 
                    The Quest for the Historical Jesus 

                           by Ammond Shadowcraft
         
  "...It is only in comparitively modern times that the possibility was 
considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all. Those who come across
this idea for the first time are naturally startled by it. In fact the
suspicion that Jesus might be as mythical as other ancient saviors as Osiris,
Mithra and Krishna arose as a result of a serious effort to discover his real
voice and actions. the most scrupulous of analysis of the texts failed to
reveal a convincing picture of an authentic person." 
_Pagan_Christs_, page 63 
         
  Well such is what J.M. Robertson claims. 
         
  "Modern biblical critics freely admit that some of the Gospel narritive 
must be fiction. We know now that much of it was composed well after the
events it purports to describe. Comparitive religion has drawn attention to
close pagan parallels--to the essential features of the story--the virgin
birth, the sacrifical death and resurrection. The same is true of the rites of
baptism and sacramental communion. Many critics still feel, however, that
these are accretions which, together with, togehter with the miracles, can be
safely shed without injury to a nucleus if historical fact. The argue that
pagan Gods may have some of the attributes of Jesus, and although they may
have been regarded as law givers and teachers, they did not leave behind a
coherent and profound teaching. Apollo, Osiris and the rest seem, therefore,
to be obviously mythical, whereas Buddha and Jesus are not. The teachings of
each of the latter, it is felt, bear the unmistakable of a single, unique
mind. Such a doctrine could not have formed itself spontaneously."
_Pagan_Christs_, page 64. 
         
 The rite of baptism has already been discussed in this topic. Robertson 
contends that the rite of baptism superceeded the rite of circumsicion. This
makes sense to me. It is much less painful and physically safer to undergo
ritual initiation through baptism by water than by ritual circumcision. The
gentile Christists would contend for this; and as the Jewish Christists died
baptism did replace circumcision as a physical sign of new spiritual being. 

 "We shall consider the case of Buddha later. First let us look at the main 
objections to this view that the existence of a body of teaching is
overwhelming evidence of the existence of an historical teacher. The earliest
Christian documents are ascribed to Paul. These epistles were written long
before the canonical gospels were put together and accepted by the Church. The
older protions, however, tell us nothing about the life of Jesus. The silence
of paul is remarkable if indeed he was familiar with the Jesuine biography.
Secondly, the unity of teaching, which it is said, would show it to have been
the work of one mind is conspicuously absent. So far from displaying
coherence, the ethical precepts are frequently obscure and contradictory. So
far from being original, many of the sayings are merely quotations from Hebrew
literature, and some have pagan parallels. As for the Sermon on the Mount, it
is no more than a patchwork of utterances found in the Old Testament."
_Pagan_Christs_ pg. 64 
 
 I was suprised to hear that some of the Epistles of Paul are the earliest 
of the Christian writings. Anyone care to point us to an already typed in
dating of the N.T.? Care to type one in? If such is the case then it is
outstanding that as Paul was the first to write about mystery of the sacrifice
of Christ he tells us nothing of the life of Christ. It's as if he didn't
know. Surely he would have known such details being close to the original
twelve. Perhaps he didn't care, such details being meaningless as the ethics,
mystery and sacrifice of the God man were most important. 
 
  It seems the earliest of the gospel forms was lost with Matthew and Mark 
being dependent opon these lost forms. This scans nicely. The earliest forms
were probably the purest of the Jewish Christian story of the Messiah. As time
went by more of the pagan gentile influence was felt as needed. Various
features of the virgin birth of the God man, the nativity scenes, the Last
Supper, the betrayal, the crucifiction and mysterious ressurection were
incoroprated into the present gospels to appeal to pagan cultist. 
 
  Some scholars indicate that Revelations was next inline. This scans 
nicely as it presents a supposedly Jewish-Christian eschotology. When one
looks at the symbolism one can see the Mazedian influence in Revelations.
Revelations seems to present a first or second step in the evolution of the
Sacrifice and Resurrection of the God man. Perhaps a middle step is more
appropriate. A middle step between Jewish Messiah cults and Gentile Savour
cults. 

