Take that up with Piggy. For my part, when asked for sources for my own statements, I strive to provide them.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
What counts as a historical Jesus?
- Thread starter Humes fork
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus
- Status
BZZZ WRONG.
The subject of this thread is as follows:
"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?" (Humes fork)
All the dancing around the maypole has avoided the real subject of this thread; where on the huge historical spectrum outlined by Remsburg would qualify as evidence for a HJ?
Last edited:
davefoc
Philosopher
I believe IanS post just stated what the thread had been about, not what it might have been about if the subject matter had been more tightly constrained by the title of the thread.
It is interesting that we have managed to spend all this time discussing whether an HJ existed without ever agreeing on a definition of HJ but I continue to believe that there is something of an unexpressed consensus on that (of which Maximara may not be a member). If I'm wrong about that we can really get that discussion going in earnest when from out of the blue some unequivocal evidence surfaces which provides precise details about the fellow(s) that served as the seed character for Christianity and whether the characteristics of this fellow(s) meets the criteria required of an HJ.
Last edited:
Ramblings about the realism of the crucifixion...not evidence.
Rambling non sequitur comparison with creationism (which requires rejection of multiple physical sciences)...again not evidence.
Nonsense about claimed eyewitness account (how many eyewitnesses have seen famous long after they died? Never mind that scientific studies have shown eyewitnesses to be the worse references...especially if time has passes and question by people with agendas) ...again not evidence.
Argument assumes perfect understanding of history by Christian scribes...a point quickly disproved by Irenaeusc 180 CE who when he wasn't trying to shove a 50+ year old Jesus into what at best was a 42 year span (Against Heresies 2:22:4) was claiming Jesus was crucified no earlier then 42 CE (Demonstration (74)) Top that off with the metaphysical nonsense Epiphanius was spouting about Jesus being "born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Alexander" (ie c 100 BCE) all the while putting Jesus in the 1st century CE drop kicks this point in the head, forces it to watch a 24 hour Barney marathon, buries it, and then dances on the remains for an hour.
It is painfully clear that even Christians scholars close to the events only had the vaguest idea of when various rulers reigned
In can understand Binford who needs to relearn the introductory paragraph but this...I have no idea what I just read.
"We can reconstruct Paul as having converted (in his own words, at least) in around AD 34." Except the synonymic Gospels clearly have Jesus still preaching after the beheading of the John the Baptist...which Josephus puts in 36 CE. So Paul sees a risen Jesus two years BEFORE Jesus was Crucified.
Yeh, that works if you avoid a little thing called LOGIC. 
TimONeill2's points would be useful if he would point to at least one scholarly agreement with his point. What we get looks like the short of stuff Berlitz put in his Bermuda Triangle books...and about as useful.
Last edited:
That would be HJ.
Perhaps. A rebel Jesus is a possibility explored by more than one author, importantly Hyam Maccoby. But such authors are willing to assume that at least some of the preaching is authentic.
No, not an HJ. That's Robin Hood.
davefoc
Philosopher
I just picked one of the links at random and took a look at it. In my opinion, this was one of the best moments for this thread. grahbudd put forth a pretty good cut at a case that it is possible to derive truth out of the Gospels with clever analysis of nothing except the biblical description(s) of the incident. HM went on to describe in nice detail why this approach doesn't work. Several others made well thought out responses to grahbudd's posts as well through the course of those exchanges.
What I didn't notice was any response by Stone to any of the posts made by the people responding to grahbudd's post. Did Stone think about HM's responses? Did Stone find anything the HM got right in his responses to grahbudd?
What does Stone think about grahbudd's claim that it is possible to determine the truth of what actually happened in the incident described starting in Mark 3? The passage claims that Jesus healed this guy's hand but he did it on the sabbath and the pharisees got so pissed off about somebody miraculously healing a hand on the Sabbath that they immediately plotted how to get Jesus killed. According to grahbudd these passages represent a real event and one can determine the details of that real event if one carefully analyzes those passages and teases out the truth.
Do you agree with that Stone? What techniques do you think can be used to determine with nothing else available but that passage what the real events are that were described by that passage?
Last edited:
As I pointed out before, that’s not really an eye witness in any true sense though, is it?
