jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 22, 2017 23:03:42 GMT
As a new-born babe here at Quodlibeta, I think that a good place to start my life here is discussing the "Jesus Myth." That is, I'd like to discuss the very controversial claim that the Jesus who is believed to have inspired the New Testament never existed as a real man but was created from stories about pagan gods and figures. This "Christ-Myth Theory" has been made popular by writers like DM Murdoch, Richard Carrier, Robert Price, and David Fitzgerald. Needless to say, many Christian apologists hate this theory because if Jesus never existed, then they have no salvation.
So what's my opinion on the historicity of Jesus? I see no reason to disagree with his existence being very possible. Although I do not think that he was born of a virgin, walked on water, or was raised from the dead, he could have been a Jewish peasant who was born in Israel in the first century. He may have seen himself as a very important man who had a mission from God to save Israel. He may have made this mission known to many other Jews preaching and teaching an impending apocalypse. His messianic activities and unorthodox view of the god of the Jews may have gotten him into trouble with the Jewish leaders who disagreed with him. If the Romans were aware of Jesus, they could have seen him as a trouble maker who needed to be stopped and stopped by crucifixion. We can safely assume that Rome did occupy Israel in the first century. The Jews hated this occupation and often rebelled against it. Apocalyptic Jewish preachers arose to assure the Jews that God would soon remedy the dire situation. Jesus may have been one of these preachers.
Or maybe not. Those who insist that Jesus was real like to point to not only the Bible as information about Jesus but extra-Biblical sources like Josephus and Tacitus who presumably mentioned Jesus. If we look at this evidence, though, we see some obvious problems. Josephus, for example, said very little about Jesus. What he did say in his Testimonium Flavianum seems very strange considering that he is quoted as saying Jesus was the Messiah, but Josephus was never a Christian and would probably not believe Jesus was the Messiah.
So I'm sitting on the fence, you might say. Jesus could have been real or made up. Can you help me make up my mind?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 23, 2017 12:21:31 GMT
Hi jagella, and welcome.
I doubt I can help you make up your mind, and I'm not sure anyone else here can either. But I'll at least ask you a question or three.
1. Are you a New Testament historian (you know, relevant PhD, working in the field and publishing, etc)?
2. If not, do you think non experts like us should take significant notice of those who are NT historians? Or do you think we each have enough skill to work it all out for ourselves?
3. If you think we should work it out for ourselves, how would you go about that?
I suggest your answers to these questions might determine whether anyone here can help you make up your mind.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 23, 2017 14:23:48 GMT
Hi jagella, and welcome. I doubt I can help you make up your mind, and I'm not sure anyone else here can either. But I'll at least ask you a question or three. 1. Are you a New Testament historian (you know, relevant PhD, working in the field and publishing, etc)? 2. If not, do you think non experts like us should take significant notice of those who are NT historians? Or do you think we each have enough skill to work it all out for ourselves? 3. If you think we should work it out for ourselves, how would you go about that? I suggest your answers to these questions might determine whether anyone here can help you make up your mind. Thanks! It's good that you think I might be a New-Testament historian. I have no degrees in the New Testament. I might call myself a "Christian studies enthusiast." I'm retired and spend a lot of time studying issues like the historicity of Jesus. I've read many books about Christianity including the Bible. Many of these books are written by Christian apologists like William Lane Craig, and others are written by skeptics like Paul Kurtz. I make a point of considering both sides of the issues and all the sides in between. I'm currently working on a book that I've entitled Jesus: Human, Hoax, or God? I hope to finish it next year and would like to have it published. Yes. It's always good to consider what those with recognized accomplishments in the study of the New Testament have to say. For instance, I have studied the work of people like Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman. We must work out these issues for ourselves. If we have enough skill to come up with the "right" answers is another matter. It seems to me that nobody has the last say on many questions about Jesus and Christianity. The "experts" disagree often enough. I think the best we can do is make educated guesses that we are satisfied are the right answers. In addition to reading books, I make use of online resources like search engines, Wikipedia, and YouTube. Of course, I also discuss Christian issues in forums like this one. I try to be objective and fair with the information I encounter. I'm hoping to discuss these questions with somebody who has an opinion that differs from mine--perhaps a Christian who is convinced that Jesus did exist and who can make a case for his existence. Thanks again! I hope to hear from you soon.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 23, 2017 15:46:06 GMT
