fatpie42

Hi everyone. I know this is a common topic, but I think a lot of people are set in their arguments and so finding a clear cut explanation of this topic is hard to find. Below I have written what I consider to be the main points.

I'll be interested to see what knowledgeable people have to say to contradict or clarify as well as what less knowledgeable people (and I'd count myself amongst them) think sounds interesting or dodgy.


Introduction:
Historical or Mythical? The Distinction

In a way the historical and mythical Jesus are not really in conflict. There are plenty of scholars who believe in a historical Jesus who will happily use the term "myth" in relation to Jesus. The most obvious example which comes to mind is Rudolf Bultmann.

Bultmann defined myth as portraying real things in supernatural ways. He was annoyed by the way that mythical aspects of Christianity were often portrayed to modern believers in a matter of fact and essentially literal way by those who, when pressed, would accept some level of metaphor in the language. He insisted on a project of "demythologising" which does not really appear to have caught on for the most part.

The problem of demythologising is this. The way the world was understood in the first century and earlier is very different from the way it is understood today. A major issue is the arrival of the scientific method. While in the past there was a less clear boundary between natural and supernatural, today we have extremely reliable tests which have made clear what is possible or impossible (or at least improbable). We know much more about natural processes and how they work than ever before. We also have much higher standards of historical records, whereas in the past much information was passed down through oral tradition and there was little expectation for objectivity in records of events. Certainly the Hebrew Bible was not originally intended as an objective recording of history.

So removed are we from the mentality of people of the past that we have difficulty putting ourselves in their position when reading old texts. When it comes to a text so prevalent in the public consciousness as the Bible, readers inevitably come to it with preconceptions. Sometimes we will read into stories elements that simply are not there (such as identifying the serpent in the Adam and Eve with the devil).

In the end, Bultmann insists that all the miracles are part of the unscientific mentality of the period, including the resurrection of Jesus. However, he asserts that the Jesus' death upon the cross must be taken as an actual historical event. Why? Because it is described as central within the Bible. Bultmann considers it central to Christianity and so insists that it must be taken as a literal historical death. Since it's plausibility does not seem to be ruled out in the same way as miracles, that is Bultmann's basis for continuing to accept it as an event in history.

So, the point I am making here is that Bultmann is a scholar who accepts the idea of Jesus as mythical. While he asserts that there must have been a historical figure who died on the cross, much of the events described as part of Jesus' life are accepted to be entirely symbolic. For Bultmann we might easily imagine that all of Jesus' life was pure symbolic myth and even his choice to make Jesus' death an exception is on a theological, not historical, basis.

Part One:
Eyewitnesses and Extra-Biblical Sources

So if the Bible presents a mythical Jesus, does that mean we need to go outside of the Bible to find the historical Jesus? Well actually no. The myth issue is because of the way people record events in the past, so we might well find mythical elements in any account. Also the issue was that we couldn't be sure whether miracles are being taken literally or being used as symbolism in a mythical story, but either way they were best off taken in the latter way in our more scientific age.

Nevertheless, the problems with using the Bible to assert Jesus' historicity is that the Bible quite regularly conflicts with historical events, even if it appears to take place in an historical setting. How would the authors get so mixed up about events? Well because the gospels are anonymous accounts written long after Jesus' supposed death.

To make this very clear, Mark does not mention Jesus' birth or resurrection and is most likely the oldest account. Matthew and Luke share a great deal from Mark copied almost word for word and also have elements copied from one another (which is the reason many suggest that a fourth gospel, referred to as Q, may have been made use of by the authors of Matthew and Luke). Finally the gospel of John is the latest account possessed by a particular religious group which regularly made additions. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were attributed to these gospels late on, but they would originally have been wholly anonymous. What's more, these gospels would have been based on pericopes. Pericopes are short accounts of specific events in Jesus' life or teachings of Jesus used for the purposes of preaching to people how they should live their lives as his followers. There are clear signs that the gospels took these elements and tried to use them to form a narrative (as I'll consider later).

The earliest account of Jesus comes from St. Paul's writings, but Paul only ever saw a vision of Jesus, never a physical person. Paul is regularly quoted as saying "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins". This is often used to assert the centrality of the resurrection to the Christian faith and sometimes to point out that the resurrection was believed by early Christians and not made up later. What is often ignored is that this passage makes very clear that, even at this early stage, Jesus' rise from the dead was controversial. Paul doesn't say "we know Christ has been raised because the apostles and several others have seen it" inviting further questioning to assess the truth (like questioning witnesses in a court of law). What's more he argues that faith is in vain if Christ has not been raised, as if he is talking to people who have faith yet disbelieve in Christ's resurrection. This suggests that for many early Christians the focus of faith was something else.

