Did Jesus actually exist as a historical figure?

[outhouse]

This is a prime example of apologist biased methodology as to cherry pick and quote mine without no knowledge of what they are debating.

They find themselves in corners they cannot escape.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[16] four to eight decades after the crucifixion,

Meanwhile, the first biographical account (filled with mysticism and magic) of Pythagoras was written over half a millennium after Pythagoras lived. Of course, while, we actually HAVE extant manuscripts from the gospels dating from the 2nd century (and now, most recently, perhaps from the first century and from Mark), and 6 to 7 thousand extant NT manuscripts in Greek alone, while, for historical figures like Tacitus, Nero, Caesar, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Hippocrates, etc., we have one or more of the following:
1) No extant manuscripts or the suggestion that any exists
2) No extant manuscripts of works that we know of only via copies of manuscripts in which these are mentioned (in these copies of copies of texts that we have thanks to late medieval manuscripts).
3) Copies of copies of copies of the most well-known authors from antiquity that exist in only a handful of medieval manuscripts. Not several thousand copies dating to almost the time of composition.
4) Most scholars aren't morons who ignore the standards used by every academic who in any way studies any portion of antiquity such that they can dupe the ignorant into thinking that our evidence for the historical Jesus isn't so unbelievably vast that few historical figures from in and around the first century compare.

The quest for the historical Jesus began basically with an academic from the 1700s who sought to undermine the entirety of the Christianity. Those who doubt whether Jesus exists either are unaware of historical methods and information, or they are those like Carrier who preach a method they don't use when they actually produce academic works (and the challenges were posed over a century ago and answered then).

There's a reason those who think there is good reason to doubt that Jesus existed are those knowledge of historical scholarship is non-existent (so much so they mistake the books by scholars who write popular works as scholarship).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Authorship might not have a necessary correlation with accuracy, but the Ancient Document Rule surely does. There is a requirement to know what the source of a writing is in order to authenticate it. All pieces of evidence must be authenticated.

Interesting. Funny that historians aren't aware of this rule and ignore it entirely. Spend some time looking at the the word "pseudo" in the front of author names or works in the LOEB collection, the TLG, the TLL, etc.

 

[leibowde84]

Meanwhile, the first biographical account (filled with mysticism and magic) of Pythagoras was written over half a millennium after Pythagoras lived. Of course, while, we actually HAVE extant manuscripts from the gospels dating from the 2nd century (and now, most recently, perhaps from the first century and from Mark), and 6 to 7 thousand extant NT manuscripts in Greek alone, while, for historical figures like Tacitus, Nero, Caesar, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Hippocrates, etc., we have one or more of the following:
1) No extant manuscripts or the suggestion that any exists
2) No extant manuscripts of works that we know of only via copies of manuscripts in which these are mentioned (in these copies of copies of texts that we have thanks to late medieval manuscripts).
3) Copies of copies of copies of the most well-known authors from antiquity that exist in only a handful of medieval manuscripts. Not several thousand copies dating to almost the time of composition.
4) Most scholars aren't morons who ignore the standards used by every academic who in any way studies any portion of antiquity such that they can dupe the ignorant into thinking that our evidence for the historical Jesus isn't so unbelievably vast that few historical figures from in and around the first century compare.

The quest for the historical Jesus began basically with an academic from the 1700s who sought to undermine the entirety of the Christianity. Those who doubt whether Jesus exists either are unaware of historical methods and information, or they are those like Carrier who preach a method they don't use when they actually produce academic works (and the challenges were posed over a century ago and answered then).

There's a reason those who think there is good reason to doubt that Jesus existed are those knowledge of historical scholarship is non-existent (so much so they mistake the books by scholars who write popular works as scholarship).

For the other historical figures you mentioned, no one's salvation is dependent on their existence. Thus, it really doesn't matter than much if they existed or not. Their works, whether written by them or others, are the important part. That is actually the same way I think about Jesus. And, I agree that the evidence points to Jesus existing as a real man.

 

[steeltoes]

For the other historical figures you mentioned, no one's salvation is dependent on their existence. Thus, it really doesn't matter than much if they existed or not. Their works, whether written by them or others, are the important part. That is actually the same way I think about Jesus. And, I agree that the evidence points to Jesus existing as a real man.

I would think that this Jesus character may have existed or may not have and that that is all we can say about the topic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For the other historical figures you mentioned, no one's salvation is dependent on their existence.

That's largely true. However, for many it did then. That's exactly what they depended upon for salvation, for meaning, for their Weltanschauung. The question is, do you have any idea whom the people are that relied upon such historical figures (and do you know what evidence we have for them despite universal acknowledgment of their existence?)?

