What do we really know about Jesus?

[Unknown Soldier]

One Bible scholar will tell you we know A about Jesus, and another will tell you we know not A. They have the same evidence to arrive at these contradictory conclusions. Something's not right here. What's the problem with trying to know Jesus?

To answer this question, it's important to know the evidence for Jesus. All we have is a set of documents that originated with the early Christian sect. These documents are comprised of stories and testimonies about a figure named Jesus. Scholars study these documents and come to their own often contradictory conclusions. For example, while most scholars now say Jesus was born in Nazareth, some still maintain he was born in Bethlehem. It is my opinion that without supporting corroborative evidence, documents are very weak evidence, and these contradictory conclusions should come as no surprise being based on documents alone.

Most Bible scholars won't avow that the evidence for Jesus is this weak. If they did admit it, then their work would be seen for what it is: It is educated guesswork at best and misleading at worse. As Hector Avalos a Bible scholar himself has said, Biblical studies amounts to a specious liberal Christian apologetic.

 

[Politesse]

About as much as we know about any ancient figure (of whom is there more evidence than "documents alone"?), with the added problem of centuries of theological disputes that tend to bias discussions of historicism to the point of obscuring rather than illuminating any historical realities. I don't know what Bible "scholars" you are referring to, as debates over the nature of the historical Jesus even in theological studies to say nothing of history departments, are par for the course. Likely, even, the most common topic of discussion within historical studies of Christianity.

By the way, Hector Avalos was someone I knew, at least in a "running into each other at conferences" sort of a way. A fundamentally good guy if very opinionated (you'd have found a lot in common!) on the subject of religion. He died last year, far, far too young. A fine scholar and a tireless activist against Creationism in school curricula.

 

[steve_bank]

I'd say we know about the geopolitical environment Jesus would have lived in. Multiple claimants to be the Jewish messiah. Jewish nationalism pitted against Roman occupation.

A wandering prophetic Jewish rabbi preaching doom and gloom for Israel would not have benn surprisng.

There are no contemporaneous or Roman records.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

About as much as we know about any ancient figure (of whom is there more evidence than "documents alone"?)...

According to historian Richard Carrier the historical evidence for many figures from antiquity is actually much better than the evidence for Jesus, contrary to what many Jesus historicists claim.

...with the added problem of centuries of theological disputes that tend to bias discussions of historicism to the point of obscuring rather than illuminating any historical realities.

That's correct. Christianity enjoys a privileged status in our culture, and that's why you'll hear much about the historical Jesus but nothing about, say, the historical Hercules. Much of the historical work on Jesus is in reality Christian theology or apologetics or is affected by Christian apologetics.

I don't know what Bible "scholars" you are referring to...

The Bible scholars I'm familiar with in addition to the aforementioned Hector Avalos include Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Robert Price, Rice Broocks, Craig Evans, Rabbi Michael Skobac and John Dominic Crossan among others. Do you question their credentials as scholars?

...as debates over the nature of the historical Jesus even in theological studies to say nothing of history departments, are par for the course.

So if you want to study history, then you can expect to study Jesus?

Likely, even, the most common topic of discussion within historical studies of Christianity.

Well obviously you'll study the historicity of Jesus when studying the history of Christianity.

By the way, Hector Avalos was someone I knew, at least in a "running into each other at conferences" sort of a way.

You should feel privileged. He was indeed a gentleman and a scholar. I wish I could have met him.

A fundamentally good guy if very opinionated (you'd have found a lot in common!) on the subject of religion.

(Make sure you get that personal dig in.) I think he and I do have a lot in common. Like he I am categorized as "disabled." (He wrote at least one book on the subject of disability.) In addition, Hector and I are critical thinkers which is to say we employ logic and facts in pursuit of knowledge. I'd say as a critical thinker I would rank Avalos with the likes of Carl Sagan, and both men have been very influential on me.

He died last year, far, far too young.

I'm sad to hear that. Thank you for telling me. It was a loss for all of us.

A fine scholar and a tireless activist against Creationism in school curricula.

I've seen Hector debate Richard Weikart on the topic of Darwin allegedly influencing Hitler. Weikart had his holier-than-thou-evolutionists butt handed to him by Hector. I'd recommend you watch that video. You should see how Hector debates like I do.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'd say we know about the geopolitical environment Jesus would have lived in. Multiple claimants to be the Jewish messiah. Jewish nationalism pitted against Roman occupation.

