Was Jesus an Historical Person?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If all we have is a scrap or a fragment of gJohn from 125-150 CE, how do we know it is from gJohn? How can we assume that the vast amount of text that forms gJohn would be present if that scrap was not a scrap but included the whole text? Perhaps the 'scrap' was actually a fragment of some other (even unrelated) document?

The Scrap

Maybe it's just me and my love of statistics, but when one has a fragment of several lines of a Greek text which fit perfectly into other copies we have, and the probability of this being an accident or coincidence is nill, I think it's because it is from that same text.
True, it's not like we have hundreds and hundreds of recovered papyri to compare the material, scribal hand, the Greek, and even the words to, or like we have a few thousand NT manuscripts to compare. Oh wait. We do.

 

[steeltoes]

Here we are talking about an actual archaeological artifact. But hey, what do those people know about dating?

A random rant:
I just love these double standards. I understand when Christians assign greater historical value than is warranted, as it is a matter of faith. I may not agree, but whatever. But when people who supposedly don't care suddenly become the most skeptical people on the planet about a handful of sources and the thousands of papers, books, and other works of scholarship produced over the past 2 centuries on this issue, yet are mind-numbingly accepting of whatever they get off of wikipedia about other historical figures, authors, and so forth...well, that boggles the mind. Does the facade of neutrality masking overwhelming ignorance really seem that convincing from the "inside"?

Well, how is it dated? It's a simple question, no need to get into a tizzy over it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, how is it dated? It's a simple question, no need to get into a tizzy over it.

It's a question you didn't ask:

As long as this date for John from 125 - 150 CE is in any way accurate.

But now you are asking a question. So when you made the above statement did you have any idea how dating was determined? Or did you just demonstrate an instinctive skepticism because it is...[cue Toccata and Fugue in D minor]...Xstian! Seriously, if you aren't Christian, it's just historical evidence. It's not the plague.

 

[steeltoes]

But this is a boundary argument which keeps dates very few considered likely (e.g., late 2nd century or early 3rd) off the table.

Off the table? Really?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Off the table? Really?

Among those who are familiar with the evidence. It's not like it can't be proposed. It's just that the internet is the last bastion for baseless arguments fed to starving beaks about such things. Actual scholars who have to defend their positions by real arguments can't really get away with relying on questions to support a theory. There has to be evidence.

 

[steeltoes]

Among those who are familiar with the evidence. It's not like it can't be proposed. It's just that the internet is the last bastion for baseless arguments fed to starving beaks about such things. Actual scholars who have to defend their positions by real arguments can't really get away with relying on questions to support a theory. There has to be evidence.

Interesting.

 

[s2a]

Quote:
when I said:
Because it's not especially compelling evidence of any sort whatsoever.

You asked:

Why not?

Um, because "compelling evidences" tend to remove most or any doubt regarding claims or inquires such as…:Was a Jesus an Historical Person?""

If no doubts of legitimate claim existed, then no need of further inquiry would exist

When I said:
Allow us to, at very least, contemplate the extraordinary claim:

"Jesus is the son of God"

Ok, now, um...really?

You responded:
The same was said of many others, from emperors like Augustus to Greek philosophers. Why judge the veracity of ancient sources using a modern yardstick which is bound to confuse, muddle, and render invalid any historical analysis of any ancient sources?

I call BS.

The topic at hand is the claim of an historical and certifiably existent Jesus.

I said:
“If we ever hope to preserve our capacities as a rational and logical species... must not we at least allow ourselves to accept as indisputable "fact" that some alleged omniscient, invisible, yet non-evidential benevolent space entity/deity actually exits within this mortal realm?”

and you replied...
This is completely irrelevant to the issue. But no. I doubt that it will matter one way or the other.

Well, it does matter…

I await your proofs of the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or Trolls that reside under bridges. Popular belief any sustaining mythos are poor evidence of any palpable evidential facts or evaluative conclusions…. EVER.


After I inquired :
What Would Jesus Ask as evidence if he were a physicist today?

Your answer was...
Hopefully, he'd ask that physicists not pretend physics has anything to do with history.

A cheap dodge in punctuated reply, but true enough, as physicists are not historians… nor vice versa…as physicists do not endeavor to validate history, nor seek to predicate their conclusions upon unfalsifiable tenants of religious beliefs.

Nor are any claimants of faith-based "truths" little more than populist shamans/witch doctors in their own time…far absent from any efforts that might include actual experimental testing, compiled objective datum, or logical extrapolations predicated upon reason or informed conclusions formed and presented from such efforts.

However… what physicists can offer is an established set of purely objective scientific rules and guidelines to drill down to elemental facts…that faith-based beliefs might eventually accept as best available explanations… or adherents willfully chose to wistfully deny as a matter of course in devotion to a particular sense of pious loyalty or adherence despite any and all evidential conclusions to the contrary.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence... and the bald-faced facts remain that NO extraordinary evidences of any kind lend any conclusive and unequivocal facts beyond a willingness of like-minded adherents to fervently accept and abide as "Truth", absent of any testable empirical methodologies...

