dog-on

In another thread I asked the following question:

What is the best piece of evidence we have for a historical Jesus?

There has been much discussion, on this board, regarding a Historical Jesus.
I'd appreciate the chance to evaluate the best piece of evidence we have from the proponents of the HJ position.

Thanks,
Robert

Gooch's dad

The letters of Paul, especially where he mentions Jesus as a man born of a woman, and "of the flesh", and where he refers to James and other brothers of Jesus in a fashion that he never used for anybody else.

The gospels themselves provide some evidence, based on the criteria of embarrassment. There is no reason at all to have Jesus be from Nazareth, as he is in all of gJohn, unless he actually *was* from Nazareth.

The Josephus reference in Antiquities 20.9.1 to James as the brother of Jesus corroborates the Pauline references, and is almost universally considered by historians to be genuine.

Tacitus reference to Jesus being crucified under Pilate is a solid reference by a historian of the time, one who had access to the entire set of Roman records of the Jewish war and previous incitements.

Lastly, none of these have been refuted in reputable historical journals. What we do have is pop-press books and web pages, which is exactly as much credibility as Michael Behe has for his version of creationism.

I'll put it back in your lap--why don't any of the MJ'ers publish their claims in reputable scholarly journals? What's preventing this? Has Doherty even submitted anything to a journal of historical inquiry? If not, why not?

dog-on

Thanks G-d.

Which one of these would you consider the best piece of evidence? If you don't mind.


To answer your questions:

I don't know why the MJ'ers haven't published their claims in "reputable scholarly journals". Which particular publication do you have in mind?

Maybe no "reputable scholarly journal" is willing to publish them? Maybe there are socio/political/economic reasons, faith reasons, or a myriad of other reasons why such publications would be less then anxious to publish such works.

I do not personally know whether or not Mr. Doherty's works have been submitted for publication to any "reputable scholarly journals". As far as Mr. Doherty's motivations are concerned, you would probably have to ask him.

Zeichman

The faith aspect is not really a thing anymore. Catholic Bible Quarterly published a fairly positive review of Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Reviewed by William Arnal, an open atheist. I'm fairly sure that Doherty has not submitted anything to an established scholarly journal, as it is never listed in his credentials, and I called him out on this in my essay against him, and he pretty much dodged the issue in his response. Such evasiveness is telling.

dog-on

Maybe so, but I'm not really interested in discussing MJ in this thread.

I would, however, like to know yours and others opinions regarding the single best piece of evidence we have for an HJ.

Thanks.

Gooch's dad

I think all of the evidence together is what makes a strong case, but I'll take a shot at answering anyway. I think the best "piece of evidence" is the corroboration between a Christian source and a secular source about James. That is, Paul's reference to James as "the brother of the Lord" (a term he doesn't use with anyone else) and Josephus' reference to James as Jesus' brother are independent sources for the same historical fact.

Josephus was in Jerusalem during the Jewish wars, and it would be very odd if he didn't know at least some of the early Christians, James included.

GakuseiDon

I'd say that the fact that the evidence suggests that:
1. Jesus was regarded as historical from the get-go
2. There is no evidence that Jesus was not regarded as historical by any groups whatsoever
3. There is no evidence that there was ever any belief that the pagan myths of the gods were thought to have been enacted in a "spiritual realm".

Taken together, this would seem to offer that a HJ is the most reasonable explanation. This of course begs the question of:
1. How Paul really thought of Jesus. Is "born of a woman", etc, enough to establish that Paul thought that Jesus was historical?
2. How Tatian and others thought of Jesus.

The questions are settled in my (admittedly amateur) mind. I haven't seen anything that suggests that a HJ doesn't best represent the data we do have.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Gooch's dad,

I agree that this is the best evidence for an historical Jesus. It is just not very convincing.

We don't know who wrote the complex and confusing letters of Paul (if there was a "Paul") or when. The multitude of references in Paul to Jesus as a deity would suggest that he was not an historical figure, while the occassional mystical reference to him as somehow human (born of woman) indicates that these works were later edited by Christians who believed in a human Jesus.

