It cannot really be explained, it cannot be proved, it fits nicely into a human strength for creating imaginary characters, it is deeply undermined by the problem of indiscriminate evil, it is not the best explanation for anything, and it’s the most improbable cause of observed reality.Any one of these flaws is devastating on its own, but the collective effect of them all makes it very plain that God is almost surely a human invention.
However, as decisive as the case is against God, the story does not end here because Christians don't believe in this God. I have argued before that Christians pray to a different God than the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (see this also). They don't like the God of the "Old Testament." No one does. Before Richard Dawkins gave the definitive summation of this character, everyone already gave ol’ “I am that I am” the more pleasant sounding euphemism of being “jealous.”
My point is that Christians have always been embarrassed with the old God, and they aren’t all that bothered by dismantling him. For Christians, all roads to the True God™ run through Jesus. If Jesus is right, they believe, then the true nature of God is known only through Jesus. Indeed, the real significance of the character Jesus is not to redeem humanity for its sins but to redeem God for his. Those silly, spiritually blind Jews just got God horribly wrong.
For the Christians, then, let’s talk now about Jesus. Let's sum up what we really know about this character and how we know it.
(1) The very existence of a real Jesus corresponding to the person described in the Gospels is highly questionable--no one can assert with certainty that a real Jesus ever walked the earth.
(2) The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are our only canonical sources of information about the events of Jesus’ life.
(2.1) Mark, the earliest Gospel, is generally agreed by biblical scholars to have been composed around 65 CE. That’s about 30-65 years after the described events are supposed to have happened.
(2.2) None of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and none were written by the disciples Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.
(2.3) The writers of the Gospels heard the stories of Jesus from others; we don’t know how many or how few others there were.
(2.4) Other, apocryphal gospels are presumed to have less historical value than the canonized texts. All of these, so far as I know, date to much later than the putative time of Jesus. In particular, I am thinking of the gospels of Peter, Mary, Judas, Philip, and Thomas. However, these "other" gospels indicates that several different Jesus traditions were around, possibly from very early on. This must lead us to ask why the orthodoxy is the orthodoxy; put differently, we cannot just assume the orthodoxy is most accurate, or accurate at all, simply because it's the orthodoxy.
(3) The story of Jesus’ empty tomb--perhaps the single most significant event of the Gospels--is different, even contradictory, across each Gospel.
(4) Before the Gospel stories, there is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied).
(5) We have not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime (see here).
(5.1) We know of several people who lived during or very near the supposed lifetime of Jesus but who mention nothing about him, which would be strange for an influential healer, teacher, and political rebel. These people include Justus of Tiberias, Philo of Alexandria, Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, Valerius Maximus, and Velleius Paterculus.
(5.2) Philo, a Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, never once wrote anything about Jesus, even though he did write about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea.
(5.3) All non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or originally based on Christian claims.
(6) In the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, there were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was, including beliefs that he had never existed on earth "in the flesh."
(6.1) In Marcionism, for example, Christ was a purely spiritual entity. Other schools of thought in the first three centuries of Christianity included Nestorianism (Jesus and Christ were two different entities), Docetism (Jesus appeared physical, but he was really incorporeal), Apollinarism (Jesus had a human body and human soul, but a divine mind), Arianism (Jesus was the son of God, not God himself), and Catholicism (Jesus was fully human and fully divine, both God and the son of God).
(7) In light of modern understanding of reality and of supernatural claims, it’s irrational to believe that the supernatural claims made for Jesus would be true.
(7.1) We already reject supernatural claims that have more evidence than the Jesus claims. For example, we don’t believe that the women of 17th century Salem, Massachusetts, were actually witches. But we have more historical evidence that they were witches than we have evidence of Jesus actually being a real person.
(7.2) People 2000 years ago were more ignorant about the natural causes of events than we are today. They were less educated in critical thinking and philosophy, with virtually no access to diverse views.
As in the earlier case for Atheism, I'm seeking here to compile a list of incontrovertible statements. I don't see how much contest one can make, for example, out of statement #1. The seven basic statements above tell us that we have hardly any serious evidence at all for the existence of Jesus, let alone for the supernatural claims about him. Our textual sources are self-interested and contradictory. The idea of a historical Jesus seems to have emerged and evolved amidst other competing ideas about Jesus over the course of Christianity’s first three centuries. We make special allowance for the existence and divinity claims for Jesus that we would never give to another figure.
