Historical Jesus

[d4m10n]

A thread for talking about whether there was really a first century rabbi at the core of the Jesus mythology.

[d4m10n]

Possibly worth reading: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... 5616000117

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'd be interested in discussing what elements of the Jesus figure found in the Gospels might be derived from historical fact. The question of a 1st century rabbi (named Jesus) responsible for all of them, is too narrow.

[jimhabegger]

I haven't done the research I would want to do, to agree or disagree with any theory about a historical Jesus behind the gospel stories. From some of the discussions I've seen, it looks to me like there's currently no plausible way to argue that there was any such person, in an academic historical sense. One reason it seems implausible to me that there was no such person is that if He was invented out of thin air, it seems to me that He would have been placed farther back than two decades before Paul's first letters.

Here's an interesting twist. Someone who says not only that Jesus never existed, but that Paul never existed!

The bogus "authentic" Pauline epistles

[jimhabegger]

Plus, from my experience with the character Jesus in the gospel stories, it doesn't seem plausible to me that anyone could have invented a character like that, without having an actual live model to work from.

Not that it makes any difference to me.

[d4m10n]

I'd be interested in discussing what elements of the Jesus figure found in the Gospels might be derived from historical fact. The question of a 1st century rabbi (named Jesus) responsible for all of them, is too narrow.

Agreed. It is surely too much to ask that one rabbi be responsible for all[i/] the deeds and words imputed to Jesus.

What is the lower bound, though, above which we could rightly say that some particular person is indeed the historical Jesus?

I'd say that if no one man accounts for more than half of the attested sayings (especially Q and the Markan parables) then we don't have an historical Jesus after all.

[jimhabegger]

What is the lower bound, though, above which we could rightly say that some particular person is indeed the historical Jesus?

I've asked myself the same question. Maybe the answer to that depends on the purpose of the discussion. Different people might have different interests in the question of the historicity of Jesus. Some people might think they have to believe that He was a real person, to be saved. Some people might want to prove that there was no such person, as part of their campaigns to discredit religion. Some people might just like debating for its own sake. The lower bound will be different for different people, depending on their interests. If the interest is debating for its own sake, then it doesn't really matter what the lower bound is. In fact, maybe the more ambiguous it is, the better.

Another possible interest in the question might simply be scientific curiosity. In that case, it doesn't really matter if any particular person is indeed the historical Jesus. In fact, I see the question as actually meaningless, or at least arbitrary. If the interest is scientific curiosity, then we're just investigating how the mythology was constructed. Whether or not to call any one person the historical Jesus doesn't really matter.

I do see some value though, in framing the question that way. It might stimulate investigation and thinking in some directions that we might not think of otherwise.

One way of considering the question, whether or not there was a historical Jesus, might be to consider whether the story was invented first, and then some actual or fictional person was found to tack it onto, or whether the evolution of the story can be traced back to some stories that were being told by a number of people about their experiences with the same person.

From the discussions I've seen among scholars, it looks to me like historians currently do not have the tools and methods that they would need, to answer any of those questions. I'm not sure it ever will. I'm not sure it won't.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'd be interested in discussing what elements of the Jesus figure found in the Gospels might be derived from historical fact. The question of a 1st century rabbi (named Jesus) responsible for all of them, is too narrow.

Agreed. It is surely too much to ask that one rabbi be responsible for all the deeds and words imputed to Jesus.

What is the lower bound, though, above which we could rightly say that some particular person is indeed the historical Jesus?

I'd say that if no one man accounts for more than half of the attested sayings (especially Q and the Markan parables) then we don't have an historical Jesus after all.

I'd go further and define an 'historical Jesus' as one man, whose life, deeds, & words are the primary source for not only the Gospels, but the foundation of the christian religion. (IMO, no such man exists.)

I am confident, however, that a good amount of material in the Gospels derives from historical persons. (Emphasis on plural.)

The source(s) of the sayings & parables is an intriguing question. The obvious proximate source for the bulk of them is gThomas; who said what was written in that, needs an answer.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Excellent application of Bayes' Theorem:

Does Richard Carrier Exist?

[ffs]

Historical Jesus wrote all of Shakespeare's plays and was the black man who became Beethoven