What do we really know about Jesus?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I agree, and I'm left wondering why do so many scholars claim that we can know some things about Jesus. It appears that they are feeding the masses with the food those masses are starving for: Knowledge about Jesus. If people think they can know facts about Jesus, then it provides them with cognitive closure freeing them from painful uncertainty.

That is the dynamic. There is also a profit motive and genuine academic interest and curiosity same as any other historical event. We are culturally curious about the events that gave rise to the Jesus Tales. For those of us not interested in supernaturalism it's still interesting. But for those taken in by claims of woo, those who's brains are dominated by their limbic systems and not their rational faculties, the demand for more and more of the Jesus fix is insatiable. That dragon is just always going to be chased.

I can remember being taken in by Eric von Daniken's claims about ancient aliens when I first read Chariots of the Gods. I later discovered it was all hooey. Jesus is just Superman and I still enjoy watching Superman movies. That part of my brain is still alive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am pretty sure Jesus' favorite color was blue. He liked long walks on the beach at sunset. He was a cat person.

He liked performing magic tricks at parties, like turning water into wine. He did the walking on water trick for friends.

If you were a typical scholar of New Testament, you would know all that about Jesus, or at least you would say you know that about Jesus hoping that nobody asks you how you know all that about Jesus. If some do ask, then tell them you're using "historical methods" to know Jesus. If they don't believe what you say you know about Jesus, then tell them they're making things up on the internet and listening to "crazy bloggers."

That was a joke.

I know.

However yes, Christians 'know' what they say is right with numerous proofs that do not exist in the text.

It's not just Christians who "know" Jesus. Scholars know him too. It's how they make a living.

The RCC is almost a complete non biblical fabrication of mythology and theology that is not 'bible based' as Evangelcals I knew would say. Same view of Mormons.

I used to think that Protestants follow the Bible more closely than Catholics. Nowadays I'm asking: "Which part of the Bible?"

To overly simplify things, Protestants follow Paul and zealots and are big into a la carte Old Testament theology. Catholics follow Mary and the Church and worship dogma.

Jesus was left outside in the cold. The Catholic Church is the anthesis of the alleged views of organized religion of Jesus. And the Protestants, oh boy... they love the concept of Hell, often quite aligned more with the New Testament reboot of Satan than Jesus.

 

[TomC]

But, of whom in the ancient world could one say anything else?

Plenty of people.
Take Alexander the Great as one example.

Even if there weren't any stories about his background or father Phillip, Alexander clearly existed.

Hellenistic culture exploded across the region. Then collapsed into a few kingdoms. Even if we didn't know anything about Alexander the obvious explanation for what happened would be a brilliant, charismatic, and very lucky, Greek warlord who died young.

If we didn't know anything about Alexander, historians would be positing such a warlord based on the huge evidence.

Jesus is quite different. If S/Paul hadn't created a religion that was convenient for Romans and other pagans He would be in the same place as the other 1st century Jewish Messiahs. Dust in the wind.
None of who's names are even remembered any more.

But I do hear Christians telling me that Jesus has more evidence for His existence than there is for Alexander the Great.
Tom

So the standard here is: we know that historical figures exist, if they founded new empires that span the entire globe known to them.

So we've got, what, about six individuals known to exist before 1500?

An interesting rubric.

This is not, of course, what I posted.

Alexander the Great was one example of someone from history that many Christians have claimed is less evidenced than Jesus of Nazareth.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

But, of whom in the ancient world could one say anything else?

Plenty of people.
Take Alexander the Great as one example.

Even if there weren't any stories about his background or father Phillip, Alexander clearly existed.

Hellenistic culture exploded across the region. Then collapsed into a few kingdoms. Even if we didn't know anything about Alexander the obvious explanation for what happened would be a brilliant, charismatic, and very lucky, Greek warlord who died young.

If we didn't know anything about Alexander, historians would be positing such a warlord based on the huge evidence.

Jesus is quite different. If S/Paul hadn't created a religion that was convenient for Romans and other pagans He would be in the same place as the other 1st century Jewish Messiahs. Dust in the wind.
None of who's names are even remembered any more.

But I do hear Christians telling me that Jesus has more evidence for His existence than there is for Alexander the Great.
Tom

So the standard here is: we know that historical figures exist, if they founded new empires that span the entire globe known to them.

So we've got, what, about six individuals known to exist before 1500?

An interesting rubric.

This is not, of course, what I posted.

