What counts as a historical Jesus?

[maximara]

I see. I understand how people working within a particular field of study can come to accept a consensus and that a lot of the time it takes someone from outside the field to produce a fresh perspective, but unless some of the insiders are willing to reconsider their positions, nothing will change.

As Richard Carrier said, there are a lot of bad arguments out there for a Mythical Jesus, so I guess in some sense it's understandable that these Scholars tend to reject these ideas wholesale. It will be interesting to see the reaction to his next book, because he is doing what the Bible Scholars have said is required to get their attention by going down the peer-review publishing path. I suspect that no matter how convincing the book is, most of the old guard won't change their minds, but at least he is taking them on on their own terms.

But part of the reason that the Mythical Jesus idea gets such mileage is that the literature is filled with how Gospels stories MUST be true dismissing conflicts or important points (the Luke-Matthew conflict issue) with Ad hoc theories (claiming a Census no one records or moving around death dates so things fit? Really?!) that in any other subject would be laughed out of the room.

 

[Brainache]

But part of the reason that the Mythical Jesus idea gets such mileage is that the literature is filled with how Gospels stories MUST be true dismissing conflicts or important points (the Luke-Matthew conflict issue) with Ad hoc theories (claiming a Census no one records or moving around death dates so things fit? Really?!) that in any other subject would be laughed out of the room.

Which kind of raises the question; Are they ALL really that incompetent, or am I missing something?

Without years of serious study of Ancient Greek and Hebrew and all those obscure old manuscripts etc, I'm not equiped to answer that question. If after all those years of study, I came out the other side firmly entrenched in the HJ camp (as most of them seem to do), would that be because I had been brain washed, or is there some real subtlety there that can't be seen from outside?

 

[HansMustermann]

I wouldn't say you'd come out the other end brainwashed. I think most people in the West want to believe that Jesus existed in the first place.

And let's not forget that most people don't dedicate their life to bible studies if they start from an atheist point. Just listen to Ehrman telling what an obsessed fundie he used to be. And he got his doctor's degree in theology. Being an atheist and going to get a degree in theology and bible studies would usually be akin to... dunno... deciding you want to get a degree in homeopathy and to devote your life to studying dilutions, even though you believe it's BS. Most people don't do that.

So you'll get a lot of people who still want to believe that Jesus is the real deal. Including miracles and everything. They might (or might not) realize that they have to compartmentalize and not go full tilt into "no, the resurrection is real too" dada land when outside the church, but they're not gonna concede that the guy never even existed.

And even among people who don't believe in the miracles stuff any more, the first step seems to be basically to believe that, yeah, but other than that it's still true, right? We can't have all been just duped into believing just Paul's hallucinations, right?

Can't say I understand why, but look even on this board. Letting go of Jesus seems to be harder than letting go of religion.

At any rate, for most exercises in finding a HJ, really the curious thing is that his existence is actually a premise rather than a conclusion. His existence is basically asserted, then everything is removed that could contradict that, and at the end you have a version that is compatible with that hypothesis. But compatible is nowhere near the same thing as supported or supporting.

That's also basically why everyone finds a different HJ. If your initial hypothesis is, say, that Jesus was a peacenic proto-hippy rabbi, and remove all parts that contradict that... hey, look, you just got something that's compatible with a peacenic proto-hippy rabbi called Jesus. If on the contrary, your initial hypothesis is that he was a Stoic philosopher, and remove all parts that contradict that... hey, look, you got something compatible with a Stoic philosopher Jesus. Etc.

At any rate, you get what you wanted to get. Whatever Jesus-mold you make, when you squeeze the bible into it... hey, look, you got a Jesus exactly that shape.

So, yeah, I wouldn't say it's brain-washing or anything. It's just that when you start in the first place with a belief that he existed, you get exactly that back through that flawed process.

 

[pakeha]

But that doesn't scan at all well with Tacitus' usual modus operandi. He was known to be a stickler for the facts and used his position as a senator to gain access to official Roman records, which he is known to have based much of his writings upon.


There's another possibility though.
Do you know what procurator actualy means? It's derived from the Latin verb 'procurare', which simply means 'to take care', so it basicaly just means 'caretaker' or 'the guy who sorts stuff out for us', in other words it could be considered as a general term, while 'prefect' is most definately an actual title and refers to someone with magisterial powers. Tacitus may well have been using the term as a general one rather than as an actual position of rank. Kinda like describing the chief inspector of a police force as an 'officer', which technicaly he is, even if he outranks all the other officers. ...

