Toto

But that's the point - any document that mentioned Jesus would have been preserved by later Christian copyists, with close to 100% probability.

All of the rest of this has been gone over so many times I cannot bear to rehash it.

If Jesus was such an obscure little prophet that no one noticed him, you have the problem of explaining the speed with which he was deified and all details of his life overlaid with myth, and other details. But you have basically made his existence unfalsifiable, so there's not much to discuss there.

If you want to engage mythicism, please move beyond this issue to something more sophisiticated.

Doug Shaver

I was not aware that Arthur's nonexistence was an established position. I'm under the impression that quite a few historians think that the stories were in some loose way inspired by the deeds of a real man whose name really was Arthur and who really was in a position of some kind of authority over some portion of the English people.

But, for those of us lay people who think otherwise . . . I agree that we'd have to reconsider our position that Le Morte d'Arthur had no connection at all with historical fact.

I don't see how historicists can avoid it.

The only hyperbole was in the "everything" and the specificity of Cephas, James, and John. Of course those three didn't have to be the ones who tutored Paul about Jesus' ministry. But on the historicist assumption, somebody had to tell him something about what Jesus said and did before he was crucified -- and whatever they told him had to be enough to convince him that Jesus really had risen from the dead, and really was the son of God, and really was the Christ, and really was the savior of the world.

Solo

No way Paul's source of conviction about Jesus' resurrection originated with what he heard from other people. He himself says: a) that his 'gospel' of Jesus that he preaches, was not taught to him by men (Gal 1:11-12,15), b) that he does not think of Jesus as he thought of him before he received his revelation (2 Cr 5:16), and c) that he is not interested in hearing what Jesus had to say (or what people attribute to him as saying) while he was alive (1 Cr 2:2).

Jiri

ApostateAbe

Thank you, and I am sorry that I wrongly implied that the non-existence of Arthur is an established position. Paul wrote of James, John and Cephas being Jewish leaders of Christianity, so they bear at least some resemblance to the core group of disciples of Jesus. Do you think that their reputed existence lends more weight (if not enough) to the idea that Jesus existed? Toto seems to believe that the reverse is true, that it makes the existence of Jesus less likely, because she doesn't see any reason why eyewitness testimony of Peter/Cephas should exist but not for Jesus, an argument I can't help but find ridiculous.

OK, I'll quote you again, this time replacing "everything" with "some things."

Basically, yes. I do think it is a problem. It is a problem that is not best solved with the mythicist propositions, but it is a problem all the same. My main counterpoint is that Peter, James and John were explicit rivals of Paul, and Paul's failure of ever meeting Jesus in the flesh would be Paul's main weak spot that his rivals would be happy to lash repeatedly. Whenever Paul makes a point about what Jesus actually said, then he is exposing his weakness, and his rivals may say, "Hey, Jesus didn't really say that," or "Jesus did not mean it that way. I know, because I talked to him deeply about that very issue, and Jesus actually said X. I was there. Where were you??"

It is ad hoc speculation, but it seems to fit the evidence. The mythicist speculations do not seem to fit the evidence. The gospels, though generally not trustworthy, do attest to Peter, James and John being core disciples, a point that seems to fit Paul's regard for them, as reputed pillars and apostles to the Jews. And, Paul really did believe that Jesus was a human being who lived recently, though the attestations in Paul are scarce and perhaps doubtful in the minds of the highly skeptical.

ApostateAbe

OK. Can you please tell me an issue that you find more sophisticated? You just brought up the philosophical issue of falsifiability, which interests me a little, and maybe you would find that more sophisticated. It is something I thought about all of the time in scientific debates. A scientific theory is not legit unless it is falsifiable. In history that deals with textual, I have strong doubts about it--there is a critical lack of data, an unlikelihood of finding new relevant data, and almost every hypothesis is unfalsifiable or else the principle is too ambiguous to be useful. A principle that I prefer, and I don't know if there is a name for it, is the principle that we should be preferring the explanations that either best fit the direct evidence or are best consistent with external patterns, preferably both. I'll just call it the Abe Principle, not to be vain, because it could be a principle that historians already generally adhere to, though it could be just my own unsophisticated and faulty theory.

Toto

There is a discussion of the Argument to the Best Explanation (ABE) here in Carrier's review of Doherty's Jesus Puzzle. I expect he will come out with more in his forthcoming book.

If you redefine the historical Jesus to some unknown Palestinian peasant, no one will ever be able to show that Jesus existed or did not exist. It makes more sense to reframe the question as how did Christianity begin? Did it start, as the Christian legend claims, with a group of followers of a crucified nobody who were inspired to start a movement that was underground for decades or a century before making an impact, or did it start some other way?

