Historical Jesus

[autumn1971]

Did you not ask them why they were making those two highlighted statements (1 and 2)? Because those two statements are incompatible with one another ...

... that is - you are saying that these bible scholars all told you (1) I am not convinced that a historical Jesus existed, but (2) I am convinced Jesus existed.

Are you saying that they were only convinced of a Jesus who somehow existed only as a spiritual figure of religious belief in the bible? Because that's not a real existing figure at all ... is it?

They were able to acknowledge that an academically rigorous search would reveal only the bare-bones of an historical figure unrecognizable as the Jesus of the Bible.
They had faith, however, that the Messiah was real. I guess in an Obi-Wan kind of way.

 

[Belz...]

The conclusions are either true or false. That's the standard.

The standard is how you determine your conclusions, Archie. It may differ from one discipline to another. How is that controversial?

Then you must be willing to accept that in theology breaking the law of physics is not a problem. So do you agree with the consensus of theologians that God exists?

What are you talking about? There's a difference between claims that are physically impossible and mundane claims that are simply not well supported.

Concluding that something is more likely to be true because it sounds more plausible to you is fallacious reasoning.

No, it's tautological. Tautologies are not very useful but they are not fallacious.

Then why would we have to throw away what we know about Julius Caesar in your example if its corroborated by other sources?

From that source. I didn't say we could discard other sources. And if the quote is only attributable to that source, it has to be discarded, right?

I'm asking you a simple question that has a simple answer and you are trying to muddy the waters by introducing new elements that are unnecessary and failing to answer straight questions.

But that's my point: you're over-simplifying.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

How about our very own Nick Terry?

Goes into quite some detail about the "Historical Method".

So? I don't see anything about hermeneutics, nor do I see him arriving at certainty about particular events anywhere. He's properly applying the historical method from what I can see. That's nice, but what does it have to do with this conversation?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'll take that as a "No".

Which, of course, is a misrepresentation which is par for the course here.

BTW Your links don't show anything to indicate what relevance Michael Grant has to this conversation.

And, based on your suggestion, I'll be sure to add "absence of jumping jews" as one the key techniques of Bible Scholars.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

deleted, repeat.

 

[acbytesla]

That's a common cliche but it's actually not true.

It is true. Propaganda and biases are ingrained in history. From Columbus to stories about indigenous savages to the Reichstag fire to the USS Maine.

 

[acbytesla]

Of course it is difficult, that's why it takes years to learn how to be a Historian. It requires years of study to grasp the subject.

Googling "Richard Carrier" or "Jesus Myth" is not the same as getting a degree in History.

You don't get it. I could care less about Carrier's mythicist position. But I don't believe you need to have a degree in history to understand history. I might have to trust a physicist or a chemist to decipher something in their field. I might need a historian to gather and even translate info. But I don't need a historian to tell me how to understand it.

 

[Belz...]

I could care less about Carrier's mythicist position.

You could?

I don't believe you need to have a degree in history to understand history. I might have to trust a physicist or a chemist to decipher something in their field. I might need a historian to gather and even translate info. But I don't need a historian to tell me how to understand it.

That's true, you don't. But a historian knows more about the topic than you do, and they might understand how the evidence is collected, weighed and interpreted in the larger context far better than any of us here, and even all of us combined. So while you shouldn't trust said historian blindly, you shouldn't dismiss their expertise, either. And when we add all of them together...

 

[acbytesla]

As stated prior, professionals are usually pretty good at determining how things work in their fields. Laymen, not quite as much.

I agree. But even you have to admit that is a generality and varies greatly from one field to another.

Now come on, acbytesla. Surely you can uncouple the miracles from the more general idea of a prophet in 1st century gallilee. Insisting that you must either dismiss both or keep both is not how things work in history. Otherwise you'd have to accept that some historical figures spoke to the gods or had virgin births as well.

Ahh this is the crux of the problem. Can we uncouple the miracles? It's also a fallacy to suggest that just because some other historical figures also had a miracle or two associated with them that their case is like Jesus. There is a very important distinction. The only reason Jesus is remembered is because of his divinity and miracles. He's not Alexander the Great

I have to wonder what we would be saying about Jesus if Constantine hadn't embraced the religion in the 4th century and the religion had died out? If I'm not mistaken, Josephus mentioned other Christ figures. Do we assume they were all real as well?

 

[Belz...]

I agree. But even you have to admit that is a generality and varies greatly from one field to another.

I'll give you that. I wouldn't trust homeopaths as far as I can throw them, for instance, but then we have other bodies of experts to keep those idiots in check.

Can we uncouple the miracles?

