Best evidence for a historical Joshua ben Joseph

[ElysianFields]

My take is that this topic has been done numerous times at this forum already, and that those threads contain hundreds, maybe thousands of posts. So if you're interested in learning more about the topic you would do well by reading those threads first, and if you still feel like you have something new to contribute, carry on with this thread.

But more likely this thread will reach hundreds of posts again and say the same essential thing that the previous threads did.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?8491-Historical-Jesus
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12581-Did-Jesus-exist-(Poll)
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?18455-Jesus-Christ-Historicity-and-Mythicism-Theories
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?7745-Jesus-nailed-to-a-cross-Evidence-does-not-support-it
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?7227-Virgin-birth-of-Jesus
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...rrier’s-“On-the-Historicity-of-Jesus”-now-out
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?9688-Ehrman-vs-Price-debate-on-Jesus-mythicism
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?5358-Josephus-about-Jesus

^^^ that's a good start of what's been posted at this forum. I swear there were a few bigger threads but they might be in the FRDB archives. Just did a quick search on 'jesus' and 'historical jesus'.

Thanks, rousseau, for doing my homework for me, I didn't expect you to do that and am grateful. In retrospect, I should have availed myself of the search functionality before posting like a newbie. I appreciate you responding so gently, and I'll dig into those threads.

 

[ElysianFields]

Well that makes it kind of hard for anyone to present any account of the historical Jesus.

If it's flattering it's probably embellishment.
If it's embarrassing it's also probably embellishment.

If it fulfills prophecy it's deliberate post hoc fabrication to make Jesus fit the Messianic picture.
If it doesnt fulfill prophecy then Jesus isnt the Messiah.

As for the embarrassment criterion in general, Paul (I preach Christ crucified) made it the central pillar of his theology. If it didn't sell tickets Christianity would have closed on opening night.

...a stumbling block.
Nobody was trying to sell tickets.

If one does not accept that Jesus was the Messiah, I think it's absolutely possible also to criticize the efforts of gMatthew and gLuke trying to shoehorn Jesus into it. The differing ancestral lines, Matthew's annoying habit of seizing any lines in the OT that might possible show Jesus fulfilling prophecy (I doubt that a Yahweh-worshipper such as Jesus would ever have been called "Emmanuel" ("Allah is on our side")).

 

[ElysianFields]

What do forum-dwellers view as the best evidence for a historical (as opposed to mythical) Jesus?

I don't see it as a binary choice. It is quite possible that there was an actual character that was a religious preacher and then all sorts of mythical stories were attached to him.

Gautama Buddha comes to mind as an example of that.

And then there are actual known historical figures that had myths of 'magical powers' attributed to them... Like the leaders of the Kim family in North Korea.

Indeed, I conclude that Jesus existed and that all his amazing powers of calming storms à la Elijah / Elisha were grafted on later.

I sometimes wonder why he didn't turn the water into wine before walking on it...

 

[ElysianFields]

That can be a persuasive argument for those who:

1. Haven’t read much fiction.
2. Have never known a good liar.
3. Have never been to an AA meeting to hear drunks try to outdo each other with their stories of how dissolute they had been.
4. Have never been to a (Christian) religious service where the preacher claimed to be a great sinner.

I just also note, just among my colleagues, how many military stories, college recollections, and business travel anecdotes could include the phrase 'and that's when i REALLY fucked up.'
No one ever wants to hear the story about the time i did the spped limit all the way home, no one broke traffic laws, and i got a good night's sleep.

It's one thing if you're telling your own story, it's another when you're trying to say that Jesus was the awesomest Messiah and so much better than all the others, and you have these things he did that are so well-known that they cannot be denied, are easy to criticize and thereby tend to call his Messiahship into question.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well that makes it kind of hard for anyone to present any account of the historical Jesus.

If it's flattering it's probably embellishment.
If it's embarrassing it's also probably embellishment.

If it fulfills prophecy it's deliberate post hoc fabrication to make Jesus fit the Messianic picture.
If it doesnt fulfill prophecy then Jesus isnt the Messiah.

As for the embarrassment criterion in general, Paul (I preach Christ crucified) made it the central pillar of his theology. If it didn't sell tickets Christianity would have closed on opening night.

...a stumbling block.
Nobody was trying to sell tickets.

