Historic Jesus of Nazareth -- Probability?

[Swammerdami]

Was there a historic Jesus of Nazareth? There seem to be three possibilities:

(A) A Galilean named Jesus lived in the early 1st century, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, inspired religious cults(s) and eventually became known as the Christ. This Jesus had divine power to perform supernatural deeds.

(B) A Galilean named Jesus lived in the early 1st century, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Although just an ordinary human his death inspired religious cults(s) and he became known as the Christ. The biographies of Jesus are mostly fiction so it is difficult to be sure what charismatic qualities the living Jesus possessed that inspired cult(s).

(C) Pontius Pilate ordered the execution of many Jews; several had the common name Jesus. However none of these were "the Christ." Jesus Christ was pure fiction, or perhaps an amalgam of myths and minor figures. Paul the Evangelist and Simon Peter were probably among the earliest myth-makers. (They may have invented two different mythical Jesuses and later merged them to increase cult popularity.)

Does it even make sense to guess the respective probabilities of (B) vs (C)?

I'll guess the probabilities as (A) much less than 1%; (B) 95%; (C) 5%. I am not religious, but I think that some who call themselves Christians still consider (B) most probable.

The Mythical Christ Hypothesis (C) — the idea that Paul, Simon and/or others constructed a purely fictional Jesus rather than basing their cult(s) on an historic martyr — is an idea that has been gaining in popularity, though I still think only a tiny portion of scholars have adopted this position.

What do Geebers think? I am less interested in the actual probability guesses than in whether you think it is even sensical to guess such numbers.

(As a thought experiment, imagine that a time machine has been invented, is studying the relevant dates and places about 2000 years ago, and will return next year to report conclusions. Your friend operates a sports-book taking bets on the possibilities and has asked for your help in setting the odds.)

There is a reason I pose this question but it's tangential so I've hidden it to reduce clutter.
I participate on another message-board. It has about the same activity as Giraffe Boards and, like Giraffe Boards, has some very smart people. Despite these similarities, the tones of the boards are VERY different.

The other Board is devoted to an adamant aggressive atheism. (I ended up on that Board when two smaller boards merged.)

Puzzles and mysteries of history intrigue me. Although not particularly interested in Christianity, many years ago I read books to learn what critical thinkers had been able to surmise about a historical Jesus.

Recently I heard of the Christ was Pure Myth school, led by Richard Carrier, PhD. He has written several books and appears in many YouTubes. He has concocted some probability estimates — 25% (B), 75% (C) — but the way he approaches the probability guesses is laughable. (I am competent enough of a mathematical thinker to say this with confidence.)

Much attention at the other message board focused on the Mythicist hypothesis, with Carrier treated as an important thinker. I decided to get involved and wrote on the correct approach to probability guesswork, contrasting it with Carrier's laughable approach.

I eventually sided with Carrier against all the Carrier fans at the message board! No, I remain certain that Carrier's approach is laughable, but at least he understands that guessing probabilities is sensical and that evidence from writings like Josephus' Antiquities and Paul's Epistles should be used to help the estimation process. The message boarders only wanted to "wave hands," were uninterested in evidence, and were unwilling to guess any probabilities (besides zero or one)!

I think there are good reasons — mostly based on Occam's Razor — to consider a Historic Jesus to be a 95% chance or so. In the event there's interest here I will summarize some of the arguments.

[Pencil]

There is a disconnect between our time and back then. People who argue that it's pure fiction*, i.e. made up and therefore akin to fraud and forgery, miss the point. The writers of the OT and NT thought that they were telling the truth, the way they understood 'truth.' The story doesn't have to be factual, as long as it conveys the underlying dogma, tenet, moral.
To think that Paul sat down one day and started writing in the manner of Dan Brown, is just as plausible as the resurrected Jesus blinding him on the road to Damascus - not at all.

Personally I think the Bible should be on the same shelf in the library as Homer and Le Mort d´Arthur. David and Moses was almost certainly pure fictional, as the editing and writing of their stories happened several centuries later. They are stand-ins for whatever actually happened. Paul was writing a few years after the life of Jesus. That the person was invented from whole cloth seems improbable, since too many people still alive would remember him. That Paul and the gospels put a supernatural varnish on top doesn't negate the existence of an itinerant, charismatic preacher, walking the countryside of Palestine, telling anyone who would listen that "The End is Near."

