How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Nakosis]

Nakosis

Proof of absence is a logical impossibility, you are asking for evidence that can not exist. Paul is not evidence for the historicity of Jesus by the way - Paul 'met' the risen Jesus after the crucifixion, he 'met' a spirit, not a historical man.

Yes I understand, however but whether Paul thought of him as historical versus purely a spiritual manifestation would provide a clue I think at least to the general acceptance of Jesus being a real physical person or not.

Does Paul provide any indication either way? Is a question I don't have the answer to.

 

[Shad]

So Homer talking about Greek Gods in his work is proof that these Gods are real. This is your logic which allows anyone talking about a spiritual interaction to be proof of it in reality.

 

[Nakosis]

I guess.
That Christianity exists. - Sure, so what? As I demonstrated earlier, so do many, many faiths ... why do you think that the mere existence of Christianity argues for the historicity of Jesus?

The words of Jesus had to come from someone. It's not so much Christianity I guess as it is the words attributed to Jesus exist. The words had to come from a person.

That the gospels exist. - There are documents referred to as the gospels, what they actually represent is open to serious question, they are not, shall we say, dependable history, there are any number of issues including what is know as the "Synoptic Problem." They were written many decades or even a century after his estimated year of Jesus' death, by individuals who likely never met him and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown scribes with their own agendas. The four canonical gospels were chosen by early church leaders from among dozens of others, frequently contradict each other and contain many details which are historically inaccurate. Christopher Hitchens observed that there is "little or no evidence for the life of Jesus," arguing "the gospels are most certainly not literal truth," its multiple authors "cannot agree on anything of importance," and the "contradictions and illiteracies of the New Testament have filled up many books by eminent scholars."

Kind of what I'd expect of accounts of a historical person from different source versus the recounting of a commonly known myth. I'd be more suspicious it there were no contradictions. I accept this is probably a matter of personal opinion.

That Josephus wrote about Jesus. - That is also open to question. At least one Christian scribe tampered with his text and made it appear that Josephus considered Jesus, the savior or “Christ.” In his only other possible reference to Jesus (via reference to the "brother," unclear as to kin or brotherhood type of brother) is described by some as an "accidental interpolation" or "scribal emendation." They suggest that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians, but, rather referred to James, the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

The first I never bother with because of the controversy. The second I suppose I should check out since this is the first I've heard about it.

That Paul wrote about Jesus. Maybe, maybe not. I have always been suspicious of Paul's alleged letters and the "fact" they survived. Face it, they are often downright nasty, the sort of thing that the receiver would ball up and chuck into whatever served as a circular file in that day. They were not the sort of thing that one would have kept and copied for almost two hundred years. Face it, they don't show up, were not even acknowledged or quoted, until Marcion, the Heretic pushed them to the fore.
You don't see that all the stories are linked by a common thread? You don't see that all the tales are similar enough to demand equal treatment? That's what I'd call asking for a "special case."
If nothing else the serious questions concerning who Paul was, what he did and what he wrote.

Fair enough but without something to support the argument, one can take it or leave it depending on personal preference. Unless some evidence points to this being the case.

I don't need to posit a counter argument, you are trying to establish Jesus as an historical figure and I'm suggesting that you don't have the evidence to make the case. I have described some acknowledged serious problems with the foundation of your case. That's all I am required to do. Paul's "writings" are open to question and even if they were to be authenticated, that does not speak to their usefulness in establishing a historical Jesus since Paul only "me" Jesus in a hallucination that if it occurred was more likely caused by moldy loaf of rye bread, or dehydration or heat stroke than by a revenant son of a god desirous of conversation.

Evidence is something, regardless of how questionable one chooses to view it. You can't really discredit it with scenarios that one might have imagine to happen not something empirical to support the scenario. I can imagine all sort of possible scenarios that might discredit Paul's letters. However I wouldn't accept any base on wishful thinking alone.

There's a whole passel of reasonable counter arguments for you, and from what I see the arguments against are a hydra, you cut one off and two grow back in it's place. Like the godhood of Jesus (or son of godhood if you prefer) the historicity of Jesus is more a matter of belief than demonstrable probability.

Same is true of disbelief of a historical Jesus as far as I can tell. Without getting into conspiracy theories and or complex explanations based on imagine scenarios I don't think it is unreasonable or irrational to accept a historical Jesus.

