Reconstructing the Historical Jesus

Yes, but perhaps not explicitly or intentionally. Maybe they didn't even ever know they'd done it. It is by definition less extraordinary, since it's more common for a religion to be based on lies than on truth. It is by definition more parsimonious, since we know that liars and storytellers have always existed and in great numbers, but we don't know that Jesus existed. No, not at all, because there's no requirement in the Mythological Jesus that the first Christian mythmaker be anybody in particular. It is necessary in the Historical Jesus position that the Historical Jesus be Jesus, specifically. Be one specific person. Ergo the documentary requirements are higher.We don't care who the first Christian mythmaker is, because First Century storytellers are thick on the ground. Could have been anyone. But the Historical Jesus actually has to be Jesus. That's a considerably more extraordinary claim, for which no evidence - extraordinary or not - has ever been presented.

And what about when documents are so plainly self-serving, fantastical, and ahistorical that literally nothing of any merit, except the most general of claims - like, "the Earth existed in 1 AD" - can be reliably extracted? Surely it's possible for a document to be so untrustworthy as to tell us almost nothing at all about history? If the evidence for the existence of Mohammed and Socrates is truly as poor as it is for Jesus - which I doubt - then I'm prepared to accept that they didn't exist, either. I've made no study of it. But there's a lower burden of evidence for the existence of Socrates since he's not the focus of a major world religion, and isn't venerated in any way except as a teacher that Plato and some other guys really liked. It's not extraordinary to suggest that a guy might have been taught by another guy, might really have learned a lot, and might therefore have developed an enduring respect for that teacher.On the other hand, it really is extraordinary to suggest that a guy became the focus of a major world religion, when so many major world religions are based on completely fictitious characters. Defending that point requires an extraordinary level of evidence that simply hasn't been provided. Right. It's a more extraordinary situation, so it requires more extraordinary evidence. Correct? If you're taking claims at face value, the person making them doesn't matter. If you're not, if you're applying skepticism and discernment about whose claims have credibility and whose don't, then you're not taking claims at face value. So then the question is - can we trust the Gospel writers when they claim that Jesus actually existed? Since we can't seem to trust them on anything else, since we already conclude that the Gospel writers will say whatever they think they need to say in the service of making Christianity the One True Faith, the answer is clearly "no." As a source they're completely bereft of credibility - no more trustworthy than a child's views about Santa Claus.

It's hardly necessary to make an exact calculation to arrive at a comparison about what is more parsimonious than another thing. Occam's Razor has never come with a metric.Very many people are liars and storytellers, but only one person could possibly have been the Historical Jesus. Thus it's more parsimonious to have a model that includes only liars and storytellers, than one that has to include liars and storytellers plus the Historical Jesus.It's self-evident. I'm surprised that it's contentious in any way, except that Jesus's defenders have once again taken complete leave of their senses. Historical Jesus is nothing more than the unnecessary chocolate sprinkles. (Thanks, Rrhain!) Everything about the Jesus mythology and the rise of Christianity can be completely explained with nothing more than recourse to the human tendency to tell stories and lies.

They do not. They simply require that liars and storytellers be present in the First Century world. Since both the Historical Jesus and the Mythical Jesus agree that at least some parts of the Jesus mythology are lies or stories, that's already been stipulated.Mythical Jesus doesn't require that any specific liar or storyteller be identified; but Historical Jesus does require that a specific person be identified - specifically, Jesus.Ergo it's less parsimonious, more extraordinary, and subject to a greater burden of proof which has not yet been met. Not even close. I have repeatedly done that. The Mythical Jesus assumes one less person than the Historical Jesus - specifically, Jesus. Therefore by definition it is more parsimonious.

