• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How would an Historical JC be Defined?

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Ok. Forget Carrier (although, for the record, I want to be clear that I both respect the history department in general as being among the best in the world and fully agree that Carrier is a fully qualified historian).

What I REALLY care about his how you are describing classicists...If we can agree on this, then we can look at Biblical Studies.
I thought I was being clear, but I'll try to be clearer. We went off on a tangent discussing Carrier's and Ehrman's credentials, which are not important to this thread on historicism. I deplore the extent to which debates over the credentials of people making arguments supplants a discussion of the merits of their arguments. To me, classicists do not have to be bona fide historians. They can just be people who specialize in the art, architecture, literature, etc., of the classical world. Carrier had a very special interest in classicism, just as I, a mainstream theoretical linguist, had specializations in Russian studies, Slavic languages, Linguistic Philosophy, etc. He chose not to get his degrees in Classicism, just as I considered a degree in Russian and rejected the idea.

Do I want to get into a debate with you over how to define academic fields and who the important scholars are in those fields? Am I interested in looking at Biblical Studies? Honestly, no. Let's return to the thread topic. What are the arguments that Bible specialists, historians, and classicists pursue when they define the historical JC?
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
I am honestly not sure what this thread is about.
My original take on it was the question of what it would mean to say that Jesus was actually a real person. Is it just that there was a real person who started the legend? What if that person had not actually been executed, but just killed in battle? What if he had never visited Jerusalem or been born in Bethlehem? How many details of his life could be false before we would say that there really wasn't a "historical Jesus", but a myth pretty much made up of whole cloth? What if the legend were based on more than one person?

I don't think that there is a clear answer to that question. Most scholars just try to build a case for extracting a plausible core of truth from the stories, based on what we believe to be true of those times. Mythicists try to build a case that none of the story is plausible enough to sustain belief in any single real person.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What are the arguments that Bible specialists, historians, and classicists pursue when they define the historical JC?

That's a bit like asking "what are the arguments that linguists pursue when they define grammar"? A simple answer is possible, but pretty useless. They use the same arguments historians use everywhere.

There are, however, central issues particular to this case. One is genre. A final paper I wrote as an undergrad for my classical languages degree was a comparison between the historical Socrates and the historical Jesus, both in terms of the history of research on the two, and ways methods used in historical Jesus studies could be applied to the historical Socrates. I have already posted a very brief (relative to the paper) extraction on this issue in a former thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2805645-post157.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2805647-post158.html

Genre is one part of determining the probability (not numerical) that a source contains historical information. But it is not the only part for many reasons. One is that clearly mythic or literary sources can contain historical information and do.

I refer more to Attic plays than I do something like the Iliad. Yet for the sake of illustration (perhaps comparison?) you may know or have heard of the ongoing debate over certain Hittite texts and their relation to Ilium and the Achaeans.

Now, while I consider it a fairly well established but by no means unquestionable hypothesis that archaeological excavations have found "Troy" or Ilium (that is, the Ilium of the Iliad is a real place), the idea that there is anything more we can say about the history of "the Trojan war" and Homer's characters borders on conspiracy level speculation. Yet this has been an ongoing debate among historians, linguists, and archaeologists almost since the Hittite texts were recovered. The most infamous scholar here is (I believe) Latacz, whose book Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels I did not know was the German original of the book I bought (Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an old mystery) until I received it, which really annoyed me because
1) It means that at some point I'll have to buy the German edition and I've wasted my money and
2) It was a stupid and easily corrected mistake that I have only myself to blame, which is the worst possible situation when it comes to laying blame for a problem one has at the feet of anyone or doors of any establishment.

That said, Latacz's final section opens with a reference to a chapter from Bryce's The Kingdom of the Hittites: "In 1998 one of the leading Hittite scholars, Trevor Bryce, attempted to collate some of these facts, if far from all, in order to present a general picture in a separate chapter of his book, The Kingdom of the Hittites, which he entitled ‘The Trojan war: myth or reality?’ He concludes that there can no longer be any doubt that the story of the Trojan War has a basis in history". Latacz concurs, and closes his book with "We can then formulate our conclusion thus: at the point which research has now reached, it may be that we cannot yet say anything definite about the historicity of the ‘Trojan War’. However, the possibility that a historical event could underlie the tale of Troy/Wilios...has not diminished as a result of the combined research endeavours of various disciplines during the last twenty years or so. Quite the reverse: it has grown ever stronger.
The abundance of evidence pointing precisely in this direction is already almost overwhelming. And it grows with every month in which new shafts are driven into the mine of mystery by archaeologists, scholars in Anatolian, Hittite, and Greek studies, linguists, and many other representatives of divergent disciplines, all working with strict objectivity and all under the spell of the problem of Troy...The earlier uncertainty dissolves and the solution seems nearer than ever. It would not be surprising if, in the near future, the outcome states: Homer is to be taken seriously."

