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

[ruby sparks]

Then cite them.

i already did cite several, in the post you were responding to.

If you think it's not enough, or you query them, or don't interpret them as referring to a man who existed, that's ok, that's your opinion. But they are there.

 

[ruby sparks]

Hmmm...And it seems to me that he claimed that all these witnesses witnessed what he witnessed. In other words, they all saw what he saw: a vision. His meeting with Jesus was as a vision, just like all the others. A least, that's one reading of 1 Corinthians 15.

I would say that's an accurate reading. They all, allegedly, saw the ghost of a guy who had been killed and was buried.

If you think people thinking they saw the ghost of a dead person is unusual, you should come to Ireland.

In America, 1 in 5 people report it, apparently, 1 in 3 say they have felt the presence of someone who has died, and most Americans believe in the possibility.

Sort of irrelevant, really. What matters in terms of having an attestation is that in the case of Jesus it was reportedly the ghost of a Jewish guy who had lived and died. And if the epistles were begun in the mid 50's CE, there were reportedly others, from Jerusalem, before that.

It's just an early citation that there was such a man, that's all.

That just means people believed in a fictional account and claimed to see the protagonist. Whether it's bigfoot or bigfoot's ghost hardly matters. People see a blessed virgin all the time.

But if you're saying bigfoot is historical because all the hair allegedly belonging to bigfoot has been DNA confirmed to be from actual bears, then bigfoot is historical. It's just that bigfoot isn't bigfoot.

You seem to think that the correct genre for the epistles is fiction. I have already replied to you about that. If you don't find it convincing and you still feel that's the right genre, that's ok. I've explained why I don't think they are. Let's just agree to disagree.

I might have been able to at least partly agree with you about the gospels. Not entirely, but to some extent.

The most likely explanation for the form of the gospels was that they were the writers' attempts to pull together a range of believed stories that had mainly prior to that been circulating orally. Oral transmission traditions were very common at that time (and were apparently the dominant tradition in Ancient Greece for example).

That wouldn't mean the stories were true. But in that case it would mean that the writer didn't make them up to start with.

But the epistles aren't like the gospels anyway, and were probably written later.

 

[whollygoats]

Nah...I just think that you routed your own version of Augea's herd through this thread.

I've pretty much decided that you're not worth wasting time on.

 

[sharon45]

More. Paul even plainly says that his savior was "unknown to the world". I remember reading that way back in 1970 or so, and being sorely puzzled by it. I mean, what about all those miracles, and preachings, and his disciples, and the huge crowds he supposedly fed by magic? (At the time I thought the books of the NT were in roughly chronological order.) That inconsistency was one of the major factors in my own deconversion. In fact it continued to puzzle me for years afterwards, until in 1985 I read G.A. Wells' book, Did Jesus Exist?, which was my first exposure to the mythicism hypothesis for the origin of Christianity.

Could he mean unknown to the general world, hence why he traveled further around to teach of Jesus?

 

[ruby sparks]

More. Paul even plainly says that his savior was "unknown to the world". I remember reading that way back in 1970 or so, and being sorely puzzled by it....

Could he mean unknown to the general world, hence why he traveled further around to teach of Jesus?

The epistles certainly do say that. 'Paul' says his mission is to preach in places where Jesus was unknown.

Or, and more likely imo, it could mean that his supernatural credentials were unknown, that he was unknown as the messiah (saviour). The epistles do say that if the Romans had known this, they would not have crucified him. The gospels make a big play on the fact that as a saviour, Jesus was generally unrecognised for what he was, apart from to a small band of disciples, and even they weren't sure until afterwards.

At the moment though, I can't find the passage.

2nd Corinthians 6 has: "known, yet regarded as unknown". Even that would have to be read in context.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The question we should all be asking ourselves is whether Winston Churchill really did see Abraham Lincoln at the White House when he was visiting the U.S. after the close of WWII, as Churchill claimed.

