Historical Jesus

[Swammerdami]

We've been going around and around on this matter for YEARS. I've written almost a hundred posts on the topic -- Below I enclose one from almost two years ago.

Here are some questions for the mythicists and anti-historians:

(1) Please go through this list and tell us which are historic and which fictional: John the Baptist, Simon Peter, James the alleged brother of Jesus, Muhammad ibn Abdullah pbuh, Johnny Appleseed, Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha, Davy Crockett.
(2) If Jesus were a fiction, the fiction writers would have had flexibility about how he was martyred. Given Deuteronomy 21:23 why hang him from a tree? John the Baptist wasn't hung from a tree.

I wish to remind the HJers that my question about historicity has not been answered either. It's a pretty simple question and asks how we know which bits of narratives are historical. For starters if I read a story about a man that flies, dies and comes back to life I figure it isn't history. If I assign such details as hyperbole, what's next?

We DON'T "know." We GUESS. We try to GUESS intelligently.

There are impossible miracles in the story of Muhammed ibn Abdullah, pbuh, the 5th Ulul Azmi. Does this imply that we must reject all the stories and treat Muhammed as fictional? Joseph Smith (the 6th Ulul Azmi?) witnessed miracles; I guess he was a fiction also. Heck, even Confucius performed miracles according to the tales of some of his followers. Creating such stories is what people do when trying to promote a religion.

And how about Davy Crockett? I don't think he kilt him a b'ar when he was only three; I guess that therefore he didn't die at the Alamo either.

So . . . Why do I GUESS that certain parts of the Gospels are PROBABLY true? I've addressed that extensively in this thread, and earlier threads, with LOTS of specific arguments. But it all comes down to Occam's Razor. I think John the Baptist and his disciple, both from Galilee, gave inspiration and hope to some people in Judaea and led them, with much help from Paul the Apostle, to develop a cult. That does NOT strike me to be as unlikely as it seems to strike you.

I'd say my scenario is less far-fetched than the mythicists' scenario but the mythicists have not presented a scenario, not even a single one. Sammy Chrestus had a following in Rome, but Paul pretended they were worshiping his guy, Sammy Christ. Two centuries later, Jews that hated Sammy changed his name to "Yeshu the Bastard" as an insult. Josephus had mentioned Sammy's brother James, but the revisionists rounded up all copies of Josephus' book and penciled in "Yeshu" over "Sammy." Is that what mythicists believe? Unlikely, but you wouldn't know it from this thread.

If I were on the O.J. Simpson jury, I'd have been the hold-out: "Prattle all you want about the crooked cop, but until you have an alternate scenario that explains the physical evidence, I'm going with Guilty." Mythicists in this thread have spent some effort impugning the crooked cop, but have presented ZERO alternate scenarios.

 

[Swammerdami]

This "debate", if we can call it that, is frustrating.

I just posted some questions and comments. If there was sincere debate, the non-historicists would be happy to answer the questions and, maybe, even address the comments.

Instead there will be a week-long hiatus, and then the so-clled "debate" will resume, with my questions and comments ignored.

 

[bilby]

This "debate", if we can call it that, is frustrating.

I just posted some questions and comments. If there was sincere debate, the non-historicists would be happy to answer the questions and, maybe, even address the comments.

Instead there will be a week-long hiatus, and then the so-clled "debate" will resume, with my questions and comments ignored.

Welcome to The Internet!

While you may find some of the customs and traditions here frustrating, we can assure you that these will be more familiar and less unexpected to you on your second (and subsequent) days.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

(1) Please go through this list and tell us which are historic and which fictional: John the Baptist, Simon Peter, James the alleged brother of Jesus, Muhammad ibn Abdullah pbuh, Johnny Appleseed, Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha, Davy Crockett.

Not particularly interested in any of those. Tell me the historicity or non historicity of Santa Claus, Smaug, Hercules, Pegasus and Superman.

(2) If Jesus were a fiction, the fiction writers would have had flexibility about how he was martyred. Given Deuteronomy 21:23 why hang him from a tree? John the Baptist wasn't hung from a tree.

Not following you here. Wouldn't someone writing fiction want to appeal to his target audience? And of course this doesn't account for centuries of translation bias.

You've stated that you aren't interested in Hemingway's Santiago historicity or non-historicity. I accept that. Shouldn't you accept that I am not particularly interested in the historicity or non-historicity of the people you mention? Millions of Mormons really think all the Joseph Smith stupidity really happened. What does that say about all the gospel stupidity and the billions of believers? If it wasn't for all that human stupidity we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

The RCC recently revised its guidelines on supernatural events. BTW I love that word, supernatural, it explains Santa Clause. It conveniently ruled that alleged supernatural events are okay to advertise and pilgrims can still venerate at these places but that the RCC takes no official position.

