Historical Jesus

[clayflingythingy]

Craig B,

Start with Morna Hooker article On Using the Wrong Tool. Also read Rafael Rodriguez article that is chapter 6 in Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity.

I also suggest The End of Biblical Studies by Avalos. I don't remember him addressing the criteria in the book (it's been a while since I read it) but it is an important read nonetheless.

Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk

 

[Darat]

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...f-285YtjmQMmqhckQ&sig2=6G_Dcs4kkukhT92GXXtkeg

 

[Craig B]

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.

Just to preclude the possibility of anyone adopting that view, I have already pointed out the non-mundane implication of Jesus having at least six siblings. Far from connecting the unbelievable stories, these siblings dispose of the eternal virgin doctrine, and make the begotten by the Holy Ghost dogma completely preposterous. Were Jesus' siblings also divinely begotten? This annihilates the Virgin story rather than connecting it to other absurd doctrines. I'm sure you can perceive this. Therefore your post is too fundamentally unsound to deserve further comment, or it would be even if it was a seriously-considered intellectual observation, which I don't believe for a moment.

 

[Craig B]

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...f-285YtjmQMmqhckQ&sig2=6G_Dcs4kkukhT92GXXtkeg

Here's a passage from Morna D Hooker's work linked by you.

If we concentrate on the whole rather than the details, however, we shall find that we know quite a lot about Jesus, even though we may not be able to reconstruct with certainty any of his sayings or actions. It is clear, for example, that he spoke with impressive authority, even though there is considerable doubt about the exact form of all the stories demonstrating that fact. It is beyond question, also, that he taught in parables, however difficult it may be to reconstruct them, or to be certain about their original meaning. Few scholars, if any, have doubted that the centre of his teaching was the Kingdom of God – though what he might have meant by that phrase is a matter of dispute​

By contrast, here is your view.

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?

 

[Darat]

Here's a passage from Morna D Hooker's work linked by you.

If we concentrate on the whole rather than the details, however, we shall find that we know quite a lot about Jesus, even though we may not be able to reconstruct with certainty any of his sayings or actions. It is clear, for example, that he spoke with impressive authority, even though there is considerable doubt about the exact form of all the stories demonstrating that fact. It is beyond question, also, that he taught in parables, however difficult it may be to reconstruct them, or to be certain about their original meaning. Few scholars, if any, have doubted that the centre of his teaching was the Kingdom of God – though what he might have meant by that phrase is a matter of dispute​

By contrast, here is your view.

And?

 

[Craig B]

And?

What message did you intend me to derive from your linked article? What did you intend your link to illustrate? That you completely disagree with it? MDH Supposes that we can know quite a lot about Jesus if we "concentrate on the whole". By contrast you, when you look at stories "see stories about an impossible person."

Which of these opposing views do you prefer me to embrace?

 

[Steve]

Just to preclude the possibility of anyone adopting that view, I have already pointed out the non-mundane implication of Jesus having at least six siblings. Far from connecting the unbelievable stories, these siblings dispose of the eternal virgin doctrine, and make the begotten by the Holy Ghost dogma completely preposterous. Were Jesus' siblings also divinely begotten? This annihilates the Virgin story rather than connecting it to other absurd doctrines. I'm sure you can perceive this. Therefore your post is too fundamentally unsound to deserve further comment, or it would be even if it was a seriously-considered intellectual observation, which I don't believe for a moment.

I do appreciate you providing additional evidence that the dude in question did not actually exist. But It does make your argument even harder to follow.

 

[Oystein]

...the non-mundane implication of Jesus having at least six siblings. Far from connecting the unbelievable stories, these siblings dispose of the eternal virgin doctrine, and make the begotten by the Holy Ghost dogma completely preposterous...

Uhm no.
Having at least six siblings is perfectly mundane - plenty of people in antiquity had at least six siblings.
Whether or not Mark writes about six siblings has absolutely zero effect on the veracity or plausibility of the eternal virgin doctrine or the Holy Ghost dogma: Both have zero plausibility and possibility, with or without the mention of six siblings.

 

[Craig B]

Uhm no.
Having at least six siblings is perfectly mundane - plenty of people in antiquity had at least six siblings.
Whether or not Mark writes about six siblings has absolutely zero effect on the veracity or plausibility of the eternal virgin doctrine or the Holy Ghost dogma: Both have zero plausibility and possibility, with or without the mention of six siblings.

