Non-Christians: Jesus and the question of historicity ...

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sadly we must face the possibility that it is all a sham and a well crafted tale to amuse the unwashed masses.

Possibilities are cheap and plentiful. The question of historicity is fundamentally one of historiography and inference to best explanation, and secondarily (in my opinion) the extent to which ones response to the specific question is driven by bias.

 

[Buttercup]

Possibilities are cheap and plentiful. The question of historicity is fundamentally one of historiography and inference to best explanation, and secondarily (in my opinion) the extent to which ones response to the specific question is driven by bias.

Where do you stand in regards to the historicity of Jesus?

Please answer with as little bias as possible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where do you stand in regards to the historicity of Jesus? Please answer with as little bias as possible.

I believe it to be likely.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not sure where I stand on this.
The nature of history and archology is such that it is very difficult to learn anything about any one particular person from the time period. We know next to nothing about Herod and he was the ruler of the whole Nation. Tut has oodles of stuff and again we know very little.

The fact that the biographers of Jesus had problems with the details of his life is telling. But its also to be expected from a story that was handed down oraly and then hand copied in poor lighting for centuries.

I'm going to have to stay sceptical untill better evidence comes along. And the vehemance of followers isn't valid evidence to me.

wa:do

 

[Buttercup]

I believe it to be likely.

Now that has to be the absolute vaguest answer you've ever given, and I have a sneaky feeling it was on purpose.

Come on, Jay....what do you think is the most likely historiography concerning Jesus? I'd like to know, although I could probably piece together a quasi answer for myself from my time on RF reading your posts.

Have you learned anything new of late you'd like to share?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now that has to be the absolute vaguest answer you've ever given, and I have a sneaky feeling it was on purpose.

At the risk of appearing rude, that you found the answer 'vague' simply reflects a lack of sophistication on your part. Much history is inferential. Again, I believe an historical Jesus likely. Perhaps I should have added: "I also believe it to be the more reasonable default position."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... what do you think is the most likely historiography concerning Jesus?

I'm sorry, Buttercup, but what do you think that sentence means?

 

[Buttercup]

At the risk of appearing rude, that you found the answer 'vague' simply reflects a lack of sophistication on your part.

Talk about a lack of sophistication, your sentence isn't even complete much less clear nor at all an obvious answer although you chided me for giving the same.

Where do you stand in regards to the historicity of Jesus? Please answer with as little bias as possible.

I believe it to be likely.

 

[Buttercup]

I'm sorry, Buttercup, but what do you think that sentence means?

I'm asking what you think is the most authentic historical account of Jesus. Historiography means examination of the critical or authentic written sources concerning whatever historical subject you have at hand.

What did you think my sentence was asking, Jay?

 

[Isabella Lecour]

Oie...

OK. I think it is more likely than not that a Jewish preacher existed and was executed by the state.

 

[Yerda]

Where do you stand on the question of historicity?

I have no basis for drawing a conclusion. I've only recently started taking an interest.

Would you recommend any books on the matter?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm asking what you think is the most authentic historical account of Jesus. Historiography means examination of the critical or authentic written sources concerning whatever historical subject you have at hand.

From Wikipedia ...

There are two basic issues involved in historiography. (Breisach, 1994) First, the study of the development of history as an academic discipline over time, as well as its development in different cultures and epochs. Second, the study of the academic tools, methods and approaches that have been and are being used, including the historical method.

The term "historiography" can also be used to refer to a specific body of historical writing that was written during a specific time concerning a specific issue. For instance, "medieval historiography during the 1960s" would be taken to mean the methodological approaches and ideas about medieval history that were developed during that decade.

Conal Furay and Michael J. Salevouris define historiography as "the study of the way history has been and is written — the history of historical writing... When you study 'historiography' you do not study the events of the past directly, but the changing interpretations of those events in the works of individual historians."​

What did you think my sentence was asking, Jay?

I suspected that you were inquiring as to evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have no basis for drawing a conclusion. I've only recently started taking an interest.

Would you recommend any books on the matter?

It's a rather difficult to question to answer. You should certainly become familiar with Acts and Josephus.

 

[Yerda]

You should certainly become familiar with Acts and Josephus.

OK. Cheers. I read about Josephus a while back. From my poor memory I think the gist of the argument was that his passages on Jesus were forgeries. I may get back to you sometime, but the level of my scholarship regarding things Biblical and historical might not dazzle you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK. Cheers. I read about Josephus a while back. From my poor memory I think the gist of the argument was that his passages on Jesus were forgeries. I may get back to you sometime, but the level of my scholarship regarding things Biblical and historical might not dazzle you.

