What counts as a historical Jesus?

[John Jones]

What is the point of producing evidence that is rejected a priori, and in fact described as "not-evidence" ???

[...]

Try presenting some and let us see.

 

[IanS]

Agreed. However, that's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing two different applications of a series of equations, which work fairly well in both cases. Cladistic methodologies have been applied to things such as linguistics and tool development, for example. It's math; it doesn't care if you're dealing with critters or words.

JabbaPapa should be providing a great deal more detail about the methods, but he's already admitted that he doesn't actually understand them, so it's irrelevant.

In general terms, maybe. In terms of how cladistics is actually done, this doesn't hold true at all. It's EXTREMELY rare for ANYONE to attempt a cladogram of all of biology. 99.9999% of the time or thereabouts what happens is we select a specific clade to work with. This is directly analogous to what JabbaPapa is doing. As long as he's right, and the Bible stems from some original text, these methods will work perfectly fine because the books will be acting like a clade of animals (clade=some taxa, and all descendant taxa from that taxa).

Cladisitics--meaning the actual mathmatical models--doesn't rely on all life being related to one another. That's a conclusion, not a foundational assumption.

It's more like, the basal archaeosaur for dinosaurs is extremely different from birds, sauropods, ceratopsians, etc. All we have left is birds.

Unless you're willing to argue that between the original text of hte Bible (or the original texts, which is vastly more likely) some major parts were added, that is. If you can demonstrate such horizontal transfer, then of course cladistics breaks down.

OK, thanks for that patient and helpful explanation .

I think we must be talking at cross purposes though.

I agree that of course something like caldistics is very useful in studying evolution and similar fields. And similar approaches may also have useful applications in quite different fields, inc. (as you say) linguistics.

However, that’s not what I understand JabbaPapa to be claiming here. He can correct me if I am misquoting or misunderstanding him, but …

… what JabbaPapa appears to be saying is that, because he has a useful method of deciding which of several later copies of the NT is probably closer to an assumed original, that automatically means that the text of his best copy must say essentially the same thing about Jesus as was said in a missing original.

He is saying that he can find out from his best copies, what was originally written about Jesus.

But that cannot be true.

Because no matter how many times he selects between his various copies, to find the very best of them, he still actually has no way of telling whether the description of Jesus in his copies is essentially identical to what would be found in the missing original.

He is not determining what must have been said about Jesus in the original. And he has no way of doing that.



Of course we do actually know what it says about Jesus in his best copies, because we have those selected best copies today. His method has been used to determine those. It says that Jesus lived as a normal Man, that he walked about with groups of people saying various things and performing miracles in front of them, and that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

But that does not mean the original must have said anything like that at all about Jesus. The original may well have (for example) described a messiah who was not actually named, and was witnessed by the faithful only in spirit form in visions of the miraculous. And that would be a very different Jesus indeed from the one believed in today and described in his best copies of the NT.


He has no way of generating accurate copies of a supposed original NT simply by refining his newer existing copies on the basis of any such linguistic type analysis.

All he can do is to estimate which of his copies is likely to more accurate in terms of such things as more ancient forms of the language, mention of buildings and places that existed at particular times etc. But what he cannot do at all by that method, is to say his best copies must say essentially the same about Jesus as was said in the assumed original.


Finally - if JabbaPapa is not claiming that he can use his method to tell what the original must have said about Jesus, then I’d like to know what value his best copies have in determining whatever may have been originally claimed for Jesus?

 

[maximara]

No -- nor have I claimed such.

"There is no other ancient figure as well-attested by copies of ancient reports than the Christ" does not mean "Christ is better attested than Caesar" -- it is a simple comment about manuscript evidence.

Even if you limit it to manuscript evidence this claim is totally bogus as it ignores a key fact - ALL those manuscripts were written by believers. NONE of the original arguments against Christianity or Jesus have survived - all we have is the rebuttals against them and even then they can't keep what they are arguing straight.

For example, Irenaeus in Against Heresies 2:22:4 claims Jesus was over 50 years old and in Demonstration (74) flat out tells us "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."

The first problem here is "king of the Jews" is a specific title and was at best held by three Herods: Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa I, and (maybe) Herod Agrippa II.

The second problem is Claudius Caesar who came to power in 41 CE...long after Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome in 36 CE and Herod Agrippa I didn't get his "king of the Jews" title until 42 CE.

Finally Irenaeus claims all this is supported by the Elders and the Gospel.


