Debate on Whether Jesus Was a Historical Figure

[John W. Loftus]

Enjoy this debate and chime in. It's a debate I'm involved in. To my own dismay I'm partially agreeing with the extremely obnoxious and childish J.P. Holding that Jesus was a historical person who founded the Jesus cult (my view can be found below his on the left side). But, I'm also agreeing with Dr. Frank Zindler of American Atheists, that the Jesus figure was made up of many mythical elements. My position is a middle one between theirs that fits the data better.

What I find completely unjustifiable is that Holding accepts all of the elements in the Gospels as historically reliable. And what I find somewhat odd is that Zindler thinks I have the burden of proof (since textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise), and he doesn't present a theory of how such a cultic movement began in the first place.

http://www.opposingviews.com/questio...torical-figure

[Toto]

The format of that debate is hard to follow. I gave up after clicking on a few posts, since it didn't seem that anyone has anything new to say. Is there a way of displaying the posts in a message board type format? Or could you point out anything of particular interest?

[Jayrok]

Agree with Toto.. the debate is hard to follow in that format.

The following quote is taken from one of Frank Zindler's entries in the debate:


"The question can probably be laid to rest by noting that as late as the sixteenth century, according to Rylands, a scholar named Vossius had a manuscript of Josephus from which the passage was wanting."


Is there anything to this claim? I've read other commentaries that say Vossius had a copy of Josephus that did not contain the passage on Jesus, but that is all I could find -- the claim. Is there an article available that discusses this manuscript somewhere?

[GakuseiDon]

I agree with Toto. The format is difficult to follow. It would be better if responses could be combined into the one thread.

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Agree with Toto.. the debate is hard to follow in that format.

The following quote is taken from one of Frank Zindler's entries in the debate:


"The question can probably be laid to rest by noting that as late as the sixteenth century, according to Rylands, a scholar named Vossius had a manuscript of Josephus from which the passage was wanting."


Is there anything to this claim? I've read other commentaries that say Vossius had a copy of Josephus that did not contain the passage on Jesus, but that is all I could find -- the claim. Is there an article available that discusses this manuscript somewhere?

Check out this old thread.

Ben.

[Toto]

Yes, I just located that thread, and if Zindler is still using the Vossius argument, he has not been paying attention.

[Jayrok]

Thank you, Ben.

[spin]

I'm bemused about this "Verified Expert" crud, especially when they don't seem to know much about doing history at all. Verified by whom? Expert in what?

More importantly does anyone understand the notion of a "verified witness"? One doesn't let just anyone provide testimony in a court case. There has to be a way of verifying testimony. There is no "presumption of truth unless shown otherwise". There is only "make your case based on evidence". Bernstein and Woodward had to test the veracity of Deep Throat, so too do those who would like to use the gospels as historical sources.


spin

[John W. Loftus]

I agree with everyone about the format. It is indeed hard to follow. They have some kind of standard for what makes a person a verified expert, but what it is I don't know. It's just that not anyone can debate anything. They want people with degrees, books, or people they consider "important" for one reason or another to debate the issues, that's all.

[aa5874]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Enjoy this debate and chime in. It's a debate I'm involved in. To my own dismay I'm partially agreeing with the extremely obnoxious and childish J.P. Holding that Jesus was a historical person who founded the Jesus cult (my view can be found below his on the left side). But, I'm also agreeing with Dr. Frank Zindler of American Atheists, that the Jesus figure was made up of many mythical elements. My position is a middle one between theirs that fits the data better.

What I find completely unjustifiable is that Holding accepts all of the elements in the Gospels as historically reliable. And what I find somewhat odd is that Zindler thinks I have the burden of proof (since textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise), and he doesn't present a theory of how such a cultic movement began in the first place.

http://www.opposingviews.com/questio...torical-figure

You claim that textual evidence is good evidence, yet you ignore all the good textual evidence that clearly depicts Jesus as a myth.

Why is that?

The textual evidence claimed Jesus was concieved of the Holy Ghost and was born of a virgin, tempted on the pinnacle of the Temple, raised a man from the dead after four days, was transifugured, brought some prophets, dead for hundred of years, back to life, resurected and ascended through the clouds as witnessed, all these are good textual evidence for a myth.

You cannot ignore the best textual evidence and then use your belief as a substitute. Your belief cannot match the good textual evidence that Jesus was a myth.

