How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by hakeem »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:29 pm Assumption is not conviction or fact. What I mean is that I assume for the sake of argument. I don't know if there was an historical Paul who wrote the genuine letters etc. But the case is defensible if not definitive.

I am quite prepared to likewise consider arguments that assume there was no historical Paul and I do that too, sometimes.

I am not arguing that there a first century Paul who was a historical person. I merely assume that for the sake of argument in certain contexts. That's all.
You seem confused about arguments and assumptions. Arguments are based on data but speculation is based on assumptions.

Your admittance that you don't know if there was an historical Paul who wrote genuine letters, that you merely assume for argument sake and the fact that there is no corroborative historical evidence for Paul makes the case indefensible.

Not one single Gospel or Epistle writer was influenced by the Pauline teachings of salvation by the resurrection.

Paul's conversion was manufactured and the attempt to place him in the time of Seneca has been shown to be forgeries.

Origen in "Against Celsus" supposedly written in the 3rd century admitted that Celsus wrote nothing about Paul in "True Discourse" c 170 CE.

Up to c 362 CE there was no known historical reference to a person called Paul in any known contemporary writings of the 1st century.

Early Paul is indefensible if you merely assume there was an early Paul for argument sake.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by John T »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:34 pm
My reviews of Ehrman's book are here: https://vridar.org/category/biblical-st ... sus-exist/
Yet, your reply to Ehrman's book was: "I think it is a good thing not to forget the outrageously unprofessional and scurrilous ways in which Bart Ehrman treated the arguments of mythicists."...Neil

Neil, Please elaborate.

I got the impression you did not even bother to read his book. I mean, if you are going to call Dr. Ehrman unprofessional, should you not have at least read what he wrote and give some examples justifying your ad hominem attacks?

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by neilgodfrey »

John T wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:31 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:34 pm
My reviews of Ehrman's book are here: https://vridar.org/category/biblical-st ... sus-exist/
Yet, your reply to Ehrman's book was: "I think it is a good thing not to forget the outrageously unprofessional and scurrilous ways in which Bart Ehrman treated the arguments of mythicists."...Neil

Neil, Please elaborate.

I got the impression you did not even bother to read his book. I mean, if you are going to call Dr. Ehrman unprofessional, should you not have at least read what he wrote and give some examples justifying your ad hominem attacks?

John T
I suggest you read my reviews over many posts in the archive I linked to and where I quote Bart's book extensively :-) (John T, You have a habit of accusing others of not having read what they argue against but it is you who so obviously have not read the mythicists arguments you say you oppose -- you can't even be bothered reading my posts on Ehrman when I link you to their archive.)

Now please be good John T and respond to the real argument of mine that brought you into this discussion. Maybe you are elderly and find navigating your way around the forum somewhat problematic so I will copy the argument here for you again so this time you can respond to what it actually says and not simply denounce it through a straw man substitute:
But you are quite correct that that OT source of stories [or any mythical tale] about Jesus does not prove he was nonhistorical and entirely made up. Correct.

The point, though, is that if all we have are stories that we can either trace to OT or other literary precedents or stories that can find no corroboration at all in independent contemporary sources then we have no reason to embrace the historicity of Jesus.

That does not mean Jesus had no historical existence, however. He might have. It's just that the only evidence we have cannot be corroborated in any way or it can be sourced to something other than historical events.

So the default position is that we have a literary and theological figure of Jesus. We simply cannot know on the basis of the above that Jesus was also historical. There is no unambiguous evidence to support this claim.

I can live with not knowing. I don't think the question matters too much because if Jesus' historical life and sayings really did have the historical impact of the power to change lives and history then I suspect we would find unambiguous evidence to that effect. Instead, we only find "faith-documents" without historical corroboration and stories derived from other fictions.

Maybe the historians are just unlucky in that the most interesting evidence has simply not survived. That's possible, too.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by Peter Kirby »

gmx wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:33 am Hence the mythical / historical debate -- it exists because of history's silence.
Not a bad point, IMO.

