Historical Jesus

[Horatio Parker]

Contemporaneous references to Socrates, four. For Jesus, none.

I'm agnostic on HJ. There's no proof one way or another. But the evidence such as it is, or lack of it, favors a mythical Jesus.

Paul? Whatsisname, the collaborationist historian? Come off it!

What are you talking about? Paul never met Jesus. And Paul is not a source for any information about Jesus' life, so much so that some argue Paul was writing about a cosmic, not earthly, Jesus. Further, Paul himself is another figure for whom the only evidence is the NT.

 

[Juma]

Nothing about the author of gMark is known.

Our information about Socrates may conflict, but the point is, he existed.

What exactly is the difference in the evidence? You Americans are far too fond of disappearing historical figures on minimal evidence.

The number of references in external contemporary sources.

 

[iolo]

Paul? Whatsisname, the collaborationist historian? Come off it!

What are you talking about? Paul never met Jesus. And Paul is not a source for any information about Jesus' life, so much so that some argue Paul was writing about a cosmic, not earthly, Jesus. Further, Paul himself is another figure for whom the only evidence is the NT.

You think he made up this important contemporary. You are off your head.

 

[iolo]

What exactly is the difference in the evidence? You Americans are far too fond of disappearing historical figures on minimal evidence.

The number of references in external contemporary sources.

The evidence for most early British figures is one reference by a colonialist historian, obviously prejudiced, to suit their own ends, often much later. Should we abolish all early British history?

 

[Juma]

The number of references in external contemporary sources.

The evidence for most early British figures is one reference by a colonialist historian, obviously prejudiced, to suit their own ends, often much later. Should we abolish all early British history?

Eh. You realize that one external source is much more than what we have for jesus, mark, paulus etc...

 

[Horatio Parker]

What are you talking about? Paul never met Jesus. And Paul is not a source for any information about Jesus' life, so much so that some argue Paul was writing about a cosmic, not earthly, Jesus. Further, Paul himself is another figure for whom the only evidence is the NT.

You think he made up this important contemporary. You are off your head.

Who made up who? I don't know what you're talking about. Jesus was not a contemporary of Paul's.

The point is that the Pauline letters, whoever wrote them, are not evidence for the Jesus of the Gospels. There's not one incident from the Gospels in Paul. So the question becomes: are the Pauline letters referring to a historical person? And if the author of Paul didn't think of Jesus as a historical person, than how could the author of Mark think so, writing after Paul?

 

[Atheos]

What are you talking about? Paul never met Jesus. And Paul is not a source for any information about Jesus' life, so much so that some argue Paul was writing about a cosmic, not earthly, Jesus. Further, Paul himself is another figure for whom the only evidence is the NT.

You think he made up this important contemporary. You are off your head.

If this "important contemporary" existed as described in the gospel narratives he would have made in impact on the historical record. Stories about a magic jew living a long time ago in a place far, far away (which is what the gospel narratives were by the time they were written) do not qualify as the type of evidence necessary to establish the existence of an historical person with any degree of certainty.

According to these stories (as I have already mentioned in this thread) the impact made by this individual covered vast geographical distances and had even such notables as King Herod asking about him. He allegedly raised several people from the dead, including a synagogue ruler's daughter in front of throngs of people. Thousands of people supposedly witnessed him feeding them with mere morsels of food - twice. Several historians living during the time in question and in the right places wrote about much more mundane things than these incredible feats. Yet not one of them saw fit to write about the most remarkable events of their time? This is the stuff that would make an historian's career. Yet none of them saw fit to take note. The dissonance strains credulity to the breaking point.

The only rational explanation for this is that the fantastic stuff was made up decades and hundreds of miles removed from the threat of gainsay. The only question that remains is whether or not there was a much more realistic individual who served as the inspiration for these tall tales. The evidence is inconclusive at this time. That is the best we can say.

It is a reasonable question to consider the possibility that the inspiration behind these stories may have been a very different person altogether from the stories, or that more than one person might have been the inspiration, or that the entire thing was the result of Paul's early efforts to pimp a heavenly voice he was channeling (the Jesus of the earliest Pauling epistles) who evolved into a person living in recent history (fictional history). J.Z. Knight's "Ramtha" is nearly identical except for Ramtha allegedly living 30,000 years ago.

So no. Horatio Parker is not off his head.

