Reconstructing the Historical Jesus

But the reason I responded to you is because I believe that you are criticizing something that isn't his argument. I read crash as arguing for a different default position than the existence of a historical Jesus based only on the Bible. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.I see you as attacking him for the positive claim that Jesus did not exist. That is something that no one can prove. I can't prove that a historical Jesus didn't exist anymore than I can prove that a historical Heracles or Odysseus didn't exist. But it certainly does seem that many people tend to lean toward a historical Jesus and not toward the others. Why? And there is an explanation being offered. The explanation is that the Jesus story was useful fiction. Yea. I just mentioned some. Heracles and Odysseus.And more important perhaps are the reasons we think they are non-historical. It is because the only way we know about them is from writings that are known to be largely, if not totally, mythical and fictitious.Look, I don't think it is totally unreasonable to say that we have an extremely low confidence hypothesis that the character of Jesus in the bible had a historical counterpart. But I also don't think it is unreasonable to say that the confidence is low enough that we should essentially call it zero.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

But the reason I responded to you is because I believe that you are criticizing something that isn't his argument. I read crash as arguing for a different default position than the existence of a historical Jesus based only on the Bible. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

---

Then you seem to be missing most of what he has been writing. Why try to argue that the absence of the crucifixion records is significant - let alone try to argue that we HAVE a load of official crucifixion records from Pilate's rule of Judaea if he's just arguing for a different default ? And why don't we see him arguing more FOR a different default ?

quote:

---

I see you as attacking him for the positive claim that Jesus did not exist. That is something that no one can prove. I can't prove that a historical Jesus didn't exist anymore than I can prove that a historical Heracles or Odysseus didn't exist. But it certainly does seem that many people tend to lean toward a historical Jesus and not toward the others. Why?

---

Crash certainly is arguing for that claim. And I'm not asking for proof - just reasonable arguments, instead of the rubbish that Crash is coming up with.With regard to Herakles and Odysseus I would not rule out the possibility that either is based on a real person. Troy, after all, was real. But I don't think that anyone could deny that the stories we have about them are more mythologized and were composed further from the time they were set than the Gospels. If you want to compare them to Biblical characters then Moses might be better. (As a side note, the book of Jonah is likely a fictional story about a real historical character while Daniel is most likely a fictional character inserted into real - but badly distorted - history. The Bible has all sorts)

quote:

---

And there is an explanation being offered. The explanation is that the Jesus story was useful fiction.

---

Then Crash has the burden of proof in showing that that is the correct explanation.

quote:

---

Yea. I just mentioned some. Heracles and Odysseus.

---

And I would say that the mythological content and nature of the stories around them is a more important factor. Not the absence of official - or unofficial records.

quote:

---

Look, I don't think it is totally unreasonable to say that we have an extremely low confidence hypothesis that the character of Jesus in the bible had a historical counterpart. But I also don't think it is unreasonable to say that the confidence is low enough that we should essentially call it zero.

---

In the absence of a reasonable argument for that - and I have never seen one - I would have to disagree.Then Crah has to argued FOR that. You certainly can't argue that that is the default.

quote:

---

No, they're clearly not. You can't be "agnostic about the issue" and then use the assumed existence of Jesus to conclude, as you did, that

---

And I don't. Don't pick on the point that I happened to mention Jesus - deal with the point that Christianity seems to have been an obscure Jewish cult of little interest to many people, until well after Jesus is supposed to have lived.

quote:

---

Again, that's begging the question - it's whether or not there ever was a Christianity under Jesus that's precisely under contention! You can't assume the existence of Jesus and then use that as evidence of the existence of Jesus. Your contention here is perfectly circular.

---

I wasn't arguing that Jesus existed, so your objection is in error - again.

quote:

---

No, that's not my claim. How did you get it so wrong? I'm the one who's arguing that Jesus didn't exist, so why would I assume he did? Did you complete forget the two days of discussion we've just had on this issue?

---

And you get it wrong AGAIN. I stated that you were arguing that IF Jesus existed Christianity must have been very important in his lifetime, and therefore should have left records that would still survive and therefore the absence of such records is evidence that Jesus did not exist. Which is an argument that Jesus did not exist.

quote:

---

I've not asserted that any relic is genuine, because they're all fake. You agree they're all fake. Everybody knows they're fake.

