aa5874

Do they also deal with Homer's Achilles? I left Homer with his mythical Achilles.

When a person claimed Jesus was literally on earth during the reign of Tiberius, preached in Judaea, was crucified during the days of Pilate, and had a disciple named Peter, it is obvious that such a person takes the gospels literally.

They do not see a myth or mythology in the gospels, they see literal history perhaps embellished.

It is absurd, illogical and contradictory for a person to claim Jesus literally existed as stated in the gospels and at the same time claim that they do not take the gospels literally.

dog-on

I disagree.

The largest disagreement I have with the historicists on this forum is that, in my opinion, since they dispute the actual historicity of the vast majority of the NT while maintaining that they can still identify an actual historical person at it's core, I view their historical Jesus as simply made up.

I as a mythicist can readily accept everything written in the NT as being exactly what it appears to be. No need to eliminate anything, at all.

aa5874

I think you are wrong. People who believe Jesus existed do so using the gospels. Without the gospels they could not have even proposed that Jesus existed.

You seem not to understand the claim of those who believe Jesus of the NT existed.

The HJer's claim is that the NT is essentially historical with repect to Jesus.

The MJer's claim is that the NT is essentially fiction or mythology with respect to Jesus.

If a person claimed that Homer's Achilles was a person of history, then it should be obvious that they would consider that Homer's version of Achilles was esentially an historical account of Achilles with embellishments.

dog-on

I haven't found this to be the case on these forums, for most participants here.

Perhaps on a more religiously inclined forum, such may be the case.

aa5874

But, the fundamental claim of the HJer that Jesus existed in Judaea, is found in the gospel.

The fundamental claim of HJers that Jesus was crucified during the time of Pilate is found in the gospels.

The HJers claim that there is a historical core to Jesus is fundamentally based on the gospels.

It must obvious that HJers accept the gospels as literally and fundamentally true but with embellishments. They believe Jesus did literall live, literally preached, was literally crucified and did literally die during the literal reign of Tiberius as found in the gospels.

HJers consider that all implausible events are embellishments or add-ons to the historical core of Jesus as found in the gospel stories.

This is what I have found for most HJers on this forum.

dog-on

Than I suppose we are dealing with two distinct species of HJers...

fatpie42

What is the alternative HJ position?

I suppose ApostateAbe's view in the "Is your Saviour a myth?" thread might conform to this alternative. His list of possible pro-HJ arguments was as follows:

1. Failed prophecy.
Basic gist:
A variety different accounts refer to an urgent apocalyptic prophecy claiming that end-times are not some distant future event, but an inevitable occurance which will occur in the lifetime of early believers. Later texts make excuses for this apocalyptic event having still to occur:
- Paul comforts followers promising that those who have died before the event will not be left out. (Side note: This is confusing if the many believers were trying to find opportunities to get themselves martyred.)
- In the gospel of John, towards the end, we are told that Jesus said (quoting off the top of my head, so forgive any inaccuracies) "what is it to you if I allow him to stay until I come?" This is believed to refer to the disciple John, explaining and dismissing the belief that John would survive until Jesus comes back (because by this stage he had died).
- In one of the other NT writings it is claimed that 'soon' might not mean within their lifetimes because a day for God is a thousand years for us.

Problem:
Believing that 'the end is nigh' is not so uncommon for cults. There's no reason to think a historical Jesus would need to say it in order for it to be taken as vital to the group identity.
Challenge to MJ: 2/5

Literalist?
This theory relies on the various accounts being mistaken, so perhaps not.


2. The association of Paul with Peter.
Paul claims to have associated with Peter and Peter appears to play a dynamic role in the politics of the group. If a disciple of Jesus is historical, why would stories only about 10 or so years later (possibly having an oral tradition prior to that) make Peter such a major figure of the story.

