Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 04-28-2008, 04:46 PM

Hi Tammuz,

As far as I know, nobody has written a book or even an article seriously questioning the non-existence of Socrates and/or Plato. On the other hand, over the last 150 years, dozens of books and many articles have appeared which question the existence of the Jesus of Nazareth character.

Questioning the existence of extremely well documented historical personages seems to be a rhetorical strategy of Christians to deal with the increasingly problematic evidence/non-evidence of Jesus' existence.

It reminds me of the medieval strategy of dealing with the existence of God question. The solution was to declare that God existed more truly than anything else.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tammuz

There is a widespread opinion on this forum that Jesus wasn't a historical person. I find the arguments in favor of that quite convincing, or at least worth to investigate.

However, the majority of the historians seem to consider Jesus to be a historical person. As they obviously aren't convinced of Jesus' ahistoricity, I wonder what convinces them that he was historical.

Also, is it true, as some people claim, that Jesus' historicity is either equally or more certain compared to the historicity of Socrates and Plato?

aa5874 · 04-28-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tammuz

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You mean "Christian scholars" and not "historians".

I know of no history book any where in the known world written by any credible historian about Jesus of Nazareth living during the days of Pilate. There is just no evidence for such a God.

Can you give me the name of an historian or the name of an history book about the God/Man Jesus?

You must not forget that the Jesus in the NT was a God, theologians and christians believe that he is/was real.

According to Wikipedia, most scholars believe that Jesus was historical. Some suggest that the historical Jesus and the theological Jesus should be studied separately, wheras some say that separation isn't necessary.

You still have not provided the name of any HISTORIAN or any book of history about Jesus of Nazareth.

There are Billions of people who Believe that Jesus was real and have not a single historical source to support their position.

And, Wikipedia, has "scholars" not "historians", and "most scholars" can mean "most christian scholars".

brianrein · 04-28-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tammuz

According to Wikipedia, most scholars believe that Jesus was historical. Some suggest that the historical Jesus and the theological Jesus should be studied separately, wheras some say that separation isn't necessary.

You still have not provided the name of any HISTORIAN or any book of history about Jesus of Nazareth.

There are Billions of people who Believe that Jesus was real and have not a single historical source to support their position.

And, Wikipedia, has "scholars" not "historians", and "most scholars" can mean "most christian scholars".

You can talk like a conspiracy theorist all you like, but I am quite happy to provide the name of a "historian in capital letters" who thinks Jesus existed. In fact, several.

Also consider the humanist Will Durant:

Quote:

The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

Or atheist Michael Grant:

Quote:

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

Additionally consider scholar Bart Ehrman, whose turn to agnosticism is very well-documented and who has written a biography of a historical Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher.

Here is a further list of Jesus theories and the people who support them, some religious, some not.

thedistillers · 04-28-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

You are saying that atheists usually use logic, so you are throwing in a particular principle of logic that does not make logical sense here? What am I missing? (What are you missing?)

All I'm saying is that atheists - in all kind of contexts - prefer simplicity over complexity. I gave one example of such a principle, I admit that it was confusing because the particular principle I gave as an example didn't apply for the discussion.

Why in the case of Jesus do people use the contrived JM hypothesis, when it does not at all explain better the data we have? Having a REAL Jewish prophet explains the data much, much, much better, regardless of whatever details we might believe about him.

Quote:

Repeat: simplicity per se is not the goal. Quantum theory is not simple, but it does a better job of explaining the data than Newtonian physics.

You'll have to explain me how the JM hypothesis explains the data better.

Quote:

I can assure you that there are people with a deep disdain for Christainity who believe in a historical Jesus, and I would ask you not to make unwarranted assumptions about anyone's motives based on no evidence.

There's plenty of evidence the JM hypothesis is being pushed partly by people with a strong hatred for Christianity. Use google. I'm not saying it's the case for all people, of course. I can think of many other motivations. The love for conspiracy theories, to give another example.

Toto · 04-28-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedistillers

...
Why in the case of Jesus do people use the contrived JM hypothesis, when it does not at all explain better the data we have? Having a REAL Jewish prophet explains the data much, much, much better, regardless of whatever details we might believe about him.

You would have to make that case.

Quote:

You'll have to explain me how the JM hypothesis explains the data better.

Read this: Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity and then we can discuss it.

Quote:

I can assure you that there are people with a deep disdain for Christainity who believe in a historical Jesus, and I would ask you not to make unwarranted assumptions about anyone's motives based on no evidence.

There's plenty of evidence the JM hypothesis is being pushed partly by people with a strong hatred for Christianity. Use google. I'm not saying it's the case for all people, of course. I can think of many other explanations. The love for conspiracy theories, to give another example.

