gurugeorge

I don't know, this doesn't make sense to me because of the dilemma Doherty outlines:-

There's actually a spectrum of "possible HJs" - at one end of the spectrum you have the fully-fledged, miracle-making Man-God, the entity probably most believing Christians believe in. Would you say that the existence of that entity would be a good explanation for the origins of the Christian movement? I would say not, because I think it's obvious that had such an entity existed He would have made a much bigger "splash" at the time, and left more (some!) evidence outside the partisan texts.

At the other end of the spectrum of "possible HJs" you have a possible obscure preacher of some sort. Would that person provide a good explanation for the origins of the Christian movement? His existence would certainly get around the previous objection - he didn't make a big enough "splash" at the time because he was so obscure. But then you have another problem - how on earth could such an important movement have started from such an obscure preacher?

So the use of a HJ to explain the origins of the Christian movement has different problems depending on which potential HJ we're talking about.

Which is why the MJ position is a better explanation of origins. There were other ("pagan") religious formations at the time that were also fairly widespread that were based on a "mythical" entity, and to view Christianity as one of those (a version that was Jewish/Greek in its original milieu), that for one reason or another happened to put a stronger emphasis on the historicity of their beloved, believed-in entity than other comparable religious formations of the day did, makes more sense. (Incidentally, these "mythical" entities aren't necessarily the result of "mass hysteria". What's far more likely, given the prevalence of magical techniques and trance techniques back in the day, is that they were coherent, consistent visions seen in what's called nowadays amongst occultists and New Agers "astral" experience, which is like a kind of lucid dreaming while awake, or a peculiar kind of hallucination, if you prefer, that would give the same or similar enough actual experiences for different people sharing a liturgy and ritual. What I mean by this is that one often gets the impression that rationalist people think this stuff was sort of vague and made-up, and somehow not "strong" enough to start and sustain religions; but actually those kinds of visions can be as clear as day and precise enough to seem strongly coherent in a shared context. Irrespective of what one thinks of the rationality or mental health of people who dabble in that sort of thing, one must understand that it's as real-seeming to them as an LSD hallucination would be to a rationalist.)

(In parenthesis, and relating to the reason why lots of people on all sides get hot under the collar about this business, the trouble is that, for believing Christians, the further you get away from the Man-God, the less reason there is for a modern person to believe in Christianity at all apart from sentiment and tradition, because there's little actual wisdom in the NT that can't be found elsewhere - and why should anyone then or now care about some obscure preacher's Cynic-like wisdom? i.e. to have such a person proven as the founder of Christianity would be a sort of Pyrrhic victory. The USP of the NT is the good stories about a supposed one and only "Avatar" of God, but if the stories are ultimately just made up, or somehow accrued around some obscure ten-a-penny preacher, what is to become of Christianity? Reason enough here for both HJ-ers and MJ-ers to get defensive and angry, even with the best will in the world, and even with best efforts to argue in a sober, scholarly fashion. The stakes are actually incredibly high.)

jjramsey

Not at all. Whether the existence of accounts about person X are trivially explained as being due to X having existed depends on the details of the accounts and of whatever history is pertinent to those accounts.

In the case of King Arthur or Robin Hood, for example, we don't even have propagandistic accounts of their lives dateable to a few decades after their purported deaths, nor do we have letters from people who mention having met contemporaries of these people.

Didymus

I'm not good with tangled syntax. Could you re-cast this in plain English?

There are a tiny handful of such weak and much-disputed attestations. But those few verses are:

Inconsequential, if measured against Paul's glaring omission of references to Jesus, his disciples and his words as they appear in the gospels.

Small potatoes, if compared with the fact that the overwhelming bulk of the Jesus story as it appeared in Mark was constructed from Old Testment sources, i.e., Samuel, Kings, Isaiah and Psalms. Subsequent gospels made much use of Q and oral tradition (i.e., legend), plus some later embellishments. What's left could be considered historical, if only there was anything left.

A molehill, compared to the apparent obtuseness of 1st and 2nd century Palestinian Jews, who for some inexplicable reason seem not to have even KNOWN about this important man who lived in their midst and who was supposedly executed unjustly at their behest.

Seems like your Occam's razor has lost its edge.

Didymus

GakuseiDon

Where did Paul see the Risen Jesus? What did he look like? What did he say? What does Paul say about the other disciples' experiences with the Risen Jesus? Where and when?

