What counts as a historical Jesus?

[grahbudd]

That's why, for example, IanS's favourite source Wikipedia has this to say about JM's use of gospel material (referring to Koester, who has an analysis of the method of harmony where used as well):

Justin uses material from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in the composition of the First Apology and the Dialogue, either directly, as in the case of Matthew,[33] or indirectly through the use of a gospel harmony, which may have been composed by Justin or his school

 

[grahbudd]

Why, then, if he is quoting from them, doesn't JM name the gospels (apart from the reference to the memoirs of Peter (= Mark)? I think this does tell us something.

First off, it's pretty clear that in the middle years of the second century when he was writing, there was no rigid concept of the NT. now it's true that the content of the OT was also pretty fluid, but at least the books in it were seen as authoritative - its not at all clear that JM regards his memoirs as being so, useful as they are. It's not true, incidentally,
that Justin always quotes the OT exactly, although the pattern is complex. Furthermore, given their apparently changing status in the Christian community (cf what Irenaeus has to say) that they would be of interest to his Roman audience. Doubtlessly oral tradition and liturgy happily coexisted with the emerging NT canon. However, the need for a fixed and definitive canon obviously began to be felt during these years (Marcion, anyone? ). Even so, it's noticeable how little in JM is sourced outside the Synoptics, and this fits well with other indications they had achieved a widespread and respect by this time (most noticeably Matthew).

 

[grahbudd]

On this specific point:

As for a source that is kinda like Luke, but not quite Luke, that's actually a quite simple proposition. We know that Marcion and his opponents accused each other of adding stuff to Marcion's gospel to get Luke, or conversely of lopping off stuff from Luke to get Marcion's gospel. A possible solution to placing Luke after Marcion is basically to go with the possibility that Luke did copy wholesale from Marcion, save for a couple of key additions of his own.

I don't think this helps you actually, because the thing that Marcion didn't have was the Birth Narrative of Luke - yet, of course, JM knows it. So the thing like Luke but (in some as yet to be defined way) not like Luke is not Marcion.

One might argue that the BN of gLuke has nothing to do with the rest of Luke, and, of all the traditions floating around, JM just 'happened' to light on this one and (virtually) none other. Apart from its inherent implausibility there's the problem of the stylistic and thematic links between Luke's BN and the rest of the gospel.

 

[IanS]

Actually, the idea of being more than one conceptual Jesus is actually anything but absurd. In fact there are plenty of examples where the person and the myth character loosely based on them are substantially different, to the point of being effectively different people.

.

Well I never said that was absurd!

What I say is absurd, is the idea that HJ supporters in this thread and elsewhere, are claiming the writing of Tacitus and Josephus as evidence of the biblical Jesus, whilst at the same time knowing full well (or believing) that when Tacitus and Josephus mentioned someone named "Jesus" those authors were knowingly talking about a completely different person named "Jesus" who was not the charachter in the Gospels.

OK, that's now the 4th time I've explained that lol

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Actually, I thought we were arguing that they were !

Figure of speech

Though, yeah, at least the existence of such legends kinda fits what I'd call "too dumb to make up". Not literally, because obviously nothing is literally too dumb to make up, but if you came to some non-Christian or even the average church goer who's never heard of it and asked them something like:

"Hey, did you know there was a 4'th century saint, and still highly venerated in the east, who was a 10 ft tall mutant with a dog head, sorta like a giant D&D (or WoW) gnol, and according to one version even from a country of such bipedal dogs?"

Or

"Hey, did you know that one guy got to be a saint because he actually asked to be brutally executed, because he dreamt that he'd get some bitchin' sweet headgear in heaven if he gets himself brutally executed?"

I think most of them would say some version of, "Nah, cut it out, you're just making stuff up. They can't have been that frakkin' retarded, can they? And besides the church checks such stuff before making someone a saint, don't they?"

 

[IanS]

That's why, for example, IanS's favourite source Wikipedia ....

