Debate on Whether Jesus Was a Historical Figure

[thedistillers]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

There is no need to make me out an enemy of historical standards

Enemy of historical standards would be an exagerration, but for a start, can you name at least one historian who takes the same approach as you do? What is your knowledge of historiography anyway?

If you would just express your modest opinion I wouldn't ask, but you seem quite confident about how history must be done, so I think it's a fair question.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

I understand the debate well enough. Was I supposed to be here to read it, such that I don't understand it if I wasn't here, or something? Is it possible that I just disagree with you? Or are you now claiming that I'm ignorant because I disagree? ....

The way you frame the question, and your assumptions, indicate that you do not realize the status of the debate. The idea that there is any peer reviewed historical research that supports the existence of Jesus has been thoroughly debunked here. The idea that ancient documents must be given any benefit of the doubt as valid history has been thoroughly debunked here. That old quote from Lowder has been discussed to death here.

You can't even answer me without assuming that I have some ideological bias against your position. Believe me, I don't care one way or the other if Jesus existed. You are so committed to your own interpretation that you seem to feel the need to impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees. That's not the point of a discussion. You should be able to identify whether the disagreement is over facts or interpretation, or can be resolved by defining your terms, or whatever. But if you just automatically ascribe any disagreement to your opponent's emotional state, you forclose any production discussion.

I'm sure that your heart is in the right place on some issues. So maybe you should leave it at that.

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by spin

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

1 Corinthians 12.3b:

...and no one can say: Jesus is Lord, except by the holy spirit.

Romans 10.9:

...that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Philippians 2.11:

...and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father.

Would you prefer to call Jesus is Lord confessional rather than credal, since Paul links it with saying or confessing rather than explicitly with believing (that is, with giving credence)?

J. N. D. Kelly offers Jesus is Lord as what he calls a credal element or a credal fragment in Early Christian Creeds.

Ben.

[John W. Loftus]

Originally Posted by thedistillers

Enemy of historical standards would be an exagerration, but for a start, can you name at least one historian who takes the same approach as you do? What is your knowledge of historiography anyway?

If you would just express your modest opinion I wouldn't ask, but you seem quite confident about how history must be done, so I think it's a fair question.

What do you want from me here? I took a masters level class called "Historiography of Theories of History," I wrote a chapter on history and revelation for my M.A. Thesis of Karl Barth, and I have a chapter in my book Carrier recommends so highly titled, "The Poor Evidence of Historical Evidence." Is that enough for you, or do you want me to also list the books and articles I've read too numberous for me to even remember them all, most of which are peer-reviewed material.

[John W. Loftus]

Originally Posted by Toto

The way you frame the question, and your assumptions, indicate that you do not realize the status of the debate. The idea that there is any peer reviewed historical research that supports the existence of Jesus has been thoroughly debunked here. The idea that ancient documents must be given any benefit of the doubt as valid history has been thoroughly debunked here. That old quote from Lowder has been discussed to death here.

Okay, that shows I'm wrong now doesn't it?

You can't even answer me without assuming that I have some ideological bias against your position.

I saw evidence of that, yes.

Believe me, I don't care one way or the other if Jesus existed.

Neither do I.

You are so committed to your own interpretation that you seem to feel the need to impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees.

I think you did that with me.

That's not the point of a discussion. You should be able to identify whether the disagreement is over facts or interpretation, or can be resolved by defining your terms, or whatever. But if you just automatically ascribe any disagreement to your opponent's emotional state, you forclose any production discussion.

Likewise.

I'm sure that your heart is in the right place on some issues. So maybe you should leave it at that.

When it comes to the general case concerning Christianity I am an expert. Of that I am assured. But we can leave it at that.

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by Toto

The idea that there is any peer reviewed historical research that supports the existence of Jesus has been thoroughly debunked here.

This claim, taken as it stands, is absurd. Surely you meant to write this differently (perhaps a different verb for supports?).

Ben.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

This claim, taken as it stands, is absurd. Surely you meant to write this differently (perhaps a different verb for supports?).

Ben.

Is there any peer reviewed historical research on the existence of Jesus? What did you think that I meant?

[Toto]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Okay, that shows I'm wrong now doesn't it?

It might just show that you need to tone down or rework a few claims.

I saw evidence of that [my ideological bias], yes.

What evidence?

Neither do I [care if Jesus existed].

Then why are you so adamant about an issue where the historical evidence is so thin? Agnosticism is a valid position.

I think you did that with me [inpugn motives].

Exactly how? I have no idea what your motives are. I just think that there are issues that you have evidently not considered.

