Was Jesus an Historical Person?

[oldbadger]

Sometimes, giant leaps are effected by the most unlikely people. Example? Ummmmm....... the first example to 'fizzzz'......the most successful assault rifle in the eastern and third world for over 60 years was designed..... by a postman.

His name was Kalashnikov.

How does that hinge upon this thread? I just think that sometimes it's necessary to break out of the constraints laid down by intellectual impostors. I think that might count within this subject.

 

[outhouse]

His name was Kalashnikov.

It makes a distinct sound when fired

 

[steeltoes]

Hi..... Thanks for the above.

The thing is, I am really keen to discover as much evidence as possible for a historical jesus, but the problem is that some kind of 'rule' seems to have established itself that only 'true-scholars'' opinions have value. Then, when these bloody scholars disagree with each other we debaters are supposed to divide and chuck muck at the opposing 'scholar'.

I'm reading one at this time,and have learned so much 'apart from anything to do with Jesus'!!! (at halfway point). That's why I'm trying to nail down a historic scholar or two.

Just now I would listen to any amateur historian , like:tug-boat skipper, Fast-food takeway boss, anybody yes with a bit of investigative ability and questioning mind......... I might learn something!

But, so far, I do believe in a historic Jesus.

I don't think it can be known if Jesus was historical in a meaningful way. I think the more you read about the historical Jesus the less you can be so sure of what is really known of him. The following is from rational wiki:

Jesus myth theory, variously called Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis, among other names, is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book Jesus: Myth Or History at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.



​

 

[steeltoes]

Historical Jesus


The term historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of portraits of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. These reconstructions, which are distinct from the question of the existence of Jesus, are based on historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived.

​

Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during that phase. The second quest which started in 1953 reached a plateau in the 1970s and by 1992 the term third quest had been coined to characterize the new research approaches.


While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus, the portraits of Jesus constructed in these quests have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts. The mainstream profiles in the third quest may be grouped together based on their primary theme as apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change. But there is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it. from wiki
------------------------
​

The historical Jesus does not look any more credible than the mythical Jesus.

 

[steeltoes]

Historical Jesus as apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change, depending on who's book you are reading,


or


a myth theory denying that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.


If these are the choices, what difference does it make?

Does it matter?

 

[outhouse]

The historical Jesus does not look any more credible than the mythical Jesus.

Sure it does bud.


HJ fits the cultural anthropology to a T leaving no real unanswered questions.


MJ only leaves unanswered questions.


Both fields have issues.

HJ has apologetically inclined scholars trying to force fit history into mythology trying to turn BJ into HJ.

MJ has uneducated quacks for the most part, using conspiracy minded tactics that leave way more questions then answers. When they start pushing Paul back to 300-400 CE and claiming sun deities ect, and that marcion didnt exist ect ect. Its more then just foolish. They also have zero common ground exept a hatred of knowledge and education as they have to avoid that to push their silly pet hobby horses.



Skepticism is great, but it needs to be backed by knowledge.




First, there were many teachers and healers. Nothing generates oral tradition like a man martyred at passover in front of 400,000 possible witnesses.

The bible in total, generally only deals with the last week and death of this Galilean peasant deified just like the mortal emporers were deified while living.

 

[outhouse]

Historical Jesus as apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change, depending on who's book you are reading,


or


a myth theory denying that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.


If these are the choices, what difference does it make?

Does it matter?

Trying to fish out answers and understand why the most important epic ever created and how, is interesting.

 

[oldbadger]

The bible in total, generally only deals with the last week and death of this Galilean peasant deified just like the mortal emporers were deified while living.

Hi !

I haven't really focused upon this time-line aspect yet,but disregarding the nativity, I don't see how you can fit Jesus's baptism, journey to Galilee, recruitment of (some) disciples, first visits, hillside meetings, journeys across the lake, journey southwards, the night outside Jerusalem, journey in, the temple, the last night, the trial and execution......... into a week.

I highlighted those three words, because they show how lost we all probably feel about this whole subject. I'm going ahead with my prob, poss, improb and imposs boxes, simply to get some kind of a view about everything, because just now those three words could have been written by me.

 

[oldbadger]

It makes a distinct sound when fired

:biglaugh::biglaugh:

I never fired one......! Never held one!

 

[oldbadger]

Some good information there. Thanks for sharing.

Hi ya! The true sciences don't need Dunning-Kruger's proposal, only the INEXACT sciences! This is needed by professors of nothingness to help secure their positions. It can be thrown at any who question their work. They propose that incompetents who question the 'pros', aspire to or challenge them should wear the D-K dunce-hat!

