ercatli

I have answered this point in post #110.

Never read GWTW, so I wouldn't know. : ) Fortunately "my Jesus" (what a crazy thought!) exists elsewhere, but the historians find evidence of him there, as I've shown. And you've not yet shown me why I shouldn't continue with that understanding. I invite you to do so, and let's discuss something substantial.

Not sure why you said this, but I agree entirely. Let's stick to the evidence!

Best wishes.

ercatli

(1) Because they pass the test of independent verification, they fit the milieu and they explain other facts, etc - same as we would judge any other documents.

(2) Because the experts have looked at these matters and made their judgement.

The only real options are (i) to accept them as (in part) genuine history and then work out which bits are which, or (ii) be a historical sceptic.

Are you actually suggesting there is no history in them? In which case, how do you make that judgment and how do other documents fare on the same criteria?

ercatli

Fair enough. I think your comments are useful, because they help identify why we think differently. Some people, on either side, accuse their "opponents" of being irrational, etc, but that can hardly be the case for most people. Christians and non-believers interested in history have the same evidence, but they interpret it differently. Your comments suggest one reason why that is.

I cannot see how a "theory that does not include a historical Jesus is more parsimonious than any that does include a historical Jesus", whereas that is what you think. I don't think I've ever seen a believable theory of how the documents and history came about if there was no historical Jesus. To overcome all the objections, such a theory (IMO) has to be quite cumbersome and convoluted.

Could you actually summarise for me a sequence of events which you think could be a plausible non-historic-Jesus theory that explains the facts?

Thanks.

Toto

There is no independent verification. All depend on Mark.

They fit the milieu from the time they were written, not the time that Jesus was supposed to be on earth.

They raise more questions than they explain.

Based on the way we judge other documents, the gospels would not be treated as historical sources with any degree of validity.

I have read some of these experts, and I do not recall any such judgment. There is just an assumption that there is some history in there somewhere, because Jesus must have existed, because if he didn't their heads might explode. (OK, I made the last clause up, but the rest is straight.)

I am suggesting that the default assumption is that there is no history. There are historical documents from that era, and while they do not meet modern standards, they do contain the identity of the author and the source for the author's information. The gospels do not tell us the source of their information. They contain many passages that were obviously modeled on the Hebrew scriptures, many miraculous events, any many events that seem to make no sense as history (cursing the fig tree, the Sanhedrin meeting at night, etc) but which do make a theological point.

Once you strip out all of these non-historical points, there is nothing much left.

ercatli

G'day gurugeorge, thanks for joining the discussion. I found your comments among the most interesting so far. (I mean it, I'm not just pissing in your pocket - am I allowed to say that here?)

But I want to challenge you to support some of your statements with evidence. Let's start with the word "myth" (and mythological, etc). If you mean by this that there are themes and overtones that can also be found in myths, then I have no strong disagreement. But if you mean the story of Jesus is no more than a myth, because it is very like other myths and therefore it has no historical basis, then I find the experts disagree. To keep this short, I won't launch into quotes just yet. Let's see what meaning you give first.

Obviously it is possible for a rational person to believe in Jesus - you only have to look around. In my OP I indicated that my belief is in two stages: (1) a conclusion from historical study that Jesus existed and we can know some things about him, and (2) based on that conclusion, I believe the parts of the writings that cannot be fully analysed by historical study alone. So yes, I believe, not necessarily in the "entity" that you have described, but certainly in the person that the writers have described.

You say this so confidently, but can you point to an experiment or argument that proves that? Or is it just an assumption?

I don't know about visionary experiences, but I certainly think it is unwise to totally suspend judgment on a matter like this (as it is on so many important matters in life).

Yes, we can imagine, we can find something "plausible", but who wants that? I want something that's a little more probable than that if I can get it. And accepting the plain reading of the story seems simpler and more plausible than your assumption of myth. How do you think this "larding over" actually happened?

I'm not really interested in religion. I'm interested in finding the truth and then living by it. And christianity has always been a belief that is based on a historical core.

