Gamera

Actually, I understand as an historiographical matter it makes perfect sense to reject the miracles as historical events and conclude that the texts are unreliable in that regard. That's because historical research is in its (modern) nature a rational endeavor, and there is no evidence of these miracle outside the texts and since miracles contradict our empirical knowledge of the world, I wouldn't blame any historian from excluding them from the historical Jesus. This is a function of doing history as a modern person and has nothing to do with the reliability of the text in other regards. An historian from the middle ages, before the rise of the scientific method, would of course have a different approach and probably wouldn't mind the miracles per se. What counts as history changes, and modernly we don't count miracles.

Having said that, the fact remains we have texts that in most other regards appear to record an historical person, and the relationship between the texts suggest that Jesus's claims about himself are accurately recorded (not that they are true, which cannot be evidenced, but that he made the claims).

This is the historical Jesus that comes to us. There really is no other. Now, again, starting from this premise, one can then question the reliability of the texts. That's what historicians do. But what appears to me as illegitimate is to assume some other Jesus (the itinerant preacher thesis) who exists in no other text, and then critique the NT texts based on this nonhistorical historical Jesus. It's just a bad historical approach.

No Robots

You had me up to here. Was he not itinerant? Did he not preach? Are you complaining that this is too reductive? Perhaps the key is to REALLY examine his claims. WHAT was he preaching?

Gamera

No, you misunderestimate me, as Bush might say. The thesis, found in numerous books on the historical Jesus, is that the HJ was an itinerant preacher, like many of his time, who made no claims to messiahood, or if he did, a concept of the messiah much different from that in the NT. Then later texts -- the NT to be precise -- adapted this historical Jesus in the Jesus of the bible. Again the problem with this is that is critiques the NT texts with a putative Jesus not attested to in any written documents. And that's bad methodology.

Attacking the reliability of the NT is legitimate. Attacking the reliability of the NT texts based on a putative Jesus no where attested to, isn't.

mountainman

We can classify the Emperor Julian (362 CE) as subscribing to #4.
He uses the word "myth" when discussing the antiquity of Hellenic myths
but when he describes christianity it is with explicit reference to the
word fiction, in fact to him it is "a fiction composed by wicked men".

Thank you very much Malachi151 for including the fourth option, because
it is not normally included in discussion, which historically has focussed on
the issues 1 to 3. The 4th option, that the NT is a fiction of men IMO will
be found to be the correct version of history.

I am convinced that christianity arose in the following manner:
a) Constantine sponsors the literature of Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea.
b) He implements christianity in Rome (312-324 CE), and sends propaganda
into the eastern part of the empire.
c) Arius condemns the new religion: "There was a time when He was not"
d) He deals with this opposition (Arius et al) and implements the full blown
version at the council of Nicaea (325 CE), seeking signatures to his creed.
e) At this stage only Constantine and Eusebius were aware that the
manuscripts prepared by Eusebius are a massive fiction, because they
have been cleverly prepared.
f) The power network established at Nicaea, with its basis in said fiction,
ensured that it would survive, by destruction of all competing ideas. In
centuries after Nicaea, the newly created christianity purged the
empire of intelligence, and burned the classic literature of the greeks.

I am also convinced that Julian would have said all of the above,
to be explicit in his [u]LEGAL ARRAIGNMENT[/b] "Against the Galiliaeans"
except that Cyril did not openly refute such charges and therefore
decided to "omit invectives against Christ and such matter as might
contaminate the minds of Christians".

As a result of the implementation of such fiction:
"The world groaned to find itself Arian"

The versions of history ascribed by theories 1), 2) and 3) involve the
identification of a linear canon of truth across the intervening centuries
one and two and three of the CE. The version of history ascribed by
the class of theory 4) accept that it may well be the cases that there
was no linear canon of truth across earlier centuries, that christians might
not have existed prior to the fourth century.

The "whole cloth" fiction history is necessarily non linear. It is massively
non-linear and chaotic, with effect from the Council of Nicaea (and has
no earlier history, except that in Rome under Constantine, and he brought
these existent conscripts to Nicaea with him, for intellectual support.

We do not find any carbon dated evidence of christianity prior to the rise
of the supreme emperor Constantine. We find no churches, and no crosses.
We find no literature discussing christians, and we find no evidence for the
existence of the tribe of christians outside of (the supreme reach of) Eusebius).

We find zero compelling evidence to make the inference that christianity
did not first appear on the planet Earth prior to the fourth century. We
understand that other people either:

a) have some such compelling evidence to make this inference, or
b) they make the inference because they were taught to do so.

I have no other explanation that people ascribe to 1), 2) or 3).

Once again, thanks for being complete in the inclusion of 4) in your
assessment of the possibilities at the foundation for the historical
explanation of the emergence of the christian religion.



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

mens_sana

For a very interesting alternative (non-itinerant) view, see William E. Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q (or via: amazon.co.uk), Fortress Press, 2001.

Gamera

Thanks. Haven't read it. I'll look it up.

Toto

reviewed here

ChandraRama

See the thread I have started.

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=166190

Mark's story is too complex and too problematic to be invented as a linear narrative for a son of God by Eusebius (or for that matter any one)

It needs the background of Judaism, the background of its legends and their prophet's expectation of the Kingdom of God on earth.

It begs the question why Eusebius has to go all the way to appropriate a story that justifies the existence of the opponents of the Roman empire.

The explanation I am proposing to present at the end of my thread is more of a dialectical progression of the events and the ideas of the first century/second century Roman empire.

The jewish war that culminated in the total destruction of the Jerusalem temple is cathartic for the jewish people.

It was documented in two different directions.

First is the One that depicted the main character, John of Gischala as the Villain of the piece. That is Josephus' war of the Jews.

Second one is that depicted the John of Gischala as the Hero of the story. That is Mark's gospel. (or Proto-Mark Gospel)

Why the Second one, the Mark's gospel had to be written like this with the character names changed? It is obvious. In the Roman times, no one could write a history which would undermine the official history. Josephus records a historian killed writing a history that did not please the emperor.

So the story adopted an approach similar to the magical realism methodology that appeared in Latin America where the people had to tell their stories but not easily understood by the officials.

So Mark had written the story of John of Gischala with the three main characters' names changed.

Jesus, pilate, Judas.

John Gischala named as Jesus
Titus named as Pilate
Simon Bar Gioras named as Judas.

Once the story was popularized by the former zealots and the followers of John who understood the mystery of the Jesus, it acquired the cult status. Some who knew the truth became the people who knew the secrecy. The rest were lay people. But it is the lay people who took the religion to its logical conclusion of a widespread popular religion spreading from the jewish people in various Roman cities towards attracting the gentiles and becoming a roman religion shorn of its militant nature in the way.

Ben C Smith

If I understand your reasoning, I think I can accept it in the broadest strokes. But most alternate theories about the historical Jesus do not sketch out the broadest strokes without some degree of attestation somewhere. For example, those who suppose that the historical Jesus spoke of the kingdom in nonapocalyptic terms have the gospel of Thomas.

Ben.

mountainman

On the contrary we have a very simple story ...

"Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

The story had been translated already for hundreds of years
by Philo and after him by Origen (who's writings were perverted
by Eusebius) who outlined the story of the OT. Eusebius had
possession of the raw manuscripts in the library of Caesarea.


The explanation that you are proposing makes the inference that
there were christians in existence prior to the fourth century.
What evidence justifies this inference?



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au