Historical Jesus

[Darat]

...why not? Knowledge of an important historical character is fascinating in and of itself.







Yeah but let's assume for a moment that we find some archive dating from the time that confirms a few mundane details about someone clearly identifiable as Jesus. Would that not be an important find, regardless of how different he turns out to be from the Jesus in the Gospels?

Yes that would be an important find. But until we have it I'm sticking to the fact that we know i.e. the Jesus in the Christian texts did not exist.
ETA could a historical figure be the inspiration for the Jesus in the Christian texts? Yes they could be, but we don't need one to explain the facts we do have so Okham's razor......

 

[Darat]

Some guy.

A very naughty boy?

 

[Cheetah]

Yeah but Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable when it disagrees with me.

On the other hand on RationalWiki there is quite a comprehensive page:
Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ


I just skimmed through for now and this caught my eye:

So some basic criteria as to what a historical Jesus even is must be set down and for the sake of simplicity this article will use Carrier's criteria for a minimal historical Jesus with regards to the evidence:

1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death
2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities
3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)

Those criteria are pretty strict, just number one would be fine by me. I thought Jesus was probably the Ulana Khomyuk of the Bible in any case.

 

[IanS]

You don't think it'd be important to be able to uncover the life of this guy even if he didn't correspond much to the legend? I think it would be even more interesting and important to do so. Same for Jesus. If he's exactly as described, fine. But if he's significantly different, even better!

I get the impression that the objection to the HJ is purely on the ground that it would give legitimacy to Christianity. It wouldn't, really. And even if it did, that has no relevance to the discussion.

In that case (the highlight) I think you are barking up a non-existent tree. That is - people here are not (as far as I am aware) expressing scepticism about the existence of Jesus simply in order to ridicule or dismiss religious belief/theism.

Afaik the scepticism here is based almost entirely upon the fact that what has been presented as evidence for a HJ, is really not evidence of a HJ at all.

It's really only evidence of how in the relative ignorance of biblical times, anonymous authors wrote about other unknown people of the past who were said to have witnessed a promised messiah (promised since 500 to 1000 years before in the OT) performing miracles that proved he was the son of God. That's only evidence of how easily people believed things that today we would all agree to be quite obviously untrue myth making. There is really no evidence there of any living Jesus known to anyone.

So, what we are objecting to is (for example) people here doing things such as making a fallacious “appeal to authority” when they quote people like Bart Ehrman who wrote a recent book repeatedly claiming “Jesus definitely existed”, when Ehrman's only actual source is that quite absurd miracle writing that is the bible.

And the only reason any of us take exception to this today, is because Christianity continues to have such a huge hold over the lives of half the worlds population (inc. the governments and the law makers). So, as the entire basis of all Christianity the existence of Jesus is by no means a trivial issue.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Here's the problem.

I'm gonna make a claim. In 1809 a guy named John Smith lived in Albany New York and he invented a perpetual motion machine.

If I go to the census records for that timeframe and area and can prove that someone named John Smith lived in Albany, New York around that time, which I most probably could... what have I proved?

"Some guy name Jesus probably lived about that time in about that place" and "There is any validity at all to the stories of Jesus of the Bible" are completely separate questions.

 

[Belz...]

Yes that would be an important find. But until we have it I'm sticking to the fact that we know i.e. the Jesus in the Christian texts did not exist.
ETA could a historical figure be the inspiration for the Jesus in the Christian texts? Yes they could be, but we don't need one to explain the facts we do have so Okham's razor......

Yeah but that's not really how the razor works. The lack of a real Jeebus isn't necessarily the simpler solution to the question.

Anyway I don't think we fundamentally disagree.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You must believe that Jesus existed!

Must I?

I do believe it's very likely that a rabbi belonging to a radical apocalyptic sect was executed by the Romans for sedition in the early 1st Century.

I also believe that a Christian named Nicholas of Myra lived in the early 4th Century, but that doesn't mean I believe in Santa Clause.

 

[Belz...]

In that case (the highlight) I think you are barking up a non-existent tree. That is - people here are not (as far as I am aware) expressing scepticism about the existence of Jesus simply in order to ridicule or dismiss religious belief/theism.

Well it looks suspiciously with what you're doing, using the religious beliefs of the historians to dismiss their conclusions.

