Peanut Gallery thread -- Formal Debate on the Existence of the Historical Jesus

[Ana the Ist]

Yes my post exceeded 1000 words. My opponent's last post also exceeded 1000 words. I like to give my opponent an unlimited and unrestricted final round/closing remarks post because often times it is hard to fit all one wants to fit into a last post if it is restricted in length.

For the record, I'm not concerned about the word count. I posted all my arguments from my phone and there's no word counter on here....so I gotta guess.

 

[anonymous person]

For the record, I'm not concerned about the word count. I posted all my arguments from my phone and there's no word counter on here....so I gotta guess.

Lol neither am I.

I think we did pretty good if you ask me. And I talked to Mark about the word count anyway. He said if any of our posts were too long, the server would not allow it to even be posted.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm perplexed, Ana. You said you didn't plan to debate anyone else on this topic, yet here you are debating Man_With_A_Plan - the debate between unbelievers that I said would be very interesting ... and indeed it is.

So I don't see that I'd be spoiling anything to link to what I thought was an interesting commentary on Jesus' historicity by an atheist: http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

Then, I would ask you these 3 questions:
1. How much of the information you are citing comes from peer-reviewed historical publications? And how much of it is used in those publications to support a claim that Jesus is not historical?
2. How many times have you studied the historicity of an ancient religious figure? Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus' contemporaries, etc.?
3. How much primary historical evidence have you studied? Or is all your information coming from the work of others?

Well I said I didn't plan on debating anyone else Resha...and I stand by that statement. I didn't "plan" on debating anyone else. Would you really call my discussion with Man a debate? I really just considered it as me correcting him on a few things that he was mistaken about. As for your questions...

1. I'd say approximately 0%...give or take 1%. I don't read any peer reviewed history journals. This is a topic of personal interest since I was maybe 16 or so...and one I've looked into rather heavily. The main reason being...I hate looking like someone adhering to a fringe belief out of personal reasons. I really kind of despise conspiracy theorists of any sort...and in the eyes of a lot of people I've discussed this with, Jesus mythicism and conspiracy theories are in the same ballpark of believability. I don't claim to know every aspect of the historicity of Jesus, but I do know a fair amount. Also, I try my best to avoid amateur historians (non-professionals) when I've researched anything historical. The field is sticky enough without the opinions of armchair historians (like myself lol).

2. I honestly couldn't say. I read constantly, history being the primary non-fiction I read. Some historical figures I'm far more familiar with than other (Gaius Julius Caesar for example)...I do remember spending a considerable amount of time looking into Buddha and Mohammed, though that would be years ago at this point. I'm curious though...why do you ask?

3. By primary historical evidence, are you referring to how many times I've sat and read through say, the testimonium flavinium? I couldn't give you a honest answer here Resha...I didn't know I was supposed to be keeping count. Largely, I'd say that I've read through the opinions and work/research of professional historians...read other historians' criticisms of those historians...etc etc. In doing so, you tend to end up reading a lot of "primary source material" anyway.

These are some odd questions to throw my way Resha...I hope this isn't an Ehrman tactic where you're trying to discredit my opinion by painting me as so impossibly unqualified that my opinion should be dismissed outright. That doesn't seem like your style...so I'm guessing you've got a good reason for asking me these questions?

I don't think your link spoiled anything lol...he doesn't go into the evidence much does he? He did make one point that was rather amusing...but mostly he's resting his opinions upon one logical fallacy after another. Were you looking to discuss the link or was it just for some fun reading?

 

[redleghunter]

Well, obviously I don't see the circular arguments or contradictions...

Yet they exist.

 

[redleghunter]

Interesting debate.


3.) To question the existence of Jesus is to call into question so many other historical figures. How do we know that Socrates existed? He never wrote anything. The only person to write about him was his "student" Plato, and even that "account" was written years later. Maybe Plato made up Socrates.

How do we know Alexander the Great existed? He may very well have been a fictitious creation invented by his "inner circle" of generals to motivate troop morale and strike fear in enemies. The first bio of Alexander was written by Diodorus of Sicily a few centuries after his "death." (The first known bio of Jesus, the Gospel was of Mark, was written in the 60s or 70s, which would put it in the time frame of people who would have been alive to have witnessed Jesus. And since scholars consider Mark to be based on even earlier texts, who knows how early the earliest bio of Jesus was written and by whom.) According to Wikipedia, "The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments."

So many people who lived prior to the advent of the printing press can be "proven" to have "never existed" given enough effort.

Or, considered from another angle, the amount of evidence for Jesus as an historical person would be unquestionably accepted for Socrates or Alexander or Pilate or any other ancient person.

