Did Pontius Pilate exist?

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, if I have escaped from this vortex I do not think I will create a new one.

There is no vortex like the AmbigGuy vortex, you must admit!

 

[1robin]

There is no vortex like the AmbigGuy vortex, you must admit!

Now on that I can concur and I am unanimous in that.

 

[steeltoes]

Historiography? Historiography? They don't need no stinkin' historiography. :no:

All that is required is for everyone to read The Bible as if Jesus is historical to make their homogonized milk and white bread go down easy.

 

[steeltoes]

Humans lust for certainty, and some of us are unable to resist it.

In this case, many Christians see the historical Jesus as the very foundation of their worldviews, so it's frightening to have him challenged. I believe they're wrong. Their grandchildren will still be Christians even if Jesus becomes as mythical as Adam.



Thanks for posting that. Apparently there were those who falsified the historial Jesus during John's time. People whose parents probably lived as adults in 30 CE Jerusalem. I didn't know that we had evidence of that. Interesting.

There's more where that came from, here's another little gem:

Hebrews 8:4 Now, if he [Jesus] had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest, since there are already priests who offer the gifts which the Law prescribes,

 

[Desert Snake]

this question doesn't make sense, if jesus is mythic, then there was no actual crucifixion. Mythic characters and events have always been the centrepiece of religions

My question does make sense, the fact that you don't understand the mythic concept makes it non-understandable to you. We're not talking about a figure that could just as well be mythical for the story to become a religion, Jesus was considered the Messiah, and people were converting to 'Christian' beliefs from the beginning of the narrative.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm sorry I've upset you, Legion. In my opinion, such an upset points to a serious insecurity about the issue itself.

For whatever that observation may be worth to you.

I'm agnostic. I'm not a historian. This is (again) a hobby, like so much of what I study. But ignorance and willful blindness bother me. It's a pet peeve, you might say. It's one thing for people to not know what they are talking about. We all have an infinite number of things we don't know about. But to make claims (or to claim one's questions are indicative of anything rather than ignorance, and to act as if they are somehow meaningful even when the same questions turned on their heads cannot be answered by those who ask these questions) from a position of ignorance, and to refuse to even look at the evidence or the weakness of one's position (and why it is so) is for me unforgivable.

You talk about "special pleading". There are plenty of works akin to the gospels when it comes to ancient historiography. So many that the consensus is to place these among a specific sub-genre of ancient historiography (although I have problems with this conclusion). However, there are absolutely no comparisons with your made-up "hero" bunk and equally as little (i.e., none) with any other mythic or fictional work from the ancient world. You talk about special pleading, but are apparently unaware of how much your view depends upon it.

What mythicists so frequently fail to realize is that anyone can poke holes in some historical reconstruction. But this is meaningless. To say something meaningful about history isn't to say "there are issues with historians who say X" but to say not only what these issues are, but what the actual assertions/propositions about the matter should be. And this is exactly where mythicists hit a brick wall. How to explain the evidence we have in terms of "gnosticism" (per Freke & Gandy) or some random inscriptions from graphitti (you), when there is not only no parallel, but every reason to laugh at these "historical reconstructions". It's also why no one in any field (biblical studies or not) does. It's the kind of absurdity that only those who know not of what they speak (or read) will buy. Which is not to say anything negative about such readers, but about those who argue from a place of supposed "expertise" or at least enough knowledge to know what the right questions are.

If you question the historicity of Jesus (which you do), and you base such questions upon some supposed lack of precedent, then you should be able to offer a precedent such that we can explain the gospels in terms of this, rather than ancient biographies and/or histories. You haven't. Can you?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ad hominems don't make your case for you, in fact, they only prove to expose your bias towards this Jesus.

I have a position I made after years of research, learning to read in several ancient languages and several modern languages, and reading volume after volume, paper after paper, in four different modern languages. In order to understand the mythicist position, I've gone back over a hundred years, and read books by those who make blatant errors (not to mention misquote and mislead). And I have certain conclusions. As you say:

So you've done the research

I have. And as a result, I have a position. You have one without doing this. You barely know the works of Ehrman, whom you particularly disdain (while admitting you don't know what he's written). You clearly don't know the field. And that's no problem. The problem is your claim about my bias. I studied the issue and came up with my position. You haven't, but still seem to have no problem not only with your position, but also no problem with talking about the reasons for another's position and what is at play:

it gives you the green light to go ahead and read your bible as if Jesus is historical. Anyone that opposes you is ignorant, and branded a "mythicist" with disdain, we got that much. There's a real hatred for those that question the status quo, as if it makes some kind of difference as to how this Jesus character is to be understood.

