How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[outhouse]

That isn't entirely true. If we are dealing with just Biblical scholars, specifically New Testament and Jesus scholars, while there will be differences, it isn't completely different Jesus characters. A basic framework is usually agreed upon, and it is the more the specific details that are debated. Seeing that most scholars also rely on each other, it is no wonder that the variety of different views of Jesus are not wholly incompatible. And no actual scholar on the subject would subscribe to a mythical view. .

I'm not advocating mythisicm, I know exactly how pitiful most of their argument's are.

There are two excellent scholars and quite a few others in the wings so to speak that follow a mythical man. Carrier and Price are the strongest.

I have never stated differently that there isn't a historical foundation for a HJ that is similar. But beyond that scholars create a vivid difference in characters.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diversity of portraits [edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marcus_Borg_speaking_in_Mansfield_College_chapel.JPG



Scholars involved in the third Quest for the historical Jesus have constructed a variety of portraits and profiles for Jesus.[15][16][149] However, there is little scholarly agreement on the portraits, or the methods used in constructing them.[1][2][17]

Bart Ehrman and separately Andreas Köstenberger contend that given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally difficult for any scholar to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life

I guess if we take scholars not in the actual field, yes, 12 completely different portraits can be made; however, that is not really fair as 12 completely different portraits can be made of Harry Houdini by outsiders as well.

Fair has nothing to do with it. The limited amount of evidence is however.

One of his followers had a sword. Just one (or at least that is what we are told), and if they truly were rebels, one would expect a fight, not Jesus going willingly. Also, Jesus preached a message of non-violence.

Um no.

The unknown Hellenistic authors preached a message of non-violence to separate themselves from Judaism and make the religion seem less aggressive to Romans.


Jesus would not let his followers carry weapons only to tell them hey don't use them when the poo hits the fan. If he was peaceful he would not have started two demonstrations in the temple, nor let his followers pack heat.

The biblical message is contradictory in itself in this issue.

It was not just rebels that were executed. In Matthew, those crucified with Jesus were thieves, not rebels

per Marcus Borg they were bandits.

Also, Mark does not say that during the same Passover that Pilate had killed other Galileans. Instead, it was mentioned that at some time previously, Pilate had killed some Galileans. Mark does not tell us when.

New Living Translation (©2007) luke
About this time Jesus was informed that Pilate had murdered some people from Galilee as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple.

Jesus wasn't an early Christian though.

Not the point and out of context.

he was part of the evolution of he movement, and the point is that the movement may have existed before JtB, we will never know.

More so, it is never said that Jesus had Judas rat him out, just that Jesus didn't stop him, and that Judas betrayed Jesus. Not suicide at all.

Im sorry but scholars like Borg and others are not even sure it wasn't suicide.

The NT reads like he was making himself a martyr which was suicide.

Possibly, but there really is no doubt that Jesus was betrayed.

NO

One book reads that Jesus knew and told Judas what to do.

No, the Christian movement didn't spread until both John and jesus were dead.

I agree it spread after Passover

But that was not its origins. The whole baptism and the coming kingdom of god may have existed long before JtB.

Facts are, JtB taught Jesus this. Who taught JtB this theology? Some homeless bum out on the woods eating bugs didn't come up with this theology.


There is a complete lack of evidence for JtB except we have the criterion of embarrassment as later authors try and hide the fact Jesus looked at John as his teacher.

Jesus movement originated with John. Where did Johns movement originate we will never know because of the lack of information.

 

[roger1440]

Basically, she found that, like Paul, metaphorical use of kinship terms are ubiquitous in letters.

I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.
Galatians 1:19 New International Version (©2011)

If "James the Lord's brother" can be interpreted metaphorically why doesn't Ehrman mention it. Ehrman is quoted saying, "If Jesus didn't exist, certainly his brother would have known about it."

Ehrman also believes Jesus existed because the story of a crucified Messiah is to outrageous to be made up. If a person is going to make up a story you would think the creator of the story would make up a believable story. I do not find that as a valid argument. It is possible the story of Jesus started as a metaphor right from the get go. Over time it could have been interpreted as actual fact.

Since we are on the topic of Biblical scholars, years ago Elaine Pagels son ask his mother something like,"Mom, you are a little like Bart Ehrman, right?" Her answer to her son was, "Lets hope not."

