How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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.

This is the problem with debating with those who don't play by their own rules but demands others do. Very well:

You said:

Legion

Your rebuttals are typically bizarre and ill-considered. I will just deal with the first couple:
You respond:
Any evidence for this?

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.


Another non-sequitur, so what if the Emperor knew? That doesn't mean that it was common knowledge, or a popular idea. Try to connect your rebuttals to the claim Legion.

Here's the rebuttal, plain and simple: Tacitus doesn't just tell us that the Emperor knew of them. He says that the emperor deliberately blamed Christians because the populous, the majority, detested/hated Christians. They knew who Christians were and had in fact almost certainly given them that name.

As much as I'd like to continue to rebut your nonsense about "spies" and intelligence agencies, the above is your clear and concise rebuttal. For extra clarity, I repeat:

The reason to suspect that Nero's knowledge of the Christians didn't rely on spies but rather was based on common knowledge is that this is exactly what Tacitus says: the Christians were "common knowledge" and hated enough that Nero could depend on this "common knowledge" to use them as scapegoats.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Here's the rebuttal, plain and simple: Tacitus doesn't just tell us that the Emperor knew of them. He says that the emperor deliberately blamed Christians because the populous, the majority, detested/hated Christians. They knew who Christians were and had in fact almost certainly given them that name.

A great example of your rebuttals, thankyou.
The problem with it is that it rebuts a claim that nobody has made. Yes Legion, the Christians were known in Rome


__________________

 

[Sapiens]

The reason to suspect that Nero's knowledge of the Christians didn't rely on spies but rather was based on common knowledge is that this is exactly what Tacitus says: the Christians were "common knowledge" and hated enough that Nero could depend on this "common knowledge" to use them as scapegoats.

So what's the point? We all know of the Westboro Baptist Church ... it has how many members?

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

And your repeat

The reason to suspect that Nero's knowledge of the Christians didn't rely on spies but rather was based on common knowledge is that this is exactly what Tacitus says: the Christians were "common knowledge" and hated enough that Nero could depend on this "common knowledge" to use them as scapegoats.

And thanks for another great example. Again it addresses a claim nobody has made and a position nobody is arguing for. Yes Legion, the Christians were infamous in Rome..

Would you be so kind as to see if you can conjour up a rebuttal of yours that does in fact address a point under contention?

 

[Bunyip]

So what's the point? We all know of the Westboro Baptist Church ... it has how many members?

I have no idea either.

 

[Sapiens]

More than the number of Christians in Nero's Rome? Or less?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

This is a great example on what is and isn't actually a fallacious appeal to authority. First, because it clearly distinguishes references to scholarship from unsubstantiated claims that might by non-fallacious if there were any demonstrable indication they were true. Second, because I can appeal to a handful of top-notch physicists who believe that modern physics suggests a theistic cosmology, biologists who believe ID is credible, and "climate skeptics/deniers" who are ranked among the foremost in the world in climate science (actually, these aren't all comparable; the last involves vast more uncertainty than the former two). However, just naming them or even quoting their statements outside of academic contexts (monograph series, journals, conference proceedings, etc.), while not a fallacious appeal to authority isn't a good one.

However, the important point is that we call experts "experts" because they are authorities that we do rely on: nobody goes to an orthopedic surgeon to fix their plumbing, nobody goes to a plumber for plastic surgery, and nobody goes to an historian for plastic surgery. So, while not a good argument, appealing to the opinion of actual historians (providing they are historians with relevant knowledge, as biblical and classical scholars are vastly more capable of answering historical questions regarding antiquity than are historians of e.g., historians of modern science.

Finally, trusting the assertions even of an expert historian over and against historical scholarship is to assert that historians have no expertise. Academics, regardless of field, rely on a body of scholarly literature, citations, and review by peers (even before peer-review existed as it does today). When an expert says something that can't be found in the specialist literature of her or his expertise, then the appeal to their expertise is inferior to any moron whose read a few of the right sources. An idiot who can refer to scholarship is relying not on the authors' expertise because their works first have to past initial review just to be published, and next the real review: the reception by the entirety of their peers.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Again it addresses a claim nobody has made and a position nobody is arguing for. Yes Legion, the Christians were infamous in Rome.

Another non-sequitur, so what if the Emperor knew? That doesn't mean that it was common knowledge, or a popular idea. Try to connect your rebuttals to the claim Legion.

