Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Historical Jesus

#1  Postby Kirbytime » Feb 26, 2010 12:08 am


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Historical Jesus resource thread : http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... -t267.html



http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... uzzle.html

Here's Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle. It was definitely a fascinating read, especially the level of depth they get into, but I'm sure that the actual book is even more fascinating. Has anyone here read it?
Last edited by THWOTH on May 21, 2014 8:41 am, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: thread title amended.
Kirbytime
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 15

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#2  Postby Mephistopheles » Feb 26, 2010 12:13 am

I've read an abbreviated version of the Jesus Puzzle. The conclusions made sense to me, but one of the reviews I read said that there were a lot of unsubstantiated claims thrown in. Of course, the review was very vague, so for all I know it was just aimless slander.

I'll read this and comment on it later.
User avatar
Mephistopheles
 
Posts: 298

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#3  Postby Viraldi » Feb 26, 2010 12:21 am

We'll need more TimONeil characters here. ;)
AE wrote:“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.”
User avatar
Viraldi
 
Posts: 722
Age: 24

Country: USA
Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#4  Postby Mephistopheles » Feb 26, 2010 2:13 am

Viraldi wrote:We'll need more TimONeil characters here. ;)


I recall Tim didn't think much of Jesus Puzzle, either.
User avatar
Mephistopheles
 
Posts: 298

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#5  Postby starr » Feb 26, 2010 2:33 am

Mephistopheles wrote:
Viraldi wrote:We'll need more TimONeil characters here. ;)


I recall Tim didn't think much of Jesus Puzzle, either.


I've actually just sent Tim an email to invite him over here. I hope he joins us. :cheers:
stijndeloose wrote: A wise decision that anyone can make: if you feel tempted to attack a RatSkep member, take a break.

Image
User avatar
starr
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6483
Age: 45
Female

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#6  Postby jerome » Feb 26, 2010 2:34 am

There are serious problems with it, but as I have only just arrived I'd prefer to not get in to a full blown discussion of it just now. As a resource i'll post that of my historical sources for Jesus document I still have backed up. :) An RD forum member called Rational Revolution wrote a book called Jesus: A very Jewish Myth published on lulu which si much better: I still think he is wrong, but his arguments are much stronger that Doherty's in my opinion.
Before Tim arrived i dedicated huge amounts of energy to arguing the flaws in Jesus Mythicism: but I don't mind showing you where to find the best case I know -- http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-b ... yth/687167 Worth reading, unlike most Myther books . :(

j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 48
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#7  Postby HughMcB » Feb 26, 2010 4:52 am

starr wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
Viraldi wrote:We'll need more TimONeil characters here. ;)


I recall Tim didn't think much of Jesus Puzzle, either.


I've actually just sent Tim an email to invite him over here. I hope he joins us. :cheers:

Yes we could do with him filtering out the bullshit, he's even filtered me out on occassion! :(
"So we're just done with phrasing?"
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
 
Posts: 19113
Age: 33
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#8  Postby starr » Feb 26, 2010 4:53 am

HughMcB wrote:
starr wrote:

I've actually just sent Tim an email to invite him over here. I hope he joins us. :cheers:

Yes we could do with him filtering out the bullshit, he's even filtered me out on occassion! :(


Awwww don't worry, I'll protect you ;) :hugs:
stijndeloose wrote: A wise decision that anyone can make: if you feel tempted to attack a RatSkep member, take a break.

Image
User avatar
starr
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6483
Age: 45
Female

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: RESOURCE: Historical Sources for Jesus

#9  Postby Apollonius » Feb 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Big deal. None of those writers saw Jesus. They wrote about the fact that there were Christians that believed something.

This would be about like me writing a story about a president that was thought to be great who was shot in the head in Dallas. I wasn't there. What I know about it came from other sources.

There is not a single historical source by anyone that actually saw him, not one.

It is pretty much an established fact that people believed a lot of things, and what we know about those things is that they were passed on verbally for a long time before anyone wrote them down, and they were written in Greek, not Aramaic.
Healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead since the first century...
User avatar
Apollonius
 
Posts: 762
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#10  Postby Apollonius » Feb 26, 2010 12:55 pm

Without getting into hours of typing, I'll jump to the end and say the people that argue that he simply did not exist don't make any sense.