Great points all around. And how do we know about these Middle East and Western secular leaders? From manuscipts hand copied by Christian monks in the 9th and 10th centuries. There was no secular 'library of congress' back then. Should we assume a bunch of Christian monks glossed these other historical documents? Here's some shocking data on the written historical evidence of the most 'famous' of historical figures:

If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors, after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament. (https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence#footnote2_0lljyo0)

 

[redleghunter]

I should say that I'm not a Christian. (I might become one the future, but for now I'm definitely not.) So I have nothing to gain by proving or disproving anything.



Well, the near-silence on the life of Pilate outside of the NT shows that most historical records simply disappear over time. Until the Pilate Stone was discovered in 1961, researchers were doubtful of Pilate's historicity. I know this because I've read books published before 1961 and the general consensus pre-1961 was that there was zero reliable evidence of his existence. Even today, a few doubt that the Pilate Stone actually says his name and that he existed.

Modern scholarship? Well, modern scholarship believes that Jesus was an historical person, and for good reasons. Modern scholarship denies your entire premise that an historical Jesus is a myth. Any "evidence" you provide for your premise is automatically suspect; if all serious researchers reject such evidence, then why should I not reject it? I admit that I haven't done serious reading into the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis, but that's only because all the books on Amazon seem to be written by dubious people with an agenda. (I won't read "science" books by Evangelicals and Muslims who deny evolution for the same reason.)

It seems that you're cherry-picking reason to accept or reject "modern scholarship" when it suits your agenda. When it comes to evidence of a census, you say, "modern scholarship this and that," but when it comes to Jesus' historicity, you turn around and say, "Modern scholars are wrong." How is that any different than creationists who cherry-pick the science that they like and reject what they don't like? It's funny how, when I google the phrase "Jesus Myth," a good number of hits come from atheist websites. That's a bit telling, at least regarding the motives of this movement. (In other words, how is such a conspiracy theory so popular among those self-proclaimed paragons of reason?)

Regarding the census in the gospel of Luke, this subject has always been of interest to me. It's true that there is legitimate reason to think that the census never occurred, but I wouldn't call it a "modern scholarship consensus." For a long time, I thought that it was simply a fabricated event, but when I did a bit of book reading through material from those who claim to provide evidence of a census (and there is a significant minority of scholars who now make this claim), the evidence for an historical census is [somewhat] compelling. I won't go into it here, but one website lays out a very brief survey of some of the evidence. http://www.askelm.com/star/star014.htm (It's a religious site, but the points in this particular article are legitimate.)

I've read all of Justin's writings. It's been a while, so my memory is a bit rusty, but I can assure you that Justin was not some wacky loon making up stuff. In Trypho, we see that, prior to his conversion to Christianity, he was a well-educated philosopher. According to his Martyrdom, we know he lived in Rome and therefore possibly had access to the records he mentions. I don't think it's correct to assume that Justin "lied" about or "naively believed" in the existence of an Acts of Pilate and a record of the census. He wasn't a moron who converted to Christianity "willy nillly," and his Apology was an intelligent defense of his newfound faith. Since he (and Tertullian) seemed absolutely confident such records existed, I have no reason to think that he didn't personally confirm their existence. Sure, it's possible that what he saw was pseudepigraphical or whatever, but I don't think he just "assumed" it was there.




That's a pretty loaded question.

Can you give any evidence of this having happened? Where did these conniving Christians "alter ancient documents"? Can you give some examples of this happening? The only example I can think of is Josephus' mention of Jesus, and even the actual extent of that is debatable. But I certainly don't equate pious fiction written centuries after Christ as being a willingness to "provide a real record" of Christ.

Maybe the end of the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus mentions baptism in a Trinitarian formula? Eusebius leaves this part out when he quotes the passage, but what some forget to mention is that, during Nicaea, he was of the party representing semi-Arianism. And more importantly, there are earlier Christian sources quoting that passage of Matthew with the Trinitarian formula intact.

Perhaps you're making the mistake of lumping early Christian texts with those of later centuries. It's true that, in the 2nd-5th centuries, many extravagant texts were written, but the texts we have in the NT were regarded as authoritative for a couple of reasons: they were known universally, and they were known since ancient times. People back then were not "stupider" than us "moderns." Critical thought didn't magically come into being in the 19th century.



A certain school of modern scholars do what the atheists today do when categorizing Christians. They essentially put them all on equal footing and make them out to be equal claimants to the Christian name. They say that the Catholic Church is just "another denomination," like the Baptists or whomever, but the Catholic Church clearly has historical precedence over Protestants.

Regarding the Gnostics, they were disregarded by ancient Christians for a few reasons. One reason is that they existed before Christianity and merely latched onto the rapidly-growing religion. Another is that they taught things that contradicted the Christian scriptures (that there were two gods, that salvation required gnosis, that the god of Jesus was "out of touch" with reality, etc). A third reason (and the most important reason) is that, while the Christian faith existed uniformly and universally (yes, it did, contrary to the school that claims otherwise), the Gnostics existed in isolated groups whose beliefs contradicted one another, all of which were novelties anyway.