So, we don’t know much of anything at all about the historical Jesus. All we can say for certain is that the New Testament reports on him as a teacher, executed rebel, and religious icon. Given that the case for God is so weak, it makes little sense to grant any credibility at all to supernatural claims with respect to Jesus.
If there was a real Jesus, he was born and died as a human being, and that's it. He’s gone.
If there was a real Jesus, he was born and died as a human being, and that's it. He’s gone.
Does the Talmud speak about Jesus?
ReplyDeletePossibly. There is a reference, but the writing dates to centuries after Jesus supposedly lived, the story given is significantly different than the Gospel narratives, and it's not clear that the reference is to "the" Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThe last two sentences were a great summary of the search for the historical Jesus.
ReplyDelete"If there was a real Jesus, he was born and died as a human being, and that's it. He’s gone."
Well stated.
The trick is to get Christians to study the history of early Christianity and not just simply go by devotional faith on matters regarding genuine events which occurred in antiquity.
Nice article by the way. Succinct and to the point.
Tristan,
ReplyDelete"The trick is to get Christians to study the history of early Christianity and not just simply go by devotional faith on matters regarding genuine events which occurred in antiquity."
Studying the history is one part of it. I think there's something to be said for learning to read the NT differently. Most people in the US, even non-Christians, will read the NT assuming that Jesus is real, that God is real,and so forth. When these readers come up against a passage that is obscure or nonsensical, they reconcile the problem against these assumptions.
So, the key task (I think) is communicating to people that the prior assumptions they hold about Jesus -- assumptions that are drummed into them culturally -- may not necessarily be the case.
Now, I am not saying that one should assume that Jesus is myth. All I'm saying is that there are several ways to approach reading the NT. In a situation where there are different possibilities, we need to figure out a way to discern which possibility is better (however "better" is defined).
I am always shocked to encounter a theist who does not even entertain the idea that it's possible that there is no God or that Jesus never existed.
I have little issue with identifying Jesus with the old testament God. I have no qualms with God's sacred name "EL Kanah", Jealous God which is consistent with his passion and love for what is rightfully his and yet often not fully given it, which is our lives. It is consistent with the God of the old testament, the same as the God of and who is Jesus Christ who suffers because of us, for us and through us.
ReplyDeleteVirtually no knowledge can be had without embracing the risk that what is known could conceivably be wrong on some level. So the idea that the existence of Jesus cannot be had with absolute certainty is hardly unsettling.
As for the discrepensies of the gosepels, well, so much for fundamentalism, but if we aren't caught up in modernististic views of historical recollection which ancient historical records do not fit, it's not clear that the descrepencies are a problem. Ancient peoples arguably considered the events of a persons life to be malleable for the purpose of conveying the meaning and significance of that persons life, and so you get different ways of telling the story of Jesus that to varying extents that portray different facets of who Jesus was to different audiences thus the stories are told in some small and moderately different ways, which nevertheless have powerfully common themes.
As for the possibility that none of the gospels are written by eyewitnesses (which is an unsupported assertion which is controversial amongst the experts) it's not as if this was a huge problem in an oral society where the oral word was more reliable than it does to a literary, particularly a lesser literary culture such as our own.
that there is no knowledge of an empty tomb before the gospels is highly speculative and dubious given that that the empty tomb stories where widespread Jesus traditions. It's just as and I have no doubt that is far more reasonable that these stories existed for a long time in the oral account, and I see no reason not to think that they in fact go back to the real historical occurance (no reason that is for one who doesn't see skepticism as the default position of reason, a dubious modernistic bias itself).
So what if we don't have a writing from or about Jesus from his lifetime. I geuss, for a movement that spread from word of mouth and by dead, no one thought it important until the gospels were written.
That there were many views of who Jesus was only highlights the importance of the debates that went on about him at the time and now, and is certainly no negative peace of evidence. It does highlight that it isn't inconcievable that the orthodox believers are wrong, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, this is just a basic feature of knowledge, that it entails the risk that we could be wrong. if that risk contradicts knowledge, then we pretty much don't know anything.
As for the silence of the contemporaries of Jesus, all we know is that if they wrote anything about him, those writings didn't survive, and it's not like that handful of writers mentioned in fact wrote about every influential rabbi, upstart, healer, etc that was of any consideration at the time.
Appealing to modern understanding against supernaturalism is a pretty empty appeal. We are in post modern times after all when modernism is viewed as short cited and many brilliant scholars of many calibers and areas from philosophy to the hardest sciences are believers in the supernatural.