This is a false claim. No, they do not. They imply only that if Christianity has an actual historical basis that figure must be a known historical figure. Historical Jesus proponents have already determined who that figure is - Jesus - but they've yet to present any evidence for his existence or for anything about him that would connect him to Christianity. They're simply reasoning backwards from taking the claims of Christianity at face value, and proposing post-hoc excuses for how Jesus could exist but there wouldn't be any evidence of it.But if Christianity doesn't have a basis in any history except for the most general - i.e. Romans existed, they crucified people, Jews didn't like that, etc. - then it's not necessary to connect it to any real historical person. If, like other religions, Christianity is based on a figure who was invented, perhaps to purpose or perhaps not, then there's no reason to identify the specific individual or individuals who did so. We just have to know that there could have been liars and storytellers in the First Century, and it's already been stipulated by both sides that there were.Because the Mythical Jesus proposes the least unnecessary entities, it's the more parsimonious position. This is clearly convincing to anyone who has not had their brains scrambled by the effort to defend the indefensible.

Who says they didn't believe in it themselves? The exact same thing that was "in it for them" if it had happened to be true, because as far as they knew, it was.Try to understand that I'm not saying that the Gospel authors knowingly fabricated a lie. They believed that Jesus had existed for the same reasons you do - that's what they were told by people they assumed were credible. And they wrote down the stories of Jesus to spread the One True Faith. It just didn't happen to actually be true.

No, obviously not. I don't understand the question. What's so implausible about someone telling a story, and somebody else believing it and then telling it to his friends as though it were true? "Hey, you'll never believe what I heard at the tavern today! Apparently there's this guy in Judea who was crucified by the Romans - and came back from the dead!"There's no need to provide "evidence" for this because telling a story that someone overhears and believes is such a mundane and regular occurrence that we can simply assume it happened in the First Century, same as it happens over and over again through human history and in literally everyone's personal experience. To ask for "evidence" is to deny that people lie to each other, are successful at it, and tell stories. And that is truly an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof remains on you, PaulK. No, quite the opposite is true. Being Jesus or being Historical Jesus? I have no idea who the first "leader" of Christianity was, and neither do you. Perhaps it was nobody - perhaps it was a movement without leaders, similar to the modern-day Anonymous or to other such grassroots movements. Identifying the leader of Christianity is not necessary for either the Historical Jesus or the Mythical Jesus positions; not even in Historical Jesus is the Historical Jesus actually the leader and founder of Christianity. He's already supposedly dead, remember?In both positions you have a lost origin of Christianity, started by someone with (let's be generous) a rocky relationship to the truth, at best. But knowing absolutely nothing about this figure besides the fact that he's a serial liar, you take his claims of the existence of Jesus at face value.That's credulous and stupid. Well, yes. It is more specific. You proponents of the Historical Jesus position are claiming a very extraordinary power of specificity to be able to connect a major world religion to a specific human individual lost to history with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.That's pretty specific! And it goes way, way beyond what the present state of our knowledge is able to support. It goes so far that it's a serial fabrication on your part. The reason the Mythical Jesus position seems so much less specific is precisely because it is constrained by the actual evidence, which supports only very general conclusions at this time. The Mythical Jesus position is more parsimonious because it's more general, requires the existence of entities that aren't particularly significant - human liars and storytellers in the First Centrury - and doesn't try to draw conclusions that are any more specific than what the evidence is able to support.The Historical Jesus position has none of those advantages, and is only supported if you take claims credulously at face value, make maximal assumptions about the reliability of off-hand references to individuals who may or may not have existed, and extend the evidence far, far beyond what it can actually defend. It's an exercise in wish fulfillment, not an exercise in history.

Because more people have been good teachers than have been the focus of a major world religion. Ergo it's less extraordinary to be a good teacher than it is to be the focus of a major world religion.And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Did somebody repeal that when I wasn't looking, or something? Not at all. But there is something extraordinary about a specific person becoming the focus of a major world religion, when so many religions - most of them, by far - have fictional people as their focus. Well, ok. Now we're getting somewhere! Given, though, that both Mark and John are serial fabricators with no regard for the truth when lying serves the interest of their faith, why should they be given more credibility than a 7-year-old talking about Santa Claus?Or, to put it another way - what's the evidence that supports the claims of Mark, John, Paul, and the rest of the Bible authors? And what is the basis by which they do so? You had no answer for that when I asked before. Is it the evidence, or is it faith? If faith is the only basis to say that Jesus existed then why should I accept that proposition?

