spin

In the interest of being surer we are making sense one to another, what meanings do we share in our conversations here regarding the historical Jesus and when talking of historicists? What does "historical" mean in the context of Jesus and what exactly is a Jesus historicist? My guess is that the latter may be defined in terms of the former. If we all can agree on that fact, what exactly does "historical" mean when it qualifies Jesus? If not, can we clarify "historicist" as well?

Come out, wherever you are. I haven't got an axe. I just want to hammer out some basic terminology. So don't be coy. Give your opinion. It mightn't be what another thinks, but what will be the upshot? Can we come to a clear consensus?

aa5874

Why don't you state EXACTLY what you mean by "historical" since you introduced the thread???

Diogenes the Cynic

I think this is a question for mythicists as well, not just for historicists. It's a question I've tried multiple times to get answer to. I think there needs to be some kind of agreed upon definition for "Jesus," because I think people sometimes talk right past each other without realizing they actually agree on everything but the criteria for what qualifies as "Jesus."

Sheshbazzar

There likely were quite a few Iesus's in the early 1st century CE. To identify one with that one the portrayed in the Gospel's there must be some bare minimum of matching of Gospel attributes that would mark this particular 'Iesus' distinct from all the others.
So exactly what are those bare minimums? And how do we determine that they are actually historical without resorting to the circular argument that what is recorded in The Bible is history 'because the Bible says'?

Many will say 'The Crucified' Iesus, but how can we determine that this alleged crucifixion actually ever happened? Using the Bible as evidence for it is using circular reasoning.
There at the present time is no evidence uncovered, outside of the Bible, that this particular crucifixion ever took place.
It cannot be demonstrated to have been an actual historical event. Thus the alleged crucifixion fails as an actual historical marker for any possible 'historical' Iesus, and one cannot be identified by presence at this possibly non-historical event.

The same lack of confirmable historicity exists with every situation involving this potential Iesus throughout the Gospel texts, even disallowing the preposterous and clearly mythological elements.
I see no way that any 'historical' Iesus could be identified without resorting to employing circular reasoning.
And if the particular individual cannot be identified, how can there be such a thing as a 'historical' Iesus?
He has no 'history' if the events of his life are possibly non-historical, and 'he' wasn't actually there.

spin

There is no point in using the terms "history", "historical" and "historicity" without making the effort of working with the o.p., which asks for us to work to establish consensual understandings.

So please try not to give polemic. My aim is agreement or consensus, or at least some understanding of what other people signify when they use the terms that you do.

A question that may be helpful in trying to understand our terms: how exactly does the historical Jesus differ from the confessional Jesus? Or again, how does the "historical Jesus" differ from the "real Jesus"?

Will Wiley

If jesus is "qualified",
to be historical,then he is a person in history among people in the same way that Monday is qualified as a day of a week.
That seems to leave ancient docetists somewhere on their own.

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't think HJ needs to be tied to the Gospels, he just needs to be any real person who was revered as "Jesus Christ" by the seminal Jesus sect (i.e. by the "pillars").

Sheshbazzar

This is a reasonable enough 'working definition' for me, and quite well describes what I understand when anyone says they believe there was a 'historical Jebus';
Without problem I can accept this as a working definition. And generally understand what they intend.
Howbeit I cannot locate nor identify any actual historical individual that fits within that definition.

When someone uses the term 'the real Jesus' It usually indicates that they are postulating that there was a living flesh and blood Jesus, but that this Jesus they are postulating is different in that he does not closely conform to that one portrayed within the Gospels.
IE. Their 'real' Jesus' is not to be confused with that Jesus as described within the texts.
The character was a real person, but the texts have been altered, and so no longer accurately decribe that real person.
This is usually accompanied by a imaginative description of an alternative character with certain features greatly exaggerated and expanded beyond what the texts clearly state, or will support.
This is where all of the various 'types' of weird Jesus's make their appearances.



.

tanya

Thank you spin, J-D, and Sheshbazzar, for sharing thoughts on this important subject.

How does the "historical Herakles differ from the real Herakles"?

For some folks, this question is rude and insulting. For me, it is offered to highlight a serious problem with the OP.

To be meaningful, a definition must be confirmed as legitimate by a majority of participants. One juxtaposes an historical xyz (aka "a real" xyz) with a mythical xyz (aka "a non-real xyz").

Such an approach is deemed too simple, by some. For me, there is no such thing as an "historical Herakles", despite huge stone mnuments attesting to his historical status, and notwithstanding Philo's extensive comments about him in the letter to Gaius, and irrespective of the entire city named for him, Herculaneum, containing the world's treasured manuscripts, at the time of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79CE.

The fact, in other words, that we possess considerable data, artifacts, and documents, attesting to Herakles' existence, in no way persuades me that a human with paternal DNA derived from a god, Zeus, actually lived on planet earth.

So, then, it becomes a question of faith, not history, doesn't it? I have faith, that Herakles is an invention, a literary creation, not a genuine human, because, regardless of any "historical" notions, there is no such entity, as a human with divine DNA, as is claimed in the gospel of Mark, describing Jesus.

Historical information, in short, cannot trump science. Accordingly, abesent a cear distinction between what is "real" (historical), and what is imaginary, (mythical, not possible because of supernatural attribution), this discussion will not provide the clarity spin and J-D seek.

"History" alone, is inadequate to define "real", as Herakles reveals.

.

spin

We are discussing the word "historical", which should help to point in the direction of a linguistic definition.

[T2]6. Grammar To modify the meaning of (a noun, for example). (from here)[/T2]
[T2]d : to limit or modify the meaning of (as a noun) (from here)[/T2]
You can limit what you want to talk about by using a particular adjective. Some people talk about the confessional Jesus, being the one they confess to believing in. Others talk of Jesus with other adjectives, such as the historical Jesus. It is the significance of "historical" here that is the topic of the thread.

First we need to understand what you mean by "(in) history".