What counts as a historical Jesus?

[The Norseman]

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

Okay, that's fine. How were these probabilities produced? Based on what? What weight was given what information based on what reliability? What corroboration is given to what information?

 

[maximara]

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.

But as I have repeatedly pointed out there already is a plausible explanation for a no-Jesus scenario: the cargo cult to John Frum model.

"Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not reliably attested, we can see the whole course of events laid out before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost). It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much the same way, and spread initially at the same high speed." (Dawkins The God Delusion chapter 5)

"In particular, they suggest four lessons about the origin of religions generally, and I'll set them out briefly here. First is the amazing speed with which a cult can spring up. Second is the speed with which the origination process covers its tracks. John Frum, if he existed at all, did so within living memory. Yet, even for so recent a possibility, it is not certain whether he lived at all. The third lesson springs from the independent emergence of similar cults on different islands. The systematic study of these similarities can tell us something about human psychology and its susceptibility to religion. Fourth, the cargo cults are similar, not just to each other but to older religions. Christianity and other ancient religions that have spread worldwide presumably began as local cults like that of John Frum." (Dawkins The God Delusion chapter 5)

So the basic no-Jesus scenario is:

1) a "Christ" cult forms c100 BC out of the story of the Teacher of Righteousness. It doesn't attract too much attention as the membership is small and the members are relatively quiet.

2) Several people try to be this "Christ" all of whom are dismal failures.

3) Several "Christ" cults hear the name "Jesus" and proclaim him as their founder. What "Jesus" actually taught or if he even existed doesn't matter to them.

3) Paul persecutes several of these "Jesus" Christ cults and then has his vision. Through his teachings pushes one particular version of the "Jesus" "Christ" cult denouncing all others in 2 Corinthians 11:4.

4) Mark (70-85 CE) is written and becomes so popular that it become the to go to work for the life of "Jesus".

5) Marcian collects all the then known letters of Paul and adds one of the derivatives of Mark, "Luke" to his work creating the first Christian bible (c140). It goes over like a lead balloon but gets many of the cults to go and try their hand at hammering out a bible of their own.

6) The Paul "Christ" cult hammers out its definitive canon by c180 and due to its spread is the version of Christianity adopted by the Empire leaving all other to either be persecuted or drift off into obscurity.

 

[davefoc]

....

If I was guessing, I think a somewhat more likely version of your scenario is that the "Christ "cult doesn't get going until roughly around the time of the hypothetical death of Jesus but that some of the Teacher of Righteousness stuff makes it into the mix.

As an aside for most of this thread I've looked upon the John Frum stuff as not particularly relevant. I suppose because I thought there was plenty of evidence that groups can form false beliefs readily and it wasn't necessary to provide further proof of that. I've changed my mind a bit on that. It seems like the John Frum stuff provides such a good example of a group developed false belief that is so similar to what might have happened with regard to Christianity that it provides a very good counter to the argument that Christianity needed a real HJ to get going.

There is another argument that is similar. Christianity did get going with either nobody or almost nobody that was promoting the religion having had direct contact with Jesus or people that are claimed to have had personal knowledge of Jesus. Given that, what makes the existence of an HJ so necessary to the founding of Christianity? Almost nobody that was doing the early promotion of the religion could tell whether an HJ had existed or not.

 

[grahbudd]

*pops in to see what is happening*...oh. I see.

 

[Craig B]

Okay, that's fine. How were these probabilities produced? Based on what? What weight was given what information based on what reliability? What corroboration is given to what information?

If you have any skills in such matters yourself, perhaps you could apply them to Maximara's scenario, as follows:

1) a "Christ" cult forms c100 BC out of the story of the Teacher of Righteousness. It doesn't attract too much attention as the membership is small and the members are relatively quiet.
2) Several people try to be this "Christ" all of whom are dismal failures.
3) Several "Christ" cults hear the name "Jesus" and proclaim him as their founder. What "Jesus" actually taught or if he even existed doesn't matter to them.
3) Paul persecutes several of these "Jesus" Christ cults and then has his vision. Through his teachings pushes one particular version of the "Jesus" "Christ" cult denouncing all others in 2 Corinthians 11:4.
4) Mark (70-85 CE) is written and becomes so popular that it become the to go to work for the life of "Jesus".
5) Marcian collects all the then known letters of Paul and adds one of the derivatives of Mark, "Luke" to his work creating the first Christian bible (c140). It goes over like a lead balloon but gets many of the cults to go and try their hand at hammering out a bible of their own.
6) The Paul "Christ" cult hammers out its definitive canon by c180 and due to its spread is the version of Christianity adopted by the Empire leaving all other to either be persecuted or drift off into obscurity.

I would really like to see an opinion on the probability of the suggestions in the above list.

