Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

Peregrinus · 08-09-2013 04:15PM

kylith wrote: »

I wouldn't say like Julius or Augustus Caesar, since their existence is very well documented by a number of sources.

Unfortunately I'm not much of a historian but I can't think of anyone else about whom there is such little proof, yet who is accepted to have xisted, that Jesus could be compared to . . .

Well, Socrates for one; Alexander the Great for another. Jesus of Nazareth is much better attested than either of them - a greater number of independent sources affirming his existence, and closer to the time.

Claims about the divinity of Jesus, or about his resurrection, are one thing, but the basic claim that he existed, that he came from Nazareth, that he was an itinerant Jewish teacher in first-century Palestine, that he was executed and that he was the focus of the Jesus movement which arose within a short of his death is pretty well-evidenced, by the standards of evidence that we expect to find for persons and events in the ancient world. You can't absolutely prove that Jesus wasn't created out of whole cloth, but if that is the case then you need to make some completely unevidenced assumptions to explain the evidence that points towards his existence (and why you would accept those assumptions without evidence is never explained).

Occam's razor; the simplest explanation for the sources we have about the existence of Jesus is that he did in fact exist.

(The Buddha is generally accepted as a historical figure too.)

oldrnwisr · 09-09-2013 05:05PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe there is a simpler reason? Maybe the four gospels we know today were held as definitive by four major early christian groups and so as not to alienate anyone in the early days of the faith all four were kept? Or maybe they saw the inconsistencies but looked on the books as inspired by god and not to be fcuked with, inconsistencies or not.

This depends on the degree to which you find persuasive the argument that the four gospel accounts are intended to be eyewitness or retold eyewitness accounts. If you look at them as four eyewitness accounts retold through intermediaries then you could hold to the idea that the four gospels survived because they were held up as definitive by four early christian groups.

However, I think that the problem is better resolved if you discard the assumption that the gospels were ever intended to be eyewitness accounts.

Firstly, there is Mark which, as we have seen before, is the core narrative of the Synoptics. Well over 90% of Matthew is borrowed verbatim from Mark and over 80% of Luke. Mark's gospel is a clear attempt to create a backstory for Jesus. It borrows heavily from many older traditions including Egyptian and Greek mythology, Greek literature (Homer) and even the Old Testament. Mark's purpose in these borrowings seems to be talking up the character of Jesus, making parallels between literary characters of old e.g. Elisha and then showing Jesus to be even greater in power and majesty. Mark's writings are also heavily influenced by Pauline writings and there is a significant anti-Jewish and specifically anti-Jewish law theme to the gospel of Mark.

Now, as for Matthew, there are a few issues to be considered. Firstly, there is the material which is included in Matthew but not in Mark which is tentatively called Q. Whether Mark was unaware of or ignored the existence of Q is unclear but regardless Matthew felt it necessary to quote. Secondly, there is a deep theological rift between Matthew and Mark. Just as Mark is deeply anti-Jewish in his gospel, Matthew is the exact opposite, stressing the importance of keeping the commandments. Finally, it should be noted that the idea of copying an existing work while making changes/corrections/improvements was a fairly popular literary style at the time known as the Dionysian Imitatio or mimesis. The question here is what the author of Matthew's gospel really was (something which is indeterminate now), whether it was to improve the existing work or whether it was to use the literary method above to promulgate his theological position.

Luke's gospel continues the trend of incorporating Q sayings into Mark's gospel and as a result it is the most removed from the source material. Also in keeping with the use of mimesis as a literary technique, Luke is the longest of the synoptics with over 19,000 words (compared to Matthew with 18,291 and Mark at just 11,047). Luke's gospel is cast in much the same mould as Matthew although it seems that the work is created as a defense and explanation of the soteriology and eschatology of Jesus' teachings, mostly for the benefit of Theophilus to whom both this and Acts refers.

John's gospel on the other hand is vastly different from the synoptics and only shares 8% of its text with them. The structure of John follows a different theology written by someone who seeks to promote the divinity of Jesus more prominently than the authors of the synoptics. In fact, there is a very good comparison of the differences between John and the synoptics here.

In summary, I'm not sure that I would say there were four different christian groups promoting the four gospels, certainly two (Mark and John) and maybe three (Matthew) but the way I see it, the gospels were retained because they all reasonably held to the picture of Jesus that the early church leaders wanted to portray (as opposed to, say, Marcion or Thomas) and that the different inclusions and perspectives were probably weighted more than the conflicts between them. You've gotta love cognitive dissonance.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, Socrates for one; Alexander the Great for another. Jesus of Nazareth is much better attested than either of them - a greater number of independent sources affirming his existence, and closer to the time.

