What counts as a historical Jesus?

[IanS]

IanS

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.

Do you really want me to take a look at Maximara’s post and comment on what he says?

And is the post you are talking about? -

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.
.
.
.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

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 -

Actually I was quoting what you said about what Craig said.

What you said was, and I quoted you.

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

What you said is false. The sentence does not assume that Jesus exists. That is simply a fact.

I also quoted Craig as stating in an as many words the correct implication of the modal copula "is plausible."

Speaking of modalities, you seem to have your "is plausible" mixed up with your "is possible."

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

Fixed that for you.

It is however, possible for "Jesus existed" to be plausibe for a credal agent even if Jesus never did actually did exist (an uncertainty whose unresolved status we celebrate in this thread). If so, then it may well be the case that, for that agent, "Pilate killed Jesus" is also plausible.

 

[Craig B]

Do you really want me to take a look at Maximara’s post and comment on what he says?

And is the post you are talking about? -

Yes, and yes. It's that post. I'm referring to his 6 point no Jesus scenario.

 

[davefoc]

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. ...

This is the last I'll say about this issue, but I think your point is pointless.

It is plausible that a man named Lincoln was president of the US but only if men named Lincoln exist

Or it is plausible that a man named Lincoln was president of the US only if the US exists.

Get it? When one uses the word plausible one is implying that the proposition is only true if all the elements of the proposition are true.

Craig B's use of the word plausible implies that one of the conditions of the sentence is that the HJ might have existed. The use of the word plausible doesn't constitute a statement that all the elements of the proposition are true it only means that the elements of the proposition might be true.

If you have proof that an HJ didn't exist then you could know that Craig B was wrong because you would know that an HJ didn't exist and therefore one of the elements of his proposition was false. Do you have proof that an HJ didn't exist? If you don't then, what is there to object to about Craig B's statement?

 

[maximara]

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.

This brings up a good point. If one looks at most cults that have an actual founder they tend to be cults of personality and if there isn't anyone to take over when the founder dies then the cult fades into obscurity.

Joseph Smith, Jr. may have founded Mormonism but where would have it gone if there had been no Brigham Young to pick up the pieces? Likely it would have joined many other Restorationism movements that no one even remembers or have such a small membership (couple hundred) that they might as well not exist.

Christianity owes more to Paul then it does to Jesus. Paul actively promoted Christianity. Paul wrote letters back to the communities he visited which likely helped lay the foundation for the Church that would come later.

 

[IanS]

Craig and others - OK, I think I understand why Craig believes his statement is correct, and why several other people here also appear to believe that. The statement is definitely wrong by the way, but I think I may have realised why Craig may genuinely think the statement is OK … right, first, here again is what Craig 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 occurs to me that what Craig may have meant to write was something more like the following -


“ - it is plausible that people (at the time, 2000 years ago) BELIEVED that Jesus was executed by Pilate “


Now, a statement like that would be correct, if that was what Craig actually MEANT to write. Though as shown in Craig’s highlighted quote above, that is NOT what Craig did actually write.

The difference there, is really just that one qualifying word “believed”.


It’s entirely plausible that people in the 2nd century believed that Pilate had executed Jesus. Though of course that just passes the assumption of Jesus’ existence from Craig or anyone here today, to those 2nd century Christians … that is - the statement, even in that form, still requires that whoever thought it “plausible” has to be assuming Jesus existed …. because obviously (though I’ve had to say it here at least 6 times now), you cannot execute people unless they actually exist.

 

[IanS]

This is the last I'll say about this issue, but I think your point is pointless.

It is plausible that a man named Lincoln was president of the US but only if men named Lincoln exist

Or it is plausible that a man named Lincoln was president of the US only if the US exists.

Get it? When one uses the word plausible one is implying that the proposition is only true if all the elements of the proposition are true.

No. Dear oh, lord ...

... look, your example of Lincoln is not comparable. Because we are not trying to dispute whether or not Lincoln existed!

But, in complete contrast, in this thread we are debating whether or not Jesus existed. That has become the entire point of the thread!

If you say, as Craig did, that "it's plausible that Pilate executed Jesus", then that statement most definitely is assuming that Jesus existed before being executed.

