Reconstructing the Historical Jesus

But there's no such thing as Santa Claus, right?I'm asking, Mod, because I think you're unclear on the difference between a fictional character inspired by a real person - as all fictional characters are - and the historical figure, if any, that is at the heart of a legend.If you're arguing that all fictional characters are "real" because some aspect of them can be traced to a real person who existed, then you're arguing against the existence of fictional characters. Fiction and reality can;t be separated like that.Under the traditional meaning of words, the fact that there was an American ornithologist named "James Bond" and a handful of actual suave, sophisticated British secret agents with concealed gadgetry doesn't provide any support to the notion that James Bond is not an utterly fictional character.

Right. So, there's no "historical Dexter." Is the difference between Dexter and Dracula the fact that Dexter was likely inspired by a number of individuals whom we probably couldn't identify and Dracula was likely inspired by a specific individual, known to exist, who we can identify with a fair degree of certainty? No, because there really was a guy who sailed from Portugal with the Pinta, the Nina, and the Santa Maria, and whose name when Anglicized from the Latinization really does wind up being "Christopher Columbus." There's enough independent, contemporary historical verification of the existence of a person who meets certain critical characteristics of the Columbus legend that we can confidently state that Christopher Columbus was a real person, in addition to just the "historical Christopher Columbus."But it appears proponents of the "historical Jesus Christ" can't present evidence for even a single critical aspect of the Jesus Christ legend. That, along with the general ridiculous and condescending tone of their arguments, is for the most part what leads me to believe that there was no "historical Jesus Christ." Well, ok. What real person, specifically, and what is the evidence upon which we can derive this history?Finally, on trying to support extraordinary premises on insufficient evidence:

Thanks to everybody who participated, and I apologize for my sudden and prolonged absence, but I think it's time that I dropped this - we're all just repeating the same claims.I continue to think that much of the disagreement here stems from the desire by some to apply special rules about when its appropriate to conclude that legendary figures really existed specifically and only to the Jesus Christ situation. (In that sense, it's like a kind of agnosticism.)It would have been nice to have seen some of this "evidence for Jesus" that everybody keeps talking about.

What an incredible example of the mental "evidence lacuna" I've been talking about - Jon's done us all the favor of actually putting underscores where the evidence was supposed to go! But none of this is evidence for a historical Jesus. They're just characteristics of the Jesus mythology. None of these things require that there actually have been a real human being on whom the mythology is based. A mythological Jesus would later be called "Christ", same as a real one. (The people who would later do so, after all, would have no way to tell the difference - just as you have no way, now.) And after Jesus was made up, there would be people who believed that a person called "Jesus" lived and died and lived. They would believe that because someone told them and they believed it, same as now.If I tell you a lie at 2:00 PM and you believe it, then it's a matter of fact that before 2:00 there's nobody who believes my story (because you haven't heard it yet) and then after 2:00 there's at least one person who believes my story. That's not evidence that supports the veracity of the story, and nothing is necessary to explain this sudden change in the number of people who believe the story besides the fact that 2:00 PM is when I told the lie.It's abundantly obvious, Jon, that you have no idea what evidence actually is. Absolutely nothing you've put forward here is an example of it. It's just a description of aspects of the Jesus mythology that are as easily explained by the invention of a mythological Jesus as anything else - if not more so.Here's a hint, Jon - what other form of "evidence" takes the form of underscore blanks into which the reader is asked to insert whatever they choose? What fills in the blanks better than "the actual historical Jesus" is "the Jesus stories were made up". (Try it- cut and paste the phrase in, and you'll see how easily all of this nonsense "evidence" is explained.) Invention by storytellers is such a common and mundane phenomenon that it's easily the more reasonable, more parsimonious explanation.As much as people are nipping at my heels about retarded irrelevancies like whether or not Confucius was actually called Confucius, nobody here thinks your evidence is at all compelling. It's the utter failure of historic Jesus proponents to actually present any evidence that is, perhaps, the greatest evidence of the nonexistence of Jesus. Jon's post is more correct than he could possibly know. The evidence for Jesus is best described as a series of underscored blanks - because there's absolutely nothing there.

