Jayhawker Soule

If you posit the nascent Jerusalem church as one of many messianic sects cropping up in the latter days of the Second Temple Period, how is the presumption of a messianic cult leader an 'extraordinary claims'?
Yes, but those who argue against historicity by tilting at divinity do little better.

spin

The word "other" assumes that Jesus was a historical figure and you have assumed what you need to demonstrate.

What are your historical sources within 100 years for the existence of this Jesus person you have been babbling about? If you've been here long enough, you'll have seen that there is a lot of evidence for the addition to certain literary works of pseudo-historical references to the man. All I ask is for one historical source within 100 years which seriously attests to the existence of Jesus, you know, no xian statements thrust into the mouths of Jews, no indications of multitudes of xians in Rome when the religion was just supposedly starting off, no reports from classical writers that don't get noticed by xian apologists for the first 200 years. Just one historical source. Come on, or forget this line of useless thought.

If you want to see what Julius Caesar looked like you can go and see a few of his statues, try his inscriptions (see a few here), or his coins. If that's not enough, you can see the altar put up to him by Augustus in the Roman forum. You can follow the post-Caesar history of events related to his death through inscriptions and coins, including his deification by the Romans, the retribution for his assassins, the arrival of the principate, all as it happened through the coins. The only people who put up the argument that there is more evidence for Jesus Christ than Julius Caesar are people who haven't got a clue about history. They just like the relationship between the initials.

Now, I'm not saying that Legion holds to such a view, but any do. It should be noted that historical figures, some of whom will fit into Legion's "other historical figures", are seen as historical not only from evidence from the time of that person but from the period immediately afterwards. "Great" people leave a wake that requires response. Pompey's death in Egypt left the writers of the Psalms of Solomon gloating over the come-uppance of the man who violated the temple. The death of Marcus Antonius left no-one to challenge Octavian's (Augustus's) power, leading finally to the principate. The death of Mithridates after a long battle with Rome suddenly left Rome as de facto rulers of Asia Minor. And so it goes.

There are direct historical consequences to the actions of historical figures. People's beliefs are obviously not the realm of those consequences. Beliefs need no connection to history at all. Testimonies through belief are in themselves of no use to history, other than to the history of the belief. Many figures called historical figures are really names attached to texts, Horace, Diodorus, Herodotus. One can claim that they aren't historical -- it's possible -- but we have to deal with the fact that someone produced the texts and it is convenient to call the texts by the traditionally attached names. What does it matter? I could just as easily jettison Shakespeare, yet still have to deal with the literature. That literature itself is part of history, for it can be placed exactly in time based on both external and internal evidence.

So, Legion, we await just one piece of undisputed contemporary, or near contemporary, evidence for the character you would like to be considered historical.


spin

Jayhawker Soule

Babble is bad no doubt, but probably not so bad as unnecessary ridicule.

On a different topic, spin, what do think of Wells' allowance for a 1st century Galillean preacher reflected in Q?

spin

When you come across any "unnecessary ridicule" in the matter let me know.

Babbling is what happens when people make statements based on nothing tangible. The whole historical jesus movement is based on finding history where there are no historical sources.

I haven't read Wells's views, but, as Q is only a hypothesis and, if it existed, one doesn't know when it was written, how can one base opinions on its contents as though they were worthy of historical "validity" for the period in question?


spin

Jayhawker Soule

Thanks. I might have used the term 'conjecture' instead, but, then again, perhaps you found the more demeaning term necessary for some reason not readily apparent.

I'm not at all sure that I have a good answer. Permit me to first quote Wells' 'babbling':
My problem with the Q hypothesis is that I have nowhere near the background necessary to judge its viability and, for this reason, find the Goodacre site equally compelling. Nevertheless, if one does posit a sayings source, I would think this would suggest a source for these sayings. And, even if one rejects Q but posits a messianic Jerusalem cult that predates Paul's ministry, I would think that such a cult might serve as circumstantial evidence for the probability of a messianic cult leader. This, coupled with an apparent absence of anti-Christian pagan polemics centered on the question of historicity, suggests to me that the existence of Wells' "Galilean preacher of the early first century" is as likely as not.

Proven? Hardly, but neither is it "babble" in my opinion.

Tristan Scott

My babble on the subject, FWIW, is that there will probably never be any proof for the existence of an HJ. If the general story about the Jesus figure in the NT is true; that he was a messianic teacher among the Jews of Galilee for a few years in the early first c., then it would be surprising if there actually was any contemporary evidence of his existence. Why would there be? His followers were alleged to be poor and un-educated. Writing was not something that the poor and uneducated people did in first century Palestine. The only "evidence", if you want to call it that, would be that there appears to have been a strong oral tradition of sayings that were attributed to this figure. He could have been a purely mythical character, that would have not been without precedent as the Jewish people have a rich tradition of using mythical characters as aids in explaining their relationships with their god.

Attonitus

The 'great difference' is that here we don't speak of history but of mythology, Jesus' biographers are mythographers no historians.

Attonitus

Hi rlogan, thanks

Attonitus

Without primary sources, as in the Jesus subject, you don't have anything, only speculation!

Jayhawker Soule

Thanks, Attonitus. I guess your circular reasoning left you too dizzy to respond to my questions, so let me ask them again.

• How can the likelihood of historicity be a function of polemical embellishments and fabrications consructed decades after the fact?
• Are you not, by conflating the issue of historicity and the issue of divinity, simply constructing a strawman?

Thanks, again.