What has this to do with Paul?

What has this to do with Paul? Besides, Richard Carrier has said that we have no reason to expect any historical record of a historical Jesus, and that we are lucky to have any records at all from there and then. Do you disagree with him? If you do, can you find a historian who would support your statement?

Donnmathan

Very well...conceeding for the moment the murkier more recent cases, I'll toss out another, much older than Jesus - Gilgamesh. http://www.timelineindex.com/content/view/547
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

I must admit to being unaware of any widely accepted letters from people who met contemporaries of Jesus, but then I am not as conversant in mideast history as I'd like to be - please, elaborate.

Didymus

If you're referring to Paul's meetings with "the Pillars," he only mentions a couple of meetings with them and a theological dispute that's arcane and irrelevant today. But that's all that Paul tells us. He certainly didn't say that the "Pillars," or anyone else in his acquaintance, had met Jesus during Jesus' time as a man on earth. (Surely you know by now that the business about Paul saying he met Jesus' disciples is unevidenced apologetical rubbish. Why do you allude to it?)

Of course, the fact that Mark later tagged a couple of fictional disciples with those same names doesn't mean much, except to suggest that Mark read Paul.

Didymus

jjramsey

But this is essentially a pseudoproblem. There is nothing inherently implausible about an obscure preacher who inspires a few people who start a movement that ends up having staying power.

The problem is that doesn't explain well certain kinds of details, such as why Jesus was portrayed as a Galilean Jew, or why his hometown was said to have been Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, or why there are letters from people who mention having met contemporaries of these people.

But that assumes that the goal is to promote Christianity.

Another pseudoproblem. Basically, you are assuming that letters sent to churches addressing their particular problems should necessarily mention details about Jesus of dubious relevance to them. How is it relevant that Jesus was a Galilean Jew from Nazareth? If Paul happens to mention a historical detail or two, that is lucky for us, but it is hardly required by his circumstances.

The problem is that this is a half-truth. There are certainly plenty of Old Testament allusions, and legends like the 40 days temptation are certainly inspired by the Old Testament. However, nothing from the Old Testament--when read without the Christian story already in mind--would suggest Nazareth, or Pilate, or crucifixion. Someone looking for an Old Testament justification for Jesus' crucifixion could easily find Psalm 22:16 and from there, embellish the Passion account accordingly. Reading Psalm 22 with no such preconceptions would not suggest crucifixion, however, since the verses surrounding the bit "they pierced my hands and my feet" don't suggest an execution by crucifixion.

This presumes that Jesus was important.

Didymus

Is this a test? What's your point?

Nothing much. But the conversation has moved on. What's your point?

Nothing much. Again: What's your point?

Another test, it would seem.

1. If Carrier was talking about a simple carpenter who did nothing more remarkable than get himself executed for crazy behavior in the Temple precinct, I agree with him.

2. On the other hand, if a non-miracleworking historical Jesus managed to evoke such a powerful popular response that he was revered as a god by thousands and thousands of Jews, it's virtually certain that he was a very special, charismatic and potentially dangerous individual who would surely have come to the attention of both the literati and the Roman authorities beyond Palestine.

3. Of course, if he were the real thing, a descended and ascended god who ACTUALLY raised the dead and walked on water, well, his name would have been immediately emblazoned on everything from Roman coins to the imperial mace.

Yes, I can probably find a historian who would support my statement, assuming you're referring to Jesus #2, above. But it's a search I'm not particularly interested in conducting. Perhaps you would like to take on that task?

Didymus

jjramsey

This explanation has a couple problems. One problem is why Mark would comb through the letters of Paul for incidental details such as names, rather than use a more accessible oral tradition for his characters. Also, Paul writes as if the Pillars were well-known, so if the Pillars had not been following around an itinerant Jesus (since this Jesus was supposedly in the mythical distant past), this should have been well-known. Yet Mark has the temerity to totally rewrite the Pillars' background and disseminate it to an audience that would have a rough outline of that background.

Sparrow

well maybe the author of GMark didn't know the oral tradition and was desperate for some detail to flesh out his story. Maybe said author didn't know the Pillars' background and made it up. We don't really know for sure who wrote what when, but you seem, as we say down south here, 'a might touchy'. You're complaining about strawmen, but from where I sit, it's you flinging the straw. It's enough to make one think this is a manger scene. Hey, that gives me a great idea for a story . . .