Thankfully, although there are those who, to varying degrees, would say they agree with the above, it is by no means unchallenged and (although I have not done the research necessary to say this with certainty) I would hazard a guess that most scholars who have participated in the research describe would not agree.

In a nice tie in with biblical studies, we find in the volume Epic and History a paper by Jonas Grethlein: "From “Imperishable Glory” to History: The Iliad and the Trojan War". The paper criticizes Latacz for many reasons, but more importantly makes a much more reasonable claim about epic and history:
"What, then, can we conclude about the Iliad and history? Greek epic may not be the best instance for elaborating on the use of epics as historical sources, since our comparative evidence is basically the archaeological record. Yet for this very reason Homer is an indispensable source for the student of ancient Greece. While using the Iliad as a Quelle is highly problematic, the Iliad does provide rich insights as an Überrest. Homer is not of much use as a guide to the history of events, but he presents important evidence for social history."

In "Homer and History: Old Question, New Evidence" provides a better (IMO) description of those like Latacz: ""This paper seeks to apply new evidence...to enduring Homeric questions. To some, of course, any discussion of possible elements of historicity in the Homeric epics provides an example of the credulous in pursuit of the tenuous, futiley attempting to circumscribe chronologically the imagination of the poet."

I refer to this source for three reasons:
1) I tried to find something that I could link to, and this was available
2) I like the poetic flourish present in "an example of..."
3) If you follow the link and look at the final page (32) before the notes, there is a quote that begins with "The second millennium before Christ". It is of no direct relevance to the historical Jesus other than to situate the time period of the discussion of historical events we are talking about with the Homeric epics and that of Jesus. So not only do we have something that everybody agrees is epic poetry, that nobody knows who (if any single person did) compose or when it was composed, but finally it is describing events that everybody agrees at least happened several hundred years before the early dates for the composition of the Iliad (8th/9th century BCE).

We don't know who wrote it. We don't know when the wrote it. It is clearly epic poetry filled with myths. We have terrible manuscript attestation to use for textual criticism and there are even words that are used only once in all of Greek literature in Homer so that we aren't even sure what they mean.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
With the gospels, Paul, and Josephus, we are dealing with something altogether different. Comparisons of the gospels with other forms of literature in the Hellenistic period have generally found them to belong to the genre of ancient biography, although others have suggested this is not true for one or all of the gospels, and still others have pointed out that ancient biography has a lot in common with ancient novels. Of course, as has been known for a very long time, ancient history in general has a lot in common with the mythic or fantastic because
1) Herodotus and others relied a great deal on myth (especially epic) as a template and although many after Herodotus were very quick to leap upon myth, their method of handling them was the same used in the early 19th century for handling mythic/miraculous elements of the gospels: rationalizing them.
2) While we have ancient manuals titled How to write history, this history was considered mainly telling a story about what happened. Biography, however, was different. Biographers cared far less if at all about actual chronology. They were wont to exaggerate and include both myth and legend for various reasons (from political to the way modern historians sensationalize to capture the attention of the readers). Biographers were concerned mainly with getting key facts about a person, from traits to why they were so special they should have anything written about them, but did this not by describing the person directly so much as describing them through events arranged in a way to bring out these central aspects.
3) The gospels are clearly evidenced by a great deal more that Greco-Roman historiography.

Which brings us to another foundation upon which arguments for historicity are based: oral tradition. Around a century ago, quite apart from the Oral-Formulaic model of orality but contemporaneous with it was the use of then current theories of German folklore and the transmission of folk tales in historical Jesus studies. Basically, the argument was that Christian communities couldn't really care less about the historical Jesus and instead made up stories to suit their own needs. However, after about 100 years of research in everything from anthropology to cognitive science (if you are familier with her work, you might be interested to know that Dancygier wrote a book The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach), a great deal came together to improve the ways in which we can approach the nature of orality in the first century in general and in Jewish circles in particular. Thus we have on the one hand volumes like Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science, and on the other specific works which focus on how improvements in our knowledge and methods have allowed advances in understanding the relationship between oral transmission and the gospels in e.g., Story as History - History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Brill Academic Publishers, 2002). That is one of many examples and it is already somewhat dated in certain regards. However, Jacob Neusner's republication of two works by Birger Gerhardson (Neusner had trashed these when they came out decades ago and in his forward explains how wrong he was and why), the refinements to the very anecdotal and hardly scientific creation of Kenneth Bailey's oral model, and the incorporation of anthropological studies of orality which already had combined findings from cognitive science and the psychology of memory provides a powerful starting tool to approach the evidence.