*This seems to be an American phenomenon. Maybe as a push-back against RW evangelicals meddling in politics. The attitude in Europe, both from believers and non-believers, seems to be that there's little doubt JC existed. The divide is only about his divinity. And in general, few Christians, even among the devout, argue that the Bible should be read literally.

[What Exit?]

I seem to agree with everything Pencil wrote, but he wrote it far better so I will cop out and reply ...

This!

[Sputnik]

Josh McDowell wrote a book on the “Evidence that Demands a Verdict.”
Josh discusses the Biblical facts in the story of Christianity, and weighs them. This might be a good place to start looking for some way to validate the statistics you’re searching for.

[lil shit]

I would posit that the core narrative of Noah’s Ark is based in fact, but instead of two of every animal on Earth what was recorded was the survival of breeding pairs of domesticated livestock originally slated to be shipped as tribute to the regional monarch. The chance survival of these animals secured the economic future of this tribe and was memorialized as historic record. All that being said, Jesus was a kind bro that threw great parties.

[thylacine]

I have no idea where the idea came from, perhaps someone here can enlighten - my understanding is that it was a time when charismatic cults were all the rage, Jesus was one of many wandering about collecting followers and legends until the Romans saw their power being diluted and started rounding them up.

Make Palestine Great Again!

[Pencil]

Blasphemer. That's the rallying cry of the People's Front of Judea.
We, the true believers of the Judean People's Front say:
Make Judea Rule Again.

[Derleth]

Tacitus is considered to be a good-quality, non-Christian source on the existence of Jesus Christ, the fact he was executed under Pontius Pilate, and the existence of the group of people following him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

[hajario]

He wrote about Christian people over 80 years after the crucifixion.

[Swammerdami]

In this post I show a clue that makes historicity extremely likely. But I am less interested in convincing you of historicity -- (who cares?) -- than in reviewing the evidence. Pretend we're debating the historicity of some 19th-century plumber named George Jones. Do you agree that the Mythicists' position is badly supported?

I have no idea where the idea came from, perhaps someone here can enlighten - my understanding is that it was a time when charismatic cults were all the rage, Jesus was one of many wandering about collecting followers and legends until the Romans saw their power being diluted and started rounding them up.

There were certainly many using the Jewish religion to rouse sentiment against Roman rule, and fomenting insurrection. This was the one specific crime for which crucifixion was the penalty. Rome crucified about 100,000 Jews altogether, mostly during the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 AD). Josephus is quoted as blaming that War on the unjust execution of James the Just circa 62 AD.

I don't know if there is a good estimate for number of crucifixions during the governorship of Pontius Pilate but it was surely dozens if not hundreds. With so many martyrs to choose from, why would the Christian myth-makers have invented a fictional one? Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist (whose historicity isn't in doubt) -- Why not worship him rather than invent a fiction? Especially since John was beheaded, not crucified. (Hanging on a tree was a very ignoble death according to the Old Testament.)

Christians were very active within 15 or 20 years of the crucifixion -- Early enough that some people would understand he was fictional, if that's what he was. Yet the charge of fictionality was never made.

Speaking of James the Just -- alleged brother of Jesus Christ -- references to him constitute one of the best specific clues that Jesus Christ was historical. He is mentioned by Paul the Evangelist, and by Josephus, the non-Christian historian. The Gospels also show Jesus with a brother James. Hegesippus (as quoted by Eusebius) and Clement of Rome each give detailed accounts of James the Just.

Fictional people do not have flesh-and-bones brothers.

Consider the contortions Carrier and his fans adopt to avoid admitting James was brother of Jesus Christ.

Paul mentions James in Galatians, an Epistle which experts consider to be certainly Pauline.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
. . .
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Mythicists claim that "the Lord's brother" just implied Christ-worshiper rather than genetic kinship. This would be plausible EXCEPT that this one verse is the ONLY place in the entire Bible where this term is applied to a specific named person.

This might be plausible if James were being singled out for special praise, but he is not: just the opposite is the case. The brief "saw I none, save James" sounds dismissive.

As I've shown, the next chapter of Galatians accuses Peter and James of hypocrisy -- the same James supposedly singled out for the unique praise "the Lord's brother." What do you think?

Josephus mentions the famous execution of Jesus' brother. Scholars including Carrier assume this is authentic Josephus with the caveat that "who was called Christ" was possibly added in the 2nd century by a copyist.