Why was Jesus Malverde made up? Why was John Frum made up?People make things up. They tell each other stories. A story that's told like it's true has more impact than one told like it's false; that's why your cousin's campfire stories always begin with "Now, this happened to a friend of a friend of mine..."When the only entertainment is story-telling, people reward good storytellers. There's a market incentive for good stories and the "Jesus" stories especially have always been crowd-pleasers - magic and miracles, good vs. evil, Jesus runs the moneylenders out of the temple (everybody hates moneylenders), and so on.I mean, you're on the record that most of Christianity is a later invention. You already agree that it's mostly stories. So what on Earth could possibly be the reason not to believe that it isn't just stories all the way down, too? What possible evidence is there that any of them have any basis in fact? So stop evading the largest one! What's the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus?

Why?Do people not make things up? By the very definition of parsimony; it's always more parsimonious not to assume the existence of entities who are not required to exist. If the Jesus mythology can be explained without recourse to an actual Jesus it's more parsimonious to do so, by definition. Why what was lost?

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.

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?

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.

People keep repeating this but I don't see the relevance. It may be a "collection of works" but its a single thing. The different books of the Bible can't corroborate each other because the later books are based on the earlier ones. All the books of the Bible are the fruit of a single tree. It's a collection of works but not a collection of independent works, thus it's appropriate to treat it as a single source.But, of course, in the topsy-turvy world of "what's evidence for Jesus" multiple, contradicting retellings of a single story corrupted by transmission, translation, and outright serial fabrication are somehow "corroboration." If I tell a story to Alice, Bob, and Charlie, and then you come by later and want to have my story corroborated, Alice, Bob, and Charlie can't corroborate it because all they know is what I told them. And anything different they might say is either an artifact of their own recollection or new claims that they're making on their own. They can corroborate that I told the story but it's not in dispute that it is claimed that Jesus existed, what's in dispute is the veracity of that claim. Historical Jesus proponents seem to do everything they can to equivocate on those two very different claims.For instance, here: See, Josephus and Tacitus report claims by Christians that there was a man called Jesus; similarly, I might report claims that Hindus make about their god Vishnu or retell Hindu stories about that figure. It would be tiresome to continually preface each remark with "Hindus believe" so I might simply trust my audience to understand that I'm speaking from the perspective of what Hindus believe.But taken out of context, as PaulK takes it out of context, it might look like I was reporting my own personal knowledge of the doings of Vishnu, when of course I have no such knowledge. Similarly, neither Josephus nor Tacitus have any unique or individual knowledge of Jesus; its clear from context that they merely report the stories Christians tell about their Jesus. Therefore, Tacitus and Josephus are evidence only for the fact that first century Christians were claiming that Jesus existed, not that he actually did.That's a constant theme in Jesus apologism - equivocation on what is actually being claimed, and on what evidence presented is actually meant to substantiate. It's the kind of dishonesty that makes it impossible to take anything Jesus defenders say seriously. Only if you equivocate on "they". The "they" who made up that Jesus was killed by Roman by no means has to be the same person, or even the same type of person, as the person who tried to defuse Roman blame. We have no idea how the story might have spread, grown, and changed in the decades before the Jesus story was ever put to paper.

Do they? What's the evidence that there are any more "sources" for the Jesus mythology than what's in the Bible?That's kind of what I'm getting at. An independent, not-Biblical source of knowledge about Jesus that isn't just a credulous repetition of Christian claims. Only because Christians do. Tacitus isn't any kind of independent source for the existence of Jesus; he's just credulously repeating Christian belief that Jesus was somebody who existed.Tacitus had no idea whether Jesus really existed or not; he simply took claims of existence at face value. Tacitus is no more evidence for the existence of Jesus than you are, Paul. Also wrong. Again, Josephus is nothing more than a credulous repetition at face value of Christian claims of the existence of Jesus. It's quite clear from the context. The Gospel writers didn't make up Jesus, PaulK. They wrote down Jesus mythology that they already accepted as true. Therefore their motivations and agenda are irrelevant and can't be used to refute the mythical Jesus position.The origin of the Jesus mythology is clearly stories and legends that spread via word of mouth long before they were written down by the Gospel authors. That's clear from the text. Nobody here is suggesting that the Gospel writers did anything but elaborate on existing, widespread myth. Yes, there's abundant difference: being someone who makes up a story is common and mundane. Being somebody who forms the historical basis for a religion of a billion adherents is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims - "somebody made up a story" - do not. Historical Jesus proponents have never even tried to rise to their extraordinary burden of evidence. Instead, like you, they prefer to obfuscate with invective.