Historical Jesus

[pgwenthold]

In fact you can apply all those tests to a number of mytho-historical characters such as King Arthur, Robin Hood, Dr Syn (The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh), and William Tell... and they all come up with results that show them and their stories to be as real as the HJ stories.

Yeah, and in those cases, no one objects to the idea that they are all just legends. Fictional stories created around a real person.

The story of Jesus in the bible is not history, it's legend.

 

[pgwenthold]

No, and that's why they call him the historical Jesus.

It's like if you found out that King Arthur had a real-life inspiration who was a Roman soldier and never had a sword called Excalibur or a friend called Lancelot. He's still the inspiration for the stories.

Yeah, but that's not history, it's legend.

As I said, there literally was a girl in Kansas who had an Aunt Em who was inspiration for the character in the Wizard of Oz stories.

Would you call her the "Historical Dorothy"? Would you say, "You must believe she existed" as is the opening post in this thread.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That's a claim, but do you have evidence that they can't or don't leave their faith at the door? Other than the fact that they disagree with you on the existence of a Jesus, that is.

I can see the objection, actually. Christianity does not directly require specific beliefs about physics; just about any construction of the laws of physics can be, and has been, reconciled with Christian belief. On the other hand, a belief in the existence of Jesus is what defines a Christian. How one could find that Jesus did not exist and remain a Christian is somewhat beyond me. So it seems to me that the agreement of Christian historians that a historical Jesus existed has very weak evidential bearing on whether a historical Jesus existed in reality; it would be expected to be the case whether one did or did not.

What I'd be interested to know is, are there any instances of historians finding that there is no compelling evidence of a historical Jesus and losing their Christian faith as a result?

Dave

 

[pgwenthold]

I can see the objection, actually. Christianity does not directly require specific beliefs about physics; just about any construction of the laws of physics can be, and has been, reconciled with Christian belief. On the other hand, a belief in the existence of Jesus is what defines a Christian. How one could find that Jesus did not exist and remain a Christian is somewhat beyond me.

To be fair, as I have pointed out, even this whole "consensus of [Christian] scholars" who agree that there was a historical Jesus also agree to nearly the same level of consensus that all the miracle claims are baseless.

 

[David Mo]

The discussion about the mere existence of Jesus the Galilee does not make much sense. You may write comments and comments without going anywhere. What is at the heart of the discussion is whether any of the facts or sayings attributed to him can be authentic. Beginning with death at the hands of the Romans, which seems to me to be the most plausible event of those attributed to it. I say that for the criterion of difficulty.

It is not impossible, but it is quite rare for a group of Jews to invent a demigod crucified in an ignominious way. I find it more plausible that they were disciples of an executed leader and some of them jumped forward fleeing from reality (cognitive dissonance)

 

[pgwenthold]

The discussion about the mere existence of Jesus the Galilee does not make much sense. You may write comments and comments without going anywhere. What is at the heart of the discussion is whether any of the facts or sayings attributed to him can be authentic. Beginning with death at the hands of the Romans, which seems to me to be the most plausible event of those attributed to it. I say that for the criterion of difficulty.

I don't. Jesus of the Bible and Christian religion wasn't just a rabbi who got whacked by the Romans. Shoot, at that point, he's nothing but David Koresh.

You want to have a discussion of Jesus, the person at the basis of the Christian religion, you need to establish things that matter. Miracles, son of God stuff, rising from the dead, that kind of stuff.

Christians claim that everything they say is justified because of the empty tomb. They start there, I say we start there.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, but that's not history, it's legend.

Yeah but based on a historical Arthur. Same here.

As I said, there literally was a girl in Kansas who had an Aunt Em who was inspiration for the character in the Wizard of Oz stories.

Would you call her the "Historical Dorothy"?

Is it really just the term that bugs you? Ok let's call him the Jesus Inspiration, then.

 

[David Mo]

I get that idea because none of them are out there disagreeing with the HJ. If there was a more plausible explanation for the social and religious movement that didn't involve a HJ, then that is what those Historians would be telling us.

This is just speculation. The historical Jesus is not a subject of ancient world history. I have seen a popular academic collection of books dedicated to Ancient History. None for the Historical Jesus. I have seen the archives of two of the major academic journals of Ancient History in my country. Not a single one dedicated to the Historical Jesus.

This is a subject for religions and theologies, not for history. That's why historians don't bother talking about it.

 

[David Mo]

You want to have a discussion of Jesus, the person at the basis of the Christian religion, you need to establish things that matter. Miracles, son of God stuff, rising from the dead, that kind of stuff.

Perhaps you can do without miracles, as some liberal theologians do, but you must at least keep the sayings. And that is no longer as easy as maintaining the fact of crucifixion (if this is).

 

[David Mo]

Yeah but based on a historical Arthur. Same here.



Is it really just the term that bugs you? Ok let's call him the Jesus Inspiration, then.

And how important is it for history that there should be a certain Arthur if he did nothing of what the legend attributes to him? Mere anecdote.

 

[Belz...]

And how important is it for history that there should be a certain Arthur if he did nothing of what the legend attributes to him? Mere anecdote.

