Yes, of course. I was making an exaggerated model of "multiple attestation", if they "were to agree on anything" wouldn't you accept even that as MA? In discussing more realistic cases I invoke a "saying" found in Matthew and Luke. That would simply be a unique attestation for sure. But we must ask whether there are any multiple attestations, and if there are none, say so, ie that in every case copying of one extant source by another has most probably occurred. This doesn't invalidate HonoluluFilly's point that multiple attestation is the main criterion of possible authenticity, although it doesn't support the assertion that known cases of it prove the existence of an HJ beyond doubt.
What counts as a historical Jesus?
- Thread starter Humes fork
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus
- Status
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
IF there were multiple INDEPENDENT attestations, of course I'd think the event actually happened. My objection was just that for Jesus so far everyone who claimed multiple attestations (and that I'm aware of), actually lacked that "INDEPENDENT" part that would have made it worth anything.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Craig
The situation is subtle. Few serious people believe that Paul or any of the Gospel authors is actually a witness to any Jesus story. Attestation, then, is not direct evidence about the historical truth of any Jesus story. What multiple attestation is direct evidence for is the existence of an antecedent tradition and a shared judgment among authors for what parts of the story were in demand by their audiences. That is a dynamic market. In the case of both Luke and John, there was demand for clarification of conflicting teachings and, of course, failed prophecy.
Q, by the way, is a not a document in hand, and cannot serve as evidence of anything. Appeal to Q simply restates that Matthew and Luke agree on some Jesus sayings verbatim in Greek, in addition to some sayings also found in Mark. Yes, they do. That circumstance is evidence for the strongest proposition that the Gospels could be direct evidence for, the existence of an antecedent body of Jesus traditions from which the Gospels draw and select, apart from whatever contributions each author might make personally to the lore.
Hans
No you wouldn't, because the authors are not witnesses of the events. What they are witnesses to is the traditions from which they draw, and that there is an audience for what they write. About that, the dependencies among them furnish useful information.
The situation is subtle. Few serious people believe that Paul or any of the Gospel authors is actually a witness to any Jesus story. Attestation, then, is not direct evidence about the historical truth of any Jesus story. What multiple attestation is direct evidence for is the existence of an antecedent tradition and a shared judgment among authors for what parts of the story were in demand by their audiences. That is a dynamic market. In the case of both Luke and John, there was demand for clarification of conflicting teachings and, of course, failed prophecy.
Q, by the way, is a not a document in hand, and cannot serve as evidence of anything. Appeal to Q simply restates that Matthew and Luke agree on some Jesus sayings verbatim in Greek, in addition to some sayings also found in Mark. Yes, they do. That circumstance is evidence for the strongest proposition that the Gospels could be direct evidence for, the existence of an antecedent body of Jesus traditions from which the Gospels draw and select, apart from whatever contributions each author might make personally to the lore.
Hans
No you wouldn't, because the authors are not witnesses of the events. What they are witnesses to is the traditions from which they draw, and that there is an audience for what they write. About that, the dependencies among them furnish useful information.
Last edited:
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Well, ok, maybe I did shoot from the hip when I wrote that. It depends on the event and the sources, really.
But the idea of using the Creed as a baseline falls apart if you look at John Frum:
John Frum "Creed"
1) literate
2) white
3) US serviceman
4) Appeared to the Elders on February 15, 1931
Closest known historical John Frum (Manehivi)
1) illiterate
2) dark skinned
3) Native (ie not a US serviceman)
4) Took up the name "John Frum" in 1940 and was exiled off the island 1941
If Manehivi is the "historical" John Frum then in a space as short as 17 years ever aspect about him was changed in the John Frum "Creed".
If you look for the "Creedal" John Frum you can't find him but if you look for someone who might have inspired the whole movement you can find Manehivi.
Paul's Jesus has so few details it is small wonder that some people see him as legendary figure.
As for the Gospels no Church father extensively quotes them until c180 CE. Sure there are claims Marcion had a version of Luke c140 CE and we can reasonably piece it together from the many quotes but there is the idea that Luke and Acts were in response to Marcion meaning that the Luke we have is no older then 140 CE ie a century after the events it records.
And the Creeds are worse: Nicene Creed (Approved 381 CE), Athanasian Creed (c500 CE), and later stuff.
davefoc
Philosopher
I think the situation is a bit simpler than people are making out. Was there a Jewish sect that included the members Peter and James that Paul mentions? Did it at one time have the member and possible leader, Jesus? If the answer to those questions is yes, the Historical Jesus might be quite easily picked out if by some magical means a detailed description of all first century Jews living in the Palestinian area became available.
