Rethinking My Stance on the "historical Jesus"

[DeistPaladin]

Those familiar with my videos will know I was originally fascinated with the Jesus myth. My efforts to uncover the "real story" about the supposed founder of the Christian faith turned up more questions than answers. Outside the Bible, there are only a few references to this man and even these are full of problems.

However, lately, I've been reconsidering my beliefs about the "historical Jesus". This is not because I'm persuaded by any of the flimsy historical references but rather a tactical decision as to which issues I want to spend my time debating.

Christian apologists these days are quite ready for the Jesus myth debate with what I call the "scholars-say-shuffle" and I'm really tired of discussing the merits and flaws of Tacitus, the 4th century Talmudic reference and whether or not Josephus is a glaring forgery or just a minor forgery of some "partially authentic" reference.

What's more, I think the JNE debate is exactly the one the apologist wants to have. The skilled apologist can manipulate it to become a burden-of-proof-shifting tactic to make the skeptic look desperate to deny some sort of historical truth. They're much happier, I think, talking about the Annals of Tacitus instead of my "assumption of naturalism". If I'm wrong, I can still tell you which topic I'm happier discussing.

In the future, I plan to shift gears in my debates on Jesus from "Did Jesus exist?" to "Assuming Jesus existed, what can we possibly know about him and how likely is the Gospel story?" At this point, I can proceed to tear apart the inconsistencies and lies in the Gospel accounts along with how poorly it squares with what we know about actual history.

The fact is the Christians have never presented a coherent account, never mind proven it. The dearth of non-Christian testimony, while it doesn't necessarily disprove some sort of a wandering doom-crier and messiah wannabe named "Yeshua" (it was a common name and in 1st century Judea and there were many such religious leaders), it does cast doubt on a wonder-working godman who's fame allegedly spread far and wide.

Dawkins and Harris have both treated Jesus as a historical character in their books. Hitchens has actively argued for his existence. Obviously, a religious leader named Yeshua does nothing to validate Christian ideas about him or the historicity of the Gospel story.

Again, I'm still not convinced that there was a historical Jesus but I don't plan to spend my more time or energy on the "Jesus never existed" line. Now it will be "assuming Jesus existed, there's still no reason to take Christian mythology seriously".

 

[borrofburi]

In the future, I plan to shift gears in my debates on Jesus from "Did Jesus exist?" to "Assuming Jesus existed, what can we possibly know about him and how likely is the Gospel story?" At this point, I can proceed to tear apart the inconsistencies and lies in the Gospel accounts along with how poorly it squares with what we know about actual history.
...
Again, I'm still not convinced that there was a historical Jesus but I don't plan to spend my more time or energy on the "Jesus never existed" line. Now it will be "assuming Jesus existed, there's still no reason to take Christian mythology seriously".

Oh. I could have told you that. I've been using the god Romulus for a long time as evidence of why the christian I'm debating is using special pleading for jesus. I am however certain there is probably a better example somewhere (or at least more examples). They always of course say "but jesus has extra evidence" and I of course point out that historical evidence for jesus actually existing is very different from historical evidence that jesus was god, for the former is a small claim one that doesn't matter much, while the latter is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Also I like to point out the difference between scientific evidence and historical evidence.

Though my reason for this strategy is more simple and less compelling: I am far too lazy to look up all the scholars that supposedly mentioned jesus, look up the criticisms on why that might not be true, and then get back to the apologist. I am also curious as to how you, and others, plan to go about implementing this strategy.

 

[Aught3]

I think, based on the historical record, that it is more likely that Jesus did not exist as an actual person. This is not a particularly strong conclusion and I think a reasonable case can be made for the historicity of Jesus. The problem is (as Borr points out) that after explaining away the inconsistencies, rationalising the fact that no extra-Biblical record exists, and somehow accepting that even the new testament writers seem completely unconcerned with what Jesus actually did/said the Christian has still only got to the relatively mild position that there was some Jewish mystic called Jesus who preached for a couple of years (at most). There's no way they can reasonably use scripture to get to the position that Jesus was some sort of god. I consider the historicity of Jesus to be a devastating criticism against the Christian faith.

 

[Andiferous]

It is very difficult to argue that an event or person existed two millenia ago in history, no matter what the event. The best we have are multiple but questionable records and a skeptical eye. I'm cynical of the New Testament, but by the same token, I might also be doubtful of the Roman Historians who claimed his existence. I'll point out again that none of the gospel writers had even met Jesus.

I'm not sure where to argue from here. It seems to me that identifying and scrutinising the most important points from the problem (from our frame of reference) is more effective in arguing anything, rather than sending a deluge of random words and facts here and there.

