Jesus Studies Historiography

[Leucius Charinus]

Celestial Jesus is easily unfalsifiable. The problem is that the evidence that would falsify it doesn't exist. That does not mean it isn't falsifiable. The fact that evidence did not exist was obviously a problem for the ancients as well because they manufactured some (for example Jesus' correspondence with King Agbar, which would easily falsify mythicism if it were authentic). The fact that the evidence needed to falsify the celestial Jesus can be imagined (we know what kinds of evidence would falsify the theory) but does not exist means (in empirical research, at least) that we cannot reject the null hypothesis if our question is:

h(1): There was a Jesus of Nazareth, who preached in the early first century and was executed by Rome.
h(0): There was not a Jesus of Nazareth who...

We cannot reject h(0). That does not mean we "accept" h(0), only that we cannot reject it and we need further research.

An excellent summary.

Simplifying perhaps start with h(1): There was a Jesus of Nazareth, who preached in the early first century ...

Historiography must address chronology. So Jesus preached? Someone asked "What were the words of Jesus". Everyone knows what the canonical words of Jesus are because they are in the Bible. The problems start happening when you look for corroboration external to the canon. The first departure place is often the non canonical "words and sermons and stories" of Jesus.

Someone throws in the Gnostic Thomas. Everyone agrees. Do we have some more words from "Jesus"? Each of the sayings in Thomas is prefaced with "IS said" (where "IS" is the Coptic equivalent of the Greek nomina sacra for Jesus). So it could be "Our Man". The following from the link immediately below supplied by outhouse.

• Concerning the canon, scholars still typically privilege the Synoptics over John for historical reconstruction, but they do not explain why. Q and Thomas—a hypothetical document and a text that may be second-century—are sometimes seen as closer to the historical Jesus than the canonical Gospels.

A copy was discovered in the Nag Hammadi library. It must be an old copy. Almost Q like. But when was it originally authored? What are the earliest and latest dates of authorship for the Gospel of Thomas? How have these dates been determined?

Run a check. What do you find?

One critical aspect of Jesus Studies historiography IMO is the critical examination of both earliest and latest dates.

The theology is additional. Jesus as an "Angel" of some description? IDK. Maybe. But was Jesus supposed to be a "Jewish Angel" or a "Greek Angel"? To whom were the words of Jesus and his message directed if not the Greek literate populace of the Roman Empire in the first or second century? The Greeks already had their own ideas about "angels". [daimon; "guardian spirit"] This IMO is a pathway to discuss the influence of the Stoics and Platonists on "Paul" and the "Gospel Author(s)" . Were the canonical authors familiar with the ethics of Seneca? It seems to be so.

Anyone contemplating the Jesus as an "Angel" historical motif might check out the appearance of Jesus as the figure "Lithagoel" in the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" in the NH library. NHC 6.1.



LC

[outhouse]

There were dozens of people documenting the 1st C: not all of Paulkovich's were 1st C but many of his 126 sources were!

It is still garbage and not even relevant. Knowing there were scribes and historians in the area is well known and not argued. It matters nothing.

To the OP

This explains all you need to know and it carries credibility at the highest levels.

Historical Jesus, in context.

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

[Leucius Charinus]

To the OP

This explains all you need to know and it carries credibility at the highest levels.

Historical Jesus, in context.

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

Which one of the historical Jesus figures would you like to look at first Outhouse?

• The study of the historical Jesus is now accompanied by greater attention to social modeling: comparative peasant economies, scribal communities, millenarian movements, studies of shamans and folk healings, psychobiography, cultural anthropology, political theory, and the like have all been adduced to provide the context for understanding the Gospel accounts. Archaeology, especially the archaeology of the lower Galilee, also stakes a claim to direct relevance, although finding an artifact and determining its import for understanding Jesus remain quite distinct.
  
  • •Jesus has been described as a Jewish reformer seeking to prepare his people for the inbreaking of the kingdom of heaven. This is the Jesus who “makes a fence” (the expression is Rabbinic [Pirke Avot 1:1]) about the law to prevent Transgression: rather than forbid murder, Jesus forbids hate (Matthew 5:21–22). Rather than forbid adultery, he forbids lust. This Jesus insists “not one jot or stroke of the Law will pass away” (Matthew 5:17–18).
    
    •Conversely, there is Jesus the antinomian who “declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:18–20) and dismissed Temple and Torah as antiquated and irrelevant.
    
    •Jesus the Cynic-like philosopher teaches a subversive wisdom and so calls into question the status quo. To those concerned with social propriety, Jesus proffers the image of the lilies of the field. To those occupied by the cares of tomorrow, he asserts, “the cares of today are sufficient” (Matthew 6:34; F. Gerald Downing’s study offers numerous citations of Cynic statements with what he finds to be Gospel equivalents).
    
    •Jesus the apocalyptic eschatological proclaimer divides the world into the saved and the damned, the “sheep and the goats” (Matthew 25), as he awaits what some Jews called “the world to come,” for his “kingdom is not of this world” ( John 18:36).
    