If there is some minimal truth in Paul's letters then that sect existed and the HJ existed at some point in time.
If one of the alternative Paul theories is correct then then it is likely that an HJ did not exist. As it is, it seems wildly unlikely that information will ever become available to make a better guess about that than exists now. And of course, as is generally agreed by most of the participants in this thread, if an HJ existed, he had very little to do with the nature of Christianity as it exists today and so his role in history has much more to do with happenstance than what he believed or did.
Yes, absolutely. See my post #1269. If Paul's James had a brother, and Paul's Cephas a companion, and the Jerusalem community a former leader or inspirer, named Jesus, who had been put to death, then there is an HJ. If not, then there is not. So I strongly agree with your comments here and at #1275.
Last edited:
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Welcome to the forum, HonoluluFilly.
Could you elaborate a bit more about those multiple attestations you mentioned?
Dave, perhaps I’m missing something here, but look at the highlighted part of your quote - you are actually starting with the assumption that Jesus did in fact exist as the leader of this sect that became called Christianity … and then proceeding to say that would confirm what Paul’s Letters say about HJ existing.
Well that’s obviously completely circular reasoning.
Similarly in the above quote, the mention of Peter and James seems to me completely irrelevant unless you are again making the un-sated assumption that James and Peter personally knew a real living Jesus. Which is again just the same as starting with the assumption that Jesus existed.
So it would be! But the question is, What counts as a Historical Jesus? Dave says
I agree with that, and I have simply said that if Paul's "Lord's brother" James is the brother of Jesus of Matt 13:55, and if his Cephas is Peter, mentioned repeatedly in the Gospels and Acts, then that brother and companion Jesus is the Gospel Jesus. If indeed it is a matter of historical fact that such a Jesus existed then that one and no other is the HJ. But if there is no such Gospel Jesus, then there is no HJ. Paul's letters constitute evidence for an HJ. Now that does not mean that HJ existed, because Paul's letters might be baloney, and the Gospels might be complete baloney from start to finish. So this doesn't prove HJ; but it defines what is meant by HJ, which is what this thread is about.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
max
Yes, but we're discussing not "to what historical figure(s) does the creedal Jesus refer," but rather whether any of those figures might "count."
It is a perfectly reasonable position, and some posters have endorsed it here, that whoever the historical figures turn out to be, (t)he
"count" or at worst they count with only some very gentle additional assumptions. I disagree with that position; briefly and in part because it is through profession of a formal creed that powerful organizations have shaped world history for many centuries under the banner of a historical Jesus whom they allegedly serve.
Thus, in my criteria for counting, I incorporate biographical subject matter from a document that is woven into the history of the world, just as I incorporate high points of biographical subject matter from literary documents that are woven into world literature. I place special empahasis on fact-like points that can be found in both categories of document. The documents themselves are easily found, read and recited every day almost anywhere on Earth.
I would give a different answer for a "historical John Frum who counts," in part because there is no John Frum character whatsoever who looms as large in world history as the character of Jesus of Nazareth. In other part, and regardless of scale of influence, there is no creedal portrait of John Frum from which to select biographical attributes. You had to place your "Creed" in quotes. I didn't. That's reason enough to distinguish the usefulness of creeds in the two cases.
On the multipart intervening conversation
This includes some nice examples of that "perfectly reasonable position," which I mentioned above, and with which I disagree with respect to "counting."
Even if he were the unique historical person who fit, I require more for "counting" than fitting the following. "There was a group in Jerusalem known to Paul, with an earlier leader named Jesus, succeeded in Paul's time by leaders named Peter or Cephas and another named James, who was known as the former leader's brother."
If that Jesus wasn't Jewish, or was not killed under Pontius Pilate after a defection of disciple(s), or wasn't a preacher associated with John the Baptist who preached something distinctive about marriage, then I would conclude that the historical Jesus wasn't the Jesus who "counted."
Or, such a referrent would "count" only in the sense of satisfying my curiosity and search for historical persons to whom the revered label "Jesus" might refer. The Jesus who counted in world history would then be a mythical, legendary, or pehaps frankly hallucinated non-historical figure who was "inspired" by a historical Jesus who did not count.