Claims about the divinity of Jesus, or about his resurrection, are one thing, but the basic claim that he existed, that he came from Nazareth, that he was an itinerant Jewish teacher in first-century Palestine, that he was executed and that he was the focus of the Jesus movement which arose within a short of his death is pretty well-evidenced, by the standards of evidence that we expect to find for persons and events in the ancient world. You can't absolutely prove that Jesus wasn't created out of whole cloth, but if that is the case then you need to make some completely unevidenced assumptions to explain the evidence that points towards his existence (and why you would accept those assumptions without evidence is never explained).

Occam's razor; the simplest explanation for the sources we have about the existence of Jesus is that he did in fact exist.

(The Buddha is generally accepted as a historical figure too.)

I think the key point here is the highlighted section above. You rarely find Christians making the case solely for Jesus' existence. Most, if not all of the time, they are arguing for the existence of Jesus as a base for the other claims about him. In these cases, the introduction of Socrates, Plato, Alexander the Great etc. is an example of the red herring fallacy. Bluewolf, hit the nail on the head in her post. Even if Buddha or Plato or Aristotle didn't exist then their teachings would and their teachings in and of themselves are important. The same can't be said for Jesus. If Jesus didn't exist then Christianity falls apart. All the eschatological and soteriological claims disintegrate without Jesus. So, if we're having an abstract academic discussion on the existence of Jesus, then yes Jesus is as well attested as other figures of the era. However, Christians give themselves a larger burden of proof by presenting Jesus as a demigod and all that that entails.

robindch · 09-09-2013 05:59PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

All the eschatological and soteriological claims disintegrate without Jesus.

There's something quite wonderful about so many of the words the religious dreamed up to describe their funny business.

Eschatology and soteriology are two, but who could ever hear the sounds of the words of hermeneutics, exegesis, concupiscence, filioque, homoousian, homoiousian, consubstantial, Nestorian without wanting to know more?

But like champange, they promise much, deliver little and leave a bitter taste in the mouth. Not to mention a lasting hangover.

09-09-2013 06:00PM

robindch wrote: »

Like champange, they promise much, deliver little, leave a bitter taste in the mouth .

Like champagne
Yea
Definitely
:pac:

Sarky · 09-09-2013 06:23PM

Semen, lol

Bannasidhe · 09-09-2013 06:46PM

Sarky wrote: »

Semen, lol

I'll have to take your word for that.

Bannasidhe · 09-09-2013 06:48PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

My time machine is nearly ready for testing, what date do you want and I'll pop into the local Eason's and buy a copy of the Daily Mirror for ya.

But, by the time the paper is back, it'll be thousands of years old but paradoxically, contemporary to us as it will be brand new, only hours old.

Or you could use that time machine to go back and take lessons in debate and discussion then come back here and edit your post so it contributes something to the thread.

Just a suggestion.

Red Nissan · 09-09-2013 08:55PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or you could use that time machine to go back and take lessons in debate and discussion then come back here and edit your post so it contributes something to the thread.

Just a suggestion.

Yippee! I score a point. A debate needs to be real, asking someone to link to online documentation that was contemporary two thousand years ago is just as valid in adding to the discussion, to be very honest.

Both are silly, the internet was not invented back then so there can be no archives, I at least might find real time information, I predict that if I were to go back, there would be no news whatsoever in whatever news media that would be contemporary.

A church that claims to be based on Christ was not started for some three hundred and fifty years after the time that the said Christ was supposed to have been alive.

Brian Shanahan · 09-09-2013 10:19PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Occam's razor; the simplest explanation for the sources we have about the existence of Jesus is that he did in fact exist.

William of Ockham's dictum only holds when you've two (or more) competing explanations which satisfactorily explain the evidence. The razor states that you pick the explanation which is the least complicated (which is a lot different than complex), i.e. which has the least amount of extra items to explain.

An example of the razor in action is as follows:

Q: Given the available evidence, what is the better explanation for the diversity of life on Earth: 1) God or 2) Modern theory of Evolution, given that both explanations are equally satisfactory in answering the question?

A: Under the doctrine of least causes (literal translation), if both God and Evolution are equally satisfactory, then we would logically conclude that the Evolution hypothesis is the correct answer, as it has less causes to explain than the God one.

Of course this analogy ignores the fact that the God hypothesis and the theory of Evolution are not equally satisfactory in answering the question posed, but it is simply an analogy (Feck, where's the video of Plinkett saying "analgy" when you need it:().

Bannasidhe · 09-09-2013 10:34PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

Yippee! I score a point. A debate needs to be real, asking someone to link to online documentation that was contemporary two thousand years ago is just as valid in adding to the discussion, to be very honest.

Both are silly, the internet was not invented back then so there can be no archives, I at least might find real time information, I predict that if I were to go back, there would be no news whatsoever in whatever news media that would be contemporary.

A church that claims to be based on Christ was not started for some three hundred and fifty years after the time that the said Christ was supposed to have been alive.

What?