In the 4th century things got even sillier as per Shirley Jackson Case in his 1912 The History of Jesus "Epiphanius makes two further statements which are sometimes thought to point to a pre-Christian Jesus. He says that there were Nazarees (or Nasarees) before Christ, and that Philo once wrote a treatise describing the early Christian community in Egypt." (while explaining why Epiphanius was suggesting that Jesus was born under Alexander ie c100 CE)

Now Philo doesn't say one word about Jesus so this claim makes little sense but wait it gets even better. Eusebius in his The History of the Church claimed "It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs."

So in the 4th century we are told Philo not only "wrote a treatise describing the early Christian community in Egypt" but "under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there" and yet did not write one word about Jesus... HOW DOES THAT WORK?!

One is reminded of the Joker's comment in The Killing Joke: "That's what a dose of reality dose for you... Never touched the stuff myself, find it gets in the way of the hallucinations"

 

[pakeha]

What is the point of producing evidence that is rejected a priori, and in fact described as "not-evidence" ???...

I'd have been interested in seeing what you consider to be evidence, JP.

 

[IanS]

Post 1140, line 3 - cladistics, not caldistics" duh!

 

[Aepervius]

Is this your blog? If so it makes your interests quite plain.

I found the "about" page and the year cited therein for a conversion from agnosticism to catholicism (2005), much more interresting, maybe partially explaining the tone of the discussion, although not relevant to the matter of the discussion.

At least I know where the name come from , from the same show we called "barbapapa" in France (ulla-up barbatruc ).

 

[Dinwar]

… what JabbaPapa appears to be saying is that, because he has a useful method of deciding which of several later copies of the NT is probably closer to an assumed original, that automatically means that the text of his best copy must say essentially the same thing about Jesus as was said in a missing original.

I believe this is the heart of our issue. I thought JP was saying he could figure out what the original said. That position is, given several statistical techniques, perfectly reasonable. You're right in saying that it's completely unreasonable to say that because one knows which version is older, one therefore knows what the original said.

And either way, Step 2 would be to prove that the original, however it has been found, actually contains some real information rather than fictional stories. I know ways to identify an original edition of The Hobbit (it was ret-coned by the author), but that doesn't mean Smaug is real.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Cladistic methodologies have been applied to things such as linguistics and tool development, for example

Correct, but that doesn't miraculously elevate them into the status of an analytical magic bullet.

The method provides data -- not interpretation.

 

[JabbaPapa]

… what JabbaPapa appears to be saying is that, because he has a useful method of deciding which of several later copies of the NT is probably closer to an assumed original, that automatically means that the text of his best copy must say essentially the same thing about Jesus as was said in a missing original.

He is saying that he can find out from his best copies, what was originally written about Jesus.

But that cannot be true.

Because no matter how many times he selects between his various copies, to find the very best of them, he still actually has no way of telling whether the description of Jesus in his copies is essentially identical to what would be found in the missing original.

He is not determining what must have been said about Jesus in the original. And he has no way of doing that.

a) rather than performing such work myself, I place my confidence in the experts whose JOB it is

b) your "understanding" of the methodology of philology is caricatural

 

[Akri]

b) your "understanding" of the methodology of philology is caricatural

This is a good example of something you should consider changing about your posting style: instead of simply asserting that IanS's understanding is "caricatural", you could actually explain the flaws in his understanding. What you're doing now makes it look like you're in the wrong and just don't want to admit it, and so you simply accuse others of being wrong without offering anything substantial to support that accusation.

 

[Dinwar]

Requests for evidence. Requests that you read the arguments that came before. Refusals to accept your arguments uncritically. The expectation that you actually understand the terms you are using. These are all examples of bad attitudes?

I think we understand where you're coming from.

Here's what gets me: This forum is rife with crazy folks, fringe theorists, nutjobs, and the like. Creationists, moon hoax believers, shroudies, and their ilk come here all the time. Does JP honestly think he's brought something new to the table? This is perfectly in line with the behavior of every other member of that group (with the exception of a few of the crazy folks).

 

[John Jones]

Here's what gets me: This forum is rife with crazy folks, fringe theorists, nutjobs, and the like. Creationists, moon hoax believers, shroudies, and their ilk come here all the time. Does JP honestly think he's brought something new to the table? This is perfectly in line with the behavior of every other member of that group (with the exception of a few of the crazy folks).