People were more ignorant back then, yet they knew blind people didn't just gain their vision, people didn't just rise from the dead, lame men don't just get up when commanded, etc. etc.
Rob R.,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but I don't have much of a response to your comment. You seem to agree with most of the points I lay out. I'm not convinced by your attempt to spin the points.
For example, you take a rather cavalier attitude to the uncertainty around the very existence of a real Jesus. If you plan on worshiping Jesus as a deity, I should think that reasonable certainty of his existence would be a bigger deal.
For another example, you apologize for the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the Gospels, but don't address the main point. If you admit that there are discrepancies and inconsistencies, then of what authority are the Gospels and how can we ever tell?
To me, the number and quality of the points made in the original post make the simple and sensible case that there probably is no magic Jesus. There may have been a real Jesus, but no one really knows. Maybe no one ever did really know.
I for one would have a hard time pledging my Sundays, my family and my money to such an ill-supported idea as Jesus.
post 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteIf you approach the gospels as documents written according to post enlightenment standards, then you are right, the "historical" descrepencies are problematic. Problem is that they don't belong to that genre. The point is not "Just the facts Ma'am" These are ancient biographies and events were told in such a way to reflect the significance of the event or to reveal something about the person.
I think the gospels may be more comparable to some types of art.
Richard Burridge makes an analogy between the gospels and portraits of Winston Church Hill that reside at a home of his, one with his advistors discussing the war, one with his family, a photo of him painting and one with him in uniform in a military vehicle. Burridge points out that these all show significantly diffferent sides of the same person. When he gives a presentation of some of his work on the gospels (he is the one who's made the case that the gospels belong to the genre of ancient biography, a position that historians have actually denied until recently) he gives a visual aid where the portraits are overlapping where they look chaotic and incoherent. This he argues is what we are doing with some of our attempts at harmonizing the gospels where the details and the story is told in such a way to bring out the significance of events and of Jesus, where theology shapes the telling of those events. Harmonizing the details on the grounds of an enlightenment view of how history is told ignores the original purposes of those details.
The gospels may be compared to other aspects of other types of historical art. "Washington Crossing the Delaware" comes to mind with Washington standing in a regal captain morganish way on the boat and a flag bearer behind him also standing. These two details including many other substantial details such as the faces of the men rowing the boat, the number of them and their placement all have their origin in the imagination of the author, and yet it depicts a literal historical event and figure. The flag that is portrayed was adopted after the event and probably wasn't even on the boat if it was even a design out their floating around at the time. But these aren't important. These don't detract from the art and the message and the symbolism of a great leader and war hero and even the flag is right where it ought to be in that painting which represents Washington leading his country. To call the portrait inaccurate is to force a standard on it that doesn't belong. Furthermore, you have a seemless mix of literal history and symbolism. There's a lot of parallels here between this and the nature of the gospels.
post 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteyou take a rather cavalier attitude to the uncertainty around the very existence of a real Jesus.
I suppose I feel the same way about the alleged uncertainty of Jesus' existence the same way you probably do and many atheists and others feel about young earth creationism, a position held by a an unthinking fringe minority of quasi-scholars and very few real historical scholars (I would take issue with the idea that many YEC's are unthinking even if I don't identify with them, but I'm just comparing the feeling here). Jesus might not have exististed, but so it is with many other historical figures who's existence is rather pointless to doubt. No historical problems are solved by denying Jesus' existence, they are only created. Christianity at the very earliest was predominantly a Jewish movement in Israel where if you tell of an amazing charazmatic teacher, you're going to expect people to remember him. And if you make up an amazing controversial leader who challenged the leadership, why would you do that when some of those very leaders are still alive.
The more historically responsible response of the unbeliever and skeptic is as you said, that Jesus was just a man who lived and died - who made a big impact... which absolutely cannot be left out of a historically responsible picture but was not much more than that.
That Jesus was just a man, just a a religious figure is far more likely than that he didn't even exist. That Jesus did not exist is of course still possible. But the risk of that being true is very small.
and back to your statement that I take a cavalier attitude towards the uncertainty of an important belief, as I said, virtually ALL KNOWLEDGE HAS THIS RISK. The only truth that cannot be absolutely known is that thinking is taking place (less than "I think therefore I am" and as the history of philosophy has shown, you actually can't build an absolutely certain case from that contrary to Descartes project). If some degree of uncertainty is contrary to knowledge, then pretty much nothing is knowable.
