Malachi151

When did "the historical Jesus" become established by the evidence?

In the biological sciences, we can show when certain hypotheses become supported by the evidence, such that they become justifiable knowledge.

At what point did the existence of Jesus become justifiably true?

When did the evidence prove that he existed?

Ecrasez L'infame

Sorry, everyone: I hadn't checked. To make amends I've found the link:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=200747

You misrepresent the OP. To me it is obvious that there's a difference, the analogy does break down... I just can't see where... (If that sounds incoherent, it's because I'm genuinely puzzled rather than just trying to score a point).

Sorry, I can't see this; all the standard experts say the evidence is compelling for HJ too. So - I've only seen a fraction of the evidence that exists for HJ, too, and I can read what the experts say - it's so self evident for them they just about take it for granted. What's the difference?

I do not find this convincing. Although it might explain how the consensus view could be so wrong (if it is), it is not evidence or argument that it is. Plenty of honest scientists are paid by people who perhaps aren't selflessly searching for the truth. It'd be better if it wasn't so, but it is.

This is more what I was thinking about. Evolution isn't strong because of its evidence, but because of the type of theory it is: robust, about real things, strongly limited, making predictions that can be falsified, and linking into dozens of other sciences. HJ can't be any of that; neither can MJ, or for that matter any historical theory.

Ecrasez L'infame

Yes, it's very a very strong thing to say. When i was writing the OP, I deleted that sentence, and then typed it out again exactly the same. See, I think it stands. Certainly my friend is free to disagree with evolution, in the sense that he won't be put in prison for it, and I'm not holding a gun to his head to make sure he doesn't, etc. In fact, here in what for the sake of argument I'll call "the free world", everyone is able to think and believe any damn thing they like, no matter how senseless and foolish - and good job, too, it's humanity's greatest invention and one of the few things worth physically fighting for. But it seems to me that being free to do something is not the same as having the right to do it. For example, I'm free to walk out of my job, clean out all my family's bank accounts and go and live on Easter Island, leaving them penniless; I'm able to do that, I could do it real easy, but I don't think I have the right to do it, because I have responsibilities to them, and those responsibilities curtail my rights. Similarly, as members of society we all have responsibilities to the truth, we can't walk out on that either - and that also curtails my rights. So I don't think anyone has the right to believe that (say) Tony Blair is secretly a six-foot alien lizard, because that is so obviously nonsense. (Five foot ten would be a different matter). It's the same with evolution: the theory isn't up for grabs, if you're an educated citizen of the twenty-first century you have to accept it or show yourself up as a lizard-believer.

So, no, I'm not sure I believe anyone has the right to be senseless and foolish - only the freedom to be so.

Interestingly, Figuer, your later example half agrees with this. Evolution might not be up for grabs, but many intelligent and informed people think the consensus theory for the mechanism needs to be looked at again. So the example you picked was a rational one, not something wacko. Can you ever honestly imagine yourself writing something like "I believe in yogic flying, despite the many "experts" that say it's nonsense. I might be completely wrong, but it is my right to err." I don't believe you can; in other words, you yourself limit your "right to err" to things that are not nonsense.

Toto

I think the analogy goes the other way. HJ is like creationism, especially the creationism of Darwin's time, when it was the standard accepted theory. It appears rational, but it is based on 1) assuming that the Bible has some sort of validity and 2) assuming that the appearance of design implies a creator. The HJ scholars know that Christianity exists, and many of them assume that this implies that there was a founder, someone like the Jesus described in the gospels.

MJ is more analogous to evolution. MJ scholars accept that religions can evolve, rather than be created.

Both are quite different from creationism or evolution: there is no hard data and no real way of testing either hypothesis.

Malachi151

Yes, very well said. As said here before though, in theory there could be information that could solidly prove one case or the other. We don't seem to have that evidence though.

Amaleq13

I couldn't agree more.

figuer

I can understand know better what you intended to say (although my anarchistic self does not permit me to completely validate such an idea as the lack of right to be foolish :devil.

