No, I don’t mean because we have four Gospels that are at times independent of one another. I mean something else.
Of course I do. I always mean something else.
I was having a rather enjoyable conversation about the Historical Jesus today with a new found friend and we were talking about the Historical Jesus. Um… anyway… (see, you can believe me because I mentioned the same thing twice).
Anyway, I don’t believe in the Historical Jesus.
I’ll let that sink in.
The Historical Jesus is a Myth.
The Historical Jesus is a scholarly concoction. As I noted to my friend, the one time I will insist on a Historical Jesus is when it must be done to confront the Aryan Jesus or the American Jesus. Otherwise, to search for the Historical Jesus purports to use the Gospels as a history book. A history book on the American Revolution doesn’t mean that George Washington existed.
So I was asked as to how I know that Jesus existed.
Why, the criterion of multiple attestation I said.
By that, I mean that we have various communities reflecting on Jesus even before Paul and often in competition with one another. (Read Romans and Galatians) But, the idea that we do not have just one community, but many, several, that remained within Judaism until the destruction of the Temple is, in my opinion a criterion to suggest that their was indeed a historical figure named Jesus that lived, taught, and died in 1st century Palestine.