DiscussMormonism.com

SteelHead wrote:

honorentheos wrote:I tend to go along with those who accept the available evidence as sufficient for there to have been a historical Jesus on whose life the Christian narratives have been built. Not being even remotely versed in historiography, the idea that common methodologies for piecing together ancient history allow what evidence is available for the historic Jesus to be considered reasonable is enough for me to accept it as such without any real concern. I'm not particularly invested in seeing Jesus the person relegated to myth any more than I am concerned in pin-pointing exactly how the Book of Mormon was composed. It would be nice to see both nailed down indisputably, of course, but the tangential evidence regarding Jesus' life and divinity mythology being a human construct in the first case and the Book of Mormon being a construct of the 19th century in the second are more compelling. And thus more interesting to me as topics.

So, I don't think requiring primary source documents to establish the plausible existence of a historical Jesus is necessary, neither for proper use of the methodologies of historic investigation nor to engage Christianity as a religion from a critical position.

ETA: Regarding the evidence, I had linked previously to a discussion between Kishkuman and Aristotle Smith where both discussed method and then evidence which is a pretty nice way to approach the question. It interested me that they both agreed the writings of Paul met a minimum criteria to establish that there was a historic person of some nature behind the narratives (in Kish's case apparently, perhaps barely so). While the quibbling over Josephus was interesting, to my mind it didn't affect the outcome substantially.

I think there is sufficient evidence to make Jesus as a real person plausible, but that the gospels fall far shy of being a historical narrative of his life. They are embellished mythology with the aim of promoting a nascent theology.

I tend to agree. I would take it a step further and suggest the Gospels, as evidence:

a) undermine the Christian narrative in that they demonstrate willful manipulation of facts in an attempt to promote Jesus as Christ and what that means

b) contain contradictory stories that demonstrate how wildly varied the mythology was that was being developed and passed around and, more importantly, specifically intended to prove something about Jesus that the audience would recognize as meaningful.

c) that the varied Gospels illustrate the Christ myth was evolving over time and geography, and being fleshed out into a more complex theology with time.

Tack on the manipulations of the Roman church apparent in the text, the canonized pseudepigrapha with its own contradictory issues, the New Testament's role in spreading anti-Semitism, etc, etc, and I'd say the plausibility that there likely was a historical Jesus is not really giving anything away.

Jersey Girl wrote:

honorentheos wrote:ETA: Regarding the evidence, I had linked previously to a discussion between Kishkuman and Aristotle Smith where both discussed method and then evidence which is a pretty nice way to approach the question. It interested me that they both agreed the writings of Paul met a minimum criteria to establish that there was a historic person of some nature behind the narratives (in Kish's case apparently, perhaps barely so). While the quibbling over Josephus was interesting, to my mind it didn't affect the outcome substantially.

I just finished reading it. Remarkable and picked up a book recommend in the process. Thank you.

ETA: Earlier in the thread I wrote,

"What makes them more knowledgeable is the extensive work they've done which is evident in their commentary and their ability to articulate it."

Yes, just a little! :-)

It's a pretty solid thread. I'd put it in my own Hall of Fame.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

honorentheos wrote:So, I don't think requiring primary source documents to establish the plausible existence of a historical Jesus is necessary, neither for proper use of the methodologies of historic investigation nor to engage Christianity as a religion from a critical position.

And that's just it. One doesn't require a source document to establish a plausible* narrative. It has worked for thousands of years for very large religions, and small ones like Mormonism.

One has similar issues with Muhammad, the Gautama Buddha, and various other religions throughout the ages. They all seem to gather steam years after the originator passes, whoever that was, and to whatever degree he is accurately portrayed by later preachers and historians.

V/R
Doc

*by plausible I mean whatever works for the believer to believe

I think we need to distinguish between plausibility = "Can I believe this?" and plausibility = "meets a generally accepted standard within historiography". The first has zero implications for how history is studied. The latter is ALL about how history is studied. Does the OP's list accurately reflect the state of the evidence for the historical Jesus? More or less. Does it accurately reflect how meaningful the evidence that is available might be for studying the question from a scholarly perspective? Not really.

honorentheos wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:
I just finished reading it. Remarkable and picked up a book recommend in the process. Thank you.