In the case of Jeebus it's harder because there are no source outside of the bibble as far as his actual life is concerned. That doesn't mean we can't know anything, however. At the core is the fact that most sects have a founder of some sort. And I don't mean Paul.

I guess it would help if we could agree by what we mean by HJ. I've already posted my own definition.

It's also a fallacy to suggest that just because some other historical figures also had a miracle or two associated with them that their case is like Jesus.

Wait a second, I didn't say that. What I said is that the presence of miracles doesn't mean the person didn't exist, just like other historical characters. That was my principal argument against Dejudge.

I have to wonder what we would be saying about Jesus if Constantine hadn't embraced the religion in the 4th century and the religion had died out?

I often wish I could travel through different timelines to see the consequences of one change or another. That one would certainly make for an interesting read.

If I'm not mistaken, Josephus mentioned other Christ figures. Do we assume they were all real as well?

I have no issue with the idea that plenty of people claimed to be prophets, especially in 1st century levant. Josephus is generally reliable.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Wrong thread.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The standard is how you determine your conclusions, Archie. It may differ from one discipline to another. How is that controversial?

No, the method is how you determine your conclusions. The standard is how you judge whether those conclusions are good and reliable. In this case we are attempting to determine whether 'Thing X' is true. Then the standard has to be whether the method we are using gets us towards truth or not.

I'm quite happy to say that history uses methods that can't get us towards a definitive answer on whether things are true or false but can build plausible narratives. The problem is when these plausible narratives are held up as being 'true' because they are the conclusions of the best historical methods we have.

What are you talking about? There's a difference between claims that are physically impossible and mundane claims that are simply not well supported.

No, there isn't any difference unless you have consistent standards. The fact that you admit there is a difference shows that you do apply these consistent standards to other disciplines.

So your argument is holed below the waterline, because you are quite happy to hold tell experts on theology they are wrong about God claims and you are quite happy to hold theologians to standards of rigour that their discipline doesn't meet.

And you are quite right to do so. So can we park the idea that you can't question experts or that history gets a pass on whether their conclusions are sound and robust and focus solely on whether the conclusions are sound and robust?

No, it's tautological. Tautologies are not very useful but they are not fallacious.

That's not a tautology. That you find something plausible does not mean it is more likely to be true.

From that source. I didn't say we could discard other sources. And if the quote is only attributable to that source, it has to be discarded, right?

You said we would have to discard large chunks of what we know about Caesar. Presumably those large chunks were in that one source otherwise why would we have to discard them?

If any quote is only attributable to one source and you want to know whether someone actually said it then I think you can't conclude that they did based on that evidence. If you think otherwise then I am going to write down that you owe me $10,000 and you damn well better conclude it's true and pay me.

But that's my point: you're over-simplifying.

No, I'm not. The problem is you keep jumping between arguments. We are trying to drill down into some very simple things with some fairly simple arguments to help clear a path. Once that's done we will be able to see the wood for the trees.

 

[acbytesla]

That's true, you don't. But a historian knows more about the topic than you do, and they might understand how the evidence is collected, weighed and interpreted in the larger context far better than any of us here, and even all of us combined. So while you shouldn't trust said historian blindly, you shouldn't dismiss their expertise, either. And when we add all of them together...

I'm not. I just believe there is history and there are stories. I also believe the religious factors complicate the matter far more than you or they are willing to entertain.

You and I joked about probability percentages a while back about the historicity of Jesus, While we both said it was more likely than not that he did, neither of us offered figures that were anywhere near the certainty that Grant and Ehrman have suggested. So what's the problem?

 

[Belz...]

No, the method is how you determine your conclusions. The standard is how you judge whether those conclusions are good and reliable.

Aren't those BOTH used to determine conclusions? I don't see the difference.

I'm quite happy to say that history uses methods that can't get us towards a definitive answer on whether things are true or false but can build plausible narratives. The problem is when these plausible narratives are held up as being 'true' because they are the conclusions of the best historical methods we have.

Well I don't hold them to be true. I hold them to be more probable than not.

No, there isn't any difference unless you have consistent standards. The fact that you admit there is a difference shows that you do apply these consistent standards to other disciplines.

Well, I already said that. Different disciplines have different standards. I don't know why that's surprising to you. Also, as I stated in an earlier post, we have other bodies of experts that can contradict, say, homeopaths.

And you are quite right to do so. So can we park the idea that you can't question experts or that history gets a pass on whether their conclusions are sound and robust and focus solely on whether the conclusions are sound and robust?

I don't know where you got that idea. Certainly not from me.

That you find something plausible does not mean it is more likely to be true.

Ok, then. How do you know what's more likely to be true without determining what's more plausible to you?