And the reason that is most certainly NOT a "pointless" observation is that - if Craig or you or anyone else writes a sentence like, assuming as it must that Jesus exists, but then denying that it assumes Jesus exists, then they are guilty of begging the very question that is under debate here.

 

[The Norseman]

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

I don't know.

Neither does anybody else and that's what tarnishes my silver; we have a lot of speculation that IF everything that everyone seems to guess at is true, Yeshua is a real person. Um... okay. Sounds redundant to me because the whole point is to try and figure out the truth value of each of the individual steps and that's, at this point, completely impossible.

Yet we still get persons posting such certainty. It makes no real difference to me one way or another -- as I've said before, I had the belief that Yeshua was a real flesh and blood person until I read some arguments on JREF that made sense regarding what evidence there truly exists.

Regarding the John Frum idea: sure, it seems to match what little evidence there is, so to me it sounds like a reasonable alternative. You may feel free to focus on my use of "reasonable" versus my complaints of people using "plausible" and equate the two; the difference is that I'm saying I don't know enough to say one way or another. I guess my main point is that I can say that it's plausible that a Yeshua existed, yet it's also plausible that a Yeshua didn't exist and that there's not enough to draw any conclusions.

The reason I'm asking you specifically and others on the historical Yeshua side is that the terms of "more likely" "less likely" and etc. are being bandied about as if there's some kind of assuredness of how these likelihoods were arrived at. To me, it's slightly dishonest to act like they're anything but guesses. I understand that in normal English discourse that these terms are used all the time, even by myself. Of course, this isn't normal English discourse -- this is an attempt at determining truth values of history.

 

[The Norseman]

Since we know that elves don't exist but that persons of very slight stature exist, it's more likely that when the word "elf" is used, it is meant a "little person". Since we also know that people can very easily survive cold climates, it's reasonable to think that a people can survive at the North Pole. Of course, they couldn't really mean the real pole at the northern apex of the Earth; however, it's reasonable to conclude that since Canada is climatologically and geographically similar enough to the North Pole, that the early writers meant Canada. Everyone knows that reindeer are real animals and have been used for centuries as pack animals.

Thus, it's quite probable that Santa Claus was a real person based on historical records.

 

[Craig B]

Thus, it's quite probable that Santa Claus was a real person based on historical records.

Yes because Paul tells us he met his brother Jacob Claus in Jerusalem.

 

[The Norseman]

Yes because Paul tells us he met his brother Jacob Claus in Jerusalem.

Thanks for making me smile in a decidedly serious thread!

 

[Belz...]

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?

...or that the Messiah was not a liberator, that you don't actually need to do good works to be saved but only believe in Jesus, etc.

 

[Belz...]

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.

I think you're using a definition of "plausible" that no one here is sharing with you.

It's plausible in the sense that it is a believable scenario, irrespective of Jesus' existence. Also saying that, Craig said isn't assuming anything, it's conditional.

I think you're just hammering on this point for no reason, and are bogging down the thread in a pointless exercise. We all know what Craig meant.

 

[IanS]

Do you really want me to take a look at Maximara’s post and comment on what he says?

And is the post you are talking about? -

Yes, and yes. It's that post. I'm referring to his 6 point no Jesus scenario.

OK, so this post (below), right? ...

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.

OK, well the first thing to say is that I have not really followed what Maximara has had to say about someone called John Frum (who I’d never heard of before Maximara mentioned him very much earlier in the thread).

However, that said … what Max has above sounds rather like the myth theory advanced in the book by Ellegard.

That book is extremely useful, not for it's actual specific myth theory, which actually does not occupy much of the book in fact, but more for what it explains about the inadequacies and failings of the gospels, Paul’s Letters, and various early writing such as Clement etc. It's also very detailed, very carefully written, and massively referenced, as you might expect from a retiring univ. professor of English.

Though reading that book, I truly formed no opinion either way on whether Ellegard’s theory was likely or not. Basically Ellegard says that Jesus may have actually been the so-called Teacher of Righteousness described briefly in the Dead Sea Scrolls (described always in code lol), who “lived” 100 years or so before Paul’s’ vision of Jesus as the messiah.