What was it that, "if the Emperor knew", we shouldn't care because "that doesn't mean it was common knowledge, or a popular idea"? What did you assert Nero learned from

Legion

I said:"That doesn't mean that it was common knowledge"

You reply: "Because Nero had some great intelligence agency as yet unknown to historians? How, do you imagine, that he learned of it?"

Of course Nero had an extensive intelligence agency, and it is well known to historians. He was the Emperor, he had a far greater access to information than the average person. All of the Emperors had extensive networks of spies - and their existence is well documented.

So what might Nero have learned from his "extensive intelligence agency" about Christians such that it doesn't matter if he had learned this as it doesn't indicate that this was popular knowledge?

You spent post after post trying to support you "extensive intelligence agency" bunk and I've played into it because of an obsession with accuracy and intellectual integrity & honesty, but in the end what was it that, even if you were right, Nero learned from this ancient CIA that explains why whatever this knowledge was, it wasn't "common knowledge"?

In short, you've gone from conjuring up spy networks to explain what Nero knew to a claim about Christian infamy in Rome. So what is it that you thought Nero could have learned from this "extensive intelligence agency" that rebuts my claim about "common knowledge", and how is what I said was "common knowledge" different from Christian infamy you now assert existed in Rome?

 

[Bunyip]

What was it that, "if the Emperor knew", we shouldn't care because "that doesn't mean it was common knowledge, or a popular idea"? What did you assert Nero learned from

Rome is not the world Legion. Christians were known in Rome - that doesn't mean that they were well known everywhere.

So what might Nero have learned from his "extensive intelligence agency" about Christians such that it doesn't matter if he had learned this as it doesn't indicate that this was popular knowledge?

You spent post after post trying to support you "extensive intelligence agency" bunk and I've played into it because of an obsession with accuracy and intellectual integrity & honesty, but in the end what was it that, even if you were right, Nero learned from this ancient CIA that explains why whatever this knowledge was, it wasn't "common knowledge"?

No Legion. I was simply correcting your misconception that Nero had no spies. The rest was you inventing strawmen and then lecturing at them.

In short, you've gone from conjuring up spy networks to explain what Nero knew to a claim about Christian infamy in Rome.

No, that was another of your strawmen, I made no such argument. All I did was correct your misconception that there were no spies.

So what is it that you thought Nero could have learned from this "extensive intelligence agency" that rebuts my claim about "common knowledge", and how is what I said was "common knowledge" different from Christian infamy you now assert existed in Rome?

Simply that whilst Christians were well known in Rome, they were not well known overall. And even though they were well known, that does not mean that people believed their mythology - which was the claim of yours that was originally being addressed when ypu diverted to spies. You were suggesting that there was an absence of contemporary commentry dismissing the mythology of early Christianity, as if that somehow consituted supporting evidemce.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Ok....... Yes.
Researchers often discover new info within the NT story, and I don't imagine that these discoveries are just going to stop .... dead.
It seems to me that the story does include more than one Jesus, and my guess is caused by what I perceive to be a kind of schizophrenic presence in reports.
So I think that the present story that we know about is 'low prob', simply because it could well be skewed in various ways.

 

[oldbadger]

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

This is your big chance.......
If anything that Paul wrote can directly bolster the evidence for HJ then for God's sake post it up.
You know your stuff on Paul, so show anything that he wrote which gives certain foundation to HJ.

I don't think that Paul was interested in the real Jesus....... at all.
What have you got?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't think that Paul was interested in the real Jesus....... at all.

Is that really a meaningful statement when Paul (most likely) wouldn't make the distinction between the 'real' Jesus and the Jesus that he refers to?

 

[oldbadger]

[/SIZE][/B]

Indeed.

What a total waste of time. You trawl through a member's posts to find ........ what? How does that help the debate?

When you use insults such as 'idiotic', etc...... and they bring you no closer to success in your posts...... what are you trying to do?..... prove a certain HJ?

Try writing something like 'Certainty for Historical Jesus cannot be achieved at this time, however......' and put your case for probable, or highly plausible, or whatever.

OK? Now, see if you can show a strong case, but do forget 'certain HJ'.

 

[oldbadger]

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

Call me a skeptic.

Ha!....... you'll tell me that J didn't ride an Indian next.
They were known locally as the 'Geezers from Galilee'.
That's definitely a Galilean hill in the background.