Granted, the degree of risk for different types of knowledge is different. Lower order logic and Mathematics has a very low degree of risk, science has a higher one yet (though even that's debatable, instrumentalism could be the best understanding of scientific knowledge after all), supposedly much of history has a higher risk.
Belief in Jesus as our saviour who has risen, who is God incarnate whom we may learn of from scripture and the church has an arguably higher degree of risk than much of the above, and yet there is no objective measure of what degree of risk of failing to know when we think we know is acceptable and compatible with authrentic knowledge. For that matter, for many issues of knowledge, there is no way to objectively weigh that risk. I think it perfectly rational for one to actually weigh some of the claims of science higher risk than the truth of the scriptural portrayals of Jesus. After all, scientific theories have a way tuning out wrong and then being replaced and we currently have a contradiction between two of our most fundamental principles of science, qm and relativity (and not all the experts agree that string theory is a good response).
Rob R.,
ReplyDelete"These are ancient biographies and events were told in such a way to reflect the significance of the event or to reveal something about the person."
I have some historical training and don't believe that I am imposing post-Enlightenment standards on the Gospels. I'm simply trying to state that which is accurate.
Calling the Gospels "ancient biographies" doesn't improve the likelihood of there having been a real Jesus. In later times, there was no King Arthur and no Beowulf, but their lives and deeds became recorded in great detail.
"That Jesus did not exist is of course still possible. But the risk of that being true is very small."
I'd like to know how you calculate this "small" risk. We have several forms of data and accounts for other ancient historical figures that we simply do not have for Jesus. All we have for Jesus are the self-interested reports of him found in the New Testament. That's it.
While we can by no means be certain that we have accurate portraits for many other people who are reported to have lived in the past, we often have ample reason to believe they were real people who walked the earth and were involved in the events associated with them.
On the other hand, we don't know that there was a real Socrates or a real Homer. We don't even know for very certain that William Shakespeare wrote the plays for which we give him credit.
So, it seems to me that we're well within reasonable territory for skepticism over the reality of a Jesus--never mind about his supposed miracles, divine nature, and so forth.
Rob, imagine for a moment that you do not worship Jesus. Imagine that you had never before in your life even heard of him. One day, you come across four different booklets that tell his story. The stories are mostly the same, but they differ in several respects, too. If you want to know whether this Jesus was a real person, what kinds of information will you accept? What kinds of information will be more sketchy?
(1) no one can assert with certainty that a real Jesus ever walked the earth.
ReplyDeleteTacitus records Jesus existing. And he was a hostile witness, if Jesus was a fake Tacitus would certainly have said he is made up
(2) The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are our only source of information about the events of Jesus’ life.
Paul's letters predate the gospels. In fact Paul is a contemporary of Jesus
(2.3) The writers of the Gospels heard the stories of Jesus from others; we don’t know how many or how few others there were.
They were not even written by Jews, rather by well educated roman scribes. Hence they make so many silly mistakes on jewish matters.
(5.1) We know of several people who lived during or very near the supposed lifetime of Jesus but who mention nothing about him, which would be strange for an influential healer, teacher, and political rebel. These people include Justus of Tiberias, Philo of Alexandria, Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, Valerius Maximus, and Velleius Paterculus.
How many of them were historians? Were they even interested in recording every galilean navi who turned up? Many like Philo lived around 500 miles away from Jesus, which explains why they would not record him
(5.3) All non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or originally based on Christian claims.
Except for Tacitus!
(6.1) In Marcionism, for example, Christ was a purely spiritual entity. Other schools of thought in the first three centuries of Christianity included Nestorianism (Jesus and Christ were two different entities), Docetism (Jesus appeared physical, but he was really incorporeal), Apollinarism (Jesus had a human body and human soul, but a divine mind), Arianism (Jesus was the son of God, not God himself), and Catholicism (Jesus was fully human and fully divine, both God and the son of God).
Perhaps, but which theology did Paul, contemporary of Jesus teach? The rest of these were not contemporaries of Jesus. And Paul's available letters, which are authenticated have a very consistent theology on vicariou sacrifice, and Jesus being the son of god, plus the messianic age which Paul and all early christians thought would come in their lifetimes. Christianity began as an end of the world cult
(7) In light of modern understanding of reality and of supernatural claims, it’s irrational to believe that the supernatural claims made for Jesus would be true.
If God exists, then laws of nature can easily be manipulated
(7.1) We already reject supernatural claims that have more evidence than the Jesus claims. For example, we don’t believe that the women of 17th century Salem, Massachusetts, were actually witches. But we have more historical evidence that they were witches than we have evidence of Jesus actually being a real person.