Paul never mentions elements from Jesus' life. His sole focus is on the death and resurrection. Whether things happened or not is, for Paul, tied closely with his theological beliefs about the significance of these events. He is not shown to be basing his assertions about Jesus on witness testimony.

So if Jesus wasn't seen by Paul and the gospels are even later accounts by unidentifiable sources working from existing oral tradition, what about accounts of Jesus external to the gospels?

Well, the short answer is that there aren't any. We can't really expect much. Most of the people who would have met Jesus would have been unable to read or write and anyone who did happen to write something down would be unlikely to have their writing preserved so that we can see it today. This is particularly true of non-Christian sources.

The earliest description of Jesus is by Josephus. That's presuming it isn't a forgery. First of all there's this passage which is definitely a forgery:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

This passage breaks up a section of Josephus' work that flows much more sensibly if this whole section is removed. It is clearly the words that only a Christian would use and we know full well that Josephus was not a Christian.

Then there's this passage which might also be a partial forgery:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent.

Paul refers to James as "brother of the Lord", but this may have been an honorary title suggesting particular importance in the brethren of believers rather than an indication of family ties.

What's more, the name Jesus was extremely common at the time. So common in fact that Josephus refers to "Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" in the very next sentence of the above paragraph (suggesting to some that this may be the same Jesus referred to in relation to James). Even if the words "who was called Christ" were not a later interpolation, there's always the possibility that this Jesus an entirely unrelated figure claiming to be a messiah. Christ was one possible term for messiah and Josephus documents a great many false messiah figures in a lot of detail (which causes me to wonder why he would give no attention to Jesus, a figure with a following amongst people contemporary to Josephus himself). Josephus lived between 37 and 100AD.

Another source often quoted is from Tacitus who lived from 56 to 117AD. He says:
Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Problems are:
(i) He thinks Jesus is called "Christus".
(ii) If his words were based on Roman records he would have called Jesus by his actual name and not this odd derivation from "Christ".
(iii) There is nothing Tacitus says here that is not most likely inferred from knowledge about Christian beliefs regarding themselves.

This passage was written towards the end of Tacitus' life, leaving plenty of time for the Jesus myth to have taken shape.

Part Two:
The List of Problems with the Jesus Story

So, even accepting the Biblical account as having myth involved in it, what is wrong with taking it as an historical account (just for the sake of argument)?

1. The birth narratives. Rather than just throwing them out because they aren't included in Mark, let's look at what's wrong with them.

Well perhaps most ridiculous is the idea that Mary and Joseph were told to go to Bethlehem in order to register in the census. If a census required everyone to move in order to register there would be absolute chaos. A census does not involve people moving about. The census-takers come to you and that way they can identify who you are and where you are currently living. How are they supposed to collect taxes when you registered somewhere nowhere near where you live? What's more (and this is the really stupid bit) why would they expect you to register at the site where your ancestor from centuries past once lived. Jesus goes to Bethlehem because it is the site of the City of King David (which has much more significance for Jewish prophecy than it does for Roman census-takers). What's more the Quirinius census being referred to did not happen in that area. The writer is trying to explain how Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of being born in the City of King David (which he must have done because he's the messiah) and makes mistakes about history (and common sense) when working out how this would fit together.

Also quite ridiculous is the idea that Herod killed hundreds of infants because he feared that Jesus would take his crown. Herod was, admittedly, known for being a pretty tyrannical leader (or at least that was his reputation). However, there is reason to believe that an event as awful as this would have been mentioned later on. It is not. Mary and Joseph then flee to Egypt. Why Egypt? Well, it doesn't seem obvious that they would have to go to Egypt in order to escape the influence of Herod, but if we take this as symbolism the whole story rather neatly parallels that found in Exodus.

(In the other birth narrative Jesus is taken to the Temple to have his birth rites performed, which would be impossible if Jesus was in Egypt. However, it is possible that the astrologers arrive at the house to see Mary and Joseph after Jesus is born and has already had this ritual performed.)

2. The Wedding at Cana
For an example of how little stock we can put in the historicity of miracles, I always like to look at the water into wine miracle. Jesus changes the water into wine when the wine runs out at the wedding. He is then praised because he saved his best wine until last. Why is saving better wine unusual? Obviously because people want to use the good wine while they are still sober enough to enjoy it. Saving wine until later is at best a waste and at worst a sign that you were hoping no one would get around to drinking it. Praising someone for saving the best wine til last is absurd. However, if take this as symbolic, we can see parallels with Jesus coming late in history yet having something more important to offer than has come before. In fact, it seems to me that this miracle ONLY makes sense as myth and makes absolutely NO sense as history. This is why the argument works that many of the miracles are not actually being taken literally by those who wrote them.