I looked up the term procurator and at least as far as wiki is concerned, the term refers to specific posts
"A fiscal procurator (procurator Augusti) was the chief financial officer of a province during the Principate (30 BC - 284 AD). A fiscal procurator worked alongside the legatus Augusti pro praetore (imperial governor) of his province but was not subordinate to him, reporting directly to the emperor. "
"A procurator Augusti, however, might also be the governor of the smaller imperial provinces (i.e., those provinces whose governor was appointed by the emperor, rather than the Roman Senate)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procurator_(Roman)


I'm not sure why it could be considered a general term, though.

Well, the principal problem is that such a quick endorsement of a wise man doesn't really fit Josephus either.

If you've read Josephus, you'll notice that he's not writing another Book Of Numbers. He's not just listing people. He tells you what stuff happened. JTB for example is mentioned because he's relevant to an event he's writing about, namely some people are blaming a defeat on the king's execution of JTB.

It's also stuff that is somehow historically important, i.e., ends up affecting or involving people at the top or illustrating some custom or aspect, or stuff he witnessed personally and thinks worth mentioning, not a listing of every time every peasant took a dump.

So if Josephus only mentions, basically, "oh yeah, and there was a teacher called Jesus too and he got nailed" (not his exact words) one problem with that is still that it's disconnected from everything, and as Tim mentioned, it doesn't even fit the page it's on. I mean, so what? How is this Jesus guy important or even connected with anything Josephus writes about? What did he DO?

I mean, I can imagine that if he indeed was a famous teacher and he gathered quite the number of disciples, Josephus would have a reason to write about him. But then he'd write about him, not just throw in a one-liner about his mere existence.

The other problem is that if Jesus was famous enough for Josephus to know about him and what he's teaching... I doubt that Josephus would have called him wise or write a gushing endorsement about those learning from Jesus.

Again, Josephus was trying to set up his patron, the new Roman Emperor, as the real messiah that was prophecised by the scriptures. He thinks the Jews were in error when they thought the messiah would come from among them. He spoke rather harshly in fact. This is from The Wars Of The Jews, Book 6, chapter 5, the last paragraph:

Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.​

So, you know, those people who thought a messiah would come from among them were "deceived." And "their madness was demonstrated." He's not exactly mourning even their destruction by the Roman armies. Josephus isn't really a fan of those who received that kind of knowledge, to put it mildly.

So, you know, I don't think he'd be exactly gushing about the wisdom of yet another Jewish messiah pretender, or about those receiving it with pleasure

At one point Josephus claimed Vespasian was the predicted Messiah, IIRC.

 

[Craig B]

... At one point Josephus claimed Vespasian was the predicted Messiah, IIRC.

At this point: Jewish War 6.312-313

What did the most to induce the Jews to start this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.

See http://www.livius.org/menmh/messiah/messianic_claimants13.html where you may also read

Josephus' messianology may seem hypocritical, but it is not. In his view, the Zealots had ruined Judaea, and God had sent the Roman general to punish His chosen people as a second Pompey. In the past, God had sent the Jews into exile in Egypt and Babylon; and he had used Philistine, Assyrian and Seleucid armies to punish his chosen people. This punishment could be considered a way to restore the true Israel. To call a foreigner a Messiah was nothing new: the Persian king Cyrus the Great had already been considered the Messiah ...

I'm not so quick to absolve Josephus of hypocrisy. Cyrus is indeed a "christ" in Isaiah 45:1, but that is because Cyrus restored Jerusalem to the Jews. Vespasian, under Josephus' very own eyes, did the opposite. But if Josephus' identification of the Messiah was not theologically sound, it has the merit of being politically - and personally - prudent.

 

[pakeha]

Josephus was a downy old bird, yes.
We explained all this to DOC a long time ago in a thread far, far away..

 

[Craig B]

Josephus was a downy old bird, yes.
We explained all this to DOC a long time ago in a thread far, far away..

Maybe if we repeat it often enough ...

 

[tsig]

I wouldn't say you'd come out the other end brainwashed. I think most people in the West want to believe that Jesus existed in the first place.