When therefore Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. 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. But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the King [Agrippa,] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more: for that what he had already done was not to be justified. Nay some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria; and informed him, that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complyed with what they said; and wrote in anger to Ananus; and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done. On which account King Agrippa took the High Priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months; and made Jesus, the son of Damneus High Priest.


James was historic so his brother Jesus was presumably real also. If not the Jesus called the Christ, which Jesus was he?

Let's look at Carrier's "solution":

... the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

Carrier arbitrarily makes the brother Jesus to be the future High Priest mentioned later in the account. To accept this we need to ignore that
Hegesippus et al clearly show the brother to be Christ and not Jesus ben Damneus.
Making Jesus' antecedent someone much later in the paragraph is very poor composition. Josephus was a professional writer.
James would not have been executed so casually if he were well-connected, as the brother of High Priest Jesus surely woud have been.

[Swammerdami]

He wrote about Christian people over 80 years after the crucifixion.

Tacitus was born circa 56, early in the reign of Nero, so he was alive during the Christians-in-Rome events he reports. (What is the earliest mention of the great fire during Nero's reign? If Tacitus, then should that fire also be considered mythical?)

There were no printing presses in those days; books had to be laboriously copied onto parchment. Documents are hard to come by; many important works have been lost altogether. (The earliest known biography of Alexander the Great was written long after Alexander's death IIUC.)

Tacitus was one of the very most important Roman historians, so consider this:
Roman Senator and historian Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus, who lived from 56 CE to after 117 CE, wrote the Annales and the Historiae, spanning the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in 14 to the years of the First Jewish–Roman War in 70, and the death of Domitian in 96. First published separately, with the Histories written and issued first, these two works were meant to form a continuous historical narrative in thirty books. Only about half of Tacitus's original thirty books survived, and their survival was dependent on just two manuscripts.

The first six books of the Annals survived in a single manuscript written in Germany about 1000, probably in the Benedictine Abbey of Fulda.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

By the way, Tacitus apparently wrote of "Chrestians" rather than "Christians."
... Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.

[translated:]... Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Mythicists make much of this Chrestian/Christian mismatch. One possibility perhaps is that Jesus was called "the Good" ("Chresto") and Paul promoted him to (the near-homonym) "the Anointed" ("Christo").

[Derleth]

He wrote about Christian people over 80 years after the crucifixion.As Swammerdami alludes to, that's baseball: We don't exactly have archives of daily newspapers from that era. Thinking the evidence for Jesus would be hugely better than for other people and events is, effectively, an isolated demand for rigor, even if the people making such demands don't know it is because they don't know the general state of historical evidence for the period.

[hajario]

Don't get me wrong, I am very certain the he existed and was locally very influential in his time. I also think that there was a tremendous amount of retconning in the Gospels and Acts as we know them today.

[Derleth]

Don't get me wrong, I am very certain the he existed and was locally very influential in his time. I also think that there was a tremendous amount of retconning in the Gospels and Acts as we know them today.That's the general consensus, I think: Jesus as we now know him is a kernel of a story about a man who really lived, preached, and was crucified, wrapped in a large amount of stories that are either blatantly mythological or plausible but factually incorrect, and we'll never know exactly what happened.

[C2H5OH]

Tacitus actually isn't good evidence for Jesus' existence, because he was largely writing about things the Christians, themselves, said about Jesus, rather than going from contemporary Roman records. Everything he wrote was already 'standard Christian doctrine' by then, and so merely confirms the existence of Pilate (there are independent sources for that, so 'who gives a fuck, eh?'), and the fact that he ordered the crucifixion of a considerable number of Jewish 'rabble-rousers', which, no doubt, T had confirmed from actual records. The records he relied on no longer exist, and what he wrote doesn't give any reason to believe that he actually confirmed anything about Jesus' existence from those records. He merely confirms that the story is plausible. If Jesus had merely been a myth that had arisen between when Jesus was allegedly crucified and T wrote about him, T would have written exactly the same thing.

FTR, I'm not a 'Mythicist'. I believe there was a real person behind those stories. I just don't believe the stories, as written.

[Swammerdami]

I am pleased (though not surprised) to see responses here that are MUCH more reasonable and thoughtful than what I saw at the other message board. :science::thumbs:

Let me outline the Minimal Jesus Scenario.

