actual standard for that.

If your answer is yes, then please continue on to answer the follow-up question that you proposed,

Are you hinting that it is OK to use rubbish arguments to criticise Academics? If so, I agree. Just don't expect to see those Academics persuaded.
 
Last edited:
zugzwang


By all means. But you didn't confine your remarks to the contents of speech; you also commented on the speakers and their activities before speaking. In particular, you described your concerns about the speakers' preparation.

Please choose one from between:

* Yes, I have a standard which, in my view, suffices to prepare an author to criticize findings of "experts and academics and professionals," without complaint from me about the author's standing to make such criticism.

* No, I don't have an actual standard for that.

If your answer is yes, then please continue on to answer the follow-up question that you proposed,

That's a bit like 'how long is a piece of string?'. I think amateurs can equip themselves to challenge academics, but obviously, they have to know quite a bit about the field. In another area which I am interested in - ornithology - amateurs make distinguished contributions, and get articles published in reputable journals. But as you would imagine, they are pretty genned up on the particular field they are talking about, and even over-compensate, with voluminous footnotes!

I suppose with history, there is the possibility of a philosophical objection to the whole field, in the sense that the past is not recoverable. Apart from that, you have to know something of the particular area again, and the methods used.
 
zugzwang


If your experts were secure that they had some impersonally valid insight into the uncertainties about which they expound, then why all the trash talk?

And what do you propose as an alternative to "carte blanche," formerly known as free speech? (Forgive my lapse into oldthink).

Do you have some manageable standard for determining what preparation is to be required for questioning (as "dissing" used to be called) "experts, acadmeics and professionals" (formerly known as... oh wait, it's "dissing" to point out how many of them are active in Christian or Muslim ministry).

Apparently studying ancient history is more complex than the most advanced physics and can only be done by those who have the gift of discernment.

The rest of us can only accept the words of wisdom from the citadel of higher learning and commit lese majeste if we so much as question their insight.

In fact, questioning the HJ will lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it according to some HJers.
 
Last edited:
Apparently studying ancient history is more complex than the most advanced physics and can only be done by those who have the gift of discernment.

The rest of us can only accept the words of wisdom from the citadel of higher learning and commit lese majeste if we so much as question their insight.

In fact, questioning the HJ will lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it according to some HJers.

Or, you could read a book.
 
Apparently studying ancient history is more complex than the most advanced physics and can only be done by those who have the gift of discernment.

The rest of us can only accept the words of wisdom from the citadel of higher learning and commit lese majeste if we so much as question their insight.

In fact, questioning the HJ will lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it according to some HJers.

Well, how about evolution? On what basis is one equipped to make negative comments about that? I would think that many biologists would be a bit impatient if one's criticisms extended to 'if humans descend from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?' The task then is to actually read some books about evolution, and find out what is being said about common descent.
 
Brainache

Are you hinting that it is OK use rubbish arguments to criticise Academics? If so, I agree. Just don't expect to see those Academics persuaded.
No, actually I was asking the other poster a question or maybe two. The conversation hasn't progressed to the further issue of persuading anybody, academics or otherwise. Maybe it will at some point, but the conversation hasn't so far.

zugzwang

We agree that amateurs make contributions to scholarship. No doubt, some preparation is necessary for them to do so. Hence my questions, whether you had in mind a standard for the lesser included achievements of forming and expressing an opinion about the reliability of some scholarly finding, and if so, what that standard would be for a finding related to the topic.

I don't know anybody here who argues for the philosophical objection you mentioned, so

Apart from that, you have to know something of the particular area again, and the methods used.
Oddly, even some posters here with whom I have the most desperate disagreement apparently know something of the particular area and the methods used, even when what they propose and how they argue for it seem to me indefensible. So, forgive me if I suspect that you are at least thinking of a higher standard than what you just said. If you haven't formalized it, then that's fine, and saying so would have been a responsive answer to the question I asked you.
 
eight bits

I don't think you can formalize it. You can't stipulate, 'read at least 100 history books, and maybe 20 papers in journals, and then we'll see'. In fact, every now and again, there is a genius who appears able to grasp the fundamental parameters of a discipline from quite a brief introduction. Of course, most of us are not like that, and thus we sweat and toil. But I do come across people who seem to find historical method laughable.
 
zugzwang

I don't think you can formalize it. You can't stipulate, 'read at least 100 history books, and maybe 20 papers in journals, and then we'll see'.
OK, then no to the question asked. Thank you.

