What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Stone]

I admit my knowledge of the scholarship is non-existant but reading the posts often gives me information and sources I would have trouble finding unaided or be in any position to evaluate fairly. So for me and I'm sure many lurkers on this site these discussions provide an invaluable education I'd otherwise miss on a daunting but incredibly interesting topic.
They may not always be pretty or civil but I'd sooner have them than not.

And I think they have the same pernicious effect that wallowing in creationism has on public education.

Stone

 

[llwyd]

I admit my knowledge of the scholarship is non-existant but reading the posts often gives me information and sources I would have trouble finding unaided or be in any position to evaluate fairly. So for me and I'm sure many lurkers on this site these discussions provide an invaluable education I'd otherwise miss on a daunting but incredibly interesting topic.
They may not always be pretty or civil but I'd sooner have them than not.

Well, surely it's valuable, but if you really want detailed information and analysis, I'm sure there are good summaries available in the literature. You will get an idea of the field here, as you would get some idea of structural engineering if you were following a WTC thread, but it will be hard to distinguish the real thing with all the fighting and clear ignorance and misunderstanding that also abound here.

 

[maximara]

Really?

I thought annointing was fairly widespread. They did it to wrestlers in Rome and Greece didn't they?
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/olympics/p/OlympicEvents.htm

Did they use a different word for rubbing oil on wrestlers as they did for priests?

The problem is ancient Greek was written in all caps. So there is no way to tell the difference between χριστός (the general term) and Χριστός (the title version of the word).

In English this is known as a Capitonym but in a language that has no lower case the only way to tell the difference between χριστός and Χριστός would be context.

Here are two short examples using modern English (using the all caps Ancient Greek used so this is not shouting):

HE WAS BORN WITH CANCER.

HE WAS BORN UNDER CANCER.

One refers to the constellation and the other to the disease; here it is obvious which is which. The same is not true of Josephus; especially to a Roman reader.

It gets even more bizarre when you realize that 18.3.3 (the Testimonium Flavianum) is ο χριστος ουτος ην but 20.9.1 (the James brother of part) is τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομένου Χριστου, Ιάκωβος ονομα αυτω

Χριστου is a very interesting word in Greek; depending on the whim of the translator it is either Christ or Messiah--neither of which Josephus would have used because 1) he was an orthodox Jew and 2) he was writing under Romans for Romans to promote Vespasian as ruler of the world (and by extension the Jewish people) and using Χριστου would have been suicidal.

For some more problems with χριστός look at:

Anointing in Josephus

The Anointed One, Or The Ointment?

The more you look at the original Greek the more things go wonky.

 

[Stone]

Well, surely it's valuable, but if you really want detailed information and analysis, I'm sure there are good summaries available in the literature. You will get an idea of the field here, as you would get some idea of structural engineering if you were following a WTC thread, but it will be hard to distinguish the real thing with all the fighting and clear ignorance and misunderstanding that also abound here.

Exactly. Unfortunately, discussions like this can sometimes end up serving kool-aid propaganda purposes more effectively than any efforts at real enlightenment.

Suppose that someone with a layman's understanding of the arc of human discovery leading to the conclusion that the world is round were to stumble on a crank argument that the world is flat. Maybe our layman will have generally assumed that the world is round simply because he will have had the rudiments of a grade school education but not much more. Consequently, how strong is his grounding when banged over the head with a crank argument that the world is flat?

And suppose that the follow-through on that online argument consisted, in addition, of the sort of "discussion" by others that entailed posters going back and forth disagreeing on the nature of the evidence, some suggesting that the world really is flat and others insisting that peer-reviewed up-to-date research, science and exploration, etc., confirm that the world is round. Our layman might not have given this any thought before, but now he might. And as a result, he might further conclude that the shape of the earth is suddenly up for discussion! Will he have benefited then from reading this "discussion"? Wouldn't it be more the case that his rudimentary education will have rendered him more vulnerable to crank speculation of no use whatsoever?

