What counts as a historical Jesus?

[pakeha]

This thread has moved on since I last read it.
There's lots to think about here.

On the subject of the sermon on the mount

...At any rate, there is a distinct possibility that this comes from some collection of sayings attributed to Jesus -- and the genre existed, see the gospel of Thomas -- and not from any actual sermon in any particular place, be it mountain, plain, or whatever. The setting and sermon structure may well be a later structure imposed upon that collection by someone who wasn't Jesus.

That's actually very convincing, HM, and in the context of the early church I'd almost put money on it as being the truth.

Both Paul and those practices apply to Jesus because the "story" came from somewhere, and historians are applying those practices to give the best fit as they see it.
As to what those practices are - i suspect you know perfectly well
Its examining the sources you do have and using knowledge of language, context, culture relating them to what other perspectives you have and building a picture of the most plausible account as to how they relate to each other

The thing is, nudger1964, is there's nothing to show those accounts are other than an ancient version of fan-fic.
It's why I'm repeatedly asking you to post up what you find are reliable sources. I want to know what it is you find to be convincing evidence of the historical Jesus.

The analysis of language, style context isnt attempting to make any particular story true...it is trying to find the seed of reality behind the story. ...

Good luck with that. As far as I can tell language analyzis can at best show how story change, whether the language was probably made by different persons, how the version evolved, etc... But at no point can it say whether the story have a basis in reality or not.

For that you would need independent verification from language analyzis. Which you do not have with JC.

And again, nudger just what do you consider to be the seed of reality behind the story of the historical Jesus?
Paul's accounts?

My view is that any brief words about Jesus appearing in Tacitus and Josephus that comes to us only from copies written 1000 years after those authors had died, is so hopelessly late as to be worthless as reliable evidence anyway (regardless of where it might have come from).

Good point.

If you were rigorously consistent in that view of the value of copies of ancient texts, you would be a latter-day version of Jean Hardouin. See http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/jean_hardouins_theory_of_universal_forgery.

From your link
"Viewed in a broader context, Hardouin's theory can be seen as an extreme expression of a growing awareness amongst seventeenth-century scholars of the number of errors, exaggerations, and inventions in the historical record."

Indeed.

...While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."

(T)he Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Jewish guys pretending to drink blood? Yes, the thought would occur that it's the same characters in both books.

Ouch.
Jewish guys pretending to drink blood.
No way. Just no way.

 

[HansMustermann]

'Could have'.... but again, the obvious part that seems to be missing from Tacitus own writing is the Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead three days after being crucified. It was this belief that really made Christianity popular and sparked off Christianity as a religion in it's own right. It essentialy says who Christianity was named after but not why, which, if it was from either a Christian source or from reports of interrogations or legal proceedings against Christians, one really would expect to see.

Not really. Tacitus obviously wasn't a Christian, so he wouldn't believe that those guys' Christ actually got up and walked away. So like any good historian, then or now, he removes the parts that are historical implausibilities.

Just like nowadays if you wrote a short footnote about who Apollonius Of Tyana was, you probably wouldn't include his miracles or that his mom got gangbanged by TWO gods to produce him. (Yeah, lots of people were the son of a god, but that guy was the son of TWO gods.) Even though the only source that your information can be traced to is including those miraculous details.

Plus, again, Christians were never his focus. He's not writing to educate people in exactly what do Christians believe. The topic at that point is Nero. The Christians only get an offhand comment about who those guys were that Nero made scapegoats out of, not to explain the details of their beliefs.

 

[HansMustermann]

Also, just to expand a bit on the idea that while a story has to start SOMEWHERE, it doesn't have to be from the guy in the story: we actually have a supportable case where they did just that for Jesus.

At Nag Hammadi there were two documents that are interesting by their relationship: the Epistle of Eugnostos, and the Sophia (wisdom) of Jesus Christ.

The Epistle of Eugnostos is pretty much what it sounds like, an epistle by some guy who doesn't attribute his words to anyone but himself. For the record, it details the esoteric cosmology of whoever wrote it. It has absolutely no references to Christianity or Christians or whatever, and possibly the author wasn't even a Christian in the first place.

The Sophia of JC takes his words and puts them in the mouth of Jesus Christ, and also invents the settings in which JC is supposed to have said that. Someone literally took a copy of Eugnostos and copied from it into a new story about Jesus Christ, presumably to make those ideas more authoritative. Suddenly instead of being just smart stuff said by some pagan, it becomes stuff revealed by none other than the Lord thy saviour.

So, anyway, the stuff said by some smart guy who totally wasn't Jesus, becomes a story about smart stuff said by Jesus.