And I'm not saying there is no doubt. Only that acceptance of a historical Jesus is a reasonable position for a person to take. Perhaps not by much but enough so that I wouldn't question it being a reasonable assumption.

 

[Prophet]

Yes I understand, however but whether Paul thought of him as historical versus purely a spiritual manifestation would provide a clue I think at least to the general acceptance of Jesus being a real physical person or not.

Does Paul provide any indication either way? Is a question I don't have the answer to.

He does. He claims to have met Jesus' brother, James.

 

[Nakosis]

So Homer talking about Greek Gods in his work is proof that these Gods are real. This is your logic which allows anyone talking about a spiritual interaction to be proof of it in reality.

Not proof. Proof should be independently verifiable. However yes taking the statements by historical figures about other individuals as having been historical.

Has nothing the do with "spiritual" interaction. Just whether or not the person making the statement thought the person they were referring to actually existed as a human being..

 

[Sapiens]

You are, however, quite incapable of citing anything indicating you know anything about the development of biblical scholarship or modern critical historical methods, modern comparative linguistics, or really anything relevant. You are capable of mentioning some "friend" or other whom you claim has expertise here and whom you therefore trust (despite not enough to cite said expert).

You are missing the point, but I thought about it last night and have, perhaps, a clearer way to explain my position. When you are testing a sample for chemical composition there is a detection threshold. If the sample does not contain a certain level of the item(s) of interest then the results will not show the item(s) as being present. It does not mean that the item(s) is not present, just that there is not a sufficient quality in the aliquot being tested to trigger detection. So you take a number of sub-samples, test each one independently and find that at the level of so many parts per million (or whatever) the item is not detected in all the sub-samples. Does that mean that the material of interest is completely absent from the sample? No ... it does not. It means that the concentration in the sub-samples are below the detection threshold. At the extreme, there could be so few molecules of the item that you are testing for in the entire sample that none of the sub-samples contained even one molecule of it. That is much the way I see the historicity question. There are insufficient references to a historical Jesus and those that there are are of such poor quality, so potentially contaminated with mistranslation, forgery and hope to be of much use. I don't say that there was (or was not) a historical Jesus, I just stay that the paucity of information makes a conclusion of there having been a historical Jesus more of a wish than a proof.

If you need to look under the detection threshold you need a different test, a different instrument, a lower detection threshold, but you will still need a sample with a detectable concentration. From what I have seen the developments you tout of modern biblical scholarship, critical historical methods, and/or comparative linguistics make the "detectors" significantly more sensitive but do not raise them, in my judgement, and this is (ultimate) a judgement call, to the level needed to establish at any where near a 90% confidence level the historicity of Jesus. Your results and conclusions may vary.

Yes. I've repeatedly cited references by historians for historians. Which one's did you find inadequate and why?

I find the entire body of knowledge that is available inadequate to the task that it being put to.

Would you care for more references that don't depend upon Wikipedia?

While it is easy for you to attempt to disparage, perhaps even trendy, Wiki has been repeatedly shown to a highly reliable source.

Are you aware that the source you cite renders virtually all ancient sources secondary? Are you aware how?

Yes, that is my basic complaint. All there are are secondary (or worse) sources and that should be acknowledged rather than the pretense of raising them to the rank of primary with no support except whining that they're the "best we got."

I cited general reference material for historians of antiquity saying just this. If you, with all your Wikipedia expertise, can't believe this, then go back to trusting your anonymous friend(s).

I take umbridge at your nasty tone. But then you seem to do that with anyone who does not agree with you.

That may have something to do with an inability to substantiate any claims you make and a general ignorance of this and related fields. It is probably related to your sole other reference: another member as incapable as you are to rely on actual historians and actual scholarship.

I make not claims, you are the one making claims. I say that as far as I can see the data available are insufficient to make any claims and none of your magic transubstantiation from secondary to primary qualifies as "actual" scholarship, just a whole lot of wishful hand waving.

Many of those I have worked with have as well, and that's my main source of income. That's because my main field is mathematics, physics, and the neurosciences. These are fields that one can get paid for outside of academia. Had I continued (officially) my other major (classical languages) I'd have no possibility for consultant work.

That's not true, you just have to be good enough and you sound rather bitter, which never helps you get a contract, better to just appear arrogant, I never seen bitter work.

Because there's a huge market for doctorates in philosophy, history, women's studies, English literature, classical studies, philology, sociology, and virtually every single field for which one can obtain a PhD. Right. Virtually all doctorates have no chance of using their specialty outside academia.