Archaeology, sociology, and all the above and more have been used to understand the social structures of the first century, both across the Roman empire and in Galilee. Similar contextual information (i.e., understanding cultic practices, "Hellenization", etc.) have increased a great deal. All of this provides a way to understand the one key question:

How likely is it that the evidence we have can be explained if there is no historical Jesus of Nazareth at their epicenter? The problem with too many mythicists is that the question is "is Jesus historical" rather than "how do should we understand the evidence we have and why?"

If there is no Jesus, then clearly Paul cannot be telling the truth about meeting his brother or this has to be understood in a different way. Eleanor Dickey, in addition to her book Greek Forms of Address, wrote a paper "Literal and Extended use of Kinship Terms in Documentary Papyri, Mnemosyne, vol. 57, 2004, 131-176" which is far more relevant because
1) It concerns kinship terminology used in letters written in Greek from the 3rd century BCE to the 3rd century CE
2) These letters are written not in classical Greek or even by Greeks but by those like Paul who dictated (or wrote) letters but were from cultures across the Roman empire
3) It concerns what we can say about literal vs. metaphorical use of address.

Basically, she found that, like Paul, metaphorical use of kinship terms are ubiquitous in letters. The main exception, however, is when the author's term is used to "relate the person mentioned to someone who is neither writer nor the addressee". Paul's use of adelphoi is not uniquely Christian in its metaphorical use of kinship terminology but is standard. However, he mentions in passing that, while visiting Kephas, he saw no one else of the disciples except "Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου/Iakobon ton adelphon tou kuriou/James, the brother of the Lord." This is the only time he uses this expression, which is a formulaic (one might call it a construction) method of identification via kin. It quite similar to the way in which Josephus identifies James, but more importantly it an instance of a kinship term which relates neither the addresser or addressee but rather identifies a 3rd party. How might we explain this? Price suggests "leaping over" this "tiresome debate", W have what Doherty claims (but if memory serves, he admitted that the syntax/grammar was not abnormal; I can't remember how that lengthy argument ended up in terms of specific conclusions). We do know that this "rule" of Dickey's begins to have exceptions in specifically Christian letters in later centuries, so perhaps Paul simply started this rather than that these later letters imitated his (or a then specifically Christian metaphorical kinship terminology).

And then we can find ways to explain how Mark and Josephus both identify a brother of Jesus named James.

But that is not how historians proceed (as Carrier and the sources he cites on historical methodologies agree). The idea is not to try to explain away evidence but simply to explain it. So when we find Jewish literature that has clear connections with both oral transmission of that time and Greco-Roman as well as Jewish literature and is best characterized as a type of ancient historiography, a contemporary of Jesus who refers to Jesus as Lord and uses a specific construction typical of kinship identification referring to this Lord's brother that is completely atypical both of him and of kinship term usage in letters in general, and we clear sociological connections with the evidence we have an religious movements centered around an individual who is later described in mythic ways, from Socrates and Plato to Tafari Makonnen (a 20th century Ethiopian religious figure known as Haile Selassie, who the "god of all the ages" among Rastafarians very quickly), and a great deal more that tells us we should explain the evidence we have by starting with a historical Jesus as the nexus (as even Wells admitted), that's the best solution.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
That's a bit like asking "what are the arguments that linguists pursue when they define grammar"? A simple answer is possible, but pretty useless. They use the same arguments historians use everywhere.
Legion, I could give a very simple synopsis of those arguments in linguistics. When you teach the subject for a number of years, you need to be able to do that. That kind of overview is far from useless. It serves as scaffolding for the details that come later. When someone plunges into the details first, that is the mark of a very poor teacher, because the audience just does not know where the discussion is heading. When you run up against the character limit, and you need to make a second post to finish your exposition, it is time to consider the possibility that you are in the wrong venue for that kind of interaction.