The bible is no more mine than is the Koran, or than are the Homeric epics. As for those who oppose me (i.e., those who aren't mythicists and believe that at the very least we can know Jesus existed), well...if this isn't ignorance, why is it almost solely expounded by those who cannot read the very texts they write about, and who rely on a carefully selected subset of modern and ancient texts (most of which they misquote or misrepresent)?

 

[steeltoes]

What mythicists so frequently fail to realize is that anyone can poke holes in some historical reconstruction. But this is meaningless. To say something meaningful about history isn't to say "there are issues with historians who say X" but to say not only what these issues are, but what the actual assertions/propositions about the matter should be. And this is exactly where mythicists hit a brick wall.

Christ myth theory does make propositions, for one it proposes that Paul's Christ is distinct from the Galilean Jesus read of in the gospels.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Christ myth theory does make propositions, for one it proposes that Paul's Christ is distinct from the Galilean Jesus read of in the gospels.

That proposition is nearly universal. It is held by virtually every historian (Christian or no) there is. In fact, it's a rather central tenet to historiography and the philosophy of history: if someone writes a biography of another, it is assured to misrepresent. The question isn't "do the gospels present someone distinct from the Christ of Paul?" or even "does the Christ of the gospels represent anyone historical?" but "what (if any) historical core is behind the gospels, Paul, and other early Christian texts?". The answer is Jesus, a man who started the tradition recorded in the gospels and (to a lesser extent) in other texts we have such as the letters of Paul. The distinction between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History is not one of modern scholarship, but one of Faith. It is religious in nature, and necessarily so. But to disdain scholarship, and to render as biased all those who have studied the matter, is not logical or rational. It is likewise a matter of Faith. Those who belittle Erhman and others whom they have not read (or have read little of) find good company among religious layfolk, and have as support as little as they; faith-based affirmation of an understanding of ancient texts.

 

[steeltoes]

I have a position I made after years of research, learning to read in several ancient languages and several modern languages, and reading volume after volume, paper after paper, in four different modern languages. In order to understand the mythicist position, I've gone back over a hundred years, and read books by those who make blatant errors (not to mention misquote and mislead). And I have certain conclusions. As you say:

I have. And as a result, I have a position. You have one without doing this. You barely know the works of Ehrman, whom you particularly disdain (while admitting you don't know what he's written). You clearly don't know the field. And that's no problem. The problem is your claim about my bias. I studied the issue and came up with my position. You haven't, but still seem to have no problem not only with your position, but also no problem with talking about the reasons for another's position and what is at play:




The bible is no more mine than is the Koran, or than are the Homeric epics. As for those who oppose me (i.e., those who aren't mythicists and believe that at the very least we can know Jesus existed), well...if this isn't ignorance, why is it almost solely expounded by those who cannot read the very texts they write about, and who rely on a carefully selected subset of modern and ancient texts (most of which they misquote or misrepresent)?

You have me confused with someone that gives a crap either way what this Jesus was. You have a lot invested in your Jesus, and just like many before you, you have spent a great deal of time amassing "knowledge" from people that wrote about a guy that they never met. Your research allows you to read the gospels as if Jesus was historical, and if you really want to know, I am happy for you because you must have gone into this for a reason, and reading the gospels as if Jesus was historical is as good a reason as any I suppose, so go for it, and be happy about it.

 

[steeltoes]

That proposition is nearly universal. It is held by virtually every historian (Christian or no) there is. In fact, it's a rather central tenet to historiography and the philosophy of history: if someone writes a biography of another, it is assured to misrepresent. The question isn't "do the gospels present someone distinct from the Christ of Paul?" or even "does the Christ of the gospels represent anyone historical?" but "what (if any) historical core is behind the gospels, Paul, and other early Christian texts?". The answer is Jesus, a man who started the tradition recorded in the gospels and (to a lesser extent) in other texts we have such as the letters of Paul. The distinction between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History is not one of modern scholarship, but one of Faith. It is religious in nature, and necessarily so. But to disdain scholarship, and to render as biased all those who have studied the matter, is not logical or rational. It is likewise a matter of Faith. Those who belittle Erhman and others whom they have not read (or have read little of) find good company among religious layfolk, and have as support as little as they; faith-based affirmation of an understanding of ancient texts.

You don't understand, Paul's Christ was not from his recent past, if he existed on earth at all. Paul did not write of anyone having witnessed the crucifixion, those that Paul wrote about shared in the same experiences as he did, visions of a resurrected dying and rising Son of God. That is what Christ myth theory proposes. It's not universal, it's impossible for Paul to have met Jesus' brother because it can't be assumed that Pauls' Christ walked on earth. It can't be assumed that the Peter, James and John of the epistles were disciples, they were apostles like Paul, and as Paul states, he and Peter were appointed as apostles by God. Ehrman assumes that Paul met disciples but Christ myth theory does not consider that assumption because it is not there. The gospel story came later, and Christ myth theory does not allow for the reading of the gospels into Paul. I'm not a proponent, I won't defend it, I am just explaining what Christ myth theory proposes as far as I understand it and of course you can and will draw your own conclusions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You have me confused with someone that gives a crap either way what this Jesus was.