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a famous book Against Heresies (circa 180) in which he argues against the Gnostics directly. In Book 1, Irenaeus pretty much demolishes various gnostic groups and their various beliefs by showing their origins and absurdity. In Chapter 10 of Book 1, he clearly makes a point that the above-mentioned school like to ignore, which is that



According to Irenaeus, in a book addressed particularly to heretics, there was a "mainstream" Christian church in ancient times and these gnostic groups were objectively inferior to it due to their lack of universality, their contradictions between one another, and the novelty of their doctrines.

If you have not read the following, I think, by your posts you will enjoy it:

"The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament"

by Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939

https://archive.org/details/bearingofrecentd00ramsuoft

Not so recent now. But Ramsay set out to investigate the claims of Paul of Tarsus in the NT. His archeological discoveries and conclusions were quite interesting.

William Ramsay was known for his careful attention to New Testament events, particularly the Book of Acts and Pauline Epistles. When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: 'Further study . . . showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement' (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, 'I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment...'

When Ramsay turned his attention to Paul's letters, most of which the critics dismissed as forgeries, he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters that claimed to have been written by Paul were authentic.


https://archive.org/details/bearingofrecentd00ramsuoft

 

[redleghunter]

I'm perplexed, Ana. You said you didn't plan to debate anyone else on this topic, yet here you are debating Man_With_A_Plan - the debate between unbelievers that I said would be very interesting ... and indeed it is.

So I don't see that I'd be spoiling anything to link to what I thought was an interesting commentary on Jesus' historicity by an atheist: http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

Then, I would ask you these 3 questions:
1. How much of the information you are citing comes from peer-reviewed historical publications? And how much of it is used in those publications to support a claim that Jesus is not historical?
2. How many times have you studied the historicity of an ancient religious figure? Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus' contemporaries, etc.?
3. How much primary historical evidence have you studied? Or is all your information coming from the work of others?

Link bookmarked. Good source. Thanks.

 

[redleghunter]

It seems that a.p. has broken the rules. His latest post exceeds 1000 words.

What a party pooper.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't read any peer reviewed history journals.

Depending upon how serious you are about the subject, that could be a flaw in your approach. You made a few mildly polemic comments in your opening post about what "real historians" would or wouldn't do, but if you're not familiar with what real historians are doing, that's a problem. People (even historians) can publish anything they like. So are Richard Carrier's books considered historical monographs or pop history? Credentialed historians do write both kinds of books. To know you would have to read reviews of his books in historical journals. Otherwise it's like reading A Brief History of Time and claiming you've done a thorough study of physics or Ever Since Darwin and claiming you know the depths of evolutionary studies.

I do remember spending a considerable amount of time looking into Buddha and Mohammed, though that would be years ago at this point. I'm curious though...why do you ask?

Do you consider Buddha and Mohammed historical? Ehrman's tactics aside, it is an indicator of how you approached this topic. You seem to think that bias in a document means historians should dismiss it. The problem is, every document is biased - every document is written from a particular perspective. Purely objective perspectives don't exist. Your reference to "religious documents" (I'm not aware of any such formal historiographical classification) indicates one of your biases - your perspective - yet you never defined what constitutes a religious document and why this justifies rejecting such documents as evidence after opening with statements about how "everything" is historical evidence. So, yes, I find your methods highly questionable.

By primary historical evidence, are you referring to how many times I've sat and read through say, the testimonium flavinium? I couldn't give you a honest answer here Resha...I didn't know I was supposed to be keeping count.

You mean you've read it in the Greek? I'm going to assume not, but you can correct me. You do realize that for an ancient historian to be considered competent in the period he studies, he/she is expected to be fluent in the language of the primary documents studied.

Why is that important? Because translation involves interpretation. Sadly, it seems to me Reformed theology (of the Moody flavor) has won out in the U.S. That means most of the Bible translations in English favor Reformed theology. It's a fascinating thing to study. A word in Greek may have 2 or more English words that would serve as a reasonable translation, so context is critical. It's fascinating to see how the choice of one word bends a verse toward Reformed theology and a different word bends the verse toward Lutheran theology.

Luther was fluent in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew and to this day it is expected that Confessional Lutheran scholars do the same. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case for many preachers in American Christianity, so we have people running off willy-nilly in all directions with all kinds of ridiculous interpretations.

Anyway, such things become critically important if one is going to make an argument that the original text was modified. Despite your comment that the link didn't really reference any evidence, it does spend considerable time discussing why the vast majority of historical scholars consider Josephus a solid reference to Jesus' historicity. I, myself, admit I am dependent on their conclusions. I'm not fluent in Greek.