Well, sure. Were you looking when Jon, a proponent of the Historical Jesus position, opened up a thread that insisted that having any doubt at all about the existence of Jesus was akin to being a religious fundamentalist who ignores the evidence for evolution?Can you point out where the doubt in the Historicity of Jesus can be found in the posts of PaulK? Or even your own?

That doesn't mean anything. Luke could simply be based on Matthew, or the reverse. Mark may simply have not wanted to write those things down.None of that is any kind of evidence for a "Q source" that provides independent evidence of the existence of Jesus. It's turning parsimony on its head to conclude that because two things share something, they must therefore share it with an otherwise unevidenced third. Incomplete plagarization doesn't prove that no plagarism took place. No, your Q source is the fabrication. You've given me no reason to believe that it even exists, or that it ever contained anything that would lend support to your position. It's hardly a fabrication to point out that you're putting forth an argument that relies on an inaccessible source for support. To put forth an argument based on evidence you can't present?My, the illness is even worse than I suspected! No, it addresses inconvenient evidence. But in this case, the Josephus evidence comes "pre-addressed", because it may not be an authentic reference. Thus, because we can't draw any reliable conclusions from it, it supports neither side of the argument. It's as irrelevant as the beliefs of a modern-day Christian that Jesus existed.Evidence that you just can't know if it's real is no better than evidence you know isn't real. Testimony or sources you can't verify have to be rejected - again, on the principle of parsimony. But you did claim that I did:

quote:

---

If you want to insist that there are no extra-Biblical references to Jesus then you are wrong.

---

"You". Since you were talking to me, that's me. But I never claimed that there were no extra-Biblical references to Jesus, and the material you quote to substantiate your accusation was said by Panda, not by me. There's an abundance in the text to suggest that. Here it is again:

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.

---

It's as clear as day. By way of comparison here's the Netflix summary for Star Wars IV:

quote:

---

In a galaxy far, far away, George Lucas cemented his status as a pop culture legend with this classic battle between good and evil. This is the original, unenhanced version that thrilled moviegoers during the film's initial theatrical run. Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) and Han Solo (Harrison Ford), with the help of Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness), face off against Darth Vader to save Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and destroy the Death Star.

---

Now, taken at face value, you'd have to conclude that somebody at Netflix was a space traveler with knowledge of other galaxies! There's nothing in this text that literally indicates that Star Wars is a work of fiction, and that there was no such person ever as Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker, or that the Death Star isn't a real thing.But because we're not acting like total idiots when it comes to evaluating claims made on a Netflix summary, we know that we're talking about what's true within the fictional context of the movie. Similarly, because we know that Tacitus didn't make or indicate any effort to determine the "truth" of the religious beliefs he describes, we know that he's not referring to anything but what's true within the religious context of Christianity. And what's your evidence for this view? And what's your evidence for this view? Not at all. Why would they join a religion they knew was fake?Why would the person who first made up the Jesus story have had anything to do with the religion? That's not at all obvious and clearly not the case. The religion would have been started by the first people who believed the stories, not the first people to make them up.It's the same way that L. Ron Hubbard started Scientology but wasn't a convert to it. He knew it was fake! And what would be his interest in somehow preserving the "original" origin of Scientology given that the "original" origin would convince people not to join the religion? Even Superman has his weaknesses. It's as easily explained by good storytelling as real history.

I don't see any expression of doubt in the below, Mod. I just see an incredible certainty combined with an admission of very poor evidence. For instance:

quote:

---

I'm just arguing that the character Jesus Christ can weakly be traced to a real person about which we can derive a very limited history.

