Quest of the mythical Jesus available online

[Paul the Uncertain]

Greetings, Chris

Congratulations on much work usefully presented. I have a few points, which you may take or leave as you please.

[1] I appreciate that your chosen time frame is modern, but it does leave the impression that there was no ancient Jesus skepticism. This is not the case for the Simonians, who believed that Jesus (so far as proto-orthodox commentators can be believed) was a character performed by their founder. That is, not an "identity" dispute, but an existence dispute. A "historical" character, Simon the Magician, accounts for the legend, but that character is distinct from the character in the legend.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... dnt-exist/

That may have some importance because it is an apologist trope that Jesus skepticism is modern. While the trope is not much of an argument if true, it isn't even true (unless the fathers have lied, and what are the odds of that?)

[2] I think you need to be careful to distance yourself from the appearance of any claim that Einstein was a Jesus skeptic. The book in question is not primarily about Jesus, and its conclusions about Jesus are at best tepid. Einstein's short contribution to the book isn't about Jesus, either.

As to his views, Eintein was on record as favoring a historical Jesus

http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-c ... nstein.pdf

(last page of the pdf, leftmost column, near the bottom of the page). He inscribed a Christian Bible favorably (an auction item in the news). I think that's enough to put the burden on you for even a hint that Einstein was a skeptic on the historicity question.

[3] agnosticism.

The debate is dirty enough without the further burden of using a term whose only widespread literal usage is to name an opinion on the Question of God. To do so positively invites confusion between faith commitment and secular historical examination. The Jesus debate has too much of that already.

It's not much of analogy anyway. The historicity of any hypothesized individual is a secular question. Huxley's very point was to distinguish QoG from secular matters - what cannot versus what can, at least in principle, be decided by evidence.

Further, many Jesus skeptics are content with eliciting simply acknowledged doubt about the HJ-MJ question from their audience. That is, to assent that there is a serious possibility (a technical term introduced by Isaac Levi) that Jesus did not exist. Accepting that proposition doesn't prevent the person from thinking it extremely likely that Jesus did exist - but just to acknowledge the uncertainty would be progress.

Obviously, "I am an agnostic; I think it all but settled that God exists" would be a very strange position statement. Less so "I am a skeptic about God's existence; ..." and still less, "I am uncertain about God's existence; ...".

On a point arising, I am skeptical about the value of attaching everyone's behavior record to their scholarship (and even more skeptical about picking and choosing whose records will be attached and who gets a pass). Nevertheless, it is reasonable to discuss who is Carrier's audience, and how that has changed over time. It would be precious not to discuss why his audience has changed.

Conclude: I didn't object to the specific discussion in your book, even if I cannot join you in generalizing that to a politcal imperative to pimp the genetic fallacy.

[Chrissy Hansen]

[1] I've already looked through all the sources you reference on Simon Magus in that article and did so in preparation for this book. Your argument that he is denying Jesus' historicity is also false. Cyril writes:

"This man, after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome, and gaining over one Helena a harlot , was the first that dared with blasphemous mouth to say that it was himself who appeared on Mount Sinai as the Father, and afterwards appeared among the Jews, not in real flesh but in seeming, as Christ Jesus, and afterwards as the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised to send as the Paraclete."

Note, he says he came on Mount Sinai (so appeared to Moses is the narrative here), and then "afterwards appeared among the Jews, not in real flesh but in seeming, as Christ Jesus," and then "afterwards as the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised to send as a Paraclete." In short, Simon saw himself being repeatedly incarnated. He thus believed that he was the Jesus who had previously appeared. The comment on "seeming" in flesh is docetic but in no way denies the historical existence of Jesus. Simon outright claims Jesus appeared to the Jews, and that he (Simon) was said Jesus. This is like when modern people like Lord Rayel claim to be Jesus. It isn't a denial of his appearance in history, just a claim that he (Simon) was the incarnation.