3. Geographical issues
Remember the story about how Jesus sends demons out of a man and into some pigs? Remember how the pigs run off a cliff and into the sea? Well here's the problem. That event is claimed to happen somewhere nowhere near the sea. These pigs would have to run several miles before they'd get anywhere near any sea. - This is some pretty damn unreliable record-keeping going on here.

4. The Transfiguration
Jesus shines with the shikinah (or holy spirit) and meets with a risen Moses and Elijah (both of whom the disciples apparently have no trouble recognising). This is something we would expect to have some impact on St. Paul's theology, so I think the absence of this event or anything like it from Paul's writings makes me fairly certain that he did not have access to the same stories.

5. The Prophecy
Jesus is expecting something important to happen. Whether he considers himself to be the one to make it happen or expects someone else to turn up later, it's clear that he expects a proper messianic age and soon. He is at one point supposed to have said that there are people around who will live to see the Son of Man come with power. (The anti-semitic image of the "wandering Jew" comes from this. A Jew present at Jesus' crucifixion who is expected to wander the Earth, never dying, so that he can witness the Second Coming.) St. Paul also expects the return of Jesus followed by the messianic age to be imminent and has a grave sense of urgency in his attempts to spread the message.

Excuses are later made for the non-reappearance of Christ in 2 Peter where it reads:
But you must not forget, dear friends, that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise to return, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent.

Some have taken this prophecy as a sign that there must have been a historical Jesus. They argue that without an historical person to make this claim, it could simply be ignored later on. All I think it shows is that the belief that the messianic age was imminent was a central belief for early Christians. Perhaps not so surprising when early Christians would have been mainly Jewish and would have known what an actual messianic age involved. When it didn't come about this would probably have been a fairly well known issue because it is likely the main reason for many Jewish members leaving the group when the prophecy failed to come true.

6. The Pharisees and Jesus
Regularly, the gospel writers tell us that the Pharisees went away and plotted against Jesus. Did anything come of this? Well no. The ones who mismanage the trial and apparently attempt to frame Jesus as guilty in the end are actually the high priests. The high priests and the Pharisees are not the same people. Here's the important point here. The high priests were the religious leaders of the Jews until the fall of the Temple. Afterwards, the Pharisees were more often the religious leaders for the Jews and they were in direct competition with the early Christians, particularly at the early stage where most Christians were themselves Jewish.

The arguments Jesus is shown having with the Pharisees are not far removed from the arguments Pharisees would have amongst themselves. These arguments with Jesus would not be as controversial for Pharisees as Christians like to believe. The idea that they would plot to murder him over them is utterly ridiculous.

It seems likely that the status of the Pharisees as villains in the New Testament comes from the gospel writers trying to introduce narrative elements when compiling the story of Jesus' life. It makes for a good narrative structure to have sources of conflict between Jesus and Jewish religious figures before the inevitable trial and execution.

7. Pilate and Jesus
Jesus is supposed to have been crucified for blasphemy. Was this likely? Well no, not really. Some people like to use the Talmud as a source for Jesus' execution and they use a random passage about a figure called Jesus (common name, remember?) being executed for blasphemy by stoning. When I asked how it could be the Jesus of the Bible if he died by stoning they often argue that the execution was recorded as stoning because the Jews felt embarassed or ashamed that they did not do the execution themselves. This is clearly nonsense.

What this section from the talmud shows is that the punishment for blasphemy was not normally crucifixion. Crucifying someone involved special recourse to the Roman authorities for them to perform the execution. What's more, Pilate would not be expected to come all the way to Jerusalem to see that the execution took place. Someone would come to ask for his permission and he would either give his permission or not. His presence would be entirely unnecessary.

What's more there was no Roman tradition whereby political prisoners would be released on the Jewish holiday of passover. The very idea is absurd since Romans would clearly be more interested in their own festivals and there are better ways to appease an occupied people and to keep the peace than to release enemies of Rome. The whole episode of Pilate offering to let Jesus go as part of this special tradition and washing his hands of the responsibility while the Jewish people cry for Jesus' death seems to be a way of encouraging more Roman followers. Nowhere is there a more clear sign that the gospels are ahistorical than this clearly unbelievable piece of fiction.