The reason I like to check in Wikipedia and post quotes from there, is because apart from it generally being quite accurate, it's also a source that anyone here can immediately check for themselves.

Whereas if I quote something from a specific book by Wells or Ellegard or Sanders, then it's likely that most people here will not have any easy quick access to any of those books.

But if you think any of the quotes I've given from Wiki are wrong, then by all means post whichever Wikipedia statements are wrong re. the historicity of Jesus, and we can see what it is that you think is in error ... they are all fully referenced after all, so if you really want to check the primary sources then you can.

 

[grahbudd]

Figure of speech

Though, yeah, at least the existence of such legends kinda fits what I'd call "too dumb to make up". Not literally, because obviously nothing is literally too dumb to make up, but if you came to some non-Christian or even the average church goer who's never heard of it and asked them something like:

"Hey, did you know there was a 4'th century saint, and still highly venerated in the east, who was a 10 ft tall mutant with a dog head, sorta like a giant D&D (or WoW) gnol, and according to one version even from a country of such bipedal dogs?"

Or

"Hey, did you know that one guy got to be a saint because he actually asked to be brutally executed, because he dreamt that he'd get some bitchin' sweet headgear in heaven if he gets himself brutally executed?"

I think most of them would say some version of, "Nah, cut it out, you're just making stuff up. They can't have been that frakkin' retarded, can they? And besides the church checks such stuff before making someone a saint, don't they?"

Surely this is a bit Whiggish. Belief in dog-headed people was widespread in antiquity. Why not, after all?

 

[grahbudd]

On eusebius the supposed forger of the TF:

Several things to say as usual! But one point that rarely, it seems, gets brought up is the use to which Eusebius puts it. And it is notable that in the three places that he quotes it (the Demonstration, the History and the Theophania) he never comments on the somewhat striking fact that it supposedly claims Jesus to be the Christ. Here, rather explicitly, is his use in the Theophania:

"The testimony therefore, of these men respecting our Saviour, is sufficient. There is nevertheless, nothing to prohibit our availing ourselves, even the more abundantly, of the Hebrew witness Josephus; who, in the Eighteenth Book of his Antiquities of the Jews, writing the things that belonged to the times of Pilate, commemorates our Saviour in these words: --


44. " At this period then was Jesus, a wise man, if it be right to call Him a man; for He was the doer of wonderful works, and the Teacher of those men who, with pleasure, received Him in truth. And He brought together many (both) of the Jews, and many of the profane (Gentiles). And this was the Messiah (Christ). And, when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal ancient men among ourselves, laid on Him the punishment of the Cross, those who formerly loved Him were not reduced to silence. For He appeared again to them, on the third day, alive: things which, with many others, the Prophets had said respecting Him : so that from thence, and even until now, the race of the Christians has not been wanting to Him."*

45. If therefore, as (this) author attests of Him, He was the doer of wonderful works, and that He made His Disciples,--not only the twelve Apostles, or the seventy Disciples, but also attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles; it is clear, that He possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind. For, How could He have otherwise attached to Himself the many, both of the Jews and Gentiles, unless He had made use of miracles and astonishing deeds, and of doctrines (till then) unknown ? "

In Eusebius's list of marvellous things that Josephus says about Jesus, he never points out - indeed, one might think, pointedly omits - the most striking thing, that Jesus is the Christ. And the same is true of the other two usages.

Now if Eusebius is going to go to the trouble of forging a passage in which Josephus (fairly remarkably!) states baldly that Jesus was the messiah, why not then draw attention to it anywhere? Why not use it?

So I think (on this and other grounds) that the version that Eusebius originally quoted did not have this in. Indeed, we have other grounds for thinking this too: the Syriac version has 'he was thought to be the Christ' in it, and this seems to go back to a Greek Eusebius; and so does Jerome.

 

[calebprime]

Surely this is a bit Whiggish. Belief in dog-headed people was widespread in antiquity. Why not, after all?

For us yanks, a little explanation:


of, relating to, or characterized by a view which holds that history follows a path of inevitable progression and improvement and which judges the past in light of the present

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Surely this is a bit Whiggish. Belief in dog-headed people was widespread in antiquity. Why not, after all?