 

[David Mo]

...why not? Knowledge of an important historical character is fascinating in and of itself.



Yeah but let's assume for a moment that we find some archive dating from the time that confirms a few mundane details about someone clearly identifiable as Jesus. Would that not be an important find, regardless of how different he turns out to be from the Jesus in the Gospels?

But that's history-fiction. Good subject for a novel: a monk finds a manuscript from the time of Jesus where he says that Jesus was a traitor and a coward. What does the monk do? I like the subject. I will not demand copyright.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm gonna make a claim. In 1809 a guy named John Smith lived in Albany New York and he invented a perpetual motion machine.

If I go to the census records for that timeframe and area and can prove that someone named John Smith lived in Albany, New York around that time, which I most probably could... what have I proved?

That's pretty much what the stipulations from RationalWiki quoted in post #83 are getting at; there are a certain number of attributes that must be possessed by any individual claimed as the historical Jesus. So, if you could find a newspaper article saying "Local man invents perpetual motion machine" and naming John Smith, then you'd have strong evidence that your specific John Smith existed; or, if you found that he worked in some job related to engineering and was known for having weird ideas, you'd have weaker but still very interesting evidence. And if you found that there were only three John Smiths living in Albany at that time, but that the patent office had rejected a claim on a perpetual motion machine from Jonas Smithson of Albany, New York, in 1813, then you'd have some evidence that the John Smith you're referring to was actually a composite of two different people - though you might not be certain which two.

Dave

 

[8enotto]

Yes that would be an important find. But until we have it I'm sticking to the fact that we know i.e. the Jesus in the Christian texts did not exist.
ETA could a historical figure be the inspiration for the Jesus in the Christian texts? Yes they could be, but we don't need one to explain the facts we do have so Okham's razor......

The man or rabbi type wandering around pissing off the Romans was possible. There were many small sects opposed to roman conquest and tried to fight back. First one gains notoriety for going out big then as memory fades he gains credit for acts of others.
Then centuries pass and the cult assimilates other cultures with new ideas and poof!

A superhero.

It is known miracles of religious jesus has parallel un mythology going back as far as Sumerian mythology. We have clay tablets in museums to prove it.

 

[Belz...]

But that's history-fiction. Good subject for a novel: a monk finds a manuscript from the time of Jesus where he says that Jesus was a traitor and a coward. What does the monk do? I like the subject. I will not demand copyright.

...what?

I really don't understand your point. You're acting as if the discovery of evidence for a real person who was the inspiration for bible-Jesus wouldn't have gigantic historical significance.

 

[IanS]

Well it looks suspiciously with what you're doing, using the religious beliefs of the historians to dismiss their conclusions.

Well, I just explained why that is not is not the case. And yet you are still making the same accusation ...

... it looks exactly as if you are sticking with a pre-conceived fallacious idea merely because you want to.

Repeat - the reason why people are now sceptical is because material (the bible!) which was for hundreds of years claimed to be such good evidence as to make it a certainty that Jesus existed, now turns out to be of such an atrocious biased low standard that it barely counts as any evidence for a real Jesus at all.

And yet despite that, the people who the HJ believers here are appealing to as the “historian authorities”, still claim that same evidence from the bible provides absolute “certainty” of Jesus existing .

 

[Belz...]

Well, I just explained why that is not is not the case. And yet you are still making the same accusation ...

Sorry, I go with the evidence, not with your claim. I'm sure you can relate.

Repeat - the reason why people are now sceptical is because material (the bible!) which was for hundreds of years claimed to be such good evidence as to make it a certainty that Jesus existed, now turns out to be of such an atrocious biased low standard that it barely counts as any evidence for a real Jesus at all.

Except that this isn't true. We've known that the bible is not a reliable historical document for a long time. And despite long threads on the topic you've apparently forgot that it is not the sole source of the conclusions about the HJ.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

But not equal numbers. The Academic consensus is that there was a historical Jesus (HJ).

Do you have a cite for this?

 

[acbytesla]

Nevertheless, no one has come up with a better explanation for the texts we have than an actual religious leader who was killed by the Romans.

The idea that he was a pure invention raises more questions than it answers.

No serious Scholar has a problem with the fact that the gospels aren't accurate records of his life. It's the same problem Historians deal with all the time regarding individuals in antiquity.