Eusebius, and the church writers all use the very same good textual evidence to claim Jesus was Divine.

And, by the way, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny never mentioned the word Jesus at all in their writings.

[Minimalist]

To my own dismay I'm partially agreeing with the extremely obnoxious and childish J.P. Holding that Jesus was a historical person who founded the Jesus cult

But perhaps you might just take the opportunity to specify what historical evidence supports that position. The self-serving rantings of christians do not meet that standard.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

http://www.opposingviews.com/questio...torical-figure

Dear John,

In answer to this rhetorical(?) question at your website, here is a quote from the Acts of John:

... I often wished, as I walked with him, to see his footprint, whether it appeared on the ground (for I saw him as it were raised up from the earth), and I never saw it. (§ 93)

You should ask your debating partner what the author of the Acts of John had in mind when he wrote this.

Best wishes,


Pete

[show_no_mercy]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

What I find completely unjustifiable is that Holding accepts all of the elements in the Gospels as historically reliable.

This is odd considering that he posted that the silence from Jesus' contemporaries isn't an argument against Jesus. If he accepts all of the gospel elements as true, then Jesus' overreaching popularity would be included. Which more than likely would have been mentioned by quite a few of Jesus' contemporaries.

The fact that he's not mentioned by any of his contemporaries means that - at the least - Jesus wasn't as popular as the gospels portray him to be. So he can't both accept *all* of the elements of the gospels as true and think that the silence from Jesus' contemporaries isn't a compelling argument.

[spamandham]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

What I find completely unjustifiable is that Holding accepts all of the elements in the Gospels as historically reliable.

Holding is an apologist who thinks it's his job to defend the almighty from mortals of infinitely less intellect or power. What else would you expect from such a person?

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

And what I find somewhat odd is that Zindler thinks I have the burden of proof (since textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise),

Usually is not the same as always. If I were involved in this, I would demand they justify their assumptions. Obviously, 'history' is not the only genre of literature. Force them to tell you the intents of the authors, and to prove it reasonably. They can not reasonably make any claims as to historical evidence of the texts without first establishing the motives of the authors. That's so obviously fundamental, that anyone who disagrees discredits themselves. How many people would argue that the text of "Tom Sawyer" is evidence of a historical Aunt Polly? The intent of the author isn't just an aside, it's EVERYTHING.

Holding has manipulated you into accepting his hidden critical premise that the NT was intended by the authors to be objective history. You are now left on the defensive trying to argue that the authors, though well intentioned, were simply wrong. Yet, there is no reason to even suspect they were attempting to accurately record history.

[spin]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

(since textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise)

This is a shocking attitude ("shocking" in a literal sense). In a society where disinformation has been the staple diet, lies, hype, bias, spin, being the common fare, a person can state in all innocence that "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise". But this has been the case ever since text was used to move people. "Uncle Sam needs you!" to aid in the repression of some banana republic so its wealth can be fleeced. "Jews are christ killers" because they have lucrative financial dealings and we want to take advantage of them. "Woman was made from the rib of Adam" and so she is beholding to him.

People write text for self-aggrandizement, for group aggrandizement, to please patrons, to convince others, to inform others, to organize thoughts, too alienate people.

Text isn't evidence for anything until it can be shown to be evidence. To show its status, you need to be able to indicate when it was written -- which gives it the opportunity to represent what it was written about from direct knowledge --; you need to indicate where it was written; you need to deal with why it was written -- a harder concern, but just as necessary, because it will reflect on the ostensible content. You also need to consider if it was based on direct access to the purported information or whether it was mediated access through other sources.

The naivety level of "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise" is what allows media manipulation of unprepared populations for the aims of their governing powers.

You need to consider information as though you were going into a court of law, seeking a conviction based on it. You must be able to show its relevance or the court will reject its content without hearing it. Once you've validated your witness's testimony, ie turned it into evidence, then it can be evaluated. (The court is only an analogy to point out your responsibilities in prosecuting your case.)

You cannot seriously rely on simpleton claims such as "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise". It allows you to assume most of the job you have to do and dismisses your results as unfounded.


spin

[dog-on]

Good post, Spin.