....

When it comes to the general case concerning Christianity I am an expert. Of that I am assured. But we can leave it at that.

You may be an expert on Christian apologetics. That doesn't make you an expert on everything.

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by Toto

What did you think that I meant?

I hoped (and still hope) you meant that no peer reviewed historical research was written for the purpose of directly addressing (and answering in the affirmative) the question: Did Jesus exist?

But that is not what you wrote. You wrote that no peer reviewed historical research supports the existence of Jesus.

Ben.

[Toto]

I'm not sure what the difference is in those two sentences.

Do you claim that there is peer reviewed historical research that supports the claim of the existence of Jesus? What would it be?

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by Toto

I'm not sure what the difference is in those two sentences.

Do you claim that there is peer reviewed historical research that supports the claim of the existence of Jesus? What would it be?

You must be working with a different definition of supports than I am familiar with for these contexts.

Every time a monograph or article compares, for example, the picture we find in a (reconstructed) Testimonium with the picture we find in the gospels and then uses that comparison to draw conclusions about the HJ, that monograph or article is supporting the existence of Jesus. You may say that it is doing so inadequately, but that would be adding to what support means, at least to me in this kind of context.

Ben.

[Ben C Smith]

Why, BTW, do the following works fail to qualify as peer reviewed research that supports an HJ?

• R. T. France, The Evidence for Jesus.
• Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament.
• Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus.
• Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?

Are you simply saying that, IYHO, none of these works supports an HJ successfully?

Ben.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

You must be working with a different definition of supports than I am familiar with for these contexts.

Every time a monograph or article compares, for example, the picture we find in a (reconstructed) Testimonium with the picture we find in the gospels and then uses that comparison to draw conclusions about the HJ, that monograph or article is supporting the existence of Jesus. You may say that it is doing so inadequately, but that would be adding to what support means, at least to me in this kind of context.

Ben.

Perhaps we do have a different idea of what "support" means.

It seems that the essay you describe (do you have an example?) would be assuming the existence of a historical Jesus, not providing evidence that supports the hypothesis that there is a historical Jesus.

Why, BTW, do the following works fail to qualify as peer reviewed research that supports an HJ?

R. T. France, The Evidence for Jesus.
Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament.
Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus.
Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?

Are you simply saying that, IYHO, none of these works supports an HJ successfully?

None use modern standards of history to evaluate the probability of the existence of a historical Jesus, and I don't see evidence that any were peer reviewed. I read RT France (via: amazon.co.uk) and reviewed it here. France decides that all of the extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus is problematic, but that the gospels are sufficient evidence. Van Voorst (via: amazon.co.uk) reports that NT scholars reject the mythicist hypothesis because there are flaws in Wells work.

I have not read Stanton (via: amazon.co.uk) but he does not appear to be a historian, and the book you reference has only a few pages on the issue of whether Jesus existed.

I don't know what you are looking for. I am looking for a professional modern historian who has looked at the issue of whether Jesus existed. I haven't seen one. That's why I think the Jesus Project is breaking new ground.

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by Toto

Perhaps we do have a different idea of what "support" means.

This is what I mean by support in these contexts (to use a silly example). Scholar A argues that all ancient Romans hated truffles. Scholar B, who is arguing that all ancient Romans lacked style and civil graces, says of scholar A: His arguments support my conclusion.

For an argument to support a theory does not entail that the one making the original argument even knew about the theory in question.

It seems that the essay you describe (do you have an example?) would be assuming the existence of a historical Jesus, not providing evidence that supports the hypothesis that there is a historical Jesus.

The scholar himself may be assuming the existence of an HJ; but his argument can still support an HJ.

And no, I do not have a specific example, because examples of this sort of thing are so numerous.

In a different debate, and on a webpage I just linked to on another thread, I give an example of this kind of indirect support, which I offer here by way of clarification. J. Kloppenborg uses Matthew 10.24-39 to argue that, for these units, Luke has preserved the original order of Q. He is assuming that Q exists, of course, but his argument supports the very existence of Q when coupled with other units in which it is Matthew that seems to preserve Q better than Luke. One can certainly question whether his argument supports either of these propositions successfully, but it is still supporting both.

None use modern standards of history to evaluate the probability of the existence of a historical Jesus....

IOW, yes, you are saying that they fail to do so successfully.

...and I don't see evidence that any were peer reviewed.

What are you counting or discounting as peer review?

Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications.

France decides that all of the extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus is problematic, but that the gospels are sufficient evidence.

Okay. Would you say, then, that France is supporting or rejecting an HJ?

