Bernard Muller

I hope my message is in line with this thread but I am not so sure.
Here is my 2 cents (Canadian, of course). What is the meaning of 'historical' in "historical Jesus"?
Sometimes, I wonder about what people, from all sides, think about this. Here is some questions associated with that:
A) Does the thought of some *historical* Jesus existed is incompatible with atheist belief?
B) Does 'historical' means that the 'Jesus' attached to that word has to be "Christian", that is with tenets of the Christian faith (or at least enough of them to justify the most minimalist Christian faith & belief of (a) God)?
C) Does 'historical' mean "has existed as a man", as my late (rather mediocre) father, or not?
D) Does someone 'historical' had to be 'historic'? I would not think so.
E) Does an "has existed as a man" Jesus is not possible in an atheist world?
OK, on the last question, some apologist said, well, we know there were many Jesuses then, so he existed. Humm, let me rephrase the question:
F) Does an "has existed as a man" Jesus, one who *somehow* started Christianities (and not in his lifetime or intentionally) is incompatible with atheist belief?
G) Does being an atheist in a still Christian part of the world mean you have to stamp out, by all kind of theories (some weirder or more ridiculous than the 'canonical' one) or by extreme skepticism, or both, any idea that a guy as defined in (F) lived and was crucified under Pilate?

That's it for now.
Regards, Bernard

Vorkosigan

How about: "A Jesus constructed through accepted methods of historical research"

"Extreme skepticism" is a loaded term, Bernard. What is "extreme skepticism?" Skepticism toward the existence of the gospel figure is justified by the complete lack of credible historical evidence, as well as the obvious fictionality of the figure of the gospels, and the widespread forgery in early Christianity.

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

Problem is the mob controls construction unions. . . .

Bernard:

There is probably an extreme position on both sides. On the "believer side"--proving "someone" existed is equivalent to proving what is said about him could have happened. On the "extreme-atheist side"--proving that "no one" existed is considered a way of proving everything behind Christianity is false.

--J.D.

Ted Hoffman

Vinnie,

Help me understand one thing please?

If ten people from different parts of England are put in separate rooms and they are asked what they know about Robin Hood, and they all state that what they know about Robin Hood is that (1)he had a friend called Little John and (2) he lived in Sherwood Forest and (3) he robbed the rich to give to the poor.

Two of them say that Robin hood smoked pot and six of them say that Robin Hood had ten wives.

Would the first three qualify as multiply attested?

Would the first three, ipso facto, put us into what you call "eyewitness territory"?

On a separate note, I have great difficulty comprehending how first stratum + MA puts us in eyewitness territory.

Precisely because:

1. The earliest (first stratum) does not translate to - the historical facts. Earliest != factual.

2. Many independent people/ several documents saying the same thing does not make that thing to be true. It just shows what the authors knew/believed, but doesn't verify the factual veracity of those beliefs.

What I see, from your arguments are:
MA + 1st Datum -> Eyewitness Territory - > (methodological requirements for historicity are relaxed) - > everything stated is historical.

These are leaps. Huge leaps.
I would ask you to prove that he existed before we discuss what he could have said.
Your question, just like MA and the Jesus seminar fellows, assume that Jesus existed.

That baggage that you are compelled to bring into the argument is what you must leave outside first.

I could ask you broadly: if it is certain that Robin Hood did certain things to reduce social inequality, how would you respond?

A myth can be widespread Vinnie. Being widespread has exactly zero probative value.

I meant sources (some of which contain narratives and sayings).

Bernard Muller

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is probably an extreme position on both sides. On the "believer side"--proving "someone" existed is equivalent to proving what is said about him could have happened. On the "extreme-atheist side"--proving that "no one" existed is considered a way of proving everything behind Christianity is false.
J.D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ya , good answer, I was afraid of that:
Propaganda <=> counter propaganda
BS <=> counter BS
sound bite <=> counter sound bite
extreme views <=> counter extreme views
rhetoric <=> counter rhetoric

That's the world we are living in.
Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about : "A Jesus constructed through accepted methods of historical research"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how do we define that, more so if, according to Paul letters, a human Jesus existed, but according to the same letters and the lack of external evidence, as unhistoric (and not worth inquiries)?

Here is a potpourri from my website (let's remember Paul's audience was Gentiles):

Paul heard and wrote about Jesus (pre-existent for Paul then) "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8), with "human ancestry" (Ro9:5), from "the seed of [allegedly] David, according to the flesh" (Ro1:3), "come of a woman, come under law [as a Jew]" (Gal4:4 YLT), "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), who "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) "that those under law [Jews] he may redeem" (Gal4:5 YLT) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) as "christ crucified" (1Co1:23).

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skepticism toward the existence of the gospel figure is justified by the complete lack of credible historical evidence, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ya, I agree, as long as "gospel figure" is related to the overall impression of "Christ" as by reading the gospels.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as well as the obvious fictionality of the figure of the gospels--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Largely true

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the widespread forgery in early Christianity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, they had to fill up the blanks, create histories which were lacking, answer justified doubts & disbeliefs, put together a rosy & coherent picture (that is the doctrine) from conflicting & crappy base documents, in order to continue profiting.

I have a quote for that:
(St. Gregory, fourth century bishop of Nazianzus, writing to St. Jerome (Hieron. ad. Nep.):
"A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have often said not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated to them."
quoted by C. F. Volney, The Ruins (Boston, 1872) p. 177)

But then what does that have to do with my (F) guy:
An "has existed as a man" Jesus, one who *somehow* started Christianities (and not in his lifetime or intentionally), crucified by Pilate.