And, just to continue one millimeter further...even IF...even IF some palpable evidence that was subject to objective scrutiny was obtained tomorrow that some dude named "Jesus" from Nazareth was a recorded and known personality in the era cited as his existent rein, that "fact" would hardly serve to validate the more outrageous and extraordinary claim that he was spawn of some supernatural entity or deity.

 

[Quagmire]

Maybe we should have a screening test to make sure people understand what's being discussed before they're allowed to post in these threads.

 

[s2a]

Maybe we should have a screening test to make sure people understand what's being discussed before they're allowed to post in these threads.

Well, you're a mod... your call I suppose...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Quote:
when I said:
Because it's not especially compelling evidence of any sort whatsoever.

You asked:

Why not?

Um, because "compelling evidences" tend to remove most or any doubt regarding claims or inquires such as…:Was a Jesus an Historical Person?""

There are people who doubt whether evolution is real or whether the holocaust existed. Stupidity knows no boundary. There are always going to be people who don't have a clue what they are talking about doubting this or that.

If no doubts of legitimate claim existed, then no need of further inquiry would exist

Which is why we have people who doubt that the moon landing was real, that dinosaur bones are real, and so on. Or maybe it's because people who don't have a clue but have an agenda don't need legitimate claims to doubt?

When I said:
Allow us to, at very least, contemplate the extraordinary claim:

"Jesus is the son of God"

Ok, now, um...really?

You responded:
The same was said of many others, from emperors like Augustus to Greek philosophers. Why judge the veracity of ancient sources using a modern yardstick which is bound to confuse, muddle, and render invalid any historical analysis of any ancient sources?

I call BS.

Then do some research.

I said:
“If we ever hope to preserve our capacities as a rational and logical species... must not we at least allow ourselves to accept as indisputable "fact" that some alleged omniscient, invisible, yet non-evidential benevolent space entity/deity actually exits within this mortal realm?”

and you replied...
This is completely irrelevant to the issue. But no. I doubt that it will matter one way or the other.

Well, it does matter…

It DOES matter. This is true. Because science as we know it wouldn't have existed were it not for Christian beliefs. Hopefully it would have happened anyway, but we don't know, as it was integral for modern science.

I await your proofs of the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or Trolls that reside under bridges. Popular belief any sustaining mythos are poor evidence of any palpable evidential facts or evaluative conclusions…. EVER.

"mythos"? First, the plural is mythoi. Mythos is singular, so it would be mythos "is". Second, when you have any facts, get back to me.

After I inquired :
What Would Jesus Ask as evidence if he were a physicist today?

Your answer was...
Hopefully, he'd ask that physicists not pretend physics has anything to do with history.

A cheap dodge in punctuated reply, but true enough, as physicists are not historians… nor vice versa…as physicists do not endeavor to validate history, nor seek to predicate their conclusions upon unfalsifiable tenants of religious beliefs.

Actually they do. How much academic cosmological literature have you read of late?

Nor are any claimants of faith-based "truths" little more than populist shamans/witch doctors in their own time…far absent from any efforts that might include actual experimental testing, compiled objective datum, or logical extrapolations predicated upon reason or informed conclusions formed and presented from such efforts.

This happens today. And datum is singular. You want data here.

However… what physicists can offer is an established set of purely objective scientific rules and guidelines to drill down to elemental facts…that faith-based beliefs might eventually accept as best available explanations… or adherents willfully chose to wistfully deny as a matter of course in devotion to a particular sense of pious loyalty or adherence despite any and all evidential conclusions to the contrary.

I take it you don't read much in the way of theoretical or cosmological phsyics.

And, just to continue one millimeter further

Don't bother.

 

[Quagmire]

Well, you're a mod... your call I suppose...

If only.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

However… what physicists can offer is an established set of purely objective scientific rules and guidelines to drill down to elemental facts

Before I get asked for "proof" for my response to your bit about physicists:

A number of academic conferences, from one held at Cambridge University in 2001 to another at the same place (different college, same university) in 2005, but in particular one held at Stanford in 2003 resulted in the publication of a volume which shares the name of the 2003 conference: "Universe or Multiverse?". The book (edited by Bernard Carr) consists of a number of papers written by various physicists, cosmologists, etc., who were involved at these conferences, and was published by Cambridge University Press in 2007. The first paper is an introductory paper on the subject and an outline of the volume (this is standard practice) written by Carr (again, standard, as edited volumes usually contain this type of contribution by the editor or editors).