 

[steve_bank]

It's reasonable to believe what's reported in the written accounts.

The supernatural Jesus existed because there are witnesses in the gospels, and the gospels are verbatim journalistic reporting

No, they are writings like the other sources we use to determine what happened previously. ALL the written reports of what happened contain both fact and fiction. They are what we rely on for our history of those events, even though they contain some fiction mixed in with the fact.

A lot of people believe the gospels are true, therefore they are true.

No. But it's reasonable to believe whatever is reported in the written accounts from the time, as far as they agree on what happened and are not contradicted by other evidence. Like the evidence from the 1st century says the Jesus miracle acts happened, and none of them says these events did not happen. It's reasonable to believe what's reported in the written sources as long as they agree and are not contradicted by other evidence. Since there are discrepancies about the details, these are less credible, but we can believe the major points agreed on in the sources.

There is an historical Trump. 2000 years from now in another culture and langue with scant historical records somebody might say a lot of people think his election was stolen, so it must be true.

No -- false analogy. Because there will be more historical records saying the election was NOT stolen. People will tend to believe whatever is shown by the preponderance of evidence. The written accounts 2000 years ago say there were some charlatans, falsely claiming to do miracles, and we can believe these accounts which say those were false claims, just as people in the future will believe there were charlatans today, because this is reported in our documents today.

But,but,but so many people believe the election was stolen so it must be true!!!

 

[Jarhyn]

This "debate", if we can call it that, is frustrating.

I just posted some questions and comments. If there was sincere debate, the non-historicists would be happy to answer the questions and, maybe, even address the comments.

Instead there will be a week-long hiatus, and then the so-clled "debate" will resume, with my questions and comments ignored.

Well, I tried to answer some of these, but at this point I think agnosticism on any of the non-supernatural claims of existence and actions is more warranted than any other position, and full on skepticism is warranted on any other such claim. This, combined with the likely mixing of legends that would confuse JtB, Simon the Sorcerer or whoever, and Jesus makes it difficult to track any one claim to any one figure.

If you could source the holy doctrines of the last remaining JtB cult, you would have a much better grounds to claim particulars of Jesus' ministry as "unmixed".

For me, though, the point is rather moot for reasons I've discussed elsewhere; I don't deny the possibility of the non-supernatural claims because if someone lived a life like mine and had the experience I have had, but with the limits to knowledge and language of 0ce, I might have ended up living that life and doing those things. It's not that I think it's impossible or even implausible. I just think it's completely unverifiable and just as plausible that folks conflated various "prophets" together.

 

[Swammerdami]

I honestly thought my recent post, #1621, posed some questions which could focus the discussion for those SINCERELY curious whether a historic Jesus existed or not. The questions weren't hard. "Was John the Baptist an historic figure?" Surely this is a logical question for those sincerely curious about the historicity of Jesus. I asked -- without intelligible response -- why an invented martyr would be hung from a tree, an accursed death?

But the replies have been utterly useless. So useless, I don't know how to respond to them except to say how utterly useless they are!

Can none of you approach the topic with sincerity?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This, combined with the likely mixing of legends that would confuse JtB, Simon the Sorcerer or whoever, and Jesus makes it difficult to track any one claim to any one figure.

Convention dictates that when we say GMark we mean that particular text. But we don't have an author, just writing. We don't know what the author wrote from or if he amended an earlier script or whatever. We don't know who he was.

Earlier I mentioned Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith wrote fiction too and millions take it as fact. Mark wrote his story and Joe Smith wrote his story. Is there a difference? Later writers wrote from the story and added to the story and reported hearsay. Does anyone remember the fake ossuary that was "found?" Another fraudulent attempt to lend credibility to the original story. You are correct, agnosticism is the only honest position to take. But Jesus is an industry so if you're gonna make money in the Jesus business you gotta have a real Jesus. You can't be agnostic.

 

[Elixir]

Historical Jesus is very much like The Steal of the 2020 election.

No evidence, but SO MANY ALLEGATIONS!!!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But the replies have been utterly useless. So useless, I don't know how to respond to them except to say how utterly useless they are!

Can you provide a likely scenario that gave rise to the Joseph Smith Mormon story other than that Joe Smith wrote some fiction, fiction that reflected Smith's culture and experiences?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's reasonable to believe what's reported in the written accounts.