It's more like the fact that it's still depicted like that that's a bigger WTH. But in the end either way it's an illustration that what sounds to us like "why would they make THAT up?" may not match what the ancients would make up.

ETA: plus, even allowing for belief in dog-headed giants, although at least the educated were kinda exiting the stage of indiscriminate superstitious belief in any nonsense already... I'm sure the other example, the idea of throwing one's life away to get funny headgear in a heaven would be pretty retarded even by the criteria of the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, in most schools of philosophy.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

On eusebius the supposed forger of the TF
[...]
Now if Eusebius is going to go to the trouble of forging a passage in which Josephus (fairly remarkably!) states baldly that Jesus was the messiah, why not then draw attention to it anywhere? Why not use it?

So I think (on this and other grounds) that the version that Eusebius originally quoted did not have this in. Indeed, we have other grounds for thinking this too: the Syriac version has 'he was thought to be the Christ' in it, and this seems to go back to a Greek Eusebius; and so does Jerome.

Well, ok, maybe Eusebius showed some restraint for a change and wasn't THAT heavy-handed in altering that paragraph. It clears his name a tiny little bit, but in the end, so what? The paragraph still stands out like a sore thumb in its gushing over Jesus, his wonderous works, his actually resurrecting from the dead, the tens of thousand things prophecised about him, and so on, and still nobody before Eusebius seems to have noticed it. And it still contains the "tribe" designation that isn't used by anyone else before him.

So, ok, Eusebius still was a forger and a liar, but not a completely ham-fisted one. Uh, ok, I'll even go with that

 

[grahbudd]

The TF is really problematic. I don't accept that Origen didn't know it (hence his comment that Josephus didn't accept Jesus was the messiah - implying he said something). Furthermore, Alice Whealey has shown that no-one before that can be seen to have known the right bit of Josephus. So that stuff doesn't worry me.

What is peculiar, and really hard to explain, is the manuscript history, both of Eusebius and of Josephus. Essentially all the extant mss have the TF in as per the texturs receptus. I think some medieval Jewish mss may lack it, but that is in itself problematic (I'll have to look into their provenance). Then as far as I know the six or seven mss of the History of Eusebius have it. No idea about the transmission of the Theophania or Demonstrations. There's also this Slavic thing which can be ignored.

Then there are the versions, and it seems the Syriac one is early, and has 'thought to be the Christ in' - which is also what jerome in Latin has. It's not quite clear whether the brainiac jerome consulted Eusebius or Josephus on this (he knew both) but it seems that Eusebius is most likely.

There's also a bit of variation between the three uses of it by Eusebius.

So whatever has happened, interpolation or none, there's been massive contamination or one or other or both of eusebius (in three works!)and/or Josephus. And yet remnants of alternative readings still remain - probably in Eusebius (although that would in turn imply a difference in his source).

It's very tricky! Hmmmm

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Hmm? I don't think you need to see a version of the TF to know that Josephus didn't think Jesus was the messiah. Technically it's enough to know he was a Jew not a Christian, and that's really what Origen does there: "Hey, look, even a Jew blames the Jews for killing Jesus's brother!"

But considering that Josephus just tells you that Vespasian was the messiah, and that it was a mistake to think it would be a Jew, I'd say it nails it right there that he didn't think Jesus was the messiah. In the Jewish War book 6, chapter 5 he says:

Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction. ​

I don't think Origen needed more than that to know that, no, Josephus wasn't a Christian and couldn't possibly consider Jesus to be the Christ. He does connect some OT prophecies that were considered to be the messiah to a person, but that person is somewhere else. Short of making Josephus the only guy expecting TWO messiahs, you know, the job was already taken by Vespasian

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

On eusebius the supposed forger of the TF:

<snip>

The most likely candidate for the forgery is the person who makes use of it. It is self-evident.

That preening peacock is especially smug about the "Hebrew witness". Makes me ill.

