What counts as a historical Jesus?

[IanS]

You will not make any deduction from, or attend in any way to any analysis whatsoever, of any ancient religious text?

ETA I mean, where we depend on significantly later copies, as in almost all cases.

It depends what the religious text actually is, and what evidence we have to suggest that it is original and unaltered.

The biblical writing is discredited by the fact that none of it is original, and all of it comes to us only as much later copies written by anonymous authors, who themselves can only give hearsay accounts supposedly obtained from other unnamed sources. Accounts which are obviously untrue in so far as they continually describe events in terms of impossible miracles.

Unlike the DSS, the biblical writing is also not simply a record of the rules and laws which the faithful members of their religious group are expected to obey. They are instead devotional eulogies to belief in a superhuman leader of the past who nobody had ever seen. The writing is really intended as preaching to be delivered in the hope of gaining converts to their faith.

That is so far from being reliable as to be completely worthless.

It also depends on how important and far reaching your deductions are going to be. For example - if you are drawing conclusions which don't really have much importance whether they are right or wrong, then not a great deal hangs on it.

However, in the case of the biblical writing, the deductions are leading so-called “scholars” to say that words in the gospels and words in Paul’s letters provide overwhelming evidence to show that Jesus and various other figures truly existed and truly did what is described in the bible. The consequence of that is obviously to endorse the continuation of belief in the vast worldwide religious influence which is modern day Christianity.

So there is a great deal which does hang on those sort of deductions being made from documents such as 4th century and later copies of the gospels.

However, once it is realised that such biblical writing actually has no obvious confirmed evidential or factual basis in any objective sense, then it surely does raise the rather fundamental question of whether current day Christian religion is actually based on a figure who never even existed.

 

[Brainache]

It's interesting how each of us stakes out a bit of different territory on this issue. It does go to the basic problem that almost nothing is reliably knowable about this period and most of the speculation is underpinned by more speculation and guesses only loosely constrained by facts are unlikely to be the same.

One idea I've considered is the possibility that the rift between the law followers and Paul portrayed in the NT that seems to give the stories a ring of truth was inserted into the stories because it mirrored the disputes between the gentile God Fearer groups and the Jewish populations over religious doctrine and the authors of the NT sought to create a story that would resonate with the proto-Christians of the time.

I don't know of any evidence for the idea but the possibility undercuts a bit the argument that at least part of the NT is reliable because if the authors hadn't been constrained a bit by truth they wouldn't have recorded details of a dispute that don't seem to further their cause.

I agree. I may be stating these things a bit forcefully, but I'm like you in that I seem to waver back and forth a bit over all this stuff.

I'm still reading and learning. I find this period of history fascinating and I'm the sort of person who loves to worry away at puzzles.

I just picked up a copy of "Excavating Jesus" by Crossan and Reed from the library. Mostly just to get an overview of the time and place where these stories came from. I have no doubt that the book will push strongly for a HJ, but I am also interested in how that society was organised and details about the daily lives of ordinary people as revealed through Archeology.

I'll see how it goes...

 

[davefoc]

I agree. I may be stating these things a bit forcefully, but I'm like you in that I seem to waver back and forth a bit over all this stuff.

I'm still reading and learning. I find this period of history fascinating and I'm the sort of person who loves to worry away at puzzles.

I just picked up a copy of "Excavating Jesus" by Crossan and Reed from the library. Mostly just to get an overview of the time and place where these stories came from. I have no doubt that the book will push strongly for a HJ, but I am also interested in how that society was organised and details about the daily lives of ordinary people as revealed through Archeology.

I'll see how it goes...

I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I grow interested in this topic, read some, participate in these threads a bit, but the eventual result is frustration. I disagree with the HM and IanS idea a bit that only reliable information should be used in making an assessment of what went on during this period. There is no reliable information, but still I'm curious enough to allow some informed guessing to guide me in forming an idea about what might have gone on.

But my frustration is the result of the degree that HM and IanS are right about the quality of evidence available. In the end all that is reliably knowable is that sometime in the second century a nascent movement for the establishment of Christianity was underway. Given how wide the support is for the standard secular narrative about first century Christianity that includes an HJ I wonder if perhaps HM and IanS are wrong and the evidence is stronger than they allow. But I haven't seen the evidence that demonstrates that they are wrong.