In fact, every now and again, there is a genius who appears able to grasp the fundamental parameters of a discipline from quite a brief introduction.
That is not the on-topic level of performance. "Did Jesus exist?" is a yes-or-no question, with at worst some fringe at the edges of "what counts?" Even with an expansive allowance for fringe, its fundamentals are far narrower than a "discipline."

Our colleague tsig has pointed out, with some humor, that this single question can be addressed without "threatening" other, loosely coupled consesnsuses about other historical uncertainties. In fact, as he was charitable enough not to point out, concern about the HJ question is often criticized because the actual answer lacks many real-world consequences either way (unless Jesus were properly known to be false, which it is safe to say will never be a problem).

Also, it is entirely possible to reason counterfactually, and assume that all technical questions about the quality of the available evidence are resolved most favorably to the consensus view, and on that assumption, in light of a now-settled finite body of evidence, to doubt the consensus view. If that were assumed, then the assessor need neither disparage nor appreciate the expertise of, say, the expert in manuscript witness, in order to disagree with the consesnus.

Of course, most of us are not like that, and thus we sweat and toil. But I do come across people who seem to find historical method laughable.
Well, if the method, as applied to the topic question, really is like what some of its advocates here describe it as being, then laughter would be amply justified. That is the happier alternative to tears.
 
Last edited:
That's a bit like 'how long is a piece of string?'. I think amateurs can equip themselves to challenge academics, but obviously, they have to know quite a bit about the field. In another area which I am interested in - ornithology - amateurs make distinguished contributions, and get articles published in reputable journals. But as you would imagine, they are pretty genned up on the particular field they are talking about, and even over-compensate, with voluminous footnotes!

I suppose with history, there is the possibility of a philosophical objection to the whole field, in the sense that the past is not recoverable. Apart from that, you have to know something of the particular area again, and the methods used.

By an odd coincidence, there's a blog entry of Vridar's reviewing dr carrier's now book that deals with the question of what constitutes the historical methodology:
http://vridar.org/2012/04/11/carriers-proving-history-chapter-2-review/

Here's a taste

"Carrier then gives four stages of analysis that must be completed before a historian can proceed to draw historical information from the primary or earliest sources available.

Textual Analysis: This step is to establish that the text we are reading is either the original or an authentic copy of the original.

Literary Analysis:
I have often spoken about the quite limited comprehension of the importance of literary analysis. I have learned the critical importance of it in my own posts about historical methods. To practise it effectively involves an understanding of the literature and culture of the era in which the source was composed. The best preparation for this exercise is to read widely other literature of the times and scholarly studies analysing these literatures as well as the philosophical views, the customs, the societies, of the day. Many “professional biblical historians” have a quite limited comprehension of the importance of this basic requirement, I have learned. Others have published papers begging their peers to explore more widely the literary culture of the time of the Gospels and Genre studies as undertaken beyond biblical studies.


Source Analysis:
Another process I have often emphasized. I like Carrier’s stress on the requirement not to trust routinely what a document says about its sources, too. Then, as now, authors were quite capable of making fictitious claims for special effect. I have recently been catching up with John Van Seters’ work, In Search of History, primarily to learn what he has researched about the nature of sources that are explicitly cited in ancient Mesopotamian historical literature, and the evidence he uncovered to demonstrate that they either did not exist or did not exist as the works they were purported to be. The lesson may well apply to those little claims we read in the Old Testament about “more information about such and such a king can be found in the chronicles of x, etc”.

I would also extend the search for sources to comparative literary analysis. Is there evidence that a work was rewriting episodes from another work. Virgil, for example, relied upon a re-write of Homer’s epics to create his own Aeneid.