If you're good enough, and lucky enough, there's always room at the top, its the second and lower rungs that are over-populated in the fields you cite.

If you aren't aware of this, you are simply too unacquainted with fields outside of your own (granting that you have one).

Again, that nasty, bitter tone, you really can't brook anyone disagreeing with you, can you. You rush headlong into insult and deprecation over honest differences of opinion.

Take a look at the number of doctorates offered by mainstream universities and then tell me how there could be consult work or other relatively major revenue sources for PhDs in most fields.

I did not go to school to get a job, I went to school to get an education. As part of that process I was lucky enough to wind up in a field that I was good at that could support me, and my family, and my bad habits and my toys, but I did not go there because of the shinning employment possibilities.

 

[`mud]

It's like trying to find a gnat in a bowl of cereal, some of it is meal, some is grain, and some is crap.
If one isn't worrying about the size of the gnat, enjoy the cereal.
If it's a really big gnat, throw it away and get a fresh bowl, or eat an apple.
Maybe a fig would be as good, you wouldn't need the bowl or the cereal.
~
Finding the gnat is always the problem, worship is like that !
~
'mud

 

[Nakosis]

He does. He claims to have met Jesus' brother, James.

Apparently then Paul thought Jesus was a real person.

I think Paul's theology would require Jesus to have been a actual human being.

Not saying it's proof. Just a piece of the puzzle. We have to use the pieces we have, not the pieces we don't have.

Still there are many missing pieces so no guarantee that what we have is a clear picture.

 

[Shad]

Not proof. Proof should be independently verifiable. However yes taking the statements by historical figures about other individuals as having been historical.

Has nothing the do with "spiritual" interaction. Just whether or not the person making the statement thought the person they were referring to actually existed as a human being..

Considering the evidence of a HJ Jesus is very weak itself you are jumping to a conclusion. Likewise Homer mentions many people who he thought were real but this does this lend itself to the historicity of Odysseus .Homer was a historical figure yet this proves nothing about Odysseus.

 

[Nakosis]

Considering the evidence of a HJ Jesus is very weak itself you are jumping to a conclusion. Likewise Homer mentions many people who he thought were real but this does this lend itself to the historicity of Odysseus .Homer was a historical figure yet this proves nothing about Odysseus.

Any indication that people of that time thought Odysseus was a real person?

Any indication that anyone around the time of Jesus they thought he was a myth?

Obviously you can dismiss any bit of information you choose but I would prefer something more than conjecture first.

 

[Sapiens]

Any indication that people of that time thought Odysseus was a real person?

Any indication that anyone around the time of Jesus they thought he was a myth?

Obviously you can dismiss any bit of information you choose but I would prefer something more than conjecture first.

When the data are weak you fit almost any hypothesis to it. In such cases the simplest explanation should be accepted. There are three possibilities:

1. Jesus is a tall tale, likely modeled on existing tall tales.

2. Jesus was a real person with no supernatural links, who like John Henry became the core of a mythos.

3. Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead, etc.

The simplest answer is clearly (1) or (2), but I'm not sure there is even enough data of high enough quality to differentiate between the two.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Please feel free to explain how somebody can double major in counter-terrorism & "history and politics", have majored in ancient history, and also be an expert in espionage with one undergraduate degree.

Well because Security, terrorism and counter terrorism is a major. During which I focussed on the history of espionage. History and politics is also a major, during which I focussed on fundamentalist violence and religious conflicts. In fact I have three majors so far and three units to go for my second degree.

I never claimed to he an expert in espionage (that is just one of your lies), nor have I relied on my authority. You are being ridiculous.

I have told no lies about my education you shameless troll, and if you can think of nothing better than repeating these same stupid lies, then your defeat is transparant.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes I understand, however but whether Paul thought of him as historical versus purely a spiritual manifestation would provide a clue I think at least to the general acceptance of Jesus being a real physical person or not.

Does Paul provide any indication either way? Is a question I don't have the answer to.

Sure, it is a clue. You need more than a few clues. But I do appreciate that you understand the evidence of absence issue.

 

[Sonofason]

So Homer talking about Greek Gods in his work is proof that these Gods are real. This is your logic which allows anyone talking about a spiritual interaction to be proof of it in reality.

It may not be proof, but it certainly is evidence.

