How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[oldbadger]

Could be, might not be, I don't known ... but the Paul tall tale strikes me as slightly less real than that other Paul, Paul Bunyan.

I honestly don't go near Paul for any info on my HJ researches. The bloke knew sod all about Jesus, and cared even less.

But G-Mark holds my attention...... Inclusion of reports that could embarrass Christianity. I get the feeling that most of the HJ G-Mark miracle reports could have been based on fact but heavily bull-dusted. There's nothing in G-Mark that leads to Christianity (forget the last page or so). They had a lot of failures and false starts, and a final desperate demo and Pickett in the Temple......

I just think that there's enough there for a belief in probability...... but no certainty. That's all.

 

[Sapiens]

I honestly don't go near Paul for any info on my HJ researches. The bloke knew sod all about Jesus, and cared even less.

But G-Mark holds my attention...... Inclusion of reports that could embarrass Christianity. I get the feeling that most of the HJ G-Mark miracle reports could have been based on fact but heavily bull-dusted. There's nothing in G-Mark that leads to Christianity (forget the last page or so). They had a lot of failures and false starts, and a final desperate demo and Pickett in the Temple......

I just think that there's enough there for a belief in probability...... but no certainty. That's all.

Ithink your explanation is the most probable, but the probability is so low, as I see it, that it is still down in the noise and not worth paying attention to.

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip is much too dense to realize that neither the words contained within its letters, nor word origin, nor any other agenda-oriented, idiomatic meaning he can generate have any bearing on something's technical usage, whether the subject is the meaning of the word "history", the meaning of the word "contemporaneous" or what comprises a primary source in ancient history.

This isn't the first, nor will it be the last time Bunyip victoriously gloats over a red herring.

LOL You are such a bad loser mate. Which is surprising, given the amount of practice you must have had at it.

History is stories, and we all love how secondary sources magically become primary sources to you apologists.

 

[Bunyip]

Topic title: How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
-----------------------------------------------------

Pretty certain mate, he was seen and heard by the 5 million population of Israel and the Roman garrison for 3 long years, how many more eyeballs do you want?..

Pity not one of those witnesses left a note.

 

[Bunyip]

"As their name implies, the frumentarii were, in origin, concerned with frumentum - with the supply of corn to the Roman armies."

So what? Yes they were originally grain collectors - and became an intelligence network. You have just posted another thousand words of utterly pointless pap. The Roman Empire had spies, you got it wrong. Your central tactic is to whinge about what 'spy' means, then what 'intelligence agency' means and so on. You focus on the inconsequential.

Sinnigen, W. G. (1962). The Origins of the" Frumentarii". Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 211-224.

"Thus, the activities of the frumentarii etc. as tax gatherers should not solely be interpreted as part of a somewhat vaguely defined "militarization" of the eastern provinces, as Mitchell would have it. Rather, these activities can (also) be viewed as a fairly rational central government response to the problem of a shrinking tax income due to population decrease. This was a problem, of course, which was only aggravated by the fact that it occurred during a period when the government needed ever more money for troops to ward off the continuous and growing threats to the Empire's borders east and west. Not that the new tax system worked perfectly: we mostly know about the activities of the frumentarii, stationarii, and colletiones through (responses to) complaints by civilian and rural populations about illegal exactions and abuse at the hands of these very officials." (italics in original; emphases added)
Zuiderhoek, A. (2009). Government centralization in late second and third century AD Asia Minor: a working hypothesis. Classical World, 103(1), 39-51.

But let's go with some more sensationalist descriptions and find that you still are left with nothing:
"The term 'Secret Service' has several definitions. It can mean the detective service of government, a police force concerned with the internal security of the state, and when used to describe an institution of the Roman Empire, it may thus suggest the image of an ancient Gestapo, NKVD, or FBI. Actually, the resemblance between the Roman internal security police force and its modern counterparts, while close in some important particulars, is by no means complete. Accordingly, the expression "secret service" should be conceived as a convenient, if not perfectly descriptive, label for an ancient institution which has no exact modern parallel.
A secret service developed rather late in Roman history for several reasons...The agency that was to deserve the title of secret service first came into existence at some time shortly before A.D. 100, and one may with some confidence attribute its foundation to Domitian." (emphases added).
Sinnigen, W. G. (1961). The Roman secret service. Classical Journal, 65-72.

