What counts as a historical Jesus?

[eight bits]

Olowkow

There's a separate thread for Zealot ("Has anybody read...?").

Bandit Jesus has surfaced here. Aslan is a Muslim these days. Islam contributes about one-third of those living people who profess a faith-related commitment to a historical Jesus. Bandit prophets present no doctrinal difficulty for Islam. In the Koran, God thoughtfully specifies the prophet's share of the loot.

The Charismatic Outlaw is an archtetypal figure. Marlon Brando opened and closed his career with these roles. Paul Newman played two examples, both Jesus-figures, Butch Cassidy (from a film that owes a great deal to The Gospel according to John) and the title character of Cool Hand Luke (a more synoptic treatment of Jesus-in-modern-dress).

Archetypal Jesuses are suspicious of non-historicity. Although people do conceive of themselves as (identify with) this or that archetype, they reliably aren't any such thing really. People are also prone to misperceive others archetypally, but other people reliably aren't any such thing really, either. As Reza Aslan himself says,

"The great Christian theologian Rudolf Bultmann liked to say that the quest for the historical Jesus is ultimately an internal quest. Scholars tend to see the Jesus they want to see. Too often they see themselves — their own reflection — in the image of Jesus they have constructed."

(From the introduction to his book; see the main thread for links and more discussion)

Aslan may think that because his Jesus isn't himself (Aslan is a writing teacher, popular writer and media producer, not an outlaw or bandit chief) that he has achieved something different from other people who claim to find the Real Jesus. But archetypes are the common heritage of all people. Aslan may not be an outlaw, but he has the capacity to feel the lure. There is nothing new about somebody looking in the mirror and seeing an archetypal figure - or wishing that he did.

 

[Stone]

In addition to skeptic Bart Ehrman who said "Jesus certainly existed", these other academics would have disagreed with you:

Sir Edward Clark — a prominent lawyer in Great Britain “As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To me, the evidence is conclusive; and over and over again in the high court, I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection I accept unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.”

Canon Westcott — for years a brilliant scholar at Cambridge University “Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.”

Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome “I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”

http://www.awordfromtheword.org/what-if

HUH? READ THIS #*^%*##$^%#&% THREAD! As Slowvehicle has said, Ehrman's subject -- and EVERY historicist's in this thread -- has been a "fully-human, non-divine, non-magical, non-resurrected, non messiah"! You're talking about a magic figure that plenty of serious professional historians SEPARATE OFF from the historical human rabbi with nothing supernatural about him at all. In fact, your choice here to confound the magic figure of the LATER TEXTUAL STRATA with the countercultural human rabbi heard in the Q sayings is more typical of a peculiarly inattentive breed of myther whom I've encountered on other boards than of any serious arguer for Jesus the human rabbi's historicity.

Stone

 

[DOC]

In addition to skeptic Bart Ehrman who said "Jesus certainly existed", these other academics would have disagreed with you:

Sir Edward Clark — a prominent lawyer in Great Britain “As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To me, the evidence is conclusive; and over and over again in the high court, I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection I accept unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.”

Canon Westcott — for years a brilliant scholar at Cambridge University “Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.”

Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome “I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”

http://www.awordfromtheword.org/what-if

We have seen several state in this thread and quote others saying that plenty of evidence exists but what is this evidence?

The below post gives 3 links to some of the evidence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8626336#post8626336

 

[pakeha]

... Islam contributes about one-third of those living people who profess a faith-related commitment to a historical Jesus. Bandit prophets present no doctrinal difficulty for Islam. In the Koran, God thoughtfully specifies the prophet's share of the loot...

Thanks for the smile, eight bits.
I have to leave the building to negociate a peace settlement with a bank which has smelt blood and your post will help me to keep a serene smile on my face during what promises to be a challenging experience.

HUH?...

Oh, Stone, of course we should have warned you about DOC's posting history (try perusing some of his more interesting threads).
Still, I admit I wondered how you'd react to such a typical DOC-post.

