Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

robindch

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the best evidence for a historical Jesus is the existence of Christianity.

Not really since that same argument applies, to a greater or lesser extent anyway, to all the other religions as well and these religions can't all simultaneously be true.

All we can say with any confidence is that he probably existed, as he's noted in a small number of Roman administrative documents.

The much more important question, and the one which the religious try to avoid at this point, is whether the Jesus which probably existed was how do we know that he's being reported accurately and how do we know that what is is reported to have said is true.

Zubeneschamali

robindch wrote: »

Not really since that same argument applies, to a greater or lesser extent anyway, to all the other religions as well and these religions can't all simultaneously be true.

All we can say with any confidence is that he probably existed, as he's noted in a small number of Roman administrative documents.

Well, no, that is exactly what I am saying is completely wrong. The sources outside the Bible are very poor evidence for a historical Jesus. The existence of Christianity itself is much better evidence.

Not for miracles, resurrections etc., simply for the existence of an historical Jesus.

If you read the work of Earl Doherty for example, the cold water he throws on the historical evidence outside the Bible is very convincing. The stuff he cooks up to explain the existence of Christianity and the Bible without an original Christ figure is very unconvincing.

robindch

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The sources outside the Bible are very poor evidence for a historical Jesus.

Yes, they are poor, but given that they're unconnected with the religion, I'm more inclined to believe that there's some substance to them.

The two things I'm specifically referring to are two short, sidelong references - one from Pliny and one from Tacitus. Both are heavyweight writers with a high degree of credibility and have nothing to gain one way or the other by claiming, in their own separate and faintly incompatible ways, that a guy named Jesus existed and that he started a religion.

As for Earl Doherty, his wikipage says that Bart Ehrman - whom I do generally trust - rips separate squeakholes for Doherty, his methods, his ability and his conclusions. And while I wouldn't yet go that far on the basis of what I've seen of Doherty today, his academic and intellectual careers do not seem to be equal to the weight of the claims he appears to be making.

MickDoyle1979

Anyone read the Day of The Jackal?
A fictional Englishman is hired by the OAS terrorist group to shoot De Gaulle in summer 1963. The French secret service find out but have no idea who he is his nationality or any other details except his codename "Chacal."A French detective is given the Herculean task of tracking him down.
Frederick Forsyth who wrote this classic thriller brilliantly evokes Gaullist France and when he wrote the novel in 1973 he set the standard for thriller novels to come because he drew upon his knowledge of mercenaries the criminal underworld and the minutia of creating fake passports identities and criminal investigation techniques.

Now supposing 1000 years from now his book was still being read and was debated by historians? Because De Gaulle was targeted by assassination by the real OAS and the novel so plausible would it be mistaken for history?

Similarly we know the Jews were rebellious and awaiting a Messiah. We know quite a lot about the Essenes Qumram and the Zealots and the Sadducees and Pharisees and political religious and ethnic tensions of 1st century Israel. We know a series of messiahs came and went preaching or leading rebellions before they were crucified by the Romans.

The story of Jesus rings true because it is doubtless based on these events.

But he may well be entirely fictional like the Englishman or else a highly fictionalized representation like Thomas Cromwell in Hilary Pantel's novels.

Zubeneschamali

robindch wrote: »

The two things I'm specifically referring to are two short, sidelong references - one from Pliny and one from Tacitus.

Tacitus and Pliny are writing after 110 CE - we know from the Gospels there were Christians who believed the Jesus story by then, so Tacitus and Pliny are really only telling us what we already know.

And just because the Gospels are believed to be true by religious people does not make them useless as evidence. Lots of ancient writings are full of magic - are texts about the Roman Emperors only evidence because nobody believes the miracle stories anymore?

MickDoyle1979

robindch wrote: »

Yes, they are poor, but given that they're unconnected with the religion, I'm more inclined to believe that there's some substance to them.

The two things I'm specifically referring to are two short, sidelong references - one from Pliny and one from Tacitus. Both are heavyweight writers with a high degree of credibility and have nothing to gain one way or the other by claiming, in their own separate and faintly incompatible ways, that a guy named Jesus existed and that he started a religion.

As for Earl Doherty, his wikipage says that Bart Ehrman - whom I do generally trust - rips separate squeakholes for Doherty, his methods, his ability and his conclusions. And while I wouldn't yet go that far on the basis of what I've seen of Doherty today, his academic and intellectual careers do not seem to be equal to the weight of the claims he appears to be making.

It is argued that many of the references in other sources were added later by Christian apologists. The references in Tacitus and Josephus are a little too neat.

oldrnwisr

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Opinion is divided on whether that whole paragraph is a forgery or if there was a reference to Jesus here in the original which was later altered, something like:

“Now there was about this time, Jesus, – a teacher. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was called the Christ; and when Pilate had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day.”