 

[Shad]

I see it as more a series of claims set within a historic backdrop. Certain claims have external evidence be it weak or strong.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Just a piece of the puzzle. We have to use the pieces we have, not the pieces we don't have.
Still there are many missing pieces so no guarantee that what we have is a clear picture.

Look at it another way mate- the fact that there ARE missing pieces proves that nobody cooked up fictitious bits and pieces to plug the holes, and the Bible has therefore come down to us over the centuries warts and all with nothing added, nothing taken away..

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

While it is easy for you to attempt to disparage, perhaps even trendy, Wiki has been repeatedly shown to a highly reliable source.

Great. I wrote several of the wiki articles here, one that has gone unchanged despite my wish to upgrade it: gospel genre. The wiki section on gospel genre states that the consensus is that the gospels are a form of ancient biography. The truth is more nuanced, but I haven't gotten around to re-writing what I wrote years and years ago. However, it's there: the gospels, according to Wikipedia, are historiography and specifically a kind of biography.

I also wrote much of the "oral tradition" section, but that has been altered since I wrote it and my opinion of what I wrote as well as what is shown now has changed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When you are testing a sample for chemical composition there is a detection threshold.

How is this equivalent or analogous with primary vs. secondary evidence, in the sense you communicate here:

All there are are secondary (or worse) sources and that should be acknowledged rather than the pretense of raising them to the rank of primary with no support except whining that they're the "best we got."

?


Given that measurements of any physical system are of necessity in some sense proxy measurements (i.e., the alignment of hydrogen nuclei for (f)MRI measurements/scans or even the necessity for photons to reach our eyes in order to see the results of some experiment), we always rely on a device (even if it is our eyes) to determine the value for all observables. We don't generally refer to these as proxies as the term is reserved for e.g., ice cores in paleoclimatology or MSU readings to determine global temperatures via satellite. However, we can't measure anything "directly" (something known so well before the sciences were distinct from natural philosophy that this notion has practically become indistinct from Kantian philosophy despite those who contributed to the view before him and the vast work after).

In QM (and extensions thereof: QFT, QCD, etc.), observables do not even have a one-to-one correspondence with some value obtained by measurement. In classical physics, an observable like momentum or mass is represented by a vector or scalar value which directly corresponds to the observable measured. In QM, observables are mathematical operators, not values. Our measurements are secondary on a level unprecedented as we don't actually know what our "observables" correspond to in a quantum system apart from a mathematical framework.

That is much the way I see the historicity question.

That doesn't address your misuse of "primary" vs. "secondary". Just as we don't describe the reliance on electromagnetic fields as "proxies" when we take X-rays or use a simple microscope, we don't describe as "secondary" sources that attest to the events of a period of time in which they lived. This is especially significant for ancient historians, who have to also take into account that the primary sources from any ancient historian or author are lost. We have (we hope) adequate copies of these. From this perspective, the NT is unparalleled in the amount of evidence we have to assert that the text that we have (based on the manuscripts which survive) have given us what we need to determine the content of the originals to a sufficiently accurate degree.

There are insufficient references to a historical Jesus

You refer to thresholds. Classically, we can measure some system arbitrarily gently such that the disturbance by the measurement is as small (or infinitesimal) as we wish. High-end steels (S30V, ZDP-189, VG-10, ATS-34, H1, etc.) contain specified percentages of particular alloying elements (carbon, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, vanadium, etc.). The metallurgical processes behind any steel means variations not simply among the "exact" amounts of any particular alloying element but also among the presence of trace elements. Differences in the percentage of carbon contend in the simplest (compositionally speaking) steels like the 10xx series that are less than a hundredth of a percent could be detected but there is no need. Likewise for trace elements. However, the precision required for carbon dating is quite different.

When you don't know how specialists view "thresholds" in a particular field or why, then you don't have a basis for asserting that the failure to meet your arbitrarily and uninformed threshold is meaningful.

those that there are are of such poor quality, so potentially contaminated with mistranslation, forgery and hope to be of much use.

If we had only the Latin manuscripts of the NT we have, our degree of confidence in our ability to assess the faithfulness of our manuscripts would be superior to basically any text by every author from antiquity both before and centuries after Jesus.

We have lots of forgeries of letters and works said to be by Socrates or Hippocrates and our manuscript evidence for the most famous classical authors exist in a handful of bad manuscripts from the middle ages or in translations from Arabic manuscripts.

