Historical Jesus

[GDon]

That the Gospels, and the alleged historical stories there-in, were unknown to the wider Christian community until mid 2nd century.

And you have evidence that this is the case? Because that is a big claim requiring big evidence.

I most certainly do !
That is - WE most certainly do - right there in the Christian writings themselves. I studied it carefully.

Why haven't you studied them yourself before making your claims, eh?
If I cite the evidence will you consider it ?
Or just ignore it as usual ?

Here is a dated list of references to the word 'gospel' showing clearly how it originally meant simply something like 'our teachings', but eventually came to mean the written Gospel books about Jesus.

We can clearly see that the early writers had NO KNOWLEDGE of the Gospels at all - they use the word NOT to mean written books about Jesus, and they do NOT mention any of the alleged historical events there-in.

Hi Kapyong! Long time, no see!

No, what you wrote is not quite true. Alleged historical stories around Jesus are dated from early in the Second Century, not mid-Second Century, and arguably go back to late First Century.

You're right that the original use of "gospel" meant an evangelical message rather than the written texts we now call "Gospels". That changed in the Second Century, presumably after written texts started to become the main way the evangelist message was spread, rather than through oral transmission (which Papias called "the living voice"). Justin Martyr called the texts "memoirs which are called Gospels", suggesting the term for what was considered memoirs was becoming popular mid-Second Century.

But there are references to historical stories predating that. Papias, writing around 110-140 CE (all dates from the earlychristianwritings website), apparently wrote:

"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ."

Also:

"And Judas the traitor, not believing, and asking, 'How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord?'"

Papias didn't seem to call those written texts "Gospels". In fact, he seemed to prefer hearing from people directly rather than getting things from books:

"If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."

The implication there is that there WERE written texts that he could get information from.

Also Ignatius, writing around 105-115 CE, mentions alleged historical details.

Also Aristides, writing around 120-130 CE:

"This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world..."

I'll note that you do mention Ignatius and Aristides in your post, though we disagree on the dates. Still, it's reasonable to assume the stories that they refer to had probably been circulating for a little while already.

I just wanted to make clear that your comment that "Gospels, and the alleged historical stories there-in, were unknown to the wider Christian community until mid 2nd century" seems to confuse the ideas of written texts called Gospels being known and alleged historical stories being known. There is evidence that the historical stories were known and there were written texts about those stories, before there were texts that were assigned the name "Gospels".

 

[GDon]

And, specifically, I was wondering, how reasonable is it, really to say "did not exist" is the reasonable null? Might we, perhaps, be drawing overly much from physics here, into a field that might want to treat the scientific method a bit differently? (I don't know, I'm not claiming this is so. The thought came to my mind, and I'm inviting people who've already thought over this question, to share their view on this.)

The problem is that the language for the question being asked is tainted.

When an astrophysicist says "I believe that a black hole exists at the centre of our galaxy", they are not making a statement of faith. They are saying that the best explanation for the data we have is that there is a black hole there.

Similarly, the question at the heart of the HJ/MJ debate is "what is the best explanation for the origins of Christianity?" You might claim that a HJ is the best explanation (which is my position). You might claim that it is a MJ, or that no evaluation is possible due to a scarcity of information.

Confusion ensues when the question is framed "Do you believe in a HJ?" If I wanted to lob a debate-grenade into an atheist board, I'd write "Atheists believe that there is no god", and run for cover! Then I think we'd see an appreciation for the use of the word "believe" in a statement.

What is the best explanation we have for the origin of Christianity based on the data available? That's the question.

 

[Chanakya]

... What is the best explanation we have for the origin of Christianity based on the data available? That's the question.

Sure, that is the question I had in mind, and what I imagine most people here are addressing.


I agree, 'What is my/your belief about this?' is a separate question. This is a subjective question which, in most cases, will tend towards the first one, but sure, no reason why the skeptic should not indulge in occasional unevidenced beliefs, provided they are clear it is a subjective idiosyncratic unevidenced belief, and provided they do not insist that others buy into their personal belief.

In any case, as you say, that is a separate question entirely.

 

[Delvo]

Just because there were (most probably) all sorts of religious people saying all sort of things, is not by any stretch of anyone's rational imagination evidence for the existence of Jesus!

Wow, now you've gone from lying about my conclusion to lying about both my conclusion and the facts I point out to support it.

Why stick to a position that requires this kind of antics to defend it? Wouldn't it be simpler to switch to a position that could be defended without this kind of drivel? If your position is so solid, why does nobody here produce an argument for it which isn't... that?

This isn't physics after all, so what IS the reasonable null hypothesis here?

