What counts as a historical Jesus?

[IanS]

Trying to answer Humes Fork original question directly -

- firstly, if a single individual preacher actually could be identified, and well confirmed, as fulfilling the basic requirements of the Jesus figure, even without any of the obviously false miracle claims, then I think that would count as being a real Historical Jesus.

Although even in that case, there remains the fact that almost all of what was ever written about Jesus was totally dominated by the miracle claims - Jesus is almost inseparable from that. And the miracle stuff, although clearly believed at the time, is now known to be completely untrue. So there must be huge doubt about Jesus historicity just from that miracle setting alone.

However, at the other extreme - if the Jesus story were produced at a later date by people passing on stories about what they believed various long dead preachers had once said and done in the distant unspecified past, ie preachers who those story tellers had clearly never met seen or heard at all, as in fact appears to be the case with Jesus where all of the written evidence appears to arise from nothing more than devotional hearsay accounts, then clearly that is not evidence of a real Jesus in any sense at all.

Unfortunately for those who believe in a real historical Jesus, the latter scenario appears to be quite clearly the most likely case. That is - the gospels and Paul’s letters etc., are very clearly devotional religious writing from people whose lives were governed by extreme religious belief. But none of that writing ever talks about any of the authors ever meeting Jesus at all. And for all that is written there, it is far from clear when that Jesus figure was supposed to have actually lived and died …

… as far as those authors know, the figure of Jesus, if he even ever lived at all, might well have lived long long in the past, and over that passage of unknown time the story might well have been pieced together from claims about various religious leaders, both real and fictional.

The bottom line problem on the entire Jesus story is that it appears there is no good evidence of any real individual at all.

And against that, religious history is packed with examples of people claiming to witness all manner of impossible miracles, impossible miracle workers, apparitions, angels, devils and gods etc. IOW - accounts like this are just not remotely reliable in any sense at all.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks, HansMustermann!

http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/infan1a.htm

CHAPTER 13
1. A girl, whose blood Satan sucked, receives one of Christ's swaddling clothes from the Virgin. 13. Satan comes like a dragon, and she shows it to him; flames and burning coals proceed from it and fall upon him; 19. he is miraculously discomfited and leaves the girl.

1. There was also a girl who was afflicted by Satan;
2. For that cursed spirit frequently appeared to her in the shape of a dragon, and was inclined to swallow her up, and had so sucked out all her blood, that she looked like a dead carcass.

This is reminiscent of medieval tales. It is not said that her mother or anyone else witnessed what the girl saw, so it may have been hallucinations caused by psychotic episodes.

3. As often as she came to herself, with her hands wringed about her head she would cry out and say, Woe, Woe is me, that there is no one to be found who can deliver me from that impious dragon!
4. Her father and mother, and all who were about her and saw her, mourned and wept over her;
5. And all who were present would especially be under sorrow and in tears, when they heard her bewailing and saying, My brethren and friends, is there no one who can deliver me from this murderer?
6. Then the prince's daughter, who had been cured of her leprosy, hearing the complaint of that girl, went upon the top of her castle and saw her with her hands twisted about her head, pouring out a flood of tears, and all the people about her in sorrow.
7. Then she asked the husband of the possessed person whether his wife's mother was alive. He told her that her father and mother were both alive.
8. Then she ordered her mother to be sent to her, to whom, when she saw her coming, she said, Is this possessed girl your daughter? She moaning and bewailing said, Yes, madam, I bore her.
9. The prince's daughter answered, Disclose the secret of her case to me, for I confess to you that I was leprous, but the Lady Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, healed me.
10. And if you desire your daughter to be restored to her former state, take her to Bethlehem, and inquire for Mary the mother of Jesus, and doubt not but your daughter will be cured; for I do not question but you will come home with great joy at your daughter's recovery.
11. As soon she had done speaking, she arose and went with her daughter to the place appointed, and to Mary, and told her the case of her daughter.
12. When St. Mary had heard her story, she gave her a little of the water with which she had washed the body of her son Jesus and bade her pour it upon the body of her daughter.
13. Likewise she gave her one of the swaddling cloths of the Lord Jesus and said, Take this swaddling cloth and show it to your enemy as often as you see him; and she sent them away in peace.
14. [New paragraph in the oldest extant manuscripts] After they had left that city and returned home, and the time was come in which Satan was accustomed to seize her, in the same moment this cursed spirit appeared to her is the shape of a huge dragon and the girl saw him and was afraid.
15. The mother said to her, Be not afraid, daughter, but let him alone till he come nearer to you; then show him the swaddling cloth, which the Lady Mary gave us, and we shall see the event.
16. Satan then came like a dreadful dragon, and the body of the girl trembled for fear.
17. But as soon as she had put the swaddling cloth upon her head, and about her eyes, and showed it to him, presently there issued forth from the swaddling cloth flames and burning coals, and fell upon the dragon.
18. Oh! how great was this miracle which was done! As soon as the dragon saw the swaddling cloth of the Lord Jesus, fire went forth and was scattered upon his head and eyes so that he cried out with a loud voice, What have I to do with you, Jesus, son of Mary, Where shall I flee from you?
19. So he drew back much affrighted and left the girl.
20. She was delivered from this trouble, and she and all who were present at the working of the miracle sang praises and thanks to God.