Again we have your so far unsupported "myth" assumption. I couldn't accept that without some clear evidence. And I don't think you can "prove" anything - I think we need to be ready to settle for probability.

The "cores" you mention are little more than slogans which scholars use to summarise their interpretations of the historic facts, and have little to do with the facts, on which there is quite a good consensus.

As I said above, there is generally much greater consensus than that. And are you really saying that eminent scholars fro universities all over the world are basing all their work on "faith", and just making it all up??? Take Michael Grant for example. Does anyone suggest that his fifty books on the Roman Empire are all based on faith rather than good historic analysis? So when he uses the same methods (as he makes quite clear) in looking at the historic Jesus, why would you then make that charge? It's an insult. And it's a charge you haven't offered any evidence for. If you have evidence, can you share it please?

If there was a historic Jesus, as the scholars conclude, and if that conclusion makes it reasonable to believe in the stories which the historical method alone cannot verify (as I believe), then Jesus was indeed a man, but not a normal man, more than a man, and worth following. I'm not interested in religion, but in living a meaningful life following him.

I conclude then that you do not well understand the christianity I (and many others) believe in. And so your comments don't seem to either connect with my OP, or be based on any presented evidence. Perhaps you could pick out your main couple of points and make a clear statement of where you disagree with me, with corroborating evidence? Then I think we'd have something more substantial to discuss.

Best wishes.

Doug Shaver

I don't get the connection between Paul's readership and Tacitus. Would you explain it, please?

Doug Shaver

People will differ in what they regard as believable, and there are lots of reasons for that diversity. Most of those reasons imply nothing about degrees of rationality among people.

You're sort of begging the question. A theory that is cumbersome and convoluted, relative to some other theory, cannot be more parsimonious than the other theory.

Sure. I did it in the essay I linked to before: http://dougshaver.com/christ/ahistor/ahistor5.htm.

gurugeorge

No, no, at that stage in my exposition I'm not prejudging. I'm saying that the story of Jesus as we have it in the texts is evidently and obviously a myth, to the modern rational person. It's essentially no different from any other myth - it's wholly about a fantastic, superhero-like entity, just like the stories about Hercules, Krishna, or indeed Buddha, or Laozi for that matter.

Now, as I said, it has happened in the past, we know it's the case, that human beings have been mythologised - i.e. their biographies have been larded over with fantastic elements (elements that a rationalist cannot allow, because they are not based on publicly accessible evidence - i.e. evidence that you or I could both look at at the same time and agree about). The reason we know that is because sometimes we have some kind of independent evidence (evidence independent of the mythologising writings themselves, or internal evidence in the mythologising writings themselves that "give the game away") that there was some human being there.

So it's plausible that there might be a man behind the Jesus myth as we have it, just as it's plausible that there might have been a man waaaay back at the origin of the Hercules myth as we have it, just as it's plausible that there might have been a man way back at the origin of the Krishna myth as we have it, just as it's a fact that there was a man behind some of the emperor myths as we have them, just as it's highly likely (though, oddly, not a foregone conclusion) that there was a man behind the Buddha myth, or the Appollonius of Tyana myth (we at least have a tiny bit of contemporary archaeology for him, whereas we have none at all for Jesus, say).

The point is - the potential historicity of some real human being behind all these myths (these stories about fantastical entities, entities with miraculous "superpowers", etc.) is variable, and in many cases undecidable, simply because we don't have enough evidence to be sure. Some of those myths might be based on real people, but others may not be. For example, Laozi, about whom there are many fantastic aspects to his traditional biographies, probably didn't exist (there's a growing academic consensus that the Daodejing is a loosely-themed compilation - that perhaps "Laozi", which means "old fellow", was meant to denote that the compilation was a compilation of "old folks' wisdom" from a certain region, combined with teachings in some mystical practices, and the belief only later came about, after a few generations of upheaval, that it was by a singular "old fellow").

It's very difficult to be cut-and-dried about any of it.