At this time, I am very interested in this topic, because I am working through Ehrman's book (despite Carrier's admonition that no one should read it). He is very knowledgeable and entertaining when it comes to the history of biblical literature, but I see other ways to interpret the evidence he sees for a historical Jesus. For example, he takes pains to elaborate on all of the different competing stories about Jesus as evidence for a basic core of truth in them. I see all of those stories as fertilizer for a syncretism. There were some early Christian traditions in which Christ was seen as an ordinary man who was "adopted" by God as his son upon resurrection. Others had his divine origin start as literal birth from the womb. It is easy to see how the two traditions might have fused into one, as Doherty argues. But I still haven't come to the point where Ehrman discusses Doherty in detail, if he ever does.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Legion, I could give a very simple synopsis of those arguments in linguistics. When you teach the subject for a number of years, you need to be able to do that.
Most scholars just try to build a case for extracting a plausible core of truth from the stories, based on what we believe to be true of those times. Mythicists try to build a case that none of the story is plausible enough to sustain belief in any single real person.

So I am supposed to provide you with a synopsis, leave out the details for later, when you have no problem talking about what "most scholars" you've never read and don't even know the names of "try to build" relative to "mythicists" who have given you details and a scaffolding that is fundamentally skewed? How many students have you had that know almost nothing about the field of linguistics, don't trust linguists, have read books about linguistics that aren't written by linguists (and argue things that no linguist does), and are looking for evidence that a grammar exists?

This topic has been studied in detail for 200 years and there are literally thousands upon thousands of people who have contributed to it over the past few years alone. Yet you know who Doherty is. You know who Freke and Gandy are. You know who Carrier is. You have an opinion about the nature of biblical scholarship even though you admit you are not familiar with it. So while I appreciate this advice:

That kind of overview is far from useless. It serves as scaffolding for the details that come later.

it doesn't apply. I've given synopses to students on figures from antiquity as a tutor and I've never once received the kind of challenges I've received every single time the "historical Jesus" case comes up. There's less evidence for such figures, yet never once has a student challenged their historical existence. Because they are taking a classical studies course and they are not ready to leap upon some statement about Euripides or Pythagoras or Socrates or whomever with "but what about x, y, and z?"

In this case there are loads of details already known, you aren't a student, and you've already expressed here a knowledge of details, and that you have a scaffolding built already upon which you can cast off practically the entirety of biblical scholars due to the biases in their works that you haven't read.

If you would like to give me advice on how to proceed, I'd be happy to listen but you have to make it relevant.

I've had this conversation (evidence for the historical Jesus) so many times I've lost count. The "details" that would usually come later matter from the start because people have a conception of what religion is and I've never once found someone whose conception of religion matched what "religion" has actually been for most of human history during a conversation about the historical Jesus. They have a conception about what historical evidence is that is informed by how modern history looks. And almost without fail, they're exposure to the topic has been through websites and/or books like Doherty, Wells, etc., so they are already informed of many details (most of which are at best half-truths and some are just plain wrong.

This isn't an intro to historical Jesus course, and neither you nor anybody else is just asking about this because they are interested in history in general. I can count on one hand the number of people I've talked to that have challenged the idea that Jesus existed and have read (even in translation) a thorough survey of primary sources by ancient historians/biographers. But I can also tell you that almost every single one has told me about lists of Roman and Jewish historians and asked about their silence.

When you run up against the character limit, and you need to make a second post to finish your exposition, it is time to consider the possibility that you are in the wrong venue for that kind of interaction.

This isn't a course and you aren't my student. It's a debate forum and nobody asked for a synopsis of evidence that a student would coming from the knowledge background a student would have.


There were some early Christian traditions in which Christ was seen as an ordinary man who was "adopted" by God as his son upon resurrection.

Quite the detail. And which Christian traditions were these and how do we know about them? Why are you not challenging whether they exist?


Others had his divine origin start as literal birth from the womb. It is easy to see how the two traditions might have fused into one, as Doherty argues.
In other words, when someone has given you a great deal of detail, and someone else has given you the kind of synopsis you are looking for, you
1) have already a lot of detail and scaffolding
2) have an extremely skewed understanding of ancient history in general and historical Jesus studies in particular
3) out of hundreds and hundreds of basic introductions to the historical Jesus written by scholars who have dedicated much of their career to this topic and ancient historical topics in general, you think something written by one by a guy who has published nothing other than this one book on this one topic needs to be addressed

But I'm supposed to provide a synopsis that is superior to the book you have in one post?

But I still haven't come to the point where Ehrman discusses Doherty in detail, if he ever does.