The answer to the topic question, in that case, would in my opinion be "There is no historical Jesus who counts," except to those who enjoy solving otherwise incosnsequential puzzles. Identifying this Jesus would be, as lawyers like to say, "nice to know," and knowing things really is nice, but the terms of apologetic discourse would seismically shift, to the accommodation of the falsehood of the creeds and scriptures, even on simple matters of biographical fact.
Yes, but we're discussing not "to what historical figure(s) does the creedal Jesus refer," but rather whether any of those figures might "count."
It is a perfectly reasonable position, and some posters have endorsed it here, that whoever the historical figures turn out to be, (t)he
"count" or at worst they count with only some very gentle additional assumptions. I disagree with that position; briefly and in part because it is through profession of a formal creed that powerful organizations have shaped world history for many centuries under the banner of a historical Jesus whom they allegedly serve.Thus, in my criteria for counting, I incorporate biographical subject matter from a document that is woven into the history of the world, just as I incorporate high points of biographical subject matter from literary documents that are woven into world literature. I place special empahasis on fact-like points that can be found in both categories of document. The documents themselves are easily found, read and recited every day almost anywhere on Earth.
I would give a different answer for a "historical John Frum who counts," in part because there is no John Frum character whatsoever who looms as large in world history as the character of Jesus of Nazareth. In other part, and regardless of scale of influence, there is no creedal portrait of John Frum from which to select biographical attributes. You had to place your "Creed" in quotes. I didn't. That's reason enough to distinguish the usefulness of creeds in the two cases.
On the multipart intervening conversation
This includes some nice examples of that "perfectly reasonable position," which I mentioned above, and with which I disagree with respect to "counting."
Even if he were the unique historical person who fit, I require more for "counting" than fitting the following. "There was a group in Jerusalem known to Paul, with an earlier leader named Jesus, succeeded in Paul's time by leaders named Peter or Cephas and another named James, who was known as the former leader's brother."
If that Jesus wasn't Jewish, or was not killed under Pontius Pilate after a defection of disciple(s), or wasn't a preacher associated with John the Baptist who preached something distinctive about marriage, then I would conclude that the historical Jesus wasn't the Jesus who "counted."
Or, such a referrent would "count" only in the sense of satisfying my curiosity and search for historical persons to whom the revered label "Jesus" might refer. The Jesus who counted in world history would then be a mythical, legendary, or pehaps frankly hallucinated non-historical figure who was "inspired" by a historical Jesus who did not count.
The answer to the topic question, in that case, would in my opinion be "There is no historical Jesus who counts," except to those who enjoy solving otherwise incosnsequential puzzles. Identifying this Jesus would be, as lawyers like to say, "nice to know," and knowing things really is nice, but the terms of apologetic discourse would seismically shift, to the accommodation of the falsehood of the creeds and scriptures, even on simple matters of biographical fact.
OK, well I don't think the logic holds up here at all.
Lets look again at what Dave said -
In the above, Dave actually says that, because Paul mentions two figures named Peter and James, that means he can jump to his concluding sentence which says it therefore follows that “ If there is some minimal truth in Paul's letters then that sect existed and the HJ existed at some point in time “. OK, well I hope it’s now clear that such a conclusion most definitely does not follow. Just because anyone’s Letters mention people called Peter and James, does not then somehow mean that quote “the HJ existed”.
The religious sect may or may not have existed, but it does not then follow that the sect’s beliefs were based on a real historical figure named Jesus.
There might be all sorts of “minimal truths” in Paul’s letters, but there is no particular reason why the part about a real HJ is one of those minimal truths. And in fact, as we now know, there is actually no real evidence that Paul’s HJ did in fact exist.
I understand that you are only explaining that we/Dave are at this point merely trying to decide what would count as a historical Jesus. But in the above argument, firstly you cannot objectively include the assumption that Paul is right to claim a HJ existed, and secondly if you are going to make a construct like that to say it would describe a HJ, then you might just as well have said that the HJ is described in far more detail in the non-miraculous parts of bible (gospels and all).
As I say, I may quite easily be misunderstanding your/Dave’s logic here (would not be the first time I’d done that lol!). And I may not be explaining my objection as clearly as I should. But I sense a fatal flaw in what Dave is saying re. trying to define a HJ via. first assuming that HJ existed, and then concluding that Paul must therefore be right that HJ existed (that would be obviously circular and self-defeating).
Last edited:
It is more interesting in that the idea of a virgin birth directly contradicts Paul (Romans 1:3):
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Eh, there are more than one bit of the gospel Jesus that contradict Paul's Jesus. Depending on which gospel you go by, of course.