Stone

 

[catsmate]

There is a scholarly consensus of published, peer reviewed experts. The people arguing on this internet site appear to be unpublished laymen. So, how is this different from unpublished cranks "proving" that professional physicists are wrong in case of the WTC? Do you read these manuscripts in the original, do you know how to interprete them in the context of the era? If not, how are you to judge? Really, how?

It'd be nice if those experts could show their work..... Provide facts and evidence to support their conjectures.

To my mind Tim is actually explaining how the discipline works to the laymen here, how the evidence is used when we don't have access to such unequivocal data and possibility to test it as in natural science. And it seems to me that most people just don't get it and seem to think that they are as qualified as professional historians to make authoritive pronouncements on these matters without even having direct access to the sources (that is an ability to read and inteprete the originals first hand).

Someone said here that I have blind faith in authority. No, I don't, but I have great trust in the self-correctiveness of the scientific method as it is applied in the study of history. If the present scholarly expert consensus is wrong, it will get corrected by new published studies. That's why I said to these people, three times, actually, I guess: go and publish. Go and publish.

(I have a master's degree in history from Helsinki University, but don't consider myself any sort of an expert in this era.)

I'm well aware of the different standards between the sciences and the humanities, I've published in both and hold a doctorate in physics and am finishing by history doctorate this term.

 

[Belz...]

I'm with Bad vibe. I'm here to learn.

Here, at the link Stone posted :

There's a lot more text than pictures, though. Let's be fair. And one of the pictures are pretty.

 

[Belz...]

Answer: They're not.

Helpfully,

Stone

Don't you have something you want to say to me, Stone ?

 

[pakeha]

There's a lot more text than pictures, though. Let's be fair. And one of the pictures are pretty.

Yes, I'll grant you that.

 

[Brainache]

The problem is ancient Greek was written in all caps. So there is no way to tell the difference between χριστός (the general term) and Χριστός (the title version of the word).

Why is that a problem? If Josephus says: "Jesus who was called "The Annointed"", surely any Roman reading it would see that there was a bloke named Jesus who was called "The Anointed" by his followers.

In English this is known as a Capitonym but in a language that has no lower case the only way to tell the difference between χριστός and Χριστός would be context.

Here are two short examples using modern English (using the all caps Ancient Greek used so this is not shouting):

HE WAS BORN WITH CANCER.

HE WAS BORN UNDER CANCER.

One refers to the constellation and the other to the disease; here it is obvious which is which. The same is not true of Josephus; especially to a Roman reader.

It gets even more bizarre when you realize that 18.3.3 (the Testimonium Flavianum) is ο χριστος ουτος ην but 20.9.1 (the James brother of part) is τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομένου Χριστου, Ιάκωβος ονομα αυτω

Χριστου is a very interesting word in Greek; depending on the whim of the translator it is either Christ or Messiah--neither of which Josephus would have used because 1) he was an orthodox Jew and 2) he was writing under Romans for Romans to promote Vespasian as ruler of the world (and by extension the Jewish people) and using Χριστου would have been suicidal.

...

But Josephus isn't calling Jesus Messiah, he is saying that others ("the "Tribe" known as Christians") called Jesus the Messiah. So I don't see what would be suicidal about that.

 

[Stone]

Why is that a problem? If Josephus says: "Jesus who was called "The Annointed"", surely any Roman reading it would see that there was a bloke named Jesus who was called "The Anointed" by his followers.



But Josephus isn't calling Jesus Messiah, he is saying that others ("the "Tribe" known as Christians") called Jesus the Messiah. So I don't see what would be suicidal about that.

I've made that point umpteen times on board after board, but don't expect it to sink in with cultists, which is what mythers are. And even if they do understand just why that point _obviously_ sinks their (ludicrous) argument, they'll never admit it because they are into winning points more than genuinely exploring history -- which is the last thing they care about or are interested in. I speak from experience.

Stone

(and I like your tweak on Hobbes )

 

[Bad vibe]

I've made that point umpteen times on board after board, but don't expect it to sink in with cultists, which is what mythers are. And even if they do understand just why that point _obviously_ sinks their (ludicrous) argument, they'll never admit it because they are into winning points more than genuinely exploring history -- which is the last thing they care about or are interested in. I speak from experience.

