The Jesus Moot Theory

[DeistPaladin]

I've posted this before within threads but I think this deserves a thread of its own:

I'm renouncing any of my past defense of The Jesus Myth, not because I'm convinced by any evidence I haven't seen before or because the case made by "historists" is particularly convincing. It's just that they've just worn me down. I regret the time and energy I put into the debate, time better spent on the Bible. And then there's the "scholars-say" shuffle:

• Step 1: "Scholarly consensus holds that Jesus existed."
  
• Step 2: "Really, what convinces the scholars?"
  
• Step 3: (Repeat step 1 for several posts).
  
• Step 4: (Repeat demands for evidence for several posts).
  
• Step 5: "Tacitus"
  
• Step 6: "That's not convincing"
  
• Step 7: "Well, the scholars don't agree with you."
  

Fine, fine, fine. Prof. Ehrman, I'm throwing in the towel. You've successfully worn me down. You are free to sit in your ivory tower and chase after your Historical Jesus through the dusty scrolls to your hearts content. Perhaps you need to hold on to the last fragments of your faith. Perhaps its a way to publish books. Perhaps its just a hobby. Whatever. I shall not disturb your devotion in the future.

...except I would like to ask you one thing, which leads into my new stance: The Jesus Moot:

What, if anything, can we actually know about this guy and is it enough to say the Gospels are "based on a true story"?

As per the recent debate I had with a Christian on that subject, I'll be generous. We can throw out the miracles and other supernatural events that are part of the Gospel account. I call this generous because nearly all the events in the Gospel story are either about a miracle or punctuated by one. The story of Jesus IS the story of his divinity. To rewrite the story without the miracles would be like telling the tale of a mortal human Clark Kent (no alien ancestry, no super powers, no costume). You'd be writing a different tale of a different character.

But let that go.

How about the ministry? Was it really as famous as the Gospels claimed? Did it spread like wildfire as the books claimed? Did John the Baptist really kneel before Jesus and claim announce himself as just a forerunner? Did all the nobles and notables of the region take notice of him? Did his ministry really shake the political and religious foundations so much that the priests met on Passover eve just to get rid of him?

If your answer is a confident "yes" to any of the above, how come the best piece of corroborating historical evidence is an oblique mention by Tacitus in the 2nd century, so passing that Tacitus doesn't even mention him by name?

What about what he taught? How much of that can we be confident of? All the details come to us from the Gospels, the very books some historists tear apart for its dubious authorship and changes over time. Do we have a single teaching of his that comes to us from any non-Christian testimony? Do we have a single teaching of his that comes to us from a reliable Christian source?

Or are the details of The Historical Jesus limited to the following checklist of characteristics:

• Some guy (male)
  
• Lived in 1st century Judea (a lot of Jews at that time did)
  
• Named Yeshua (common name in 1st century Judea)
  
• Messiah Wannabe (they abounded in 1st century Judea)
  
• Crucified by Pilate (allegedly many Jewish leaders were)
  

Is it fair to say we could dig up several candidates that all fit the checklist?

...and...?

Moot.

Absolutely moot.

After all, as a skeptic, it's the supernatural claims of Christianity that are my concern, not chasing down some-regular-guy-named-Yeshua.

[Sword of Christ]

There were plenty of miracle workers, exorcists, healers and religious preachers like Jesus wandering around at the time they were ten a penny. So there is no reason why the gospels can't have been based on a historical person. One point of interest is that Jesus didn't refer to himself as the Messiah even though the Christians writing the gospels would have been keen on him saying this as that's who they believed he was. So they were making an effort on maintaining the oral material they had as accurately as they were able rather than fabricating in everything they would have ideally liked. As to whether Jesus is the Word of God it's best to consider the fruits of his teachings and the way they impacted the world and society throughout history. A genuine revelation from God will change a great deal and change it for the better.

[truthBtold]

Corruption... I do smell!!

[Alex K]

Hey DeistPaladin,

You make an absolutely crucial point so often ignored in this debate, rendering most discussions on the topic absolutely moot, ironically!

If you haven't read him, may I recommend Richard Carrier's works to you?

[FreeTony]

I guess the options that I can think of are:

1. Jesus is totally a myth.
2. Some guy was around 2000 years ago, did some preaching and had some followers, but was pretty unremarkable.
3. Someone, possibly called Jesus, who did some preaching and attempted say to heal people. Some of the stories are true to some extent, with a lot of embelishment.
4. Everything in the bible about Jesus is true.
5. Somewhere else between 1 and 4.

Does anyone who is well read on this know what is thought to be the most likely? Also from what I understand there were active historians in the area at the right time who completely failed to notice all this going on. Is this true?

[DeistPaladin]

One point of interest is that Jesus didn't refer to himself as the Messiah

Actually, yes he did.

Do you know what "Christ" means? It's not a last name. It's a title, as in Jesus The Christ. Christ is derived from it's Greek Christos, which translates to "the anointed one" or "Messiah".

Matt 16:13-19 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[StuW]

People reportedly calling you something != Calling yourself something

[DeistPaladin]

Hey DeistPaladin,

You make an absolutely crucial point so often ignored in this debate, rendering most discussions on the topic absolutely moot, ironically!

If you haven't read him, may I recommend Richard Carrier's works to you?

Yes, I have. I enjoy his works and still am sympathetic to the idea of the Jesus myth. Another problem I forgot to mention in the OP is one of proving a negative.

Frequently in these debates, Jesus shrinks down into some poorly defined wandering rabbi of some sort, small and fluid enough to easily slip through the cracks of our knowledge of the ancient world. With a little slight of hand, the "historist" can slyly shove the burden of proof on the skeptic. A few ad hominems about the skeptic being a "crackpot" or some false comparisons to conspiracy theories and holocaust deniers helps to disguise this maneuver.

It's like if an atheist were charged to prove that God doesn't exist. How do you prove a negative, especially when the claim is so vague to begin with?

[DeistPaladin]

People reportedly calling you something != Calling yourself something

But Jesus agreed and rewarded Peter for his "correct answer".

[StuW]

Apologies, I just skimmed the quote and saw the bolded bit lol.. I think Dawkins made a very similar statement to your OP in God Delusion.