I would refer you to Simon Greenleaf's "Testimony of the Evangelists" law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html Simon Greenleaf was a principal founder of the Harvard Law School. As a non-believer, he was challenged to apply his skills as the leading expert on legal evidence to disprove the reliability and authenticity of the testimony of the four gospels.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 23, 2017 18:08:34 GMT
I would refer you to Simon Greenleaf's "Testimony of the Evangelists" law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html Simon Greenleaf was a principal founder of the Harvard Law School. As a non-believer, he was challenged to apply his skills as the leading expert on legal evidence to disprove the reliability and authenticity of the testimony of the four gospels. Thanks for the link. Is your point that although Simon Greenleaf was a lawyer and not a historian or New Testament scholar, he nevertheless can bring his expertise "to the table" to shed light on the truth of the gospels? Although I'm not sure that knowledge of modern jurisprudence is necessarily applicable to the Bible, I think it's worth a try. Besides, if we insist that a person needs to be an expert in Biblical studies to truly know the gospel story, then the large majority of Christians would be excluded from understanding it. My own impression of the gospels is that they were not written to inform but to convert the reader to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. As such, they should not be readily trusted as information about Jesus. The reader needs to take care to separate the historical wheat from the religious chaff.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Oct 24, 2017 0:34:26 GMT
It's good that you think I might be a New-Testament historian. He doesn't think you're a New Testament historian. He's asking a rhetorical question to get you to look at the significance of the fact that you aren't one. While I don't want to discourage you, do you really think the world needs yet another book by an amateur who has read a little bit about the subject, mainly books by non-specialists and non-historians (like Craig and Kurtz), which talks about what the amateur believes? I can think of better ways for you to spend your time. Or you can look at the points on which the experts don't really disagree. That a historical Jesus existed is one of those points of consensus. How about an atheist who is convinced Jesus (probably) did exist and can make a case for his existence? Try my article here: - History for Atheists: Did Jesus Exist? The Jesus Myth Theory, Again.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 24, 2017 14:09:42 GMT
He doesn't think you're a New Testament historian. How do you know what he's thinking? How do you know what I am or am not? Anybody who studies the historicity of the New Testament might be said to be a historian. It appears that you do wish to discourage me from writing my book. If you're so concerned about "amateurs," then why interact with anybody in this forum? After all, the large majority of Christians do not hold degrees in the New Testament. Do they have nothing to say about their faith? Incidentally, I have to laugh at those who insist that Jesus existed and also insist that mythicists are not qualified to judge the historicity of Jesus. They need degrees in the New Testament! Historicists then look to the New Testament to establish Jesus as a real guy. They seem oblivious to the fact that the writers of the New Testament are far from experts. We don't even know who many of them were. Talk about special pleading! Well, I suppose I could chase eighteen-year-old girls, but it's safer to write a book. I'm well aware that most New Testament scholars believe in a "historical" Jesus. Is that why you conclude that Jesus was a real man? Thanks for the links. Why do you mention that you're an atheist? Does that fact make your opinion more credible? Anyway, I'll try to get back to you about your article... (Edit) ...as promised, I just got done reading DID JESUS EXIST? THE JESUS MYTH THEORY, AGAIN. It has a professional air to it, has decent depth for an article, and should be convincing to at least some people. As you should know, there is simply no proof for the existence of Jesus. What evidence that is offered for the existence of Jesus is weak, in my opinion, and that includes the evidence you present in your article. To improve your case, I strongly suggest you refrain from stressing how many scholars consider Jesus to be historical. To appeal to the majority is a logical fallacy. Democracy does not decide the truth of a matter. Although stating that most scholars accept Jesus as historical fact may supply some good background information about the debate with mythicists, it in no way provides any evidence for the historicity of Jesus. To go on about this consensus makes you seem like you are a bit desperate to fend off anybody who disagrees with your position. You also err, in my opinion, when you criticize mythicists for having "clear ideological objectives." Everybody has such a bias, including those in your own camp. What could be more ideological than to insist that the god of the Christian religion was a real person while recognizing that all other gods were made up by pagans? The large majority of Jesus scholars are Christians, so we should not be surprised that they have a "clear ideological objective" in that Jesus must have been a real man. OK, I know that some atheists who are scholars also insist that Jesus lived as a man, but they have a stake in his existence too. If you spend your professional life writing