If the vast majority of people have these imaginative experiences and sincerely hold that they are genuinely existing outside their own brains, talking about seeing Jesus, as Paul did, is personally not very convincing. If I had a vision of Athena, does that somehow lend support to there being an historical Athena? Obviously it does not.

But among people who want to believe in such experiences it most certainly does because to them these experiences go hand in hand with their religious inclinations.

Simply put, the attestations we have of their being a human Jesus come from people who wanted there to be a human Jesus, or who were reporting about people who wanted there to be a human Jesus. Unlike Lincoln, there is no contemporary writing about this man or evidence that he was real. Later writings are hearsay or reports of hearsay, and none of the actual events supposedly happening regarding the person get mention anywhere, short of proven forgeries.

 

[ruby sparks]

The question we should all be asking ourselves is whether Winston Churchill really did see Abraham Lincoln at the White House when he was visiting the U.S. after the close of WWII, as Churchill claimed.

Consider me perplexed as to why you would even want to ask that.

It's on a par with asking if Paul had an experience with a celestial being who was flesh.

If the vast majority of people have these imaginative experiences and sincerely hold that they are genuinely existing outside their own brains, talking about seeing Jesus, as Paul did, is personally not very convincing.

Not very convincing of what?

If I had a vision of Athena, does that somehow lend support to there being an historical Athena? Obviously it does not.

No. Obviously it does not.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Consider me perplexed as to why you would even want to ask that.

It's on a par with asking if Paul had an experience with a celestial being who was flesh.

Consider that 75% of adults think that woo is real. Consider that persons like Winston Churchill claim to communicate with ghosts.

You are missing the forest for the trees, namely, that most people today, and quite obviously even more if not all people 2000 years ago, accept the existence of woo as sincerely as you accept the existence of your family.

 

[blastula]

There's no scholarly agreement on the dating of Mark, largely agreed to be the earliest of the Gospels. I've seen estimates as late as 130 AD. So the lack of personal detail in the other epistles and books of the NT might be seen as evidence of the late provenance of all the Gospels.

But that's not really my point. Paul is the earliest; if there were actual personal details concerning Jesus Christ available, you'd think that Paul would be the most likely to record them.

He wasn't writing biographies, he was preaching his theology and ethics and settling disputes. He does mention a few things though, including that Jesus had brothers, which is not just found in Galatians, but in 1 Cor. 9:5.

Yet not one miracle does he mention,

Yes, no miracles, which may mean they were a later embellishment imo.

no direct quotes, no paraphrased teachings, nothing to date or locate his savior.

But there are few. He gives Jesus's teaching on divorce, the Eucharist, on paying preachers (all in 1 Cor).

Paul doesn't say much about himself in the letters neither. Who knows what he said in person.

 

[ruby sparks]

Consider me perplexed as to why you would even want to ask that.

It's on a par with asking if Paul had an experience with a celestial being who was flesh.

Consider that 75% of adults think that woo is real. Consider that persons like Winston Churchill claim to communicate with ghosts.

You are missing the forest for the trees, namely, that most people today, and quite obviously even more if not all people 2000 years ago, accept the existence of woo as sincerely as you accept the existence of your family.

I had not heard that figure of 75% but it doesn't surprise me. I agree that stuff like seeing ghosts is commonplace. I just don't know what your point is, especially your example of Winston Churchill supposedly seeing Abraham Lincoln.

 

[ruby sparks]

He wasn't writing biographies, he was preaching his theology and ethics and settling disputes.

So much rests on what 'we expect' Paul 'should have' written, imo, and not on what he did write (or what was written I should say, since I'm using 'Paul' as a convention to mean 'the writer').

Early Christian writings are not all of the same sort. There are gospels, there are epistles, there are apocalypses and other sorts of prophecies, etc. Only some do bio. The sorts that don't were still being written for hundreds of years, long after the ones with the bio were available (Jobar wants to push the start of the gospels to 130AD but that's not easy to do, especially since the consensus is that they were started around 66AD while the writer of the Pauline Epistles was still alive and were probably circulating orally before that, and in any case, non-bio texts carry on way after 130AD anyway).

