Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Let’s discuss the following way of standing with the majority of critical scholars.
Are there any errors here?
A Way of Standing with the Majority of Critical Scholars Who Believe Jesus Existed
1. Jesus was simply a man that was crucified [while Pontius Pilate was governing Judea] nothing more.
2. The gospels made things up about him because they didn’t know much about him and for other reasons.
3. I ignore the gospels.
4. I look at Paul’s authentic letters.
5. I look at Josephus.
6. I look at the we document of Acts (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
7. I look at the Dead Sea scrolls.
The existence of a historical Jesus is founded only on 4 – 7, that’s it. That is the consensus argument.
Did Jesus Exist? is not really the right question. The right question is, What is the most probable explanation, based on the information we possess, of the origins of Christianity? That most probable explanation is that there was an itinerant apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who taught the imminent onset of the Kingdom of God, and who ran afoul of the Romans. He was crucified and after his death some of his disciples began to claim that he had risen from the dead. This movement spread and subsequently mutated into a world religion that survives to the present day. This is the simplest explanation that fits the facts. Mythicism relies on strained reinterpretations and ad hoc hypotheses and should be discarded on that basis.
Jesus existed. Get over it. There are a whole helluva lot more interesting things to argue about.
Stephen said
Did Jesus Exist? is not really the right question. The right question is, What is the most probable explanation, based on the information we possess, of the origins of Christianity? That most probable explanation is that there was an itinerant apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who taught the imminent onset of the Kingdom of God, and who ran afoul of the Romans. He was crucified and after his death some of his disciples began to claim that he had risen from the dead. This movement spread and subsequently mutated into a world religion that survives to the present day. This is the simplest explanation that fits the facts. Mythicism relies on strained reinterpretations and ad hoc hypotheses and should be discarded on that basis.Jesus existed. Get over it. There are a whole helluva lot more interesting things to argue about.
Exactly. I actually just recently published a peer-reviewed ** you do not have permission to see this link ** debunking mythicist claims… and I’m an undergraduate. At this point, if undergraduates are good enough to get through peer-review and debunk mythicism, then it proves just how little mythicism actually offers in the professional academic sphere.
But to answer the OP title question, yes there are many scholars who think Jesus existed who largely ignore the gospels. In fact, that was kind of the position of a good chunk of Soviet scholars after mythicism was completely abandoned by them in the 1960’s. Most of them ended up just saying he existed, but ignored the historicity of the Gospels and largely argued about them being the product of their socio-economic climate, in more accordance with Marxist interpretations of early Christianity, viewing Jesus as largely irrelevant to the movement.
Stephen said
Did Jesus Exist? is not really the right question. The right question is, What is the most probable explanation, based on the information we possess, of the origins of Christianity? That most probable explanation is that there was an itinerant apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who taught the imminent onset of the Kingdom of God, and who ran afoul of the Romans. He was crucified and after his death some of his disciples began to claim that he had risen from the dead. This movement spread and subsequently mutated into a world religion that survives to the present day. This is the simplest explanation that fits the facts. Mythicism relies on strained reinterpretations and ad hoc hypotheses and should be discarded on that basis.Jesus existed. Get over it. There are a whole helluva lot more interesting things to argue about.
Bart Ehrman wrote a book entitled Did Jesus Exist.
Second, there is nothing to get over. If you think there are a whole heulluva lot more interesting things to argue about, I hope you told Bart that his book is not interesting.
Chris_Hansen said
Stephen said
Did Jesus Exist? is not really the right question. The right question is, What is the most probable explanation, based on the information we possess, of the origins of Christianity? That most probable explanation is that there was an itinerant apocalyptic preacher named Jesus who taught the imminent onset of the Kingdom of God, and who ran afoul of the Romans. He was crucified and after his death some of his disciples began to claim that he had risen from the dead. This movement spread and subsequently mutated into a world religion that survives to the present day. This is the simplest explanation that fits the facts. Mythicism relies on strained reinterpretations and ad hoc hypotheses and should be discarded on that basis.
