What counts as a historical Jesus?

[IanS]

Yes, that's what I said: the miraculous nature of the character is secondary at best.

No. You were saying that Jesus is comparable to the Roman Emperors in so far as they were also claimed to produce miracles, but were nevertheless real people.

But as I explained above, that is utterly and completely wrong. The Jesus story is most definitely NOT comparable to that of the Roman emperors.

If you want comparable stories of miraculous figures, then you have to look more towards the stories of various pre-biblical gods.

But I agree we have been all round this stuff far too much now. So ...

... did anyone find any real evidence of Jesus yet?

 

[Belz...]

No. You were saying that Jesus is comparable to the Roman Emperors in so far as they were also claimed to produce miracles, but were nevertheless real people.

Only insofar as the miraculous is not evidence of non-existence.

 

[smartcooky]

The assertion that Jesus was regularly producing miracles says as much about the reader as the text.

Really?

Well this lot says a lot about both the text and the readers then doesn't it?

► changed water into wine (John 2:1-11).
► cured the nobleman's son (John 4:46-47).
► he great haul of fishes (Luke 5:1-11).
► cast out an unclean spirit (Mark 1:23-28).
► cured Peter's mother-in-law of a fever (Mark 1:30-31).
► healed a leper (Mark 1:40-45).
► healed the centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13).
► raised the widow's son from the dead (Luke 7:11-18).
► stilled the storm (Matthew 8:23-27).
► cured two demoniacs (Matthew 8:28-34).
► cured the paralytic (Matthew 9:1-8).
► raised the ruler's daughter from the dead (Matthew 9:18-26).
► cured a woman of an issue of blood (Luke 8:43-48).
► opened the eyes of two blind men (Matthew 9:27-31).
► loosened the tongue of a man who could not speak (Matthew 9:32-33).
► healed an invalid man at the pool called Bethesda (John 5:1-9).
► restored a withered hand (Matthew 12:10-13).
► cured a demon-possessed man (Matthew 12:22).
► fed at least five thousand people with only five loaves of bread and two fish (Matthew 14:15-21).
► healed a woman of Canaan (Matthew 15:22-28).
► cured a deaf and mute man (Mark 7:31-37).
► fed at least four thousand people with 7 loaves of bread and a few fish (Matthew 15:32-39).
► opened the eyes of a blind man (Mark 8:22-26).
► cured a boy who was plagued by a demon (Matthew 17:14-21).
► opened the eyes of a man born blind (John 9:1-38)
► cured a woman who had been afflicted eighteen years (Luke 17:11-17).
► cured a man of dropsy (Luke 14:1-4).
► cleansed ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19).
► raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-46).
► opened the eyes of two blind men (Matthew 20:30-34).
► caused the fig tree to wither (Matthew 21:18-22).
► restored the ear of the high priest's servant (Luke 22:50-51).
► rose from the dead (Luke 24:5-6).
► the second great haul of fishes (John 21:1-14).

NT claims that Jesus was famous as a miracle worker are entirely consistent with that list. There are 34 miracles in that list. If Jesus spent the last 10 years of his life performing these miracles, that means he was reeling them off on average about one every fifteen weeks; more frequently than that actually, because that list is not even complete.

That much of a miracle worker, and yet no mention of this outside of the anonymous writings of unknown authors, writing on behalf of people who they never met because they lived 100+ years before they did.

 

[IanS]

Nevertheless, Ian, we're discussing a ghost story. We know this incident is a ghost story because the first thought of the people involved is that they were seeing a ghost:

But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out. (6: 49)

It is perfectly plain that Jesus rode in somebody else's boat across the water, somebody clever enough not to get caught in the weather. When Jesus reconnected with his superstitious sidekicks on the other side, they had by then convinced each other that they had seen him on the water, and even that he had calmed the storm.

Jesus had the presence of mind not to correct this potentially useful misfiring of small group dynamics. There's nothing supernatural about that decision, either.

