joedad

Under Verifying Empirical Statements Lowder includes this bit of methodology in Fischer's listThat Jesus isn't mentioned by the Romans, therefore, does not constitute evidence.

Lowder's last two paragraphs are critical to understanding the whole debate concerning a "historical Jesus," and is why Doherty continues to press the issue of "confessional" interests. Lowder distinguishes between a mere person named Jesus, and a living breathing godman, and concludes that the NT constitutes "prima facie evidence for the historicity of [such a mere] Jesus." Lowder's "historical Jesus" is certainly not the same "historical Jesus" of everyday common usage.

I find Lowder's position here interesting based on the fact that much fictional writing contains exactly these type characters. It is simply incorrect to presume that novel characters are prima facie historical, if indeed that is what Lowder is doing.

spin

And you did a spiffing job too.

Too bad you can't do anything more useful and justify the fundaments underlying your upfront commitments. Attempting to knock down the Jesus-mythers is as useful as those who might try to knock down the existence of unicorns. The job is to show that unicorns exist, or, in your case, that hj exists. You haven't done that and obviously you can't. You just rest on what your authorities opine about.

So, are you ever going to do your job? Let's not hold our breaths. While waiting though, I'm not averse to analysing what you won't.


spin

Amaleq13

Paul explicitly says otherwise when he declares that there existed "false apostles" preaching a "another gospel" and "another Christ". Quite contrary to your assertion, there appear to have been competing versions of "the story" in the earliest documentary evidence.

Do you have the full arguments of these enemies? Or do you only have what their Christian opponents chose to quote in their rebuttals?

What was the "false gospel" against which Paul argued in Galatians?

I agree that this is a very strongly established conclusion but I would also suggest that this is precisely where most scholars begin. The obvious next question is what, exactly, does the "not much" say? The historical recreations of Jesus I've seen spend little, if any, time on the possibility that the answer might be "nothing very reliable". Instead, they focus on supporting their particular conception. I'm certainly not the first to note that the examples of scholarly attempts to depict THE historical Jesus ultimately seem to say more about the authors than Jesus. That is not a criticism against their efforts but it is a recognition of the nature of the evidence. It is apparently much like the "evidence" of the collection of ink blots in a Rorschach test.

As for Layman's description of the consensus, except for the use of the word "universally", it seems pretty accurate. Most scholars recognize that the evidence is neither plentiful nor perfectly consistent but consider it sufficient to conclude that a real guy named "Jesus" existed in the 1st century. They don't agree on a single portrayal of this figure but they agree "he" was historical. With regard to Josephus, most scholars accept that a reduced Testimonium is original. Given a reduced Testimonium, the short reference is considered genuine as well.

Reduced Testimonium:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned his to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

According to Crossan (The Birth of Christianity, p13) the reduced Testimonium can be accepted because:

"Once the questionable phrases are omitted, what remains is in a style and language characteristically Josephan."

Crossan goes on to describe specific examples but he doesn't seem to consider the implications of them. While it is true that Josephus uses "wise man" elsewhere in his works, he does so in reference to two Jewish heroes: Solomon and Daniel! Is it credible to believe that Josephus counted Jesus to be as wise as these men? No more so than it is to believe he would call Jesus "Messiah".

It is also true that Josephus uses the phrase "suprising feats" elsewhere in his writings but he uses it to describe Elisha! Is it credible to believe that Josephus considered Jesus' supernatural power to be as amazing as Elisha's? Again, this is can only be a Christian application of Josephus' vocabulary.

Crossan finds Josephus to be calling Christians "gullible" when he reads the phrase "accept the truth gladly". That is because he finds the word "gladly" used to make fun of how some people believed the stories of a guy claiming to be Herod's dead son. But the stories of the fake dead son are not described as "the truth" being accepted "gladly". They are described as fake stories accepted "gladly". It is an example of Josephus using "truth" sarcastically that is needed to establish this interpretation.

"When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned his to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him."

When Josephus refers elsewhere to the high priests as "men of the highest standing" it would appear he considers that description to be accurate rather than ironic as it is used above. Accepting this sentence as genuine requires us to assume that Josephus considered the high priests guilty of false accusations and Pilate guilty of falsely convicting and executing Jesus. Upon what basis (i.e. source) could he have reached such conclusions? Surely not from any "records" of earlier high priests. Surely not from Roman records. These are Christian claims that Josephus is embracing as true and approval of those who, despite these false charges and unlawful execution, continue to love Jesus.

"And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Throughout his works, Josephus consistently uses "tribe" to refer to national groups (i.e. Jews, Taurians, Parthians) but never to a religious group. Is it credible that Josephus would describe the term "Messianists" as apparently deriving from Jesus' name rather than the belief he actually was the Messiah? Is it credible specifically in the contex of the fact that, other than in the two disputed references to Jesus, Josephus never uses the word "Messiah"?

What does that leave with this more credibly reduced Testimonium?

"About this time there lived Jesus. He won over many Jews and many Greeks."

Clearly, this minimal remainder cannot be considered appropriate to the context so we have to assume the existence of text that has been completely eliminated. I would suggest that, given how much of even the "reduced" version can only be considered Christian, the entire thing must be discarded.

