jakejonesiv

What is your methodology Archibald? Just eliminate from the gospels anything that offends your modern sensibilities and then assume the remainder is historical fact? That appears to be the real criteria of embarrassment!

So modern questers for the Historical Jesus are engaged in creating their own Jesuses, modern constructs that ancient Christians would have rebelled against with all vigor. No wonder almost every "Historical Jesus" resembles his maker.

Sheshbazzar

Perhaps from your personal point of view.
Others having also closely examined these selfsame texts arrive at the conclusion that they consist of religiously motivated fabrications, and that is the rational position.
Sorry, but I must disagree with this claim. Unless the specifics are openly examined, no valid judgments can be rendered by any party as to any claim to what '-might-' ' be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place;'
Either you are willing to lay your cards on the table, in the sight of all, or you are attempting to bluff.
And for these 'other figures from ancient history' the same questions are commonly raised, and fact is separated from the obvious fictions.
Any supposed 'historical' Jebus should be expected to be able stand up to this same rigorous examination.
Where have I indicated that I do not, or that I am not willing to deal with any ancient -text- on a similar basis?
Again. There must be some specific text and passages specified to be examined and judged, not just generalized allegations of some degree of historicity.

gurugeorge

Well indeed, so let's set the same standards for this "Jesus" fellow as we would for, say, Empedocles - also reputed as a magician and wonder-worker as well as what we call a "philosopher".

There's a fair bit of triangulation for him, from several sources. Even if we take Diogenes Laertius as a "main source" equivalent to the Christian cult texts, there are enough little mentions of him here and there outside that text, throughout the corpus of ancient literature, to make it a fairly solid deal that the miraculous healing was mythology layered on top of a real man (some of it apparently fostered by himself, amusingly). And of course we have his own words too.

So for this "historical Jesus" we don't have external triangulation and we don't have his own words.

Shouldn't that make the hypothesis of a human Jesus ... rather tentative? You know, if you're using the same standards as you'd apply to other miracle-working magician figures.

Or take Appollonius of Tyana - his legend has even even more fantastic stuff than Jesus or Empedocles in some ways, but there's some triangulation from several sources, and there's even some archaeology for him IIRC.

The point is, people aren't applying the same methods - they're wishfully thinking a historical Jesus into existence when, by any normal standards of history and the academy, he'd just be a not-terribly-well-supported hypothesis that some obscure academics might argue for and against without any firm outcome.

archibald

No. Some people are. You're not. Speak for yourself. :]

Btw, run that case for Buddha past me again.

You've been busted, George.

Chili

Since DNA was brought up let me say that we are dealing with RNA that has no genes but is carried by DNA and so is historical but pertaining to RNA makes it a love story that speaks to the blood in our veins urging us to die to our ego that sets us apart and so making us one, once again, and eternity reigns without pain until the seond death does us part.

tanya

Thanks for this comment, George.
From my narrow minded perspective, it is not terribly important, and surely not useful, to focus on what "people believed". I have no idea what people TODAY believe, let alone those alive 2000 years ago.

I don't look at the HJ vs. MJ argument in terms of popular "belief". What anyone believes, or doubts, is irrelevant to me.

When I wrote that HJ meant a genuine human being with human DNA, that's what I meant, not, "people believe that he had DNA". I seek to communicate the fact that Jesus of Nazareth did have human DNA. That's HJ, not, "people suppose", or "people imagine", or "people wish that", or "people believe" that Jesus of Nazareth possessed human DNA. "HJ" means, irrespective of what people believe or deny, that there was once a real living human being, named Jesus of Nazareth, who could cure epilepsy by waving his hands in the air. That is HJ.

MJ, by contrast, also has NOTHING to do with people's beliefs. It doesn't matter one iota, if 10 billion souls disagree with me. What counts, here, is not people's beliefs, what counts is DNA. Jesus didn't have any. It does not matter whether or not I believe it. What matters is, Jesus was a fictional character, not a living, breathing human being. That is MJ.

Neither HJ, nor MJ depend AT ALL, on the quantity of folks who accept one or the other hypothesis. If I am alone, on the planet, believing in MJ, that's fine. No problem. What does matter, is Jesus' DNA, not my belief. Either he had it (HJ), or he didn't (MJ). End of story.


I think you may have misunderstood me. My writing is notoriously sloppy. I wrote "Koine literature", meaning, NOT Koine theology, and NOT Koine history.

I agree with your assessment of J-D's input.

I don't know a lot about Chinese culture and civilization, and I would certainly defer to your apparent superior knowledge of that great culture, but, I believe, perhaps in error, that CaoCao, at least, was a real human being. I know too little to comment on the other characters of the romance.

For me, it is simple: historical = DNA was present; fictional = DNA not present, at any time; mythical = fictional + superhuman traits (flying through the air, for example)

dog-on

Cool, but I think they are asking you to actually assign those probabilities that, as you say, is no different from what we do for countless other figures from ancient history.

Start at Mark 1:1, if you like, and give it a go.

archibald

Well, I'm really not sure why you're asking. When it comes to the details of what a person is supposed to have done or not done on a particular occasion, particularly a minor figure like this (though it's also true, to some extent, of almost all figures from ancient history), it becomes harder to assign probabilities. There is a range, starting with likliehood of mere existence, moving on to some very basic items (eg. in this case, 'if existed was more likely a prophet than a rally chariot driver or chef'), moving on to slightly more open question (was crucified?) and...eventually...stuff like, 'did or did not ride a donkey into Jerusalem'.

Now, personally, I don't tend to go beyond the first issue, or possibly the second (since there are no reports of winning races or recipes for banana bread in the surviving texts). Beyond that, I am almost entirely agnostic, personally speaking.

So, it seems to me question is still a red herring, because (a) it's not central and (b) lack of confidence for this sort of knowledge is the norm. Did Theudas really lead 400 people to the Jordan on the promise the waters would part, for example?

dog-on

Let's start at the beginning of your post.

Why do you call Jesus a minor figure, exactly?

jakejonesiv

Hi dog-on,

This is another instance of the historicist limbo. The historicist shrinks Jesus (hence temporarily a minor figure in Archibad's post) to "explain away" the lack of independent confirmation. We see this again and again with the healing miracles, feeding of the multitudes, the Triumphal entry, the Cleansing of the Temple, etc. If there were a shred of historicity to these events as described in the gospels, the fame and notoriety of the deeds of Jesus could never have escaped notice.

But rather than come to the reasonable conclusion that we are dealing with ahistorical material, it is assumed the gospel version must be an exaggeration of a historical core. But the “core” turns out to be so trite and pointless that no one would care about Jesus to begin with it.

So as soon as they think they have passed safely under the bar, they immediately start to "dance" the incident back up again, investing it with much symbolism and significance as they can without realizing that they have inadvertently raised the level of the Limbo bar so recently passed under.