spin

Crass answers that make no clarification do not reflect well on you.

I responded showing where the system fits into what you call "the divine plan". The Hebrew bible shows god's relationship with the temple and its economic system. If you don't like my response, you need to give a transparent analysis rather than the sort of non-communicative arrogance you've proven liable to.

sotto voce

Text reference, please.

Diogenes the Cynic

If that is how you would define a historical Hercules, then I would have no problem with it?

Just to be clear, are you saying that no non-magical historical figure can fairly be called "Jesus," even if, hypothetically, a real crucified Yeshua inspired the myth? Are you saying that no such person is possible or that no such person can be defined (in your opinion) as "Historical Jesus?"
They're more accurate analogies because they are people alleged to have existed historically, and Hercules is not. David certainly is.

Let's say hypothetically that a Galilean preacher named Yeshu was actually, historically crucified by Pilate for saying he was the King of the Jews, and that this person had followers who started the Jerusalem church spoken of by Paul.

I'm not asking if such a person existed, or if there is evidence such a person existed, I'm only asking if such a person would qualify as a historical Jesus.

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't presume anything about Mark. I'm commenting only on the story as a story.

spin

No.

No ancient writer alleged anyone to have been historical. The notion "historical" is a modern technical notion in this context. The whole notion of a "historical Jesus" is a modern one based on developments in historiography. One couldn't have hit on the notion of a historical Jesus if the 19th century hadn't shown a movement towards evidence based narratives. Previously, history, at least regarding specific people, was no different from hagiography.

(Stick with "actually".)

For someone to be "historical" rather than just potentially real, requires substantive evidence. For one to have a historical Jesus, one would have to have the evidence in order to be called "historical". Jesus may have been real, but he certainly isn't historical, given the state of the current evidence. It doesn't matter how you play with the Jesus tradition to construct a credible figure, it won't change what seems to me the necessity of what makes one historical, ie sufficient substantive evidence.

outhouse

and in jesus case, there is


its why he has more historicity then many ancient people with much much LESS evidence.






claiming biblical jesus is not real, doesnt cut it as any kind of evidence at all, and does nothing to discredit the historicity of historical jesus as its common knowledge.

aa5874

Well, if your are commenting on the story as a story then it could be interpreted in many different ways.

It is erroneous that the incident could ONLY be interpreted as an attack on the institution.

spin

Stop waffling. Making vacuous generalizations will not change anything. If you'd like to come out with the so-called evidence that you think you have, you'd appear less waffly.

If you were paying attention, you'd realize I never claimed that Jesus was not real,... nor did I claim he was. I said, "Jesus may have been real".

Unfortunately, because of the nature of the gospels, they don't constitute any historical evidence for one cannot tell when they were written, by whom or where. One thing that one can tell is that the intention of the writers was not objective nor was it versed in the sort of authorial responsibility that people like Polybius or Poseidonius understood. The indications are that the gospels reflect a tradition whose elements do not allow a historian to interrogate them meaningfully. As to the non-gospel materials people try to dragoon into service, AJ demonstrates christian interference in matters related to christianity whose extent cannot be ascertained and Annals doesn't appear of interest until at least the time of Sulpicius Severus, so the fabled Neronian persecution of christians remains just as fabled as ever.

The earliest christian literature is Paul who never met Jesus and so isn't a witness, nor did he tell us of the beliefs and knowledge of any earlier believers. Paul is also caught up in the christian tradition and features writings that don't belong to him (eg Eph., Col., & 2 Thes) and signs of "authentic" texts having been tampered with.

Evidence in the matter is not able to support any meaningful notion of historicity.

aa5874

Well, this also applies to the Pauline writings. We don't know who actually wrote them, the actual time they were written and where they were written.


There are NO real signs of authenticity in the Paul writings since there are NO known credible corroboration for a single letter. The author of Acts did NOT even state that Paul wrote letters even though the author claimed he traveled with Paul.

The earliest Pauline writings [P 46]are dated from the mid 2nd century or later.

Apologetic sources like Justin Martyr do suggest that there was Christian literature well before the Pauline letters.

Justin Martyr used the Memoirs of the Apostles and Revelation but did NOT mention a sentence from the Pauline writings.

The Memoirs of the Apostles and Revelation are BEFORE the Pauline letters.

Diogenes the Cynic

You seem to be making some kind of pedantic, semantic protest which I think is frankly a non-sequitur with regards to what I'm asking. I am not asking what can be discovered historically or methodologically. I'm asking for a definition.

You say a hypothetical person like the one I described would qualify as "real." My question is would it be fair to call him the "real Jesus?"