Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

Post #1

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

Regards

liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: > Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the r

Post #81

Post by liamconnor »

[Replying to post 77 by Jagella]
You failed to provide any evidence for the existence of Jesus that a sensible person might accept. I must then assume that you have no such evidence.
Rather, I think Historia is going back to a philosophy of history, rather than an analysis of this particular historical question. He understands historical methodology; perhaps you do not? The very fact that you talk of "proof" in historical debate is a red flag. Historians talk of "demonstration" and "meeting criteria".

You are making the historical question of Jesus' existence far more complicated than it is. The question turns on the principle of Occam's razor, or multiplying the least hypotheses.

The hypothesis that Jesus was made up begs a universe full of questions:

1) What about Paul's references to other people who knew Jesus, and were themselves known by Paul's addressees? Can a person conceive explanations? Of course. But the fact that this theory requires such mental exertion disqualifies it before simpler hypotheses. The more questions a theory raises that require answers which raises more questions, the more one needs to abandon that theory.

2) What about Josephus' mention of James, who is said to be Jesus' brother, who is also mentioned in the gospels and Paul? Can a person conceive explanations? Of course. But the fact that this theory requires such mental exertion disqualifies it before simpler hypotheses. The more questions a theory raises that require answers which raises more questions, the more one needs to abandon that theory.


Now let's compare this with the hypothesis that Jesus existed:

1) How do we explain Paul's mentioning of Jesus, Peter, the addressees, the gospels? Well, easy. There was an historical Jesus, who knew an historical Peter, who in turn was known by the historical Corinthians, to which the historical Paul was writing.

2) How do we explain Josephus' mention of James, brother of Jesus? Again, easy. There was a Jesus, and he had a brother named James.

These explanations satisfy the data without creativity.

So the question then turns on you: why the need to be so creative?

liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: > Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the r

Post #82

Post by liamconnor »

[Replying to post 14 by Jagella]
What you're saying here might sound impressive at first blush, but upon closer examination it doesn't stand up. Paul openly admits that his "knowledge" of Jesus comes from revelations and not eyewitnesses or solid evidence. The four gospels suffer from the following problems as historical evidence:


So do all ancient biographies and histories from the relative time period.
The Gospels don't name their sources, discuss those sources' merits, or explain why those sources are relied upon.


In other words, they follow ancient biographical format?
The Gospels do not discuss their methods, the possibility of incorrect information, or the existence of non-polemical alternative accounts.


In other words, they are closer to ancient histories than modern? Small wonder; they are ancient.
They express no amazement at anything they report.


I am now lost. The gospels do not describe amazement among Jesus' followers?

They do not explain why they change what their sources say.


Again, they are ancient.
The authors do not identify themselves or why they are qualified to relate the accounts they do.
Half true (and so your only valid point thus far). However, Luke's author does present his credentials.

So good try, but the historical view of Jesus is rapidly going out of fashion.
Only among hyperskeptics online.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: > Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the r

Post #83

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 81 by liamconnor]
He understands historical methodology; perhaps you do not?
If all else fails, then "argue against the man." Ad hominem arguments I've noticed are very popular among the real-Jesus apologists.
Historians talk of "demonstration" and "meeting criteria".
Fine. Go ahead and demonstrate that Jesus existed while "meeting criteria."
What about Paul's references to other people who knew Jesus...
Obviously nobody could have known Jesus unless there was a Jesus. As a result, you cannot claim that anybody could have known Jesus without assuming Jesus existed. You cannot logically assume what you're trying to demonstrate.
What about Josephus' mention of James, who is said to be Jesus' brother, who is also mentioned in the gospels and Paul?
That account is from Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1). It states:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned...
David Fitzgerald says this passage has some problems with it. He says that James' death by stoning is at odds with all other accounts of James' death. These other accounts say James was clubbed to death by an angry mob rather than stoned. Richard Carrier maintains that the phrase "the one called Christ" is an accidental scribal interpolation. The Jesus mentioned might well be confused with the New Testament Jesus by the scribe who copied this text. There is a Jesus, the son of Damneus mentioned in that same passage which may well be the Jesus related to James and not the Biblical Jesus.

You can make of this argument what you will, but I think it's always wise to examine the evidence for Jesus carefully to see if it really supports a historical figure. I see a lack of such critical thinking among the real-Jesus apologists.
So the question then turns on you: why the need to be so creative?
Actually, I see much more "creativity" on the part of real-Jesus apologetics. For instance, if you want a historical Jesus, you need to make up explanations for the silence of historians in the early first century. Myhthicism offers a very direct explanation--there was no Jesus to speak of.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: > Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the r

Post #84

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 82 by liamconnor]
So do all ancient biographies and histories from the relative time period.
You should look up information on the Greek historian, Herodotus. Unlike the gospel writers, Herodotus is known and known well. Herodotus also differs from the gospel writers in that although he does wrote about some outlandish claims, he made sure to let his readers know he was merely retelling stories he heard from others. Perhaps one of the biggest differences between the works of Herodotus and the gospels is that in Herodotus' writings he encouraged critical thinking. The gospel writers, by contrast, rely on the naivete of their readers.

