Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” now out

[ruby sparks]

So if I authored a character who was a combination of John Brown, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas that person would be historical?

Not enough to be considered an historical person, no, imo. Might be at least a bit closer to it if your combination was, say, 90% one of them, but even then, I'd say no.

But assuming you're referring there to 4 actual people, it wouldn't make any of them ahistorical of themselves. You'd just have made an amalgam of 4 historical people.

What is the gain here? Let's parallel.

joedad: The film Braveheart tells us about William Wallace, but most of the stuff in the film is fictional and should not be referenced as being accurate historically regarding William Wallace, his actions and the consequences of them.

ruby sparks: But there was at least a William Wallace.

I'm not sure what you mean by, 'what's to gain?'. Maybe you mean, what knowledge (of his life) do we gain? If so, I'd say not very much, especially bearing in mind that we don't know if comparisons to the film Braveheart or amalgams of 4 people are what we are dealing with, which I think needs to be noted.

But, whatever 'model' one prefers, we don't gain very much. But then, are you looking to gain knowledge about his life? As I said, I'm not really. To me he's just, imo, the most plausible reason Christianity got started, that's all. After that, what Christians thought, said and did is arguably more interesting, and better attested. I don't tend to get into his life story much and if or when I do (it's been known to happen, especially during online discussions, not much in life away from them) I'm aware I'm being more speculative than when just accepting, on balance, that he (probably) existed at all. Which of course is also speculative, just less so, imo.

As far as I am aware, having looked into it, most modern, professional, qualified or academic secular historians stop at roughly the same place as me: Obscure (at the time) ancient Judean preacher type, killed by Romans.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As far as I am aware, having looked into it, most modern, professional, qualified or academic secular historians stop at roughly the same place as me: Obscure (at the time) ancient Judean preacher type, killed by Romans.

I've never seen a poll of academics. Your assumption sounds plausible, however.

What's your take on the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the wonders of the ancient world? We know there were no such gardens in Babylon as writers have reported. The gardens were in Nineveh. So would that make the Hanging Gardens of Babylon real, would it make them historical?

 

[ruby sparks]

What's your take on the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the wonders of the ancient world? We know there were no such gardens in Babylon as writers have reported. The gardens were in Nineveh. So would that make the Hanging Gardens of Babylon real, would it make them historical?

I really don't know much about the hanging gardens issue at all. I'd guess that one would have to wade through a lot of research.

So it's hard to comment, even in principle. But if, for example, there was only ever one 'famous, ancient hanging gardens' in what is now Iraq, and they existed at Nineveh, even at a different time, then the hanging gardens existed, just not in Babylon and not at the same time. If there were ever two famous hanging gardens, then one (in Nineveh, say) could be being mixed up with one in Babylon, when the latter one may never have existed.

The first case is an analogy, I suppose, to there having been the Jesus we are talking about, just not when or where he is said to have been, and the second one is analogous to there having been 'a preacher guru type called Jesus' elsewhere, but in that case he wouldn't be the Jesus we are talking about.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The first case is an analogy, I suppose, to there having been the Jesus we are talking about, just not when or where he is said to have been, and the second one is analogous to there having been 'a preacher guru type called Jesus' elsewhere, but in that case he wouldn't be the Jesus we are talking about.

Exactly. We'd have lots of accounts and devotional interests in the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, which is exactly what we have, and no archaeological evidence.

Maybe we'll find Jesus in cuneiform too, just like we did Noah. But likely, Jesus will remain "historical," even though there is nothing historical about the character in the time and place he allegedly lived.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is the gain here? Let's parallel.

joedad: The film Braveheart tells us about William Wallace, but most of the stuff in the film is fictional and should not be referenced as being accurate historically regarding William Wallace, his actions and the consequences of them.

ruby sparks: But there was at least a William Wallace.

I'm not sure what you mean by, 'what's to gain?'.

From the basis of the whole, 'he probably existed but was obscure and nothing written about him is true'. That is a rather silly fence sitting position. Wouldn't the more academic position be 'there is no significant evidence to suggest anything in the New Testament can be attached to a particular historical person'?

But, whatever 'model' one prefers, we don't gain very much. But then, are you looking to gain knowledge about his life? As I said, I'm not really. To me he's just, imo, the most plausible reason Christianity got started, that's all.

When you say "he" who are you talking about? You have discounted pretty much anything attributed to him in the NT.

