Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

I really wonder at the various amateurs who want to insist otherwise - I think they have somewhat irrational and unacademic motivations.

With respect to said posters, I think perhaps they are trying to hold historians to the same threshold of certainty as scientists are, perhaps an artifact of their tenure on this forum and a force of habit. But the two disciplines are simply not the same.

 

[acbytesla]

The study of ancient history is actually bloody difficult: you have very sparse sources, you need to understand long dead languages often in very damaged forms and you have to use a very sophisticated methodology combining many specialities and fields of study. If you read papers and books on any particular ancient subject you will amazed at the skill and learning of historians. The scholarly consensus - as well as the common sense Occamist view - is that the mythological biblical Jesus is based on an actual charismatic preacher of whose real life and deeds very little is known. We mostly know the legend, not the life. I really wonder at the various amateurs who want to insist otherwise - I think they have somewhat irrational and unacademic motivations.

Says you.

Yes the study of ancient history is bloody difficult. The argument that the scholarly consensus which can never be separated from the religious consensus is mostly an ad populum or an appeal to an authority fallacy.

I've seen lots of innocent people go to jail based on far more persuasive evidence than what there is for a historical preacher named Jesus. I find it risible that people think that manuscripts by Tacitus and Josephus written 50 to 100 years later is credible. They are only credible in the sense that they were aware of stories about a Jesus figure.

I'd argue that the historicity of Jesus would have extreme difficulty passing a civil court room standard let alone a criminal standard.

 

[ArchSas]

OK, well firstly you do not need to lecture me about how academia works. I've spent a lifetime in academia as a theoretical physicist, so I'm well aware of what academia is like from the inside thank you.

You might be aware of how the academic side of theoretical physics works, but you just made it even more obvious that you don't understand how humanities works. I mean, your whole response to me was just repeating assertions I already told you were wrong and acting like that makes them even more valid. Because there's no point in replying to that with repeating myself when you don't want to listen, I won't.

I'm with Belz on this: the anti-academic posters in this thread really seem to be ignorant of how studies of humanities and ancient history operate, and are making the mistake of trying to apply scientific certainty in a place where it doesn't apply. It also looks like that might have a lot to do with the kid of bias they're accusing the biblical scholars of.

 

[acbytesla]

With respect to said posters, I think perhaps they are trying to hold historians to the same threshold of certainty as scientists are, perhaps an artifact of their tenure on this forum and a force of habit. But the two disciplines are simply not the same.

I don't think you can hold them to the same standards. And for that very reason, you have to take historians findings far more skeptically. And I believe the religious implications complicates the matter much more.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think you can hold them to the same standards. And for that very reason, you have to take historians findings far more skeptically.

Or, alternatively, you hold them to a different standard.

 

[Ricardo]

according to the superior spirits ... Jesus really existed ... he is the spiritual ruler of the earth!

 

[Belz...]

according to the superior spirits ... Jesus really existed ... he is the spiritual ruler of the earth!

Sorry, I'm going to have to ask you for the superior spirits' expertise on these matters. Who are they, and what are their credentials? Have they published anything on the matter in peer-reviewed works?

 

[JesseCuster]

according to the superior spirits ... Jesus really existed ... he is the spiritual ruler of the earth!

Did the spirits make you yawn or make your finger twitch and that's how you know Jesus is the spiritual ruler of the earth?

 

[smartcooky]

Says you.

Yes the study of ancient history is bloody difficult. The argument that the scholarly consensus which can never be separated from the religious consensus is mostly an ad populum or an appeal to an authority fallacy.

I've seen lots of innocent people go to jail based on far more persuasive evidence than what there is for a historical preacher named Jesus. I find it risible that people think that manuscripts by Tacitus and Josephus written 50 to 100 years later is credible. They are only credible in the sense that they were aware of stories about a Jesus figure.

I'd argue that the historicity of Jesus would have extreme difficulty passing a civil court room standard let alone a criminal standard.

.. and as I have pointed out previously, there is more evidence for the existence of Robin Hood than there is of Jesus Christ. At least in the former, we have contemporaneous writings and official documents pertaining to the man who is thought to be the basis for the legend, the outlaw Roger Godberd, who, with his fugitive accomplices, lived in Sherwood Forest for four years defying the authorities before he was caught by Reginald de Grey (the Sheriff of Nottingham) in 1272. Godberd was tried and found guilty, but immediately pardoned by King Edward I in 1274 on the king's return from the 8th Crusade.

We have no such contemporaneous documentary evidence for HJ or anyone he might be based on. All we have is later writings using unreliable oral legends as their only sources.

http://theconversation.com/weighing-up-the-evidence-for-the-historical-jesus-35319

 

[acbytesla]

Or, alternatively, you hold them to a different standard.

I'm not sure what that means. My issue with this argument is where and how do you begin? And how you can have confidence in the standard?

On one hand, it doesn't matter if there was a flesh and blood Jesus. It doesn't mean this person performed miracles or that he was divine.