And let's not forget that most people don't dedicate their life to bible studies if they start from an atheist point. Just listen to Ehrman telling what an obsessed fundie he used to be. And he got his doctor's degree in theology. Being an atheist and going to get a degree in theology and bible studies would usually be akin to... dunno... deciding you want to get a degree in homeopathy and to devote your life to studying dilutions, even though you believe it's BS. Most people don't do that.

So you'll get a lot of people who still want to believe that Jesus is the real deal. Including miracles and everything. They might (or might not) realize that they have to compartmentalize and not go full tilt into "no, the resurrection is real too" dada land when outside the church, but they're not gonna concede that the guy never even existed.

And even among people who don't believe in the miracles stuff any more, the first step seems to be basically to believe that, yeah, but other than that it's still true, right? We can't have all been just duped into believing just Paul's hallucinations, right?

Can't say I understand why, but look even on this board. Letting go of Jesus seems to be harder than letting go of religion.

At any rate, for most exercises in finding a HJ, really the curious thing is that his existence is actually a premise rather than a conclusion. His existence is basically asserted, then everything is removed that could contradict that, and at the end you have a version that is compatible with that hypothesis. But compatible is nowhere near the same thing as supported or supporting.

That's also basically why everyone finds a different HJ. If your initial hypothesis is, say, that Jesus was a peacenic proto-hippy rabbi, and remove all parts that contradict that... hey, look, you just got something that's compatible with a peacenic proto-hippy rabbi called Jesus. If on the contrary, your initial hypothesis is that he was a Stoic philosopher, and remove all parts that contradict that... hey, look, you got something compatible with a Stoic philosopher Jesus. Etc.

At any rate, you get what you wanted to get. Whatever Jesus-mold you make, when you squeeze the bible into it... hey, look, you got a Jesus exactly that shape.

So, yeah, I wouldn't say it's brain-washing or anything. It's just that when you start in the first place with a belief that he existed, you get exactly that back through that flawed process.

It would be difficult to admit that what you had given your lifetime studying and believing was a load of BS.

It seems easier to leave behind Christianity than Jesus so even those who disbelieve the dogmas still cling to the Jesus Idea.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, for what it's worth, such oracles were taken serious enough by other people too. E.g., here are two other authors already mentioned in this thread, who had no problems accepting that an ancient Jewish prophecy applied to Vespasian... even if they didn't believe in the God who gave that prophecy.

There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome -as afterwards appeared from the event- the people of Judaea took to themselves.
(Suetonius, Life of Vespasian 4.5)


The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth.
(Tacitus, Histories 5.13)​

Incidentally this also gives me a reason why Josephus wouldn't and didn't sneak in a paragraph that basically means, "oh yeah, actually another guy had been the messiah, 40 years before that." His books were not read only by the Christians, but here we see that Suetonius and Tacitus too take him seriously about the messiah. (Though many opine that Suetonius and Tacitus got that directly from the source, so to speak, I would find it very curious if either actually studied the OT.)

Even with Vespasian and Titus already dead, you'd think he wouldn't risk his pension and possibly even life for that. (That prophecy was, after all, the only reason why he was not nailed as a rebel in the first place.) And at any rate SOMEONE would notice that the guy who gave the divine claim to the throne to two emperors actually now says it was bullcrap. While Jesus Christ was of no importance to the Romans, the emperors were kinda important. Not to mention not just to the Romans, but you'd think at least the Flavii gens would kinda care if their 3 emperors had been lied to and now are exposed as false messiahs. If nobody else, at least Domitian's son would kinda care, don't you think?

 

[HansMustermann]

As to Josephus's hypocrisy... well, it's useful to understand that not everyone meant the same thing by mashiach (messiah) back then. For us "messiah" has a certain meaning, but at the time it just meant "anointed". It was used all over the OT and other writings to mean high priests and kings. What most people awaited wasn't necessarily the supernatural saviour that Paul (and a few others) came up with, but really a high priest king by divine right, like in ye olde days. Even Herod's kids with Mary, who had David's blood through Mary, were expected by some to be the messiah... which just got Herod to execute them.

At any rate, the way Josephus reads that prophecy, God just says that someone from Judaea will become a great emperor. He seems to disagree with the interpretation that it will save the Jews.

And it may sound like a case of, 'then why the hell would God give that prophecy to the Jews?', but the OT is full of prophecies that the Jews will get to pick the soap and be God's bitch.

