What counts as a historical Jesus?

[IanS]

What are you talking about?

When you read articles by historians specializing in the Second World War, who wrote their dissertations on the subject, do you suspect that they're not qualified to comment on the war BECAUSE they specialize in it?

Of course not.

Historians writing about WW2 are not relying on written sources which constantly claim impossible miracles about their central theme. That's a huge difference.

But you seem to want to get scholarship about religious texts from people who don't specialize in studying religious texts.

That makes no sense.

It makes perfectly good sense to me. I want to see what independent researchers can claim from studying reliable historical documents, and not from clearly unreliable religious sources such as the devotional works of the Gospels and Paul’s' Letters.

What are the independent, non-biblical, sources that confirm the life of Jesus? Which of those non-biblical sources are providing eye-witness accounts, as opposed to merely repeating the hearsay stories of the day?

 

[Piggy]

Dude, show at least ONE instance in Hebrew or Aramaic where it's used that way. That's really it. Show the evidence that it was actually used that way.

I'm done with you, Hans.

You can rattle on all you want to anyone who will listen, but you don't even understand the questions.

If you're asking this, at this point in the discussion, then your thinking and your methods are so off-base, there really is nothing I can say to you that will make any difference.

I just explained to you why none of that matters.

So have fun, dude, but there's no point in going on with you here.

 

[HansMustermann]

These remarks are plain silly. The Gospel account may or may not be confirmation of Paul's statements, depending on whether the sources are independent. But that doesn't stop these things from being evidence. As always, however, we must evaluate the evidence. Babbling about Star Trek and fanfic may not be the best way of doing that.

Isn't it? It seems to me like the best way to show some broken inference modes as broken, is exactly to show some cases on which their application isn't just broken, but ridiculously so and immediately recognizable as such.

If an inference mode would produce the awfully wrong results for Star Trek, and the only thing you can use to prevent it is prior knowledge that Star Trek is not historical, then that's a broken inference mode right there. It can be used to make some predictions on a known and testable case, and those predictions are clearly wrong when tested against reality.

The very idea that applying function F on data X produces some useful results is a hypothesis. It must be supported or tested against reality. We must test that F(X) is indeed a correct result on some known case X, before we apply it on an unknown one.

And ultimately if a method or function supposedly is only applicable to data where you CAN'T test the result against reality, then pretty much it doesn't work. At all. Not only it wasn't shown to work, but it is defined up front as something that can't possibly be shown to work. It can't be tested or falsified, since we're told up front we can't apply it on any case where we already know the result it should give.

 

[Piggy]

Historians writing about WW2 are not relying on written sources which constantly claim impossible miracles about their central theme. That's a huge difference.

It's no difference at all.

You might as well say that the fact that they had airplanes makes a huge difference.

The methods are the same.

The fact that miracles played a key role in some types of ancient literature does not mean that they get treated differently from other manuscripts.

Or perhaps you think those lamebrained scholars of the ancient near east are all just too darn stupid to see that those miracle stories are all made up.

In fact, because miracles are inherently extremely unlikely, and other explanations of reports of miracles are not, a historian is never in a position to say that a miracle likely occurred, and that's true of academic scholars of ancient texts as well.

And you do realize that miracles play a central role in literature about other historical figures, don't you?

 

[Belz...]

I'm done with you, Hans.

Aw, come on, guys. None of us is getting anywhere if all you do is personalise this debate.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'm done with you, Hans.

You can rattle on all you want to anyone who will listen, but you don't even understand the questions.

If you're asking this, at this point in the discussion, then your thinking and your methods are so off-base, there really is nothing I can say to you that will make any difference.

I just explained to you why none of that matters.

So have fun, dude, but there's no point in going on with you here.

This, just to reiterate, is in response to asking for even one single instance of that expression meaning what you claim to be the mainstream meaning of it, at that point in time.

So let me get this straight. You postulate that X was already meaning Y for everyone, but you can't show even one instance of X being used to mean Y in that language?

Sorry dude, no amount of handwaving will override the need for evidence. We're about 2500 years too late to argue whether the normal rules of logic should apply or the baseless handwaving that seems to be all you can offer. You can ego-wank all you want about what you think is wrong with me if I ask for actual evidence instead of bare-faced ass-pull postulates from you, but no amount of that will reverse the burden of proof.

 

[Piggy]

It makes perfectly good sense to me. I want to see what independent researchers can claim from studying reliable historical documents, and not from clearly unreliable religious sources such as the devotional works of the Gospels and Paul’s' Letters.

I'm not saying that you should read their literature and believe it.