Alexander the Great was one example of someone from history that many Christians have claimed is less evidenced than Jesus of Nazareth.
Tom

Then I fail to see how the diversion is relevant.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I agree, and I'm left wondering why do so many scholars claim that we can know some things about Jesus. It appears that they are feeding the masses with the food those masses are starving for: Knowledge about Jesus. If people think they can know facts about Jesus, then it provides them with cognitive closure freeing them from painful uncertainty.

That is the dynamic.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person aware of this problem with historical Jesus studies. Most people seem to be very quick to believe the "scholarly consensus" about the historical Jesus without question.

There is also a profit motive...

I've heard that some Bible scholars can lose their jobs if they violate the articles of faith used by their employers.

...and genuine academic interest and curiosity same as any other historical event.

Yes. Some people do appear to be genuinely interested in knowing the facts about Jesus. I know I am.

We are culturally curious about the events that gave rise to the Jesus Tales. For those of us not interested in supernaturalism it's still interesting.

Jesus is a cultural icon in western civilization. Many people in this part of the world want to know Jesus even if they're not necessarily seeking religious fulfillment.

But for those taken in by claims of woo, those who's brains are dominated by their limbic systems and not their rational faculties, the demand for more and more of the Jesus fix is insatiable. That dragon is just always going to be chased.

The Da Vinci Code is probably a good example of what you're speaking of here. People ate it up I think because it made more sense to them than traditional Christian dogma about Jesus. If they cannot know Jesus one way, then they seek to know him another way. This phenomenon is similar to the "critical" scholarship on Jesus. Since many scholars cannot accept a divine miracle worker model of Jesus, they trash all that supernatural baggage to come up with a Jesus they can buy--a Jesus who lived all right but merely as a Jewish preacher who was crucified by the Romans. Robert Price likens this view of Jesus to concluding that there was a real Clark Kent; he just wasn't Superman!

I can remember being taken in by Eric von Daniken's claims about ancient aliens when I first read Chariots of the Gods. I later discovered it was all hooey. Jesus is just Superman and I still enjoy watching Superman movies. That part of my brain is still alive.

I've been taunted by Jesus historians who likened my supposed mythicism to Erich von Däniken's "Chariots of the Gods." (They assumed wrongly that I'm a mythicist while I'm just not convinced that Jesus lived.) I immediately corrected them explaining that since Erich von Däniken sought a historical basis for mythological beings, then it is they whose view is like Erich von Däniken's. Erich von Däniken's ETs are like their Jesus.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes.

The Da Vinci Code is probably a good example of what you're speaking of here. People ate it up I think because it made more sense to them than traditional Christian dogma about Jesus. If they cannot know Jesus one way, then they seek to know him another way. This phenomenon is similar to the "critical" scholarship on Jesus. Since many scholars cannot accept a divine miracle worker model of Jesus, they trash all that supernatural baggage to come up with a Jesus they can buy--a Jesus who lived all right but merely as a Jewish preacher who was crucified by the Romans. Robert Price likens this view of Jesus to concluding that there was a real Clark Kent; he just wasn't Superman!

That's pretty much it. And it makes a lot of people a lot of money. It's a bit of a religion in its own way.

And speaking of Jesus magic, there's a great current BBC video about the Holy Grail.

Is this the home of the Holy Grail?

I think I enjoy watching these shows as much as a five-year-old likes learning about Santa.

The Holy Grail is one of the most important relics of Christianity. According to Christian tradition, it is the cup Jesus supposedly drank from during the Last Supper.

Scholars are not certain if the Holy Grail ever existed. But there are many contenders vying for the title of the real Holy Grail and the Cathedral of Valencia tops the list. The vessel attracts pilgrims from all over the world, and has even been used in Christian ceremonies by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yes.

The Da Vinci Code is probably a good example of what you're speaking of here. People ate it up I think because it made more sense to them than traditional Christian dogma about Jesus. If they cannot know Jesus one way, then they seek to know him another way. This phenomenon is similar to the "critical" scholarship on Jesus. Since many scholars cannot accept a divine miracle worker model of Jesus, they trash all that supernatural baggage to come up with a Jesus they can buy--a Jesus who lived all right but merely as a Jewish preacher who was crucified by the Romans. Robert Price likens this view of Jesus to concluding that there was a real Clark Kent; he just wasn't Superman!

That's pretty much it. And it makes a lot of people a lot of money. It's a bit of a religion in its own way.