There is a clue that they are right to be skeptical of the so-called experts in the Wikipedia article on the Christ Myth theory. One of the comments in the Wikipedia article is that the only thing in which there is a widespread consensus amongst the experts is that an HJ existed but they disagree on many of the major details (my paraphrase from memory). Huh, the guy existed but we can't agree on what is true about him and what isn't? How is it that this big consensus exists on the fact that he existed but not the facts of his life? This sounds like this grand consensus that the Wikipedia article alludes to is much weaker than it might appear. If the experts can't agree about the facts surrounding the HJ why is it that they are so sure he did exist? The answer might be that belief in that an HJ existed is driven by various biases that the experts won't acknowledge even to themselves.

I view the time gulf between the writings of Paul and the other early Christian writings as a strong information barrier that will forever prevent any strong conclusions about the nature of an HJ, including whether he existed. If Paul offered more details about the HJ especially details that could be externally corroborated then putting together a reasonably reliable history of early Christianity would be possible, but alas the best evidence about the nature of early Christianity and the HJ seems pretty shaky to me even while my guess is that Paul's writing accurately describe the existence of a genuine movement in first century Palestine that was associated with the HJ.

 

[Brainache]

I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I grow interested in this topic, read some, participate in these threads a bit, but the eventual result is frustration. I disagree with the HM and IanS idea a bit that only reliable information should be used in making an assessment of what went on during this period. There is no reliable information, but still I'm curious enough to allow some informed guessing to guide me in forming an idea about what might have gone on.

Yeah, unless some new Scrolls show up sometime, we're stuck with what we've got. At this point some will just throw in the towell and say: "We will never know, so why worry about it?", which I suppose is a valid perspective, but slightly obsessive puzzle solvers like me just can't leave it alone.

But my frustration is the result of the degree that HM and IanS are right about the quality of evidence available. In the end all that is reliably knowable is that sometime in the second century a nascent movement for the establishment of Christianity was underway. Given how wide the support is for the standard secular narrative about first century Christianity that includes an HJ I wonder if perhaps HM and IanS are wrong and the evidence is stronger than they allow. But I haven't seen the evidence that demonstrates that they are wrong.

There is a clue that they are right to be skeptical of the so-called experts in the Wikipedia article on the Christ Myth theory. One of the comments in the Wikipedia article is that the only thing in which there is a widespread consensus amongst the experts is that an HJ existed but they disagree on many of the major details (my paraphrase from memory). Huh, the guy existed but we can't agree on what is true about him and what isn't? How is it that this big consensus exists on the fact that he existed but not the facts of his life? This sounds like this grand consensus that the Wikipedia article alludes to is much weaker than it might appear. If the experts can't agree about the facts surrounding the HJ why is it that they are so sure he did exist? The answer might be that belief in that an HJ existed is driven by various biases that the experts won't acknowledge even to themselves.

I view the time gulf between the writings of Paul and the other early Christian writings as a strong information barrier that will forever prevent any strong conclusions about the nature of an HJ, including whether he existed. If Paul offered more details about the HJ especially details that could be externally corroborated then putting together a reasonably reliable history of early Christianity would be possible, but alas the best evidence about the nature of early Christianity and the HJ seems pretty shaky to me even while my guess is that Paul's writing accurately describe the existence of a genuine movement in first century Palestine that was associated with the HJ.

I recently read "The Jesus Debate" which is a collection of (condensed summaries) of submissions to the Jesus Seminar. It was interesting that these Scholars all agreed in a HJ, but all disagreed at the same time. It was as you say, from memory there might have been only one or two sayings that they unanimously agreed were from an HJ, the rest varied enormously.

Here is the book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Jesus-Debate-Historians-Investigate/dp/0745950132

An interesting book for anyone who wants to know what "The Consensus" actually looks like.

 

[IanS]

I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I grow interested in this topic, read some, participate in these threads a bit, but the eventual result is frustration. I disagree with the HM and IanS idea a bit that only reliable information should be used in making an assessment of what went on during this period. There is no reliable information, ...