I.e., what the preponderance of the evidence (what's reported) shows. When there's a conflict in the sources, we should believe whatever has the greater total attestation.

The supernatural Jesus existed because there are witnesses in the gospels, and the gospels are verbatim journalistic reporting

No, they are writings like the other sources we use to determine what happened previously. ALL the written reports of what happened contain both fact and fiction. They are what we rely on for our history of those events, even though they contain some fiction mixed in with the fact.

A lot of people believe the gospels are true, therefore they are true.

No. But it's reasonable to believe whatever is reported in the written accounts from the time, as far as they agree on what happened and are not contradicted by other evidence. Like the evidence from the 1st century says the Jesus miracle acts happened, and none of them says these events did not happen. It's reasonable to believe what's reported in the written sources as long as they agree and are not contradicted by other evidence. Since there are discrepancies about the details, these are less credible, but we can believe the major points agreed on in the sources.

There is an historical Trump. 2000 years from now in another culture and langue with scant historical records somebody might say a lot of people think his election was stolen, so it must be true.

No -- false analogy. Because there will be more historical records saying the election was NOT stolen. People will tend to believe whatever is shown by the preponderance of evidence. The written accounts 2000 years ago say there were some charlatans, falsely claiming to do miracles, and we can believe these accounts which say those were false claims, just as people in the future will believe there were charlatans today, because this is reported in our documents today.

But but but so many people believe the election was stolen so it must be true!!!

But but but so many more people believe the election was NOT stolen, because that's what the evidence shows, because far more witnesses close to the event say there was no theft, no foul play, nothing to show a false counting of the votes. I.e., those closest to the facts in question. It's best to believe the preponderance of the evidence, or the facts, as reported in the sources, such as the media (modern media) and publications, etc. And these report that the election was not stolen, just as the sources closest to the facts 2000 years ago report that Jesus did the miracle acts/Resurrection. So it's probably true because of the facts or evidence, or the preponderance of the facts/evidence.

 

[DBT]

What we have in the gospels was not written by witnesses, and Paul had never seen or met Jesus the man, nor did he appear to know about the miracles written in the gospels....where the legend seems to grow with each retelling of the story of Jesus.

 

[Swammerdami]

But the replies have been utterly useless. So useless, I don't know how to respond to them except to say how utterly useless they are!

Can you provide a likely scenario that gave rise to the Joseph Smith Mormon story other than that Joe Smith wrote some fiction, fiction that reflected Smith's culture and experiences?

Do you imagine that we disagree about Smith? BUT The topic is Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth.

The topic is NOT Joseph Smith. The topic is NOT Santiago. It's Jesus.

Players like John the Baptist come into the discussion because they are intimately connected to the Jesus story.

Professional historians study ancient documents and derive clues; they use the clues to make educated guesses.

In all of the many dozens of posts on this topic I can't recall a non-historian ever quoting a Gospel to advance his argument. Raise your hand if you're a non-historian who has actually read the New Testament.

 

[Swammerdami]

@DBT -- Will you have the grace to answer the questions I posed above?

(1) Please go through this list and tell us which are historic and which fictional: John the Baptist, Simon Peter, James the alleged brother of Jesus, Muhammad ibn Abdullah pbuh, Johnny Appleseed, Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha, Davy Crockett.
(2) If Jesus were a fiction, the fiction writers would have had flexibility about how he was martyred. Given Deuteronomy 21:23 why hang him from a tree? John the Baptist wasn't hung from a tree.

These are NOT the "Magic Gotcha" Questions. It's just a VERY short list to see if anyoine here is capable of sincere discussion.

 

[DBT]

What is there to say? I think it's quite possible that there was a 'Jesus,' the man upon which the legend was built. I'm inclined to think that there was, but it's clear that there are embellishments, Matthew's Zombie apocalypse and earthquake that nobody seemed to notice, the donkey mistranslation, virgin birth, etc....things that were used as a means of establishing Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.

 

[Tharmas]

I haven’t posted on this topic in quite a while, mostly because I’ve said what I have to say and haven’t changed my opinions yet. However I’ll re-enter the fray I guess, with a couple of preliminary comments.

First, I am not a “mythicist” in the full-on Carrier sense. Like DBT, I am perfectly happy with the notion of a figure, or figures, possibly even named “Jesus,” as being behind many of the sayings in the Gospels. Someone must have said them, and I don’t think Mark just made them up. Besides, “Jesus” was quite a common name in first century Judea.

Second, by “myth” I don’t mean simply a story that is false, a lie. I mean “myth” in its full sense of:

a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

(as “creation myths”).