A wandering prophetic Jewish rabbi preaching doom and gloom for Israel would not have benn surprisng.

There are no contemporaneous or Roman records.

You got it, Steve! The place and time of the rise of Christianity ensured that there were Jesuses (rebellious Jewish preachers who were crucified by the Romans). For some reason historians don't seem to recognize the fact that when they speak of Jesus, they should speak in the plural rather than the singular.

 

[steve_bank]

I'd say we know about the geopolitical environment Jesus would have lived in. Multiple claimants to be the Jewish messiah. Jewish nationalism pitted against Roman occupation.

A wandering prophetic Jewish rabbi preaching doom and gloom for Israel would not have benn surprisng.

There are no contemporaneous or Roman records.

You got it, Steve! The place and time of the rise of Christianity ensured that there were Jesuses (rebellious Jewish preachers who were crucified by the Romans). For some reason historians don't seem to recognize the fact that when they speak of Jesus, they should speak in the plural rather than the singular.

Along with oyers here I have been dating thists for a very long time.

In some ways it was an education when I first joined. I'd say it depends on the historians. I read the Oxfor bible and its assiced commentary. an academic appoach. It went through the bible highlighting all the translation isssues and obvious prplems. An academic approach.

Religion is not about authenticity. At its best it is about community, ritual , stability in a constantly changing world, and a way of living in a chaotic world.

In the 19th century a Christian decided he would trace all the way back to original documents and resolve all issues. He learned Hebrew and Greek. In the end he concluded there were no authoritative original sources.

Buddhism is similar. There are anecdotal stories of who Buddha was and where he was from. He did apparently leave a coherent set of moral rules and precipices. Jesus came out of Judaism, Buddha had his roots in Brahmanism I believe.

Like Jesus we do not know what was specifically attributed to Buddha and what evolved after him.

If yiu follow Buddhism to the letter it is far more conservative than any Abraham faiths.

 

[Politesse]

About as much as we know about any ancient figure (of whom is there more evidence than "documents alone"?)...

According to historian Richard Carrier the historical evidence for many figures from antiquity is actually much better than the evidence for Jesus, contrary to what many Jesus historicists claim.

Okay. Not really an answer to my question.

In any case, unless there are some sort of archaeological remains to be found, true only for a handful of political leaders, "documentary evidence" is the entirety of the historical record. In any time period.

The Bible scholars I'm familiar with in addition to the aforementioned Hector Avalos include Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Robert Price, Rice Broocks, Craig Evans, Rabbi Michael Skobac and John Dominic Crossan among others. Do you question their credentials as scholars?

Which of those people is unaware of or denies that there are very limited sources concerning the historical Jesus? Aside from Broocks, who has no qualifications in the field of history that I'm aware of, Craig Evans might be the most evangelical-friendly individual on the list. But he still literally wrote a book about the fragmented and often contradictory textual evidence for Christ. Jesus and the Manuscripts. Not great scholarship IMO but I wouldn't accuse him of being unfamiliar with the source materials. And the whole point of the book is that he wanted to "disprove" the majority of the texts that we do possess.

Well obviously you'll study the historicity of Jesus when studying the history of Christianity.

Exactly. An obscure or forbidden topic, this is not. Even people who are badly compromised by their conservative theological projects of various kinds are well aware of the dispute and have positions on this or that textual source.

You should feel privileged. He was indeed a gentleman and a scholar. I wish I could have met him.

You'd have liked the man, I am certain. There were a great many topics on which we disagreed, as you might imagine, but he was always polite. I appreciated that unlike most of the individuals described above, he kept up with my own field (of cultural anthropology) and was careful not to indulge in uninformed positions on social theory to bolster his points as too many are keen to do these days. He'd done a postdoc in anthro (I think?), and kept up with the community.

Since you mention him, I never had the opportunity to meet Carl Sagan, but I share your respect for him. A fine scientist and author.

I'm sad to hear that. Thank you for telling me. It was a loss for all of us.

The last few years have been hard. Too many bright minds gone. It makes me feel I need to take advantage of the events and panels at Cal and etc more often once this pandemic has passed. The moments I had with certain individuals, especially during my student years, have become very precious to me.

