Sheshbazzar

The context of discussion makes clear what 'real human Jesus' is intended and is entirely adequate within the context.
There is no reason to need list all of the possible 'Jesus's' that the context clearly indicates are NOT intended, including those other contemporary 'Jesus's' of which there were many. Or to repetitively describe any other characteristics of this particular 'real human Jesus'.
It is comprehensible and understood by all who have the least lick of common horse-sense, that the 'real human Jesus' being discussed is that one particular individual, real or not, who became world famous, _and in whose 'name' millions have been tortured and murdered to further an insane religion.

gurugeorge

I wouldn't say the discussion is clear, but it remains focussed enough.

If we were writing dissertations, then of course it would be necessary to define terms, but it's not necessary in most discussions here, where most of the usual suspects key participants have been at this for quite some time.

I just thought of another way of putting it that might satisfy you. Any "historical Jesus" is a hypothetical explanans for the existence of Christianity. Therefore the definition of "human Jesus" will vary with the hypothesis, with the method used of "extracting" him from the text, etc., etc. But the root idea is clear enough: the idea of a man, living roughly around that time, around whose life and/or doings the mythical Jesus we know and love was somehow, and to some degree, formed.

Sheshbazzar

One can walk down the street in any English speaking city and ask anyone about Jesus of the Bible, and there will be be hardly anyone found who will not instantly know exactly what individual you are inquiring about.
That concept and knowlege is certainly not confined to the participants of this Forum.

Joan of Bark

The story I've always read claimed the box was filled with bad things, with hope being the one exception. The passage you quote above says nothing about Pandora's Box.


No. Inconsistency generally comes from true stories told from different perspectives. That's something I've learned from writing a lot of history essays. That does not mean that all true stories create inconsistency. Nor does it mean that consistency means falsehood. Why change a fictional story that everyone knows is fiction? Why not just invent a new one?

True, but Jesus' tales were believed to be witnessed by human beings. No Greek would claim that the overthrow of the Titans involved humans.

Adam

Identifying the eyewitness authors of the written source gospels is not necessary to HJ, but MJ believers really need to come up with some speculation or rationalization why the various layers exist in spite of supposedly being made up without a plan (conspiracy) to make the pieces look like eyewitness sources. You need to overcome the simple explanation of eyewitnesses adding each layer.

Joan of Bark

And you only answered one of the four questions I put to you.

Mid-2nd century and later?

Pot ... kettle.

No, we believe aspects of the gospels are true.

And how does gJohn match up to the synoptics?

J-D

I don't understand how your remark is supposed to be relevant to the discussion. I don't understand what makes you say the knife is double-edged, or in what way you think it's double-edged (what are its two edges, or the two different ways it can cut?) Your statement is obviously metaphorical, so one way to elaborate would be to restate your meaning using literal language.

Kapyong

Gday,

Yes, the story most people know is about evil things in the jar. Are you going to stick with that one version regardless of the evidence?

If you read up on Pandora, you will see the two different versions are known, but few people know about them.

Theognis (see how "hope" is all that remains? it's obviously about Pandora) and Aesop tell the story as if there were good things in the jar.

Theognis, Fragment 1. 1135 (trans. Gerber, Vol. Greek Elegiac) (Greek elegy C6th B.C.) :
"Elpis (Hope) is the only good god remaining among mankind; the others have left and gone to Olympos. Pistis (Trust), a mighty god has gone, Sophrosyne (Restraint) has gone from men, and the Kharites (Charites, Graces), my friend, have abandoned the earth. Men's judicial oaths are no longer to be trusted, nor does anyone revere the immortal gods; the race of pious men has perished and men no longer recognize the rules of conduct or acts of piety."
[N.B. Theognis' account is the inverse of Hesiod's : the good spirits escaped from Pandora's jar, abandoning mankind in their flight to heaven.]

Aesop, Fables 526 (from Babrius 58) (trans. Gibbs) (Greek fable C6th B.C.) :
"Zeus gathered all the useful things together in a jar and put a lid on it. He then left the jar in human hands. But man had no self-control and he wanted to know what was in that jar, so he pushed the lid aside, letting those things go back to the abode of the gods. So all the good things flew away, soaring high above the earth, and Elpis (Hope) was the only thing left. When the lid was put back on the jar, Elpis (Hope) was kept inside. That is why Elpis (Hope) alone is still found among the people, promising that she will bestow on each of us the good things that have gone away."
[N.B. By "in human hands," the story of Pandora delivering the jar to mankind is implied. However, in this version it is apparently the husband who opens it.]

http://www.theoi.com/Heroine/Pandora.html


K.

J-D

When I ask people to explain what the claims under discussion are, I don't get clear answers, which is why I think they are confused.Maybe you don't see the difficulties. That doesn't prove they're not there.And once again, the terms in which you have stated the two positions don't clearly reflect the supposed disagreement, since in the terms in which you have expressed them they are not necessarily opposed to each other. It is not impossible for both of the statements 'Christianity started with a historical leader' and 'Christianity started with somebody having a vision of a saviour' to be true. The words you have chosen are not well-chosen for the purpose of characterising a major divide.A definition of 'historicist' as 'somebody who believes that Christianity originated around a real historic person in the first century' is clear, but I am not convinced that everybody here would accept it as capturing what they mean by 'historicist'. It may be your definition, but I don't think it's everybody's definition. Incidentally, in the terms in which you have stated it, it includes as 'historicist' anybody who believes that Christianity originated around a real historic Paul in the first century--do you mean it to? Also, it isn't equivalent to your earlier attempts at definition. 'Christianity originated around a real historic person in the first century' is not equivalent either to 'the first Christians were the followers of a Jewish teacher or reformer who decided to break with Judaism after his death' or to 'some of the statement in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact'.You said they were (although it may not have been what you intended to say). I didn't link the two issues; you did. All I did was lift your definitions of the 'historicist' position from two different (but consecutive!) posts in which you tried to answer the question.The same point as above: the fact that you offer different and non-equivalent definitions of the same terms reflects a significant confusion.I suggest that one reason it's been going on for years without being meaningful is insufficient attention to the definition of terms, and that the discussion would be less confused if the participants could first agree on clear definitions of terms and then stick to them consistently.I haven't seen it yet.That communication is being hindered because people continue to use key terms as if they had clearly agreed meanings when there is no such clear agreement.

J-D

It doesn't and it isn't.This is simply a further illustration of the lack of clear meaning which results from inadequate attention to the definition of terms. The description 'real' can only apply to something real. It's a contradiction in terms to suggest the possibility of the term 'real' applying to somebody who was not real. Indeed, there is not and never has been such a thing as a particular individual who is not and was not real--that's another contradiction in terms. A particular individual is by definition real.