gstafleu

Both camps have a BOP, that is because both camps advance a hypothesis.

The HJ hypothesis is:

There are elements in the content of various Christian documents for which the existence of a historical Jesus is the most parsimonious explanation.

It is then up to the HJers to point out what these elements are and why an HJ is the most parsimonious explanation.

MJ simply starts by denying the HJ hypothesis. To that extent MJ's BOP is secondary to HJ's BOP: first HJ has to state which elements and why, MJ then has to refute.

MJ can, but does not have to, go further, e.g. by hypothesizing:

The Jesus story follows an established process of the formation of myths without a human precursor.

If MJ hypothesizes this, it has to show evidence for this process, e.g. by pointing to the Ebionites.



Gerard Stafleu

neilgodfrey

Where do you see anything I have said makes it a debate about "much more" than the evidence?

My cue is taken, rightly or wrongly, from the current debate in OT studies and the historical methods of those who have attempted to bring OT studies into line with the same standards of historical enquiry found in less culturally contentious studies. If that means I am to be dismissed as engaging in some "dirty pitched bloody" issue or am making "brash sweeping claims about the state of the evidence" then that's a shame, and, I feel, an unnecessary relegation of myself to the status of "opponent". (Where on earth do you find cause in anything I have said to make references "dirty" "bloody", "brash sweeping claims" and "framing opponents?????)

I should add one more angle I am coming from and that I often address here and elsewhere. It ties in with the above anyway. That is that I do not see any historical method as being "neutral" in the sense of being a "value free". I do not accept that naive readings of texts is any more a "neutral" or "objective" interpretation than any other type of reading. The naive interpretation of texts requires as much justification as any other interpretation. The questions we ask arise from assumptions and values that need first to be recognized. (Many of us do recognize this, but not all show they do.) One does not have to be a post-modernist (which I am not) to recognize the limitations of the scientific and historical methodologies.


Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

mountainman

Next you'll be counselled that the historical Jesus is in fact officially
an unexamined axiom, and that the HJ became officially an unexamined
postulate in 1778. Its some form of contorsionism.

History may be attached somehow to the sciences via archeology,
but it appears that biblical history is attached to the arts, rather
than any form of science.

Dialogue concerning Carrier's criteria for historicity as applied to
JC remains totally unpursued (largely because JC does not look
very good when compared to other persons, even poorly known
historical persons, such as Apollonius of Tyana.)




Pete

gurugeorge

Much as I respect your writings Gerard, I have to say I disagree. The HJ hypothesis is not what you say above, it's that there was a human being called "Jesus Christ" who lived at a certain time, had a certain biography, and some supernatural powers and was also the one and only Avatar of God ever to have existed in the flesh.

The HJ hypothesis you outline is actually an MJ hypothesis, because it's what happens when one considers that there's a failure to prove the existence of the full-blooded "Jesus Christ" in the above paragraph. (i.e. then you get into plausibility accounts - whether it is more plausible that some obscure preacher could etc., than that etc. etc. - these are all MJ, for they all aim to account for how people could have come to believe in the HJ of the first paragraph, and they all accept that he didn't exist.)

I must insist on the correct reading of who "Jesus Christ" was. The concept is similar enough in all the major branches of Christianity to be pretty clear: a divine being made flesh at a certain time and place.

What's really needed is proof that that character existed. The gospels, as I said above, are an attempt to prove that, to provide contemporary eyewitness accounts to his existence. (Even people in 100CE had the sense to seek contemporary witness as the best kind of proof of someone's existence in the past!)

That's the only burden of proof that exists around here. MJ-ers of various kinds, including the MJ-ers who think they are HJ-ers, labour under no such burden, all they are doing is arguing various plausibilities against each other, and what I'd call the "pseudo-HJ" idea that you outline above is no more intrinsically plausible than the MJ. (The most likely explanation for some named character being written about and believed to exist is that he existed? Oh really? Come on!)

The reason why this is important is that many pseudo-HJ-ers who are Christians hope that some vague plausibility will rub off on the full blooded "Jesus Christ" image if they can give the faintest glimmer of hope that some living being, however obscure, is at the root of it. They are wrong. Or, they are satisfying themselves with very small beer in the matter of proving the validity of their religion - for what they are saying is tantamount to saying "I and the people of my religious tradition are idiots, we've been labouring under the delusion that the main character of our religion existed, where actually he didnt' exist but some obscure preacher who was eventually beleived to have been him, did exist."