But I am curious why, if you don't read Greek, you favor the interpretation of Josephus that is promoted largely by amateurs. The subject of interpolation is discussed in the historical literature, but it would be cherry-picking to say those discussions conclude Josephus is invalid - in much the same way that YEC cherry-picks comments from the literature on evolution for quotes that "BIOLOGISTS ADMIT EVOLUTION IS FALSE!!!" Those few historians who do think Josephus is invalid constitute a very, very, very small fringe element. So, again, I'm curious why you favor their interpretation - especially if you can't read the original Greek (the entirety of the Antiquities) for yourself.

If the majority concluded Josephus was not a solid reference to Jesus, I would be inclined to go with that majority, but that is not the case. It is the case (as far as I know) for other references like Justin Martyr. Believe me, it would be really cool if Justin wasn't referring to something apocryphal. When I first heard of it, I really, really wanted it to be true. But the evidence doesn't support it, so I've ruled it out. Not so with Josephus.

Tacitus. He kinda lies somewhere in the middle. If Tacitus were the only reference to Jesus, it wouldn't be very convincing. But when you start piecing it together with other evidence it adds to the weight.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yet they exist.

Well maybe you could be a little more helpful and point them out. Just claiming they exist doesn't add much to the conversation.

 

[pshun2404]

I considered responding to the questions you put to me in these two posts...but to do so substantively would require posts that go beyond what I've even posted in the formal debate itself. Instead, please take a second look at my opening statement...particularly the first part.

You're taking this debate far too personally. It's not an attack on you or your intelligence. It's not an attack on christianity itself. It's not even a matter of certainty...it's a matter of plausibility. History isn't a story of certainties. Yes, there are things that we can be far more assured of than others...because of evidence. Other things we should be far more critical of...because of a lack of evidence.

The very real possibility that Jesus never existed is an increasingly common conclusion. Notice I say "common" and not "popular" for reasons that are obvious in merely reading your posts to me. To point out the fact that there is abysmally little evidence of a historical Jesus is to open yourself up to personal attacks. Your motives, character, intelligence and more are instantly questioned by the mere suggestion that a character so beloved by so many probably never existed. Yet, despite this, more scholars are advocating this view...and even more who don't are at least willing to admit that it's a view that has merit and is worthy of consideration.

I understand that my view is a minority one...it's not uncommon for an unpleasant truth. It is truth, however, which matters more to me than your approval or popularity in general.

Man with a plan made some good arguments but there are a few other realizations historians have considered like the biographical analysis of the NT documents, the fact that the one passage assumed to be added to in Josephus does not negate the other passages found in all extant copies such as when he calls James the brother of Jesus, or the archaeological evidence found by Jewish professor and Archaeologist Eleazar Sukinek from the mid-1st century grave markers, or that of Bagatti for that matter.

One can only claim no eyewitness if one moronically accepts the late dating supplied by SOME of the scholars of the critical school, who after having their foot placed firmly in their mouth regarding Mark had to admit it was written prior to 68 A.D. (for which we have but one fragment but it is obviously a copy of an earlier writing). Secondly it should be pointed out that Mark was writing down what he was hearing preached and taught from Peter (an eyewitness).

In addition, the only real historical commentary from anywhere the churches formed (regardless of the Apostle that allegedly formed them) all place Matthew as the first to have written an account (a second eyewitness) and these come not only from Papias within the first century but also people like Irenaeus, the student of Polycarp, the disciple pf John (a third eyewitness)....so IF one, again I say moronically, wishes to dismiss the only actual historical accounts and accept an unfounded opinion (which was even more incorrect originally and then modified when proven wrong) then we cannot stop them from doing so but if it were regarding any other person in history no one would be doubting such a written record because unlike Alexander whose accounts come to us centuries later, these come to us decades later (an important point to a historiographer).

Then we have the lack of rebuttal or claims that this person was made up by anyone in the opposing camps. The Jewish people make reference (though critical) in many places culminating in the Toldoth Yeshu (Book of Jesus)of the 5th century where the Rabbis are still trying to explain away the empty tomb. Why bother for a non-person everyone knew did not exist? No! Logic demands they were defending against facts that they always knew to be true.

I could go on but Ana's arguments (though she thinks them totally rational) are just post-modernist didlysquat! They depend on disregarding all that for anyone else would serve as solid evidence.

Now I respect her right to not believe He is who He claimed to be and as she stated that is not the matter in this debate but far too many actual historians have combed the evidence piece by piece and never was "the person" Jesus a point to be questioned only who He was and what His disciples claimed He did...

Paul

 

[God's Child]

Admin Hat On
This thread has run its coarse and is being permanently closed.
Admin Hat Off