[John W. Loftus]

Originally Posted by spin

This is a shocking attitude ("shocking" in a literal sense). In a society where disinformation has been the staple diet, lies, hype, bias, spin, being the common fare, a person can state in all innocence that "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise". But this has been the case ever since text was used to move people. "Uncle Sam needs you!" to aid in the repression of some banana republic so its wealth can be fleeced. "Jews are christ killers" because they have lucrative financial dealings and we want to take advantage of them. "Woman was made from the rib of Adam" and so she is beholding to him.

People write text for self-aggrandizement, for group aggrandizement, to please patrons, to convince others, to inform others, to organize thoughts, too alienate people.

Text isn't evidence for anything until it can be shown to be evidence. To show its status, you need to be able to indicate when it was written -- which gives it the opportunity to represent what it was written about from direct knowledge --; you need to indicate where it was written; you need to deal with why it was written -- a harder concern, but just as necessary, because it will reflect on the ostensible content. You also need to consider if it was based on direct access to the purported information or whether it was mediated access through other sources.

The naivety level of "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise" is what allows media manipulation of unprepared populations for the aims of their governing powers.

You need to consider information as though you were going into a court of law, seeking a conviction based on it. You must be able to show its relevance or the court will reject its content without hearing it. Once you've validated your witness's testimony, ie turned it into evidence, then it can be evaluated. (The court is only an analogy to point out your responsibilities in prosecuting your case.)

You cannot seriously rely on simpleton claims such as "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise". It allows you to assume most of the job you have to do and dismisses your results as unfounded.


spin

Did you read through my arguments, all of them? Here they are bundled together (click to the right for the next one):

http://www.opposingviews.com/argumen...jesus-movement

Have you read through the other thread here on textual evidence?

And have you read agnostic Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman's book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet on the New Millennium?

What I have argued for stands squarely within the ovewhelming consensus of peer-reviewed scholars. We could all be wrong. It's possible that there never was a historical Jesus. I grant that. When it comes to textual evidence found in the past it is considered precious to historians. There is much more to be said about this evidence than a line or two that I wrote. And there is much I can agree with you about. We must verify that evidence, date it, and so forth. I think you are reading into my claim much more than I mean by it, and unjustifiably so.

In any case, first read through my argument and come back here if you want to dispute what I said. I learn from every honest critic.

[John W. Loftus]

Originally Posted by spamandham

How many people would argue that the text of "Tom Sawyer" is evidence of a historical Aunt Polly? The intent of the author isn't just an aside, it's EVERYTHING.

Agreed. This is standard hermeneutics. It seems as though the intent of the NT writers and the way they were interpreted by the early church was that they were describing the acts of a real person. Just look at Luke's prologue and I John.

Holding has manipulated you into accepting his hidden critical premise that the NT was intended by the authors to be objective history.

Holding has not manipulated me about anything. I don't like that scumbag.

You are now left on the defensive trying to argue that the authors, though well intentioned, were simply wrong.

They were wrong just like Benny Hinn's followers are wrong when they claim he does miracles. But that no more makes Hinn a mythical being than Jesus. Sure we can verify Hinn's existence. But what if we backed up his ministry to the first century CE? I just don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm willing to do the hard work of distinguishing truth from fiction rather than either accepting it all (like Holding) or rejecting it all (like Zindler).

[Dutch_labrat]

Originally Posted by dog-on

Good post, Spin.

Quite true. I always ask myself "Who is telling me this, why are they telling me this and how the F* do they know?"

In most cases it is easiest to lie in written text. The writer has more time to construct the lies and more important there is no body language to give him away.

[John W. Loftus]

Originally Posted by aa5874

You claim that textual evidence is good evidence, yet you ignore all the good textual evidence that clearly depicts Jesus as a myth.

Why is that?

The textual evidence claimed Jesus was concieved of the Holy Ghost and was born of a virgin, tempted on the pinnacle of the Temple, raised a man from the dead after four days, was transifugured, brought some prophets, dead for hundred of years, back to life, resurected and ascended through the clouds as witnessed, all these are good textual evidence for a myth.

You cannot ignore the best textual evidence and then use your belief as a substitute. Your belief cannot match the good textual evidence that Jesus was a myth.

Eusebius, and the church writers all use the very same good textual evidence to claim Jesus was Divine.

And, by the way, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny never mentioned the word Jesus at all in their writings.