Given that, as I rationalist, I would find it very difficult to hang a religious hat on any of these figures. I would rather take whatever's found in writing as it stands (granted a decent philological/historical context of understanding of the language and times, as to what was really meant and said), and judge that wisdom, decline it, or adhere to it, as it stands.

In contrast, if the living Jesus walked into my room right now, surrounded by cherubim, a full lightshow and the trumpeting hosts, and said "Georgie, you've gotten it all wrong, I really existed, and am God's son", then I would feel pretty much compelled to believe. Of course I'm exaggerating the contrast for amusement - but do you see what I mean? On the one hand, I've got a potential belief based on something that's subject to the to-and-fro of scholarship, on the other hand, I've got a potential belief based on first-hand experience of a remarkable, stunning event.

IOW, I can well understand a rational person having a subjectively compelling experience of Jesus and being a believing Christian. (I might ask them to consider whether the whole thing was a brain fart, but I would treat their "heterophenomenology" with respect - I would respect how it seems to them, as their own experience, and a rationally decent basis for religious belief. Rationalism doesn't mean prejudging things, it just means going on the evidence, and personal evidence is normally good evidence for that person. If I hear a report of someone having such an experience, I am of course skeptical, but there's always room for a "maybe", and, tenderly respecting the abyss between man and man, I let him go his way and wish him good luck.)

But I can't understand a rational person having a religious belief based on very sketchy "historical" investigations into an entity who has very little corroboration outside the cult texts, and about whose historicity in detail no firm consensus can be derived, from those texts themselves.

But I think you have it back-asswards here: the entity I described is the entity the writers have described (this is aa5874's monomanaically expressed, but nevertheless perfectly valid point ). It's quite plain that the "superhero" Jesus is the one most people have believed in throughout history. That's the entity who the texts are about, that's the internal logic of them. They're not about an ordinary human being who subsequently became mythologised, they're about a fantastic, superhero-like entity right from the get-go.

It's also quite plain that, at the time the texts were written, the writers believed that the texts they were writing were sufficient historical proof of THAT entity. They weren't writing texts to provide historical proof of a man, they were writing texts which they believed provided historical proof of a miracle-working God-man. They believed their texts were sufficient historical proof in their day. People in those days already believed easily in miracle-working entities, and it didn't take much in the way of historical fleshing-out to make it seem convincing - particularly given that the purported events were in the recent-ish past, with verifiable town names, kings, etc., mentioned. So it was good enough historical proof (of a fantastic, superhero-like entity, be it remembered) for them. But it's not proof enough for us, for us rationalist moderns. i.e. we moderns can't allow ourselves to believe in a historical miracle-working God-man, because, since Hume, we understand that for us to give belief to such an extraordinary entity without compromising our rationalism, we would require extraordinary proof, proof much tighter and compelling than the NT texts - that doesn't rule such an entity out, it just means that for us rationalists to believe in him, we'd need something like double-blind experiments, etc., etc. - i.e. rigorous proof of an extraordinary claim. James Randi, for example, might bat an eyelid if someone turned up who could pass his tests and win his prize, but he would be forced to accept, on his own terms, that there was something beyond the ken of science going on. "Supernatural" phenomena can't be ruled out apriori (that would be hubris), but we do require that, to overturn the mass of accepted science, we would need some very, very solid proof that something unexplainable in ordinary scientific terms had actually occurred. The NT is not such a kind of proof.

So we come back to: okay, the NT is not proof, as it was initially designed to be (in the context of its times), of a miracle-working God-man. We're not so easily fooled (since Hume, as it were). But can proof of a human being behind the myth be teased out?

But then we get back to: okay, even supposing some vague elements of a human being's biography can be dimly discerned behind the evident myth - where does that leave the religion of Christianity? What's religious about some preacher who said some wise things? They're ten-a-penny, historically - and the human Jesus would be on no different a footing than the presocratics, the philosophers, etc. - i.e., an ancient worthy of respect for the wise things he said, and perhaps worthy of emulating or following, if the teachings touch one's heart, but not someone worthy of religious worship.