He refused to read earlier posts in threads that dealt with his failed arguments despite being advised to do so a few times. I call this hubris. Even woo.

I said in response to another one of his posts that he bit-off more than he could chew. He took great offense, but it is true.

Remember USENET newsgroups? They best advice one could follow was to lurk and learn the lay of the land. He wouldn't have lasted 3 days there.

*shakes head*

 

[IanS]

a) rather than performing such work myself, I place my confidence in the experts whose JOB it is

b) your "understanding" of the methodology of philology is caricatural

I'm more interested in seeing a scientific analysis of whatever evidence is supposed to exist for Jesus?

If Jesus is supposed to have lived and done any of the things attributed to him in the gospel stories, then I'd like to know what scientifically verifiable evidence there is for that?

 

[Aepervius]

a) rather than performing such work myself, I place my confidence in the experts whose JOB it is

CAn we serve you that back to you in the Shroud thread ? I mean, *YOU* were criticizing the textile expert (which is their job) or even the physicist 14C dating expert (which is their job).

Now we should give you a pass on the NT / JC thingy because ...?

ETA: paraphrased because I am too lazy :

Jabbapapa : textil expert sucks and know nothing, and the 3 different lab could very well have made some error of a few century or even more .
(subtext : I place NO confidence in the experts whose JOB it is).

 

[LashL]

Please refrain from personalizing your arguments; stick to the topic (which is not each other and not if and when you're leaving the forum); be civil, and remember your Membership Agreement. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Cladistics, at its heart, is nothing more than a way to figure out how get the diversity one sees with the minimum number of changes. ANY study, of ANY system, that changes through time can be fit to that data. As I said, it IS used in language studies. The concepts (if not the math) are equally applicable to books. In fact, I'm not sure how else one could hope to do what JabbaPapa is proposing--at least, not in any sort of systematic way.

That is, of course, true. And it's being done for the bible texts too. No objections to that. If you want to know what changes happened to the texts, by all means, there are experts who can tell you in detail. Bart Ehrman is a good start, for example.

What bugs me about all these experts, though, is that eventually there comes some leap of faith that cladistics can't really support. E.g., basically, 'these are the changes that happened to Mark, and the categories the stuff in it falls in, therefore as an expert I say Jesus existed.' Or, 'here are all the changes and categories, therefore let me tell you exactly which are the true parts about the wandering rabbi called Jesus'.

And that's where it gets bogus.

Cladistics just categorizes stuff. It doesn't prove it true.

The dinosaur bones in your example don't become the real thing because someone classified their shape and fit them into a tree of such changes, but because they can be analysed and shown to be (A) real bones, not some gypsum fake, and (B) dated to that period by a variety of methods, including probably the most useful for that kind of interval: stratigraphy.

I could send you a detailed drawing of some bones you've never seen before, and you might use your knowledge and expertise to fit them somewhere in the classification of dinosaurs. But that wouldn't tell you whether the bones are from an actual dug-out dinosaur, or it's just some hybrid I whipped up in a 3d modelling program, based on real bones.

As you've said, you can categorize and structure anything. Numbers, texts, even lies, scams, SF stories, or religions.

E.g., one could build such a graph for ancient religions or religious ideas, and yet they can't all be true.

E.g., one one could apply such methods to the variants of the Nigerian 419 scam, and yet there was no real Nigerian widow with eighty million dollars to transfer.

E.g., we can classify android robots in SF all the way back to Karel Capek, who coined the word, and arguably even to earlier times when golems and automatons were kinda getting in the same direction. We can track such distinctions like whether the robots are trying to kill humans, or are the victims (e.g., they're effectively sentient slaves), or whatever, and classify them all. But that doesn't say a sentient robot actually existed in Capek's time. It clearly didn't exist.

E.g., we can track all the versions of Cinderella, and group them, and whatnot all the way to the original version. Which actually we know, because it's from ancient Egypt, and those guys wrote stuff down. We can track and group such stuff as when it changed from being a bought slave to being a stepdaughter, or IIRC even among the oldest versions whether she was some worthless household slave or essentially an expensive deluxe sex slave. But that's not what makes a 'historical Cinderella' true or false.

We can do the same for fictive languages (Elvish, Klingon, etc), and yet by definition they're fictive, not historical. We can track the various historical myths about dragons, but there is no historical dragon. (Marduk used to point out they're based on whales, and he is probably right too, but a whale still isn't a historical dragon.) We can track and group and classify the myths about the sun kami Amaterasu, but nevertheless, there is no historical event when the Sun hid in a cavern on Earth.