No they don't. The eternal virginity dogma vanishes at once, and the idea that Mary had one divine child and also at least six mundane ones or that the Holy Ghost had his wicked way with Mary seven or more times, is laughable; and it is resolutely eschewed by the churches despite the plain message of the gospel texts.

You don't really think that this reductio ad absurdum has no implication for the plausibility of the doctrine. You're "jest kiddin'" In a desire to make a point at any cost about the alleged unreality of Jesus. Presumably because you believe that if you admit his historicity you will be mistaken for a Christian, which is nonsense.

 

[Craig B]

I do appreciate you providing additional evidence that the dude in question did not actually exist. But It does make your argument even harder to follow.

No doubt you find my argument hard to follow. That doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[Steve]

No doubt you find my argument hard to follow. That doesn't surprise me at all.

Oh, oh. Another towering intellect. Quite a few on this forum. I bow to your astounding amount of knowledge regarding an insignificant Jew who lived in the middle-east 2000 years ago. The amount of material written about that man by his contemporaries of course provides so much detail about his mundane existence.

So the dude had six brothers huh. What about the rest of the family - aunts, uncles, cousins? Surely someone must have counted them too. And what about sisters? Perhaps females were not worth counting in those days. Mom was obviously not a virgin, quite the busy little bunny in fact. Was her name actually Mary. Dad must have had a well paying job to support all those kids. Carpenter I hear. Probably union tradesman, but who knows. Not much was written about him.

You pick and choose irrelevant little details to support what you think happened with absolutely no way to determine if any aspect of the story is true and then present yourself as an expert. Your posts in this thread contain no evidence whatsoever. Just conjecture.

 

[Craig B]

Oh, oh. Another towering intellect. Quite a few on this forum. I bow to your astounding amount of knowledge regarding an insignificant Jew who lived in the middle-east 2000 years ago. The amount of material written about that man by his contemporaries of course provides so much detail about his mundane existence.

So the dude had six brothers huh. What about the rest of the family - aunts, uncles, cousins? Surely someone must have counted them too. And what about sisters? Perhaps females were not worth counting in those days. Mom was obviously not a virgin, quite the busy little bunny in fact. Was her name actually Mary. Dad must have had a well paying job to support all those kids. Carpenter I hear. Probably union tradesman, but who knows. Not much was written about him.

You pick and choose irrelevant little details to support what you think happened with absolutely no way to determine if any aspect of the story is true and then present yourself as an expert. Your posts in this thread contain no evidence whatsoever. Just conjecture.

If reason fails, try provocation and disparagement. Why not? Because the evidence requires explanation as to its origin, and you attempt none. What if it is conjecture? Are all conjectures equally probable? Why should anyone mention Jesus' aunts? There's a "mother of God" in Christian dogma, but not an "aunt of God". Or by stating this am I claiming to be an expert again? On this point of expertise ... the gospels don't give Jesus six brothers; they give four. So at least you're not arrogantly presenting yourself as an expert reader of these texts.

 

[David Mo]

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

I've read Avalos, Price, Ehrman, Carrier, Doherty, etc. And others that you don't quote like Guignebert or Onfray. I have also carefully read Bultmann, Schweitzer, Dunn, Vermes, Crossan, Meier, etc. My opinion coincides mostly with the former, although I must draw attention to the fact that some of those you recommend to read are not mitists. For example, Ehrman.

These readings have given me a personal opinion that does not exactly coincide with anyone.
I think the whole problem hangs in the balance. There is no definitive argument for or against mythicism. The same things that are explained by the theory of the myth that arose from nothing are explained by the theory of a real character that has been mythologized a posteriori.
I am inclined to think that the second interpretation is more plausible, although I would not put my hand on the fire.

I think both sides put more passion than desirable.

 

[HansMustermann]

Kinda my conclusion too. It makes a good case that Mythical Jesus is a plausible alternative, but it doesn't exclude it being, shall we say, inspired by one or more messiah claimants. Which I wouldn't call a "historical Jesus" mainly because they'd still be different from the guy described in the bible, but basically it still may or may not have had the divine Jesus expectations overimposed over some actual poor dead schmuck.

 

[David Mo]

Kinda my conclusion too. It makes a good case that Mythical Jesus is a plausible alternative, but it doesn't exclude it being, shall we say, inspired by one or more messiah claimants. Which I wouldn't call a "historical Jesus" mainly because they'd still be different from the guy described in the bible, but basically it still may or may not have had the divine Jesus expectations overimposed over some actual poor dead schmuck.