There was no internet in the 1980s either so by that 'logic' we shouldn't have a link to anything from the 1980s either ...oh wait...here's one https://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/navy/strategy1980s.pdf

Here's a text from 1517 - they didn't have the internet then either -http://origin.web.fordham.edu/TESTING_SITE/Halsall Transition 2011/source/luther95.txt

Here are the complete works of Flavius Josephus http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/works.html . He was born a mere 4 or so years after Jesus is alleged to die yet here are his words (with some added in later by other's) right there on the internet.

Sonics2k · 10-09-2013 12:06AM

Red Nissan wrote: »

Yippee! I score a point. A debate needs to be real, asking someone to link to online documentation that was contemporary two thousand years ago is just as valid in adding to the discussion, to be very honest.

Both are silly, the internet was not invented back then so there can be no archives, I at least might find real time information, I predict that if I were to go back, there would be no news whatsoever in whatever news media that would be contemporary.
.

That was one of the daftest and most nonsensical things I have ever read on the internet. And I've been on it in a near daily basis since 1994.

Corkfeen · 10-09-2013 01:32AM

Sonics2k wrote: »

That was one of the daftest and most nonsensical things I have ever read on the internet. And I've been on it in a near daily basis since 1994.

Mind is blown by the idea that text is so easily added to the Internet from any time period, it's almost as if the written word can be copied . Someone should contact the press. Next thing ye'll be telling me is that you can watch videos and listen to music that predate the Internet on the internet. But that'd be sheer madness!

Peregrinus · 10-09-2013 01:56AM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You rarely find Christians making the case solely for Jesus' existence. Most, if not all of the time, they are arguing for the existence of Jesus as a base for the other claims about him. In these cases, the introduction of Socrates, Plato, Alexander the Great etc. is an example of the red herring fallacy. Bluewolf, hit the nail on the head in her post. Even if Buddha or Plato or Aristotle didn't exist then their teachings would and their teachings in and of themselves are important. The same can't be said for Jesus. If Jesus didn't exist then Christianity falls apart. All the eschatological and soteriological claims disintegrate without Jesus.

Plato and Alexander are not red herrings at all. In fact, if anyone is introducing red herrings into the thread, it’s you. It may be true that Christians argue for the existence of Jesus as a basis for other claims about divinity, etc, but so what? This is a discussion in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum about the historicity of Jesus, and the fact that some people make claims about the divinity of Jesus has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether he was a historical character.

As you say, if Jesus didn’t exist then Christianity falls apart, but that is neither evidence nor an argument tending to show that Jesus didn’t exist. At most, it explains why people with a personal, emotional commitment to atheism, agnosticism or irreligion would find it gratifying to conclude that Jesus most likely didn’t exist. In other words, the consideration you mention alerts us to a possible bias that we need to acknowledge and, if possible, exclude.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

So, if we're having an abstract academic discussion on the existence of Jesus, then yes Jesus is as well attested as other figures of the era.

Is that not the discussion we’re having?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, Christians give themselves a larger burden of proof by presenting Jesus as a demigod and all that that entails.

Is that not a colossal red herring, in the context of a discussion about the historicity of Jesus?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

William of Ockham's dictum only holds when you've two (or more) competing explanations which satisfactorily explain the evidence. The razor states that you pick the explanation which is the least complicated (which is a lot different than complex), i.e. which has the least amount of extra items to explain.

An example of the razor in action is as follows:

Q: Given the available evidence, what is the better explanation for the diversity of life on Earth: 1) God or 2) Modern theory of Evolution, given that both explanations are equally satisfactory in answering the question?

A: Under the doctrine of least causes (literal translation), if both God and Evolution are equally satisfactory, then we would logically conclude that the Evolution hypothesis is the correct answer, as it has less causes to explain than the God one.

Of course this analogy ignores the fact that the God hypothesis and the theory of Evolution are not equally satisfactory in answering the question posed, but it is simply an analogy (Feck, where's the video of Plinkett saying "analgy" when you need it ).

Again, can you say “red herring”? The issue of how Occam’s razor applies to a completely different question from the one we are discussing is not terribly illuminating on the question of how it applies to the question we are discussing.

Occcam’s razor says that, among competing explanatory hypotheses, we should prefer the hypothesis which requires the fewest assumptions. And, with regard to the historical sources which point to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, if there is a more parsimonious hypothesis to account for those sources than “Jesus of Nazareth existed”, no-one on this thread has suggested it yet.

Of course, Occams’ razor is just a heuristic, not an irrefutable rule. The most parsimonious explanation doesn’t have to be the true one. We could have reasons for preferring a hypothesis which is not the one to which Occam would point us. But at the very least we have to be able to say what those reasons are and, again, I’m not seeing a lot of people doing that.