Historical Analysis:
Carrier addresses here the years of mentoring students receive as they progress in their studies. That can’t be replicated for most readers, so fortunately Carrier does the next best thing and prepares to explain the methods the experts should ideally employ so as to help readers be better discerners of when historians are really behaving and using the right methods themselves.


I would recommend to others not fortunate enough to undertake that sort of study to spend a lot of time lurking in professional online discussion groups and learning from the exchanges. Wide reading, too, is essential. But it helps to have some guidance in knowing the sorts of things to read, and having read one book, knowing what one should read next to get an alternative perspective."
 
Last edited:
Well, how about evolution? On what basis is one equipped to make negative comments about that? I would think that many biologists would be a bit impatient if one's criticisms extended to 'if humans descend from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?' The task then is to actually read some books about evolution, and find out what is being said about common descent.

Well, how about evolution? Are you claiming that the HJ is on the same evidential footing as evolution?


How do you know what I and others have studied to reach our conclusions? Claiming your opponent is ignorant is an old and dishonest ploy. You seem to believe that if only we were as smart and informed as you then we must agree with you but disagreement =/= ignorance.


When asked for evidence the HJers present the NT, Tacitus and Josephus then tell us that Historians interpretation must be treated as holy writ lest the heavens fall.
 
Well, how about evolution? Are you claiming that the HJ is on the same evidential footing as evolution?


How do you know what I and others have studied to reach our conclusions? Claiming your opponent is ignorant is an old and dishonest ploy. You seem to believe that if only we were as smart and informed as you then we must agree with you but disagreement =/= ignorance.


When asked for evidence the HJers present the NT, Tacitus and Josephus then tell us that Historians interpretation must be treated as holy writ lest the heavens fall.

tsig, did you know Tacitus presents the Exodus as history?
Here's a snippet of his, concerning the origins of the Jews from his Historiae, (5.2-5) :
2. Some say that the Jews were fugitives from the island of Crete, who settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter. Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighboring tribe, the Idæi, came to be called Judæi by a barbarous lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighboring countries. Many, again, say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin, who in the time of king Cepheus were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbors to seek a new dwelling-place. Others describe them as an Assyrian horde who, not having sufficient territory, took possession of part of Egypt, and founded cities of their own in what is called the Hebrew country, lying on the borders of Syria. Others, again, assign a very distinguished origin to the Jews, alleging that they were the Solymi, a nation celebrated in the poems of Homer, who called the city which they founded Hierosolyma after their own name.

3. Most writers, however, agree in stating that once a disease, which horribly disfigured the body, broke out over Egypt; that king Bocchoris, seeking a remedy, consulted the oracle of Hammon, and was bidden to cleanse his realm, and to convey into some foreign land this race detested by the gods. The people, who had been collected after diligent search, finding themselves left in a desert, sat for the most part in a stupor of grief, till one of the exiles, Moyses by name, warned them not to look for any relief from God or man, forsaken as they were of both, but to trust to themselves, taking for their heaven-sent leader that man who should first help them to be quit of their present misery. They agreed, and in utter ignorance began to advance at random. Nothing, however, distressed them so much as the scarcity of water, and they had sunk ready to perish in all directions over the plain, when a herd of wild asses was seen to retire from their pasture to a rock shaded by trees. Moyses followed them, and, guided by the appearance of a grassy spot, discovered an abundant spring of water. This furnished relief. After a continuous journey for six days, on the seventh they possessed themselves of a country, from which they expelled the inhabitants, and in which they founded a city and a temple.

4. Moyses, wishing to secure for the future his authority over the nation, gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that is practiced by other men. Things sacred with us, with them have no sanctity, while they allow what with us is forbidden. In their holy place they have consecrated an image of the animal by whose guidance they found deliverance from their long and thirsty wanderings. They slay the ram, seemingly in derision of Hammon, and they sacrifice the ox, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis. They abstain from swine’s flesh, in consideration of what they suffered when they were infected by the leprosy to which this animal is liable. By their frequent fasts they still bear witness to the long hunger of former days, and the Jewish bread, made without leaven, is retained as a memorial of their hurried seizure of corn. We are told that the rest of the seventh day was adopted, because this day brought with it a termination of their toils; after a while the charm of indolence beguiled them into giving up the seventh year also to inaction. But others say that it is an observance in honor of Saturn, either from the primitive elements of their faith having been transmitted from the Idæi, who are said to have shared the flight of that God, and to have founded the race, or from the circumstance that of the seven stars which rule the destinies of men Saturn moves in the highest orbit and with the mightiest power, and that many of the heavenly bodies complete their revolutions and courses in multiples of seven.