There isn't one. There can't be. Everybody has the burden for any conclusion about it. (That's why the side that blathers about the other side having it discredits themselves by trotting out such an obvious irrelevantly-colored herring.)

But how likely, or how unlikely, is it, that some wild-eyed preacher attracted followers, and had the whole bible story foisted on him later on -- as opposed to, the whole thing being an out and out concoction, all the way through?

Either case works.

Not at all. There are historical precedents only for the former. New characters don't just suddenly get invented and believed to have existed. You could try making one up, but nobody would believe you. Human minds just don't work that way. They never have. (Those who have claimed that's how religions always work only ever came up with two alleged examples, both of which were false. Since those were shown to be false, they've gone silent about it, as if hoping readers will forget that happened.)

And, specifically, I was wondering, how reasonable is it, really to say "did not exist" is the reasonable null? Might we, perhaps, be drawing overly much from physics here

They're not drawing from physics. They're drawing from their desperation to keep the conversation as far away as they can from the actual subject.

 

[dejudge]

The gospel of Thomas is evidence that there was some dude who said some stuff and his name was Jesus.[

Your assertion is quite illogical. You don't even know when and who actually wrote gThomas. The earliest paleography dating of gThomas is sometime in the 4th century.

Cyril of Jerusalem supposedly writing in the 4th century claimed it was a disciple of Manes who wrote gThomas.

Cyril's Catechetical Lecture 4. 36.

... The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort

.


Cyril's Catechetical Lecture 6

Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas : for it is the work not of one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked disciples of Manes.

In addition, you will not find any historical evidence for an apostle called Thomas.

The Gospel of Thomas appears to show that anonymous persons in and out the NT were simply making stuff up about Jesus.

 

[GDon]

There are historical precedents only for the former. New characters don't just suddenly get invented and believed to have existed. You could try making one up, but nobody would believe you.

Actually, characters do get invented and believed to have existed: John Frum, Ned Ludd, Slender Man, Ebion, various Christian saints. The idea that Jesus was a made-up character is plausible.

 

[dejudge]

But let's hark back to the BoP detour for a minute.

This thread had me sold -- starting from an "HJ" position -- on the "MJ" conclusion.

But, thinking about this ... This isn't physics after all, so what IS the reasonable null hypothesis here? For historical characters generally, not just Jesus?

HJers here have shown that HJ is a reasonable proposition. MJers have shown MJ works too. But, crucially, MJers have shown that there is no credibable evidence, and so have claimed the null hypothesis that no Jesus existed.

But, well, thinking about this : Is it really a reasonable null hypothisis -- in history, as opposed to physics -- that no evidence equals did not exist? Shouldn't it be simply be instead that : We don't know! Could roll either way, we don't know ****, isn't that the credible null hypothess?

(Which isn't an objection as such, not an HJ-argument as such -- I haven't thought this out fully -- but a question, a ... thinking aloud.)

Yeah, that's my question. Are we entirely sure that "No Jesus" is the null hypothesis? Sure, HJ cannot possibly be the default position; but are we sure MJ should be the default position? Why not, simply, "We don't know"?

Since there is no historical evidence how can the HJ argument be reasonable?

The HJ argument is directly based on no historical evidence.

The HJ argument is extremely unreasonable or illogical.

If Jesus did not exist then there would be no historical evidence of his existence and that is precisely what has been found.

Jesus did not exist is by far a most logical reasonable argument.

 

[dejudge]

From Tertullian, "On the Flesh of Christ":

"This opinion will be very suitable for Ebion, who holds Jesus to be a mere man, and nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of God...

... the root of Jesse is the family of David, and the stem of the root is Mary descended from David... for every step indeed in a genealogy is traced from the latest up to the first, so that it is now a well-known fact that the flesh of Christ is inseparable, not merely from Mary, but also from David through Mary"

In "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian it is stated that Jesus had no human father.

On the Flesh of Christ

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed...…... for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

Jesus was always a non-historical character without a human father.

There were certainly legal implications based on patriarchal lineage, but there was awareness of matriarchal lineage as well, as you can see in one of the geneologies of Jesus (Matthew has four women in his list).

The same book called Matthew stated Jesus was the son of a Ghost and a Virgin so the genealogies are of no historical value which is obvious when the genealogy in gLuke is examined.

All we have is evidence that unknown writers were making stuff without any regard to historical credibility.

By the way Ebion was not a man or a leader of a cult . Ebion means "Poor".

 

[IanS]

I don't think that is right. The HJ is the prevailing paradigm whether or not you agree with it. The MJ crowd want to challenge that consensus, so it is up to them to prove their case.