Well in fact there does appear to be plenty of completely reliable information about religious beliefs in that region at that time.

At risk of repetition - the DSS do appear to offer a huge amount of reliable detail about Jewish religious beliefs in precisely that same geographical region, over a broad range of exactly the same time period.

The fact that the DSS do not appear to describe any named individual called Yehoshua as the anticipated Son of God, and do not confirm any of the biblical stories preaching about belief in what Yehoshua did and what his disciples and "brothers" did, should be a rather clear clue as to what can be genuinely believed here on the basis of reliable evidence.

On the other hand, the DSS do describe practices and beliefs which are clearly similar to what appeared about 300 to 500 years later in the anonymously written documents that we now call Paul's Letters and the canonical gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke and John.

Again in repetition – I’m not saying Jesus did not, or could not, have existed. He might have done. But there is no credible evidence of his existence to be found in religious preaching eulogies such as the gospels.

On the other hand (more repetition) the DSS offer us a vast amount of detail about religious practices leading up to, and throughout that supposed lifetime of Jesus and Paul.

Which is why, if I wanted more reliable insight into this, I’d be looking much more closely into the DSS.

As it happens. I probably don't have enough interest in the subject to bother looking more deeply into the contents of the DSS. Because as an atheist, it really doesn't matter to me whether Jesus was a real person or not.

The main reason that I think this question is important, is because it seems to me it would be a very serious blow to the modern day Christian following if we ever found out that Jesus was after all probably only a fictional figure. And I’d like to see a reduction in fanatical religious belief, because I think it’s obviously and unarguable extremely dangerous.

 

[davefoc]

Well in fact there does appear to be plenty of completely reliable information about religious beliefs in that region at that time.

At risk of repetition - the DSS do appear to offer a huge amount of reliable detail about Jewish religious beliefs in precisely that same geographical region, over a broad range of exactly the same time period.

The fact that the DSS do not appear to describe any named individual called Yehoshua as the anticipated Son of God, and do not confirm any of the biblical stories preaching about belief in what Yehoshua did and what his disciples and "brothers" did, should be a rather clear clue as to what can be genuinely believed here on the basis of reliable evidence.

On the other hand, the DSS do describe practices and beliefs which are clearly similar to what appeared about 300 to 500 years later in the anonymously written documents that we now call Paul's Letters and the canonical gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke and John.

Again in repetition – I’m not saying Jesus did not, or could not, have existed. He might have done. But there is no credible evidence of his existence to be found in religious preaching eulogies such as the gospels.

On the other hand (more repetition) the DSS offer us a vast amount of detail about religious practices leading up to, and throughout that supposed lifetime of Jesus and Paul.

Which is why, if I wanted more reliable insight into this, I’d be looking much more closely into the DSS.

As it happens. I probably don't have enough interest in the subject to bother looking more deeply into the contents of the DSS. Because as an atheist, it really doesn't matter to me whether Jesus was a real person or not.

The main reason that I think this question is important, is because it seems to me it would be a very serious blow to the modern day Christian following if we ever found out that Jesus was after all probably only a fictional figure. And I’d like to see a reduction in fanatical religious belief, because I think it’s obviously and unarguable extremely dangerous.

What is the connection between the sects you say are described in the DSS and the sect that the hypothetical HJ played a role in? And how is this DSS sect related to the foundation of Christianity? It is interesting that it existed but if you knew everything that is knowable about it today could it be reliably related to the formation of early Christianity or an HJ which is more or less the subject of this thread? Perhaps there is some connection but the nature of that connection seems to involve speculation that gets out of the area where reliable evidence exists and it seems that you only want to consider ideas underpinned with reliable information and is there any reliable evidence that can be used to prove such a connection?

An alternative view is that Christianity arose in either Jewish groups living outside the Palestinian area or in gentile God-fearer groups without a connection to a particular Palestinian Jewish sect or an HJ. If that were true then this DSS sect might be interesting from a religious history perspective but at most it might have been a sect that shared some religious doctrines with the Jews living outside the Palestinian area where the Jesus mythology first arose.