One thing to bear in mind is that the writer of the epistles was expecting the end times at any moment. If we don't read them in that light we are probably missing the whole point, imo. His main case for this, the main reason for the supposedly dire emergency was that Jesus supposedly rose from the dead. If he didn't do that, Paul wouldn't have a case. Which is possibly why he bangs on about it so much. Even the bits where he gives advice to the followers can be seen to be telling them what to do to make themselves ready as soon as possible. It wasn't 'general life coaching' and unlike today, they weren't going to have to wait until they were dead. This thing was about to happen. The writer seemed to think, or at least be saying to people, that the new churches weren't even going to be there next month or next year. So whether this or that cult member should or shouldn't get divorced, or be circumcised, was, it seems, in order to be pure and ready in order to qualify for the (very) imminent big event.

I say all this without necessarily having any positive regard for Paul (or Jesus for that matter). 'Paul/Saul' was probably a deluded, slightly well-educated little wanker who wasn't necessarily truthful. He might even have been hitching an ego ride on a recent Jewish cult for his own self-aggrandisement. Why would he want paid or be asking for donations to send back to Jerusalem if he really thought the apocalypse was due any moment? Or he mighta really been a true convert. I dunno.

At some point in time, when the end times didn't come, a lot of Christian teaching gradually switched to 'general life coaching' so that you got into heaven after you died. That was apparently not the case in the mid 50's AD. This is easily overlooked when we read the texts today and perhaps project bits of later or modern christianity onto texts to which they didn't apply to the same extent.

It's clear in the writings. Paul has to reassure some new cult members in Thessalonia because some of their friends and family have died and the end times haven't happened. People's faith is starting to wobble.

He does mention a few things though, including that Jesus had brothers, which is not just found in Galatians, but in 1 Cor. 9:5........but there are few. He gives Jesus's teaching on divorce, the Eucharist, on paying preachers (all in 1 Cor).....

There is more in the epistles about Jesus than many think.

Yes, no miracles, which may mean they were a later embellishment imo.

Paul doesn't say much about himself in the letters neither. Who knows what he said in person.

The epistles say that the mark of a genuine apostle is his or her ability to do miracles and faith healing, by channelling the spirit of Jesus. This could be taken to suggest that Jesus was supposed to have done them.

As to why the Epistles don't cite any supposedly done by the head honcho, they don't cite any done by Paul himself or any of the other apostles either, so it's arguably not really a stand-out omission.

Other than the biggie miracle, obviously. The supposedly cheating death one.

Again, If we look at what Paul does say rather than what he supposedly doesn't, he apparently was talking about a recent Jewish preacher guru bloke who got killed and was buried. That's a 1st citation, and apparently a very early one. Even Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty agree they were probably written starting in the mid 50's. It's way more than we have for any other religious guru from that place and time, and there were probably lots. It was The Messianic Age. The Romans had started ruling Judea in 6AD and the oppressed Jews were looking for a holy rescue to screw over the invading Roman gits*. We read of a few other gurus, including in Josephus (arguably another bit of a shitbag who also switched sides and went over to the enemy) but they have less evidence and it's later. Perhaps we don't question their existence because they aren't invested with any historical and cultural significance for us. Perhaps if we could be more dispassionate (including in some cases not mixing up the issue of 'woo' with 'gurus supposed to have done woo') we might more easily say that we have enough early citations, including away from the epistles and indeed away from christian texts, to at least lean slightly in favour of 'likely existed rather than didn't and probably got the ball rolling for a new cult', which is where I stop, pretty much. There is nothing special here. Just another deluded preacher guru who had a few followers initially.

