Historical Jesus

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From all the forum discussions I have a half dozen or so possible HJs.

Philo of Alexandria never heard of the guy. It's like an American Civil War historian never mentioning Ulysses S Grant.

If he was a philosopher rather than a historian, and was a man of Cree extraction living in Ottawa, and you were using some brief treatises he wrote on First Nations history to prove that General Stand Watie never existed, the comparison would be apt.

Only if 300 years after the alleged fact there needed to be a constitutional convention to figure out who or what Stand Watie actually was while simultaneously declaring him the greatest Civil War General, God and son of George Washington.

 

[Politesse]

From all the forum discussions I have a half dozen or so possible HJs.

Philo of Alexandria never heard of the guy. It's like an American Civil War historian never mentioning Ulysses S Grant.

If he was a philosopher rather than a historian, and was a man of Cree extraction living in Ottawa, and you were using some brief treatises he wrote on First Nations history to prove that General Stand Watie never existed, the comparison would be apt.

Only if 300 years after the alleged fact there needed to be a constitutional convention to figure out who or what Stand Watie actually was while simultaneously declaring him the greatest Civil War General, God and son of George Washington.

And that's what Jesus mythers don't understand. You don't have to prove a historical figure didn't exist, to be skeptical about some of the claims that are made about them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And that's what Jesus mythers don't understand. You don't have to prove a historical figure didn't exist, to be skeptical about some of the claims that are made about them.

The truth is probably more that generally speaking, most people do not understand whence cometh fiction. All fiction has a factual basis but that hardly makes the fiction historical. If someone's "HJ" is an amalgamation of different tales, sayings, characters and historical settings, or a Jeffersonian enlightened man simply stripped of his vaunted superpowers, said HJ is still in fact a fictional construct. There's no escaping that reality.

 

[Politesse]

And that's what Jesus mythers don't understand. You don't have to prove a historical figure didn't exist, to be skeptical about some of the claims that are made about them.

The truth is probably more that generally speaking, most people do not understand whence cometh fiction. All fiction has a factual basis but that hardly makes the fiction historical. If someone's "HJ" is an amalgamation of different tales, sayings, characters and historical settings, or a Jeffersonian enlightened man simply stripped of his vaunted superpowers, said HJ is still in fact a fictional construct. There's no escaping that reality.

Of course he is. But so is George Washington. Or do you really believe he lounged around Mt Vernon looking suspiciously like Zeus all the time?


Real lives are ugly and confusing. A living person is more likely to undermine their own greatest virtues as they get old, than cross the finish line as a paragon of anything. But history is myth-making, and we borrow heavily from mythic archetypes, as we reconstruct them in a more palatable form to last the centuries.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But history is myth-making, and we borrow heavily from mythic archetypes, as we reconstruct them in a more palatable form to last the centuries.

So much to unpack there. HJ is essentially whoever wrote GMark. People often opine about going back in time to meet or observe certain individuals. I fear that those of us wishing to commisserate with the HJ would find ourselves staring into the aether once transported. That or our time machine simply wouldn't know what to do because it would know that such a person isn't real. Our instructions to it would not compute.

On the other hand if we asked our time machine to take us to the original author of GMark we would hit pay dirt because such an author actually existed as evidenced by the writing. What were his sources and experiences as opposed to traditional speculation? Who was he? Who wrote GMark? We could actually learn something. It could be that this author simply compiled sayings and placed them on an historical palate. It could be that he borrowed heavily from a closet drama circulating at the time. Maybe he experienced time in some Essene commune. Maybe, maybe, maybe is all we have today. It's not unlike those Stratfordian Shakespeare biographers who maybe this and maybe that attempting to give credence to traditional attestations when there is no supporting evidence.

But that's pretty much the human condition. We all get to write history according to me and then try to sell our tale to our readers and listeners.

 

[Swammerdami]

A link to this article popped up in my news-feed. Lying?

Although some skeptics have called Jesus a myth, historians acknowledge he was a real person. In fact, nine non-Christian historians and writers mention Jesus within 150 years of his death, the same number who mention the contemporary Roman Emperor, Tiberius Caesar.

In addition to that, over five thousand eight hundred New Testament manuscripts tell us about Jesus’ life and words. That’s far more than for any other person in ancient history.

New Testament scholar, John A. T. Robinson concludes that the New Testament was originally written while eyewitnesses of Jesus would still have been alive.

Regarding the reliability of the accounts about Jesus he states, “The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world.”