(Not that I think you do that incidentally, I think you're very thoughtful and concise )

But, which matters more? Did Jesus exist, or did Jesus tell people do something in his name? It's a bit like "did King Arthur exist," but with more drama.

 

[tangoen]

Have you checked out the story of the Talpiot Tomb it was a tomb uncovered in 1980 i believe and it has an ossuary with the name Jesus son of joseph inscribed on it. something to check out if your intereested in a possible historical jesus. we may have found his bone box. i learned of this from a documentary made by Jacob Simcha called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" the director already has his conclusion drawn before the actual investigation but it still is kinda compelling

 

[Aught3]

Have you checked out the story of the Talpiot Tomb it was a tomb uncovered in 1980 i believe and it has an ossuary with the name Jesus son of joseph inscribed on it. something to check out if your intereested in a possible historical jesus. we may have found his bone box. i learned of this from a documentary made by Jacob Simcha called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" the director already has his conclusion drawn before the actual investigation but it still is kinda compelling

Sounds like the claim is roundly rejected by those in the field. Plus all the tombs had human remains.

 

[Deleted member 619]

A good friend of mine addressed this issue at length. Not with specific reference to the jesus-myther's position, but under the general rubric of 'foolish trivialising'. It makes for good reading.

Goldenmane[/url]"]Anyone who is familiar with my posting history here will know that I am a vocal opponent of religion. I doubt that I need to argue my credentials in that regard. With that in mind, there's something I've been pondering recently, and I think it's valuable enough to post here.

I think there's a marked tendency developing for people to trivialise religion in order to dismiss it. And I think that's a problem. It doesn't lend itself to critical thinking. When people deride religion's historical significance and its place in the development of human culture and society, they're being intellectually lazy.

More than that: given the of beastie that the human is, religion or something like it was probably an inevitable aspect of our cultural and social development. I have no desire or need for it, and am actively opposed to it, but the key point here is: in a modern context. In as much as 'fortunate' means anything, I'm incredibly fortunate in that I live at the time that I do. That I exist at a point in human history when vast swathes of knowledge are available to me virtually instantly, where my intellect is free to discover, when education is so wholly and widely available. A time and place in which I don't have to spend every waking hour struggling to put food in my belly, in a society in which I don't stand liable to suffer state-sanctioned torture and murder for refusing to kowtow to men in funny dresses who claim to have the ear of god/s.

And most importantly the history of human knowledge is available to me. I get to be a non-believer because of all that has happened in the world before me, and because much of that has been recorded. And throughout that history, religion has played a major part. Trivialising that is simply to ignore history. It's also a symptom of falling victim to confirmation bias.

In order to maintain intellectual honesty, it in necessary to acknowledge the place and importance of religion in that history. It is also important to acknowledge what religion actually is. I'm struggling to come up with a decent description of the word that fits the reality. Faith is often a part of religion, but it is by no means the whole. The same goes for superstition, social hierarchy, and many other aspects. Not one of these things is central to religion, or defining of it. Religion seems to me to be one of those words that seems trivial to define but on closer examination defies easy description. It's an amorphous, non-binding meta-category, and anything but trivial.

But I would like to go back a little, and give a really rough stab at defining religion from a different perspective to what we may have seen in the past. Religion is a conglomeration of evolved behaviours, rooted in the justification of those behaviours, in a social, tool-using ape capable of thinking abstractly and recursively. See? Even that doesn't really convey much. But it's reasonable to go with it for now, and give a little explanation for it.

A social animal, by virtue of the fact that it's a social animal, will by necessity have behavioural tendencies that dictate to some degree its social interaction. These will manifest, in part, in the establishment of a hierarchy. At its simplest, the establishment of hierarchy comes down to who can kick the shit out of whom. Once the ape starts being able to ask questions ("Who made you king?) then answers need to be given in order to maintain that hierarchy ("Fucking God did, that's who. Someone kill that mouthy cunt.")
That's not all. Pretty much any question to which the answer isn't readily apparent attracts that sort of answer. The tendency to assign assumed agency comes into play very readily, and when people start asking difficult questions ("Hey, king, why hasn't it rained for three months?") it's actually good for social stability for an answer to be provided, even if it's total gobshite ("Because you've pissed the Raingod off. Someone kill that sacrilegious cunt."), because revolt and the like never, in the short term, makes things better. The long term is another matter, and beside the point.

If one were to take a (bullshit) view of human cultural evolution from the (bullshit) stand-point that it was somehow intended to produce, say, me, then it could be said (bullshat) that religion was a sort-of stop-gap. It was only because of the existence of religion (and its intimate relationship to social stability and abstract thought) that the modern world (and, hence, me) even exists. As I say, that's bullshit, but only because human cultural evolution doesn't have a goal.