Could it be an entirely fictional ghost story? Sure, that would be magical realism. Is it possible to tell whether the story is entirely fictional based on the text? No, because we know that some real people do use supernaturally loaded phrases when they describe their real-life experiences, however mundane those experiences actually are. Further, resort to that kind of language is a character trait of some of the people in this story. Maybe it's a job qualification, too.

When we "remove the supernatural elements," we lose no events at all, just interpretive mumbo jumbo, and can easily see what really could have happened: Jesus took another boat, in preparation for another day of running his jaw and eliciting the placebo effect from people with no other healthcare option.

Now, if your reading is that it is all supernatural, then that's fine. But in evaluating whether a text could arise from a sincere report of an actual experience, I try to focus on what a person is competent to judge: "I saw a ghost" is uninteresting. Nobody is qualified to make that conclusion, even if it were true, which I suspect that it is not. "I saw something on the water and then in the boat that looked like Jesus," on the other hand, is quite possibly true.

It is regretable that many people will use the uninteresting form when what they mean is quite possibly true. No necessary problem for a fellow human being to understand their meaning. It is an accommodation I am willing to make. I do not require others to make the same accommodation if they would rather not, but I will defend my exercise of the option to do so myself.

OK, well I haven’t really tried to read the above. And that is not a matter of disrespect, but rather the opposite case of me trying to stick to what I just said two posts ago about agreeing with others to let this particular discussion drop now.

So just very briefly - I simply skimmed your above post for a few seconds and noticed you said things like “well if that’s your interpretation of what the gospels say …”, some simple neutral comments like that. So just finally as a very brief explanation on that aspect of peoples opinions and interpretations …

… yes, my view of the biblical writing on Jesus is that the only information we have about Jesus, comes from that biblical writing. That is the only description we have of Jesus. And if we propose some very different characteristics for a hypothetical Jesus who is not more-or-less as described in the gospels, then that is not the only Jesus figure ever historically claimed or known to us. That is some other invented and unknown figure entirely.

That might not be so if the created figure was still fairly close to the biblical description. But removing all the miracle claims etc., means any remaining figure is nothing remotely like the only Jesus ever described to us.

That does not of course mean that the gospels could not have been based on some earlier quite ordinary human preacher. But in that case, we know zero about any description of any such figure, that figure is completely unknown, and we have zero evidence for him.

So, … perhaps we can get back to that central question of why there still appears to be no evidence of Jesus produced in this thread?

What about those here who defend a real HJ, and who have read various books by Bart Ehrman and others claiming the detailed evidence for a real Jesus … why has nobody here simply quoted the evidence from Ehrman’s book which is said to be so completely convincing that Jesus definitely existed?

 

[davefoc]

...

Their constant claim is that a real Jesus is left even if you take out all the unacceptable stuff from the biblical writing. But what I'm saying is that if you take all that out, there is practical nothing of any substance left at all.

...

I agree with this so much that I said something similar in an earlier post.

What I noticed when I made an effort to get a feel for what Mark would be like without the super natural stuff, that it isn't all that clear cut how to go about selectively excising parts of Mark so only the plausible is left.

The supernatural stuff is deeply embedded. For instance the author reports details for which there is no apparent person available to have observed those details. Is this supernatural stuff to be excised or are we supposed to assume there was an anonymous real life observer that wasn't mentioned in the narrative but nonetheless started an oral tradition about the event?

And when do Jesus' actions measure up to supernatural? Eight bits is arguing that there are plausible real world explanations for most of what might be taken as supernatural occurrences. And going in the other direction, Jesus does stuff that perhaps initially doesn't seem supernatural but still it seems like the stuff would be difficult to accomplish without either supernatural powers or at least some insights for which the Gospels offer no explanation and the reader well might assume that Jesus uses his supernatural powers to guide him on his way.

Overall, I think the big gorilla in the room is that the Gospels are written like fiction and the fact that they were ever seen as real life stories has more to do with human credulity than their intrinsic credibility.

