Weighing up the evidence for the ‘Historical Jesus’

[Leucius Charinus]

https://theconversation.com/weighing-up ... esus-35319
Raphael Lataster Tutor in Religious Studies at University of Sydney

• Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.
  
  Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment”.
  
  From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?
  
  The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith.
  
  
  ////
  
  
  
  The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious.
  
  The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.
  
  The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea.
  
  The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.
  
  
  ////
  
  [CONCLUDING REMARKS]
  
  So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little; of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times.
  
  Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them.
  
  Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?
  
  Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar.
  
  Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Investigative questions of political ancient history. They don't really belong in the field of theological investigations do they?



LC

[toejam]

Someone posted this link in another forum, here was my response:

Lataster said: "[Ehrman and Casey's] most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them."

I think this is a very skewed view of Ehrman and Casey's views. Ehrman would never say the gospels "can be generally trusted", only that they need to be run through *standard* historical criteria to find what are most likely the nuggets of history. Ehrman's most decisive points are the improbability of Jews claiming a crucified Messiah and the evidence for the historical James the brother of Jesus. Together these make a fairly compelling - if not 100% definitive - case. Most historical Jesus scholars don't rely on one criteria, but apply multiple. When a particular claim passes several criteria (e.g. the existence of Jesus' brother - multiple independent attestation check, dissimilarity check, contextual credibility check etc.) then it becomes a bit of a stretch to say that James didn't exist. If "James the brother of the Lord / the so-called Christ" existed, then Jesus likely did too.

"Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus”"

I dispute this. There are numerous references in the 7 generally-accepted-as-authentic Pauline letters that give us good reason to think Paul believed Jesus had been here on Earth (regardless of what else he thought of him). The most telling are his claims of Jesus' Davidic descent and being born of a woman under the (Mosaic) law. Similarly, he talks about "the night Jesus was taken away" and his crucifixion - a standard Roman punishment. He also claims to have met Jesus' brother James who is attested to in Josephus as seemingly the physical brother of Jesus. There's also a potential reference from Paul claiming it was the Jews in Judea who were ultimately responsible for the crucifixion (1 Thessalonians 2:14, though this is disputed and could be interpolation). Paul also uses analogies of Jesus' body being like a seed whose resurrection was the "first fruits" of the general resurrection - a common Jewish belief at the time of an upcoming physical resurrection of the dead. All of these references make very little sense if Paul believed Jesus was exclusively celestial. But it makes perfect sense if he believed he had been here on Earth. Paul at no time ever states that Jesus lived and was crucified exclusively in the heavenly realm. This "Paul only describes a heavenly Jesus" is a bit sus to me.

Put all this together in combination with what is also attested to in the Roman historian Tacitus and (possibly) Josephus, whom both also record Jesus' execution under Pilate, all these sources within 85yrs of Jesus, and I think it's a fairly sound historical conclusion that there was a historical Jesus.

[outhouse]

This gives a much better look at historical jesus research in context.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8265.html

[neilgodfrey]

This gives a much better look at historical jesus research in context.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8265.html

None of the contributions in this book addresses the question of the historical existence of Jesus. Each one assumes the existence of a historical Jesus and examines what the evidence tells us about that assumed figure and how he has been presented in the literature.

As Professor James McGrath says, we know certain people existed by the evidence of what they said and did. So if we can read words and deeds spoken and performed by someone then that's evidence they existed. So we know both Pericles and Heracles existed according to such a criterion. That's the level of "intellectual rigour" among those who assume such books "prove" the historicity of Jesus.

Don't forget that Bart Ehrman confessed that he believed he was the first scholar to actually sit down and write a book examining the evidence for the historicity of Jesus some years after The Historical Jesus in Context was published. So he evidently believed the same -- that this work does not address the question but likewise takes his existence for granted.

[toejam]

^Nope, my recollection is that he said he believed he was the first lay out a case for a historical Jesus for a popular 'Barnes & Noble' -type audience

[outhouse]

This gives a much better look at historical jesus research in context.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8265.html

None of the contributions in this book addresses the question of the historical existence of Jesus. .