Part Three:
Odds and Ends

1. Was there a place called Nazareth and did Jesus come from there? There's an awkward issue that the word "Nazorean" is written in different ways in the different gospels, suggesting that it may not originally have referred to someone living in Narareth, but possibly instead to certain Jewish group. In any case, the meaning of Nazorean is unclear and Jesus may not have been from Nazareth at all.

2. In Matthew 27.52 it says: "and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many." Some particularly hardcore believers in the historical Jesus will insist that this was something that actually happened. That skeletal remains of the dead wandered through Jerusalem.

Heck, if Jesus being welcomed into Jerusalem by massive crowds carrying palm leaves didn't make any impact, why should crowds of skeletons wandering through the city, eh?

Conclusion:
What do mythers think actually happened?

Thankfully this isn't a question we really need to answer. Basically we don't think that we can reliably claim that the stories in the gospels relate to a single historical figure. Naturally only an idiot would deny that there was an ordinary historical guy called Jesus. There were tons of ordinary historical guys called Jesus. Like I said before, it was a very common name. However, without any good reason to connect any of them to the specific figure in the Bible this doesn't help the "historical Jesus" cause very much.

The gospels are compiled from a collection of stories and teachings and edited into a narrative with a beginning, middle and end. They might be based on other religions, a variety of random stories or even possibly accounts of actual people. However, when the details of that narrative are so dodgy, it is difficult to imagine much of it being true about anyone. Like I said, once we've trimmed it down to "some guy called Jesus" we aren't really arguing for a historical figure of Jesus connected to Christianity anymore.


So, what have I missed? Anything need clarifying? Anything I've said sound completely daft? Please come forward. I'm really interested to hear what people have to say.

JonA

Most arguments for historicity do not rest on 'details'.

Which historicists—be specific; name names—claim to only be arguing for the existence of 'some guy called Jesus'?

Jon

fatpie42

My mate who I'm not naming thought that was a good defence, lol. :P

I must admit that my main source on all this is E.P. Saunders whose book "The Historical Jesus" made me less inclined to believe in one than ever. Many of my points above come from his book, yet he was arguing for a historical figure. He starts out with 5 points that he thinks can be confidently, presumably in the hope that most conservatively religious readers won't get much further than the introduction. By the end of the book, I wasn't convinced he could confidently assert any of them. The statements were along the lines of "he must have born around..." and "he must have died around..." and certainly those two points might as well apply to "some guy".

JonA

Care to lay out those five points?

Jon

Toto

Do you mean The Historical Figure of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)?

There is an extensive review here by an occasional poster here.

fatpie42

Was going to faecetiously say "google it". Glad I didn't because it's 8 points and I mispelt the guy's name.

Anyway:
http://www.ptypes.com/sanders-historical-jesus.html

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed.
Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve.
Jesus confined his activity to Israel.
Jesus engaged in a controversy about the temple.
Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.
After his death Jesus' followers continued as an identifiable movement.
At least some Jews persecuted at least parts of the new movement (Gal. I.13,22; Phil. 3.6), and it appears that this persecution endured at least to a time near the end of Paul's career (II Cor. II.24; Gal. 5.11; 6.12; cf. Matt. 23.34; 10.17).

Okay, so obviously he doesn't include the date of Jesus' birth, so that must have been a later discussion, not an "indisputable fact" as he claims the above are.

Now the 8th point (while, to my mind, uncontroversial) isn't even about Jesus. Much of the argument for many of the above points about Jesus is pretty much that it's plausible. That's pretty low standards for an "indisputable fact" and what E.P. Sanders illustrated to me was just how much of the gospel account was implausible.

For example, note how Sanders sees as indisputable that Jesus spoke of 12 disciples. That's because the gospels are so inconsistent as to make clear that there weren't actually a specific 12 disciples than could be easily pinned down.

The crucifixion point is one I would particularly disagree with (as an "indiputable fact", not as a plausible event) because it simply wasn't the punishment we'd expect for the crime of blasphemy. It was more the punishment we'd expect for an enemy of Rome. (Sanders tries to say that Jesus' actions in the Temple - of which the gospels are our only source - would have made his actions closer to rebellion against the authorities in the eyes of the high priests. He bases this on an extra-biblical record of their reaction to a Jew, presumably with mental issues, who causes trouble around the Temple.)

aa5874

How in the world could those be INDISPUTABLE facts when those are the EXACT events that MJers dispute?

One cannot PRESUME what they IMAGINED to have happened with Jesus are indisputable Facts when the authors of the Jesus stories did NOT even state AT ALL they were writing FACTS.