I don't know about the Jesus Puzzle, because I have his revised book and it is almost 800 pages long. Ehrman set out to show in broad strokes the way that mythicists err. I don't think this is possible because it requires exactly the kind of detail you ask for immediately above yet started by saying I should avoid. I can give you names of far better books to read that are also intended for the general audience. Dunn's 1985 book that caused Wells to change his position, and there are more recent examples of books on why historians believe Jesus existed and all of them are superior to Ehrman's because Ehrman is trying to combine that while addressing mythicists' cases and doing so in a short, simplified way.
 
Last edited:

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
I don't know about the Jesus Puzzle, because I have his revised book and it is almost 800 pages long. Ehrman set out to show in broad strokes the way that mythicists err. I don't think this is possible because it requires exactly the kind of detail you ask for immediately above yet started by saying I should avoid. I can give you names of far better books to read that are also intended for the general audience. Dunn's 1985 book that caused Wells to change his position, and there are more recent examples of books on why historians believe Jesus existed and all of them are superior to Ehrman's because Ehrman is trying to combine that while addressing mythicists' cases and doing so in a short, simplified way.
At the moment, I'm just working through Ehrman. Dunn was already on my list. I'm not seeing much in your last post that contributes substance to the thread topic, and I really have no interest in debating the minutiae of academic disciplines with you. If you feel that you know more about that subject than I do, then it probably isn't worth your time or mine to engage on that subject. You clearly have a lot to say to me on the subject, and you feel that I don't have much to say to you. You are probably right. We aren't communicating effectively here.
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
At the moment, I'm just working through Ehrman. Dunn was already on my list. I'm not seeing much in your last post that contributes substance to the thread topic
That's because I was responding to your post. I also believe it is very much on topic, because it is about something I see as fundamental to any discussion about the historical Jesus. How can questions be answered or addressed about a topic of ancient history, when the simple answers which are normally adequate will not suffice because those asking are not interested in ancient history in general, but a very specific topic?


and I really have no interest in debating the minutiae of academic disciplines
I don't have any desire to debate academic disciplines at all. But the problem is that you have made several statements about entire disciplines. You have characterized what "most scholars" do. Have you read these "most scholars"? This isn't "minutiae", either it's an uninformed sweeping generalization, or a statement based upon a very broad knowledge of what tens of thousands of scholars "do". Hardly minute.

If you feel that you know more about that subject than I do, then it probably isn't worth your time or mine to engage on that subject.

If I feel? It may not be worth my time (or yours) but that has nothing to do with my knowledge. After all, it doesn't matter that I've read hundreds of books and many times that in terms of papers on this subject if you believe that these were all written by people who are not qualified, are biased, etc. My knowledge is then useless or inadequate because years of research were wasted by reading the wrong scholars, the wrong journals, the wrong proceedings, series, etc. Perhaps even having the same degree Doherty has, combined with all that reading of primary sources in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, is all worthless because (like Doherty and Carrier), I received most of my training in history from classicists, and therefore I lack the ability approach that material like a historian.

That is not an issue of what I know or my knowledge. It is how you evaluate my knowledge vs. (for example) Doherty, although I have the same degree (and more) and have read everything that he has (or at least has cited).

I am more than happy to share what I know and to try to do so in ways that inform you or anyone and receive feedback that can inform me. Telling me I didn't provide you with what you can do for students and then, after admitting that you aren't familiar with this field, claiming that "most scholars" do anything that you can say from a position of familiarity, does not indicate to me that you have any desire to hear anything I could possibly say.


You clearly have a lot to say to me on the subject, and you feel that I don't have much to say to you.

That's not true. I do feel that you have things you could say, because I know that people like Geearts, Dancygier, and other linguists have contributed to this field through their knowledge of linguistics. And I know you know more than I about linguistics. I also know your experience in academia far outstrips my own, and that you are an extremely intelligent individual. These and more are reasons why I would appreciate things you have to say. But I do not feel that you believe I know enough of any relevant subject matter to say anything of import to you. I feel that whatever I might say to you will be ignored, marginalized, or dismissed.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Reputation is everything in academia. Being admired by religious skeptics is not necessarily a plus for faculty in a religious studies department. He started out the book by saying that he expected his earlier supporters to be surprised and disappointed.

And so,,,,, am I right in saying that academia is filled with a variety of 'conditions' which can reduce historical clarity?

In addition to any historical barriers, there remain a number of personal influences (upon the scholar) that actually damage their findings?