 

[SLD]

While I'm jumping in a bit late, I'd like to make a few points. Most importantly that belief in a historical Jesus does not diminish your bona fides as an atheist freethinking type. Belief in a historical kernel of truth doesn't mean you are a Christian in the slightest.

To me though, while the evidence is certainly not overwhelming, there is enough circumstantial evidence that there was a historical Jesus, another in a long line of failed Messiahs promising to overthrow the hated Romans and establishing the Davidian line of Kings. His movement was not to establish a new religion, but merely to bring back that old timey religion, with himself as King.

I think one cannot simply ignore the plethora of writings about him in the century after his death. One can discount the miracles and resurrection stories, but we have so many other writings that don't reecount such, i.e. the various sayings Gospels.

We also have evidence in the writings of Paul and others in the NT evidencing a conflict between the Jerusalem faction and the Pauline version. It's a very strange conflict that is really only alluded to in vague outline. But it it's real, and to me it points towards a basic conclusion that there really was a Jesus movement, started by a real person, of concern only for Jews, and that Paul took the movement and created a fiction of a god-man rising and dying savior God out of it.

It seems to me that of the two choices, this is simply the more plausible explanation. That the entirety of writings that we do have about this character were made up whole cloth seems highly unlikely given all that we can discern from the historical record of the origin of Christianity.

SLD

 

[Juma]

I think one cannot simply ignore the plethora of writings about him in the century after his death. One can discount the miracles and resurrection stories, but we have so many other writings that don't reecount such, i.e. the various sayings Gospels.

SLD

Thats just fanfiction (as is the gospels)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But why would it have to based on an actual person instead of just a generic stereotype of the character they wanted? Like Captain America is the idealistic soldier but not based on a real person, Jesus could be based on what the authors thought a preacher should be, as opposed to what somebody actually was.

 

[Horatio Parker]

But why would it have to based on an actual person instead of just a generic stereotype of the character they wanted? Like Captain America is the idealistic soldier but not based on a real person, Jesus could be based on what the authors thought a preacher should be, as opposed to what somebody actually was.

Exactly.

Once you get rid of the miracles, does HJ really make such a difference?

I think it's a reflection of the fact that science is the real religion of our time, so Jesus must be scientific i.e. he existed as flesh and blood.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The evidence for most early British figures is one reference by a colonialist historian, obviously prejudiced, to suit their own ends, often much later. Should we abolish all early British history?

Eh. You realize that one external source is much more than what we have for jesus, mark, paulus etc...

The term "external source" here is subjective and meaningless. You can always come up with arbitrary standards for excluding sources you don't like

There are more sources for the historical Jesus than for many (most?) historical figures which are routinely believed to have existed. (Arguably "most" for historical figures 2000 years ago.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

You can always come up with arbitrary standards for excluding sources you don't like

Well, YOU would certainly know that.
A better question, though, would be what actual historians mean by 'external source,' rather than your fantasy excursions though that discipline.

There are more sources for the historical Jesus than for many (most?) historical figures which are routinely believed to have existed.

Good example.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Paul and the direct disciples of Jesus and the NT writers ALL believed Jesus was historical.

What are you talking about? Paul never met Jesus. And Paul is not a source for any information about Jesus' life, . . .

Yes he is, from the night of the arrest and after. It's BEFORE that point that Paul is silent on Jesus' life.

. . . so much so that some argue Paul was writing about a cosmic, not earthly, Jesus.

It's obviously BOTH. There is no contradiction between the earthly Jesus who was crucified and rose, as Paul describes, and the cosmic Jesus after. Paul presents both.

Paul was obviously referring to an earthly Jesus when he wrote:

None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1 Cor. 2:8

I.e., "the rulers of this age" has to refer to current earthly rulers.

Paul says many things which require Jesus to have been an earthly figure. But that doesn't contradict his more common references to Jesus as a heavenly or spiritual or cosmic entity.

Further, Paul himself is another figure for whom the only evidence is the NT.

But "the NT" is several writings, quite a bit of evidence. Back before 200 AD there was no such thing as "the NT" -- there were several of these writings.

But also, Paul is quoted by Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 100 AD, and by Clement of Rome around 95 AD. This is non-NT evidence for Paul.

That we have little evidence for Paul, outside his epistles and the Book of Acts, can be taken to suggest that maybe he wasn't so prominent in the 1st century as later tradition has made him. However, we do have some evidence for him outside the NT. It's incorrect to say that the "only" evidence is the NT.