Stone

(and I like your tweak on Hobbes )

I can only think you have reading comprehension issues or you're reading a different thread to me. I read that many here think the Gospel Jesus is basically myth and the little information that can be gleaned from the evidence is weak at best i.e there was a guy who preached "thy doom is nigh" and got bumped off......hardly a rich historical figure or do you have evidence we don't? I don't dispute there was guy behind the myth what I do think is theres so little that can be known from what we have hes basically irrelevent.

 

[Brainache]

I can only think you have reading comprehension issues or you're reading a different thread to me. I read that many here think the Gospel Jesus is basically myth and the little information that can be gleaned from the evidence is weak at best i.e there was a guy who preached "thy doom is nigh" and got bumped off......hardly a rich historical figure or do you have evidence we don't? I don't dispute there was guy behind the myth what I do think is theres so little that can be known from what we have hes basically irrelevent.

I agree with that and I would even go as far as to say that if evidence showed up tomorrow which incontravertably showed that Jesus was a pure invention of Paul's or something, nothing would change. The Church would continue to limp on, and Fundies would continue to ignore anything they disagreed with.

 

[Stone]

I agree with that and I would even go as far as to say that if evidence showed up tomorrow which incontravertably showed that Jesus was a pure invention of Paul's or something, nothing would change. The Church would continue to limp on, and Fundies would continue to ignore anything they disagreed with.

This is _not_ a ^%$^#&%$ discussion of the "Gospel Jesus". It's a discussion of the perfectly normal human Jesus as found in Josephus and the other Roman documents, not the magic abracadabra figure of the Gospels. The latter has nothing, nothing, to do with this discussion at all. This diversion of the "Gospel Jesus" is just throwing up dust, the typical myther game that I've encountered repeatedly of deliberately confounding the magic Jesus with the historical Jesus in order to tar secular historians with the fundie brush, an insidious take-no-prisoners myther game aimed at discrediting everyone who deviates one scintilla from their kool-aid insistence that Jesus is utterly fictional and that only fundies think otherwise.

Excuse me, responsible professional secular accredited academic historians do think otherwise because it is the _human_ Jesus found in documents like Josephus that is taken as historical by professional secular scholars, not the "Gospel Jesus". The game of confounding the Gospel and human Jesus should be taken as a red flag signaling the dishonest goal-post-shifting thought-control mindset of all mythers. It's a cult mentality that distrusts everyone in the outside world in the same way that cults from Jonestown to Waco wall off the outside world, in the same way that creationists wall off the whole modern academic world of research and genuine peer-reviewed discovery.

Stone

 

[carlitos]

I have to second the "are you reading a different thread" comments.

dishonest goal-post-shifting thought-control mindset of all mythers. It's a cult mentality that distrusts everyone in the outside world

Stone, is this actually happening here in this thread, or are you projecting some other argument from some other place and time into this topic? I don't see what it is that you see. The two posts you replied to seem perfectly reasonable to me. I'm certainly not a "myther," whatever you deem that to be.

 

[Stone]

I have to second the "are you reading a different thread" comments.


Stone, is this actually happening here in this thread, or are you projecting some other argument from some other place and time into this topic? I don't see what it is that you see. The two posts you replied to seem perfectly reasonable to me. I'm certainly not a "myther," whatever you deem that to be.

I'm warning everyone here -- from experience -- that anyone who drags in the subject of the Gospel magic-man Jesus in _this_ context(!) is plainly following an all-too-familiar playbook of plenty of mythers elsewhere on the Net who habitually tar serious professional secular historians with fundie-ism by pretending that such professional historians believe in the Gospel magic-man Jesus as historical rather than the human Jesus found in the extra-biblical literature like Josephus, etc. Once someone raises the Gospel magic-man Jesus as somehow pertinent to this sort of discussion, that's a sure sign that you have a myther who's out to kick up dust and move goal-posts. This isn't just a frequent pattern; it's an invariable pattern, and some of us with long experience in dealing with these threads are on to it and can see it coming. I do not propose to let these typically sneaky myther tactics slip under the radar, and I know plenty of agnostics and atheists, both on and off the web, who are now energized and who feel the same way and who have had it with these cultish mythers and are ready to take action and smoke them out. It's past time to call mythers out on these despicable little games.

