Doug Shaver

If you assume they did not, then you can assume anything it takes to defend historicity.

Paul certainly thought he was the son of God. He clearly implies that the leaders of the Jerusalem church were in substantial agreement with him on matters of such central importance. Therefore, the leaders of the Jerusalem church almost certainly believed Jesus was the son of God. If there was a historical Jesus, then those leaders had known him up close and personal.

When did they come along? I'm referring to the earliest Christians that we know about -- the ones comprising the Jerusalem church a few decades before the First Jewish War.

That begs that question of Jesus' historicity and the grounds on which people challenged Paul's apostolic status. Paul clearly acknowledges that some people denied his apostleship, but his defense makes no reference to the issue of personal acquaintance with Jesus. I don't find it credible that he could have pretended it was irrelevant if it had been the sole or primary reason for the challenge to begin with.

I didn't say they did. They obviously had other purposes besides that. But they do include ostensibly biographical material.

It was not a new faith when they were written. They were written at least an entire generation since the alleged founder's death.

I'm not sure what a theological history is supposed to be. However . . . if your point is that the gospels were not even ostensibly biographical, even in part, then I guess I'm OK with that, since my position is that they do not in fact contain any biographical material -- i.e., they are works of fiction.

Neither has the contrary been established, so we're left with whatever is plausible. I don't think it plausible that only illiterate people knew him.

The disappearance of ancient documents was not entirely a random process. Writings considered valuable were more likely to be preserved than ordinary writings. If, as was alleged, Papias was personally acquainted with people who had known some of Jesus' disciples, his writings would have been very highly valued.

I meant early creation of the canonical gospels. And by "early," I mean early enough that the authors could, with a likelihood significantly greater than "not impossible," have known people with firsthand knowledge of how Christianity got started.

Doug Shaver

Just off the top of my head, I can't think of a strong argument for declaring that scenario improbable, but my gut says it's a reach. I'll have to think about it some more.

Here is how the fundamentalist-friendly NIV renders his prologue:
I concede that to any casual reader, he seems to be implying that he spoke with "those who from the first were eyewitnesses." But if he were in court and were asked, "Didn't you say you talked with witnesses?" he could reply, "No, I never said that" without fear of prosecution for perjury.

This is, arguably, mere nitpicking. The problem is that so much discussion of Christianity's origins forces just this kind of close analysis, precisely because it so much of the earliest writing was so circumlocutory.

I have read a few undisputably fictional works in which the ostensible narrator assures the reader that he is giving them nothing but factual history. It was obviously just a literary gimmick in those cases. Just as obviously, we cannot simply assume that Luke was employing that gimmick. But I'm not assuming it. I'm inferring it.

It is no part of my argument that (premise) the gospels are apparently fiction and therefore (conclusion) Jesus was not real. My argument instead goes something like this:

1. The gospels, even if intended as history, are demonstrably unreliable as such.
2. Apart from the gospels, the preponderance of evidence is against a historical Jesus.
3. Being unreliable, the gospels are insufficient as evidence against what all the other evidence indicates. It therefore remains reasonable to doubt the existence of a historical Jesus.
4. If there was no historical Jesus, then either the gospel authors mistakenly thought there was, or else they were intentionally writing fiction.
5. There is no clear evidence that anybody thought there was a historical Jesus before the gospels were written. Therefore, the gospel authors probably didn't think so, either.
6. Therefore, the gospels were probably deliberate fiction.

Having said all that, I'll say that I think Luke's gospel could be an exception. All things considered, it seems unlikely to me. However, absent better evidence than I've seen yet for its having been written during the first century, it don't think it matters much what the author was thinking.

TedM

Fair enough. Maybe as I learn more they will change.

ted

Amaleq13

IIRC, the DSS describe a belief in two messiahs. One is as you describe and the other a priest. Is it really so amazing that we might find another group that drops the former and keeps only something closer to the latter?

It seems to me that some (many?) Jews, under the influence of the overwhelming contrary evidence of the seemingly perpetual domination of Rome, were starting to doubt the traditional messiah expectations. If that was the case, we cannot hold the unique nature of any particular conceptualization against the possibility that it was held.

IIRC, Jewish scholar Geza Vermes says otherwise. Healers and wise men could obtain that "title".

To my knowledge, you are correct that we have no other specific example but we do have ample background of Jewish acceptance of the notion of an incarnation of God's Wisdom coming to earth with warnings and being rejected.