(I suggest a reason above, of course - if Jesus didn’t exist we can dismiss the claims of Christianity without further examination, which would gratify people wishing to dismiss those claims - but that obviously wouldn’t be a good reason for preferring a hypothesis involving his non-existence.)

oldrnwisr · 10-09-2013 09:38AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Plato and Alexander are not red herrings at all. In fact, if anyone is introducing red herrings into the thread, it’s you. It may be true that Christians argue for the existence of Jesus as a basis for other claims about divinity, etc, but so what? This is a discussion in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum about the historicity of Jesus, and the fact that some people make claims about the divinity of Jesus has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether he was a historical character.

As you say, if Jesus didn’t exist then Christianity falls apart, but that is neither evidence nor an argument tending to show that Jesus didn’t exist. At most, it explains why people with a personal, emotional commitment to atheism, agnosticism or irreligion would find it gratifying to conclude that Jesus most likely didn’t exist. In other words, the consideration you mention alerts us to a possible bias that we need to acknowledge and, if possible, exclude.

OK, I definitely think we're heading in a circular direction now so I'll try to clarify.

In the context of this thread and this discussion, then yes Jesus is as well attested as other historical figures from the period. In fact, on the basis of the evidence, however scant, we can conclude that it is likely that someone called Jesus actually existed. Not a fact, mind, just likely. In such a discussion, bringing up the existence of Socrates and Plato and Alexander is pointless whataboutery. At best, they are irrelevant to a discussion because either the sources for Jesus are sufficient judged against an objective standard or they're not. At worst, the invocation of Plato et al. is heading for the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. Either way, as you said above, the simplest explanation for the existence of the references to Jesus in the texts we have available is that he actually existed. I still don't think that anybody has claimed otherwise in the 343 posts to date.

However, I think it is important that two important caveats be introduced because of the wider arguments that circulate about Jesus (i.e. divinity, resurrection etc.).
The first is that the conclusions about Jesus' existence reached in this discussion do not add any evidentiary support for other claims about Jesus. I know it seems silly but you'd be surprised how many times Christians use this fact as a buttress for their other claims about Jesus. It happens with god claims too. Some people (e.g. William Lane Craig) seem to think that they can use arguments like Kalam to logically prove the existence of God and therefore the Christian God.
The second caveat is that Jesus is different from the other figures in this discussion. If they didn't really exist then who cares. Their teachings stand on their own merits. Jesus' teachings don't. They are pointless without the existence of Jesus.

Peregrinus · 10-09-2013 11:23AM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In the context of this thread and this discussion, then yes Jesus is as well attested as other historical figures from the period. In fact, on the basis of the evidence, however scant, we can conclude that it is likely that someone called Jesus actually existed. Not a fact, mind, just likely. In such a discussion, bringing up the existence of Socrates and Plato and Alexander is pointless whataboutery At best, they are irrelevant to a discussion because either the sources for Jesus are sufficient judged against an objective standard or they're not. At worst, the invocation of Plato et al. is heading for the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. Either way, as you said above, the simplest explanation for the existence of the references to Jesus in the texts we have available is that he actually existed. I still don't think that anybody has claimed otherwise in the 343 posts to date.

In fairness, I only brought them up in response to Kylith’s post to the effect that . . .

kylith wrote: »

. . . I can't think of anyone else about whom there is such little proof, yet who is accepted to have existed, that Jesus could be compared to. I'm tempted to go with Hildegrund . . . If you want to call the fact that Jesus is as likely to have existed as a Danish whore called Hildegrund a win, then good for you.

The truth is that there are numerous figures from the ancient world whose historicity is accepted on considerably poorer primary sources that Jesus’s is, and many of them are considerably more notable that Hildegrund the Danish whore. Plato and Alexander merely illustrate that. Whatever the academic standard for reliability of historical evidence from the ancient world is, if Plato and Alexander are accepted as meeting it – and they generally are – then Jesus unquestionably meets it with room to spare. I don’t think it’s “pointless whataboutery” to make that point in response to Kylith.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, I think it is important that two important caveats be introduced because of the wider arguments that circulate about Jesus (i.e. divinity, resurrection etc.).
The first is that the conclusions about Jesus' existence reached in this discussion do not add any evidentiary support for other claims about Jesus . . .

That’s a fair point, but it’s a point made simply, as you have just done. Once you have pointed out that the historicity of Jesus does not prove his divinity, or messiahship, or whatever, then there is no need to dispute his historicity, or to minimise the strength of the case for historicity. In fact, it may be counterproductive; the arguments against historicity are neither particularly strong not particularly relevant to the arguments for divinity, and advancing weak and irrelevant arguments can create the impession that you have no strong or relevant arguments to advance. There are much stronger arguments against religious claims about Jesus than an assault on his historicity.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The second caveat is that Jesus is different from the other figures in this discussion. If they didn't really exist then who cares. Their teachings stand on their own merits. Jesus' teachings don't. They are pointless without the existence of Jesus.