Who says we don't believe them? Be consistent with your methodological naturalism. You can't test them to know for sure, so all you can say is you don't know!
(7.2) People 2000 years ago were more ignorant about the natural causes of events than we are today. They were less educated in critical thinking and philosophy, with virtually no access to diverse views.
The claim that ancient people were ignorants is faulty. The great calendrical reforms made by the babylonians, the amazing architecture of the Mayans, chinese chi based medicine which cures diseases western science cannot, all speak volumes otherwise.
On the contrary I would due to the Enlightenment and Renaissance periods so much spiritual tradition was lost in the West, which is why people here so hungrily go to the eastern religions to find fufillment
Shalmo,
ReplyDeleteTacitus is born after Jesus supposedly dies. He is not an authority on whether Jesus actually lived. He only has hearsay.
Paul never met Jesus. From his letters, Paul seems to know almost nothing of the life Jesus supposedly led.
"If God exists, then laws of nature can easily be manipulated."
Uh, sure. That's a big "if," however and I see no reason to consider it a serious possibility.
"Who says we don't believe them? Be consistent with your methodological naturalism. You can't test them to know for sure, so all you can say is you don't know!"
Not believing that the women at Salem were witches in the supernatural--and accounting for all of the actual historical, archaeological, and other data we have that relates to the events in question--is perfectly consistent with my methods and approaches.
"The claim that ancient people were ignorants is faulty."
I said they were more ignorant. It's a relative measure that compares one society and cultures against another. I mean no disrespect to the undeniable achievements of past cultures. As a medievalist, I hope I show proper valuation of the past.
Nevertheless, I think it's entirely accurate to claim that cultures of the distant past were scientifically ignorant compared to modern cultures. We know much more about life, the world, the universe, humanity, sociology, psychology, technology, and so on. A greater percentage of the population have access to education and information.
I care very little about the loss of "spiritual tradition." I think you do a disservice to the past by suggesting that earlier peoples possessed greater spiritual "fulfillment" that we do today. My understanding of the past leads me to think this is not necessarily true. Humans are naturally social and physical. We like to be together and to fight amongst ourselves. We like to work and run and play and build. Modern society does not always foster these natural predispositions very well. In fact, a person can go quite a long time without having any meaningful face-to-face interaction with another person--and that's not good.
I thank you for your points, but I don't think any of them really stand very well.
post 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteWhen you cite the "contradictions" between the gospels due to their differences in telling certain stories, you are indeed imposing a standard on how modern histories are written.
I didn't indicate that their status as ancient biographies supported Jesus' existence, but it does explain why these gospels tell some stories differently due to different emphasis in theology and different audiences. It does eliminate the criticism of inconsistency. But now that you mention it, I question whether there are ancient biographies of completely fabricated individuals.
As for calculating the risk of deception on Jesus' existence, I just find it a desperate stretch to, as I already said, completely manufacture a personality who had run ins with important figures at the time starting a significant religious movement on the basis of someone who had a run in with the governor, the king, chief priests, and was a highly anticipated rabbi sought out. Why would you manufacture a personality like this when it could be so easily dismissed with "Jesus, who the heck is he, why've I never heard of him? he was crucified as an insurrectionist by the governor? gee, that was an awfully quiet ruckus he made. He what, he went around healing multitudes of people? He fed thousands? and this was only a few decades ago? Where are all these people? Why doesn't my rabbi know anything about him? Given this, If someone manufactured Jesus within living memory, then surely with the level of fame at which essential stories in the tradition assert of him, there would have been criticism on the grounds that no one heard of him and he probably didn't even exist though he was presented as a guy that everyone heard of at some point. And someone may have indeed made this criticism and it may have made it into the multitudes of literature that just didn't survive, and yet there is no response from the church on this criticism and the church was very vigorous in challenging criticisms. And this is liturature that I would have expected to have survived given the church's preservation of it's teachings polemics (or if not the literature, then the polemics itself.
Then you have the principle of embarrassment, such as women who were the first witnesses of the resurrection, you have "duh-sciples" who often got things wrong when Jesus was teaching them, and you have two chief promoters who had at least one significant disagreement, Paul and Peter, Paul who showed that he was a bit sensitive about his unusual apostleship, who by the way, used to help murder Christians.