You don't think it'd be important to be able to uncover the life of this guy even if he didn't correspond much to the legend? I think it would be even more interesting and important to do so. Same for Jesus. If he's exactly as described, fine. But if he's significantly different, even better!

I get the impression that the objection to the HJ is purely on the ground that it would give legitimacy to Christianity. It wouldn't, really. And even if it did, that has no relevance to the discussion.

 

[IanS]

That's a claim, but do you have evidence that they can't or don't leave their faith at the door? Other than the fact that they disagree with you on the existence of a Jesus, that is.

Sure - evidence that they do not leave that prior faith belief at the door when they become lecturers in biblical studies, is that 99.9% of them (or whatever the precise percentage is) continue to proclaim the same religious belief in Jesus after they become lecturers in that subject of biblical beliefs. That's clear evidence (actually it looks like "proof") that they most definitely did not leave their prior Jesus faith at the door.

Keep in mind that 99.9% (or whatever the number) do not just maintain a belief that Jesus was a real person. What that 99.9% continue to believe is the Christian faith that God & Jesus are real, and that the bible contains clear proof that their Chrsitian faith is justified.

Bart Ehrman is an exception to that in the following sense – whilst he is (afaik) someone who would have to agree that he certainly did not leave his Christian faith at the door, because afaik he continued to be a practising Christian for decades after becoming a Bible Studies teacher, he eventually lost most if not all of that religious faith so that today he says he is now agnostic or atheist … however, Ehrman is someone who disagrees with most of his Biblical Studies colleagues in so far as Ehrman is strongly of the opinion that most of what is usually claimed to be good evidence from the biblical writing, is in fact (he now accepts) very weak & poor as evidence of Jesus. According to Ehrman, whereas he once believed that large swathes of the gospels and letters were indeed absolutely solid and vital evidence, he now thinks only a few specific lines in the letters of Paul are convincing to him as evidence of Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

Sure - evidence that they do not leave that prior faith belief at the door when they become lecturers in biblical studies, is that 99.9% of them (or whatever the precise percentage is) continue to proclaim the same religious belief in Jesus after they become lecturers in that subject of biblical beliefs. That's clear evidence (actually it looks like "proof") that they most definitely did not leave their prior Jesus faith at the door.

No it isn't.

But that doesn't matter. You're several steps removed from that. Not only do you not have evidence for whether these historians to begin with, you don't have evidence to back up your claim that their motivations are questionable, nor do you have a claim for your made-up percentages.

Only once you've cleared those three hurdles can you then state what I quoted above, and only then is it even worth discussing.

You're just assuming your conclusion.

 

[Cheetah]

From Wikipedia, Historicity of Jesus:

The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain, although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah but Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable when it disagrees with me.

 

[David Mo]

You don't think it'd be important to be able to uncover the life of this guy even if he didn't correspond much to the legend? I think it would be even more interesting and important to do so. Same for Jesus. If he's exactly as described, fine. But if he's significantly different, even better!

I get the impression that the objection to the HJ is purely on the ground that it would give legitimacy to Christianity. It wouldn't, really. And even if it did, that has no relevance to the discussion.

The only thing that could be of interest would be the link between Arthur's actual facts and the legend. Not mere knowledge of his existence. But I think that would be impossible in the case of Jesus the Galilean. To establish the real facts of a character who went unnoticed by the historians of his time -none of the so-called testimonies is really a testimony that serves as a historical document-, who dragged at most a handful of peasants, seems to me almost impossible.

For the Christians to remain in the existence of a certain Jesus of whom nothing can be known seems to be of little use to them. That's why they immediately try to justify what the gospels say. Mission impossible.

 

[David Mo]

From Wikipedia, Historicity of Jesus:

"Near East historians" is the classical Wikipedia blunder. Near East historians go from the topic. I have already given three examples to prove it. Note that the bibliography in the Wikipedia article does not mention Middle Eastern historians, but "experts" in the Historical Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

The only thing that could be of interest would be the link between Arthur's actual facts and the legend. Not mere knowledge of his existence.

...why not? Knowledge of an important historical character is fascinating in and of itself.

But I think that would be impossible in the case of Jesus the Galilean.

Yeah but let's assume for a moment that we find some archive dating from the time that confirms a few mundane details about someone clearly identifiable as Jesus. Would that not be an important find, regardless of how different he turns out to be from the Jesus in the Gospels?

 

[Darat]

Yeah, but that's not history, it's legend.



As I said, there literally was a girl in Kansas who had an Aunt Em who was inspiration for the character in the Wizard of Oz stories.



Would you call her the "Historical Dorothy"? Would you say, "You must believe she existed" as is the opening post in this thread.

This is one of the major issues I have with the claims that a historical Jesus existed. We know with absolute certainty that the Jesus in the Christian texts did not exist. So who are we claiming actually existed?

 

[TragicMonkey]

This is one of the major issues I have with the claims that a historical Jesus existed. We know with absolute certainty that the Jesus in the Christian texts did not exist. So who are we claiming actually existed?

Some guy.