dog-on

1. Jesus of Nazareth is attested in various ancient texts.

That is the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

The only real questions are whether these attestations can be shown to be independent and what were the intentions of the authors of these various texts.

Are there any more?

archibald

Hi Mcalvera,

For what it's worth, my tuppenceworth here is....


There's accuracy in what you are both saying, IMO.

It is true that most historians do not delve (there are probably a variety of reasons for this, and I can't say I know what they are, though I might make a guess). And if they did, I think they might be slightly less HJ leaning (which I think it's fair to say they do seem to be), because, to be fair, there are some very rational MJ general points (perhaps more than I used to think. I think I focused too much on Doherty). I'm not sure they (historians) would 'switch' to a myth explanation (I doubt it), but at the very least, I think more of them might give it more serious consideration, as a possibility.


Incidentally, Price is, I think, 'just' a scholar (I myself think that there are some very good scholars, and would happily use the phrase 'scholarly consensus' more often, except it's like a red rag to a bull in here and someone is bound to pop up with some duff canard or other about assumptions or arguments from authority) but at the same time I think one does have to read all scholars in the knowledge that however objective they may be in all other areas, they might just be prone to not being objective on the HJ thing itself. Pinch of salt needed, at least until such time as the MJ thing is properly scrutinized, either by scholars in general or historians, which hasn't happened yet.

And Doherty (whose hypothesis seems to me to be one of the more fanciful) does have a degree in History himself.

Carrier is actually very good, in some ways. Certainly it is good to have a 'proper' historian writing on the topic. I am reading my first book by him, and I think you might enjoy it (in some ways).

I might add that I sometimes think that historians generally, may seem willing to accept ancient figures as more likely to be historical (on balance)....er...quite readily*.

In fact, you might say the same for some mythers.

Except when it comes to Jesus.....which I do think is.....oddly inconsistent.

*Perhaps they have a vested interest? Lol.

archibald

I wouldn't......quite....agree as to what are the real questions. :]

The earliest texts are not independent, but it is not as big a problem, I think, as some others seem to feel. Historians are well used to sifting through religious texts, as well as potentially biased and inaccurate texts generally, from ancient history, day in and day out. The Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Nag Hammadi Library, for example, are not independent. Similarly, I think they are well used to trying to pinpoint what the writer's bias and intentions may have been.

The more independent attestations, though obviously not conclusive, are not late by ancient standards for this type of figure, by any means. I think the point is not that they 'prove' anything, the only point is about the limitations and objective application of historical method, and that under other circumstances, they would probably be enough, even with many fewer religuious texts, to enable historians to discuss Jesus as if he were slightly more likely to have existed.

That is not to say historians would be right. If you have ever watched 'Time Team' on the BBC, you might agree that some of them do have a tendency...towards, er....... 'creative narrative'. Some might even say they go too far, and are not truly^TM rationally sceptical. History is a Humanity, not a science, ultimately.

I agree that trying to work out what the religious writer's believed is key.

dog-on

There is a very simple reason why independence of source is important. That reason is the ability of humans to write fiction.

Independent sources would serve to limit the probability that the story, in part or in whole, was not simply the product of one mind, thereby increasing the probability that some of the story, at least, may have resulted from an actual occurance or occurances.

archibald

I'm not really sure that we need to disagree here. I'm certainly not saying it isn't important. What I'm saying is, by the standards of ancient history, the number and extent of attestations is greater than for many others. It's dat simple.

Though, as I've said above, that may be a generosity on the part of some ancient historians to be willing to add people to the history list.

By the way, there are different ways to mean 'independent'. I thought you mainly meant independent of Christian bias.

If you also mean 'not the product of one mind' I do believe that there are very reasonable grounds to conclude that there was more than one source strand for most of the important basics.

Even before Paul, obviously.

dog-on

As there are multiple source strands for almost any human creation.

I am not really even worrying about bias here. I am interested in whether or not the specific figure in question was an actual person, regardless of accouterments. So, like I said, for text based evidence, independent sources are key.

archibald

Well, yes, I agree with you, up to a point, it seems.

It is, of course, true that even independent souces do not conclusively mean historical, but that, it seems to me is different from them being independent in the first place, as regards not (probably) being the product of only one mind. Independent sources do not, in any case, rule this out, when they are secondary or tertiary. Against this, it is pertinent if they are at least early, as here.

So for example, it seems reasonable to go as far as to say that Jesus is not the product of only Paul's mind. And he himself is arguably very early.

dog-on

True enough, though barring any other corroborating evidence, it seems strange to reach a conclusion without this requirement, independence of attestation, as a minimum.

archibald

Somehow, I think we have crossed wires. There IS independent attestation, and corroboration.

Paul, for example, attests to a pre-pauline hymn, which contains the basics.

And 'Q' persuaded Wells to switch to HJ.

dog-on

I agree that it is reasonable to say that the Jesus of the Gospels is not the product of Paul's mind.

Paul, arguably, doesn't have much to say about any historical Jesus.

However, the problem with Paul is that his writings seem to have been contested from the moment they appear in the record. Another wrinkle, I suppose.