Historical Jesus studies looks suspiciously like Christian apologetics to me or at least it looks like the liberal version of Christian apologetics. I do know that many Christians are very quick to cite that "consensus of scholars" who presumably are convinced that Jesus existed. I've noticed that few Christians actually bother to check those scholars to see what they're really saying and if what they're doing is legitimate historical work.

Anyway, if it is true that most Bible scholars are convinced that Jesus existed, then I wonder if after they pore over all those tales of Jesus impregnating a virgin with himself, magically turning water into wine, casting out devils, and raising people from the dead they look up and say out loud: "There's just got to have been a historical Jesus--this evidence completely convinces me!"

And speaking of Jesus magic, there's a great current BBC video about the Holy Grail.

Is this the home of the Holy Grail?

I think I enjoy watching these shows as much as a five-year-old likes learning about Santa.

The Holy Grail is one of the most important relics of Christianity. According to Christian tradition, it is the cup Jesus supposedly drank from during the Last Supper.

Scholars are not certain if the Holy Grail ever existed. But there are many contenders vying for the title of the real Holy Grail and the Cathedral of Valencia tops the list. The vessel attracts pilgrims from all over the world, and has even been used in Christian ceremonies by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

For both King Arthur and for Jesus we have the criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment, so why not believe in both men?

 

[Politesse]

Anyway, if it is true that most Bible scholars are convinced that Jesus existed, then I wonder if after they pore over all those tales of Jesus impregnating a virgin with himself, magically turning water into wine, casting out devils, and raising people from the dead they look up and say out loud: "There's just got to have been a historical Jesus--this evidence completely convinces me!"

You're confusing two different things here, liberal Christianity and academic scholarship. Not all academic research into the historical Jesus is conducted by liberal Christians, and most liberal Christians would not be particularly interested in the work of academic researchers, though they are more likely to take such an interest than conservatives, since they lack the inherent distrust of the educational system that has come to typify the evangelical approach.

Thus, on the one hand, I think you are struggling to understand the perspectives of "liberal" Christians. It is not common to see particular items of faith as "claims" to be proven or disproven. Meaning is found in other quarters than hard objectivist claims.

Scholars, of course, are more inclined to ask such questions. But scholars like Ehrman and Crossan are not going to come down on the side of "miracualous claims must be true", quite the opposite. I'm beginning to doubt that you have ever actually read any of their work, if you came away with that impression. I mean, Crossan thinks Jesus was a passive political resister, not a miracle-worker.

 

[steve_bank]

There have been a number of movies on Wyatt Erarp and the OK Corral and Billy The Kid. I recntly wtched an old Billy The Kid movie with Paul Newman as the kid.

There are corroborate derails of his existence and what he did. People have written books and delved into the history around the figure. Nobody realy knows who he was and where he came from. !9th century pop fiction books were written and later movies created narrtives around the known facts.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Anyway, if it is true that most Bible scholars are convinced that Jesus existed, then I wonder if after they pore over all those tales of Jesus impregnating a virgin with himself, magically turning water into wine, casting out devils, and raising people from the dead they look up and say out loud: "There's just got to have been a historical Jesus--this evidence completely convinces me!"

You're confusing two different things here, liberal Christianity and academic scholarship.

The two "disciplines" are easy to confuse, I agree. They look much alike to me. You may be missing my point, though. I was pointing out how absurd it is to be so sure on such weak evidence that we know anything about Jesus or even if he existed.

Not all academic research into the historical Jesus is conducted by liberal Christians...

I know that, but it's important to understand the influence liberal Christianity has on scholars regardless of their beliefs. Christians invented Bible studies, after all.

...and most liberal Christians would not be particularly interested in the work of academic researchers...

Oh yeah? Just tell them that Jesus didn't exist and then listen to them chant: "The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars are very sure Jesus existed."

...though they are more likely to take such an interest than conservatives, since they lack the inherent distrust of the educational system that has come to typify the evangelical approach.

Despite that distrust, many Christians are quick to believe any academic who assures them Jesus existed.

Thus, on the one hand, I think you are struggling to understand the perspectives of "liberal" Christians.

It can be difficult to see how they come up with their ideas. For instance, why would a perfect God author a book full of myths?

Scholars, of course, are more inclined to ask such questions. But scholars like Ehrman and Crossan are not going to come down on the side of "miracualous claims must be true", quite the opposite. I'm beginning to doubt that you have ever actually read any of their work, if you came away with that impression.

