Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

[dbz]

...but with regards to Paul, the answer can only be "yes, one entity" as far as I can see.

• Yes, one entity, his Lord IS XS index's to the second and/or third-god of Platonism_2.0, i.e. middle-platonism.

[JoeWallack]

Well I heard O'Neill talk about it,
and BCH shot him down.
Well I hope O'Neill will remember,
A Skeptic man don't need him around any how.

JW:

What I thought I'd do is explain why I think some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the earliest layer of Christian texts (letters by Paul and gMark) and who that historical Jesus probably was.

I'll start by saying that to me, Paul believed that Jesus was a Jewish man who lived in Paul's recent past.

God damn GD, how long have you been here. You still don't know what a false diekatame is.

For those who need points sharply explained, the best explanation is Paul believed in HJ. You've been reading too much O'Neill.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[GakuseiDon]

You're not speculating. Your claim was that you had determined the best explanation for some observations - the observations that you're trying to explain are the evidence. At this point, you're defining your hypothesis. "Some guy who really lived" doesn't explain anything. You needed something more specific. Which guy who really lived?

"Some guy who really lived" is about the extent of the evidence that I'm willing to argue. Anything beyond that will be speculation. I'm happy to speculate! But that's all it is.

[dbz]

"Some guy who really lived"...

charlotte-s-web-cause-and-effect.jpg (304.25 KiB) Viewed 554 times

[MrMacSon]

Let me ask you two questions:
(1) If there was a historical Jesus, and knowing what we know about the Gospels: how likely is it that that historical Jesus was like the Gospel Jesus?

• I don't know

• The Gospel Jesus (minus the miracles and supernatural events) could be accounts of a historical Jesus

• The issue, for me, at least, are that the Gospel accounts are widely thought
  • not to be accounts of people who were contemporaneous with Jesus (hereafter 'contemporaneous people');
  • nor are they likely to be accounts of people who knew 'contemporaneous people'; or
  • if the Gospel authors knew 'contemporaneous people', they either
    1. don't refer to them; or
    2. don't refer to their accounts of Jesus (the latter is the same for Paul wrt Peter, James and John)

• And then there are:
  • Mark very likely to be a narrative in large part based on Paul and, in turn,
    • Paul being based on the LXX;
  • the issue of the relative chronology of at least one of the synoptic gospels and the Marcionite Evangelion;
  • other issues

To say, "historical Jesus is like the Gospel Jesus" would be simply 'confirming the consequent' (which would be fallacious)


rgprice makes some good comments in another thread

1. viewtopic.php?p=150723#p150723
2. viewtopic.php?p=150792#p150792
3. viewtopic.php?p=150794#p150794
4. viewtopic.php?p=150799#p150799
5. viewtopic.php?p=150834#p150834

And if your answer is: If there was a historical Jesus, and knowing what we know about the Gospels:

• it's not at all likely that that historical Jesus was like the Gospel Jesus

Then my next question is:

(2) If that historical Jesus wasn't like the Gospel Jesus, what is the impact on 'the historicity of...Jesus' on NOT finding Gospel details about...Jesus in the letters of Paul?
.

• Well, I guess the question is moot, though I will say:
  • one would expect to find Gospel-like details in the letters of Paul if the NT Jesus was historical

[dbz]

• one would expect to find Gospel-like details in the letters of Paul if the NT Jesus was historical

(1-2) Since I count Paul’s letters as evidence for historicity in OHJ (on the upper end of my margin of error; I only count them against on the lower margin), losing them would actually reduce the probability of historicity. It would leave us with the prior, established in chapter 6.
[...]

(3) If Paul lied about a historical Jesus in his letters, having no evidence he lied we’d have to conclude Jesus probably existed. We’d be wrong. But we would have no way of knowing that. This is true for literally every fact in history. That’s why all propositions about factual matters can only be stated as a probability. The converse probability thus accounts for the possibility we’re wrong. All we can do is assess how probable something is given what we know. I explain all of this in Proving History. I recommend reading it.

(4) Every method, even straightforward logic, can be used to lead us to a false conclusion. There is no such thing as perfectly reliable knowledge. About anything whatever. All you can do is assess how likely it is that, for example, you’ve been misled somehow. That’s literally all we can ever do, about any fact whatever, in any field of knowledge whatever. Welcome to epistemology.

---

--Richard Carrier (October 4, 2020)

[maryhelena]

You're not speculating. Your claim was that you had determined the best explanation for some observations - the observations that you're trying to explain are the evidence. At this point, you're defining your hypothesis. "Some guy who really lived" doesn't explain anything. You needed something more specific. Which guy who really lived?

