Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Asha'man · 07-10-2002, 03:37 PM

Where exactly do you draw the line between a historical Jesus and a purely mythological one?

Suppose there was a historical Jesus, and he was a teacher�. a Greek teacher. No miracles, no bastard birth, no capital punishment. Is that enough to justify the idea that the Jesus of the Gospels is not based on a myth?

What if the actual historical Jesus was a bastard carpenter, but not a teacher at all? What if he was a bandit, and was killed by the Romans for his crimes?

What about yet another Jesus, one that was born a bastard and resented the way society treated him? Since the religious authority was strongly against bastards, he rebelled against the religious authority, creating his own movement. Eventually, he was stoned to death and hung on a tree for blasphemy. Does this count as a historical Jesus?

So where exactly does history leave off and myth take over?

In my mind, the answer is trivial: history is what we have evidence of, and myth is everything else. We have no solid evidence of what the real Jesus might have been, we only have the myths that survived him. To my mind, for all practical purposes, that means that there is no historical Jesus.

The best we can do is speculate as to what the historical Jesus might have been like. Without hard, unbiased evidence, it will always remain just speculation.

Vinnie · 07-10-2002, 06:10 PM

""""""Look -- comparing the myth position to creationism again. Please bring on the methodology for getting truth out of the NT legends, or stop this nonsense, Vinnie.""""

I NEVER compared them like that. All I said was that yecs get that same "aha" feeling when they seemingly discover science is in their favor. You extended the meaning of what I said. Its a silly feeling of liberation. I just found out there are no green blob people swimming through jupite's atmosphere. Aha! How does the non-existence of an allegedly historical figure liberate a person? Was this a major decision in one's life? Did the question trouble one during their sleep at night?

""""""Please bring on the methodology for getting truth out of the NT legends, or stop this nonsense, Vinnie."""""""""

Do you want an infallible one---a methodology which garuntees truth? I can't provide you with one of those. Neither can anyone else at this moment (and possibly never given we find no new sources).

Vinnie

Vinnie · 07-10-2002, 06:27 PM

Oh yeah, just for the record:

Saying there was no HJ is something I put on par with yecism.

Saying there was an HJ but we can't know anything about him for certain except that something he did (directly or indirectly) sparked a following I would grant is a somewhat respectable position. As I stated in my last post, there is no methodology that garuntees truth in HJ research today. Crossan focuses on the first stratum and mainly on things with more than single independent attestation. Of course, he concedes a saying with single attestation from the fourth stratum could in theory be just as accurate as one from the first that is multiply attested. And even the critical scholars who try to reconstrucct Jesus from things like the Gospels admit that weaving truth from fiction is an extremely complicated task.

Given all the scholarly pictures of Jesus today, it seems an agnostic stance (concerning the actual HJ) is not ridiculous as some might make it out to be.

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2002, 08:10 PM

Aha! How does the non-existence of an allegedly historical figure liberate a person? Was this a major decision in one's life? Did the question trouble one during their sleep at night?

Why no, the existence of Jesus does not trouble me, but the behavior of his followers does.

""""""Please bring on the methodology for getting truth out of the NT legends, or stop this nonsense, Vinnie."""""""""

Do you want an infallible one---a methodology which garuntees truth? I can't provide you with one of those. Neither can anyone else at this moment (and possibly never given we find no new sources).

I don't want an infallible one. I want one that is effective. And so far, as you note, there isn't one. Nor, I suspect will there ever be. The NT is a collection of legends and stories. There may be nuggets of truth, but you can only get to them by working with the assumption that the NT is legend.

Vorkosigan

Toto · 07-10-2002, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ilgwamh:
Saying there was no HJ is something I put on par with yecism.

Saying there was an HJ but we can't know anything about him for certain except that something he did (directly or indirectly) sparked a following I would grant is a somewhat respectable position. ...

Given all the scholarly pictures of Jesus today, it seems an agnostic stance (concerning the actual HJ) is not ridiculous as some might make it out to be.

Exactly who is saying that being an agnostic on the HJ is ridiculous? Bede and his sock puppets?

And if an agnostic stance is okay, why is someone who concludes that there was no HJ, on a par with people who are so desparate to believe in ancient texts that they distort science?

These are not rhetorical questions. There are classes of people who have made up their minds and ignore evidence (or manufacture it), for good or bad motives - YEC creationists, Holocaust deniers, etc. Jesus Mythers take the same fragmentary evidence historians use and give it a different interpretation. You don't have to start out with the premise that there could be no HJ. Any atheist worldview can incorporate a HJ, and many do with no problems.

The idea that there was no HJ is a solution to the "Jesus Puzzle", as Doherty puts it. It makes some pieces of history fit together in a more intellectually satisfying way, that's all. I doubt that it will change anyone's life one way or the other.

Steven Carr · 07-11-2002, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:

Christ mythicism is ultimately blind to the facts and requires a person who has done some but not enough study, and is gullible enough to believe the outrageous claims of pseudo-scholars and maverick scholars.
Frankly, Christ mythicism is stupid. Jesus, in all probability, existed whether some like it or not.

Jesus was a very common name in the 1st century
(We even have a grave with the name on)

There were *lots* of people called Jesus. To say
that nobody existed called Jesus is just imbecilic.

King Arthur · 07-11-2002, 05:29 AM

I like to play the devil's advocate here, because apparently lots of atheists frankly don't like to think real hard for themselves (apathetic agnosticism is the easy way to make oneself feel better like Toto talked about). So, if you're referring to me as being a "sock puppet" of Bede like Vorkosigan did in another thread, then I think you're all paranoid! Besides, Bede has not even contributed to this thread, that I see.

That said, I still think Jesus mythicism is abolutely for the brain dead.

