Reconstructing the Historical Jesus

No, I'm asking a single question, and it's the same question I've been asking throughout: The Gospels and Paul make a claim that a person called Jesus existed. What evidence exists to support this claim?So far the answer has been "the Gospels and Paul", but that's clearly circular. A claim can't be self-supporting (unless, trivially, the claim is "I am making a claim.") Sources of invention, clearly. Which you failed to do, because my assertion is accurate. It's right there in the context of Tacitus:

quote:

---

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures upon a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from who the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius, at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate. And a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

---

Tacitus is explaining who the Christians are, why they are so named, and why Nero inflicts the "exquisite tortures" upon them. He's not actually referring to any independent knowledge of "Christus", not any more than the guy who wrote the Netflix summary for "Star Wars" is independently corroborating the existence of Darth Vader. As you've so patiently explained, the supposed "Historical Jesus" wasn't known as Christ. We know he's not referring to anything but the legend of Christ he's apparently heard either from Christians themselves, or those who knew about the movement. I didn't, because you are wrong about Tacitus, as I've just explained. The argument from silence. If there really had been a genuine person to hang the Jesus stories onto, we'd have independent, corroborating evidence of someone existing and doing things that are like what Jesus is supposed to have done. If the supposed "Historical Jesus" didn't do anything like that, then he's by definition not the Historical Jesus any more than the "Historical Santa Claus" is a guy in New Jersey who doesn't make toys, has never been to the North Pole, is a clean-shaven 30-year-old man named "Lou."By definition the "historical Jesus" can only be the Historical Jesus if he actually was the basis for the Jesus legends. If the figure you're fingering as the "historical Jesus" didn't actually do any Jesus-stuff then by definition he can't be the "historical Jesus", because he can't have intelligibly been the basis for any of the legends. Yes. But that doesn't mean that a historical Jesus had to start it, no more than a historic Jesus Malverde had to start the Jesus Malverde cult. It's possible to start a cult based on veneration of someone besides yourself. Indeed, it's happened several times in the past century, as I've documented.

The Qur'an is one of the sources of the historical Mohammed that historians use (though a minor one, since it doesn't say a great deal), as well as the biographies written a long time after he was alive, a reference from someone that heard of him shortly after he had died, and some collected sayings the earliest copies of which were well after he was alive. Yes, the evidence for Jesus is in the small collection of documents about Jesus that exist, most of which are the gospels. The evidence for the existence of Socrates is the claim that Socrates existed (by Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes).

Why not simply look to what the historicists define as the 'historical Jesus' instead of making up your own versions of an historical Jesus that have nothing to do with the character proposed by historians? That's nice, Crash; but statistics pulled from your ass are of little value to the rest of us. Your question is ridiculous. And this is why it hasn't been answered. You are simply asking us whether or not we have any sources other than the current texts that claim the existence of an historical Jesus. Of course we don't; because the current texts are a collection of all the known texts that claim the existence of an historical Jesus.Is there any reason we should ignore the current texts in a search for historical verification of Jesus?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

I don't regard this site as being the last word on the subject but it might add to your discussion. Early Christian Writings

Huh? Paul's writing almost certainly predates the four Gospels, and his theology and presentation of Jesus could not be more different to the Synoptics.

quote:

---

No, I'm asking a single question, and it's the same question I've been asking throughout: The Gospels and Paul make a claim that a person called Jesus existed. What evidence exists to support this claim?

---

But that is a different question from which sources the Gospel writers had and used.And of course my question is what evidence is there for Crashfrog's claim that Jesus was a complete fiction? There doesn't seem to be much.

quote:

---

Which you failed to do, because my assertion is accurate. It's right there in the context of Tacitus:

---

Which confirms my claim that Tacitus - who was not especially credulous - did refer to Jesus as a historical person. As you ought to remember I believe that Tacitus DID rely exclusively on Christian sources, so any argument for that hardly argues against my position.Let us also note that you have quietly dropped your claims about Josephus.

quote:

---

The argument from silence. If there really had been a genuine person to hang the Jesus stories onto, we'd have independent, corroborating evidence of someone existing and doing things that are like what Jesus is supposed to have done.