Stone

 

[tsig]

I'm warning everyone here -- from experience -- that anyone who drags in the subject of the Gospel magic-man Jesus in _this_ context(!) is plainly following an all-too-familiar playbook of plenty of mythers elsewhere on the Net who habitually tar serious professional secular historians with fundie-ism by pretending that such professional historians believe in the Gospel magic-man Jesus as historical rather than the human Jesus found in the extra-biblical literature like Josephus, etc. Once someone raises the Gospel magic-man Jesus as somehow pertinent to this sort of discussion, that's a sure sign that you have a myther who's out to kick up dust and move goal-posts. This isn't just a frequent pattern; it's an invariable pattern, and some of us with long experience in dealing with these threads are on to it and can see it coming. I do not propose to let these typically sneaky myther tactics slip under the radar, and I know plenty of agnostics and atheists, both on and off the web, who are now energized and who feel the same way and who have had it with these cultish mythers and are ready to take action and smoke them out. It's past time to call mythers out on these despicable little games.

Stone

Whoever these cultic mythers are I wish you good luck on your quest against them but so far they look to me like ordinary windmills.

 

[Brainache]

This is _not_ a ^%$^#&%$ discussion of the "Gospel Jesus". It's a discussion of the perfectly normal human Jesus as found in Josephus and the other Roman documents, not the magic abracadabra figure of the Gospels. The latter has nothing, nothing, to do with this discussion at all. This diversion of the "Gospel Jesus" is just throwing up dust, the typical myther game that I've encountered repeatedly of deliberately confounding the magic Jesus with the historical Jesus in order to tar secular historians with the fundie brush, an insidious take-no-prisoners myther game aimed at discrediting everyone who deviates one scintilla from their kool-aid insistence that Jesus is utterly fictional and that only fundies think otherwise.

Excuse me, responsible professional secular accredited academic historians do think otherwise because it is the _human_ Jesus found in documents like Josephus that is taken as historical by professional secular scholars, not the "Gospel Jesus". The game of confounding the Gospel and human Jesus should be taken as a red flag signaling the dishonest goal-post-shifting thought-control mindset of all mythers. It's a cult mentality that distrusts everyone in the outside world in the same way that cults from Jonestown to Waco wall off the outside world, in the same way that creationists wall off the whole modern academic world of research and genuine peer-reviewed discovery.

Stone

Just to put your mind at rest, I'm not one of those Dastardly Mythers. I find it quite plausible that the Bible stories are based on a real person.

I'm just stating my opinion that even if the Mythers were right, it wouldn't change anything about how Christianity is now.

 

[Belz...]

I've made that point umpteen times on board after board, but don't expect it to sink in with cultists, which is what mythers are. And even if they do understand just why that point _obviously_ sinks their (ludicrous) argument, they'll never admit it because they are into winning points more than genuinely exploring history -- which is the last thing they care about or are interested in. I speak from experience.

Stone

(and I like your tweak on Hobbes )

Still waiting for your apology, Stone.

 

[Belz...]

I've made that point umpteen times on board after board, but don't expect it to sink in with cultists, which is what mythers are.

Considering how very reasonable BOTH sides have been in this thread, I find that you stick out like a sore thumb. I have no idea why you're being so aggressive towards your fellow members, but it might have something to do with being an anonymous internet poster.

And what is it with people calling their opponents "cultists" ? Just because they don't accept your arguments immediately ?

 

[Belz...]

I agree with that and I would even go as far as to say that if evidence showed up tomorrow which incontravertably showed that Jesus was a pure invention of Paul's or something, nothing would change. The Church would continue to limp on, and Fundies would continue to ignore anything they disagreed with.

I'm not sure that this thread purports to have any impact on belief in Christianity, simply establishing how far from the Bible Jesus a real-life inspiration has to be to no longer be considered "historical".

Personally, I have _no_ idea if there's a Jesus or not. I've made a summary of my thoughts on this a short while back.