The Evil One

But what if, for instance, there was a guy called Jesus who was crucified by the Romans... but everything said about him in the Gospels other than that is wrong, and the Christian movement is actually based much more on the mythic figure that Doherty identifies, who later merged with the nhistorical figure?

Would that count as a historic Jesus or a mythical Jesus?

In short, how little about the historic Jesus do the Gospels have to get right before we can declare that the Jesus they describe is not the same guy as the guy who really lived, and that it is therefore fair to say that Jesus the Gospel character is a myth?

Mathetes

I think you hit a critical point here, Evil One. Any incredible or miraculous event in the Bible becames possible or even likely if you "downsize" it enough.

Exodus cannot have happened as described. But hey, maybe a couple of slaves escaped once from Memphis and were pursued by two Egyptian soldiers that were drowned while they were crossing a swamp. Maybe this is the origin of the story. I do not think that we can say that, if this were the case, "there is an historical core in the Exodus narrative".

As you said, "Historical Jesus" may mean "there was some kind of spiritual leader that preached in Galilee at some time around the first century and got killed, and this is the kernel from where the gospels evolved". Well, this hardly qualifies as history to me.

The Evil One

Exactly. It always amuses me when christians defend a historical Jesus as key to their faith. Many of them don't seem to realise that any old historical Jesus won't do. To updhold their faith's origin stories, it has to be a historical Jesus who is pretty much - not literally, but pretty much - as the Gospels present him.

So the question, was there a guy called Jesus? is fundamentally an unimportant one. I think there was, for what that's worth. The important question is, was there a guy called Jesus who was pretty much as described in the Gospels? I'm reasonably confident there wasn't, simply on the basis of the various problems that can be identified in the Gospels accounts that make them look like they're making it up.

A historical Jesus who is not basically the same as the Gospel-character-Jesus is no more use to Christianity than no historical Jesus at all.

Asha'man

We know there were quite a few, in fact. Jewish writings seem to point to one rabbi named Jesus that was stoned to death around 78BCE for some sort of heresy. But, given that he was stoned and not crucified, most Christians are reluctant to claim him.

Personally, I think even atheist historians are stuck on the Crucifixion, and should give alternate forms of death a little more consideration.

spamandham

I see. Your Mack quotes that imply his belief in a historical Jesus trump the quote I provided where he explicitly states it is not possible to say much about a historical Jesus. Call that 0 for 1 if you want.

Why did you not address my follow-up question regarding Josephus? Would your response not look favorable on the score card?

The Evil One makes an excellent point. What is meant by HJ? Clearly, the sayings in Q had some human origins. Do we simply define whoever is responsible for the most as HJ? Is this excercise significantly different from searching for a historical Santa Claus. Even if you discover Saint Nicholas as the original source, what relevance is that to the Santa Claus myth? The historical Saint Nick is not the historical Santa Claus.

Ted Hoffman

Vinnie has shamelessly moved goalposts he himself erected. He made a challenge that was both answered and thrown back at him and now he is attempting to take off.

Biff the unclean wrote: Name one actual scholar who has evidence of an historic Jesus

Vinnie responded: I could name a ton of these.

Personally, I would still like to see a list of ten scholars fom vinnie and Goochs dad (who used the phrase "a vast majority of scholars" IIRC), a list of ten scholars who:

(1) Have evidence of a HJ
(2) Have written books explaining the HJ theory
(3) The Journals they have published in.

As spin has noted, they are mostly christian theologians masquerading as scholars and authorities on historical issues yet they have done zero history.

You are not qualified to challenge it since you cannot define what a scholar is without shifting your parameters. You can't even provide an example of a scholar who has evidence of a HJ.

Doherty is a private scholar. He has published in Journal of Higher Criticism. That means he has earned himself a respectable standing among scholars. His works have been read by scholars like Paula Fredricksen and got favourable mentions and support by scholars like Robert Price.
He does not need to hung up a wallpaper just to get your nod of approval.

Freke and Gandy earned their place in History alongside Alvar Ellegard and Wells as forerunners of the Christ Myth Hypothesis. Thats their place and like in science, theories get refined over time as better technologies and approaches are employed and as the replaced theories provide a launching pad for the theories that replace them. You don't dismiss your teacher as an idiot because you know better.

They made their contribution and what they wrote sparked ideas and opened up lines of enquiry that led to more knowledge and stronger theories. One who preoccupies themselves with number of cornflake certificates collected fails to appreciate that human knowledge is normaly developmental and typically people improve on the works of others.

The works of Robert Price, Burton Mack, Alvar Ellegard, Frank R. Zindler, Dennis Macdonald, Freke and Gandy, Harold Leidner etc, irrespective of whatever weaknesses they may or may not have have provided great ideas and address various issues. Some get some things wrong sometimes, some don't and this happens even with your so-called 'real scholars' with cornflake certificates from theological seminaries.

To tell us to look at their badges and wallpapers and not their work is idiotic and is a red herring.

Do you have "writings about Christianity [sic]* from any time earlier than Paul"? * I believe you mean "writings about a historical Jesus from any time earlier than Paul"

Even after Paul, we have the apostolic fathers like the writers of Th epistle 1 Clement, Didache, Odes of Solomon and Shepherd of Hermas who dont write about a HJ at all. Doherty tells us that:

'These earliest Christians believed in a Son of God, not that anyone in the recent past was the Son of God. This Son is a spiritual entity with whom believers enter upon a mystical relationship. He is an intermediary between heaven and earth, between God and humanity, between the spiritual and the material realms of the universe.'

What's important is not what you think is likely, which sounds like a statement of hope rather than anything else, but what you can prove, convincingly, to have been the case.

Gooch,
After amaleq's explanation, plus spin's regarding Origen and James, do you still want to use Kirby's document as the only support you have for a HJ?

And what do you mean by the 'James tradition'?

CX

Just to interject. I've read a great deal of Mack and heard several interviews. His basic position seems to be that yes there was an HJ, but the historical record is such that we can say next to nothing about him. Those two statements are not incompatible.

the_cave

I suppose there is also the possibility of someone who wasn't in fact named "Jesus", but rather bore it as a title, either during his life or posthumously.

the_cave

Really? I would. I mean, if it were in fact the origin of the story, then it is by definition the historical core.

? Um, if it happened, then it is history.

the_cave

Oh, I think it would surely be of more "use" than no historical Jesus. But really, the better question is, what use would it be to Christians? And the answer is, it would be of whatever use they make of it.