---

Then please make your case for that assertion.

quote:

---

By definition the "historical Jesus" can only be the Historical Jesus if he actually was the basis for the Jesus legends. If the figure you're fingering as the "historical Jesus" didn't actually do any Jesus-stuff then by definition he can't be the "historical Jesus", because he can't have intelligibly been the basis for any of the legends.

---

Well, that is exactly what is proposed, so it seems quite unnecessary to raise the issue. We already have that.

quote:

---

Yes. But that doesn't mean that a historical Jesus had to start it,

---

Which is not the claim. You are taking the point completely out of context. The actual point is that there is no extraordinary claim being made. The existence of Christianity is an established fact, you may find that extraordinary, but the evidence is more than adequate. You also accept that someone started Christianity, so that is not the sticking point. So we just come down to the question of whether Christians would have kept stories about their origins or buried them under fictions. I certainly see nothing extraordinary in the former. Why do you ?

quote:

---

This could be an endless list of 'turtles all the way down'.

---

But it isn't because we are only interested in Jesus, for the purposes of this discussion.

quote:

---

Since the jesus myth seems to be based on the horus myth and/or the mithra myth, I doubt we will ever be able to answer that question.

---

My understanding is that those claims are extremely dubious.

So, you want to ignore the origins of the jesus myth because we are only interested in jesus?
If you want to know who (if anyone) the jesus character was based on then you must include the characters that the jesus character was based on.
Or are you just saying that you are happy to stop at mithra because that is far enough back to show that there was no historical jesus? What claims regarding mithra are dubious?
The striking similarities seem to be fairly well accepted.Or is it simply your own doubt that you are describing?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So, you want to ignore the origins of the jesus myth because we are only interested in jesus?

---

No, I'm saying that for the purposes of working out what the historical Jesus was like or if there was a historical Jesus it doesn't matter whether Horus or Mithras were based on real people

quote:

---

If you want to know who (if anyone) the jesus character was based on then you must include the characters that the jesus character was based on.

---

For the purposes of this discussion I don't think that we need to go into that.

quote:

---

What claims regarding mithra are dubious?
The striking similarities seem to be fairly well accepted.

---

From what I've heard the claim that the similarities predate Christianity is dodgy for a start.

Relevance? This topic is about Jesus, not Mohammed. But this is circular. It's like if I wrote a post claiming that Claudia Schiffer was standing in my kitchen, and then several people quoted the claim as part of a post asking for evidence in support, like so:

quote:

---

crashfrog writes:

​

Claudia Schiffer is standing in my kitchen OMG!

What is the evidence for this claim?

---

And then I came back saying "well, the evidence for the existence of Claudia Schiffer standing in my kitchen is in a small number of documents, mostly posts on EvC Forum referring to Claudia Schiffer standing in my kitchen." Claims can't be "self-evidenced" with the trivial exception of the claim "I am making a claim." That is, of course, not the claim under discussion. The claim under discussion is the claims of Paul (the Bible writer) and the Gospels about the existence and life of Jesus.Take it this way. You don't, for instance, take the claims of the Gospel and Paul about the resurrection at face value, even though they're in unanimous agreement that it happened. Regardless of its appearance in multiple "separate" Gospels and the work of Paul, you take it as a single claim that is supported by no evidence.Why not treat the existence of Jesus that way, as well? Why are the Gospels a single uncorroborated source when the subject is the resurrection, but a nexus of multiple independent corroborating sources when the subject is the existence of Jesus? It can't be both simultaneously. If the Gospels are evidence of the existence of Jesus then, as the fundamentalists believe, they're also evidence of the resurrection. Ergo, the flaw in your historicism is made apparent. Is the evidence for Santa Claus the claim (by 7-year-olds) that Santa Claus exists?Do you understand that you're turning the regular rules of evidence on its head by taking claims at face value?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Historicists aren't unilaterally tasked with defining words. "Historical Jesus", by definition, has to mean someone who actually existed and was the figure on which the Jesus mythology came to be based.But a figure who did absolutely nothing that would have brought him to the attention of mythmakers as someone on which to base mythology by definition can't have been the basis for the mythology. The myths of Santa Claus, by definition, aren't based on a clean-shaven 30-year-old New Jersey web designer who hates kids and is named "Lou." That's true by definition because Lou, we've determined, has done absolutely nothing in his life that would lead someone to base the myth of Santa Claus on him.We have to be able to draw a connection between the activities of a fictional character and the activities of a real person in order to say that the fictional character is based on the real person. We can't just stipulate or assume it; if the historical individual doesn't bring something to the table, then there was no reason for the mythmaker to base any part of the myth on the historical individual. And then in what sense could the historic person be the basis for the myth? No, it's not. It's never ridiculous to ask what evidence supports a claim. That's the basis of rationality, a practice which you have apparently abandoned. Yes! They should be ignored because they are utterly untrustworthy, mutually plagaristic, cannot corroborate themselves, were written long decades after the events they supposedly chronicle, and are full of impossible invention and embellishment. The Gospels are the testimony of liars. All of this was covered more than a hundred posts ago, you know, when you thought this whole topic was beneath "reasonable people."

