Historians Say....

[liamconnor]

It is a common 'trump' card here, of which I am guilty. I do think there are occasions where it is legitimate to lay down a 'consensus', but simply finding one or two 'historians' who agree with your position is surely sketchy.

This raises the question: what makes an "historian of Jesus/Bible"?

I would like to take two cases, both of which are non-Christian, yet do not support each other's claims.

Richard Carrier is an "historian" (of ancient science) who doubts the historicity of Jesus' existence.

Bart Erhman is an 'historian' (of early Christianity) who defends 'an historical Jesus' but does not believe in the resurrection.

To make the distinction perfectly clear, Erhman thinks the "mythical Jesus" theory so bogus he wrote a book against it.

So, how do we assess the two 'historian's' views? Is Carrier a quack?

[FWI]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]




Richard Carrier is an atheist activist, so his position on the Christ is general among atheists.

[Divine Insight]

So, how do we assess the two 'historian's' views? Is Carrier a quack?

I don't think it's as simple as you suggest.

Question: Did a historical Jesus exist?

My Answer: Yes and No. And both answers are simultaneously true.

How so?

Well it all depends on what we mean when we talk about "Jesus".

If we are talking about the Jesus described in the Gospels PRECISELY, then no I do not believe that "Jesus" ever existed.

However, we can ask whether there existed a man, perhaps named Jesus, who lived and and preached and argued against the orthodox Judaism of his day, and was ultimate crucified for apostasy. Then my answer is "yes" I believe that there was a man who sparked the rumors that became the "Jesus" described in the Christian Gospels.

I even imagine that he was very likely brutally crucified by Roman soldiers under the direction of the Jewish Chief priests of the time. Keep in mind that even the Gospel rumors have Pilate exonerating Jesus any wrongdoing. And the Gospels have Pilate washing his hands of the whole affair and saying to the Jewish Chief Priests, "Ye see to it". This leads me to believe that because the Jews were under Roman occupation Pilate simply allocated a couple soldiers to carry out the wishes of the Jewish Chief priest.

Jesus was NOT executed by Roman authorities officially. Even the Gospels confirm this.

So was their potentially a man named Jesus who was brutally crucified by Roman soldiers at the request of Jewish priests? Possibly.

However, that does not mean that the Gospel rumors themselves cannot be a total fabrication, of the "Jesus" they describe.

So possibly this is what Carrier means when he says that there was no historical Jesus? I don't know. Just because some incident may have occurred that gave rise to the detailed Gospel rumors doesn't mean that the "Jesus" described in the Gospels ever existed.

I personally find it difficult to believe that these stories could get any traction at all if there wasn't at least some sort of common rumors floating around about a preacher who was crucified and supposedly rose from the dead. So allowing that there was a crucifixion where some guy survived that gave rise to these rumors seems reasonable to me.

In fact Carrier "might" believe that the Gospel rumors of "Jesus" were exaggerations of many different wandering preachers all put together into one fabricated story of a super-preacher. If that's the case then I can see why Carrier would deny the existence of any "single" historical Jesus character.

I don't know what Carriers position is. I do know that some people believe that the stories of Jesus were entirely fabricated by authoritarians for the express purpose of inventing an authoritarian version of Judaism. However, as I said above, I can't imagine these stories gaining any traction at all if there wasn't at least some initial rumors floating around.

In fact, my own theory is that these kinds of rumors where indeed floating around and this is what gave the authoritarians the idea to create this religion.

Keep in mind that once they created their "Gospels" they held them out as the "TRUE WORD OF GOD" and threatened bodily harm or even death to anyone who questioned the authority of their Gospel dogma. And there were supposedly other rumors of Jesus around too at that time. In fact, didn't some Catholic popes actually send out armies to kill disagreeing Christian sects? The Cathers come to mind as one sect of Christianity that was wiped out by the armies of Catholic Priests for supposedly believing the wrong things about Jesus.

So for me the question isn't whether the Jesus of the Gospels ever existed historically, but rather whether there was some person (or persons) who's lives where used as fodder for the creation of the "Gospel Jesus".

[FWI]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Is Carrier a quack?

Richard Carrier is an atheist activist, so his position on the Christ is a general
stance among atheists. However, I would not label him as a quack, just an individual who is among the billions, which are deceived.

Erhman thinks the "mythical Jesus" theory so bogus he wrote a book against it.

Bart Erhman has taken the path of (1) reality and (2) lack of faith. Both, which are reasonable. The reality that the Christ existed is supported by several documents outside the bible, hence his book. However, there is no such real proof outside the bible to support the resurrection (besides opinions). So, his position on the resurrection of the Christ is understandable.

[Goat]

It is a common 'trump' card here, of which I am guilty. I do think there are occasions where it is legitimate to lay down a 'consensus', but simply finding one or two 'historians' who agree with your position is surely sketchy.

This raises the question: what makes an "historian of Jesus/Bible"?

I would like to take two cases, both of which are non-Christian, yet do not support each other's claims.

Richard Carrier is an "historian" (of ancient science) who doubts the historicity of Jesus' existence.

Bart Erhman is an 'historian' (of early Christianity) who defends 'an historical Jesus' but does not believe in the resurrection.

To make the distinction perfectly clear, Erhman thinks the "mythical Jesus" theory so bogus he wrote a book against it.

So, how do we assess the two 'historian's' views? Is Carrier a quack?

You look at the evidence. You look at where there is a conflict, and make an evaluation. I look at Carriers evidence, and agree that the writings in the Christian bible does not show evidence for a historical Jesus, and the evidence that the typical apologist gives for is not evidence for a historical Jesus. However, Bart Erhmans' counter claims against that is highly subjective and biased, Carrier's arguments against the topicality arguments FOR a historical Jesus is much stronger than Erhman's arguments FOR a historical Jesus. Of course, Erhman's not as educated in the historical method than Carrier, and he makes his money on writing books on 'how Jesus became a myth'

On the other hand, I have a different viewpoint in pushing for evidence FOR a historical Jesus.. and where I would go is away from the standard apologist arguments that both Erhman and Carrier are examining. The place where I would investigate a historical Jesus is by looking at the Ebionites and the Nazarene's. The fact both those sects had Jesus as a non-Divine Messiah , using a more Jewish concept of the Messiah, rather than the ones based on Paul's writings and the gospels , to me, is evidence that a historical Jesus is very possible. However, that Jesus is not found in the writings and sayings of modern Christianity.. there has been too much modifications and tampering with in the writings. Of course, one problem would be a trying to find the actual writings of the Ebionites and Nazarene, because the mainstream Christians sought out and destroyed what they wrote, and we only have second hand claims about them. The fact that they both existed independently from the current Christianity, and from Paul's writings, even if the knowledge of what they believe we get second hand is an indication that there was a common basis, and it is likely to be an actual person. I don't believe you can reconstruct what that person is like with the current surviving historical record, and certainly not with the specific documents that both Erhman and Carrier are addressing.