Toto

The point being, if you lower your standards far enough, you can find some Jewish guy in 1st c. Palestine and proclaim him to be the historical Jesus. But did this person have anything to do with the origins of Christianity?

the_cave

Yes he is.

the_cave

An interesting question. If he was in any way associated with groups like the Jerusalem group (James, John, Cephas), or Paul, or the other apostles (Apollos, Peter(=Cephas?=Simon?), or some other group that influenced those others (the Essenes? etc.), then the answer is yes.

Toto

But since we have no shred of evidence that he was (and we're pretty sure that Paul never knew him), the answer is likely no.

the_cave

Well, we do have some evidence (and not even orthodox Christianity claims that Paul ever knew Jesus.) We have the record via the gospels and other writings of a 1st century movement, and someone associated with that movement. If you can say "if you lower your standards far enough, you can find some Jewish guy in 1st c. Palestine and proclaim him to be the historical Jesus," why does that preclude his affiliation with these movements? I'm not claiming anything beyond your bold assertion that "you can find some Jewish guy in 1st c. Palestine and proclaim him to be the historical Jesus."

Toto

What "evidence" do we have of a Jewish guy named Jesus with some connection to early Chistianity? We have Paul's ambiguous writings, but they appear to have been heavily edited in the second century. We have the gospels, but we have no external indication that they have any historical value.

spamandham

That's funny, I always thought the 'Lord of Misrule' predated Saint Nicholas.

The Evil One

Which raises the spectre that the "historical Jesus"

- may not have been called Jesus;
- may not have been crucified;
- may not have said any of the things attributed to him;
- may not have done any of the things he is claimed to have done;
- may not have had the apostles that tradition says he had
- may have promoted a worldview much different to that in the NT

and yet he might still be the figure at the root of the mythmaking.

But once you throw out the historicity of the Gospel account, does it really matter whether the pile of fictions about Jesus of Nazareth are ultimately based on some historical individual or on a myth? No, it doesn't, not really, except as a parlour game for historians. What matters for Christianity is not the historicity of Jesus but the historicity of the Gospels.

The Evil One

Oh really?

Did Saint Nicholas deliver gifts to all children in the world on Christmas Eve every year?

Did he ride a flying sleigh drawn by reindeer?

Did he live at the North Pole?

Did he have a coterie of elves as helpers?

Did he wear a red costuem with white trim?

Did he have a big white beard?

The point is, you are identifying a certain historical individual (St Nicholas) as the person at the root of the myth of Santa Claus. Well, agreed, the modern form of the S-Claus myth has certain ties to the legends surrounding St Nicholas. But it makes no sense to say that "there was a historical Santa Claus" when the individual you are identifying as the "historical SC" has none of the key features of Santa Claus listed above.

Likewise with the "historical Jesus". Let's say some individual is at the root of the story. Unless he was a Jewish preacher who taught roughly what the gospels say he taught, did roughly what they say he did, had the apostles they say he did (give or take), and died how they say he did, then it doesn't make much sense to say that this guy is "the historical Jesus", because he would lack the key features of Jesus as he is described in the NT.

(Incidentally, our modern figure of Santa Claus owes more to the mediaeval mummer's-play figure of Father Christmas, who is in turn an echo of an ancient pagan god of reindeer-slaughter, than it does to St Nicholas.)