There are other even stranger stories in this gospel.

... The two events in the life of Jesus that seem most likely to be historical was his baptism and his execution. ...

I'm not familiar with your reasoning here. Could you explain it or link to your previous posts on the subject?

 

[HansMustermann]

I have to agree with that.

As a historian, I tend to think that a historical Jesus is most probable. The details however tend to vary from probable, pass through unlikely and go to completely improbable, if not impossible.

I could go through the various arguments but I have done so at length before.

HansMustermann does make a number of good points, and I would agree that there is no real proof. However, it seems unlikely that the myths were just invented from nothing. Few cults (look at any of the modern cults) are ever invented by a group of people from their imagination, but usually come from a single source and get spun from there. The two events in the life of Jesus that seem most likely to be historical was his baptism and his execution. Some of the details are almost obviously later on additions, for example his birth, the temptation in the desert, the trial, etc.

Well, actually I'm not opposed to it being somehow triggered by some guy who had been recently crucified, and that Paul's psychosis turned into a messiah.

It's actually happened in documented cases too. E.g., David Reubeni, wasn't even a rabbi or actually ever claimed himself to be a messiah. He was actually a big time con-artist, sorta like a medieval Victor Lustig, except with twice the chutzpah. He scammed the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, no less, and managed to get great wealth and almost a whole fleet at one point, by pretending to represent some great Jewish kingdoms that were eager to help against the Muslims. He just didn't know when to quit, and when it dawned upon the Emperor that he's being scammed to his face, well, you can guess how that went from there. And he'd have remained remembered as just a con artist, except some time after his death, some schizophrenic 15 year old girl started having visions of him as the messiah sitting in heavens and making promises to those still on Earth and whatnot. And a whole cult of him started. (Though it being a very bad time to be a Jew in Spain or even most of Europe, it didn't really spread.)

So, sure, I can imagine that some guy got crucified in Palestine in the 1st century, a schizophrenic guy called Paul starts having visions and receiving messages from him, and a cult happens. I can't see any good reason why a verbatim prequel of Reubeni's messiahood couldn't be the case for Jesus too.

But that just serves to illustrate how little do we know about that guy, really. E.g., was he even a rabbi, or is even that a detail added later? Being a rabbi wasn't necessary for Reubeni, after all.

My point is not that you couldn't perhaps find a guy who caused it all. My contention is just with that guy being the historical Jesus. If none of the details of the Jesus character in the bible are taken from the crucified guy that Paul was hallucinating about, then I don't see how they're the same person.

I mean, as I said in the other thread, we know that Lovecraft based the name Abdul Al Hazred on his mom's maiden name, but does that make Lovecraft's mom the historical mad Arab? It seems to me like when a person and a literary character don't have much more in common than a name, then, no, Lovecraft's mom isn't the historical mad Arab.

 

[IanS]

Incidentally, I think it’s worth pointing out that even atheists and people who are just not interested in religion, usually grow up automatically accepting that the Jesus story is not in any doubt, and that Jesus certainly did live as a real person.