If one does not accept that Jesus was the Messiah, I think it's absolutely possible also to criticize the efforts of gMatthew and gLuke trying to shoehorn Jesus into it. The differing ancestral lines, Matthew's annoying habit of seizing any lines in the OT that might possible show Jesus fulfilling prophecy (I doubt that a Yahweh-worshipper such as Jesus would ever have been called "Emmanuel" ("Allah is on our side")).

Woah...slow down there Joe.
One step at a time.
Were searching for the historical Jesus not the Messiah.
Find Jesus the man first.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What do forum-dwellers view as the best evidence for a historical (as opposed to mythical) Jesus?

William Harwood (Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus) argues that the recording of Josh being baptized by John the Baptist in the Gospels casts such doubt on Jesus' claim to being the Messiah (why would the real Messiah need baptism by another, imposter Messiah?) that it was only included in the Gospel because the fact of his baptism by JtB was so well-known as to be irrefutable. He concludes that Josh must have been a real dude, and separate from the Righteous Rabbi, also named Joshua, who flourished ~ 100 BCE.

What's your take?

This atheist is my goto guy for impartial refutation of Jesus mythicism.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219.html#p4642

He is a member here too.

So you've got nothing yourself.

 

[skepticalbip]

This thread is beginning to make me wonder if that old autographed photograph of Jesus that I have may possibly be a fake.

 

[Lion IRC]

What do forum-dwellers view as the best evidence for a historical (as opposed to mythical) Jesus?

William Harwood (Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus) argues that the recording of Josh being baptized by John the Baptist in the Gospels casts such doubt on Jesus' claim to being the Messiah (why would the real Messiah need baptism by another, imposter Messiah?) that it was only included in the Gospel because the fact of his baptism by JtB was so well-known as to be irrefutable. He concludes that Josh must have been a real dude, and separate from the Righteous Rabbi, also named Joshua, who flourished ~ 100 BCE.

What's your take?

This atheist is my goto guy for impartial refutation of Jesus mythicism.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219.html#p4642

He is a member here too.

So you've got nothing yourself.

What are you talking about?

I've answered the Op. I provided two sources.
Bart Ehrman, Tim ONeil.
Both atheists. Both academic/scholarly researchers who do great work debunking the Jesus myther conspiracy theory which ignoramus (internet) atheists try to spruke - because dealing with an actual historical Jesus is too intellectually taxing.

Jesus Mythicism – the idea that not only was Jesus not what Christianity claims, but also that there was no historical Jesus at all

https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/

 

[Politesse]

Well that makes it kind of hard for anyone to present any account of the historical Jesus.

If it's flattering it's probably embellishment.
If it's embarrassing it's also probably embellishment.

If it fulfills prophecy it's deliberate post hoc fabrication to make Jesus fit the Messianic picture.
If it doesnt fulfill prophecy then Jesus isnt the Messiah.

As for the embarrassment criterion in general, Paul (I preach Christ crucified) made it the central pillar of his theology. If it didn't sell tickets Christianity would have closed on opening night.

...a stumbling block.
Nobody was trying to sell tickets.

If one does not accept that Jesus was the Messiah, I think it's absolutely possible also to criticize the efforts of gMatthew and gLuke trying to shoehorn Jesus into it. The differing ancestral lines, Matthew's annoying habit of seizing any lines in the OT that might possible show Jesus fulfilling prophecy (I doubt that a Yahweh-worshipper such as Jesus would ever have been called "Emmanuel" ("Allah is on our side")).

Are you suggesting that every Hebrew name with the suffix -el should be considered in doubt, or do you just not know anything about the Hebrew language?

 

[Atheos]

To say that it is intellectually lazy to give consideration to the possibility that the Jesus character is a complete fabrication is just plain wrong. The most intellectually lazy thing to do would be the opposite: Simply believe without investigation the stuff that has been passed around for centuries.

I personally do not think Jesus was completely fictional. But I know many of the extraordinary events described in the canonical gospels (healing of paralysis/blindness/death, transforming water to wine, walking on water, feasts conjured up from mere morsels of food, levitating off into the sky never to be seen again) did not occur.

I know these things with the same degree (and for the same reasons) that I know there is no man living at the North Pole who gets in a sleigh pulled through the air by eight magical reindeer who can fly. These are all equally ridiculous claims and there is absolutely no evidence to support them. What's more, with the claims about Jesus, many of these things were allegedly done in front of large crowds often populated with hostile witnesses. Yet not one of these skeptical people ever managed to record anything about these incredible events. Instead these stories just appear out of whole cloth decades later (and geographically 1500 miles removed).