---

How is the existence of fake relics evidence that we should have official records of Jesus, if he existed ? That was what you argued.

quote:

---

What on Earth are you on about? Every post it's like you forget what I've been trying to argue.

---

Apparently I am applying rational scrutiny to your arguments - and you are not. You should try it. You can do it,and your arguments would improve greatly if you did.

quote:

---

I just told you what the difference is - we know the census records existed, we don't know that any execution records of Jesus existed. How many times do I have to repeat that? Please let me know so I can just repeat it that many times in a post, and be done with it.

---

So you STiLL don't understand that unless a significant proportion of crucifixion records survived, then the absence of the record for Jesus is NOT evidence either way ?

quote:

---

I don't see how the Gospels present a prima facie case of anything. Could you elaborate?

---

The Gospels present a story, presented as true, of the origins of Christianity. Once we make allowances for bias, errors, exaggeration and legend - things found in more reliable histories from around the same time, we have a plausible story that fits in with the evidence we have. Without further analysis, provisionally accepting that the stories are largely based on actual events seems reasonable.Now I don't see why the Gospels shouldn't be taken as prima facie evidence for the existence of Jesus. Why don"t you explain that.

George Washington was to illustrate that there is a difference between the folkore person, the historical person and the real person. As I said, evidence of existence of a real Jesus and evidence for the historical Jesus are somewhat different prospects. Why?By independent source, we mean independent of each other - rather than unbiased. In ancient history, there's nothing but bias. And the Bible is just a collection of works each with their own agenda. Many scholars believe the Gospels are representative at least two independent sources, and some limited information from the likes of Paul. Scholars also look to the Gospel of Thomas, which is thought to be of similar age to the other Gospels but is not in most Bibles. Again - you have to understand what 'historical Jesus' means. It doesn't mean 'real Jesus' it refers to the Jesus that can be understood from historical sources under scrutiny using historical methodology. And yes, what we get is a fairly unextraordinary picture, but nobody is arguing that the historical Jesus was extraordinary. I'm certainly not suggesting otherwise. I wouldn't have thought the comparison is quite close enough. There is a great deal of distance between the first written account of Odysseus, a King, and the time he is said to have existed. I would have thought Odysseus therefore is a closer analogue to Moses.On Herakles I am unable to say, unaware of the sources regarding him as I am. I've not heard of any secular scholars that have thought the evidence of the existence of Herakles was remotely persuasive though so I'm guessing the case isn't good. And that's fine. My position is straightforward: In a world where there was lots of religion, political tensions, in a culture where religious 'prophets' crop up and acquire followers during such times that one such 'prophet' managed to keep followers post mortem. Especially given that of all the Jewish prophets that desperate Jews could invent, Jesus is an unusual one to make up.

I am going to shuffle things around a bit to get to what I think are 2 of the main points. I agree that the mythological content around those stories are more important. What I would like to know is what is different or beyond the mythological content of the Bible makes the historicity of Jesus more likely than that of Heracles or Odysseus?You seem to think there is a difference enough to distinguish them. Is it just the timing?Is being the son of Yahweh and walking on water more credible to historicity than being the son of Jupiter and slaying a hydra? Certainly if he is claiming it to be true than the burden is on him. But how could he ever possibly prove the non-existence of something? I don't think crash is being that brazen. I believe the argument revolves around what should be considered the null hypothesis in this case.I don't see any reason why we can't argue that Jesus' non-existence is a legitimate default position. Why can't we argue that is the default? I have seen nothing presented thus far that would put weak historicity above that of non-existence as a perfectly valid default.I certainly seen a lot of passion over what is seemingly a trivial difference but I definitely reject the characterization of the arguments as "rubbish".I very well could have missed where someone made the positive argument for the superiority of historicity as a default. Kindly explain to me exactly why a historical Jesus is a better null hypothesis to that of a fictional Jesus. To casually claim that one is an explanation while the other is not is simply not convincing.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Ok, fair enough. What I meant was that the parts of the bible that speak to historicity seemingly are derivative works from a common source. Paul only barely gives weight to the gospels and they are all interdependent amongst each other. Beyond that the books seem to be more internally derived and not historic. I didn't think so. But then I don't understand what that has anything to do with the issue. If anything it means we should be even MORE tentative in saying that something was historical. Okay, what is the significant difference between the consideration of a historical Jesus versus a historical Moses? I am okay with that. The only reason I jumped into the debate is because of claims that such a position is somehow "obviously" superior to that of non-existence. I personally think that the differences are trivial.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