Then you have the variety of sources written within living memory which are coherent on the essentials and the theology if not always how the specific events worked out (which again, is perfectly kosher with the genre), the four gospels all written by different people, including another source, Q (and even if there was no document Q, matthew and luke who do not show familiarity with gospels of each other but do with mark demonstrate that there was a common tradition that neither originated with mark nor themselves and it is this tradition that has come to be known as the hypothetical document Q), Paul who was not writing ancient biographies yet we shouldn't expect him to write much about Jesus life since he was writing to specific topics and not that one, yet contrary to what you said above, does indeed show familiarity with Jesus' life as the list of items compiled here demonstrates: http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm.
post 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, Christians including the leaders of the church were persecuted and martyred for their faith. It's highly unlikely that someone would die for what they knew to be a huge lie.
No individual consideration here proves that Jesus existed. But all togehter, they make it highly unlikely that he didn't and are amongst reasons that the majority of real historians (believers and unbelievers alike) of the era do not take this position against his existence seriously.
These considerations are problematic for the denial of Jesus existence, and that goes against the goal of the historical as well as any other discipline, to solve problems, not create them.
we often have ample reason to believe they were real people who walked the earth and were involved in the events associated with them.
the absence of that evidence (If memeory serves me, you've only offered one consideration) seems to be a manufactured litmus test. And no doubt, many of these other historical people lack something huge that Jesus has in his favor, the founding of a radical historical movement, something that figments don't usually do.
Rob, imagine for a moment that you do not worship Jesus. Imagine that you had never before in your life even heard of him. One day, you come across four different booklets that tell his story. The stories are mostly the same, but they differ in several respects, too. If you want to know whether this Jesus was a real person, what kinds of information will you accept? What kinds of information will be more sketchy?
I don't know. Questions like these are often of limited to no value. To imagine that I wasn't a christian also might entail that I didn't learn all the things that I have as a part of that. And why would I be in a better position to judge these matters if i am less educated? I don't know if I'd have the foresight to question what sort genre of literature I was reading or not in order to evaluate it.
But it's not as if scripture was meant to stand alone. If God's Holy Spirit is involved, then I would be compelled to believe what I read. And if I met a Christian who lived out the message, I also might find it compelling. But that I'd be free in my decision would indicate that not even God would know what my decision would be!
one more thought:
ReplyDeleteThose are of course some historical reasons for believing in Jesus existence. I also have personal and theological reasons.
post 2 of 2 (might be a repost)
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, Christians including the leaders of the church were persecuted and martyred for their faith. It's highly unlikely that someone would die for what they knew to be a huge lie.
No individual consideration here proves that Jesus existed. But all togehter, they make it highly unlikely that he didn't and are amongst reasons that the majority of real historians (believers and unbelievers alike) of the era do not take this position against his existence seriously.
These considerations are problematic for the denial of Jesus existence, and that goes against the goal of the historical as well as any other discipline, to solve problems, not create them.
we often have ample reason to believe they were real people who walked the earth and were involved in the events associated with them.
the absence of that evidence (If memeory serves me, you've only offered one consideration) seems to be a manufactured litmus test. And no doubt, many of these other historical people lack something huge that Jesus has in his favor, the founding of a radical historical movement, something that figments don't usually do.
Rob, imagine for a moment that you do not worship Jesus. Imagine that you had never before in your life even heard of him. One day, you come across four different booklets that tell his story. The stories are mostly the same, but they differ in several respects, too. If you want to know whether this Jesus was a real person, what kinds of information will you accept? What kinds of information will be more sketchy?
I don't know. Questions like these are often of limited to no value. To imagine that I wasn't a christian also might entail that I didn't learn all the things that I have as a part of that. And why would I be in a better position to judge these matters if i am less educated? I don't know if I'd have the foresight to question what sort genre of literature I was reading or not in order to evaluate it.
But it's not as if scripture was meant to stand alone. If God's Holy Spirit is involved, then I would be compelled to believe what I read. And if I met a Christian who lived out the message, I also might find it compelling. But that I'd be free in my decision would indicate that not even God would know what my decision would be!
Rob,
ReplyDeleteYou've posted quite a lot, so I may not respond to whatever you think the most salient points are.
(1) Seems like you want to quibble over whether something is a contradiction or a difference. We can both accept that there are, in fact differences in the sane events related by the Gospels. I use the word "contradiction" because often these differences are such that they could not have both/all been historically true at the same time. For one example off the cuff, please look at the different versions of how the empty tomb was discovered and by whom. Is it your position that each Gospel account is equally true?