My view is the same as Jeffery Jay Lowder's on this issue. Textual evidence is prima facia evidence. If I said it was "good" evidence as quoted then I misspoke myself. Prima facia evidence is evidence "on its first appearance." If you found a very old looking note in the sand on the beach that said: "I, Pete the Pirate, buried my treasure here." You would accept it enough to want to dig down further, wouldn't you? That's what I mean. No one would say, "Naw, there's no treasure here" and walk away.

But my skeptical control beliefs would kick in if the note said, "On this spot Zeus was born." So I agree with you about those things in the NT that describe miracles. They didn't happen. But that does not mean there was no miracle worker who was believed to do miracles. That is a non-sequitur.

[spin]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Did you read through my arguments, all of them? Here they are bundled together (click to the right for the next one):

http://www.opposingviews.com/argumen...jesus-movement

Yes, I'd read through this perhaps a day before posting. And here is a critique of it:

Statement of conclusion.

While I think we can prove that many people of the ancient past existed, the same is not the case regarding the gospel figure Jesus. We don't have enough evidence to make any historical conclusions regarding Jesus. This means that this Jesus was not in any sense a historical figure. He may have existed. He may not.

Tacitus was writing in the 2nd century...

...as was Suetonius.

This last particular item has no primary source, ie any original doesn't exist. We have the claim of an inscription.

(Umm, Mark is a gospel...)

Which recent scholars think that Paul wrote Timothy?

Also here, I have argued against the veracity of 1 Cor 15:3-11.

1 Cor 12:3 doesn't seem creedal in any sense.

1 Cor 8:6 is another great case of a Pauline passage (here about food offered to idols) waylaid, a cuckoo in the nest.

In most of your examples I think the opposite is true.

This is quite a leap. Irenaeus was writing circa 180 CE.

Polycarp is difficult to date, seeing as he was known from a historical indication as living around 160 CE. Ignatius is highly debatable for date and worth.

The first direct reference to gospel material we ahve is from so-called harmonized refrences in Justin, circa 160 CE.

Different manifestations of a tradition do not equate to independent writers. You assume what you need.

While I may agree with this statement I can't see how it follows from much you've said b efore it.

Yet Paul didn't need to have had any direct interaction with a Jesus to go out and start churches. It was sufficient that he had a revelation of ideas not received from humans, not taught to him by humans. He had a revelation as he tells us in Gal 1:11-12 and went on to start several communities of Jesus believers. I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Have you read through the other thread here on textual evidence?

Did you actually read what I wrote in the post you are responding to?

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

And have you read agnostic Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman's book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet on the New Millennium?

No.

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

What I have argued for stands squarely within the ovewhelming consensus of peer-reviewed scholars.

Congratulations, but pardon me if I'm not impressed with people who don't really show any but the most rudimentary knowledge of historiography.

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

We could all be wrong. It's possible that there never was a historical Jesus. I grant that.

While that's noble, the same cuts the other way. There is simply not enough evidence to enter into the field of history over the issue. This doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist -- we both accept that possibility --, but there is no historical evidence on the matter.

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

When it comes to textual evidence found in the past it is considered precious to historians.

Did you honestly read what you are responding to from me? Historians have a dialectic relationship with texts. It's not a matter of text being some hallowed source of information. It is that what is in the text has to be teased out to see its worth before it can be used.

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

There is much more to be said about this evidence than a line or two that I wrote. And there is much I can agree with you about. We must verify that evidence, date it, and so forth.

That "so forth" is much of our contention. Text is not evidence per se. And this you don't seem to have indicated an understanding for. Its content has to be shown to be relevant to the period before it can even be considered evidence.

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

I think you are reading into my claim much more than I mean by it, and unjustifiably so.

One can only go by what you actually say, not by what you think.

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

In any case, first read through my argument and come back here if you want to dispute what I said. I learn from every honest critic.

Hmmm.


spin

[aa5874]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Agreed. This is standard hermeneutics. It seems as though the intent of the NT writers and the way they were interpreted by the early church was that they were describing the acts of a real person. Just look at Luke's prologue and I John.

Homer's Achilles is described as a real person that was on earth. Why is Achilles, the offspring of a sea-goddess, so easily declared to be mythical while Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, is thought by some to have an historical core?

If we ignore Homer's description of Achilles, then it can be claimed that Achilles has an historical core.

You are now left on the defensive trying to argue that the authors, though well intentioned, were simply wrong.