 

[IanS]

HUH? READ THIS #*^%*##$^%#&% THREAD! As Slowvehicle has said, Ehrman's subject -- and EVERY historicist's in this thread -- has been a "fully-human, non-divine, non-magical, non-resurrected, non messiah"! You're talking about a magic figure that plenty of serious professional historians SEPARATE OFF from the historical human rabbi with nothing supernatural about him at all. In fact, your choice here to confound the magic figure of the LATER TEXTUAL STRATA with the countercultural human rabbi heard in the Q sayings is more typical of a peculiarly inattentive breed of myther whom I've encountered on other boards than of any serious arguer for Jesus the human rabbi's historicity.

Stone

Actually DOC's post is quite useful in respect of the above comments from Stone. Because DOC's three examples just highlight the fact that 150 years ago most Christians did believe that Jesus performed the miracles and rose from the dead, just as described in the bible.

Whereas today the reason so called "scholars" of this subject such as Bart Ehrman no longer believe that, is not because of their biblical “evidence”, but simply because they now understand that modern science has convinced everyone (almost everyone!) that supernatural claims like that are mythical nonsense.

If it were not for modern science education, these same bible scholars would no doubt be doing exactly what they were doing centuries ago and insisting that the bible itself was abundant evidence that the miracles were all true.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The below post gives 3 links to some of the evidence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8626336#post8626336

...and the posts that follow that post demonstrate that the supposed "evidence" has been dealt with.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8628786#post8628786

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8628914#post8628914

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8629244#post8629244

(masterful summaries by TimCallahan. You should read them, DOC, even before you finish Ehrman's book.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8630248#post8630248

(Craig B weighhs in)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8630284#post8630284

(The Pharaoh makes a good point)

...and so on.

I could list more, but you ignored then when they were posted in that thread, and continue to ignore similar materials in other threads (just as you continue to ignore what Ehrman said about the fully-human, non-magical, non-messiah). Why do you think baldly asserting the same thing in a different thread makes it somehow more true?

Truly, whenever you, DOC, simply repost a link to assertions for which detailed, elegant, well-considered, point-by-point responses have been provided, the post in which you do so ought to be auto-merged into one "Responses to Claims DOC has Already Made" thread.

 

[Belz...]

HUH? READ THIS #*^%*##$^%#&% THREAD! As Slowvehicle has said, Ehrman's subject -- and EVERY historicist's in this thread -- has been a "fully-human, non-divine, non-magical, non-resurrected, non messiah"! You're talking about a magic figure that plenty of serious professional historians SEPARATE OFF from the historical human rabbi with nothing supernatural about him at all. In fact, your choice here to confound the magic figure of the LATER TEXTUAL STRATA with the countercultural human rabbi heard in the Q sayings is more typical of a peculiarly inattentive breed of myther whom I've encountered on other boards than of any serious arguer for Jesus the human rabbi's historicity.

Stone

Seriously, Stone, don't waste your time. Nothing will come of it.

 

[DOC]

Quote: Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome:

“I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”

He's even more ******* crazy, since there IS NO evidence of the resurrection AT ALL.

The empty tomb is evidence and most biblical scholars believe Christ's tomb was empty 3 days after his crucifixion.

And here is some more evidence:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

 

[IanS]

Quote: Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome:

“I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”



The empty tomb is evidence and most biblical scholars believe Christ's tomb was empty 3 days after his crucifixion.

And here is some more evidence:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Thomas Arnold , 1795 -1842? Dear oh dear.

 

[dafydd]

Quote: Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome:

“I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”



The empty tomb is evidence and most biblical scholars believe Christ's tomb was empty 3 days after his crucifixion.

And here is some more evidence:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

The only 'evidence' comes from a book of fairy stories.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Quote: Thomas Arnold <19th century material snip>

The empty tomb is evidence and most biblical scholars believe Christ's tomb was empty 3 days after his crucifixion.

Hmm. The only attestation to an "empty tomb" are the contradictory reports attributed to people who were not eyewitnesses. Again, all of this material has been dealt with before, in other threads.

