Historical Jesus

[Darat]

Me? I'm only considering possibilities that seem like realistic possibilities to me.



No, I also don't have evidence that he wasn't from the planet Krypton, but I don't think I need any to rule that out.



Whereas a normal bog-average human man with no supernatural superpowers and with a few followers willing to make up tall tales seems like a very mundane and plausible possibility.

Problem with this approach is that we do not find a mundane man in the Christian texts.

What we have is literally a superman, he just doesn't have a cape and we know the claimed historical facts in the biblical texts are (to be generous) erroneous.

What you are doing is saying "the biblical Jesus is a superman, the historical evidence in the bible is bunk but it all could have been based on a real person".

Now of course it could have been based on a real person, and we do indeed know myths do arise about people we can conclude by other evidence did actually exist.

However what we also know is that for many of the more recent religions we have documentary proof (from eye witnesses at the time, from documents, from arrest warrants and so on) that they are made up from whole cloth or a reweaving of existing beliefs, the Superman in DC comics is an example of how a mythical superman can be created.

We also know these religions are often made up by a singular person who is charismatic, strong willed and arrogant, who will reinterpret current beliefs and rely on claimed revelations to support his or her claims and thus proof of his or her new religious message.

And what do we find in the biblical texts?

A charismatic, strong willed, arrogant man who reinterpreted some existing beliefs and who relied on claimed revelations to prove his new religious message was The Truth.

Problem is that person is Paul.

So whilst there could have been a real historic Jesus we certainly do not need one to explain the origins of christianity as we know it today.

And we certainly don't have evidence for a historical Jesus that we can tie into what we know of the origins of christianity. Until we do I'm of the view that Paul "invented " what we know as Christianty and Jesus as the Christian's hold him to be was an invention of Paul.

 

[HansMustermann]

It must necessarily be a dichotomy. The greatest individuals exercise restraint, are always realistic, without fanaticism, aggression, or provocation beyond what is required. Rousseau was not responsible for the indulgences of the French revolution.

On the other hand, there are exceptional cases where a great man is not only responsible for propagating the idea, but also for it's practical implementation as well. Mohammed was one such fella.

I would still disagree that it's a dichotomy between specifically (1) amalgamating several individuals, and (2) basing and ammending what goes into that amalgam based on one's idea of an ideal person.

I mean, watch me do it on the spot: my ideal king should be wise like Marcus Aurelius, charismatic like Caesar, great at tactics like Napoleon, just like Henry I "the lion of justice", open minded about religion and opposed to slavery like Cyrus the Great, a patron of the arts like Louis XIV, etc. I just created a fictive person unlike any that actually existed by amalgamating traits from a whole bunch of actual persons. But what made the cut to go into that melting pot was based on my idea of an ideal person.

 

[HansMustermann]

Me? I'm only considering possibilities that seem like realistic possibilities to me.

No, I also don't have evidence that he wasn't from the planet Krypton, but I don't think I need any to rule that out.

Whereas a normal bog-average human man with no supernatural superpowers and with a few followers willing to make up tall tales seems like a very mundane and plausible possibility.

The problem is that what's possible is not the same as what is. I mean, it's also quite possible that I'm a Chinese grandma, but that's not actually true.

More to the point you don't get to demand evidence for a negative, just because the positive is only possible. It's still your burden of proof if you want to claim the positive. And it just being possible is not meeting it. By far.

 

[Darat]

格兰，您在互联网上吗？ 我正在尝试玩战争机器

 

[Craig B]

It is entirely plausible that the character called Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.

There is no historical evidence to support the argument for an historical Jesus.

There is evidence in the form of writings composed in the decades following his lifetime. You reject it as unreliable, but that doesn't mean it's not there. It is there, and it is evidence. Is it reliable? Certainly not wholly so. But to what extent do these sources contain real historical information? The person who says, such and such an event is probably true, is required to justify that assessment, but there is a similar requirement on the person who says it is probably false, and the means by which such assessments are made is critical analysis of the sources.