"Some guy who really lived" is about the extent of the evidence that I'm willing to argue. Anything beyond that will be speculation. I'm happy to speculate! But that's all it is.

GDon, you have nothing to offer - your HJ theory is bankrupt. Bankruptcy might give you some relief from the obligation of having to support your HJ with identifying elements - but by doing so it leaves you open to the charge of being careless with the goods, the story, that has been in your possession.

''Some guy who really lived'' - Are you really serious that you can argue such a position ? With a straight face? I really did expect more from you than such simplistic illogical reasoning. Thousands of men (assuming your HJ is a male) walked the sands of Palestine - and as spin would say - historicity requires evidence. Existence does not bestow historicity. In actuality, what you are attempting to do is circumvent the whole HJ argument. Leaving yourself wide open to mockery from the mythicists - and, methinks, the blue blood historicists will shake their heads in shame that their prized possession is being so cold-heartedly trampled in the mud.

[mlinssen]

I'm just trying to tie you down Don. Of course there's no evidence of anything, but I'm tired of the pranksters waving their HJ around without specifying it one tiny bit - so thanks

I'm definitely not waving my HJ around! My HJ is very small indeed. One might say, a micro-HJ.

What's the use of having a live sample of nothing, who did nothing and was nothing? With just your two bullet points above John the Baptist actually did more than your HJ

It's not the size of one's HJ that's important, it's how one uses it. That's what I've been told, anyway.

Would it be fair to say that you are working from an agenda when it comes to HJ studies? And that agenda isn't satisfied with the proposal of a minimalist HJ? Because I don't see the difference between thinking there was no HJ, thinking there was a minimal HJ or thinking there was a full-blown Gospel HJ, unless some kind of agenda is involved. It's either (1) making conclusions based on the evidence, wherever it leads, or (2) working from an agenda.

Fair question, but no: I have no agenda at all, I simply go where the texts lead me - and they have led me to Thomas as starting point for it all, which means that what he doesn't have is "an addendum" to his

And the IS in Thomas speaks, detests Judeans, is radically anti-Judaic and anti-religious, and living - but most importantly, juxtaposes himself to "them in flesh" in logion 28 (and earlier on in logion 13 let transpire that he's a mere concept)

So that's no human being there, but a concept, and much like Socrates' eidon - and in that sense a spirit of some kind, essence, something intangible.
Do I now have something to fight for, to prove and disprove? Not at all, the text of Thomas speaks for itself, and people will always twist and turn that into their own direction regardless

Because they have an agenda, correct.
And so do people who continuously talk about a HJ without specifying it one bit and then turn out to, when asked about it, have nothing in mind but a dude who got baptised by John B and impaled.
Well, if that is all, why affix the big label "HJ" to all the waving that you REALLY DO do, Don

[mlinssen]

Do you think Paul's Jesus was one single entity, or an amalgamation of entities? If the latter, what is the evidence for that?

Paul was Hellenized Jewish Sub-Culture engaging in a religious syncretism of the Jewish two powers in heaven with the topmost gods of middle platonism. Greek was his first tongue.

That's the background on which his beliefs rested, sure, but did Paul think that Jesus was one single entity? That was your question: "Why does Yesus have to be one single individual?" The Gospels probably contain stories collated from the actions and sayings of various individuals, but with regards to Paul, the answer can only be "yes, one entity" as far as I can see.

Indeed. People can point at a very greatly diverse Judaism around the wrong time, as "Paul" definitely comes after 200 CE given the absence of any mention of him by the FF, but the Paul that we have is a monolith himself:

Law
Circumcision
Faith
Judaic
Non-Judaic

Those are his topics and subjects, and all of them are treated in an either-or fashion: Paul is as binary as it gets, and a people pleaser. Yes the law is great because it is Judaic, no it isn't because faith prevails over it. Yes circumcision is great because it is the law, no it sucks because circumcision of the heart (LOL) is better

You can take your diverse Judaism and put it back where you found it, because none of it applies in any way to all the Judaism that we find in the NT. None of which is inclusive, relaxed, tolerant, broad-minded or diverse - but all of it is singular, dogmatic, and either-or

[mlinssen]

Well I heard O'Neill talk about it,
and BCH shot him down.
Well I hope O'Neill will remember,
A Skeptic man don't need him around any how.

JW:

What I thought I'd do is explain why I think some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the earliest layer of Christian texts (letters by Paul and gMark) and who that historical Jesus probably was.

I'll start by saying that to me, Paul believed that Jesus was a Jewish man who lived in Paul's recent past.

God damn GD, how long have you been here. You still don't know what a false diekatame is.

For those who need points sharply explained, the best explanation is Paul believed in HJ. You've been reading too much O'Neill.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

I'll just leave you to it Joe

How long have you been here?