After that, what Christians thought, said and did is arguably more interesting, and better attested. I don't tend to get into his life story much and if or when I do (it's been known to happen, especially during online discussions, not much in life away from them) I'm aware I'm being more speculative than when just accepting, on balance, that he (probably) existed at all. Which of course is also speculative, just less so, imo.

I'd say it is speculative, as you can't speak of any action this person allegedly was part of. That seems rather significant.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'd say it is speculative, as you can't speak of any action this person allegedly was part of. That seems rather significant.

Roll it back a couple millenia and David Koresh would be the historical Jesus.

The fact is that if one is insistent that the gospel protagonist is historical, there are literally millions of persons to choose from, including one self. My vote goes to Mel Gibson.

If you've ever known a person who was intimately bonded to this character, who accused you of walking in his blood and all sorts of other silly transgressions, historical authenticity is confirmed because you've just met Jesus.

 

[ruby sparks]

Exactly. We'd have lots of accounts and devotional interests in the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, which is exactly what we have, and no archaeological evidence.

Maybe we'll find Jesus in cuneiform too, just like we did Noah. But likely, Jesus will remain "historical," even though there is nothing historical about the character in the time and place he allegedly lived.

The thing is though, are the hanging gardens of Babylon a good analogy, or not? What happened there, I believe, is that somebody discovered a more likely hanging gardens somewhere else, of a different time. So those hanging gardens became the historical hanging gardens.

Maybe we'll find Jesus in cuneiform too, just like we did Noah.

The difference in the case of Jesus is that some of the citations are dated to as early as 25 years after the alleged time and there are others within 85-100 years, so it's different from Noah. This isn't just my opinion, it's standard historiography.

But likely, Jesus will remain "historical," even though there is nothing historical about the character in the time and place he allegedly lived.

I don't agree that there's nothing. There's arguably as much as we should reasonably expect in the circumstances, and more than for any other similar figure from that area and era. Any other messianic candidate preacher type for example.

 

[ruby sparks]

From the basis of the whole, 'he probably existed but was obscure and nothing written about him is true'. That is a rather silly fence sitting position.

Well that's not my position.

Wouldn't the more academic position be 'there is no significant evidence to suggest anything in the New Testament can be attached to a particular historical person'?

I don't see why it should. Also, I'm not sure why we should limit ourselves to the NT. There are, for example, about 250 early Christian texts for the perod up to 200 years after his alleged death (not that long in terms of ancient historical sources) and other non-Christian texts.

When you say "he" who are you talking about? You have discounted pretty much anything attributed to him in the NT.

No I haven't.

I'd say it is speculative, as you can't speak of any action this person allegedly was part of. That seems rather significant.

Again, it might be significant, if that's what I was saying, but it isn't what I'm saying:

"Obscure (at the time) ancient Judean preacher type, killed by Romans".

Now, that doesn't mean that's all I'm prepared to speculate, but it's just about all I'm prepared to speculate as being, imo, a fair bit more likely than not to have been the case. If you want me to speculate more, I could do that, but I'd be speculating more. Next up might be 'did so-called faith healing and other supposedly magic stuff'. I'd be at least fairly happy to add that next. 'Thought the end times they were a-coming' wouldn't feel like too much of a stretch either.

 

[steve_bank]

It goes to show secular historians can make as much money on the bible as the theists. Win-Win...

 

[bilby]

hmmm....is there a way for the poster to delete a duplicate post?

I don't think so; You would need to ask a mod to do it - You can attract their attention via the 'warning triangle' button that appears below each post (to the right of 'Promote to Article'; 'Draft this post'; 'Blog this Post'; and the 'Star of David' reputation button).

 

[bilby]

hmmm....is there a way for the poster to delete a duplicate post?

I don't think so; You would need to ask a mod to do it - You can attract their attention via the 'warning triangle' button that appears below each post (to the right of 'Promote to Article'; 'Draft this post'; 'Blog this Post'; and the 'Star of David' reputation button.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The thing is though, are the hanging gardens of Babylon a good analogy, or not? What happened there, I believe, is that somebody discovered a more likely hanging gardens somewhere else, of a different time. So those hanging gardens became the historical hanging gardens.



The difference in the case of Jesus is that some of the citations are dated to as early as 25 years after the alleged time and there are others within 85-100 years, so it's different from Noah. This isn't just my opinion, it's standard historiography.