And:

a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone

especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society

Finally, although the Gospels read like reportage at first glance, further examination reveals them to be literary constructions. The (unknown) narrators are omniscient, presenting thoughts and events that an actual reporter could not have known. Add in the obvious occurrences of midrash and they are revealed to be largely artificial narratives.

Now, to get to your questions:

Please go through this list and tell us which are historic and which fictional: John the Baptist, Simon Peter, James the alleged brother of Jesus, Muhammad ibn Abdullah pbuh, Johnny Appleseed, Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha, Davy Crockett.

I reject the assumption that these are either/or choices. A person can be very alive, or an event could be verifiably documented, and still have mythic meaning attached, using “mythic” of course in its proper definitional scope (see above) and not merely as “fiction.” Reality is more nuanced than simply either/or. That said, from what I know and what I’ve read, my opinions are:

John the Baptist probably existed, although certain aspects of his career, such as the story of Salome, seem a little more problematic.

Simon Peter is problematic. I believe there may very well have been a “Peter” involved in the Jesus movement, to borrow a phrase from the biblical scholar Burton Mack. Was he originally “Simon” and had his name changed to “Peter” to signify the founding of the church of Jesus? That seems more problematic to me. So, Peter likely, Simon Peter less so.

James the Brother of Jesus: I can well believe there was someone named James (another common name) who was an important figure in the early Jesus movement.

Muhammad: Personally, I wouldn’t speculate, because I don’t know enough about Islam. It would seem likely to me there would be much that is mythic floating around his name, though.

Johnny Appleseed: I remember reading somewhere that there may well have been some kind of historical figure with some resemblance to such a folk hero. Don’t remember enough of what I read to have a worthwhile opinion.

Buddha: Again, I don’t know enough on the topic to have a worthwhile opinion.

Davy Crocket: As someone who has been a Texan for most of my life, I very much have opinions about Davy. There is no doubt that a U.S. Representative named Crocket resigned his political position and travelled to Texas, where he died at the Alamo. As you point out above, though, there is much myth attached to him. I don’t know if the “killed him a bar” story is part of the actual folk history or was invented by Hollywood screen writers. A more interesting question to me is whether he survived the Alamo fight (surrendered) and was executed the next day. That possibility has been raised by an ambiguous narrative in a diary of a Mexican officer. You should have heard the outraged howls of the good citizens of Texas, at least the white ones, when that information came to light. No way was their mythic hero, a central component of the founding myth of Texas, gonna be a surrendering coward. So, again, nuance.

As for your second question:

If Jesus were a fiction, the fiction writers would have had flexibility about how he was martyred. Given Deuteronomy 21:23 why hang him from a tree? John the Baptist wasn't hung from a tree.

This strikes me as a variation of the “criterion of embarrassment” used by real historians (or actually, exclusively used by New Testament scholars). Why would anyone create an event which embarrasses the believers? Ergo, it must have really happened that way.

In response, I point out that Paul based his whole theology on the debasement of Christ. That was the point of the story, according to Paul. See First Corinthians 1:23-30:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

To conclude this long post, I will point out that scholars have identified different “layers” in the Gospels. For instance, there are the “sayings” of Jesus, similar to those found in the Gospel of Thomas or Q. Then there are the teachings – the parables. Then another layer would be the pronouncements of an apocalyptic preacher, and so on. The scholar Burton Mack, in his Who Wrote the New Testament attributes these layers to different “Jesus communities” who wrote at different times under different circumstances. I highly recommend Mack, whom I have found to be quite persuasive.

So those are my answers to your questions. It’s not simple. It’s not yes/no. Like much of history, it’s nuanced. That’s why I find the subject fascinating. The interplay of reality and myth is a subject that is worth exploring, even (or especially) in its manifestations in our contemporary world.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To conclude this long post, I will point out that scholars have identified different “layers” in the Gospels. For instance, there are the “sayings” of Jesus, similar to those found in the Gospel of Thomas or Q. Then there are the teachings – the parables. Then another layer would be the pronouncements of an apocalyptic preacher, and so on. The scholar Burton Mack, in his Who Wrote the New Testament attributes these layers to different “Jesus communities” who wrote at different times under different circumstances. I highly recommend Mack, whom I have found to be quite persuasive.

Yes. Earlier someone commented that they thought Jesus said many of the sayings attributed to him. If the alleged Jesus was that literate he would have left writing because he would have been a literate person. So in my view the gospel protagonist is definitely a composite character at least. This guy goes around teaching people all these wonderful things and saying all these wonderful things but then gets hauled off like a common thief. The story doesn't make sense.

