Historical Jesus

[IanS]

Originally Posted by*Delvo*
"The relevant question is not which side has more people on it, but which side has presented the better case".


Indeed, but then who makes that determination? Laypeople?

The answer as to “who makes that determination?”, is that it depends on who the claimed “experts” are -

- practitioners in all sorts of faith-healing offer themsleves as experts in what they do & what they claim (Reiki, Crystal Healing, Homeopathy ...), anyone with any sort of education has more than enough right & qualifications to question them as self-proclaimed experts and to ask them to produce genuine evidence for the claims they make …

… the Pope claims every year that various deceased Catholics have been actually proven to have worked miracles, and he even has a team of properly qualified scientists advising him that such miracles are indeed true … the Pope and his scientific team are vastly more expert on all those individual cases than you or I, or indeed than any actual scientists … so does that mean we should accept the Popes claims (he says it's proof) of those miracles? …

… religious preachers in general, e.g. priests, bishops, cardinals etc., claim all sorts of knowledge for the reality of God. They claim it from deep study of the bible, they claim it from personal experience, they claim it from the truth of known miracles etc etc., … they also know vastly more about all those personal experiences than anyone here … does that mean all of us here should accept what they say as the truth of God?

 

[Belz...]

First highlight 1. It was you who just claimed that you have been talking here about "Historians" who believe Jesus was real.

Which in no way implies that I've got any of them to name, just like you mentioning scholars as a group doesn't imply that you've got any to name.

And you are apparently incapable of doing that.

Ian, I've already explained why I am not discussing the evidence right now. I'm discussing the consensus and your claims about it. You know that. Focus. Stop personalising the argument, remember?

Highlight 2. A historian is an academic lecturer & researcher who is employed in the history department of a genuine university, and who publishes results of his/her research in genuine neutral history journals.

This is an interesting wording -- including "genuine" and "neutral" -- which would allow you to dismiss any example of historians supporting the aforementioned consensus. To begin with any of them who is a Christian is automatically disqualified.

I did not say that I was unaware of any historians existing. I said that I was unaware of any that were properly independent/unbiased (i.e. not already Christian believers in Jesus) who were writing to say Jesus existed on the basis of evidence from the bible.

Well I wasn't talking about Joan of Arc historians, was I? Obviously I was talking about those which you describe above. Making a point is not the same thing as scoring points, Ian.

You were the one who claimed such historians exist

Well that was before you renamed them "scholars", allowing you to safely dismiss anyone with any expertise on the subject and follow entirely your own intuitions.

 

[acbytesla]

Please answer a simple question: Are Pliny, Tacitus or Plutarch's texts ridiculous for studying the history of Rome?

In ancient history texts are dated in other ways than by the date of their first manuscript.

Maybe. Particularly if the writings are about events 100 years before.

Imagine writing about Nathan Bedford Forest today and having nothing but oral stories? How much are you likely to get right? Tacitus, etc are just the last players in a 100 year game of telephone.

 

[IanS]

Which in no way implies that I've got any of them to name, just like you mentioning scholars as a group doesn't imply that you've got any to name.

Certainly does require you to name the people you are referring too as "historians" ... it was you who claimed to be talking about historians who had provided the evidence for you to get to 60% probability ... so it's you who must now back up your own claim by telling us who are these historians that YOU claimed!

And by the way I have already named 5 or 6 prominent Bible Scholars here. One in particular who almost all HJ believers rely upon repeatedly.



Ian, I've already explained why I am not discussing the evidence right now. I'm discussing the consensus and your claims about it. You know that. Focus. Stop personalising the argument, remember?


No! Absolutely not! We most definitely are discussing evidence. I've discussed it extensively already. You have claimed to have evidence from historians (who, thus far, you cannot or will not name) who give you 60% probability for Jesus. So what is the evidence that you have got from these "historians"?



This is an interesting wording -- including "genuine" and "neutral" -- which would allow you to dismiss any example of historians supporting the aforementioned consensus. To begin with any of them who is a Christian is automatically disqualified.