 

[Craig B]

I mean, watch me do it on the spot: my ideal king should be wise like Marcus Aurelius, charismatic like Caesar, great at tactics like Napoleon, just like Henry I "the lion of justice", open minded about religion and opposed to slavery like Cyrus the Great, a patron of the arts like Louis XIV, etc. I just created a fictive person unlike any that actually existed by amalgamating traits from a whole bunch of actual persons. But what made the cut to go into that melting pot was based on my idea of an ideal person.

That is you doing it on the spot, based on your ideas. But your ideas are not the issue.

We have several sources containing real or alleged info about Jesus. Why did these authors "do it". To find that out we need to examine the texts. Then we may find out about these authors' ideas, which is more to the point. Which of their sources were ideal, and which, if any, were based on real occurrences?

 

[HansMustermann]

That is you doing it on the spot, based on your ideas. But your ideas are not the issue.

We have several sources containing real or alleged info about Jesus. Why did these authors "do it". To find that out we need to examine the texts. Then we may find out about these authors' ideas, which is more to the point. Which of their sources were ideal, and which, if any, were based on real occurrences?

Well, that wasn't supposed to be a proof of Jesus or anything. Ehhz said there was a dichotomy between (1) amalgamating a bunch of other people, and (2) making up an ideal person. I was just saying that you can do 2 via 1, so it's not a dichotomy.

It's not a claim of knowing that that's what they did for Jesus, though. I'm just saying literally just that: it's not a dichotomy between 1 and 2.

 

[HansMustermann]

There is evidence in the form of writings composed in the decades following his lifetime. You reject it as unreliable, but that doesn't mean it's not there. It is there, and it is evidence. Is it reliable? Certainly not wholly so. But to what extent do these sources contain real historical information? The person who says, such and such an event is probably true, is required to justify that assessment, but there is a similar requirement on the person who says it is probably false, and the means by which such assessments are made is critical analysis of the sources.

I will refer you to the modern historical method -- as opposed the somewhat outdated one used by biblical scholars like Ehrman -- where the sources about Jesus are in fact of the kind of quality that would get him dismissed as a probably fictive character. Same as the great philosopher Timaeus from Plato is dismissed as probably a made up author-insert, because he only appears in one author and not an unbiased author at that: Timaeus exists only to voice Plato's own ideas.

That's not to say that a person named Timaeus couldn't have existed. But THE Timaeus from Plato, who has conversations with Socrates and Solon and voices a specific set of arguments, that one is a different person and probably did not exist.

 

[Craig B]

That's not to say that a person named Timaeus couldn't have existed. But THE Timaeus from Plato, who has conversations with Socrates and Solon and voices a specific set of arguments, that one is a different person and probably did not exist.

Agreed. The virgin born Jesus who raised the dead is assuredly a figment, but the preaching Jesus who was crucified after a disturbance in the Temple is presumably a different person, in the sense that such people could plausibly exist as a matter of historical fact. It's like King Arthur who is a leader of horsemen fighting Saxon invaders. That's plausible, but it is not plausible that he had a magic sword. So take his sword away and maybe there's some truth in what is left of the story.

 

[Craig B]

I will refer you to the modern historical method -- as opposed the somewhat outdated one used by biblical scholars like Ehrman -- where the sources about Jesus are in fact of the kind of quality that would get him dismissed as a probably fictive character. Same as the great philosopher Timaeus from Plato is dismissed as probably a made up author-insert, because he only appears in one author and not an unbiased author at that: Timaeus exists only to voice Plato's own ideas.

That's not to say that a person named Timaeus couldn't have existed. But THE Timaeus from Plato, who has conversations with Socrates and Solon and voices a specific set of arguments, that one is a different person and probably did not exist.

You mention Solon. It is agreed that he existed although evidence about him is very sparse. Wiki

Ancient authors such as Herodotus and Plutarch are the main sources, but wrote about Solon long after his death. 4th-century orators, such as Aeschines, tended to attribute to Solon all the laws of their own, much later times.​

That is possibly less than the evidence we have for Jesus, scanty though that is.