The monotheist Jewish religion was very special. Zerubbabel's Temple (later called Herod's Temple) was the most sacred building in the world and sat at the pinnacle of the holiest city in the world. Jews took their religion so seriously that Rome gave them special dispensation to keep their religion and ignore the pagan worship of Jupiter et al. Despite this dispensation there were many insurrectionists (sometimes called "false messiahs") trying to foment revolt to escape Roman rule. (This plethora of insurrectionists is one reason Occam's Razor implies an historic Jesus: Why invent a martyred messiah when there were so many real ones to choose from?)

The Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD had a HUGE effect on the Jewish people. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were slaughtered, or forced to flee from (no longer habitable) Jerusalem; they were unwelcome throughout the Empire. Before 70 AD, most Christians in Jerusalem and Rome considered themselves Jews, but when Jews became persona non grata, Christians distanced themselves from Jews.

Scholars agree that the Gospels were all written AFTER the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus was probably executed by the Roman authorities for challenging their rule, but -- with the post-Destruction political situation -- the Gospels make Jewish authorities the villains and wrote
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

It is possible that much of the healing and preaching in the Gospels was fiction. As Reza Aslan explains in his book Zealot, the one thing we may know for certain about Jesus is that he was an insurrectionist. The "cleansing of the Temple" was the highlight of his ministry. For all the talk of "turning one's cheek" don't forget
... he that hath not [a purse], let him sell his coat and buy a sword.

So the Gospels cannot be trusted, and Paul writes almost nothing about Jesus' biography. About all we can say is that he was an insurrectionst from Galilee (probably Nazareth), was probably baptized by John the Baptist, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, with resurrection myths developing after his death. And that he had a brother named James.

If this Minimal Jesus is all there was, who cares? What's the difference between such a minimal figure and pure fiction? I don't care much, but historical puzzles intrigue me; the Occam's Razor case for historicity is VERY strong; and I was ASTOUNDED to learn that the Pure Fiction model is becoming popular. Frankly I regard such Mythicism as a perverse fetish of adamant atheists.

What made Jesus so special were the alleged sightings of the Resurrected Jesus. I have a hypothesis about that.

Christians today talk about "letting Jesus into our hearts" and there IS a unique experience -- call it a form of self-hypnosis if you wish -- where one can have a sudden sense of profound spiritual change. Perhaps human brain happens to resonate with this spiritual experience. I think -- and the late Episcopalian Bishop John S. Spong seems to agree with me -- that Simon Peter experienced this spiritual change while mourning Jesus, and then taught this to others.

Tacitus actually isn't good evidence for Jesus' existence, because he was largely writing about things the Christians, themselves, said about Jesus, rather than going from contemporary Roman records.

Agreed. But for me the importance of Tacitus' writing is that it (and other sources) establish a Christian presence in Rome circa 55 AD or earlier. This shows that Paul did not invent Jesus: Christian cults were growing in popularity in Judea and Rome BEFORE Paul began his evangelism.

[Swammerdami]

The most prominent Mythicist is Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, who has a doctorate. (I introduce him as a fellow Historicist does sarcastically. Carrier certainly isn't shy about harping on the "Doctor.") Carrier has written loads of books (some of which can be found on-line in free pdfs). He is especially proud of his "Bayesian" argument that historicity is only 25% or less.

Bayes' Theorem is a trivial arithmetic fact, like a(b+c) = ab+ac; but to listen to Carrier fans, it is a controversial tool Carrier wields with great skill.

(Nobody likes a "pissing contest" but I am proud of my skill at mathematics. I actually have a U.S. patent for a method of probability estimation. I feel qualified to teach topics in probability estimation and to criticize Carrier's methods.)

On the other message board I began a long essay discussing the correct approach to guessing probabilities, and explaining why Carrier's approach is ludicrous. I gave up with the essay unfinished when nobody seemed to have interest, or even a clue.

I won't make the mistake of attempting that discussion here ... unless there is an enthusiastic and deafening demand for it! :rimshot:

[JimNightshade]

Where is Dio?
An expert needed, but now with another name?
Mr. Plumbean' please release the kraken.

[stormie]

I seem to agree with everything Pencil wrote, but he wrote it far better so I will cop out and reply ...

This!yeppers. Pencil writes well. Pencil's sharp!

I'll stop now. :driveby:

[Mr. Plumbean]

Where is Dio?
An expert needed, but now with another name?
Mr. Plumbean' please release the kraken.

