Historical Jesus

[ahhell]

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

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

Seems like a fair summation to me.

More importantly, if Mary thought Jesus was crazy, was she suffering from amnesia? Wasn't she visited by an Angel and a bunch of wise men in her youth telling her Jesus was the Messiah?

Personally, I think we can't ever really know but it does seem to me that the most parsimonious explanation is that the Story is wild exaggeration of the life of one or more real people. Get rid of the supernatural crap and the story just isn't that special or unlikely. A wondering preacher in the middle east irritated the Romans and the local elites and was killed for it.

 

[Craig B]

The differences are, starting from the most important:

I believe that there was a Solon, the meagre and late evidence notwithstanding, so I won't argue that point

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

Muhammad doesn't presume to tell us that Gabe had recently been on earth, was executed and restored to life. Nor that Gabe was of the seed of David. Paul does tell us these details about Jesus, so his visions of Jesus was not like Muhammad channelling Gabe. Though I'm sure they were equally inauthentic.

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

Agreed. I don't think that Jesus intended to, or in fact really did, start a new religion. If he lived he was a messianic Jew preaching the imminence of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Paul turned elements of that into a new religion.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Has anyone who recommends loving enemies existed?

Mahatma Gandhi comes in mind.

Hans

 

[Craig B]

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

My point, to be understandable, requires acceptance that there is no single "Biblical" Jesus. The impossible one has a virgin mother told by angels that she would conceive the Son of God. The one with six or more siblings is inconsistent with the virgin born one. But they're both "in the Bible".

 

[Darat]

My point, to be understandable, requires acceptance that there is no single "Biblical" Jesus. The impossible one has a virgin mother told by angels that she would conceive the Son of God. The one with six or more siblings is inconsistent with the virgin born one. But they're both "in the Bible".

That's a pick and choose methodology, how do you decide which bit belongs to which Jesus?

My way is to look at the stories and when I do so I see stories about an impossible person. And we know impossible people can't exist apart from being characters in fiction. We also know this character lived in a fictional world, not our world, so everything about the character of Jesus is consistent with him being a fictional creation. There is absolutely no requirement and not a single piece of evidence that require an actual Jesus to have existed. Why then think there was one?

 

[Craig B]

That's a pick and choose methodology, how do you decide which bit belongs to which Jesus?

I don't need to in order to know that the impossible and the plausible Jesuses are both in the Bible. I look and I see the Virgin, in Matthew and Luke. And when I peruse Mark no virgin do I find, but I see the names of Jesus' brothers. Both these versions of Jesus are "Biblical".

My way is to look at the stories and when I do so I see stories about an impossible person.

You also see possible stories

And we know impossible people can't exist apart from being characters in fiction. We also know this character lived in a fictional world, not our world

Augustus Caesar and Pontius Pilate lived in this world, as with a high degree of probability did John the Baptist.

so everything about the character of Jesus is consistent with him being a fictional creation. There is absolutely no requirement and not a single piece of evidence that require an actual Jesus to have existed. Why then think there was one?

There is ample writing from several authors. That's evidence. Which you reject in its totality, but it is evidence. The existence of that evidence needs to be explained. Maybe your explanation is right, that it is fiction like the novels of the period, composed by liars and imposed as truth on simpletons, for purposes of deceit. I'm not so sure. I think an authentic core is probable.

 

[dejudge]

Your evidence that he didn't?

What an absurd question. You should have known that things which never existed would never have evidence of existence.

 

[dejudge]

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

Are you claiming that the NT is a reliable historical source? The NT is evidence that the Jesus stories are fiction and implausible. All the miracles in the NT are fiction. His supposed birth, baptism and trial are all implausible.

Jesus was a product of belief never a product of history.

 

[Steve]

I don't need to in order to know that the impossible and the plausible Jesuses are both in the Bible. I look and I see the Virgin, in Matthew and Luke. And when I peruse Mark no virgin do I find, but I see the names of Jesus' brothers. Both these versions of Jesus are "Biblical".