NO! If we are going to talk about "Historians" (or Bible Scholars, or any other academics), then they need to be neutral investigators, and not for example people who already believed in Jesus as a matter of religious faith.

As for the word "genuine” in relation to academics and their research publications, then we need to be sure they are employed in that role at real internationally recognised universities (not at some religiously funded privately owned religious/theological institute), and publishing their work in the genuine worldwide research journals (and not just publishing it in some fake self-invented journals of the kind we now find so often from religious "experts" like Willian Lane-Craig and the many thousands like him).


Well I wasn't talking about Joan of Arc historians, was I? Obviously I was talking about those which you describe above. Making a point is not the same thing as scoring points, Ian.


Nope ... it was most definitely YOU who claimed to be following the people who YOU called "the experts" and who YOU stated to be "Historians". It's your claim, and it's your job to tell us who these historians are and what they have claimed as the evidence that convinces you to 60%.



Well that was before you renamed them "scholars", allowing you to safely dismiss anyone with any expertise on the subject and follow entirely your own intuitions.


It was not me who renamed them "scholars" - that is their official employment title. Bart Ehrman for example is officially a "New Testament Scholar" (he is not employed or paid as a "History Professor/Lecturer").


Just produce the evidence please. Do nothing else. Stop the time wasting. Just produce the evidence of Jesus.

It is you who has claimed to know "experts" who are claimed by you to be "historians" who you claim have provided evidence of Jesus convincing you that Jesus was more like than not at 60% likelihood ... please produce that evidence.... do you have it? where is it (for the 4th time!)??

.........

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

According that Bart Ehrman is an historian.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean all historians agree with him or that he can speak for them. Nor does it mean that all his techniques would be used by other historians. Look up "hermeneutics". Virtually all sources identify it as a technique focused on analyzing the bible and, occasionally, other religious texts. Look at organizations promoting it and you get more churches than universities, and by a wide margin.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well, when posters here use ad hominems to make experts into non-experts or discount their conclusions because of their religion, sure, it's hard to find consensus among experts, since the experts no longer exist, almost by definition. It's a nice trick, I have to admit. But it's not really an argument.?

Oh ********. Cite the consensus you are claiming. ETA: Note that the one bit of evidence already cited for it in this thread has already been exposed as a complete crock.

 

[Belz...]

Certainly does require you to name the people you are referring too as "historians"

Why does me refering to a group of people require me to name them? You're not making any sort of sense, here.

No! Absolutely not! We most definitely are discussing evidence.

For some reason we seem to each be having a different conversation. I talk about historians and you insist on talking about non-historians; I talk about the consensus and you insist on talking about the evidence. I don't get why you want to talk about something different than what I'm talking about.

Nope ... it was most definitely YOU who claimed to be following the people who YOU called "the experts" and who YOU stated to be "Historians".

Again, I was obviously talking about the historians you defined as such, since I was responding to your post. This is the second time that I tell you this. Can we move on?

Just produce the evidence please. Do nothing else. Stop the time wasting. Just produce the evidence of Jesus.

I AM NOT DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE.

What part of that eludes you?

 

[Belz...]

Oh ********.

Could you please make a modicrum of effort to understand the points I put forth and address them? When theists come here and discredit scientists by claiming that they're just as "religious" as they are, their only goal is to eliminate their opposition from the discussion so as to set their unecidenced claims as "credible". They are defining scientists as unreliable so they can ignore their findings. It makes it impossible to cite scientific literature because it is suspect by their definition.

That's what's going on here, claiming that experts on this topic are not actuall experts so as to ignore their findings. It's the same difference. Only this time we're talking about Jesus so it's an acceptable strategy. I get it. I'm an atheists and at first the idea was Jeebus was entirely mythical was appealing, but not because it was correct; because it discredited the people I disagreed with. It wasn't proper when I did it, so I'm sure as hell not going to tolerate it from others.

As I stated earlier, I want to avoid a circular argument, but for some reason you refuse to address my points. For some reason this topic seems to hit a nerve, even though it's completely academic.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Please answer a simple question: Are Pliny, Tacitus or Plutarch's texts ridiculous for studying the history of Rome?