The reasons are simple-

You don't NEED to prove he did not exist to explain christianity, in fact it makes more sense if you accept that he did.

The reason has to do with dissimilarity. (A scholar's verision of "truth is stranger than fiction.")

In other words, the story of Jesus as christians told it would not have been made up the way it was. It would have been too difficult. The predicted messiah was not supposed to suffer and die. The fact that we have nutball christians that think he did, and came up with all kinds of excuses (like he died for your sins, or appeared again as a miracle) was troublesome for them.

People who make up stories don't make up stories that are so hard to convince people of.

Occam's razor.
Healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead since the first century...
User avatar
Apollonius
 
Posts: 762
Male

Print view this post

Re: RESOURCE: Historical Sources for Jesus

#11  Postby jerome » Feb 26, 2010 1:35 pm

Apollonius wrote:Big deal. None of those writers saw Jesus. They wrote about the fact that there were Christians that believed something.

This would be about like me writing a story about a president that was thought to be great who was shot in the head in Dallas. I wasn't there. What I know about it came from other sources.

There is not a single historical source by anyone that actually saw him, not one.

It is pretty much an established fact that people believed a lot of things, and what we know about those things is that they were passed on verbally for a long time before anyone wrote them down, and they were written in Greek, not Aramaic.


Yes, all are secondary sources. On your other point, Greek was widely spoken in the place and time, and indeed was the language of the Roman army administration (not Latin as you might expect) and a large part of the population were bilingual, hardly an issue; Koine Greek in fact. If yu want to discuss it start a new thread,and we can chat about this stuff. :)

j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 48
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#12  Postby jerome » Feb 26, 2010 1:37 pm

Apollonius wrote:Without getting into hours of typing, I'll jump to the end and say the people that argue that he simply did not exist don't make any sense.

The reasons are simple-

You don't NEED to prove he did not exist to explain christianity, in fact it makes more sense if you accept that he did.

The reason has to do with dissimilarity. (A scholar's verision of "truth is stranger than fiction.")

In other words, the story of Jesus as christians told it would not have been made up the way it was. It would have been too difficult. The predicted messiah was not supposed to suffer and die. The fact that we have nutball christians that think he did, and came up with all kinds of excuses (like he died for your sins, or appeared again as a miracle) was troublesome for them.

People who make up stories don't make up stories that are so hard to convince people of.

Occam's razor.


Absolutely. And that in no way supports the Christian faith claims: but the actual evidence a bloke called Jesus existed is pretty uncontroversial. We agree totally here.

j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 48
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#13  Postby twistor59 » Feb 26, 2010 9:32 pm

Fuck yes, Tim O'Neil, where's Tim O'Neil ?
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4962
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#14  Postby TimONeill » Feb 26, 2010 9:59 pm

Viraldi wrote:We'll need more TimONeil characters here. ;)


Looks like one just arrived.

Kirbytime wrote:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html

Here's Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle. It was definitely a fascinating read, especially the level of depth they get into, but I'm sure that the actual book is even more fascinating. Has anyone here read it?


Carrier's review does his usual trick of maintaining a pretence at objectivity while actually being inclined toward any theory that fits with his ideological biases. And I say that as a fellow atheist who shares most of his ideological biases. Carrier has just never learned the art of maintaining objectivity when he's dealing with anything related to Christianity. That's why I say Carrier is to history what Ken Ham is to biology - a guy with a relevant degree who simply can't be trusted to present anything other than a warped perspective.

It would take a book as long or longer than Doherty's to detail exactly why his thesis is flawed. Incidentally, he has tried to get his thesis published by a peer reviewed press and was rejected. He has convinced himself that this was because of some wild Christian bias in the scholarship in the field, which is weird considering all the other totally non-Christian interpretations of Jesus that actually dominate all but the most conservative corners of Biblical studies. The real reason it was rejected is because of its flaws. I'll try to briefly summarise the reasons Doherty's thesis fails below.