He's got Emperor Constantine calling the Council of Nicea to force Christianity into a single belief system and power structure centered in Rome. We have motive, means and opportunity with Eusebius under Constantine. he has the Emperor's blessing, and indeed encouragement for the TF.

The reason it became important to inject a historical Jesus into official Roman History was to establish the direct lineage between Jesus and Peter, upon whom the Church would be founded, as the first of at least four phony "Popes". The proto-catholics were centered in Rome whereas other branches like the Marcionites in the Black Sea area did not follow an earthly Jesus. So therefore you create an official Roman Dictatorial (false) history of a living Jesus. You use this to establish the supremacy of the Rome Church and then co-opt the literature of the competition and interpolate where you need to get better conformity.

 

[Stone]

But considering that Josephus just tells you that Vespasian was the messiah, and that it was a mistake to think it would be a Jew, I'd say it nails it right there that he didn't think Jesus was the messiah.

Whether or not he thinks Jesus can be a real Christ, Antiqs. XX simply reports on the nickname the guy has acquired. If the great unwashed only distinguish this Jesus from half a dozen other Jesuses by the nickname Christ, that doesn't mean they automatically think he's a real Christ any more than Josephus does. Half of them probably didn't even know -- or care about -- the meaning of the term.

Stone

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[maximara]

It's amazing that mythers cannot wrap this around their ignorant hidebound little minds: Whether or not he thinks Jesus can be a real Christ, Antiqs. XX simply reports on the nickname the guy has acquired. If the great unwashed only distinguish this Jesus from half a dozen other Jesuses by the nickname Christ, that doesn't mean they automatically think he's a real Christ any more than Josephus does. Half of them probably didn't even know -- or care about -- the meaning of the term.

Stone

It is arguments like this, IanS where knowing the range of the Christ Myth theory becomes important. Since Frazer, Robertson, and Jesus Myth and Jesus Legend Wells who accepted the idea of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved somewhere in the story have all been called Christ Myther then you have to factor them in.

As Remsburg stated over hundred years ago stated:

"While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable." (The Christ Chapter 9:The Christ a Myth)

The reality is the so called "mythers" are of two schools of thought and even the historical Christ Myth school has to deal with "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" range.

As I have repeatedly pointed out even Drews was not saying there wasn't a flesh and blood man named Jesus in Galilee in the 1st century but rather than the relationship of that man to the person described in the Gospels other then name was effectively nil.

The apologists are quick to jump on the Mythers claim Jesus the man didn't exist when reality Mythers like Frazer, Mead, Robertson, and even Drews NEVER EVER SAID THAT! They rather said that the Gospel Jesus never existed (ie the story of Jesus in the Gospels is a fiction like stories of Robin Hood or King Arthur)

The sooner we myther all band together and point out that the apologists can't keep their definitions of Christ Myth consistent and separate the historical and philosophical camps the sooner they will have to stop using the myther as catch all label.

Anytime they pull the myther label point out Frazer a man who accepted the existence of Jesus of Nazareth was a Myther!

 

[davefoc]

It is arguments like this, IanS where knowing the range of the Christ Myth theory becomes important. Since Frazer, Robertson, and Jesus Myth and Jesus Legend Wells who accepted the idea of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved somewhere in the story have all been called Christ Myther then you have to factor them in.

As Remsburg stated over hundred years ago stated:

"While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable." (The Christ Chapter 9:The Christ a Myth)

The reality is the so called "mythers" are of two schools of thought and even the historical Christ Myth school has to deal with "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" range.

As I have repeatedly pointed out even Drews was not saying there wasn't a flesh and blood man named Jesus in Galilee in the 1st century but rather than the relationship of that man to the person described in the Gospels other then name was effectively nil.

The apologists are quick to jump on the Mythers claim Jesus the man didn't exist when reality Mythers like Frazer, Mead, Robertson, and even Drews NEVER EVER SAID THAT! They rather said that the Gospel Jesus never existed (ie the story of Jesus in the Gospels is a fiction like stories of Robin Hood or King Arthur)

The sooner we myther all band together and point out that the apologists can't keep their definitions of Christ Myth consistent and separate the historical and philosophical camps the sooner they will have to stop using the myther as catch all label.