But likely, Jesus will remain "historical," even though there is nothing historical about the character in the time and place he allegedly lived.

I don't agree that there's nothing. There's arguably as much as we should reasonably expect in the circumstances, and more than for any other similar figure from that area and era. Any other messianic candidate preacher type for example.

Just because something is written with times and dates and places does not mean it happened that way.

I can lift a character or story from anywhere and place that character into a context. I can do it. Any writer can do it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just because something is written with times and dates and places does not mean it happened that way.

No one is saying it is.

I can lift a character or story from anywhere and place that character into a context. I can do it. Any writer can do it.

Sure, but is that what happened here? At the moment, all you're offering is 'coulda been written as fiction'. Can you construct a case for it? I think you need to do that. Every case needs to be assessed on its own merits, surely?

Texts with 'historical' narratives (gospels), for example, are in the minority of texts. I think you will run into a problem when trying to explain all the texts that aren't of that form, because you will not easily be able to say they were probably written as fictional narratives. You will have to then also say that just because they're texts where the writer isn't doing fiction, that that doesn't mean the figure existed either. And you will be right, but you will have moved on from your initial position.

At some point, I think you are going to have to also say that the texts which don't readily fit the narrative fiction genre which were apparently written before the gospels aren't about the same figure, or are about an outer space figure only. Good luck with that, imo.

Later, you will also have to discount the historical references from outside the religion, which, despite what you might feel, still qualify as recent by the standards of ancient history. In all of this, you could be right, but the strength of your case will matter and imo you will have jumped through a lot of hoops to get to a case for non-existence and arguably done a fair bit of special pleading for this figure's case compared to the cases for similar figures from the time and era and indeed from ancient history generally and religious figures specifically.

There is no 'clincher' reason to accept that he was more likely (than not) to have existed. Looking at everything as a whole, I myself now think the case for existence is a bit stronger, that's all, especially if we try to be consistent, dispassionate and not prejudiced and if we stick to the methodologies that are used in the study of ancient history. Hey, disagree by all means, but give me your thorough analysis for this figure, not just your suspicions in general.

 

[lpetrich]

Later, you will also have to discount the historical references from outside the religion, which, despite what you might feel, still qualify as recent by the standards of ancient history.

Like what? They are all derived from Xian accounts of him, as far as I can tell, with the possible exception of some putative accounts of him in the Talmud. I say "possible", because the accounts of his father being a Roman soldier named Panthera could easily have been a response to the Xian belief in his Virgin Birth (virgin is "parthenos" in Greek).

Also, ruby sparks, how would you score him on the Lord Raglan hero scale?

 

[ruby sparks]

Later, you will also have to discount the historical references from outside the religion, which, despite what you might feel, still qualify as recent by the standards of ancient history.

Like what? They are all derived from Xian accounts of him, as far as I can tell, with the possible exception of some putative accounts of him in the Talmud. I say "possible", because the accounts of his father being a Roman soldier named Panthera could easily have been a response to the Xian belief in his Virgin Birth (virgin is "parthenos" in Greek).

Like the citations in historian texts that aren't Christain, like Tacitus and Josephus for example.

Now, you can say that you think they are wholly interpolated, but that's just your minority opinion and you can have it if you like. That's up to you. All I can say is I'm not convinced of that and not even sure why I should be. As to where the accounts came from, no one is saying they are first hand, only that independent citations by historians (who we can reasonably assume did at least some source checking and weren't biased in favour of Jesus) that early*, are decent additional evidence by the standards of ancient history for minor figures.


* And even if not fully contemporaraneous, they are still early. Josephus was probably living in Jerusalem at the time of the reported stoning of James incident that contains one of the apparent references.

Also, ruby sparks, how would you score him on the Lord Raglan hero scale?

We already did that. I'm not even convinced it is or was ever meant to be a good way to measure ahistoricity for anyone. If, for example, one uses the apparently earliest narrative ('Mark') the score goes down, as one might expect if the stories were embellished over time. Also, it's clear it can be manipulated to produce a certain score, what with Richard Carrier scoring Jesus higher than the one you linked me to. Personally, I don't rate Carrier's neutrality too highly because of stuff like that. I think he's basically trying to polish a turd made by Earl Doherty.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

ruby,

Minority opinions? Like Evolution and Natural Selection? Like Continental Drift? Like Germ Theory? Heliocentrism? The list is virtually endless.