Thus, it really doesn't matter than much if they existed or not.

Not a very historiographical way of looking at an historical problem. The EVIDENCE exists whether Christianity, religion, etc., wishes so or not (not that it can't be distorted; but Christians haven't been the only ones who have). It is just that a bunch of amateurs whose clear historical mistakes have managed to convince large numbers of individuals about a theory of Jesus' history relying on outdated, 100+ year-old (answered) objections that are so obviously invalid, unsound, and so thoroughly answered it stands to reason that the there are about 3-4 individuals who have the capacity to even READ the primary evidence or to even ACCESS the relevant scholarship that indulge mythicist bunk

The philosophy of history and historiography is complex, particularly since often enough historical research straddles the line between scientific research and non-scientific academic research. However, historians from Tucker's "scientific" view to many a post-modernist critique still deal with EVIDENCE and METHODS they seek to justify. Those like Carrier who pretend to apply expertise, logic, and historical methods to the historical Jesus problem do not: Carrier is a liar who abandons the methods he uses for historical Jesus research in every single publication he has ever published regarding some historical question that didn't rely on the ignorance of his audience. Price can't even manage to slip his obvious mistakes pasts his peers in the sole academic work his bunk made it into. Doherty has less expertise here than I do, and admitted to me that at least one of my critiques of his nonsense was true. Freke & Gandy and so many others are so embarrassing that Carrier & Price ridicule them as pathetically inept, uninformed.

Yet on goes the mythicist chant: "Our minds our made up. Don't confuse us with evidence."

Their works, whether written by them or others, are the important part.

Absolutely true, in my opinion.

That is actually the same way I think about Jesus. And, I agree that the evidence points to Jesus existing as a real man.

Then we have a point of agreement!

 

[Bunyip]

Meanwhile, the first biographical account (filled with mysticism and magic) of Pythagoras was written over half a millennium after Pythagoras lived. Of course, while, we actually HAVE extant manuscripts from the gospels dating from the 2nd century (and now, most recently, perhaps from the first century and from Mark), and 6 to 7 thousand extant NT manuscripts in Greek alone, while, for historical figures like Tacitus, Nero, Caesar, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Hippocrates, etc., we have one or more of the following:
1) No extant manuscripts or the suggestion that any exists
2) No extant manuscripts of works that we know of only via copies of manuscripts in which these are mentioned (in these copies of copies of texts that we have thanks to late medieval manuscripts).
3) Copies of copies of copies of the most well-known authors from antiquity that exist in only a handful of medieval manuscripts. Not several thousand copies dating to almost the time of composition.
4) Most scholars aren't morons who ignore the standards used by every academic who in any way studies any portion of antiquity such that they can dupe the ignorant into thinking that our evidence for the historical Jesus isn't so unbelievably vast that few historical figures from in and around the first century compare.

The quest for the historical Jesus began basically with an academic from the 1700s who sought to undermine the entirety of the Christianity. Those who doubt whether Jesus exists either are unaware of historical methods and information, or they are those like Carrier who preach a method they don't use when they actually produce academic works (and the challenges were posed over a century ago and answered then).

There's a reason those who think there is good reason to doubt that Jesus existed are those knowledge of historical scholarship is non-existent (so much so they mistake the books by scholars who write popular works as scholarship).

Doubting that Jesus existed is the logical default, no degree of your word play can change that. We doubt that Jesus existed because there is so little evidence of him - not even enough to know a time or place of birth or death. To believe that the historicity of Jesus has been established is to believe a fantasy, a fantasy that obliges you to invent the laughable strawman of 'mythicism' - which is as transparent and pathetic an attempt to shift the burden of proof as could be imagined.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I would think that this Jesus character may have existed or may not have and that that is all we can say about the topic.

Tautologies do indeed sum up all that could possibly be in classical logic. Bravo. We can, though, say an enormous amount more. In fact, we have! Tens of thousands of books written in the 1900s alone. This is the 21st century.So why does the foremost mythicist proponent rely on a mistaken understanding of Bayesian statistical/probability theory?

 

[Bunyip]

Tautologies do indeed sum up all that could possibly be in classical logic. Bravo. We can, though, say an enormous amount more. In fact, we have! Tens of thousands of books written in the 1900s alone. This is the 21st century.So why does the foremost mythicist proponent rely on a mistaken understanding of Bayesian statistical/probability theory?

Mythicism is a rather hopefully transparent strawman - an overt shifting of the burden of proof. Forget about tilting at mythicism - it is a chimera, you are the one needing to come up with the evidence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Doubting that Jesus existed is the logical default

No, it isn't. However, when you can come to me an explain the basics of historical evidence and methods, let me know (and don't do what you've done so many time before, which is to assert claims you can't back up other than with your own words and then accuse me of appealing to authority when I call you out on presenting as historical methods those which REAL historian don't use).