I know that the people who invented these stories about Jesus the Magic Jew also invented "historical details" to their stories that never happened, such as the slaughter of the innocents and the insane census that required people to travel to the land of their ancestors to be counted. The birth narratives and genealogies are also suspect at best. The zombies walking around Jerusalem on the day Jesus was supposedly crucified is another obvious fabrication.

Leaving us with a series of incredible tales every bit is extraordinary as a magical sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, unsupported by even the barest of witness, archaeological evidence, artifacts, etc. These extraordinary events simply did not happen.

Which means what remains (the historical Jesus, assuming one actually existed) bore little, if any resemblance to the legend fabricated through decades of story-telling. Perhaps one day authentic evidence will surface that does, in fact, corroborate the actual existence of this human being whose influence inspired the eventual legend that developed. But it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he never existed. The only thing beyond the realm of possibility is that the stories about him performing all those miracles are true.

The world is filled with tall tales and fantastic mythology. That is not extraordinary at all. Flying reindeer and people who can defy the laws of physics by walking on water are the things of myth, not reality.

 

[ruby sparks]

More likely existed than not is how I’d sum up my view.

 

[ruby sparks]

It isn't really a question of historicity as much as one of inspiration.

On what would you base that?

We have an anonymous author writing about a person with superhuman powers, pretty standard stuff.

The epistles?

Standard for what?

The epistles are a different sort of animal to the gospels, should not be conflated with them, and as far as we can reasonably tell were written earlier. Take The letter to the Galatians for example (dated to the early 50s CE). It’s reasonable to ask, independently of both the other letters, other texts in (and outside) the NT, and the gospels, “What’s going on in this particular letter? Why would someone write such a letter, given its specific content, to a bunch of (probably Celtic) people living in what is now part of the country called Turkey?”

 

[Learner]

To say that it is intellectually lazy to give consideration to the possibility that the Jesus character is a complete fabrication is just plain wrong. The most intellectually lazy thing to do would be the opposite: Simply believe without investigation the stuff that has been passed around for centuries.

You can have Intellectual laziness in both fabrication and simply believing without investigation.

Leaving us with a series of incredible tales every bit is extraordinary as a magical sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, unsupported by even the barest of witness, archaeological evidence, artifacts, etc. These extraordinary events simply did not happen.

...............................................

Which means what remains (the historical Jesus, assuming one actually existed) bore little, if any resemblance to the legend fabricated through decades of story-telling. Perhaps one day authentic evidence will surface that does, in fact, corroborate the actual existence of this human being whose influence inspired the eventual legend that developed. But it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he never existed. The only thing beyond the realm of possibility is that the stories about him performing all those miracles are true.

"Which means what remains"...is a little misleading. The top part "sleigh and reindeer"... the barest of witness,archeological evidence, artifacts, etc. compares differently to the biblical, which at least does have material (witnesses scriptural, archeology & artifacts etc.) to debate about.

 

[ruby sparks]

Which means what remains (the historical Jesus, assuming one actually existed) bore little, if any resemblance to the legend fabricated through decades of story-telling.

In some ways, I can understand what you mean, but in others I don't. For sure (imo) supposed 'miracles' would almost certainly be either totally fake or at best (in some cases of healing) their efficacy exaggerated or misplaced. Ditto for the supposed size of the audiences, and indeed the proportion of an audience who 'were amazed'. But stories about miracles would say nothing much about whether a magic man likely existed or not to perform them, given that such people were apparently not uncommon back then.

And when I grew up in Ireland, nearly every village had its local faith healer. I dare say magic men (and women) of one sort or another still exist today or have done in very recent times in almost every country, not least India and Africa, and indeed notably in the USA, where as far as I know televangelism has routinely involved many types of such performance (including, I believe, curing severe paralysis, advanced cancer, and even raising people from the dead) and has had large, even huge, audiences.

As far as I can see, the main thing that's highly implausible is that such miracles worked, and possibly also that 'many people' attended and were convinced enough by them to become devotees of the particular magic man in question. Even Acts, arguably that most biased and unreliable of partisan sources, only has, it seems, around a modest 250 people initially mourning the loss of the writer (of Acts) own supposed hero, so if he existed, he probably didn't have that many followers up until his death. Compare that to 30 thousand (according to Josephus) who were followers of the (nowadays almost unheard of) 'Egyptian Prophet' going about Judea in or around 52 CE (that number might well be an exaggeration, perhaps for different reasons). If the man we now know as Jesus (which would almost certainly not have been his real name) existed, I think we would be talking about a very minor figure, even in geographically local terms, during his lifetime.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It isn't really a question of historicity as much as one of inspiration.