That's not the consensus view of scholars, but it might be true. Paul's main advantage is that he was in the area very shortly after the purported events, quite likely as a skeptic. He doesn't tell us much in the way of biography. He was a contemporary of Jesus, though he obviously never met him. Luke and he state that Paul met someone(s) that he was persuaded had met Jesus. Hardly a nugget of historical gold, but there you go. Jesus has, according to most scholars, multiple sources - the contents of which are occasionally counter to the anticipated agenda of the authors, and the sources attesting to his existence are written much closer to the proposed time of his existence.The same cannot be said of Moses.

quote:

---

I agree that the mythological content around those stories are more important. What I would like to know is what is different or beyond the mythological content of the Bible makes the historicity of Jesus more likely than that of Heracles or Odysseus?

---

One good reason isn't enough ? OK, the lack of a clear historical setting for Herakles and Odysseus - unlike Jesus - is another one. One that applies to Moses, too.

quote:

---

Is being the son of Yahweh and walking on water more credible to historicity than being the son of Jupiter and slaying a hydra?

---

I certainly have not, and would not suggest any such thing.

quote:

---

Certainly if he is claiming it to be true than the burden is on him. But how could he ever possibly prove the non-existence of something? I don't think crash is being that brazen. I believe the argument revolves around what should be considered the null hypothesis in this case.

---

Obviously if he had a full set of crucifixion records for Pilate's rule over Judaea - as Crashfrog has pretty much tried to claim - then the lack of any record identifiable as Jesus would be a pretty good start. Non-existence can be proven if there is evidence available.And even if you were right it would only support my point. If Crashfrog cannot make good arguments that Jesus did not exist the arguments that he is using must be bad! Which IS the major point at issue.But, more importantly I am NOT asking Crashfrog to directly argue against the existence of Jesus and you should know that. Crashfrog needs to provide a better explanation of the evidence that we do have and the burden of proof on him is to show that THAT EXPLANATION is more likely true than the obvious alternative of the Gospel stories being based on the life of a real person.

quote:

---

I don't see any reason why we can't argue that Jesus' non-existence is a legitimate default position. Why can't we argue that is the default? I have seen nothing presented thus far that would put weak historicity above that of non-existence as a perfectly valid default.

---

I don't know. Why can't you present a decent argument to that effect ? I haven't seen one. Nor have I seen a reasonable reply to my argument to the contrary.

quote:

---

I certainly seen a lot of passion over what is seemingly a trivial difference but I definitely reject the characterization of the arguments as "rubbish".

---

But you can't defend any of the arguments I have criticised. Sorry, but I am not going to pretend that the absence of an official record of Jesus's crucifixion is significant when to the nest of my knowledge all such records from that place and time are lost. It's obvious rubbish to say otherwise.

quote:

---

I very well could have missed where someone made the positive argument for the superiority of historicity as a default. Kindly explain to me exactly why a historical Jesus is a better null hypothesis to that of a fictional Jesus. To casually claim that one is an explanation while the other is not is simply not convincing.

---

We have evidence that must be explained. That explanation may or may not involve a historical Jesus. We choose the best explanation. As I have stated, the Gospels are prima facie evidence for a historical Jesus, so it is up to proponents of a mythical Jesus to present a better explanation. I have not seen one, and all this argument about defaults amounts to no more than an insistence that we should pretend that the evidence does not exist.