This makes me so happy! In 2002 the UK needed a principle to steer it's new security industry authority, ranging thru' cash-in-transit ops, P.Is D), close-protection ops, commercial and retail guards, ccctv operatives to security consultants. et al.

The UK government introduced their chosen 'Head' and pointed out that because this person had never had anything to do with any aspect of the security industry, this person was therefore perfect for the position, because a new, fresh and objective approach could be made, free from the hindrances of pre-conceived difficulties. :jester3:

Impostors use these brick-bats as required, to suit their needs! :yes:

When experts disagree, any lay person has the right to an opinion?

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think it can be known if Jesus was historical in a meaningful way. I think the more you read about the historical Jesus the less you can be so sure of what is really known of him. The following is from rational wiki:

Jesus myth theory, variously called Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis, among other names, is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book Jesus: Myth Or History at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.

​

No challenge..... well, not from me. The strongest of academic HJ supporters will only argue for a few day's of fleeting probabilities.

But for me, the term 'meaningful historical verification' would be fulfilled with only a couple of glances; because this extraordinary man/prophet (w.h.y.) fueled a following which was grasped by a manipulator and turned into a worldwide controlling body which affected 80% of all people (somehow) for a couple of thousand years. I write 80% because so many were affected as enemies of christianity.

And so my interest is one of discovering as much as I can, to form my own feelings and beliefs, and I am prepared to consider possibilities as well as probabilities. Hell....... history is just one big stack of probs and poss's anyway. Beliefs are turned upside down by the month, these days.

 

[oldbadger]

TO STEELTOES:_>>>>>>

Historical Jesus as apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change, depending on who's book you are reading,

or

a myth theory denying that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.


If these are the choices, what difference does it make?

Does it matter?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It does not matter now..... to the world imo. But these questions do matter to individual people, and, hell, since there are people out there whose whole world is, for instance, a collection of fairground glass, if you question this interest,then you might as well thow away all interests, from football card collections to baseball, or anything.

I am amazed that threads like this don't get constantly heckled by upset christians who don't want any of their faith interfered with at all.

JDC's descriptions of messiahs don't fit Jesus. But Jesus may have prophesied, but I am interested in whether he healed and taught for social change.

Why? Why do folks watch tv soaps, or play virtual reality games, or .......?

 

[steeltoes]

TO STEELTOES:_>>>>>>

Historical Jesus as apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change, depending on who's book you are reading,

or

a myth theory denying that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.


If these are the choices, what difference does it make?

Does it matter?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It does not matter now..... to the world imo. But these questions do matter to individual people, and, hell, since there are people out there whose whole world is, for instance, a collection of fairground glass, if you question this interest,then you might as well thow away all interests, from football card collections to baseball, or anything.

I am amazed that threads like this don't get constantly heckled by upset christians who don't want any of their faith interfered with at all.

JDC's descriptions of messiahs don't fit Jesus. But Jesus may have prophesied, but I am interested in whether he healed and taught for social change.

Why? Why do folks watch tv soaps, or play virtual reality games, or .......?

Does it really matter that so many different conclusion are arrived at, from apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change, to the idea that Christianity can not be traced to a personal founder?

No one is in agreement as to what Jesus was so the idea that Jesus can't be known is not so radical as believers in an historical Jesus like to feign. Suggesting that we might have to question Jesus' very existence has believers fainting in the aisles. Does it matter that some can't deal with the possibility? Or are they just faking it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No one is in agreement as to what Jesus was so the idea that Jesus can't be known is not so radical as believers in an historical Jesus like to feign.

Who in particular likes to feign this?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Historical Jesus as apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change, depending on who's book you are reading,


or


a myth theory denying that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.


If these are the choices, what difference does it make?

These are the "choices" only for mythicists (or those who don't identifiy themselves as such but show all the hallmarks of being one). Because the dichotomy represents not only a fundamental misunderstanding of historical Jesus research, but a thorough misunderstanding, and little to no knowledge, of the historical method.

There is not a

myth theory denying that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder

.
There are several, many of which don't actually develop the "myth theory" part at all (just the "serious problems" and whatnot with our evidence).

Like most mythicists, you've presented the "historical Jesus" side in the way it is distilled down to simplistic categories available on numerous websites such that those who don't want to actually study the issue can reduce years and years of work by so many into a list of two or three word summaries. Then this is contrasted with "a myth theory" which doesn't actually exist.

Such a theory would have to plausibly explain how our sources developed out of the literary, social, religious, linguistic, political, and cultural situations they did.

