Reconstructing the Historical Jesus

The predicted equivocation has arrived.When asked for information about messiahs, Jon posts a list of messiah claimants.

This is somewhat of a problem for you, actually. If would-be messiahs named "Yesua" were as thick on the ground as you contend then your problem is this: how do you connect the Jesus mythology to any particular individual?It's like trying to argue that James Bond was a real person because thousands of men must have worn tuxedos in 1960's Britain and been named "James." Well, yes. But what's the evidence that any one of those men was the basis for Casino Royale?If would-be messias were all over the place, if they were as common as you say, that actually undercuts your case for a real historical Jesus. It makes it more likely that "would-be messiah" would have been a character archetype that first-century Jews would have found familiar - just as "hard-nosed cop who doesn't play by the rules" or "young man who discovers his incredible destiny" are character archetypes that 21st century audiences find familiar and compelling.Jesus may very well have been a composite of would-be messiahs of the time, but that wouldn't mean there was actually a "historical Jesus." People who claim otherwise don't understand the definition of "fictional character."

But people did make things up. I mean you've told a story that explains why "John Frum" was invented, and now he's venerated as a real figure by the people of the south seas. Obviously it contains more than that and I've never contended anything else. The people who made up the Jesus stories would have done so for the same, or similar, reasons as the people who made up the John Frum stories.But that doesn't change the fact that John Frum is an invention, and so Jesus was as well, most likely. Neither is the story of Jesus. But plausible origin stories aren't actual evidence of existence, they're evidence of good storytelling. Sure we can - there's a conspicuous lack of documentary evidence. Railroads kept records, even in Mexico. Federal officers file paperwork about shooting incidents, even in Mexico. There are inquests when people are killed, even in Mexico.The utter lack of any corroborating evidence, and the inconsistency of the Jesus Malverde stories themselves, lead to the parsimonious conclusion that there was no such person. This is a form of parsimony that everybody accepts when applied to John Frum and Jesus Malverde, but not when applied to Jesus Christ, evidence of the startling way that people take all leave of their senses when the words "Jesus Christ" are read or uttered. "He was made up" is every bit an explanation as "he really existed" is - that is, they're the beginning and not the end of how we explain the origins of Jesus mythology. I'm not and never have claimed that it's the whole story; it's merely a convenient way to summarize and label the competing positions. But both sides agree that almost all of the Jesus mythology is fabrication - thus, it's most parsimonious and reasonable to assume that one additional element of it is, as well. The most reasonable assumption is obviously the assumption of minimal veracity of the Jesus mythology, and that extends to his existence - there's absolutely nothing about the mythology that requires the existence of a real historical Jesus to explain.Nothing. Why is Harry Potter a boy and not a girl? You can't draw any reasonable conclusion from the fact that you don't understand an author's motivations for creating a part of the story in the way that he did. As I said before, if would-be messiahs executed by the Romans were thick on the ground in first-century Judea, that part of the story might simply be an element meant to make it seem more realistic to an audience. Resurrection of the dead didn't begin or end with Jesus.

My point is that there are mixed historical motivations for Roman involvement and/or blame that don't necessarily speak to the counter-intuitiveness of the story telling.Early on, the Christian cults were not necessarily integrated with the gentiles except for Paul. Paul seems to have no clue about the gospel story details for reasons not the least of which they hadn't been written yet. There would be no disincentive for blaming the Romans since they were not trying to court Roman favor....yet.A more convincing example is simply that Jesus died at all. The purported fact of his death caused a disarray of explanations which may be more telling.I think that might SUGGEST historicity but along the lines of what I was arguing before, I am not sure it is enough to overcome a strong basis otherwise.So I am not trying to disagree with that particular tool of historical observation, I am just questioning this particular use of it and how strong of an inference it is.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Okay yea. I think what raised my eyebrow was how common and what you meant by executed as if the Romans ever really gave much regard simply because people called themselves a messiah.Most of the others weren't executed in the same sense as Jesus. They led rebellions that were certain to give the Romans a reason to care. Those are in no way like Jesus and refer more to what the Jews considered a real messiah to be, someone who would liberate them.I think you would have more legs to stand on if you referred to the Stoic/Cynic traditions to which someone later mysticised into a messiah via someone like the author of Matthew. Those guys were perhaps "common" in the sense I understood you to mean and you could at least start there when looking for a historical Jesus.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

There's a reason I put 'Messiah' in quotes: to recognize the very fact that despite the claims made, the people in question were not actual Messiahs.But then again, that is obvious to anyone who isn't being a troll.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Who says we have to? It is enough to propose for our explanation that such a character existed; it isn't necessary that we go pick him out of a Where's Waldo sketch. Nope; it just makes the existence of an historical Jesus that much more probable. Just like loads of men wearing tuxedos named James makes an historical James Bond more probable.Does it prove anything? Not really; but it does mean that your explanation needs be more probable than mine.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