Notice that to the extent it is appropriate to ascribe to any force of antiquity the "expression 'secret service'" which "has no exact modern parallel", the founding of this imperfect parallel was after by a later emperor after Nero was long dead.


So, again, where is the evidence for an "intelligence agency" (not legionnaires whose role was more policing than anything else and even this role was one of many, the main one being supplying corn) informed Nero about the Christians when Tacitus tells us that the reason he blamed the Christians for the Great Fire was because the majority of the people disliked Christians?

And why, suddenly, are you citing scholarship (or trying to)? I thought this was nothing but an appeal to authority.

 

[Prophet]

LOL You are such a bad loser mate. Which is surprising, given the amount of practice you must have had at it.

History is stories, and we all love how secondary sources magically become primary sources to you apologists.

In this thread he named "How certain are we that Jesus is historical?" Bunyip transparently accedes that Jesus is historical and chooses to reframe his assault upon justifying a moronically loose meaning of "historical" based upon the letters it contains while doubling down on his assault on technical terms of source criticism.

Bunyip and oldbadger are both twisting the meaning of a primary source into something that is necessarily firsthand. They should be daring me to present a firsthand biography of Jesus instead of demanding a primary source if they cared at all for using the technical terms correctly.

Once again, all that the technical term "primary source" comprises is a source on a subject that doesn't derive from any other known extant sources. In modern history, and especially in the information age, primary sources almost always are firsthand. However in first century A.D., we nearly always lack such luxuries.

I have explained Bunyip's misuse of the term "primary source" over and over again with citations. Legion has done so as well with his characteristically thorough style. It does not matter. There is literally nothing that could be said to Bunyip or oldbadger that can get them to consider the possibility that they are not right. Even in the rare case they do concede, their concessions look like victory speeches in their desperate attempts to convince themselves and others that they retain superiority. They are my personal definition of "pathetic".

 

[Sapiens]

In this thread he named "How certain are we that Jesus is historical?" Bunyip transparently accedes that Jesus is historical and chooses to reframe his assault upon justifying a moronically loose meaning of "historical" based upon the letters it contains while doubling down on his assault on technical terms of source criticism.

Bunyip and oldbadger are both twisting the meaning of a primary source into something that is necessarily firsthand. They should be daring me to present a firsthand biography of Jesus instead of demanding a primary source if they cared at all for using the technical terms correctly.

Once again, all that the technical term "primary source" comprises is a source on a subject that doesn't derive from any other known extant sources. In modern history, and especially in the information age, primary sources almost always are firsthand. However in first century A.D., we nearly always lack such luxuries.

I have explained Bunyip's misuse of the term "primary source" over and over again with citations. Legion has done so as well with his characteristically thorough style. It does not matter. There is literally nothing that could be said to Bunyip or oldbadger that can get them to consider the possibility that they are not right. Even in the rare case they do concede, their concessions look like victory speeches in their desperate attempts to convince themselves and others that they retain superiority. They are my personal definition of "pathetic".

As I understand it this is the nature of "Biblical Scholarship" sources, please correct me if I am wrong:

1. There are no Jesus primary sources (e.g., a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person)

2. There are no Jesus sources that are contemporaneous.

3. There are no Jesus sources that are eyewitness.

4. Because of this lack of actual primary sources, Biblical Scholars have decided that within their field, they will refer to what would be secondary sources (e.g., a document or record that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere) in any other discipline as primary sources, e.g., Josepheus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc., since they are the closest known thing to an original source.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Gottcha, eh? That's the least verbose answer you've ever posted. What skilful analysis and repartee. Come on, you can do better than that! If you can't I'll likely put you on ignore ... 'cause your useless, even to your own cause.

This post is about as useless as a no-mouthed dog in a frisbee contest.

 

[Sapiens]

This post is about as useless as a no-mouthed dog in a frisbee contest.

Your appraisal of your post is absolutely accurate, but I still think you can do better.

 

[outhouse]

Biblical Scholars have decided that within their field

.

Epic fail on your part.

You have no knowledge of how ANY early historicity is discerned for any branch of history.

Your sentence above makes this obvious

 

[outhouse]

I honestly don't go near Paul for any info on my HJ researches. .