On what would you base that?

I base it on the undeniable fact that all and every author that has ever composed a literary thought has done so from personal experience. The first authors to write about dragons, however, did not experience actual dragons, just as the authors who wrote about magical miracles did not experience actual magic. There are no historical dragons, only inspiration for such tales, just as there is no historical Jesus, merely an author's inspiration.

Jesus is an inspired literary character like a dragon or Pegasus. Do you think horses have wings and fly? If not, why not? Should we search for the historical Pegasus? There is no historical Pegasus same as there is no historical Jesus, namely because horses do not have wings and fly and because magic isn't real either.

What we do have without question, however, is human credulity when it comes to comforting, imaginary tales. Life isn't easy, people love their woo. The phrase "historical Jesus" is as much woo as is "Historical Pegasus." People like it because it sounds good to them, confirms a bias, so they latch on. It's an actual religious belief for them, as real as transubstantiation.

It's understandable that a person lacking sufficient knowledge and experience will believe such tales, like the child writing letters to Santa. But millions of children writing millions of letters to Santa does not make their man at the North Pole historical. There is no "historical Santa," a fact every child with a normal functioning brain eventually learns. A bona fide bishop bringing gifts at the Winter Solstice does not make a child's North Pole Santa historical because "historical" means real. Our imaginations are certainly real, and therefore historical, which is why I say Jesus is an inspired character based on an author's experience, just like a child's Santa.

 

[ruby sparks]

It isn't really a question of historicity as much as one of inspiration.

On what would you base that?

I base it on the undeniable fact that all and every author that has ever composed a literary thought has done so from personal experience. The first authors to write about dragons, however, did not experience actual dragons, just as the authors who wrote about magical miracles did not experience actual magic. There are no historical dragons, only inspiration for such tales, just as there is no historical Jesus, merely an author's inspiration.

Jesus is an inspired literary character like a dragon or Pegasus. Do you think horses have wings and fly? If not, why not? Should we search for the historical Pegasus? There is no historical Pegasus same as there is no historical Jesus, namely because horses do not have wings and fly and because magic isn't real either.

What we do have without question, however, is human credulity when it comes to comforting, imaginary tales. Life isn't easy, people love their woo. The phrase "historical Jesus" is as much woo as is "Historical Pegasus." People like it because it sounds good to them, confirms a bias, so they latch on. It's an actual religious belief for them, as real as transubstantiation.

It's understandable that a person lacking sufficient knowledge and experience will believe such tales, like the child writing letters to Santa. But millions of children writing millions of letters to Santa does not make their man at the North Pole historical. There is no "historical Santa," a fact every child with a normal functioning brain eventually learns. A bona fide bishop bringing gifts at the Winter Solstice does not make a child's North Pole Santa historical because "historical" means real. Our imaginations are certainly real, and therefore historical, which is why I say Jesus is an inspired character based on an author's experience, just like a child's Santa.

I see. Not much of a basis then, other than making arbitrary comparisons with things that on the face of it seem to be a different kettle of fish, and quite possibly assuming your conclusion without having looked into the matter in much actual detail.

 

[Atheos]

I don't quite understand why you would say that

Well I don't quite understand why you wouldn't quite understand why I would say that. I see that you changed your original statement while I was composing this. But I'd like to elaborate anyway.

I say it because the Jesus portrayed in the bible was a mover and shaker. Mobs of thousands flocked to see him. It would be impossible for someone to have wielded anything like the sort of influence this fictional character did and completely escape leaving any mark in the historical record, especially considering the magnitude of effort that has been expended attempting to find just that sort of evidence anywhere.

I say it because the gospels themselves contain almost no biographical information that isn't tainted by its association with some miraculous event. From the voice from heaven booming "This day have I adopted thee" when he gets baptized by John to the zombie apocalypse when he gets crucified the storytellers can't give us a garden variety street preacher who simply made an unfortunate choice to shake things up at the temple during Passover week and run afoul of the authorities.

I say it because the gospels do not appear for 40 years after the dude is dead, and because the first one (which heavily influenced the others) was composed by unknown people living in Rome, 1500 miles away from where all the events supposedly happened. That leaves lots of room for the stories to change, to be mixed with other people's stories, to absorb cultural mythology, etc. We see this sort of thing happen all the time in modern times. It's incredibly short-sighted to imagine that human nature has changed that much in 2000 years.

