What do we mean by a historical Jesus?

[blü 2]

syncretic

I think that the Biblical narrative is real, at least from their perspective.​

I don't think the author of Mark knew much about Jesus at all, which is why I offered the scenario that his gospel would look much as it does if he'd written it moving his hero through OT scenes he thought predicted the messiah and ticking off his list as he went.

And the authors of Matthew and Luke borrow from him with both hands.

There were christians, at the time of the crucifixion, resurrection, and afterwards.​

I have no trouble thinking there were followers of a Jesus cult in the first 30 years CE or so. I agree with you that then it would have been a sect within Judaism. But since no one noticed them at the time, and since their authors have such a poor biographical grasp of Jesus, I don't think they had much concept of Jesus as a real person.

 

[blü 2]

Luis Dantas

One would expect the doctrine to stand on its own merits, but apparently not.​

As written in the gospels, the pitch is very personal. You get mercy from Yahweh and thus into heaven, IFF you have a personal prayerful relationship with Jesus.

I stand unconvinced that the Bible was even meant to present him as a real person.​

There are a couple of things in the gospels I think have the potential to be biographical. One is the scene that suggests Jesus has some visible physical defect (Luke 4:22: "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself'."
'
The other is that Jesus never has a kind word for his family, least of all his mother:
Mark 3:32: " and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." 33 And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" 34 And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."
Mark 6:4: And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
Matt 10: 37 'He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;'
Luke 11: 27 As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" 28 But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"
And the weird John 2: 3 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." 4 And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."

However, a possible explanation for 'physician, heal thyself' and for the sign 'Jesus King of the Jews' (implying a puny figure beneath the sign) is Isaiah 53 (about the Suffering Servant, namely Israel)
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

That's misread as a messianic prophesy to this day in many evangelical circles, and it may have inspired the idea that Jesus had to be puny.

 

[Desert Snake]

syncretic

I think that the Biblical narrative is real, at least from their perspective.​

I don't think the author of Mark knew much about Jesus at all, which is why I offered the scenario that his gospel would look much as it does if he'd written it moving his hero through OT scenes he thought predicted the messiah and ticking off his list as he went.

And the authors of Matthew and Luke borrow from him with both hands.

There were christians, at the time of the crucifixion, resurrection, and afterwards.​

I have no trouble thinking there were followers of a Jesus cult in the first 30 years CE or so. I agree with you that then it would have been a sect within Judaism. But since no one noticed them at the time, and since their authors have such a poor biographical grasp of Jesus, I don't think they had much concept of Jesus as a real person.

I think that there is more of a chance, that the idea of a "real Jesus", is the actual traditional, Jesus adherent belief. In order to really argue against that, there has to be more than a hunch, or a theory without much basis. I do consider the idea to be a theory without logical support, so I guess we'll have to disagree on this.

 

[blü 2]

syncretic

I think that there is more of a chance, that the idea of a "real Jesus", is the actual traditional, Jesus adherent belief.​

In your role as historian ─ an objective reporter ─ you'd have to deduct not only the miracle tales but the fulfillment-of-prophecy tales as well, since they too are either staged or, as presented, miraculous.

In order to really argue against that, there has to be more than a hunch, or a theory without much basis.​

I'm proceeding from evidence, and not just staring into the dark and making things up. Consider: not one contemporary mention. Not one purported eyewitness account of (an historical) Jesus anywhere in the NT. The gospel of Mark, 45 years or so after (if there was one) the crucifixion; full of material that can be mapped onto the Tanakh, notably short on material that looks like authentic biography, certainly not an eyewitness account. Yet this is the biographical basic of Matthew and Luke, and the more distant basis of John.

As theologian Theodore 'Ted' Weeden pointed out, the account in Mark of the trial of Jesus was closely modeled on Josephus' Wars 6.5, the story of Jesus son of Ananus (Ananias; or, as he says, "Jesus of Jerusalem"). He points to some twenty-four points of similarity, and some twenty similarities in motifs. Adding force to this observation, there's no way that a real major political collision between the Sanhedrin and the Roman Prefect, as portrayed in the gospels, would have escaped the notice of writers of the day; yet there's not a single mention.

And so on. Again, I don't say there was no historical Jesus, but I do say that there's ample room for reasonable doubt.

 

[garden47]

What do we mean by a historical Jesus?

Beyond the Bible there is little empirical evidence to prove that Jesus actually existed.

Most historical figures, however, whose existence we do not question, lack the wealth of detailed information about their lives that is contained about Jesus in the Bible!

 

[Desert Snake]

syncretic

I think that there is more of a chance, that the idea of a "real Jesus", is the actual traditional, Jesus adherent belief.​

In your role as historian ─ an objective reporter ─ you'd have to deduct not only the miracle tales but the fulfillment-of-prophecy tales as well, since they too are either staged or, as presented, miraculous.

