How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[Copernicus]

I just want to say that this is a great argument. I don't know about other areas of history as much, as my focus has been Biblical history and specifically New Testament, but there is a tendency in such studies to take what previous scholars have stated as unquestionable. And when this field has been focused on orthodox teachings for so long, and primarily filled with people with some interest in it (as in being Christian), there is a serious need to question other scholars arguments.

I think a great example of this is the Q document. Some scholars want to claim that it is quite early, thus bridging the gap between Jesus and the Gospels. They want to make definitive statements about what is and is not in this document. And then some want to separate it into layers. Yet, we don't even have this document, and neither do we need it. But it really isn't questioned as the consensus accepts it.

Now, this doesn't make me waiver from the idea that Jesus existed, but it is a great point.

Thanks for the compliment, Fallingblood. I want to make clear that I was probably mistaken to give the impression that I am a mythicist. I think that outhouse's "KISS" scenario carries a certain amount of plausibility. However, I do not feel that we are in a position to declare certainty in one direction or the other precisely because all of our evidence is from this imperfectly-preserved record. There is a core of narrative that is plausible in support of a historical Jesus, AFAICT. However, that only suggests that there is a core that survived this centuries-long copying process. We can only hope that we come across some long-lost fragment or full document that gives us more insight into the alternatives to the orthodox narrative. I certainly do think that the Jesus story merits the label "The Greatest Story Ever Told", because it has been so instrumental in shaping our history and culture. However, that does not necessarily make it true. If nothing else, humans make great storytellers.

 

[oldbadger]

Even though many or even most modern scholars think JC was an historical person, few of them believe he performed miracles or was resurrected from the dead.

Yes!

If we strip away all of the hyperbolic content from the JC in the gospels, there is a possibility Jesus existed as a mortal man. Surely few or none among secular Xian scholars believe in the miracle-working JC.

Yes again!

So when scholars say they believe they believe in an historical JC, we must ask exactly what they mean by an historical JC.

OK....

Until we can properly define our terms, we shall have endless misunderstandings and ambiguities in our discussions.

Great....... but we are not doing that!
I read scholars' books and RF historian's post, and can see that this is not happening just now.

I keep reading about Zealots and nobody has mentioned that this word is Greek, which means that Jesus and his followers (like Simon) are still being viewed through Gentile mindsets. They would not have used this word! They had their own Hebrew and Aramaic words to define this character. How about a Hebrew term, since this is a strongly religious characteristic, such as Kanai?

I keep reading the word Tekton, another Greek word! Jesus would never have described himself with it. So why use it? How about naggara for an accurate definition?

I read that Jesus's mother was called 'Mary', but I don't think that she was. I read that she was probably a Miriam or Mariam. So why use Mary?

There's no point in diving into the depths of complexity if simple stuff like this gets overlooked. If you don't like the suggested Hebrew and Aramaic words, it's surely time to start thinking about what Jesus would have used. Jesus! Did he actually call himself 'Jesus'? I don't think he did, What about Yeshua, or..... what-have-you?

At the moment we haven't even got this simple stuff right. History is very complex, I read, and even recent history can be written as complete rubbish. If, (for instance,) in a thousand years, some young scholar figures out that a few bomber crews saved the UK from total defeat in the Battle-of-Britain, (!!) because their raid upon Berlin so infuriated Hitler that he switched his (winning) attacks on Brit airfields to (losing) attacks on Brit cities, would his/her findings be discarded as banal? ....... and so forth?

It's the simple (KISS) ideas that will win through with Historical Jesus, not the complex.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I still maintain that Ellegard may very well be right when he calls Christianity a spin off of the Essenes, and says Jesus may be the teacher of righteousness.

I believe one or more historical persons may lie behind Jesus, but I certainly don't believe the Jesus of the NT existed.

 

[fallingblood]

I keep reading about Zealots and nobody has mentioned that this word is Greek, which means that Jesus and his followers (like Simon) are still being viewed through Gentile mindsets. They would not have used this word! They had their own Hebrew and Aramaic words to define this character. How about a Hebrew term, since this is a strongly religious characteristic, such as Kanai?