Jesus existed. Get over it. There are a whole helluva lot more interesting things to argue about.
Exactly. I actually just recently published a peer-reviewed ** you do not have permission to see this link ** debunking mythicist claims… and I’m an undergraduate. At this point, if undergraduates are good enough to get through peer-review and debunk mythicism, then it proves just how little mythicism actually offers in the professional academic sphere.
But to answer the OP title question, yes there are many scholars who think Jesus existed who largely ignore the gospels. In fact, that was kind of the position of a good chunk of Soviet scholars after mythicism was completely abandoned by them in the 1960’s. Most of them ended up just saying he existed, but ignored the historicity of the Gospels and largely argued about them being the product of their socio-economic climate, in more accordance with Marxist interpretations of early Christianity, viewing Jesus as largely irrelevant to the movement.
Nice: many scholars who think Jesus existed who largely ignore the gospels. Now, we are getting somewhere.
Do you have two of the best books on this approach?
If you have the top Soviet scholar and the top United States scholar, that would be helpful.
Let’s add a German scholar as well.
So, maybe there are three scholarly books, at least.
Robert said
1. Jesus was simply a man that was crucified [while Pontius Pilate was governing Judea] nothing more.
He was presumably a very impressive and charismatic teacher who had a strong effect on some people. I see no good reason to doubt this.
2. The gospels made things up about him because they didn’t know much about him and for other reasons.
Much was made up or mythologized, but this process need not have started with the evangelists. Legends begin to grow around impressive people very early and these would have spread orally for 35-40 years before any of the current gospels were composed. To some extent, there may have been some written sources used by the evangelists (eg, Q logia, a passion narrative) but there is no sure indication that any of these were significantly earlier.
3. I ignore the gospels.
The gospels are primary evidence only for what the evangelists and their audience believed or taught, secondary evidence for hypothetical opponents of the evangelists and their communities, and only tertiary ‘evidence’ for what may have actually occurred. This must be carefully sifted in scholarly dialogue to weigh various plausible reconstructions, but the gospels should not be simply ignored.
If you really want to contribute to a scholarly consensus, the above is a pretty good starting point.
1
presumption: an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, although it is not known for certain.
2
Much was made up or mythologized.
Argumentation Specialist
Thank you. That will suffice. I would like to not ignore the balance that was not made up or mythologized.
3
the gospels should not be simply ignored.
Argumentation Specialist
I have put forward that they should not be simply ignored for the balance that was not made up or mythologized.
Robert, do you have other reasons?
Robert
The gospels are primary evidence only for what the evangelists and their audience believed or taught.
The gospels are secondary evidence for hypothetical opponents of the evangelists and their communities.
The gospels are only tertiary ‘evidence’ for what may have actually occurred.
Argumentation Specialist
Herod Agrippa died 44 CE.
Agrippa II was born 27 CE.
Robert, Matthew 16: 28
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Please firm up the ground on which you make the statement:
The gospels are primary evidence only for what the evangelists and their audience believed or taught.
My reply is that the author/authors of Mark could have been someone older than 53.
Age 13 (considered a man at 12) + 40 years later.
40 years later the Apocalypse = Tribulation + Glorious Kingdom led by the Son of Man
Gospel of Mark drafted if not written, AD 70…
Long story short: how can you be sure the author/authors of Mark were not age 53 or older thus making some part of the Gospel of Mark primary evidence?
Second, King Agrippa would have passed on history of Caiaphas and Pilate to Agrippa II. King Agrippa II could have passed information he received from his father to Josephus. Biographers interview people and ask about what they learned from their fathers.
Robert,
What Soviet, U.S., German, or any top scholars do you know of who largely ignore the gospels?
The undergraduate Chris Hansen came across them. He mentioned them above.
= = =
Nice: many scholars who think Jesus existed who largely ignore the gospels. Now, we are getting somewhere.
Do you have two of the best books on this approach?
If you have the top Soviet scholar and the top United States scholar, that would be helpful.
