Oddly the same can be said of Richard Carrier.
Actually Jesus said almost nothing at his trials, and his followers would not have been allowed to give testimony, nor were they asked to. The rest of your post is about as accurate.
Readers?:rolleyes::dubious:
Tell you what. He claims that is the One True Way of interpreting history. Find me other historians who use it, like someone trying to determine if Socrates was real.
I know of none who use that tool like Dick does.
My $0.02 worth about a subtopic:
When trying to guesstimate the probability that there was an historic Jesus, one must work with a priori probabilities.
To take but one example, consider the reaction Jesus gets when he visits his home town: “A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.” Were such accounts fictions added for some didactic purpose? Or are they simply a true chronicle? What are the chances a fiction writer would invent such a story? What are the chances that such incidents would have occurred in a real life? There are several incidents in the Gospel that have a “ring of truth” simply because they have no clear purpose for a fiction writer.
Why did Jesus, if fictional, say “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” on Calvary? For that matter, why invent a fictional Jesus in the first place when there were real “messiahs” to choose from, e.g. John the Baptist?
What are the chances that a 1st-century Galilean could turn water into wine and walk on water? Low, I’d think. What are the chances a zealot(?) could be charismatic enough to heal, teach, hypnotise, and inspire? Even inspire Gospel writers to make up fantasies about him? Not low at all, I think.
See? It’s all about guessing probabilities. Now the huge net of probabilities is too complex and the probabilities too uncertain to dream of actually applying Bayes’ Theorem arithmetically. (And anyway I reach the opposite conclusion as Carrier.) But having a feel for a priori probabilities is essential.
Once or twice on this and another message board, I myself have avoided a tedious paragraph about “comparing the chances of hypothetical priors and causal chains” with a terse phrase mentioning “Bayes Theorem.” And thereby caused confusion… :smack:
I’ve not read Carrier’s book; if he tries to develop actual numbers to plug into Bayes Theorem he’s probably being silly. But contemplating a priori probabilities, however fuzzy, is the correct way to approach many questions. If someone introduces Bayes’ Theorem to make this point, I have no problem with them.
A fiction writer might not write such a thing because a fiction writer is deliberately writing fiction, whereas people trying to flesh out a bare-bones account might indeed add events that have a “ring of truth” to them. You can’t say it’s probably true because it doesn’t read like fiction-it was never intended to be fiction in the first place.
Alright:
You have said so = Yep
When my trial occurs, all of you - including Peter - will scatter and flee Jerusalem.
Good on ya’ Peter! Support your savior!
Peter came to the High Priest’s place and refused to admit that he knew Jesus and refused to participate in the questioning.
You say that I am = ?
- Not at his trial.
- Not at his trial.
- & 4. Yes, Peter denier him, but not to the judges. It was a servant. And, hardly smart ass answers From JC
5, Yes, very brief.
Per wiki: “In the Gospel accounts, Jesus speaks very little, and gives very infrequent and indirect answers to the questions of the priests, prompting an officer to slap him. In Matthew 26:62, the lack of response from Jesus prompts the high priest to ask him: “Answerest thou nothing?””
I did not portray the sections that were not at his trial as being at his trial (point in fact, I didn’t portray anything as anything, since I merely quoted the Bible as-is), so I fail to see your objection.
I said specifically:
- His followers abandoned him and denied knowing him.
- Peter, in particular, refused to testify on Jesus’s behalf. No, he didn’t get called in and refuse directly to the High Priest, but I didn’t state that he did.
- Jesus responded like a jackass. Find me someone older than 8 years old who debates, “If you say so.” If you wish, I can debate you using a similar style and we’ll see if you think I’m being wise and thoughtful or a jackass?
Addendum to the previous, but I should make clear that my appraisal of Jesus’ dialogue is completely unfair.
The summary of the Gospels that I gave is the tale straight from the Gospels, with no logic applied, other than to remove the tales of magic.