(2) You say: "But now that you mention it, I question whether there are ancient biographies of completely fabricated individuals." I don't mean to be flippant, but it's called mythology.Don't get locked into the mythology category. Boethius claimed to have been visited by Philosophy, who counseled him during a difficult time. Human beings have invented fictional and imaginary characters all through history for any number of reasons and in any number of situations. Imaginary and legendary characters certainly have had important effects in history, including political/national/cultural movements: King Arthur and Socrates come to mind.
(3) I'm intrigued by this argument of yours: "If someone manufactured Jesus within living memory, then surely with the level of fame at which essential stories in the tradition assert of him, there would have been criticism on the grounds that no one heard of him and he probably didn't even exist though he was presented as a guy that everyone heard of at some point." This kind of argument corresponds to the Kuzari Principle from Jewish writings. The principle is often applied to the national revelation of God to the entire nation of Israel (as reported in Exodus) and to the unbroken chain of transmission for the oral and written Torah among the Jewish people. It's this principle that is used to authenticate the Jewish tradition and to demonstrate that the Christian tradition--based as it is on a semi-private revelation of Jesus to a much smaller number of people--doesn't merit abandoning God's directly spoken instructions for the new instructions of a mortal emissary.
(Continued in next comment)
(4) I'm not a fan of your reasoning here: "And of course, Christians including the leaders of the church were persecuted and martyred for their faith. It's highly unlikely that someone would die for what they knew to be a huge lie." Of course, you and I only have the reports of what happened and what was said, and why. I have not accused anyone of knowingly trying to bamboozle others. What I do know is that folks like Joseph Smith claimed to have interactions with the supernatural. He was persecuted and died for his beliefs, as did many people with whom he shared his story. David Koresh, the 9/11 terrorists, and so on--all of them were fervent believers and martyrs. Even if all these people, including the apostles, knew that their teachings were a lie, it's not unthinkable that they would be willing to die for it. Every death row inmate claims innocence to the very end.
ReplyDelete(5) Finally, I'll respond to this: "No individual consideration here proves that Jesus existed. But all togehter, they make it highly unlikely that he didn't and are amongst reasons that the majority of real historians (believers and unbelievers alike) of the era do not take this position against his existence seriously." Unless I forget something I wrote, I have not argued strongly that Jesus never existed. However, I see you, in your statement above, giving more credence to to Jesus' existence than is warranted. I am very aware that many Jesus mythicists make absurd and outlandish statements, but the central fact of the historical Jesus question is incontrovertible: we do not have sources to be able to decide whether or not there was a real Jesus.
If I may I ask a question of you: You talk of "God's Holy Spirit" with respect to scripture. what is your test for determining if "God's Holy Spirit" has been involved?
And one more related question: You say that scripture was not meant to "stand alone." Does this mean that you do or should accept the Talmud--which tradition says dates back to Moses himself--as an/the authoritative commentary on the Pentateuch?
Post 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteA relevant and problematic contradiction arises when the purposes of two statements are fundamentally at odds. I don't believe the gospels were intended to tell us the exact details of the events of Jesus life. I do expect them to report these events in a way that highlights the significance of these events and/or the significance of who Jesus was.
I don't consider it a problem that the gospels present Jesus' last words as different. I suppose he could have said all or more of those phrases as some theatrical presentations of the gospels imply though I suspect not. I also suspect that at least one of the gospels does indeed have his actual last words, and I suspect that it was "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani," Since the original language was preserved and translated in the text and because I think it conveys the full force of Jesus' humanity. I have theological reasons for prefering it. But all the other quotes convey what I believe is theological truth, faithful to the essence of the event, and they aren't clearly intended to convey what was actually said.
It surely isn't as if you couldn't have contradictions. If Jesus cursed those who put him on the cross and their children and wished vengeance upon them, this certainly would have been a real irreconcilable contradiction with what is said in the other gospels and with the character of Jesus.
As for ancient biographies that are "myths" I really don't have confidence in that assesment. The point you were answering wasn't a strong one, but nevertheless, I suspect that authors' and audiences had a different view of ancient biography and the writings of Homor or oracles delivered from a pagan temple. Also, the comparison to Boethius' visit from a personified abstraction to the gospels is quite a stretch. To my knowledge, (which isn't far) We don't have the same degree (if any at all) of literature written about Arthur within living memory of the man. We have good reason to think Socrates existed as well.