Problem:
It seems possible that Peter was written into the story later. Peter may be the originator of the myth and his interactions with Jesus (and not all stories may have come from him personally) may be expressing a mythological understanding, not a historical event.
Challenge to MJ: 4/5

Literalist?
Appears to suggest that the stories of Peter's interaction with Jesus actually happened as described, so yeah. :constern01:


3. The association of Paul with James the brother of Jesus.
The name James is mentioned in the synoptic gospels as one of Jesus' brothers. Paul refers to James the Just as a 'brother of the Lord'. Coincidence?

Problem:
Yep coincidence, or possibly even intentional after the fact. James was a very common name at the time. Later writers might well have decided that James the Just was Jesus' brother and claimed he was so as a result. Many hold strongly to the view that 'brother of the Lord' is a title, not an explanation of family connections. The lack of time Paul spends speaking about Jesus' link with James (and with Peter for that matter) is unhelpful for those wishing to make a case here.
Challenge to MJ: 1/5

Literalist?
"The gospels say that James was Jesus' brother so James was Jesus' brother!" No other reason for it. Sounds pretty literalist... :constern01:


4. The crucifixion of Jesus and the ad hoc adaptations
Crucifixion was a humiliating death and it seems unlikely that followers would choose to frame their mythical saviour in this way.

Problem:
If potential messiahs were being crucified relatively often, the idea that Jesus was based on this situation in general would not point to a historical individual, but to a common theme. One might imagine the original idea behind the myth being: "Those claiming to be messiahs are often killed by crucifixion, but what if one of the less well known ones were actually about to come back in a spiritual form and destroy the Romans with God's power?"

Then again, why wouldn't the mythical Jesus be killed by crucifixion? The deaths of mythical figures are not always the most flattering or glorious.

A God killed by a python?

And other gods fare even worse:
http://www.bartleby.com/196/61.html
Challenge to MJ: 3/5

Literalist?
This does not presume that any of the story is true. It merely asserts, as with the earlier 'false prophecy' example, that crucifixion would be an odd choice if there were no historical figure upon which the myth was based.


5. The set of accuracies of the historical environment given in the gospels.
The gospels contain many accurate details of the social and geographic environments of Jerusalem and Judea--the Pharisees, Sadducees, teachers of the law, Roman leadership, balance of power, the temple of Jerusalem, Jewish laws, Jewish traditions, scriptures, landmarks, social roles of women, social roles of fishermen, tradesmen, tax collectors, cultural and religious rivalries, and so on.

Problem:
There are also many inaccuracies. The pharisees are treated as if they were in a position of power yet, while this may have been true while the gospels were written, it was not the case when Jesus was presumed to have lived. The reason for the difference? The end of the rule of the Herods and the power vacuum on a local level as a result.

The theological exchanges between Jesus and the Pharisees are presumed to have been confrontational and controversial, but Jesus' responses in these situations were no different from those the Pharisees had amongst themselves.

Events linked with Roman leadership are also confused. A tradition is fabricated whereby Romans would release known criminals. Pilate is believed to have come in person to allow Jesus' crucifixion. The procedure of Quirinius' census as described in the NT is completely implausible and utterly false (Jesus' family would not have travelled to Bethlehem, the home of his ancient ancestor, for the purposes of this census).

Sometimes geographical locations are confused, so Jesus is claimed to have sent pigs running into the sea when he is described as having been in a location many miles from the shore.

All this suggests that the accuracy of the historical elements in the gospels are more likely to be due to the writers basing the myths on their own historical setting and not due to knowledge of the historical events of a historical Jesus. (There's even a possibility that the Jesus myth is an update of an older myth. This is certainly what happened with the tales of King Arthur: the old myths about King Arthur were updated to the time of the person writing to involve more recent elements such as knights on horseback.)
Challenge to MJ: 1/5

Literalist?
Presumes that elements of history are related to real history, but doesn't suggest that the events of the NT actually happened.