    •Jesus the Rabbi cares about Torah, wears tzitzit (fringes) according to the commandment in Numbers 15:37–41, celebrates the Sabbath, and worships in synagogues as well as the Temple.
    
    •Jesus the universalist preaches his Gospel to Samaritans ( John 4) and Gentiles (the feeding of the four thousand [Mark 8, Matthew 15]).
    
    •Jesus the nationalist restricts his mission to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:6; 15:24).
    
    •Jesus the charismatic wonder-worker in the mold of Elijah (see 1 Kings 17–19, 21; 2 Kings 1–2) and Elisha (see 2 Kings 2–6, 8–9, 13) and comparable to the Jewish figures Haninah ben Dosa and Honi the Circle-Maker heals and controls nature.
    
    •Jesus the magician uses spells and incantations to facilitate cures (Mark 5:41; 7:33–34).
    
    •Jesus the social reformer seeks to inaugurate the economic justice envisioned by the Prophets and the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8–55) by teaching his followers to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive those who are indebted to us” (Matthew 6:12) and insisting, “Give when you are asked” (Matthew 5:42).
    
    •Jesus the celibate hails those who have “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:10–12) and promotes a new family based on loyalty to him/to God and not on biological or marital connections. This Jesus echoes the prophet Micah (7:6) by announcing, “Do not think I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-inlaw against her mother-in-law” (Matthew 10:34–35).
    
    •Jesus the affirmer of family values reminds his followers, “For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘whoever speaks evil of father and mother must surely die’ ” (Matthew 15:4); he teaches, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11–12).
    
    •Jesus the mystic claims esoteric knowledge (see Mark 4:11–12), sees Satan fall like lightning (Luke 10:18), and proclaims himself the “true vine” ( John 15) and the “bread of life” ( John 6).
    
    •Jesus the near hedonist takes and teaches pleasure in food and companionship; this “glutton and the drunkard” (Luke 7:34) does not fast, and enjoys a woman’s kiss and touch (Luke 7:36–50).
    
    •Jesus the pacifist advises that “if someone strike you on the right cheek, turn the other also” (Matthew 5:39).
    
    •Jesus the revolutionary has a Zealot in his entourage (Luke 6:15) and advises followers to buy swords (Luke 22:35–38).
    
    •Jesus the nonviolent resister teaches, “If a man in authority makes you go one mile, go with him two” (Matthew 5:41; the reference is likely to the Roman custom of conscripting locals to carry their gear, but only for one mile; to carry the accoutrements of the enemy willingly signals the refusal to be victimized), and “If a man wants to sue you for your shift, let him have your coat as well” (and so literally lay bare the injustice of taking a poor person’s clothing [Matthew 5:40]).
  And the list goes on.

When the non canonical sources are introduced because they have a right to treated equally with the canonical evidence the situation becomes out of control. Jesus is a shapeshifter, a child, an old man. He has explicit sex with a woman he pulls from his rib in the presence of Mary up a mountain path? Where is all this leading?

Who was Jesus in history and how do we really know? Is it possible that Jesus was a literary creation like Gandalf, and how do we really know? Our historical knowledge is derived from the truth values which we place on our own hypotheses about the historical EVIDENCE. What evidence is to be admitted, and what evidence is to be excluded? What are our hypotheses about each of these evidence items? What truth values are to be associated with these?


LC

[MrMacSon]

There were dozens of people documenting the 1st C: not all of Paulkovich's were 1st C but many of his 126 sources were!

It is still garbage and not even relevant. Knowing there were scribes and historians in the area is well known and not argued. It matters nothing.

The fact no 1st C scribe or historian mentioned Christianity, or 'Jesus the Christ of Nazareth', beyond the falsified Josephus Antiquities texts, is relevant.

[Leucius Charinus]

Historical Jesus, in context.

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

Thallus, the first-century CE Pagan (or possibly Samaritan) historian who may be the earliest non-Christian witness to Jesus?

• Concluding this section on the noble death, Dale C. Allison Jr. provides the report from Thallus, the first-century CE Pagan (or possibly Samaritan) historian who may be the earliest non-Christian witness to Jesus. Thallus mentions an earthquake (see Matthew 27:51) and attendant darkness (see Mark 15:33) at the time of Passover; he also dates the Crucifixion to the day before Passover. Unfortunately, Thallus’s extensive history of the Mediterranean world is no longer extant, and neither is the work by the third-century Christian Julius Sextus Africanus that quotes him. We have only a citation of Africanus by the ninth-century Byzantine historian George Syncellus.

Thallus (via Eusebius) may be the earliest non-Christian witness to Jesus?

Which Jesus?




LC

[cienfuegos]

Historical Jesus, in context.

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

Thallus, the first-century CE Pagan (or possibly Samaritan) historian who may be the earliest non-Christian witness to Jesus?