I keep reading the word Tekton, another Greek word! Jesus would never have described himself with it. So why use it? How about naggara for an accurate definition?

Jesus most likely spoke Greek as well. The term Zealot, for sure probably was never used until after the fall of the Temple. However, a term such as tekton probably would have been used. Jesus only lived a few miles from Sepphoris, which would have used Greek as a primary language, as it was the language of commerce. If Jesus was a tekton, it is highly likely that he did work in Sepphoris, and would have known some Greek (at least enough to do business).

I read that Jesus's mother was called 'Mary', but I don't think that she was. I read that she was probably a Miriam or Mariam. So why use Mary?

Because we are using English translations, and the meaning is the same.

There's no point in diving into the depths of complexity if simple stuff like this gets overlooked. If you don't like the suggested Hebrew and Aramaic words, it's surely time to start thinking about what Jesus would have used. Jesus! Did he actually call himself 'Jesus'? I don't think he did, What about Yeshua, or..... what-have-you?

This simple stuff does not really need to be looked at though. We don't have the Hebrew and Aramaic that Jesus may have used. We have Greek. And we don't know what language Jesus preached in. In fact, it could have been Greek and Aramaic. However, translations, while not perfect, still give us the gist of the idea.

Sometimes looking at the original language is needed; however, for everyone to learn Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, simply would not solve much, as people still argue over some of those definitions as well. Especially since the terms can mean many different things.

It's the simple (KISS) ideas that will win through with Historical Jesus, not the complex.

We need complexity, as Jesus was a complex figure. The simple ideas are not always the best ideas, nor do they portray the fact that humans are often complex.

 

[outhouse]

The best we have to flesh out a HJ is the socioeconomics of Galilee, anyone want to debate that?

 

[fallingblood]

The best we have to flesh out a HJ is the socioeconomics of Galilee, anyone want to debate that?

Why would that be the best we have? We can talk about the complex socioeconomics of Galilee as must as we want, and that will not tell us anything about Jesus. Alone, it only tells us of the socioeconomics of Galilee.

 

[outhouse]

Why would that be the best we have? We can talk about the complex socioeconomics of Galilee as must as we want, and that will not tell us anything about Jesus. Alone, it only tells us of the socioeconomics of Galilee.

Because without it, your forced to rely on mythology in theology.

Without understanding the environment he lived in, your blind to his life, and left guessing.

Only understanding the socioeconomics, can we tell of the possible social class he lived in.

Not only that, is the key to understanding the biblical literature, so that we can begin to interpret it.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I'm not sure what makes the gospels trustworthy enough to use in trying to hash out a historical Jesus.

This keeps coming up. Why trust the gospels?

 

[Copernicus]

I'm not sure what makes the gospels trustworthy enough to use in trying to hash out a historical Jesus.

This keeps coming up. Why trust the gospels?

It is reasonable to look at the religious literature, both canonical and apocryphal, as a source of data that can be mined for historical value. Some of the events recorded in the OT have been corroborated by archaeological and other discoveries. But you are right to bring up "trust" here, because we are looking at material that is trusted in different ways by different people. There are a lot of vested interests in historicity that can only accept one conclusion, and that dogmatic attitude makes it very difficult to carry out an objective investigation, although everyone will insist that they are approaching the question from the height of objectivity.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The reason I don't trust the gospels is because I'm familiar with the mythicist arguments most won't even look at for fear of disagreeing with the mainstream position.

The gospels are constructed. They're an amalgam of OT midrash and Hellenic mythology.

It doesn't even take much effort to easily identify the parts of the narrative constructed from the OT. One can easily do it with their own bible.

The crucifixion narrative is a Psalm of David reconstructed as I pointed out earlier, which no one bothered to address.

Lets just fall back on ad pop fallacy. The majority of historians say Jesus existed, so it must be true.

It is almost effortless to strip away all the material the gospels are mish mashed together from.

Once you do there's hardly anything left to bother arguing about.

 

[oldbadger]

The crucifixion narrative is a Psalm of David reconstructed as I pointed out earlier, which no one bothered to address.

History has a habit........ of repeating.

