Amaleq13

Chris,

Did you read all the posts of this sub-discussion? Because it doesn't seem like it.

What evidence allows you to identify him and what is his identity? The above is a vague description that does not constitute an identification.

I think you missed the post where he was specifically brought up in comparison.

I think you missed the post where I said essentially the same thing. I also suggested that the sort of evidence that is offered to make a specific identification of the historical figure thought to have inspired the myths is exactly what we don't have for Jesus (ie independent descriptions, archaeological evidence)

Is Tacitus a description of a man that is independent of what Christians were saying about Jesus?

The first lacks any specific identification which is what leads to the last statement. The first is also, as far as I can tell, the best that "HJ studies" can hope to accomplish given the state of the evidence.

Chris Weimer

Yes, I did read all of them, except one where you mentioned King Arthur as being the best parallel. I must have skipped over it on accident.

Explain why it does not constitute an identity.

No, I saw Ben's post, which is where I got the KA info from, wouldn't it be?

Yes, I missed this post. I'll address it at the bottom.

I'm not sure. Honestly I'm not leaning one way or another on this issue. I'll have to get back to you on it. I think the crux of this argument lies with the mini-synoptic proposed by Stephen Carlson, taken up by Ben Smith, and is now being rebutted by Ken Olsen. I'll see where it goes from there.

Why isn't the founder of Christianity a specific idenitifcation? By the way, did you ever read my blog post on the opening of this subject for me? I posted it way back when I posted the thread on the Earliest Christian Traditions.

Amaleq13

I appreciate your self-control and I apologize for contributing to your need for it.

Who said anything about proposing the opposite?

Personally, I think Paul had a real guy in mind but I can't pretend I can identify him from the evidence. I tend to think Paul knew nothing about this guy except what could be inferred from Hebrew Scriptures given the assumption he was the Incarnated Son of God destined to become the Sacrificed Messiah but I don't see how there is any reliable evidence to identify which of the thousands of crucifixion victims from the preceding centuries he might have been. I don't even think we can be sure he was called "Jesus" while he lived.

Real guy. Executed on our planet. Yet, other than that, totally unidentifiable from the myth-drenched evidence.

I would love to be able to say the first apostles were followers of this guy. Then I would be able to reliably narrow down the timeframe for his life to something approximating the Gospel stories. I still wouldn't have much in the way of a specific identification but it would be a start. But that connection seems to me to be hopelessly mired in the myth-drenched stories and I don't know of any reliable methodology for wiping off the muck so as to determine if there is anything underneath.

Chris Weimer

Yes, this is where we find ourselves with the historical Jesus.

Do we really have this for Arthur? I know of none. But remember we do have independent accounts of Jesus, which I've been bringing up over and over again. Mark, Q, Thomas, Paul are the big four, perhaps the early gnostics as a fifth, maybe Tacitus (and then maybe Josephus) as a sixth and tenuous seventh. Moreover, the stripping away at the layers of the gospels leave us with many early Christian traditions that fit well with a reconstructed Jesus.

Speculative? You bet! Tenuous? Very much so! But to outright deny the man any chance at historicity at all is downright dishonest.

Amaleq13

Explain how it does. What sect and when? When was he crucified and why? Is he one of the messianic contenders Josephus mentions? If so, that would constitute a specific identification IMO.

No, Zeichman brought him up.

It is a specific description but not a specific identification but shouldn't it be "The inspiration for Christianity"? The founder appears to be Paul.

No. I'll look for it, though.

I agree but I don't see how you can say we can specifically identify this "guy" with any reliability.

Who is denying the man any chance at historicity? Not me and, IIUC, not rlogan. What we are doing is simply pointing out that, given the speculative and tenuous nature of the evidence, you simply cannot claim to have obtained a specific identification. AFAIC, that requires far more reliable evidence than we have available.

Chris Weimer

Because its applying information to a person responsible for actions that have actually happened, as I said.

I'm still unsure. I can't admit that you actually expect anyone who is engaging in this honestly to have all the answers right away at your whim. You expect too much, especially for a field that is still immature.

I doubt it, though then again I haven't examined them carefully. Perhaps another thread.

But that was a question of ontology and not specifics to Alexander. It was Ben who took that and made the parallel explicit. And even then he wasn't claiming the parallel was exact.

Says who? What led you to believe this? How do you that Paul even existed? What evidence do we have of Paul? What if Marcion wrote the epistles? What if...what if.... Mythicism is one giant WHAT IF. It's valid too. But what's not valid is denying historicism outright, as some here have done. That's all I champion.

I'll save you the trouble. Look here.

Not yet, at least. After all, this is a "quest". While we're looking for the treasure, some of you (and not saying you directly) are at home mumbling to yourselves that we're on a fool's quest, a wild goose chase. Well, we have directions and a map, and if there's no treasure at the end, the journey there was sure stimulating enough to make it worthwhile. And then, at the end of the journey, if there's nothing there, we will have come a long way in terms of what we know, wouldn't we?