If as most people think, the “witness” is supposed to be the disciple John himself, then all that the anonymous author of the gospel is saying is that John, like all the other disciples who accompanied Jesus all over the place, saw and heard Jesus do all the things that Jesus is ever supposed to have said and done. And in this particular incident the author says that John witnessed the crucifixion where Jesus was stabbed with Roman spears etc. See the quote below from John 19:31-37.
But that is very obviously not an eye-witness account being re-told by the author of the gospel. Instead that is simply the anonymous author imploring the faithful to believe that the disciple John was a witness to Jesus on the cross. It’s even what the anonymous authors thinks had to be the case according to fulfilment of OT scripture for heavens sake! See the quote below.
That’s the same thing which fills all of the gospels. The anonymous authors say that disciples Mark, Mathew, Luke, John and others all saw and heard Jesus doing all the things that Jesus ever did, inc. verbatim reports of precisely what Jesus said in every incident. But those are emphatically not eye witness accounts being relayed by anonymous gospel writers who had just interviewed real living eye witnesses … the author of g-John was not interviewing John, was he! …
... none of the gospel authors were interviewing and reporting descriptions form real living eye witnesses, were they. For a start, apart from some small fragments believed to be from as early as around the end of the 1st century, the earliest readable and relatively complete copies from which detail such as this can be reliably read, come from the 4th century and later (though some say there is a copy of g-John which may date to the 3rd century)
http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/john1931.htm
Scripture: John 19:31-37
31 Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him; 33 but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness -- his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth -- that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, "Not a bone of him shall be broken." 37 And again another scripture says, "They shall look on him whom they have pierced."
Last edited:
And have I read the book by Hodge. Well, have i? Another very simple question, isn't it? Yes or no? Most regrettably, you are verging on unpleasantness with that peremptory tone. If you won't justify your characterisation of the Essenes, in the pages where you made it, that's entirely up to you.
Yes, instead of saying it's "what the thread is about", I probably should have said it’s "what the thread has become about".
We know the original question was what counts as a HJ. But in this subject I think it was always inevitably going to shift very quickly to the question of whether Jesus actually existed. Because apart from anything else, it's rather obvious that the original question is null & void if in fact there is no evidence of Jesus ever really existing.
But I don’t think Max was seriously disagreeing. He just wants to keep the discussion constrained on what he sees as the right lines.
But Robin Hood supposedly has a historical core. More over unlike Jesus there are possible contemporary accounts (going back to 1228 ie well before "King Edward" of 1272) naming "Robinhood" (or some variant spelling)
Remember that the Jesus Seminar while saying there was a HJ also threw out some 80% of the Gospels ie they basically said the Gospels Jesus was a composite character with a historical core...much like what you see with Robin Hood!
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Thanks for that, Stone.
I read all the links and what I come away with is that the best evidence for an actual HJ is the Josephus reference to James, brother of the Anointed.
Is that it, or have I missed something?
I deny that there is historical core to Robin Hood in the sense of a definable historical person. If the "historical core" of Jesus includes that he was baptised, undertook preaching and healing expeditions and was executed by the historical Pilate, then there was an HJ. If there were various Jesuses and others kicking about Judaea and Galilee between the days of Janneus and Hadrian, and the Jesus stories are vague composites decorated with an entirely fictitious account of baptism by John and execution by Pilate, then there was no Historical Jesus.
Right and as I have repeatedly shown what "historical" and "Christ Myth theory" (supposedly the antithesis of the historical Jesus position) are all over the flipping map in terms of definitions to the point there doesn't seem to be any really difference when you get to the middle ground between them.
We can all agree that George Washington, Davy Crockett, and Jesse James were historical people.
We can also agree that the stories of the Cherry Tree, Frozen Down, and Widow are "piece(s) of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."
Yet if we are told that "(the Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (ed) (1982/1995) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Page 1034)
We know that some of old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes were historical myth ie per Strauss "a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false."
That last part much scare the HJ crowd silly.
Belz...
Fiend God
It amazes me what passes as evidence in historical research, assuming we believe Stone and Piggy. If this is how they determine history, I think much of what we think we know is up in the air.
Belz...
Fiend God
I think it was very clear earlier that there are two "levels" of HJ: one somewhat close to the Gospel accounts, and one very far. The second is semi-mythical, I guess, while a third (non-existent), is fully mythical.
I mean, there's more than HJ/MJ here. And in all cases, we don't have a clue which is true.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
IanS
davefoc
Unfortunately, it is not possible in general to determine the truth of a contradiction-free contingent report solely from the report itself. That is engineering, not religion. I can't say, therefore, whether or not there is any truth to the story, only that it needn't be supernatural.