You also see possible stories Augustus Caesar and Pontius Pilate lived in this world, as with a high degree of probability did John the Baptist. There is ample writing from several authors. That's evidence. Which you reject in its totality, but it is evidence. The existence of that evidence needs to be explained. Maybe your explanation is right, that it is fiction like the novels of the period, composed by liars and imposed as truth on simpletons, for purposes of deceit. I'm not so sure. I think an authentic core is probable.

If part of the biblical Jesus story is obviously wrong how can you have any confidence that any of it is correct? The best you can say is that parts of the story are plausible for any individual that may have lived at that time. There is zero evidence tying those parts of the story to any individual.

 

[Craig B]

If part of the biblical Jesus story is obviously wrong how can you have any confidence that any of it is correct? The best you can say is that parts of the story are plausible for any individual that may have lived at that time. There is zero evidence tying those parts of the story to any individual.

Every individual had brothers called James, etc? We have a statement to the effect that Jesus in particular had brothers of these names. The story is a) plausible and b) it contradicts the impossible virgin birth stories. It is therefore evidence whose existence requires to be explained. We have one proposal, that it's all intentionally concocted as fictional by wilful deceivers. Do you agree? If not, how do you explain the origin of this plausible material?

 

[dejudge]

The claim that parts of the Jesus story are plausible is rather useless and irrelevant when there is no historical evidence of his exstence?

If Jesus did live and was a deaf mute since birth would it be plausible that he spoke to or heard anyone?

 

[Craig B]

The claim that parts of the Jesus story are plausible is rather useless and irrelevant when there is no historical evidence of his exstence?

If Jesus did live and was a deaf mute since birth would it be plausible that he spoke to or heard anyone?

Where is there even a statement that Jesus was a deaf mute from birth? If there was a statement, we would need to,explain why it was made. But there is none.

 

[HansMustermann]

I don't need to in order to know that the impossible and the plausible Jesuses are both in the Bible. I look and I see the Virgin, in Matthew and Luke. And when I peruse Mark no virgin do I find, but I see the names of Jesus' brothers. Both these versions of Jesus are "Biblical".

The problem goes beyond what's possible and impossible. It's been mainstream biblical scholarship for a century -- I can link you Bart Ehrman saying exactly that, for example -- that only about 30% of the sayings of Jesus can plausibly be said by the same person, because they reflect fundamentally incompatible world views at the time. The problem is: WHICH 30%? Because you can cherrypick several mutually-incompatible sets of 30% that are self-consistent. Different biblical scholars cherrypick different, mutually-incompatible Jesuseseseses. You can cherrypick rabbi Jesus, fundamentalist Sadducee Jesus, etc.

We KNOW -- and again, it's mainstream bible scholarship, not some fringe nutcasery -- that several different persons (real or fictive author-inserts, so to speak) have been mashed up into our Jesus. Because, again, he says things that can't plausibly reflect the views of any single person at the time.

None of those are impossible. But WHICH is the real Slim Shady, if any? Well, that's where it would be nice to actually have some evidence.

Just picking what's not impossible just won't cut it, unfortunately.

 

[Craig B]

... it's mainstream bible scholarship, not some fringe nutcasery -- that several different persons (real or fictive author-inserts, so to speak) have been mashed up into our Jesus. Because, again, he says things that can't plausibly reflect the views of any single person at the time.

None of those are impossible. But WHICH is the real Slim Shady, if any? Well, that's where it would be nice to actually have some evidence.

Just picking what's not impossible just won't cut it, unfortunately.

It cuts it for most scholars

The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view.​

link

 

[HansMustermann]

There is a difference between fully Christ myth and just saying that the one in the bible remains a composite that never existed in that form, if you just remove the impossible stuff. Because no single person actually did or believed all that. As I was saying, the consensus is that about 30% is said by a single person. The latter is quite mainstream.

That said, yes, the biblical scholars still pretend that if you can cherrypick one Jesus, then that's the real Slim Shady, and you can ignore that other guys cherrypicked some 4 other fundamentally different Jesuseseses, that have just as little support for being the real thing. And nevermind that by sheer probabilities alone, in the absence of other evidence, your pick is PROBABLY not the right one.