5. This worship, however introduced, is upheld by its antiquity; all their other customs, which are at once perverse and disgusting, owe their strength to their very badness. The most degraded out of other races, scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contributions and presents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact, that among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful. Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into them, to despise all gods, to disown their country, and set at naught parents, children, and brethren. Still they provide for the increase of their numbers. It is a crime among them to kill any newly-born infant. They hold that the souls of all who perish in battle or by the hands of the executioner are immortal. Hence a passion for propagating their race and a contempt for death. They are wont to bury rather than to burn their dead, following in this the Egyptian custom; they bestow the same care on the dead, and they hold the same belief about the lower world. Quite different is their faith about things divine. The Egyptians worship many animals and images of monstrous form; the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence. They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials. They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay. They therefore do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honor to our Emperors. From the fact, however, that their priests used to chant to the music of flutes and cymbals, and to wear garlands of ivy, and that a golden vine was found in the temple, some have thought that they worshipped Father Liber, the conqueror of the East, though their institutions do not by any means harmonize with the theory; for Liber established a festive and cheerful worship, while the Jewish religion is tasteless and mean.


Given the dates of writing and choice of vocabulary, apparently it's possible that as a source of information about Christians Tacitus used his friend Pliny the Younger.
 
Last edited:
Well, how about evolution? Are you claiming that the HJ is on the same evidential footing as evolution?


How do you know what I and others have studied to reach our conclusions? Claiming your opponent is ignorant is an old and dishonest ploy. You seem to believe that if only we were as smart and informed as you then we must agree with you but disagreement =/= ignorance.


When asked for evidence the HJers present the NT, Tacitus and Josephus then tell us that Historians interpretation must be treated as holy writ lest the heavens fall.

No, I don't think evolution is on a par with HJ; but you cited advanced physics, and it struck me that evolution has probably more ill-informed opponents than physics. So I wonder what degree of knowledge is required in order to discuss evolution.

I certainly don't know what you have studied, nor the 'we' that you cite, whoever they are, and I have not claimed that you are ignorant, since I don't think I have ever encountered you on these threads.
 
...I would recommend to others not fortunate enough to undertake that sort of study to spend a lot of time lurking in professional online discussion groups and learning from the exchanges. Wide reading, too, is essential. But it helps to have some guidance in knowing the sorts of things to read, and having read one book, knowing what one should read next to get an alternative perspective."

That is precisely why the Quest for an HJ still continues after hundreds of years. The more one reads the less likely one will conclude there was an HJ.

So far, the unofficial poll do show that about 70% of participants either agree that there is insufficient evidence or that Jesus was a myth.

The HJ argument is being propagated by those who are probably not familiar with the evidence from antiquity and not familiar with 1st century culture of Mythology.

The QUESTERS seem to have no idea that the HJ argument is an established dead end argument and that this is the THIRD attempt--NO HJ has ever been found for at least 250 years.

250 years is an extremely long time period and the QUESTERS come away empty-handed.
 
The history of the Quest for an HJ is disaster so far. After hundreds of years the QUEST still continues.

The Quest for an HJ is really at a dead end. History has repeated itself.

On the other hand, the history of the Quest for an HJ has been known to be a failure after more than one attempt and hundreds of years of questing.

Your teachers are teaching a dead end failed argument using known forgeries and sources of fiction as history.

Your teachers are teaching logical fallacies.

250 years is an extremely long time period and the QUESTERS come away empty-handed.

You put Spam in my gish gallop! No you put a gish gallop in my Spam!
 

Back
Top Bottom