May 25 of this year I had attended a lecture giving by Elaine Pagels. The lecture was about her latest book "Revelations". I have been a fan of hers for over 25 years and read four of her six books. After the lecture I had asked what she makes of the "Gospel of Jesus's Wife". She didn't have much to say about the fragment because very little is known about it. I suspect this "wife" is some sort of metaphor.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Thanks for your reply.

Miracles? That's a separate subject imo.
I am sticking with 'historical Jesus'.

However, much to the amusement of some other members, I do have theories about many of Jesus's miracles, in that I believe that they were developed from facts. I believe that Jesus went out to the disciples' ship in that storm..... no trouble.

I would enlarge on this, but to subject certain other members to an excess of mirth might be bad for their digestion and general health!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that is why a miracle-working Jesus is not credible. If Jesus existed, we must see him as a mortal being. I also think we need to strip away all of the Pauline overwriting in the gospels.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and ...

Do you apply the same standards to our text?

 

[roger1440]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that is why a miracle-working Jesus is not credible. If Jesus existed, we must see him as a mortal being. I also think we need to strip away all of the Pauline overwriting in the gospels.

To thoroughly investigate the "historical Jesus" the "miracles" MUST be taken into account. If not, we only have pieces of the puzzle and never get a glimpse at the whole picture. The "miracles" help define who or what Jesus is or was. Without the "miracles" there is NO Jesus. Thomas Jefferson did just that in his book, "The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible .
Understanding the "miracles" helps us to understand Jesus. In all likelihood the "miracles" are to be understood as metaphors. Once they are understood we come closer to the "historical Jesus". Give me just one of Jesus's "miracles" that should be disregarded.

 

[oldbadger]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that is why a miracle-working Jesus is not credible.

True...... But I am suggesting that some of the miracle stories are based upon real life actions, but then strewn heavily with extreme hyperbole.

If Jesus existed, we must see him as a mortal being.

Absolutely.......

I also think we need to strip away all of the Pauline overwriting in the gospels.

No challenge to that....! I totally agree. I ignore any 'ties' with OT prophecies, any mentions of 'Christ' or anything 'Greek', any of Jesus's prophesies about his future death and resurrection.......etc etc...... Paul's letters are nothing to do with the life of Jesus, indeed, Paul shows little interest in that life.

Stripping away the evangelical literature to see what remains is my interest in 'historical Jesus'.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

True...... But I am suggesting that some of the miracle stories are based upon real life actions, but then strewn heavily with extreme hyperbole.

For example?

 

[dust1n]

You are quite correct and that is something that I should have brought up earlier. The main reason I was disappointed with Carrier's book is my own fault: I didn't realize it wasn't actually on the historical Jesus. I had waited for years for him to come out with his book on the subject, and sort of assumed that as this was the book it was the "whole" book. Actually, it is only part 1. It is not on the historical Jesus, but on historiography (the writing of history) and empirical methods historians should/could/might use (for Carrier, it's must use, and to some extent I agree). History as a discipline is traditionally placed among the humanities, but as social sciences (plural) began to emerge, the idea that history could be a "science" too came with it. Carrier is not the first to bring up Bayes' Theorem when it comes to history, as it is in e.g., Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography by Aviezer Tucker (the same guy who was the editor of the Blackwell Companions to Philosophy volume A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography). He is a big fan of the empirical approach, and I am far more in agreement with him than Carrier as his use of Bayes' is quite different.

I am also not a fan of those who subscribe to e.g., theories of Foucault and Derrida and the various incarnations of the deconsctructionalists who would take any historical text and turn it into whatever they wanted by reading into it. This is something all historians have to be on guard about, but some believe it is a valid historical method (or rather, that historiography is basically fiction so there is no valid method).

Last night when I was drunk, I rode with a friend to What-a-burger, and ordered something like 1600 calories worth of food, though it was smaller then my fist. While we waited behind the line of drunken people bumbling through on their way home, I looked over to a billboard on my right. There was a bottle of Coke lying on ice, and above it, "Recharging." Beside the word not even really making sense in the first place, my friend determined that the Coke bottle was laid out like a woman on a bed, sort of facing at you with enough space between it and the bottom edge of the billboard, so you could cuddle and "recharge." I added that it must be a cadaver since it's laid out on ice.

That's the extent of my recent usage of post-structuralism.

I still have very much more to read, and I understand that science in the olden days was very much worth criticizing, and that there are plenty of people, who use "science" to do basically not that. Things have gotten a little more extreme since Derrida's day. Scrutiny is applied everywhere. Science is as refined in many ways as it is ever been. And I encourage culling any fat that might be left on it, which will be the infinite task of peoples.