In my opinion, even if you are "agnostic" about the HJ, you probably have leanings one way or the other. Of course no one can ever know anything about the past for sure, but the evidence that *is* there seems to be for the existence of an HJ and probably for many of the things that he did (including supposed miracles).

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]

King Arthur · 07-11-2002, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
Jesus was a very common name in the 1st century
(We even have a grave with the name on)

There were *lots* of people called Jesus. To say
that nobody existed called Jesus is just imbecilic.

See, now this is a little more intelligent.

However, with the facts and a little bit of common sense, one can realize that the Gospels were probably not talking about some ethereal Jesus but one specific Jesus that they knew well.

Steven Carr · 07-11-2002, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:


See, now this is a little more intelligent.

However, with the facts and a little bit of common sense, one can realize that the Gospels were probably not talking about some ethereal Jesus but one specific Jesus that they knew well.

Just the one? Paul complains about people
preaching different Christs to his.

King Arthur · 07-11-2002, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
Just the one? Paul complains about people
preaching different Christs to his.

Was Paul talking about different "Christs"? Sure. Different "*Jesus* Christs"? Obviously not.

Paul was complaining that there were other idiots around who were proclaiming themselves to be the anointed (i.e. Christ) and attempting to take this away from the one he believed was the true Christ (i.e. the specific Jesus of those specific people he had persecuted). This Christ thing was nothing unexpected during that time period and even later - think Bar Kokhba.

07-11-2002, 05:29 AM	#27
King Arthur Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camelot Posts: 290	I like to play the devil's advocate here, because apparently lots of atheists frankly don't like to think real hard for themselves (apathetic agnosticism is the easy way to make oneself feel better like Toto talked about). So, if you're referring to me as being a "sock puppet" of Bede like Vorkosigan did in another thread, then I think you're all paranoid! Besides, Bede has not even contributed to this thread, that I see. That said, I still think Jesus mythicism is abolutely for the brain dead. In my opinion, even if you are "agnostic" about the HJ, you probably have leanings one way or the other. Of course no one can ever know anything about the past for sure, but the evidence that is there seems to be for the existence of an HJ and probably for many of the things that he did (including supposed miracles). [ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2002, 03:37 PM	#21
Asha'man Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: southeast Posts: 2,526	Where exactly do you draw the line between a historical Jesus and a purely mythological one? Suppose there was a historical Jesus, and he was a teacher�. a Greek teacher. No miracles, no bastard birth, no capital punishment. Is that enough to justify the idea that the Jesus of the Gospels is not based on a myth? What if the actual historical Jesus was a bastard carpenter, but not a teacher at all? What if he was a bandit, and was killed by the Romans for his crimes? What about yet another Jesus, one that was born a bastard and resented the way society treated him? Since the religious authority was strongly against bastards, he rebelled against the religious authority, creating his own movement. Eventually, he was stoned to death and hung on a tree for blasphemy. Does this count as a historical Jesus? So where exactly does history leave off and myth take over? In my mind, the answer is trivial: history is what we have evidence of, and myth is everything else. We have no solid evidence of what the real Jesus might have been, we only have the myths that survived him. To my mind, for all practical purposes, that means that there is no historical Jesus. The best we can do is speculate as to what the historical Jesus might have been like. Without hard, unbiased evidence, it will always remain just speculation.

07-10-2002, 06:10 PM	#22
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	""""""Look -- comparing the myth position to creationism again. Please bring on the methodology for getting truth out of the NT legends, or stop this nonsense, Vinnie."""" I NEVER compared them like that. All I said was that yecs get that same "aha" feeling when they seemingly discover science is in their favor. You extended the meaning of what I said. Its a silly feeling of liberation. I just found out there are no green blob people swimming through jupite's atmosphere. Aha! How does the non-existence of an allegedly historical figure liberate a person? Was this a major decision in one's life? Did the question trouble one during their sleep at night? """"""Please bring on the methodology for getting truth out of the NT legends, or stop this nonsense, Vinnie.""""""""" Do you want an infallible one---a methodology which garuntees truth? I can't provide you with one of those. Neither can anyone else at this moment (and possibly never given we find no new sources). Vinnie

07-10-2002, 06:27 PM	#23
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Oh yeah, just for the record: Saying there was no HJ is something I put on par with yecism. Saying there was an HJ but we can't know anything about him for certain except that something he did (directly or indirectly) sparked a following I would grant is a somewhat respectable position. As I stated in my last post, there is no methodology that garuntees truth in HJ research today. Crossan focuses on the first stratum and mainly on things with more than single independent attestation. Of course, he concedes a saying with single attestation from the fourth stratum could in theory be just as accurate as one from the first that is multiply attested. And even the critical scholars who try to reconstrucct Jesus from things like the Gospels admit that weaving truth from fiction is an extremely complicated task. Given all the scholarly pictures of Jesus today, it seems an agnostic stance (concerning the actual HJ) is not ridiculous as some might make it out to be.

07-10-2002, 08:10 PM	#24
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Aha! How does the non-existence of an allegedly historical figure liberate a person? Was this a major decision in one's life? Did the question trouble one during their sleep at night? Why no, the existence of Jesus does not trouble me, but the behavior of his followers does. """"""Please bring on the methodology for getting truth out of the NT legends, or stop this nonsense, Vinnie.""""""""" Do you want an infallible one---a methodology which garuntees truth? I can't provide you with one of those. Neither can anyone else at this moment (and possibly never given we find no new sources). I don't want an infallible one. I want one that is effective. And so far, as you note, there isn't one. Nor, I suspect will there ever be. The NT is a collection of legends and stories. There may be nuggets of truth, but you can only get to them by working with the assumption that the NT is legend. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.