That does seem to be similar to the six points from Max above. But I don’t want to say much more on each of Maximara’s points, because as is said, that seems to be much like Ellegard’s theory where despite reading it all quite carefully, I never really thought it explained a great deal about how Jesus was associated with the Teacher of Righteousness, though it did explain a great deal about why the gospels, Paul’s letters and the early non-biblical writing cannot be taken a reliable sources of historical fact about Jesus.

I put “lived” in quotes above, because in fact if you read more about the DSS, you find that it’s far from clear that their Teacher of Righteousness was actually believed to be a current living priest … he may have actually been a priestly figure, real or mythical, from many centuries in the distant past (eg as far back as 500BC or so).

But more than that, I personally don’t have any specific myth theory. And I’m not saying that I think Jesus was mythical. He may have been. But the actual problem is that it seems there is really no genuine evidence of his existence.

 

[eight bits]

Quoting Craig from post #3634, but offered generally

However, there are also James and John, whom Paul met too, and people who came from James, and James pronouncing on doctrinal matters, and a community of "saints" or "poor" in Jerusalem whom Paul considered so important that he collected money on their behalf. So it's more than simply Peter (or Cephas).

I agree. Before we completely leave Galatians, there is another doubtful identification that may be even more crucial than Cephas-Peter to the sense that Paul "wrote that he met somebody who met Jesus," the frayed thread upon which Jesus' historicity hangs.

That is, James-the-Lord's-Brother (1: 19) and Just-plain-James, of the trio John, Cephas and James (2: 9). Mark distinguishes James of the trio (for example, at the recruitment, transfiguration and agony on the garden) from James the brother (6: 3). Why are we lumping them together? Perhaps Paul's point of tacking an epithet onto the James whom Paul "saw" for an unspecified interval when he was visitng Cephas for two weeks (Paul does not mention ever conferring with that James) was to distinguish him from the other James for the benefit of first readers who'd wonder which one he meant.

This is important, because Piggy's case that "brother" should be taken literally emphasizes the alleged importance of the "brother." But if he isn't the guy Paul shook hands with, and even that guy doesn't intimidate Cephas, but rather Cephas fears the anonymous people whom that James sent to Antioch for no specified purpose, then how important is James-the-Lord's-Brother in the movement?

Paul doesn't say. Like a lot of other things.

 

[IanS]

I think you're using a definition of "plausible" that no one here is sharing with you.

It's plausible in the sense that it is a believable scenario, irrespective of Jesus' existence. Also saying that, Craig said isn't assuming anything, it's conditional.

I think you're just hammering on this point for no reason, and are bogging down the thread in a pointless exercise. We all know what Craig meant.

OK, then we simply disagree about it. Lets leave it at that.

Though, when you say "we all knew what he meant", I actually did not know that he meant something quite different from what he actually wrote. And in fact, I'm still far from clear that he did mean anything other than that he thought/thinks we should assume Jesus was real and was probably executed by Pilate.

 

[Belz...]

Though, when you say "we all knew what he meant", I actually did not know that he meant something quite different from what he actually wrote.

That's because your Casual Language Interpretation Module (CLIM) is probably in need of a tune up.

 

[IanS]

That's because your Casual Language Interpretation Module (CLIM) is probably in need of a tune up.

Ha, ha ... well, yeah maybe.

 

[maximara]

OK, well the first thing to say is that I have not really followed what Maximara has had to say about someone called John Frum (who I’d never heard of before Maximara mentioned him very much earlier in the thread).

However, that said … what Max has above sounds rather like the myth theory advanced in the book by Ellegard.

That book is extremely useful, not for it's actual specific myth theory, which actually does not occupy much of the book in fact, but more for what it explains about the inadequacies and failings of the gospels, Paul’s Letters, and various early writing such as Clement etc. It's also very detailed, very carefully written, and massively referenced, as you might expect from a retiring univ. professor of English.

Though reading that book, I truly formed no opinion either way on whether Ellegard’s theory was likely or not. Basically Ellegard says that Jesus may have actually been the so-called Teacher of Righteousness described briefly in the Dead Sea Scrolls (described always in code lol), who “lived” 100 years or so before Paul’s’ vision of Jesus as the messiah.

