gurugeorge

Here's my umpteenth-and-oneth attempt to frame the problem in a way that I think clarifies a subtle point about all this:-

Jesus Christ is plainly and obviously a myth (or rather, perhaps more accurately, a legend?) that also contains elements of fiction (deliberately made-up stuff pushing theological agendas).

The question is: what is the origin of this particular myth or legend?

Wikipedia tells us that several possible types of origin for myths have been canvassed: allegory, personification, ritual and euhemerism. To this I would add visionary and mystical experiences (I actually think this is by far the most important origin type, but to argue for that would take me too far off topic for the moment). We could also add: error, fiction-eventually-believed-to-be-fact, deliberate fabrication for political ends, and spontaneous generation in the manner of "urban myths" (although this type of origin might be tied subtly to the others).

We might quibble whether this list of origin types is complete or comprehensive, but the main point is: myths and legends have several different possible types of origin. And they are not mutually exclusive: they might all be operative at the same time, to varying degrees, in any given myth.

ONLY ONE OF THEM, the euhemeristic type of origin, requires there to have been some real historical events or personages at the root of the myth or legend.

And to argue FOR an euhemeristic origin for any given myth (such as the Jesus myth), it seems to me you FIRST need to be able to point to some plausible historical candidate.

(e.g. "I think there was a historical Hercules" "Why?" "Well, because we know from inscriptions that there was a king in Asia Minor at such-and-such a time whose name is similar to 'Herakles'")

This is precisely what all the arguments for an euhemeristic origin for the Jesus myth (a.k.a. arguments for a "historical Jesus") signally fail to do.

They have no plausible, independently attested rabbi (or madman, or magician, or political rebel, or whatever) from the period whom they can point to, who might have in some way given rise to the myth.

The "historical Jesus" can't even get off the ground until that candidate is found.

Clivedurdle

GakuseiDon

He's both a myth and legend. The definition of "myth" from here:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/myth

1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society
b. Such stories considered as a group
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).

CS Lewis describes the Jesus Christ story as a myth that really happened, which would fall into the definition in 1(a). I'm happy enough to call the Jesus story a myth, though I'm largely agnostic on the actual details. (I don't think the evidence supports that the earliest Christians knew of a virgin birth story, for example, and I believe that they were adoptionists and didn't regard Jesus as a god.)

It depends on what you want from your "historical Jesus" candidate. Euhemerus, for example, used the ancient myths to try to work out the story of his "euhemirised" god kings.

We do the same thing with the Christian sources available. I could argue that the Gospels, while not containing much in the way of verifiable information, nonetheless provide an outline of an itinerant preacher born in Galilee, preached about a coming "Kingdom of God", went to Jerusalem and was crucified under Pilate. This was the originating event that led to the establishment of what later became Christianity. I couldn't PROVE that this happened, but I think it is a reasonable position that can be supported from the Christian texts we have available.

Would that be enough to identify a "historical Jesus" candidate? If not, what is needed, in your opinion? Is it a matter of proof, or a matter of providing a number of sufficient (plausible) details? What details would be enough to get the "historical Jesus" off the ground as a candidate?

Juststeve

GakuseiDon:

I think what you posted is plausible. The difficulty we seem to be having is that some on the board refuse to accept the Gospels as being any evidence whatsoever because they are obviously flawed to some extent. Almost everyone agree that the Gospels contain material that should not be credited. The analysis I see very often is that because the Gospels contain some legendary material they should be regarded as total fiction, no evidence at all.

People who deal with evidence all the time, trial lawyers like myself, realize that imperfect evidence is often the best we have. Witnesses contradict one another. Individual witness often combine accurate testimony with error or even outright falsehood. That doesn't mean that their testimony isn't evidence, only that it must be carefully evaluated.

It appears that some on this board are so wed to the notion that there was no one who formed the basis for the Jesus legend that they are unwilling to consider the Gospels for what they’re worth. They simply want to declare them worthless as evidence and declare victory. I prefer to look at what evidence we do have, consider that is plausible and what isn’t, and draw the most accurate picture I can.

Steve

Toto

I think this is a mistatement of the position. The gospels are a story in which the legendary material is an essential part of the total narrative. There are no non-legendary sources that confirm that there is some historical core to the story. There is, therefore, no reason to assume that there is any historical value there.

Trial lawyers like yourself know that none of the gospels would be admissible evidence. The contradictions in the gospels are the least of the problems.

Or perhaps there are some who are so wed to the notion of a historical Jesus that they are unwilling to consider the possibility of purely invented gospels?