of a historical Jesus, then it would be darned embarrassing to admit you're wrong about his existence. Now, I do agree that some of the mythicist arguments you discuss are weak. That's why I'm not a mythicist. I need to see better reasons to conclude that there was no Jesus. That said, I find it strange that anybody could miss the fanciful nature of Jesus and his life. He was a magic man who came from a heavenly realm, performed miracles, rose from his grave, and then went sailing off into the sky returning bodily to his heavenly realm while telepathically communicating with his followers from there. Oh sure, Tim, that's a real guy all right! Now, you do provide some evidence for this magic man although you divest him of his magical powers and his deity to make his history plausible. You document that Jesus was mentioned by both Josephus and Tacitus. I think there's at least two problems with this evidence. First, how does anyone mentioning Jesus make him a real man? Zeus and Osiris were mentioned often by people of that time. Do you think they are real? The second problem involves knowing the sources of information that these men used regarding Jesus. We do not know what those sources are, and they easily could have been based on what Christians said about Jesus. If so, then we only have the very biased word of Christians to use as a source of information about Jesus. Again, I'm not a mythicist. Maybe Jesus was a real person, and maybe he was made up. I'm not sure what Jesus was. I am sure that I will continue to investigate this issue. I will research all sides of the issue and come up to my own conclusions.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 24, 2017 15:29:11 GMT
Greenleaf's expertise is in assessing the reliability and authenticity of the basic facts upon which historians and New Testament scholars base their arguments.
"My own impression of the gospels is that they were not written to inform but to convert the reader to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. As such, they should not be readily trusted as information about Jesus. The reader needs to take care to separate the historical wheat from the religious chaff." If that were true, the gospels would pander to the prejudices of the general public and avoid such disagreeable topics as "10 commandments," "sin," and "need for repentance." The gospels instead present the facts, and God judges the individual's reaction to those facts. Christianity is unique among religious/philosophical systems in its basis in historical fact (i.e. recent creation, global flood, and Christ's resurrection from the dead), rather than baseless speculation.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Oct 24, 2017 17:54:44 GMT
How do you know what he's thinking? You're new here. I'm not and neither is he. Call it a wild guess. You can be pretty certain unkleE was referring to professionals, not people like you. I actually said I didn't want to discourage you - you can do whatever the hell you want. I merely asked you to consider if the world really needs yet another book of that kind and who exactly would want to read it. I'm not "concerned" about amateurs. I simply asked what purpose this book is supposed to serve for people other than you. I can see (or guess) what you might get out of writing it - perhaps it might be therapeutic for you. But if people want to explore the question of who or what Jesus was or wasn't there are already plenty of books by experts out there that would help them better than anything you could write. That is a bizarre caricature of how so-called "historicists" use the NT material. If that is an example of the level of reasoning you will be displaying in this book, then I strongly suggest you don't bother. No. It means an obvious issue of confirmation bias is removed. So, yes.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 24, 2017 20:54:44 GMT
Hi Jagella, Thanks for your reply to my questions. In my experience discussing christianity on the web, many discussions can never reach any satisfactory conclusion because the protagonists are basing their views on very different understandings of evidence and knowledge. That is why I asked you those questions. And I think your answers reveal you have a different approach to me. Let me briefly explain. You say "Anybody who studies the historicity of the New Testament might be said to be a historian." I think this is key to where we differ. I am a christian, have been for about 55 years (yes I too am retired), so naturally I have read and studied the New Testament quite a lot. I have also read a pile of books about the NT written by scholars of various viewpoints, and I read a lot online also. So on your criterion I would be a historian. But I certainly don't call myself that, for these reasons: - I haven't been through the discipline of formal study beyond a Bachelor degree (I have a BD degree) - such study ensures that those with PhDs have had a broad education, and have studied their topic in a manner that is verified to have been comprehensive.
- I am not fluent in any of the languages of the NT times (Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, etc) and have only a rudimentary ability in Greek, whereas scholars have to have reasonable familiarity with them.
- I have never participated in an archaeological dig and I don't attend conferences where I interact with other experts.
- It is a hobby of mine in a sense, not my profession that I have worked in consistently for decades.
- Although my reading is extensive for a layperson, it would be minimal compared with a genuine historian.
