Vorkosigan

Ok, but doesn't the assertion that X is a background detail depend on an analysis of the text that already exists. For example, in the Trial Before Pilate he is a major player in the scene. Hence, you can't demand as a presupposition that details must be divided into "background" and "foreground." What you need is an analysis that does that, and your initial position must be that all details are equally fore/back ground. Your claim that details can be turned into fore/bck ground details looks a lot like a presupposition to me.

Vorkosigan

neilgodfrey

It strikes me that this question misses the point re the historicity of Jesus question. It's like asking what's historical in an Ian Flemming novel in order to argue for the historicity of James Bond. Or how much is historical in Homer's Odyssey in order to establish the historicity of Odysseus. Fiction would not work without some level of plausibility (true historical or geographic information).

The real questions are genre and purpose. Given the paucity of evidence these questions are much harder to settle on, but that does not make the 'ratio of historical to nonhistorical bits' question any more valid as a tool for the ultimate question.

hum

Interested in your statement that "parables are pure fiction". Can you explain why this must be case?
It seems likely that if there was an historical figure behind all the embellishments, that a collection of sayings and parables would be the sort of material that would be preserved.

hum

rlogan

I guess all our historicists don't want to show their hand?

TedM

Seems there should be a distinction made between places, people, and activities/events. Acitivities are going to be hard to place in the 'historical' camp without some reasonable and credible corroberation. Without it they fall into the 'maybe' camp unless other evidence shows such activities to be highly implausible.

ted

lpetrich

I mean the content of the parables themselves, as opposed to whether there was someone who told them. Like whether there was a historical Prodigal Son as opposed to someone telling the parable of him.

I would not be surprised if some fundies are literal-minded enough to believe that there was an actual, historical Prodigal Son. Consider the case of Philip Gosse, who was described by his son Edmund in Father and Son as reading young Edmund only factual stories and never any fictional ones.

But I think that that's a sidetrack from the main issue.

To help clarify what I mean by background vs. foreground, let us consider a historical novel. The background details are usually intended to be as factual as possible, even though the foreground details (the characters and their personal details and histories) are fictional.

If I was writing a historical novel about the adventures of some ancient Roman soldier, he would be fictional, but the sort of things he did, where he lived, what clothes he wore, how he participated in battle, etc. would all be modeled on what we can learn of the Roman Army.

And we can approach the Gospels in much the same way.

Doug Shaver

I don't advocate historicity any more, but I would have until a few years ago. Had you asked me then, my answer would have been that the crucifixion, but not much else, was historical.

I would also have agreed by and large with the Jesus Seminar regarding what were the actual teachings of Jesus. However, I would not have claimed that any of the events in which he presented them actually happened. For instance, I would have said that there was no single occasion on which Jesus actually preached the Sermon on the Mount.

Malachi151

I'm in the same boat. 2 years ago I would have said "Yes, there was some real Jesus at the heart of all this," and my Jesus would have been about what you describe. In fact I got in an argument defending a historical Jesus as a good person who brought about needed change about 2 years ago.

About a year and a half ago I would have said that "Jesus" may be some amalgam construct of a variety of different religious reformers in the region at the time, who were part of a real religious movement.

Now I disagree with all that, primarily because I have seen how much of the Jesus story comes line for line from the preceding Hebrew texts. That, to me, was the clincher.

So we can explain away the fact that Jesus didn't have much written about him by other people, okay, I could accept that.

So we can account for the fact that claims are made in the NT works that don't correspond to other known histories or facts, okay.

So Jesus in the gospels appears like many other pagan godmen, okay.

etc.

But when I saw just how dependent Mark was on the Hebrew Bible, and how essentially all of Mark is just a restructuring of old stories to create a new one, that's what really changed my mind. That is what made it apparent that no person was needed to generate the story, and indeed the story makes more sense as allegory than history.

aa5874

The question of the historicity of Jesus Christ does not lie on the fact that persons were crucified. Crucifixions were common place during the 1st century.

The historicity claim specifies that a specific Jesus Christ, lived at a specific time, did specific miraculous acts, had a specific trial, suffered a specific penalty, was seen alive at a specific time after the penalty was carried out and vanished at an unspecified time.

These specific miraculous acts, whether they were actually done with the help of some God, whether they were staged, or done by magic, is immaterial, because the Jesus Christ, specified in the NT, did specific acts and was diefied and vilifiedfor those acts.

John 6:2, 'And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:32, 'Jesus answered them, 'Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?

So anyone who claims the historicity of Jesus Christ must present evidence to show that a specific person called Jesus Christ did specific works, whether through fraud or spiritual means is inconsequential. It must be remembered that it was for those specific works that He was deified.

gstafleu

There seems to be an interesting difference between HJers and MJers here. HJers don't seem to come up with a lot that is historical, except some background settings.

If MJers were asked the same (but reverse) question (what do you think is not historically by Jesus) they would, I think, come up with lots. Robert Price's books, for one; in Deconstructing Jesus he lists all of Q1 plus where it came from. And, talking about the Crucifiction/Ressurection, he shows how that is a version of a then popular type of romance novel. Or MountainMan's page on Philo (et al) about the Essenes vs the Bible. Et, no doubt, cetera.

Gerard Stafleu