As far as literature is concerned, I feel like knowing the author is a key insight never present in the text, or, at least conformable in any solid way.

As far as post-anarchism goes, post-structuralism has taught me to be extremely prudent about my notions of what will and can be done to increase justice and freedom and equality (terms that might change or be fostered differently at some point in time), and to accept the notion of utilizing and exploiting ever possible baby step to a non-hierarchical approach of politics, whenever possible or timely in its appropriateness.

In an odd and sadly ironic way, the end of empiricism (or at least of the 19th century positivism version) was partly the result of historians and partly the result of empirical historiography. A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-positivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour (University of Chicago Press) and Historische Epistemologie: zur Einführung both go into this in different ways, but the end result is the same: by trying to turn everything into science during a time when physics, the oldest and most respected (or envied) science faced an epistemological crisis, and two world wars that weren't supposed to happen because social sciences were supposed to supply the answers to societies problems did happen, the shining beacon of pure empiricism darkened. First, the most empirical of sciences found itself for the first time not agreeing over the basic understanding of what it (physics) was. Second, historians of science began to look at whether or not scientific progress really happened as it was supposed to (steady progress rather than paradigm shifts), and this historical critique of empiricist methods left empirical historiography rather dead on arrival. Even worse, this opened the door for every brand of -isms (post-culturalism, neo-marxianism, radical feminism, etc.) to attack empiricism at all sides often from the vantage point of a combination of social, literary, and historical "theory".

The book you refer to is one of many responses to this approach to history. Tucker's is another, as is Telling the Truth about History and various other come-backs defending the ability of historians to use empirical methods to analyze evidence. This I support. Whether history should be thought of as a science is rather irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. That it should adhere to a justifiable epistemology does not require the status of "a science" but is necessary. Part of this is knowing the limits of what one can and cannot do. Social & Behavioral sciences have done a splendid job demonstrating how poorly sciences can perform, and we need not (as Carrier does) imitate them by adopting sophisticated statistical models that are at least applicable in the social and behavioral sciences (and are simply misused) but are not of any use when it comes to epistemic justification in historiography. Logic is required. Machine learning (which is basically what Carrier advocates) is not.

It is Tucker who states that the "first application of critical cognitive values in conjunction with new theories and methods to generate new knowledge of the past from present evidence was in biblical criticism". (p. 53).

This is not a biblical scholar speaking, but one who is writing a book defending empirical historiography. He goes on to state "Theories and methods that were developed in biblical criticism were exported to the analysis of ancient Greek and Latin texts." The origins of comparative linguistics and historical linguistics likewise owed a debt to biblical studies, and of course to classical philology. However, history in general and biblical studies in particular suffered as did all academia when radical challenges to epistemologies, empiricism, positivism, and the heart of academia were presented. Thankfully, I think we are in a position to move on.

Dirk Geeraerts is one of the key figures responsible for bringing different linguists together an constructing the framework of cognitive linguistics that I happen to think has the right idea. He is also an author of a paper in the volume Job 28: Cognition in Context. In fact, several recent dissertations and volumes have been devoted to incorporating cognitive science into biblical studies in various ways: Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science. Studies of orality, genre, sociology, and much more have become increasingly a part of biblical studies. Not all of it is any good, but then cognitive neuroscience hasn't exactly been all it's supposed to (a neuroscience study by Colin Firth? Really?).

We are dealing with the oldest critical historical approach that exists in academia. The first critical studies on the historical Jesus were published (contra Schweitzer) before Reimarus. He, Strauss, Frazer, Bauer, and others all brought up most of the arguments for mythicism over a century ago, and the case hasn't improved. It may be that there is virtually nothing we can say about Jesus as a historical person other than some bare facts. But that he existed? There is no empirical method that any historian can justify which would determine we cannot say that.

I feel like if I had picked up Nietzsche and not Kierkegaard when I was 17 and first going into college, I would have ended up much better equipped for this conversation about the history of various logic, solely due a much stronger desire to learn more about philosophy, faster, and quicker. Tis' a shame things didn't progress until later, and now I am so far behind! I do feel good though, knowing at least that we agree on similar things when you have read the books to more thoroughly back it up and I have not.

"It may be that there is virtually nothing we can say about Jesus as a historical person other than some bare facts."

Agreed.

 

[steeltoes]

"It may be that there is virtually nothing we can say about Jesus as a historical person other than some bare facts."