What you can't do (if you're being rational) is be circular about it: okay, here's this fantastic figure. I'm pretty convinced that historical research reveals a real guy behind the fantasy, ergo there must be some truth in the fantastical elements after all. How does that make any rational sense?

Well, as spin and others have been saying, that's precisely what you won't find in biblical scholarship. All you find is varying plausibilities. All everyone does is make up coherent stories that fit the evidence. There's simply not enough evidence to make firm decisions (certainly not firm life-changing decisions) one way or another. Was the supposed man behind the myth an apocalyptic, or mystic? Political agitator, or literary invention? You can make up plausible stories for any of these things.

The plain reading of the story is that there was a miracle-working God-man walking the earth 2,000 years ago. He could raise people from the dead, he could walk on water, and do many other fantastic things.

What you are talking about is not a "plain reading", but the work of analysis of some scholars, who believe that elements of the biography of a real human being can be discerned behind the evident myth.

Well, in the rough-and-ready terms used currently, I'm a "mythicist", which means I think he was "myth all the way down" - i.e. that there never was a real human being behind the fantastic story at all, i.e. that he's more like Superman or William Tell than like Appollonius of Tyana or Buddha. But if I were a "historicist", it's quite easy to see numerous ways in which an obscure preacher might have been mythologised. Especially later on, as the religion incorporated elements from other myths, was made more eclectic and more attractive to Gentiles, etc.

But, as I've been saying, you've got to be careful here: the idea that there's a historical core is a modern invention (late 19th century). It's based on a modern, rationalist attempt to keep the religious cake and eat it.

IOW, by the late 19th century, it was no longer respectable for a rational person to believe in the full-blown superhero Jesus (the one most believing Christians had believed in throughout history). But some intelligent Christians thought that maybe we could still discern some genuine historical person behind the myth, and thereby preserve some of the tradition of Christianity, and also some of the ethics (which might, on the theory, have come from a genuine preacher who actually lived), and also some of the deep theological philosophy (and Christianity is deep, philosophically, and even if one can't believe in miracle-working God-men, one might still rationally believe in God, and believe that a human being had been inspired by God).

No, I think it's more like this: the notion that 2,000 years of somewhat painful Western history could have been based to a large extent on someone who didn't even exist is too cognitively dissonant to even contemplate.

Plus, a man behind the myth is plausible, and is worthy of investigation. It's not that I think there's anything intellectuall disreputable about that line of inquiry, it's that I think that line of enquiry is pursued by default because of cultural, traditional and psychological reasons.

IOW, people haven't often "thought outside the box" about Jesus. That the Jesus myth might not be about a mythologised man but "myth all the way down", simply doesn't occur to most people, because of the cognitive dissonance as aforesaid, and because of cultural reinforcement and psychological bias.

Again, IOW, if you look at the Jesus myth objectively (I mean the traditional Jesus myth about the fantastic, miracle-working superhero figure), it's more natural for people to think that maybe there was a man behind it, than to think that there wasn't and that he was (for example, as I believe) an entity seen in visionary experience, gleaned from Scripture, and experienced mystically, by early Christians (AS an entity who had lived in their recent-ish past, but whom none of them had known personally as a human being) - or any number of other plausible alternatives (pure literary invention, etc., etc.)

aa5874

But, all scholars do NOTconclude JESUS was a figure of history and there is no credible external source that can show Jesus of the NT DID exist but was only human.

And you now agree that Jesus as described was more than human. Just ADMIT it. He was a GOD/MAN, the precise profile of a MYTH.

Solo

Hmmmm....I think the docetic beliefs were based on a reading of Paul, and his categorical "taboo" on considering tradents of the historical Jesus (1 Cr 2:2), i.e. Paul's Nazarene opponents. The idea that the risen Lord enters the bodies of the elect saints, accounts for the glorious grandeur they experience in the unio mystica. Paul stressed - against the libertine spiritualists - that the confirmation of this being a genuine gift of God rests fully with the spirit recipient's ability to present χάρις (charis) i.e. loving kindness and holiness.
Paul's rejection of the Nazarene traditions led after his death to speculations on the nature of the historical Jesus. Some believed (with the Nazarenes/Ebionites) that Jesus was adopted by God but was in all respects human, others (e.g. the Thomasians) that he was possessed by the same spirit as they, still others denied he had a material body. How did this idea come about ?