ETA: For me, a person that is willing to speculate about the earliest Christian history based on unreliable evidence, the existence of a DSS sect that might have been similar to the hypothetical Jesus sect provides some weak evidence that my guess that an HJ existed is correct. It provides evidence that a sect like Paul claims to have interacted with might have existed. But this evidence cuts both ways. The fact that there isn't a clear cut connection between the sect and the sect Paul claimed to have interacted with suggests either that the specific group was a very minor one that wasn't mentioned in the DSS or that the group didn't exist at all.

 

[IanS]

What is the connection between the sects you say are described in the DSS and the sect that the hypothetical HJ played a role in? And how is this DSS sect related to the foundation of Christianity? It is interesting that it existed but if you knew everything that is knowable about it today could it be reliably related to the formation of early Christianity or an HJ which is more or less the subject of this thread? Perhaps there is some connection but the nature of that connection seems to involve speculation that gets out of the area where reliable evidence exists and it seems that you only want to consider ideas underpinned with reliable information and is there any reliable evidence that can be used to prove such a connection?

An alternative view is that Christianity arose in either Jewish groups living outside the Palestinian area or in gentile God-fearer groups without a connection to a particular Palestinian Jewish sect or an HJ. If that were true then this DSS sect might be interesting from a religious history perspective but at most it might have been a sect that shared some religious doctrines with the Jews living outside the Palestinian area where the Jesus mythology first arose.

ETA: For me, a person that is willing to speculate about the earliest Christian history based on unreliable evidence, the existence of a DSS sect that might have been similar to the hypothetical Jesus sect provides some weak evidence that my guess that an HJ existed is correct. It provides evidence that a sect like Paul claims to have interacted with might have existed. But this evidence cuts both ways. The fact that there isn't a clear cut connection between the sect and the sect Paul claimed to have interacted with suggests either that the specific group was a very minor one that wasn't mentioned in the DSS or that the group didn't exist at all.

Well first of all – there does not have to be any direct connection in the sense of the Christians being a later off-shoot directly from the community that produced the DSS.

Afaik, everyone who has ever written about or directly investigated and translated the DSS, agrees that there are very obvious similarities between the two groups. So I don’t know of any real argument on that point.

On that basis it’s obviously possible that Christianity did arise more or less directly from earlier DSS religious practices … remember we talking here of several centuries of changing & evolving Jewish belief within the same very small region.

But I have already drawn attention to a dozen or so very obvious similarities, not least the glaringly obvious fact that both communities arose from Jewish belief groups in the same small region over the same period of time, and all taking their beliefs from an evolving apocalyptic interpretation of their absolute faith in the prophecies of their Jewish OT stretching back to at least 500 BC.

As I’ve said several times earlier, there are all sorts of other similarities, inc. (apparently) as Hodge as pointed out, phrases that were thought to be uniquely the words of Paul in his Letters, but which were in the 1950’s apparently found to be copied almost word for word from the much earlier Scrolls.

I don’t suppose I need to re-list the other similarities that I gave in earlier posts, do I?

Of course people who believe in Jesus and who think the DSS are irrelevant will point to the fact that there are also numerous differences between the DSS and the biblical tracts. But that is far less relevant than the fact that there are clear similarities, because (a)the DSS are written entirely in code, so that it’s hard to find clear similarities anyway, and (b)there is a gap of around 300 to 500 years or more between the known dates of the DSS and the most likely dates of the first readable copies of the gospels, so over that sort of time you’d expect all sorts of differences to appear in the much later gospel writing anyway.

At risk of stating the obvious – we are of course all limited by the fact that none of us can examine any of these original documents for ourselves, and so we are all reliant on what can discern from the various well known modern books etc.

 

[davefoc]

Well first of all – there does not have to be any direct connection in the sense of the Christians being a later off-shoot directly from the community that produced the DSS.

Afaik, everyone who has ever written about or directly investigated and translated the DSS, agrees that there are very obvious similarities between the two groups. So I don’t know of any real argument on that point.

On that basis it’s obviously possible that Christianity did arise more or less directly from earlier DSS religious practices … remember we talking here of several centuries of changing & evolving Jewish belief within the same very small region.

But I have already drawn attention to a dozen or so very obvious similarities, not least the glaringly obvious fact that both communities arose from Jewish belief groups in the same small region over the same period of time, and all taking their beliefs from an evolving apocalyptic interpretation of their absolute faith in the prophecies of their Jewish OT stretching back to at least 500 BC.