Partly? Strong hatred? measured by who? What do you know about Wells? Freke and Gandy (not atheists?) It sounds like the only mythicist you have heard of is Acharya S, and you have only read her enemies.

You throw vague insults around with abandon. Please provide some details, and explain why this is even remotely relevant.

Amaleq13 · 04-28-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedistillers

Having a REAL Jewish prophet explains the data much, much, much better, regardless of whatever details we might believe about him.

As one who tends to lean toward an historical figure, that is certainly an exaggeration.

Quote:

You'll have to explain me how the JM hypothesis explains the data better.

It doesn't but, given the evidence, it really doesn't do a worse job.

Solitary Man · 04-28-2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

What they often consider historical is that there was some obscure wandering preacher who got in trouble with the authorities and who got crucified on orders of Pontius Pilate -- something like the Gospels with the miracles stripped out and some selection made out of conflicting possibilities.

Yep.

Quote:

Solitary Man, I've read Aristophanes's play The Clouds, and that is absolute hooey. Why don't you read it for yourself?

Yes, I've read The Clouds too, in Greek at that. I'm well aware it's phooey, but so is the 2nd Jesus reference in Josephus. The only person who actually read it and tried to make a case for interpolation is spin, and he failed at that.

Solitary Man · 04-28-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What is legit about the following:

The conception of Jesus through the Spirit.
The baptism of Jesus.
The temptation of Jesus.
The miracles of Jesus.
The sayings of Jesus.
The transfiguration of Jesus.
The trial of Jesus.
The crucifixion of Jesus.
The resurrection of Jesus.
The ascension of Jesus.

What is the name of the history book written by a credible historian that claims Jesus of the NT is legit? I cannot find such a history book.

That's because you're arguing a strawman. I never said that Jesus exactly described in the New Testament existed, but neither did George Washington in his early biographies (are you also going to argue that he didn't exist?).

spin · 04-28-2008, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianrein

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You still have not provided the name of any HISTORIAN or any book of history about Jesus of Nazareth.

There are Billions of people who Believe that Jesus was real and have not a single historical source to support their position.

And, Wikipedia, has "scholars" not "historians", and "most scholars" can mean "most christian scholars".

You can talk like a conspiracy theorist all you like, but I am quite happy to provide the name of a "historian in capital letters" who thinks Jesus existed. In fact, several.

Also consider the humanist Will Durant:

Or atheist Michael Grant:

Quote:

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

Additionally consider scholar Bart Ehrman, whose turn to agnosticism is very well-documented and who has written a biography of a historical Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher.

Here is a further list of Jesus theories and the people who support them, some religious, some not.

Now don't apologists get tired of cutting and pasting the same things?

First the "humanist Will Durant": read here.

Then the "atheist Michael Grant": read our very own Toto in one of those clearer moments here.

The analysis cited from Durant in this thread would be considered nowadays as sloppy. Durant was not a historian in the field we are dealing with. The source of the quote is probably circa 1945 and a lot of historical methodology has been reconsidered and elaborated on. I carved up some of this comment by Durant in the thread linked to in this post, but to show the outdatedness of the methodology, a large number of scholars in the biblical field now consider the historicity of David in doubt, some even consigning him to legend.

Most of Michael Grant's scholarly work was published in the 1950s and 60s spending the rest of his career writing mainly non-specialist works. Again his methodology regarding Jesus reflects a bygone day. Grant simply doesn't know that he doesn't have to form an opinion with insufficient data. It's a case of either historical or mythical, so he has to opt for historical because he can't go for mythical. I've attempted to show in this forum that neither in this matter are particularly acceptable. One should reject both on insufficient evidence pending further evidence which clarifies the issue either way.

If people want to get serious, citing opinions of non-religionists, they need to get up to date with the field, citing recent opinions, not cut-and-pastes of long cold reheats.

As to Bart Ehrman, what else can you expect? Ehrman is a text scholar who has studied christian literature for decades for much of that time as a believer. His life's work is dedicated to the "historical Jesus". For chrissake, don't you think it's silly to cite Ehrman in this context?

Instead of this bubble and squeak you need a little fresh meat.

spin

Solitary Man · 04-28-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

The content also belies the parallel. Josephus' possible mentions of Jesus are positive or at least neutral, while Aristophanes' mention of Socrates is quite hostile. (The parallel with Tacitus would probably have been better.) Also, the reference to Socrates in The Clouds is itself referenced, though only obliquely, in Plato's Apology, so a theory of interpolation would require that both books be interpolated at around the same time and neither one survives without the interpolation.

Luke and Jerome preserve a form of the Testimonium Flavianum as well, so is Luke interpolated or just that late?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.