What I'm saying is that if you want to understand anything about the followers of Jesus, studying artifacts that were made by the earliest Christians would be the FIRST thing you should do.

Chief among those artifacts are their writings.

 

[Belz...]

If you had taken my advice and not watched the video, you would not now have this wrong idea stuck in your head.

Oh, so not only should Piggy not watch the video because crank is crank, but everybody else should avoid it, also ? I'm just giving you a summary, and I find it an interesting possibility. I'm trying to not being close-minded and consider both sides of this debate.

However, when we run across correspondence from a group of Jews who say they're followers of an apocalyptic holy man named Jesus who died recently, then historically speaking, the most likely explanation for that claim is that they're followers of an apocalyptic holy man named Jesus who died recently.

It depends, however. How long ago is "recently" ? Because if you die in 30, and people in 110 say you died recently, not a single one of them even has a clue if you existed or not. They've just been told.

Now, I agree that it's quite plausible, but please don't claim that it's the only explanation.

When we discover that they're having to explain away embarrassing facts about this guy, such as his coming from Nazareth, being baptized by John (in light of their claims about him), and his being crucified… and when we consider that there's no precedent for any such literary or religious figure for them to draw on… then that likelihood goes up through the stratosphere.

Again, not necessarily. If they're following a previous version of the myth that raises questions, it still works.

Now, one problem about the scenario you describe above is that Paul already sees Jesus as a human being, born a Jew, born of a woman, born into the Law, flesh and blood, crucified, dead, raised from the dead.

Does he, now ? Carrier doesn't seem to think so.

Moreover, while Paul records many disputes between him and James the Brother of Jesus and the members of the Twelve in Jerusalem, he reports no dispute over this issue with them.

It could also mean the reverse: they all agree he's divine.

Finally, there simply is no tradition to be cited that would support the "Jesus as divine non-human" scenario. What, exactly, does this guy think they were drawing on?

You are aware that new religions do pop up, sometimes.

Keep in mind, these folks didn't say Jesus was some ancient figure. They said he was a contemporary holy man.

Following the destruction of the temple, I'll bet they were.

I don't know of a single instance of any group claiming that they were recently founded, just a few years back, by someone who never existed.

Can you find a precedent for that? Hopefully one somewhere near the time, place, and culture we're discussing?

Is that particularily relevant whether or not I can ?

 

[HansMustermann]

It's no difference at all.

Actually, there is. For WW2 we have a plethora of evidence. We have LOTS of first-hand witness accounts, they're independent accounts, we have contemporary accounts, we have hostile accounts (e.g., sources which aren't trying to build an image where the Nazis are evil; quite the contrary), we have archaeological data (albeit very recent, and some of the buildings are still there), we know exactly who the independent source are, etc. And, yes, we don't have to trust that a source that lied and misled (involving miracles or not) about the 90% we can have an idea about, totally would be truthful about the 10% we can't verify. And most importantly, we have several instances of the criterion of historical necessity applying. E.g., we need it to explain why the heck did the number of Jews in Europe implode in that interval, although in the USA the number of Jews is actually slightly rising, and in Asia it's rising a lot.

When your evidence is on par with THAT, only THEN you can launch into comparisons between those who doubt some bare-faced postulates and those who doubt the amply supported holocaust.

Until THEN what you have is an analogy between those who doubt something amply supported by evidence, and those who doubt something that's missing exactly such evidence. I.e., it's not an analogy at all. It's a lame-ass rationalization.

IF the evidence of the holocaust were nothing except some vague references from just one guy in the 60's, and a book that seems to embellish that, but be unsupported by anything else, in the 80's, etc, and a bunch of guys just going "text X must be true because text X says so," THEN you would have an analogous situation. And yes IF that were the case, and the evidence boiled down to just trusting some uncorroborated source, THEN it would actually be rational to doubt the holocaust.

Again, what makes it impossible to rationally doubt it is the EVIDENCE, not just someone postulating it. No matter what kind of authority or consensus they can hide behind.

 

[Piggy]

Aw, come on, guys. None of us is getting anywhere if all you do is personalise this debate.

There's nothing I can do, Belz.

Hans has proven himself to be a true believer in Jesus Myth, and will endlessly run around picking at straws -- failing to understand that they're immaterial -- and won't accept anything that confronts his pre-determined beliefs, which are based on reading crank lit.

But if you're interested in what we were trying to discuss, probably the most succinct thing I can do is to quote Bernhard Anderson:

The vision of Daniel 7 introduces a motif that became increasingly important in apocalyptic literature: in Aramaic, bar 'abash, literally "a son of man."