What are the five characteristics about historical Jesus that you find compelling?

Also, you've stated Jesus was a militant guru type that got whacked. Would you agree that John the Baptist fits that model? Could JtB be your historical Jesus?

 

[ruby sparks]

ruby,

Minority opinions? Like Evolution and Natural Selection? Like Continental Drift? Like Germ Theory? Heliocentrism? The list is virtually endless.

Indeed. And all eventually gained credibility through evidence. Ahistoricism doesn't have any worth talking about.

What are the five characteristics about historical Jesus that you find compelling?

I think I've already clarified what I find credible, about 9 posts ago in this thread.

ETA: I'm not sure I feel 'compelled' by any of it, by the way.

Also, you've stated Jesus was a militant guru type that got whacked. Would you agree that John the Baptist fits that model? Could JtB be your historical Jesus?

You'd have to make a case. So far I haven't heard a good one.

I did hear of one theory once, about Judas of Gallilee being 'the real Jesus' and I didn't think it was daft, even if I couldn't fully subscribe to it.

 

[Jobar]

Ruby, something you said here-

I'll give you an example. 1st Corinthians 15:21. "For since by a man death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead'. Greek Koine 'anthropou' (man) in both cases. Human mortality supposedly came about because of the sinful actions of one man (Adam) and we were supposedly freed from it by the redeeming actions of another (Jesus). It is arguably the only 'demonstration model' which makes sense if you are trying to persuade otherwise doubtful Jews (and indeed Gentiles) that they too can survive their death. Hence also references to a wooden cross and blood and Jesus having been a Jew himself, etc etc.

This usage of 'anthropou' for Jesus is consistent with the previous use in the same sentence, with other instances in the same letter, with other letters, in Christian texts generally, as well as in wider non-Christian and non-religious Koine Greek. In a nutshell, it's indisputably the word used for 'man'.

I realize you're talking about docetism, not mythicism specifically, here. But do notice that this refers to Adam as a man; I take it you don't think that Adam is anything other than a myth?

We've argued before concerning the Pauline epistles and their support for an historical Jesus, or lack thereof. It's my view that nothing Paul wrote provides any backing for historicity more valid than just saying 'Jesus was a man.' And since Paul is our earliest written source referring explicitly to Jesus Christ, the lack of any passages which put Jesus in a clear time or place seems to be a strong argument for a mythical Christ.

 

[ruby sparks]

I realize you're talking about docetism, not mythicism specifically, here. But do notice that this refers to Adam as a man; I take it you don't think that Adam is anything other than a myth?

Adam is definitely much harder to argue for as an actual historical person, and I wouldn't even try personally, not least because of the lack of any sort of attestation beyond some 'dim and distant past' (like most 'mythical figures' but not in the case of Jesus) and even then only in religious texts (again not the case for Jesus).

We've argued before concerning the Pauline epistles and their support for an historical Jesus, or lack thereof. It's my view that nothing Paul wrote provides any backing for historicity more valid than just saying 'Jesus was a man.' And since Paul is our earliest written source referring explicitly to Jesus Christ, the lack of any passages which put Jesus in a clear time or place seems to be a strong argument for a mythical Christ.

Well, The Epistles don't just say that. They also say he was Jewish. They say he was killed by the Romans. They say he preached and did magic. In fact, they say just about all the things I'm prepared to put my neck on the block and defend as more likely.

That's not all the epistles say of course.

And on the topic of 'where and when', the epistles are clearly telling listeners that the end times are upon them at any moment and that people will cheat death very soon, just like Jesus, and that Jesus' death was a sign, for Jews. Jesus dying somewhere other than in Judea and in the distant past does not seem to make as much sense as if it were recent, because it would not then coincide with the supposed end times it was a sign for. Plus Jerusalem gets a mention or two.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ahistoricism doesn't have any worth talking about.

Lest I be accused of asking for evidence for the non-existence of something and this being deemed asking for too much....

Tangible evidence is possible, such as for example any mention of early Christian mythicism as a heresy, or the existence of any extant copy of a text or a piece of old papyrus that gave something away, such as for example a lack of a mention in Josephus or Tacitus, or a copy of Richard Carrier's favourite, a hypothetical copy of The Ascension of Isiah without a reference to Jesus having come down to earth.