Let’s add a German scholar as well.
So, maybe there are three scholarly books, at least.
Robert said
Robert, do you have other reasons?
Reasons for what exactly?
Long story short: how can you be sure the author/authors of Mark were not age 53 or older thus making some part of the Gospel of Mark primary evidence?
I never said anything at all about the age of the author of Mark, let alone that he must have been less than 53 years old. What led you to believe that I thought this?
Robert
Reasons for what exactly?
Steefen
Nevermind, Robert. If you cannot read two sentences. Just nevermind.
Argumentation Specialist
I have put forward that they should not be simply ignored for the balance that was not made up or mythologized.
Robert, do you have other reasons?
= = =
Robert
I never said anything at all about the age of the author of Mark,
Steefen
Nevermind, Robert. If you cannot read … no one said you said anything about the age of Mark. I brought it up for you to hold on to your assertion.
Robert
The gospels are primary evidence only for what the evangelists and their audience believed or taught.
Steefen
I said, the Gospel of Mark could be primary evidence for the existence of Jesus if the author or authors were 53 or more years old.
My reply is that the author/authors of Mark could have been someone older than 53.
Not your reply, my reply: I brought it up.
Gerd Lüdemann published Der große Betrug: Und was Jesus wirklich sagte und tat (The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did), in which he claimed that only about 5%( five per cent) of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine and the historical evidence does not support the arguments of traditional Christianity.
Gerd is a proponent of an apocalyptic prophet theory for historical Jesus
Jarek said
Gerd Lüdemann published Der große Betrug: Und was Jesus wirklich sagte und tat (The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did), in which he claimed that only about 5%( five per cent) of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine and the historical evidence does not support the arguments of traditional Christianity.Gerd is a proponent of an apocalyptic prophet theory for historical Jesus
Thank you for the suggestion.
From the book’s description
Gerd Lüdemann establishes the criteria by which he believes it possible to distinguish inauthentic from authentic sayings and actions of Jesus, and then shows which quotes and deeds can be regarded as factual … the Jesus of history, who emerges after the falsehoods attributed to him are pared away, cannot support the traditional Christian faith.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
As in the the original post’s A Way of Standing with the Majority of Critical Scholars Who Believe Jesus Existed,
the historical Jesus of Paul cannot support Christian faith.
Chris_Hansen said
Exactly. I actually just recently published a peer-reviewed ** you do not have permission to see this link ** debunking mythicist claims… and I’m an undergraduate.
I clicked this link: peer-reviewed ** you do not have permission to see this link ** debunking
I found the paper very readable and the argument persuasive.
I actually just recently published a peer-reviewed ** you do not have permission to see this link ** debunking mythicist claims…
Excellent! The “comparative mythology” aspect of mythicist thinking has always fascinated me. It’s so old-fashioned and out of date. And it illustrates the flabbergasting willingness of mythicists to speak across whole fields of scholarly expertise without being aware of what the current thinking in those fields actually is. Mythicists still inhabit the world of Max Müller, James Frazer and Émile Durkheim. I am not for a minute saying that these scholars had nothing important to say, but when you view other cultures and religions through a Christian cultural lens in your attempt to draw comparisons it’s none too surprising that everything starts looking like Christianity. The goal in more recent decades has been to try to see these other cultures on their own terms (it’s not always possible to do this – we’ve lost much and many cultures had no interest in explaining themselves). When you let these cultures have their say many of these supposed similarities (for example “dying and rising gods”) begin to melt away. Now scholars even question the utility of the classification “religion” for ancient modes of thought. Go ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Well I cannot formulate a response for the content in the original post by discussing mythicism.
1. Jesus was simply a man that was crucified [while Pontius Pilate was governing Judea] nothing more.
I disagree that Jesus was crucified while Pilate was governing Judea. Second, a man who was crucified is not simply a man. That man must have done something out of the ordinary to warrant capital punishment. What he did politically to get himself in trouble was what, that you find in your sources?