In Fact, the very authors Claimed in their PUBLICLY published documents that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, was God, the Creator of heaven and earth who walked on water and Transfigured.

HJers are supposed to FIND corroboration for what they claim did happen in the NT.

HJers don't seem to understand that the Gospels are DISPUTED.

People NO Longer accept their PRESUMPTIONS of Facts about Jesus.

HJers want to DISCREDIT the NT, REJECT their stories of Jesus and INVENT their OWN Facts.

This will NOT be PERMITTED. HJers MUST NOW PROVIDE credible SOURCES for their Historical Jesus.

The sources which claim Jesus was a Ghost Child, God and Creator who walked on the sea simply cannot be used by HJers to claim Jesus was an ordinary man with a human father.

fatpie42

Essentially this is my point. But, since I'm presuming you haven't read Sanders, let me clarify a few points:

It is plausible that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist. Unlike Jesus, John the Baptist has (to my knowledge) one who uncontested paragraph in Josephus. It seems that there's far greater likelihood that Josephus knew who John the Baptist was than that he knew who Jesus was (even as information passed on from followers). John the Baptist probably baptised many people and, what with Jesus being a common name, several of them were probably called Jesus.

The figure within the gospels always seems to be described as being most at home in and around Galilee. Sure this could be inferred from all the fishing references, but nevertheless it is at least a consistent point amongst accounts of Jesus with a decent level of plausibility.

That Jesus had followers is objectively true. Whether any of them ever met him is another point entirely. The tradition seems to be that there were twelve, but even Sanders admits that the number of twelve disciples is more of a theological point than an numerical figure for Jesus' main followers. (The number of twelve linking to the tribes of Israel, of course. A point of hope for Jews since some, I think it was two, of those tribes were pretty much gone by this point.)

That Jesus confined his actions to Israel is more of a negative point. There are no stories out of the most reliable accounts which involve him acting outside of Israel. The point being, I suppose, that if we are talking about a historical figure, Jesus didn't make great big long travels to India (as some nutcases like to suggest).

The Temple bit is the weakest point to my mind. E.P. Sanders' argument is that it is the only point that can reasonably explain why Jesus was crucified. Blasphemy would definitely not have been enough.

I feel the need to admit that if Jesus was a historical person then he must have been crucified. I make this admission for the following reasons. If Jesus was not crucified (or at least if there wasn't a strong tradition that said he was crucified) there would be no need for the ridiculous apologia that says that Pilate washed his hands of it and released a political prisoner instead. The whole idea of Rome releasing political prisoners to coincide with Jewish festivals is utter nonsense and must be to encourage Roman followers. If the historical Jesus was stoned to death, why would the tradition say Jesus was crucified? Still, as with the prophecy of an imminent messianic age, the tradition that Jesus was crucified could be just that, a tradition, and that would be enough to explain the attempts to take the guilt away from Pilate.


We can both accept the last two points right? Though they don't seem to say anything about a historical Jesus...

fatpie42

Yeah, I saw that before. I agree with them.

Hmmm they mention 10 points. One of them appears to be the approximate year of Jesus' birth.

My main reason for posting the very long OP is to clarify some points (particularly the list in Part Two of the OP) so I know where I stand in the debate and what important issues I might be missing.

Sanders was interesting to me because in explaining why we might accept those "indisputable facts", he showed just how flimsy the whole historical Jesus position really is.

aa5874

<edit>

Josephus was born AFTER John the Baptist was Already dead.

In antiquity it was PLAUSIBLE that a PHANTOM without birth and flesh could have come DIRECTLY from heaven.

Now, the baptism event in the Gospels CANNOT be historical as described. There was NO holy Ghost bird and NO voice from heaven.

Mark 1 Without the Holy Ghost Bird and the Voice from heaven the Baptism of Jesus serves ZERO purpose. Jesus NEEDED the Holy Ghost Bird in the Gospels.

The Baptism event is TOTAL FICTION.

ALL the Gospels CLAIMED that there was an Holy Ghost Bird at the Baptism of Jesus.

There is really NO NEED to proceed any further.

Anyone who DISCREDITS the NT as FICTION and IMPLAUSIBLE cannot TURN around and use the very DISCREDITED IMPLAUSIBLE source for historical purposes.

In the NT, Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, God and the Creator who walked on the sea.

Whoever DISAGREES with and DISCREDITS the NT as Fiction about Jesus MUST FIND OTHER sources to SUPPORT their Historical Jesus.

Where are the sources of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth?

There are ZERO sources.

Tell E P SANDERS.