aa5874

You are wrong. The Jesus of gMark is NOT a myth merely because the author called Jesus the Son of God in the first verse.

Logically, if Jesus was a real figure of history then gMark's statement would be irrelevant.

You seem not to realise that there were HUNDREDS of mortal characters that were all Myths in Greek/Roman mythology.

The Myth characters Romulus and Remus were not called Sons of God--they were Human brothers born of the Same woman. See Plutarch's Romulus.

A Myth character is SIMPLY a figure that has NO real history. In other words, a Myth is a NON-historical figure.

In Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Gaius the Emperor of Rome claimed he was the BROTHER of the Myth God Jupiter.

Gaius has history but the Myth God Jupiter does NOT.

Antiquities of the Jews 19.1 Jesus of the NT was a non-historical figure, in other words, a Myth.

maryhelena

Firstly, assuming a historical Jesus can be uncovered from the gospel JC story is an assumption that is fundamentally flawed. It is a flawed assumption because it is based upon interpretation of that gospel JC story. Interpretations are two a penny. Indeed, the historicists have an interpretation that is an easier sell than the interpretation of the ahistoricist/mythicists. But numbers do not, necessarily, reflect the quality of a product sold. In this case the ahistoricists/mythicists are able to expose the fault line in the historicists JC product. However, that does not equate to the ahistoricists/mythicists position being fault free. Buyer beware - whatever JC product one is purchasing...

From the chart reflecting the present poll - it’s the crucifixion that is number one for responders - in their criteria for a historical Jesus. To be able to pinpoint a historical crucifixion for an itinerant carpenter preacher is an impossibility. Game over if that is the standard of evidence required to sustain a historical Jesus. It can’t be done. That some people, at some time, believed in a crucified itinerant carpenter preacher is neither here nor there when that claim cannot be historically established. People believe all sorts of weird and wonderful things.

No smoke without a fire? Indeed. But that ‘fire' is not to be found within the pages of the gospel JC story. All that’s within the gospel pages is the ‘smoke’, the reflection; the indication that there was a ‘fire’ ........somewhere.....

A crucified King of the Jews - that is the ‘smoke’ within the gospel JC story. The reality, the ‘fire’, happened in 37 b.c. with the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus. Bound to a stake/cross, scourged and slain. (Cassius Dio). Josephus says Antigonus went under the axe. And 70 years later, that historical event is turned into ‘smoke’, turned into a historical reflection, with the gospel crucifixion of JC. (around 33 c.e. with gJohn’s 3 year ministry). A 70 year memorial.

And Josephus? Did he remember Antigonus? Indeed. A 100 year memorial reflection - that controversial James passage that is dated around 62/64 c.e. 100 years from the death of the last King and High Priest of the Jews in 37 b.c. Even earlier, the Josephan story of 37 c.e. - the war with Aretas and the imprisonment of JtB - is 100 years from the siege of Jerusalem in 63 b.c. and the taking of Antigonus as prisoner to Rome. Coincidence or a prophetic historian on top of his game? Remembering Hasmonean history; re-telling that history in a symbolic and literary format.

So, where does this put the historicists and the ahistoricists/mythicists?

1) The historicists are right to maintain that history is relevant. They are wrong to maintain that the JC gospel figure is historical.

2) The ahistoricists/mythicists are right that the gospel JC is not a historical figure. They are wrong to maintain that there is no history relevant to that gospel story.

Doug Shaver

Nice try, Diogenes, but it looks like a few people here can't read too well.

I went with the crucifixion, some disciples, and the disciples thinking he was alive again after the crucifixion. That's not exactly my own definition, but it's close enough for the purpose of this thread.

dog-on

Ehrman repeatedly says "a Jewish preacher from Nazareth named Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate".

This seems to be the proper definition of HJ.

Tenorikuma

I think the poll is an interesting one, because it seems clear there exists a range of possible historical Jesuses, from one who did and said everything in the gospels to any Palestinian named Yeshua who went around preaching between 100 BC and 100 BCE. The former certainly doesn't exist, and no one is interested in the latter.

I must be the only one who didn't check the "crucified" box on the poll. I think a guy named Yeshua who went around preaching, had disciples, and said some of the stuff in the gospels qualifies as HJ even if he didn't die on a cross. (The Koranic Jesus, for example.)

tanya

Nice try, Doug, but it appears that you have not read Diogenes' text, yourself.

What would you need to see, Doug, to say that Hercules was historical, not mythical?

Do you know of any other " υιου του θεου " which are "historical"? If so, which criteria did you employ to make that determination?

You chose, Doug, crucifixion and existence of disciples, as your criteria of choice. Some have declared that Mani was crucified. He certainly had followers. Some apparently considered him a deity.

Which parameters will you employ, there, Doug, to decide that Mani was not just a legendary human, but rather υιου του θεου ?

sotto voce

That's fair enough. Would the Qur'an have been written had it not been believed that Jesus had died on a cross?

spin

For something or someone to be "historical" there needs to be suffient evidence from the relevant time to indicate their existence. Historicity is about evidence. A historical Jesus requires sufficient evidence to relate the figure, shown to exist, to the gospels in a meaningful way.

No particular items in the pole are necessary.

aa5874

You should know that the "definition" and "description" are NOT the same.

The term historical Jesus refers to a human Jesus.

The Quest for an historical Jesus merely means that people are trying to find an historical Jesus [a human Jesus] AFTER establishing that Jesus of the NT is DIVINE or a Jesus of Faith , in effect, a Myth.

ALL Divine figures are considered Mythological.

And, here is where it becomes so illogical and absurd for HJers.

In order to find an Historical Jesus, in order to find any person, dead or alive, one MUST have an established credible DESCRIPTION of the person being sort BEFORE the SEARCH begins.

HJers have been looking for an HJ without a known established description because they have effectively Discredited the very description of Jesus in the NT.

Let me give an example.

The NT contains the names of many characters--there is Pilate the Governor of Judea under Tiberius and there is Gabriel the angel that was sent to the city of Galilee.

In order to SEARCH for an historical Pilate or Gabriel I must use the very same description that were found in the NT.

There is a figure of history described as Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea, during the reign of Tiberius in the writings of Philo and Josephus but no figure of history known as Gabriel the angel.

It would have been completely illogical to attempt to look for Pilate the Obscure Preacher or Gabriel the itinerant prophet when there are no such characters described in the NT.

HJers are looking for a Jesus for whom they have NO known established description.

Each person looking for Jesus have their OWN imagined description

This is most odd.

I am looking at a poster --It says "Wanted Dead or Alive--an Historical Jesus"--but there is NO Photo and NO description.

An historical Jesus will NEVER ever be found because HJers do NOT know who they are looking for.

Diogenes the Cynic

If we can't even agree on what we mean by the term "historical Jesus," then how can we have an intelligent discussion about it?