Ben C Smith

From another thread:

I am wondering how such a statement is to be handled when it comes to other men in history around which many legends have gathered. Is this really either-or? Do we have to either accept the full-blown legend of a man or reject his historicity altogether?

On that same thread, Vork agreed:

What if the historical core is shrinking only because of the evidence? What if, as scholars go about the business of creating and testing hypotheses, some of the alleged data about an historical personage are actually strengthened while others are weakened? Why is it not possible to conclude that Alexander really did conquer vast portions of Asia but really did not part a sea, did not visit the queen of the Amazons, and was not the son of Zeus?

It is certainly valid to object that the evidence for an historical Jesus is much less than that for an historical Alexander. Fair enough. But that is arguing the evidence, which is exactly what I think should be done, whereas the above quotations look very much like attempts to disqualify the attempt from the start. To speak of replacing one Jesus with another is, I think, a foil; one may as well speak of replacing one Alexander with another. Surely no one here disputes the validity of extricating Alexander from the legends about him.

Again, it is possible that rejecting the overall gospel portrait of Jesus entails erasing everything about him. But one would know that only by sifting through the evidence at hand, not by speaking in advance as if it has to be entirely one portrait or another.

I submit that, even if the gospels are rejected as useless, there is indeed evidence that there was a man named Jesus who lived early in century I and who was crucified in Palestine. One is free to dispute that evidence on every level, but to do so means discussing (in no particular order) Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, the epistle to the Hebrews, 1 Clement, and other works, not claiming in advance that the historical core is untestable. Of course it is testable. If we can show, for example, that Paul really was thinking of a recent contemporary who was crucified, then the test has been run, and it has found at least tentatively in favor of historicity. If we can show that Paul really was thinking of a heavenly savior in the world of myth, or of a personage from the distant past, then again the test has been run, and it has found at least tentatively in favor of mythicity (is that a word?).

And, if the gospels are not to be set aside as intentional fiction, then a whole new series of tests can be run. But I will leave that for another day. It is enough for now that the historicity of Jesus can be tested by means of Paul (and others, but Paul is the best example, I think). One can dispute the test results (and this happens even in scientific endeavors, let alone historical endeavors, which are not the same as science), but to call the core untestable goes too far, IMHO.

Ben.

krosero

Like Vork in the other thread I'm chiming in to say, my thoughts exactly. I don't believe that mythicists are intentionally trying to disqualify the attempt from the start (nor do I say that you are claiming this, Ben), but it is indisputably true that it looks that way to me until I can get the thought process in the above quotes explained to me; right now I don't get it.

If it were true that Jesus did not exist because science says that gods do not exist and that people do not walk on water or rise from the dead, then all the work we need to do is disprove inerrantist Christianity scientifically (which work has been done by others), not even bother with the study of the bible and other ancient texts, and go home.

If it were true that Jesus did not exist because no single source speaks of the historical core while speaking of nothing else, then the only Jesus that needs to be disproved is the literal NT portrait, and then the work is finished.

Kevin Rosero

mountainman

Setting aside the claims to fame, the historicity of Jesus and Alexander
are separated by various orders of magnitude, and in principle I'd make
a point in disputing this "validity of extricating Alexander from the legends
about him", in relation to the exercise of the "validity of extricating Jesus
from the legends about him".

A diversity of scientifically and arceologically assessed citations
other than the inference of the existence pf purported texts, or
texts themselves. Coins, statues, art, archeological relics, graffiti,
inscriptions, architecture, carbon dating (??) and other methods
all show positive traces for the existence of Alexander.

The texts about Alexander, are from his home country, and from
countries he conquered, from all different authors of antiquity
irrespective of the classification with broad or detailed brush.


Surely a careful scientist or engineer would run with all options open
and traverse in parallel multiple paths. One *should* be able to consider
all perspectives, if one's mind is sufficiently extensive.

Independent of the "irrefutability" issue, there exists the logical
foundation of mainstream scholarship upon Eusebian chronology
and the inference that it is to be considered "more or less" true.

Evidence is via Eusebius' desk in the fourth century.

...[TRIM]...

Stuff in the too-hard basket often sits there for a while.
Certainly, if in fact the gospels are indeed a fabrication
and a fiction of wicked men, why not find out now? Why
wait and find out later?

Intentional fiction should be able to be eventually identified
in a number of specific and technical areas. It also is
emminently refutable, and thus may be progressed (one
way or the other) with suitable exceptional citations.


Precisely what do you mean by "the core"?

Best wishes,



Pete

Clivedurdle

I think one of the questions we must keep in the difficult basket is are we looking at a Popperian metaphysical untestable thingy - psycho-analysis being a modern equivalent.

There are a huge amount of symptoms of untestability around "Lord Jesus Christ".

Is the core a metaphysical untestable series of concepts? It might be legitimate to disqualify the attempt at historicity from the start.

Ben C Smith

Perhaps. But not, IMHO, by orders of an intrinsically different kind. It should be hypothetically possible to separate legend from history, even on an individual level, even with less evidence than we have for Alexander. If we get through most of our task and discover that, once the legends have been peeled away, there is nothing left, so be it.

The comments I am answering appear, at least to me, to lead in the direction of not even making the attempt to separate history from legend in the case of Jesus. It is all or nothing, the gospel Jesus or a wisp of smoke.

See, you are looking at the evidence. That is what I am recommending.

I completely agree.

I said another day. Not another lifetime.

I am hoping that what I meant is roughly what my esteemed colleagues meant; rlogan spoke of switching the gospel Jesus for a pared-down figure who did only a fraction of what is attributed to him. Vork answered with talk of an historical core. That pared-down figure is the historical core.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

No, the core is the hypothetical figure who really lived and moved in history and around which myths and legends have accumulated.

