Achwienichtig

OK, I am not well read on this issue other than with threads I have read on this forum and a little Ehrman, but I think there are several common sense reasons for prima facie accepting the human Jesus hypothesis.

1) The inconsistencies in the Bible are actually evidence the writers were not working together to form a conspiracy. The types of incongruities we find are those we would expect to find if an oral tradition was written down by different people in different parts of the telephone game.

2) By the end of the first century, the story of Jesus seems to have been set. Of course, it wasn't until three centuries later that many of the doctrines of Christianity were set in stone, but Jesus himself was talked about as a matter of fact. We know that these were tumultuous times in Jerusalem. In 70 A.D. Jerusalem was decimated by the Romans. We have Roman remains showing that Pontius Pilot was a historical figure. The writers of the Gospels were familiar with their Roman history and Hebrew history, and their accounts tend to include these historical figures.

It seems odd that these writers would interject a purely mythical figure in with historical figures. It is much more likely the Gospel story flowered the way that many myths flower, by exaggeration. Indeed, the writers would have been close enough to the actual time to still hear rumor of a man who defied both the Romans and the Jews, and would have been far enough away from that time for those rumors to have been greatly exaggerated. Additionally, the actual existence of such a figure is not improbable given the political tensions of the time.

3) The parables and proverbs of the Gospels are most likely explained by one original preacher. Of course, there are stories that we know were later added to the Bible, like the story of the women caught in adultery. That story does not exists in the earliest documents. There was definite editing, but the train of events seems to have been kicked off by one wise man, perhaps somebody who had come into contact with Hinduism or Buddhism.

Perhaps most mainstream scholars give more weight to these prima facie considerations than the mythicists do?

Toto

Except that they are not. The literary evidence is that Matt and Luke directly copied blocks of text from Mark and changed parts that were theologically inconvenient.

The gospel writers appear to have been familiar with Josephus' work rather than having any independent knowledge of the history of the region. Fiction writers often include actual historical figures.

Not so odd.

The gospel writers were not close to the time of Pontius Pilate. They all wrote after the destruction of the Temple.

Scholars do not seem to agree with this. Many of the sayings were compatible with the Cynic philosophy of the time. The Jesus Seminar only attributed 18% of the sayings in the gospels to Jesus.

Some scholars, including some mythicists, see a Galilean preacher behind some of the sayings. But if this preacher was not crucified by Pontius Pilate, is that person actually the historical Jesus?

I don't think you will find any mainstream scholars who argue this way.

Achwienichtig

Well, it's more like I never thought about it. The moment I actually realized that my religion required me to say Jesus was a historical being is the moment I started to doubt my faith.

Achwienichtig

Thus I included the all important "prima facie." By any chance, do you know the estimated dates when the Gospels were written? How do they compare with the writings of Paul?

Toto

The standard dating is that the letters of Paul were written in the mid-first century, 50-60 CE, and the gospel of Mark around 70 CE with the other gospels a few decades later.

One can make a good argument that the gospels were not written until later in the second century and that conservative scholars have dated Mark as early as they do to allow for the possibility that Mark used oral legends. But even a dating of 70 CE is compatible with mythicism.

The letters of Paul do not show up until the second century, and were probably heavily edited about that time, whenever they were written.

Solo

One of them is Andrew Sullivan, right ?

Jiri

dog-on

maryhelena

Perhaps if that was reworded to read something like this: '..there are several common sense reasons for....accepting a flesh and blood element to the gospel JC storyboard'. What that would then be basically saying is that history is relevant, reality matters.

The gospel JC figure is not historical, even when all the mythological clothes are removed. A nobody carpenter from Nazareth, or wherever, is useless for theological/spiritual ideas and useless for historical enquiry.

Yes, mythology plays a big part in the JC storyboard, but it is only half the story. Intellectual ideas are only part of what makes us human. We live in the real world and the real world of flesh and blood matters. Actually, we can't really separate the two worlds we live in. History influences ideas and ideas influence history. That's the world of today just as it was the world of long ago. So, to just do, as some mythicists are wont to do, to separate these two worlds and claim greater priority for the world of ideas, is illogical.

Consequently, any mythicist arguments that seek to deny the relevance of history, of historical figures, to the development of the composite JC gospel figure, are deluding themselves. Flesh and blood matter.

And that is basically why the historicists are not going to be surrendering to the mythicist argument any day soon. That's only half the story. The other half rests with history.

Yes, of course, the historicists arguments for a historical JC are not going to convince the mythicists that such a HJ existed. And rightly so. But that does not mean that historical figures were not relevant, not important, to the gospel writers.

The historicists need to face the reality that the historical figure they seek does not go by the name of Jesus of Nazareth, or wherever.

The mythicists need to face the fact that historical reality, flesh and blood, historical figures are important to the gospel writers.

Until that grand occasion comes along - the two sides are like two ships sailing past one another.......................

Achwienichtig

I suppose this is what I was trying to get at. Of course, we could be plagued with questions like, is Jesus really Jesus if he didn't really come from Nazareth? Is Jesus really Jesus if he wasn't crucified? Is Jesus really Jesus if he wasn't named Jesus? Assuming the Gospel narrative has its roots in a historical figure, what percentage of attributions does that historical figure have to share in common with Jesus in order for him to be identified as the historical Jesus?

Beyond such considerations, however, it seems to me much more likely that a story about some historical figure was exaggerated rather than simply made up. It seems much more likely that some wise man who preached eccentricities was deified rather than some story being completely fabricated.

maryhelena

That the history of historical figures has been used to create the composite JC figure rules out any direct equation i.e. such and such a historical figure = HJ. It does not work like that, especially within a Jewish context. No historical figure is going to be made into a defied figure. That is one reason why I stress the composite nature of the JC figure. Look at it this way. The mythological clothes are one thing. But underneath all the clothes is a bare bones 'doll' - that Barbie doll, oh, well, a Ken doll. It's the make up of the 'doll' that is important for a historical inquiry into early christian origins. That's where history can be useful. If we can identify historical figures that the gospel writers find to be relevant, that wise man figure you referenced earlier, or a man of peace figure, then we could be taking a few small steps forward into getting to ground zero for early christian origins.

Yes, it's far more likely that history matters, that historical figures mattered to those gospel writers than that someone pulled some imaginative idea out of his hat and somehow got other people to drink his cool-aid. This is not about a battle of visions. Visions, ideas, have to have some connection to reality otherwise they are nothing but floating abstractions.