Historical Jesus and Historical Tank Man: A Similitude?

[Bernard Muller]

to ficino,

Bernard, in response to your a)-f): I don't think embarrassment that we may detect in later gospel treatments of material in Mark authorizes us to conclude that the item in question was embarrassing to Mark (or whoever else hung out with him), since Mark put the item in.

It is probably a reference to my example about "Matthew" finding embarrassing that, according to gMark, Jesus got baptized for atonement of his sins. That does not mean that item was embarrassing to "Mark" who has Jesus baptized. Probably it wasn't (or he did not think about the theological/Christological ramification).

And whatever Mark may have found embarrassing may well not have gone into his gospel -

I wrote Mark felt compelled to put the embarrassing stuff in his gospel for sake of giving it an air of authenticity. However, most of the time, "Mark" used a variety of ways to alleviate the negative impact (damage control) of these embarrassing items.
I doubt embarrassing (but considered truthful) items heard by Mark's community would not be addressed by "Mark" in his gospel. If he chose to ignore them, his gospel credibility would suffer.

Cordially, Bernard

[ficino]

I wrote Mark felt compelled to put the embarrassing stuff in his gospel for sake of giving it an air of authenticity. However, most of the time, "Mark" used a variety of ways to alleviate the negative impact (damage control) of these embarrassing items.

Hello Bernard, it seems to me that yours above begs the question. We don't know that an item was "embarrassing" at the time Mark put it in his gospel, or if it was so, to whom.

I doubt embarrassing (but considered truthful) items heard by Mark's community would not be addressed by "Mark" in his gospel. If he chose to ignore them, his gospel credibility would suffer.

Cordially, Bernard

I think the above relies on too many unevidenced assumptions to help the CoE.

[ghost]

Historical Jesus and Historical Tank Man: A Similitude?

There are more details about Caesar than about tankman, and the equivalent of CNN is Asinius Pollio.

[Bernard Muller]

Hello Bernard, it seems to me that yours above begs the question. We don't know that an item was "embarrassing" at the time Mark put it in his gospel, or if it was so, to whom.

Yes we can know:
If "Mark" reacted on that item
- by ignoring it next when it should be mentioned again,
- or/and by doing some damage control,
- or/and by reducing his impact in the rest of the narration,
- or/and by not attaching to it some theological ramification,
- or/and by offering an interpretation of it more in line with the author agenda.

To whom? to "Mark" and members of his Christian community.

I gave two examples already (the disturbance in the temple and Jesus as 'King of the Jews'). There are others.

I doubt embarrassing (but considered truthful) items heard by Mark's community would not be addressed by "Mark" in his gospel. If he chose to ignore them, his gospel credibility would suffer.
...

I think the above relies on too many unevidenced assumptions to help the CoE.

Not really if the Christian community where the gospel was written had been visited by an eyewitness and introduced to a worldly view of Jesus, which is the case of Corinth:
This city was most likely visited by Cephas/Peter (because he had followers here) (1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 9:5) and the Christians there were exposed to a worldly view of Jesus:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p23.htm
And the like of Peter and James were not Christians because they had no reason to be so:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... stians.htm

Cordially, Bernard

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I have doubts about the usefulness of asking exactly what would or would not constitute a Historical Jesus.

However I think that a Historical Jesus as normally understood implies a figure who had a significant number of friends/associates/followers before his death. These friends/associates/followers then reinterpreted their earlier memories of Jesus in the light of his death and subsequent events/experiences.

If one excludes any significant role for the friends of Jesus when alive in the development of Christianity after his death, then I don't think one has a Historical Jesus as normally understood, nor do I think one has any plausible explanation of why this particular act of judicial murder should have been seen in retrospect as unusually significant.

Andrew Criddle

Agreed. I would just want to add that this historical Jesus as normally understood is found with a conventional historical method and with sufficient degree of credibility. This assumes that the Gospels are more or less accepted as historical sources.

If ever a universally convincing theory is designed on the development of Christianity without a "Gospel-Jesus", then no one will be able to prove it.

[Bernard Muller]

andrewcriddle wrote:

I have doubts about the usefulness of asking exactly what would or would not constitute a Historical Jesus.

However I think that a Historical Jesus as normally understood implies a figure who had a significant number of friends/associates/followers before his death. These friends/associates/followers then reinterpreted their earlier memories of Jesus in the light of his death and subsequent events/experiences.

If one excludes any significant role for the friends of Jesus when alive in the development of Christianity after his death, then I don't think one has a Historical Jesus as normally understood, nor do I think one has any plausible explanation of why this particular act of judicial murder should have been seen in retrospect as unusually significant.