For example, although I have never believed in God or been remotely interested in religion, and in that sense could be described as a life-long atheist, until about 5 years ago when I first started reading threads like this on the Richard Dawkins forum, it had not occurred to me that the Jesus story was in any doubt.

That impression obviously arises because the Christian church, even today, never seems to admit or recognise or even mention, any doubts about the reality of Jesus. Instead, the church just encourages everyone to grow up taking absolutely for granted that there is no doubt at all that Jesus was a real person.

 

[RobDegraves]

My point is not that you couldn't perhaps find a guy who caused it all. My contention is just with that guy being the historical Jesus. If none of the details of the Jesus character in the bible are taken from the crucified guy that Paul was hallucinating about, then I don't see how they're the same person.

I mean, as I said in the other thread, we know that Lovecraft based the name Abdul Al Hazred on his mom's maiden name, but does that make Lovecraft's mom the historical mad Arab? It seems to me like when a person and a literary character don't have much more in common than a name, then, no, Lovecraft's mom isn't the historical mad Arab.

Interesting that you should pick that example. I am a big fan of Lovecraft... even attended a university course on American horror given by a prof who did his phd thesis on him, so of course it was mostly Lovecraft centered.


Anyhoo.. the big problem with identifying a historical Jesus is that it was 2000 (ish) years ago. Though we do have a good bit of info about Julius Caesar for example, the problem is that few people cared about Jesus until almost a century after his death. Those who did care, didn't write it down, or if they did it was lost in time. It was a Jewish cult, passed down orally for decades. There is almost no likelihood that any of the writers of the Gospels had actually witnessed any of the words or deeds of the actual Jesus. So.. there is no such thing as proof.

What we have left is textual analysis and probability. None of these will provide "proof" but they do indicate some probability of there having been a historical Jesus. Also, as I said, it's more common to have a single origin for a cult than multiple ones.

To add to this, if we accept that there might have been a historical Jesus, we can try to reconstruct what he said and did generally, again from textual analysis and historical context. Again, note that none of this can be certain. There are a number of themes that appear more often than others however, and if you compare those with what were current beliefs at the time you can see where the beliefs espoused by a theoretical Jesus depart from what was the cultural norm. Other events are more obviously tacked on and were more likely added on to please the current mood or area it was being preached to. It's quite a debate to get into the specifics however, and you are going to get a big argument from historians of different types as to which elements are more probable than others.

I find it amusing though, that most people who say with great conviction that they are Christians, have little to no idea of what that might mean. Most of the time, their beliefs have little in common with the general themes of the Christian mythos but base themselves more on the details. For example, they focus on what is considered sin, but seem to forget all about forgiveness and "judge not", etc.

BTW... keep in mind that I'm a medieval historian (MA). Biblical studies are included but I am hardly an expert.

 

[HansMustermann]

There are other even stranger stories in this gospel.

Well, the non-canon gospels are a gold mine of weird stories. You find a baby Jesus subduing dragons (how bad-ass is that?), a teenage Jesus turning clay birds into real birds (now that out to liven up a clay pigeon shooting), or forget fig trees, he curses a boy to wither and die for just bumping into him or another for annoying Jesus by splashing in puddles, etc.

Though if you think about it, most of that stuff isn't really more weird than some of the canon stuff. We just grew up with the standard ones. Otherwise stuff Jesus legging it over a stormy sea, apparently just to show that he can win against the rowing disciples even after giving them a head start, would probably sound weird too.

 

[laca]

Suppose that the true story of Jesus was that of a Jewish apocalyptic preacher in 1st century Palestine who angered the religious establishment and eventually became crucified under the supervision of Pontius Pilate.

If it could be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that this was in fact what gave rise to the Jesus story and eventually Christianity, would it count as the "historical Jesus"? I think it would be most uncharitable not to, as it is essentially what the Gospels tell, except for there being no miracles and supernatural mumbo-jumbo. And it really wouldn't be a particularly odd series of events (except for the crucifixion part), because there were plenty of Jewish Messiah claimants during this time. The whole idea of a Messiah is really rather childish, as it is basically the idea that one guy will fix all your problems.