Etc.

Basically that is my problem with all these bible studies experts and scholars I should supposedly trust blindly because they're experts. Their actual work and expertise is, yes, some form or relative of cladistics of the manuscripts. Which CANNOT tell whether the stories in those manuscripts are true or not. Yet they somehow make that leap of faith completely unsupported, and somehow I'm not allowed ask where is the evidence for specifically THAT step.

 

[Dinwar]

What bugs me about all these experts, though, is that eventually there comes some leap of faith that cladistics can't really support. E.g., basically, 'these are the changes that happened to Mark, and the categories the stuff in it falls in, therefore as an expert I say Jesus existed.' Or, 'here are all the changes and categories, therefore let me tell you exactly which are the true parts about the wandering rabbi called Jesus'.

Right. I'm merely talking about the viability of the methods for determining the original text (or the original version of the surviving text, if you want to be more precise). The truth or falsehood of that text is something that these methods can't address.

Cladistics just categorizes stuff. It doesn't prove it true.

True. The nodes in a cladogram are working hypotheses, regardless of whether we're talking about brachiopods or books. But that's different from whether or not the original text is true. Cladistic methods can't address that at all; all it does is say what the original text likely says. That's where dinosaur bones are vastly different--once you find them, you know they're true. Books on the other hand have another level of complexity, because they can be fiction or non.

In other words, you and I don't actually disagree at all.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, I wasn't as much disagreeing with you, but using your explanation to show what's wrong with the supposed HJ experts.

 

[davefoc]

Well, I wasn't as much disagreeing with you, but using your explanation to show what's wrong with the supposed HJ experts.

I think your point is roughly the same as what several others have made in various ways. i.e. It is possible to gain insights in to what the earliest versions of the Gospels might have been with the use of various techniques and various pieces of evidence. Nothing that results from this process provides proof of the existence of an historical Jesus or even reliable information about what the nature of that hypothetical historical Jesus might have been.

Who were the authors of the Gospels? Where did they write them? When did they write them? What were the sources of information that they relied on for their stories? If the Gospels contain true stories about the historical Jesus, why aren't there any writings that describe the hypothetical historical Jesus that are contemporaneous with his life or even writings that are written by people that lived in the same areas he did?

The answers to all of the above questions are not known precisely and even the approximate answers that secular research has managed to provide consist of a wide range of possibilities.

I believe that an historical Jesus did exist, and I would be interested in any information that supports this notion that JabbaPapa might provide, but I don't see how any of his discussion about the reconstruction of what the earliest forms of the Gospels might have been like have added to the evidence that supports the notion that an historical Jesus existed. What new information that has been derived from research on the Gospels adds to the credibility of the Gospels as a source of reliable information about the historical Jesus?

 

[IanS]

I believe that an historical Jesus did exist, and I would be interested in any information that supports this notion that JabbaPapa might provide, but I don't see how any of his discussion about the reconstruction of what the earliest forms of the Gospels might have been like have added to the evidence that supports the notion that an historical Jesus existed. What new information that has been derived from research on the Gospels adds to the credibility of the Gospels as a source of reliable information about the historical Jesus?

I don't think JabbaPapa is unusual in thinking that if we can be sure that some more recent copies of the bible are an accurate reflection of what was originally written in the very first copies of gospels and Paul's letters etc., then our existing copies become more credible as accurate evidence confirming what Jesus actually said and did. Because in that case it means the detail of those gospel stories comes from people living much closer in time to the events.

The idea is presumably that it is more credible as evidence if the information is almost or precisely contemporary to the time of the events. As opposed to being written centuries later via a chain of copying by numerous Christian believers, which would obviously allow more scope and more persuasion for the inclusion of changes, elaborations, interpretations, and outright inventions.

However, as should be evident from my earlier posts, I think it's quite obviously not true that anyone can tell what was in any assumed original source of what later became written down as the earliest forms of the gospels, and which was then at a still later date selected as the preferred versions to compose a bible.

But I don't want to spend time furthering an argument amongst ourselves on that point of what can be ascertained from a 4th century or later copy relative to assumed original copies, unless JabbaPapa wants to make the argument I've just described above - ie attempting to say that a later preferred copy is so accurate to an assumed original, that the copy must constitute evidence that the Jesus stories are true.