Some aspects of Jesus's crucifixion could well have been tampered with, as we believe Josephus's reports were, but the base of the report is probably true.

Much of GMark seems to read 'true', and the evangelical tradition seems fairly easy to spot, once a reader has accepted that it exists.

What do you think?

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus most likely spoke Greek as well.

Hi...... thanks for this...

I don't think that Jesus spoke Greek. I don't think that he or any of 'his' spoke it.

The term Zealot, for sure probably was never used until after the fall of the Temple.

OK

However, a term such as tekton probably would have been used. Jesus only lived a few miles from Sepphoris, which would have used Greek as a primary language, as it was the language of commerce. If Jesus was a tekton, it is highly likely that he did work in Sepphoris, and would have known some Greek (at least enough to do business).

I get the feeling that he was closer to the fishing community, or the farming community. Why should he have been so close to the city, a place which he despised?

Because we are using English translations, and the meaning is the same.

No, we are not. If we were we be using 'handyman' or 'carpenter' etc, and tekton has been used repeatedly on the thread.

This simple stuff does not really need to be looked at though.

You overlook the simple, and you will lose the whole.....imo

We don't have the Hebrew and Aramaic that Jesus may have used. We have Greek. And we don't know what language Jesus preached in. In fact, it could have been Greek and Aramaic.

Why would Jesus have soken to Galileans in Hebrew?

We need complexity, as Jesus was a complex figure. The simple ideas are not always the best ideas, nor do they portray the fact that humans are often complex.

No..... Jesus was a straightforward person, with a simple message.

What do you think to this?

 

[Copernicus]

As part of my ongoing reading on this subject, I continue to be intrigued about the significance of the Jeselsohn Stone or Gabriel's Revelation, which messianic scholar Israel Knohl believes refers to the establishment of a Jewish concept of catastrophic messianism. That is, the nation of Israel was to be redeemed in the blood of a martyred messiah. In Knohl's view, this stone was erected shortly after 4 BCE and referred to the death of Simon of Peraea, the details of which were recorded by Josephus. Knohl himself seems to believe in the historicity of Jesus, who he speculates may have intentionally martyred himself by causing a disturbance in the Temple. I just came across this very interesting discussion in a paper published in a 2011 collection: "The Apocalyptic and Messianic Dimensions of the Gabriel Revelation in Their Historical Context". It isn't light reading, but it should be of interest to people following this thread who are curious about Knohl's view and the role that catastrophic messianism might have played in the subsequent Jesus legend. None of this constitutes proof that Jesus was or was not historical, because the movement could have inspired the creation of a popular myth in the 1st century, but it could also be that the historical Jesus was a member, if not a prominent one, of a catastrophic messianic cult. The latter is close to Ehrman's depiction of the historical Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

As part of my ongoing reading on this subject, I continue to be intrigued about the significance of the Jeselsohn Stone or Gabriel's Revelation, which messianic scholar Israel Knohl believes refers to the establishment of a Jewish concept of catastrophic messianism. That is, the nation of Israel was to be redeemed in the blood of a martyred messiah. In Knohl's view, this stone was erected shortly after 4 BCE and referred to the death of Simon of Peraea, the details of which were recorded by Josephus. Knohl himself seems to believe in the historicity of Jesus, who he speculates may have intentionally martyred himself by causing a disturbance in the Temple. I just came across this very interesting discussion in a paper published in a 2011 collection: "The Apocalyptic and Messianic Dimensions of the Gabriel Revelation in Their Historical Context". It isn't light reading, but it should be of interest to people following this thread who are curious about Knohl's view and the role that catastrophic messianism might have played in the subsequent Jesus legend. None of this constitutes proof that Jesus was or was not historical, because the movement could have inspired the creation of a popular myth in the 1st century, but it could also be that the historical Jesus was a member, if not a prominent one, of a catastrophic messianic cult. The latter is close to Ehrman's depiction of the historical Jesus.

here is a little interesting tid bit.

Gabriel's Revelation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knohl has eventually abandoned this reading, in favor of Ronald Hendel's reading (followed by Qimron & Yuditsky): "By three days the sign".