It was, after all, the Church that nurtured the development of reason in the ill-named Dark Ages. It was the only institution that could do such a thing. Trivialising and dismissing that is reactionary dumbfuckery. It's as ridiculous as dismissing the work of Pythagoras or the Brotherhood that bore his name on the basis of their religiosity.

I am not religious, and I am an opponent of religion. I think we have discovered enough about reality that religion, as it has existed, is rendered unnecessary. Religion in the form of dogmatic organizations based on ancient ideas now rendered ideologically ridiculous becomes harmful. But trivialising its importance throughout history is just foolish.

 

[Aught3]

While that is a nice post by Goldenmane and I agree with virtually all of it I don't really see how it is relevant to this topic. Even if Jesus was a completely fictional character it does not change the impact of Christianity on the world. A more fundamental question is being asked here: is it true?

 

[Deleted member 619]

It's relevant because the jesus-myth position is a trivial argument. Erecting such arguments doesn't do the arguer any favours.

For the record, I used to be a jesus-myther, but a knowledgeable person opened my eyes to the reality of the situation. The fact is that there is more evidence that jesus was a real person than we have any right to expect, and a good deal more than we do for people who we generally accept as having existed. Alexander the Great, for example.

Of course, none of that means that the biblical account of him has any basis in reality.

 

[DeistPaladin]

The fact is that there is more evidence that jesus was a real person than we have any right to expect, and a good deal more than we do for people who we generally accept as having existed. Alexander the Great, for example.

Do we seriously lack evidence for Alexander the Great? Wasn't Darius IV made painfully aware of his existence?

As I understand it, the evidence we have for Jesus is as follows (please correct me if I'm wrong):

1. The contradictory mythology in the Gospels, some of which is admitted to be allegorical. These are the only detailed accounts.
2. The letters of Paul, who only saw Jesus in a vision. He references "Jesus' brother" in Galatians but also denies that he lived during the time of Jesus in 1Cor 15
3. The "testimonium flavianum", even apologists admit to Christian tampering of this document.
4. The "Jamesian reference" that seems to refer to Jesus Bar Damneus.
5. The 4th century Talmudic entry that seems to describe a very different Jesus.
6. The Bar Sarapion reference to a Jewish "wise king", not detailed or named.
7. The Annals of Tacitus, a second century reference that doesn't mention Jesus by name.

The very last one is by far the most powerful piece of independent testimony, the only one to give me pause as a Jesus-myther. It is late, oblique, mentions a "Christos" (the annointed one) who founded the Christian religion and oddly refers to Pilate as a "Procurator", a term not used for governors until later. I'm sure we have more evidence for Alexander the Great.

 

[Aught3]

Coins with Alexander's face on them

The versions of Alexander's history that we have were recorded several hundred years after his death. Any contemporary sources have been lost.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The fact is that there is more evidence that jesus was a real person than we have any right to expect, and a good deal more than we do for people who we generally accept as having existed. Alexander the Great, for example.

Do we seriously lack evidence for Alexander the Great? Wasn't Darius IV made painfully aware of his existence?

As I understand it, the evidence we have for Jesus is as follows (please correct me if I'm wrong):

1. The contradictory mythology in the Gospels, some of which is admitted to be allegorical. These are the only detailed accounts.
2. The letters of Paul, who only saw Jesus in a vision. He references "Jesus' brother" in Galatians but also denies that he lived during the time of Jesus in 1Cor 15
3. The "testimonium flavianum", even apologists admit to Christian tampering of this document.
4. The "Jamesian reference" that seems to refer to Jesus Bar Damneus.
5. The 4th century Talmudic entry that seems to describe a very different Jesus.
6. The Bar Sarapion reference to a Jewish "wise king", not detailed or named.
7. The Annals of Tacitus, a second century reference that doesn't mention Jesus by name.

The very last one is by far the most powerful piece of independent testimony, the only one to give me pause as a Jesus-myther. It is late, oblique, mentions a "Christos" (the annointed one) who founded the Christian religion and oddly refers to Pilate as a "Procurator", a term not used for governors until later. I'm sure we have more evidence for Alexander the Great.

The simple fact is that there the above constitutes more documentary evidence for Jesus than we have any right to expect for a person of his standing at that time, especially given the proliferation of radical preachers in that place at that time. They were practically coming out of the woodwork. There is one passage in the Flavium that refers to James, and is not thought to be interpolated, although you are correct in saying that the other of the two passages is thought to be a later interpolation. The documentary evidence for Alexander is comparable which, given Alexander's influence (I don't doubt he existed, by the way), is actually pretty strange, don't you think?