That's right. The problem arises when we try to separate what this hypothetical prophet had actually done and what is a mythical invention.
It is easy to remove all miraculous things. The same goes for the fabulous stories derived from the Old Testament and popular imagery. We can easily erase all contradictions and implausible data.
What's left?

Hardly anything. The sad story of a Jewish prophet executed by the Romans whose disciples hoped to see him return imminently to earth to triumph over his enemies.

 

[Darat]

What message did you intend me to derive from your linked article? What did you intend your link to illustrate? That you completely disagree with it? MDH Supposes that we can know quite a lot about Jesus if we "concentrate on the whole". By contrast you, when you look at stories "see stories about an impossible person."



Which of these opposing views do you prefer me to embrace?

I was providing a link to the foreword that dejudge mentioned but hadn't provided a link...

That aside nothing she wrote in that foreword (first time I've read it) is at odds with what I wrote and I don't see how you think it was?

 

[Darat]

Kinda my conclusion too. It makes a good case that Mythical Jesus is a plausible alternative, but it doesn't exclude it being, shall we say, inspired by one or more messiah claimants. Which I wouldn't call a "historical Jesus" mainly because they'd still be different from the guy described in the bible, but basically it still may or may not have had the divine Jesus expectations overimposed over some actual poor dead schmuck.

Pretty much my view, I think I am slightly more dubious than you are about there being an inspirational bloke who was the origin of the many fictions, that's based simply on knowing how some religions did begin.

I think that the issue for those claiming Jesus was an actual bloke always fails on one particular point and that is there isn't one iota of evidence outside the bible that links (Craigb note the word links) anybody we have evidence existed not from the bible to the Jesus that Paul wrote about (and went on to became the Jesus of Christianity). Without that evidence of the link we have no need for a "real" Jesus to have existed.

For me personally it makes no difference whether a Jesus that inspired the stories in the bible existed or not as we know even if he "historically" lived he wasn't the son of a god, a gatekeeper to the life after death, came back to life, raised the dead, exorcised demons and so on.

And it actually makes no difference to the founding of Christianity because the Jesus Paul created is still a fiction regardless if Paul was inspired by someone who had actually lived or not.

 

[Craig B]

I was providing a link to the foreword that dejudge mentioned but hadn't provided a link...

That aside nothing she wrote in that foreword (first time I've read it) is at odds with what I wrote and I don't see how you think it was?

I thought it was meant to illustrate an opinion, but if it was to provide a link omitted by dejudge, thank you for it.

 

[HansMustermann]

Pretty much my view, I think I am slightly more dubious than you are about there being an inspirational bloke who was the origin of the many fictions, that's based simply on knowing how some religions did begin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I have any degree of confidence in there having been some original poor dead schmuck. I just think it can't be excluded.

Kinda in the same way I can't exclude an alien observation post in the asteroid belt, or indeed a fine china teapot in orbit.

 

[Craig B]

For me personally it makes no difference whether a Jesus that inspired the stories in the bible existed or not as we know even if he "historically" lived he wasn't the son of a god, a gatekeeper to the life after death, came back to life, raised the dead, exorcised demons and so on.

And it actually makes no difference to the founding of Christianity because the Jesus Paul created is still a fiction regardless if Paul was inspired by someone who had actually lived or not.

I don't see that at all. If there was a person named Jesus who was baptised by John, went preaching, performed healing acts, such as are non miraculous and commonplace among charismatic preachers. In those days there was no medical science to refute that demons had been expelled from sick patients. And was arrested and executed following a disturbance in the Temple. A single person could have done these things, and if there was such a person called Jesus, that person is a historical Jesus regardless of the mythology that developed around his name in later times. King Arthur might have existed as a Celtic warrior even if the magic sword is mythology. The earliest notice of Arthur in literature makes no mention of that myth, even as Paul and then Mark know of no virgin birth in Bethlehem.

That presumed authentic core is what this discussion is about. Now the Jesus whom Paul created is truly a fiction and therefore the Christian religion is founded on that fiction, but that is not the same issue. Paul tells us very little about any human Jesus. To Paul Jesus as a supernatural being began at the resurrection. Paul even says as much in 2 Cor 5:16, though he acknowledged that the previous physical Jesus was born in a normal way, of human ancestry. Paul who invented Christianity, also accepted a historical Jesus and added a posthumous miraculous Jesus to the natural one, just as later mythographers gave a probably real Arthur a certainly fictitious sword embedded in a stone.