 

[Copernicus]

here is a little interesting tid bit.

Gabriel's Revelation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knohl has eventually abandoned this reading, in favor of Ronald Hendel's reading (followed by Qimron & Yuditsky): "By three days the sign".

That's correct. I gave that link in the post you replied to. However, you should read the article I linked to, because it describes Knohl's actual position in more detail. He has only rejected his earlier interpretation of the word "live", which he now thinks is better interpreted as "sign". Other than that, he retains his position on the dates, meaning, and significance of the stone. He still thinks that it is relevant to the development of Christianity. Not all scholars agree with all of his conclusions, but he does seem to be highly respected by his peers for his work on this subject.

 

[fallingblood]

Because without it, your forced to rely on mythology in theology.

Without understanding the environment he lived in, your blind to his life, and left guessing.

Only understanding the socioeconomics, can we tell of the possible social class he lived in.

Not only that, is the key to understanding the biblical literature, so that we can begin to interpret it.

No it isn't. Socioeconomics alone only tell us that; the socioeconomic state in which Palestine was in. It does not tell us what social class Jesus lived in. In order for us to determine that, we have to also rely on the Biblical material.

And how does socioeconomics all us to begin to interpret the Bible? You can't rely on just one field of study, and assume it is the end all.

 

[fallingblood]

The reason I don't trust the gospels is because I'm familiar with the mythicist arguments most won't even look at for fear of disagreeing with the mainstream position.

That hardly is the reason why most don't bother with mythicist arguments. Now, I once was a mythicist. I have read the literature on the subject (and in fact, many other scholars have read some of it). It only gets one so far though. The reason I stopped being a mythicist is because the literature often was trash, and it often wasn't well researched. There are a couple of exceptions, but generally, it was just garbage. For instance (and I know you are aware that this argument is incorrect), the idea that Krishna was born of a virgin, born on the 25th, had 12 disciples, etc., is complete bull. Yet many mythicist continue to make similar claims trying to prove that Jesus was ripped from some other figure.

The gospels are constructed. They're an amalgam of OT midrash and Hellenic mythology.

All works are constructed. Yes, the Gospels do look at the OT. However, the reason they do so is to explain a situation. They needed to explain how Jesus could be the Messiah. Unlike midrash, these authors were not trying to explain various passages in the Hebrew scripture; they were trying to explain how Jesus could actually be the Messiah.

As for Hellenic mythology, there is some; however, much of the mythology is also strictly Jewish (or can be found elsewhere in Jewish ideas). This is especially true for the more Jewish Gospels, like Matthew.

However, there is also much more than that in the Gospels. They contain theology as well, which does not always rely on the OT. It contains acts that neither appear to be mythology, or based on the OT. The Gospels are complex pieces of work.

It doesn't even take much effort to easily identify the parts of the narrative constructed from the OT. One can easily do it with their own bible.

Exactly what major ideas are constructed from the OT? Yes, the Gospels often quote the OT; however, that does not mean they are constructing that portion of the narrative from the OT. It is similar to how a person can quote the OT now, but it isn't because they are constructing an idea from the OT, but instead, they want support for their position.

The crucifixion narrative is a Psalm of David reconstructed as I pointed out earlier, which no one bothered to address.

The only portion of the crucifixion narrative that is from Psalms is the lament at the end.

Lets just fall back on ad pop fallacy. The majority of historians say Jesus existed, so it must be true.

It doesn't mean it is true, but it does suggest that there is a reason as to why they do accept it.

It is almost effortless to strip away all the material the gospels are mish mashed together from.

If that is so, then why hasn't anyone really been successful in doing so?

Once you do there's hardly anything left to bother arguing about.

That's only true if you strip away things prematurely.

 

[fallingblood]

I get the feeling that he was closer to the fishing community, or the farming community. Why should he have been so close to the city, a place which he despised?

How could he despise something he had never seen?

The Gospels place Jesus in Nazareth. They claim that he was a tekton. Sepphoris was only a few miles away, and if Jesus was going to make a living as an artisan, he almost would have had to visit Sepphoris. To work there, it would have pretty much required speaking Greek, as that the was language of commerce.