 

[DBT]

What about Paul knowing Peter and the others who knew Jesus personally? Doesn't that at least suggest that there is a person behind the myth?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What about Paul knowing Peter and the others who knew Jesus personally? Doesn't that at least suggest that there is a person behind the myth?

There are actual people behind every myth. We call them writers and authors and storytellers, not to mention, audiences.

 

[skepticalbip]

What about Paul knowing Peter and the others who knew Jesus personally? Doesn't that at least suggest that there is a person behind the myth?

Historians believe that there is probably a real person behind the stories of Paul Bunyan. That, however, does not mean that any of the Paul Bunyan tales have anything to do with anything that person he was loosely based on did or said other than that he was a lumberjack.

 

[DBT]

What about Paul knowing Peter and the others who knew Jesus personally? Doesn't that at least suggest that there is a person behind the myth?

There are actual people behind every myth. We call them writers and authors and storytellers, not to mention, audiences.

True, yet there were would be prophets and miracle workers getting around at the time, so it's not a stretch to assume that Yesuah Ben Joseph was one of them, one who got the devotion of his followers and a promoter in Paul. Which of course doesn't make the super.natural claims true, just what people believed at the time.

 

[DBT]

What about Paul knowing Peter and the others who knew Jesus personally? Doesn't that at least suggest that there is a person behind the myth?

Historians believe that there is probably a real person behind the stories of Paul Bunyan. That, however, does not mean that any of the Paul Bunyan tales have anything to do with anything that person he was loosely based on did or said other than that he was a lumberjack.

Obviously not.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

From the stuff I've seen, SBA. Sweet Bugger All.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

True, yet there were would be prophets and miracle workers getting around at the time, so it's not a stretch to assume that Yesuah Ben Joseph was one of them, one who got the devotion of his followers and a promoter in Paul. Which of course doesn't make the super.natural claims true, just what people believed at the time.

Of course it doesn't make the supernatural claims true. All writers must write from experience, that's their craft, inventing characters from their experiences. Gospel Jesus and Paul Bunyan are the same in that respect, Babe too. Gospel Jesus just garners more attention because he's a religious character.

 

[Hermit]

What about Paul knowing Peter and the others who knew Jesus personally? Doesn't that at least suggest that there is a person behind the myth?

There are real persons behind many mythical ones. How closely they resemble each other is a matter for debate.

 

[DBT]

What about Paul knowing Peter and the others who knew Jesus personally? Doesn't that at least suggest that there is a person behind the myth?

There are real persons behind many mythical ones. How closely they resemble each other is a matter for debate.

That's all I am saying. Some subscribe to Jesus as an entirely fictional character; I'm inclined to think there was a charismatic figure, a Rabbi or street preacher/miracle worker (one of many) upon which the myth was built. That's all.

 

[Hermit]

What about Paul knowing Peter and the others who knew Jesus personally? Doesn't that at least suggest that there is a person behind the myth?

There are real persons behind many mythical ones. How closely they resemble each other is a matter for debate.

That's all I am saying. Some subscribe to Jesus as an entirely fictional character; I'm inclined to think there was a charismatic figure, a Rabbi or street preacher/miracle worker (one of many) upon which the myth was built. That's all.

It is the uncertainty about the extent to which the mythical person(s) resemble the the real ones they are said to be based on that makes the debate about a historical or mythical Jesus barren. We simply lack contemporary codices. The earliest manuscripts of substantial parts of the new testament we know of are copies that were produced somewhere between 325 and 360 CE. Given the politicking and skulduggery that reached its first peak with the First Council of Nicaea, that provides plenty of time for excisions, interpolations and plain forgeries.

The earliest fragment of the NT we know of, poetically named P137, is provisionally dated in the 150-250 CE. It is a business card sized papyrus containing a few letters of Mark 1:7-9 on one side and 16-18 on the other.

We just don't have the necessary autographs for a profitable debate until the hypothesised Q source turns up. I really hope one such will, but even if it does, it won't be proof that Jesus walked on water, fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and fish, brought a man named Lazarus back to life, let alone that he was the son of God.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What about Paul knowing Peter and the others who knew Jesus personally? Doesn't that at least suggest that there is a person behind the myth?

There are real persons behind many mythical ones. How closely they resemble each other is a matter for debate.

That's all I am saying. Some subscribe to Jesus as an entirely fictional character; I'm inclined to think there was a charismatic figure, a Rabbi or street preacher/miracle worker (one of many) upon which the myth was built. That's all.

