Malachi151

My thread on the silence of historians has been stymied by conflict over what constitutes HJ.

So, what should we consider "historical Jesus"?

I see that there are completely different points to prove:

1) Historical Jesus that exactly mathces the description in the Bible.

2) Some mortal human who was the sole basis of the Jesus figure in the Bible.

3) Some amalgum of people and events that took place over a span of time that were collected into the Jesus charater.

4) The Jesus character was made up out of whole cloth from pre-existing "pagan" myths and Jewish prophecies.

So, what constitutes HJ?

From my perspective, refuting HJ #1 is really of primarly importance, because once HJ #1 is disproved then Christianity is disproved. I know that we all know that HJ #1 is false, but many people don't.

Then we have HJ #2. I curretnly do not believe in HJ #2 either, though this can be qualified by HJ #3, which I could accept as possibly true.

Certianly if HJ #3 is true, then HJ #2 is at least true in part, so this is a mixed bag.

I am not one that is necessarily claiming MJ #4 completely, though I would say that Jesus in the Bible is most probably a mix of MJ #4 and HJ #3.

Others, of course, argue solely for MJ #4.

Thoughts?

jjramsey

Generally speaking, when one is discussing the historical Jesus, one is contrasting it with Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament, often called the "Christ of faith." Usually, then, #2 is what constitutes the HJ.

French Prometheus

Yeah, HJ is usually meant as #2. At least, that's how I understand it.

Gamera

And therein lies the problem. A person's historical existence is the result of written records memorializing or evidencing that existence. That's what history means. Written records. The NT is a written record. Indeed it is the only historical record we have of Jesus (taking into consideration the pseudographia and epigraphia). Thus the NT constitutes the historical Jesus.

Now, it's totally legitimate to evaluate any historical record to see if we want to bother accepting its reliability. So, if a written record is written well after an event, its reliability may be at issue. If the written record is a modern forgery, it has no reliability. And there are thousands of variations in between.

Generally, the the detractors of the NT, posit another HJ, that doesn't exist in any other records and contrast that unreported HJ with the recorded HJ in the NT. I think that's a methodologically unacceptable approach. It's legitimate to critique the NT as to its distance from the events. It's not legitimate to create another HJ that doesn't exists in any other document and than say the NT diverges from that construct.

Its even legitimate to point out the agenda of the NT writers, but only if one acknowledges that all historical writings have agendas. There's no such thing as an unbiased history, as post-structuralists have cogently argued.

Chris Weimer

You ought to note that several Christians themselves can refute #1 and still be Christian, especially the latter. I don't see why anyone would waste their time dealing with #1 - especially here in this higher forum.

mikem

Refuting HJ #1 would serve only to discredit an infallibilist view of Scripture. Christians of a more liberal persuasion would be unperturbed by that. In fact, it has been Christian scholars who have done much of the discrediting - as Chris pointed out. There are also those who think that that even refuting #2 would not discredit Chrisitianity, since a mythical Christ will serve just as well as a real one to embody the characterisitic values of Christianity (i.e a mythical resurrection as metaphor for hope overcoming adversity). There is a group in England that takes that sort of route - "Sea Of Faith" they are called. I think that takes some mental gymnastics though!

post tenebras lux

Would HJ #3 include someone who had been stoned to death and hung from a tree in 100 BC, say?

French Prometheus

If he's one of the historical individuals whose lives and sayings inspired the authors of the gospels, I would say yes. But I really think we should stick to HJ #2.

Ben C Smith

Consider the following (admittedly incomplete) spectrum:

1. The historical Jesus was born of a virgin, was baptized by John, announced the kingdom of God, spoke in parables, disputed with scribes and Pharisees, performed healings and exorcisms, performed nature miracles, was ushered triumphantly into Jerusalem, and got himself crucified.
2. The historical Jesus was baptized by John, announced the kingdom of God, spoke in parables, disputed with scribes and Pharisees, performed healings and exorcisms, was ushered triumphantly into Jerusalem, and got himself crucified.
3. The historical Jesus was baptized by John, announced the kingdom of God, spoke in parables, disputed with scribes and Pharisees, was ushered triumphantly into Jerusalem, and got himself crucified.
4. The historical Jesus was baptized by John, spoke in parables, disputed with scribes and Pharisees, was ushered triumphantly into Jerusalem, and got himself crucified.
5. The historical Jesus was baptized by John, spoke in parables, was ushered triumphantly into Jerusalem, and got himself crucified.
6. The historical Jesus was baptized by John, was ushered triumphantly into Jerusalem, and got himself crucified.
7. The historical Jesus was baptized by John and later got himself crucified.
8. The historical Jesus got himself crucified.

There are many ways to descend this scale, and many different scales that one could create, but you get the idea. Is rejecting some NT claims but not others the same as constructing another Jesus? If I accept that Jesus healed people (at least in some way) but deny that he walked on water, am I replacing a waterwalking Jesus with a nonwaterwalking Jesus? Or am I just rejecting one particular claim about him? Where along that (or any) spectrum have I crossed the line and created a different Jesus?

Ben.

mens_sana

I like No. 7.9: The historical Jesus was baptized by John, announced the imminent kingdom of God, spoke in parables, disputed with scribes and Pharisees, and got himself crucified.

It strikes me that the multiply attested sayings from early sources independent of each other (canonical and extracanonical) allow this readily. And Bart Ehrman's Criterion of Dissimilarity, that is, stories that do not support a Christian cause, yet are still in the tradition (with much embarrassment), gives us Jesus' association with John Baptizer, the imminent kingdom, the betrayal by Judas, and the crucifixion itself, as evidence of the historical Jesus. Hmmm, I guess Jesus' support of the Law would also belong there — it certainly has involved a huge number of man hours trying to explain it away.