In this introduction to the volume, Carr notes the following:

"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable. Indeed, it may always remain so, in the sense that astronomers may never be able to observe the other universes with telescopes a and particle physicists may never be able to observe the extra dimensions with their accelerators...
For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science. This view has been expressed forcefully by commentators such as Sheldon Glashowm Martin Gardner and George Ellis, with widely differing metaphysical outlooks. Indeed, Paul Davies regards the concept of a multiverse as just as metaphysical as that of a Creator who fine-tuned a single universe for our existence. At the very least the notion of the multiverse requires us to extend our idea of what constitutes legitimate science.

 

[steeltoes]

Maybe we should have a screening test to make sure people understand what's being discussed before they're allowed to post in these threads.

Was Jesus an Historical Person? = holocaust denial. correct, you may proceed.

 

[Quagmire]

Was Jesus an Historical Person = holocaust denial. correct, you may proceed.

I'm tempted to say "What?" But I know I'd regret it.

 

[Willamena]

Before I get asked for "proof" for my response to your bit about physicists:

The phrase "just as metaphysical," used in an apparent derogatory manner, doesn't inspire confidence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The phrase "just as metaphysical," used in an apparent derogatory manner, doesn't inspire confidence.

Nor should it.

 

[s2a]

Before I get asked for "proof" for my response to your bit about physicists:

I confess that you efforts of obfuscation in reply are, um... confounding, disjointed, and nearly illiterate.

There are a great many things today about which theoretical physics and "plain ole" physics butt heads and yet amicably and arguably "agree to disagree", but the voodoo of "metaphysics" and spinoff reality shows in hunting down Bigfoot, ancient Aliens, ghosts, astral alignments as insights to impending apocalyptic events, etc...are not science, scientific, methodologically sound, or even presentable for any credible peer review.

Forgive my saying so, but interjections of "metaphysics" in this dialogue is nearly the equivalent of shouting "Hitler! and Nazis!" in supposed counterpoint.

Yes, of course there are a goodly amount of "hard-core" scientists that claim some sort of foundation or rooted belief in some ethereal entity, spirit, Cosmologic force, or "Intelligent Design" that shall forever remain mysterious or unknowable/undiscoverable... but as you well know...theological/spiritual concepts, or any that are untestable, unmeasurable, or unverifiable are UNSCIENTIFIC at their core... so spare me any quotes of "testimonies" that cite "metaphysical" uncertainties as legitimate or compelling rebuttal.

Albert Einstein remains arguably one of the most compelling scientists of the modern age, yet his stubborn resistance to the notion of a chaotic cosmos that he personally felt utterly impossible to fathom, much less accept as veritable or validation of his very own initially proposed conclusions, are known today disproved and experimentally established evidential fact.

Genius intellect or inspiration does not insulate against ingrained thought, bias, or prejudice over time, or mere wishful thinking borne of hope of a spiritual "meaning" attached to anything.

 

[oldbadger]

It snot really a new angle. Meyers, Crossan, Borg, Reed, Moss all sort of follow this.

The Scribes.

My book is in progress. It is part fiction, following as close to my personal version of history. Sort of like a modern day apostle telling his version. It is my view, to bring back the very Jewish Jesus as if a follower of Judaism was telling the legend, not a Roman or Proselyte.

Its in the beginning stages so we will see, I have a published author coaching me now.
Even if I dont finish it, I enjoy it. What ive learned while writing it to is a huge payoff. It has humbled me and given me a respect for any author.

Thank you.

OK..... Meyers, Crossan, Borg, Reed, Moss .......... I'm never going to get to read these scholars, since I read for fun at lunchtimes! But I do read fictions with historical background, so please finish that book in my blooming lifetime, and do pick a title that will interest the Lay...... so your message will travel far and wide!

Sometime I would like to have a row about those Galilean fishermen, how many in a crew (Peter and Simon?), their nets, their use of boats, their 'above average' incomes (heh heh!), how Jesus used boats for speeches, how many he could 'broadcast' to at a time, how badly the locals swam, how well Jesus 'went' over water, how well they could trade 'under the table', how much they hated government, ....... sometime.........

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

The Scrap

Maybe it's just me and my love of statistics, but when one has a fragment of several lines of a Greek text which fit perfectly into other copies we have, and the probability of this being an accident or coincidence is nill, I think it's because it is from that same text.
True, it's not like we have hundreds and hundreds of recovered papyri to compare the material, scribal hand, the Greek, and even the words to, or like we have a few thousand NT manuscripts to compare. Oh wait. We do.

Even if a fragment contained a whole chapter of what would later become the whole document, that does not mean all the other chapters would coincide. Consider the interpolations we do know about such as the longer ending of Mark or the pericope adulterae in John. Over a period of several centuries, a document can be amended over and over again, and the final document may be drastically different from the original.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Over a period of several centuries, a document can be amended over and over again, and the final document may be drastically different from the original.

Or it may not be. Therefore?