That does seem to be similar to the six points from Max above. But I don’t want to say much more on each of Maximara’s points, because as is said, that seems to be much like Ellegard’s theory where despite reading it all quite carefully, I never really thought it explained a great deal about how Jesus was associated with the Teacher of Righteousness, though it did explain a great deal about why the gospels, Paul’s letters and the early non-biblical writing cannot be taken a reliable sources of historical fact about Jesus.

I put “lived” in quotes above, because in fact if you read more about the DSS, you find that it’s far from clear that their Teacher of Righteousness was actually believed to be a current living priest … he may have actually been a priestly figure, real or mythical, from many centuries in the distant past (eg as far back as 500BC or so).

But more than that, I personally don’t have any specific myth theory. And I’m not saying that I think Jesus was mythical. He may have been. But the actual problem is that it seems there is really no genuine evidence of his existence.

This may surprise you but Ellegard isn't really doing anything new.

In 1903 (110 years ago) G. R. S. Mead wrote Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? which was based on "the Talmud Jesus Stories, the Toldoth Jeschu, and Some Curious Statements of Epiphanius".

"In the Jewish life of Jesus, entitled Sepher Toldos Jeschut probably of the second century, the birth of Jesus is placed under the king of Judaea, Alexander Jannaeus, about the time of Sylla's dictature." ((1827) The Correspondent - Volume 1 - Page 82)

"The Jewish history-writers say that Joshua ben Perachiah was the teacher of Yeshu ha-Notzri [the Nazarene], according to which the latter lived in the day of King Janni [Jannaeus]; the history-writers of the other nations, however, say that he was born in the days of Herod and was hanged in the days of his son Archelaus. This is a great difference, a difference of more than 110 years." (Abraham ben Daud 12th century)

I have already produced an insane amount of people who admit Epiphanius does indead state "For with the advent of the Christ, the succession of the princes from Judah, who reigned until the Christ Himself, ceased. The order [of succession] failed and stopped at the time when He was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Alexander, who was of high-priestly and royal race" (Mead's version of the passage in question) though elsewhere Epiphanius firmly puts Jesus in the 1st century AD.

The question I have repeatedly asked and no one has really addressed is if Jesus was such a well documented figure where was this idea he lived and was crucified under Alexander Jannaeus coming from?

 

[Craig B]

This may surprise you but Ellegard isn't really doing anything new.

In 1903 (110 years ago) G. R. S. Mead wrote Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? which was based on "the Talmud Jesus Stories, the Toldoth Jeschu, and Some Curious Statements of Epiphanius". <snip> The question I have repeatedly asked and no one has really addressed is if Jesus was such a well documented figure where was this idea he lived and was crucified under Alexander Jannaeus coming from?

It comes from Theosophist writers active well over a hundred years ago. Yes as you admit here, Epiphanius did indeed have an orthodox 1st century view of Jesus' chronology. This was all discussed in a previous thread, and it was dealt with admirably by eight bits at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8807646&postcount=106 . The suggestion that Epiphanius also favoured an earlier date is derived from a misreading of an obscure passage, and the sources you cited include Blavatsky and other Theosophist lunatics and charlatans. We do not need to go through all this again. Among these sources you include (and it is a Theosophist favourite) the Toledot Yeshu. For this see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu

The date of composition cannot be ascertained with certainty, but the earliest source is unlikely to be prior the 4th century, far too late to include authentic remembrances of Jesus. For instance, the Toledot refers to Christian festivals and observances that only originated after the 4th century ...
Some scholars claim that the source material is no earlier than the 6th century, and the compilation no earlier than the 9th century ... The source material for the Toledot can be said to derive from four sources: (1)Jewish rabbinic literature; (2)canonical Christian scriptures; (3)noncanonical Christian writings; (4)non-Jewish anti-Christian writings of the Roman period.
The largest source of input to the Toledot seems to be anecdotes gathered from various parts of the Talmud and Midrash ... In some instances, the Talmudic source of the Toledot is very obscure or of doubtful authenticity, and may not originally have been relevant to Jesus.

In short, this material is worthless.