If you were not clueless of how valuable paul actually was, you would not be appealing to ignorance so loudly :slap:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You think you can win a debate with your insults?

How you have managed to retain such a blunt misconception for so long is somewhat of a wonder.

This is a grown up thread little fella.

Have another beer or four and just start repeating this new drama ad naseum - it seems your forte.

Isn't there a student or two of yours nearby to go and talk at? Perhaps you could talk at them about Josephus? If you talk continuously at them they might be so bored that they don't notice how you appear tp be ignorant of the entire interpolation argument that has been proceeding for decades?

As I said, maybe just come here when you are sober.

You have just posted another thousand words of utterly pointless pap.

LOL You are such a bad loser mate. Which is surprising, given the amount of practice you must have had at it.

The rest pf your comment is just babble.

It is hilarious to me just how desperate the apologists are in this regard. Most of them have moved on from creationism, and appear to be making some sort of desperate faith based last stand on the question of historical certainty.

Legion, that is just painfully, heartbreakingly stupid.

All I ask is an honest discussion without the endless accusations, insults, deceptions and so on.

Indeed.

 

[fantome profane]

AND THEN YOU STICK HIM ON A BLOODY TRIUMPH! I'M TELLING YOU HE RODE AN INDIAN! HERESY. HERESY!

I have a feeling that much of the photographic evidence Shuttlecraft presents has been photoshopped.

Call me a skeptic.

 

[Bunyip]

[/SIZE][/B]

Indeed.

Each of those richly deserved. Thanks for the recap. Particularly my responses to that catastrophic troll Prophet.

Of course if I returned the favour and quoted all of your insults accusations and deceptions they would require dozens of 10000 character posts. If you don't like being told that your rebuttals are pointless dribble -think harder before you post them.

You got it wrong on spying in Rome Legion, sure you have some knowledge of defunct 1960's biblical harmonisation - however espionage is my field of knowledge.


You may not have noticed but Prophet's principle argument is that he actually believes that Jesus MUST be either myth or truth, because a person can not half exist. Same went for nash8.

Your rebuttals are epic in length and free of relevant content - at present you have diverted the topic to espionage and are trying to pretend that espionage was unknown and that they did not even have a word for it. When reminded of the fulmenarii, you invent some extraordinary diversion about the meaning of 'spy', 'intelligence agency' and so on whilst waxing lyrical about the origins of the fulmenarii as grain collectors as if that was in some unexplained fashion relevant to anything. Note by the way that the quotes of mine you posted generally address the argument being considered, not the person raising it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So what?

Historians attempt to determine the most likely explanation for our evidence (actually, so do scientists). We have a Roman historian who tells us that Nero used the Christians as a scapegoat. I asserted this indicated that the Christians weren't as unknown as you said. You responded:

Legion, that is just painfully, heartbreakingly stupid. No I do not need to show evidence that the Jesus story was not well known at the time - that is just a ridiculous objection. If you need a citation for that, you are beyond help.

To explain how Nero knew what he did you proposed that he used an "intelligence agency", despite the fact that no such agency existed and the very notion of such an agency was so foreign there weren't even words for it. More importantly, you proposed this even though Tacitus also tells us that the majority (literally the populous), hated/disliked the Christians. In other words, we have your anachronisms which apply to ad-hoc groups who at various times served in ways analogous to modern spies to explain why Tacitus said Nero knew of the Christians, and then we have what Tacitus says.

Yes they were originally grain collectors - and became an intelligence network.

They didn't. Ever. That's one reason they were disbanded: to the extent they performed duties analogous to modern spies they didn't do so in any official or organized way and had little to no central organization but plenty of local officers capable of using such persons against other authority figures- including the emperor.

You have just posted another thousand words of utterly pointless pap. The Roman Empire had spies, you got it wrong.

It was more the "intelligence agency" that I objected to, and the fact that you claimed I hadn't read Tacitus because you quoted a 19th century author's description of a book in Tacitus' Annales that he never wrote in a "volume" he never composed. The truth is you just relied on a bad translation.

You mistake "spying" for "spy". The former is an action that anybody can do; the latter is a profession. There were no professional spies in Rome, just those who could be used for spying, and the entire question is moot as even if Nero had at his command the resources equivalent to the CIA this doesn't mean he'd use it to "spy" on nobody's. And, again, your explanation for why Tacitus attests to Nero's knowledge of Christians is at odds with what Tacitus says.

