If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It's sad that you can't be bothered to read posts like the ones at 10:57 and 11:06 that provide other types of evidence. Or the evidence from Paul (not in the gospels) who knew Jesus' brother James and Jesus' disciples John and Peter. Here's the post on linguistic evidence again. You may be unable to provide your own scholarly credentials, but at least you can read. So, no more posts saying "using the gospels is a disqualifier." *** Linguistic evidence Good evidence shows that some of the Gospel accounts clearly go back to traditions about Jesus in circulation, originally, in Aramaic, the language of Roman Palestine, where Jesus himself lived. One piece of evidence is that Aramaic words occasionally appear in stories about Jesus, often at the climactic moment. This happens in a variety of stories from a variety of sources. For example, In Mark 5 Jesus raises the daughter of a man named Jairus from the dead. When he comes into her room and raises her, he says to her “Talitha cumi.” The author of Mark translates for us: “Little girl, arise.” ... [a story about Bart's German professor giving German anecdotes] ... This story about Jairus’s daughter, then, was originally told in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek, with the key line left in the original. So too with several stories in a completely different Gospel, the Gospel of John. It happens three times in just 1:35-42. This is a story that circulated in Aramaic-speaking Palestine, the homeland of Jesus and his disciples. Traditions Stemming from Aramaic The other reason for knowing that a tradition was originally in Aramaic is because it makes better sense when translated *back* into Aramaic than it does in Greek. My favorite illustration of this is Jesus’ famous saying: “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). The context: Jesus’ disciples have been eating grain from a field on the Sabbath day; the Pharisees object, and Jesus explains that it is permissible to meet human needs on the Sabbath. Then his clever one-liner. But the one-liner doesn’t make sense. Why would the Son of Man (Jesus) be Lord of the Sabbath BECAUSE Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around? In other words, when he says “therefore” the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath, what is the “therefore” there for? The logic doesn’t work in Greek (or English). But it would work in Aramaic. That’s because in Aramaic the word for “man” and the word for “son of man” are the same word: “Bar enash” (could be translated either way). And so what Jesus said was: “Sabbath was made for bar enash, not bar enash for the Sabbath; therefore bar enash is lord of the Sabbath.” Now it makes sense. The saying was originally transmitted in Aramaic, and when translated into Greek, the translator decided to make the final statement about Jesus, not about humans. Reality Check: Jesus Existed Christianity did not make a big impact on Aramaic-speaking Palestine. The vast majority of Jews in the homeland did not accept Christianity or want anything to do with it. There were not thousands of storytellers there passing on Christian traditions. There were some, of course, especially in Jerusalem. But the fact that these stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission. [bolding added] You cannot argue that Jesus was made up by some Greek-speaking Christian after Paul’s letters, for example. |
Anonymous
You forgot the scholar who likened you Jesus-deniers to Holocaust deniers. |
Anonymous
|
The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. (Nicholas Perrin)
Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus’ non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio. (Michael James McClymond) One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust? (Bart Ehrman) The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust. (John Piper) |
Anonymous
|
Let's go back and recap again, shall we? Fun!
The arguments behind the vast scholarly consensus that Jesus certainly existed (2,000 to 3,000 scholars agree according to Ehrman) include but are not limited to the following. The parens cite posts on this thread that give more detail. 1. Applying historians' logic to the gospels (9:57 and 11:05). No, this doesn't mean that Bart Ehrman or anybody using this method is taking the gospels on faith (funny thought). Instead, Bart wrote, "But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information. That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus.” 2. Contemporary and near-contemporary external sources at 10:31, 11:03 and 11:06. Tacitus and Josephus among others. Notably, no contemporary Jewish sources who opposed Christianity actually disputed Jesus' existence or even questioned it. Contemporary Jewish sources criticized what Jesus did, but not whether he existed. 3. Linguistic sources (10:57). Short version quoting Bart: "The fact that some gospel stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission." 4. Paul (11:17 and elsewhere, and not part of the gospels, despite what some of you apparently think). Short version: Paul, who wrote starting in 33AD, knew Jesus' brother James and Jesus' disciples John and Peter. You'd think that if Jesus never existed, James would have said something. Ehrman writes that this is "the death knell" for mythicism. 4. Arguments from logic (11:03 and 10:51). Short version: why would Christians make up a hero who was humiliated and crucified? The following scholars have made careers disputing parts of the gospels and Christian theology, and writing books like "Misquoting Jesus." You'd think they'd want to cap their careers and win international renown by finding Jesus didn't exist. And yet they are certain Jesus existed. - Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian - Amy Jill Levine, Jewish - Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus. And the many, many other scholars (e g., atheist Michael Martin and so many others) provided by a helpful poster here. Good thing Bart Ehrman wrote a book to prove Jesus existed, and that old Bart is such a great self-promoter. He's contributed many quotable quotes to these arguments that you just don't get from academics hidden in their ivory towers. *** Posters who claim Jesus' existence isn't certain (it's merely "likely" or "probable") brought to the table: - No scholarly credentials. - A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty Jesus existed. Because DCUM gets to decide. - Atheist scholar Ehrman and Jewish scholars Levine and Fredricksen take the gospels as, well, gospel. Counterintuitively, they aren't trying to cap their careers (publishing books like "Misquoting Jesus") and win international reknown by proving Jesus never existed. (As pointed out above, instead they apply historical analyses to the gospels). This is actually hilarious. - Semantic quibbling about how weasel words such as "likely" and "probably" are the same as "certainly," which, well.... I've undoubtedly missed some things. Feel free to add! |
Anonymous
|
^^^ PS. I made this to be eminently bumpable. The next time somebody whines, "but the evidence is all based on the gospels" or "likely and certainly mean the same thing," feel free to bump away!
Also, I forgot to include insults in what atheists have brought to the table. |
Anonymous
No one here is a denier. Facts. |
Anonymous
Several of you say "likely existed" and "probably existed" leaving room for doubt and denial. Language. And facts. |
Anonymous
Again, the best “evidence” is Tacitus and Josephus. They were almost contemporary. But again they only had indirect knowledge. And there is question about the authenticity of the translations. The other points are irrelevant towards definitive proof. Likely and certainly don’t mean the same thing. Do we need to recap the definitions again? |
Anonymous
|
I wonder if we can make a sticky from 12:09 so we don't have to keep rehashing this nonsense.
Put it right under the sticky about how Christians didn't steal Easter from the pagans. |
Anonymous
"The best evidence...." So you just want to ignore the historical/internal, logical and linguistic evidence and call them "irrelevant." Remind us about your scholarly credentials again.... |
Anonymous
|
Jesus lived but was not a god in any way, and there is no evidence for a god of anything kind.
We might as well be arguing about Santa Claus. Or leprechauns. It’s meaningless. |
Anonymous
He most likely existed, but there isn’t direct evidence. Not surprising given the era. |
Anonymous
Getting you to prove Jesus was not a god, and the meaning and uses of faith, is the topic for a whole different thread. But thanks for the grudging acknowledgement.... |
Anonymous
So, you're still standing outside the "vast scholarly consensus" and aligning yourself with the Holocaust deniers. ("The holocaust most likely happened but we can't be sure."). Got it. |
Anonymous
If you need to “infer” anything then you don’t have direct evidence. The other sources aren’t independent/unbiased. |