And because the story doesn't make sense we're left trying to invent HJ. Jesus is like Klatu in the 1951 movie The Day the Earth Stood Still. Klatu even gets killed and Gort raises him from the dead. And of course Klatu has an answer to every question from these humans, some quite primitive, violent and dangerous, just like Jesus.

We know someone named Jesus got whacked. Lots of people named Jesus got whacked. The place was a religious madhouse, same as the culture that Joseph Smith experienced. Saying that there are layers to the gospels is an understatement.

 

[Swammerdami]

I may as well answer my own questions.

The historicity of Davy Crockett, Muhammad the Prophet, and the man nicknamed Johnny Appleseed are NOT IN DOUBT. No mystery, no ambiguity; these are Yes/No questions and the answers are all Yes.

Now these people may have acquired mythic status, and fictitious miracles may have been ascribed to them. So what?

John the Baptist was also historic. The Jewish-Roman historian Josephus devotes a long discussion to him. A discussion with ZERO reference to Jesus or any Christian cult. Except for one mention of Jesus which is widely agreed to be an interpolation by a Christian editor, is there any accusation of writing fiction that has been lodged against Josephus? The historicity of John the Baptist is confirmed by all four Gospels, Acts, and several Epistles. JtB? Historic. Period.

Similarly, James 'the Just', brother of Jesus is confirmed by Josephus, three Gospels, Acts, and Epistle to Galatians.
John the Baptist was historic, and so was James Jesus' brother. Period. Both these men were very highly respected as good men, whose teachings were good; their martyrdoms are viewed as exacerbating conflict between Jews and the authorities.

Peter plays a pivotal role in the Gospels, Acts and some of the Epistles. If Jesus were a fiction, Peter was probably one of the most key fiction inventors. I think he was historic. BTW, did the name Cephas or Petros even exist as a personal name before Simon changed his name? Honest question.

With one exception, that exhausts the list of people whose historicity I asked about. We are left with Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha. Was he historic? His dates are unknown; there is an 80-year gap between two different estimates of his dates. The earliest "biography" of Buddha dates to about 150 or 230 years after his death. A far FAR bigger gap than we see for Jesus of Nazareth. Yet AFAIK, the historicity of this men is generally accepted. Am I wrong?

The key task of professional historians is to study ancient documents and to determine what is likely.

- - - - - - - - - -

To explore some questions, we must look at the chronology of documents. Some of Paul's Epistles were written about 55 AD, making them much earlier than written Gospels. However they did not have wide circulation, while oral versions of the Gospels were doubtless circulating long before they were written down. Christianity spread like wildfire; it was present in Rome by 60 AD and probably much earlier. Paul's Epistles were a reaction to a cult which had already spread, and not the initial cause of its spread. The early cult was spread by Peter, and by primitive orally-transmitted versions of what came to be the Gospels. (Note that Paul makes the Resurrection central to the religion he espouses in his Epistles, while for Mark the Resurrection is barely an after-thought.)

If Jesus were a fiction, the fiction writers would have had flexibility about how he was martyred. Given Deuteronomy 21:23 why hang him from a tree? John the Baptist wasn't hung from a tree.

Did Paul base his theology on a mythical debasement (crucifixion) of Jesus? But the story of the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is found BEFORE Paul; it is in the earliest oral Gospels; it is in Tacitus' account of the Emperor Nero.


This may be the SHORTEST post I've made on this topic. I answered a few very simple questions. Shall we try to proceed in similar fashion, slowly and methodically?

 

[DBT]

The difference between Davey Crocket, Johny Appleseed, et al, and Jesus is that we are told that our very lives depend on us believing that Jesus is our saviour, that if we don't believe in Jesus, we are eternally damned.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This may be the SHORTEST post I've made on this topic. I answered a few very simple questions. Shall we try to proceed in similar fashion, slowly and methodically?

Josephus wrote hearsay. The gospels and NT are anonymous fiction. Yet you treat these documents like historical commentary instead of historical artifacts. Why do you do that? Why do you say christianity spread like wildfire? Is this from Chrestus or because of Paul? The Josephus passage about Jesus we know is an interpolation and was "discovered" by Eusebius, a known forger and propagandist from the third century. You speak of "christianity" as some kind of monolithic movement when it wasn't. Why do you do that?

Why is there not a historical Santa Claus? What about the historical Hercules or Pegasus?

"Historical Jesus" could be a lot of things. Please define your "Historical Jesus" and then tell us how your evidence supports your claim.