Your central tactic is to whinge about what 'spy' means

Because when you propose that somebody who plants soldiers in the audience during his performance in order to see who didn't applaud enough therefore had the means or desire to sent agents to investigate Christians in order to explain why Nero used Christians as a scapegoat, among your many errors is semantic conflation and anachronism.

You focus on the inconsequential.

You propose that an intelligence you create out of hints of sources you can't read better explains why Nero used the Christians as scapegoats than the reason that Tacitus gives. You've cited words you can't read, a translator's commentary you claimed was from a "volume" of Tacitus when it was the translator's own words, and even conflated an insult with a "class of spies" :

Not to forget other words like 'Curiosi' a class of spies

"As detectives, the unofficial epithet curiosi- "snoops" or "busybodies" - was probably applied to them by about A.D. 200."
Sinnigen, W. G. (1961). The Roman secret service. Classical Journal, 65-72.

What you haven't done is provide anything but speculation about what various nebulous terms might have meant mostly at least a half century after Nero's death were ever used to supply Nero with secret knowledge of a group he then tried to use publicly as a scapegoat because they were detested by the majority (which, according to you, is impossible because the idea that Christians were not virtually unknown or largely unknown is "just painfully, heartbreakingly stupid").

 

[Bunyip]

Historians attempt to determine the most likely explanation for our evidence (actually, so do scientists). We have a Roman historian who tells us that Nero used the Christians as a scapegoat. I asserted this indicated that the Christians weren't as unknown as you said.

And of course I had already explained to you that I did not at any point say that Christianity was unknown. Despite being corrected specifically on that point, this is I believe the fourth time you have repeated it.

To explain how Nero knew what he did you proposed that he used an "intelligence agency", despite the fact that no such agency existed

Of course the Emperor had intelligence agents - the fulmenarii amounst them. You also said that there was no word in Latin for spies, so I posted several of them for you. [/quote]


They didn't. Ever. That's one reason they were disbanded: to the extent they performed duties analogous to modern spies they didn't do so in any official or organized way and had little to no central organization but plenty of local officers capable of using such persons against other authority figures- including the emperor.[/quote]

So they were never spies - but performed duties analogous to modern spies? Sheesh Legion, think through your responses.

It was more the "intelligence agency" that I objected to, and the fact that you claimed I hadn't read Tacitus because you quoted a 19th century author's description of a book in Tacitus' Annales that he never wrote in a "volume" he never composed. The truth is you just relied on a bad translation.

You mistake "spying" for "spy". The former is an action that anybody can do; the latter is a profession. There were no professional spies in Rome, just those who could be used for spying, and the entire question is moot as even if Nero had at his command the resources equivalent to the CIA this doesn't mean he'd use it to "spy" on nobody's. And, again, your explanation for why Tacitus attests to Nero's knowledge of Christians is at odds with what Tacitus says.


Because when you propose that somebody who plants soldiers in the audience during his performance in order to see who didn't applaud enough therefore had the means or desire to sent agents to investigate Christians in order to explain why Nero used Christians as a scapegoat, among your many errors is semantic conflation and anachronism.


You propose that an intelligence you create out of hints of sources you can't read better explains why Nero used the Christians as scapegoats than the reason that Tacitus gives. You've cited words you can't read, a translator's commentary you claimed was from a "volume" of Tacitus when it was the translator's own words, and even conflated an insult with a "class of spies" :

"As detectives, the unofficial epithet curiosi- "snoops" or "busybodies" - was probably applied to them by about A.D. 200."
Sinnigen, W. G. (1961). The Roman secret service. Classical Journal, 65-72.

What you haven't done is provide anything but speculation about what various nebulous terms might have meant mostly at least a half century after Nero's death were ever used to supply Nero with secret knowledge of a group he then tried to use publicly as a scapegoat because they were detested by the majority (which, according to you, is impossible because the idea that Christians were not virtually unknown or largely unknown is "just painfully, heartbreakingly stupid").

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

You need to get past endlessly relying on pointless semantics, arguing about the definition of contemporary, spy, intelligence agency or whatever is a poor alternative to thinking up some kind of logical response.