Suppose instead that the Jesus-as-rebel hypothesis is true. That is, the idea that Jesus was really a rebel/bandit/revolutionary (who could well have claimed to be the Messiah as such, like Simon bar Kokhba) who was crucified by the Romans, and the legends then remade him into a Messiah who preached peace. Would this be a close enough fit to talk about a historical Jesus?

What if the Jesus story sprung from the lives of several individuals whose life stories eventually merged into one story (plus the mythological stuff)? If that is the case, would it then be reasonable to talk about a historical Jesus?

In other words, how close to the Bible story would a historical individual's life have to be to be considered a (or the) historical Jesus?

It all boils down to the miracles. Without it, you've got at most a delusional bloke who got his ass kicked because he messed with the wrong people. Lots of those in the course of history, nothing to get too excited about. Without the miracles Jesus is not Son of God. End of story.

 

[pgwenthold]

Trying to answer Humes Fork original question directly -

- firstly, if a single individual preacher actually could be identified, and well confirmed, as fulfilling the basic requirements of the Jesus figure,

But that just begs the question of what those "basic requirements" of the Jesus figure really are.

As Hans describes above, the gospels themselves give a completely ambiguous picture of what we are even looking for.

As I've described before, if you look at very basic requirements, you can find a "historical Dorothy" from the Wizard of Oz. Frank Baum's niece fits the bill - little girl, named Dorothy, lived in Kansas, had an Aunt "M". Those are the basic requirements of the Dorothy figure. Is that sufficient to claim that Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz was a real person?

Note that the question of this thread is not whether there was or was not a historical Jesus, but what are the requirements someone would need to fulfill to be good enough to satisfy being called a historical Jesus?

 

[Steve]

But that just begs the question of what those "basic requirements" of the Jesus figure really are.

As Hans describes above, the gospels themselves give a completely ambiguous picture of what we are even looking for.

As I've described before, if you look at very basic requirements, you can find a "historical Dorothy" from the Wizard of Oz. Frank Baum's niece fits the bill - little girl, named Dorothy, lived in Kansas, had an Aunt "M". Those are the basic requirements of the Dorothy figure. Is that sufficient to claim that Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz was a real person?

Note that the question of this thread is not whether there was or was not a historical Jesus, but what are the requirements someone would need to fulfill to be good enough to satisfy being called a historical Jesus?

That would be Aunt Em, as in Emily. James Bond's boss did not appear in The Wizard of Oz.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Well, way I see it -- and please point out if this premise is wrong -- it's sorta like this: if I were to go into my super-villain lair and hop into my time machine,

Two things:

- I am jealous of your lair. Mine doesn't have a time machine! Is yours in a volcano though?

- The rest of the post is pure genius. I love it!

 

[pgwenthold]

That would be Aunt Em, as in Emily. James Bond's boss did not appear in The Wizard of Oz.

Sure, he used the name Em in the book, but that's just a version of M. I don't remember her being called Emily at any point in any of the books.

But that's quibbles. As Hans noted, Jesus wasn't necessarily his name, but just a derivative of Joshua.

 

[Rougarou]

I consider this a poor argument and a classic example of argument from authority/popularity fallacy.

Frankly I find Ehrman's new book on the subject, Dis Jesus Exist?, to be very poor stuff, certainly his worst book. He seems desperate to support his thesis and resorts to dubious arguments. Carrier has a detailed critique here including Ehrman's unfortunately numerous factual errors. Ehrman's accusations of mendacity against Earl Doherty are covered here.
When D. M. Murdock corrects you on matters of fact you should be worried......

I agree that appeal to authority is a weak argument. But my post was not meant as an argument (It offers no position on the thread topic.), but as an interesting aside. If the Bible is not a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus, the position Erhman held in the debate I linked to, what other reliable evidence does he have? If I remember correctly, he hinted that there were some reasons for accepting the historical Jesus, but didn't go into them.

 

[Rougarou]

Obviously, it can be read that way too, or the church would have had a problem very early. However, my point is that it can also be read as having gotten the name Jesus.

I mean, it being poetry, I'm not going to insist that it can ONLY be read literally. But just saying that a literal reading would say that he got the name Jesus.

Especially since if you look at the Greek version, it literally says he got the "onoma", i.e., "name", and it's the same word used in "the name of Jesus" in the next verse. And actually in a bunch of places.