So? That may be true, but it doesn’t add any weight at all to the case against claims for Jesus’s divinity, etc, or even to the case against claims for his historicity. As I pointed out already, it merely points to the possibliity of bias on the part of those who argue against his historicity. And why would you want to point to that?

Bannasidhe · 10-09-2013 11:51AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairness, I only brought them up in response to Kylith’s post to the effect that . . .

The truth is that there are numerous figures from the ancient world whose historicity is accepted on considerably poorer primary sources that Jesus’s is, and many of them are considerably more notable that Hildegrund the Danish whore. Plato and Alexander merely illustrate that. Whatever the academic standard for reliability of historical evidence from the ancient world is, if Plato and Alexander are accepted as meeting it – and they generally are – then Jesus unquestionably meets it with room to spare. I don’t think it’s “pointless whataboutery” to make that point in response to Kylith.

That’s a fair point, but it’s a point made simply, as you have just done. Once you have pointed out that the historicity of Jesus does not prove his divinity, or messiahship, or whatever, then there is no need to dispute his historicity, or to minimise the strength of the case for historicity. In fact, it may be counterproductive; the arguments against historicity are neither particularly strong not particularly relevant to the arguments for divinity, and advancing weak and irrelevant arguments can create the impession that you have no strong or relevant arguments to advance. There are much stronger arguments against religious claims about Jesus than an assault on his historicity.

So? That may be true, but it doesn’t add any weight at all to the case against claims for Jesus’s divinity, etc, or even to the case against claims for his historicity. As I pointed out already, it merely points to the possibliity of bias on the part of those who argue against his historicity. And why would you want to point to that?

However, this particular discussion began because of claims that the existence of Jesus is a historical fact - which is is not, it is a historical probable- and I, therefore, disputed the use of the word fact.
No one claimed the existence of Alexander, Plato etc were historical facts - if they had, I would have responded in the same way.

But, as oldrnwisr has pointed out - there is no need for a discussion on the existence of Alexander etc in this context as - bar a few academics - no one alive today is invested in their existence unlike Jesus where we encounter arguments that consist of 'Jesus existed. This is a fact. Therefore the Bible is the word of God and Christianity is the true religion.'
Such circular logic deserves to be picked apart.

Wibbs · 10-09-2013 02:39PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I can't imagine a lot of us care whether he actually existed since the philosophy and wisdom makes sense in and of itself. Bit different to the big deal about jesus is the claim that he was divine

I dunno B, Buddhism these days gets a bit of a "free ride" in my humble. Many set out to divest Buddhism of it's magical thinking by suggesting it's a pure philosophy with surprisingly modern thinking on human psychology, however it is chock full of magical thinking in the original of the species. Reincarnation is but one biggie. Demons another. Mara the evil one is seen as an actual reality as well as a psychological state. Today westerners ignore the mara as real and concentrate on the psychology, but both are present originally. Buddha himself was agnostic on the subject of a deity, however he described himself as the human embodiment of natural law/truth/path to enlightenment. "whoever sees the dhamma, sees me and whoever sees me sees the dhamma". Not unlike "I am the way and the light" minus the Abrahamic stuff. IMHO Both are claims that deserve some "eh wut Ted?". Philosophically there are quite a few parallels between them to the degree that many have feverishly sought to claim a Buddhist connection with Jesus and that he may have gone east in his travels as a youth.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

no one alive today is invested in their existence unlike Jesus where we encounter arguments that consist of 'Jesus existed. This is a fact. Therefore the Bible is the word of God and Christianity is the true religion.'
Such circular logic deserves to be picked apart.

Interestingly you can apply that to all the Abrahamic faiths. With Judaism we've got nada to go on re Abraham and Moses save for the internal source material(and source is likely a big stretch). Islam like I noted earlier similarly. I find Mohammed the most interesting of the lot as he seems regarded as solid as a historical figure among mainstream historians, yet we got nada on him until well after his apparent date of death. For some details we're waiting near 2 centuries. Even less material than Jesus and Mohammed was 600 odd years later, apparently headed large armies, won big battles and had official interaction with other empires at the time, the Byzantine for one, yet they're eerily silent on the matter. A much louder voice on the historical stage compared to a wandering Jewish Rabbi, yet...

Peregrinus · 10-09-2013 03:26PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

However, this particular discussion began because of claims that the existence of Jesus is a historical fact - which is is not, it is a historical probable- and I, therefore, disputed the use of the word fact.
No one claimed the existence of Alexander, Plato etc were historical facts - if they had, I would have responded in the same way.

But, as oldrnwisr has pointed out - there is no need for a discussion on the existence of Alexander etc in this context as - bar a few academics - no one alive today is invested in their existence unlike Jesus where we encounter arguments that consist of 'Jesus existed. This is a fact. Therefore the Bible is the word of God and Christianity is the true religion.'
Such circular logic deserves to be picked apart.

