Toto

Warning - pointless video on a site that advertises for Porn Napster. I wish I hadn't wasted my time.

Killer Mike

The main argument is that it fits with the historical situation of that time. Messiahs and miracle workers were a dime a dozen at that time. Common sense alone would make it reasonable to assume that at least one of them would have gained a following of believers and over time this evolved into a new religion. Modern scholarship agrees the Gospels are largely myth and legend, but 99% also agree that Jesus existed.

I also find the alternative idea (Jesus never existed) to be highly implausible. To think a religious movement got started from a non-existent figure seems highly unlikely. I have not seen a convincing scenerio that would explain how this could happen.

hjalti

Did William Tell fit with the historical situation of "his" time?

Vorkosigan

Is the argument about "evidence?" Isn't it about interpretive frameworks?

Michael

Doug Shaver

Well, you've got me on that one. With regard to those three particular propositions, as you have stated them, I am not aware of any uncontroverted facts that are inconsistent with their having occurred.

Amaleq13

The apostles existed and started a movement about a Risen Christ who, except for those with faith, certainly did not exist.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ted,

You have presented for our review the "Jesus of Christianity" rather than the "Historical Jesus." I hope you realize the difference, and that you may receive different answers if you stated your proposition in a less loaded manner. Since there were many varients of early Christianity with many views of Jesus Christ, I will assume you more or less mean the orthodox view.

In the Pauline writings, not only is there a total lack of evidence that Jesus was conceived as a recent human being (no historical anchors), but there is also positive evidence that Jesus was conceived of as a spirit (Gal. 4:6; Romans 8:9).
It was the preaching about Jesus, not his alleged sayings and deeds, which revealed the eternal mysteries. Romans 16:25.
There is positive evidence that the facts about Jesus (Acts 18:25) could be preached "accurately" simply from reading the Septuagint in an allegorical manner, without knowledge of his alleged life.

There is positive evidence that a version of the Pauline corpus existed that predates and is at varience with our earliest extant copies. HDetering has recently published works that argue this Marconite recension is earlier and more original than the catholic redaction.

There is positive evidence that the gospels did not exist in the current form as late as the time of Justin. Justin's undifferentiated Memoirs cannot be derived from the four canonical gospels.

Your picture of the "Jesus of Christianity" is based on texts that were still fluid and in the process of formation in the middle of the second century, well over a century after the alleged facts. That is positive reason enough to doubt the "Jesus of Christianity".

Now, if you would like to reformulate your areas in a more historical manner, we might make some headway.

Here is a suggestion:

1. One or more persons known as Jesus was a teacher with disciples before the earliest extant gospel manuscripts.
2. One or more persons known as Jesus was alleged to have performed miracles before the earliest extant gospel manuscripts.
3. One or more persons known as Jesus was crucified before the earliest extant gospel manuscripts.

Ted, I don't know if the above formulation is the best, but you can see the direction I am moving in. What do you think?

Jake Jones IV

Didymus

A problem with TedM's proposition is that it's tautological. The Jesus of Christianity, by definition, was a teacher etc. The J of C, BY DEFINITION, performed miracles. And the J of C, BY DEFINITION, was crucified etc.

So what he's really asking us to do is to provide evidence that the Jesus of Christianity was invented. Those "areas" don't mean much, except that any figure who DIDN'T qualify in all three of them wouldn't pass muster as the Jesus of Christianity. But there must be other criteria as well if we are to consider the historicity of the Jesus of Christianity. For example, a Jesus who had disciples, performed miracles, and who was crucified in ALEXANDRIA, would not qualify.

Jake's criteria still don't illuminate the matter much as long as we take each characteristic separately.

There well might have been a man named Jesus with disciples but who never ventured out of Galilee. Would he qualify as "the historical Jesus"? I don't think so.

There might have been a Jesus who was said to have performed public miracles, but who did so over a period of 20 years and whose father was a Roman soldier. Would he qualify as the historical Jesus? I don't think so.

There might have been a criminal named Jesus who was crucified in 100 BCE. Would he qualify?

There might have been a whole team of cynic preachers and disciples wandering Galilee, and several might have been named Jesus, it being the most popular name in Judea during that period. Would they qualify as historical Jesuses on that basis alone, Jake?

You have to look at the whole picture. Establishing three discrete criteria doesn't get us to the real question, because the biographies of Jesus included a number of significant events and behaviors. Just three won't do, and they can't be treated independently. (Nobody really cares whether my four hypothetical Jesuses existed, except insofar as they may have served as prototypes for portions of the legend.) Any discussion of the historicity of Jesus has to be about a figure who closely resembles the man described in the NT in many respects.

By the way, I agree that the impossibility of miracles is evidence that the gospels were invented.

Additional evidence of invention is the fact that the gospel authors made a number of errors regarding the geography of Judea. If their stories were factual, they would not have had Jesus following those impossible itineraries.

A third area consists of a number of questions regarding the Roman and Jewish law and practices surrounding Jesus' trial and crucifixion. Several scholars (Perrin, Ludemann) have questioned whether the Passion accounts are late 1st or early 2nd century formulations primarily intended to reflect the state of affairs between Jews and Christians. In any case, inaccuracies, especially polemical ones, in portraying those laws and customs would certainly be evidence of invention.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Arguments from Silence and Lack of Evidence. Those are still the strongest reasons for believing that Jesus was a mythical figure. After all, why SHOULD we believe that a man existed for whom there is such meager attestation by his contemporaries, including those who worshipped a figure (also named "Jesus") who was supposedly executed in a similar manner?

Eh?

Surely you're kidding. Our OT is similar to the Septuagint; can you glean the "facts" about Jesus from it? If so, one wonders why the gospels were written!

Didymus

TedM

What I attempted to do was boil down the orthodox view of the human Jesus into the minimum basic criteria. From that standpoint, I'm not sure why you would say they don't 'mean much', since strong evidence against any of them WOULD be IMO strong evidence against basic claims for the historical Jesus of Christianity. Your example adds a place criteria, which perhaps I should have included also. I realize that less criteria might define a less orthodox but still historical Jesus and more criteria might define a more orthodox Jesus. I think I chose the ones I did because I feel pretty confident that they all are true (except the miracles--I should have said he was known as a miracle worker).

I'm primarily looking for evidence or interpretations or whatever one wants to call it that the basic claims about Jesus as a historical person are not credible. If we had a writing that said the Jesus of Christianity was not really crucified, but his twin was, and Jesus himself went off to India, that would qualify. I take it that we don't have such overt references, but we may have something that one can conclude is strong evidence that the Jesus Christians believed in was never a teacher, never was known for performing miracles among the people, never lived in Palestine around 28AD, or never was crucified, other than arguments from silence.

Jack's answer below includes an argument from silence that I'm not interested in, followed by an argument that isn't from silence which is like what I have in mind: It doesn't really address whether that Jesus was a teacher, known as a miracle worker, or crucified, so I'm not sure what to do with it, but if he didn't exist as a human at all, I guess it implies that he was none of the three.

ted

Vorkosigan

This is the second thread in as many weeks attempting to define what is meant by the Historical Jesus. I commend Ted for starting it. I just wish I had a good answer.

Vorkosigan