Sheshbazzar

Frederic Barbarossa held an actual place in history, with his character, physical appearance, and his political involvements and campaigns quite well documented and attested to by contemporary witnesses, and by the official records of those other nations with whom he dealt.
Unlike that far more famous character, of whom nothing exists but latter fabrications, written at best by third or fourth hand "witnesses", who put their own invented dialog into their fictional characters mouth, all of which was further heavily interpolated and "doctored" to conform to 4th century Roman Imperial religious decrees.

Unlike the historical records about Frederich Barbarossa, not even one single sentence of The Gospels, or of The Epistles, can be documented and proven to have been written in a Christian text extant in the 1st century.

The matter of historicity however, is not the principal difference between these two characters. For Frederich we have no Holy Apostolic writings warning us against those who would "preach another "Frederich", and it is not often taught that our individual salvation, and the salvation of all of humanity is dependent upon fully accepting and believing "Gospel" stories about Frederich Barbarossa. ( this also would be "another Gospel" one which the Apostles themselves did not preach nor approve.)
Anyone who professes to be a believer in the Testimony of The New Testament, ought to stand steadfast in defense of the entire story, lock, stock, and barrel. To do otherwise is to be condemned by the words of that Testimony as being false teachers.

And if one is in unbelief on account of those things which are written within that Record of Testimony, then such one ought not contribute to the furtherance of this lie by asserting that a "historical" "Jesus" is at the core of these stories.
Such a "Jesus" one who had almost nothing in common with the legendary, and fictional "Jesus" of The Gospel stories, would not, could not, and never will be the "Jesus" of The New Testament.
Thousands of Jews named "Jesus" (or "Yeshua" or some slight variation) and not one single one of them will ever be identified as THAT "Jesus" because not one of them ever DID or SAID even one hundredth of the things that are attributed to that fictional, legendary Comic-Book "Jesus"

J-D

******Indisputably 'unlike' in respect of everything between the asterisks.

But 'unlike' also in respect of holding an actual place in history? That's precisely the point at issue.

If you are asserting that nobody who was not attested by contemporary witnesses and documents ever held a place in history, then you're plainly wrong.

If you are asserting that nobody can be reliably assigned to their place in history without attestation by contemporary witnesses and documents, then your point is arguable.Whether it is the principal difference or not is neither here nor there. Historicity is the principal point in this discussion.True. But irrelevant to the question of historicity.As I see it, there are three possible positions:

1. Every word of the New Testament is true.
2. Not one word of the New Testament is true.
3. Parts of the New Testament are true and parts aren't.

Even if the New Testament itself asserts position 1 (and I don't think it does), that is irrelevant to anybody who does not accept position 1. I can't see one good reason to exclude the possibility of position 3.I don't see how adopting position 3 'contributes to the furtherance' of position 1. That makes no sense to me.Of course, what I have called position 3 is actually a range of positions, depending on how much and which parts of the New Testament are taken to be true.

Let me suggest the following possibility. I'm not asserting its truth: I'm saying only that it's logically possible and that it would also be possible to investigate it and to seek evidence for or against it.

Speculation: about the fourth decade of the first century, a man called Jesus preached a messianic message of some variety to the Jews of Palestine. Some accepted him as their leader. They continued to acknowledge his leadership and preach his message after his execution, and gathered more followers. From this group progressively evolved (with doctrinal differences developing over time) the various groups subsequently identified as Christian.

I'm not concerned to argue the truth of this speculation now. But some people do argue for such a position. Is there anything impossible about it? Not that I can see. Is it unreasonable to describe their position as including a 'historical Jesus'? I don't think so--even though it's not the Jesus of the Gospels.

Sheshbazzar

A lot depends on what one considers as being "historical". In the case of "Jesus" there seems to be very little that can be confirmed as being of real "history" outside of the incorporation of a few real cities, political leaders and religious parties into a highly improbable narrative story.
In many ways the NT reminds me of the Rambo series of movies, with its larger than life super-hero that is able to accomplish incredible feats.
Rambo films incorporate a lot of real place names, political intrigues, and violent action, with a undercurrent of pathos, and cynicism against the status-quo of the System, over which our intrepid hero always ethically triumphs.
Lets see, Rambo starts out as an American soldier, and returned Viet-Nam veteran, whose troubles begin while hitch-hiking and encountering an authoritarian and dishonest small town sheriff.
So should we then conclude, that because Rambo was an American, and there really is an America, and he was a Viet-Nam veteran, and there really was a Viet-Nam war, and there really were veterans, and because there is evidence that some small-town sheriffs were dishonest, and mistreated returning veterans;
That therefor we ought to be reasonably open to the possibility that a real "historical" Rambo lies somewhere at the core of the story, upon whose original words and actions the whole series of Rambo action/adventure films was developed and expanded?

In my view this is what postulating a "historical" Jesus amounts to.

Yes, there really was a Roman occupied Judea, and a real Jerusalem fraught with political and religious conflicts and corruption, and there were apocalyptic preachers wandering around the country crying;
Woe! Woe! Woe! The End is Coming! The End is Coming! Repent! Repent! Repent!
But none of these were any more the "Jesus" of the Bible, than any old "Joe Veteran" from Podunk is the real Rambo.

squiz

I guess that it would rarely even occur to people who have no religious background at all to start studying NT studies.

Toto

Part of the problem is that the job market for people with degrees in NT studies is concentrated in religious institutions, many of which require some religious commitment.

Roger Pearse

Which seems fairly natural to me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sheshbazzar

And if you ever want to receive your Degree, you had best toe the line and answer every question with a "right" answer, one that consistently agrees with your Professor's views. And these Professors are hired on how well their views and opinions are conformed to that particular University's leanings and stance on the importance and role of religious education within their mission.
Renegade professors, and renegade students, who would bring bring about public controversy by boldly holding positions that are contrary to the Institutions "principals", and be embarrassing to it, are not suffered gladly. ("It would best for all concerned, for you to move along")
The Professor is under contract to "Play by the rules" as set down by the Institution, some boldly written, and some not.
A self perpetuating system ensuring conformity to such opinions as has gone before, the bias is built in and institutionalised.
Hardly an environment conducive to the producing of unbiased "historians" with regards to the origins of Christianity, particularly in any University with a stated strong Christian tradition and background.

aa5874

Adopting the position that Jesus did not exist does not exclude or invalidate position '3'. Right now, I consider John the Baptist likely to be a figure of history and Jesus most unlikely.

Also, the claim that Jesus did not exist is not at all claiming that every word of the NT is not true.

My position is that ALL that is written about JESUS in the NT appear to be false, and was not accounted for by non-apologetic sources of antiquity.

Jeffrey Gibson

And you know this is the case accross the board, how?

Jeffrey

J-D

I note that you haven't answered either of the questions I asked. Maybe, because I offered my own answers to them, it was not clear that I intended them as genuine questions and not as purely rhetorical ones.

Do you think that the hypothesis I described (and which some people actually do hold) cannot possibly be true?

Do you think it is unreasonable to describe people who adhere to that hypothesis as believing in a historical Jesus?