I wouldn't disagee with any of this, except to point out that you don't pick the argument apart by pointing out that the existence of Jesus is not an irrefutably established fact. Even if it were an irrefutably established fact, the argument would still be b*lls, because the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises, and when this argument is advanced that's the point you need to make in rebuttal.

Mounting instead an attack on historicity is a foolish tactic. At most, you can force your interlocutor to admit that historical evidence makes the existence of Jesus is probable, but not strictly speaking certain. But that does nothing at all to undermine whatever arguments there may be in support of his signficance, divinity, etc, any more than pointing out that its possible to question the existence of Alexander the Great is going to persuade anybody to change their mind about whether he was a great general or not.

The central problem here is that, on the argument which you say you're confronted with, the conclusion (Jesus's divinity) simply does not follow from the premise (that Jesus certainly existed.). But, ironically, this means it makes no difference whether the premise is true or false. Mounting an attack on the premises therefore fundamentally misses the point.

Bannasidhe · 10-09-2013 08:50PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't disagee with any of this, except to point out that you don't pick the argument apart by pointing out that the existence of Jesus is not an irrefutably established fact. Even if it were an irrefutably established fact, the argument would still be b*lls, because the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises, and when this argument is advanced that's the point you need to make in rebuttal.

Mounting instead an attack on historicity is a foolish tactic. At most, you can force your interlocutor to admit that historical evidence makes the existence of Jesus is probable, but not strictly speaking certain. But that does nothing at all to undermine whatever arguments there may be in support of his signficance, divinity, etc, any more than pointing out that its possible to question the existence of Alexander the Great is going to persuade anybody to change their mind about whether he was a great general or not.

The central problem here is that, on the argument which you say you're confronted with, the conclusion (Jesus's divinity) simply does not follow from the premise (that Jesus certainly existed.). But, ironically, this means it makes no difference whether the premise is true or false. Mounting an attack on the premises therefore fundamentally misses the point.

In my experience it is a complete waste of time to even attempt a discussion of Jesus' divinity with someone who takes issue with something as simple as what is and is not a demonstrable fact. If a person cannot grasp that then it would be better if people with more patience than I engage them in esoteric discussion.

This thread is a spin off from another thread and was created by the mods after statements were made that the existence of Jesus is a demonstrable fact - that is what I was responding to so how can I be missing the point when the point was that this statement is incorrect?

I may have missed any subsequent discussion on divinity or lack thereof, but that was not the point I was addressing anyway.

Peregrinus · 11-09-2013 02:44AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This thread is a spin off from another thread and was created by the mods after statements were made that the existence of Jesus is a demonstrable fact - that is what I was responding to so how can I be missing the point when the point was that this statement is incorrect?

Oh, right.

Except, of course, if we’re being absolutely anal, the statement is correct. It is a demonstrable fact, as in, it is in principle capable of being demonstrated.

Is it a demonstrated fact? Well, that’s not a simple binary, since there are gradations of satisfaction with regard to whether we judge a fact to be adequately demonstrated or not. But the only fair and dispassionate answer is, well, it’s pretty solidly demonstrated by the standards of demonstration that academic historians apply to facts of the class concerned.

You can certainly speculate that, maybe, despite the evidence, Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist. You can speculate like that about pretty well any historical fact, however well evidenced. Did Alexander the Great really exist? Did Emily Brontë write Wuthering Heights, or was it really her brother Branwell? Did Adolf Hitler know about the Holocaust? Did the Holocaust really happen? Did the moon landings really happen?

The thing is, these counter-evidential speculations are mostly pretty much at the margins of serious discussion, and - as a couple of the examples I cite illustrate - they’re frequently proposed by someone with an ideological axe to grind rather than by someone motivated by a dispassionate consideration of the historical sources.

I’m not asserting, of course, that those who question the historicity of Jesus are similarly driven by ideological bias rather than sober assessment of the evidence. But that’s an impression they may risk creating by continuing to flog this particular dead horse.

smacl · 11-09-2013 07:23AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can certainly speculate that, maybe, despite the evidence, Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist. You can speculate like that about pretty well any historical fact, however well evidenced. Did Alexander the Great really exist? Did Emily Brontë write Wuthering Heights, or was it really her brother Branwell? Did Adolf Hitler know about the Holocaust? Did the Holocaust really happen? Did the moon landings really happen?

All of which are rather minor leaps of faith by comparison to the existence of an omniscient and omnipresent being called God. Like any pieces of history, our understanding of these events is open to change as more information is presented.

I think arguing the historicity of Jesus with such a broad brush doesn't lead anywhere. Probably more productive to investigate the specific events attributed to him and decide on the probability of same person being involved in all of them as stated. Mythology is often based loosely on actual events, which are subsequently altered to suit the preferred story and characters, much the same as military history is typically written to favour the victor as being on the side of good. Personally, I accept the probability of a historical Jesus figure, though suspect there could have been more than one person involved in the events attributed to him, and would suggest that the bulk of what is presented in the bible as historical event is actually mythology.