Oh, and Aught...

I'm not saying that Jesus existed, but that the preponderance of evidence suggests he does, especially in light of the fact that his story was clearly manipulated to fit prophecies from the Talmud. If he were completely made up out of whole cloth, for example, there woouldn't have had to be the contrived story of his birth so that he would be in the place predicted, they could simply have had him born there. It only makes sense if he were based on a real person.

 

[Aught3]

Okay on the issue of coins, I agree that is was common to depict gods on Greek coins. The coin I showed has a picture of Nike but I'm not claiming that she was real. However, it was also common practice at the time for rulers to mint coins that had their own face along with their name. The coin says Alexander. Many other coins have also been found from all time periods during Alexander's reign and they depict an man who gets older as time passes. These coins are dated to the time Alexander ruled and are found most commonly within his sphere of influence, especially Greece. Interestingly, the Greeks weren't to keen on having a king so the coins in Greece merely say 'Alexander' while the coins found elsewhere say "Alexander the King'. The number of coins that were struck with Alexander's face slowly peter out after his death.

And this is only coins and we already have way better evidence for Alexander than we do for Jesus. Then there are the destroyed towns, the new ones he commissioned, the monuments and temples (plus the occasional library) named after him, evidence of Greek culture suddenly penetrating deep into central Asia, and the cross-fertilisation of Asian ideas back to Europe. We have inscriptions, orders, and letters sent out that bear his name. I agree that the actual history we have of his reign was written down well after his death, but to say we have no (or very little) evidence Alexander existed is a pretty big claim.

The documentary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is more similar to that of Apollonius of Tyana. They lived about the same time and had very similar lives as wandering sages. All we have for each of them is one account which includes tales of miracles upon which all later work is based. The fact that the Jesus story is so transparently false indicates to me that it is most likely false. But as I said in my first post I think you can make a fairly good case for both sides of the existence question so I don't have much to disagree with you here.

 

[Deleted member 619]

There's a really good thread at ratskep about this. Tim O'Neill (atheist historian) knows this material better than anybody I've ever come across, and he makes a very convincing case.

http://www.rational-skepticism.org/christianity/did-jesus-exist-t219.html

Ultimately, whether he existed or not, arguing that he didn't still comes under the heading of foolish trivialising, and doesn't do that arguer any favours. My position is that he probably existed, but that doesn't lend any weight whatsoever to the claims made about him. The evidence is scant, but it is there.

 

[Aught3]

Ultimately, whether he existed or not, arguing that he didn't still comes under the heading of foolish trivialising, and doesn't do that arguer any favours. My position is that he probably existed, but that doesn't lend any weight whatsoever to the claims made about him. The evidence is scant, but it is there.

Well we agree that if your aim is to criticise Christianity a better approach is to question the nature of Jesus rather than his actual existence. I still find the question of existence to be interesting though.

Thanks for the link I read quite a few pages of the 'debate'. Unfortunately for me, Tim seems to be a right ass. It seems he can't be bothered explaining himself properly or he's covering up for a weak case. Either way, since Erhman's name came up a few times I might check out a few of his books and see if he can convince me.

 

[Deleted member 619]

No, Timi isn't an ass. He's just been down that road a good many times. As a result, he is a bit short of patience. He really does know the material, though. When I have question regarding anything in terms of biblical historicity, he's my go-to guy.

 

[tangoen]

Have you checked out the story of the Talpiot Tomb it was a tomb uncovered in 1980 i believe and it has an ossuary with the name Jesus son of joseph inscribed on it. something to check out if your intereested in a possible historical jesus. we may have found his bone box. i learned of this from a documentary made by Jacob Simcha called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" the director already has his conclusion drawn before the actual investigation but it still is kinda compelling

Sounds like the claim is roundly rejected by those in the field. Plus all the tombs had human remains.

oh ok then :roll:

 

[Aught3]

Sounds like the claim is roundly rejected by those in the field. Plus all the tombs had human remains.

oh ok then :roll:

Okay what? You accept that 5 minutes on Wikipedia reveals this to be an unconvincing lead?

 

[Aught3]

As promised I picked up one of Ehrman's books: Jesus, Interrupted and made my way through it. He makes a good case for an historical Jesus in one of the chapters, convincing enough to bring me over to his side. I wrote a full review/synopsis of the book on my blog.

 

[DeistPaladin]

You mention that Ehrman references one Josephus passage on Jesus. Which one did Ehrman use? Was this the Testimonium Flavianum or the "Jamesian Reference"?