E.g., Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:8: "None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
... yet in all gospels, somewhat less in Mark, but full-tilt in John, Jesus makes it clear to everyone that he IS the Lord. In fact, in John we see Jesus hardly even able to talk about anything else. He might as well be handing out business cards that say, "I'm the messiah, b#tch."
John's Jesus seems to be totally unaware that his whole mission crucially depends on "the rulers of this age" not learning his true identity. In fact, he engages the priest in the temple, and really every bum that can't find an excuse to stop listening to him, to tell everyone that he IS... exactly the guy Paul said they would not crucify if they knew who he is.
E.g., Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:8: "None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
... yet in all gospels, somewhat less in Mark, but full-tilt in John, Jesus makes it clear to everyone that he IS the Lord. In fact, in John we see Jesus hardly even able to talk about anything else. He might as well be handing out business cards that say, "I'm the messiah, b#tch."
John's Jesus seems to be totally unaware that his whole mission crucially depends on "the rulers of this age" not learning his true identity. In fact, he engages the priest in the temple, and really every bum that can't find an excuse to stop listening to him, to tell everyone that he IS... exactly the guy Paul said they would not crucify if they knew who he is.
davefoc
Philosopher
For the record, I did not mean to imply that Paul's letters in any way provide proof of the existence of an HJ.
Craig B's post above correctly stated what I meant to convey with my post. When I use the term, historical Jesus, I mean the guy who had the associates that Paul claimed to interact with. If Paul interacted with the associates of an HJ then an HJ existed. If one of the alternative Paul theories is correct (Paul lied, etc.) and the associates of Jesus named by Paul didn't exist then the HJ as I use the term didn't exist.
I don't think it is unreasonable to define the term broadly as maximara does and given a particular context the meaning may not even be ambiguous. When maximara talks about the the various HJ theories it is clear that he means historical Jesus to be a broad term to describe any individual whose life story provided events that contributed to the Jesus mythology. And I don't think defining the, historical Jesus term a little more narrowly as eight bits seems to favor is unreasonable. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to constrain the use of the term, historical Jesus, to an individual who had life events that match at least a few more of the significant Gospel stories than the minimalist definition that I favor.
However, my own view about this is that very little of the nature of any historical Jesus made it into the Gospels and I see the Gospels as almost entirely fictional and if the definition of HJ is more narrowly defined to require much similarity to the life events of the New Testament Jesus my guess would be that he didn't exist.
As an aside, one of the things that made me tend to find Paul's letters credible is the tension between the law abiding Jews and the gentiles. It seemed like this tension went against the interests of the people trying to promote Christianity and the fact that it was left in gave the stories the ring of truth. However, I now suspect that this tension already existed between the gentile God Fearer groups and law abiding Jews that the God Fearer groups interacted with. And it is conceivable that the tension between Paul and the law abiding Jews was something that an early author created to mirror what was the situation in real life.
Craig B's post above correctly stated what I meant to convey with my post. When I use the term, historical Jesus, I mean the guy who had the associates that Paul claimed to interact with. If Paul interacted with the associates of an HJ then an HJ existed. If one of the alternative Paul theories is correct (Paul lied, etc.) and the associates of Jesus named by Paul didn't exist then the HJ as I use the term didn't exist.
I don't think it is unreasonable to define the term broadly as maximara does and given a particular context the meaning may not even be ambiguous. When maximara talks about the the various HJ theories it is clear that he means historical Jesus to be a broad term to describe any individual whose life story provided events that contributed to the Jesus mythology. And I don't think defining the, historical Jesus term a little more narrowly as eight bits seems to favor is unreasonable. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to constrain the use of the term, historical Jesus, to an individual who had life events that match at least a few more of the significant Gospel stories than the minimalist definition that I favor.
However, my own view about this is that very little of the nature of any historical Jesus made it into the Gospels and I see the Gospels as almost entirely fictional and if the definition of HJ is more narrowly defined to require much similarity to the life events of the New Testament Jesus my guess would be that he didn't exist.
As an aside, one of the things that made me tend to find Paul's letters credible is the tension between the law abiding Jews and the gentiles. It seemed like this tension went against the interests of the people trying to promote Christianity and the fact that it was left in gave the stories the ring of truth. However, I now suspect that this tension already existed between the gentile God Fearer groups and law abiding Jews that the God Fearer groups interacted with. And it is conceivable that the tension between Paul and the law abiding Jews was something that an early author created to mirror what was the situation in real life.