In order to really argue against that, there has to be more than a hunch, or a theory without much basis.​

I'm proceeding from evidence, and not just staring into the dark and making things up. Consider: not one contemporary mention. Not one purported eyewitness account of (an historical) Jesus anywhere in the NT. The gospel of Mark, 45 years or so after (if there was one) the crucifixion; full of material that can be mapped onto the Tanakh, notably short on material that looks like authentic biography, certainly not an eyewitness account. Yet this is the biographical basic of Matthew and Luke, and the more distant basis of John.

As theologian Theodore 'Ted' Weeden pointed out, the account in Mark of the trial of Jesus was closely modeled on Josephus' Wars 6.5, the story of Jesus son of Ananus (Ananias; or, as he says, "Jesus of Jerusalem"). He points to some twenty-four points of similarity, and some twenty similarities in motifs. Adding force to this observation, there's no way that a real major political collision between the Sanhedrin and the Roman Prefect, as portrayed in the gospels, would have escaped the notice of writers of the day; yet there's not a single mention.

And so on. Again, I don't say there was no historical Jesus, but I do say that there's ample room for reasonable doubt.

There wasn't that political collision between the sanhedrin and the Roman Prefect. The sanhedrin was a roman vassal , not an independent political organization.
The similar circumstances are noted later in the N. T., with the synagogues outside of israel, being under control by the /pagan authorities.

 

[Desert Snake]

As theologian Theodore 'Ted' Weeden pointed out, the account in Mark of the trial of Jesus was closely modeled on Josephus' Wars 6.5, the story of Jesus son of Ananus (Ananias; or, as he says, "Jesus of Jerusalem"). He points to some twenty-four points of similarity, and some twenty similarities in motifs.

The other jesus's seem to be name similarities, perhaps personality similarities are getting mixed up interpreting it as the same person.

The reference to the ' Messiah' Jesus, seem perfectly normal, to me, and match the biblical account.

What spooks the naysayers, concerning the Josephus references, relies on bad argumentation. It tries to use religious reasoning, however they don't seem to have any understanding of the concepts. They certainly aren't actual christians; ie they don't seem to understand the Jesus religious paradigm, yet the 'theory' includes the idea that Josephus woudn't write about Jesus.

 

[LuisDantas]

The bulk of the "Bible" -- i.e., the Tanakh -- knows nothing of Jesus and cares less, but to suggest that the epistles, Acts, and the synoptics were not intended as layered witness to a real man-god strikes me as more than a little strange.

The Christian New Testament is nothing but strange. At least by my perspective.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Most historical figures, however, whose existence we do not question, lack the wealth of detailed information about their lives that is contained about Jesus in the Bible!

Then perhaps we SHOULD question their existences...

I for one have long been shocked (SHOCKED, I tell you!) at the credulous acceptance of so many of our ancient 'historical' sources as reliable and accurate...

 

[blü 2]

There wasn't that political collision between the sanhedrin and the Roman Prefect. The sanhedrin was a roman vassal , not an independent political organization.
The similar circumstances are noted later in the N. T., with the synagogues outside of israel, being under control by the /pagan authorities.

In the gospels, just such a collision is painted. The author of Mark exonerates Pilate and blames the Sanhedrin for the crucifixion.

Yet there's zero contemporary mention of Jesus anywhere in the records we know of. He enters the historical record with Paul, who makes it plain that he never met Jesus.

And none of the gospels authors claims to have met Jesus either. Instead, the author of Mark devises a "biography" largely based on a list of purported messianic prophecies in the Tanakh; and he gets his trial scene by copying a trial scene in Josephus. The authors of Matthew and Luke take that as the basis of their own stories.

If there was an historical Jesus then there are very few possible authentic glimpses of him in the gospels, and all of them are open to alternative explanations. Was a real Jesus the author of the sayings? If so, which ones? Who can say?

 

[blü 2]

What do we mean by a historical Jesus?

Beyond the Bible there is little empirical evidence to prove that Jesus actually existed.

Most historical figures, however, whose existence we do not question, lack the wealth of detailed information about their lives that is contained about Jesus in the Bible!

You might like to reply to #21 and #24 then.

 

[garden47]

syncretic

I think that the Biblical narrative is real, at least from their perspective.​

I don't think the author of Mark knew much about Jesus at all, which is why I offered the scenario that his gospel would look much as it does if he'd written it moving his hero through OT scenes he thought predicted the messiah and ticking off his list as he went.

And the authors of Matthew and Luke borrow from him with both hands.

There were christians, at the time of the crucifixion, resurrection, and afterwards.​

I have no trouble thinking there were followers of a Jesus cult in the first 30 years CE or so. I agree with you that then it would have been a sect within Judaism. But since no one noticed them at the time, and since their authors have such a poor biographical grasp of Jesus, I don't think they had much concept of Jesus as a real person.

It has only recently been widely accepted that Mark preceded Matthew in terms of Biblical chronology, and the existence of a "Q collection" of Christ's sayings has been postulated to explain the similarities in Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Acts 4 reveals the early division that existed within early Christianity, the Jerusalem Church viewed it within the context of Judaism, whereby Gentile converts were expected to undergo circumcision to become Jews;

Paul, early Christianity's greatest missionary and most prolific author, describes a confrontation between Peter and himself, whereby he denounces "Judaizers" sent from Jerusalem to ensure that Jewish and Gentile Christians were not violating Jewish law by mingling together.