 

[oldbadger]

This is a great example on what is and isn't actually a fallacious appeal to authority. First, because it clearly distinguishes references to scholarship from unsubstantiated claims that might by non-fallacious if there were any demonstrable indication they were true. Second, because I can appeal to a handful of top-notch physicists who believe that modern physics suggests a theistic cosmology, biologists who believe ID is credible, and "climate skeptics/deniers" who are ranked among the foremost in the world in climate science (actually, these aren't all comparable; the last involves vast more uncertainty than the former two). However, just naming them or even quoting their statements outside of academic contexts (monograph series, journals, conference proceedings, etc.), while not a fallacious appeal to authority isn't a good one.

However, the important point is that we call experts "experts" because they are authorities that we do rely on: nobody goes to an orthopedic surgeon to fix their plumbing, nobody goes to a plumber for plastic surgery, and nobody goes to an historian for plastic surgery. So, while not a good argument, appealing to the opinion of actual historians (providing they are historians with relevant knowledge, as biblical and classical scholars are vastly more capable of answering historical questions regarding antiquity than are historians of e.g., historians of modern science.

Finally, trusting the assertions even of an expert historian over and against historical scholarship is to assert that historians have no expertise. Academics, regardless of field, rely on a body of scholarly literature, citations, and review by peers (even before peer-review existed as it does today). When an expert says something that can't be found in the specialist literature of her or his expertise, then the appeal to their expertise is inferior to any moron whose read a few of the right sources. An idiot who can refer to scholarship is relying not on the authors' expertise because their works first have to past initial review just to be published, and next the real review: the reception by the entirety of their peers.

:sleep:
Wot....... 'ave yer got?
Drawing from your pool of specialists, produce something...... anything.... that clearly answers the question:-
How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

When "we" refers to those actually familiar with historical methods and ancient history as well as the few centuries of scholarship on this issue, the answer is "very".

 

[oldbadger]

When "we" refers to those actually familiar with historical methods and ancient history as well as the few centuries of scholarship on this issue, the answer is "very".

You seem to be suggesting that those 'in the know' are blessed with some special ability to see into the past with clarity, in a way which is so intangible as to be impossible for the plebs to be able to grasp.

That is total bull-dust.

The 'in the knows' simply need to gather their evidence, prepare it into simple precis and show it. But they cannot...... to certainty....... only something less than that.

Anything which suggests 'if you're not in our club then you can't be aware' is a total fraud.

 

[oldbadger]

Is that really a meaningful statement when Paul (most likely) wouldn't make the distinction between the 'real' Jesus and the Jesus that he refers to?

I want to come back to you on this, but have no time to research for a strong answer just now.

I'm interested to search for all references (by Paul) to what Jesus said and did, as a starter.....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How does that help the debate?

In two ways:
The lesser way is that you brought up the issue in the first place:

You think you can win a debate with your insults? :no:

The related and more important way is that, despite claims to wish for a debate, the OP and others have consistently contradicted themselves, played the victim while relying on the insults and ad hominem they decry, appealed to authority when it suits them and argued that these are fallacious when it doesn't, and in general failed utterly to engage in anything remotely resembling intellectually honest dialogue.

Insulting someone isn't actually fallacious. If I call someone a moronic, babbling, hair-brained loser because they believe that the holocaust never happened, but such insults are distributed throughout an argument which is based on the vast evidence that it did happen, then my insults aren't fallacy; they're just rude, generally counter-productive, and not helpful.

However, if I rely on insults to dismiss others' arguments, this is the classical ad hominem fallacy. For example, when one claims first that practically nobody knew anything about Jesus' story and the fact that Nero did was due to his extensive intelligence agency, then subsequently claims that any argument about the lack of such an agency is specious and moreover irrelevant as the Christians were infamous, then such arguments depend upon insults. In other words, it is bad form (and something I'm alas guilty of) to pepper replies with personal attacks. However, to rely on these so as to not address arguments is fallacious.

Moreover, the OP claimed a desire to avoid insults and ad hominem. I simply showed that this claim was as fallacious as the use of ad hominem to defend blatant self-contradictions, backtracking, and errors so basic they boggle the mind: I was insulted because, so it was claimed, I wasn't familiar with a volume of Tacitus that didn't exist and a quote by Tacitus which turned out to be a translator's summary of a chapter in Tacitus' Annales. This spiraled into a debate about a language I know and my critic doesn't in which I was referred to scholarship despite being told that any such reference consists of an appeal to authority and is a fallacy. Etc.

