neilgodfrey

Ercatli -- you may have missed this. Which gospel(s) claim that Jesus really existed as a historical person? What specific points do scholars claim are historical and on what basis?

(Is there anything beyond the list in Funk's book, Honest to Jesus that I should know about, or any of the points he lists that have a substantial reason to believe in their historical character?)

Thanks
Neil

ercatli

I've seen the negative argument made several times, in regard to Nazareth (I agree, this is not very important) and John's Gospel (where it is very important). Surely you wouldn't believe the uncheckable facts from a source where every checkable fact was incorrect?

And if you look at my post #141, you'll see I refer to papers where the authors have established from archaeology that John's Gospel contains a source that is early, accurate, detailed and historical (I think they mean historical in nature, rather than theological). The existence of an early source of historical material in John is significant fact in assessing whether John is reporting or imagining.

So you may believe these ideas are false, but you cannot say it so definitely and remain accurate to what the scholars are saying.

Have you got something against Grant? I quote him often because I have read his book, he is a non-believer (and some people choose to impugn the scholarship of believers), he was a historian (and some people choose to impugn the scholarship of people with degrees other than in history) and he was a historian of the Roman Empire, not just a New Testament historian.

I don't quote the "others" I mention here because I don't have notes from which to quote, but I think I recall historians Robin Lane Fox and AN Sherwin-White saying the same thing.

When did anyone ask me to write an essay on the topic? And why do people apparently assume that I don't? And why do I need to if I trust the consensus of scholarship?

But in fact I have read several books where the author discusses historical method and the criteria, and you can also find outlines on the web. It's not rocket science to read and understand them, though I would question some of them, and it must be very difficult to apply them consistently.

How do you know what I examine? Would you like it if I made the same accusation of you?

Did you notice those two statements are not mutually exclusive as you infer. A person can be a theologian or a literary critic and still practice history. I suggest the distinction is a false one. Historical analysis often requires textual criticism, anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, etc, and people's expertise often develops in areas divergent from their original study. This is really not a very valid argument.

Look, mate, are you enjoying the level our discussion has reached? I can't say I am. Contrary to my wish in my OP, we seem to be generating friction more than light, and I think that quickly becomes a waste of time. Let's agree to either share our viewpoints without carping criticism, with a view to gaining understanding, or let's call it a day. What do you think?

Best wishes.

ercatli

Hi Neil. Two of them describe his birth (the beginning of a life). All of them describe his death (and you can't die without having previously lived!). Luke says he is writing of events "that have taken place among us"; John says the stories come from one whose testimony is true. Everything in them is presented as actually happening.

I think you know the answers to this one better than I do. It can be shown that they are in the form of biography. People didn't write either fiction or myth in that way. They were believed by friend and foe alike to be claiming historicity. Why would anyone think otherwise? There is some, albeit limited, external support for their being historical in nature. I'm not a scholar, so I'm sure there are many other reasons that I haven't thought of.

I think you know this also. I have seen different scholars make different, though similar lists. Here is a compilation of lists by Sanders, Wright and Grant:

• time of birth, location of childhood, baptism;
• he called disciples (probably 12 of them) and associated with outcasts (uncommon for a Rabbi in his day);
• he effected cures and exorcisms (G Stanton: "Few doubt that Jesus possessed unusual gifts as a healer, though of course varied explanations are offered."; E P Sanders: "I think we can be fairly certain that initially Jesus' fame came as a result of healing, especially exorcism.");
• he preached "the kingdom of God" in Galilee and called people to repent - he believed he was the "Messiah, inaugurating the Kingdom of God and that repentent sinners were eligible for the kingdom (P J Tomson: "Although he apparently considered himself the heavenly 'Son of Man' and 'the beloved son' of God and cherished far-reaching Messianic ambitions, Jesus was equally reticent about these convictions. Even so, the fact that, after his death and resurrection, his disciples proclaimed him as the Messiah can be understood as a direct development from his own teachings.");
• welcoming "sinners" was part of his teaching and he claimed to be able to forgive people's sins (M Grant: "Jesus introduced a very singular innovation. For he also claimed that he himself could forgive sins.");
• he believed his death would be redemptive (M Grant: "Jesus lived his last days, and died, in the belief that his death was destined to save the human race.");
• he created a disturbance in the temple in Jerusalem, had a final meal with his friends, was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities and was executed by the Roman Governor, Pilate
• his tomb was really empty and his disciples "saw" him (in what sense is uncertain) after his death (E P Sanders: "That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know").