ETA: Earlier in the thread I wrote,

"What makes them more knowledgeable is the extensive work they've done which is evident in their commentary and their ability to articulate it."

Yes, just a little! :-)

It's a pretty solid thread. I'd put it in my own Hall of Fame.

Oh, me too. Thank you again.

honorentheos wrote:I'm not particularly invested in seeing Jesus the person relegated to myth [...]

i feel the same. to me, it's an interesting question but not an important one.

popular accounts of Jesus may be be more or less fictionalized than those of Pythagoras, Siddhartha, Cyrano de Bergerac, John Henry, etc. but in any case the "Jesus" that people worship today is a legend, not a real person.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:...the discussion of a historical Jesus [is] so thoroughly fleshed out:

1) You pull a Gorman/Mental G and just choose to believe.

Well, it's not quite that simple.

by the way, it's good that that Book of Mormon has been thoroughly discredited/trashed or we'd have to use it as an evidence that Jesus existed.

Regards,
MG

honorentheos wrote:

SteelHead wrote:I think there is sufficient evidence to make Jesus as a real person plausible, but that the gospels fall far shy of being a historical narrative of his life. They are embellished mythology with the aim of promoting a nascent theology.

I tend to agree. I would take it a step further and suggest the Gospels, as evidence:

a) undermine the Christian narrative in that they demonstrate willful manipulation of facts in an attempt to promote Jesus as Christ and what that means

b) contain contradictory stories that demonstrate how wildly varied the mythology was that was being developed and passed around and, more importantly, specifically intended to prove something about Jesus that the audience would recognize as meaningful.

c) that the varied Gospels illustrate the Christ myth was evolving over time and geography, and being fleshed out into a more complex theology with time.

Tack on the manipulations of the Roman church apparent in the text, the canonized pseudepigrapha with its own contradictory issues, the New Testament's role in spreading anti-Semitism, etc, etc, and I'd say the plausibility that there likely was a historical Jesus is not really giving anything away.

Well this at least points to a subject specific enough to continue a discussion.
Honorentheos,

Any study of the New Testament and the early chuch by believers outside of Dallas starts with the observations peoples view of Jesus was evolving over time and as a result there are variations in viewpoint and doctrine. Story construction and imagery reflect this . Many people like myself find this illuminating and an invitation to combine thought with faith instead of expecting a coplete revelation falling from the sky.

You mention manipulation of the text by the Roman Church as a problem. That probably sounds more convincing I you start with a negative assumption about the Roman Church. Even so I am aware of some minor additions bolstering a trinitarian reading, and some unfortunate anti women addtions. Interesting buy hardly changing my understanding of Jesus.

"willful manipulation of the fact"? You have evidence he remained in the grave? Or , what might you be referring to?

"Contradictory stories"? I think it is possible that you are being picky. I remember as a youngster thinking that the start of Bethlem story was pretty but did not make sense.How would a star lead anybody on a path. stars circle through the sky nightly. I think I still see the star story that way. Yes there are mythical pieces and images in the Jesus story. Yes people were trying to say something with them..


anti semitism.? the groups were mutually hostile when the documents were written, That comes through. We now are adults who must see beyond those limitations.

Hi huckelberry,

In keeping with the subject of the thread, I think it's important to consider when we are talking about revelation and when we are talking about history/biography.

Once one has moved past seeing the four canonical gospels as having been written by eye-witnesses to the events they describe, one is more or less compelled to deal with the content through questions of creation. It's one thing to expect a biographical account to evolve with time and tellings; another to look to those evolved accounts and expect the inconsistencies to all still be reliable information. Often (but not in all cases or all the time) it seems those defending the divinity of Jesus while accepting the textual issues want to still see the gospels as remaining largely accurate. The next step after accepting there was likely a historical Jesus may be to seek out the most reliable content in the Gospels. That's a much more difficult question, both for application of methodology and available evidence.

So, when I made my points above, it's my view that an examination of the Gospels to seek out where to place any portion of the accounts of Jesus' life on the spectrum of reliability does not inspire and it tends to contradict the purpose of the New Testament. I'm arguing that it reveals the Gospels are extremely challenging sources for picking out who the historical Jesus really might have been while revealing very biased and human intentions in their creation.

The Synoptic Gospels demonstrate that by the time of their writing there was a fair amount of material about Jesus available, the author of Luke specifically telling us his role was that of an editor. You and I had a discussion here some time back that included a break-down of just the issues associated with the Markan Appendix, or the narrative in Mark 16 that begins with the empty tomb. Through examples such as this we see explicitly the methodology of the authors of Matthew and Luke who, when confronting either missing information or potentially information that they weren't comfortable with, insert completely contradictory stories about what happened next. It may be they authored these themselves, or that they simple picked from those available based on which was better suited to their intent. But the result is two accounts that simply could not both be true. Tack onto this the account added later to the Gospel of Mark and we're left with a poor understanding of what actually happened post Easter Sunday. But we have a pretty good idea that there were a lot of varied stories about it.

We know that the authors of the books modified their sources to reflect a Jesus that was closer to their own perceptions of who he ought to be, such as editing out the emotions Jesus expressed in the Gospel of Mark. In Matthew's case we can point to examples where he added detail or made modification to a story to make it better fulfill Jewish Messianic prophecy or beliefs about who Matthew wanted the Jews to see Jesus as being.

John is a whole other matter, one better understood in the context of competing beliefs about Jesus than as a companion to the Synoptic Gospels.

This doesn't inspire me, and is only illuminating in so far as it makes a lot of sense in the context of how human beings develop mythologies. If it invites me to faith, it's because it does mortal damage to my ability to accept the Gospels via reason.

We could talk about how the four canonical gospels came to be chosen, based on their popularity and acceptance among various Christian communities but not necessarily because of their accuracy. We could wonder why the criteria for selection included having a passion narrative, maintaining Jesus was more than human, but still human enough to exclude the gnostic and similar beliefs. We could wonder if one of the accounts lost to time described a much more human Jesus that would have proved to be the most biographically accurate of the accounts. We don't know. But we do know there were cultural filters in place that both worked to evolve the message of the life of Jesus and eliminated competing accounts on criteria other than biographical accuracy.

Last I really delved into the matter, it seemed some of the sayings attributed to Jesus, in particular his parables, were considered the most authentic of all of the content. But establishing what in the biography is probable seems to be a bit more complicated and inaccessible.

honorentheos wrote:
In keeping with the subject of the thread, I think it's important to consider when we are talking about revelation and when we are talking about history/biography.


Last I really delved into the matter, it seemed some of the sayings attributed to Jesus, in particular his parables, were considered the most authentic of all of the content. But establishing what in the biography is probable seems to be a bit more complicated and inaccessible.

Honorentheos, I selected the part I agree with most. I find Jesus words and particularly some parables to be the things that show what is personal and valuable about Jesus. For me that is the only door to belief, or even to finding Jesus interesting. Because I find him both interesting and inspiring I can tolerate uncertainty about bibliographic details. If I tried an approach to Jesus along the lines of ,he did such marvelous miracles, faith would founder immediately on the uncertainty of the reports.

huckelberry wrote:

honorentheos wrote:
In keeping with the subject of the thread, I think it's important to consider when we are talking about revelation and when we are talking about history/biography.


Last I really delved into the matter, it seemed some of the sayings attributed to Jesus, in particular his parables, were considered the most authentic of all of the content. But establishing what in the biography is probable seems to be a bit more complicated and inaccessible.

Honorentheos, I selected the part I agree with most. I find Jesus words and particularly some parables to be the things that show what is personal and valuable about Jesus. For me that is the only door to belief, or even to finding Jesus interesting. Because I find him both interesting and inspiring I can tolerate uncertainty about bibliographic details. If I tried an approach to Jesus along the lines of ,he did such marvelous miracles, faith would founder immediately on the uncertainty of the reports.

Hi huckelberry,

I wonder why having Jesus be something at least close to the myth really matters in how one interprets and internalizes the messages of the New Testament?

A counter example comes to mind in Lao Tzu, who is rumored to be the author of the Tao Te Ching, but the authenticity of this attribution as well as who Lao Tzu might have been are subject to considerable debate. Yet I don't know a single person who sees inspiration in the Tao who is concerned about the author. The words and thoughts themselves are where the value lies.

I wonder how much of this is tied to the idea that Jesus is supposed to be more than a wise teacher in Christianity? That even short of calling him divine he is considered an exemplar? Yet, if the details of his life are subject to dispute does it really reduce the value of the thoughts the New Testament shares?