johno

I am in no position to evaluate the merits of the arguments in favour of the HJ and the MJ hypotheses, so I watch from the sidelines, but I hope that the the MJers (the underdogs) will win in the end.

I wonder though if there is a false dichotomy here. (I am not an expert, if the following seems foolish, please be tolerant.) It seems to me that the question of historicity ought to discussed independently of the mythical hypothesis. In my mind there are two independent hypotheses that are independently testable. The hypothesis that Jesus is an historical figure, which is true or false, or undecidable on present evidence, and the second hypothesis that Jesus is a mythical figure, true, false, or undecidable. I could be mistaken but I see no conflict with such conclusions as Jesus was both a historical figure and a mythical figure. This also suggests to me that no amount of elaboration of the mythical hypothesis can shed light on the historical hypothesis.

Of the lines of argument, the discussion of Hellenistic philosophy and mythopoeia is so far outside of my knowledge and understanding that I cannot address the subject in any way, so I have no view of the strength of the mythical hypothesis; but I can address the historical hypothesis obliquely.

I am strongly persuaded by the argument from silence, but being persuaded and being convinced are two different matters. I should not wish to demand more evidence to persuade me of the historical existence of Jesus than that required to persuade me of the historical existence of any other personage whose historical existence I have never doubted, which leads me to the following question:

I understand that no first-hand documentary evidence for the existence of Jesus has been discovered. If this is true is there any other figure generally accepted as being historical whose existence is testified to by no first-hand documentary evidence at all? Or is Jesus unique?

johno

Roger Pearse

I suppose if one went through Josephus, one would find rather a lot of examples. Or perhaps a prosopography?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

Read any history to find many historical people who otherwise have no evidence for him. Did the Egyptian really exist? Can we be sure?

The only difference is that these people aren't influential to millions of people and thus some don't feel inclined to attack their historicity as fiercely as they do that of Jesus.

Toto

It will help if you reframe the question. If you try to decide what would constitute a historical Jesus, you can get lost in definitions until the question becomes meaningless.

The real question is on Doherty's website - did Christianity start with a human or a mythical savior? Most people agree that the Jesus character in the gospels is mythical, and that there were a number of men in the first century named Jesus (or otherwise) who might match one or more aspects of that gospel character. But did the religion start based on a spiritual savior and then gradually put a human face on that spirit, or was there an actual person who inspired the founders of the new religion?

For example, Josephus describes a nut named Jesus who predicted the fall of Jerusalem. The gospels show that some aspects of this Jesus were worked into their narratives, but I don't think that anyone would want to identify this Jesus as the Historical Jesus, as there is no way that he would have inspired a new religion.

This is also a matter of intellectual trends. We owe the historical Jesus that we read about to a period of intellectual history when it was assumed that history was moved forward by Great Men, so if there was a Christian religion, a Great Man must have been at the beginning. The current trend in social history is to discount the Great Men and see history as a product of anonymous or evolutionary social forces, without the guiding hand of a Great Man. If this is the case, the existence or not of the historical Jesus is not a real issue for most scholars, and is only important to doctrinaire believers.

Spenser

Is this supposed to have an 's' at the end of Egyptian and if so are you serious? Or is there a specific historical figure that currently eludes me that is referred to as The Egyptian?

Spenser

Toto,

I said in another thread that I am now leaning towards the MJ side but maybe I should clarify. Whether he started as a spirit in the spirit world or a myth of a human that never actually existed I am undecided on. I guess much of the attacks on the MJers is that they are claiming the initial Jesus was never actually referred to as human and that adapted later. I'm not making that argument, I'm just saying I do not see enough evidence for the existence of the actual human being. That being said I can see the early Christ being referred to as human or spirit yet still just be a myth. Further, he he is just made up of bits and pieces of other Jesus' (plural) or other men then that is simply being a myth as well...

Julian

It's a specific guy. More here: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah...aimants09.html

TedM

How does one go about determining if there was an actual person resembling that of the gospels? I guess that's what we do here in these threads, and it usually comes down to the credibility of the authors making these kinds of claims about the man:

"I knew this man"
"I talked with others who knew this man"
"Jesus was a teacher"
"Jesus lived during Pilate's time"
"Jesus knew and respected John the Baptist"
"Jesus was Jewish, from Galilee"
"Jesus was publically known before his death"
"Jesus was born of a virgin, in Bethlehem"
"Jesus had a family"
"Jesus had a core of disciples"
"Jesus was a miracle worker"
"Jesus was crucified"
"Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem"
"Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem around Passover"

ALL of these things (and more) are claimed outside of the gospels, but the question is one of credibility--for both the religiously biased and the non-religiously biased accounts.

IMO if belief in a historical earthly Jesus arose after belief in a purely mythical Jesus--one without a man who walked the earth at its origin, it happened before Paul's day, because Paul clearly believed Jesus had been a man who lived on earth at some point.

IMO there was a basis for the creation of such a MJ from the OT and other works, but I'm unaware of any documents that clearly claim such a creation and/or reject the idea of an once-earthly Jesus.

Doherty claims to have put the pieces of the puzzle together for us, but he bases so much of it on Paul and on very questionable documents like the Ascention of Isaiah, that it just doesn't work for me. There is a common sense factor that just doesn't overcome all of the evidence in favor of a HJ who at least resembles the above one.

Ok, I'm done rambling.

ted

Spenser

Got it, thanks.

jakejonesiv

Hi Toto,

Yes, this is extremely well phrased. If HJ proponents were merely attempting to prove bare existence of some guy named Jesus, we would have very little disagreement. That is not even an interesting discussion. Who cares? No, to be successful (as ted points out), the HJ proponents must prove that Jesus Christ as described in the gospels was based on a single historical man, to the exclusion of mythic or fictional origins.

Jake Jones IV