No. But there are quite a few places where you can't arrive at certainty for quite a lot of specific points.

As far as I can tell only the Biblical subset of scholars resorts to hermeneutics to read in certainty where it doesn't exist. As far as I can tell most other historians just live with uncertainty.

Recent example I came across is the wikipedia article on Zeno, the author of several paradoxes. It simply cites alternative understandings of his life at points and uses "maybe" like words a lot. Biblical scholars go for the blood in the turnip.

 

[Scorpion]

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

 

[IanS]

Why does me refering to a group of people require me to name them? You're not making any sort of sense, here.



For some reason we seem to each be having a different conversation. I talk about historians and you insist on talking about non-historians; I talk about the consensus and you insist on talking about the evidence. I don't get why you want to talk about something different than what I'm talking about.



Again, I was obviously talking about the historians you defined as such, since I was responding to your post. This is the second time that I tell you this. Can we move on?



I AM NOT DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE.

What part of that eludes you?

Yeah, I'm sure you do not want to discuss the evidence. Because you have not got any lol!

You have been claiming that expert "historians" have provided evidence and that we should all bow to their expertise and accept what they say. You said that you have decided that Jesus most probably lived and that you regard that as 60% most likely ... well what evidence did you use to arrive at your 60% opinion?

What evidence are you claiming to have come from the people you claim to be "expert historians"?

This entire subject, and every discussion about it, depends totally and completely upon the so-called "evidence" ....

... if you have no evidence for what yourself have been claiming to believe, then you should not have been posting here at all!

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, I'm sure you do not want to discuss the evidence. Because you have not got any lol!

No, I don't want to discuss the evidence for the reasons I've already mentioned. Namely, that all said evidence has already been discussed to death, that it would take too long to rehash, and that in any case I already know that the evidence doesn't convince you, so what would be the point? Remember that evidence that you find unconvincing is still evidence.

All I'm interested in is what constitutes an expert, or consensus, or even evidence, on this topic, and what the relationship between the three is. I don't disagree with you on principle, as I've already told you before.

You have been claiming that expert "historians" have provided evidence and that we should all bow to their expertise and accept what they say.

No, I've never said this. In any way, in any form.

Seriously, I've put quite a bit of effort to keep this relatively civil but you're not making it easy. Why do you persist in lying about what I post? Are you deliberately trying get into a flame war, here? What's your objective, exactly?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

All I'm interested in is what constitutes an expert, or consensus, or even evidence, on this topic, and what the relationship between the three is.

I don't believe you. I showed you an example of well established consensus (the climate change consensus) and a bad example (the claim to a consensus on the certainty of the existence of Jesus) and you danced right past it.

Until you have evidence this consensus of experts actually exists and who exactly they are, you're are just repeating lies.

 

[Belz...]

I don't believe you.

Even though I've consistently focused on that exact point since the beginning?

I showed you an example of well established consensus (the climate change consensus) and a bad example (the claim to a consensus on the certainty of the existence of Jesus) and you danced right past it.

I didn't dance right past it. I asked specific questions about the distinction and you ignored them. There's still plenty of time for you to answer those if you want.

 

[IanS]

No, I don't want to discuss the evidence for the reasons I've already mentioned. Namely, that all said evidence has already been discussed to death, that it would take too long to rehash, and that in any case I already know that the evidence doesn't convince you, so what would be the point? Remember that evidence that you find unconvincing is still evidence.

All I'm interested in is what constitutes an expert, or consensus, or even evidence, on this topic, and what the relationship between the three is. I don't disagree with you on principle, as I've already told you before.



No, I've never said this. In any way, in any form.

Seriously, I've put quite a bit of effort to keep this relatively civil but you're not making it easy. Why do you persist in lying about what I post? Are you deliberately trying get into a flame war, here? What's your objective, exactly?

Do you have any evidence to support your belief that Jesus probably existed?

You have repeatedly claimed that "experts" who are "historians" have provided evidence to show that Jesus was real... can you provide the evidence to backup your claims about these "expert historians", where are they? ...

... it's your claim of having expert historians with the evidence, so the "burden of proof" is definitely upon you to tell us who those individuals are and tell us what they are claiming as the evidence for Jesus.