Anytime they pull the myther label point out Frazer a man who accepted the existence of Jesus of Nazareth was a Myther!

I know this line of thought is important to you maximara, but I don't see why with regards to this thread.

My guess right now is that stone is a myther by the broad definition of the term you have put forth. That is he is someone that falls into one of several categories of belief about the nature of the HJ that are mostly inconsistent with the Gospels.

But in this thread he used the word to differentiate himself from people with views similar to HM's on the HJ and I think it was pretty obvious what he meant in the context of this thread. HM is a myther because he doesn't think the available evidence supports the existence of an HJ and Stone is not because he believes the available evidence strongly supports the existence of an HJ.

HM is not a myther by some definitions in that he does not argue that an HJ didn't exist. He argues only that the available evidence isn't strong enough to make a judgment on the issue.

All this strikes me as semantics. It looks to me like the people participating in this thread fit within the three groups I identified previously and it is usually apparent what group one is addressing their arguments at from the context and it is usually apparent which group one belongs to.

The views of the three groups
1. Evidence strongly supports existence of an HJ
2. Evidence weakly supports existence of an HJ
3. Evidence is too weak to make any useful judgment about the existence of an HJ.

I believe the consensus definition of the HJ in this thread is that he was a real human (not a composite of multiple humans) born in about 0 AD, whose life bares some minimal characteristics in line with the NT and that he is the individual that became the focus of the Christian religion.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The views of the three groups
1. Evidence strongly supports existence of an HJ
2. Evidence weakly supports existence of an HJ
3. Evidence is too weak to make any useful judgment about the existence of an HJ.

You're still missing the null hypothesis
4. There is no evidence for an HJ, therefore it is unlikely one existed.

The HJ hypothesis as it stands is unfalsifiable: there could always have been someone to serve as inspiration for the writers somehow no matter how much you whittle away as being myth. Look at your current definition: he was just some guy in about the right time and place who kind of minimally resembled the Jesus we know just enough to count. And he shall be called Brian, right?

So since it's unfalsifiable, the only sane thing to do after we've exhausted enough time and resources to say we've given it a fair shot, is give up the chase and accept the null. HJ is a big fish story with no fish, simple as that. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it true? Not that we can tell.

 

[grahbudd]

You're still missing the null hypothesis
4. There is no evidence for an HJ, therefore it is unlikely one existed.

The HJ hypothesis as it stands is unfalsifiable: there could always have been someone to serve as inspiration for the writers somehow no matter how much you whittle away as being myth. Look at your current definition: he was just some guy in about the right time and place who kind of minimally resembled the Jesus we know just enough to count. And he shall be called Brian, right?

So since it's unfalsifiable, the only sane thing to do after we've exhausted enough time and resources to say we've given it a fair shot, is give up the chase and accept the null. HJ is a big fish story with no fish, simple as that. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it true? Not that we can tell.

On the contrary, I would say there is plenty of evidence about Jesus that would be admissible, and allow us to build up a reasonable picture of his life. These would include the following:

I) he was born a few years BC. Both Luke and Matthew agree on this, and so does John. It's true Luke has another date reference (the notorious census) but this is inconsistent with what he says elsewhere and thus can fairly be regarded as some sort of slip.
II) he was born in Nazareth, but his mission was centred in Capernaum a few miles away.
III) he was a disciple of John the Baptist. Interestingly, just beneath the surface, the Synoptics tie themselves in knots trying to get around the fact that their ministries overlapped, and thus were probably seen as rivals in some sense (the Synoptics want us to believe that Jesus did not start his ministry until the arrest of John).
IV) his mother was called Mary, and he had several brothers (most likely). There is no reason to think his father was not called Joseph although he doesn't feature in any way after the birth narratives.
V) he had a somewhat peripatetic ministry in Galilee. This consisted of preaching and acts fully consistent with those of a folk healer/exorcist. His preaching was both apocalyptic (in the technical sense) and also squarely within the prophetic tradition as reflected in eg the Minor Prophets of the OT. Some of his rabbinic disputes about the interpretation of the Law with the Pharisees have been preserved (eg the Peah dispute about gathering corn from the corners of fields on a Sabbath).
VI) he had a group of disciples, only some of which remained of importance after his death (yes, he died! )
VIi) although he had probably been there before (even the Synoptics have Jesus having friends in Bethany, after all) he ended up in Jerusalem during the tumultuous Passover week of (probably) 33AD.
VII) he was, to coin a phrase, crucified under Pontius Pilate after having been arrested as a result of an incident in the temple.

Isn't that quite of detail about an obscure 1st century figure?

 

[maximara]

I know this line of thought is important to you maximara, but I don't see why with regards to this thread.

It is important because as Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall explained the version "historical Jesus" itself has two meanings:

1) Jesus existed, rather than being a totally fictional creation like King Lear or Dr. Who,

or

2) the Gospels accounts give a reasonable account of historical events, rather than being unverifiable legends such as those surrounding King Arthur.


Because of this slipperiness in the meaning of "historical Jesus", Marshall states "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." (Marshall, Ian Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Regent College Publishing, 2004, p. 27-29.)

My guess right now is that stone is a myther by the broad definition of the term you have put forth. That is he is someone that falls into one of several categories of belief about the nature of the HJ that are mostly inconsistent with the Gospels.

As I have REPEATEDLY stated is is NOT "my" definition for Christ Myth theory but rather the definitions provided by John Robertson (1910), Albert Schweitzer (1912, 1931), Herbert George Wood (1934), C.H. Dodd, (1938), Archibald Robertson (1946), the 1982 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J, Ian Howard. Marshall (2004), and Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy (2007)

But in this thread he used the word to differentiate himself from people with views similar to HM's on the HJ and I think it was pretty obvious what he meant in the context of this thread. HM is a myther because he doesn't think the available evidence supports the existence of an HJ and Stone is not because he believes the available evidence strongly supports the existence of an HJ.

"My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" (Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412)

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion. (Schweitzer, Albert (1931) Out of my life and thought: an autobiography pg 125)

Schweitzer the definitive pro-HJ for many says otherwise and so do Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy in 2007. Frazer and Jesus Myth and Jesus Legend Wells who both accept a historical flesh and blood and Jesus in the first century are both labeled "Christ mythers" the scholars of their day.. You and Stone can hem and haw all you want but at the end of the day that is the FACT.

HM is not a myther by some definitions in that he does not argue that an HJ didn't exist. He argues only that the available evidence isn't strong enough to make a judgment on the issue.

Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend Baker Academic pp. 24-25 classify scholars that says "we simply lack sufficient information to decide where a historical Jesus existed" under their mythic-Jesus thesis category which they later identify as Christ Myth theory. Wells' Jesus Myth and Jesus Legend which both accept a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospels are also classified as mythic-Jesus thesis ie Christ Myth theory!

All this strikes me as semantics. It looks to me like the people participating in this thread fit within the three groups I identified previously and it is usually apparent what group one is addressing their arguments at from the context and it is usually apparent which group one belongs to.

The views of the three groups
1. Evidence strongly supports existence of an HJ
2. Evidence weakly supports existence of an HJ
3. Evidence is too weak to make any useful judgment about the existence of an HJ.

I believe the consensus definition of the HJ in this thread is that he was a real human (not a composite of multiple humans) born in about 0 AD, whose life bares some minimal characteristics in line with the NT and that he is the individual that became the focus of the Christian religion.

But that is NOT what the OP asked; here is what the OP asked:

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 was clearly asking how far into Marshall's second point do we have to go before we say that we have found a HJ? IE how close does the Gospel account have to match up to say here is Jesus. So far much of this thread has been on Marshall's first point but that was NEVER the OP's question.