I think the criticism from the Kuzari principal is a bit of a stretch. Moses himself recieved the revelation of God alone on a mountain and in a tent. And while Jesus took his disciples aside to explain things more clearly (which was not that often), there was no intention that this was to remain hidden except to the initiated. But over all, the gospels present Jesus as having a very public ministry. But that parts of Jesus ministry were private seems to me to be a contrived criticism given God and his representatives act in unprecedented ways throughout scripture. In light of that, one should be cautious of giving weight to the idea that "it's never been done this way before thus it ain't so".
I don't consider the 9/11 hijackers or David Koresh to be counterexamples of my claim. They believed the truth of what they died for. Joseph Smith may be a better counterexample. As you said, it's not inconceivable that people die for what they know is a lie. As I said, no one thing I've offered stands on it's own. But it seems unlikely for one to die defending a lie. Smith wasn't in an analogical position to that which we see the early church, of recanting or facing certain death frequently, but rather he was killed by a mob and I doubt he saw it coming.
post 3 of 3
ReplyDeleteSo the Holy Spirit will work in consistency with scripture. Other than that, the Holy Spirit's movements will lead to fruitful acts. And if it's a prophecy, then it will reflect reality as it comes to pass. That's what comes to mind, but I'm far from an expert.
As for the Talmud, I have no commitment to the Talmud and I don't think its important for just anyone within the church to study. But the study of the Talmud is probably necessary for the church as a whole to be done by some scholars and leaders since the Talmud may shed light on the interpretation of not just the Old Testament but less directly the New as the Talmud contains insights into how people thought around the time of the authorship of the New Testament. Even if some things are at odds with our Scriptures, it may yield clarification about one side of an issue by revealing the other. Even to that extent, it would provide an example to what I said, that scripture does not stand alone. But I think that everything should be considered. Even pagan greek philosophy has had some positive use in understanding scripture (though of course it has also been harmful in Christian thought).
post 2 of 3
ReplyDeletethe central fact of the historical Jesus question is incontrovertible: we do not have sources to be able to decide whether or not there was a real Jesus.
I don't buy that you have realistic standards. I know there isn't proof that Jesus existed. I'm not worried. I have a religious commitment to Jesus, but this alleged uncertainty on his existence as you've presented it hardly relegates it to fideism or serves as quality grounds against it.
You've raised objections to my considerations, but really, the only fault against most of them is that they aren't proof. Well, that's hardly necessary.
It is concievable that Jesus didn't exist. But it's just not historically responsible that can do much more than make ad hoc guesses with the evidence. While I disagree with the likes of the Jesus seminar, what they are do with the evidence is still far more academically respectable than it is to assert the geuss that Jesus never existed which can make very little use of the evidence that we have.
You suggest that if Jesus didn't exist, it's necessarily the case that the traditions were invented by liars. But either way, these are ad hoc guesses that go far from the evidence. So very early on you have Paul killing Christians with a very short time for a novel character, legend, or whatever to be mistaken for a real person who was killed by real people, the chief priests, the Romans, the governor, the king, real historical figures.
Was Paul Delusional? Then he has a relationship with James and Peter. Where they fictional or also delusional? But there's a whole church in Jerusalem certainly in less than a decade from Jesus' death. Another invention, or a whole group of people who seem to mistake a myth for a real person in spite of the fact that no one remembers ever seeing him?
Again, there's no proof that Jesus existed but that he didn't exist is a wild speculation. Whatever doubts you may raise about Jesus' existence, it is far less historically certain that he didn't. It is as N.T. Wright says: Sometimes where the skeptic seeks to avoid one alleged credulity, he ends up embracing another.
You asked what knowing when the Holy Spirit is involved. I will first mention that with the context of bringing up the Holy Spirit, it didn't matter if I even knew what the Holy Spirit was. And that context how I would react to scriptures (particularly the gospels) not already believing what I do now. If I am psychologically geared in that moment towards a real free choice toward embracing the message of scripture, then that would be the Holy Spirit's involvement.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteIn response to your post 1 (1:43 AM):
(1) How do you reckon to know the intent of the gospels?
(2) You are partly in error about Kuzari/Moses: the tradition (and read Exodus 20) is that God himself spoke directly to all the nation of Israel, not just Moses. Everyone heard, freaked out, and then asked Moses to be the one to talk with God since it was too much for them. This is the key element of Jewish tradition and a big reason why educated Jews are not impressed with Christianity's miracle claims.
Rob,
ReplyDelete"I don't buy that you have realistic standards."
I don't think this is quite a fair statement. Please see my more recent post, "Let the Dead Bury Jesus" (http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/06/historical-jesus-man-who-was-buried.html) for more on this.
What standards do you propose?