There are many good reasons to suppose that the whole quote may be a forgery, but we do not know that it is. It is pretty weak as evidence for a historical Jesus in any case.

The problem is that the "reduced testimonium" argument doesn't really help to solve a lot of the flaws with the full passage. For sure, it's much less complimentary than the full testimonium but it still talks up the power of Jesus (highlighted above). This remains a problem since no Christian author mentions this prior to Eusebius (which has lead some scholars to conclude that Eusebius himself forged the passage which would fit with Eusebius' MO). Not even Origen mentions it as I commented earlier. Secondly, one problem which I neglected to mention in the previous post becomes even more prominent in the reduced testimonium. Josephus was writing under Roman patronage for a Roman audience and yet he references Jesus as "the Christ" without adding a parenthetical statement or explanation for his readers who wouldn't automatically understand what being "the Christ" would mean. But yeah, like you said, since this passage, even if authentic, comes 25 years after Mark's gospel it's not much in the way of evidence anyway.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the best evidence for a historical Jesus is the existence of Christianity. People like Earl Doherty who argue that Jesus is a myth have to jump through some elaborate hoops to explain how Christianity got started without a Jesus, whereas "troublesome preacher executed in Palestine" was not an unusual event in those days.

The very next story in Josephus about Palestine features a troublemaking preacher among the Samaritans, with Pilate sending the army to prevent crowds following hims and killing many people.

As Robin points out, the existence of Christianity is no more evidence for Jesus than, say, the existence of Scientology is evidence for Xenu. Yeah, Earl Doherty's thesis isn't a very powerful positive theory but it does unpick the historicity of the Christian sources fairly well. Richard Carrier and Robert Price do a better job of making the case for Jesus being a case of euhemerisation and Carrier even shows how such a movement can take hold in a very short space of time.

robindch wrote: »

The two things I'm specifically referring to are two short, sidelong references - one from Pliny and one from Tacitus. Both are heavyweight writers with a high degree of credibility and have nothing to gain one way or the other by claiming, in their own separate and faintly incompatible ways, that a guy named Jesus existed and that he started a religion.

Well, actually, Pliny doesn't actually claim Jesus existed. That's an inference you could only make if you're fairly disposed towards the Jesus story in the first place. Pliny's reference to Jesus comes from a letter he wrote to Emperor Trajan in 112CE while serving as proconsul to Bithynia (modern day Turkey). He writes:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god….”

The best you get from this is the existence of Christians. There's no mention of Jesus and Christians are only referenced as singing to Christ as a god. Calling that weak evidence would be charitable.


With Tacitus, we're even later still, 115CE. The reference comes in Chapter 44, Book 15 of Annals where he writes:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report [that he was responsible for the great fire], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”

OK, firstly and obviously, Tacitus isn't firsthand evidence (he wasn't even born until 56CE), he's reporting from some source. But what source? Reading through the passage it is more likely that Tacitus is referencing recent Christian sources than any Roman record. There are several reasons for this:

• He mistakenly cites Pontius Pilate as a procurator instead of a prefect.
• He references Jesus' crucifixion. It's not likely that the Romans would have kept records on every crucifixion and there's no evidence that they did anyway.
• Rome burned to the ground in the meantime (which he references in that passage) which means there's a good chance that any Roman records that did exist would have been destroyed long before he got to see them

Tacitus is writing 50 years after Paul and Peter have already been in Rome. There's been plenty of time for Christianity to sink in in Rome before Tacitus writes Annals and no evidence that the source that Tacitus draws upon isn't a Christian source. Like the Pliny example, to cite this as evidence for a historical Jesus is grasping just a bit.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tacitus and Pliny are writing after 110 CE - we know from the Gospels there were Christians who believed the Jesus story by then, so Tacitus and Pliny are really only telling us what we already know.

And just because the Gospels are believed to be true by religious people does not make them useless as evidence. Lots of ancient writings are full of magic - are texts about the Roman Emperors only evidence because nobody believes the miracle stories anymore?

No, the fact that the Gospels are believed as true doesn't make them useless as evidence. The fact (which I've outlined over the course of several posts) is that they're not even trying to be historical records. They're written as fictional novels by people removed temporally and geographically from the events they depict and riddled with factual errors, internal and external contradictions and fabricated stories. That's what makes them useless as evidence.

server down

Actually the gospels aren’t useless as evidence at all. There’s some definite commonalities and the common themes are non-miraculous (Jewish, grew up in Palestine, preached late enough in life, baptised by John the Baptist, went to Jerusalem at one eventful Passover, alarmed the Roman authorities, was crucified).

It’s the miraculous stuff that’s not consistent across the gospels.

A made up miraculous figure (for what ever reason) would have consistent miracles across the four books, and either less consistent back stories, or none.