In other words, what the mythicist crowd almost always fails to understand is that every historical theory regarding Jesus, mythical or not, needs to address the same issues, answer the same questions, deal with the same problems, and so forth. If, for example, someone claims Jesus never existed, then they need to explain how, given our knowledge of the socio-cultural, political, religious, and literary dynamics of the first century, an unprecedented community developed around a "mythic" figure who, unlike any other mythic figure to which Jesus is usually compared, is not some hero from a distant, bygone age but was going around while Paul was still alive. They have to explain how the gospels, which differ utterly from the various literary genres of the Greco-Roman world used to transmit received myth, but are quite similar to certain types of historical writings, should be understood.

The list goes on. Which is why most sources either don't explain anything (they just "prove" that our evidence doesn't show anything by relying on the ignorance of their readers), or they rely on fundamental distortions (such as blatant historical errors concerning mystery religions, misquoting/misrepresenting their own sources, ripping things from context, etc.)

Does it matter?

It matters enough that it has dominated much of your writing here. It matters enough that you took the time to find particular sources to support a particular view. It matters enough that you are willing to make statements about the nature and dynamics of scholarship, the expertise and knowledge of the scholars themselves, and indeed (even if only implicitly) characterize the entire "quest" as the work of non-historians reflecting their biases all without actually being familiar with any scholarship.

In fact, it seems the only way it doesn't matter for you is historically. Of course, you are not alone here, as this is characteristic of mythicists. I don't know why (maybe just bias? maybe the work it takes to do actual research? both?). But the one thing that virtually all those who claim they are neutral and just interested in a historical question have in common is an almost fanatical, dogmatic adversity to actual research.

 

[steeltoes]

You read your Bible as if Jesus is historical like many that came before you and cast aspersions on those that don't, no surprises there, it seems that a lot of people don't take kindly to those that don't read The Bible as if Jesus is historical. Whatever Jesus was is not my problem, I don't think it makes any difference since no one else knows what he was anyways.

Criteria had to be invented when historical method failed to identify an historical Jesus, there are no artifacts, no contemporaries, no primary or secondary sources. Invented criteria allows that they couldn't have just made this stuff up, so buy into that and continue reading as if Jesus is historical. It doesn't matter anyways, not everyone cares to read The Bible as if Jesus is historical, nothing wrong with mythology, after all, it is The Bible, just the place to read of JC, the Son of God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You read your Bible as if Jesus is historical like many that came before you and cast aspersions on those that don't, no surprises there,

1) I'm agnostic. It isn't "my bible"
2) One of my majors (and my minor) as an undergrad concerns the work I do now (neuroscience, cognitive science, etc.), but the other was classical languages. I didn't start out reading ancient biblical texts, but rather Homer, Plato, Herodotus, etc. Unlike a good many biblical scholars, I studied classical civilization and classical languages first.
3) Having continued into graduate work and research in a field which combines everything from linguistics to biology, I understand what differentiates technical literature from from popular works (even those written by experts) and more importantly how baseless your claims about the nature of historical Jesus studies are. You talk about "those that came before" me, but you haven't read them. You have yet to mention a single work of scholarship on the historical Jesus, but you have managed to fundamentally mischaracterize the development of modern historical-critical analysis.

4) Like so many before you, your façade of "neutral, unbiased" analysis is belied by the limits of your interest in the classical world. You have displayed, over and over again, that the extent of your knowledge of antiquity is almost completely limited to historical Jesus. You have referenced other works and authors which suffer from the same problems the gospels do as far as seperating fact from fiction but as you don't seem to have even read these, let alone the analyses on them which have been produced by classicists and others for the past few centuries, that's not a problem.

5) When confronted with the fact that you are almost completely unaware of either the primary sources or the scholarship on these, you defend the fact that you haven't studied this yet have no problem asserting that countless scholars from numerous fields over generation after generation disagree with you by accusing them as bias.

In short, the entirey of your position is based on virtually no research, misunderstanding the nature of scholarship, attacking research you haven't read, and pretending that your lack of familiarity with just about any relevant issue doesn't matter because...well, I don't know why you pretend this, actually.

it seems that a lot of people don't take kindly to those that don't read The Bible as if Jesus is historical.

People don't take kindly to those who have read some websites and similar material and proceed to use this knowledge to malign serious historians who have spent years studying this issue.
People don't take kindly to those who pretend to be neutral yet are content to form an opinion almost universially rejected by everyone in any field from classics to to near eastern studies because they read some stuff online and maybe a book or two.

People don't take kindly when their approach to ancient sources, informed by a knowledge of what literary genres were in and around the first century, is reduced to an insulting description of their analysis of primary sources ("the bible", as if this were really treated as a singular collective in real scholarship) which not only fundamentally conflicts with actual scholars' work, but comes from someone who hasn't actually read the very work they are criticizing.

Whatever Jesus was is not my problem, I don't think it makes any difference since no one else knows what he was anyways.