Van Voorst (via: amazon.co.uk) reports that NT scholars reject the mythicist hypothesis because there are flaws in Wells work.

When Van Voorst critiques Wells mythicism, is he not supporting an HJ theory?

I don't know what you are looking for.

I was looking for your definition of support.

I am looking for a professional modern historian who has looked at the issue of whether Jesus existed. I haven't seen one. That's why I think the Jesus Project is breaking new ground.

Since your first post, the one I responded to, you have now added modern and (seem to) have specified that by support you mean specifically (directly) investigating the issue of whether Jesus existed. I thank you for that clarification.

Ben.

[spamandham]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Then you have not read what I've said. Jesus was the founder of the Jesus cult. He was a failed apocalyptic doomsday prophet who was a disciple of John the Baptist. He gathered a small band of disciples together and roamed the land preaching this doomsday message and that people should sell all and give to the poor and follow him in waiting for the coming Son of Man who was to rule from Jerusalem after a total cosmic catastrophe in which even the stars fell to earth. This is the bare outline, and it fits with other things we know about the Jewish expectation of a Messiah in that era. He was crucified.

...and all this happened exactly a convenient 40 years before the fall of the temple?

[aa5874]

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

You must be working with a different definition of supports than I am familiar with for these contexts.

Every time a monograph or article compares, for example, the picture we find in a (reconstructed) Testimonium with the picture we find in the gospels and then uses that comparison to draw conclusions about the HJ, that monograph or article is supporting the existence of Jesus. You may say that it is doing so inadequately, but that would be adding to what support means, at least to me in this kind of context.

Ben.

A (reconstructed) Tetimonium is not really history, it is an assumption based on assumption.

[spin]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Then you have not read what I've said.

You're being wishful. The evidence suggests that you are a pot looking for a kettle to accuse.

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Jesus was the founder of the Jesus cult. He was a failed apocalyptic doomsday prophet who was a disciple of John the Baptist. He gathered a small band of disciples together and roamed the land preaching this doomsday message and that people should sell all and give to the poor and follow him in waiting for the coming Son of Man who was to rule from Jerusalem after a total cosmic catastrophe in which even the stars fell to earth. This is the bare outline, and it fits with other things we know about the Jewish expectation of a Messiah in that era. He was crucified. His disciples had visions that he arose from the dead. They concluded that he himself was that Son of Man and that it was he who was going to return to rule and they with him. But as the years went by they had to back off and water down and explain away his original message.

This simply seems to be a somewhat expanded version of the assertions you wrote for "opposing views", which I cited in post #21 of this thread.

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

What is YOUR theory and what evidence do you have for it besides mere conjecture and extreme skepticism?

Why is it that so many people to try this tack of baiting and shifting? "Give me a target to shoot at so I don't have to deal with my own conjectures." When people refuse as you do to get into specifics it usually means that you don't have any specifics.

I don't have a view on the issue. I know what the data is: a complex muddle of traditions without there being any fixed point from which to be able to extract evidence out of the muddle. Traditions are notorious for their multiplication once started. Can you look at the William Tell traditions or t he Robin Hood traditions and extract any historical evidence from them about the central figures? This doesn't mean that they did or did not exist. It means that the traditions aren't forthcoming. You can't do history with them.

I have pointed out to you that Paul didn't need a historical Jesus, having never met one, yet having sufficient commitment to convert several communities to believe in this Jesus, people who had never had any experience of Jesus other than the information supplied by Paul. In this process there is no need for an actual failed apocalyptic doomsday prophet, just the idea. That's the earliest indications we have of the start of the religion.

So all your slavish use of the gospels seem to be short-circuiting the historical process to me. You simply assume your conclusions and, when this is pointed out to you with a request for you to go back and supply tangible evidence, you just seek to change the burden of proof by looking for a counter position to attack.

If Paul didn't need a real Jesus, why do you?


spin

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by aa5874

A (reconstructed) Tetimonium is not really history, it is an assumption based on assumption.

I agree that a reconstructed Tetimonium is not really history.

Ben.

[spin]

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

1 Corinthians 12.3b:

...and no one can say: Jesus is Lord, except by the holy spirit.

Romans 10.9:

...that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Philippians 2.11:

...and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father.

Would you prefer to call Jesus is Lord confessional rather than credal, since Paul links it with saying or confessing rather than explicitly with believing (that is, with giving credence)?

J. N. D. Kelly offers Jesus is Lord as what he calls a credal element or a credal fragment in Early Christian Creeds.

How often does Paul use the term Jesus and Lord together in the one clause?? Well over 100 times. Just how many variations are there?