Income. A viewpoint upon 'findings' could enhance or decrease job opportunities?
Personal belief. Can colour or 'discolour' a finding?
Reputation. Against loss and for enhancement, to cause 'adjustments' to findings?
Culture. Background can discolour the mindset before the search has even commenced?
Competition. To gain ground over other historians, adjusting findings towards 'breakthroughs'?
Conceit. Academic snobbery, leading to language complexity and loss of communication?
Politics. Causing a 'leaning' in reports, or even outright propaganda?
Conflict. Irritation between historians from previous encounters?
.........and on.....

I can think of one historian who is unable to communicate, such is his need to show his excellence in language. I'll bet he half-closes his eyes when has to speak to his gardener!

The best I've read so far is Geza Vermes. He does have a 'leaning' imo, in that he wants Jesus back amongst his own, the Galilean Jews. No problem. He is a great teacher.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
And so,,,,, am I right in saying that academia is filled with a variety of 'conditions' which can reduce historical clarity?

In addition to any historical barriers, there remain a number of personal influences (upon the scholar) that actually damage their findings?

Income. A viewpoint upon 'findings' could enhance or decrease job opportunities?
Personal belief. Can colour or 'discolour' a finding?
Reputation. Against loss and for enhancement, to cause 'adjustments' to findings?
Culture. Background can discolour the mindset before the search has even commenced?
Competition. To gain ground over other historians, adjusting findings towards 'breakthroughs'?
Conceit. Academic snobbery, leading to language complexity and loss of communication?
Politics. Causing a 'leaning' in reports, or even outright propaganda?
Conflict. Irritation between historians from previous encounters?
.........and on.....

I can think of one historian who is unable to communicate, such is his need to show his excellence in language. I'll bet he half-closes his eyes when has to speak to his gardener!

The best I've read so far is Geza Vermes. He does have a 'leaning' imo, in that he wants Jesus back amongst his own, the Galilean Jews. No problem. He is a great teacher.


One thing is certain in historical Jesus scholarships.

!2 different scholars can paint 12 different Jesus characters from mythical to apologetic, and make a decent case.


Mythers make such weak cases it is pathetic. Problem is many scholarships are pathetic as well in over attributing what is known about this rebel placed on a cross.


His followers had swords at his arrest
He was executed on a cross with other rebels
Earlier in that same Passover week Pilate had killed other Galileans rebels per Gluke


Did he commit suicide by having Judas rat him out so he could be a martyr? Early Christians are known for wanting to die for their faith.

Was Judas fiction?

Was Judas really a traitor?

Did the Christian movement start long before JtB who influenced Jesus? People often mistake Paul for spreading the message to all, when after all he was only one of many teachers of the good news. The movement we know today could very well predate JtB.

I value anyone who takes a vague stance and admits he doesn't know, I don't.
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
!2 different scholars can paint 12 different Jesus characters
2 factorial isn't 12. Clearly, this is wrong. [sorry, couldn't resist, blame the booze; I'll even hand you the right rejoinder- if it were a factorial the exclamation point would be behind the number]
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
My original take on it was the question of what it would mean to say that Jesus was actually a real person. Is it just that there was a real person who started the legend? What if that person had not actually been executed, but just killed in battle? What if he had never visited Jerusalem or been born in Bethlehem? How many details of his life could be false before we would say that there really wasn't a "historical Jesus", but a myth pretty much made up of whole cloth? What if the legend were based on more than one person?

I don't think that there is a clear answer to that question. Most scholars just try to build a case for extracting a plausible core of truth from the stories, based on what we believe to be true of those times. Mythicists try to build a case that none of the story is plausible enough to sustain belief in any single real person.
Good post.

At the same time, I often feel that the mythicist position goes beyond the question of authenticity to claiming a conscious fabrication, i.e., it descends into one long ad hominem.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Good post.

At the same time, I often feel that the mythicist position goes beyond the question of authenticity to claiming a conscious fabrication, i.e., it descends into one long ad hominem.
I very much agree with you on that point, but you see it on both sides of the debate. Too much time is spent on evaluating people's arguments by impugning their credentials, integrity, and intelligence. When I read Carrier's review of Ehrman, I thought he scored some excellent points, but he weakened his case with all of the unnecessary personal attacks. Ehrman himself actually commented on how mythicists overreacted, but that the overreaction was partially justified by the unfair attacks sometimes leveled against the mythicist position.

One point that I think Carrier made well was the extent to which Ehrman himself based so much of his criticism of the mythicist side on the credential-bashing argument from authority that he seemed to promise he wouldn't engage in. As I am reading Ehrman now, I see that coming out in full force. He spends an inordinate amount of time talking about how nobody ever questioned historicity in all of those centuries of debate over the Gospels, yet he seldom mentions the fact that coming out publicly against historicity would, at best, lead to pariah status and, at worst, a painful death for many centuries after Theodosius made it the official state religion. Moreover, there has been a systematic and obvious tampering with the historical record to promote one point of view. It is only until recently that one could even get away with publicly challenging historicity. So the argument that most scholars never questioned historicity is a slam-dunk. So is the argument that they had good reasons to avoid questioning it. For a young history scholar to be branded a mythicist is going to make the hunt for a job and the struggle for tenure quite a challenge. It would be easy for established scholars to take on the challenge, but even tenured professors like to stay away from highly public controversies of this sort.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I think I might be saying more than this. Many mythicists here and elsewhere, be they dealing with Jesus or Torah, suggest a false dichotomy: either the narrative is authentic and accurate or there has been a conspiracy of fabrication, with the mythicist asserting or insinuating the latter.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
One thing is certain in historical Jesus scholarships.

!2 different scholars can paint 12 different Jesus characters from mythical to apologetic, and make a decent case.
That isn't entirely true. If we are dealing with just Biblical scholars, specifically New Testament and Jesus scholars, while there will be differences, it isn't completely different Jesus characters. A basic framework is usually agreed upon, and it is the more the specific details that are debated. Seeing that most scholars also rely on each other, it is no wonder that the variety of different views of Jesus are not wholly incompatible. And no actual scholar on the subject would subscribe to a mythical view.

I guess if we take scholars not in the actual field, yes, 12 completely different portraits can be made; however, that is not really fair as 12 completely different portraits can be made of Harry Houdini by outsiders as well.
Mythers make such weak cases it is pathetic. Problem is many scholarships are pathetic as well in over attributing what is known about this rebel placed on a cross.
That is history though. And often, if the claim really is too over attributing, it is refuted, or later supported. Historians work on probabilities. So yes, there will be some over attributing, but it is often based on a high probability as well.
His followers had swords at his arrest
He was executed on a cross with other rebels
Earlier in that same Passover week Pilate had killed other Galileans rebels per Gmark
One of his followers had a sword. Just one (or at least that is what we are told), and if they truly were rebels, one would expect a fight, not Jesus going willingly. Also, Jesus preached a message of non-violence.

It was not just rebels that were executed. In Matthew, those crucified with Jesus were thieves, not rebels.

Also, Mark does not say that during the same Passover that Pilate had killed other Galileans. Instead, it was mentioned that at some time previously, Pilate had killed some Galileans. Mark does not tell us when.
Did he commit suicide by having Judas rat him out so he could be a martyr? Early Christians are known for wanting to die for their faith.
Jesus wasn't an early Christian though. More so, it is never said that Jesus had Judas rat him out, just that Jesus didn't stop him, and that Judas betrayed Jesus. Not suicide at all.
Was Judas fiction?
Possibly, but there really is no doubt that Jesus was betrayed.
Was Judas really a traitor?
Yep, that is accepted and has a high probability.
Did the Christian movement start long before JtB who influenced Jesus? People often mistake Paul for spreading the message to all, when after all he was only one of many teachers of the good news. The movement we know today could very well predate JtB.
No, the Christian movement didn't spread until both John and jesus were dead. It could not have predated John, and Jesus's own ministry did not begin until after the death of John. The Christian movement didn't begin until after Jesus died. There is no way that the movement could have predated John; no scholar would even entertain such an idea because the probability is so extremely low.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
That's because I was responding to your post. I also believe it is very much on topic, because it is about something I see as fundamental to any discussion about the historical Jesus. How can questions be answered or addressed about a topic of ancient history, when the simple answers which are normally adequate will not suffice because those asking are not interested in ancient history in general, but a very specific topic?
Don't confuse concise answers with simple ones. An internet discussion forces a certain amount of brevity on the interchanges, and none of us should pretend that we approach peer-reviewed quality here. And I've made clear to you why I do not really find the arguments from authority and popularity very interesting on this subject. One can make a very good case that there has been a giant thumb on the scale of critical examination of this issue in the past, and there still is, albeit to a lesser extent now. So let's examine the types of arguments being made and fill in support for those arguments with hyperlinks to accessible material or brief arguments. If you give people reading assignments and brag about how much you've read and informed yourself on the subject, you are wasting everyone's time here, including your own.