Seriously, the Hebrews were God's new special friend... in the same way in the Animaniacs they proclaim someone their new special friend, and then proceed to do all stuff of crazy stuff to them. Most of the time instead of getting any favour from God, they just get kicked in the nuts for not being perfect. (Which is also a reason why some expected that they need someone perfectly innocent as a messiah: it was clear already that nobody else would measure up to God's standards to ask for a favour.)

So, you know, the idea that if a prophecy can mean that God will kick Jews ass again... given God's track record, is it that hard to believe that it actually does mean another round of getting their asses kicked?

ETA: plus, I don't think he thought the Roman rule was that bad for the Jews. See the speech he makes Titus give in The Wars Of The Jews, book 6, chapter 6. Bearing in mind that like anything written decades after the fact, it was probably made up, and it's really the speech Josephus would have given. It says point blank that the Jews profited greatly from Roman generosity and are ungrateful twits to keep revolting. (Well, maybe not using words like "twits", but you get the idea.)

 

[SlackerBabbath]

I looked up the term procurator and at least as far as wiki is concerned, the term refers to specific posts
"A fiscal procurator (procurator Augusti) was the chief financial officer of a province during the Principate (30 BC - 284 AD). A fiscal procurator worked alongside the legatus Augusti pro praetore (imperial governor) of his province but was not subordinate to him, reporting directly to the emperor. "
"A procurator Augusti, however, might also be the governor of the smaller imperial provinces (i.e., those provinces whose governor was appointed by the emperor, rather than the Roman Senate)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procurator_(Roman)


I'm not sure why it could be considered a general term, though.

Well, as that wiki page says, "Procurator was the title of various officials of the Roman Empire". The example it gives is of a 'fiscal' procurator, but I'm suggesting that there was more than one 'type' of procurator.

This link would certainly suggest so.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199545568.001.0001/acref-9780199545568-e-5353

 

[eight bits]

The quote is from tsig, but the observation is not only his.

It seems easier to leave behind Christianity than Jesus so even those who disbelieve the dogmas still cling to the Jesus Idea.

Yes, but that is inevitable, even without taking notice of the billion-plus Mulsims who profess belief in a historical Jesus but deny Christianity.

Uncertainty about facts obeys "weakness favors credibility." That is, if A(ntecedent) and C(onsequent) are propositions, and C is uncertain, then "A implies C" implies that C is at least as credible as A. If not, then we would conclude that you were discussing something other than factual uncertainty.

The usual profession of Christianity is at least as strong as the Apostles' Creed, and the Apostles' Creed implies a historical Jesus. It follows, then, that a historical Jesus will be, for every person with settled and examined beliefs on the subject, at least as credible as the truth of the Apostles' Creed.

It is also widely held that the inequality in credibility is (and ought to be) strict if C does not imply A (that is, "C and not A" isn't certainly false). The popular "probability agreeing" belief representations have this additional property, for example.

It is not certainly false that "Jesus lived and God the Father did not create all other things, etc." So, it simply cannot be surprising that acceptance of a historical Jesus would be more prevalent than accpetance of Christianity.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, I can certainly see how if A is the apostolic creed, and C is Jesus existing, then A => C all right. But that's kinda tautological. It just means that those who are Christians believe in Jesus. It's not even as much an implication as a definition.

It's also spelled out in the creed at point 2, so again it's not much of an implication. If you believe all 12 points, believing in Jesus is a given, rather than something you have to infer. It's one of the propositions that one already accepted as part of the creed, so really all that's left is "C=>C" which isn't particularly interesting.

But what I was talking about is something different. Let's look at the creed (which you undoubtedly know, but just to illustrate a point):

1. I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.​

Now to be a secular atheist and still cling to Jesus the person, you basically have to do this to it:

1. I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.​

I.e., basically one already jettisonned something like 10 out of 12 points of the creed. Why not the one about Jesus existing too?

But even if you want to put it into formal or probabilistic logic forms, then it becomes even more weird since if A is the apostolic creed in its entirety, then one already decided that A is false. Any reasoning based on "A=>C" is really nonsense when we know A is false, since a false premise doesn't say anything about the conclusion.