, no degree of your word play can change that.

How about historical methods and research? That COULD change it, but you aren't interested in either. And I'm responding simply because I needed part of a post I wrote early and felt inclined to do something other than steal from this site (even if it is my own work) So I really don't care how you intend to justify both an ignorance of the research on this topics, an inability to support your claims about methods, and an incapacity to do anything other than reassert your claims as if repetition were evidence.

We doubt that Jesus existed because there is so little evidence of him - not even enough to know a time or place of birth or death.

I don't know why the various people who you categorize as "we" doubt that Jesus exist despite an inability to demonstrate what historical evidence is in this context or in general. However, it isn't because of little evidence. You may believe this, of course, it's just trivially and obviously wrong.

 

[Bunyip]

No, it isn't. However, when you can come to me an explain the basics of historical evidence and methods, let me know (and don't do what you've done so many time before, which is to assert claims you can't back up other than with your own words and then accuse me of appealing to authority when I call you out on presenting as historical methods those which REAL historian don't use).

Legion. Try addressing THE ARGUMENT and spare me the infantile ad hominems. Of course doubt is the default. Forget about whining and accusing - try to think up AN ARGUMENT ok?

How about historical methods and research? That COULD change it, but you aren't interested in either. And I'm responding simply because I needed part of a post I wrote early and felt inclined to do something other than steal from this site (even if it is my own work) So I really don't care how you intend to justify both an ignorance of the research on this topics, an inability to support your claims about methods, and an incapacity to do anything other than reassert your claims as if repetition were evidence.


I don't know why the various people who you categorize as "we" doubt that Jesus exist despite an inability to demonstrate what historical evidence is in this context or in general. However, it isn't because of little evidence. You may believe this, of course, it's just trivially and obviously wrong.

They doubt because the case for a historical Jesus is weak, that you did not know that speaks only to your own ignorance of historical research.
Your certainty is misplaced, any historian would tell you so. Ancient historical research yields very little certainty.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Mythicism is a rather hopefully transparent strawman - an overt shifting of the burden of proof. Forget about tilting at mythicism - it is a chimera, you are the one needing to come up with the evidence.

Wrong. EVERY POSITION REQUIRES EVIDENCE!!! There is no "default" historical claim. This is epistemology 101. If I claim that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, I must defend this position. If claim he did not, I must do so as well. If I claim he existed, I must defend this position, and if I claim he didn't, I must do so as well. All historical claims rely on an amalgam of other claims, more or less important, by which that particular claim is supported. This is actually true of SCIENCE as well. Virtually all of physics fell thanks to single ontological realization about the nature of matter, and now much of physics isn't empirical but mathematical theory. Underdetermination of theory by data, Wittgenstein, and the philosophy of epistemology make clear that nonsense such as default epistemic stances with respect to historical claims are just that: nonsense. EVERYBODY must evaluate the evidence (just as they are aware of it) and use what is hopefully something close to the ideal method of updating one's epistemic stance based upon new information (such as Bayesian epistemology, subjective probability more generally, information-theoretic methods, etc.).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion. Try addressing THE ARGUMENT

What argument? You offer none.

 

[Bunyip]

Wrong. EVERY POSITION REQUIRES EVIDENCE!!! There is no "default" historical claim.

Doubt and uncertainty do not require evidence. Doubt is the default.

This is epistemology 101.

You got it wrong then, which is strange. You would think you would know epistemology 101.

If I claim that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, I must defend this position. If claim he did not, I must do so as well. If I claim he existed, I must defend this position, and if I claim he didn't, I must do so as well.

You missed the position in question - that of doubt. What evidence does the person who doubts Ceasar crossed the Rubicon need to provide? I am not claiming that Ceasar crossed the Rubicon (to use your comparison), I am not claiming that he did not. I hold the position of uncertainty - doubt.

All historical claims rely on an amalgam of other claims, more or less important, by which that particular claim is supported. This is actually true of SCIENCE as well. Virtually all of physics fell thanks to single ontological realization about the nature of matter, and now much of physics isn't empirical but mathematical theory. Underdetermination of theory by data, Wittgenstein, and the philosophy of epistemology make clear that nonsense such as default epistemic stances with respect to historical claims are just that: nonsense. EVERYBODY must evaluate the evidence (just as they are aware of it) and use what is hopefully something close to the ideal method of updating one's epistemic stance based upon new information (such as Bayesian epistemology, subjective probability more generally, information-theoretic methods, etc.).

Ok just to address your misconception - I am not arguing or claiming that Jesus did not exist.