 

[Darat]

There is evidence in the form of writings composed in the decades following his lifetime. You reject it as unreliable, but that doesn't mean it's not there. It is there, and it is evidence. Is it reliable? Certainly not wholly so. But to what extent do these sources contain real historical information? The person who says, such and such an event is probably true, is required to justify that assessment, but there is a similar requirement on the person who says it is probably false, and the means by which such assessments are made is critical analysis of the sources.

But those of us that at the moment don't consider there is evidence for an actual historic Jesus don't have any burden of proof.

As it is we all know the Jesus of the bible did not exist, so if you want to claim you have someone you believe to have been an or the "inspiration" for the character in the bible stories you need to show how you link your candidate to the Jesus in the bible. That's the part I have yet to see substantiated by actual evidence.

Of course we may never be able to access evidence of that link, and in that case I'd say since we know the biblical Jesus didn't exist we have no reason to believe there was a historical person that inspired the bible character, the evidence then clearly points to that Jesus being a fictional creation.

 

[Oystein]

My take-away from reading so far - perhaps several of you have overlapping views:

There existed in the first century CE a genre of messianic characters, some real, some fictitious, some real with fiction ascribed to them, and this genre was fed a) by OT prophecy and precedent and b) the current politics of Judea/Israel under Roman rule, with non-Davidic kings and what not.

Paul wrote extensive and (eventually) influential fiction with a main character called "Jesus", that drew largely from the existing genre.

Why Paul's fiction ended up ruling the day and staying popular till today is a bit unclear, but has nothing to do with whether he was thinking about a particular person, an amalgam of real persons, or made it up from whole cloth.

The gospels (the two that remain in use; one that comes in three versions) also were written as part of a wider genre. The ones that survive survived because they were, or were made to be, sufficiently consistent with the Pauline Jesus character.

A bit like Sherlock Holmes meets Lord Voldemort. In principle, Holmes could be based on some real detective, but the stories are just two genres intertwined.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There existed in the first century CE a genre of messianic characters, some real, some fictitious, some real with fiction ascribed to them, and this genre was fed a) by OT prophecy and precedent and b) the current politics of Judea/Israel under Roman rule, with non-Davidic kings and what not.

Sounds in some ways like superhero comics, though for some reason we're not allowed to compare them with religion in any way, shape or form.

Dave

 

[Craig B]

But those of us that at the moment don't consider there is evidence for an actual historic Jesus don't have any burden of proof.

Whether you have evidence or not is not for you to decide. It exists. You reject it, so you have the burden of explaining to me why sources say he existed when he did not. If Jesus didn't exist and we have various sources that say he did, then the existence of these sources needs to be explained, and I think that the supposition that there was a historical character behind the material they contain is an economical and plausible way of explaining them.

As it is we all know the Jesus of the bible did not exist

Who says that? I certainly don't..

the evidence then clearly points to that Jesus being a fictional creation.

Not like a character in a novel. So not fiction in a normal sense where both the author and the readers know the story isn't true. The followers of Jesus believed it was true. By fictional, do you really mean "unhistorical" perhaps?

 

[ehhz]

I would still disagree that it's a dichotomy between specifically (1) amalgamating several individuals, and (2) basing and ammending what goes into that amalgam based on one's idea of an ideal person.

I mean, watch me do it on the spot: my ideal king should be wise like Marcus Aurelius, charismatic like Caesar, great at tactics like Napoleon, just like Henry I "the lion of justice", open minded about religion and opposed to slavery like Cyrus the Great, a patron of the arts like Louis XIV, etc. I just created a fictive person unlike any that actually existed by amalgamating traits from a whole bunch of actual persons. But what made the cut to go into that melting pot was based on my idea of an ideal person.

I see your point.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Who says that? I certainly don't.. Not like a character in a novel. So not fiction in a normal sense where both the author and the readers know the story isn't true. The followers of Jesus believed it was true. By fictional, do you really mean "unhistorical" perhaps?

No I meant exactly what I said, we know the biblical Jesus did not exist. The biblical Jesus produced miracles and did other acts which human beings can't do therefore we know he didn't exist.