We're all saying the same thing, that "fictional characters" must be based on the experiences the author had. How else do we come up with Babe the Blue Ox, for example? Obviously the storyteller was thinking about oxen and had some familiarity with oxen.

No doubt oxen were used by lumberjacks to haul logs or at least had some use therein. Because of their cloven hooves oxen were much better in the mud than Percherons or Clydesdales. The question is whether Babe the Blue Ox refers to a particular ox the author was familiar with, despite it's supernatural accomplishments. Would anyone like to weigh-in on whether Babe was a particular ox that lived at the time and did particularly noteworthy things? If I worship oxen and make money selling oxen lore and memorabilia it damn sure is important. Babe becomes the mother of all oxen with religious and cultural significance even if some people dismiss all the supernatural attributions.

That's just how writers do their thing. There are lively debates concerning characters in novels and who the author based those characters on in contemporary works. It's a wonderful hobby/profession and can be quite exciting when one does all the detective work and research and comes up with likely persons based on the author's life and experiences. Sometimes there are actual persons. Sometimes a fictional character is a combination of individuals. Sometimes the author states categorically that there is no association even though the match is dead ringer material. This is writing.

 

[steve_bank]

Look at how the Dracula story evolved from the original book. based I believe Vlad The Impaler was an inspiration for the book.

Vlad the Impaler - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vlad III, commonly known as Vlad the Impaler (Romanian: Vlad Țepeș [ˈvlad ˈtsepeʃ]) or Vlad Dracula (/ˈdrækjələ/; Romanian: Vlad Drăculea [ˈdrəkule̯a]; 1428/31 – 1476/77), was Voivode of Wallachia three times between 1448 and his death in 1476/77. He is often considered one of the most important rulers in Wallachian history and a national hero of Romania.[4]

 

[Unknown Soldier]

About as much as we know about any ancient figure (of whom is there more evidence than "documents alone"?)...

According to historian Richard Carrier the historical evidence for many figures from antiquity is actually much better than the evidence for Jesus, contrary to what many Jesus historicists claim.

Okay. Not really an answer to my question.

What question did you ask? I assume what I highlighted is your question which is not clearly worded. I thought you were asking about the evidence for other figures from antiquity and how it compares to the evidence we have for Jesus.

In any case, unless there are some sort of archaeological remains to be found, true only for a handful of political leaders, "documentary evidence" is the entirety of the historical record. In any time period.

I'm not sure what your point is, but logically poor historical evidence for other figures from the past doesn't make the weak evidence for Jesus any less weak. Many Jesus historicists make what I call the "smellier skunk fallacy." If you tell me my skunk stinks, and I respond saying that other skunks are as smelly or smellier than my skunk, then it will do me no good. No matter how much other skunks reek, my skunk still smells! In the same way pointing out that the evidence for other figures is as weak or weaker than the evidence for Jesus doesn't make the evidence for Jesus any better.

You would think that these guys with doctorates would know better than to use such sloppy logic.

The Bible scholars I'm familiar with in addition to the aforementioned Hector Avalos include Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Robert Price, Rice Broocks, Craig Evans, Rabbi Michael Skobac and John Dominic Crossan among others. Do you question their credentials as scholars?

Which of those people is unaware of or denies that there are very limited sources concerning the historical Jesus? Aside from Broocks, who has no qualifications in the field of history that I'm aware of, Craig Evans might be the most evangelical-friendly individual on the list. But he still literally wrote a book about the fragmented and often contradictory textual evidence for Christ. Jesus and the Manuscripts. Not great scholarship IMO but I wouldn't accuse him of being unfamiliar with the source materials. And the whole point of the book is that he wanted to "disprove" the majority of the texts that we do possess.

I posted that list because you appeared to be questioning the credibility of the scholars I mention. I do have some big disagreements with most of them especially on the topic of what we know about Jesus (the topic of this thread). They evidently think they know far more about Jesus than what they reasonably could know. Bart Ehrman is especially bad in that regard, and I think he's very overrated as a scholar of the New Testament.

Since you mention him, I never had the opportunity to meet Carl Sagan, but I share your respect for him. A fine scientist and author.

I've seen Cosmos and have read several of Sagan's books, and I like all of the work he did that I'm familiar with. I especially like his work as a "skeptic." I would have loved to see him debate William Lane Craig.