And it states that quite clearly in the second paragraph

this volume provides information on cultural contexts within which Jesus was understood and perhaps even understood himself. This collection explores Jesus’ contexts not only through presenting select primary sources (most in new translations) but also by offering commentary by experts on those sources. By looking directly at the sources from the period—Jewish and Gentile, literary and archaeological—this volume allows readers to construct the setting within which Jesus and his earliest followers lived.

It gives context of evidence, it offers different views from the most credible people in the business.

Each one assumes the existence of a historical Jesus

Because the man has historicity at this time. Like it or not, this does deal with the current state of studies, not where you wish the studies were.

As Professor James McGrath says

Oh he sums it up perfectly.

All I’ll say for now is that I encourage the atheists and freethinkers at these forums to live up to their principles and reputations. You rightly stand against pseudoscience in favor of mainstream science. Don’t be easily duped into discarding mainstream scholarship in history because a few fringe folks have made a plausible sounding case that appeals to what you’d like to be true. You know better than that. Inform yourselves about rigorous mainstream scholarship in history just as you’d want creationists to do with the natural sciences. It’s the right thing to do, and you know it. By all means, make up your own minds. But don’t just listen to fringe views expressed on the internet and in self-published books. You know where that road leads, and have surely criticized others for following that path. I don’t ask for any sort of special hearing for any particular viewpoint. I just ask you to be true to your principles!

[outhouse]

Don't forget that Bart Ehrman confessed that he believed he was the first scholar to actually sit down and write a book examining the evidence for the historicity of Jesus some years after The Historical Jesus in Context was published

.

He is a good scholar, but never been my cup of tea. Don't you think that is talking him a bit out of context?

Each one assumes the existence of a historical Jesus

Each one is dealing with the cultural anthropology, the context of the world at that time. Without that knowledge, one is blind to reality here. One can never process the evidence correctly not having the full picture.

This is a very valuable book with knowledge required, before beginning to evaluate the evidence. Its more important in some aspects because it can coax out evidence out of 100% fiction, by showing the author's motives and what was important to said person.

[neilgodfrey]

This gives a much better look at historical jesus research in context.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8265.html

None of the contributions in this book addresses the question of the historical existence of Jesus. .

And it states that quite clearly in the second paragraph

this volume provides information on cultural contexts within which Jesus was understood and perhaps even understood himself. This collection explores Jesus’ contexts not only through presenting select primary sources (most in new translations) but also by offering commentary by experts on those sources. By looking directly at the sources from the period—Jewish and Gentile, literary and archaeological—this volume allows readers to construct the setting within which Jesus and his earliest followers lived.

It gives context of evidence, it offers different views from the most credible people in the business.

Correct. And not once is the question of Jesus' historicity ever raised. It is assumed throughout. It is no different in this sense than any other work on the historical Jesus. Every chapter begins with the assumption that Jesus was historical and proceeds to discuss issues from that perspective.

Each one assumes the existence of a historical Jesus

Because the man has historicity at this time. Like it or not, this does deal with the current state of studies, not where you wish the studies were.

Er, yes, so where do we disagree? It sounds like you are just assuming the historicity of Jesus, too, now. Current studies do not question the historicity of Jesus. They all assume it. They are interested in understanding what they believe the evidence tells them about this historical figure or what the evidence tells us about the way this historical person was presented and written about.

As Professor James McGrath says

Oh he sums it up perfectly.

All I’ll say for now is that I encourage the atheists and freethinkers at these forums to live up to their principles and reputations. You rightly stand against pseudoscience in favor of mainstream science. Don’t be easily duped into discarding mainstream scholarship in history because a few fringe folks have made a plausible sounding case that appeals to what you’d like to be true. You know better than that. Inform yourselves about rigorous mainstream scholarship in history just as you’d want creationists to do with the natural sciences. It’s the right thing to do, and you know it. By all means, make up your own minds. But don’t just listen to fringe views expressed on the internet and in self-published books. You know where that road leads, and have surely criticized others for following that path. I don’t ask for any sort of special hearing for any particular viewpoint. I just ask you to be true to your principles!

