The Jesus Moot Theory
February 11, 2014 at 5:29 pm
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2014 at 5:34 pm by 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:
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:
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.
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.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