I believe that in reality the transient spirit in the texts describes hypermanic excitation, in which the subject initially experiences high euphoria and a sense of boundless grandeur or magnanimity. The envigorating experience becomes so pleasurable and the influx of energy so powerful that the individual loses the need to sleep. His or her diurnal cycle goes haywire. Some individuals in this state become entranced, wander around aimlessly and, experience strange phenomena associated with destabilized brain chemistry. The subject becomes feverish and hallucid. In the peaks of excitement, complex partial seizures take place, which are later verbalized as OBEs, visits to heaven, being transformed into light, etc.
There are also strange changes of personality that one experiences around the ecstatic peaks. In this period, one does not seem to be able to separate and cognitively assess one's ordinary self - the boundaries between what one normally calls I and the world become blurry, very much like during high fever. The subject passes in and out of consciousness; dreamlike hallucinatory sequences become freely mixed with ordinary reality. As the episode progresses and the subjects try to deal with their state cognitively, they will explain the strangely empowered state they find themselves in by refering to themselves as God, or something close to one, Jesus, e.g. Some of the illusions that the brain sponsors in highly excited manics are truly remarkable. One of the most prominent is the characteristic delay in cognitive processing of perceived objects, and the almost total absence of any feelings of discomfort. The delay of cognitive grasp of things produces the feeling of miraculous "response" of the world to oneself. One realizes one is hungry, and bingo, an apple suddenly appears on the table, as if a response to one's desire for one. But in reality, the object was perceived and hunger for it created before it registered cognitively. Everything around seems to be there for the new creation that the old self has morphed to. I found a great description of this deep sensuous trance of a sleep-deprived mystic. Buddha discloses to Ananda, his first disciple, the world system Sukhavati, the way of paradisiac consciousness:

And many kind of rivers flow along in this world system Sukhavati. There are great rivers there, one mile broad an up to fifty miles broad and twelve miles deep…and both banks of those great rivers are lined with variously scented jewel trees, and from them bunches of flowers, leaves and branches of all kinds hang down. And if [the heavenly] beings wish to indulge in sports full of heavenly delights, then, after they have stepped into the water, the water in each case rises as high as they wish to, - up to the ankles, or the knees, or the hips, or their sides, or their ears. And heavenly delights arise. And again, if the beings wish the water to be cold, for them it becomes cold; if they wish it to be hot, for them it becomes hot; if they wish it to be hot and cold, for them it becomes hot and cold, to suit their pleasure.

All of these special treats of course evaporate as the episode progresses. The manic-mystical experience becomes more and more dysphoric and chaotic until it turns into a psychotic hell (see. e.g. Goodwin-Jamison, Manic-Depressive Illness, Oxford, 1990, p.77 for phases in the manic episodes). In the end, the subject recovers his/her mental faculties and begins to wonder : what was that all about ? It is not an academic or idle query. Most friends and even family will have reacted negatively to the manic displays during the florid days and weeks. One's intimate relationships, and most often also business relationships become disrupted and one sinks into a sense of shame and despair that comes from the realization that in the eyes of the world I went off the deep end. Who can help ?

So it was with people like these that Paul and his friends were working: the mystics were telling them, no you were not insane, you are God's elect and you saw Christ, as surely as we saw Christ. It is a thing that is going around because we live in the end of times. You are seen as foolish by those who do not have the gifts you have, but this is God's foolishness which is wiser than the wisest man....etc, etc.

After Paul's death, when it became commonplace to speculate about the nature of the historical figure of Jesus, the manics would be looking back at their experience and try to decide if Jesus was just their better self in flesh and blood, or some purely spiritual but lasting appartion as he revealed himself to them and other people in the church in episodic encounters in the spirit.

Jiri