Even taking the stance that A puts just a lower limit on the probability of C, once we decided (even provisionally, until further evidence is found) that A is false, basically P(A)=0. Or even in the weakest imaginable form of atheism, it's at the very least P(A)<0.5, i.e., "it's probably false." It doesn't really say that P(C)>0.5, which is what we'd need to say, "but C is probably true anyway".

Basically it seems to me more like something for the psychologists to explain, than anything based on correct probabilistic reasoning.

 

[eight bits]

Hans

It just means that those who are Christians believe in Jesus. It's not even as much an implication as a definition.

However, the issue discussed in my post was a repeated and shared expression of surprise that someone who wasn't Christian would believe in a historical Jesus. It suffices to accept that the uncertainty is truth-like (as opposed to value-like, say) for the phenomenon to be expected, rather than remarkable. There's nothing in the "weakness favors credibility" principle that requires the implication relationship to be in any way "interesting" or unexpected.

basically one already jettisonned something like 10 out of 12 points of the creed. Why not the one about Jesus existing too?

Nobody has suggested that you personally are not at liberty to reject 0, 1, .., 9, 10, 11 or all 12 points of the creed, just as you please. However, it will remain unremarkable that more people reject at least 1 point than reject at least 2 points, ... than reject at least 11 points, etc.

To borrow your term, it is nearly tautological. Hence my objection to the expression of surprise.

Basically it seems to me more like something for the psychologists to explain, than anything based on correct probabilistic reasoning.

Really? Do psychologists, in your experience, disagree that weakness favors, or ought to favor, credibility? My experience is just to the contrary. They seem all atwitter when an apparent exception is reported. Googlebing "Linda the feminist bank teller" for a famous example.

The only "psychological issue" I see here is the apparent belief that some people have that they can read a narrative and form a reliable opinion about whether it concerns the author's beliefs about an actual person or is entirely fictive. It is interesting that people feel that way, regardless of the conclusion they reach, and regarding Jesus, sober people are found on both sides.

 

[maximara]

Which kind of raises the question; Are they ALL really that incompetent, or am I missing something?

Without years of serious study of Ancient Greek and Hebrew and all those obscure old manuscripts etc, I'm not equiped to answer that question. If after all those years of study, I came out the other side firmly entrenched in the HJ camp (as most of them seem to do), would that be because I had been brain washed, or is there some real subtlety there that can't be seen from outside?

I think it is not so much incompetence but desperation because even if you say that the Gospel Jesus is an historical myth ie "a real event colored by the light of antiquity" you still have the "event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" issue.

If the "small residuum of truth" is that some man named Jesus preached something to large groups of people in 1st century Galilee, got himself crucified for his troubles, and the Romans basically wrote him off as another "would-be-Messiah" trouble maker ("That's the twelfth one today") you don't have a lot to work with.

The issue is that Jesus isn't just the messenger but the message as well. This is why you have events pushed back as far as possible even if later research results those dates looking totally insane.

For example, using three reliable sources the wikipedia article say that "Paul's conversion can be dated to 31–36 (CE)". John the Baptist's death (with five reliable sources) is put 28 – 30 and Jesus Crucifixion being 30-36 CE.

However (and this is where it gets stupid fun):

Luke 3:1-4 says John the Baptist "came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (ie 29 CE)

So if we go with the 28 CE death date for John the Baptist we have Jesus being baptized by a reanimated corpse. Uh, oops.

But it gets better.

There are clues in Josephus that John the Baptist was executed no earlier than the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius or 34 CE (that is when Philip II, Herodias' original husband died)

But Jesus was crucified after the death of John the Baptist. Which leaves the issue of all the scholars putting Paul's sight of the crucified and risen Jesus in the 31-34 CE period ie before Jesus was crucified. And that is before you deal with the implication that as Saul, Paul persecuted Christians ie followers of the crucified and risen Jesus long enough to become infamous in THREE provinces (ie for years)

This is to make the message the Gospel Jesus gave seem as close to people who could (or rather should) have known it.

 

[HansMustermann]

However, the issue discussed in my post was a repeated and shared expression of surprise that someone who wasn't Christian would believe in a historical Jesus. It suffices to accept that the uncertainty is truth-like (as opposed to value-like, say) for the phenomenon to be expected, rather than remarkable. There's nothing in the "weakness favors credibility" principle that requires the implication relationship to be in any way "interesting" or unexpected.