Have you studied textual criticism? If not, how are you determining the quality of our manuscripts? As for the quality of the NT texts (i.e., the singular "texts" scholars via the use of textual criticism and our manuscripts) and their historical merit, what is your basis for determining their quality? Would you apply the same standards and the same skepticism (and are you aware of what this entails) to all evidence from antiquity?

In general, what is your basis for comparison and for your understanding of scholarship on these questions?

If you need to look under the detection threshold you need a different test, a different instrument, a lower detection threshold, but you will still need a sample with a detectable concentration.

If the evidence for the historical Jesus is under some threshold, than virtually all our knowledge of ancient historical events, persons, cultures, societies, religions, etc., is as well. There are precious few for which we have more evidence than for Jesus.

you tout of modern biblical scholarship, critical historical methods, and/or comparative linguistics make the "detectors" significantly more sensitive but do not raise them

These developments aren't unique to biblical studies but the study of history in general. Regardless, the evidence for the historical Jesus is so far beyond the threshold used by historians (biblical scholars, classical historians, more general historians, Near-Eastern specialists, etc.) that to claim it is beneath it is to write off our ability to know basically anything about antiquity.

and this is (ultimate) a judgement call

The question is the framework one uses to make such a call. If it is "I don't know how specialists whose work makes up the scholarship of the ancient world determine what they do or why, their methods, or their work in general" this hardly seems like a sound basis for any judgment.

at any where near a 90% confidence level the historicity of Jesus. Your results and conclusions may vary.

Given that the interpretation of CIs as well as whether they mean anything (e.g., confidence intervals/levels in hypothesis testing/NHST are flawed regardless of their values), and given that historiography doesn't lend itself to mathematical models in this way, such requirements are basically meaningless.

I make not claims, you are the one making claims.

So this isn't a claim:

I find the entire body of knowledge that is available inadequate to the task that it being put to.

You haven't indicated a basic familiarity with any of the "body of knowledge", so much so that basic definitions used by those who produce this body of knowledge you misuse and your comparisons regarding thresholds misconstrue the entirety of this body of knowledge. Hence by request for evidence that you have any basis for asserting what you do that is grounded in a foundation of familiarity with the body of knowledge you refer to. NOT a dismissal of a body of evidence you haven't indicated you know anything of but have demonstrated an ignorance of.

That's not true, you just have to be good enough and you sound rather bitter, which never helps you get a contract, better to just appear arrogant, I never seen bitter work.

Had I went into classics, who would give me a contract? What contracts exist? I didn't, so I'm not bitter. I chose to follow another interest which has allowed me to participate both in academia and serve as an independent consult in various capacities (mainly research methods consulting & statistical/data analysis).

If you're good enough, and lucky enough, there's always room at the top

Wrong. This follows simply from tenure and the fact that the majority of doctoral degrees can't be used outside academia.

Again, that nasty, bitter tone, you really can't brook anyone disagreeing with you, can you.

My apologies. It is an extreme irritation for me and pet peeve of mine when those who haven't really researched a topic make sweeping claims about it and related topics, as you do when you speak of thresholds in ancient history and our evidence for Jesus.

You rush headlong into insult and deprecation over honest differences of opinion.

I didn't. I asked repeatedly for you to give some indication that you had any basis for your views. So far, you've referred to some anonymous historian or historians who you won't name and don't cite. That's not an "honest" difference, that's an uninformed opinion.

 

[Sapiens]

How is this equivalent or analogous with primary vs. secondary evidence ...

The bottom line is that we've each written many orders of magnitude more lines than exist concerning an historical Jesus, even with the most generous appraisal. The totality of the extant data on the issue may be memorized in a matter of moments, though even a casual perusal the hot air wasted in discussion of this depauperate record could consume several human lifetimes. Seems a bit out of balance.

 

[oldbadger]

Look at it another way mate- the fact that there ARE missing pieces proves that nobody cooked up fictitious bits and pieces to plug the holes, and the Bible has therefore come down to us over the centuries warts and all with nothing added, nothing taken away..

Yo...... bro! (We're watching 'Breaking Bad' this month...)

nothing added........
Look, Shuttle, that's a porky.
The Gospel of Mark is a really good report about JtB's mission, picked up by Yeshua, and on to his demo and 2 day picket in the Temple, etc...

But the evangelical tinkering, wibbling and wriggling inserts are there for you to see. And the last verses of 16 are real wobblers. I like Christians for their faith, and their belief is great to behold, but you gotta be more 'down to earth' in an HJ thread, rather than floating around in .... in....... space!!