Elsewhere in the Old Testament, a comparable expression is sometimes used to refer to "a human being", for instance, in Psalm 8:4….

In the Hebrew the expression translated "son of man" (ben 'adam) really means a mortal person… for "son" is an idiomatic way of referring to a member of a class. Examples of this idiomatic usage are "sons of the prophets"… i.e. a prophetic company, and "sons of God"… namely, the angels in Yahweh's Heavenly Council (Job 1:6). The same expression is frequently used in the book of Ezekiel….

In the apocalypse of Daniel, however, the expression has a special linguistic function in the context of Daniel's vision. Notice, first, that we are dealing with a similitude: "one like" a human being, in contrast to the oppressive empires that are like beasts. And, second, this human-like figure is a heavenly being, one who comes transcendently "with the clouds of heaven" in contrast to the beasts who emerge from the sea, the locus of the powers of chaos. It would be erroneous to literalize the symbolism and think of the offspring ("son") of a man or even a "human one".

In an apocalyptic writing known as the book of Enoch, which is based on a tradition reaching back into a time before the Common Era (first century BCE), there are references to a figure of the end-time, the "Son of Man", who comes to establish God's kingdom (Enoch 46:1, 48:2-10). In the Jewish apocalypse called II Esdras found in the Apocrypha… from the close of the first century BCE, a vision is described in which Ezra sees emerging out of the sea "as it were the likeness of a man" who flies on the clouds of heaven (chap. 13). This figure is understood to be the heavenly agent of God's judgment in the last days. In this messianic sense "Son of Man" or "The Heavenly Being" is often used in the gospels of the New Testament (e.g. Mark 8:31).

So in order to understand what this term means, we have to reconstruct not only the arc of its usage in literature, but also the progression of apocalyptic ideas that go along with that usage.

By the time of Jesus, one could talk of "The Son of Man" as a particular figure of apocalyptic prophecy with a specific role.

So when the early Christians of the first century tell stories in which Jesus speaks of the Son of Man who will come in power, they're talking about this particular apocalyptic figure, using the language of prophetic scripture.

Many early Christians believed that this figure would be Jesus himself. Eventually, that view became dogma.

That's why identifying Jesus as the Son of Man is a much greater claim than saying he was a Son of God.

There were many Sons of God, but there would be only one Son of Man.

 

[tsig]

If you had taken my advice and not watched the video, you would not now have this wrong idea stuck in your head.

No, we're not assuming he was real from the get-go.

However, when we run across correspondence from a group of Jews who say they're followers of an apocalyptic holy man named Jesus who died recently, then historically speaking, the most likely explanation for that claim is that they're followers of an apocalyptic holy man named Jesus who died recently.

That's not problematic. There's no problem to be solved by proposing that they're wrong.

When we discover that they're having to explain away embarrassing facts about this guy, such as his coming from Nazareth, being baptized by John (in light of their claims about him), and his being crucified… and when we consider that there's no precedent for any such literary or religious figure for them to draw on… then that likelihood goes up through the stratosphere.

Now, one problem about the scenario you describe above is that Paul already sees Jesus as a human being, born a Jew, born of a woman, born into the Law, flesh and blood, crucified, dead, raised from the dead. So there couldn't be any conversion of concepts of Jesus from divine to human after Paul, since it must have already happened before Paul.

Moreover, while Paul records many disputes between him and James the Brother of Jesus and the members of the Twelve in Jerusalem, he reports no dispute over this issue with them. (Although he does take issue with some outside the circle of those who knew Jesus.) Which means that it's most likely that they didn't disagree with Paul, which means the earliest Christians thought Jesus was human.

Finally, there simply is no tradition to be cited that would support the "Jesus as divine non-human" scenario. What, exactly, does this guy think they were drawing on? Is he keeping some ancient manuscripts to himself?

Keep in mind, these folks didn't say Jesus was some ancient figure. They said he was a contemporary holy man.

I don't know of a single instance of any group claiming that they were recently founded, just a few years back, by someone who never existed.

Can you find a precedent for that? Hopefully one somewhere near the time, place, and culture we're discussing?

Wow, first you ask for a summary then when you get it you jump on him for giving it to you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm done with you, Hans.

You can rattle on all you want to anyone who will listen, but you don't even understand the questions.

If you're asking this, at this point in the discussion, then your thinking and your methods are so off-base, there really is nothing I can say to you that will make any difference.

I just explained to you why none of that matters.

So have fun, dude, but there's no point in going on with you here.

What evidence do you offer for use of the term in the way you describe? Do you have anything other than your complicated fan-fic? It doesn't matter what you want a term to men, or how you describe its "real" significance; if you cannot demonstrate its usage in that way, all you have is your hope...