Still, I don't think that one can conclude from the unreliable nature of the Gospels that an HJ didn't exist. But the gap between a real Jewish Aramaic speaking Jesus and the Greek speaking people that wrote the New Testament looks huge to me and I don't think there is a way to bridge that gap without making a guess about what the intervening facts might have been.

 

[pakeha]

...
What about those here who defend a real HJ, and who have read various books by Bart Ehrman and others claiming the detailed evidence for a real Jesus … why has nobody here simply quoted the evidence from Ehrman’s book which is said to be so completely convincing that Jesus definitely existed?

Indeed.
Watch from 1:17

 

[maximara]

Really?

Well this lot says a lot about both the text and the readers then doesn't it?



NT claims that Jesus was famous as a miracle worker are entirely consistent with that list. There are 34 miracles in that list. If Jesus spent the last 10 years of his life performing these miracles, that means he was reeling them off on average about one every fifteen weeks; more frequently than that actually, because that list is not even complete.

Actually the list concerns Jesus' ministry which you can get to last 12 years if you mix Matthew's birth date (6 BCE) with Luke's started age (about 30).

However, Luke's staring date (29 CE) shortens the ministry to only 7 years requiring Jesus to crank out a miracle very 11 weeks.

Luke by himself is totally insane as the ministry could be shorter than a year so you get about a miracle a week. Nevermind that you have to get Jesus to all the places Luke says he was in that time and the shorter it is the faster he has to move...on foot. Get the time short enough and you have Jesus being a cross between the Roadrunner, Speedy Gonzales, Sonic the Hedgehog all topped off with a little bit of the freaking Barry Allen Flash all the while producing miracles like a human Pez dispenser.

 

[IanS]

Only insofar as the miraculous is not evidence of non-existence.

Continuous claims of the miraculous is however evidence that the source is seriously unreliable.

 

[Belz...]

Of course.

 

[eight bits]

davefoc

... the reader well might assume that Jesus uses his supernatural powers to guide him on his way.

Quite so. For example, it's the reader's assumption that the "powers" are "his." That's not in the text of Mark. It is, however, in the teachings of a religion many readers might have encountered, one which thinks highly of Mark, but supplements it with later Gospels that personalize Jesus' powerz far more than Mark does. Conversely, those later Gospels downplay the view that Mark evidently shares with Paul, that the times were ripe for people in general to align themselves with supernatural forces available to all (or all Jews at least).

To use smartcooky's terminology, according to the oldest Gospel, Mark, Jesus is not a "miracle worker." He believes that there was a potential available to all Jews during those times, based on the Jewish God's choice to resume an active participation in time and space, like in the good old days of the Jewish national epic when God kicked butt and took names - now with complimentary healthcare coverage.

 

[Stone]

I think that's not far off. And perhaps even inc. the final highlighted part. So I'd agree, by all means lets end this part of the discussion after anyone else had has whatever final word they want.

However, I think point-1 is obscuring something important here which HJ supporters in general keep claiming.

Their constant claim is that a real Jesus is left even if you take out all the unacceptable stuff from the biblical writing. But what I'm saying is that if you take all that out, there is practical nothing of any substance left at all.

But there is: The earlier that scholars go in the strata levels of the various texts and the more Aramaicisms there are in the most colloquial sayings, the more divergent from anything in the OT the sayings get. Whether we take those earliest most colloquial sayings as purely altruistic or purely anti-Semitic or in-between (see my exchange with Pakeha [sorry that I have a mental block getting his spelling right]), they are very distinct and apart from the thoughts of any other thinker before or since. They do have substance and individuality, whether viewed as especially enlightened or especially malicious.

Stone

 

[Bad vibe]

But there is: The earlier that scholars go in the strata levels of the various texts and the more Aramaicisms there are in the most colloquial sayings, the more divergent from anything in the OT the sayings get. Whether we take those earliest most colloquial sayings as purely altruistic or purely anti-Semitic or in-between (see my exchange with Pakeha [sorry that I have a mental block getting his spelling right]), they are very distinct and apart from the thoughts of any other thinker before or since. They do have substance and individuality, whether viewed as especially enlightened or especially malicious.