My real problem with the phrase you used is however that you base his lack of right in the number of people who claim such a thing. If you had claimed the strenght of the evidence as a reason I would have found it more acceptable. I just find any suggestion that conceptions of truth or science are dependent on democratic concensus extremely dangerous.

Gregg

You haven't seen only a "fraction" of the evidence that exists for an HJ. If you've spent any time at all researching this issue, you've likely seen all of it, or at least 90% of it.

The evidence is "compelling" because the "experts" want it to be. They read and interpret it in ways that make it compelling for them. For example, take the "argument from embarrassment" which says the story of the disciples' abandoning Jesus must have actually happened because there's no other way such an "embarrassing" incident would have been included in the gospels otherwise. Bible scholars use this argument all the time, but it is hardly the only or the best explanation. For example, it's quite likely "Mark" is structured almost entirely from the Jewish scriptures. "They all forsook him, and fled" (Mark 15:30) is included in the story to fulfill Scripture, such as:

Psalm 31:11
Because of all my enemies, I am the utter contempt of my neighbors; I am a dread to my friends— those who see me on the street flee from me.

Psalm 38:11
My friends and companions avoid me because of my wounds; my neighbors stay far away.

Well, I can't help it if you don't find it convincing. If you think Bible scholars as a group, many of them believers, are eager to overturn 1800 years or so of religious doctrine and tradition, upset millions of believers, and anger and embarrass their employers by embracing the MJ thesis, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Look ... although the MJ thesis is quite compelling, there's no way to demonstrate it to be true beyond all doubt. As long as there is any uncertainty or ambiguity, most Bible scholars are likely going to play it safe and go along with the majority opinion. But the simple fact is, that majority opinion is not based on lots of hard evidence. It would not surprise me if most Bible scholars simply assume Jesus must have existed, assume that all MJ theories have already been decisively refuted, and give little more thought to the matter.

mountainman

Whether or not you wish to countenance the possibility
there also exists the chance that we are not dealing
with either an HJ or a MJ, but rather a fabricated FJ.

Hitherto researchers of biblical history have accepted that the
gospels and accompanying NT were delivered to Constantine
to be bound, along with the OT, and the supporting documentation
provided --- at the very very same time --- passed down
as is claimed by Eusebius.

What is being struggled towards is essentially
a theory of history for the period of antiquity
from -4 BCE (Birth of Apollonius of Tyana) to
the Council of Nicaea.

Today, the theory of history assembled by Eusebius,
in the time period 312-324 CE, in which the "tribe of
christians" is claimed to have had an historical existence,
is the only one anyone has ever had since Constantine's
"supremacy party".

The contention that mainstream BC&H are studying a fiction
and a pseudo-history cannot be overlooked. The emperor
Julian cites "the fabrication" as "a fiction of men composed
by wickedness".

Such a theory of history is falsifiable and obviously must
necessarily include the history of the invention of the
"new and strange Roman religious order" with effect from
the fourth century. It must also explain any inconsistent
historical citation with respect to the tribe of christians
in the prenicene epoch, and has done so to-date.

Remember that the "Literary Tradition" is only one of the
traditions at the disposal of historical enquiry. There are
a series of perhaps a dozen or more traditions which are
resources to historical enquiry independent from the
"Literature Tradition". EG: Numismatic tradition, C14,
archeology, etc, etc.

The only other "tradition" ancillary (although by no means
independent of) the Literature Tradition, is paleography.
Handwriting analysis requires handwritten literature.

In summary, aside from the "attestation of Handwriting experts"
with respect to papyrii fragments, and ancient mss, there
is absolutely no other historical "tradition" that bears witness
to the existence of "the prenicene tribe of christians".

Art, coins, architecture, bones, ossaries, inscriptions,
sarcohagi, legal contracts, archeological relics, carbon
dating citations on NT papryii and bindings, jewellery,
trinkets, clothing, murals, weapons, graffiti, sculpture,
burial relics, curios, libelli, tax returns, etc, etc.

No parallel supporting evidence for the existence of
the prenicene "tribe of christians" until after the
great boundary event known as BULLNECK's Basilicas.

Malachi151

This reminds me, is there a good website that summarizes or lists out the arguments in support of the Gospels being historical?