Peregrinus · 11-09-2013 08:38AM

smacl wrote: »

All of which are rather minor leaps of faith by comparison to the existence of an omniscient and omnipresent being called God. Like any pieces of history, our understanding of these events is open to change as more information is presented.

I think arguing the historicity of Jesus with such a broad brush doesn't lead anywhere. Probably more productive to investigate the specific events attributed to him and decide on the probability of same person being involved in all of them as stated . . . Personally, I accept the probability of a historical Jesus figure, though suspect there could have been more than one person involved in the events attributed to him, and would suggest that the bulk of what is presented in the bible as historical event is actually mythology.

As best as I understand it, the academic consensus, to a fair degree of probability, is something like this:

Biography: Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. He was so called because he came from Nazareth; it is not historically established that he was born in Bethlehem, and some historians consider it unlikely that he was. He had a mother called Mary, a brother called James and other siblings. He was an itinerant preacher and teacher in first-century Palestine. His teachings were sufficiently radical/challenging, and attracted a sufficient public following, that he was considered a disruptive influence and he was executed in Jerusalem under Roman authority.

Following: His execution did not succeed in eliminating his following; some at least of his followers regrouped and from relatively shortly after his death there was an active Jesus-movement, initially in Jerusalem but fairly soon spreading to Antioch and other places. James, the brother of Jesus, was probably a significant figure in this movement. There was significant tension between the Jewish Temple authorities and the Jesus movement, but there’s no evidence that, once Jesus was executed, the Roman authorities took any further interest in his followers. (At least, not until the Jesus movement reached the city of Rome itself, but that’s skipping forward a bit.)

Teachings: The teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels , very broadly speaking, are rooted in teachings Jesus actually delivered, but that is by no means known to be true of every teaching attributed to Jesus. Plus, the gospels also incorporate some degree of subsequent reflection and digestion of what Jesus taught, and it can be difficult to disentangle what Jesus taught from what the Jesus-movement decided that Jesus meant. This is especially true of the Gospel of John. There’s a fair degree of academic dispute over exactly which teachings are more authentic (not as in, objectively true, but as in, an authentic reflection of something Jesus actually taught), and which less so. In regard to some particular teachings there is a degree of consensus on this one way or the other; in regard to others there is no consensus. Taken as a whole, the teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels suggest that he emerged from the pharisaic sect of Judaism. The gospels also suggest that he started off as a follower of John the Baptist before establishing an independent ministry of his own, and most historians of the period think this is probably what happened. (And, by implication, they accept the historicity of John the Baptist.)

Miracles: The miracles attributed to Jesus are, naturally, not considered to be historically established. Nor is it necessarily accepted that miracles were even attributed to Jesus during his own lifetime. What I think is accepted as historically established is that from fairly shortly after his death miracles were being attributed to him by his followers, and these included (a) that he was born of a virgin, (b) that he rose from the dead, and (c) that numerous people had encounters with him after his supposed resurrection. In other words, if these particular stories are inventions, they are not inventions from long after Jesus’s time, but from shortly after it. It's more possible that other miracle stories (e.g. healings by Jesus, multiplication of loaves and fishes etc) arise later.

robindch · 11-09-2013 09:33AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can certainly speculate that, maybe, despite the evidence, Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist.

That speculation is, epistemologically, just as useful as the positive assertions by the religious that Jesus certainly did exist.

11-09-2013 09:46AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno B, Buddhism these days gets a bit of a "free ride" in my humble. Many set out to divest Buddhism of it's magical thinking by suggesting it's a pure philosophy with surprisingly modern thinking on human psychology, however it is chock full of magical thinking in the original of the species. Reincarnation is but one biggie. Demons another. Mara the evil one is seen as an actual reality as well as a psychological state. Today westerners ignore the mara as real and concentrate on the psychology, but both are present originally. Buddha himself was agnostic on the subject of a deity, however he described himself as the human embodiment of natural law/truth/path to enlightenment. "whoever sees the dhamma, sees me and whoever sees me sees the dhamma". Not unlike "I am the way and the light" minus the Abrahamic stuff. IMHO Both are claims that deserve some "eh wut Ted?". Philosophically there are quite a few parallels between them to the degree that many have feverishly sought to claim a Buddhist connection with Jesus and that he may have gone east in his travels as a youth.

Right, but rebirth and the like weren't new concepts when he showed up. None of them requires that he ever existed.
I'm not claiming any of it is pure philosophy, it's a religion, but the very basis of the religion isn't solely dependent on him having existed, not in the same way as the claims of jesus' divinity. The whole idea is that you see for yourself if it makes sense to you and if it doesn't, you can probably find another way of doing things. If it turned out that it was actually Bob down the road who came up with the teachings, they'd still stand on their own and the whole thing wouldn't fall apart.
Same true for jesus/christianity? I doubt it

Bannasidhe · 11-09-2013 10:42AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, right.