So, yes, the story started somewhere and with someone, but that someone wasn't Jesus.

To make it even more interesting, it is generally accepted that in turn Eugnostos ("right thinking") was a made up author too, and it's not an actual letter written to anyone either. It's really a book written in epistle format.

So whoever originated that not only wasn't called Jesus, but it's generally accepted that he wasn't called Eugnostos either.

 

[pakeha]

Also, just to expand a bit on the idea that while a story has to start SOMEWHERE, it doesn't have to be from the guy in the story: we actually have a supportable case where they did just that for Jesus.

At Nag Hammadi there were two documents that are interesting by their relationship: the Epistle of Eugnostos, and the Sophia (wisdom) of Jesus Christ. ...

Thanks, HM.
Off to read those texts.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Also, just to expand a bit on the idea that while a story has to start SOMEWHERE, it doesn't have to be from the guy in the story: we actually have a supportable case where they did just that for Jesus.

At Nag Hammadi there were two documents that are interesting by their relationship: the Epistle of Eugnostos, and the Sophia (wisdom) of Jesus Christ.

The Epistle of Eugnostos is pretty much what it sounds like, an epistle by some guy who doesn't attribute his words to anyone but himself. For the record, it details the esoteric cosmology of whoever wrote it. It has absolutely no references to Christianity or Christians or whatever, and possibly the author wasn't even a Christian in the first place.

The Sophia of JC takes his words and puts them in the mouth of Jesus Christ, and also invents the settings in which JC is supposed to have said that. Someone literally took a copy of Eugnostos and copied from it into a new story about Jesus Christ, presumably to make those ideas more authoritative. Suddenly instead of being just smart stuff said by some pagan, it becomes stuff revealed by none other than the Lord thy saviour.

So, anyway, the stuff said by some smart guy who totally wasn't Jesus, becomes a story about smart stuff said by Jesus.

So, yes, the story started somewhere and with someone, but that someone wasn't Jesus.

But this is my point, if that's the case then can't we consider that 'somone' as the 'historical' Jesus (in the sense that he's the person that the stories of Jesus are based upon) and also the person that Tacitus referrs to? After all, Tacitus doesn't mention his name.

 

[Darat]

But this is my point, if that's the case then can't we consider that 'somone' as the 'historical' Jesus (in the sense that he's the person that the stories of Jesus are based upon) and also the person that Tacitus referrs to? After all, Tacitus doesn't mention his name.

But who would you consider "Jesus" and why?

 

[SlackerBabbath]

But who would you consider "Jesus" and why?

It's not a point of naming suspects, it's just a point of the plausability of an annonymous 'someone' existing who the stories of Jesus are based upon, a person who we can effectively call the 'historical Jesus'.

 

[Darat]

It's not a point of naming suspects, it's just a point of the plausability of an annonymous 'someone' existing who the stories of Jesus are based upon, a person who we can effectively call the 'historical Jesus'.

I thought you were meaning we could call one of the two authors Hans mentioned the historical Jesus?

 

[SlackerBabbath]

I thought you were meaning we could call one of the two authors Hans mentioned the historical Jesus?

The Epistle of Eugnostos isn't considered as an actual letter written by a man named 'Eugnostos' because 'eugnostos' simply means "right thinking", so it is generaly considered as an anonymous text that promotes itself in it's title.

As HansMustermann just said, the Sophia of JC basicaly re-writes the Epistle of Eugnostos, so the author of the Sophia of JC obviously cannot be considered as the historical Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

'Could have'.... but again, the obvious part that seems to be missing from Tacitus own writing is the Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead three days after being crucified.

Maybe he thought it was too stupid. I don't know. You don't know. That's the point.

 

[eight bits]

SlackerB

'Could have'.... but again, the obvious part that seems to be missing from Tacitus own writing is the Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead three days after being crucified.

That would be included in the "superstition" part. Pliny also refers to Christian superstition without going into the details. Pliny's sources are interrogation of current and former Christians.

It was this belief that really made Christianity popular and sparked off Christianity as a religion in it's own right.

It appears that Paul gathered his first converts by telling them that they would avoid death altogether. The mechanism for that was that the end of days were in progress, and that Jesus was returning soon. I notice that you omit that aspect of the Good News; it can hardly be surprising that a non-Christian wouldn't bother with it, either. After all, Tacitus would have noticed that it didn't happen.

I'm simply asking, if, (with all personal belief put aside for a moment) we can at least consider Tacitus as a possible 'supporting' source for the crucifixion event?