[2] I don't claim Einstein was a Jesus skeptic, merely that he endorsed Jesus skeptic material (which is true, and Jacob Neusner and Joseph Fitzmyer did this as well).

[3] The agnostic term has been in this debate for decades (currently used by Avalos and Lataster). If we are to start removing terms because they either clutter or cause confusion, I think mythicism should be the first, since (as I discuss) the term is pretty nonsensical in its current application.

Thank you for your comments though, they are great to discuss and think about!

[Paul the Uncertain]

I've already looked through all the sources you reference on Simon Magus in that article

Lucky thing nobody said you didn't. What was said was that your choice of time frame explained why you hadn't addressed ancient mythicism. If there were additional reasons, then thank you for expanding my insight into your process.

Extant Justin is the chief source for the timely existence of a Simonian movement and Irenaeus is the chief source for Simon teaching that he performed the deeds ascribed to Jesus. Cyril mainly restates Irenaeus and Justin, but adds (1) that Simon used the specific title Christ Jesus to characterize his performances, for the little bit that adds to the already admirable clarity of Irenaeus, and (2) an interesting theory of Cyril's own about references to Simon and Simonians in 1 John. Nothing in Cyril contradicts Irenaeus about Simonians, and Irenaeus's understanding is sufficient warrant for the claims I made.

What else Simon taught is irrelevant to the claim presented. All fact claims about history are contingent and uncertain. You are welcome to disagree with mine. I have however stated the evidentiary basis of my position. I have no other burden than that in this discussion.

I don't claim Einstein was a Jesus skeptic,

Lucky again that nobody said you did.

merely that he endorsed Jesus skeptic material

Then quote him "endorsing Jesus skeptic" material. Here's the entire text of his statement:

Foreword

Professor Smith has kindly submitted his book to me before publication. After reading it thoroughly and with intense interest I am glad to comply with his request to give him my impression.

The work is a broadly conceived attempt to portray man's fear-induced animistic and mythic ideas with all their far-flung transformations and interrelations. It relates the impact of these phantasmagorias on human destiny and the causal relationships by which they have become crystallized into organized religion

This is a biologist speaking, whose scientific training has disciplined him in a grim objectivity rarely found in the pure historian. This objectivity has not, however, hindered him from emphasizing the boundless suffering which, in its end results, this mythic thought has brought upon man.

Professor Smith envisages as a redeeming force, training in objective observation of all that is available for immediate perception and in the interpretation of facts without preconceived ideas. In his view, only if every individual strives for truth can humanity attain a happier future; the atavisms in each of us that stand in the way of a friendlier destiny can only thus be rendered ineffective.

His historical picture closes with the end of the nineteenth century, and with good reason. By that time it seemed that the influence of these mythic, authoritatively anchored forces which can be denoted as religious, had been reduced to a tolerable level in spite of all the persisting inertia and hypocrisy.

Even then, a new branch of mythic thought had already grown strong, one not religious in nature but no less perilous to mankind -- exaggerated nationalism. Half a century has shown that this new adversary is so strong that it places in question man's very survival. It is too early for the present-day historian to write about this problem, but it is to be hoped that one will survive who can undertake the task at a later date.

ALBERT EINSTEIN

There's nothing in that statement about Jesus skepticism.

[3] Interesting to appeal to we've always done it that way, when you have such clear proposals for how the rest of us should do something different from what we've always done. Meh.

No hard feelings.

[Chrissy Hansen]

[1] Cyril says, again and I quote:

"This man, after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome, and gaining over one Helena a harlot , was the first that dared with blasphemous mouth to say that it was himself who appeared on Mount Sinai as the Father, and afterwards appeared among the Jews, not in real flesh but in seeming, as Christ Jesus, and afterwards as the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised to send as the Paraclete."