6. The similarities of early Christianity with so many other known cults that became religions.
While supporters of MJ might point to similarities with other myths, such as a list of other mythical characters that are crucified, have 12 followers, are resurrected and so on, HJ supporters will point to similarities to other cults. The claim is that cults of the time period show a natural human social tendency for a minority of people to gravitate to an authoritarian leader, believe his every word, and continue to follow his character beyond death (transition from a cult to a religion).

Problem:
Ok, so Jesus myth might be a cult or simply have developed as a myth. Great. Now where's the proof? We know that the story of Jesus eventually became mythical because that is what we can clearly see today. Without evidence for a historical figure upon which the myth was based, why presume one?
Challenge to MJ: 2/5

Literalist?
Makes no claim to the accuracy of the NT whatsoever. Simply considers the kind of story involved and its similarity to other cases.


Blooming eck I spent far too long on that! :wave:

GakuseiDon

I agree, crucifixion as an indication for historicity in itself isn't viable, for the reason you state: other deaths weren't that flattering (Attis's castration, for one).

For the others though: are the only options "MJ" and "Literalist"? One problem encountered here is the idea that HJers are pushing for a Gospel Jesus, and I don't think any regular posters here do that. Most here (from what I've seen) don't think there is much history in the Gospels, yet MJers often use the tension between Paul and the Gospels in their case for a MJ (I think I saw you do this recently).

Now, I think that some MJers are more interested in disproving the Gospel Jesus and they don't get beyond that. The argument is "if there was some guy called Jesus, so what?" Those MJers have already won, if that is their intention.

But it doesn't make sense to hold both that (a) there is little history in the Gospels and (b) Paul should have mentioned Gospel details. It works against those who believe that the Gospels are largely historical, but as I said, that isn't most of us here.

Still, I think your approach above is good. It might be useful to try to actually list out two competing hypotheses, and then list 5 or 10 points to see which one comes out the stronger. Or even make a formal debate, if you are interested. We both state our theories, then give 5 points that support our own theory, then 5 points that count against the other one.

(ETA) It doesn't have to be a debate format, but it could be just a discussion of relevant points. Probably best to do it in the formal debate board though, to avoid those problems from a to zz.

fatpie42

I think perhaps you've missed the point of the exercise.

Having been suggested that historical Jesus theories would have to be literalist, I thought I'd test it out. (A smiley face means I don't think the particular HJ theory is literalist.) The list was given by Apostate Abe in the "Is your saviour a myth?" thread.

I'm no expert. Consider it a rookie mistake. :blush:

I suppose I find myself wondering why, when there is so little reason to propose a historical Jesus, I am often told that a historical Jesus should be presumed as the most likely option. By that I don't mean that believing there was a historical Jesus is mistaken. What I mean is that it seems very likely that if we were talking about a non-Abrahamic mythical figure, people wouldn't be anything like so adamant that they had a historical origin with such a low level of evidence to go on. When is someone going to start a 'quest for the historical Krishna', for example?

Now you are right to say that our interest tends to be to discredit those who want to assert that the gospels are largely historical, but then again there are plenty of people out there who wish to assert this. I mean seriously, how do you explain the existence of this book?:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewit.../dp/0802831621

The author's background makes it extremely hard for me to understand how they ended up writing this.

Dude, you are presuming WAY more expertise than I actually have. Most of my knowledge of this subject comes from essays by Rudolf Bultmann (whose ideas are probably superceded in all sorts of ways by now) and E.P. Sander's book (which is currently being ripped to shreds on another thread). I've picked up other stuff elsewhere, but those two probably represent the bulk of my knowledge on this subject.

Toto

But you do have the problem that there is no reliable evidence of Jesus outside of the gospels. HJ's are forced to use the gospels as indirect evidence, even if they claim not to be literalists.

That was all that Remsberg cared about

You are confusing something here. If you think that Jesus was historical and that Paul knew about him as a historical figure, why shouldn't Paul have mentioned some details about Jesus? For instance, when Paul writes about marriage, why doesn't he let us know if Jesus were married or celibate?

That applies whether or not the gospels contain some history, a little history, or hardly any history.