Peter Kirby

Since you ask, preferrably someone other than Magus55.

best,
Peter Kirby

Jayjay

I didn't start this thread to debate, but rather just get an idea what the Jesus-mythers think. Given my lack of knowledge in the subject matter, I chose to be silent and just wait and get the bigger picture, though unfortunately the discussion veered to the existence of biblical Jesus as opposed to merely a historical person.

My opinions on Peter Kirby's list of reasons...

I find this the strongest-sounding argument, but it's based on knowledge on the early christian movement and what they believed in, and this is something I suppose I must be skeptical of. I'm not so sure if we have that much information available on what 1st century christians exactly believed in.

Secondly, the fact that Paul for example emphasized spiritual Jesus instead of a historical figure doesn't mean that the historical person didn't exist... Paul just didn't care about him much (as I'd expect from an opportunistic convert who never actually met the guy). Also, I wouldn't expect the other apostles to stress the historicity immediately after his demise either. After all, the point is not some guy who preached this and that, but rather to emphasize the spiritual message of the cult. Still, this certainly is the most convincing category of evidence.

Quite frankly, this doesn't seem very likely. If it was pure fiction, why the portions that portray Jesus as a regular guy, yet try to explain away his human deficiencies? For example, why would Jesus' family not acknowledge his Godhood if this was pure fiction? Pulling out an ad hoc reference to "midrash" tradition sounds very dubious, at least until I can compare other documents written in the same fashion.

I wouldn't expect them to. Even if Jesus was a real person, he was rather inconsequential during his lifetime. His importance as a character is solely determined by the importance of christianity as a whole.

This doesn't exclude the existence of a historical figure in the slightest... Paul might have been more inspired by "mystery cults" of the time, but the anecdotes recorded in gospels seem to point to also a real person. The two are hardly incompatible.

Peter Kirby

Jayjay, I hope that you stick around for the discussions, as we could use criticism from a HJ-is-plausible perspective.

Yes, it is a tendency of some Christians and some atheists to forget this distinction. Obviously a historical Jesus need not be omnipresent!

This is actually Doherty's list of twelve reasons, resorted and classified by me. To reply to the headlines in the way that you have, is to make a reply to the summary of the summary of the case, which may not actually rebut the case. (I say this as someone who isn't convinced by the case.)

Let me make you an offer. I will buy you a copy of Doherty's book The Jesus Puzzle if you will write a review of the book for my didjesusexist.com web site. The review can be as short or as long as you think it needs to be to respond to Doherty's argument. I hope you agree that this would be edifying and perhaps even fun!

best,
Peter Kirby

WinAce

Thanks... this post inspired my l337 Paintshop skillz.



And I'm with Jayjay. It's just so much more plausible that some charismatic guy spawned a cult than the cult spawning the guy. Do we even *have* any examples of the later (i.e. godbelief being transformed into historical prophet belief) in recorded history?

Vorkosigan

<shamefacedly examines toes> Peter, that post was so definitive it was hard to respond to! About the only thing I'd add is in the "Gospels are Fiction" section, I'd say something about the (possible) use of other sources (Philo, Josephus, etc)

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

I would always welcome a free book. . . .

Anyways, the "derailment" occurs from some . . . no names mentioned [Magnus.--Ed.] . . . trying to simply CLAIM that the NT texts are historical ipso facto.

That did not exactly convince anyone. . . .

I think the issue is that we know nothing about a Historical Junior. We can, I think, make some "guesses"--did he claim to destroy the temple because that would exclaim the "charge" in a the Synoptics . . . or is that just retroactive prophecy? Was he executed because that would be an embarassing event the writers might want to reinterpret . . . et cetera.

Whilst reasonable, these suppositions do not historical evidence make.

This reminds me of a poster on "Another Site" [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.] claiming that the Jesus Seminar "proved" what Historical Junior said and how many brothers and sisters he had!

Sure. . . .

The Historical Junior will always be the "white elephant in the husband's pajamas smoking his cigars while his wife has a smile on her face" of NT scholarship. Where devote believer or militant atheist, a scholar really cannot help wonder "what" his work "says" about the Historical Junior.

I will requote a mentor: "All you need for a founding figure is a name and a place."

So what is the "point." I have argued that for "believers" of any degree a historical figure suggests historicity to their beliefs, period. Likewise, for those who do not, the absence of a figure "disproves" the historicity of the texts.

Nevertheless, the writers of the Synoptics and other texts were not concerned with preserving history, they were concerned with creating a history to support and found their beliefs upon.

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

I am attracted to this argument... indeed I formulated a version of it a while back on the JesusMysteries list. However, I have started a thread on a possible counter-example from the Hindu tradition.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Most mouth-watering offer, at the same time, challenging.

Ted Hoffman

The cult did not spawn the guy because there was no guy. Its cult all the way.
How about Moses? And Adam? Noah (Unapitshim)?
The cult spawned them?

sodium

Except, I think what Paul does can't really be called mere emphasis. Also, have you seen the thread on Theophilus?

I think that one purpose of the Gospel was to provide role models and inspiration for believers. It's safe to assume that many believers had families that thought they were crazy. So portraying a similar situation for Jesus makes sense.

Otherwise, why is it in there? Is it that famous journalistic integrity of the Gospel writers?

In general, when passages are defended on the basis of embarrassment, there are a lot of assumptions about what would be embarrassing to early Christians.