Stone

But these stories were passed along by locals who spoke aramaic supposedly for some time before being written down? These people would pass them on using their own colloquial style so aramaic phrases wouldn't be that unusual, to say they must be direct from HJ would seem a rather large assumption.

I would think this simply tells you what might be early there's no way to tell who by.

 

[Stone]

But these stories were passed along by locals who spoke aramaic supposedly for some time before being written down? These people would pass them on using their own colloquial style so aramaic phrases wouldn't be that unusual, to say they must be direct from HJ would seem a rather large assumption.

I would think this simply tells you what might be early there's no way to tell who by.

I'm not talking about the stories. I'm talking about the sayings. There are more Aramaicisms in some of the sayings than in any of the stories. Why would the sayings have more of that than any of the stories (where Aramaicisms are practically nonexistent)? It's too much of a coincidence to suppose that Aramaic locals would only pass down sayings with such phrases and no such stories at all unless the sayings themselves had some intrinsic qualities that the stories simply don't share.

Fact: the further we get from supernatural abracadabra the bigger the sayings bulk in the available data, the more colloquial and multiply attested the sayings the less we have any palaver about the supernatural, the less palaver the sayings have about the supernatural the more Aramaicisms they have. Coincidence?!

Stone

 

[IanS]

But there is: The earlier that scholars go in the strata levels of the various texts and the more Aramaicisms there are in the most colloquial sayings, the more divergent from anything in the OT the sayings get. Whether we take those earliest most colloquial sayings as purely altruistic or purely anti-Semitic or in-between (see my exchange with Pakeha [sorry that I have a mental block getting his spelling right]), they are very distinct and apart from the thoughts of any other thinker before or since. They do have substance and individuality, whether viewed as especially enlightened or especially malicious.

Stone

Ahh ... scholars, the earliest strata, Aramaic-isms, colloquial sayings, OT divergent, altruistic anti Semitism, and the substance of individuality ...

Hmm ... Jesus ... hmm...

 

[Bad vibe]

I'm not talking about the stories. I'm talking about the sayings. There are more Aramaicisms in some of the sayings than in any of the stories. Why would the sayings have more of that than any of the stories (where Aramaicisms are practically nonexistent)? It's too much of a coincidence to suppose that Aramaic locals would only pass down sayings with such phrases and no such stories at all unless the sayings themselves had some intrinsic qualities that the stories simply don't share.

Fact: the further we get from supernatural abracadabra the bigger the sayings bulk in the available data, the more colloquial and multiply attested the sayings the less we have any palaver about the supernatural, the less palaver the sayings have about the supernatural the more Aramaicisms they have. Coincidence?!

Stone

Maybe you have an example that would show how it works ?

 

[pakeha]

But there is: The earlier that scholars go in the strata levels of the various texts and the more Aramaicisms there are in the most colloquial sayings, the more divergent from anything in the OT the sayings get. Whether we take those earliest most colloquial sayings as purely altruistic or purely anti-Semitic or in-between (see my exchange with Pakeha [sorry that I have a mental block getting his spelling right]), they are very distinct and apart from the thoughts of any other thinker before or since. They do have substance and individuality, whether viewed as especially enlightened or especially malicious.

Stone

No worries about the spelling, Stone.
I take issue about the sayings being very distinct and apart from those of any other thinker, but that's hardly important in view of the OP of this thread.
Do they show the historicity of Jesus?

 

[IanS]

What about those here who defend a real HJ, and who have read various books by Bart Ehrman and others claiming the detailed evidence for a real Jesus … why has nobody here simply quoted the evidence from Ehrman’s book which is said to be so completely convincing that Jesus definitely existed?

Indeed.