I'm sure you don't care at all, which explains the hundreds of posts you've written here.

Criteria had to be invented when historical method failed to identify an historical Jesus,

Criteria are central to the historical method regardless of subject, and they are always being developed no matter what the issue is. However, as mythicists don't actually study history, they can't determine when, where, or why historical Jesus scholarship is like any other.

there are no artifacts, no contemporaries, no primary or secondary sources.

There are all of the above.

Invented criteria allows that they couldn't have just made this stuff up

And you can no doubt compare the criteria used (by actually citing scholarship), and compare these with those used in ancient historical study in general.

it is The Bible, just the place to read of JC, the Son of God.

The last bastion for mythicism: "So what if I'm attacking the work of those I've never read, criticizing historical Jesus scholarship when I'm not actually familiar with historical scholarship in general, and so what if my knowledge is entirely limited to non-academic sources and mostly sensationalist bunk? In the end, I can write off actual historians and scholars by making baseless claims about their religious motives."

 

[oldbadger]

2) One of my majors (and my minor) as an undergrad concerns the work I do now (neuroscience, cognitive science, etc.), but the other was classical languages. I didn't start out reading ancient biblical texts, but rather Homer, Plato, Herodotus, etc. Unlike a good many biblical scholars, I studied classical civilization and classical languages first.

Blimey! I know it's not in your 'area', but 'not so far away'.......

1. Can you discover what the life-expectancy of 'the' Galilean working-class Jew was back then? Peter, Mark, Luke didn't seem to do badly..

2. Neuro-science? The very first thing that a doctor has to do to diagnose a suspected hysteria case is to send the patient for a neurological disgnosis in the first instance. How much do you know about the incidence of hysteria in males in eastern mediterranean races? I know that Latin races have an increased tendency when compared with northern europeans.... that's it.... all I know, or can find.

I'm just interested....... another crazy theory?...... probably! , but if you don't turn over every stone,you do not find. Seek, and ye shall..... ?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't really care at all what Jesus was, I once did but since no one knows the first thing about Jesus, I got over it.

Rather, you never cared "what Jesus was. You cared about being able to claim "no one knows the first thing about Jesus". And you showed this quite clearly by simultaneously talking about all the problems and biases within scholarship while refusing to read any.

Besides this thread isn't about Jesus, it's about you and how you know everything, all you rant on about is how much you know and how little I know.

Actually, it's more about why everyone else (or almost everyone else) who knows about this topic realized how useuless it is to debate with someone who never had any interest in either actual study or in accuracy/truth.

Anything to avoid posting what is known about Jesus, whatever works for you.

The title of this thread is "was Jesus an historical person", which means establishing this first. I discussed this in some detail on this very thread not long ago, and this was your response:

I read your post #246, you are hardly one to judge anyone or anything. Convincing yourself that the gospels are an "historiography" so that you can read your Bible as if Jesus is historical is what I would expect to read on a website such as this. Unbelievable.

You didn't address a single point. You never do. I discussed in some detail Paul's meeting Jesus' brother:

Of what? The Greek? That was easy. Even before Dickey's Greek Forms of Address or (more importantly) her paper "Literal and Extended Use of Kinship Terms in Documentary Papyri" (Mnemosyne 57(2): pp. 131-176). The use of the genitive in this way is so basic that most ancient Greek reference grammars include as a seperate section.

When it comes to Paul, we're left with a lot of questions, sure. But formulaic 3rd person expressions of kinship, rather than adelphoi used in address, aren't problems.

So now you can point to me where else Paul uses a genitive of kinship/family to identify a third party to the audience, rather than a nominative and rather than an address to the readers, and uses this metaphorically.

and so on. Your responses?

That's one way to interpret what you read. I take it you know the correct interpretation.

As long as you're certain, Legion, that's the main thing.

When I mentioned p52, your first response wasn't to ask how it was dated, or to suggest that the date was wrong and why it was. All you did was express doubt about the dating without a reason, and after being called out you went to wikipedia to find that at least someone doesn't agree with the dating I gave.

At every turn, you've either ignored what I said, responded sarcastically, or otherwise refused to actually address any points.

I have tried repeatedly to explain why we know Jesus was an historical person, which would enable a discussion about this historical figure, but you refuse to actually discuss this.

 

[steeltoes]

I was well acquainted with p52 dating years before this thread came about which is why I questioned your narrow window for its dating when I came across it. The wiki contained a reason for a wider range of dates which you ignored in favour of appeals to authority. "So I leave it to the experts, and they have a consensus." Of course the experts are the ones that favour a narrow early window for dating with no line of reason supplied by you as to how it discounts a wider range. Your assumptions are baseless, whether about me or about your historical Jesus, of which you can know nothing about in either case.