But it matters very much if there wasn't a Jesus because that would destroy a 2000 year old religion. And there is a question here about the value of study and scholarship. I hold these scholars with great respect. But I seriously doubt their abilities is separating history and legend.

Nobody argues that Caligula or Augustus or Marcus Aurelius were actual people. But these were Emperors of Rome. JC was a peasant carpenter. No royal scribe was writing about him. But we also don't really care if these other historical figures were real or not.

The historicity problem with all events and people are complicated by politics and biases. We see history being rewritten all the time. Even current events are constantly being spun so much it's challenging to separate fact from fiction.

My guess is propaganda wasn't invented in the 20th century.

 

[acbytesla]

according to the superior spirits ... Jesus really existed ... he is the spiritual ruler of the earth!

Would those superior spirits be Wild Turkey or Jack Daniels?

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure what that means.

Literally what it means: that evidence in a historical academic setting is not the same thing as it is in a scientific one; idem for the threshold for a conclusion; idem for a consensus; idem for skepticism.

My issue with this argument is where and how do you begin? And how you can have confidence in the standard?

I suggest we ask historians on this. Oh, right!

On one hand, it doesn't matter if there was a flesh and blood Jesus. It doesn't mean this person performed miracles or that he was divine.

Exactly! This is why I don't understand why the suggestion bothers some people so much.

 

[smartcooky]

Would those superior spirits be Wild Turkey or Jack Daniels?

Neither.... Famous Grouse!

 

[acbytesla]

Literally what it means: that evidence in a historical academic setting is not the same thing as it is in a scientific one; idem for the threshold for a conclusion; idem for a consensus; idem for skepticism.

That didn't help.

I suggest we ask historians on this. Oh, right!

And how exactly would that help?

Exactly! This is why I don't understand why the suggestion bothers some people so much.

It doesn't bother me. But what I don't care for is the arrogance in the certainty that many have in it's historicity. Based on the evidence I've seen, such certainty is risible.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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

One of several examples to demonstrate that the techniques employed by Bible Scholars are not those employed in general across historians. It's a hermeneutic technique primarily applied by Bible Scholars.

The crucifixion of Jesus is an example of an event that meets the criterion of embarrassment. This method of execution was considered the most shameful and degrading in the Roman world, and advocates of the criterion claim this method of execution is therefore the least likely to have been invented by the followers of Jesus.

Now how ******* stupid is that? To match the so called prophecies he had to be oppressed/betrayed/defeated/executed in an embarrassing way.

https://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/prophecies-fulfilled-by-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-christ-faq.htm

 

[Brainache]

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

One of several examples to demonstrate that the techniques employed by Bible Scholars are not those employed in general across historians. It's a hermeneutic technique primarily applied by Bible Scholars.


Now how ******* stupid is that? To match the so called prophecies he had to be oppressed/betrayed/defeated/executed in an embarrassing way.

https://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/prophecies-fulfilled-by-the-crucifixion-of-jesus-christ-faq.htm

I think you'll find, if you look at Jewish sources as opposed to Christian apologetics, that prophecies of a "Messiah" were about a great leader who would unite the Jewish people and rule as a great leader. The "Suffering Messiah" is a later Christian invention based on Paul's idea of a "Spiritual Messiah". Like the "virgin birth" and other things, it turns out that these "Prophecies" were not part of Jewish belief regarding the Messiah.

Even so, where are all the Jewish Scholars jumping up and down about the non-existence of Jesus? They should be easy to find if the HJ was just a product of biased Christian apologetics.

As pointed out by others, the methods Historians use to determine the historicity of ancient individuals are the same for Jesus as for anyone else. Things like the number of sources, their proximity to his lifetime, the cultural context, etc etc, all lead to the conclusion that a HJ is more likely than not. That's as good as it usually gets in Ancient History. It is almost never 100% certain about anyone or anything.

If you want to change the way Historians study the ancient world, have at it. I look forward to the day when everything in Ancient History is known with 100% certainty. What are you waiting for? Glory awaits the great History reformers!

ETA: After about two seconds of googling I found this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grant_(classicist) a bona fide Historian who had no problem with the HJ. He even wrote a book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1755805.Jesus

...Michael Grant looks at these Gospels with an historian's eye, treating them in exactly the same way as he would any other works of ancient literature capable of yielding historical information. The picture of Jesus which emerges is in some respects a new and unfamiliar one...

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I think you'll find, if you look at Jewish sources as opposed to Christian apologetics, that prophecies of a "Messiah" were about a great leader who would unite the Jewish people and rule as a great leader. The "Suffering Messiah" is a later Christian invention based on Paul's idea of a "Spiritual Messiah". Like the "virgin birth" and other things, it turns out that these "Prophecies" were not part of Jewish belief regarding the Messiah.

Who cares? The point is that the story appeals to a couple billion people so the justification of embarrassment is total crap.

Even so, where are all the Jewish Scholars jumping up and down about the non-existence of Jesus? They should be easy to find if the HJ was just a product of biased Christian apologetics.