I kind of thought this entire thread was Dio bait but he seems to have acquired a life of some kind.

[Pencil]

I'll stop now. :driveby:
You'd better, or I'll use the other end.
:#2pencil:

[Mr. Plumbean]

I seem to agree with everything Pencil wrote, but he wrote it far better so I will cop out and reply ...

This!yeppers. Pencil writes well. Pencil's sharp!

I'll stop now. :driveby:

Pencil's also Trusty.

Get it? See when I was a little bean sprout everybody used "Trusty" brand pencils were kind of amazing because you could bend them into arcs and they wouldn't break.

I don't think they exist any more. Maybe I dreamed the whole thing.

[Zeener Diode]

I remember bendy pencils.

[JimNightshade]

Where is Dio?
An expert needed, but now with another name?
Mr. Plumbean' please release the kraken.

I kind of thought this entire thread was Dio bait but he seems to have acquired a life of some kind.

Huh?

Fair enough - send regards and stuff please. Some of us miss him.

[Derleth]

I don't care much, but historical puzzles intrigue me; the Occam's Razor case for historicity is VERY strong; and I was ASTOUNDED to learn that the Pure Fiction model is becoming popular. Frankly I regard such Mythicism as a perverse fetish of adamant atheists.I don't think it's perversity, just a normal reaction to a set of circumstances:

One, the Christians tend to be more and more the kinds of people who give the rest a bad name. The Atlantic has a reasonably good, if rather too po-faced pro-religionist at the end, article on the subject (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/atheism-fastest-growing-religion-us/598843/) (Paywall-free archive. (https://archive.is/DObne)) and it comes down to mainstream American Christianity becoming Evangelical MAGA-ism, if not outright QAnon, appendant to the GOP.

Two, they're the ones in power. Anyone in politics has to at least pretend to be Christian or they don't stand a chance. Doubting Jesus means incurring the wrath of the Bad Crazy, the people who will drive across the country to shoot you.

Therefore, people get the impression that most of society, including academia, is either frightened, complicit, or complacent, going along with the Jesus Was Real program because they want to keep their jobs or don't feel like dodging nutballs or worse. This is wrong, but if you only get the Sunday School version from an institution that is increasingly visibly insane, doubting the whole thing seems more reasonable. Add in a lack of knowledge about the standards of evidence in the field and ignorance of the evidence itself, and it looks like people believe Jesus existed based on the holy book of an institution that also thinks kids should be shot so they don't wear the wrong clothing.

[Swammerdami]

I think the Minimalists may be right. They think Jesus was a minor insurrectionist who had very little fame during his lifetime but acquired a following posthumously due to fictions preached by Simon Peter and Paul. But the Minimalists do agree that Jesus DID exist.

I don't care much, but historical puzzles intrigue me; the Occam's Razor case for historicity is VERY strong; and I was ASTOUNDED to learn that the Pure Fiction model is becoming popular. Frankly I regard such Mythicism as a perverse fetish of adamant atheists.I don't think it's perversity, just a normal reaction to a set of circumstances:

... This is wrong, but if you only get the Sunday School version from an institution that is increasingly visibly insane, doubting the whole thing seems more reasonable. Add in a lack of knowledge about the standards of evidence in the field and ignorance of the evidence itself, and it looks like people believe Jesus existed based on the holy book of an institution that also thinks kids should be shot so they don't wear the wrong clothing.

Are you saying that, as an over-reaction or backlash to right-wingers babbling incessantly (and misrepresenting) a supernatural Jesus, the anti-right disbelieves even in a minimal but historic Jesus?

I think it's mostly fringe scholars who are promoting the idea of a purely mythical Jesus.

[Derleth]

I don't think it's perversity, just a normal reaction to a set of circumstances:

... This is wrong, but if you only get the Sunday School version from an institution that is increasingly visibly insane, doubting the whole thing seems more reasonable. Add in a lack of knowledge about the standards of evidence in the field and ignorance of the evidence itself, and it looks like people believe Jesus existed based on the holy book of an institution that also thinks kids should be shot so they don't wear the wrong clothing.

Are you saying that, as an over-reaction or backlash to right-wingers babbling incessantly (and misrepresenting) a supernatural Jesus, the anti-right disbelieves even in a minimal but historic Jesus?