I don't consider it incredible that a group of Jews might come to believe that their former, beloved leader was the same sort of personification they had read about in Scripture.

I answered this earlier with a question that you ignored. Given the plentiful examples of cult leaders obtaining amazing devotion from followers, I would think this question need not be asked.

Is it wise to expect Paul to emphasize the differences between himself and the original apostles when he spends so much time trying to negate them?

More explicitly and unambiguously than Luke?

Is it possible that, given the absence of any such explicit and unambiguous description connected to biographies, that you have incorrectly identified the genre of Mark and Matthew?

It seems to me that only Luke makes any pretense of adhering to the conventions connected to biography/history.

The assumption, as I explicitly stated, is based on the resurrection-based eschatology expressed by Paul. It is also placed in the mouth of Jesus in the subsquent Gospels. It seems foolish to ignore this rather obvious explanation for the failure of early believers to feel compelled to write anything down for future generations. :huh:

aa5874

The "real " evidence against the historial Jesus is the absence of evidence, that is, wherever one would expect the Jesus of Nazareth to be mentioned by non-apologetic writers, there is always a complete void.

The NT and the early apologetic writers made the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Now this is a highly significant charge, so even if we disregard the view that this Jesus was the Son of the God of Moses, did miracles, and finally ascended to heaven, we are still left with a figure who should have been the most prominent Jew of the 1st century, the Messiah, the prophesied political-military leader of the habitable earth. In effect, Jesus of Nazareth would propel the Jewish nation into a Super Power.

In the NT, it is claimed that John the Baptist was the fore-runner of Jesus, the Messiah, and that JtB preached about the coming of this Messiah and finally met him one day and baptised him.
Now, if JtB did actually meet the true Messiah and baptised him, I would expect that wherever a Jewish writer mentions JtB, he would also, in passing, mention the Messiah.

Josehus wrote about JtB without a word of the Messiah.

Now, if Jesus was truly the prophesied Messiah, I would expect that if a Jewish writer wrote about the fulfillment of prophecies with respect to the Messiah, he would mention Jesus as the expected Messiah.

Josephus wrote about the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies up to and around 92 CE without a word of Jesus the Messiah, the expected political-military leader of the known world.

If Jesus the Messiah was alive during the reign of Tiberius, I would expect that if a Jewish writer wrote about Tiberius, he would have remembered this Jesus, the physical ruler of the universe.

Josephus wrote about Tiberius Caesar, yet he did not write about Jesus as the Messiah.

And again, if Jesus of Nazareth was a political-military leader in the 1st century and did actually achieved this role, then I would expect Roman writers and historians to write about this Messsiah when they write about Tiberius.

Suetonius wrote about the life of Tiberius without making mention of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah.

Now, if there was a Messiah, a political-military leader, whether it was Jesus of Nazareth or not, I would expect historians and writers to make mention of this figure.

Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus all claim Vespasian was the Messiah, emperor, and also of Judea. See Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, The life of Vespasian by Suetonius and Tacitus's Histories 5.13.

So, when the authors of the NT and apologetic writers make a claim that there was a Jesus of Nazareth who was the Messiah, it can be deduced, from a historical perspective, that such a scenario is most likely to be false. There is no known non-apologetic history of Jesus of Nazareth, that is the real evidence against his history.

Minimalist

I'm going to jump in and help you, aa, before the other side pulls out Kenneth Kitchen's mantra about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Kitchen is wrong. Absence of evidence is most assuredly evidence. It may not be "proof" of absence but it is most assuredly evidence. For example, the bible claims that Jerusalem in the 10th century was a glorious capital of an empire stretching from the Sinai to the Euphrates. Archaeologists, digging for more than 100 years have found no trace of such a city. What they have found for the 10th century is a shitty little hill town of perhaps 2,000 people, max. This is not "proof" that the bible tale is a silly story written down centuries after the fact....but it is certainly solid evidence.

Likewise, the lack of any legitimate historical reference to Jesus and his magic tricks is also evidence if not proof. One might, if one wishes to extend the discussion, add in the fact that later christian writers were so embarassed by the fact that there were no historical references to their Jesus that they invented some. To me, that speaks volumes. If they had real references, why fabricate new ones?