Well, we have no record of anybody in that time frame that was named "Jesus" that was actually 'King of the Jews'.And, outside of the Gospels, not even one that claimed to be so.The characteristics that I would think would be required for a 'historical Jesus' is
1) A figure that inspired people and lead them.
2) Was named Jesus.
3) Was executed by Pilate.Amazingly enough, there is one person that matches 2 of those characteristics , but the third characteristic is an unknown.IN the proper time frame, there was the Samaritan uprising, who was lead by a person whose name is not known, that was excuted by Pilate.This account was found in Joseph Flavious antiquties, and that testimony is as such

quote:

---

For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them. His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, who in an encounter with the first comers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives.
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.85-87]

---

Now, the name of the man is not mentioned. But, it is not out of reach for this incident to have inspired the later stories of Jesus.

One point.The term 'Christ' is a Greek translation for the Jewish term "moishe', which means 'anointed'. It is a "TITLE" , not a name. Historically , there were two people who were officially 'anointed'. One was the High priest, in a ceremony that happened every year, and the other was the King.So, it can quite clearly refuted that someone named 'Jesus Christ' existed. Someone named Jesus might have had claims on being King, particularly have Herod died.. but that does not make 'Christ' a name.

I have dealt with it. The most reasonable explanation for that phenomenon is that Christianity is the result of people passing around stories about a mythical Jesus. That's why Christianity doesn't seem to exist at the time that Jesus is supposed to have started Christianity - it didn't get started by Jesus, because he didn't exist to start it.That's the most parsimonious conclusion. So then there's no basis at all for your statement "Under Jesus Christianity seems to have been no more than a minor Jewish cult, restricted to Judaea, a backwater part of the Roman Empire." As you now agree there's actually no evidence at all that there was a Christianity under Jesus that was "little more than a minor Jewish cult". Then you stated something that was in error, because I've not argued that. I've argued that there was no Jesus, so there was no Christianity in his lifetime, thus there was nothing to be "little more than a Jewish cult restricted to Judaea", and therefore that's just one more thing you're asserting on the basis of no evidence. Which is the underlying basis of the "historical Jesus" position - nothing at all. Because reals are better than fakes! (Ask anybody at a biker bar.) The real Jesus would have owned things, produced things - he was a carpenter - written things. Which people would have wanted to keep. Because they did want those things so badly that even though he never existed to produce anything, people made up relics to pass around and meet that need.But imagine the care they would have taken of his real relics! But we're concerned only with the execution of Jesus, not of anybody else. And unless you're proposing some kind of execution-specific purge of Roman records - again, not terribly parsimonious - then the lack of execution records in general has nothing to do with the lack of execution records of Jesus. It's completely irrelevant - it's just a coincidence. And it provides absolutely no explanation for the lack of Jesus's execution records.

Ok, but Lord of the Rings presents a story, presented as true, of the doings of four Hobbits of the Shire. But you never answered my question about whether that's therefore a prima facie case for the existence of Hobbits.I'm sure you think it's not. I'm wondering if you're able to explain why in a way that isn't either plainly tautological - "it's not a case for the existence of Hobbits because there's no such thing as Hobbits" - or corrosive to your position that the Gospels are a prima facie case for Jesus. Just like The Lord of the Rings, the only thing they establish prima facie is that a person sat down to write them. Beyond that they support nothing on their own. Well, no. We have an utterly implausible story of a "historical Jesus Christ" who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later.It's the utter implausibility of the "historical Jesus" starting Christianity that leads me to believe that there was no historic Jesus, no more than there was a historic John Frum or a historic James Bond or a historic Jesus Malverde. The very simple fact is that once you discard as much of the Gospel accounts as "historical Jesus" proponents have to in order to arrive at a plausibly-existing human individual, you've denuded the "historical Jesus" of anything that would actually result in him being the focus of a major world religion.Ergo, even "historical Jesus" proponents deny the existence of an actual historical Jesus.

How about John Frum? His cult seems to have spread throughout the South Pacific within about 15 years after the time he supposedly was around dropping cargo on people. That's well less than half the time between Jesus's supposed range of activity and the earliest records of the Jesus cult.Would you describe that comparison as more apt? (For the record, it's the basically-universal consensus that there was no such person as John Frum.)

So what's the evidence that there was ever a guy named Jesus who people called "the Christ"? Or "the anointed"?