While the Gospels leave substantial gaps in Christ's early life, each contains a wealth of information that can be interpreted at different levels of complexity and understanding!

 

[blü 2]

It has only recently been widely accepted that Mark preceded Matthew in terms of Biblical chronology.

Since the first time I heard the idea, it's seemed obvious.

While the Gospels leave gaps in Christ's early life, each contains a wealth of information that can be interpreted at a number of different levels of understanding!

I don't argue there was no historical Jesus, but that it's completely plausible that there was not. The case is undecided.

One of the central problems is that neither Paul nor the author of Mark seems to have known anything about Jesus' earthly biography. Paul's information fits in two lines, not including his parents, ministry, sayings, or any details of the charges, trial, or crucifixion other than that it happened. Mark seems to have written his tale of Jesus by having his hero tick off the things on a list of purported messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, and added a few sayings, and some bits. It's not disputed that the authors of Matthew and Luke raid Mark wholesale for their versions, while adding other fulfillment of prophecy stories.

And so on.

 

[blü 2]

What spooks the naysayers, concerning the Josephus references, relies on bad argumentation.

I'll start a thread and set the argument out.

They certainly aren't actual christians; ie they don't seem to understand the Jesus religious paradigm

What 'religious paradigm' is that and how would it affect the existence or not of an historical Jesus?

 

[Mister Silver]

For a period of time that made certain aspects of real historical beings were placed in writing as well as art, it is suspicious that nothing of Jesus is recorded until decades after his supposed death.

 

[garden47]

One of the central problems is that neither Paul nor the author of Mark seems to have known anything about Jesus' earthly biography. Paul's information fits in two lines, not including his parents, ministry, sayings, or any details of the charges, trial, or crucifixion other than that it happened. Mark seems to have written his tale of Jesus by having his hero tick off the things on a list of purported messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, and added a few sayings, and some bits. It's not disputed that the authors of Matthew and Luke raid Mark wholesale for their versions, while adding other fulfillment of prophecy stories.

And so on.

1. Given that Paul was not one of the 12 disciples and never knew Jesus personally, it is not surprising that he would defer a commentary on Christ's early life to others.

2. Matthew and Luke do borrow from Mark, but they also have material that is common to each other but not found in Mark. This has given rise to possible existence of a "Q book" of Christ's sayings, that both authors may have used.

3. While Matthew and Luke share common material, they were writing to different audiences. Matthew was directed towards a Jewish audience - as demonstrated by tracing Christ's lineage back to David as the fulfilment of OT prophecy.

4. Luke, however, was writing to a Gentile audience and chooses to trace Christ's ancestry beyond David and back to Adam. Presumably, his purpose was to reinforce the universality of Christianity, extending its message beyond the narrow confines of Judaism.

 

[blü 2]

1. Given that Paul was not one of the 12 disciples and never knew Jesus personally, it is not surprising that he would defer a commentary on Christ's early life to others.

We have not one syllable by anyone who ever met an historical Jesus. We have next to nothing in Paul about an historical Jesus, even after he says he met with 'the brother of the Lord'. The absence is enormous.

2. Matthew and Luke do borrow from Mark, but they also have material that is common to each other but not found in Mark. This has given rise to possible existence of a "Q book" of Christ's sayings, that both authors may have used.

Yes, but if Q exists, we have no copy of it, and can draw no conclusions about an HJ from it.

3. While Matthew and Luke share common material, they were writing to different audiences. Matthew was directed towards a Jewish audience - as demonstrated by tracing Christ's lineage back to David as the fulfilment of OT prophecy.

They were not writing from their own knowledge of an historical Jesus. And they re-color the portrait of Jesus to taste. Marks' Jesus is despairing, "Why have you forsaken me?" Matthew's is a bit more cool but reaches that point and the robbers revile him. Luke's is in command, reassuring the robbers, and simply 'commend my spirit' at the end. John's is rather practical and in charge, making arrangements for his mother, and at the end saying 'it is finished.' If Mark's, which is earliest, is somehow more correct, then the others are reinterpretations and embellishments. If not, then they all are.

4. Luke, however, was writing to a Gentile audience and chooses to trace Christ's ancestry beyond David and back to Adam. Presumably, his purpose was to reinforce the universality of Christianity, extending its message beyond the narrow confines of Judaism.

No matter what the author of Luke intended, it doesn't demonstrate an HJ.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For a period of time that made certain aspects of real historical beings were placed in writing as well as art, it is suspicious that nothing of Jesus is recorded until decades after his supposed death.

Nonsense. You draw illogical conclusions from fabricated facts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No matter what the author of Luke intended, it doesn't demonstrate an HJ.

Taken along with the works of Paul and Josephus, it serves as evidence.

 

[blü 2]

Taken along with the works of Paul and Josephus, it serves as evidence.

Evidence that the author of Luke believed there had been an historical Jesus? If it's evidence of that, we can have as many more examples as we'd like.

What's lacking is some clear clincher that he existed. As I keep saying, he may have. My point is that the opposite is equally plausible.