What counts as a historical Jesus?

[IanS]

Pity. Obviously there's no point in my addressing you any further, except to refer you to the free dictionary website: You will observe that "definitely existing" is not an element of these definitions. I assert that the Pilate crucifixion story is apparently reasonable, that's all. Therefore it requires less evidence in its support than, say, the virgin birth in Bethlehem.

Dear me. Craig - that definition is not at all relevant here.

Look, what you said was this -

Yes it is plausible whether it happened or not.
.
.
.
- It is plausible that Jesus was executed by Pilate, since Pilate was a murderous tyrant given to the practice of executing people. .

That highlighted statement of yours is simply wrong unless Jesus existed (it assumes Jesus existed).

If Jesus did not exist then it is most definitely NOT "plausible" that Pilate or anyone else executed him.

I'm not trying to be unkind or anything like that. I just don't want you thinking that it's OK for you start building ideas on an error like that. Because you’ll just end up completely deceiving yourself.

 

[Craig B]

Dear me. Craig - that definition is not at all relevant here.

I agree that definitions are not relevant to your approach to this discussion.

 

[IanS]

What's the mainstream view consensus on Peter/Cephas/Simon Peter, since Piggy insists we must worship @ their alter?

If those three are not the same guy then it seems another strike against an HJ to me.

If the early church was unsure about HJ's chief flunky (or second flunky since James seems to have authority over Cephas) then the whole foundation has started crumbling.

I don't know about confusions over Peter/Cephas/Simon, (because I haven't checked on those names recently). But there is definitely a gospel confusion over various people named James (as well as numerous people called Mary). I described that James confusion much earlier in the thread.

 

[IanS]

I agree that definitions are not relevant to your approach to this discussion.

I was trying to help you. As well as being polite about it.

 

[Craig B]

I was trying to help you. As well as being polite about it.

Yes I know. As you said:

I'm not trying to be unkind or anything like that. I just don't want you thinking that it's OK for you start building ideas on an error like that. Because you’ll just end up completely deceiving yourself.

 

[Stone]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...cess-maurice-casey/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Could you give us some idea about why this article has anything to do with the historicity of Jesus?

Your question isn't serious, is it? THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE SNAKE OIL SPEWED OUT BY THE MYTHICISTS. READ IT.

And, BTW, I don't appreciate the obvious snarky snides you spew out in Piggy's direction all the time.

Stone

 

[pakeha]

Your question isn't serious, is it? THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE SNAKE OIL SPEWED OUT BY THE MYTHICISTS. READ IT.

And, BTW, I don't appreciate the obvious snarky snides you spew out in Piggy's direction all the time.

Stone

And my question remains unanswered- what does that article have to do with this thread?
As for my deep admiration for Piggy's most interesting posts on Paul's letters, the fact you choose to see it as 'snarky snides' says a lot.
None of it good.

 

[Brainache]

Dear me. Craig - that definition is not at all relevant here.

Look, what you said was this -






That highlighted statement of yours is simply wrong unless Jesus existed (it assumes Jesus existed).

If Jesus did not exist then it is most definitely NOT "plausible" that Pilate or anyone else executed him.

I'm not trying to be unkind or anything like that. I just don't want you thinking that it's OK for you start building ideas on an error like that. Because you’ll just end up completely deceiving yourself.

Until someone comes up with a plausible explanation for a no-Jesus scenario, the idea that the stories were based on a human being is the winner of any plausibility contest.

I know Richard Carrier is working on something, but he hasn't convinced me yet.

 

[Brainache]

And my question remains unanswered- what does that article have to do with this thread?
As for my deep admiration for Piggy's most interesting posts on Paul's letters, the fact you choose to see it as 'snarky snides' says a lot.
None of it good.

I guess you could say it was relevant to the side tangent of emotional rhetoric that keeps popping up throughout the thread...

 

[davefoc]

I was trying to help you. As well as being polite about it.

I hesitate to be critical IanS but it does seem like in this semantic dispute with Craig B, you are just wrong.

Unless you can present evidence that Pilate wasn't involved in the crucifixion of Jesus then it is plausible that he was. That is just the black letter definition of plausible.

It wouldn't be plausible if you could show that Pilate didn't exist or that some other aspect of the claim was impossible. But so far nobody that I have noticed has done that so based on the current state of evidence presented in this thread it is plausible that Pilate was involved with the crucifixion of Jesus.

On a different aspect of the discussion between you and Craig B, I don't think the claim that Pilate was involved in the crucifixion of Jesus should be included as a requirement for the HJ. This is just a definitional distinction, but it is difficult to discern what is true and what isn't true in Mark without corroboration and a great deal of the narrative surrounding the trial and crucifixion seems like it might have just been made up. Isn't it possible that there was an HJ but that Pilate played no role in this crucifixion other than he happened to be the procurator when it happened?

FWIW, if evidence of an HJ surfaces that doesn't even include a crucifixion at all I'm still taking credit for a correct prediction that an HJ existed. Although, given my view that the chances that an HJ existed has dropped into the 50/50 range now I won't deserve much credit. Alas I have dropped even more solidly into crank land on the Piggy scale since this thread began.

 

[Craig B]

... Isn't it possible that there was an HJ but that Pilate played no role in this crucifixion other than he happened to be the procurator when it happened?

(Or indeed Prefect.) I'll accept that. What I mean is if there was no Jesus preaching and executed in Pilate's time, and it was all concocted from stories adhering to the names of Jeshua b Pandera or b Stada or b Damneus or b Ananias or other persons living at various times, then there is no historical Jesus. That is my definition, as you have noted.

 

[pakeha]

I guess you could say it was relevant to the side tangent of emotional rhetoric that keeps popping up throughout the thread...