Of course many scholars would contest some of these points (e.g Sanders' list doesn't contain all those points), but equally many would add many more.

The reasons for drawing these conclusions are contained in the particular version of the historical method each scholar uses. Again, there are differences, but many criteria in common also.

So that's a quick, fairly off-the-cuff answer to some complex questions. What would be your answers to your own questions?

Thanks.

rizdek

Because just after you die, you'll feel really bad about things that you believed in and you'll burn in hell forever because of them. There, is that what you've been looking for?

neilgodfrey

Just like in novels and mythical tales. They are all presented as actually happening. There has to be something more than that. Historians in non-biblical subjects that I have explored are very careful about ascertaining the provenance of sources before deciding what historical value they contain. Forgery and fiction needs to be sifted out because they are all too common in the real world. On what basis do you accept these tales as historical? Just their own self-testimony?


What about the biography of Osiris? And Jewish writings about the historical or biographical details of Adam and Moses? It is well known that authors ever since ancient times have written bogus histories and biographies and diaries etc. You don't have to be a scholar to read the works of scholars and to read widely, including works written from a position contrary to your own faith perspective. You don't have to be a scholar to question the view that historicity is to be assessed solely on the basis of a literary genre. Personal letters, for example, are written to express personal happenings and thoughts in a real person's life. But whole books have been written about the way this genre was used to express fiction, too, that so often deceived audiences. This is as true of ancient literature as modern. Some ancients also wrote bogus histories in the genre of history writing. We know this. So why not ask why scholars of early Christianity are so often so quick to assume historicity of something simply because "it is written" and central to the plot or setting?

Your examples, as I expected, cite the later gospels. Not the earliest one which scholars (plural, though not all) believe to be a parable. But even taking those later gospels at face value, when you argue that a gospel is historical you are pointing to a gospel that stresses the non-historical and most mythical elements of all. (Miracle births and deaths, etc). Such elements are non-historical because a historian's job is to establish what might have happened in terms of human and social norms. Even ancient historians tended to express scepticism when reporting that people believed in some sort of miracle at a particular event (e.g. death of Romulus). Only mythographers appear to expect the readers to believe without question.

Are you not reminded of "just so" stories where the narrator "proves" his story is true by saying "you can see such and such by the place over there to this very day!" No, I am not saying the gospels are "just so" stories like that, but why not something similar if they are attempting to preach a certain theology? Does anyone believe similar stories when told of anyone outside the Bible?


I read the list you offer and fully agree that the gospels say all those things about Jesus. But I looked in vain for any reason supplied for actually believing any of those things -- and Jesus == really happened in history. What did I miss? The assumption is that the gospels must have some historical basis, and therefore the safest bet is to pick the most basic things from the gospel plots or narrative, and claim that is what we can be "sure of". And then if it can be shown that the setting of the narrative comports with what the place and people were really like . . . . and if we can impose a sociological or anthropological model on the narrative . . . .

And all the while we have no clear idea who wrote the gospels, or for whom they were written or where, and only default arguments based on certain historical assumptions for most part about when they were written. On what basis do we afford them any historical credibility at all?

Neil

Doug Shaver

I know the feeling.

bacht

I think one of the great ironies of Christianity (and maybe most religions) is that it seems to have originated among people who, if encountered on the street today, would be judged eccentric or possibly psychotic. These people (eg. the Qumran writers or the author of Revelation) seem to be on the fringe of society, ranting in extreme black-and-white terms about good and evil, "us and them" and so on.

Whether they fasted and meditated themselves into trances, or took hallucinogenic drugs, these people would not be considered "normal" in their time or ours. If Peter or Paul walked into a modern church they would probably be ejected if not arrested.

Doug Shaver

Are you applying a general principle here, or is the principle applicable only to certain kinds of documents? Please state the principle, and if it is applicable only to certain kinds of documents, which kinds?

show_no_mercy

Well, this is getting outside the realm of BC&H and into epistemology, presuppositions, etc. but I guess it had to get there eventually.

Every single one of us is a product of our environment. Factors that we did not choose. Just by being born in a predominantly English speaking country, you were "indoctrinated" into thinking in English. Almost every single basic thought of yours has to be filtered through your English language before you can really call that thought your own. But is is really your thought any more? Or is it some abstract idea filtered through your culture before it arrives at your conscious?