So let's make this clear - MY POSITION IS;
NOT that Jesus did not exist. Ok?
NOT that he did exist.
My position is that his existence is in doubt. It is uncertain.

You are the only one of the two of us who is certain and thus needs to show the evidence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

any historian would tell you so.

Case in point:
I can name hundreds of historians who'd laugh at you. Even those whose expertise is in more general history, like Don Akenson or Ronald Hutton (or Maurice Casey, Michael Grant, etc.). There is an entire peer-reviewed journal for historians dedicated to the nature of the historical Jesus. I can cite radical skeptics from Bultmann, Mack, Funk, etc., to radical conservative Christian scholars like Bock or Bauckham. Some are Near-Eastern historians, some are just historians, some are classical historians, some biblical scholars, and some philosophers. It doesn't matter. The regurgitation of 100+ year arguments that ignore the answers given a century or so ago don't improve with time. You give me an argument rather than just ask me to address arguments you haven't given or assertions about historical methods (and default claims) you make up, fine. I'll do that. But you won't. You never have before, and I doubt you've changed. So let's stop pretending, shall we? If you want a real response, my contact info is available in my signature.

 

[Bunyip]

Case in point:
I can name hundreds of historians who laugh at you. Even those whose expertise is in more general history, like Don Akenson or Ronald Hutton (or Maurice Casey, Michael Grant, etc.). There is an entire peer-reviewed journal for historians dedicated to the nature of the historical Jesus. I can cite radical skeptics from Bultmann, Mack, Funk, etc., to radical conservative Christian scholars like Bock or Bauckham. Some are Near-Eastern historians, some are just historians, some are classical historians, some biblical scholars, and some philosophers. It doesn't matter. The regurgitation of 100+ year arguments that ignore the answers given a century or so ago don't improve with time. You give me an argument rather than just ask me to address arguments you haven't given or assertions about historical methods (and default claims) you make up, fine. I'll do that. But you won't. You never have before, and I doubt you've changed. So let's stop pretending, shall we? If you want a real response, my contact info is available in my signature.

You need an argument Legion, not appeals to authority and your infantile digs. Think up AN ARGUMENT. See if you can identify just one of those authorities you rely on that claims that Jesus historicity is certain.
There is no certainty in regard to the historicity of Jesus, if you disagree - you don't understand ancient history.
And no, I have no interest whatsoever in wasting my time contacting you privately.

 

[steeltoes]

Tautologies do indeed sum up all that could possibly be in classical logic. Bravo. We can, though, say an enormous amount more. In fact, we have! Tens of thousands of books written in the 1900s alone. This is the 21st century.So why does the foremost mythicist proponent rely on a mistaken understanding of Bayesian statistical/probability theory?

Yes, reassuring the faithful that Jesus is historical is a huge industry, no doubt about that.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The question really isn't whether there was a Jesus of Nazareth at all (it's far more tenable to accept that the mythic Jesus was based on a real guy than to posit that he was wholly fabricated). The question is what, if anything, we can know about him in a historical sense. The answer is probably "very little."

 

[outhouse]

The question is what, if anything, we can know about him in a historical sense. The answer is probably "very little."

There are enough pieces to cobble together a brief outline.

An apocalyptic Aramaic Galilean baptized by John who traveled after he took Johns movement to the road. Probably ate flat bread and olive oil or vinegar, some lentils and other seasonal greens, and very little meat less Passover. He traveled at least once to the temple where caused a disturbance and was crucified under Pilate while Caiaphas was also in power.


His life meant little, it was his perceived sacrifice in the temple that started the martyrdom that made him famous IMHO.



What these other uneducated people are addressing is their own bias. Without a replacement hypothesis to explain this evidence they are blowing in the wind making a lot of noise.

The current hypothesis stands and fits 100% leaving no questions. Everything conclusion they bring to the table not only has it been refuted for a hundred years, but raises more questions then answers.

Its why Jesus has historicity that stands. These people just wont accept the status quo, from the most part due to ignorance in these studies.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Actually, we're not sure about the disturbance in the temple. Josephus didn't mention it, and he would have. Jesus might have overturned a stall or two before being bounced, or the whole thing might be a construction of the Gospel authors (which I suspect). Actually clearing the place of money changers would have left a mark in history, which it did not.

It may be that there was a conservative element in Jerusalem that didn't like him, though, and that might be the basis for the Gospels' insistence that the (more orthodox) Jews were somehow to blame, even though they don't agree on how exactly. It might be that some in that more conservative camp cooperated with the Romans to hand Jesus over for sedition (the Romans wouldn't have crucified him just for offending some other Jews). That would also be the basis for the Judas Iscariot figure, who is almost certainly mythical from start to finish.