Maybe one day someone will prove that he never existed, but that hasn't happened yet.

Did King Arthur exist? It's a story. But it is believed by many to have some historical roots.

The same is true for Jesus. But all we really know about Jesus is that there were stories. That's it. Nothing else. Regardless of what historians accept as good evidence, what there is, is poor.

There are no writings about Jesus that were made concurrently with his life or really any time even close to his lifetime Paul's first epistle was written more than two decades after Jesus was reportedly crucified and Mark which is believed to be the first of the gospels was written four plus decades after his life. So what we have is a story that was told over and over again that eventually somebody decided to write down...maybe.

Could it be that Paul was just a master storyteller and found that this was a good way to make a living and others just took his story and embellished it?

 

[Belz...]

Do you have a cite for this?

He's already cited Wikipedia, but apparently all of those historians are filthy biased Christians.

 

[Belz...]

Could it be that Paul was just a master storyteller and found that this was a good way to make a living and others just took his story and embellished it?

Could be. He does mention clashing with the disciples on some doctrines. Don't know why he'd bring that up that way.

Regardless of what historians accept as good evidence, what there is, is poor.

Why on this single topic do we discount expert opinion?

 

[IanS]

Sorry, I go with the evidence, not with your claim. I'm sure you can relate.

What "evidence" is that?

Nah ... you just don't want to accept that others here (inc. me) are sceptical due to the complete lack of any credible evidence.

However, also, along with that lack of evidence, we do of course now understand that the "evidence" which had so utterly convinced people up until maybe just 200 years ago, i.e. the "evidence" of how miraculous this individual was, that is now (since our better understanding of science) known to actually be direct positive evidence against that source of biblical writing for Jesus ... ie - evidence of repeated claims of miracles is definitely evidence to show that the source (the bible) is totally unreliable.

Except that this isn't true. We've known that the bible is not a reliable historical document for a long time. And despite long threads on the topic you've apparently forgot that it is not the sole source of the conclusions about the HJ.

No. You are trying yet again (not very successfully) to twist things to make all sorts of untrue fallacious claims. What I just said was “ material (the bible!) which was for hundreds of years claimed to be such good evidence as to make it a certainty that Jesus existed, ...” … to spell that out – from biblical times, for about 1700 years right up until about 1800 (or, in fact, even well beyond 1800) it was claimed, and almost all people believed, that the biblical writing in the gospels and letters amounted to such strong evidence that almost everyone believed it to be beyond doubt that Jesus was a real person …

… it's only quite slowly since that time (since roughly 1800 onwards) that more & more people have slowly begun to realise how weak that biblical writing is as evidence of a real figure of Jesus actually being known to anyone.

 

[Belz...]

What "evidence" is that?

Your own arguments. It should be obvious from my few lasts posts.

Nah ... you just don't want to accept that others here (inc. me) are sceptical due to the complete lack of any credible evidence.

What you consider credible is no concern of mine, actually. What I do find irking is your knee-jerk dismissal of historians on the basis of their religion. Not only have you not established a bias on their part, but you refuse to allow that what they consider convincing could be important to the discussion. All you're considering is your own incredulity.

However, also, along with that lack of evidence, we do of course now understand that the "evidence" which had so utterly convinced people up until maybe just 200 years ago, i.e. the "evidence" of how miraculous this individual was, that is now (since our better understanding of science) known to actually be direct positive evidence against that source of biblical writing for Jesus ... ie - evidence of repeated claims of miracles is definitely evidence to show that the source (the bible) is totally unreliable.

Totally irrelevant, since that's not what is being discussed.

No. You are trying yet again (not very successfully) to twist things to make all sorts of untrue fallacious claims. What I just said was “ material (the bible!) which was for hundreds of years claimed to be such good evidence as to make it a certainty that Jesus existed, ...” … to spell that out – from biblical times, for about 1700 years right up until about 1800 (or, in fact, even well beyond 1800) it was claimed, and almost all people believed, that the biblical writing in the gospels and letters amounted to such strong evidence that almost everyone believed it to be beyond doubt that Jesus was a real person …

Who cares what the claim is? I told you that a lot of people questioned the factual claims of the bible for far longer than 200 years, and that's true. You can call it untrue all you want, but you're wrong.