Historical Jesus

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Paul doesn't mention John the Baptist. He doesn't mention any of the Herods, nor Judas Iscariot. IIUC he mentions no Emperor of Rome by name. There were at least two Marys who play very prominent roles in the Gospels, but Paul mentions neither (his single reference to a "Mary" is to someone else altogether. Paul just wasn't concerned with historical details!

And Paul does mention that he had a miraculous revelatory episode wherein he met his lord who asked him why he was persecuting him. This tells me that Paul experienced psychotic breaks which doesn't lend much credibility to his other accounts. That said, however, in those times this actually enhanced his credibility and likely gave his tales wings. And there are many writers today who think exactly the same way. Something to consider.

it is very unlikely that Tacitus had encountered the Gospels by then.

Why do you make this claim?

 

[steve_bank]

Q source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Q source (also called The Sayings Gospel, Q Gospel, Q document(s), or Q; from German: Quelle, meaning "source") is a written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (λόγια, logia). Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's oral gospel traditions.[1][2][3]

Along with Marcan priority, Q was hypothesized by 1900, and is one of the foundations of most modern gospel scholarship.[4] B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was written in Koine Greek; that most of its contents appear in Matthew, in Luke, or in both; and that Luke more often preserves the text's original order than Matthew. In the two-source hypothesis, the three-source hypothesis and the Q+/Papias hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of sources, some written and some oral.[5] Others have attempted to determine the stages in which Q was composed.[6]

Q's existence has been questioned.[6] Omitting what should have been a highly treasured dominical document from all early Church catalogs, its lack of mention by Jerome is a conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship.[7] However, copying Q might have been seen as unnecessary, as its contents were preserved in the canonical gospels. Hence, it may have been preferable to copy instead from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, "where the sayings of Jesus from Q were rephrased to avoid misunderstandings, and to fit their own situations and their understanding of what Jesus had really meant".[8] Despite challenges, the two-source hypothesis retains wide support.[6]

 

[DBT]

I am reminded again that folks have trouble "keeping their eye on the ball" and that therefore we must define "Historical Jesus' every 100 posts or so. For atheists like myself who do not think anyone has or had "supernatural" powers but who, nonetheless follow common-sense and offer some respect to the conclusions of professional historians, the "Minimal Jesus" may be a useful alternative term for the "Historic Jesus."

Here is a definition of the Historic/Minimal Jesus I gave recently. The post contains some other useful remarks; skip to the large blue text at the very bottom to read a definition of "the Historic Jesus."

The difference between Davey Crocket, Johny Appleseed, et al, and Jesus is that we are told that our very lives depend on us believing that Jesus is our saviour, that if we don't believe in Jesus, we are eternally damned.

What relevance does this have to our topic? Do we disbelieve in Nancy Pelosi's existence because some people said bad things about her?

As the topic appears to be about 'the historic Christ,' I assumed that this includes whatever was said about him. That the point of the thread was to distinguish between the man and the myth, Jesus the man, the itinerant Rabbi/miracle worker with the supernatural stories related to his ministry, what was said about him, which includes the claim that he was the prophesied Messiah, Son of God, Saviour.

No problem. By the same token, are not then legends about Davy Crockett relevant to the "Historic Davy Crockett"?

This thread is a maze of 17 twisty passages, few if any leading anywhere. I'm sorry one of my comments did not meet your expectations. If you have something useful to contribute please do so.

Who is judging what is useful? And what is the criteria?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If I write a story with a main character named Pedro and my main character includes at least in part my experiences and recollections of an actual person named Pedro that I knew or had heard about, does that mean there is a "historical" Pedro?

If I write a story with a main character named Pedro and my main character includes at least in part my experiences and recollections of an actual person I knew or had heard about not named Pedro does that mean there is a "historical" Pedro?

 

[Learner]

If you mean you're the lone author writing about Pedro, then it's going to be less likey convincing than Jesus...
...and as irony would have it.. two or more witnesses is required according to the bible when certain claims are made. What more if you have other authors, similar to the four gospels writing about Pedro eh?
( there is a little mention of Pontius Pilate by Paul in 1 Timothy 16:13 btw).

 

[steve_bank]

There are no eye witness accounts in the gospels. Be it 2, 10, or 20 gospels. The gospels undoubtedly came from a common source of oral stories.