If we do apply logic, we have to say that outside of the parables and some wisdom sayings, the dialogue attributed to Jesus is almost certainly not in any way related to anything that Jesus ever said. The Gospels profess no inside man on Jesus’ trials - so who could even have transmitted his dialogue to the writers? When Jesus gives his lovely tirade at the temple:
Who exactly was there notating this impromptu speech?
These portions of the Gospel are, clearly, the literary inventions of the Gospel writers. And, as we’re all aware, the average writer is at about the quality of E.L. James.
Does it seem reasonable that E.L. James, envisioning her hero, would give the main character lines that are portrayed as being wondrous and intimidating, but if you actually think about it, are actually pretty stupid? Well yes. And that is that about the quality of Jesus’ dialogue? Well, frankly, yes.
But, it is unfair of me to lay the blame for that on Jesus’ feet. The Gospel may portray him as talking like a petulant tween, but that’s not actually a reflection of Jesus.
So how smooth a talker was Jesus? How did he actually perform at his trial?
Based on the Criterions of Embarassment and Minutiae, we can probably accept that these bare facts were transmitted to the Gospel writers:
- Jesus trashed the market at the Temple.
- Jesus’ followers fled when he was arrested.
- Barnabas was selected to be freed by a random assembly of the people of Jerusalem, over Jesus.
- Whatever questions that Jesus was asked during his trial by the High Priest, Pilate, or others, ended up with Jesus getting a guilty verdict for a crime that is generally accepted as being giving himself the mantel of Son of God / The Messiah.
- Many of Jesus’ followers abandoned the Jerusalem church which Jesus left behind for Paul’s church.
- Jesus was good enough a talker to at least convert his own family, collect at least a small group of regular followers, and continue to inspire people (e.g. Ananias) after his death.
If we look at #1, #3, and #4, we must conclude that Jesus really wasn’t a smooth act. Going to the temple and tipping things over is, frankly, still at about the level of “petulant tween”. That’s just not a great strategy for accomplishing anything. And, whereas John the Baptist or Paul of Tarsus were able to get their executions postponed for years, via smooth talking with the people putting them on trial, Jesus’ was summarily executed.
It’s really only #6 that gives us any reason to think that Jesus wasn’t completely inept. But on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is “The dude with the End is Nigh banner who’s always on that one corner in town” and 10 is David Miscavige/Brigham Young/Mohammed/Paul of Tarsus, Jesus seems to rate more in the 2-4 territory. He just doesn’t appear, from the basic facts, to have been a particularly good orator.
Factually, we don’t know what he said at the Temple nor during his trial. But the great odds are that it was not riveting.
-
you’re misapplying the term ‘magic’, it isn’t a synonym for the supernatural, or for miracles. Magic refers to human beings trying to control the supernatural, not to the existence of the supernatural per se.
-
Why are you so confident those portions of the gospels are literary inventions? I don’t find it a problem for the credibility of the Gospels that there was no ‘inside man’ at the trials. After his resurrection, Jesus could easily have recounted the events of the trial to John or the other disciples. As for the speech at the temple, any of his followers could have recounted it.
(I’ve also heard the argument made that John might have been in attendance at the trials, but I consider that pretty weak, and I think it’s more likely that those portions of the story were recounted by Jesus directly to his followers after the fact).
The more interesting questions about chains of transmission involve events where neither Jesus nor his disciples were present. E.g. the description in Mark’s Gospel of Herod giving orders to his servants about the execution of John the Baptist. It’s not clear at first glance how the details of this scene might be known to the Gospel writers. This becomes clear if we cross-reference it with Luke, however: Luke mentions that one of Jesus’ followers was the wife of Herod’s household steward.
Whoa…after his resurrection? You assume magic to prove reality?
I have no problem accepting an “inside man” or a follower (fan) recounting the trials or any other event to a scribe. I also have no problem with accepting it as 1st Century fan fiction. With no proof of either, I think fan fiction is more likely.