Everyone in the debate needs to remind themselves of the margin for error.

Richard Carrier consistently fell back to an estimate with at least a 30% chance of being wrong, when push came to shove. This made sense, since his other estimate (I forget all the decimal places) was wildly overconfident.

As long as everyone recognizes that we have about as much chance of predicting whether the S&P 500 will be up or down tomorrow as we do of guessing whether Jesus existed, we can be rational about the level of uncertainty in our opinions.

The nice thing about science, sports, and stocks is that you often can get quick (dis)confirmation. Not only do you learn about the particular case, but you might learn about how to make better predictions in general, have a better sense of what is or is not evidence.

There are certainly participants in these kinds of discussions whose evidence-o-meters seem completely broken. I am not sure of the best way people can get themselves calibrated, in history.

Specializing in NT history seems like an easy way to get unmoored, since we're always going over the same stuff. Behavioral science suggests we end up confirming our biases in that kind of situation - both for positive and negative info, too. Not the best way. Maybe there's a way out of the impasse?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Peter

Full marks for a lovely and heady celebration of uncertainty.

Assuming Carrier actually is a Bayesian, then his trajectory of belief was from a hypothetical initial belief in the 30's, to a final interval estimate that included his initial estimate. In Bayesian terms, then, the bearing of all that evidence he considered cannot be distinguished from a wash.

Which sounds about right, actually. The available evidence is not only sparse, but the interpretations are ludicrously brittle (= small changes in interpretation can make huge changes in conclusions). That's not the stuff that changes minds.

You also touched on a few real problems:
Specializing in NT history seems like an easy way to get unmoored, since we're always going over the same stuff.
There are really only two fundamental ways to change opinions in the Bayesian worldview: "in-Bayes," by the arrival of new evidence, and "meta-Bayes," by expanding the hypothesis set under consideration.

In-Bayes NT innovation isn't often possible except at the personal level during training (e.g. Ehrman goes to college and discovers that there isn't a definitive text of anything). So what does a rational NT scholar do for the rest of her life? Meta-Bayes, develop and refine the hypothesis set.

Which is what people do, on both sides of the HJ-MJ divide, and razz each other for doing only that.
Behavioral science suggests we end up confirming our biases in that kind of situation
And normative prescription as well. People who flit from one opinion to another, with no evidence to justify the change and no new insight, either, are simply wasting energy. Even our local champion of methodological excellence endorses default reasoning. That's uncertaintist jargon for "pick an alternative and stay with it unless new evidence arrives" (which may be an especially long time in Jesus studies).
Maybe there's a way out of the impasse?
Yes. New evidence arrives, or a really useful "new" hypothesis comes along, something like the heliocentric theory of the solar system for astronomy.

The novelty needn't be "truer" or fit the evidence better than what it replaces (there is a simple isomorphism between the heliocentric and earth-centered theories - else you wouldn't be able to aim an earthly telescope using the novelty - which, had that been the case, would have dampened scholarly enthusiasm for it), but more "meaningful," for want of a better word.

For example, the path of Mercury through the terrestial sky isn't obviously odd, but its path around the sun sticks out like a sore thumb. That presents a clear puzzle which organizes research and energizes scholarly activity. "Not an ellipse where an ellipse is expected for good reasons" is meaningful; "just another jagged lurch" less plainly so.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:12 am. This made sense, since his other estimate (I forget all the decimal places) was wildly overconfident.
I think that Carrier was very over-generous to historicity in his probability estimates in OHJ about the Silence of Paul.

This is the problem I have with the Jesus Agnostics, basically. The Jesus agnosticism is justified, in my view, only if the our earliest evidence about Jesus was Mark. But it is not so. Paul and Hebrews are our earliest sources. And they are sufficient to demolish the historicity (per the Argument From Silence).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by John T »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:00 pm
I suggest you [John T] read my reviews over many posts in the archive I linked to and where I quote Bart's book extensively :-) (John T, You have a habit of accusing others of not having read what they argue against but it is you who so obviously have not read the mythicists arguments you say you oppose -- you can't even be bothered reading my posts on Ehrman when I link you to their archive.)