But I guess that's the kind of aberrations you get when you're actually a subset of theology, you use an obsolete pseudo-historical method, but like to pretend you're an actual historian. Frankly, at this point the difference between bible studies and history is exactly like between astrology and astronomy. Quite literally: you can see why that methodology seemed valid at some point in the past, but nowadays it's just cute to hear someone practice the former and pretend they're the latter.

Which is also why I'm not entirely fussed by what passes for a consensus or fringe in a domain using an obsolete methodology.

 

[clayflingythingy]

HJ supporters,

Just curious, have you read Avalos' The End of Biblical Studies? If not, I suggest you do so as it helps illuminate how flawed "the consensus" may be regards HJ.

Have you extensively read Bart Erhman, both his popular books and more scholarly works? Leaving aside DJE, I would not at all be surprised if, upon retirement, Erhman announced his support for MJ or took an agnostic position. His broader body of work helps supports the MJ view IMHO.

Are you aware of what happened to Thomas L Thompson?

How much MJ literature have you read? Have you read Carrier, Doherty, Lataster, and Price?

Are you aware that mainstream HJ scholars have acknowled the Criterion of Authenticity are flawed? This eliminates the COE that seems beloved of HJ supporters.

Helms and others have demonstrated that the Jesus life moments in Mark's Gospel were taken from scripture. Mark knew so little of HJ history that he had to rewrite existing scripture. And Matthew plagiarized Mark so we can discount his having historical memory as well.

Mainstream scholars are moving to a second century date for Luke/Acts making it less likely Luke had access to real historical remembrance. Given the artificial agenda of acts there was never any reason to think it was offering up real history anyway.

I am waiting for the HJ work to be published that effectively tackles head on the MJ argument.

The Epistles have convinced me the Doherty thesis is correct. There is no smoking gun in the early Epistles that screams HJ.

In any event, the agnostic position is justified by the sorry state of evidence for HJ it seems to me.



Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk

 

[Craig B]

HJ

Are you aware that mainstream HJ scholars have acknowled the Criterion of Authenticity are flawed? This eliminates the COE that seems beloved of HJ supporters.

Give us sources, and a fuller treatment of this point please.

 

[dejudge]

Where is there even a statement that Jesus was a deaf mute from birth? If there was a statement, we would need to,explain why it was made. But there is none.

There are statements that Jesus was born of a virgin without a human father and was the creator from the beginning . It is simply ridiculous to assume such a character existed and had the ability to walk, talk, hear and even see.

The NT provides zero historical evidence to show that character called Jesus of Nazareth was really human. There are statements that he walked on water for at least 3 miles.

No human being can walk on water.

The NT is about a non-historical character called Jesus of Nazareth invented after the fall of the Jewish Temple - after c 70 CE.

 

[Craig B]

There are statements that Jesus was born of a virgin without a human father and was the creator from the beginning . It is simply ridiculous to assume such a character existed and had the ability to walk, talk, hear and even see.

The NT provides zero historical evidence to show that character called Jesus of Nazareth was really human. There are statements that he walked on water for at least 3 miles.

No human being can walk on water.

The NT is about a non-historical character called Jesus of Nazareth invented after the fall of the Jewish Temple - after c 70 CE.

You're dodging my question. Who says Jesus was deaf mute from birth? Answer that, then go on about the other stuff.

 

[Steve]

Every individual had brothers called James, etc? We have a statement to the effect that Jesus in particular had brothers of these names. The story is a) plausible and b) it contradicts the impossible virgin birth stories. It is therefore evidence whose existence requires to be explained. We have one proposal, that it's all intentionally concocted as fictional by wilful deceivers. Do you agree? If not, how do you explain the origin of this plausible material?

Yes, I agree with that proposal. The plausible material is so mundane that it is evidence of nothing. Just filler material to connect the unbelievable stories that are the point of the narrative. Many fictional novels have characters with brothers who are named. This does not make any of the stories more likely to be about actual people.