I beg to differ. From what I've seen of rlogan's posts, and others, the conclusion is settled. Heck, directly addressing Malachi151 to offer the slightest evidence for his mythical Jesus, he points me to a horribly done website riddled with errors and then refuses comments further. Even in this very thread not one has yet offered ANYTHING to point to a mythical Jesus. Very telling, in my opinion. You've effectively reversed the burden of proof. No doubt that when I make a positive statement about the historicity of Jesus, I'll have my burden with me. But so far, none of you have even offered to take the yoke, yet you'll go on and on about we lacking evidence. Very, very telling.

Who has done this? Really? Where are we truly affirming without a doubt the 100% identification of Jesus. Perhaps I only speak for myself when I say that it's all probabilities, and no one's reached the end goal yet. I would think that others here echo this sentiment.

Edited: You're right, though, about Zeichman being the first to mention Alexander, yet still, it's a question of what we know and how we know it rather than a real comparison as Ben had done and that we've done with the author story.

Chili

But who needs him to be historical if they crucified him? What remains is what counts and that certainly was not historical or it would be death by now.

You call him "the man" but they had the Jew crucified by their law only while Pilate looked at the man and set him free because he could see nothing wrong with him.

To me this is pure evidence for mythicism but there are hundreds of others. In fact, the bible is crammed with mythicism from beginning to end and I just cannot see it any other way except where it is so indicated as in "my body is real food and my blood real drink." That is not metaphor.

Amaleq13

Well, I've done a wee bit of Historical King Arthur research and it is damned fascinating IMO.

I found the following passage of particular interest as it was used to argue against historicity:

"The conclusion reached is that, when the pre-Galfridian sources are approached without such preconceived agendas and a priori assumptions as described above, the results prove to be most interesting: "if the collective evidence is first allowed to speak for itself, its weight is quite different." (Padel, 1994, p.2). In non-Galfridian tradition, Arthur was very clearly "the leader of a band of heroes who live outside of society, whose main world is one of magical animals, giants and other wonderful happenings, located in the wild parts of the landscape." (ibid., p.14); Arthur is portrayed as a figure of pan-Brittonic(15) folklore and mythology, associated with the Otherworld, supernatural enemies and superhuman deeds, not history." http://historymedren.about.com/gi/dy...n%2Farthur.htm

I'm not sure Jesus mythicists should get too terribly excited, though, because I think these writings were also part of an identified literary genre in medieval times that apparently specialized in historicizing legendary figures.

A good starting point: http://historymedren.about.com/od/arthurevidence/

and the ultimately disappointing archaeological evidence: http://www.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/a.../england/arch/

Chris Weimer

Thanks for the Arthurian information. If I specialized in medieval history I'm sure I would make use of the information for myself, but as for now I've limited myself to this arena.

Also, is there any opposing scholars who support an historical Arthur? I'd be mostly interested in methodologies more than conclusions.

And perhaps something a bit more scholarly than about.com.

Amaleq13

I'm not expecting anything. I'm simply recognizing that what you acknowledge is incompatible with claiming the guy can be specifically identified. As far as I can tell you agree so I'm really not sure who it is you think you are arguing against but it doesn't appear to be me.

Says the evidence of the New Testament. How do you obtain Jesus as the founder of Christianity from the evidence? Where do you obtain Jesus starting a new religion, period? The Gospels depict him as trying to reform Judaism (or reform Jews, I guess) and "Paul" takes the gospel to the gentiles which is where the new religion of Christianity really seems to begin.

Somebody wrote those letters. We can put his name in quotes if you like. Whoever the author was, he took his gospel to the gentiles and off they went in a new direction from Judaism.

Then he started Christianity. Those letters define it and the guy who wrote them claims he was inspired by a resurrected Son of God. I'm sticking with the hallucinating guy as the founder as opposed to the hallucination.


Again with the mythicism. Oy, vey. Feel free to consider yourself a champion against those who deny historicism but kindly do not consider me your opponent in that matter. There is a significant difference between recognizing that no reliable and specific identification of the historical figure who may have inspired Christianity has been obtained from the evidence and denying that it is possible. I'm only doing the former but everybody keeps wanting to stick me in the latter pigeonhole. Stop it, y'all, I ain't going in that hole and you damn sure can't make me.

Where have I said anyone has? I've been pointing out the difference between a specific identification of the historical figure who inspired Christianity and the speculative, tentative notion that a historical figure did. You have the latter and aspire to the former but you ain't got him, yet.

That's really all I've been saying. Perhaps rlogan would go further but I have to admit that it seems to me that the arguments against me have more to do with mistaken assumptions being made about what I haven't written than what I have. I've attempted to clarify the point I thought rlogan was trying to make. If I have gotten it wrong, I still prefer my interpretation and he is on his own.