2. The gospels made things up about him because they didn’t know much about him and for other reasons.
Paul did not have much first hand experiential knowledge of Jesus to the extent there is any accurate biography of Jesus in the gospels.
3. I ignore the gospels.
The Jesus who people want to have existed is not the Pauline Jesus but the Jesus of the gospels. Civilization has an understanding of who Jesus was and it does not come from ignoring the gospels.
4. I look at Paul’s authentic letters.
Many Christians respect the Jewish Jesus not the Jesus of an evangelist to the Gentiles.
5. I look at Josephus.
Josephus communicates that the source of Jesus is Paul; the source of Jesus is not a real person born of a woman and a man who had sex together.
6. I look at the we document of Acts (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
See The Authorship of the “We” Sections of the Book of Acts: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
7. I look at the Dead Sea scrolls.
Discovered 1947 – you are still not talking about the Jesus civilization knows. Anyway, your statement is too vague to be addressed.
Stephen said
I actually just recently published a peer-reviewed ** you do not have permission to see this link ** debunking mythicist claims…Excellent! The “comparative mythology” aspect of mythicist thinking has always fascinated me. It’s so old-fashioned and out of date. And it illustrates the flabbergasting willingness of mythicists to speak across whole fields of scholarly expertise without being aware of what the current thinking in those fields actually is. Mythicists still inhabit the world of Max Müller, James Frazer and Émile Durkheim. I am not for a minute saying that these scholars had nothing important to say, but when you view other cultures and religions through a Christian cultural lens in your attempt to draw comparisons it’s none too surprising that everything starts looking like Christianity. The goal in more recent decades has been to try to see these other cultures on their own terms (it’s not always possible to do this – we’ve lost much and many cultures had no interest in explaining themselves). When you let these cultures have their say many of these supposed similarities (for example “dying and rising gods”) begin to melt away. Now scholars even question the utility of the classification “religion” for ancient modes of thought. Go ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Indeed. What I have essentially found is that mythicists and archetypalists in general are still engaged in really out-moded critical theory and methodology when it comes to interpreting and reading texts, and comparing literature. It is as if none of them have read Russell McCutcheon, J. Z. Smith, the critics of Campbell, or the critics of Raglan, Frazer, and others. Price, for instance, tries to desperately cling to the “Dying-rising gods” category by throwing around Max Weber’s Ideal Type, but he ends up contradicting himself to do so (according to Price, ideal types are not large formless categories to throw anything into, and yet Price considers Attis’ preserved corpse, Baal’s appearing to El in a dream, Theseus being released from the underworld [while alive], Osiris’ permanent death and ruling in the underworld, and Jesus’ physical resurrection all forms of “rising”… so his entire Ideal Type is, in fact, formless and antithetical to what the Ideal Type was made for; furthermore, ideal types wouldn’t help anyway, because an ideal type says nothing about the relationship between categorized items, because, as Weber noted, this is the projection and fabrication of the sociologist categorizing items).
Essentially, there is no effective way for mythicists to salvage the vast majority of their arguments. They are permanently stuck in scholarship over a century old, sometimes older, to make any of their arguments. Which is why one can go back and read P. L. Couchoud, Arthur Drews, and Bruno Bauer, and basically come away with everything that Carrier has argued… except more convincingly put.
Person A:
The Jesus of the gospels who lived in the late 20s / early 30s did not exist.
Person B:
I cannot defeat that argument.
What can I do?
I can intentionally misrepresent Jesus by saying the Jesus of Paul equals the Jesus of the gospels (which I ignore).
Person A:
Paul does not know much about Jesus. Paul refers to “Jesus” talking about teachers being paid for their work and he talked about marriage which is a far cry from the Jesus of the gospels talking about the good news of a coming kingdom, make sure in your theology, you see God as Father instead of as a fault-finding authority figure who blames misfortunes on disobedience, and faith healing. “Jesus made me the apostle to the Gentiles.” Yea, but he did not give you the most important Gentile sales territory, Rome, because when you got there, you found a Christian community you didn’t start.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert