Historical Jesus

[Matthew]

Christianity is a peculiarly historical religion, centring around historical claims about the person of Jesus and his Resurrection.  What do you think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?  How should the New Testament documents (the Gospels especially) be approached when considering these questions?

[JillSwift]

Christianity is a peculiarly historical religion, centring around historical claims about the person of Jesus and his Resurrection.

How is it peculiar to claim historicity? Many forms of Buddhism claim historicity for Siddhārtha Gautama. Islam claims historicity of Muhammad. Mithraism claimed historicity for Mithras.

What do you think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?

The same as other holy texts. Without corroborating evidence, there's no way to know what's real and what's fiction and what's fictionalized reality.

How should the New Testament documents (the Gospels especially) be approached when considering these questions?

Like any other myth. All we can know with certainty is that they're a collection of tales and essays written by people. Perhaps the most that can be gleaned from them is a sense of the attitudes and mores prevalent in the culture from which they sprang.

[Asmodean]

Christianity is a peculiarly historical religion,

Maybe, but it's not necessarilly true to history

centring around historical claims about the person of Jesus and his Resurrection

Resurrection is not historical - it's fictitious unless the opposite is demonstrated.

What do you think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?

Reliably..? Next to nothing.

How should the New Testament documents (the Gospels especially) be approached when considering these questions?

With a healthy dose of skepticism and without taking the words on faith.

[curiosityandthecat]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2150

[Matthew]

How is it peculiar to claim historicity? Many forms of Buddhism claim historicity for Siddhārtha Gautama. Islam claims historicity of Muhammad. Mithraism claimed historicity for Mithras.

It is peculiar not in that it claims that Jesus was a historical person (as you say, most religions begin with particular historical people), but that the very core of Christian belief stands or falls on the historicity of the Resurrection and whether Jesus made claims to divinity.  (I'm thinking particularly of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 about Christian faith being futile without the Resurrection).  That isn't generally true of other religions (apart from Judaism to some extent).

The same as other holy texts. Without corroborating evidence, there's no way to know what's real and what's fiction and what's fictionalized reality.

Why can't the usual criteria (eg. criterion of embarrassment) be employed?

Like any other myth. All we can know with certainty is that they're a collection of tales and essays written by people. Perhaps the most that can be gleaned from them is a sense of the attitudes and mores prevalent in the culture from which they sprang.

In what sense are you using "myth" and "tale" here?

[Asmodean]

but that the very core of Christian belief stands or falls on the historicity of the Resurrection and whether Jesus made claims to divinity

Resurrection is fictitious and predates jesus by a hell of a lot of years, so at the time of the gospels, it was not even a new fairy tale.

[JillSwift]

It is peculiar not in that it claims that Jesus was a historical person (as you say, most religions begin with particular historical people), but that the very core of Christian belief stands or falls on the historicity of the Resurrection and whether Jesus made claims to divinity.  (I'm thinking particularly of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 about Christian faith being futile without the Resurrection).  That isn't generally true of other religions (apart from Judaism to some extent).

I've always thought this was hair-splitting. Really, though no direct claim as such exists in Buddhist writings, were one to decide that Siddhārtha Gautama never achieved anything but a lifetime of wasted thinking, that would also make his teachings just as irrelevant, yes? The peculiar thing is that only the bible actually says so in so many words.

Why can't the usual criteria (eg. criterion of embarrassment) be employed?

Seriously? CoE is not a measure of validity, it's a gambit and something of a fallacy. Avoidance of embarrassment is in itself not enough to explain the "weakening or embarrassing" material, not without evidence of the motives. Similarly, the addition of "weakening or embarrassing" has been employed to make lies appear more believable before and since.

Corroboration in some form is all that can be acceptable to claim any level of certainty required to accept any story or part of a story as historical.

In what sense are you using "myth" and "tale" here?

Myth: A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
Tale: A narrative that relates the details of some real or imaginary event, incident, or case.

[i_am_i]

Christianity is a peculiarly historical religion, centring around historical claims about the person of Jesus and his Resurrection.  What do you think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?  How should the New Testament documents (the Gospels especially) be approached when considering these questions?