As I’ve said several times earlier, there are all sorts of other similarities, inc. (apparently) as Hodge as pointed out, phrases that were thought to be uniquely the words of Paul in his Letters, but which were in the 1950’s apparently found to be copied almost word for word from the much earlier Scrolls.

I don’t suppose I need to re-list the other similarities that I gave in earlier posts, do I?

Of course people who believe in Jesus and who think the DSS are irrelevant will point to the fact that there are also numerous differences between the DSS and the biblical tracts. But that is far less relevant than the fact that there are clear similarities, because (a)the DSS are written entirely in code, so that it’s hard to find clear similarities anyway, and (b)there is a gap of around 300 to 500 years or more between the known dates of the DSS and the most likely dates of the first readable copies of the gospels, so over that sort of time you’d expect all sorts of differences to appear in the much later gospel writing anyway.

At risk of stating the obvious – we are of course all limited by the fact that none of us can examine any of these original documents for ourselves, and so we are all reliant on what can discern from the various well known modern books etc.

My apologies here, but I still don't get what the facts you have put forth tell us about the origin of Christianity. What is the significance of the idea that some of Paul's writings were the same as some writing found in the DSS with respect to the history of Christianity or the source of Paul's writings? Are you suggesting that Paul didn't exist and later writers morphed writings from the DSS into letters allegedly from Paul? Are you saying that Paul's writings suggest he was associated with a group associated with the DSS?

ETA: I am trying to relate what you are saying to the general secular narrative for the origin of Christianity in the Palestinian area. Does anything you have put forth contradict or support that narrative? There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the origin of Christianity is associated with Judaism. It doesn't seem to contradict any standard history that the Jesus mythology could have originated in a particular sect of Judaism. Your claim that DSS derived facts are more reliable than NT writings as a source of history seems obvious and not in dispute, but what do the DSS tell us about the origin of Christianity that isn't already part of the standard narrative?

 

[IanS]

My apologies here, but I still don't get what the facts you have put forth tell us about the origin of Christianity. What is the significance of the idea that some of Paul's writings were the same as some writing found in the DSS with respect to the history of Christianity or the source of Paul's writings? Are you suggesting that Paul didn't exist and later writers morphed writings from the DSS into letters allegedly from Paul? Are you saying that Paul's writings suggest he was associated with a group associated with the DSS?

ETA: I am trying to relate what you are saying to the general secular narrative for the origin of Christianity in the Palestinian area. Does anything you have put forth contradict or support that narrative? There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the origin of Christianity is associated with Judaism. It doesn't seem to contradict any standard history that the Jesus mythology could have originated in a particular sect of Judaism. Your claim that DSS derived facts are more reliable than NT writings as a source of history seems obvious and not in dispute, but what do the DSS tell us about the origin of Christianity that isn't already part of the standard narrative?

The significance of the DSS, and what they "tell us about the origin of Christianity" is this (repetition) -


- the earliest relatively complete and readable copies of the canonical gospels come to us from the 4th century and later. And afaik, the earliest copy of Paul may date from around the end of the 2nd century.

However, the basis of that Pauline & gospel picture of religious belief was already predated by approx. up to 600 years (!) in the DSS.

And you don't think that is significant?

Even though the DSS are, as far as we can tell, genuinely the original non-evangelising writing, and properly dated from 170BC through to 70AD. Whereas the gospels and Pauls letters are entirely unreliable religious preaching eulogies written anonymously centuries after the beleived events as hearsay about a messiah nobody had ever met?

With respect - you seem to be looking for something in the gospels which manifestly is not there … ie reliable authenticity, actual facts, and a belief system which is unique and not at all related to the beliefs already set out up to 600 years before in the DSS and the prophecies of the OT going back to 500BC?

 

[davefoc]

I thought that since this is a thread about the HJ that something you were writing was related to that. It seems like your point is that the DSS are more reliable than evidence based on NT writings. That doesn't seem to be in dispute, it certainly isn't by me, but apparently my assumption that you were making a point beyond the idea that the DSS are more reliable than the NT based evidence was wrong.

