graymouser

It strikes me that people talk about Jesus Christ, almost without reservation or question, in the sense that best fits their worldview. It reminds me of what my college history professor told me about Alexander the Great: a historian's view of Alexander tells us far more about that historian than it does about Alexander. This is in large part because there are so many open spots in the story and character of Alexander, and few early sources to base our understanding on.

How much more so in the case of Jesus "of Nazareth." The Gospels present us with a bunch of miracles, a bunch of sayings, and some highly symbolic events (virgin birth, baptism, triumphal entrance, annointing, crucifixion, resurrection). Very little character, almost no nontheological commentary, and a lot of space to write whatever you want on the rest.

The compassionate sees in Christ the guy who's always about love; the apocalyptic sees the doom-filled sayings; the miracle-oriented the wonders; the moralist the strict moral teachings. Catholics see a Christ setting up the Church; Protestants see him laying the groundwork for individual salvation. Jesus Christ is all things to all people - exactly what they want him to be, much like Paul boasts he was.

I think it says a lot about Christians of all stripes, and even about HJ and MJ theorists - that people still see in Jesus who they are, or their own ideals. Who was the real deal Jesus? I don't think we can ever understand.

-Wayne

Cretinist

"There is no historical task which so reveals a man's true self as the writing of a Life of Jesus."

Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus

If that is true, what does this say about the mythicists? Do the mythicists hate Christianity so much that they would use their own research as a weapon to destroy it? What better way to attack Christianity than to deny all reality to its origins?

luvluv

I actually think that the historical evidence supporting the bare existence of Jesus is equal to or greater than that supporting the bare existence of Alexander the Great. At the very least, we have many more sources on Jesus and these sources are more recent than any sources we have on the details of Alexanders life. IIRC the earliest known biography of Alexander was written a more than a hundred years after his death, whereas Paul was writing about Jesus within 15-25 years of Jesus's death.

Amaleq13

I'll let the history buffs attempt to disabuse you of the ridiculous notion that there is more evidence for Jesus than Alexander but comparing Paul's letters to the first biography of Alexander is misleading to the point of disingenuousness. Paul writes about a Risen Christ, he says little to nothing about a living Jesus. Even Christian scholars acknowledge that Paul has no interest in presenting a biography.

The earliest known "biography" of Jesus comes at the earliest around 40 years after his death. This text, however, seems better described as hagiography rather than biography. The Gospel according to Luke is a better contender, though not without its own difficulties, for the category of "biography" and that would stretch the span at least a decade or two.

Regardless of the timeline used, however, the fact remains that Jesus is unique in all of history when it comes to the pattern of the evidence in written texts about him. This makes any comparison with known historical figures utterly meaningless.

graymouser

luvluv:

This shows a grave misunderstanding of Paul (who gave no attestation of the life of Christ other than the crucifixion), of the nature of the sources for Christ (much more polemical than the sources for Alexander), and the nature of the sources for Alexander (which are derived from sources during Alexander's life or by his immediate followers).

Also in sharp difference is the length of the works - you could fit the entire New Testament a couple of times over in Arrian's Anabasis or Quintus Curtius Rufus' History of Alexander. None has Alexander doing anything extraordinary like walking on water, turning water into wine, or being resurrected from the dead. And every detail in every source is still questioned for its veracity, much more thoroughly than Christians fact-check the Gospels.

Moreover, Alexander left an extensive archaeological trail - he fought battles which left remnants, he minted coins with his face on them, he founded Alexandrias (you may have heard of the one in Egypt)...he conquered half the known world and left behind a verifiable inheritance. There is art depicting what is reasonably Alexander the Great from within or shortly after his lifetime. Jesus doesn't have one scrap of archaeological evidence; Alexander has reams.

None of which is actually relevant to my point.

-Wayne

graymouser

I don't think the MJ theory (which I'm fairly close to) is necessarily as pathological as you are implying. I think MJers are more prone to look at superstitions as myth; but that the real revelation is in their details of how the myth came about, just as the HJer is revealed in their details of Christ's real life and the Christian is revealed through their description of Christ's emphasis.

-Wayne

Gregg

Jesus mythicism does not "deny all reality" to Christianity's origins. This comment shows you don't understand the mythicist case. If Paul himself didn't believe in an HJ, then how is saying there was no HJ an "attack" on Christianity?

Cretinist

I've read Wells, Doherty, Price, etc. I think I understand the mythicist case quite well. My question was, "If that[Schweitzer's quote] is true," then what does that say about mythicists?

Doctor X

Well Cretinist beats me to the Schweitzer reference.

Schweitzer's book is fascinating because he destroys the character of Junior and concludes none of the religious trappings attributed to him--died for our sins, rose from the dead, god-on-earth--"ever had any existence."

Then he was stuck.

He noted that every scholar who wrote on the HJ found the HJ he wanted. So Schweitzer falls back on the conclusion "he was an immeasurably great man" and commits the same crime he castigates the other scholars for!

I like to think this and the reaction to his book drove him to Africa!

Criticisms from former members and observers of the Jesus Seminar make the same criticisms--everyone votes for sayings they would "like" their HJ to have said.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Nothing, really, since they do not try to create a "Life of Jesus" from the available evidence. It might suggest that they see the evidence for the Rorschach inkblot that it is.