Your other excuses are all exhausted (long ago) -

Who are these expert historians, and what is their evidence?

 

[Scorpion]

Do you have any evidence to support your belief that Jesus probably existed?

I am no historian but I think the persecution of Christians by Nero in 64ad is documented.

Christians could recant and be spared, but they chose to die rather than do so, and this was within living memory of the time of Jesus. How could a cult so strong in belief have existed at that time if there never was a Jesus?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Even though I've consistently focused on that exact point since the beginning?

You've ignored all the actual evidence on this point. And I mean the evidence to support your claims that people are experts and part of a consensus.

 

[IanS]

How do you evaluate the historicity of a mythology? All we really know is there were stories about an itinerant rabbi. Nothing else can be concluded honestly.

Just out of passing interest - have you seen the book by Randel Helms (Gospel Fictions)?

In that book, Helms (who is a serous academic) shows numerous examples of where the gospel writers had taken messiah prophesies written hundreds of years before in the Old Testament, and re-written them as the stories of Jesus.

That's a pretty damning discovery, showing that the gospel writers (especially the two earliest and most important ones, g.Mark and g.Matthew) were using the OT as source to create stories of Jesus.


Randel helms, Gospel Fictions, Prometheus Books, New York, 1988

Who is Randel Helms? See this wiki link -

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

“Randel McCraw Helms*(born November 16, 1942 in*Montgomery, Alabama)[1]*is an American professor of English literature, a writer on*J. R. R. Tolkien*and critical writer on the Bible. “


There is also a book by Dennis R MacDonald, who is himself a Biblical Studies professor in the USA (see link and quote below), called Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, in which MacDonald attempts to show that almost everything written in g.Mark was in fact taken from the two works written by Homer around the 7th century BC (i.e. the Iliad and the Odyssey).

I'm less convinced by the examples in that book, since the parallels with what is written in g.Mark seem to be less clear, but it is in any case another example where an academic actually in the field of teaching Biblical Studies, claims to find what he describes as almost a complete source for all of the contents of g.Mark -


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

"Dennis Ronald MacDonald*(born 1946) is the John Wesley Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the*Claremont School of Theology*in*California.

MacDonald proposes a theory wherein the earliest books of the*New Testament*were responses to the Homeric Epics, including the*Gospel of Mark*and the*Acts of the Apostles. The methodology he pioneered is called*Mimesis Criticism. If his theories are correct then "nearly everything written on [the] early Christian narrative is flawed."[1]*According to him, modern biblical scholarship has failed to recognize the impact of Homeric Poetry.[1] "

 

[Delvo]

I don't want to discuss the evidence...

All I'm interested in is what constitutes an expert, or consensus, or even evidence, on this topic, and what the relationship between the three is.

You don't want to talk about evidence of Jesus. But you're making a claim on a separate subject (the historical consensus). So you need evidence for that.

I am no historian but I think the persecution of Christians by Nero in 64ad is documented.

Christians could recant and be spared

According to whom?

How could a cult so strong in belief have existed at that time if there never was a Jesus?

Why not? Religious/cult beliefs have never needed to be tied to anything real in any other case.

 

[IanS]

I am no historian but I think the persecution of Christians by Nero in 64ad is documented.

Christians could recant and be spared, but they chose to die rather than do so, and this was within living memory of the time of Jesus. How could a cult so strong in belief have existed at that time if there never was a Jesus?

With respect (truly!), that really does not show evidence of Jesus at all. It's a type of argument known as the "Fallacy of Argument from Incredulity". See link below -

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

Argument from incredulity, also known as*argument from personal incredulity*or*appeal to common sense,[1]*is a*fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

1. I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.[2]

Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce.[3]*This form of reasoning is*fallacious*because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.[4]


People get extremely fanatical about their religious beliefs. History is (afaik) littered with examples of the faithful dying for their beliefs. If you captured members of IS or the Taliban today, and asked them to recant belief in the miracles claimed for Muhammad, or else be executed, it's clear most if not all of them would rather be executed than renounce their beleifs about Muhammad.