I thought you were saying that if you just stick to reliable facts like those derived from the DSS one would know something about the origin of Christianity. I was just trying to figure out what that thing one would know about the origin of Christianity from the DSS is. The fact that the NT writings are unreliable as a source of history is only tangentially related to the fact that the DSS are more reliable. There is a great deal of historical evidence that is more reliable than the NT evidence not just the DSS.

 

[OCaptain]

Atwill and Braunheim might be wrong in their criticisms of the method of C14 dating of the Habbakuk Pesher, I don't know enough about it to know either way. But the dating could be off for other reasons.

From what I've seen Eisenman dates the Habbakuk Pesher to the first century CE because of its contents. The way it describes the Bloody Romans behaving is more in line with the Legions under Vespasion than the ones with Pompei. It describes the Romans destroying whole cities, they weren't doing that before the 60sCE. Etc Etc...

This quote from Doudna:


Is just laughable. "The dating isn't wrong because everyone just knows it isn't wrong". Especially when you look at the early Qumran researchers and how they arrived at some of their conclusions.

Those Dominicans were a shady lot and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could spit a hippo. It wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately gave older bits of Papyrus to the scientists doing the carbon dating, just so they could maintain their "Nothing to see here folks. Jesus was not a Commie!" dogma.

Poisoning the well much? Lol

 

[maximara]

I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I grow interested in this topic, read some, participate in these threads a bit, but the eventual result is frustration. I disagree with the HM and IanS idea a bit that only reliable information should be used in making an assessment of what went on during this period. There is no reliable information, but still I'm curious enough to allow some informed guessing to guide me in forming an idea about what might have gone on.

But my frustration is the result of the degree that HM and IanS are right about the quality of evidence available. In the end all that is reliably knowable is that sometime in the second century a nascent movement for the establishment of Christianity was underway. Given how wide the support is for the standard secular narrative about first century Christianity that includes an HJ I wonder if perhaps HM and IanS are wrong and the evidence is stronger than they allow. But I haven't seen the evidence that demonstrates that they are wrong.

There is a clue that they are right to be skeptical of the so-called experts in the Wikipedia article on the Christ Myth theory. One of the comments in the Wikipedia article is that the only thing in which there is a widespread consensus amongst the experts is that an HJ existed but they disagree on many of the major details (my paraphrase from memory). Huh, the guy existed but we can't agree on what is true about him and what isn't? How is it that this big consensus exists on the fact that he existed but not the facts of his life? This sounds like this grand consensus that the Wikipedia article alludes to is much weaker than it might appear. If the experts can't agree about the facts surrounding the HJ why is it that they are so sure he did exist? The answer might be that belief in that an HJ existed is driven by various biases that the experts won't acknowledge even to themselves.

The Wikipedia article on the Christ Myth theory is currently a POV driven FUBAR. IMHO the last NPOV version was back in 1 May 2012.

The facts originally in that version are still available in the RationalWiki version and those facts show what the Christ Myth theory even is is such a botched up mess:

The term "Jesus myth theory" or "Christ Myth theory" has been used to describe the following ideas:

* Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early [[Christian]] community

* Jesus began as at a [[Myth]] with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) ''The Role of Religion in History'' Transaction Publishers pg 58)(Dodd, C.H. (1938) ''History and the Gospel'' under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

* Jesus was historical but lived c100 BCE (Mead, G. R. S. [http://www.christianorigins.com/mead/ch8 ''The Talmum 100 Years B.C. Story of Jesus"], "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?", 1903.)(Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) ''The Historical Jesus: Five Views''. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 65)

* The Christ Myth may be a form of modern [[docetism]] (Grant, Michael. ''Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels''. Scribner, 1995; first published 1977, p. 199)

* The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non historical by definition. (Price, Robert M. (2000) ''Deconstructing Jesus'' Prometheus Books, pg 85)

* Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)

* The ''Gospel Jesus'' didn't exist and GA Wells' ''Jesus Myth'' (1999) is an example of this. (Doherty, Earl [http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/BkrvEll.htm "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review]) Note that from ''Jesus Legend'' (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both ''Jesus Legend'' and ''Jesus Myth'' have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier (Carrier, Richard (2006) [http://web.archive.org/web/20110104063534/http://www.stanford.edu/group/rt/CarrierHandout1.pdf Did Jesus Even Exist?] Stanford University presentation May 30, 2006), and Eddy-Boyd (Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend pp. 24).