For someone who doesn't give a crap, you certainly have things to say about those who give their qualified opinion and whom you have not read:

I'm least impressed by Ehrman for reading the gospels into Paul... And no, I am not that familiar with Ehrman, other than what I have come across online.

Tell me- how does one become "least impressed" about the work of someone in a field they know not, nor care about, and whose work they have not read? You have written numerous posts defending or attacking a particular view, yet admitted that you don't have much experience or familiarity with the issue. That's not the manner of one who really doesn't care. Recently, the only other thread I've participated in other than this one (and perhaps one or two others) is one on physics. Like the issue of the historical Jesus, most of my study here is a hobby. None of those I worked with (and I happen to have worked in a fairly distinguished lab) possess my familiarity with modern physics. They don't need it, any more than I need a familiarity with historical Jesus studies. But I'm curious. So I study.

Why do you ask questions about this? Have you looked at the historical Socrates with the same attention? How about the historical King Arthur, or Pythagoras, or Apollonius of Tyana, or any number of others whom historians have asked about? And have studied? Why, if you care so little, have you devoted the time you have even just here to this issue?

I would guess because you do care. In fact, I need not guess. You have devoted time, without rewared or need, to this issue. And you haven't simply asked as one who is curious and who seeks answers, but as one with a particular (if relatively uninformed) opinion. Clearly, you are not some ambiguous guy, but one who has a certain bias of your own. You simply don't have the wherewithal to support your view.

You have a lot invested in your Jesus, and just like many before you, you have spent a great deal of time amassing "knowledge" from people that wrote about a guy that they never met.

I've done the same for a great many others. My final undergrad paper was on the historical Socrates. I never wrote one on the historical Jesus. I've devoted much time to many questions, including those about the historical Jesus. What's your excuse?

Your research allows you to read the gospels as if Jesus was historical, and if you really want to know

My research allows me to read the gospels. You can't. My research allows me to comment on the gospels, their place within ancient historiography and myth, and the approach of modern scholarship. You can't. But when I do comment, you don't feel as if your lack of research somehow makes your rejoinders unfounded. And somehow, this is not bias?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You don't understand, Paul's Christ was not from his recent past, if he existed on earth at all.

And you base this upon what? Copied and pasted translations of the word "brother" in Paul's writings? The scholarship I linked to for you on an expert of German who devoted time to publishing non-academic works outside his field?

Paul did not write of anyone having witnessed the crucifixion

Just someone who had met Jesus' brother, and who distinguished Jesus' teachings from his own, and in whose writings we find not only the mention of this brother (found likewise in the gospels and Josephus) but also Jesus' teachings as reported elsewhere.

That is what Christ myth theory proposes

According to whom?

it can't be assumed that Pauls' Christ walked on earth.

It isn't assumed.

Ehrman assumes

You admit you aren't familiar even with the works he writes for the public (non-academic works) yet you have no problem saying what he "assumes"? And this isn't bias?

 

[steeltoes]

For someone who doesn't give a crap, you certainly have things to say about those who give their qualified opinion and whom you have not read:


Tell me- how does one become "least impressed" about the work of someone in a field they know not, nor care about, and whose work they have not read? You have written numerous posts defending or attacking a particular view, yet admitted that you don't have much experience or familiarity with the issue. That's not the manner of one who really doesn't care. Recently, the only other thread I've participated in other than this one (and perhaps one or two others) is one on physics. Like the issue of the historical Jesus, most of my study here is a hobby. None of those I worked with (and I happen to have worked in a fairly distinguished lab) possess my familiarity with modern physics. They don't need it, any more than I need a familiarity with historical Jesus studies. But I'm curious. So I study.

Why do you ask questions about this? Have you looked at the historical Socrates with the same attention? How about the historical King Arthur, or Pythagoras, or Apollonius of Tyana, or any number of others whom historians have asked about? And have studied? Why, if you care so little, have you devoted the time you have even just here to this issue?

I would guess because you do care. In fact, I need not guess. You have devoted time, without rewared or need, to this issue. And you haven't simply asked as one who is curious and who seeks answers, but as one with a particular (if relatively uninformed) opinion. Clearly, you are not some ambiguous guy, but one who has a certain bias of your own. You simply don't have the wherewithal to support your view.



I've done the same for a great many others. My final undergrad paper was on the historical Socrates. I never wrote one on the historical Jesus. I've devoted much time to many questions, including those about the historical Jesus. What's your excuse?