Nor do mine.

BTW: nice e.e. cummings quote - I was always rather fond of ...

anyone lived in a pretty how town
(with up so floating many bells down)
spring summer autumn winter
he sang his didn't he danced his did

Women and men(both little and small)
cared for anyone not at all
they sowed their isn't they reaped their same
sun moon stars rain

children guessed(but only a few
and down they forgot as up they grew
autumn winter spring summer)
that noone loved him more by more

when by now and tree by leaf
she laughed his joy she cried his grief
bird by snow and stir by still
anyone's any was all to her

someones married their everyones
laughed their cryings and did their dance
(sleep wake hope and then)they
said their nevers they slept their dream

stars rain sun moon
(and only the snow can begin to explain
how children are apt to forget to remember
with up so floating many bells down)

one day anyone died i guess
(and noone stooped to kiss his face)
busy folk buried them side by side
little by little and was by was

all by all and deep by deep
and more by more they dream their sleep
noone and anyone earth by april
wish by spirit and if by yes.

Women and men(both dong and ding)
summer autumn winter spring
reaped their sowing and went their came
sun moon stars rain​

As for Josephus, don't confuse the assertions of a few fringe atheists with the current consensus on the Testimonium, and don't confuse that consensus with the consensus on the Josephus reference to James.

 

[TurtleGirl]

I'm not sure how I feel about the historicity of Jesus. I saw a documentary somewhere on the web that made a fairly compelling case against it. Regardless of whether Jesus existed or not, and despite my not being Christian, I think a lot of what Jesus purportedly taught is very wise. I just wish some of the very zealous fundamentalist Christians actually believed and followed his teachings. And I'm not saying that by default Christians are zealous fundamentals or ignorant of Christ's teachings, just that I've seen so many who are and it troubles me.

I think Barbara Ehrenreich made some very excellent points on this topic in Nickel and Dimed.

 

[Buttercup]

From Wikipedia ...

There are two basic issues involved in historiography. (Breisach, 1994) First, the study of the development of history as an academic discipline over time, as well as its development in different cultures and epochs. Second, the study of the academic tools, methods and approaches that have been and are being used, including the historical method.

The term "historiography" can also be used to refer to a specific body of historical writing that was written during a specific time concerning a specific issue. For instance, "medieval historiography during the 1960s" would be taken to mean the methodological approaches and ideas about medieval history that were developed during that decade.

Conal Furay and Michael J. Salevouris define historiography as "the study of the way history has been and is written — the history of historical writing... When you study 'historiography' you do not study the events of the past directly, but the changing interpretations of those events in the works of individual historians."​

I suspected that you were inquiring as to evidence.

Yes, you are correct. I've always understood the word to mean more like the number one definition of this dictionary source:

Main Entry: his·to·ri·og·ra·phy
Pronunciation: -fE
Function: noun
1 a : the writing of history; especially : the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods b : the principles, theory, and history of historical writing <a course in historiography>
2 : the product of historical writing : a body of historical literature


I'd like to add that while my opinion is the story line of Christ was borrowed from the Persian Zoroastrians, Jesus may have indeed existed. However, I think he was picked for the part because he fit the script, not because he was born of a virgin or was God incarnate.

But, in reality there's really no way of knowing much of anything about the man. All historical writings/mentions of Jesus are at best scanty even from well known sources.

 

[Yerda]

Nor do mine.

BTW: nice e.e. cummings quote - I was always rather fond of...

As for Josephus, don't confuse the assertions of a few fringe atheists with the current consensus on the Testimonium, and don't confuse that consensus with the consensus on the Josephus reference to James.

I think it was an atheist resource site where I read the article. I'll keep your advice in mind.

I love that poem, by the way. Makes me smile yet a little sad too...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a rather difficult to question to answer. You should certainly become familiar with Acts and Josephus.

If you're going to get familiar with Josephus, I'd suggest a bit more than the Testimonium Flavianum... like perhaps his other writings where he describes going to war to have the Roman Emperor Vespasian recognized as the Jewish Messiah (an odd thing to do if Josephus believed Jesus was the Messiah, IMO).

Also, it might be good to read Origen, who sums up Josephus' writings by saying that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ... which makes it seem kind of odd that a Testimonium Flavianum declaring Jesus as a miracle-working divine Messiah would somehow "appear" for Eusebius a century later.

Edit: I just read your following posts... I guess this makes me a "fringe atheist", eh? ;-)

 

[Blindinglight]

I believe there was an actual Jesus, who inspired the Savior character from the Bible.