My favorite example of human behavior in this aspect is Bob Dylan. He started off imitating Woody Guthrie and 60s counter culture types turned his largely incoherent lyrics into prophetic works.. and Dylan into a prophet. Books and PHD theses were written about Dylan, yet if you listed to what he said if interpret his lyrics that is up to you.

It is no mystery how a mystique may have developed in telling and retelling of some HJ.

 

[Learner]

There are no eye witness accounts in the gospels. Be it 2, 10, or 20 gospels. The gospels undoubtedly came from a common source of oral stories.

A common source is absolutely ok, if we are talking in terms of a 'focal point' of a particular extraordinary event, which instantly becomes common knowledge in that location where it happened.

My favorite example of human behavior in this aspect is Bob Dylan. He started off imitating Woody Guthrie and 60s counter culture types turned his largely incoherent lyrics into prophetic works.. and Dylan into a prophet. Books and PHD theses were written about Dylan, yet if you listed to what he said if interpret his lyrics that is up to you.

It is no mystery how a mystique may have developed in telling and retelling of some HJ.

And this case: The plot of the story, so to speak, as you explain above... IS the 'narrative storyline' - a common knowledge of events being told as it was... just as you're telling me!

 

[lpetrich]

From Matthew 27:25, "May his blood be on us and on our children" If they were like any well-documented lynch mob, they would say "Death to Jesus!" "Death to the false prophet!" "Death to the blasphemer!" and consider killing JC to be totally justified and not something grossly negative for them and for their children.

Not sure why you chose that verse for the point you're making (probably one of Carrier's ideas). Just before Mathew 27:25 we see in Mathew 27:22-23, the crowd is crying for Jesus to be crucified.

Matt 27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. 23.And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

* If we see the verses below, we can see the context of Matthew 27:25 is different from the context you give in the quoted above. in bold*

Matt 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. 25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. 26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

That's also grossly unhistorical. The Roman authorities would look at some self-styled King of the Jews with a lot of followers and they would see a big fat vexillum rubrum (red flag). Here was someone preparing a rebellion against Rome's rule.

It's like the crowd is saying" if you don't feel you wanna crucify Jesus, then, we'll do it, we'll be responsible for the crucifixion...

That's a nonsensical way of saying that. "Let us do it!" and "We want to do it!" would be much more straightforward, and that way would not have the implication of a blot on one's record and on one's children's records.

 

[lpetrich]

Also, as Richard Carrier points out, the sacrificing of one prisoner and the releasing of another is a human version of the  Scapegoat ritual, where one of a pair of goats is slaughtered and the other is sent out into the wilderness with the community's sins transferred to it. JC was the slaughtered one and Barabbas the released one.

Treating the Gospels as documentaries leads to absurdity after absurdity.

 

[lpetrich]

 Historicity of Muhammad the founder of Islam.

 History of Buddhism and What do we know about the historicity of the Buddha? : r/AskHistorians about the founder of Buddhism.

I've seen a lot of skepticism about purportedly historical accounts of both of them, though their historicity is generally accepted.

 

[Tharmas]

If you mean you're the lone author writing about Pedro, then it's going to be less likey convincing than Jesus...
...and as irony would have it.. two or more witnesses is required according to the bible when certain claims are made. What more if you have other authors, similar to the four gospels writing about Pedro eh?
( there is a little mention of Pontius Pilate by Paul in 1 Timothy 16:13 btw).

Just a quick note Learner ... First and Second Timothy are largely considered by most reputable Biblical scholars to be second century forgeries. This was true even in ancient times - Marcion omitted them from his Pauline canon. The reasons for this judgement are twofold: 1) internal evidence (style and vocabulary are un-Pauline for example) and 2) when they are first quoted and/or referred to by others (for example, it's quite possible Marcion omitted them because he'd never heard of them).

 

[Tharmas]

My favorite example of human behavior in this aspect is Bob Dylan. He started off imitating Woody Guthrie and 60s counter culture types turned his largely incoherent lyrics into prophetic works.. and Dylan into a prophet. Books and PHD theses were written about Dylan, yet if you listed to what he said if interpret his lyrics that is up to you.

Steve, I don't want to derail the thread, but someday we'll have to have a discussion about Dylan.