---

Can you show me where you express any doubt that "the character Jesus Christ can weakly be traced to a real person about which we can derive a very limited history"? You don't seem to countenance any possibility that Jesus Christ can't, even weakly, be traced to any real person.

Well, but that's what we're interested in. Whether the mythology is based on any historicity. The religion is based on the mythology; specifically it's based on belief in the mythology.Do I have to explain what "belief" means, as well? I presume not. You don't know that. Which I've done. Part of the evidence is the lack of evidence that it happened any other way, and another part of the evidence is that it's been observed to happen this way all throughout human history. We even ave direct observations of it occurring in the 20th century in at least two instances. Not necessarily, and even if there were - who cares about them? It's impossible for us to know anything about them except by extension of analogy from modern-day de facto leaders of leaderless grassroots movements. The topic is whether we can connect Christianity's origin to any specific individual, and it continues to be the case that there's no evidence to suggest we can except via make-believe. And my preference is to play as little make-believe as possible when it comes to history. The advantage I'm claiming is less unsupported speculation, less "detail" that is nothing more than assumption and over-extension of evidence. Less post-hoc explanation of inconvenient lacunae in the historical record.All of which contributes to the greater parsimony of my position. It's the position that is more circumscribed by the evidence. Your position goes off on wild flights of fancy for which there is no evidence. Oh, so we're doing science, now? I thought we were doing history, which everyone, including you, assured me was "not exactly a science."It's funny how the evidentiary rules seem to change throughout this discussion, due to the multiple contradicting views of historical knowledge offered by Historical Jesus defenders. One day, we can know so little about history that it's impossible to contradict one's belief that there really was a Jesus, not that he was named Jesus or was crucified or rose from the dead or anything. The next day your knowledge of history is so exact you're able to say exactly who could have lied, and about what - and that they certainly wouldn't have lied about this! No, the tentative conclusion that he was most likely mythical. Don't ascribe to my position a certainty that I haven't claimed. The only thing I know for sure, PaulK, is that neither you nor anyone on your side have presented enough evidence for a truly reasonable and judicious person to conclude that Jesus actually existed.

This is also a false claim. Well, gosh, maybe it has something to do with the fact that they started a religion that venerated the fictional character Jesus Christ instead of one that venerated themselves. If they had set themselves up as the sole and unique prophet of the religion - as L. Ron Hubbard did - the surely we would know exactly who they are.A similar phenomenon can be found in the incipient "Jedi" religious movement. We know who created the Jedi mythology - George Lucas and a host of other "Expanded Universe" writers - but, because we assume these people are not insane, we can conclude that they didn't believe in it. But the person who actually started the Jedi religious movement - the movement of people who literally claim "Jediism" as their religion, venerate a "Force", and subscribe to a set of ethics based on the goodness of acting with reflection, forethought, and out of peace vs. the badness of acting rashly out of anger or fear - is unknown to history, even though it only happened ten years ago.And why wouldn't he be? He didn't start a religion to venerate himself, but to venerate principles that he thought were timeless and true regardless of the fact that he learned about them in a fictional movie. I'm sorry, Paul, but I've done this over and over. Your continued contention that I've somehow failed to do so is your greatest lie in this thread, and violates the forum guidelines:

quote:

---

Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

---

Enough, Paul. There's no reason to persist in your dishonesty. You know my position, and I know you know my position, and my argument that it's the more parsimonious one has been sufficiently convincing. The proof of it is that you've presented no rebuttal but to pretend I've never made the argument. Frankly, I'm disgusted.

Nothing in your posts seems very tenative; it seems like you're arriving at certainties based on evidence you admit is sketchy.You don't seem willing to admit any likelihood at all that there was no such person as Jesus. Am I wrong about that, and that is something you could admit? That the possibility that Jesus was entirely fictional is at least a reasonable possibility?

Then I apologize for having misunderstood you. I recognize as well that the consensus by experts is that he existed, but I've come to believe that there is insufficient evidence to justify that consensus. Therefore I reject it.