The implication is that Simon thought of his incarnation as Christ as having been in the past and he was reincarnated as the Holy Spirit. The Christ still appeared historically to the Jews and he never denies Jesus existed in that timeframe. That he believed he was the one who was Christ in that frame is actually irrelevant. Simon's beliefs he was Jesus are actually completely irrelevant to whether or not he thought Jesus existed. He clearly thought he did, he just thought that he was Jesus and then later he was the Holy Spirit incarnated. I.e. after Jesus' ascension, Simon believed that the holy spirit would then be sent, and Simon believed he was also the spirit.

[2] I never said there was anything in that statement about Jesus skepticism. The two things I wrote were:

"Albert Einstein, as we have previously noted, also favorably treated the work of Homer William Smith"

"It is also notable for having a positive foreword written by world renowned physicist Albert Einstein"

Nothing in there indicates that Einstein was a Jesus skeptic.

[3] I'm not saying we do it as we always have... hence why I give clear definitions for these terms and strictly assign them propositional values. The agnostic stance needs to be there because it and mythicism and historicity are all mutually exclusive, and we have people in this debate who are of that position. Thus, it needs to exist. This is also why the technical term is Jesus agnostic. To quote my work once again:

"Jesus Agnostic: One who does not assign a truth value to the historical existence of Jesus, they do not say he existed or did not exist, holding that we do not have enough data to determine one way or the other. They make a positive case for agnosticism."

I see no reason to have a problem with this. It is not adding to confusion, to the contrary it clarifies positions far better.

[MrMacSon]

Regarding Simon Magus. In a recently published paper in Religion in the Roman Empire (RRE), titled 'In 'Simon Magus: The Invention and Reception of a Magician in a Christian Context', Jan N. Bremmer discusses, according to the abstract, -

"... his first occurrence in the Acts of the Apostles (c. 100–120 CE or even later) and in the Church Fathers Justin and Irenaeus (c. 150–180) ... his role in the apocryphal Acts of Peter (c. 190) and his presentation in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies in the mid-fourth century, and end[s] with some conclusions regarding the nature of Simon Magus as magician, the nature of his literary persona, and the changing place of the magician in late antiquity."

[Paul the Uncertain]

The implication

No. an implication is a logically necessary deduction. Your personal interpretation of any historical circumstance is not a necessary truth. Neither is anybody else's, mine included.

The issue I raised is whether a modern scholar can assert as an established fact that nobody in ancient times taught there was no historical Jesus.

There are a number of problems with that proposition. One problem is that it would appear that the Simonians did teach that. (None of our informants can say of their own knowledge whether or not there really was a historical Simon; Justin can and did say of his own knowledge that there were real-life Simonians.)

There is nothing on the pages being discussed that indicates confusion on anybody's part between a hypothetical flesh-and-blood Samaritan contemporary of the first Christian apostles named Simon and Jesus. In the view attributed to the Simonians, the deeds ascribed to Jesus were glamours cast by Simon. Casting glamours is a typical magician's performance.

Conclude: it is seriously possible that some ancients taught that there was no historical Jesus.

[2] So long as we now agree that Einstein made no endorsement of Jesus skepticism, kumbaya.

[3]

Jesus Agnostic: One who does not assign a truth value to the historical existence of Jesus, they do not say he existed or did not exist, holding that we do not have enough data to determine one way or the other. They make a positive case for agnosticism.

And that describes every honest human being on earth whose position is determined by weighing the evidence - we are uncertain about whether Jesus existed or not.

Why do we "need" a term for that? Your definition fits somebody who's 99.9% confident that Jesus existed as well as somebody who's equally confident of the contrary. It fits Richard Carrier (based on his self-report), since there could be as much as a 1/3 probability that Jesus existed and his lower bound on confidence is strictly positive. Ehrman has professed certainty in print, but backed off when interviewed.

Who, apart from those who overtly base their opinion on faith, is not a Jesus agnostic by the standard set in your definition? (Somebody outside the range Ehrmann to Carrier?)