* "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (''International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J'' 1982 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley) There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.

* Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."(Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.]: The University Press pg 40)

This and the labeling of David Strauss as mythist and among those "who contested the historical existence of Jesus" (ie CHrist Mythist) shows that the apologists and their supporters have thrown around the terms "Christ-myth theory" and "mythist" with such abandon even they don't know what they mean anymore.

 

[IanS]

I thought that since this is a thread about the HJ that something you were writing was related to that. It seems like your point is that the DSS are more reliable than evidence based on NT writings. That doesn't seem to be in dispute, it certainly isn't by me, but apparently my assumption that you were making a point beyond the idea that the DSS are more reliable than the NT based evidence was wrong.

I thought you were saying that if you just stick to reliable facts like those derived from the DSS one would know something about the origin of Christianity. I was just trying to figure out what that thing one would know about the origin of Christianity from the DSS is. The fact that the NT writings are unreliable as a source of history is only tangentially related to the fact that the DSS are more reliable. There is a great deal of historical evidence that is more reliable than the NT evidence not just the DSS.

Why do you think it's not significant to the biblical stories written in 4th cent. copies about a messiah named Yehoshua, that we found out in 1947 (or whatever the precise date), that many, if not almost all elements, of those biblical stories, were already being preached in one form or another many centuries before by the DSS community in that exactly same area?

I should have thought that was obviously very significant indeed. It raises the very clear prospect that that the later biblical stories are likely nothing more than elaborations of what had long been believed about the coming of an apocalyptic messiah as the Son of God.

That would be the same messiah, whether real or of dreams and prophecies, but dating from 100BC (if not mamy centuries before that) rather than biblical stories which might be thought to imply a flesh & blood messiah living from around say 3BC to 30AD.

There is no evidence in the biblical writing of that flesh and blood messiah. But there is abundant evidence in the DSS that a very similar messiah was already believed to exist (in some ill-defined way) from 170BC.

As for the idea that there is evidence of Jesus in non-biblical writing; what are you thinking about there? Thinking of Josephus, Tacitus, and Philo etc.? Well none of that has even a 1% chance of ever providing any objective evidence of Jesus, because the authors were not even alive at the time and the only copies we have of such works are in any case many centuries after the supposed events.


So, what (apart from the DSS, which are actually valid and reliable) is this other written historic evidence of Jesus that you think is valid? Certainly not anything attributed to names like Paul, Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, Philo, Clement, Eusebius etc.

If we are going to use genuinely reliable and valid sources, then afaik you are limited to just the DSS. However on the positive side – it seems there is an absolute mountain of relevant detail to be interpreted from the DSS. Albeit that material does not appear to support the existence of any real figure named anything much like Yehoshua as the Son of God appearing on earth around 10AD (or whatever date you wish). Instead it appears to tell us that the messiah was mixture of dream figures drawn from new interpretation of OT prophecy, mixed up with various living high priests who probably lived at various times all the way through from 600BC to the end of the DSS times around 70AD.

 

[Brainache]

Poisoning the well much? Lol

Well, I could have called them a competent group of Professionals, unbiased and transparent in their procedures, but that would be lying.

Look them up.

 

[OCaptain]

Well, I could have called them a competent group of Professionals, unbiased and transparent in their procedures, but that would be lying.

Look them up.

Maybe you could provide fortification of your assertion, because otherwise it remains an assertion.

I don't plan to do your work for you.

 

[Brainache]

Maybe you could provide fortification of your assertion, because otherwise it remains an assertion.

I don't plan to do your work for you.

No, it's an opinion. I don't particularly care if you agree with it, but if you are curious about how those people operated the initial excavation of the scrolls there is lots of information out there.