I don't see what this has to do with anything I said.

As pointed out by others, the methods Historians use to determine the historicity of ancient individuals are the same for Jesus as for anyone else.

As claimed by others. I just showed otherwise. Biblical scholars employ techniques not generally used by historians at large.

Things like the number of sources, their proximity to his lifetime, the cultural context, etc etc, all lead to the conclusion that a HJ is more likely than not. That's as good as it usually gets in Ancient History. It is almost never 100% certain about anyone or anything.

Yes, I agree on that. But most of aren't talking about historians who leave it at that. We're talking about the people who claim certainty based on dubious techniques.

If you want to change the way Historians study the ancient world, have at it. I look forward to the day when everything in Ancient History is known with 100% certainty. What are you waiting for? Glory awaits the great History reformers!

Could you please get a clue what the conversation is about.

 

[Brainache]

Who cares? The point is that the story appeals to a couple billion people so the justification of embarrassment is total crap.




I don't see what this has to do with anything I said.



As claimed by others. I just showed otherwise. Biblical scholars employ techniques not generally used by historians at large.

Yes, I agree on that. But most of aren't talking about historians who leave it at that. We're talking about the people who claim certainty based on dubious techniques.

Could you please get a clue what the conversation is about.

I know what the conversation is about. It is about the spurious idea that only Christian Theologians think HJ existed.

See my ETA above about Michael Grant, just one example of an actual Historian who wrote extensively about HJ (amongst other things).

 

[acbytesla]

I know what the conversation is about. It is about the spurious idea that only Christian Theologians think HJ existed.

See my ETA above about Michael Grant, just one example of an actual Historian who wrote extensively about HJ (amongst other things).

I DON'T recall anyone saying anything remotely like what you're saying. Bart Ehrman is an atheist and he's been referenced many times.

I also think it can not be denied that a successful fabrication is going to resemble to at least some degree a real person.

Grant makes the following remark about the historicity of Jesus.

..if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

My response would be, "so"? There is a reason no one questions very much the historicity of pagan historical figures. They are not extraordinary. OTOH, EVERYTHING about Jesus is extraordinary. Most of us in this forum don't believe the supernatural claims about Jesus. If that is a fabrication, why it wrong to doubt it all? Yes, it can be a gross exaggeration about a historical figure. But I don't see how it's really any harder to make the entire story out of whole cloth.

The personage of Jesus is integral to the whole con. I was listening to the Atheist Experience yesterday and the caller was convinced because of details in the resurrection story that it must be true. I laughed about this because it demonstrates that his logic is flawed or he doesn't read much. The best stories and novels are filled with details. It doesn't make the story true. Whether it is Dickens and the Tale of Two Cities or Clancy and The Hunt for Red October, it is the details wove into the story that makes it interesting and somewhat believable.

 

[Brainache]

I DON'T recall anyone saying anything remotely like what you're saying. Bart Ehrman is an atheist and he's been referenced many times.

I also think it can not be denied that a successful fabrication is going to resemble to at least some degree a real person.

Grant makes the following remark about the historicity of Jesus.



My response would be, "so"? There is a reason no one questions very much the historicity of pagan historical figures. They are not extraordinary. OTOH, EVERYTHING about Jesus is extraordinary. Most of us in this forum don't believe the supernatural claims about Jesus. If that is a fabrication, why it wrong to doubt it all? Yes, it can be a gross exaggeration about a historical figure. But I don't see how it's really any harder to make the entire story out of whole cloth.

The problem is that nothing about the HJ is extraordinary. What would be extraordinary is the non-existence of such a figure, given what we know about early Xtianity.

Lets start with Paul's letters. Paul spends a lot of time talking about the "Church" in Jerusalem and its leadership with whom he disagrees. Did Paul invent these people? He says he used to persecute them, then had an epiphany and started preaching his "Christ Jesus" which was apparently in conflict with the teachings that the Jerusalem group were following. According to Paul that Jerusalem group was comprised of people who knew the flesh and blood Jesus. Paul claims that he knows Jesus better because he had a vision. Personally I think Paul was full of crap, but we can glean facts about the existence of a group of Jewish Jesus followers by reading Paul's rants against them.

We have seen (in other threads on this topic) people argue that Paul never existed, that the whole thing was forged centuries later, but that view is not shared by many...

The personage of Jesus is integral to the whole con. I was listening to the Atheist Experience yesterday and the caller was convinced because of details in the resurrection story that it must be true. I laughed about this because it demonstrates that his logic is flawed or he doesn't read much. The best stories and novels are filled with details. It doesn't make the story true. Whether it is Dickens and the Tale of Two Cities or Clancy and The Hunt for Red October, it is the details wove into the story that makes it interesting and somewhat believable.

The fact that Jesus became central to a later religion based on Greco-Roman ideas of demi-gods, heaven and hell, magical virgins etc, says nothing about whether or not a HJ existed. You appear to be arguing against the consequences here.