Weighing up the evidence for the ‘Historical Jesus’

[steve43]

Reasonable speculation is all that we can hope for.

But one man's "reasonableness" is another man's "outlandisness."

And it depends on the ancient sources you accept as being "reasonably" definitive.

It should NOT depend on whatever modern "scholar" happens to make the slickest arguments or who has the best PR machine behind him.

I like Hagan's approach, who admits this, and then focuses in on the secondary and tertiary characters in the NT that are also found in secular ancient sources. There is a lot more out there than one thinks regarding Herod Antipas, Herodias, Pilate, Tiberius, Ananus, etc. Understanding them and their times sheds light on Jesus and his world.

Know the history, and use that as a base, and folks will have fewer questions about whatever reasonable speculations you might come to regarding the Christian religion.

[ficino]

Re the Criterion of Embarrassment: I think I posted this a while ago. But I am so fond of my own writing that I post it again.

In line with what some other people have said above, here are my reasons so far for viewing as a FAIL the application of the CoE to the crucifixion.

The NT scholar who uses the CoE to argue the historicity of the crucifixion reasons as follows. “Even though I can’t prove that the resurrection occurred, I can at least make a strong case that Jesus was crucified, because the early Christians would be embarrassed to preach a crucified messiah. They might have imagined or invented the resurrection to salvage their movement after its founder’s crucifixion, but they would not have made up the crucifixion itself—the probability would be too great that (Jewish) people would reject a cult of a crucified messiah.”

Against this:
1. I don’t have a background in prob. and stat., so my layman’s take may be off. It seems to me that, whatever the antecedent probability of success of a cult of a crucified messiah, the historical probability of its success is one. The face that it overwhelmed other cults shows that there were increasing numbers of people who did not reject the crucified messiah.

Why didn’t they?

2. Of the tradition that has reached us, there NEVER was a stage in which the message was anything other than the crucified AND resurrected messiah. A period of time during which the early Christians knew only a crucified messiah is itself an artifact of the gospels, the historicity of which is the subject of discussion. Away with a “crucified but not resurrected messiah.” The material under our scrutiny is all and only about a “crucified and resurrected messiah.” Even genuine or invented rebuttals from antiquity presuppose already a message about a resurrected messiah. There are no nuggets of historical fact that can be detached as bare data from the tradition; all we have are various forms of the tradition.

3. And in that tradition is seen the genius of the cult’s message. It appeals to people of all stripes. Even the illiterate could look at pictures and see a Jesus who triumphed over the authorities who condemned and killed him. And so on.

So I think the CoE relies on unwarranted assumptions about intentions of people to whom, and in a time to which, we have no access outside of the already formed tradition of the crucified AND resurrected messiah.

Judas: some might think there is a historical core to stories about him, since his betrayal of Jesus would be embarrassing. Not nec, it seems to me, if viewed as part of a myth: the hero is betrayed by a friend, the righteous man suffers at hands of his enemies (incl. demonic ones) because of the betrayal, the betrayer goes to an evil end – all traditional motifs, esp. in earlier Judaism.

An example of application of the CoE: Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond 2004. she accepts the historicity of the charge that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews; she says it would be too embarrassing for early Christians for them to have fabricated it. [[!! ]] p. 198

------------------------------------------------------------

Adding to what I had posted some time ago: I understand that some scholars only try to apply the Criteria of Authenticity to sayings attributed to Jesus. I see others apply them to actions reported in the gospels. That's why I look at the CoE in connection to the crucifixion.

[Stephan Huller]

And what if the early Christians attached a desired symbolic value to the idea of someone being crucified? That eliminates the CofE too

[Bernard Muller]

The NT scholar who uses the CoE to argue the historicity of the crucifixion reasons as follows. “Even though I can’t prove that the resurrection occurred, I can at least make a strong case that Jesus was crucified, because the early Christians would be embarrassed to preach a crucified messiah. They might have imagined or invented the resurrection to salvage their movement after its founder’s crucifixion, but they would not have made up the crucifixion itself—the probability would be too great that (Jewish) people would reject a cult of a crucified messiah.”

Against this:
1. I don’t have a background in prob. and stat., so my layman’s take may be off. It seems to me that, whatever the antecedent probability of success of a cult of a crucified messiah, the historical probability of its success is one. The face that it overwhelmed other cults shows that there were increasing numbers of people who did not reject the crucified messiah.