Now please be good John T and respond to the real argument of mine that brought you into this discussion. Maybe you are elderly and find navigating your way around the forum somewhat problematic so I will copy the argument here for you again so this time you can respond to what it actually says and not simply denounce it through a straw man substitute:

Maybe the historians are just unlucky in that the most interesting evidence has simply not survived. That's possible, too.

Neil,

Actually, historians are amazingly pleased that so much evidence does exists.

If you had actually read Dr. Ehrman's book you would know his background and qualifications to write on the matter. You would also know Dr. Ehrman does indeed understand the mythicist argument. You would be familiar with how he breaks down in detail the flaws and true motives of the atheist/mythicist movement and it ain't doing history.

Dr. Ehrman explains how historians try to validate history.

We are talking about the problems validating the existence of Jesus, not his theology.
Got to keep them separated.

Dr. Ehrman writes in his book about the, "different kinds of sources historians want to establish the past existence of a person."...pg 30-68. He writes about the difference between corroboration and collaboration. He goes on to list non-Christian references to Jesus: Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Rabbic Sources, etc.,.

Over the years on this forum, I have spent countless hours researching the leaders of the mythicist movement. Is it too much to ask that you cite (here on this tread) examples and then prove how Dr. Ehrman's does not understand the mythicist movement?

Thanks in advance.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by Bernard Muller »

But it is not so. Paul and Hebrews are our earliest sources. And they are sufficient to demolish the historicity (per the Argument From Silence).
Neither Paul, nor Hebrews is silent about the existence in the past of an earthly & human Jesus. Even if both like to speculate on the post-existent (sometime pre-existent) heavenly Jesus, because here, they can invent all kinds of fascinating attributes tailored to attract & keep converts. However, the historical Jesus had little interest, except that, by some fluke, he was crucified as Christ, triggering extraordinary beliefs with the help of the OT and Philo of Alexandria's works.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:42 am Neither Paul, nor Hebrews is silent about the existence in the past of an earthly & human Jesus. Even if both like to speculate on the post-existent (sometime pre-existent) heavenly Jesus, because here, they can invent all kinds of fascinating attributes tailored to attract & keep converts. However, the historical Jesus had little interest, except that, by some fluke, he was crucified as Christ, triggering extraordinary beliefs with the help of the OT and Philo of Alexandria's works.

Cordially, Bernard
Your arguments are so extremely absurd.The Christian Bible is not silent about the existence of God, Satan. the Holy Ghost, Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. None of them ever existed.

It is absolute nonsense that the Jesus character must have existed because it is stated in the Bible.

The authors of the Epistles have stated his Jesus was the Lord from heaven, God Creator, the firstborn of the dead and God's own Son who was raised from the dead .

Paul's Jesus was not a figure of histlory

Paul's Jesus was a myth figure just like Romulus.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: How does the mythical Jesus thing hang together?

Post by hakeem »

John T wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:21 am

If you had actually read Dr. Ehrman's book you would know his background and qualifications to write on the matter. You would also know Dr. Ehrman does indeed understand the mythicist argument. You would be familiar with how he breaks down in detail the flaws and true motives of the atheist/mythicist movement and it ain't doing history.

Dr. Ehrman explains how historians try to validate history.

We are talking about the problems validating the existence of Jesus, not his theology.
Got to keep them separated.

Dr. Ehrman writes in his book about the, "different kinds of sources historians want to establish the past existence of a person."...pg 30-68. He writes about the difference between corroboration and collaboration. He goes on to list non-Christian references to Jesus: Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Rabbic Sources, etc.,.

Over the years on this forum, I have spent countless hours researching the leaders of the mythicist movement. Is it too much to ask that you cite (here on this tread) examples and then prove how Dr. Ehrman's does not understand the mythicist movement?

Thanks in advance.

John T
Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" contains the very worst arguments for an historical Jesus. Ehrman uses NT sources that are are not credible.
Post Reply