Also, if you were a Jew back then, making up a Jewish messiah who got crucified would arguably have been stupid and counter-productive (and was apparently the main reason the Jews didn't buy into it) given how humiliating crucifixion was for the Jews. In any case, if you were looking for a stooge, you could have picked one of the Jewish preacher gurus who had their head chopped off in a fight with the Romans. At least that would have been a bit more like the sort of messiah the jews were expecting prior to this one. No wonder the early cult members struggled afterwards to scrape the barrel of their own OT for so-called prophecies for failed messiahs.


* Well, some thought they were gits, others collaborated and enjoyed the privileges that they got out of it. See 'puppet governments and other hangers-on'. These ones probably weren't especially hoping for a messiah. It would be a mistake to say that all Jews were.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Consider me perplexed as to why you would even want to ask that.

It's on a par with asking if Paul had an experience with a celestial being who was flesh.

Consider that 75% of adults think that woo is real. Consider that persons like Winston Churchill claim to communicate with ghosts.

You are missing the forest for the trees, namely, that most people today, and quite obviously even more if not all people 2000 years ago, accept the existence of woo as sincerely as you accept the existence of your family.

I had not heard that figure of 75% but it doesn't surprise me. I agree that stuff like seeing ghosts is commonplace. I just don't know what your point is, especially your example of Winston Churchill supposedly seeing Abraham Lincoln.

Haven't you ever had someone relate to you an urban legend that you had already heard somewhere else?

When I was living in Georgia I was told about how the owner of a beautiful boat kept it from being stolen by chaining it to a large pine tree. The tree and boat were pointed out to me by a business acquaintance and were right next door to his business, easily visible from the road. Allegedly the owner came home one day to find the boat mysteriously chained to a different tree. When he investigated he found a note attached to the boat that said, "Just so you know we could have taken it if we wanted." OOOOOOO...AAAAAHHHHH!

Living in Pennsylvania decades later I heard the same story told to me by a family member who's neighbor had the same thing allegedly happen to him. And both people were completely sincere telling me the story.

I also heard the one about baby tarantula spiders erupting from a cactus growing in the home from two different people. Supposedly the cactus was making weird scraping like sounds for some time. The cactus plant then gets accidentally knocked to the floor, breaks open and hundreds of baby tarantulas emerge. EEEEEEEK!

The point is that people believe stupid shit and tell these stupid shit stories as if they actually happened. Am I supposed to believe that this actually happened, that there is a singular historical genesis to these stupid shit stories that are nothing more than emotionally satisfying tall tales?

And Churchill? The fact that someone as renowned as Winston Churchill is gullible enough to believe that he met Abraham Lincoln only illustrates how pervasive such misplaced credulity actually is within our species. We love tall tales, tall tales like militant gurus coming back to life circulating in highly charged religious circles. And if we have only hearsay evidence then our own misplaced credulity invents legitimacy, even going so far as to consent via majority opinion that there is truth to the militant guru story, the tarantula cactus story and the mysterious note about the boat story. As a species we love these tales. It's no wonder then that there is a majority consensus that even the gospel stories, fabulously fictional anonymous religious accounts, have truth at the core.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sure, I've heard of urban legend. And it's possible in this case. I would never say it wasn't, not myself feeling sure Jesus existed. But should we think it the most probable or best explanation in a specific case? For that, we'd surely need more of a case than, 'it coulda been'. For starters, most religious cults throughout history who cite a recent charismatic founder usually have had one, as far as we can tell. It's arguably the norm.

Of course we'd like clearer evidence, but do we have any good reason to expect it? Of the 600,000 jews living in Judea at that time, we don't, as far as I know, have first hand accounts for any of them. None. Not even the kings and the high priests and other prominent people. Those few that we know anything much about comes from the Jewish historian Josephus, or at least he is the earliest source outside Christianity.

Josephus, in his History of the Jews (finished in 110AD) appears to independently confirm accounts, including in the epistles, the gospel of Mark, the Acts of the Apostles and in a few non-NT writings and apocrypha, including some found at Nag Hammadi (eg Gospel of Thomas, dated 40AD-140AD) that Jesus had a brother James who was eventually stoned to death in about 62AD in Jerusalem. Josephus is widely considered a reasonably decent historian by the standards of the time and not being a Christian, he can be considered more impartial.