Yes.
But I consider how annoyed I am when some well-meaning amateur pontificates about my profession, I can sympathise with some of the rants.
But I try to keep breathing and remember if the WMA thinks that, it's only because the subject has been improperly taught and subject to academic/intellectual abuse.

The importance of remembering to keep breathing can't be over-estimated when dealing with outsiders looking in on one's field of expertise!

 

[calebprime]

And my question remains unanswered- what does that article have to do with this thread?
As for my deep admiration for Piggy's most interesting posts on Paul's letters, the fact you choose to see it as 'snarky snides' says a lot.
None of it good.

1) The article is relevant. I've been reading it and the snarky exchanges that follow.

2) You've been appreciative of Piggy's contribution. Maybe Stone has you confused with someone else, or there's some other misunderstanding.

 

[The Norseman]

Your question isn't serious, is it? THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE SNAKE OIL SPEWED OUT BY THE MYTHICISTS. READ IT.

And, BTW, I don't appreciate the obvious snarky snides you spew out in Piggy's direction all the time.

Stone

You said earlier that you were in the exact same position that Piggy is in. All you need to do is pony up the evidence since Piggy is only interested in assuming that Yeshua existed and claiming that the evidence points to Yeshua existing.

 

[pakeha]

1) The article is relevant. ...

I couldn't see any relevance, calebprime, just contempt and insults towards those who think differently than the author about a given person.
Could you point me in the right direction?
I'm off to re-read the thing again.

 

[The Norseman]

I hesitate to be critical IanS but it does seem like in this semantic dispute with Craig B, you are just wrong.

Unless you can present evidence that Pilate wasn't involved in the crucifixion of Jesus then it is plausible that he was. That is just the black letter definition of plausible.

It wouldn't be plausible if you could show that Pilate didn't exist or that some other aspect of the claim was impossible. But so far nobody that I have noticed has done that so based on the current state of evidence presented in this thread it is plausible that Pilate was involved with the crucifixion of Jesus.

On a different aspect of the discussion between you and Craig B, I don't think the claim that Pilate was involved in the crucifixion of Jesus should be included as a requirement for the HJ. This is just a definitional distinction, but it is difficult to discern what is true and what isn't true in Mark without corroboration and a great deal of the narrative surrounding the trial and crucifixion seems like it might have just been made up. Isn't it possible that there was an HJ but that Pilate played no role in this crucifixion other than he happened to be the procurator when it happened?

FWIW, if evidence of an HJ surfaces that doesn't even include a crucifixion at all I'm still taking credit for a correct prediction that an HJ existed. Although, given my view that the chances that an HJ existed has dropped into the 50/50 range now I won't deserve much credit. Alas I have dropped even more solidly into crank land on the Piggy scale since this thread began.

Yeah? Plausible? No one wants to discuss the FACT that it takes only one error on any one of these plausibilities and the whole thing crumbles. The thing is that NO ONE knows. It's the only honest response.

 

[Craig B]

Yeah? Plausible? No one wants to discuss the FACT that it takes only one error on any one of these plausibilities and the whole thing crumbles. The thing is that NO ONE knows. It's the only honest response.

That is true of many historical issues. No one knows anything absolutely, but the probability of a statement being true can be assessed.

 

[Belz...]

I hesitate to be critical IanS but it does seem like in this semantic dispute with Craig B, you are just wrong.

Unless you can present evidence that Pilate wasn't involved in the crucifixion of Jesus then it is plausible that he was. That is just the black letter definition of plausible.

Ian's point is that it IS plausible, but only within the set of scenarios in which Jesus actually existed.

 

[davefoc]

Ian's point is that it IS plausible, but only within the set of scenarios in which Jesus actually existed.

OK, I stand corrected. IanS is correct, it is plausible.

 

[davefoc]

1) The article is relevant. I've been reading it and the snarky exchanges that follow.

...

I read through some of the exchanges also.

I had mixed feelings about how relevant the article was. It starts off with a slam that seems to be fairly common fare from some people who think the historicity of Jesus is a given. I suppose it's human nature to try to characterize everybody that disagrees with you as belonging to one wacko group or another. I'm not sure exactly how relevant that is to this thread, it seems like there's been a lot of that already in this thread and I don't think it has done much to inform or convince people of a particular view.

Then the article proceeds to rip into people who have published works that questioned the existence of an HJ. Which might be relevant except that many of the specific arguments addressed haven't been put forth in this thread. In particular, Doherty's views that Paul wasn't talking about a real human being have been discounted if they have been discussed at all.

I have wondered a bit about why this topic leads to the degree of animus it seems to. Obviously it is going to lead to emotional disagreements between the religious and the non religious but it seems to pretty good at producing emotional disagreements between people that are non-religious but that have different opinions relating to the historicity of Jesus.

One thing, I have made note of is the massive amount of time that some people have spent trying to tease what truth is available out of Gospels to discover the nature of the HJ. That group has a pretty strong opinion that their approach has managed to find truth. The other group just looks at the Gospels and says it looks like fiction and there is no way to sort the truth out of it so that whatever is derived out of the massive efforts to find the truth within the Gospels can not succeed.

I have a sort of middle of the road view about this. On the one hand I think it is very likely that the detailed analysis of the Gospels has identified some truths with regard to what is original and what was added and even sometimes to what was removed. The problem, is that when the process of searching for truth in the Gospels has gone about as far as possible one is still left with uncorroborated information or information corroborated only with Paul's epistles and of course Paul's epistles directly or indirectly could have been used as a source for the Gospel's or there could have been a common source for both that wasn't true.

In the end, a guess that some things in Paul might be true is about all that can be known and has many others have noted this at best isn't something that proves the historicity of Jesus.