Thus, the remaining short reference loses its primary source of credibility and still contains a unique word ("Messiah") that Josephus can arguably be said to have consciously avoided everywhere else and, even if he "might" have used it this once, certainly not without further explanation (including an explicit denial that such a claim could have been true). In addition, the passage has its own, independent, reasons to be doubted. Discussions of the "lost reference" found in a variety of threads provide those. That we have earlier evidence of an obvious, and subsequently deleted, interpolation containing the same phrase clearly casts significant doubt on the one that is first described by Eusebius.

The absence of evidence of Jesus in Josephus makes it more difficult to establish an historical Jesus but it doesn't make an historical Jesus "impossible". It is entirely consistent with the idea that the historical Jesus made very little impact outside a relatively small group. It was only after the later growth of that original small group that their existence and at least some of their beliefs came to be known to the "outside world".

Toto

Archimedes Nachos asked a legitimate question, and I would like him to clarify it. Is he interested in whether there is such a consensus that the question can be declared settled and closed based on the evidence, or is he interested in a poll of all historians, living or dead, who have expressed an opinion?

Until this is clarified, I would ask that all posters refrain from repetition of old arguments, sniping at each other, etc.

For the record, the Internet Infidels does not take a position on whether some guy named Jesus existed in the first century. The existence or non-existence of Jesus is not critical to the philosophical stance of non-theistic naturalism, and key members of II have taken different positions and probably changed their positions.

Layman would like to pigeonhole me as a radical, but I have never taken the position that "Paul, Peter, James, and Clement of Rome were also myths". I have tried to explain that Paul does not fit the mythic mold, although parts of his letters are likely interpolations or forged and it may be impossible to learn the true history behind him. The character of Peter in the gospels is largely mythical. I don't recall expressing any opinion on Clement of Rome, or having any reason to think that he is a myth.

Sauron

Appeal to authority? "They're experts, so we have to trust them to decide their own standards?"

Then perhaps those scholars can share the details of those standards with the rest of us - since clearly you don't seem to know what they are.

An investigator's toolkit - how he/she comes to a conclusion - is at least as important as the conclusion itself. If the methodology is flawed, then so is the conclusion. And if the methodology isn't even agreed upon, then the conclusions are likewise affected by a lack of consensus.

HJ or not? I don't know. I'm waiting to see how this debate resolves itself. Having seen how christian apologists have twisted certain other methodologies (such as the criterion of embarrassment) to their own purposes, a discussion of the scholarly standards behind the HJ position is important.

But you obviously are having a hard time listing what those standards are. The evidence is your continual ducking and weaving when being repeatedly asked for the crisp details of these scholarly standards. If you don't know, then just say so - instead of attempting to distract the audience with bluster.

Doctor X

Toto:

Methinks Archimedes Nacho's question has been answered--there is no concensus.

The problem with the historical Junior in scholarship is the natural assumption that "it happened" with "it" being "the basic story"--whatever the hell that is. "It" is whatever the scholar wants to believe, was brought up to believe. This is not odd--most people in a Christian country are given this "assumption."

It has taken some time to rethink this, much like rethinking what the archaeology says about an Exodus, for example.

If we take the "extremes" to be . . . well sorry Layman . . . but that a historical Junior existed and is testified to in extra-biblical material on one side and the "it is all myth" on the other--well, we will probably find "most scholars somewhere in the middle."

As has been hash'd out on these pages, that "some guy" existed says nothing about what he said or did.

So, no concensus, frankly.

--J.D.

Layman

Forgive me Toto. It's statements like this one, "The possibility that Christianity did not exist in the first century has to be considered," that caused me to say you entertain such possibilities.

Of course, if you meant that Christianity may not have existed, but Paul, James, and Peter did, perhaps I missed it.

Bede

The wonderful irony of the similarity between atheist views of creationism and Jesus mythology really does deserve more comment. As someone who is happily with the scholarly concensus in both fields, I love the way that Jesus mythologists say the same, believe the same and do the same as creationists. It is honestly wonderful to watch.

It is the same complete inability to come to terms with facts - the lack of references to Jesus are like transistional fossils. They either don't exist or can be explained away with contorted logic. Experts who almost unanimously accept evolution or totally unanimously accept Jesus existing are either victims of the system or ideaologues. It is a great conspiracy - either by a church that didn't have any power or money at the time anyway, or by evil materialists who are using evolution to deny the bible.

But the funniest thing of all is mythers can't see what idiots they look. At least a YEC has a reason to deny evolution - he is defending the literal truth of genesis. But the mythers are just sad - their entire thesis is nothing more than childish temper trantrum against some imagined slights by religion.

Yes, there is no argument in this post - I've done with arguments. Layman, Kirby and Vinnie have wiped the floor with the mythers so many times it's hardly worth countering. It's hardly surprising all the good moderators have left. This board is like a stuck record.

Cretinist

Strange, I thought most of the best scholars believe it can't be known what Jesus said or did. An unknownable historical Jesus sounds a lot like a mythic Jesus to me.

Doctor X

Not if one is honest.

--J.D.