You said we would have to discard large chunks of what we know about Caesar. Presumably those large chunks were in that one source otherwise why would we have to discard them?

Even if that were true, what you said earlier does not follow from this. Furthermore, I meant that using the same standard, several sources would have to be ditched.

The problem is you keep jumping between arguments.

I believe I've been very consistent. That's the reason why I didn't want to get into the meat of the evidence with IanS. Where do you think I've jumped arguments?

 

[Belz...]

You and I joked about probability percentages a while back about the historicity of Jesus, While we both said it was more likely than not that he did, neither of us offered figures that were anywhere near the certainty that Grant and Ehrman have suggested. So what's the problem?

Are you refering to a particular quote of theirs?

 

[acbytesla]

Are you refering to a particular quote of theirs?

Both have concluded certainty of a historical Jesus and pooh pooh the possibility that there wasn't a real Jesus. I cited a quote from Grant earlier.

 

[Belz...]

Both have concluded certainty of a historical Jesus and pooh pooh the possibility that there wasn't a real Jesus. I cited a quote from Grant earlier.

Well if they're talking about 100% certainty I think they're exaggerating. I would be wary of any claim of certainty above 87.3%.

 

[acbytesla]

Well if they're talking about 100% certainty I think they're exaggerating. I would be wary of any claim of certainty above 87.3%.

I would be wary of any claim above 75%. But certainty is a red herring. I view Christianity as the most successful ongoing con game in history. Going on close to little evidence, it has taken in unfathomable sums and caused horrific suffering.

 

[IanS]

Normally I'd agree with you. But given that you've discounted the evidence that's been presented already, I think it's a fair question: what DO you consider to be reliable evidence for an obscure historical person? Remember, he's not obscure NOW because of the legend built around him and the religion that sprung from his alleged life, but he sure was THEN.



That's not the way it works, Ian. If I have a record of my bank transactions copied into Excel and I added a few spurious lines like "buying an elephant", it doesn't mean that the whole thing is wrong.

Your entire approach is to say "hey, look. The bible, being a work of mythology, is obviously wrong because it has magic in it." But that's not how historians work. You can glean from certain works some things that are more likely true than not, or vice versa. But it takes a certain experience in the field; decades of it. And you're also wrong that the bible is their only or main source of information. We've got plenty of data from that time period in that place. That's also part of trying to find the truth, here.



The problem is that you're looking at it the wrong way. The rules of the game you're establishing are NOT the rules that historians use, even for other parts of the field.



So what's the point of having professions, then?



Of course it is! Multiple people are still persons. What you just quoted is my definition of HJ!

Multiple persons are a single HJ?? ... What?? …. multiple different people are certainly not a single individual ever known to anyone! I'll assume you just took temporary leave of your senses when you made that claim.

As for the rest of the above - the whole thing boils down to whether or not anyone accepts that the bible is a reliable source for a real Jesus.

But frankly, anyone who thinks it is a reliable source must "need their head looking".

Look - you have a source (the bible) which was for nearly 2000 years believed by almost everyone as actual fact, precisely because up until that time everyone did think miracles really happened, and hence they all believed that the miracles of Jesus were not a problem at all. In fact on the contrary, almost everyone in the Christian world believed that the miracle stories were THE part of the bible that completely convinced everyone that Jesus was indeed the true Son of God ...

... but then, the emergence of science slowly convinced everyone (well everyone except billions of current day theists! ... inc. Bible Scholars!) that none of those miracles stories could possibly have been true. So how did all those untrue Jesus stories ever get into all the gospels in the first place? The answer can only be that the gospel writers were simply inventing the stories, i.e. to put it bluntly they were lying. Lying repeatedly over & over again on virtually every page ...

... you cannot have writers like that as your source of evidence, and still claim that they are reliable for truthful evidence.


And that is apparently claimed by your experts as their very best evidence … a book filled with lies from end-to-end.

Frankly, you don't just need vastly better evidence, you are in even more dire need of vastly better more objective independent “experts”.

The bottom line here is that your whole case boils down to an appeal to authority. Well, that is a known fallacious argument to begin with. But if you do want to say that we should believe the people who you call “experts”, then it's absolutely essential that we examine what those experts are offering as their evidence. And offering us the bible falls a million miles short of what any educated honest person should accept as a source of their evidence.

 

[Elagabalus]

Multiple persons are a single HJ?? ... What?? …. multiple different people are certainly not a single individual ...

<<SNIP>>

Posts like this are the reason why Bart Ehrman compares Mythicists to Holocaust deniers. Throughout the years you have just kept repeating the same thing over and over again. And as evidenced from your exchange with Brainache above, in all those years, you've never bothered to look anything up - another HD'er trait. Sad.