I think it's mostly fringe scholars who are promoting the idea of a purely mythical Jesus.Partially a backlash, but mostly the fact the Evangelicals can't make a convincing case for Jesus because they're pretty ignorant themselves and they, quite naturally, focus on the supernatural stuff. Therefore, if you aren't a Christian, and you find someone like Carrier, or someone influenced by him, they're not going to be able to convince you Jesus did exist both because of their own ignorance of the historical evidence (even leaving aside the ones who are literal Young-Earth Creationists and/or Flat Earthers) and because of their various social handicaps relative to people who think gays are fully human.

[Mr. Plumbean]

I figure any historical person is so far removed from the legend it doesn't really matter.

But I feel like American Christianity (like the evangelicals who want to ban books and vote for Trump) really have no idea who Jesus us; they just call themselves Christian and assume all of their stupid opinions are also Jesus's ideas. They have paintings of Jesus and Trump or Jesus with an automatic and without a trace of irony or self awareness. They don't even care about the mythical Jesus. They have a new Jesus they invented that looks like one of the guys from Duck Dynasty.

[Zeener Diode]

I figure any historical person is so far removed from the legend it doesn't really matter.

But I feel like American Christianity (like the evangelicals who want to ban books and vote for Trump) really have no idea who Jesus us; they just call themselves Christian and assume all of their stupid opinions are also Jesus's ideas. They have paintings of Jesus and Trump or Jesus with an automatic and without a trace of irony or self awareness. They don't even care about the mythical Jesus. They have a new Jesus they invented that looks like one of the guys from Duck Dynasty.

There's even a subset of conservative Christians which believe that the word of God as recorded (not written) in the Bible is the supreme law of the land. The fact that it was written (or "recorded") by non-Christians is irrelevant: it's God's message sent directly to them. Jesus and his disciples are mere side notes, no more important than Santa Claus.

(I wish I could find that article; it's been years since I read it. It had to do with the rise of the mega-churches.)

[The Mighty Quinn]

I think a persuasive argument for Jesus' historicity is the existence of the "manger" story, involving a census which required everyone to return to their birthplace in order to be counted. You know, an obviously stupid and impractical way to conduct a census, which has never actually been used in all of human history AFAIK.

The reason for this is that Jewish folklore of the time held that the Messiah was going to be born in Bethlehem. So this story explained why, even though their guy was well known to be from Nazareth and was literally called "the Nazarene", he actually was born in Bethlehem and therefore was eligible to be the Messiah.

Seems like if they were just making all this up after the fact they could have come up with a much less convoluted story.

[Dragonlady]

The manger story always gave me pause, too. If everyone was in town, and the house was full, why did Mary deliver without a midwife, or at least some experienced relatives?

[C2H5OH]

The manger story always gave me pause, too. If everyone was in town, and the house was full, why did Mary deliver without a midwife, or at least some experienced relatives?

The goat did the job. It happened in her bed, after all... Aww, come on. Delivering babies is easy! Even livestock can do it!

[Swammerdami]

I think a persuasive argument for Jesus' historicity is the existence of the "manger" story, involving a census which required everyone to return to their birthplace in order to be counted. You know, an obviously stupid and impractical way to conduct a census, which has never actually been used in all of human history AFAIK.

The reason for this is that Jewish folklore of the time held that the Messiah was going to be born in Bethlehem. So this story explained why, even though their guy was well known to be from Nazareth and was literally called "the Nazarene", he actually was born in Bethlehem and therefore was eligible to be the Messiah.

Seems like if they were just making all this up after the fact they could have come up with a much less convoluted story.

Very good point. There are other examples of Gospel stories that make sense only if they're true.

John the Baptist was historic; that Jesus was baptized by John was well known. But if fictional, why doesn't John insist that the Divine Son of God baptize John?

The very crucifixion is incompatible with being a Messiah. Deuteronomy 21:23 "He that is hanged [on a tree] is accursed of God." There are several other OT verses showing hanging on a tree to be contemptible. John the B was executed, allegedly by beheading -- a more fitting end for a martyred prophet or messiah --but certainly not by crucifixion, . Why substitute a fiction accursed by his execution for the historic John?

Why was he "not without honor save in his own country"? No particular moral lesson is involved there. It was to account for naysayers in Nazareth. Objections to the truth of the Resurrection are plentiful and are addressed in detail with fictions in the Gospels. The one charge NEVER made in the 1st or 2nd century, as far as can be seen, was that Jesus was fictional.

