Chris Weimer

You could always read the archives? Try doing a search on things like historical jesus, mythical jesus, kata sarka, I corinthians 15 and the like to get you started.

rlogan

heh.

I like when people base their belief system on miracles and other preposterous mythic stories and then pretend that they're not.

Boo-hoo-hoo. Our cartoon hero just don't get no respect.

Jabu Khan

I don't understand the point of this thread. If Jesus was a regular dude like my cousin what would be the point of proving his existence. If you take away the supernatural components of the person what do we have left. Seems to me just your run of the mill millinialist wondering the streets ranting about crazy stuff. IDK what archives your referring to but everything I've seen here and elsewhere seems to be the same old accept a religious document as a historical record and some Josephus and Tacitus remarks on christianity in general blown way out of proportion. The ancient texts seem to be talking about several different incongrous people that don't allign to the christ as depicted in the bible. All of this ignores the fact that this supposed to be a person put in charge of saving our immortal souls which is rather huge elephant to ignore.

Chris Weimer

For the same reason we look for the historical Author, historical Robin Hood, historical Siddhartha, historical Confucius, etc... We're interested in history. Sorry to hear that you're not.

Yes, actually. This seems about right. Except I would instead of "millinialist" use "apocalyptic preacher", i.e. world coming to an end, Romans will be kicked out and the kingly line restored, etc...

I think you're misinterpreting the position. First of al, no one serious seriously accepts that the gospels are an historical record. Instead, one can find historical traces in the religious record. It is, as you said, stripping away the religious garbage and finding what's left. And you don't need either Tacitus or Josephus for that.

If all you're out to do is try and bicker with Christianity, you're barking up the wrong tree.

mikem

Is it too late to get back on rail? Dr Dale mentioned Socrates in his OP. Socrates predates Jesus by about 300 years. He left no written records. The only evidence we have are the writings of Plato, and I think a play by Euripides or Sophocles . A number of characters mentioned in the Dialogues we know were historical, from other sources. Even without the play, I think we would be safe in accepting a historical Socrates based solely on the evidence of Plato's works. We see a development in his dialogues, where Socrates becomes less real, and more just a mouthpiece for Plato's views. Two of the earlier dialogues, dealing with Socrates trial and
death are clearly intended to be historical, even though Plato may have made up speeches, and put some of his own ideas in.

Is there something analogous here to what we get in the gospels, with a recognizably human Jesus in Mark interacting with known historical figures, preaching about the kingdom of God, as many had done before him, and becoming a less recognizable figure in Luke and Matthew, and all pretence of interest in a human Jesus thrown off in John?

I think that the literary history of a person could be evidence of their existence, even if we have no other evidence for them, provided of course, that one has previously established that the literature is not intentionally fictional, and that the society in which they lived could have produced the kind of person the narratives describe.

Both Jesus and Socrates fit into their social contexts, Jesus as a religious leader and prophet, Socrates as a philosopher in competition with other philosophers.

In both cases, there is a need to distinguish what goes back to the historical figure, and what is accretion.

DrDale

If you read my original post, you should have been able to determine that my orginal post was about consistancy in historical investigations. Not being an historian myself I wanted to know whether there existed accepted guidelines or methodologies regarding how historians determine whether or not an alleged historical figure existed or not.

My request not to turn this into a debate about whether Jesus existed or not was because I wanted people to look outside the biblical connotations of this question and answer it from a general historian point of view.

Whilst it is true that the question I chose to ask is not directly related the biblical criticism or history per say, it is directly relevant to the historical method for which this particular forum is entirely dependent on.

So please people, pretty please with a f*cking cherry on top, STICK TO THE SUBJECT!


Cheers, Eternal

Jabu Khan

I'm not just out to bicker against christianity I'm just not aware of any Jesus what so ever outside of the supernatural. I'm not familiar with any wondering preacher showing up in any historical records anywhere by that name could you please direct me to him?

If one ignores the extrodinary claims what is left to look for? He didn't overthrough any government, stage any rebellion, leave any offspring, have any contemporary friends or family of any importence, write anything of note or even sing it. The Bible is very vague about his life and person. These are the things that create ripples around historical people.

In the case of say King Arthur you have the legends you have Arturius(sp) both already historically established then the two are linked and myth is sifted from fact. Who stands out in this way in the case of Jesus? Ive been looking a long time a hell of a lot of people have been looking a long time but where is such a person? There are a lot of candidates that could have evolved into the Jesus myth but none that seem likely that I am aware of.

Tigers!

How can you tell if the figure is legendary if there is no history about them?
That's precisely what the OP is asking. All too often we put the cart before the horse i.e. we dismiss a figure as lengendary without the evidence to necessarily do that.

Tigers!

• To make a quid springs to mind.

• To possibly show how gullible future generations might be. (note I am not disputing Aristotle, Socrates existence. I believe that they are historical)

ChandraRama

If actually Jesus is God, we would not be debating this. There would be no need to debate this as the proof would have been provided that would be made irrefutable by the all powerful God.

All powerful god could convince our minds in a flick of a second.