Also, since when have historical questions been solved by opinion polls?

No. The Jesus we have evidence for, which is the Jesus the Christians claim exists (note they claim he still exists) is definitely 100% "mythical".

If you want people to believe a different Jesus existed you need to provide the evidence for your claim.

This is an important point which several of us have raised many times in previous threads - the so-called Historical Jesus is a relatively modern invention from biblical scholars (starting from, say, about 200 years ago), who slowly realised that the actual description of Jesus, which is in fact the only description of Jesus, could not be true ...

... so over the decades that actual original description of Jesus was slowly changed by simply crossing out more-&-more of the actual story of Jesus, ie the original and only account of Jesus, and replacing it with a complete invention that bible studies teachers now call "the Historical Jesus".

What is the justification for simply rubbing-out virtually everything that was described by the people who originally claimed to know what happened with Jesus?

The justification is that the believers (such as biblical scholars!), eventually found out that it was all untrue! That's their justification ...

... and on that basis they simply invented a completely different version of Jesus where all the original accounts had been erased.

That's just one part of this entire Jesus subject which is not merely suspicious, but clearly fraudulent and heaping one fraud after another ... first we have the only story of Jesus which everyone claimed as certainly true for nearly 2000 years ... then they had to cross it all out and invent a new form of Jesus ... and then biblical scholars try to justify that by pointing to a single half sentence in one of Paul's letters where it says "other apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother" ... and that is stressed by biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman saying it is proof positive that Jesus existed ...

... but what Ehrman and his fellow tens of thousands of bible studies teachers do not tell you is that -

(1) that single half sentence was never repeated again either in Paul's letters or anywhere else.

(2) the so-called "brother" (James) apparently wrote his own gospel, in which he makes no such claim to be the brother of Jesus.

(3) Paul says that his entire life was changed by a revelation from God who identified Jesus to him ("according to scripture"), and yet when he meets the actual brother of Jesus, he asks not a single thing about Jesus, and the brother mentions not one single thing about Jesus.

(4) in fact on the contrary, instead of asking his actual brother about the miraculous Son of Yahweh, Paul actually tells James and the other "Pillars of the Church of God", that the gospel he preaches (which is his gospel of belief in Jesus) quote "came from no man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone" ... he says it came to him directly from God by divine revelation showing the true meaning of ancient scripture.

(5) in that part of the same letter (iirc), Paul also rebukes those "pillars of the church" for believing that all sorts of different people were "the "Christ"! And he actually says that what they have said about their "Christ belief" is of no importance or interest to him at all !!, because he says that his information about "the Christ" surpasses what the Pillars of the Church may have believed because Paul got it all from God himself.

But that single never again repeated half sentence (which by the way has the clear structure of an "interpolation"), is nevertheless presented by Ehrman and his tens of thousands of bible teaching colleagues, as by far their best evidence for Jesus and something so strong that it proves Jesus was a “certainty”.

 

[Elagabalus]

Actually, characters do get invented and believed to have existed: John Frum, Ned Ludd, Slender Man, Ebion, various Christian saints. The idea that Jesus was a made-up character is plausible.

Spin is that you?! How's that passive-aggressive thing goin'?

 

[GDon]

Sure, that is the question I had in mind, and what I imagine most people here are addressing.

Apologies, my comment wasn't directed specifically to you. I saw earlier that posters like IanS and Kapyong were referring to "HJ-believers" and "believe in a HJ", which isn't helpful to good discussion. But I haven't seen you doing that. The belief isn't in a HJ per se, but what best explains the data that forms the earliest layer of Christianity.

 

[GDon]

Spin is that you?!

No, I'm definitely not Spin. I'm also known as GakuseiDon.

 

[IanS]

And I'll bet you had contrived answers.

The answers are truthful and honest answers, which explain why none of those biblical quotes are reliable as evidence of Jesus ever being known to any of those writers of gospels and letters.

With remarks like this (your above comment) you are just showing yet again how belligerent and confrontational so many HJ-believers/posters become in these threads ... the HJ side (almost all of us at least) are trying to be constructive, considerate, and above all to politely explain why such things as your quotes and the claim just made above saying that because there were lots of street preachers around in the 1st century, that is somehow evidence for the reality of Jesus.

Instead of being hostile and immediately so defensive and dismissive, you need to be far less trusting of religious sources and far more cognisant of what actual evidence we truly have ... and there is actually a great deal of evidence, however, unfortunately for the HJ case, that evidence is all against the veracity and reliability of the biblical writing about Jesus. It's also very strongly against the competence and supposed impartiality of biblical scholars almost all of whom are practicing Christians.