Early Christians were certainly embarrassed about a Christ being crucified:
1Co1:23 YLT "... Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness ..."
Gal5:11 "... the offense of the cross ..."
2Co13:4 "... He was crucified in weakness ..."
Heb12:2 "Jesus ... endured [the] cross, having despised [the] shame ..." (Darby).
I do not think there was a cult about the crucified Messiah without the associated belief he was also resurrected (or rather saved in heaven as a spirit). Worshiping a dead Messiah does not make any sense.
But if a Jew had been crucified & apparently charged (rather mocked in my view) as "the king of the Jew" by some religious/political fluke, at a very special window of time, that would be enough for some activist Jews to think Jesus, seemingly declared king when he was still alive, was not dead after all but had to be saved in heaven and then come back as King. How could the King die without having ruled? Solution: In order to actually be a ruling king, he had to be kept alive in heaven in order to come back.
Justifications for that were in the OT (more so as "interpreted" from the psalms and Daniel) and Philo's writings (which have Moses & Abraham saved in heaven).
Later, in order to gain ascendance (or having apostolic credential, or answering critical issues) among early Christians, some (like Paul) pretended to have revelations or visions of some emanation of a resurrected in heaven Jesus.

2. Of the tradition that has reached us, there NEVER was a stage in which the message was anything other than the crucified AND resurrected messiah. A period of time during which the early Christians knew only a crucified messiah is itself an artifact of the gospels, the historicity of which is the subject of discussion. Away with a “crucified but not resurrected messiah.” The material under our scrutiny is all and only about a “crucified and resurrected messiah.” Even genuine or invented rebuttals from antiquity presuppose already a message about a resurrected messiah. There are no nuggets of historical fact that can be detached as bare data from the tradition; all we have are various forms of the tradition.

I think I answered that already.
However, investigating the issue, I discovered we have many pieces of evidence that Jesus' own eyewitnesses never believed Jesus was divine, a messiah and resurrected.
I have many (11 to be exact) blog posts on that: click http://historical-jesus.info/blog.html and then search on {"Nazarenes" NOT having been Christians}

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

You have chosen to ignore this information and explanation, Because it doesn't agree with YOUR favored hypothesis.

Sheshbazzar

Im not interested in bias or conspiracy theories.

I'm getting really fed up with your butchery of peoples posts.

Don't take it personal, I liked that part of the comment. So that is what I chose to comment on.


After debated with you for years, I get fed up of hearing the same unsubstantiated repeated ad nauseam, but I still reply just the same.

Excuse me for not going over old material.

imaginative compilation and application of older tales, texts, and religious tropes and traditions, much of which may (if you are willing) be traced back for centuries BCE.

And no one argues this. As a matter of fact it is a 100% certainty, that is why I ignored this sentence. Its already agreed upon with no one refuting it.

Your only saying what modern scholarships state. No one doubts the Jewish traditions going back for hundreds of years was not the complete foundation to the NT.

Our explanation was right there in that very sentence that you have so deliberately and dishonestly mutilated.

Here is a clue brother, come up with something debatable and I will. That is not an explanation, its well known and accepted.


Don't blame me because you didnt put enough spin on it, to give it some teeth that would separate it from any credible scholaship.

You are here then, admitting that explanations HAVE IN FACT been offered.
Making your statement; "Every one I know has failed to provide an explanation for the text we are left with." a falsehood.

You know you gave a very half hearted attempt, and my hats off to you for trying to give your biased view "WITHOUT" explaining any of the evidence we are left with.

"I know" maybe you have me there, because I have debated with Earl when he did debate online. And we have Carrier and Price those are the two biggest embarrassments [per Crossan] as their hypothesis are easily debunked by amateurs and have never had any credibility as written.

If mythicism wants to sharpen its game, it needs to provide a credible replacement hypothesis that explains Pauls communities actions to a T as well as the gospel authors motives and complete reasoning, as the current hypothesis does in total. Without the use of mental hurdles or imaginative reasoning.

Now! while I agree with Crossans assessment of mythicist. They are not words I would use myself. I think Doherty, Carrier and Price are admirable for at least "trying" to do the right thing even though they knew inside their own hearts the weakness of their argument's

[ficino]

The NT scholar who uses the CoE to argue the historicity of the crucifixion reasons as follows. “Even though I can’t prove that the resurrection occurred, I can at least make a strong case that Jesus was crucified, because the early Christians would be embarrassed to preach a crucified messiah. They might have imagined or invented the resurrection to salvage their movement after its founder’s crucifixion, but they would not have made up the crucifixion itself—the probability would be too great that (Jewish) people would reject a cult of a crucified messiah.”

Early Christians were certainly embarrassed about a Christ being crucified:
1Co1:23 YLT "... Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness ..."
Gal5:11 "... the offense of the cross ..."
2Co13:4 "... He was crucified in weakness ..."
Heb12:2 "Jesus ... endured [the] cross, having despised [the] shame ..." (Darby).

None of your quotations is evidence that the early Christians themselves were embarrassed about the crucifixion. They gloried in it. It's at the center of their whole message, to judge from Paul. You can't "get behind Paul" to a stage where the crucifixion was felt by the cult leadership as embarrassing. The shame of the crucifixion, a feature trumpeted in the above verses, is part of the construct of the message and, thus, not shameful to Paul et al. He was getting a lot of mileage from that claim.