Greek was spoken throughout Palestine, including Galilee. Greek was so important that we even see the OT, and other Hebrew scripture, being translated into Greek. We see this even among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The evidence that Greek was a common language is quite strong. And it would make sense that Jesus spoke Greek.

Working in Sepphoris also gives a reason as to why he would avoid cities. Sepphoris would have been very different then his home. The attitude would have been different. His exposure to Sepphoris would give him a reason to despise the city.

Also, the fishing community of Capernaum, many probably had to speak Greek there as well. In order to do commerce, Greek would have been needed.

No, we are not. If we were we be using 'handyman' or 'carpenter' etc, and tekton has been used repeatedly on the thread.

Yes, tekton has been used, however it is always accompanied by a translation. Now, I don't think Greek should be used unless the person knows Greek. Because honestly, unless the person knows Greek, they really can't argue Greek.

You overlook the simple, and you will lose the whole.....imo

In some instances, that is true. However, there is no reason to really dwell on the simple, as it is after all, simple.

Why would Jesus have soken to Galileans in Hebrew?

I don't think I said that Jesus spoke Hebrew. If what I said seemed like that, I apologize. I really don't know if Jesus knew Hebrew, and if he did, he would not have generally used it while preaching.

No..... Jesus was a straightforward person, with a simple message.

What do you think to this?

It was hardly straightforward. If he wanted to be straightforward, he wouldn't have used parables.

 

[outhouse]

That's correct. I gave that link in the post you replied to. However, you should read the article I linked to, because it describes Knohl's actual position in more detail. He has only rejected his earlier interpretation of the word "live", which he now thinks is better interpreted as "sign". Other than that, he retains his position on the dates, meaning, and significance of the stone. He still thinks that it is relevant to the development of Christianity. Not all scholars agree with all of his conclusions, but he does seem to be highly respected by his peers for his work on this subject.

I am reading it.

I do find the gospels and mythology within to be a product of the times, and it makes sense

I havnt found why he has a case for Simon yet, still reading.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As part of my ongoing reading on this subject, I continue to be intrigued about the significance of the Jeselsohn Stone or Gabriel's Revelation, which messianic scholar Israel Knohl believes refers to the establishment of a Jewish concept of catastrophic messianism.

For those whose interest in historical Jesus studies is based on an interest in history, rather than claims about ancient history based on one arrogant "ancient historian's" depiction of classics and a guy who received a degree in classical languages years ago, there are a number of highly informative sources that do not require the ability to read ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Coptic, etc.

For those with some patience and pocket money, JP Meier has produced four volumes which can be used for the general reader or expert, and is designed to be so (all the technical details are relegated to endnotes, and for topics too broad for endnotes we have excurses). It is also designed to be as objective as possible, and given Meier's actual beliefs contrasted with his findings, I'd say he did a decent job.

For those whose ability to read books outside of their business or academic expertise, there are a number of books that are not, like Ehrman's, designed for those with a knowledge of history a high school education might provide. Of course, an understanding of historical methods and their epistemological bases is pretty fundamental, but there are nonetheless a few books that are intended for the general reader yet do not assume more than a high school education.

A textbook by Gerd Theißen & Annette Merze, Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch, has an English translation.


For those who prefer a less academic oriented work for the layperson, we have e.g.:

Van Voorst, R. E. (2000). Jesus outside the New Testament: An introduction to the ancient evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Casey, M. (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life and teaching. Bloomsbury T&T Clark

Dunn, J. D. (1985). The evidence for Jesus. Westminster John Knox Press.

Eddy, P. R., & Boyd, G. A. (2007). Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic.

Habermas, G. R. (1996). The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. College Press.

as well as various companions and handbooks published by OUP, CUP, Routledge, etc., and for those whose limit on this particular subject isn't Ehrman's quality, there are a significant number of serious volumes which are nonetheless intended for the general reader.

For those who are more interested in reinforcing opinions already held, there's the internet. It's an invaluable tool to provide those who haven't read the technical literature in a field with plenty of ways to explain the state of research without actually reading any of it, and to malign historians and academics they've never heard of via unwarranted accusations biases.