GakuseiDon

No, the evidence for a historical Jesus is overwhelming. While there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, the cumulative case is very strong. And it's easy to demonstrate this by viewing the content-free responses in the last few pages.

I'm not saying "scholars say it, therefore it is true", but rather "this is the considered opinion of scholarship. What is the conclusion if scholarship is correct?" Of course the facts must be checked, and accepted scholarship reviewed (via, dare I say, peer-reviewed publications).

Let me change tack slightly, and ask this question to everyone:

If the following points were shown to be the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence, would this provide a strong cumulative case to suggest that there probably was a historical Jesus? Remember, the points below should be considered as already demonstrated as the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence:

• The Gospels were a form of ancient biography.
• The earliest Christians seemed to believe that the Gospels were written around a real person who was crucified under Pilate.
• The earliest Christians all believed in a 'real' Jesus.
• There is no record of any Christianity that didn't believe in a Jesus that walked the earth.
• Paul seems to indicate that Jesus was a real person who died in Paul's recent past, probably around the time of Pilate.

Would this provide a strong cumulative case? Is there any one point that would provide a strong case?

GakuseiDon

Yes, the question of recognition of genre. From the evidence we have, the earliest Christians seemed to believe that the Gospels were written around a real person called Jesus who was crucified under Pilate. Paul -- whom most believe is independent of the Gospels -- also writes about a Jesus who was crucified and (as I argue in my review of Doherty's book) in the first half of the First Century. No-one thinks that Paul was writing fiction.

show_no_mercy

How can you demonstrate what actually happened based on what people believe? The strongest thing you can say is exactly that: these are the things that certain Christians believed. Once you go beyond that you're writing checks your statements can't cash. Many people also thought that Robin Hood and Nedd Ludd were living human beings. This doesn't make them any more (or less) real than Jesus.

It would be equally fallacious to claim that Jesus was raised from the dead since most Christians believed that Jesus was raised from the dead.

andrewcriddle

Would you infer from Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana that Philostratus is not writing about a real historical person ?

IMO Philostratus shows stronger evidence of what we would call fiction than the canonical gospels do. However Philostratus is writing an ancient biography about a real historical person. (Most of it is untrue but that is a different matter.)

One of the problems IMHO with the debate about whether or not the Gospels are ancient biographies, is that the idea is often taken to involve a stronger claim for historical accuracy than it really does.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

If it's so easy, where is the demonstration? (And did you mean content-free? that doesn't even make sense.)

But you haven't even demonstrated any familiarity with that scholarship. You just keep repeating that there is a consensus of modern scholarship.

Why do you keep repeating yourself without addressing the answers?

If you want to call the gospels a form of "ancient biography" you have to admit that these ancient biographies were at times written about supernatural beings.

Not all Christians believed in a 'real' Jesus by our standards of what is real. Some believed in a completely supernatural Jesus.

Paul does not seem to indicate that Jesus was a real person who died around the time of Pilate.

But even if I grant you these assumptions, this is at most a weak case for a historical Jesus. This is no more than the evidence for William Tell or Neil Ludd, who are now regarded as legendary characters.

Toto

Why do you keep repeating this mistake? If "ancient biographies" as you call them could be written about gods, the genre is no proof that that Mark was even trying to write about a historical person.

Paul was writing theology, which might as well be fiction for our purposes.

Kapyong

Gday,

Firstly -
Jesus was not "made up" in the sense that the authors wrote any old thing they thought of themselves from thin-air.
No - the stories about Jesus were derived from the Tanakh mostly. Re-crafted from earlier sources.


It has been shown, you just didn't like it - the obvious signs of magic and supernatural events and divine intervention. Signs of NON-historicity.

Steve - it seems completely clear and obvious to you that the authors really believed in a historical Jesus. But you haven't really made it clear WHY.

It seems to me that your argument is based on the fact that real places and real people are mentioned in the book.

But this argument is faulty - for several reasons :

1. legends / myths / fiction often includes real people and real places.

2. the Gospels have NON-real people and NON-real events

If you argue that REAL things in the story mean Jesus was thought of as a real person - then surely the NON-real things in the story argue they did NOT think Jesus was real?

Right?



Kapyong

Kapyong

Gday JustSteve,

Let's recap -


First you asked :
So -
Dog-on posted an excerpt from the Gospels which describe very NON-real events :

"9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted[g] by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him. "

Dog-on commented :
"Now you provide evidence where you think that the author thinks he is talking about a real person."

His point seems to be that a:
* supernatural events,
* with direct divine intervention,
* a magical dove,
* then angels and
* Satan acting on earth
is hardly a description of an earthly historical person. It's mythology, not history.

Unless you can SHOW that the author really believed such things happened.


Then Toto pointed out :
"The gospels are not just regular history embellished with a few supernatural events or explanations for events. They are full of supernatural events, and their form and structure are derived directly from the Hebrew Scriptures. And each gospel writer feels free to alter the story for his or her own theological purposes."


That is clear and present evidence that the authors did NOT see all this as historical earthly events. The clear conclusion is that Jesus was NOT seen as a historical earthly person. Sure, one can argue against this evidence, but plenty HAS been presented.


But then you say this, JustSteve :
"If you can show evidence from the gospels which indicates that the writers didn't think they were writing about someone who had actually existed, have at it. So far no one has."


Pardon?
How insulting to the people who DID answer your post.


Kapyong

GakuseiDon

"Content-free responses", as in: "Maybe this happened instead", or "no it isn't."

True enough.

Because no-one is answering my questions.

No, they weren't. They were written about gods who lived on earth as men. What ancient biography was written about a supernatural being?

So what? They ALL believed in a Jesus who walked the earth, interacted with disciples, taught, around the time of Pilate.

Granting my assumptions :
1. Paul was a near-contemporary to Jesus
2. Paul thought that Jesus was a real person
3. We have no evidence of anyone questioning the idea that Jesus walked the earth around the time of Pilate

Why isn't the above and the other points I gave (granting my assumptions) enough to establish the high probability of the existence of a historical Jesus?

GakuseiDon

How many ancient biographies were written about gods or people who the author thought didn't exist? If the overwhelming majority of them were presented to be about people or gods who were thought to exist, then the genre becomes important. And especially if the odd exception was recognised to be exceptions.

It's possible that Mark was writing a story about someone he didn't think existed, but we have NO evidence for that. This can't be swept under the table as though it is meaningless. What is your explanation for this, and what is the evidence for your explanation?

Nice example of a content-free response.