Agreed.

Bare facts require back up. It could be that people believe the gospel story as if it were true and contains bare facts. The story could be a literary work of art for all we know.

 

[outhouse]

Bare facts require back up. It could be that people believe the gospel story as if it were true and contains bare facts. The story could be a literary work of art for all we know.

When you add up the splitting of Hellenistic Judaism and its cultures and Israelite Judaism, and the socioeconomic troubles Israelite Jews faced.

It was a perfect time for a man to be martyred during Passover which also explains perfectly the rapid expansion through the Roman empire in Hellenistic Judaism.

 

[outhouse]

Without the "miracles" there is NO Jesus..

That is simply not true in any sense.

It makes much more sense if we view a historical man that lived and walked in Galilee and was martyred after his death, in which mythology grew surrounding his legends in which miracles were added to build his divinity over that of the Emperor also called the "son of god" prior to Jesus birth.

That is the most plausible reality surrounding the situation.


If you wanted your statement to be correct, you should have stated that biblical Jesus would not exist without miracles. It is a fact though that biblical Jesus was NOT historical Jesus because biblical Jesus has contradictory accounts written about him.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That is simply not true in any sense.

It makes much more sense if we view a historical man that lived and walked in Galilee and was martyred after his death, in which mythology grew surrounding his legends in which miracles were added to build his divinity over that of the Emperor also called the "son of god" prior to Jesus birth.

That is the most plausible reality surrounding the situation.


If you wanted your statement to be correct, you should have stated that biblical Jesus would not exist without miracles. It is a fact though that biblical Jesus was NOT historical Jesus because biblical Jesus has contradictory accounts written about him.

I think you didn't read his post completely. He is saying the miracles of Jesus are metaphors.

How ever even if there are some contradictions in Bible it could only mean it is Historical with some minor inaccuracies. Now don't get me wrong. I don't believe Bible should be treated as a history Book. But I like a more logical reason why it is not a history Book.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

I'm not advocating mythisicm, I know exactly how pitiful most of their argument's are.

There are two excellent scholars and quite a few others in the wings so to speak that follow a mythical man. Carrier and Price are the strongest.

I have never stated differently that there isn't a historical foundation for a HJ that is similar. But beyond that scholars create a vivid difference in characters.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diversity of portraits [edit]





Scholars involved in the third Quest for the historical Jesus have constructed a variety of portraits and profiles for Jesus.[15][16][149] However, there is little scholarly agreement on the portraits, or the methods used in constructing them.[1][2][17]

Bart Ehrman and separately Andreas Köstenberger contend that given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally difficult for any scholar to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life





Fair has nothing to do with it. The limited amount of evidence is however.




Um no.

The unknown Hellenistic authors preached a message of non-violence to separate themselves from Judaism and make the religion seem less aggressive to Romans.


Jesus would not let his followers carry weapons only to tell them hey don't use them when the poo hits the fan. If he was peaceful he would not have started two demonstrations in the temple, nor let his followers pack heat.

The biblical message is contradictory in itself in this issue.




per Marcus Borg they were bandits.






New Living Translation (©2007) luke
About this time Jesus was informed that Pilate had murdered some people from Galilee as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple.





Not the point and out of context.

he was part of the evolution of he movement, and the point is that the movement may have existed before JtB, we will never know.




Im sorry but scholars like Borg and others are not even sure it wasn't suicide.

The NT reads like he was making himself a martyr which was suicide.





NO

One book reads that Jesus knew and told Judas what to do.




I agree it spread after Passover

But that was not its origins. The whole baptism and the coming kingdom of god may have existed long before JtB.

Facts are, JtB taught Jesus this. Who taught JtB this theology? Some homeless bum out on the woods eating bugs didn't come up with this theology.


There is a complete lack of evidence for JtB except we have the criterion of embarrassment as later authors try and hide the fact Jesus looked at John as his teacher.

Jesus movement originated with John. Where did Johns movement originate we will never know because of the lack of information.

So perhaps we should ask from whom was John the Baptist derived. One possibility is the Righteous Teacher from the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

To thoroughly investigate the "historical Jesus" the "miracles" MUST be taken into account. If not, we only have pieces of the puzzle and never get a glimpse at the whole picture. The "miracles" help define who or what Jesus is or was. Without the "miracles" there is NO Jesus. Thomas Jefferson did just that in his book, "The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible .
Understanding the "miracles" helps us to understand Jesus. In all likelihood the "miracles" are to be understood as metaphors. Once they are understood we come closer to the "historical Jesus". Give me just one of Jesus's "miracles" that should be disregarded.