As are your long dead 1960's Christian biblical apologetic arguments. For example when I pointed to coins depicting Julius Caeser as primary evidence for his historicity you launched into an absurd rebuttal based on the idea that because you think most ancient coins depict deities, then I must be arguing that all ancient deities were historical also - an argument so abominably ridiculous that it was laughed out of the classroom forty years ago.

Your current topic of pretending that there were no spies in Rome is just another dead end deflection that you will persue ad naseum.

As I said to you before, pick your best rebuttal and try to defend it - so far not one of them is worth a fig.

 

[Sapiens]

Epic fail on your part.

You have no knowledge of how ANY early historicity is discerned for any branch of history.

Your sentence above makes this obvious

Unlike some of you, I do not pretend that it is my field. Frankly, for my world view, Biblical Scholars are about as useful to society as teets on a bull. But I find the issue(s) interesting and I am fascinated at how they manage to escape the rigor that the field should demand.

When it comes to formal historical advice, I have two good friends for advice, very bright, both tenured faculty in history departments at major institutions, ... since I am familiar with their C.V.s I think I'll take their consul rather than yours, which seems both angry and overly aggressive for reasons that I can not discern but that make me distrust.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Im not sure exactly what will be needed to convince you, then...

Contemporary sources, eyewitness sources. Paul doesn't count because he never actually met Jesus according to his own testimony. In fact, I'd like to see proof that any of the main characters of the New Testament existed - Jesus, Mary (all the Mary-s, really), Joseph, the 12 Apostles, Paul, etc. To my knowledge, we have no evidence that any of them existed outside of the Bible and people far removed from the alleged facts by decades or centuries repeating hearsay and fables. What a lovely mess of a can of worms there.

Until I see some actual evidence, I will continue to doubt the historicity of those characters and continue to consider alternative explanations for the emergence of Christianity. A historical Jesus and his entourage really aren't required for a religion to emerge around them. We're not sure if Orpheus existed but a mystery religion sprang up around him, anyway, for example. Early Christianity actually really makes me think of Orphism and the other mystery cults.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Of course if I returned the favour and quoted all of your insults accusations and deceptions they would require dozens of 10000 character posts.

I am not the one playing the victim, claiming to be interested in rational discussion, and claiming others are using ad hominem while saying the things you did or the following:

If you don't like being told that your rebuttals are pointless dribble -think harder before you post them.

You got it wrong on spying in Rome Legion

Which you showed by referring to words that you can't read, references to scholarship you claim is an appeal to authority and thus fallacious, ignoring the sources I cited to the contrary which show how laughable e.g. your "class of spies", the "Curiosi" are:

"As detectives, the unofficial epithet curiosi- "snoops" or "busybodies" - was probably applied to them by about A.D. 200."
Sinnigen, W. G. (1961). The Roman secret service. Classical Journal, 65-72. (emphasis added)

You refer the Frumentarii, who at their closest to an "intelligence agency" or group of "spies", were still not spies and were much further from any such organization until Nero was long dead.

sure you have some knowledge of defunct 1960's biblical harmonisation

Actually I know very little about biblical studies from the 1960s. I know more about 1860s biblical scholarship than 1960s, but beginning in the 70s and picking up especially in the 80s a renewed look at the origins and development of Christianity picked up along with the general trend in academia towards interdisciplinary fields. Thus the incorporation of anthropology, cognitive science, cognitive linguistics, orality studies, sociology, political theory, social psychology, etc., within biblical, NT, and early Christian studies (as well as historical Jesus research). However, you clearly demonstrated the depths of your understanding of the classical and/or Hellenistic world by quote-mining a 19th century online source you then incorrectly cited and further attributed the quote to Tacitus when it was the authors. So I'm not surprised you harbor an understanding of the development of both classical and biblical research (including historical Jesus studies) that is based on nothing.

- however espionage is my field of knowledge.

Here I thought it was "history". Whatever your "field", it hasn't informed you about the dynamics of socio-political, military, or "intelligence" during the Roman empire.

You take Latin adjectives and call them classes of spies, and do the same for derogatory epithets. How, exactly, does your "field" give you any expertise here? Better yet, knowing a great deal about the development, units, people, etc., involved in 20th century intelligence, counterintelligence, etc., there is nothing that such study would do on its own but bias one to conceptualize antiquity entirely in terms of anachronistic beliefs (as, apparently, you have).