He is what we already have plenty of, attestation of a crucifixion tradition in circulation by the Second Century, presented here as if it had been known during the First. Living people are generally more confident of Tacitus' dating than the Gospels, so that helps a bit.

Y'see, I'm seeing opinions here of what could've happened and where Tacitus could've gotten his sources from, but I'm not seeing anything 'definative' here, so surely that still leaves the possibility open that the figure of Jesus Christ may well have been based upon a real person?

What did you expect us to say? Tacitus doesn't give his sources, but we can see that some of the information was publicly available, without the need to imagine him "mixing with the Christian community" whom he doesn't quote, but only alludes to their beliefs, selecting out a nugget that might, apart from comic relief, interest a Roman citizen reader.

 

[HansMustermann]

The problem then is: which of them? Because obviously there were more than one. E.g., most Christians would be offended by the idea of taking Eugnostos as the historical Jesus, especially since his esoteric ideas didn't make it into mainstream Christianity. The Sophia Of JC is a gnostic text that nobody except the sect at Nag Hammadi would take as anything else than heresy.

Which brings us to: what common attributes would you use to identify Eugnostos with Jesus? Eugnostos's ideas -- or at least those we have in that epistle, since we have no other text by him or about him -- have nothing in common with those commonly attributed to Jesus. (Other than in the Sophia forgery, that is.) He wasn't a poor peasant from Galilee, but a highly educated guy who was well enough off to have the time to sit and write treatises on his philosophy. And there is no indication that anyone would want to crucify him for those ideas either.

So, you know, what's the common ground?

And maybe you didn't mean specifically Eugnostos as the HJ, but really, how do we know the other contributors to the genre of sayings of JC are any better matches?

Which basically gets us back to my question relatively early in the thread: would you consider Lovecraft's mom to be historical mad Arab Abdul Al Hazred? We have a pretty good idea that it's based on her maiden name, and she was insane too. But she didn't live or die in Damascus, never wrote the Kitab Al Azif (the Necronomicon), and I doubt that Lovecraft got his ideas about Cthulhu or Yog Sothoth from her. She probably never said the most iconic phrase associated with the mad scholar, "That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons death itself may die." Etc.

So is that identification enough for her to be the Mad Arab? Not enough?

But basically it's up to you where you draw the line. If you can say that yes, she was the historical Abdul Al Hazred, I'll grant that at that level you can most definitely find a historical Jesus too. Several, in fact.

 

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan: That the entirety of the TF is intrusive material can be seen from the fact that what follows it refers back to the material just before it. Remove the TF and the narrative flows smoothly.

. . . (major snip) . . . Isn't that just 2b, though ?

Okay, here's the end of Antiquities 18:3:2, describing Pilate's brutal suppression of a Jewish protest against him for using temple funds to build an aqueduct to bring water to the city of Jerusalem:

. . . and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition.

Then we have the insertion of the Testamentum Flavianum (Antiq. 18:3:3).

Now, here's the beginning of Antiq. 18:3:4:

About this same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder; . . .

This opening refers back to the end of Antiq. 18:3:2. It flows smoothly if the TF is removed. It's unclear what it refers to if the TF stands between it and Antiq. 18:3:2.

I should also add that there are other falsehoods in the TF, even if the miraculous material and the assertion that he was the Christ are removed. Here's the abridged version of the TF with the problem material hilited (ellipses denote deleted material):

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man . . . a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. . . . and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him did not forsake him, . . . and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Even according to the Christian Scriptures, particularly the Book of Acts and the epistle to the Galatians, the Gentiles didn't come into the church until after the resurrected Christ had ascended into heaven.

Also, according to the Christian scriptures, Jesus' disciples did indeed forsake him at his arrest, and until he appeared to them after his resurrection. Of course, the reference in the TF to his followers not forsaking him is followed in the unabridged version by " . . . for he appeared to them alive on the third day as the divine prophets had foretold . . ." . So the statement that his followers did not forsake him depends on this material on his resurrection. Hence, it doesn't work well if this material isn't there, indicating that the reference to the Resurrection was there in the TF's original form.

 

[Brainache]

But what if it originally said:

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man . . . a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him (...) many of the Jews (...). . . . and when Pilate, (...) condemned him to the cross, those that loved him did not forsake him, . . . and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Taking out the reference to Gentiles and the "tribe" of christians to this day bit, might make it more likely to have been written by Josephus. Of course I have no justification for this beyond it makes sense to me.

 

[TimCallahan]

But what if it originally said:

Quote:
Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man . . . a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him (...) many of the Jews (...). . . . and when Pilate, (...) condemned him to the cross, those that loved him did not forsake him, . . . and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Taking out the reference to Gentiles and the "tribe" of christians to this day bit, might make it more likely to have been written by Josephus. Of course I have no justification for this beyond it makes sense to me.