What do you, Matthew, think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?  How do you, Matthew, think the New Testament documents (the Gospels especially) should be approached when considering these questions?

[McQ]

Hi Matthew, thanks for the question. I think you've phrased it well and it should elicit (hopefully) some good discussion. For our members, please take the OP at face value. I'm already starting to see some less-than-straightforward or civil responses to what seems to be a very legit post and questions.

Thanks, let's keep it Happy!

My short answer to you, Matthew, is that although christianity seems to be a very historically centered religion to christians, I don't get the line of thinking that it is peculiar or unique in this regard. Especially when you compare it to other, even older religions, like Judaism. With regards to how well you can know the purely historical figure of jesus, I think it's virtually impossible. There is little written about him outside of the gospels, and the more I came to study the gospels, the less reliable I learned they were. It was study of the gospels and particularly biblical or NT apologetics which showed me just how unreliable the gospels were (all of this is my opinion, of course, based solely on my studies over time).

Obviously other people have read the same material and have come to different conclusions. I don't get into in-depth discussions on this topic any more, only because I'm pretty well weary of it, but I do think it is something that can be discussed and things can be learned.

Good luck with the thread all, and play nice.  

[elliebean]

....the very core of Christian belief stands or falls on the historicity of the Resurrection and whether Jesus made claims to divinity.  (I'm thinking particularly of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 about Christian faith being futile without the Resurrection).

Not all christian sects accept those doctrines, nor do all christians believe all of the bible. So, while fundamentalists, for example, ay place all their eggs in Paul's basket by relying on the alignment of all those points, it isn't at the core of all christian belief.

[Whitney]

Considering that attempts to trace the historical Jesus (as far as I know) have turned up dead ends I would say that there isn't much we can know about the historical Jesus.  I assume it is likely that some spiritual teacher inspired the writing of the Jesus story but there is also a lot of reason to think that over time that story heavily borrowed from past religious views till it became the story that got put in the Bible.

The resurrection is definitely not historical, there is no evidence of it aside from the bible claiming there were a lot of witnesses and that is unreliable testimony.

[Sophus]

It would be interesting to know if the crucifixion ever took place. Yeshua certainly wouldn't have been nailed alongside two common theives since that form of punishment was reserved for more servere crimes. Seems the Romans would have at least taken note of killing the "King of the Jews". Why would they not document this sort of event?

[i_am_i]

Is there really a "historical" Jesus? I mean historical in the sense that his life and work were actually documented by people who were around him, people who saw him and even interacted with him. Are there writings that describe and corroborate such things as where he was born, who his friends were, where he was educated, how he made a living and so on?

I mean, famous people were written about back then. All kinds of things were written about back then. That's why it's called history.

Nope. Nothing like that. Nothing even close. It's not there, which most likely means that it never existed, none of that was ever written and that has to lead one to conclude that there is absolutely no reason to be convinced that there ever was such a person.

Now it's very easy to read up on the history of Christianity. The Romans were great at documenting stuff, at writing about what was happening. It's just that none of that ever found its way into the Bible, which was cobbled together at least a couple of hundred years after all this gospel stuff was supposed to have taken place.

Anyway that's my understanding of the whole thing. For all I know I could have it completely wrong.

[Sophus]

Is there really a "historical" Jesus? I mean historical in the sense that his life and work were actually documented by people who were around him, people who saw him and even interacted with him. Are there writings that describe and corroborate such things as where he was born, who his friends were, where he was educated, how he made a living and so on?

I mean, famous people were written about back then. All kinds of things were written about back then. That's why it's called history.

Nope. Nothing like that. Nothing even close. It's not there, which most likely means that it never existed, none of that was ever written and that has to lead one to conclude that there is absolutely no reason to be convinced that there ever was such a person.

There my be one thing close to it and that's the writings and description of him by Josephus, as he did write about actual historical events. Still he didn't write much on the matter and who knows if any of it was truthful?

[Squid]

If I remember correctly, the specific entry most point to in Josephus is considered to be a later interpolation.