You should not be playing the motive game here.

Surely evidence is required to meet a higher standard than what is merely "plausible." All sorts of things are plausible. I find the most plausible story to be that second century Christians constructed an allegorical narrative that invented a founder.

Juststeve

Toto:

Specialists in the field, at major universities, not evangelical Bible Colleges, tend to date the Gospels between 65 or 70 for Mark and as late as 100 for John. Similarly most date Paul’s letters earlier than any of the Gospels. This I think comes close to being consensus dates among those specialists. Unless you are prepared to refute those opinions you must confront the fact that the Jesus stories began to circulate in written form well before the second century.

Modern scholarship also suggests that before any Gospels were written stories about Jesus circulated orally. If this is true the beginning of Jesus stories goes back even further, until a time shortly after his supposed life.

You are correct that the Gospels would not be admissible in court at least not for the truth of the matter asserted therein. The heaqrsay rule would prevent admission. Assuming they could be authenticated they would be admissible as evidence of what was being said about Jesus at the time they were written, but not that what was said was necessarily true. The hearsay problem that would keep them out of evidence would also lead to the exclusion of any other document from antiquity since the author would not be present in court to be cross examined. Since people who died 2000 years ago are not available we need to make some allowances in doing historical research.

I really do think my motives are pure, to determine as best I can whether there was a real Jesus or not. I am after all an atheist and am not looking for a get out of Hell free card.

Steve

aa5874

It is NOT a fact that the Jesus stories began circulating BEFORE the 2nd century. You are constantly using opinion as facts.

You are completely ignoring the fact that there are NO external historical corroborative sources for Jesus, the disciples and Paul or Saul.

And what if their suggestions are NOT true? What if there was NO actual Jesus?

Some modern scholars have suggested that Jesus was a myth. It is not necessary for an actual Jesus to have existed for someone to have fabricated a story about a fictitious Messiah.

You must admit that those who propose an historical Jesus REJECT virtually all the written statements about Jesus including his conception, birth, temptation, miracles, transfiguration, resurrection and ascension.

Once the evidence from antiquity is admissble then it would be seen that in antiquity it was AGREED that Jesus was of a SPIRITUAL nature. His actuality was in QUESTION.

Well in order for people to think your motives are pure you MUST state what is OPINION and what is FACT.

It is NOT a fact that Jesus of the NT did exist before the Fall of the Temple even if your motives are pure.

It is a FACT that it is written in "On the Flesh of Christ" that it was agreed Jesus was of a Spiritual nature.

"On the Flesh of Christ" As early as the 2nd century even Jesus believers questioned the human reality of Jesus.

One would expect Jesus believers of antiquity to question the SPIRITUAL nature of Jesus, but they did the reverse. They questioned his human reality.
They questioned his verity.

Once the written statements of antiquity about Jesus are admissible then Jesus would be declared within reason to have been a MYTH.

Please allow Justin Martyr to take the stand.

"First Apology" My motives are pure. My motives may be irrelevant.

I have seen the written statements of antiquity and can say within reason that Jesus was a MYTH or FICTION.

Jesus was no different to the Sons of Jupiter and it was AGREED that he was of a Spiritual nature by Jesus believers themselves.

Toto

Hi Steve - you are new here. There have been extensive discussions on this forum about the dating of the gospels and Paul's letters, and the basis for this common opinion turns out to be very flimsy. There is no external evidence of any of these foundational Christian documents before the second century.

"Modern scholarship" must somehow deal with the fact that the gospels clearly were written after the first Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple, but describe events of 40 years earlier. The oral stories have no evidence. They are just a convenient devise to allow Christians to claim that there could be some historical basis for the gospel stories.

But there is no need to invent special rules for Biblical studies.

That's fine. But it is surprising the extent to which Christian assumptions have permeated the field, even when it claims to be "secular."

There has been a lot of discussion on this in the past. I can't bring myself to repeat it all now. But if you are interested, check out Neil Godfrey's blog.

Steven Carr

1 Corinthians 8:6
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Jesus was not a 'god' to the earliest Christians. He was just the agent through whom Yahweh created the Universe.

Steven Carr

Yes, we know that.

2 Corinthians 11
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

People were preaching a different Jesus to the one Paul preached.

Perhaps this different Jesus was the 'Jesus of Nazareth'?

Surely stories about Jesus had been circulating for a long time. The earliest Christians were convinced that the Old Testament was full of stories about Jesus. All they had to do was read the Old Testament to find out about Jesus.