Here, by the way, is Dawkins, who appears to consider the hypothesis of an HJ to be a reasonable one, supported by most commentators.

It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist? Although Jesus probably existed.

(The God Delusion, p.122) Hitchens in God is Not Great even states (p 118) that Jesus believed himself to be God, or the Son of God, which is doubtful in my view, unless he was nuts. But Hitchens believed Jesus existed.

 

[IanS]

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.

What? Don’t tell me you don’t understand it either lol.

Look, here is what Craig actually wrote (again!), in your post you left out the one crucial line that Craig wrote (which I had actually highlighted!), here it is with the highlight (see Craig's quote below) -

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..

.

Neither Pilate nor anyone else can execute Jesus if Jesus did not exist.

When Craig says “ It is plausible that Jesus was executed by Pilate “, that is only “plausible” if Jesus existed. Craigs sentence assumes Jesus exists …

…. how much clearer does that have to be??

 

[Craig B]

What? Don’t tell me you don’t understand it either lol.

Look, here is what Craig actually wrote (again!), in your post you left out the one crucial line that Craig wrote (which I had actually highlighted!), here it is with the highlight (see Craig's quote below) -

Neither Pilate nor anyone else can execute Jesus if Jesus did not exist.

When Craig says “ It is plausible that Jesus was executed by Pilate “, that is only “plausible” if Jesus existed. Craigs sentence assumes Jesus exists …

…. how much clearer does that have to be??

You have seen the definition of plausible. You reject definitions as irrelevant. Then you produce statements containing your own implicit definition, and simply repeat them again and again. No matter how clear you make it I still disagree.

 

[IanS]

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.

No! Good God, this becoming ridiculous lol.

Look, Craig said 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 highlight says Pilate could have executed Jesus. Right?

OK, so here is the question then - how could Pilate execute Jesus if Jesus never existed?

Or does that highlighted sentence from Craig require Jesus to exist?


You cannot execute people who don't exist!! That is most definitely NOT “plausible”!

 

[IanS]

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.

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

Hallelujah! Thank you Belz … at last someone can read English lol (that’s a joke, I’m not having a dig at Craig, Brainache, or Dave) …


Dave - just to be clear about this - and in fact we do need to be crystal clear on this (why? See footnote) - it is only plausible for anyone to say “Pilate could have executed Jesus”, if they are automatically and subconsciously assuming that Jesus existed in the first place … You Cannot Execute People Who Don’t Exist”

IOW - Craig’s statement is “plausible” … But ONLY if he first assumed that Jesus must have existed.


Footnote - the reason Craig’s error (it is an error) is worrying (and not as you suggested merely "semantics"), is because it suggests that he does not realise that he is automatically, and subconsciously, assuming all the while that Jesus definitely existed.

If you cannot tell that your thinking is automatically making an assumption like that all the time, then you are never going to be able to make an objective assessment of evidence which may show Jesus did not in fact exist … because your thinking has already insisted to you that he did exist, and you are making that a subconscious “fact” to the extent that you cannot see when you are doing it.

That may be the explanation for why people in HJ threads like this, where they already believe in a real Jesus, can never see why what is presented as “evidence” for Jesus, is in fact NOT evidence of Jesus at all … it’s invariably only evidence of peoples ancient beliefs in Jesus, but it is most definitely not evidence that their beliefs were ever true … you could have real evidence of Jesus, that would be perfectly possible, but peoples ancient religious beliefs are not in themselves evidence of a real Jesus.

However just to underline that point again - if people are repeatedly unable to see that their thinking is automatically leading them to assume Jesus was real, then that is a huge drain on anyone's ability to make a truly objective assessment of whatever is being presented to them as evidence for or against the existence of Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

IanS

Please see my #3632, and set your troubled mind at rest.

So to the question: why did Jesus' later followers believe he had been executed by Pilate? I think the most plausible (see definition of this term above) answer is that it really happened. That is not of course the most plausible explanation, by contrast, of why some of them believed he had been born to a virgin mother. Now, if indeed Paul also said Jesus had been executed by Pilate, why there is the very pre Markan text we have been looking for!

Now, there were later followers of Jesus, yes? Their belief system included this element: Jesus had recently existed on Earth, and had been executed by Pilate. Now, to the question, why did they believe these things? I suggest that they did so, because the things - existence of Jesus, and manner of his death - are quite probably true. And if (if) they are true, then they could have been remembered long enough to end up in the gospel accounts. OK?

By the way, are you able to comment on Maximara's "scenario" from the point of view of probability? I would like to see the result of your meditations on that topic. I've asked The Norseman for his views on it too.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

When Craig says “ It is plausible that Jesus was executed by Pilate “, that is only “plausible” if Jesus existed. Craigs sentence assumes Jesus exists …

No. The sentence implies that it is plausible (to the speaker) that Jesus existed, not that Jesus actually existed, nor that the speaker assumes that Jesus actually existed.