So there are historical works from antiquity that are far more credible than than the New Testament.
Half true (and so your only valid point thus far). However, Luke's author does present his credentials.
Where do the gospel writers identify themselves, and what are Luke's "credentials"? Luke 1:1-4 says:
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.
Luke doesn't identify himself or state how he qualifies to tell us anything about Jesus. He mentions eyewitnesses but doesn't identify them. He also says he investigated "everything" but provides no details about how he carried on his investigation. We also know that he plagiarized Mark and possibly Matthew which he does not avow. This work is sloppy from a historical perspective.

Finally, I agree that there are indeed many stories from antiquity that do not meet our modern standards of historicity. They may have no known authors and are full of outlandish claims of magical people and events. These stories are very similar to the gospels. These stories are known as "myths."

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: > Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the r

Post #85

Post by historia »

Jagella wrote:
historia wrote:
Archeology mostly provides information on the material culture of past civilizations, and so rarely produces evidence about a specific individual.
I can think of a lot of archaeological evidence for individuals. Coins, buildings, busts, tombs, weapons and tools, scrolls...there's so much such evidence that is lacking for Jesus.
The fact that different types of archeological evidence exists for some individuals is surely not in doubt.

The point here is that such evidence is comparatively rare: Of the million or so people who lived in first-century Palestine, for example, how many appear on a coin, were depicted in a bust, or have their name inscribed in a tomb that survives to the present day? Only a vanishingly small percentage.

Likewise, while archeological sites in Israel today are periodically turning up first-century buildings, pottery, tools, and other artifacts, we don't often know the names of the people who owned these items.

So, while archeology occasionally turns up information about a specific named individual from the ancient world, we don't have identifiable physical evidence for the vast majority of the people mentioned in the surviving written sources. So it's not something we expect to find, especially for someone not part of the ruling elite.
Jagella wrote:
historia wrote:
Given the nature of ancient sources, then, we wouldn't expect either physical evidence or 'unbiased' eyewitnesses for the vast majority of ancient figures. Therefore, it is unreasonable to use that as some kind of threshold of "proof."
So if you don't have the evidence I'm asking for, then I'm unreasonable for asking for it?
This misstates the point. I'm simply noting the kind of evidence we typically find for a figure of the ancient world. It is surely unreasonable to expect to find more evidence than what is typical. To do so is special pleading.
Jagella wrote:
Was it common for ancient writers to be advancing a religious faith like the writers of the New Testament were doing?
Ancient authors often promoted their religious views as right or better in their writings.
Jagella wrote:
Do we believe Plato when he spoke of Zeus? If not, then why believe the New Testament writers when they speak of their god, Jesus?
This question rests on a couple of incorrect premises, I think. Firstly, many of our earliest Christian sources don't speak of Jesus as being divine. And, secondly, historians never simply "believe" a source, taking everything the author says at face value. They critically examine all sources, separating what is likely to be historically accurate from what is not. We should too.
Jagella wrote:
historia wrote:
In the case of Jesus, we have multiple sources written within 50 years of his life, which is better than what we would typically expect for a figure of the ancient world, especially for someone who was not part of the ruling elite.
But the sources for Jesus are almost all Christian sources.
Sure, just like most of the sources for ancient Jewish figures are Jewish and ancient Roman figures are Roman.
Jagella wrote:
Moreover, the sources we have survived centuries of Christian editing and very possibly distortion. All the sources that did not become accepted by the surviving orthodoxy were either excluded from the canon or even destroyed. You don't seem to understand how the sources for Jesus were tainted by Christian chicanery.
On the contrary, I'm well aware of the textual history of the New Testament, the existence of heterodox Christian works, and the textual issues surrounding references to Jesus in Josephus, for example. None of that compels me to the conclusion that the earliest Christians didn't believe in an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Jagella wrote:
If they all spoke of Jesus, then they did so because Jesus was a god they all believed in.
This assertion is unfounded, especially since most of our early Christian sources don't say Jesus was a "god." All of our early sources explicitly say or assume Jesus was the messiah, however. That is surely sufficient reason for them to speak of him.
Jagella wrote:
historia wrote:
Again, setting an arbitrary threshold of "proof" is not how historical inquiry works.
Aren't all "thresholds" arbitrary? If not, then please tell me how your standards are not arbitrary but come from some law of nature that's not a product of human decision making.
I'm afraid you're missing the point completely. Again, no one is suggesting that historical inquiry is not the result of human decision making. The point here is that we should follow the methods and standards set out by professional historians -- the humans who have given the most careful consideration to how we might know anything about the past -- rather than inventing our own standards, as you have done above.
Jagella wrote:
historia wrote:
The problem, though, is that it is not enough simply to "examine the evidence." A proper historical examination requires assessing the evidence in the light of our background knowledge -- in this case, Second Temple Judaism, Greco-Roman culture and religion, and the history of First Century Palestine.
I have done exactly that and so far a mythical Jesus seems more likely than a historical Jesus. So what's the problem?
The problem is that you don't have a sufficiently deep background knowledge in these areas to be able to reach a meaningful conclusion concerning the evidence. No one here does, which is why at every turn in this discussion we are heavily dependent on the analysis of scholars.
Jagella wrote:
I understand that Richard Carrier's mythicist hypothesis has survived peer review. So even by your own standards mythicism is a credible hypothesis.
Not exactly.