Recourse to unknown sources doesn't present any evidence for the existence of Jesus.And I've asked no question about sources; I'm asking a question about what evidence there is that supports the Gospel and Paul's claim of the evidence of Jesus. You offered the unknown "Q" source as part of that, but surely it's the stupidest thing in the world to present as "evidence" something you, by definition, can't know anything about. It's like saying that the answers to your questions can be found in a book orbiting Alpha Centauri. What does it say, specifically? I have no idea, you'll have to go and read it! I'm not required to present any evidence, since I'm arguing the more parsimonious claim. Individuals that appear in fiction are assumed to be fictitious until evidence is presented of their existence. To do otherwise is simply to take claims at face value, as though one were a credulous idiot.But as it happens I've presented abundant evidence. You've simply not seen fit to grapple with any of it. Not any more than the Netflix movie summary writer refers to Darth Vader as a historical person. The context is clear that Tacitus is simply explaining the beliefs of Christians - not independently corroborating the existence of "Christus." How would he possibly have been able to do that, anyway? 30 years and hundreds of miles from where Jesus supposedly lived?It's precisely because we know that Tacitus was a skeptical and not especially credulous person that we know that he's not referring to Jesus as a real historical person but merely as an element of Christian belief. Just as we assume that the Netflix movie summarizer, presumably being someone who has not taken all leave of his senses, does not intend to independently corroborate the existence of Darth Vader in a galaxy far, far away. I've dropped nothing. Your claim has been rebutted, and even if it had not - you've already admitted that there's evidence as well that the Josephus material is a forgery. So it's doubly irrelevant to the case for the historical Jesus. I'm merely ignoring your repetition of unevidenced, rebutted claims. That is the case, Paulk. It's just been made to you. You already have what? A "historical Jesus" that isn't the historical Jesus?Then what on Earth are we arguing about, if you're already a proponent of the nonexistence of the historical Jesus? What on Earth are you on about, here? Where have I ever questioned that Christianity exists?You're clearly having a jolly time arguing with somebody, Paul, I just wish it was with me and my arguments. This makes no sense. You keep making this claim but it's unintelligible. What "stories about their origins"? You've already agreed that the Christian story of Christian origins is a complete fiction - Jesus didn't rise from the dead, Jesus didn't do any miracles, Jesus didn't give the Sermon on the Mount, etc. So we already know for a fact that Christians have buried their true origin story under a mountain of fiction. Why is this a claim that, uniquely, I have to provide evidence for, when you already accept it to be true? Or do you? Oh - so, your contention is not just the Historical Jesus, it's the historicity of the Gospels in every respect. You believe that Jesus actually did rise from the dead, feed the multitudes with loaves and fishes, deliver the Sermon on the Mount, and so on.