It does seem to be used figuratively about the same way as "name" in English or "nomen" in Latin. E.g., we see the same word used in constructs like "in the name of" (i.e., on the authority of) and such. Basically the obvious use of "name". But there is nothing to stop you as reading it as just "he got the name", far as I can see.

Sure.

For my part, since I think much of the Bible was not meant to be taken literally, I would feel I was being disingenuous if I used an overly literal interpretation of a passage in criticizing the it. An extreme example would be to take a literal stance on the parables, calling Jesus a lunatic or liar for talking about camels passing through the eyes of needles. It's an extreme example because the Bible explicitly describes this as a parable.

But there are other areas that aren't explicitly labeled metaphor or fable that I would expect a reasonably literate person not to take as literal. Only if someone were to claim these as literal events (e.g. manna from heaven or the serpent in the garden of eden) would I consider it fair to call them on it.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, we could discuss literal vs non-literal too, but that wasn't the point here. In fact, the point wasn't even related to how you justify believing something.

The point was how sure we can be of certain details, when we reconstruct a historical Jesus. You know, from the viewpoint of reconstructing history, not from the viewpoint of "you can't disprove my religion."

Basically, when there are explanations A, B and C for what a text means, if all you want is to justify faith, you can pick C for no other reason than that that's what you want to believe, or that's what some church father wanted to believe. Or even go full tilt non-literalist and pick D, regardless of what the text actually says. But when you reconstruct history, you have to look at which of them corroborates with other evidence, and if none, note that we don't really know which of them actually happened.

Basically, think of, dunno, the date of Christmas. If you just want to believe it's December 25, then sure, nobody can prove that those 3'rd century guys were wrong when speculating about how the world must have been created on a spring equinox just because it's such an awesome time, and Jesus must have been conceived AND executed on the exact anniversary of that, just because it would be awesome for God to do that on that date, and all. But if you want to reconstruct what is a date that can be supported with facts and data, not faith, then the honest thing to do is note that nobody had a frikken clue when Jesus was born and it's all an ass pull.

Ditto about that poem. If you just want to keep your church's dogma, sure, there is one interpretation which is consistent with it. But if I'm to try to play historian and find a historical Jesus, there is no way around noting that there's also an interpretation that says otherwise AND is in fact just about the only thing from the NT that can be corroborated (weakly) with non-biblical sources. We see in some of the Qumran documents that a bunch of people were expecting someone to be the messiah (Christ) who is essentially the second Joshua (Jesus), and that some people tried to be that Jesus Christ without actually being named Jesus.

 

[HansMustermann]

But really, here's a simpler "solution", if you think being a non-literalist means you can believe whatever interpretation you wish and nobody can attack it: basically I'm a non-literalist too.

In fact, for example, I believe that the whole Gospel Of Mark was a metaphorical document. I believe that Mark was writing an extended allegory, and quite possibly the sub-sect he was writing for would understand that. E.g., he's not actually claiming as a historical fact that a small lake in a valley could have a storm with such waves that it's a real threat to a boat that can hold 13 people, but is writing a symbolic parallel to Jonah. E.g., he's not saying that historically someone ruined an incredibly expensive solid purple cloak just to mock a freshly scourged prisoner -- and break the law in the process because it's something reserved for the gods, the Emperor, and the person acting in the emperor's stead on a couple of formal occasions -- but a metaphor for Jesus being the king of kings. E.g., he doesn't mean that there was actually a trial where people got to choose between Jesus The Messiah and Jesus The Son Of The Father, but is an allegory for why that sacrifice removes sin. E.g., he doesn't mean that Jesus was actually crucified in a way that would turn him into a tropaeum, but it's another piece of symbolism. E.g., he doesn't actually mean that historically Jesus multiplied bread and fish like a Star Trek replicator, but is part of an allegory nested in other allegories, about how discarding the Jews' dietary laws can help feed more people both in Judaea and abroad. Etc.

Surely if you think that it's ok to pick something as non-literal, and that makes it above any scrutiny or analysis, you have no problem with that, right?

Plus, even about that poem in Philippians, I'm just being non-literalist about the guy's being called Jesus Christ. So that makes it ok, right?