I suspect you're thinking here of the fact that Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus passed peer-review for publication. Although that is certainly an important first hurdle any serious scholar must pass in promoting their hypothesis, as Carrier himself notes in Proving History (pgs. 21-22), for a hypothesis to survive peer-review it has to be critically reviewed and defended through several publications over the course of many years, with the goal of winning over the opinions of specialists and ultimately the scholarly consensus.

The scholarly reviews of On the Historicity of Jesus so far have been largely critical of his methodology and idiosyncratic analysis -- and rightly so, it is not a persuasive argument. It appears that one of Carrier's follow-up articles did not pass peer-review, as well. So he's not off to a great start.
Jagella wrote:
historia wrote:
But within the scholarly literature there are scores of journal articles, book chapters, and even whole book devoted just to discussing methodology in historical Jesus research.
I'll need to disagree with this characterization of Biblical scholars.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. My comment here is not a "characterization of biblical scholars," but rather a brief summary of a body of literature that disproves your prior assertion that 'historicists' haven't even attempted to apply any kind of historical method. Are you saying this body of literature doesn't exist?
Jagella wrote:
Their work is based more on Christian tradition and personal professional interests than any rigorous methodology. Sure, they do a lot of good work, but that work must fall within some boundaries set by the Christian organizations they work for. That's why we need to scrutinize their work for credibility.
There are certainly (very) conservative Christian biblical scholars who work at (very) conservative Christian colleges and seminaries who are contractually bound by their employer to affirm the doctrines and beliefs of that institution.

But there are also, of course, many (critical) biblical scholars and historians at secular, Jewish, and even liberal Christian universities who are under no such obligation. In fact, some of these scholars are not even Christians themselves, being Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or otherwise.

Far from being bound by Christian tradition, critical biblical scholarship in general, and historical Jesus research in particular, is well-known for coming to conclusions that run contrary to Christian tradition. In fact, you've already indirectly referenced such scholarship above, noting, for example, that some of the letters attributed to Paul are likely pseudonymous, while the gospels are also likely not written by eyewitnesses.

It seems to me that using the conclusions of biblical scholars when it suites your arguments but then declaring the whole field hopelessly hamstrung by Christian tradition when it does not is another double-standard.
Jagella wrote:
historia wrote:
This is determined by a review of the scholarly literature.
OK, then you don't know that there is a consensus of scholars who maintain a historical Jesus. You are merely assuming there is a consensus.
Well, no. A literature review is just as good at telling us what scholars believe as a survey, and has the added advantage of allowing us to include the views of scholars who have recently retired or past away, whose research is still important and influential, but won't respond to a survey.

Again, this is not a controversial point. Carrier and Price recognize that the consensus on this question is that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical person. Why bother contesting this?
Jagella wrote:
historia wrote:
Before we do that, though, we need to agree to two points:

1. The goal is to determine which hypothesis best explains the available evidence, rather than "prove" what happened.

2. The burden of proof lies with anyone who doubts the scholarly consensus, and so lies with mythicists.

Can you agree to those two points?
Sure.
Good. Once we wrap up any final methodological or epistemological objections here, then, we can continue the discussion in a new thread. Would you be interested in a head-to-head debate? Or just a new, open thread?
Jagella wrote:
If you don't wish to take up the burden of proof for a real Jesus (I thought that historians don't work with proof), then I'll be glad to make a case for a mythical Jesus. I've been doing that all along, anyway.
To be clear, in the new thread, I'll be making a case for why the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth existed best explain the available evidence in the light of our background knowledge.

The point I'm making here concerns where our default position lies in this discussion. It is not, as some imagine, that Jesus did not exist, or some kind of vague 'agnosticism'. Rather, the default position is rightly that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure, since that is the scholarly consensus.

In the event our discussion produces an inconclusive conclusion concerning which hypothesis better explains the evidence, then we resort to the default position. The burden of proof (it's just an expression, it doesn't literally entail "proof"), then, lies with mythicists. They have the greater burden to show their hypothesis exceeds (and not merely matches) all other hypotheses in explaining the evidence.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: > Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the r

Post #86

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 85 by historia]

Wow, what a completely weak defense.
We have writings about kooks and quacks of the time (but no Jesus, or his disciples, or Lazarus, who should have been nearly as celebrated.)*

We have all kinds of pottery and busts and such, but no Ark of the Covenant or law tablets.

In short we have all kinds of examples of more and less valuable things surviving history, but nothing from the Bible.

Why? nothing in the Bible ever existed. God, Moses, think of anything in the Bible and it can be shown to be nowhere.
Surely a coincidence worth noting.

* = No one has ever been able to adequately explain why Lazarus testimony hasn't been heralded nearly as much as Jesus'.

Post Reply