I dunno, at least for people who have even heard about Occam, it seems to me like uncertainty -- as in, there is nothing that requires either believing or disbelieving the story -- should favour incredibility. And especially people who pretend that (by virtue of a degree in theology, heh) they're doing a historian's job, you'd think they'd have at least heard of the criterion of historical necessity, which is really a variant of Occam.

Nobody has suggested that you personally are not at liberty to reject 0, 1, .., 9, 10, 11 or all 12 points of the creed, just as you please. However, it will remain unremarkable that more people reject at least 1 point than reject at least 2 points, ... than reject at least 11 points, etc.

Well, maybe not per se, but if it were just that you could for example see people who reject all but #1 just as often as you see people who reject all but #2. Yet I think there are far more people who go atheist while clinging to a historical Jesus, than people who convert to Judaism. And, as you've said, there are millions of Muslims, or I'd add even Jews, who are willing to believe that Jesus is a real person (see how they even added him to the Talmud) although they don't really believe all the divine parts.

And really, when you think about it, if it were simply a matter of how many, #2 would be one of the easiest to let go of, since you can keep most of the rest just the same then. E.g., you can have a cosmic Jesus that died and raised in some cosmic plane, and is still gonna judge the dead and living and give you eternal life anyway. I mean, Jesus is supposed to be somewhere in the sky at the moment anyway, and was there in the beginning too. Why would it be more of a problem if he was there all along, instead of taking a detour on Earth somewhere in between? And there are actual religious proponents of cosmic Jesus, you know? But it seems to be harder to let go of just #2, than to ditch 10 of those claims as long as you still cling to #2.

So, I dunno, there must be something about #2 which makes it harder to let go of. For whatever reason.

To borrow your term, it is nearly tautological. Hence my objection to the expression of surprise.

Except, again, it's not. If it were ONLY a matter of being a matter of it being easier to ditch one claim than to ditch 10, you'd see more cosmic-Jesus Christians around than people who ditched 10 claims and still cling to #2. There is nothing tautological in noting that when you have a numbered list of 12 claims, one of them seems more believed than 10 of the others put together. It's something that most definitely clears the null hypothesis. It's not random chance there.

Really? Do psychologists, in your experience, disagree that weakness favors, or ought to favor, credibility? My experience is just to the contrary. They seem all atwitter when an apparent exception is reported. Googlebing "Linda the feminist bank teller" for a famous example.

The only "psychological issue" I see here is the apparent belief that some people have that they can read a narrative and form a reliable opinion about whether it concerns the author's beliefs about an actual person or is entirely fictive. It is interesting that people feel that way, regardless of the conclusion they reach, and regarding Jesus, sober people are found on both sides.

I think that nevertheless, they at least should be interested in what makes one claim more credible than ten other claims combined. There must be some factor that makes one type of claim more believable than the other.

And indeed, not only in my experience, but there ARE plenty of psychologists studying exactly why some stories are more believed and better remembered than others, and why it goes beyond sheer random chance which story you'll believe or which claims you'll forget first. As you say, "googlebing" MCI (Minimally Counter-Intuitive). There are real psychologists studying that, and computational models of memory to explain it.

 

[tsig]

Why Jesus belief persists after others die

I dunno, at least for people who have even heard about Occam, it seems to me like uncertainty -- as in, there is nothing that requires either believing or disbelieving the story -- should favour incredibility. And especially people who pretend that (by virtue of a degree in theology, heh) they're doing a historian's job, you'd think they'd have at least heard of the criterion of historical necessity, which is really a variant of Occam.



Well, maybe not per se, but if it were just that you could for example see people who reject all but #1 just as often as you see people who reject all but #2. Yet I think there are far more people who go atheist while clinging to a historical Jesus, than people who convert to Judaism. And, as you've said, there are millions of Muslims, or I'd add even Jews, who are willing to believe that Jesus is a real person (see how they even added him to the Talmud) although they don't really believe all the divine parts.

And really, when you think about it, if it were simply a matter of how many, #2 would be one of the easiest to let go of, since you can keep most of the rest just the same then. E.g., you can have a cosmic Jesus that died and raised in some cosmic plane, and is still gonna judge the dead and living and give you eternal life anyway. I mean, Jesus is supposed to be somewhere in the sky at the moment anyway, and was there in the beginning too. Why would it be more of a problem if he was there all along, instead of taking a detour on Earth somewhere in between? And there are actual religious proponents of cosmic Jesus, you know? But it seems to be harder to let go of just #2, than to ditch 10 of those claims as long as you still cling to #2.