You need to be more objective about this. And really that means more honest with yourself.

 

[IanS]

Apologies, my comment wasn't directed specifically to you. I saw earlier that posters like IanS and Kapyong were referring to "HJ-believers" and "believe in a HJ", which isn't helpful to good discussion. But I haven't seen you doing that. The belief isn't in a HJ per se, but what best explains the data that forms the earliest layer of Christianity.

If you believe in the existence of a Historical Jesus, then what else would you like to be called in these threads other than someone who believs in a HJ??

It's not a derogatory term. It's just the simplest way to describe those posters here who believe in a HJ ...

... that's in contrast to so many of these threads where those who are sceptical about the existence of Jesus, have so often been called "mythicists" - there may be one person here insisting that Jesus was a myth, but for myself and I think most others here, I/we have repeatedly said that we not claiming he was a myth ... the most that I am saying is that the evidence which we now have (and which is all quite unarguable evidence), and which people did not realise or appreciate for most of the last 2000 years, does cast serious doubt on whether he was actually a real person.

 

[Jerrymander]

The answers are truthful and honest answers, which explain why none of those biblical quotes are reliable as evidence of Jesus ever being known to any of those writers of gospels and letters.

With remarks like this (your above comment) you are just showing yet again how belligerent and confrontational so many HJ-believers/posters become in these threads ... the HJ side (almost all of us at least) are trying to be constructive, considerate, and above all to politely explain why such things as your quotes and the claim just made above saying that because there were lots of street preachers around in the 1st century, that is somehow evidence for the reality of Jesus.

Instead of being hostile and immediately so defensive and dismissive, you need to be far less trusting of religious sources and far more cognisant of what actual evidence we truly have ... and there is actually a great deal of evidence, however, unfortunately for the HJ case, that evidence is all against the veracity and reliability of the biblical writing about Jesus. It's also very strongly against the competence and supposed impartiality of biblical scholars almost all of whom are practicing Christians.

You need to be more objective about this. And really that means more honest with yourself.

The texts ARE evidence. Just became you're inherently hostile to anything religious doesn't make them any different than other ancient texts (including those with supernatural elements). NT scholars do not simply take these texts at face value. They try to determine their origin and if it makes sense that there was a historical figure behind it all. Paul did not consider what he was writing sacred scripture, he was simply writing to people in various communities. You parallel the fundies in many ways. For the them, the texts are irreverent and truth by default. For you that are automatically lies and fables. For reasonable scholars, they are ancient texts.

And on the subject to hostility, you should talk to your friend dejudge.

 

[Darat]

The texts ARE evidence. Just became you're inherently hostile to anything religious doesn't make them any different than other ancient texts (including those with supernatural elements). NT scholars do not simply take these texts at face value. They try to determine their origin and if it makes sense that there was a historical figure behind it all. Paul did not consider what he was writing sacred scripture, he was simply writing to people in various communities. You parallel the fundies in many ways. For the them, the texts are irreverent and truth by default. For you that are automatically lies and fables. For reasonable scholars, they are ancient texts.

And on the subject to hostility, you should talk to your friend dejudge.

You do know that you are simply showing how hostile and defensive you are to someone who doesn't agree with you?

 

[GDon]

It's not a derogatory term. It's just the simplest way to describe those posters here who believe in a HJ ...

I'm not saying it is derogatory, but that it mis-frames the debate, which is over the best explanation for the materials coming out of earliest Christianity. See my earlier post to Chanakya where I explain my reasoning.

 

[GDon]

But that single never again repeated half sentence (which by the way has the clear structure of an "interpolation"), is nevertheless presented by Ehrman and his tens of thousands of bible teaching colleagues, as by far their best evidence for Jesus and something so strong that it proves Jesus was a “certainty”.

If Paul met Jesus's actual brother, then it comes close to certainty to establishing a HJ. Ehrman sees the natural meaning being an actual brother, and that makes sense. Think of it this way: if we knew there was a HJ, and we knew that Jesus had an actual brother named James, then "James the brother of the Lord" being that actual brother is the natural reading. Few would argue that "brother" here meant fellow-Christian, because that reading isn't needed. But that's not all.

There are a number of sources that claimed that Jesus had a brother called James. Where did they get it? You might argue that they got the idea from Paul. But then it is clear that those sources saw Paul's "James the brother of the Lord" as meaning an actual brother and not as a "fellow-Christian". That lends weight to the natural reading of the passage in Paul to mean an actual brother.