The common-sense Occam's-Razor arguments that there was a real Jesus of Nazareth (even if insignificant while alive) are so strong that my interest is LESS about discovering details of the Historic Jesus than understanding why so many 21st-century pseudo-intellectuals insist he was completely fictional.

[BrickaBracka]

What do Geebers think? I am less interested in the actual probability guesses than in whether you think it is even sensical to guess such numbers.


Jesus being real...is no more a worthy question than whether the teapot still orbits the earth. What is real is the usefulness of the myth to those who want to exert power over others.

Historical truth is in this case literally irrelevant. What matters is how the perception of his divinity is wielded today by those in religious power - because they will ensure that the only memory that lives on is the one most expedient to their goals.

Look at what the Taliban did do the ancient temples and statues in the middle east - they destroyed them completely. Removed all trace of that rich and long history. Should we be so arrogant to think that we'd have an accurate retelling of Jesus' history? A figure surrounding whom there is presently an enormous amount of myth, faith, emotion, etc. If the history of entire societies and faith systems can be destroyed by a group as globally irrelevant as the Taliban - what chance does the truth surrounding a figure so saturated with fantasy have? Jesus - the guy who people believe apparently had magic powers and was the son of god, or maybe was god, or maybe was both, blah blah...

No...we cannot know. There aren't enough fragments remaining. And even if there were - it doesn't matter at all. You'll either be confirming the beliefs of some, or contradicting the beliefs of others who might put your safety/mental health at risk for daring to do so.

I am not atheist. I am apatheist. (apathetic theist) I don't see enough evidence to motivate me towards any belief system and I do not care enough to search for that evidence. If the life I live forbids me from an eternal afterlife reward - then it is for the best because I wouldn't be happy there or I would be so irrevocably changed in mind and heart as to not be the same person.

[Swammerdami]

What do Geebers think? I am less interested in the actual probability guesses than in whether you think it is even sensical to guess such numbers.


Jesus being real...is no more a worthy question than whether the teapot still orbits the earth. What is real is the usefulness of the myth to those who want to exert power over others.

Historical truth is in this case literally irrelevant....

Your questions may be much more interesting and relevant than mine, but they are NOT the topic of this thread.

Pretend I'm asking about a 19th-century plumber named Jeremy Jones instead of about Jesus. Call me perverted or autistic but the puzzle of Jeremy's historicity intrigues me.

But, as often happens, interest in that initial puzzle mutates into interest in WHY some "thinkers" (e.g. Richard Carrier) insist on faulty reasoning when pursuing the puzzle.

[BrickaBracka]

Well whether it fits what you want the thread to be or not, I am simply answering the question you posed:


What do Geebers think? I am less interested in the actual probability guesses than in whether you think it is even sensical to guess such numbers.


No. I do not think it is sensical. However, carry on sir. Perhaps you will find what you're looking for :sherlock:

[stormie]

OK, late to the party and not reading what might be a bit much.

You write 'I'll guess the probabilities as (A) much less than 1%; (B) 95%; (C) 5%. I am not religious, but I think that some who call themselves Christians still consider (B) most probable'

I expect you're right on that, although it seems like B and C are both likely. C may be more likely. The amalgam of cult leaders of the time, their ideas & actions, and the response to them could well be the base of of story. That seems to be something that happens in big stories, and there were a lot of different cults. I am a Christian, and don't know if the Christ was God among us (definately a less than 1 percent probability! If it wasn't, it would be meaningless), or a guy who had a particularly good way of thinking, or a larger-than-life hero (ressurection pun).

[Swammerdami]

Thanks, stormie, for a useful answer. I think many who call themselves Christians (including my own mother and Bishop Spong) would agree with you: Jesus was inspirational but not supernatural. (The book by Bishop Spong was interesting; I'd never have read it without being drawn in to this recent controversy.)

I was surprised to find historicity in doubt; and now I approach it as a purely intellectual puzzle. Occam's razor points strongly toward historicity, as do specific clues like the mentions of Jesus' brother James.

On the other message board I intended to discuss the arithmetic of probability estimation and to expose the absurdity of Carrier's approach. But other participants were interested only in their preconceptions: actual evidence was of no interest!

[stormie]

Ah. I didn't say that Christ is not a God being, I said that the probability was less than 1 percent, which is appropriate if God appeared on earth in human form. If it was more probable, God would just be taking hollybobs. I don't know. Faith is about not knowing.