This is of course exactly right, and prior probability should be in the back of your mind when approaching any question of evidence. As Andrew Gelman likes to say, any reasonable approach is at least implicitly Bayesian if not explicitly. The problem is that my applying a Bayesian approach leads me to the opposite place as Carrier, largely because I don’t agree what the relevant probabilities are and he’s applying them crudely and incorrectly.
The prior probability for a man walking on water and raising the dead is low, but I don’t think it’s zero (because my prior is that miracles and the supernatural exists), and the difference between ‘zero’ and ‘low’ turns out to be important. Also, my prior for a divine being walking on water isn’t low at all, and Carrier, if he’s being fair, should leave himself open to being convinced, as the evidence accumulates, that Jesus wasn’t (merely) a man after all.
"Originally Posted by **Sage Rat **
At his trial, he acted like a jackass telling them all that he was the real King of the Jews and they had no authority over him. None of his followers are willing to give testimony at his trial, and in fact, most fled the area or pretended not to know of him."
None of his followers were asked to testify nor could they.
That’s actually was quite clever on Jesus’s part.
:dubious:
I’m sorry?
Jesus? We didn’t have hard evidence of Pontius Pilate until 1961! A couple mentions, but nothing in stone. 
Barnabas? You mean Barrabas.
(And “thieves”, as Aslan points out, most likely means guerilla liberation fighter in the original language - sentenced for rebelling against Roman/Temple rule.)
“Thou has said it…”
As I interpret this remark, it was a clever out and clever tactic. If Jesus says “I am the messiah” or “I am the son of God” then he condemns himself with his own words. But if he leads his accusers into mentioning something, it brings it out for everyone to hear, and his retort is essentially “you said brought that up, I never said that! You’re the one speculating with blasphemy!”
Compare for example, the things we know about George Washington. Some of the most popular things are pure fabrication - hanging morality tales onto a famous public figure. The Cherry Tree and the Dollar Toss are fabrication made up decades later by someone wanting to teach young boys about moral behaviour. (Which brings up the George Washington Principle - “It’s easy to tell the truth when you’re the one holding the axe.”)
Embellishing a famous figure with new stories and fabricated deeds is nothing new. King Arthur, Robin Hood, Charlemagne, Daniels Boone, the 3 Wise Men, St. Valentine, etc. are following in the fine tradition of Santa Claus. After all, St. Paul made up an entire religion from what little he knew about a heretic who died a decade or more before.
(Although it’s arguable that St. Nick was just a convenient character probably pasted over top of whoever was the local excuse for giving gifts. In some countries, it’s the 3 Wise Men who bring the goodies.)
If you believe Jesus was resurrected, you have a religious belief in the actual/historical existence of Jesus. You’ve assumed the answer. Which is of course fine, but the discussion here is what historical evidence there is for the existence of Jesus, and how strong that evidence is.
For the record, I’m a pagan. (not an official flavor. just pagan) But the erudite discussion here got me to thinking about this.
I am making several assumptions, with the understanding that I may be mistaken:
- 2000 years ago, there was no central media source like TV news or the internet
- At that time, a far smaller percentage of people were literate
- The fact that the burning of the library in Alexandria destroyed the only copies of many books (I understand that many were also copies) suggests to me that books were often written on perishable media and were not always copied
- While knowledge of contemporary goings-on was certainly more inclusive in urban areas, a large segment of the population was not urban
So, what I’m assuming is that a large number of the people who were writing things were educated people who were frequently writing about things like philosophy and natural science. As I understand it, whatever did or didn’t happen with Jesus of Nazareth was a small localized thing during his lifetime.
What I’m getting at is, perhaps there’s not much reason to expect that there would be much contemporaneous writing about such a person. It would only be once the whole thing became an issue for educated people that they would have cause to mention it. As large of a volume of stuff as I have written (I had a blog with a pretty good readership way back when) I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned Christians, or Moonies either. Just wasn’t interested.
Incidentally, to anyone interested in the topic, here is a great article on how early Christians were viewed in Rome.
Yep, and some of the Atheists claimed that Pilate didnt exist either, he was made up by Mark, etc.