If you take out that much stuff, there's hardly any point in Josephus mentioning him. In any case, the material is still intrusive. Take it out, and the narrative flows naturally. Take out material that isn't intrusive, and the flow is interrupted and becomes choppy.

Using the law of parsimony, the most likely scenario is that the whole thing is a forgery planted by a later copyist.

 

[HansMustermann]

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

 

[Craig B]

... 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

This is an extremely powerful argument against the authenticity of the TF; so much so that even its defenders generally admit that the messianic affirmation is an interpolation. But these defenders then use an odd argument. It's as if they were confronted with a half rotten apple: they cut off all the bad bits, and what is left is good enough to eat. So the bits of the TF that cannot possibly be authentic are excised, and it is declared that the truncated remnant (I call it "TF-lite") must be true, because the evidently false bits have been removed. I think the reasoning behind that procedure is fallacious. For if the TF contains lots of things that can't be true, then in all probability the rest of it isn't true either. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

 

[Brainache]

If you take out that much stuff, there's hardly any point in Josephus mentioning him. In any case, the material is still intrusive. Take it out, and the narrative flows naturally. Take out material that isn't intrusive, and the flow is interrupted and becomes choppy.

Using the law of parsimony, the most likely scenario is that the whole thing is a forgery planted by a later copyist.

This is an extremely powerful argument against the authenticity of the TF; so much so that even its defenders generally admit that the messianic affirmation is an interpolation. But these defenders then use an odd argument. It's as if they were confronted with a half rotten apple: they cut off all the bad bits, and what is left is good enough to eat. So the bits of the TF that cannot possibly be authentic are excised, and it is declared that the truncated remnant (I call it "TF-lite") must be true, because the evidently false bits have been removed. I think the reasoning behind that procedure is fallacious. For if the TF contains lots of things that can't be true, then in all probability the rest of it isn't true either. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

What you guys (and Hans) say makes sense to me, but that leaves me wondering just how all those Bible Scholars go along with "TF-lite". Is it just that whole field is full of bias towards an HJ, or is there something else there?

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, the TF WAS pretty much all but abandoned by serious scholars at one point. By early 20'th century pretty much the consensus was that it's completely forged. Only now it's making a comeback, and in some cases it's even worse than the TF lite that Craig mentioned. Whole books get written to handwave "no, no, see, if you just remove 'he was Christ', the rest is totally authentic." Never mind that you still get something that says stuff like that he rose from the dead or performed countless miracles and he was prophecised by prophets.

I think what changed was that at some point there just was no need to prove Jesus existed. The majority of people in the west were Christians and everyone else was giving the topic a wide berth. Although some isolated voices had already proposed that it's all a myth, they were successfully "harrumpfed", as Price puts it. You could just write some irrelevant nonsense or just do some brow-beating from authority, and pretend you debunked it, and move on.

You don't really need independent confirmation, and thus you don't need the TF either, if you can just harrumpf and move on. Especially since most people didn't read those books anyway.

But over time, and especially with the internet, that changed.

ETA: just for completeness sake, there was another thing that did boost the TF-Lite stupidity, and that was the discovery in the 70's of an Arabic translation that does have a TF Lite, i.e., removes the messiah and supernatural claims and the wondering if it's lawful to call him a man. The simplest explanation, of course, is that the Muslim translator corrected it to a less absurd (and less heretic for him) TF-Lite version. But a number of apologists basically went, "no, no, see, that's the original form of it before being interpolated". So the TF-Lite faction got a boost pretty much over night.

 

[Brainache]

Well, the TF WAS pretty much all but abandoned by serious scholars at one point. By early 20'th century pretty much the consensus was that it's completely forged. Only now it's making a comeback, and in some cases it's even worse than the TF lite that Craig mentioned. Whole books get written to handwave "no, no, see, if you just remove 'he was Christ', the rest is totally authentic." Never mind that you still get something that says stuff like that he rose from the dead or performed countless miracles and he was prophecised by prophets.

I think what changed was that at some point there just was no need to prove Jesus existed. The majority of people in the west were Christians and everyone else was giving the topic a wide berth. Although some isolated voices had already proposed that it's all a myth, they were successfully "harrumpfed", as Price puts it. You could just write some irrelevant nonsense or just do some brow-beating from authority, and pretend you debunked it, and move on.

You don't really need independent confirmation, and thus you don't need the TF either, if you can just harrumpf and move on. Especially since most people didn't read those books anyway.

But over time, and especially with the internet, that changed.

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.