I'm beginning to doubt that you've read any of my posts if you think that I maintain that Ehrman and Crosson think that miraculous claims must be true. Where did you get that?

I mean, Crossan thinks Jesus was a passive political resister, not a miracle-worker.

Oh. Really. And here I thought that Crosson was a fundamentalist Christian. Thank you so much for straightening me out.

 

[Politesse]

Oh yeah? Just tell them that Jesus didn't exist and then listen to them chant: "The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars are very sure Jesus existed."

I've never heard anyone chant that.

 

[Voland0]

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?

Paul does not indicate that Peter knew "Jesus" in any way different than he, himself, did, which was by revelation from the Hebrew scriptures and a vision, a.k.a. hallucination. He uses "appeared to", and then includes himself. He *never* recounts any historical-like anecdote of Peter doing anything with the Jesus character, unlike the later-written gospels.

 

[steve_bank]

Oh yeah? Just tell them that Jesus didn't exist and then listen to them chant: "The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars are very sure Jesus existed."

I've never heard anyone chant that.

Maybe you are not paying atention?

I'd say it is not uncommon for Christians to use the words scholars and historians to refer to Christian writers who are out to support the conclusion.

When reading legitimate hostesses I found you need to read more than one author, all historians see history in a different way. Conclusions can vary.

I sample Christian TV channels from time to time. Sciencec, archeology, and history conclusivley show the bible is literally true.

 

[Voland0]

I sample Christian TV channels from time to time. Sciencec, archeology, and history conclusivley show the bible is literally true.

The Bible says things like "the Earth doesn't move". Science shows that it moves in a nearly circular orbit relative to the Sun. On this, the Bible is literally untrue.
The Bible indicates that there is some position that can be seen from all locations on the Earth. This should require a flat Earth. Science shows us that the Earth is spherical, and the prediction involved can not come true. On this, the Bible is literally untrue.
The Bible includes a story of a world-wide flood. Science shows many ways that this was impossible. On this, the Bible is literally untrue.
[I could keep going...]

Archaeology can show that stories in the Bible have literally true historical mentions, such as historical nations, locations, or people, but can not show that the Bible is literally true. Consider fiction set in, say, Paris, mentioning the Louvre museum. Does the historical existence of the Louvre show that "The Da Vinci Code" is literally true? Of course not.

There are very few outside historical mentions that can corroborate anything that the Bible says. For example, nothing in ancient Egyptian records, as carved into stone as hieroglyphs, corroborates the Exodus story. There begins only to be corroboration in outside sources of later kings, not even of the fabled Solomon.

 

[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?

Paul does not indicate that Peter knew "Jesus" in any way different than he, himself, did, which was by revelation from the Hebrew scriptures and a vision, a.k.a. hallucination. He uses "appeared to", and then includes himself. He *never* recounts any historical-like anecdote of Peter doing anything with the Jesus character, unlike the later-written gospels.

That's right, but the assumption is that Peter, being one of the disciples of Jesus, must have known the man personally, something taken for granted, thus not stated.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Oh yeah? Just tell them that Jesus didn't exist and then listen to them chant: "The overwhelming consensus of Bible scholars are very sure Jesus existed."

I've never heard anyone chant that.

I have.

 

[steve_bank]

I sample Christian TV channels from time to time. Sciencec, archeology, and history conclusivley show the bible is literally true.

The Bible says things like "the Earth doesn't move". Science shows that it moves in a nearly circular orbit relative to the Sun. On this, the Bible is literally untrue.
The Bible indicates that there is some position that can be seen from all locations on the Earth. This should require a flat Earth. Science shows us that the Earth is spherical, and the prediction involved can not come true. On this, the Bible is literally untrue.
The Bible includes a story of a world-wide flood. Science shows many ways that this was impossible. On this, the Bible is literally untrue.
[I could keep going...]

Archaeology can show that stories in the Bible have literally true historical mentions, such as historical nations, locations, or people, but can not show that the Bible is literally true. Consider fiction set in, say, Paris, mentioning the Louvre museum. Does the historical existence of the Louvre show that "The Da Vinci Code" is literally true? Of course not.

There are very few outside historical mentions that can corroborate anything that the Bible says. For example, nothing in ancient Egyptian records, as carved into stone as hieroglyphs, corroborates the Exodus story. There begins only to be corroboration in outside sources of later kings, not even of the fabled Solomon.