Please explain why the person that the jesus character was based on doesn't matter when discussing the jesus character. From what I've heard they aren't dodgy.
There are definite similarities.
They may not all be as clear-cut as some mithra's supporters might want, but they still exist.
This is because finding information on mithra is difficult due to it being a long dead religion.
Interestingly though, there is a more varied selection of archaeological evidence for mithra than for jesus.Though it seems that if the jesus character is based on a character in a pre-dating religion, then you would rather not discuss it.
But if jesus is a copy of a different character then you need to identify that historical character, as there is no actual historical jesus.

The earliest date given for the authorship of Mark is 50 AD, and the date given for the authorship of the Pauline epistles is 51 AD. Matthew and Luke plagiarize Mark and John plagarizes the rest. First Thessalonians refers to Luke, so it can't be younger than Luke.The dating of these books, frankly, is a mess, given how they were later edited and altered. There's literally nothing that can give us any confidence that the books of the Bible are accurately reporting any real history; they corrupt everything they touch. Anything with a connection to the Bible must be disregarded absent some kind of real evidence.

quote:

---

Recourse to unknown sources doesn't present any evidence for the existence of Jesus

---

Sure it does. The more independent sources existed, the more likely that there was a historical Jesus.

quote:

---

I'm not required to present any evidence, since I'm arguing the more parsimonious claim.

---

You are at least required to show that you ARE making the more parsimonious claim, So far, you haven't come close to doing that.

quote:

---

But as it happens I've presented abundant evidence. You've simply not seen fit to grapple with any of it.

---

As it happens you haven't presented any evidence of significance.

quote:

---

The context is clear that Tacitus is simply explaining the beliefs of Christians - not independently corroborating the existence of "Christus." How would he possibly have been able to do that, anyway? 30 years and hundreds of miles from where Jesus supposedly lived?

---

The argument, as I have heard it is that Tacitus would have had access to official records (which appears to be true) and could have dug out the record of Jesus' crucifixion. Another is that there would have been an official investigation of Christianity, which Tacitus would have had access to. As I say, I don't believe it, but I can't disprove it.

quote:

---

's precisely because we know that Tacitus was a skeptical and not especially credulous person that we know that he's not referring to Jesus as a real historical person but merely as an element of Christian belief.

---

Except for the fact that the text does not support your interpretation.

quote:

---

I've dropped nothing. Your claim has been rebutted, and even if it had not - you've already admitted that there's evidence as well that the Josephus material is a forgery.

---

No, I haven't admitted any such thing. I've said that one of the two possible references is at least partly Christian, but not that any part of it is a deliberate forgery.

quote:

---

That is the case, Paulk. It's just been made to you.

---

So your reason for expecting this evidence, given that Jesus existed is...that you expect this evidence if Jesus existed. That's not much of an argument.

quote:

---

You already have what? A "historical Jesus" that isn't the historical Jesus?

---

As you know perfectly well we have an idea of the historical Jesus that would meet your criteria. All we need to work out is whether it is likely that such a person existed.

quote:

---

What on Earth are you on about, here? Where have I ever questioned that Christianity exists?

---

Simply for completeness I am eliminating things that you might consider "extraordinary" in your argument.

quote:

---

This makes no sense. You keep making this claim but it's unintelligible. What "stories about their origins"? You've already agreed that the Christian story of Christian origins is a complete fiction - Jesus didn't rise from the dead, Jesus didn't do any miracles, Jesus didn't give the Sermon on the Mount, etc. So we already know for a fact that Christians have buried their true origin story under a mountain of fiction. Why is this a claim that, uniquely, I have to provide evidence for, when you already accept it to be true? Or do you?

---

It makes perfect sense. You're the one taking the position that the Gospels MUST be complete fiction. I take the tentative position that the Gospels are based on a real person, who admittedly did no real miracles (but may have faked some, like a modern faith healer), did not come back from the dead - and who probably wasn't of Davidic descent or born in Bethlehem either to name two more differences.Te question is whether the story was merely exaggerated and embellished (admittedly to quite a great degree) or whether it was replaced by a complete fiction and lost as you claim.Since it is almost inevitable that exaggeration and embellishment would occur, and it seems unlikely that the original story would be completely lost, it seems that the burden is on you.