You have to interperet everything you experience through the English language. But English is really one subset of culture. You also live in a predominantly Christian culture. More endemic than English, you also interperet your experiences through the "Christian language" as it is. Already, you're biased into seeing the world through Christian colored glasses - the reason you're a Christian is the same exact reason you speak English.

If you had been born in Iran, you would have Arabic as possibly your base language, and your religion would be Islam. Every single argument that you use to validate Christianity is used to validate Islam. Every single one. They actually have a leg up on you because Muhammad actually wrote the Koran (as dictated by Gabriel) himself and it's still read in its originally penned language. At least, that's the claim. The same exact situation would repeat itself if you had been born in the modern state of Israel. Except you would be Jewish, speaking Hebrew, and you would shake your head at those goy Christians who are bastardizing your religion due to their obvious ignorance of Hebrew. Virgin births? HaShem robing himself in flesh? Worshipping kings as gods? That is all paganism, and has no place in Judaism! Leave it to goyim to make a religion out of apostasy.

I'm actually hoping that my assumption is incorrect, and English is, say, your secondary language. Because that will illustrate my point a bit more. If you know two languages, then you can express your thoughts, your most fundamental thoughts, in two different languages. Or maybe three, or four languages if you've had the freedom to learn more than one. You have the choice to choose the language that best expresses the most of your ideas. Learning a second language actually makes you think differently. One concept you concoct might only be able to be expressed adequately in Japanese and not Greek.

The larger analogy would be to choose which "epi-language" (my neologism for worldview) best explains the most amount of evidence. IMO that would be metaphysical naturalism. Everyone is a methodological naturalist in day to day activities, but resort to methodological supernaturalism when it comes to their chosen superstition. Consider that neurology (via methodological naturalism) shows that your "feeling of knowing" is just that - a feeling. It has no necessary correlation with reality, and can be stimulated by electrical currents to your brain. Where does that leave religions based on things like the inner witness of the holy spirit, that need no independent, objective verification? It leaves them purely where neurology finds them - securely in the believer's mind.

Nazareth existing prior to 70 CE might be an anachronism. Either way, the Nazareth point is almost insignificant compared to other historical/geographical inaccuracies in the gospel narratives. It still doesn't negate the fact that it's a fallacy of composition, and like I wrote before, the same methodology could be used to prove that the events in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen actually happened.

The Iliad and the Odyssey is a comparable example. What methodology would you use to discern what events were true and which ones were fantastical in the Odyssey that wouldn't also falsify your own beliefs about the gospel narratives? Without showing obvious bias towards your own preconceived conclusions? There's a lot of archaeology that is confirmed in the Odyssey as well. This doesn't mean that Achilles was the offspring of a sea goddess.

Then, we have the archaeologically verified existence of the old Northern Kingdom of Israel and the supposition that this was where the old 10 tribes settled, and the archaeologically verified existence of Native Americans. Why, this must mean the Mormonism is true, and Joseph Smith really did get help from the angel Moroni reading a lost gospel. Thus Mormonism is just as archaeologically verified as the gospel narratives.

The other points are really just exposing the circularity of a lot of NT scholarship. The vast majority of Biblical scholars became Biblical scholars because they were first and foremost Christians. There are a few that became agnostics or atheists, but for the most part, NT scholarship is dominated by theologians.

Toto

Surely you don't believe that "if A then B" is the same as "if B then A"? Do you understand basic logic?

The description of one particular site is historical. This does nothing to show that the fourth gospel is historical reporting.

This is not what the scholars are saying. There are apologists who try to justify their beliefs by reference to secular scholarship, but these are not necessary (or even probable) conclusions.

Grant is out of date and what he says about the study of the historical Jesus can be easily shown to be wrong. For reference, see this thread, post 25 in particular, with links, and this thread, post 58, with citations. You responded to that post, but you either didn't read the cites or couldn't think of a good response, so you ignored them.

I am challenging your understanding of what a consensus is and what it means.

You don't need a PhD to read most of this stuff.

You consistently fail to address some key points. That's all I know.

Theologians tend to use history for apologetic purposes. They decide what conclusion to reach, and shape their arguments to fit. This is not history.

If you want to rely on expert opinion, at least find an expert.

Do you think you can just come here, state your case, ignore counter arguments, and then say this isn't the discussion you wanted, so stop talking to me? If so, you are just here to preach and not to have a discussion, and you are abusing this forum.

Merry Christmas to you.