Yes. Biblical literalist are those who take all of it as the true word of god.

 

[Voland0]

I sample Christian TV channels from time to time. Sciencec, archeology, and history conclusivley show the bible is literally true.

The Bible says things like "the Earth doesn't move". Science shows that it moves in a nearly circular orbit relative to the Sun. On this, the Bible is literally untrue.
The Bible indicates that there is some position that can be seen from all locations on the Earth. This should require a flat Earth. Science shows us that the Earth is spherical, and the prediction involved can not come true. On this, the Bible is literally untrue.
The Bible includes a story of a world-wide flood. Science shows many ways that this was impossible. On this, the Bible is literally untrue.
[I could keep going...]

Archaeology can show that stories in the Bible have literally true historical mentions, such as historical nations, locations, or people, but can not show that the Bible is literally true. Consider fiction set in, say, Paris, mentioning the Louvre museum. Does the historical existence of the Louvre show that "The Da Vinci Code" is literally true? Of course not.

There are very few outside historical mentions that can corroborate anything that the Bible says. For example, nothing in ancient Egyptian records, as carved into stone as hieroglyphs, corroborates the Exodus story. There begins only to be corroboration in outside sources of later kings, not even of the fabled Solomon.

Yes. Biblical literalist are those who take all of it as the true word of god.

When you have "Sciencec, archeology, and history conclusivley show the bible is literally true.", it seems as though *you* are such a literalist. Perhaps I've not seen enough of your posts, and am misinterpreting. Feel free to clarify.

I, for one, see the entire Bible, overall, as historical fiction, that is, stories that incorporate historical facts to give more credibility to the legends and fables. Of course, there are portions that are not in this genre, such as Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Solomon, and the letters (epistles) of Paul. Most of what the Bible says about the Universe, about reality other than political establishments, is, in fact, *false*. Moreover, it leaves out the most fundamental and important facts observed by scientists, such as the true nature of astronomical bodies, the fundamental constituents of matter, chemical behavior, and the true sources of diseases... and many, many more.

 

[steve_bank]

Given the few post you have made so far I have to conclude you may possible have your head up your butt. Time will tell. For a hint see my basic beliefs line.

In context the bible is cultural history and mythology. There are what appearto be teching materials like Job and Proverbs. There are genealogies. There are cultural historians.

All cultures have that n some form.

As to cosmology, what in science tells us 'the true mature of reality'? Does scientific models represent absolute and ultimate truth? This would be a philosophy thread, 'the nature of science. There have been numerous debates.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When you have "Sciencec, archeology, and history conclusivley show the bible is literally true.", it seems as though *you* are such a literalist. Perhaps I've not seen enough of your posts, and am misinterpreting. Feel free to clarify.

I, for one, see the entire Bible, overall, as historical fiction, that is, stories that incorporate historical facts to give more credibility to the legends and fables. Of course, there are portions that are not in this genre, such as Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Solomon, and the letters (epistles) of Paul. Most of what the Bible says about the Universe, about reality other than political establishments, is, in fact, *false*. Moreover, it leaves out the most fundamental and important facts observed by scientists, such as the true nature of astronomical bodies, the fundamental constituents of matter, chemical behavior, and the true sources of diseases... and many, many more.

It's a lot of propaganda too. One aspect of the bible or any alleged sacred writing that's always interested me is how to deal with its supernatural claims, it's miracles. From a translation standpoint miracles aren't when impossible things happened and we're all supposed to gasp with awe, but rather just wonderfully fulfilling events, not necessarily miracles as we understand the word today.

But different texts contain such accounts. The question becomes how to deal with them across the genre, how to decide which to take seriously and which to dismiss as outright bullshit. I think most devotees never consider such a question because they are loyal to one book and swallow most of its claims unquestioned. They are likely not even aware of miracle tales in other works and so think theirs is special.

Miracles are just tall tales that come to us religiously. Literature abounds with tall tales. How do we know which to take with any seriousness and which to treat with a smile when we hear them? I don't know how religious believers treat the question. Does their religion just get an automatic free pass and other religions and non-religious tales simply just get dismissed as exaggeration? Is it a scientific question for any of them? When we hear such accounts we should automatically know that such things don't happen and cannot happen and go from there. But if everyone did that the preachers would all be out of a job. Maybe the whole miraculous religious experience is simply a combination of escapism and tribalism with a healthy dose of scientific illiteracy all enabled by brain architecture.