That's what it means to defend the "historical Jesus" position. If the "Jesus" that you connect the mythology to isn't an actual person who existed, then you've not actually advanced the proposition that there was a historical Jesus - you've simply made an argument that there could have been a historical Jesus.But I agree with that! There could very well have been a historical Jesus, a historical John Frum, a historical Jesus Malverde. There could very well have been a historical Robin Hood and a historical Harry Potter.The question is what's the reason to believe that there was a historical Jesus, not simply just that there could have been one? That's the position you put forward, after all. Are you now admitting that you can't defend it?

But neither was Jesus. Isn't that your contention?

Obviously: he failed big time.

---

Love your enemies!

quote:

---

Yes, I made up an explanation - based on the massive amounts of evidence that we have the people make up fantastical stories.
This is compared to the zero non-biblical evidence we have for a historical Jesus.

---

Obviously then, the evidence that people also write historical accounts, and stories which are elaborated historical accounts is evidence against your hypothesis, then. Perhaps you would like to explain why you did not take this into account.

quote:

---

My last post answered these questions: Badly made up stories are made up badly.

---

In other words you have to assume that they made up things contrary to their own agendas. WHich goes against what you said earlier.

quote:

---

Did your parents conceive you? Do you know where or when or how or why? No? Then clearly you were not conceived.

---

Actually I have a pretty good idea of when and where. But more importantly, you are using a strawman. I am not using lack of evidence against your hypothesis (although you have nothing much) I am pointing out that you haven't got much of an explanation. This is why the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus is better than your hypothesis - it really explains more evidence (as opposed to proposing ad hoc explanations)

quote:

---

And the reason they became accepted as fact is because people are frequently ignorant, superstitious and irrational.
Lots of people believe (as fact) that you will get 7 years bad luck if you break a mirror. That doesn't make it even slightly true.
But this is off-topic, I expect.

---

But the Gospels would be competing with the real story of how Christianity arose. What happened to that story ? Have you any evidence for your explanation of that ?

quote:

---

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
'Made up by people' is the simple, common, parsimonious choice.
Even non-biblical documents have to be validated.

---

But there are no extraordinary claims being made here. That an ancient document should be based on true history is not extraordinary at all.

Historical Jesus explains the evidence. Your explanation doesn't even come close, as others have already pointed out. It is so severely deficient that it only leaves us with more questions than we had before proposing it.Your explanation, incidentally, is also completely unevidenced.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Well, no. Historical Jesus on its own doesn't explain any of the evidence.You have to add to "Historical Jesus"; specifically you have to add ten centuries of fabulation, make-believe, politically-motivated storytelling, oppression-catalyzed self-empowerment mythology, translation "liberties", and other motivations for invention, because a "Historical Jesus" who wasn't named Jesus, wasn't the messiah, didn't give the Sermon on the Mount, didn't do any miracles, and didn't rise from the dead after being executed by the Romans can't, on its own, be the basis for a mythological Jesus named Jesus who was the messiah, gave the Sermon, did miracles, and rose from the dead after his crucifixion.So once you've given over the vast bulk of the Jesus character to myth-making and fabulation, it's at least as reasonable - if not more so - to give over his origin, too. Particularly given the lack of any and all corroborating evidence which you have already stipulated.Historical Jesus needs as much "extra stuff" as Mythical Jesus, so the mere fact that "Mythical Jesus" doesn't explain the whole story isn't an argument against it; it's just an argument that we need to pursue a level of detail finer-grained than "Historical Jesus vs. Mythical Jesus." In fact, the "extra stuff" that Historical Jesus needs is the exact same stuff that Mythical Jesus needs, because you've already stipulated that the bulk of the Jesus mythology is invention.You need to provide evidence that invention was unnecessary or impossible. You've done neither.

What's your evidence for their agendas? Please be specific.

That's absurd. You're pointing to the existence of the claim as evidence for the claim. That's circular reasoning.We don't by default assume that claims are true; we by default assume that they are unevidenced.If I make a claim, the fact that I made the claim is not evidence for the claim. If I'm asked for evidence to support the claim, it would be a fallacy if I simply pointed to the post where I made the claim and said "why would I say that if it wasn't true?" But that's what you're asking us to do - assume the claims of the Gospels are at least partly true, simply because the claims in the Gospels are made.But we're asking you what evidence corroborates the claims in the Gospels about the existence of Jesus. You've not even made an effort to provide any - instead you're engaged in a fairly transparent act of circular reasoning.I had come to expect better from you.