Arguments, discussion, and debates can be heated, nasty, and leave everybody upset yet still be productive. Look at Einstein and Bohr, Chomsky and the generative semanticists, the cognitive scientists and neuroscientists who embrace embodied cognition vs. those who continue to promote the classical model, and any number of bitter rivalries which has nonetheless produced fruitful results.

However, this:

Paul never met Jesus, and neither he nor Josephus are contemporary.

I used the term correctly. I never claimed that Paul was not contemporary with Jesus, as you Legion and Prophet seem to imagine.

is quite simply an indication that one isn't interested in debate, honesty, or discussion. Likewise, a list of insult after insult by someone who claims

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

doesn't help the debate, but does show that unless tactics are changed there can't be any fruitful debate.

When you use insults such as 'idiotic', etc

I do so in the context of arguments, often extremely detailed arguments that are dismissed for being detailed and allegedly irrelevant but aren't addressed. What I don't do is claim that I want an honest discussion without insults and then hurl insult after insult but fail to produce arguments.

Try writing something like 'Certainty for Historical Jesus cannot be achieved at this time, however......'

I am a scientist. For us, certainty is limited to mathematics. The idea that one can "prove" anything is contentious outside of formal systems. Perhaps the most successful scientific theory ever describes the fundamental nature of reality as being probabilistic, while the lead contender for greatest scientific theory holds that history doesn't really exist as simultaneity is local and any "now" exists only for a particular reference frame. Certainty that you exist can't be achieved at this time, certainty that we're all in the matrix can't be achieved at this time, certainty that the moon landing was faked by Jesus and bigfoot can't be achieved at this time, certainty that all you perceive isn't an illusion can't be achieved at this time, but you don't walk out into traffic or into walls because most of the time when we have a lot of evidence we can be "certain" for all practical purposes. Can we be as certain about Jesus' historicity as we can e.g., the holocaust or moon landing? Of course not. Can we be as certain that he existed as we can for pretty much anybody in and around the century he lived? Absolutely. Do virtually all historians realize this after centuries of debate? Yes. Do they have good reason to? Absolutely. Has anybody in this or other threads who doubts that they do demonstrated even a passing familiarity with the scholarship underlying their reasons for their level of certainty? No.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You seem to be suggesting that those 'in the know' are blessed with some special ability to see into the past with clarity

I am not blessed with an ability to rebuild car engines, read Russian, or perform heart transplants. This is because such abilities aren't blessings but require learning, experience, and training. I "seem to think" that those who haven't done their research not only are largely ignorant of which they speak but are often incapable of realizing the extent to which they lack the requisite knowledge to make the judgments they do. I wouldn't presume to argue with musicologists or experts in colonial US history because I don't know enough even to know how much I don't know. If someone said something I found implausible in such a field, I would make damn sure I was aware enough of the state of research in order to at least judge the extent of my ignorance.

in a way which is so intangible as to be impossible for the plebs to be able to grasp.

What is so unbelievably frustrating for me is that I believe the complete opposite. My work is in neuroscience, physics, and mathematics. The study of history is a hobby like many other fields I try to keep up on. It is something anybody is capable of. I'm not special because I have some innate skill but am all too plebian myself. There are things I know because I have taken the time and effort to learn them, and things I don't know, just like everybody. This is a topic that I have studied for years (not just to learn about this topic; for example, I didn't learn most of the relevant languages I learned for this topic but for classical studies and a love of linguistics & languages).

I respect those who have taken the time to learn things that I haven't, particularly when they are things I wish I knew, or knew more of. I don't write off those who know more than I about some topic as being elitist because I haven't done the requisite legwork nor accuse them of looking down on the plebs because they took the time to gain skills or knowledge I haven't.

The 'in the knows' simply need to gather their evidence

They have. For the past 3 centuries. Read some books.

Anything which suggests 'if you're not in our club then you can't be aware' is a total fraud.

I'm not a biblical scholar. There is no "club". There's just how much research one wishes to do and how much evidence one requires in order to be convinced. Those who refuse to do research but demand that evidence they can't evaluate be handed to them on a silver platter have actually been handed such platters. They just can't be bothered with them. Tell me, how many times have you demanded evidence that Socrates existed? How about Alexander the Great? How about Charlemagne? Muhammad? Why is it that professional historians like Carrier are willing to make conclusions about the high level of scientific achievement in the Greco-Roman world based on evidence like the legendary account of Hypatia? Do you know the nature of our sources for ancient persons and events (especially vs. mythical/legendary) in general? What is you basis for comparison?

Talk about ********.