This is conventional thinking among historicists. However I do not agree:
The friends/associates/followers of Jesus were not the ones who "reinterpreted their earlier memories of Jesus in the light of his death and subsequent events/experiences".
It was others, Hellenistic and Judean Jews who started that in Jerusalem, and not from earlier memories of Jesus, except for his last days.
However, later, I think that at least one of these friends/associates/followers depicted Jesus as he was, without any mythical add-ons. That made it in gMark and Q, although that was added on with a lot of embellishment and fiction.
To the point that authentic bits got buried in these texts.
So what started it? The fact that Jesus was taken as a (not publicized) replacement/substitution of John the Baptist, after the demise of the later, and inherited of the belief that John would be the King of the Kingdom of God to come soon.
So Jesus was acclaimed as such by some when he arrived near Jerusalem, and after the "disturbance" was crucified under the (mocking) charge of King of the Jews.
However, not to look stupid or wrong, some who believed in Jesus' future kingship, advanced the idea he was saved in heaven and will come back as King soon. That got the ball rolling, with some out-of-context scripture passages, with Philo of Alexandria's writings and, eventually, with claims of Jesus manifesting himself again in various ways.
A proto-Christianity community (or several) grew in Jerusalem and for sake of looking legitimate, invited some of the friends/associates/followers and brothers to live here at the expense of the others (mostly Greek speaking). Some accepted and took the risk for that opportunity to escape hard daily labor and be close to the temple.
All of this is justified and explained in my website and blog, including:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p50.htm
and
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p31.htm
and, for the making of Christianity after the crucifixion:
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

The friends/associates/followers of Jesus were not the ones who "reinterpreted their earlier memories of Jesus in the light of his death and subsequent events/experiences".

This is highly likely to be true (we can mostly only talk in probabilities).

It was others, Hellenistic and Judean Jews who started that in Jerusalem, and not from earlier memories of Jesus, except for his last days.

From "his last days"? How can we know that? What makes you say that, Bernard?

How can we know who "reinterpreted Jesus"? or where it was first done?

To the point that authentic bits got buried in these texts.

What authentic bits?

So what started it? The fact that Jesus was taken as a (not publicized) replacement/substitution of John the Baptist, after the demise of the later, and inherited of the belief that John would be the King of the Kingdom of God to come soon.

Some people have deduced the final Jesus-character was a replacement/substitute for Peter.

Jesus the Christ of Nazareth may have been a compilation of several previous actual messiahs, or messiah-characters from messiah-narratives.

... claims of Jesus manifesting himself again in various ways.

A proto-Christianity community (or several) grew in Jerusalem and for sake of looking legitimate, invited some of the friends/associates/followers and brothers to live here at the expense of the others (mostly Greek speaking).

There were various communities with various beliefs of various messiah-figures; from which it is likely the Jesus character grew ... "with [as Bernard said] a lot of embellishment and fiction".

[Bernard Muller]

To MrMacSon,

From "his last days"? How can we know that? What makes you say that, Bernard?

That's according to my reconstruction as explained on my website http://historical-jesus.info/. The last days include a royal welcome and crucifixion as "King of the Jews" (http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3.html).

How can we know who "reinterpreted Jesus"?

Again, as explained on my website, more so on this webpage: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html.
Who? Proto-Christians, Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians, Gnostic Christians ... Also "in the Spirit" Christian apostles (like Paul) and "teachers" (like Apollos of Alexandria).

Where was it done?

Almost anywhere in the Roman empire (mostly the eastern part) and in different ways, from proto-Christian communities and Jewish Christian ones and Gentile Christian ones and Gnostic Christian ones ... Also from "in the Spirit" Christian apostles (like Paul) and "teachers" (like Apollos of Alexandria) wherever they went.

What authentic bits?

These bits can be identified from the gospels (mostly gMark & Q) & Paul's epistles.
You can start here:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p50.htm
For Paul:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... -b1-p8.htm
and
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... -b1-p9.htm

Some people have deduced the final Jesus-character was a replacement/substitute for Peter.
Jesus the Christ of Nazareth may have been a compilation of several previous actual messiahs, or messiah-characters from messiah-narratives.

Theories abound. Most of them are just sketches. Very few are reconstructions where everything fits and can be justified with a lot of multi-sources evidence. I might be the only one who did such a complete one, after years of research. I even analysed evidence seemingly against my case and the so-called "silences".

There were various communities with various beliefs of various messiah-figures; from which it is likely the Jesus character grew ... "with [as Bernard said] a lot of embellishment and fiction".

Only one character is good enough as origin. Why complicate things? Paul was writing about only one human Jesus, not several.

Cordially, Bernard

[Mental flatliner]

Let's say everything else about Jesus' life is invented. All that's REALLY known is that he got crucified. Let's say his name wasn't even Jesus. Would that still count as a "Historical Jesus?"

It's irrational to state that "all we know of Jesus is the crucifixion" when we have four gospels telling much more.

It's never a good mental exercise to erase history and go looking for fiction to fill it back up. Until one has evidence that an original document is false, that document must be taken as historically accurate.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

We have a great deal of evidence that the gospels are highly fictive. You're also completely wrong about how historical method works, You never just assume a historical claim is accurate absent any corroboration. It doesn't work that way. The burden of proof lies with anyone who wants to assert the claims are true. Claims cannot be evidence for themselves - especially when the claims are highly fantastic and/or physically impossible.

We don't know anything about Jesus at all. The Gospels do not contain reliable information and may not contain any accurate information.