We don't know who wrote the gospels or when. The reason, I believe, that Jesus is refered to five times in the Gospel of John as being from Nazareth is that the book was rewritten to match the other Gospels. The imaginary city of Nazareth was introduced in the other gospels to cover up the fact that Jesus was originally referred to as the Nazarene in earlier versions of the tales.

We know, from excellent circumstancial evidence that Eusebius edited Josephus' reference to a man named James in Antiquities in the Fourth century to read as a reference to to Jesus' brother.

The one and only passing reference in Tacitus does not even take place when Tacitus is discussing the time of Tiberius (the alleged time of Jesus). It takes place when he is discussing the time of Nero. This suggests 1) Tacitus did not mention any Jesus during the time we would logically expect him to mention him if he was an historical personage and 2) it was added by Christians desperate to establish some historical reference to Jesus, even if it meant reworking a passage referring to Nero's well known persecution of the Jews as a passage referring to Christians.


Which reputable magazines are you referring to? Most reputable magazines get to be reputable because they do not offend wealthy church-going people, who are both readers and donors.

Perceptions within the Academic world often change from outside argument and evidence. Before 1973, there was probably not a single article about homosexuality published in any reputable psychiatric journal that did not refer to homosexuality as a disease. Now, it is hard to find any psychiatric journal that would publish an article that referred to homosexuality as a disease.

With the growth of the world Atheist movement, stimulated by the new Christian-Islamic Wars, I have every reason to suspect that this debate will explode into Academic circles shortly if it hasn't already.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

charley63

As an ex-Christian, I found the MJ theory preposterous for years. Figured it was just wishful thinking by atheists. I didn't really consider it seriously until I was a few years outside the fold and realized just how much of the Jesus narrative is loaded with symbolism. His name, for an obvious example, Yeshua "God Saves". An angel gives Mary (echoing Miriam, Moses' sister) the name. He is baptized in Jordan, the same river which Joshua (the prime precursor of Yeshua) crosses to establish ancient Israel.

In a nutshell, there are so many symbolic elements in the gospels that Doherty's theory that Jesus was a mythical character invented by Paul as a sort of gnostic redeemer isn't all that far out. Even an HJ supporter like Richard Carrier found Doherty very plausible, in this review http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...tml#Conclusion . (Can anyone tell me how to hotlink pages in these posts?)

However, I have recently been listening to rebuttals from the HJ camp, many focused on those elements in the gospels that don't fit into the symbolism schema. Nazareth is one of those, as are sayings that cause problems for later theology such as "No man knows the hour, not even the Son...."

Of course, I still consider much of the gospels to be pure fabrication and legend. I have studied various source theories, such as Q and Markan priority and find that the evidence for layers of historical material versus later addition is quite substantial.

So, even if one accepts a historical Jesus, there is no reason to accept the Biblical narratives as historical in toto.

However, I do feel that we may be on the verge of the MJ thesis becoming academically respectable. Doherty's book is one sign of that, as are Freke & Gandy's works. Carrier feels that the case for the historical Jesus can no longer continue with its presumption of certainty, given Doherty's work.

peace! Charley

Huon

I am not a great historian of Antiquity, and I can be mistaken. But I am not convinced at all by these two reasons.

Beginning with point 2 (it was added by Christians desperate to establish some historical reference to Jesus) I think that a Christian would have correctly mentioned this event during the reign of Tiberius. But it is still possible to find an interpolator who is simultaneously a Christian and an awkward historian.

Point 1 (Tacitus did not mention any Jesus during the time we would logically expect him to mention him) : Perhaps Tacitus was not aware of any traces of agitation in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, but knew quite well that Nero had persecuted the Jews. From that background he admitted that Jesus was a victim of Nero. Tacitus certainly never read Paul's letters or any gospel, and probably was not aware of the link between Pilate and Jesus.