I don't have any desire to debate academic disciplines at all. But the problem is that you have made several statements about entire disciplines. You have characterized what "most scholars" do. Have you read these "most scholars"? This isn't "minutiae", either it's an uninformed sweeping generalization, or a statement based upon a very broad knowledge of what tens of thousands of scholars "do". Hardly minute.
You have also made sweeping generalizations of that sort, as well. Why don't we focus less on that and discuss something more substantive and topical?

...It may not be worth my time (or yours) but that has nothing to do with my knowledge. After all, it doesn't matter that I've read hundreds of books and many times that in terms of papers on this subject if you believe that these were all written by people who are not qualified, are biased, etc. My knowledge is then useless or inadequate because years of research were wasted by reading the wrong scholars, the wrong journals, the wrong proceedings, series, etc. Perhaps even having the same degree Doherty has, combined with all that reading of primary sources in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, is all worthless because (like Doherty and Carrier), I received most of my training in history from classicists, and therefore I lack the ability approach that material like a historian.
Believe it or not, I have some sympathy for your argument here. I've made the same kind of point when discussing language topics in these forums--that my decades of professional experience as a linguist should make what I say more credible to the audience. The problem with that argument is obvious--it still leaves people without any real understanding of how I arrived at my conclusions about language. I've come not to take offense when people don't accept my pretentious claim that I know what I'm talking about, because, at the end of the day, an argument from authority is still an argument from authority--even when made by an expert.

That is not an issue of what I know or my knowledge. It is how you evaluate my knowledge vs. (for example) Doherty, although I have the same degree (and more) and have read everything that he has (or at least has cited).
Scholars often read the same materials and arrive at different conclusions. I have very little idea how you two stack up against each other. I suspect that he's read more criticisms of his thinking on the subject than you have of yours, but I also suspect that his mug is found on more academic "Wanted" posters than yours is. :) I certainly take your word that you've studied far more of the literature on historicity and have a deeper grasp of the subject than I do. That isn't an issue here. Why I should believe your conclusions without understanding how you arrived at them is.

That's not true. I do feel that you have things you could say, because I know that people like Geearts, Dancygier, and other linguists have contributed to this field through their knowledge of linguistics. And I know you know more than I about linguistics. I also know your experience in academia far outstrips my own, and that you are an extremely intelligent individual. These and more are reasons why I would appreciate things you have to say. But I do not feel that you believe I know enough of any relevant subject matter to say anything of import to you. I feel that whatever I might say to you will be ignored, marginalized, or dismissed.
I'm sorry that you've gotten that impression. I appreciate the compliments, although I must admit unfamiliarity with the contributions of many of the linguists that you may have read. The linguistic literature is too vast for me to explore every subject, and I have no easy access to academic materials now, especially on this subject. So you need to lower your expectation that I will accept your reasoning if it relies too heavily on materials that I haven't read, may not have access to, and will never have the time for. That may make the level of conversation here very frustrating to you, and I understand. I've felt that frustration myself here in trying to discuss subjects that call out for more linguistic expertise. The best strategy is patience and tolerance. And don't be afraid to walk away when you feel others are too obtuse to listen to reason.
 
Last edited:

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
I think I might be saying more than this. Many mythicists here and elsewhere, be they dealing with Jesus or Torah, suggest a false dichotomy: either the narrative is authentic and accurate or there has been a conspiracy of fabrication, with the mythicist asserting or insinuating the latter.
I agree 100% with you, Jay. It is very easy to show that the historical record has been heavily tampered with, but that doesn't mean that any particular claim of fabrication is true. So I take the position that I lean towards mythicism, not that I am strongly convinced of it. The best I can make of the materials I've read on the subject is that no strong evidence for the existence of Jesus remains to us except textual references that began 20-40 years after the alleged execution. It is clear that those records came into existence when stories of Jesus had already been circulating widely in at least the eastern part of the Empire. I have seen plausible arguments for both sides of the historicism debate. The best I can make of the story is that most of the details surrounding it are apocryphal. So it is a good question to ask whether enough of the truth remains to be able to support the claim that there was a historical Jesus. How does the historical JC get defined?
 

Almustafa

Member
a Mystic Prohet; by definition he had direct contact with God(mystisicm) & started a religion in the name of God(prophet)
 
Top