For instance this bloke Roland De Vaux who was the man in charge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_de_Vaux

De Vaux was born in Paris in 1903, entered the priesthood in 1929 and became a Dominican later the same year. From 1934 till his death in 1971 he lived in Jerusalem, first studying at the Ecole Biblique, then teaching various subjects including history and exegesis there. From 1938 to 1953 he was the editor of Revue Biblique. He became interested in archaeological studies while in Israel, learning as he went from people such as William F. Albright, Kathleen Kenyon and Benjamin Mazar. In 1945 he became the director of the Ecole, a position he held until 1965. In 1956, although not an epigraphist, de Vaux became the editor in chief for the gradual production of the Dead Sea Scrolls, being responsible for the first five volumes of the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, the official publication for editions of the scrolls. He continued as editor until his death in 1971.[1]

In over fifteen years he managed to publish five volumes of translations.

Whereas this bloke Emanuel Tov:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

After a series of other publications in the late 1980s and early 1990s and with the appointment of the respected Dutch-Israeli textual scholar Emanuel Tov as Editor-in-Chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls Publication Project in 1990 publication of the scrolls accelerated. Tov's team had published five volumes covering the Cave 4 documents by 1995. Between 1990 and 2009, Tov helped the team produce 32 volumes. The final volume, Volume XL, was published in 2009.

What was De Vaux doing? He was not a trained Archaeologist, he was a Priest. He and his mates sat around in the shade while they paid Beduins to bring them scraps of Scrolls. They payed by the square centimetre, so the work gangs finding big bits of scroll would divide them up before they handed them over, making sure they all got a share of the money.

So much of the scrolls were lost because of the shabby way these Priests operated, it's tragic. After thousands of years of preservation, they were nearly destroyed by this bunch of clowns.

 

[maximara]

No, it's an opinion. I don't particularly care if you agree with it, but if you are curious about how those people operated the initial excavation of the scrolls there is lots of information out there.

For instance this bloke Roland De Vaux who was the man in charge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_de_Vaux

In over fifteen years he managed to publish five volumes of translations.

Whereas this bloke Emanuel Tov:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

What was De Vaux doing? He was not a trained Archaeologist, he was a Priest. He and his mates sat around in the shade while they paid Beduins to bring them scraps of Scrolls. They payed by the square centimetre, so the work gangs finding big bits of scroll would divide them up before they handed them over, making sure they all got a share of the money.

So much of the scrolls were lost because of the shabby way these Priests operated, it's tragic. After thousands of years of preservation, they were nearly destroyed by this bunch of clowns.

Sadly as Bruce Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought (1989; 2006) shows Archaeology is a very fragmented profession with many countries using methods and philosophies long abandoned by the United States and the UK.

The "Heads in the Sand" episode of The Face of Tutankhamun series (1992) shows just how bad conservation efforts in terms of US-UK standards things are in Egypt (and by association the rest of the Middle East)

The efforts at "conservation" of the famous bust of Tutankhamun results in MORE damage then if they had left it alone--and this is work by supposed "professionals". Schliemann (a total bumbling amateur of the 19th century) treated his artifacts better!

 

[neilgodfrey]

Why do we see such half-baked, misinformed and (worst of all) anti-rationalist diatribes as Tim O'Neill's demand for blind acceptance of the untestable pronouncements of those with theological interests concerning the existence of Nazareth at the supposed time of Jesus? I have posted some long overdue corrections -- and an appeal to the norms of public accountability among researchers on my Vridar blog:

Just Google Vridar. It's the post is dated 29th December 2012, titled "More Nazareth Nonsense from Tim O'Neill".

 

[Empress]

Here's your link, neilgodfrey, and welcome to the Forum.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/more-nazareth-nonsense-from-tim-oneill/

 

[catsmate]

Why do we see such half-baked, misinformed and (worst of all) anti-rationalist diatribes as Tim O'Neill's demand for blind acceptance of the untestable pronouncements of those with theological interests concerning the existence of Nazareth at the supposed time of Jesus? I have posted some long overdue corrections -- and an appeal to the norms of public accountability among researchers on my Vridar blog:

Just Google Vridar. It's the post is dated 29th December 2012, titled "More Nazareth Nonsense from Tim O'Neill".

Welcome! I've linked to some of your sites material in the past, mainly regarding Bart Ehrman. Good to have you here.
You'll have fun with DOC.
And a happy new year.