 

[Brainache]

I agree that appeal to authority is a weak argument. But my post was not meant as an argument (It offers no position on the thread topic.), but as an interesting aside. If the Bible is not a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus, the position Erhman held in the debate I linked to, what other reliable evidence does he have? If I remember correctly, he hinted that there were some reasons for accepting the historical Jesus, but didn't go into them.

From the reading I've done on the subject, most of the Historical Jesus stuff relates to textual analysis like Rob DeGraves said earlier.

There are things like Paul writing about the Disciples running the Jesus show in Jerusalem. He has disputes with them over circumcision and what food to eat, but not about the existence of Jesus.

There is the fact that the Jews who denied Jesus was the messiah, never denied that he was a flesh and blood human. They never claimed that he was just invented.

There is the business with having to invent an improbable nativity story to explain why this bloke that everyone knows is from Galilee, is in fact the prophesied Messiah from Bethlehem. Who was the bloke from Galilee, if the messiah is supposed to be from Bethlehem? Oh... his parents were passing through there on business... (I'll buy that for a sheckel!)

There is also something called Kerygma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerygma
Which apparently shows signs that some of the sayings attributed to Jesus were originally Aramaic, not Greek.

There is other stuff, but it never adds up to 100% certainty.

 

[JJM 777]

> What counts as a historical Jesus?

Um, his special presence in the world since 1914? It is not only historical, but indeed daily and continual !

For further information, contact your local Watchtower organization.

 

[Rougarou]

But really, here's a simpler "solution", if you think being a non-literalist means you can believe whatever interpretation you wish and nobody can attack it: basically I'm a non-literalist too.

In fact, for example, I believe that the whole Gospel Of Mark was a metaphorical document. I believe that Mark was writing an extended allegory, and quite possibly the sub-sect he was writing for would understand that. E.g., he's not actually claiming as a historical fact that a small lake in a valley could have a storm with such waves that it's a real threat to a boat that can hold 13 people, but is writing a symbolic parallel to Jonah. E.g., he's not saying that historically someone ruined an incredibly expensive solid purple cloak just to mock a freshly scourged prisoner -- and break the law in the process because it's something reserved for the gods, the Emperor, and the person acting in the emperor's stead on a couple of formal occasions -- but a metaphor for Jesus being the king of kings. E.g., he doesn't mean that there was actually a trial where people got to choose between Jesus The Messiah and Jesus The Son Of The Father, but is an allegory for why that sacrifice removes sin. E.g., he doesn't mean that Jesus was actually crucified in a way that would turn him into a tropaeum, but it's another piece of symbolism. E.g., he doesn't actually mean that historically Jesus multiplied bread and fish like a Star Trek replicator, but is part of an allegory nested in other allegories, about how discarding the Jews' dietary laws can help feed more people both in Judaea and abroad. Etc.

Surely if you think that it's ok to pick something as non-literal, and that makes it above any scrutiny or analysis, you have no problem with that, right?

Plus, even about that poem in Philippians, I'm just being non-literalist about the guy's being called Jesus Christ. So that makes it ok, right?

I'm glad I read #35 before finishing my response to #34 because I thought we understood each other, but now I think we don't.

I'm only advocating being fair and reasonable when criticizing the Bible because it makes for a stronger argument. Now that I think about it, I guess I'm saying be careful of making strawmen. Every time I hear someone say "If evolution is true, how could something complex like an eye form in one mutation," I'm annoyed because that's not what the theory predicts at all. So I try not to make that same mistake.

Since I read your Philippian's passage as meaning "reputation", it would be unfair of me to pretend to take it literally for the sake of criticizing. If you genuinely feel you have a valid point and are not just nitpicking for the sake of piling on, then fair enough.

 

[Rougarou]

For me, finding the historical Jesus in the Bible means seeing how much of it could make sense if you assume the supernatural does not exist.

 

[Brainache]

I guess in terms of the OP what would qualify as an HJ for me is a 1st Century fundamentalist Jewish Preacher who was opposed to the Temple as it was run under the Roman puppets, who was associated somehow with John The Baptist and got himself nailed up by the bloody Romans.

I'm not sure if anyone actually fits the description. I don't think it would make much difference now either way.