- And through all this, a scholar learns to avoid the most obvious biases they bring to the questions they are considering. Everyone has a bias, but academia helps reduce the impact.
All this means that, while I have quite good knowledge of the NT and NT times, I don't have the background and perspective to make the sorts of fine judgments that historians and other scholars need to make. For example, if someone calls the story of Jesus a myth, I will want to understand whether they have read other myths of the time, and other biographies, and they can tell the difference. I will want to know whether they have enough knowledge to compare the evidence for Jesus with that for other historical figures whose existence no-one doubts, and not base their opinions on the levels of knowledge we have today (which so often happens). Then you say "The "experts" disagree often enough. I think the best we can do is make educated guesses that we are satisfied are the right answers." We disagree here too. Sure the experts disagree often enough, but they also agree about a lot about Jesus. For example, EP Sanders is one of the most respected of NT scholars of the past few decades, and he wrote at the start of one of his books (The Historical Figure of Jesus, p10-11, my emphasis.): In my reading, I have found few scholars who would disagree with that list, and even fewer who think Jesus didn't exist as a man in first century Galilee. So I think we don't have to make "guesses" about Jesus, we can start with what virtually every historian (whether believer or non-believer, whether NT historian or classical historian) has concluded, that there are some minimal facts about jesus that virtually every expert considers to be established by historical study. Tim and I disagree about many things - he is an atheist and I am a christian - and we have in the past argued these things out on this forum. But those arguments have a common basis, that we accept what the experts say, even if we interpret their conclusions differently. So I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Tim would probably agree with most of what Sanders says. So there is at least something he and I don't have to guess about, and our disagreement can proceed from that basis. So I feel the same about you. If you are able to accept the consensus of historians, then we have a basis for discussion, but if you take the views you have expressed here, it is difficult to see how discussion could be productive. In my experience, those who are unwilling to accept the expert consensus tend to make outlandish statements that are based on their own biases. After all, the experts have come to their conclusions for good reason. I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from. Thanks.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 24, 2017 21:01:01 GMT
Greenleaf's expertise is in assessing the reliability and authenticity of the basic facts upon which historians and New Testament scholars base their arguments. Greenleaf's expertise appears to be out-of-date. For instance, he takes the Noachian flood to be literal history. I think it possible that just as we now know better than to take Noah as historical, we might some day see Jesus the same way. Well if you know the gospels to be presenting the facts, then there is no debate! I disagree, of course. That "historical fact" you speak of could be a way by which the gospel writers differentiated Jesus from all the pagan gods. By making Jesus real, he was marketed as somehow being more legitimate than the pagan gods he was patterned on.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 24, 2017 21:35:13 GMT
You can be pretty certain unkleE was referring to professionals, not people like you. I suppose we just disagree about the role of "professionals." I define a professional as somebody who knows more than I do. Although I respect accomplishments like earning college degrees (I've earned two degrees in business), everybody has a brain. I think you insult people telling them that they're too stupid to understand the issue of the historicity of Jesus. From what I've seen the presumed professionals make plenty of dumb mistakes (more on this shortly.) Again, more insults. You seem to be emotionally involved with the issue of Jesus' historicity. Is that why you lash out at those with views not your own? Do you feel threatened in some way? But I see them doing it all the time! To discuss Jesus and what he allegedly did, they quote the gospels and/or the epistles. They argue for the historical authenticity of these works or at least parts of them as authentic. As such, they tacitly admit that one does not need to have a degree in anything to convey the facts. By the way, I edited my earlier response to you to include a critique of DID JESUS EXIST? THE JESUS MYTH THEORY, AGAIN. Scroll up to read it. I'd like to add more. You also wrote: The crucifixion story as a myth created by the early Christians is not at all hard to explain. Use your imagination! The story of the crucifixion creates sympathy for Jesus and guilt for his "death" at the hands of the hated Romans. It can act as a motive for conversion. Also, it sets up the resurrection, and a resurrected Messiah is amazing and nothing to be ashamed of. The fact that the crucifixion story has not prevented Christianity from becoming the world's largest religion demonstrates that it is a useful story indeed. I think that the New Testament writers understood the way the crucifixion story would play out, and that's why they may have made it up.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 25, 2017 0:05:46 GMT