[Chrissy Hansen]

[1] I never said there is a confusion over the terms of flesh. The text clearly indicates that Simon went through three incarnations in his teaching (the father at Mount Sinai before Moses, Jesus before the Jews, and the Holy Spirit when he actually lived). This is the only way to explain why he would also purport to be the God who appeared on Mount Sinai other than he is purporting he came multiple times, once as Jesus. Nothing in the text supports the idea that Simonians were "mythicist" or did not believe in a historical Jesus. At best all it does is argue that they were Docetic. However, it comes from Cyril writing 200+ years after the Simon died, so it is about as reliable to Simon's teachings as the Gospels are and I'm not convinced it isn't just a polemic.

[2] I never disagreed. I said he endorsed a Jesus skeptic book. I never said anything else.

[3] Um, my definition never makes any comment about "certainty." Certainty is irrelevant to that definition. They make a positive case that Jesus' historicity cannot be determined. Mythicists make a positive case for the negative. Historicists make a positive case for the positive.

Historicism: PB
Agnosticism: ~PB ^ ~P~B
Mythicism: P~B

Seriously, the logic literally proves that they are not the same terms. You are just conflating things and not understanding them.

[Paul the Uncertain]

[1] Simon may well have claimed other incarnations. He would also not be the only Christian to have "found" appearances of some version of the Christ in the Jewish Bible. Our current concern is what later ancient people who claimed to follow Simon and Helen taught about the origins of their association(s).

Our informants, who were not followers of Simon or Helen, clearly believed Simon to have been a flesh-and-blood Samaritan contemporary of Jesus and the first apostles. Furthermore, none of our informants disputed that as an accomplished magician, Simon might have successfully orchestrated an "appearance" of things that did not actually happen.

Our informants' position is that despite the undisputed capacity of a historically real maker-of-appearances, someone who was timely and well located, nevertheless Jesus really existed and that he really performed the deeds that are typically ascribed to him. That is, Simon was untruthful, not that Simon didn't really live and not that Simon couldn't have successfully deceived an audience. That there would be somewhat successful deceivers was an article of faith.

Nowhere is there a report that Simon or his followers taught that any real Jesus ever appeared on earth. Simon wasn't Jesus in any incarnation; supposedly Simon had his own life, principal colleague, numerous followers and answered to distinguishing epithets at the same time as when other people believed that Jesus had lived. Simonians taught that those people were factually mistaken.

[2] Almost kumbaya. Very little of the book concerns Jesus skepticism, and Einstein's "endorsement" of it is less favorable than his endorsement of a Protestant Bible.

[3]

Um, my definition never makes any comment about "certainty."

What, then, is "assigning a truth value," in your view? How would the observation of evidence ever result in this "assignment" being arrived at except by changing confidence within an uncertain regime?

Where do a priori bases of belief formation fit into your definition? It surely has been part of the debate over time that what "counts" as a "historical Jesus" has become less and less specific. It follows that the then-currently "minimal" HJ has become no less likely over time, and probably more likely.

What are the odds that Pilate never crucified any Jew named Jesus who'd been "baptized by John," whatever that meant in practice? I use no evidence directly on Jesus, just Philo's remark that Pilate was given to crucifixion, the impression that Jesus was a common name at the place and time, and Josephus' assurance that "baptized by John" was a thing. That's a priori reasoning.

The effect of poor evidence is to fail to change the a priori assesment. For example, Carrier's a posteriori interval includes his a priori point estimate, 1/3.

And yet, I still don't gladly call Carrier a Jesus agnostic.

[Chrissy Hansen]

[1] Well if you are concerned with what later Simonians taught, I'm afraid no one knows. It isn't like any of the Church fathers actually knew of their works or of Simon directly. Heck, I don't even think Simon existed. I think he is a polemical caricature, and I'm not sure there was a "Simonian" branch. But even then, none of them denied an incarnation of Christ/Simon to the Jewish people before his incarnation as the Holy Spirit, none that we can see.