  It would be monumental to eliminate all supposedly contradictory and 
questionable passages from the Gospels. Fortunately that work has already been
done with some suprising, for me at least, outcomes. Here's one.. 
 
  "For over a hundred years German scholars have been struggling to solve 
this problem, and their efforts have been unavailing. In order to establish
some solid textual foundation for the historicity of Jesus, they have piled
hypothesis upon hypothesis with ever new refinements. The retreat from this
hopless task was finally sounded by the emminent German critic, O. Schmeidel.
Afer an exhuastive search, he was satisfied that he had discovered some texts
which passes the most severe tests and were entirely credible. But in the
whole of the gospels all he could salvage were NINE such texts. Let us
enumerate this forlorn handful of unwounded survivors. 

1) Mark XXX.17 [really mark 10.17] f.f. "Why callest me thou good?" etc. 2)
Matt XII.31 f.f. "Blasphemy against the Son of Man pardonable" 3) Mark III.21
"He is beside himself" 4) Mark XII.32 "Of that hour and day knoweth no man" 5)
Mark XV.34, Matt "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" etc. 6) Mark
VIII.12 "No sign shall be given this generation." 7) Mark VI.5 "He was able to
do no mighty work there." 8) Mark VIII.14-21 Rebuke to disciples concerning
bread and leaven.." 9) Matt XI.5, Luke VII.22 Passage to be taken in the sense
of spiritual 
   healing, since it ends with mention of preaching--not a miracle at all." 
_Pagan_Christs_ pgs 64,65. 
 
  What was the basis for selecting these texts? Basicly O. Sshmeiedel felt 
that where Jesus speaks simply as a man, making no pretense to divinity, or to
miraculous powers, and where he is presented as failing to impress his
relatives and neighbors with any sense of his superiority--there the record is
entirely credible. I'll have to quote this because of the logical content... 
 
  J.M. Roberts quoting Schmeidel: 
  "According to Schmidel, these passages represent "the foundation pillars 
for a truly scientific life of Jesus... They prove not only that in the person
of Jesus we have to do with a completely human being, and that the divine is
sought in him only in the form in which it is capable of being found in a man;
THEY ALSO PROVE THAT HE REALLY DID EXIST, and that the Gospels contain at
least SOME ABSOLUTELY TURSTWORTHY FACTS concerning him. 

  This will shock the believer without satisfying the scientific 
naturalist. I submit that the propostition I have italicized is absolutely
untenable. On this point may be staked the whole dispute about the actuality
of the gospel Jesus. It simply does not follow that because a statement is
credible it is therefore trustworth or proved. If it were so, half the
characters in fiction could be "proved" to be real people. Perfectly credible
statements are made about them." _Pagan_Christs_ pgs 64-65. 
 
  And I would add that perfectly credible statements are made by fictional 
characters also. It is credible to pronounce that Joe Catholic said a hundred
Hail Marys this morning. Such is a credible statement concerning Catholics.
But is it trustworthy? 
 
  Such thinking requires a leap. The leap involves a thought process that 
says what is possible must indeed be true. T.X. Huxley makes this same
mistake. Huxley says that Sauls visit with the Witch of Endor is entirely
probable, so there is no reason not to believe it. It is probable that I, as a
child, fell into a dark hole for 3 days and nights. History is full of
discredited "probablilites". 
 
  To finish this section up I'd like to say that what applies to characters 
of fiction must also apply to demigods and characters about whom there is a
fable. Unless it can be shown on independent grounds how the credible story
came to be associated with the fable, we have no reason to accept one and
reject the other. There are instances of myths being built up on a basis of
facutal events, but although this can be established in modern times, such
cases do not enable us to distinguish between the merely possible and the
actual in ancient tradition. Admittedly there are borderline cases, but even
when these are free from supernaturalism they may often be doubted. 