That's not actually likely to win any converts or inspire any trust in the religionist's rationality.

gstafleu

gurugeorge,

I would agree that what you describe is one valid version of an HJ hypothesis. I would also agree that, from a devoutly Christian point of view, it may be the only valid one. Not being a devoutly Christian person myself, I wouldn't know. Where I disagree is that this is the only possible valid HJ hypothesis, although when you say:
you certainly have a point. Nevertheless, it is possible that the account as we have it in the gospels is based on that famous "historical core," with lots of later accretions. I would agree that such a historical core would be of no religious significance. Stronger: if such a diminished historical core could convincingly be shown to exist, that would be a firm blow against (orthodox) Christianity.

But still, that could be how the story developed. If so, it is up to the proponents of that hypothesis to come up with the evidence. That can, I think, only be done in a methodologically valid way in the manner that e.g. Ben Smith seems to propose elsewhere: start with no assumptions about historicity and see what would lead us to believe there is such a historical core.

Coming up with evidence for the full fledged gospel Jesus is probably a mugs game, given that we have no scientific evidence that Jesus supernatural acts are possible, and lots of examples (see Martin Gardner's books e.g.) that whenever someone claims something supernatural, it always is a fraud (or sometimes an honest mistake).

Gerard Stafleu

Peter Kirby

Probably pursuing this is not fruitful, so I retract it.

Some thought about the discussion prompted me to post about the `black hole' at the center of our discussions. It is with a wry smile (for you) and then a pensive frown (for me) that I read, "I did succumb to the temptation to reply to a thread of a debate over whether or not a “historical jesus” existed." The least of my desires is to become just another Jesus scribbler of any kind.

--
Peter Kirby

gurugeorge

But that "historical core" is not a "historical Jesus", that "historical core" is part of just another a Mythical Jesus explanation. i.e. it is one version of a myth of a character called "Jesus Christ" - specifically, the myth that he is a God-man who was kicking around in the flesh in Palestine roundabout that time - and that "historical Jesus" shows how that myth (the myth of the real historical Jesus, the full-blooded God-man) came about.

Other Mythical Jesuses are then, for example Doherty's, Detering's, etc.

All Mythical Jesus explanations are explanations for how anyone came to believe in the full-blooded "Jesus Christ", gentle Jesus meek and mild, the God-man, the miracle man, the one who forgives all sins, sits at the right hand of the Father, etc., etc. And "there was a core historical Jesus, an obscure preacher" is but one explanation of this kind.

Indeed, but apologists don't quite see it that way, do they? That's because apologists have been playing a sort of "Jedi Mind Trick" on everyone. (Or, to put it another way, it's a bit like the Black Knight in Monty Python - all that's left is a torso wriggling around on the ground, trying to convince everyone that it's still in the game.) As I said above, the idea seems to be the the hand is faster than the eye: if apologists can convince people through tortuous readings of the texts and labyrinthine rearguard actions over minutiae that there was, perhaps, some slim chance of a historical character at the root of the texts, then in some sense "Jesus" is vindicated. He is not.

It is of capital importance IMHO not to fall for that con-game. A rationalist who believes in a "historical core" does not believe in a historical Jesus.

As you see, if we have to go to a "historical Jesus" who was an obscure preacher, then the real Jesus, the one millions of people have believed in, believe in, die for and have killed for, the only Jesus worth giving a damn about, is dead, and "Christianity" is a farce.

Yes, but in this case, in the case of all the possible Mythical Jesuses, including the "historical core" Mythical Jesus, there is no "burden of proof" on any side, in any strong sense. It's just an argument about plausibilities and possibilities, and in the nature of things it can hardly be conclusive (barring "Eusebius Woz 'Ere" type of smoking gun, or a new cache of ancient texts with a parallel like Eugnostos the Blessed and the Sophia of Jesus Christ in the Nag Hammadi texts, or whatever).

I'd rather say that supposing some evidence were found that there was some kind of darkness all over the mediterranean world, and earthquakes with corpses coming out of graves, at a certain time roundabout 30CE, that would be pretty good corroboration of a true historical Jesus.