However, investigating the issue, I discovered we have many pieces of evidence that Jesus' own eyewitnesses never believed Jesus was divine, a messiah and resurrected.
I have many (11 to be exact) blog posts on that: click http://historical-jesus.info/blog.html and then search on {"Nazarenes" NOT having been Christians}

Cordially, Bernard

Can you sum up your "many pieces of evidence that Jesus' own eyewitnesses never believed J was ... resurrected", Bernard? I started looking over the info you linked from your blog, and it is in a form difficult to sift through.

[cienfuegos]

You have chosen to ignore this information and explanation, Because it doesn't agree with YOUR favored hypothesis.

Sheshbazzar

Im not interested in bias or conspiracy theories.

I'm getting really fed up with your butchery of peoples posts.

Don't take it personal, I liked that part of the comment. So that is what I chose to comment on.


After debated with you for years, I get fed up of hearing the same unsubstantiated repeated ad nauseam, but I still reply just the same.

Excuse me for not going over old material.

imaginative compilation and application of older tales, texts, and religious tropes and traditions, much of which may (if you are willing) be traced back for centuries BCE.

And no one argues this. As a matter of fact it is a 100% certainty, that is why I ignored this sentence. Its already agreed upon with no one refuting it.

Your only saying what modern scholarships state. No one doubts the Jewish traditions going back for hundreds of years was not the complete foundation to the NT.

Our explanation was right there in that very sentence that you have so deliberately and dishonestly mutilated.

Here is a clue brother, come up with something debatable and I will. That is not an explanation, its well known and accepted.


Don't blame me because you didnt put enough spin on it, to give it some teeth that would separate it from any credible scholaship.

You are here then, admitting that explanations HAVE IN FACT been offered.
Making your statement; "Every one I know has failed to provide an explanation for the text we are left with." a falsehood.

You know you gave a very half hearted attempt, and my hats off to you for trying to give your biased view "WITHOUT" explaining any of the evidence we are left with.

"I know" maybe you have me there, because I have debated with Earl when he did debate online. And we have Carrier and Price those are the two biggest embarrassments [per Crossan] as their hypothesis are easily debunked by amateurs and have never had any credibility as written.

If mythicism wants to sharpen its game, it needs to provide a credible replacement hypothesis that explains Pauls communities actions to a T as well as the gospel authors motives and complete reasoning, as the current hypothesis does in total. Without the use of mental hurdles or imaginative reasoning.

Now! while I agree with Crossans assessment of mythicist. They are not words I would use myself. I think Doherty, Carrier and Price are admirable for at least "trying" to do the right thing even though they knew inside their own hearts the weakness of their argument's

You keep throwing Crossan's words out there and then backing off them. I used to be a big fan of Crossan because I liked his social history analysis. In the end though, I feel like his conclusions are similar to those of National Geographic's "Face of Jesus." He has created a composite sketch of a hypothetical, plausible Jesus. In the end, his quest has failed to achieve anything beyond past attempts to uncover the historical Jesus, as in the actual person who was the inspiration for the Gospels.

I have tried to point out the error you make of asserting the strength of a hypothesis that goes beyond what the evidence supports. You ignore that and claim a special privilege of Bible scholars to do history in a special way that entails deriving "nuggets of historical data" from hearsay evidence. You haven't given any reasons for why your methodology should be accepted as a means for establishing sound historical conclusions.

Your attempts to weave in and out of traffic give the impression of dodging bullets rather than facing head on the arguments and making rational and honest attempts at dialogue. You have acknowledged (while denying) that you are begging for a methodology different than standard historical methodology and I would like you to a) defend that methodology, and b) demonstrate that either Forrest Gump or Jack Crabb (or both) did not participate in events that they are depicted as participating in using the methods you claim for Bible Studies.

[neilgodfrey]

Now! while I agree with Crossans assessment of mythicist. They are not words I would use myself.

Crossan was talking about the results of historical Jesus studies, not mythicism!!!

[outhouse]

Now! while I agree with Crossans assessment of mythicist. They are not words I would use myself.

Crossan was talking about the results of historical Jesus studies, not mythicism!!!

SSShhhh! don't spoil the fun. Your the only one who read it

[outhouse]

You keep throwing Crossan's words out there and then backing off them. I used to be a big fan of Crossan because I liked his social history analysis. In the end though, I feel like his conclusions are similar to those of National Geographic's "Face of Jesus." He has created a composite sketch of a hypothetical, plausible Jesus. In the end, his quest has failed to achieve anything beyond past attempts to uncover the historical Jesus, as in the actual person who was the inspiration for the Gospels.

.

I am still a fan, yet I disagree with many of his personal conclusions, as far as Im concerned, he puts to much weight on the text.

I lean more towards Johnathon Reed who Crosssan relies on for anthropology. Yet I disagree with some of his views on Hellenistic Judaism in Sepphoris.

You ignore that and claim a special privilege of Bible scholars to do history in a special way that entails deriving "nuggets of historical data" from hearsay evidence.

Your assuming there with special privilege. I claim different methods as required for all of this period. By all your accounts we would have no history from any part of this time period. Im sorry it doesn't work that way.