Dave - I’m not going to keep banging on about this, but (last try, perhaps) I’m trying to understand whether the above is logically valid.. ..
… when you say “the guy who had the associates that Paul claimed to interact with. If Paul interacted with the associates of an HJ then an HJ existed” - you are starting with the assumption that Jesus did indeed have associates, and then proceeding to make a statement about what Paul claims.
But in saying that, you are assuming a priori that Jesus did in fact exist, because he had certain known associates.
But of course the problem is that there is no genuine evidence that Jesus had any such associates in the first place.
That’s probably enough for me to say on that issue to make the point. But just to say something additional about that -
- simply because someone called Paul says he met some people who he believed to be actual associates of Jesus, does not mean that the associates truly ever did know Jesus. And nor for that matter would it mean Paul was telling the truth about meeting any such associates.
If you begin by implicitly assuming Jesus existed (as you do above), then there is no need and no point in bothering to define what we mean by a "historical Jesus", because that particular HJ is already explicitly defined by the fact of his definite existence.
davefoc
Philosopher
Permit me to rephrase:
When I use the term, historical Jesus, I mean the hypothetical guy who is reputed to have had the associates that Paul's letters describe interactions with. If Paul interacted with the associates of an HJ then an HJ existed. If one of the alternative Paul theories is correct (Paul lied, etc.) and the associates of Jesus named by Paul didn't exist then the HJ as I mean the term didn't exist.
ETA: If the term, historical Jesus, is defined more broadly as when Maximara uses the term then I think it is almost certain that some kind of historical Jesus existed. Even if the Gospels are pure fiction there certainly were real humans that served as some sort of model for the Jesus character the Gospel writers created. If the term is defined more narrowly such as to require specific elements of the Gospels be true such as the Crucifixion then I think the probability that an historical Jesus existed is reduced. My own guess is that there is very little connection between the Jesus of the NT and the Historical Jesus other than he existed and that he played a significant role in the sect that included the members mentioned in the letters ascribed to Paul. But to be completely clear, I do not believe that there is enough evidence to support more than a tenuous guess that an HJ existed that would meet my criteria, my guess could easily be wrong.
Last edited:
Personally I'm surprised that you find this difficult to understand, but although I will not presume to speak for Dave, I hope I may set down my thoughts again.
Paul's claims may indeed be spurious: it is not part of this argument that Paul is trustworthy. But he claims to encounter a community of people in Jerusalem, and these are led by individuals who have the same names as kinsmen and associates of Jesus mentioned to in the Gospels. If Paul's "Lord" is the same as the Jesus who has such associates in the Gospels, then Paul's Lord is the Gospel Lord Jesus. That is, if such a Jesus existed, then he and he alone is the Jesus who may be defined as the HJ. But he may not have existed, if Paul's and the Gospels' accounts of this Jesus are fictitious. If they are fictitious (and they may well be) then there is NO "Historical Jesus".
And if he had none, there is no HJ.
Agreed.
Well, if you really must.
Quite so, and then there is no HJ.
And in the by no means impossible event that he was not, there is no HJ.
No, he is defined by an association claimed (perhaps falsely!) both by the Gospels and by Paul. His existence is probable only in proportion to the credit due to the Pauline and Gospel accounts referred to above.
Sure, but (see highlight), that is exactly the same as simply assuming Jesus existed.
That is - when you say " If Paul interacted with the associates of an HJ then an HJ existed. ", that is an argument which requires Jesus to exist regardless of anyone called Paul and before anyone called Paul had met anyone who claimed to know Jesus ... because it's entirely based on the requirement that Paul met people who had previously met a certainly existing Jesus ...
... you don't need Paul in any part of that description. Because that description relies completely on the assumption that Jesus definitely existed anyway (as defined by the "fact" that associates had definitely met him).
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
I think you're wrong, Ian. The implication is in the other direction, and it's a very valid one.
It goes like this: IF Paul actually met associates of the HJ, THEN those associates existed, THEN obviously HJ existed.
You don't have to assume a HJ to do that inference. And it's valid too.
What it's not is sound. We don't know if the premise is true. Hence, we cannot take it as actually supporting the existence of HJ, but then Dave wasn't doing that anyway.
It goes like this: IF Paul actually met associates of the HJ, THEN those associates existed, THEN obviously HJ existed.
You don't have to assume a HJ to do that inference. And it's valid too.
What it's not is sound. We don't know if the premise is true. Hence, we cannot take it as actually supporting the existence of HJ, but then Dave wasn't doing that anyway.
- Status