Yup, confession is a bit less laden. Paul asks of his flock what he himself does. See Rom 15:7ff.


spin

[spamandham]

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I agree that a reconstructed Tetimonium is not really history.

Ben.

Come on now Ben, that's a cheap shot. Sort of funny though...

[spin]

Originally Posted by spamandham

Come on now Ben, that's a cheap shot. Sort of funny though...

Its jut tat Ben C neer made ny typos.


spin

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by spamandham

Come on now Ben, that's a cheap shot. Sort of funny though...

Yes, it was a cheap shot. My apologies to you, aa5874.

Ben.

[Ben C Smith]

Originally Posted by spin

Its jut tat Ben C neer made ny typos.

spin

Iff ohnly.

Bne.

[dog-on]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

All I'm doing is pointing out that with such an extreme skepticism you could deny most anything in history. Now you deny that Socrates existed? Okay. But I do not believe this is being fair with the available evidence, nor is it being fair to Christians. There are double standards at work here or you might as well claim history is all in the mind, like Plato's Socrates. Some are that skeptical, you know. They argue that history is all in the mind. I just don't think extreme skepticism with regard to the paucity of evidence for any historical claim is justified. I don't think you understand my point and I don't have the time to argue for it here.

To not assume usually carries a different meaning than to simply deny...

There is no double standard. You have to deal with the historical fact that, based on your accepted scholarship, the first mention of Jesus Christ was by a writer that claimed knowledge about Jesus Christ through the medim of revelation. That this Jesus Christ is, for all intensive purposes, some sort of divine entity.

Do you have some text, from the same period, that tells us about some simple person, who happened to be named Jesus Christ, on which you are basing your assumption of historicity?

Or are you just assuming historicity, despite the historical record...

How is my position, in any way, "extreme skepticism"?

Midrash. Now we're talking. Yes there is a lot of it in the NT, no doubt. But why do you throw the baby out with the bathwater? That I don't understand. Nor do you understand me. Nor can I convince you. Nor can you convince me.

We'll just have to leave it at that.

What baby? I take the writings at face value. These writings happen to describe a divine being.

There are no concurrent writings or evidence that describes this being in any other way.

I do not believe divine beings are actually a possibility.

In order to convince me, you have to produce some evidence for your, textually unsupported assumptions, which you have not done.

[Steven Carr]

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

I knew you would show up Carr, since I just linked to this discussion on my blog where it appears I have changed the mind of at least one person:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...matic-too.html

Why are you repeating something I already dealt with in our long discussion about it here:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...-i-debate.html

You surely are not writing for my benefit because you already asked that question and I attempted an answer earlier. Surely you think I didn't answer it to your satisfaction, but I'll let others judge for themselves.

Sorry. I hadn't read that at the time of posting.

Why does my silence here about your answer lead you to conclude anything?

That was one of those 'arguments from silence' wasn't it?

Here is your answer. It shows your ignorance. Sorry.

I haven’t researched into the Maitreya or when the concept originated. It’s an interesting case, leading to some doubt. But I have researched into the existence of Jesus. Can you say that about a central figure that existed in the same era and place the religious movement arose, with non-miraculous leaders who claimed to know him or his disciples like we find in the early church fathers? The line of people is unbroken.

So first you admit you haven't bothered to do the research on parallels.

And then having not researched parallels into religions being based on mythical beings, you still claim one case has no parallels to the other (by making a 'death by qualification' argument that Christians also love to use when denying parallels between Jesus and mythical figure X)

And , of course, the Maitreya 'exists' in the same place (England) and same time (today) as Benjamin Creme, and people claim to have seen this obscure Muslim.

Sorry John, but answering points to me means more than saying you haven't looked at it and then dashing off the first thing that comes into your head.

That is not a criticism of your answer.

It was only a blog comment, so nobody seriously expects groundbreaking research in blog comments, but why not look more closely at the parallels?

Paul in Romans 10 explains why Jews reject Christianity.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

The reason Jews rejected Christianity is that they have never heard of Jesus.

But surely they rejected Jesus. Didn't Jesus preach?

And Paul thinks nobody would ever have heard of Jesus if it were not for people sent to preach about him.

Just like nobody would have ever have heard of the Maitreya if Benjamin Creme had not preached about him.

And surely Paul has met church leaders who came to faith by seeing Jesus himself, rather than hearing about Jesus.

Perhaps you could actually debate those issues.

Simply trot out the standard historicist answer which historians have all ready to go.

After all, they have done the work on this subject and the answers are all there already in the work the historicists have produced, aren't they?