Doherty's Thesis

For those who haven't read his book, Doherty argues that Jesus never existed as a historical person and that the later stories about him that present him as such are based on a misunderstanding. He argues that the original Christians proclaimed a Jesus who was a purely celestial being and who existed, was crucified and rose again in sub-lunar realm in the lower spheres of the heavens. He claims the idea that he had an earthly, historical existence only developed later and that the "mythic" and "historic" versions of Christian existed together for a while before the latter won out and wiped out any trace of the former.

There are some serious problems with this idea.

1. Paul's Human Jesus

For Doherty's thesis to work, Paul needs to be a believer in the mythic, celestial Jesus rather than the earthy, historical one. Even if we take away the epistles that Paul clearly didn't write, we are still left with seven (Romans, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon,First Corinthians, Second Corinthians and First Thessalonians) which are not only almost certainly by him but are also the oldest Christian texts we have (all written in the 50s AD). According to Doherty, there was no conception of a human, earthly, historical Jesus that early so Doherty's Paul has to be a believer in a mythic, celestial Jesus or his whole thesis falls apart.

To an extent, Paul's writing lends itself to this idea. He seems to have never met Jesus himself and converted largely because of a vision he had of the "risen Christ". Not surprisingly, his teaching and his letters concentrate on this "risen Christ", who Paul and all Christians of the time expects to return soon, and not on the historical, earthly Jesus he never met. This emphasis is also partly due to the fact that Paul seems to have resented the claim to greater authority made by those who had met Jesus; something he reacts against strongly in Galatians.

But unfortunately for Doherty, this emphasis doesn't mean that Paul never mentions the earthly, historical Jesus at all. He does so several times.

Paul explicitly says Jesus was a flesh and blood man. He says he was born as a human, of a human mother and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4). He repeats that he had a "human nature" and that he was a human descendant of King David (Romans 1:3). He referred to teachings Jesus made during his earthly ministry on divorce (1 Cor. 7:10), on preachers (1 Cor. 9:14) and on the coming apocalypse (1 Thess. 4:15). He mentions how he was executed by earthly rulers (1 Cor. 2:8) including Jewish authorities (1 Thess. 2:14-15) and that he died and was buried (1 Cor 15:3-4). And he says he had a earthly physical brother called James who Paul himself had met (Galatians 1:19)

It's pretty hard for any objective analysis to read all that as anything other than Paul talking about an earthly, historical person. Despite this, Doherty tries his hardest to do so, with pretty unconvincing results. Once you read his contorted explanations about how Paul's description of Jesus as being "born of woman" or being a descendant of David "according to the flesh" actually mean the opposite of what they seem to mean, it gets increasingly hard to take him seriously - unless of course you've already decided that Jesus didn't exist and are assuming your own conclusion. Even Carrier notes that Doherty's attempts to wriggle around the clear implication of "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4):

[W]hen (Doherty) argues that the "born of woman" of Galatians 4:4 could be a mythical/scriptural attribute rather than an assertion of earthly incarnation, he says it is "something that was said of certain mythical saviour gods, like Dionysius," that Isaiah 7:14 "was taken by Jew and early Christian alike to refer to the Messiah," and that "national gods were often regarded as having the same lineage as the nation itself" (p. 124). He does not demonstrate any of these claims. Many examples are needed to establish all three generalizations as not only valid, but relevant to the given passage. For example, citing cases where Dionysus had a mother because he was euhemerized as a real person, or had a goddess for a mother, are not relevant, since Paul can be doing neither here. And so on. Given the fact that this passage is the most problematic for his theory, Doherty needs to spend a great deal more time validating his interpretation, certainly more than two pages, which consist mostly of argument rather than evidence.

The problem for Doherty is that this criticism by his supporter Carrier can be extended to all the other clear mentions of a human Jesus given above. Each of them are nails in the Doherty thesis coffin.