Josephus was born (37AD) and raised in Jerusalem and was living there at the time of the stoning in 62AD (in 66AD, at the outbreak of the First Jewish war with the Romans, he was made military governer of Galilee). He himself was a descendant of a high priest and an aristocrat and would likely have personally known the Younger Ananus, the high priest at the centre of the controversy involving the stoning.

So what I am saying is that in several and therefore corroborated accounts, someone, at the time, claimed to be the brother of the preacher man we are talking about. I think that reduces the case for urban legend, myth or fiction slightly.

That does not mean Jesus existed or even that that story is true. I know you and some others won't find it convincing, might query the veracity of it and would like more evidence in any case, but by the standards of evidence for similarly minor figures from Judea at that time, that qualifies as acceptable (and almost contemporaneous) evidence by virtually all historians who consider it. And of course it isn't the only evidence. If we ask for unreasonable amounts before granting likliehood to Jesus, then we should, to be consistent historians, question many, many other figures from ancient history too, even just in Judea. We are only doing degrees of likliehood after all and we are supposed to be using the tools of historiography in an even-handed way.

There is also the issue I mentioned before, that a story about someone being ignominiously crucified would have been an odd and embarrassing thing to say about a supposed messiah, given how unheroic and degrading an end that would have been to Jewish listeners. It was considered humiliating and not even warranted for common criminals (which is arguably why the Romans resorted to it at times). Again, I think this deeply awkward element also mitigates slightly against urban legend, myth or fiction about a messiah.

 

[none]

the relevant parts of Josephus works are interpolations

 

[whollygoats]

the relevant parts of Josephus works are interpolations

I agree.

Plus, as I understand it, Steve Mason, in his Josephus and the New Testament, suggests that Josephus' works, particularly Antiquities of the Jews, may well have served as a source work for the author(s) of the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[Juma]

Josephus? Are you joking? Have you read these passages yourself?
They are obvious later additions. Why the fuck would josephus mention a brother er of jesus?
No. That wouldnt make sense at all.

 

[whollygoats]

Me?

I decided to pick this up:

I'll try to stir in a little literary criticism in with my historical criticism...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Me?

I decided to pick this up:

I'll try to stir in a little literary criticism in with my historical criticism...

Most novels can be historicized, certainly the classics. What the vast majority of jesus scholars fail to understand is that any character in any novel is an inspired invention by an author, but that the character is fictional. So why the double standard with gospels?

It's very likely that if we had all the things that were ever written about this ancient superman, scholars would have a different take on historicity. Conveniently for them, 99% of that corpus is gone.

 

[ruby sparks]

Josephus? Are you joking? Have you read these passages yourself?
They are obvious later additions. Why the fuck would josephus mention a brother er of jesus?
No. That wouldnt make sense at all.

He only mentions him in passing, as merely being the person that the high priest Ananus had stoned to death. This controversial incident led to Ananus being deposed. The story was about Ananus. As someone from a well-to-do family descended from a high priest, Jopsephus likely knew of Ananus. There is nothing unusual in mentioning and naming the victim. Josephus regularly names minor characters briefly when his stories are about more important ones and it would have been unusual for him not to at least name the victim here, especially as Josephus was in Jerusalem at the time.

 

[ruby sparks]

Me?

I decided to pick this up:

I'll try to stir in a little literary criticism in with my historical criticism...

Most novels can be historicized, certainly the classics. What the vast majority of jesus scholars fail to understand is that any character in any novel is an inspired invention by an author, but that the character is fictional. So why the double standard with gospels?

It's very likely that if we had all the things that were ever written about this ancient superman, scholars would have a different take on historicity. Conveniently for them, 99% of that corpus is gone.

Unlike the gospels, the epistles and many other early christian texts don't have the form of a novel.