 

[HansMustermann]

You mention Solon. It is agreed that he existed although evidence about him is very sparse. Wiki

Ancient authors such as Herodotus and Plutarch are the main sources, but wrote about Solon long after his death. 4th-century orators, such as Aeschines, tended to attribute to Solon all the laws of their own, much later times.​

That is possibly less than the evidence we have for Jesus, scanty though that is.

The differences are, starting from the most important:

1. We have the criterion of historical necessity for Solon. SOMEONE had to rule Athens at that point in time, and that SOMEONE somehow transitioned it to a democracy. We might as well call that one "Solon", but feel free to call him Jerry if you prefer.

We don't have the same necessity for a figure beyond the grave that gave messages to Paul in visions and revelations. (And not just once.) People are perfectly able of inventing or hallucinating non-existent persons too. We don't need a historical Gabriel to explain who was talking to Muhammad in those visions of his in the cave.

The necessity for SOMEONE to have done SOMETHING to start Xianity stops at Paul, really.

2. If you want to nevertheless propose the possibility that Solon never existed -- e.g., maybe the transition to democracy was done by some committee of the richest after the old king died, and they decided they'd like to have more say and could have more say without a king -- nobody's gonna be particularly opposed. Nobody will act as if Solon is set in stone, and by Zeus's pubes, you need exceptional evidence to not believe in Solon

3. If you wish to contest just whether we can reconstruct what Solon actually said or did, from those ancient mentions (like people try to reconstruct a rabbi Jesus), you'll find that actually mainstream historians are ahead of you. The poetry quoted as Solon's is taken as quite possible mis-atribution, and the laws attributed to him are KNOWN to be at least partially later laws that got mis-atributed. Really all that is claimed by historians is that SOMEONE had to rule Athens before it became a democracy, and we'll keep calling that guy "Solon", but exactly what he said or believed, nobody is sure.

 

[HansMustermann]

Agreed. The virgin born Jesus who raised the dead is assuredly a figment, but the preaching Jesus who was crucified after a disturbance in the Temple is presumably a different person, in the sense that such people could plausibly exist as a matter of historical fact. It's like King Arthur who is a leader of horsemen fighting Saxon invaders. That's plausible, but it is not plausible that he had a magic sword. So take his sword away and maybe there's some truth in what is left of the story.

The keyword there is: maybe. There are lots of things he may have been, or not been, and trying to nail any of them will need more evidence than it not being impossible.

 

[Craig B]

No I meant exactly what I said, we know the biblical Jesus did not exist. The biblical Jesus produced miracles and did other acts which human beings can't do therefore we know he didn't exist.

The Christian scriptures say some things about Jesus that can't be true because they are impossible. But they also relate things that are perfectly possible, and some of them are inconvenient for the miraculous Jesus. Like his mother thought he was nuts, or that he had brothers called James, Joses, Simeon and Judas; and "sisters" too, plural and unnamed.

These things are not consistent with his mother being a virgin told she was giving birth to the Son of God. The Son of God is insane? The Son of God has at least six siblings? So the Biblical Jesus is a composite character with possibly true and certainly false incidents in his career. Based on one real or imaginary person? Or more than one? We don't know, but we do know that there is no single "Biblical" Jesus, except in the minds of literalist Christians.

 

[Darat]

The Christian scriptures say some things about Jesus that can't be true because they are impossible. But they also relate things that are perfectly possible, and some of them are inconvenient for the miraculous Jesus. Like his mother thought he was nuts, or that he had brothers called James, Joses, Simeon and Judas; and "sisters" too, plural and unnamed.

These things are not consistent with his mother being a virgin told she was giving birth to the Son of God. The Son of God is insane? The Son of God has at least six siblings? So the Biblical Jesus is a composite character with possibly true and certainly false incidents in his career. Based on one real or imaginary person? Or more than one? We don't know, but we do know that there is no single "Biblical" Jesus, except in the minds of literalist Christians.

Not so sure what your point is? We know the biblical Jesus can't have existed and all fictional characters even super heroes have "everyday" attributes.