Well, most Xians do not view them as metaphors, and I cannot see anything in the text to suggest they were. Walking on water, being resurrected, ascending to heaven and someday returning with great power seem to be intended as literal events.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

True...... But I am suggesting that some of the miracle stories are based upon real life actions, but then strewn heavily with extreme hyperbole.


Absolutely.......


No challenge to that....! I totally agree. I ignore any 'ties' with OT prophecies, any mentions of 'Christ' or anything 'Greek', any of Jesus's prophesies about his future death and resurrection.......etc etc...... Paul's letters are nothing to do with the life of Jesus, indeed, Paul shows little interest in that life.

Stripping away the evangelical literature to see what remains is my interest in 'historical Jesus'.

Yes, I agree! But while Paul's letters have nothing to do with the historical Jesus, the gospels are still heavily permeated with Pauline theology. . . added IMO by later redactors.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

That is simply not true in any sense.

It makes much more sense if we view a historical man that lived and walked in Galilee and was martyred after his death, in which mythology grew surrounding his legends in which miracles were added to build his divinity over that of the Emperor also called the "son of god" prior to Jesus birth.

That is the most plausible reality surrounding the situation.


If you wanted your statement to be correct, you should have stated that biblical Jesus would not exist without miracles. It is a fact though that biblical Jesus was NOT historical Jesus because biblical Jesus has contradictory accounts written about him.

Just like many fish stories, the tales grow with each retelling, and JC is no exception.
The question remains: Why did the JC story survive and thrive? Who benefited from the tale of a peaceful Jewish messiah? Who benefited from a transformed Judaism that preached pacifism and a love for one's enemies? Qui bono? The answer seems obvious to me.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well, most Xians do not view them as metaphors, and I cannot see anything in the text to suggest they were. Walking on water, being resurrected, ascending to heaven and someday returning with great power seem to be intended as literal events.

Oh, yes, there are many places in New Testament that by "dead" is meant spiritually dead. and when the spiritual dead finds the right way of life, Jesus calls him 'alive', hence the metaphorical meaning of resurrection in Bible.

Moreover, the Disciples of Jesus after Crucifixion are called "the Body of Christ". Hence, after Jesus crucifixion, the disciples who 'raised' after three days to teach the cause of Jesus, it is said said in metaphoric language:"The Body of Christ is raised after three days".


Just read chapter of John, specially 14, 15 and 16, which is all about Jesus going to Father and come back and taking them up, etc.
Then Note that at the end of Jesus' speech, He says:

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father." John 16:25


That means, when Jesus said He is going to Father, He did not mean literally with a physical body. He was using Figures to explain. Hence a literal interpretation is rejected by Jesus!


Also according to the Scholars, it is widely agreed, Jesus taught by parables. I quote from Wikipidia, that expresses different views without bias:

"While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, the portraits of Jesus constructed during the three quests have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[12][9][10][51] Amy-Jill Levine states that despite the differing portraits, there is a general scholarly consensus on the basic outline of Jesus' life in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, taught in parables, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.[11]"

Quest for the historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

I think you didn't read his post completely. He is saying the miracles of Jesus are metaphors.

How ever even if there are some contradictions in Bible it could only mean it is Historical with some minor inaccuracies. Now don't get me wrong. I don't believe Bible should be treated as a history Book. But I like a more logical reason why it is not a history Book.

Metaphors or not, miracles or not. A HJ exist more accurately without them.

 

[outhouse]

The question remains: Why did the JC story survive and thrive? .

Survive? because of the 400,000 possible witnesses of his death at Passover

Thrive? it didn't for a few hundred years. It slowly grew.

It thrived because Hellenistic Judaism was tired of following traditional Judaism born and raised in Israel, so I new sect emerged that found one god important instead of polytheism.

Who benefited from the tale of a peaceful Jewish messiah?

The people who wrote these books benefited as they tried to distance themselves from Judaism.


Judaism was just wiped out by Romans and the movement didn't want any part of that

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Metaphors or not, miracles or not. A HJ exist more accurately without them.

But let's say that, the New Testament was never written, but only those mentions outside of New testament and Christian Scriptures existed.
Do you think, you would have heard the name of Jesus even?
I don't think so. The reason the name of Jesus has survived till Now, is because of the Miracles that are attributed to Him.
Regardless if we believe the Miracles or not.