2. Doherty's Invented Middle Platonism

The second flaw in Doherty's thesis lies in his claim that this idea of "fleshly" events happening in some "sub-lunar" celestial realm up in the heavens was a common and accepted concept in the Middle Platonism of the time. He argues that if we look at the way Paul depicts Jesus (once we've argued away all the clear references to him being a human), we see exactly the kind of Middle Platonic conception of a celestial being in a "fleshly" yet non-terrestrial realm. Unfortunately, when he is pressed to provide actual examples of this, he comes up with nothing much to substantiate this claim. In fact, once when "GakuseiDon" (who used to post on RD.net) challenged him to provide some evidence that pagans actually believed in a sub-lunar, non-terrestrial realm where gods etc could "take on flesh", get crucified and die etc he admitted that he couldn't do so:

"I get the idea that you have interpreted me as though I were saying: the pagans placed the myths of their savior gods in the upper world, therefore we have good reason to interpret Paul that way. Actually, my movement was in the opposite direction. I have always worked first with the early Christian record, and come to a heavenly-realm understanding of it through internal evidence (supported by the unworkability of an earthly understanding of that record)"

This is an extraordinary admission by Doherty. His book argues that we can read Paul as believing in this "fleshly sub-lunar realm" because this can be found in Middle Platonic thought. But here he admits that he can't produce evidence that this idea existed in Middle Platonism because he's actually getting this whole idea from a reading of Paul that simply assumes this whole "fleshly sub-lunar realm" idea. In other words, this whole central plank of his thesis is based on a priori circular reasoning. The atheist Biblical scholar Jeffrey Gibson has engaged Doherty and his followers in online debate and came away scornfully unimpressed. He noted:

"... the plausibility of D[oherty]'s hypothesis depends on not having good knowledge of ancient philosophy, specifically Middle Platonism. Indeed, it becomes less and less plausible the more one knows of ancient philosophy and, especially, Middle Platonism.

If you think that this is not the case, please name anyone among the actual and recognized experts in ancient philosophy and/or on Middle Platonism who thinks D's views on what the ancients thought about the way the world was constructed, and who did what where, has any merit."



3. Doherty's Unattested Mythic Christianity


The final fatal flaw in Doherty's thesis is his contrived idea that there was a "mythic Jesus Christianity" that existed alongside the better known "historical Jesus Christianity" until the latter won the battle for dominance and wiped out any reference to the former. Until Doherty came along and became the first person in about 2000 years to realise what happened.

This is completely implausible. While the idea of Machiavellian early Christians completely erasing all trace of earlier forms of Christianity may appeal to zealots and conspiracy theorists, it simply doesn't square with the evidence. It's true that later "orthodox" forms of Christianity were happy to burn the books of their "heretical" rivals to keep them infecting the faithful. But this doesn't mean they were also happy to wipe out all trace or mention of these "heresies". On the contrary, they were keen to write long and detailed books explaining why their heretical rivals were wrong and why the orthodox view was right. They often distorted their rivals' ideas when they did this and sometimes the heresy in question had been dead for so long they were confused about precisely what the heretics in question had believed (they just knew they were wrong), but they certainly didn't erase all mention of them. They felt it was important to refute even minor or long dead heresies in as much detail as possible, just in case they rose up again (as some did occasionally).

It is difficult to understand why, amongst all this apologetic, anti-heretical literature, there is NO reference to what should have been the biggest and most threatening heresy of all - the heresy that the historical Jesus never existed. Not only would Doherty's supposed "mythic Jesus Christianity" have been a major threat to "historical Jesus Christianity" even after it had declined and vanished, it would actually have been THE major threat by merit of the fact that it was the original form of Christianity. Yet we find not a whisper about it in any of this literature. Doherty would have us believe that these writers bothered to condemn tiny and long-extinct heretical sects, yet ignored the elephant in the room and made no mention of this primary threat to their interpretation of Jesus.

This silence makes no sense.

Unless, of course, this whole "mythic Jesus Christianity" is a figment of Doherty's speculations and didn't exist at all. Then the silence about it in the sources makes perfect sense.