Also, it literally says in Cyril's report that he appeared as Jesus to the Jews in the likeness of flesh. I.e. a docetic earthly appearance. I am not going any further down this. I've read most leading scholarship on Simonian tradition, and I've stated my reasons why I do not consider them ancient mythicists (in fact, I don't think there were any ancient mythicists at all).

[2] Sure

[3] Truth value the "truth" or "falsehood" assigned to a proposition. This has no concern with certainty but with whether or not something can be delineated as true.

Also I'm not getting into it here, but I think all of Carrier's calculations are nonsense. Firstly, his Rank-Raglan is based on a selection bias and exceedingly loose interpretations of scripture to make Jesus fit it better (and also genericizing the archetype to make Jesus artificially make more, in effect he just reinvented the archetype so that Jesus would automatically have a greater a priori chance of being mythical). Furthermore, he has a selection bias and does not include numerous figures that would greatly sway his calculations. He also does not include other narrative elements which would also sway calculations.

Also, I think you are forgetting that his a posteriori calculation is 1/12000 chance that Jesus existed. Also, as I defined in my book, an agnostic neither assigns it more or less likely that Jesus existed. Carrier does. Therefore Carrier is not agnostic. An agnostic is someone who argues that it is neither more nor less likely that Jesus existed: i.e. they do not assign a truth value. Carrier assigns one of most likely false. Therefore, mythicist.

Seriously, I don't get what is so hard about this. It seems like you are antagonistic for no real reason.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Well if you are concerned with what later Simonians taught, I'm afraid no one knows.

The modern apologists whose claim I am disputing are on the hook for the reliability of the ancient informants who tell us, along with other things, what Simonians believed. If there are no reliable sources at all for what was taught in the early movements of Christianity, then it is obviously impossible for anybody now to assert confidently that a particular proposition wasn't taught back then.

Of course, I'd be delighted to settle for an acknowledgment that the claim is without foundation. Since I might be waiting a while for that, in the meantime, I'm content to point out an evidentiary foundation for the serious possibility of a counterexample. No other answer beyond that is required from anyone who rejects the claim.

I don't know about Simon's existence, either. Simonians are attested (even by Celsus if Origen can be believed) as flourishing within the scope of the claim in question. It doesn't matter for the current discussion whether or not Simonians were correct about their actual origins.

You are entitled to your reading of Cyril, but to all appearances, Cyril believes that at the time Simon was said to appear among the Jews, etc., Simon was a flesh-and-blood man situated no farther away from his audience than Samaria, perhaps closer. The Simonian position Cyril described was that Jesus didn't exist; it-or-he was something which Simon got some of his contemporaries to think they saw (a glamour).

[2] Kumbaya.

[3]
I don't think we're getting anywhere on this. In my world, people can and do express uncertainty more directly than by declining to "assign" one of the two Boolean constants to contingent propositions.

In fact, just about everybody in my world who is less confident than practical or moral certainty (descriptive terms vary) will outrightly decline to assent to a Boolean constant for such a proposition. Conversely, just about everybody in my world who has attained practical or moral certainty about something they care to speak truthfully about will use Boolean language.

So in my world, among the evidence-guided, to be uncertain ("U") suffices to be a Hansen-defined-agnostic ("A"), and not to be uncertain ("not U") excludes being an Hansen-defined-agnostic ("implies not A").

I remain unpersuaded, then, that there is such a thing as a Hansen-defined-agnostic who could not equally well be described as an evidence-guided person who acknowledges that the matter rests uncertain, and leave it at that. Within that population, the full range of uncertain confidences might be found, expressed and urged upon others to feel likewise (as noted in the earlier post about Ehrman and Carrier).

It's entirely possible, of course, that you do have some cognitive stance in mind, but the definition offered is no help to me in parsing out what that might be. And regardless, using a loaded term (as any religious term used in this debate is loaded) would need its own justification, IMO. That others did likewise is not a justification, as I believe you yourself have taught.

If rumors are correct and you are a Michigander, then Happy Indpendence Day!