My research allows me to read the gospels. You can't. My research allows me to comment on the gospels, their place within ancient historiography and myth, and the approach of modern scholarship. You can't. But when I do comment, you don't feel as if your lack of research somehow makes your rejoinders unfounded. And somehow, this is not bias?

Now you have me confused with someone that has formed an opinion. I haven't formed any opinion about this Jesus, at least not beyond that of a literary character. I make no comment of Jesus' place in history. Jesus history is not science, it's a completely subjective exercise wherein no one is right or wrong due to fact that there are no known facts to deal with, just ancient literature. You say I can't read it but I did, and the only difference I see is in degrees of belief and assumptions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Now you have me confused with someone that has formed an opinion.

You've formed an opinion about Ehrman's work here without being familiar with it, let alone the field. I quoted your post which makes this clear. You are "least impressed" ("least" relative to...?) by him here. How is that not an opinion?

I haven't formed any opinion about this Jesus, at least not beyond that of a literary character.

That is an opinion. So is making claims about the alleged biases of those who have studied this issue (and me least of all, as I am not a specialist on this subject). Yet you have done this.

I make no comment of Jesus' place in history. Jesus history is not science

If history is a scientific discipline at all (and many argue that it is; I for one find that much of the social sciences lay claim to "science" with at most as much behind this claim as historians), then "Jesus history" is science. If it is not, then history is not- period.

it's a completely subjective exercise

And this is not bias? The position you defend immediately above is based upon...? How would you know whether it is "subjective" in some meaningful way? And how is this statement not one of someone who has formed an opinion you claim not to have?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But ignorance and willful blindness bother me.

I'm not sure what to say except to recommend that you do as I do and actually go out and educate yourself whenever you find yourself bothered in that way.

But to make claims (or to claim one's questions are indicative of anything rather than ignorance, and to act as if they are somehow meaningful even when the same questions turned on their heads cannot be answered by those who ask these questions) from a position of ignorance, and to refuse to even look at the evidence or the weakness of one's position (and why it is so) is for me unforgivable.

But why not look at the evidence and the weakness of our postitions directly and openly? I really don't understand. What value is there in refusing to even look at the evidence or the weakness of one's position, and how can a person engage in productive debate when he approaches issues in that way?

What mythicists so frequently fail to realize is that anyone can poke holes in some historical reconstruction. But this is meaningless. To say something meaningful about history isn't to say "there are issues with historians who say X" but to say not only what these issues are, but what the actual assertions/propositions about the matter should be. And this is exactly where mythicists hit a brick wall.

I really don't know anything about 'mythicists'. I only know that it seems surprisingly easy for me, a (gifted) amateur, to ask questions of most Jesus realers which they refuse to answer except with convoluted and faulty logic, with blunt appeals to authority, and with ugly ad hominem argumentation.

I wish it weren't so. I'd really like to discuss the issue in a straightforward way.

 

[steeltoes]

I have no opinion as to Jesus' place in history because I don't know to what extent he is historical if at all. And no, Jesus history is not a science. Historical method failed to produce an historical Jesus to any degree of satisfaction so criteria such as criteria of embarrassment and so on was invented to garner the desired results. That is not science, that is circular and rather embarrassing but at least as a result of these criteria all biblical scholars can now read about Jesus' baptism and can all agree that it actually took place. Historical Jesus books sell so I'm really happy for them, it seems no one tires of reading that Paul met Jesus' brother, just ask Ehrman.

Due to an interest in peoples beliefs I read a bit of biblical scholarship as it pertains to the OT and the NT for that matter long before I was aware of this quest for the historical Jesus, and here's an opinion of mine for you, I can appreciate literary scholarship, but doing Jesus history, not so much.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Historical method failed to produce an historical Jesus to any degree of satisfaction ...

Obviously the current consensus is the result of nothing more than intellectual apathy and appalling bias. Its good to have someone as schooled in historiography as you to expose this murky failure of scholarship.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Obviously the current consensus is the result of nothing more than intellectual apathy and appalling bias.

I disagree with you that bibilical scholars are intellectually apathetic, but of course their profound bias cannot be denied.

It's a shame that so few unbiased scholars feel the urge to enter the field. I often wonder what such secular scholars would make of the historical Jesus.

 

[Quagmire]

I disagree with you that bibilical scholars are intellectually apathetic, but of course their profound bias cannot be denied.

It's a shame that so few unbiased scholars feel the urge to enter the field. I often wonder what such secular scholars would make of the historical Jesus.

How could there ever be an unbiased bible scholar in your world if you're going to immediately label anyone who earns the right to claim the title of "bible scholar" biased by default?

They can't. Obviously, that's the point.