With all these factors in play I'm willing to accept that there may be bones of an historical Jesus buried somewhere in these stories. Sort of like needles in a haystack. But there's a difference: If you find a needle in the haystack you know it's a needle because it's made of metal and not plant fiber. But if there are such "needles" in the haystacks of christian lore good luck finding any means to separate them from all the hay.

 

[ruby sparks]

I say it because the Jesus portrayed in the bible was a mover and shaker. Mobs of thousands flocked to see him. It would be impossible for someone to have wielded anything like the sort of influence this fictional character did and completely escape leaving any mark in the historical record, especially considering the magnitude of effort that has been expended attempting to find just that sort of evidence anywhere.

If he existed, it would be very likely that his fame during his lifetime was greatly exaggerated afterwards by his fans, that's all.

Apologies for continuing to edit my post after posting. It's a terrbile habit I have.

I say it because the gospels do not appear for 40 years after the dude is dead...

But 40 years is nothing by the standards of ancient history, especially for minor figures who wrote nothing themselves. 20 years would be even less (the epistles).

I take your other points. I'm certainly not making a strong case for his existence. I just think it's overall the better explanation for the evidence as a whole, which I agree is inconclusive.


Eta: As I see it, the seeds of Christianity, assuming they were planted by some guy in 1st C Judea, did not grow there. They may even have died there (possibly partly because of the severe and disastrous blows all Judasim as a whole suffered in the ensuing war with the Romans). I think they grew (from whatever seeds) abroad, possibly as a result of people like our 'Mr Paul'. Jesus, if he existed, would almost certainly have been a Jew in his very bones (ditto the Jerusalem bunch that 'Paul' writes about, the so-called 'lost Jewish Christians'). Christianity as it very soon became and as we know it today was merely Jewish-flavoured and of the wider mediterranean.

On which note, it does seem as if someone, in the early 50's CE, was not only writing about someone else, from Judea, but writing about others in Jerusalem who had been the original followers, so the question is not just my previous one, "What Judean figure was the writer writing about?", but also by extension "What dead guy (the epistles clearly refer to him in Koine Greek as having been a man, 'anthropous') were these prior Jerusalem originals supposed to have been followers of"?

I'm just saying I think it's arguably a key question, not least because followers in Jerusalem before the writer of the epistles got in on (possibly hijacked) the fledgling Jewish sub-cult would take us back very close indeed to the time and location of the alleged death of this figure.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

With all these factors in play I'm willing to accept that there may be bones of an historical Jesus buried somewhere in these stories. Sort of like needles in a haystack. But there's a difference: If you find a needle in the haystack you know it's a needle because it's made of metal and not plant fiber. But if there are such "needles" in the haystacks of christian lore good luck finding any means to separate them from all the hay.

What's interesting for me is how "historical Jesus" is so popular today, it's like a new religion. But Jesus has always been a historical figure for all of christian history, although not unanimously. Now people are seeking the actual "historical" Jesus merely to confirm their longstanding acceptance of same. It's kinda fascinating, as if collectively we are beginning to realize the childishness of our former belief. And of course this is happening because more people are freer today, going against the religious grain doesn't get you killed as often as it used to, although that freedom is not enjoyed everywhere.

In the end there is no best evidence for the existence of historically real magic, which is precisely what this Jesus consists of. Rather than looking for evidence of the historical Pegasus we should be examining authorship and culture to understand what inspires such stories and fables to be brought into the historical record. Looking for the "historical" Jesus is like seeking El Dorado, the fountain of youth or the Lost Dutchman Mine. Human history is replete with such religious undertakings.

 

[ruby sparks]

What's interesting for me is how "historical Jesus" is so popular today, it's like a new religion.

Imo, there's arguably an even newer religion, or at least a bandwagon, quite popular among (even if not invented by) many rational skeptics and atheists. It's called Jesus Mythicism.

Rather than looking for evidence of the historical Pegasus we should be examining authorship and culture to understand what inspires such stories and fables to be brought into the historical record.

Which is partly why I invited you to analyse Galatians.

Anonymous ancient texts are not unusual (Galatians is not even anonymous, it's just that the identity of the named writer is uncorroborated). Many Ancient Egyptian religious texts are completely anonymous. They still get analysed for the information they may impart nonetheless.

I really don't agree that Pegasus is a good comparison at all, for several reasons. It might even be a prime example of the sort of comparison that some people make when they've already summarily made up their minds how unlikely someone's existence was, in order to try to justify that degree of presumed unlikeliness.