As you say, you made this point earlier.
I made no such argument. In particular, I stated disagreement with
The text doesn't say that, in my view. The text does say that the Fourth Evangelist has a witness for two incidents. Maybe other readers have teased out more than I have. If so, and you disagree, then you need to speak with them.
I am unsure why you observe this repeatedly. It is obvious and uncontroversial. Placing people at the scene isn't a claim that anything said or wtitten by them informed the reporter.
davefoc
I agree with grahbudd that the sabbath-healing as it appears in Mark 3 is not a miracle story. On the contrary, Jesus and his critics apparently agree that what happened could have happened any other day. Jesus claims to have done a good thing, a defense that would apply to any healer, not anything divine. The pericope screams "This is business as usual," IMO. It emphasizes Jesus' teaching authority, without exaggerating his medical skills.
Unfortunately, it is not possible in general to determine the truth of a contradiction-free contingent report solely from the report itself. That is engineering, not religion. I can't say, therefore, whether or not there is any truth to the story, only that it needn't be supernatural.
OK, you disagree that the “beloved disciple” is supposed to be John himself. But is it not true that many academic authors do think this witness is supposed to be the disciple John himself?
However, if on the other hand this witness is supposed to some unknown person, then I think that is inadmissible as a credible claim of an “eye-witness. For example, if this were a testimony being judged in a court and a witness claimed that he knew of another person who he said was an eye-witness to events, the judge and the lawyers would certainly demand to know who this claimed witness was supposed to be. If the eye witness is never named and the claimant stays dumb on the issue, then the judge would certainly rule that testimony inadmissible and tell the jury to disregard it … because, as evidence, a claim like that is worthless …
… and in this case of devotional gospel writing coming some centuries after the claimed crucifixion, in a 4th gospel which I believe is widely regarded as even more fanciful and fictional than the 3 synoptics, that unreliability is only compounded even further.
I am not talking specifically about what the text of g-John says. I’m pointing out that all the gospels are filled from end to end with descriptions of named individuals who are presented as having personally witnessed everything Jesus ever said and did, even including verbatim accounts of everything he ever said! According to the gospels, all the disciples were eye-witness to all of it. But nobody today thinks those are truly eye-witness accounts being re-told by the anonymous gospel authors.
The story in g-John is in exactly the same category. The author says that some unknown person told the truth when imploring the faithful to believe that he had witnessed Jesus on the cross.
Sorry, but I am not following you there. You say “Placing people at the scene isn't a claim that anything said or written by them informed the reporter.” This author of g-John places an unknown witness at the crucifixion scene … and you are now saying that “isn't a claim that anything said by the witness informed the reporter.”?? Is this supposed to be an eye-witness claimed to have informed the writer of g-John, or not?
Last edited:
True but that was also provided by Marshall:
"We have in effect been looking at two myths in this introductory chapter; two views of the historical Jesus which stand at opposite ends of the spectrum ... At the one end is the view that there was never such a person as Jesus; the Gospels are descriptions of a fictitious person. We have no hesitation in declaring that this view of Jesus is false ... At the other end of the spectrum is the view that the Gospels give us a picture of the historical Jesus, every detail in the Gospels being recorded just as it happened. (Marshall, I. Howard (2004) I Believe In The Historical Jesus)
Back in 1909 Remsburg put the three ways Jesus could be historical:
"1. Orthodox Christians believe that Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth.
2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan, and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.
3. Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit."
Last edited:
Sorry Craig, but you can't play Humpty Dumpty and say words mean what you say they mean.
I. Howard Marshall in his 2004 I Believe In The Historical Jesus stated that the Historical Jesus is a huge spectrum. Remsburg, Baker, and Boyd-Eddy have all taking various stabs as what the colors (ie categories) in that spectrum are and even within historical there is a huge range.
"Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit." (Remsburg)
There is just enough to show there was a first century teacher called Jesus and little else. (Boyd-Eddy)
"Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." (Barker)
Please note that these definitions fit the definition of "Christ Myth theory" given in Bromiley's 1982 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J even thought these three authors were clearly putting them in the historical Jesus category.
Also why would a historical Jesus need to be baptized and undertake preaching and healing expeditions? If as some people say Jesus was in reality an obscure nobody in his own time then these two points can be dismissed as efforts to make him more important.
- Status