PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

In general, I think the Testimonium Flavianum is the best argument for the existence of an historical Jesus. That is probably why we spend so much time arguing about it. Personally, while I think it is the best argument, I do not think it is a very good argument. It depends ultimately on knowing the transmission history of the text and we simply do not know it.

Outside of the TF, what would people consider the best three arguments in favor of an historical Jesus? You can give your opinion regardless if you believe Jesus is ultimately historical or mythological. After listing them, you can tell why you think the arguments are strong or weak.

1. ______
2. _______
3. _______

For me they would be:

1. The resurrection seems an add-on to the story, so the real ending is the death of Jesus, which seems a real downbeat and realistic ending, unusual for a fiction story. Although, an unusual ending, it might have been designed that way to be more critical of the Jewish leadership.
2. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and the Pistis Sophia suggests a more historical model without supernatural powers. We do have the usual problems of being unsure about the origination and transmission of these texts.
3. The synoptic gospels strongly suggests the town of Capernaum for Jesus' home. Josephus apparently refers to this town as Kapharnakos in his Vita (72), so it definitely existed. There is, of course, nothing to stop a fiction writer from using a real town in a fiction.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

But, is not the TF also about the resurrection?

The "TF" is probably the worst piece of information to use to support an historical Jesus.

1. The author of the "TF" was NOT certain if Jesus was a man.
2. The author of the "TF" claimed Jesus was SEEN ALIVE when he was supposed to be dead.

I think the best argument for an historical Jesus is to claim that HJ was a God and that the Bible is fundamentally true.

In effect, this is their best argument, Jesus was a "one-off bizarre event".

youngalexander

1. Assuming that the (7) Pauline epistles do hail from the mid 1st C it would appear that there were Christians before that time. What it was & why they believed is a great deal less clear. Their existence seems to be the best argument for HJ, altho not a good one.

2. Paul clearly believed something with regard to Christ Jesus and it may have been a HJ, altho that is also unclear.

3. That Mark had some sort of motivation for writing his fictional account about Jesus may indicate an historical source, altho I doubt that he really knew.

aa5874

The Pauline writers are some of the the worst sources for an historical Jesus. These Pauline writers completely forgot to say they SAW Jesus alive before he died. They saw him after he was dead.

And to make matter worse, one Pauline writer claimed he met the Lord's brother but based on Papias the Pauline writer could not have done so since neither the mother and father of James are the parents of Jesus.

spamandham

The best argument for a historical Jesus outside the TF is that it is not impossible that there was a historical Jesus, nor particularly improbable that a personality cult would be rooted in a real historical personality.

aa5874

But, how is that a good argument when it is also not impossible that Jesus was mythological?

It cannot be argued that that some one actually existed at a specific time because it is not impossible for people to exist.

There are no good arguments for an HJ or the arguments for HJ are no good.

Good arguments for historicity need history; not proposals or suggestions.

maryhelena

Josephus and the TF - whatever are the original words therein - the words of Josephus cannot be taken at face value. To do that is to underestimate and misunderstand Josephus. Josephus was not just a historian - he also sometimes put on his prophetic hat, his coat of various number symbolisms and his sleep-time gown that was covered with stardust from his dreams....


Josephus aside...the three best arguments for a historical Jesus are:

1. Of course Jesus was historical.
2. Everyone believes Jesus was historical.
3.The NT scholars say Jesus was historical.

Probability - that's like thinking one can find a needle in a haystack. Nothing more than wishful thinking. Hope springs eternal.

That said, I think perhaps the OP is asking the wrong question. Finding a historical core to the gospel storyline is not a choice between looking for a Miracle Man Jesus or a Phantom, everyman, Jesus. Both these positions are impossible to prove- no probabilities involved.

A mythological Jesus, a figurative or symbolic, or allegorical gospel storyline. Yes, indeed, such a storyline is within the gospel storyboard.
However, that fact does negate the very real possibility that a historical man was relevant to early christian understanding etc.

Wells, as I'm sure you know, has come up with his itinerant Galilean preacher. For Wells, his historical Galilean preacher is not Jesus of the gospel storyline - although Wells suggests that later on this figure could well have been 'fused' with the gospel story re Jesus. What this does indicate, to me, is that an early 'sayings' source - from whoever, historical person X - was 'fused', merged, with an ongoing developing christian theology/spirituality - a spirituality that was using the Jesus, allegorical, storyboard as a basic template.

So, the real historical question does not relate to Jesus of the gospel storyline. The real historical question relates to the actual, real, events that lie behind that storyline, what historical events contributed to that Jesus storyline etc...We are not looking at the musings of uneducated, in the scholarly sense, carpenters, fishermen and tax collectors - we are looking at a highly complex storyboard - a highly intelligent and sophisticated product.

Keep looking for a historical Jesus - and one will keep looking for a historical Jesus - because Jesus never did exist outside of the gospel storyboard...

Toto

The best argument for a historical Jesus is that someone founded/inspired Christianity, and we will define that person to be the historical Jesus, however he differed from the Jesus of the gospels. Therefore he existed.

maryhelena

The best argument a historicist can make is that there is a historical core to the gospel story - ie that there is a historical individual that provided the impetus, inspired the christian movement. However, that is not the argument the historicists are making...

The historicists argument is that such a historical figure, historical person X, is Jesus of the gospel storyline - albeit without his mythological coat of many colors...It is that assumption that the mythicist camp should be challenging. Continual debates over whether the gospel Jesus is historical or mythological fail to address this fundamental issue: The issue of assuming a particular historical figure X is the Jesus that lies underneath the Jesus of the gospel storyboard - ie that historical person X is the carpenter from nazareth that was crucified by Pilate.

The historicists are making assumptions here - and mythicists should be calling them out on them. But if mythicists are intent on denying that any historical figure inspired early christian thought - then they will be letting the historicists get away with peddling their assumptions as historical probabilities.

ynquirer

At the end of the day, the best argument to support the historical Jesus is weakness of the mythicist way of discussing the evidence. For instance, if the historical Jesus was never questioned before the Enlightenment, why did the Christians forge Tacitus’ Annals 15:44?