Ben.

mountainman

The word "hypothesis" is fundamental and key here.
You are going to go into the dirty detail of history
armed with one or a series of hypotheses.

The picture painted by the data will always be grey.
Shades of grey, and never black and white. So in
the end you arrive at a particular shade of grey in
response to your "historicity research" (this itself
in turn based on your hypotheses).

I put it to you that this SHADE OF GREY has no meaning
in relation to itself, but will assume meaning only in
relation to the other shades of grey that are assembled
by application of the same principles to a series of people
purported to have existed in antiquity, preferably in much
the same time zone (for equity).

Re: "THE HISTORICAL CORE"

I repeat my assertion that IMO it would be transparently
obvious that any assessment of one person by themselves
has little or no meaning, whereas a global assessment of
all the authors of antiquity, or at least a few of the key
roles involved in "the story of the gospels" by mixed with
a sample and representative set of "historical figures"
who were purported to exist at the same time.

See the colour-coded categorisation of authors, which
have been presented in the standard mainstream (and
of course Eusebian) chronology here

In addition to the color coding (which attempts to represent
the different classes of authors) there will exist another box
that we might want to call "HISTORICITY". It may very well
be some sort of index (ie: a numeric), but rarely will be either
0 (black) or 1 (white) but invariably in between, as a shade
of grey.

What exists (from research) will be these SHADES of GREY,
representing comparitive historicity (by some criteria - see
Carriers) of each of the people.

My point is that (IMO) only the study of comparitive and
relational shades of grey will yield any sensible
knowledge of the relational aspects between the people.



Best wishes,




Pete

Solo

I think so too: Jesus "existence" makes for a bizarre conspiracy and dysfunctional myth, if both admit that he was taken without a fight and executed by authorities as public nuisance (Jn 18:30). That a failed, wandering prophet who left behind only uncertainty became the central mythic Godhead of a new, in time the premier world religion, is a most interesting commentary on the stuff that we, humans, are made of. Either that, or as the Authority put it, it's ... a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

I agree.

Well, at least some of those hypotheses will themselves be suggested by the evidence. But yes, I agree.

I agree. This is history, not science, and even science can be grey.

I am afraid you lost me there.

If I understand your meaning, you are probably right. But there is a very real chance that I have misunderstood you.

Ben.

gstafleu

Ben,
Let's try to clear up the confusion by going back to first principles. We have "a set of stories," i.e. Christian tradition. We find them in these "Christian or Christianized documents" you mentioned in another thread. The question now is: how do we explain the existence of these documents. How did they come about?

As an explanation the HJ hypothesis is advanced. This hypothesis states:

In order to adequately explain the existence of the Christian tradition it is necessary to postulate an Historical Jesus.

Please not the necessary bit in here: if it is not necessary to postulate an HJ for an adequate explanation it is not allowed (Occam's razor, parsimony requirement).

My guess is we are in agreement about this. Now let us carefully state the MJ position:

In order to explain the Christian tradition it is not necessary to postulate an HJ, the "normal" myth formation we have witnessed elsewhere (Hercules e.g.) will do.

There is something to note here that isn't usually explicitly stated in the HJ/MJ discussion:

HJ hypothesizes the existence of a historical Jesus. However, MJ does not state such a person does not exist. MJ simply states that there is nothing that necessitates the HJ hypothesis, which is therefore methodologically invalid.

Given that we are in a methodological discussion here we have to be precise in our statements, hence this perhaps ultra-finicky, in the eyes of some, formulation.

Excuse me if I over-belabor the point here, but this is another way of saying: it doesn't matter if an HJ could have existed. The question is: did he have to exist.

That means the ball starts out in the court of the HJers: they have to come up with evidence, observations, parts of the tradition that can only be explained via an HJ. Why? Because we have observed lots of myths and legends of which we know (i.e. everybody agrees ) that there was no historical person at the root.

Coming up with this evidence is a tough thing in case of the HJ, because the Christian tradition so strongly resembles other known myths. But maybe it can be done. If so, it has to be done. Until it is done, the myth assumption has to prevail on methodological grounds: it is the more parsimonious one.

So, after this lengthy (sorry ) introduction, let us look at a few of your points in this light.

Simple: what in what we have about these people necessitates their historical existence? Coins with their image? Contemporary testimony from well-known authors? I would suggest that the reasons why we believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, as explained by Carrier in his article, should form a good example here. Once we have established that a historical figure is necessary, we will be more lenient: we will believe some less well-attested things about him as well, given that we have these other historical things that are firmly established.

Fine if that happens. the problem is that that is not the case with the HJ. Here it seems that more and more of his attributes are stripped the more we understand about how the story developed. What parts of the Jesus story have been strengthened re historicity? I put it to you: none. But I'm willing to be proven wrong here. Just do so.

You've got it the wrong way around. Given the obvious parallels between the Jesus story and other agreed-upon myths, the starting assumption, the parsimonious one, is that the Jesus story is what it looks like: a myth. If, "by sifting through the evidence at hand," you can come up with something that does not fit that myth formation process, something that necessitates an HJ, fine, then things change. But until that time the MJ hypothesis prevails, methodology forces us that way.

Then somebody should please please please do so. Although by using material from within the Christian tradition (Paul e.g.) you do place an extra burden upon yourself: obviously that material has a stake in presenting matters a certain way. That does not make it completely unusable, but it does make it difficult.

But until these things are successfully done, presenting an ever shrinking core leaves one wide open to the accusation of irrefutability. How in the world can one refute something like "he was an insignificant guy who didn't really leave a mark but who later got this big following"? How can we possibly distinguish that from a the assumption the big following created myth as usual? I don't know, but perhaps somebody can do it. But until that happens, MJ has to be the assumption.

Gerard Stafleu