 

[bilby]

A link to this article popped up in my news-feed. Lying?

Although some skeptics have called Jesus a myth, historians acknowledge he was a real person. In fact, nine non-Christian historians and writers mention Jesus within 150 years of his death, the same number who mention the contemporary Roman Emperor, Tiberius Caesar.

In addition to that, over five thousand eight hundred New Testament manuscripts tell us about Jesus’ life and words. That’s far more than for any other person in ancient history.

New Testament scholar, John A. T. Robinson concludes that the New Testament was originally written while eyewitnesses of Jesus would still have been alive.

Regarding the reliability of the accounts about Jesus he states, “The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world.”

Hmmm.

Nine non-Christian historians and writers who are not named so you can't check this claim but have to take their word for it.

The only verifiable claim is that "New Testament scholar, John A. T. Robinson concludes that the New Testament was originally written while eyewitnesses of Jesus would still have been alive." So, who is this John A. T. Robinson? Presumably, given the emphasis in the earlier paragraph on "non-Christian historians and writers", he must also be an unbiased source, somebody who has nothing to lose from the possibility that Jesus is entirely fictional, right?

John A. T. Robinson at Wikipedia:

John Arthur Thomas Robinson (16 May 1919 – 5 December 1983) was an English New Testament scholar, author and the AnglicanBishop of Woolwich.

Lying? I don't know, but the entire thing has all the hallmarks of being hugely untrustworthy - most of it is written such that it cannot be checked - it is just a collection of placeholders for evidence, rather than being evidence - and the one claim that can easiliy be checked chooses to omit crucial information that strongly implies massive bias, despite having (in practically the same breath) implied that the writer knows that such bias is undesirable.

A bunch of non-Christian folks we don't name agree that Jesus is real, the New Testament says he's real*, as does a real and unbiased proper genuine historian (who we didn't mention is also a fucking BISHOP).

Yeah, this isn't suspicious at all. I guess we should just take their word for it.

That article proves the radical and controversial idea that devout Christians don't think Jesus is mythical, and are happy to conceal critical evidence in their efforts to persuade others of this claim. Colour me shocked.








* The New Testament is evidence that Jesus is real in exactly the same way that DC Comics are evidence that Superman is real

 

[Swammerdami]

The only verifiable claim is that "New Testament scholar, John A. T. Robinson concludes that the New Testament was originally written while eyewitnesses of Jesus would still have been alive." So, who is this John A. T. Robinson? Presumably, given the emphasis in the earlier paragraph on "non-Christian historians and writers", he must also be an unbiased source, somebody who has nothing to lose from the possibility that Jesus is entirely fictional, right?

John A. T. Robinson at Wikipedia:

John Arthur Thomas Robinson (16 May 1919 – 5 December 1983) was an English New Testament scholar, author and the AnglicanBishop of Woolwich.

So, New Testament scholars shouldn't comment on the New Testament? Perhaps physicists shouldn't comment on physics either.

We've gone around and around and around on this. Are we getting dizzy yet?

UNLESS you deign to answer the question I posed earlier, intended to clarify what, if anything, you think you mean when you write "Jesus was a nobody", I will probably not answer your pointless rejoinder to this with a surrejoinder.

 

[bilby]

So, New Testament scholars shouldn't comment on the New Testament?

No, people who want to be trusted probably shouldn't conceal relevant information, and certainly shouldn't imply that a fucking BISHOP is a "non-Christian" source.

Why would you, I, or anyone else, trust (or even bother to quote) a source that is covered in red "I am trying to mislead you" flags?

 

[Jarhyn]

So, New Testament scholars shouldn't comment on the New Testament?

No, people who want to be trusted probably shouldn't conceal relevant information, and certainly shouldn't imply that a fucking BISHOP is a "non-Christian" source.

Why would you, I, or anyone else, trust (or even bother to quote) a source that is covered in red "I am trying to mislead you" flags?

So, I am not trying to mislead you. In fact I can pretty soundly say that you of all people should understand that I of all people wouldn't want to mislead you in the first place. That said, I suspect many of not most accounts of Jesus are at best wholely manufactured. Even so, I can attest that humans think in ways and perform lives that are substantially similar to that story.

My own life contains such a permutation of that process for substantially similar reasons.

It is not unreasonable to believe some human lived a life substantially similar to the provided story, at least to me, because I am a substantive repetition of all of those tropes.

That said, even as someone who lived a life that could be given the same narrative, there's no guarantee it isn't a fabrication, especially by motivated shitheels lying for Jesus