Sums it up perfectly? I see. So you ignore his embarrassing remarks about methods and select his ad hominem. He's really a master at ad hominem. That's about all he ever has to fall back on. Keep attacking the persons till you can't see anything of their arguments anymore.

If you can't see the circularity in his reasoning then you need . . . . well I don't know what you can do.

His reasoning is circular. He himself is assuming historicity. Look again at what he says in my own post and stop and think. By his standards then every mythical and fairy tale character in literature would be historical.

Just ignoring arguments contrary to your views and repeating your own doesn't get you or anyone else very far. Recall Bart Ehrman himself said no other scholar as far as he was aware had stopped to study the question of historicity as he had. Was he totally ignorant of all the studies you think examine this question?

[Leucius Charinus]

Someone posted this link in another forum, here was my response:

Lataster said: "[Ehrman and Casey's] most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them."

I think this is a very skewed view of Ehrman and Casey's views. Ehrman would never say the gospels "can be generally trusted", only that they need to be run through *standard* historical criteria to find what are most likely the nuggets of history. Ehrman's most decisive points are the improbability of Jews claiming a crucified Messiah and the evidence for the historical James the brother of Jesus. Together these make a fairly compelling - if not 100% definitive - case. Most historical Jesus scholars don't rely on one criteria, but apply multiple. When a particular claim passes several criteria (e.g. the existence of Jesus' brother - multiple independent attestation check, dissimilarity check, contextual credibility check etc.) then it becomes a bit of a stretch to say that James didn't exist. If "James the brother of the Lord / the so-called Christ" existed, then Jesus likely did too.

The criteria you are citing here toejam were essentially invented in recent times and have more recently been the subject of academic analysis and scrutiny. The article in the OP quotes them:

• The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious.
  
  The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.
  
  The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea.
  
  The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

Carrier has collected a number of academic assessments on these so-called "criteria". They are not as logical as they sound when put to the test.

And furthermore one must assume the text before us is some specific genre.

What is the genre of the Greek New Testament?

"Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus”"

I dispute this. There are numerous references in the 7 generally-accepted-as-authentic Pauline letters that give us good reason to think Paul believed Jesus had been here on Earth (regardless of what else he thought of him). The most telling are his claims of Jesus' Davidic descent and being born of a woman under the (Mosaic) law. Similarly, he talks about "the night Jesus was taken away" and his crucifixion - a standard Roman punishment. He also claims to have met Jesus' brother James who is attested to in Josephus as seemingly the physical brother of Jesus. There's also a potential reference from Paul claiming it was the Jews in Judea who were ultimately responsible for the crucifixion (1 Thessalonians 2:14, though this is disputed and could be interpolation). Paul also uses analogies of Jesus' body being like a seed whose resurrection was the "first fruits" of the general resurrection - a common Jewish belief at the time of an upcoming physical resurrection of the dead. All of these references make very little sense if Paul believed Jesus was exclusively celestial. But it makes perfect sense if he believed he had been here on Earth. Paul at no time ever states that Jesus lived and was crucified exclusively in the heavenly realm. This "Paul only describes a heavenly Jesus" is a bit sus to me.

But what about Pseudo-Paul? Why do you think some letters are genuine "Paul" and others are common forgeries?

Put all this together in combination with what is also attested to in the Roman historian Tacitus and (possibly) Josephus, whom both also record Jesus' execution under Pilate, all these sources within 85yrs of Jesus, and I think it's a fairly sound historical conclusion that there was a historical Jesus.

You may as well scratch Josephus from the race on account of more forgery from the church organisation (possibly of the 4th century). The Tacitus reference to "Chrestians" has also been viewed by a number of people to be yet another forgery from the church organisation (possibly of the 14th century, along with the Pliny reference).

I am not maintaining that your evidence consists of church forgeries, but I am suggesting that this may be the case and that the possibility should be taken seriously.


LC