So, I dunno, there must be something about #2 which makes it harder to let go of. For whatever reason.



Except, again, it's not. If it were ONLY a matter of being a matter of it being easier to ditch one claim than to ditch 10, you'd see more cosmic-Jesus Christians around than people who ditched 10 claims and still cling to #2. There is nothing tautological in noting that when you have a numbered list of 12 claims, one of them seems more believed than 10 of the others put together. It's something that most definitely clears the null hypothesis. It's not random chance there.



I think that nevertheless, they at least should be interested in what makes one claim more credible than ten other claims combined. There must be some factor that makes one type of claim more believable than the other.

And indeed, not only in my experience, but there ARE plenty of psychologists studying exactly why some stories are more believed and better remembered than others, and why it goes beyond sheer random chance which story you'll believe or which claims you'll forget first. As you say, "googlebing" MCI (Minimally Counter-Intuitive). There are real psychologists studying that, and computational models of memory to explain it.

I think the reason is that Jesus is a lot more personal than the belief in the second coming, talking in tongues or the real presence in the Eucharist. Jesus is the one who comforted you in distress and he's the one you had all those quiet pillow talks with when doubt crept in at two in the morning, he's love itself and who wants to give up love? It feels like you're deserting and betraying a well known and trusted friend plus there's the guilt of causing him to suffer by your disbelief.

 

[eight bits]

Hans

I dunno, at least for people who have even heard about Occam, it seems to me like uncertainty -- as in, there is nothing that requires either believing or disbelieving the story -- should favour incredibility. And especially people who pretend that (by virtue of a degree in theology, heh) they're doing a historian's job, you'd think they'd have at least heard of the criterion of historical necessity, which is really a variant of Occam.

Yes, I've heard of it. Some people think more of it as a guide to truth than I do. I gather that you're one of them. Fine with me, but taste in heuristics is much like other tastes: there's not much to discuss when differences crop up.

Yet I think there are far more people who go atheist while clinging to a historical Jesus,...

My understanding was that there is no "belief system" attached to atheism. It is, I am told, a lack of belief in the existence of any god, and does not involve beliefs about any other subjects.

What does the historicity of Jesus have to do with whether or not there is any god? Or is there some further requirement for atheism after all, in your view?

There is nothing tautological in noting that when you have a numbered list of 12 claims, one of them seems more believed than 10 of the others put together.

Well, if you told me "Joe is an atheist," then I would expect that Joe doesn't think much of those parts of the creed which assert that a god exists, profess membership in a theistic church, and describe some supernatural goings-on peculiar to the god and church in question. On the other hand, you have told me nothing at all about whether Joe believes in a historical Jesus.

Conversely, if you told me that "Joanne believes in a historical Jesus," then I wouldn't know whether Joanne is a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, or none of the above.

I think that nevertheless, they at least should be interested in what makes one claim more credible than ten other claims combined.

OK. I'd hope that their investigations don't bog down at there being some mystery why ten supernatural and church-business claims fare poorly among some atheists, compared with an unresolved, uncertain, and completely naturalistic secular question.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, atheism there is one of the end states in the graph, so to speak, rather than a precondition of believing or not believing in historical Jesus.

Basically from state A you could go in state B, which requires giving up belief in 10 claims, or in state C, which requires giving up belief in one. Or from state B you could give up one more claim and end up in state D. Among other possible states and arcs.

I dunno, it seems to me like if it were simply about the number of claims to give up, then the transition from A to C or from B to D should be 10 times easier. Don't you think?

But actually there seems to me like there's something about that claim #2 that makes it harder to give up than the 10 claims involved in the A to B transition.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[eight bits]

I dunno, it seems to me like if it were simply about the number of claims to give up, ...

Yes, but focusing on the number of assertions was your idea. My remarks were about the logical relations among the assertions.

I's fine that the various assertions of the creed also vary in credibility. It cannot be very surprising that prosaic natural claims would fare better than fantastic supernatural claims.

That's yet another reason, apart from inevitability, why it's unsurprising that acceptance of a historical Jesus would be more prevalent than acceptance of a whole creedal Christian denomination-load