Originally Posted by John W Loftus

They were wrong just like Benny Hinn's followers are wrong when they claim he does miracles. But that no more makes Hinn a mythical being than Jesus. Sure we can verify Hinn's existence. But what if we backed up his ministry to the first century CE? I just don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm willing to do the hard work of distinguishing truth from fiction rather than either accepting it all (like Holding) or rejecting it all (like Zindler).

Why do you think or presuppose that there is a real baby in the water?

You cannot compare the information of Jesus of the NT with Benny Hinn.

Benny Hinn is alive today.

I suggest you use Achilles or other entities described similarly to Jesus of the NT where there are no confirmed or credible sources to support their existence.

Now, would you accept an author as credible who wrote a book about Benny Hinn where everything that was written him was found to be false? Would you think the parts of the book that you could not verify about Benny Hinn would be true just because they appeared plausible?

So, if an author gives the incorrect date of birth of Hinn, where he was born, the incorrect names of parents, false statements about his brothers and sisters, where he went to school, where he lived as a child, and where he worked, would you think that if the author claimed Benny Hinn shaved on the 15th of March 2008, that such information is likely to be true?

The fact is that the writers of the Jesus stories are not credible, the things that can be tested in their Jesus stories all turned out to be false or unlikely to have occurred.

[John W. Loftus]

So, several of you are sure that Jesus never existed? Okay, I guess. It's easy to be a skeptic, isn't it? You may be correct. I don't doubt this. But deal with all of my argument, not just bits and pieces of it. There is no single piece of evidence that supports the view that Jesus was a historical person. You would clearly not do this in any other historical study or you could end up denying the Holocaust, for that’s the same method the deniers use to deny it happened. Each single piece of evidence does not bear the weight of the whole story so they doubt each one on its own terms and conclude it never happened. But that’s not how historical studies should be done. It’s the convergence of evidence.

I do not hope to convince you. And poking holes in my argument doesn't show you are correct until you provide a better theory with fewer holes and more evidence for it than I do. The evidence you have seems to be an argument from silence to me. One can be skeptical of almost ANY claim in the past. Since this is the is the case one must not be so skeptical but instead treat textual evidence as prima facia true. Which means the burden of proof is on the person who denies the text (leaving aside miraculous claims which we can easily deny). Sure we must date the text, and seek to confirm it, but in the absence of independent coroboration we must give it the benefit of the doubt.

Again, there is much more to be said.

Cheers.

[dog-on]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

So, several of you are sure that Jesus never existed? Okay, I guess. It's easy to be a skeptic, isn't it? You may be correct. I don't doubt this. But deal with all of my argument, not just bits and pieces of it. There is no single piece of evidence that supports the view that Jesus was a historical person. You would clearly not do this in any other historical study or you could end up denying the Holocaust, for that’s the same method the deniers use to deny it happened. Each single piece of evidence does not bear the weight of the whole story so they doubt each one on its own terms and conclude it never happened. But that’s not how historical studies should be done. It’s the convergence of evidence.

I do not hope to convince you. And poking holes in my argument doesn't show you are correct until you provide a better theory with fewer holes and more evidence for it than I do. The evidence you have seems to be an argument from silence to me. One can be skeptical of almost ANY claim in the past. Since this is the is the case one must not be so skeptical but instead treat textual evidence as prima facia true. Which means the burden of proof is on the person who denies the text (leaving aside miraculous claims which we can easily deny). Sure we must date the text, and seek to confirm it, but in the absence of independent coroboration we must give it the benefit of the doubt.

Again, there is much more to be said.

Cheers.

Sure, as in 100%? Of course not.

The textual tradition says that Paul is earliest. Paul knows Jesus through divine revelation.

That is the prima facie evidence that Jesus is a fiction/myth.

Now if you want to provide some physical evidence to show that Paul is mistaken or can show that NT scholarship, itself, is mistaken regarding Paul's place in it's textual tradition, please do so.

Until then, based on what we have, myth seems to fit the prima facie evidence the best.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Sure we must date the text, and seek to confirm it.

Dear John,

We have 2 C14 citations - gJudas at 290 CE and gThomas (NHC) at 348 CE (both plus or minus 60 years). How does the C14 confirmation sit with your theory of christian origins?

but in the absence of independent coroboration we must give it the benefit of the doubt.

You may, thousand wouldn't. Who is to say who's right and wrong aside from the C14?

Best wishes,

Pete