bacht

Agreed. I don't have a problem with Christ as a symbol of connecting gentiles with Judaism (of course Jews may see it differently). My problem is with supernaturalism in general, whether parting the Re(e)d Sea or any sort of afterlife or miraculous event.

Petergdi

Oh please! It is easy enough to persuade yourself that that hypothetical piece of information would convince you, but it is not as easy to come up with a hypothetical that would withstand the same treatment given to actual evidence.

1) One could claim this was an interpolation, with the plausible justification that the real Paul would never own up to such a thing.

2) One could read it in a "spiritual" sense: Cephas is claiming that such-and-such a statement is out of line with what the "mythical" Jesus stands for.

3) One could take the "radical critic" approach and say that since Paul and Cephas are both fabrications, what one reports the other said about Jesus is of no evidentary value.

Peter.

gurugeorge

Yes, those all have some degree of plausibility too. But I am telling you simply that the kind of thing I'm describing is where I would draw the line. The point is that, for me, that's the kind of blunt evidence that's missing from Paul. And I suspect for a lot of others who go mythicist.

If something like that was found, just a morsel, connecting all this airy-fairy "Jesus" and "Christ" business in Paul to some kind of human being, through Paul's report, that would be impressive, I'd weight my opinion much more heavily towards the HJ side.

You're making it out that mythicists have some sort of apriori objection to there ever being a human Jesus at the root of the (evident) myth! To me, at least, it really would be no great odds if there were a human Jesus at the root of the evident myth. It's quite possible, there's nothing apriori wrong with the idea at all. It's just that there's nothing in the earliest stuff (i.e. Paul) that suggests anybody knew personally anyone called "Jesus" in the way my example would - e.g. Paul reporting a conversation with one of the Apostles that betrayed the Apostle's having known a human being personally who was called "Jesus", having heard his teachings, having seen him going to the loo, etc., etc. For whatever reason in reality (such as an omniscient intelligence might see), there's just nothing of that kind there. Therefore (from our position of limited knowledge) it's just not wise to put too much weight on the hypothesis that there was such a person there at the origins.

The lack of this kind of crisp, rather more compelling evidence doesn't make an HJ impossible, it doesn't bar the possibility; it just makes one put less weight on that hypothesis, and makes one favour others more.

IOW, for whatever reason, we seem to have before us a bunch of texts that accrete more detailed historical stuff as time goes on. The hypothesis that this is because the original idea didn't have much historical detail is always going to be simpler than any other explanation, and preferable, until we find something that's datably early (e.g. new papyrus find or something) that has something we moderns would find satisfactory, like I've outlined. Then all the orthodox biblical scholarly argumentation could reasonably come into play. Then we would see that "ah yes, then there must have been a reason why the historical detail stuff was soon forgotten, and then filled in later".

Petergdi

No, that might be true in some cases, but it is not what I'm getting at.

The problem is not motive, but method.

The methods used in Jesus-mythicism to deal with HJ evidence do seem to be powerful enough to deal with pretty much any possible evidence.

Peter.

Toto

The main "method" in Jesus-mythicism is pointing out that clear evidence for Jesus is lacking, and that a mythical Jesus is a better explanation of the evidence. Obviously, this would not work with strong evidence.

Petergdi

Um, no. The evidence is only "lacking" because Jesus-mythicists have developed ways of dealing with the evidence that exists. It is not obvious that hypothetical evidence (at least of a kind that might plausibly be found) would be any less susceptible to the same methods used to deal with existing evidence.

Try to come up with a plausible hypothetical piece of evidence which is not vulnerable to the same sort of attacks as existing evidence.

Peter.

Toto

I think you are closing your eyes to the flimsy nature of the evidence that exists.

If we had a contemporaneous account of the "Jesus movement" from a Roman historian, or if Paul had indicated that he talked to Peter about what Jesus said, or if he had called James the brother of Jesus (instead of the Lord), or if we had reports from travelers of Christian churches before 70 CE - it might be possible to find problems with this evidence, but it would be much harder.

If we had Papias' writings, and he wrote about sitting around with old guys who told stories - even second or third hand - about the days in Galilee with Jesus - that would probably be enough for some skeptics.

Petergdi

But how do we avoid discounting the evidence in the same ways one can discount the evidence from Tacitus and Pliny? Unless he tells you he is not relying on hearsay for the part which would destroy your doubts, how do you rule out saying it was just hearsay? And if one suspects the Tactitus passage because it isn't quoted for centuries, how much more would one suspect a never quoted new discovery?

What prevents a "spiritualized" interpretation of such a passage?
What prevents a claim of interpolation?

That certainly would not make any difference. "Brother of Jesus" can be understood "spiritually" just as easily as the other.

That might interfere with some versions of Jesus-mythism and I think would probably be harder to dismiss than the others.


I think you underestimate the ingenuity with which people can find problems with evidence. More importantly you underestimate the ingenuity already displayed in dealing with the existing evidence.


"What would be enough for some skeptics" isn't really the point. I'm not suggesting that skeptics are incapable of changing their minds - some obviously can - most probably would under some circumstances. The point is that the same methods used to find problems with the evidence that we have, could also work just as effectively on just about any hypothetical evidence.

Peter.

gdeering

Well, I'd disagree, but that me for you. Perhaps you could point me to a contentious, and supremely important, bit of history where 100% agreement was achieved. I'd appreciate it if you'd stick with religious questions, apples to apples.


Gregg

Steven Carr

It is very similar to the way historians look for a historical Ned Ludd.

Have Historical Jesus scholars started to shy away from claims of a historical Judas? Is there a slight suspicion in HJ circles that he may not have existed?

Or do HJ scholars have no doubts about the existence of a single person in the Gospels?