Ben C Smith

It is certain that many Jews expected the messiah to be the son of God, or at least would have called him that. And it is here that the possible pagan background for Christianity so much in vogue on this board would come into play. I have pointed out before that the Roman emperor was called the son of (the) god(s), and that the language of Christianity has a lot in common with the language of the emperor cult. If you, as an early Christian, are claiming that Jesus is Lord, then you are supplanting the emperor, who was regularly called lord (especially in the east, IIUC). There is little difference between this and calling Jesus the son of God, by which act you are again supplanting the emperor.

In short, many Jews expected the messiah to be the son of God, the emperors was actually called the son of (the) god(s), and Christianity drew both on Judaism (in a positive, developing sense) and (IMVHO) on the emperor cult (in a negative, competitive sense). The math is elementary; calling any messianic figure the son of God is just a very natural move.

Ben.

Chris Johnston

I for one have found this thread to be very enlightening.

As a former-Baptist-minister-turned-atheist, I had pretty much dismissed questions about the historicity of Jesus. My belief in no god of any kind has more to do with the nature of faith v. reason. Who cares if there was or wasn't a HJ?

Looking through this thread (TedM, I thought your question was difficult to read as well as asking for evidence for a negative), I have come to realize, with some surprise, that the evidence seems thinner than I ever realized, especially after reading about the Testimonium etc. Hmmm.

So this thread has led me to the position that simply supports my understanding more fully:

1. No historical Jesus was needed for this religion to become what it is today.
2. No evidence of strength has been produced to show that there was a historical Jesus.
3. Christianity itself derives from the same basis all other religions come from (especially that one most in the headlines and most recently founded, Mormonism), to wit, fraud and fabrication.

aa5874

Once Jesus of Nazareth is claimed, by authors of the NT and apologetic writings, to be the Messiah, then the absence of any details about this figure become extremely significant.

Josehus, a Jew, in his writings, mentioned Jesus the son of Ananus, Jesus the son of Gamala, Jesus the son of Gamaliel, Jesus the son of Damneus, Jesus the son of Saphat, Jesus the son of Thebuthus and Jesus the son of Sapphias, yet we have virtually nothing on this Jesus the Messiah except he was crucified and raised from the dead on the third day.

This Jesus, the Messiah, is not even properly introduced in the TF (AJ 18.3.3), there is no indication of the name of his father, an occupation or any specific acts of this Jesus is described.

Now, take a look at how Josephus introduces and describes another Jesus, a loner and declared to be a madman.

WJ 6.5.3, (Jesus the madman), "....... there was one Jesus, son of Ananus, a plebian and a husbandman...."

AJ 18.3.3, (Jesus the Messiah), " Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man if it be lawful to call him a man...."

There is no real information about this Jesus, the Messiah, from the "TF", his reality is not even guaranteed or ascertained.

The absence of any real information about this Messiah is highly critical in order to determine his historicity and this lack of detail is the real evidence against an historical Jesus.

Doug Shaver

OK, now I've been informed . . . sort of.

I don't suppose you can refer me to an online source where I could verify that?

No, not at all. I never said it couldn't happen. I only said that so far as I was aware, it never did happen. If I can confirm that it did happen, then I'll revise my argument accordingly.

Again, this is the first I've heard about that -- and I'm not new at this.

Have you got a citation? Or must I read everything he's ever written to find out whether you RC?

If it happened only once in the entire history of Judaism, then we must inquire about what was so unique about that particular beloved leader. If there is no reliable evidence of that kind of uniqueness, then it is reasonable to doubt that it happened even once.

I think it does need asking. You're making an argument from analogy. I know of no other cult sufficiently similar to the conventional version of early Christianity to make the analogy work. If you think there is one, let's hear about it.

I fail to see what the differences between Paul and the other apostles would have had to do with what he felt compelled to tell his readers about the Christ.

I don't claim infallibility. It's always possible for me to be mistaken about anything.

I infer the genre of Mark and Matthew from the totality of evidence that I am aware of pertaining to Christianity's origins. Mark's and Matthew's lack of sourcing is just one datum among all the others.

I was responding to this:
I see no explicitly stated assumption there.

We don't need to assume what Paul's eschatology was, because he tells us what it was. What you seem to be assuming, without explicitly saying so, is that all Christians of his time believed the same eschatology and reached the same conclusion about the futility of writing anything down about the founder of their religion.

Yes, many decades after Paul's time.

The explanation may seem obvious to you. If I'm a fool for disagreeing about what is obvious, then so be it, I'm a fool.