Why do you think reposting this in a different thread makes it truthier?

ETA: No matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise, Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is STILL not "three days and three nights":
Friday night/Saturday/Saturday night/Sunday morning. Two nights, one whole day, one afternoon/evening, and one early morning.

And here is some more evidence:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Roight. Josh McDowell claiming that the contradictory, heavily-edited and redacted, cherry-picked anonymous accounts of supernatural events in the New Testament are sufficient evidence of the truth of those very events.

The "The NT is true because the NT says it's true" approach. Special Pleading, DOC? Begging the Question, DOC? Circular Reasoning, DOC? These would be elementary errors, even if it were the first time you had tried to get away with it.

 

[eight bits]

The empty tomb is evidence ...

Evidence of what, DOC?

In John 20, Mary of Magdala, having inspected the tomb and found it empty (that's an innovation introduced in Luke, by the way, that the tomb actually is empty and somebody actually checks that it is empty... yet anohter plot-point where the story improves with every telling), hallucinates two "angels" who ask her why she is crying. She says in reply (verse 13)

“They have taken my Lord, and I don’t know where they laid him.”

She might be crazy, but she isn't stupid. Nothing that follows in John contradicts her simple declarative statement. There's talk about Jesus' new bod, but not a word about what happened to his old one, except for Mary's lucid inference, just quoted.

Maybe John is telling us that there is nothing more to say about it. Mary nailed it, so to speak.

... and most biblical scholars believe Christ's tomb was empty 3 days after his crucifixion.

How many Muslim scholars did your survey include? They're reliable for a historical Jesus, and for the supernatural belief that Jesus was the annointed one promised to the Jews. So, how many of these people, who agree with you about the larger historical and "counting" issues, believe that Jesus' tomb was empty three days after his crucifixion?

 

[DOC]

Thomas Arnold , 1795 -1842? Dear oh dear.

As someone once said:

The problem with new books is they keep you from reading the old ones.

 

[Belz...]

The empty tomb is evidence

About as much as the Executor is evidence for Darth Vader. As in, it's only seen in the story.

 

[Craig4]

Quote: Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome:

“I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”



The empty tomb is evidence and most biblical scholars believe Christ's tomb was empty 3 days after his crucifixion.

And here is some more evidence:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

What is the rough date of the earliest Greek manuscript containing the last 16 verses of Mark?

Where is this tomb?

 

[Slowvehicle]

As someone once said:

The problem with new books is they keep you from reading the old ones.

Is that why you never read the rest of Did Jesus Exist?

 

[TimCallahan]

Quote: Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome:

“I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”



The empty tomb is evidence and most biblical scholars believe Christ's tomb was empty 3 days after his crucifixion. And here is some more evidence:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

One of many problems with the empty tomb argument is that the earliest claim of the empty tomb is found in the Gospel of Mark. Tis gospel was written after the year 70, when the Romans flattened Jerusalem, either flattening or burying any such tomb in rubble. Therefore, such a story would be impossible to test.

 

[pakeha]

DOC, you sly devil you!
Did you really think you could slip a repeat of this post from over a year ago past us?

Professor Thomas Arnold of Oxford (Author of the History of Rome) would have disagreed with you.

Thomas Arnold quote:

“I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”

 

[smartcooky]

The empty tomb is evidence and most biblical scholars believe Christ's tomb was empty 3 days after his crucifixion

DOC, DOC, DOC. That statement really borders on stundie material.

An empty tomb is evidence of...... an empty tomb!!!

An empty tomb is hugely more likely to be evidence of the body being nicked than it is of some farcical notion of the deceased occupant coming to life.

 

[tsig]

DOC, DOC, DOC. That statement really borders on stundie material.

An empty tomb is evidence of...... an empty tomb!!!

An empty tomb is hugely more likely to be evidence of the body being nicked than it is of some farcical notion of the deceased occupant coming to life.

I have an empty glass, this is evidence that god exists.