The Attraction of the Doherty Thesis

So it's pretty clear why Doherty's thesis gets no traction in the academic sphere and is regarded as a flawed theory by an enthusiastic amateur. It's also clear why, despite this, it gets presented as being solid, scholarly and convincing by online Jesus Mythers - basically, it's the best they've got. Compared to the alternative Jesus Myth theories - "Acharya S" and her bastard offspring "Zeitgeist", Atwill, Carotta, Freke and Gandy - Doherty's thesis is sober, scholarly and credible. The problem is that while it may not be downright kooky bullshit like the other Myther theories, it's still full of holes and, ultimately, wrong.
Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto
"I am human: nothing that is human is alien to me."

Publius Terentius Afer

Armarium Magnum - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
User avatar
TimONeill
 
Posts: 2214
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Ahistoricity of Jesus

#15  Postby twistor59 » Feb 26, 2010 10:04 pm

TimONeill wrote:
Viraldi wrote:We'll need more TimONeil characters here. ;)


Looks like one just arrived.




Jesus Christ, what an entrance !
(Srsly I've learned a LOT from your posts !)
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
User avatar
twistor59
RS Donator
 
Posts: 4962
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: RESOURCE: Historical Sources for Jesus

#16  Postby TimONeill » Feb 26, 2010 10:14 pm

Apollonius wrote:There is not a single historical source by anyone that actually saw him, not one.


There is not a single historical source by anyone that actually saw Hannibal, not one. So Hannibal didn't exist?
There is not a single historical source by anyone that actually saw Arminius, not one. So Arminius didn't exist?
There is not a single historical source by anyone that actually saw Boudicca, not one. So Boudica didn't exist?

Getting the picture? Or do we raise the bar for the evidence of Jesus' existence higher than we do for other ancient figures, many of whom were much more prominent and important than some Jewish preacher from the back of nowhere? Why, exactly, would we do that?
Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto
"I am human: nothing that is human is alien to me."

Publius Terentius Afer

Armarium Magnum - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
User avatar
TimONeill
 
Posts: 2214
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: RESOURCE: Historical Sources for Jesus

#17  Postby Apollonius » Feb 26, 2010 10:20 pm

I didn't say he did not exist. I said there is no historical record from anyone who saw him.

Different topics.

As far as Hannibal, it that true? It seems like he would have attracted a lot of attention.
Healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead since the first century...
User avatar
Apollonius
 
Posts: 762
Male

Print view this post

Re: RESOURCE: Historical Sources for Jesus

#18  Postby TimONeill » Feb 26, 2010 10:30 pm

Apollonius wrote:I didn't say he did not exist. I said there is no historical record from anyone who saw him.

Different topics.


Okay. The Jesus Mythers do try to use the lack of contemporary attestation as evidence he didn't exist though. I was simply showing that it's merely the nature of ancient sources - we rarely have contemporary attestation for anyone.

As far as Hannibal, it that true? It seems like he would have attracted a lot of attention.


He did. It's just that the earliest source we have about him (Polybius) comes from about 40 years after he died. Just like Jesus. So if the career of the man who almost destroyed the Roman Republic isn't attested in his lifetime and we have to rely on later accounts, why would we expect any different for some peasant preacher from the back of nowhere? This is why the Myther "argument from silence" fails utterly.
Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto
"I am human: nothing that is human is alien to me."

Publius Terentius Afer

Armarium Magnum - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
User avatar
TimONeill
 
Posts: 2214
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: RESOURCE: Historical Sources for Jesus

#19  Postby Apollonius » Feb 26, 2010 10:51 pm

Well, you can relax, I'm not a Jesus myther at all, but I can see why you thought I was going there. I posted my reasoning why "Jesus mything" doesn't make sense in another thread.

Conversely a lot of believers make the mistake of trying to prove he was divine or whatever due to a handful of non christian sources that simply acknowledge the fact that there were believers.
Healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead since the first century...
User avatar
Apollonius
 
Posts: 762
Male

Print view this post

Re: RESOURCE: Historical Sources for Jesus

#20  Postby jerome » Feb 26, 2010 10:54 pm

Yes. Not a mistake Tim (an atheist) would make, or i hope i would
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 48
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: Owdhat and 5 guests