Hi Jagella, Thanks for your reply to my questions. And thank you for your hospitality. Yes, but perhaps the greatest reason these discussions never reach a "satisfactory conclusion" is that there is no proof either way. In this discussion we must rely on documents to judge if Jesus was a real guy. Those documents might be truthful in that they portray a real man, or they might be lying about his existence. It's impossible to know which conclusion is correct. That's why we're arguing the issue. With the evidence available to us, it's all we can do. Let's not get too hung up on words. Based on what you have studied, you do know a lot about the New Testament. What's important to me isn't what you are called. It's what you know that matters to me. You're appealing to authority and to the majority here. Authority and the majority and not necessarily correct, and you need to know why they have reached their conclusions to judge if they're correct. If I told you that "Sure the experts disagree often enough, but they also agree that evolution occurs," would that be a good reason to believe that life evolves? I would never make such a poor argument for the Theory of Evolution, and you should not make such a poor argument for the historicity of Jesus. So I feel the same about you. If you are able to accept the consensus of historians, then we have a basis for discussion, but if you take the views you have expressed here, it is difficult to see how discussion could be productive. Oh we can have a very productive discussion. Let's examine what the Bible has to say about Jesus as well as other sources including the "experts." We can then use basic logic and do some research to see if we have enough evidence to conclude that Jesus was a historical figure or that he was made up. You and I both have good brains. Let's use them and come up with our own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 25, 2017 12:08:40 GMT
Let's examine what the Bible has to say about Jesus as well as other sources including the "experts." We can then use basic logic and do some research to see if we have enough evidence to conclude that Jesus was a historical figure or that he was made up. You and I both have good brains. Let's use them and come up with our own conclusions. I think you haven't understood what I wrote last time. How would you determine if there is enough evidence? In my experience, you would likely use some standard from your own present day experience that would be quite inappropriate. For example, you say "there is no proof either way". But proof is a totally inappropriate concept for historical study, especially ancient history. If we required absolute proof as in mathematics, or beyond reasonable doubt as in a court of law, or 95% confidence limits as in science, we would hardly know anything in ancient history. Well, no, I wasn't. You made the numbers statement that experts disagree, so I made another numbers statement that often they don't. But even if I did appeal to authority, that is entirely appropriate in an area of empirical knowledge. If someone knows something I don't know, it is appropriate that I trust their view on matters of fact. You say appealing to authority is a poor argument, but it isn't an argument at all in philosophical terms, it is simply establishing facts on which we could base an argument. Well, maybe, but scholars who have studied ancient history for decades know more than either of us, and we need to start with them. Just think if we applied your thinking to other areas of life. If I have a brain tumour would I trust someone who has a good brain but no qualifications or experience in brain surgery, or someone who has studied and practiced for decades? Or if I am about to fly overseas, would I feel more comfortable if the pilot was someone who has a good brain and knows a lot about flying, or a qualified pilot who has flown that plane on that route for 10 years? Sure, there is a time for using my brain and arguing for my conclusions, but until we have the facts, our arguments are baseless. So, I'm sorry, your reply doesn't give me any confidence that discussion would be any more than the blind arguing with the blind.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Oct 25, 2017 12:12:42 GMT
You seem to be emotionally involved with the issue of Jesus' historicity. Is that why you lash out at those with views not your own? Do you feel threatened in some way? Honest enquiry, with respect for professionals who are educated and know what they're talking about, will get you respected here. Passive-aggressive smugness won't. To you, maybe. Back then, crucifixion would do the opposite. The Jews thought anyone killed on a tree was cursed (Deut 21:22, 1 Cor 1:23). To the Romans, it was shameful and degrading, a punishment for common criminals. A Roman having sympathy for a crucified man is like a modern westerner having sympathy for an exposed, unrepentant paedophile - socially, it just wouldn't happen. The social data indicate that a crucified saviour is precisely NOT the sort of thing one would make up if one were trying to start a religion in 1st century Palestine. It's an embarrassing, shameful event which it would be in the apostles' interest to avoid telling. The fact that they include it regardless indicates its authenticity. No, it indicates that Jesus' shame was overcome by the Resurrection. Now, you can believe that the Resurrection really happened (as I do), or that it was synthesised (as Tim does) - but it doesn't affect the historicity of the crucifixion, or of Jesus as a man.
|
|