The Bishop

Well, of course not if you base a Historical Jesus theory on the Mythical Jesus arguments. HJ advocates simply don't accept the arguments made from silence, and consequently don't think that a model of earliest Christianity can be based on statements like, "An innocent, deranged man named Jesus is unjustly crucified in Jerusalem. He is remembered, not for the events of his life, which are unknown, but for the injustice and brutality of his execution, and for the coincidence of his name, which means "Yahweh saves."" You only state that the details of his life are unknown because of the argument that with no documentation we cannot connect to a real living Jesus, and that argument has been designed specifically to deny any such person ever existed.

Any arguments for an HJ are predicated on the basis that if a deranged man was unjustly tried and executed in Jerusalem, then it is nonsense to claim that the details of his life would have been unknown, and sufficient of those details were remembered long enough to help persuade Paul that his delusional vision was based on this same man that Peter and James and the Christians he himself had persecuted, were talking about, and even twenty, thirty, forty years later, to have formed the basis for the gospels of Mark and Q and Matthew.

Didymus

...

As a matter of policy? News to me. Even if they often don't have the weight of arguments from affirmative evidence, such arguments shouldn't be ignored. They can be perfectly valid, especially when a "silence" is inexplicable or runs counter to other evidence, or when an omission can be shown to be glaring.

...I stated that the details of his life are unknown because the primary source of those details, Mark's gospel, appears to be based on scripture and other ahistorical material, as amply demonstrated by the work of reputable scholars.

The motives behind the design of the argument are irrelevant if it conforms to the evidence.

...

Is it really so inconceivable that an incoherent man could have wandered into Jerusalem and disturbed the peace of the Temple precinct? And that such a man could have been executed? And that word of that injustice could have spread and been embellished in light of messianic expectations?

...A. As I suggested, no details need have been remembered. Everything essential to the narrative was present in scripture or in daily life or in folklore.

B. I made no reference to Paul's "delusional vision," which is a different issue entirely.

C. It's not important to this discussion, but in point of fact Paul did not say that he had persecuted Peter and James.

D. In this mini-hypothesis, the people Paul persecuted would have been those who had formed a sect based on the messianic stories that had sprung up regarding the crucified man named Jesus. (I think it's premature at that stage to refer to them as Christians. Paul didn't.)

Didymus

J-D

In this instance, your exact words are ‘a realisation that the traditional expectations appear to have been wrong’. I don’t see how it’s possible for that not to imply a change in ideological position. I don’t see how people can be said to realise that something is incorrect without necessarily implying that those people had theretofore at least tacitly accepted the assumption that it was correct.

Amaleq13

Really? You cannot see that a given belief is untrue unless you first believe it, yourself?

IMO, a better argument is to suggest that the fact they were studying Scripture regarding the Messiah would imply prior messianic belief but I don't see how it is required nor that any such beliefs would necessarily be traditional.

dog-on

Whether or not this has been posited, it seems that an argument could be made that some group or groups of what were to become early Christians may have been waiting on a Messiah figure to arrive with the coming apocalypse. When the apocalypse doesn't happen as predicted, Paul and friends jump in with the resurrected Christ story, based entirely on the scriptures, from which they draw to support the belief. This Christ had already redeemed men, in ages long past, so they could be saved. This truth was simply hidden from men, but now revealed, by God, to Paul. The legend then becomes that this redeemer will return at a time somewhere in the future to judge all men, but those who believe are saved already and do not need to worry about exactly when the prophesied apocalypse will occur.

The bio is just a later addition. As people started re-reading the scriptures with the Christ mindset in place, certain passages just seemed to make sense within this context. Christ becomes the earthly Jewish Messiah (or as close as they could get).

I see no need for a HJ, as this would only complicate the matter based on the actual Jewish Messianic requirements. The MJ is actually a much better fit when it comes to the fundamental changes made to the existing Jewish Messianic tradition as he could be extracted completely from existing scripture, simply by using different interpretations.

J-D

An intriguing hypothesis. I note that on this model, the 'Christ story' does not begin as a story of a purely discarnate being; it begins with the story of a flesh-and-blood individual. But, as I have said from the beginning, I don't care what anybody wants to categorise as a 'historical Jesus' model or not.

I can't say the hypothesis is impossible. But look at the likelihoods. Which is more likely: that the Romans would execute a preacher who had attracted no following because of his derangement, or that they would execute a preacher who had succeeded in attracting at least some followers? And which is more likely: that a deranged man with no following in his life would be remembered as significant after his death, or that the memory of a crucified preacher would be preserved after his death by those who followed him in life?

J-D

I don't share your assumptions and expectations. I see nothing implausible about somebody who was an earlier adherent of a movement and closer to the original leader being ousted by a Johnny-come-lately. For that hypothesis to be true, Paul would have to have been effective in convincing people that his message was most faithful to Jesus's original message, so that regardless of biographical and historical fact, he was the apostle that Jesus's true adherents should follow. And from a rational point of view, that's not a position that should necessarily be rejected. After all, we don't assume that the person who was personally closest to, say, Einstein in life is also the person with the deepest understanding of Einstein's work and best equipped to interpret him. (Not that I do think that Paul was the most faithful interpreter of Jesus--but my reason for not accepting that view is not simply that Paul was never close to Jesus personally.)

Sparrow

Maybe I missed something, but how do we know the Romans executed a preacher, deranged or not, with or without a following? Is it the same way that we know Scarlett O'Hara made a dress out of her house draperies? Are you sure you've plumbed all the possibilities or might you have a false dichotomy or two?

The Bishop

I'm not saying they're "ignored", I'm saying that by and large the arguments from silence predicate an MJ, and HJ'ers including myself generally attack them - by calling them "arguments from silence". If there are HJers here who want to contradict me, let them.

Again, that is an MJ position. The HJ position is that underlying the scripture and the ahistorical material is clearly definable historical material, as amply demonstrated by the work of equally reputable scholars. You were positing the MJ-view of the evidence in favour of an HJ and then concluding that you "didn't see an HJ". My point is that of course you wouldn't. But an HJ'er doesn't have the same view of the textual evidence that you do.

Well, you yourself claimed it wasn't likely. As a matter of fact, I agree with you wholeheartedly! This HJ isn't likely, but that is because the HJ hypothesis does not postulate followings and messianic expectations building up around an executed man about whose life nothing is known.

Well, neither did I, actually. I said, "on this same man that Peter and James and the Christians he himself had persecuted". Peter and James, and [before them] the Christians that Paul had persecuted. Sorry if I was unclear.

Amaleq13

No, many scholars who accept/assume an HJ consider Mark to be of questionable reliability with regard to history.

The assertion of "clearly definable historical material" is hyperbole that is true only for those who view the texts primarily with faith. Even Meier acknowledges that identifying what might be history in the Gospels is problematic. These stories were not written to be records of history but expressions of faith and any history that is included was included because it comported with the faith of the author.