Except, of course, if we’re being absolutely anal, the statement is correct. It is a demonstrable fact, as in, it is in principle capable of being demonstrated.

Is it a demonstrated fact? Well, that’s not a simple binary, since there are gradations of satisfaction with regard to whether we judge a fact to be adequately demonstrated or not. But the only fair and dispassionate answer is, well, it’s pretty solidly demonstrated by the standards of demonstration that academic historians apply to facts of the class concerned.

You can certainly speculate that, maybe, despite the evidence, Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist. You can speculate like that about pretty well any historical fact, however well evidenced. Did Alexander the Great really exist? Did Emily Brontë write Wuthering Heights, or was it really her brother Branwell? Did Adolf Hitler know about the Holocaust? Did the Holocaust really happen? Did the moon landings really happen?

The thing is, these counter-evidential speculations are mostly pretty much at the margins of serious discussion, and - as a couple of the examples I cite illustrate - they’re frequently proposed by someone with an ideological axe to grind rather than by someone motivated by a dispassionate consideration of the historical sources.

I’m not asserting, of course, that those who question the historicity of Jesus are similarly driven by ideological bias rather than sober assessment of the evidence. But that’s an impression they may risk creating by continuing to flog this particular dead horse.

As an academic historian I would say it is not a demonstrable fact as we have yet to discover a primary source which provides contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus -until such time it remains a probable and not a fact according to the rules of historical research - that anal enough?

There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence but a complete absence of conclusive evidence - and therein lies the issue I am addressing.

I find that in the main those with an ideological axe to grind are those who are invested in Christianity and proving it's legitimacy - my only interest is in ensuring the rules of my trade are adhered to when people are throwing the word 'history' around.

Peregrinus · 11-09-2013 01:12PM

robindch wrote: »

That speculation is, epistemologically, just as useful as the positive assertions by the religious that Jesus certainly did exist.

But, again epististemologically, by no means as useful as the evidence pointing towards his existence.

Peregrinus · 11-09-2013 01:27PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As an academic historian I would say it is not a demonstrable fact as we have yet to discover a primary source which provides contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus -until such time it remains a probable and not a fact according to the rules of historical research - that anal enough?

Not quite! Even if we did have a primary source providing contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus, we can still speculate that he might not have existed, since the primary source could be simply wrong, couldn't it? There is actually no conceivable historical evidence, however primary, however contemporary, which would irrefutably establish this fact - or any other.

What we have with Jesus is multiple independent sources pointing to his existence which, while not contemporary, are fairly close enough in time. This comfortably exceeds the standards of evidence that academic historians of the period expect and accept and, as already pointed out, the historicity of a great many people is widely accepted on considerably less evidence.

Is the existence of Jesus a fact? Well, you'll appreciate, whether it's a fact doesn't depend at all on the quantity or quality of evidence that we have, since there are presumptively many facts of which we are wholly unaware, and probably quite a few facts in relation to which we believe the diametric opposite on abundant, convincing but as it happens misleading evidence. Whether a thing is true or not does not depend on whether we know it to be true. As the radical sceptics point out, we can never actually conclusively know that anything is a fact, but that doesn't mean there are no facts.

Are we justified in taking the existence of Jesus to be an established fact? Depends on the standards of evidence we require to establish the fact, which is a matter of subjective preference and may sometimes be influenced by whether we want to take it as established fact or would prefer not to. But, by the standards of evidence customarily applied by professional historians who have no axe to grind one way or the other to fact-claims of this type, are we justified in taking the existence of Jesus to be an established fact? Yes, absolutely, we are. Abundantly justified.

Doctor DooM · 11-09-2013 01:30PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, by the standards of evidence customarily applied by professional historians who have no axe to grind one way or the other to fact-claims of this type, are we justified in taking the existence of Jesus to be an established fact? Yes, absolutely, we are. Abundantly justified.

As a matter of interest- are you a professional historian?

Because you seem to be telling one how to do their job.

Bannasidhe · 11-09-2013 01:51PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

As a matter of interest- are you a professional historian?

Because you seem to be telling one how to do their job.

Yeah - I get that a lot...never used to happen to me back when I was a chef. Funny that.

Turtwig · 11-09-2013 01:52PM

I don't wish to derail this but I am very curious. How does the historicity of the actual crucifixion hold up? Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of all humanity.
All of Christianity, to borrow from Kierkegaard, is dependent on whether Jesus died on that cross or not. If He didn't everything changes. Regardless of whether a person known as Jesus existed or not. Though obviously if Jesus didn't exist then Christianity falls apart too.

Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

Comments