But you might argue that an interpolator actually added that half sentence to Paul. You in fact suggest that the sentence has a clear structure of interpolation. But then why the interpolation? Does the interpolator add this into Paul to show that Jesus had an actual brother named James? If so, then again that adds weight to the natural meaning that the half-sentence is referring to an actual brother. Might the interpolator have added "James the brother of the Lord" to mean a fellow-Christian rather than an actual brother? It's possible, but you run into the problem that the tradition of Jesus having a brother named James pops up a number of times elsewhere. If you want to argue that the interpolator comes from a different tradition, then I think that case will be the weaker one and the logic starts to become muddled.

But that single never again repeated half sentence (which by the way has the clear structure of an "interpolation"...

Okay, let's assume that "James the brother of the Lord" was added by an interpolator. What do you think the interpolator meant by "James the brother of the Lord", and why do you think he added it into Paul's letter?

 

[IanS]

But we do. Bar Kochba for example, who was declared the messiah by Rabbi Akiva or ben Ya'ir. In fact, we don't need to speculate at all whether it is plausible or not because it is still happening today. Just take a peek at Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, L. Ron Hubbard for example.

Except it is not an assumption. It is an axiom. It has been happening for all of recorded human All of it. Right now, in fact. And it will continue to happen in the future.

I harbour a spark of hope that one day humanity will set aside the superstitious nonsense. All of it. But I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

But with that said - you say that one such preacher may have been the inspiration for what was written as the bible

I said one or more.

But it is a plausible origin for the fables. It's not like I am claiming jesus popped out of a orchid in the Himalayas and hiked to Jerusalem over land, is it? The Levant was stuffed to the gills back then with religious loons. It still is.

Sure the NT writers are probably unknowable and certainly, no eyewitness accounts exist without a shadow of doubt. The gospels are blatantly not eyewitness accounts.

E.g. The opening of Luke goes...



Luke outright states he is not an eyewitness, that lots of others were writing accounts and that he had to research it to figure out what to write.

And my position is simply that there were loads of apocalyptic preachers at the time, tall tales about them circulated by word of mouth and eventually some nutty twonk committed them to paper/papyrus/goat skin/whatever. Big deal.

I'm sorry but I'm really not going to waste any more time replying to your post when you clearly do not reply to what people have actually said. Just in your very first sentence for example - when I said that afaik we do not have any actual data for the usual belief/claim that there were vast numbers of street preachers in Judea around the time of Jesus (e.g. 30AD to 33AD), I am very obviously talking about numbers (that's what that entire point was about even before my reply … check the other replies as well as your own!!), i.e. how many people do we mean if we say there were masses of such people? And who recorded that data?

But you then replied to say we do have that data, because quote "Bar Kochba for example, who was declared the messiah by Rabbi Akiva or ben Ya'ir" ... so your idea of data for the numbers of such preachers is to name one person!! ... I mean, just how absurd is this going to get (rhetorical) ... well, too absurd for anyone sensible to bother with any more replies like that one from you.

 

[IanS]

The texts ARE evidence. Just became you're inherently hostile to anything religious doesn't make them any different than other ancient texts (including those with supernatural elements). NT scholars do not simply take these texts at face value. They try to determine their origin and if it makes sense that there was a historical figure behind it all. Paul did not consider what he was writing sacred scripture, he was simply writing to people in various communities. You parallel the fundies in many ways. For the them, the texts are irreverent and truth by default. For you that are automatically lies and fables. For reasonable scholars, they are ancient texts.

And on the subject to hostility, you should talk to your friend dejudge.

Why are you saying that dejudge is my friend? That is a piece of complete accusatory pathetic nonsense isn't it? Answer, yes it most certainly is. So why do you write things like that?

I have no idea who dejudge is outside of whatever he posts on threads like this. I never reply to his posts, and I rarely if ever get into defending anything he has ever said here. I have never endorsed his beliefs or his way of saying that we know things as if the things are certain ... in fact I've always stressed that things in this subject are just about as far away from "certainty" or "proof" as any educated honest sane person could ever imagine ... and in fact that's one of the reasons why anyone who has taken the trouble to really study what has been written in books on both sides of this argument, should be very suspicious indeed of anyone who says or thinks there is genuine reliable evidence for Jesus.

The "texts" that you are talking about, are indeed evidence. They are evidence of people writing around the first few centuries AD to describe religious belief in a promised supernatural Christ ... but where it was later realised (nearly 2000 years later!) that (a) none of the named authors for gospels ever wrote any of it at all, and that (b) what the anonymous authors did write was a huge long list of untrue invented fiction. That's what the biblical writing is evidence of ...

... what it is definitely NOT evidence of, is any real human Jesus ever known to any of those biblical writers.