You think he made up this important contemporary. You are off your head.

Who made up who? I don't know what you're talking about. Jesus was not a contemporary of Paul's.

Yes he was. They overlap at about 30 AD. Paul's career was mainly later, but he had direct contact with Peter and other direct apostles. It's possible that he knew of the crucifixion when it happened, though maybe he only learned of it later. It was an event current to him.

He mentions his contact with direct disciples in Gal. 1-2, where he names Peter and James and others of the early Jerusalem church, and he describes some friction with them over his mission to the Gentiles. So he was a contemporary to Peter, making him also a contemporary to Jesus.

The point is that the Pauline letters, whoever wrote them, are not evidence for the Jesus of the Gospels.

Yes they are. They mention some of the same events, all from the night of the arrest and later. He mentions the "Lord's supper" event of that night, he says Jesus was "handed over" and gives his version of the resurrection event, naming Peter and others as having witnessed Jesus who had risen. So there is plenty of overlap of Paul's account and the Gospels at that point.

There's not one incident from the Gospels in Paul.

Yes there are -- several, from the point when Jesus was arrested.

So the question becomes: are the Pauline letters referring to a historical person?

The answer is YES, they refer to the same historical Jesus of the gospel accounts. Just because Paul emphasizes the later Risen Christ who ascended to heaven does not negate the earlier EARTHLY Jesus who was the same person. Paul clearly means they were the same.

And if the author of Paul didn't think of Jesus as a historical person, . . .

He DID think of Jesus as a historical person. He named particular events which happened to the same earthly Jesus of the gospel accounts. He even referred to Jesus as being the brother of James, which might not be true, but was believed by the writer of Acts and mentioned in Mark 6:3, and also is repeated in Josephus. That Paul believed this clearly proves that he thought Jesus was a historical person.

. . . then how could the author of Mark think so, writing after Paul?

They ALL believed Jesus was historical. All the evidence is that he was historical, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

All the early Christians believed that Jesus was an earthly human, AND also that he was something superhuman, Son of God, Messiah, Heavenly cosmic being of some kind.

ALL of them, Paul included, had this same belief about Jesus.

Another person who believed Jesus was historical was the author of the Book of Revelation, who says nothing about the historical Jesus.

Also, the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by someone who thought Jesus was Cosmic but also earthly and historical. He said:

1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.

You can't be more "cosmic" than this. And yet don't the opening words clearly refer to an earthly historical person who "in these last days" spoke to humans, "to us" -- to earthly people?

This epistle is probably not from Paul, but everyone agrees that the writer must have been close to Paul and had the same perception of who this Christ person was that they both spoke of. Hebrews is arguably more "cosmic" and abstract than Paul's epistles, and yet don't the opening words make it plain that the cosmic figure he presents was also an historical figure who appeared at a particular earth time and place?

 

[iolo]

The evidence for most early British figures is one reference by a colonialist historian, obviously prejudiced, to suit their own ends, often much later. Should we abolish all early British history?

Eh. You realize that one external source is much more than what we have for jesus, mark, paulus etc...

Who would believe bloody mass-murderers like Julius Caesar? What you seem to do is to deny the existence of anyone you choose. It is a balls-awfully silly way of arguing, you know.

 

[Juma]

Eh. You realize that one external source is much more than what we have for jesus, mark, paulus etc...

The term "external source" here is subjective and meaningless. You can always come up with arbitrary standards for excluding sources you don't like

There are more sources for the historical Jesus than for many (most?) historical figures which are routinely believed to have existed. (Arguably "most" for historical figures 2000 years ago.)

On the contrary. Defining what is external and internal to the church is simple.

And by that I will no more discuss this with you, having seen how fultil any dicussion with you can be..

 

[Juma]

Eh. You realize that one external source is much more than what we have for jesus, mark, paulus etc...

Who would believe bloody mass-murderers like Julius Caesar? What you seem to do is to deny the existence of anyone you choose. It is a balls-awfully silly way of arguing, you know.

On the contrary, I excude only the ones that is inside the christian movement. For obvious reasons.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Yes he is, from the night of the arrest and after. It's BEFORE that point that Paul is silent on Jesus' life.

Examples?

. . . so much so that some argue Paul was writing about a cosmic, not earthly, Jesus.