And sure enough, there's Craig's premise

...I think the most plausible (see definition of this term above) answer is that it really happened. ...

Perhaps you disagree about the plausibility of Jesus' existence, but that is no impediment to other posters saying what they think. When they do, you may object, but you mayn't tack stronger positions onto them than what they have actually committed themselves to; straw men and all that.

 

[Belz...]

I had a thought about Piggy's argument that a no-Jesus scenario is in part unlikely because it would be unprecedented in that area.

But wasn't the success of Christianity due to the very fact that it was new and unique ? And appealing and less restrictive.

 

[Belz...]

Here, by the way, is Dawkins, who appears to consider the hypothesis of an HJ to be a reasonable one, supported by most commentators.

Of course he does. Don't we all ? I think it's more probable, too. But "more probable" doesn't give us the answer "was there a historical Jesus". If you want to conclude "yes" from "it's more probable than not", be my guest, but I won't. The truth is that we don't know.

 

[Belz...]

Hallelujah! Thank you Belz … at last someone can read English lol (that’s a joke, I’m not having a dig at Craig, Brainache, or Dave) …

Of course you are.

 

[Brainache]

I had a thought about Piggy's argument that a no-Jesus scenario is in part unlikely because it would be unprecedented in that area.

But wasn't the success of Christianity due to the very fact that it was new and unique ? And appealing and less restrictive.

But at the time we are talking about, it was just another form of Judaism, not particularly unique. I think what would be an unprecedented radical departure is the concept of a Messiah who was anything other than a flesh and blood human. An idea like that would have generated a lot of controversy, wouldn't it?

 

[Craig B]

... If you want to conclude "yes" from "it's more probable than not", be my guest, but I won't. The truth is that we don't know.

I don't insist Jesus existed. I merely think it's more probable than not that he did.

 

[IanS]

IanS


No. The sentence implies that it is plausible (to the speaker) that Jesus existed, not that Jesus actually existed, nor that the speaker assumes that Jesus actually existed.

And sure enough, there's Craig's premise


Perhaps you disagree about the plausibility of Jesus' existence, but that is no impediment to other posters saying what they think. When they do, you may object, but you mayn't tack stronger positions onto them than what they have actually committed themselves to; straw men and all that.

Nope. You are wrong. You are assuming that Craig meant something different from what his sentence actually said. But here for the 6th or 7th time is what he actually said -

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. .

It is most definitely NOT plausible for Pilate to execute Jesus, unless Jesus actually existed.

And Craig can only think that is plausible, if he is already assuming Jesus existed.

 

[Craig B]

... And Craig can only think that is plausible, if he is already assuming Jesus existed.

Here's a deal. If you don't tell me what I can think, I will not presume to tell you what you can think.

 

[IanS]

IanS

Please see my #3632, and set your troubled mind at rest.

So to the question: why did Jesus' later followers believe he had been executed by Pilate? I think the most plausible (see definition of this term above) answer is that it really happened. That is not of course the most plausible explanation, by contrast, of why some of them believed he had been born to a virgin mother. Now, if indeed Paul also said Jesus had been executed by Pilate, why there is the very pre Markan text we have been looking for!

Now, there were later followers of Jesus, yes? Their belief system included this element: Jesus had recently existed on Earth, and had been executed by Pilate. Now, to the question, why did they believe these things? I suggest that they did so, because the things - existence of Jesus, and manner of his death - are quite probably true. And if (if) they are true, then they could have been remembered long enough to end up in the gospel accounts. OK?

By the way, are you able to comment on Maximara's "scenario" from the point of view of probability? I would like to see the result of your meditations on that topic. I've asked The Norseman for his views on it too.

Craig, none of the above changes the error at all. It’s simply a mistake for you to say “ it’s plausible that Pilate executed Jesus “, unless you are assuming that Jesus existed.

Pilate cannot execute people that don’t exist. Do you understand that point, or not?

If you look at your above quote, you will see that you are in fact assuming that Jesus existed! Look at the highlighted parts for example. The worrying thing is that you do not seem to realise that you are assuming his existence before making the comment about Pilate being the “plausible” executioner etc.

However, leaving that aside, re. Maximara’s post on “probability” - I Haven’t read his post, but if you genuinely want my opinion on whatever Maximara wrote there, then I’ll take a look at it.

 

[IanS]

It is most definitely NOT plausible for Pilate to execute Jesus, unless Jesus actually existed.

And Craig can only think that is plausible, if he is already assuming Jesus existed.

Here's a deal. If you don't tell me what I can think, I will not presume to tell you what you can think.

That quote is not telling to you what to think. The quotes says IF you think Pilate plausibly executed Jesus, then that can only happen if you are assuming Jesus already existed ... you can't executed people who don't exist.