 

[Piggy]

It depends, however. How long ago is "recently" ? Because if you die in 30, and people in 110 say you died recently, not a single one of them even has a clue if you existed or not. They've just been told.

The letters date from a time when contemporaries of Jesus, referenced in the letters, still lived, sometime in the middle of the first century.

While it's true that Paul had merely been told that Jesus lived and died and that these Jews were his followers, we have to ask ourselves… why would Paul have been told this?

A. The group to which he converted were, in fact, followers of a holy man called Jesus.

B. There was no Jesus but somehow they believed there was.

C. They were lying.

Option A is mundane and non-problematic.

I know of no plausible scenarios that would allow options B or C.

 

[Piggy]

What evidence do you offer for use of the term in the way you describe? Do you have anything other than your complicated fan-fic? It doesn't matter what you want a term to men, or how you describe its "real" significance; if you cannot demonstrate its usage in that way, all you have is your hope...

See post 1571 above, the citation from Anderson.

 

[Piggy]

Wow, first you ask for a summary then when you get it you jump on him for giving it to you.

Sorry, but the first paragraph of his post got under my collar a bit.

 

[HansMustermann]

Except, again, the Book Of Enoch is really made of several book, one of which is the Book Of Parables. The Book Of Parables is the _only_ one out of Enoch which uses "son of man" as (arguably) a title for the messiah. BUT it actually doesn't seem to be either copied or referenced by any Jews, nor really, anyone writing in Hebrew or Aramaic, and is only found in a Ge'ez (Ethiopic) language manuscript.

You can't just retrofit to Aramaic or the beliefs of Jews, something that is from an entirely different place and an entirely different language.

Your arc of how that term supposedly evolved in either Hebrew or Aramaic (take your pick) goes through a document that just isn't in Hebrew or Aramaic, and (as far as can be supported by actual documents we have) wasn't used or transcribed in the area you talk about at all. And a document (Enoch) which isn't even using it in the sense you claim.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain old bogus.

And no amount of invoking authority or consensus can get over the fact that there is a missing link, and an important one at that: exactly ANY mention AT ALL of that expression or those documents in either Hebrew or Aramaic, from a time before or around the time of Jesus. (MUCH later, some Rabbis do start to argue against the "Son Of Man" point of Xians.)

 

[Piggy]

Again, not necessarily. If they're following a previous version of the myth that raises questions, it still works.

What "previous versions"?

You mean imaginary previous versions of an imaginary myth which is not needed to explain any evidence in the first place?

And if those myths were pre-existing in the rabbinical commentaries, why did they not cite them, and why had all this not been worked out before?

But bottom line, you can't take a non-problem, then propose an unnecessary alternative scenario for that non-problem, then propose utterly lost traditions as evidence for that scenario.

That's not scholarship. Nor is it skeptical.

 

[Piggy]

Except, again, the Book Of Enoch is really made of several book, one of which is the Book Of Parables. The Book Of Parables is the _only_ one out of Enoch which uses "son of man" as (arguably) a title for the messiah. BUT it actually doesn't seem to be either copied or referenced by any Jews, nor really, anyone writing in Hebrew or Aramaic, and is only found in a Ge'ez (Ethiopic) language manuscript.

You can't just retrofit to Aramaic or the beliefs of Jews, something that is from an entirely different place and an entirely different language.

Your arc of how that term supposedly evolved in either Hebrew or Aramaic (take your pick) goes through a document that just isn't in Hebrew or Aramaic, and (as far as can be supported by actual documents we have) wasn't used or transcribed in the area you talk about at all. And a document (Enoch) which isn't even using it in the sense you claim.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain old bogus.

Wow! You know more about it than the profs at Princeton!

You should write them and tell them they don't know diddly.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, it seems to me that you can take ANYTHING where someone just postulated how it must have went, based on no actual evidence, and point out other ways in which it could have gone.

Otherwise we'd still believe in the miasma theory of diseases, or in heliocentrism, or that Moses and Abraham and the exodus are exactly correct. After all, the latter passed merely decades ago for something that only cranks attacked.

 

[IanS]

It's no difference at all.

You might as well say that the fact that they had airplanes makes a huge difference.

Aeroplanes? Well in studies of WW2 you can tell something of the history from the physical remains of crashed planes and other military vehicles, ships etc.

So your analogy is to say that we have such physical remains proving the movement and activities of Jesus? What physical evidence is their of Jesus?

There is absolutely no comparison between the history of recent events like WW2, and what was claimed 2000 years ago in copies of fictional religious writing such as the bible.