TySixtus

Hi all!

I searched before asking this question, but I didn't really get anything that answered my question (which should be pretty easy for you guys).

I was just wondering what the evidence/lack of evidence was for either the HJ or MJ hypothesis. Now, I know this is a huge question, but is there some way you guys could speak generally about both topics? After reading some threads in BC&H over the past couple of days, my interest has really been peaked on the debate (I have no opinion either way, yet) but I haven't read a general synopsis or the like that lays out the basic framework for each claim. Again, is that even possible?

I have seen some vehement posting back and forth about the subject, so I wondered what all the fuss was about. It is extremely interesting.

Any insights from either side would be appreciated. By the way, I'm a pretty voracious reader so if you need to post huge links, that's cool.

Ty

Toto

I see that no one has rushed to answer your question. I think it is easiest to start with Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, which you can sample on line at www.jesuspuzzle.com .

The best summary of the case for a historical Jesus (so far) is a very slim volume by R. France called the Historical Evidence for Jesus (discussed here.

Doug Shaver

It's the same evidence. The dispute is over which hypothesis best explains the evidence.

What that evidence is, is the set of all extant documents that have something to say about Christianity's origins. The canonical gospels, for example, are evidence for something. They exist, and their existence has to be accounted for somehow. Their existence is usually explained in terms of their being records of oral traditions about a preacher named Jesus of Nazareth, in which case they are offered as evidence of his real existence. Alternative explanations such as Doherty's make them evidence for something else.

As Richard Carrier noted in his review of Doherty, the debate may be understood as a debate about which is the best explanation. I would add that no explanation is a candidate for best explanation unless it entails an accounting of all the evidence. It makes no difference if two or three data scream "Jesus was real" if a hundred other data say he wasn't (or vice versa).

That is not to suggest that anything will be settled just by counting proof texts. It will be settled by seeing who has the most parsimonious explanation of the entire data set. Unfortunately, what seems simple to some of us looks like convoluted ad hoc speculation to some other folks. And so the debate continues.

Clivedurdle

Would both best explain the evidence? A Pauline mythical Christ gets conjoined to a bloke in Palestine?

Doug Shaver

It would explain it. I'm not sure about "best," though I don't reject it out of hand. My initial reaction is that it would not be as parsimonious as a purely ahistorical Jesus, but that could be some bias talking.

Clivedurdle

Would it explain the disputes between Paul and the Jerusalem Church? They assume they are talking about the same thing and both make compromises to their respective positions to get a closer match - born of the flesh would then be a compromise by Paul. Peter's lot might also have back read stuff about their leader who get deaded and expanded slightly his biography!

The gospels might then be read as different stages in the evolution of Jesus Christ towards the later emperor god.

But maybe ahistoric is more parsimonious, but I would like to hear what hjers think.

Malachi151

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

Toto

An attempted hijacking of this thread has been split off and locked

here

since it threatened to become another round of repetition of the same old arguments.

Clivedurdle

Is my suggestion of a symbiosis of two Jesi and their co-evolution a starter?

The Other Michael

Might it then be written off as "much ado about little"? If there is little to no chance of ever having sufficient evidence (which is different from documentation at least to someone with my bureaucratic background where those terms have specific meanings) to resolve things, then why not just say "I don't know"?

If the historical figure exists (or not) seems to pale in comparison to the issue of "is he the Son of God?", which seems the actual sticking point. The later seems to be a much easier proposition to deal with, and if the answer is "are you serious?" then it seems of little real concern if there is some real person that the various stories are (loosely) based on.

cheers,
Michael