One more remark: we have many names of people in antiquity (as dropped in passing in ancient writings), some of relative importance, whom we know nothing else (or so little) otherwise.

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

No its not. X is multiply attested datums which is identical to complexes. To take a hypothetical datum:

Complex: Bob

Three independent sources mention Bob in various forms and contexts in the first century. Breaking Bob references into a "complex" is simply listing all the "Bob references". I don't understand your complaint at all? Complex is identical with multiple attestation. Its simply stratifying multiply attested datums.

Why is it abnormal? Crossan might consider Tacitus more reliable in a lot of areas than the Gospels but i think you are incorrect on this. But in any rate there is always a need to rely on material that is early and mentioned in numerous sources.

But when scholars reconstruct the historical Pharisees how do they do it? They will take material from Josephus and other sources and compare it. Its a multiple attestation complex type thing. Thats how historical reconstruction works. Multiple attestation is a major part. Stratification is necessary as well (where applicable). Crossan's complexes are simply a listing of his reconstruction of all multiple attested first stratum datums about Jesus.

Whose HJ? There are many.

I cannot counter statements that are conclusions rather than arguments.

The NT?! You must have slipped up here. Neither I or Crossan limits the Jesus corpus to the NT! Meier and Sanders might limit it to the Gospels but I certainly don't.

My view: The Q1 sayings materal INDEPENDENTLY paralleled in the Gospel of Thomas and its early and widespread parallels in other literature suffices in giving us plausible reason for accepting the existence of a historical Jesus. An oral stage of the tradition is certainly implied by a host of materials as well. Not to even mention the ever important Pauline corpus.

Of course the text can't. That's where multiple witnesses come in.

Vinnie

Vinnie

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
[B]Vinnie,

Help me understand one thing please?[quote]

I'll do my best

First I need to you to substantiate this comparison.

As I mentioned many times here, the sources for Robin Hood in no way compare to Jesus. When asked for a time period of Robin Hood's existence I was pointed to a broad range of over hundreds of years. For Jesus I have demonstrated a ground zero of ca 30 ad:

http://www.acfaith.com/jchronology.html

Here I presented 16 datums that present Jesus as existing in this time period. This research has gone completely uncontested here. Furthermore these 16 datums that place Jesus in this time period all come from within the first century. Not one of them can be dated later than 70 years after ground zero and numerous traditions come from many years before this time period.

All the sources that we have on Jesus are built upon earlier traditions and other source mateials (oral and written) and there is ample evidence for an oral stage of the tradition.

Because we know that Paul did not know the HJ. Jesus dies before Paul converted and Paul converted in the thirties. Since Jesus can be dated to have died around 30 AD (see above link) when we have multiply attested first stratum material (1st stratum = 30-60 C.E.) we can be sure we are in the earliest period of reporting.

No it does not and I did not say it did. Its a question of what is more likely. Jesus spoke in parables or numerous sources in the thirties and forties invented all this material? You may opt for agnosticism whereas I opt for the former option against the latter and "agnosticism".

Of course not but this does not undermine the importance of "multiple witnessed" for evaluating certain claims.

Multiple witnesses or a wide variety of early source material uggesting that Jesus spoke in parables makes it more likely that he did. Historians regularly use multiple attestation.

I have stated no such thing. Everything stated is certainly not historical. Since miracles are impossible even early miracle reports would be non-historical.

I could have 10 close friends tell me that just yesterday at the beach they watched a man walk on water and they swear on their lives they are not lying.

Knowing basic physics and about things like buoyancy I would call them all liar/delusional/crazed idiots.

Not to mention that myself and many HJ scholars find lots of first stratum multiply attested datums to be non-historical. Once the complexes are listed each is to be discussed and a picture out of all of them is to try to be formed.

I'll try to hit at this a little bit. Can you please list me every first century Christian source in your opinion?

The content of the sources is opf utmost important. For example, Doherty trumpets that x authors over a span of x years show no information about an HJ. If his basic claim as reversed do we get an HJ? If we get a non-HJ from his claim why not an HJ from its opposite?

I take it as extremely evident that there was an HJ in Paul with only one possible exception against this claim:

Pauls authentic letters are later forgeries.

But eveen if that is granted Doherties silence is seriously hurted whereas I would still have numerous sources

I already stated numerous times on this board that i have next to no knowledge about an alleged "historical Robin Hood."

What is so mythological about a first century Jewish man speaking in parables and talking about the kingdom of God???

Of course I concede that the picture looks different in the Pauline corpus but am willing to examine the issue.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Dating of a person has nothing to do with the historicity of that figure. Unless you want to argue otherwise. If it was all based on dating, we wouldnt be talking about embarrasment criterion, MA, dissimilarity, pericopes etc.

But... many place the year of his death between 26thAD - 36thAD which are the years Pilate was Roman Procurator or Governor of Judea.

But I think thats avoiding the issue.

The thrust of the argument is what is not accepted, not the datums.

Moreover, you don't state the sources for your "datums" - you are shifting the argument. What we are concerned with is sources, sources, sources.

Like I said, dating does not confer veracity of the contents.

Your point being?

This sounds very ad-hoc Vinnie. Its precisely drawing the target where the arrow has hit.
They dont all invent. Some do, some copy what reaches them. Cross-pollination, literary borrowing, midrash, theological agendas etc etc.

This is what you are supposed to be demonstrating. You are assuming what you should demonstrate.

Historians use historical sources.
Or at least reliable sources.

Oh, they are many. You want them right now?

I can take out every christian source you claim proves a HJ existed. If you feel you have them, cite them and passages that prove a HJ existed.

Your "datums" link above doesnt cite sources. Maybe its time you did. But then this is not new territory.