It's obviously BOTH. There is no contradiction between the earthly Jesus who was crucified and rose, as Paul describes, and the cosmic Jesus after. Paul presents both.

Paul was obviously referring to an earthly Jesus when he wrote:

None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1 Cor. 2:8

I.e., "the rulers of this age" has to refer to current earthly rulers.

Paul says many things which require Jesus to have been an earthly figure. But that doesn't contradict his more common references to Jesus as a heavenly or spiritual or cosmic entity.

There's nothing obvious about it. These are historical arguments, not theological ones. And there's debate over the word "archons" which is the Greek translated as "rulers". Some claim it refers to demons or spirits.

Further, Paul himself is another figure for whom the only evidence is the NT.

But "the NT" is several writings, quite a bit of evidence. Back before 200 AD there was no such thing as "the NT" -- there were several of these writings.

But also, Paul is quoted by Ignatius of Antioch, writing around 100 AD, and by Clement of Rome around 95 AD. This is non-NT evidence for Paul.

That we have little evidence for Paul, outside his epistles and the Book of Acts, can be taken to suggest that maybe he wasn't so prominent in the 1st century as later tradition has made him. However, we do have some evidence for him outside the NT. It's incorrect to say that the "only" evidence is the NT.

Those sources are only evidence that Christian writers later believed in a historical Paul.

You think he made up this important contemporary. You are off your head.

Who made up who? I don't know what you're talking about. Jesus was not a contemporary of Paul's.

Yes he was. They overlap at about 30 AD. Paul's career was mainly later, but he had direct contact with Peter and other direct apostles. It's possible that he knew of the crucifixion when it happened, though maybe he only learned of it later. It was an event current to him.

He mentions his contact with direct disciples in Gal. 1-2, where he names Peter and James and others of the early Jerusalem church, and he describes some friction with them over his mission to the Gentiles. So he was a contemporary to Peter, making him also a contemporary to Jesus.

Speculation. Paul never met an earthly Jesus.

The point is that the Pauline letters, whoever wrote them, are not evidence for the Jesus of the Gospels.

Yes they are. They mention some of the same events, all from the night of the arrest and later. He mentions the "Lord's supper" event of that night, he says Jesus was "handed over" and gives his version of the resurrection event, naming Peter and others as having witnessed Jesus who had risen. So there is plenty of overlap of Paul's account and the Gospels at that point.

You've listed all the evidence: "betrayed" and "the night he was handed over". What about the trial? Pilate? The Sanhedrin? Gethsemane?

So the question becomes: are the Pauline letters referring to a historical person?

The answer is YES, they refer to the same historical Jesus of the gospel accounts. Just because Paul emphasizes the later Risen Christ who ascended to heaven does not negate the earlier EARTHLY Jesus who was the same person. Paul clearly means they were the same.

It's only clear if your make that assumption.

They ALL believed Jesus was historical. All the evidence is that he was historical, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

All the early Christians believed that Jesus was an earthly human, AND also that he was something superhuman, Son of God, Messiah, Heavenly cosmic being of some kind.

ALL of them, Paul included, had this same belief about Jesus.

Another person who believed Jesus was historical was the author of the Book of Revelation, who says nothing about the historical Jesus.

Also, the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by someone who thought Jesus was Cosmic but also earthly and historical. He said:

1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.

You can't be more "cosmic" than this. And yet don't the opening words clearly refer to an earthly historical person who "in these last days" spoke to humans, "to us" -- to earthly people?

He speaks to us humans through revelation.

 

[iolo]

Who would believe bloody mass-murderers like Julius Caesar? What you seem to do is to deny the existence of anyone you choose. It is a balls-awfully silly way of arguing, you know.

On the contrary, I excude only the ones that is inside the christian movement. For obvious reasons.

Slightly - indeed extremely - nutty prejudice, eh?

 

[iolo]

I ask again, Who gained? What brilliant figure invented all these people, and for what gain? If you have no critical training, ask someone who has: every one of these people has an individual style, and unless there were four novelists-before-the-novel available for bribing (by what camel caught in the needle's eye?) where did the camel get them, and how train them up? Plato was a great literary artist, and Socrates is his invention (though undoubtedly there was an historical person of that name). What brilliant writer invented Paul? The beliefs of the past don't belong to now, but showing that is not helped by denying obvious history.