But while you are thinking about this, I find it hard to discuss this with someone who admits that the gospels and the NT are not good historical sources, but also thinks that only a hyper-skeptic would not believe the basic claims in the gospels, just like the religious believers.

maryhelena

Yes, the mythicist position does have a problem re what went on prior to Paul. If Paul is to be taken at his word i.e that there were other before him and that he persecuted the church - then what on earth is he on about if there was no historical Jesus - which is the mythicist position. Is it simply a matter of various spiritual ‘christ’ groupings and somehow Paul got them to follow his particular take on the ‘christ’ scenario? Paul’s vision against many other visions? Competing visions hardly seems to be a firm foundation upon which to base a new religious movement - not to mention the hard sell involved.

A simple answer to the Paul ‘problem’ is that there was a historical man involved with the early pre-christian movement. This man had an impact upon those who knew him. He had friends or followers. How these followers viewed this man in light of the OT prophecies is what is relevant. The man dies a natural death. (no crucifixion) His followers keep alive his memory by telling stories; remembering his words etc. For the sake of argument - lets say his followers imagined this man as somehow having some significance re interpreting OT prophecy re messianic expectations. So they end up with a little community, a movement of sorts. Along comes someone called Paul. Paul does not like the inferences he is getting from this group re messianic ideas etc and tries to put a stop to the messianic nonsense. However, a little later Paul has a vision.

Paul has a new take on things. What has been going on is just not right. The OT prophecies need to be re-evaluated as being about a spiritual not a flesh and blood messiah figure. And anyway, the historical figure that the pre-Paul group had found to be so inspirational was not 100% Jewish to boot. Sure, in days gone by, Cyrus was once the anointed one - but now the time had come for real change - a spiritual not a flesh and blood messiah. Paul seeks to turn the focus away from the historical man involved with the early movement and seeks to transform the movement into a religion of spirituality not bound by flesh and blood or earthly temples.

Paul was on a mission, his mission - to turn upside down the early movement. No bloodlines, no hereditary positions. Paul’s messiah figure would be a purely spiritual construct. Paul is his own man - his ‘truth’ is not dependent upon the words or sayings of any historical man. Paul plays his own tune and only seeks recognition from the ‘pillars’ not authority. In time the historical origins of early Christianity would be overshadowed by Paul’s spiritual construct and it’s ‘flesh and blood’ counterpart in the gospel Jesus storyline.

Paul, whoever he was, was a man with big ideas - and the strength of character to take what had gone before and attempt to mold it to his own vision. Perhaps Paul could be called the first Christian - but to overlook the historical backbone to Paul’s spiritual construct is to do both Paul and Christian history a disservice. Paul moved things forward, moved in another direction - but he did not, by his own admission, set in motion the pre-christian movement that was to become Christianity.

So, bottom line in all of this: Jesus of Nazareth is not a historical figure but a mythological or symbolic creation. Prior to the Jesus storyboard , the pre-christian movement involved a historical man who was deemed to be inspirational by his friends and followers. This man was not crucified and his name was not Jesus.

Thus, the mythicists are correct - no historical Jesus. But the historicists are correct in their insistence upon there being a historical grounding, a historical figure that was relevant - albeit to a pre-christian movement - a movement that existed prior to Paul.

That’s my take on things - as of now......

ApostateAbe

I know it is hard to discuss this with me, and you are doing a service at your personal sacrifice to sustain the conversation. I appreciate it, because ABE seems like a better formulation of my own "Abe Principle" (and happily sharing similar names), and I will certainly adopt it starting now.

I agree, too, with your proposition to reformulate the relevant question to, "How did Christianity begin?", because the best way to find the most probable conclusion for whether or not Jesus existed (if that conclusion matters to us) is to compare competing theories of what started Christianity. We have external patterns of how religions begin and develop, and we have the most reliable data concerning how Christianity developed, not so much for who Jesus was.

aa5874

But, what you have proposed is NOT a simple solution. There were people who would have known Jesus was NOT a Messiah or the Son of a God.

King David was NOT worshiped as a God and called the Creator of heaven and earth.

Simon bar Cocheba the Messiah was NOT worshiped as a God and called the Creator of heaven and earth.

Jews did NOT worship humans as Gods and claimed their God ALONE was the Creator of heaven and earth.

The NT Canon and the Pauline writings would have been deemed to be non-sense if it was presented to Jews before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

We have the writings of Philo, a contemporary of the supposed Paul and Jesus, and in his writings it is shown that Jews would most likely NOT worship a man as a God and would NOT have claimed JESUS was the Creator of everything in heaven and earth.

We have the writings of Josephus which demonstrated the same as Philo that JEWS would NOT have worshiped a man as a God and call him the Creator of heaven and earth.

The Pauline writings are NOT from the 1st century is the simplest solution based on the ABUNDANCE of Evidence from antiquity.

That's my take.

maryhelena

aa5874
There is nothing whatsoever in what I have written, in any shape or form, that is support for any argument about a man being worshiped as god by Jews...