• Concluding this section on the noble death, Dale C. Allison Jr. provides the report from Thallus, the first-century CE Pagan (or possibly Samaritan) historian who may be the earliest non-Christian witness to Jesus. Thallus mentions an earthquake (see Matthew 27:51) and attendant darkness (see Mark 15:33) at the time of Passover; he also dates the Crucifixion to the day before Passover. Unfortunately, Thallus’s extensive history of the Mediterranean world is no longer extant, and neither is the work by the third-century Christian Julius Sextus Africanus that quotes him. We have only a citation of Africanus by the ninth-century Byzantine historian George Syncellus.

Thallus (via Eusebius) may be the earliest non-Christian witness to Jesus?

Which Jesus?




LC

Thallus only attests to an eclipse. We don't have the actual writings of Thallus to examine whether the use of his work to witness to supernatural events reported in the Gospels is justified. It certainly isn't justified to say that Thallus is a non-Christian witness to Jesus. This is what we have of Thallus:

"Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me."

We don't know that Thallus said anything at all about Jesus. It sounds like he reported on a natural occurrence, that there was an eclipse.

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi Cienfuegos,

Did you see my comments above on your OP about h(1): There was a Jesus of Nazareth, who preached in the early first century ...
I too think that the way of the null and the alternative hypothesis is a way to go forward but again it comes down to the questions to ask, and their framing.


LC

[cienfuegos]

.
There is so much wrong with so many of the comments here.

Good historiography relies on adequate primary sources: there are no primary sources for Jesus of Nazareth/Bethlehem. None!

This is nonsense -

There is no clear-cut evidence in ancient texts Jesus did not exist.

It is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratum -

• There is no evidence against p.
  Therefore, p
  
  "An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it"

More on argumentum ad ignoratum here


This is nonsense bare-assertion' -

But many of these texts show he did (including the Pauline epistles, our earliest texts, indicating his past existence as human/earthly, in many ways).

Falsifiability is a spurious concept; "unfalsifiable" more-so. Testability is a more realistic perspective, as is 'ability to examine'.

This is a reasonable comment on falsifiability, given its limitations

In fact, the "obscure Jesus" hypothesis really puts Jesus beyond falsifiability (which puts the thesis beyond acceptability as a productive focus of examination)

but these sentences are not

Celestial Jesus is easily unfalsifiable. The problem is that the evidence that would falsify it doesn't exist. That does not mean it isn't falsifiable.

Individually, and in sequence, they're gobble-de-gook.
.

The last is a typo. The celestial Jesus theory is falsifiable. The problem is the evidence to falsify the theory doesn't exist. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. One could imagine the evidence being such that we would be unreasonable in rejecting it (for example, authentic letters written by Jesus). Paul could have written in such a way as we would have little doubt that he was writing very close to the time of Jesus' death when first-hand knowledge was available. (By the way, you seem to confuse "primary sources." We don't have "primary sources" for a historical Jesus. We do have (probably) primary sources for the beliefs of early Christians about Jesus. That is what I am interested in: what were the beliefs of early Christians? Did they believe in a celestial Jesus or a person who had recently been executed by Rome. I see nothing in Paul to justify the latter, but a whole lot that supports the former. Paul could have said, "I learned these things directly from Jesus' own disciple Peter," but instead he says he learned these things from "no man," odd if one wants to establish oneself as being in a direct line from Jesus. But we have what we have. We can accept that Paul just says things in an esoteric way (Jesus killed by spirits, civil authorities do the work of God, Jesus birth is compared to allegorical births, etc.). We would expect a second generation follower to express different ideas. If he had, presto! we'd have falsification.

[outhouse]

The study of the historical Jesus is now accompanied by greater attention to social modeling

Which if you knew what is being addressed, is not addressing historicity of the person, but trying to learn what we can by use of socioeconomic models, how he may have lived.

And there is are clear answers here as it is heavily debated.


But out of context to his historicity. The man has historicity. Now it is only weak and pathetic attempts to address the evidence we do have.

[MrMacSon]

The last is a typo. The celestial Jesus theory is falsifiable.

ah, ok.

The problem is the evidence to falsify the theory doesn't exist. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. One could imagine the evidence being such that we would be unreasonable in rejecting it (for example, authentic letters written by Jesus).

I appreciate hypothesis formation, developing a null hypothesis and alternate hypotheses, but find falsification a potentially difficult process.

We can accept, not accept or reject null hypotheses, based on statistical significance levels; but we can't reject alternate hypotheses: we can only accept or not accept them.

Falsification is philosophy mostly with a perpetual negative.

(By the way, you seem to confuse "primary sources." We don't have "primary sources" for a historical Jesus. We do have (probably) primary sources for the beliefs of early Christians about Jesus. That is what I am interested in: what were the beliefs of early Christians?

I'm mainly talking about primary (contemporaneous) sources for a historical Jesus (of which there are none).

I think the sources we have for early Christian belief are scant too: Tacitus's Annals reference is one; Seutonius's Nero 16 is another.