Watch from 1:17

OK, … here is Bart Ehrman himself giving a book reading from his latest book "Did Jesus Exist" (clip below). This is the book in which he claims to give the evidence that Jesus definitely existed. It’s the book which Richard Carrier savaged in a very critical recent review. Here’s the link, and surprisingly you need to get to 23min 10sec (that’s almost the end), before Ehrman gives the first of his two “facts” which he says prove Jesus was real -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnybQxIgfPw


Right, so at 23:10 Ehrman begins with his first fact proving Jesus. For which he says this -


“ Paul actually knew the disciple Peter, and he knew James the bother of Jesus … and if Jesus did not exist then you would think his own brother would have known about it! “


That, astonishingly, is the first of Ehrmans two facts which prove Jesus.


Even more astonishing is the mention of his second proof, which follows immediately at 23:35, for which he simply says this -


“There’s one other argument for Jesus, which is too complicated to go into here.”



That’s it. That is his own public summary of the proof in his own book!


OK, what to say about that performance by Ehrman? Well frankly, to put it at it’s kindest - if anyone watches that film clip, and still thinks Ehrman has any credibility whatsoever in a performance like that, then they should go immediately to a psychiatric doctor and get their head examined!

 

[smartcooky]

Right, so at 23:10 Ehrman begins with his first fact proving Jesus. For which he says this -


“ Paul actually knew the disciple Peter, and he knew James the bother of Jesus … and if Jesus did not exist then you would think his own brother would have known about it! “

Its a double logical fallacy isn't it?

1. Why does it matter that Paul allegedly knew Peter, if the unknown person (or persons) who wrote the Gospel according to Paul had lived 100+ years after Paul and never met him?.

2. How would the existence of James prove the existence of Jesus, if we can't prove the existence of James?

 

[Stone]

No worries about the spelling, Stone.
I take issue about the sayings being very distinct and apart from those of any other thinker, but that's hardly important in view of the OP of this thread.
Do they show the historicity of Jesus?

I think they only shew the LIKELIHOOD of the historicity of Jesus, primarily because of their stark eccentricity and consistency of outlook and presentation throughout. But that's nothing new: That's pretty much what Wells says. Keep in mind I'm only referencing the parallel sayings in Matt./Luke that I listed in a previous post, not the entirety of the sayings at all.

Stone

 

[eight bits]

Stone

Keep in mind I'm only referencing the parallel sayings in Matt./Luke that I listed in a previous post, not the entirety of the sayings at all.

If there is a historical Jesus, and if his counting depends on his having been a Jewish teacher, then this kind of cherrypicking-by-proxy is fatal to any hope for recovery of the historical Jesus who counts. Your poster-child 'unprecedented saying,' to love your enemies, is plainly depicted as arising through a routine rabbinical teaching practice: calling attention to antithetical verses, then a synthetic verse, and then commentary (a kind of "dialectical" reasoning, not unique to rabbis, but popular with them).

For example, your example, Matthew 5: 43, offers this introduction to the "innovation,"

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

Those are clear references to Leviticus 19: 18 (The love part), already identified as a component of the chief commandment in Mark, at 12: 31 and 33, juxtaposed with Psalms 139: 19-22 (the hate part). There is a superficial reconciliation, but one that is easily defeated. As Luke articulates the problem, "Who is your neighbor?" (at 10:29, shown there as a continuation of the Marcan incident at 12: 31 ff, already mentioned.)

The synthetic verse is, as was explained in a previous post, Proverbs 25: 21-22, and we can be confident that we have the right verse, because Jesus keeps the petty character of the sage's advice to treat neighbor and enemy alike. Behave this way for that will accomplish, "heaping coals on their head" originally, better spiritual pay-off than theirs in the new juxtapostion.

The incident viewed whole has some "ring of truth." Mathhew doesn't depict Jesus saying "love your enemies" out of nowhere, but shows Jesus deriving the advice systematically from Jewish scripture, much as a rabbi might plausibly really have done. To strip away the parts of the speech which show Jesus' thought process promotes Jesus' brilliance (and an anachronistic Gentile-friendly view of his mission) at the expense of his historical plausibility.