Jesus Studies Historiography

[Bernard Muller]

hi cienfuegos,

So the question would be: How did an apparently rustic rural individual ignite the development of Christianity?

Well, I explained all of that on my website, including (rather, above all) sorting out the evidence applicable for that concept from religiously corrupted texts.
Some people on this forum think it is a crime to click on my webpages but I'll post them anyway:
http://historical-jesus.info/, my intro page, where I lay out all the basics of my reconstruction.
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html where in a few words, I answered your question.
Finally,
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html where I explained the early development of Christianity from "a common mortal (a "son of man"), who talked about "the good news" of the coming Kingdom, died as "king of the Jews""

(I traveled to Cabanas, El Salvador and Chiapas, Mexico at various times in the course of my studies--one at the end of a rural based uprising, and once in the middle of one)

I visited Chiapas, too. At least, we have one thing in common.

I concluded then that it did not actually seem plausible that a rural based movement that seems to have raised not even an eyebrow could have emerged out of rural Galilee and spread throughout the Mediterranean in such a short time.

I agree also. I also noticed, that according to Josephus' Wars, poor rural Galileans were very much against the wealthies and city slickers, rather than the Romans or their client kings.

I cannot find a mechanism by which a movement started by an obscure preacher executed by Rome could emerge as any kind of social movement.

It looks to me you set up what you want to find, then when you cannot find what you are looking for, revert to some mythicist theories.
I do not think Jesus started a movement, nor his eyewitnesses. Once again, that's where historicists fail/failed: putting way too much weight on a historical Jesus.

The problem is that there is no way to disentangle what is layered myth from what might be real history.

Even if there were no way to disentangle what is layered myth from what might be real history, that does not mean there was no historical Jesus.
Contrary to what mythicists like Doherty or Carrier have been trying to re-interpret, Paul provided a frame on what a human earthly Jesus was and was not. That can be used as a strainer through which the gospels material can be sorted out (little stuff makes it through the mesh). Actually, I need very little material (mostly from gMark) to reconstruct that very minimal historical Jesus, and that HJ's story was prone, more than the rendition of him as charismatic, to ignite the development of Christianity.
For Paul's historical Jesus: http://historical-jesus.info/6.html
crucified in the heartland of the Jews: http://historical-jesus.info/19.html
and known by the Christians of Corinth in a worldly manner: http://historical-jesus.info/20.html

An easier way of that problem is to accept that there was not a real Jesus and that Jesus first emerged as a product of superstitious imagination.

I think the many mythicist theories, many of them conflicting or incompatible with each other, do not ease the problem, far from that. Furthermore they require elimination of many accounts of a human Jesus, from many sources, some of them not Christian. And the invention of a rural preacher/healer, with his most extraordinary (and performed on crowds) miracles unnoticed (even among his eyewitnesses: telling me these miracles were invented, never heard from eyewitness testimonies and establishing the fact he had a) eyewitnesses and b) they were not telling the extraordinary parts of real events: if not true on any of the two counts, why not have them make extraordinary claims?), whose alleged preaching & teaching never left a trace in Galilee, crucified by the Romans as a trouble maker (rather that offering himself for sacrifice as a free man), does not look to me the product of superstitious imagination.
http://historical-jesus.info/88.html
More about what the eyewitnesses were not saying (but the later gospels did, regardless):
http://historical-jesus.info/28.html

Paul says that the Jesus story is "according to the scripture."

That is part of what I consider, for many reasons, an interpolation (the same for Romans 16:25-26):
http://historical-jesus.info/9.html

Cordially, Bernard

[cienfuegos]

hi cienfuegos,

So the question would be: How did an apparently rustic rural individual ignite the development of Christianity?

Well, I explained all of that on my website, including (rather, above all) sorting out the evidence applicable for that concept from religiously corrupted texts.
Some people on this forum think it is a crime to click on my webpages but I'll post them anyway:
http://historical-jesus.info/, my intro page, where I lay out all the basics of my reconstruction.
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html where in a few words, I answered your question.
Finally,
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html where I explained the early development of Christianity from "a common mortal (a "son of man"), who talked about "the good news" of the coming Kingdom, died as "king of the Jews""

(I traveled to Cabanas, El Salvador and Chiapas, Mexico at various times in the course of my studies--one at the end of a rural based uprising, and once in the middle of one)

I visited Chiapas, too. At least, we have one thing in common.

I concluded then that it did not actually seem plausible that a rural based movement that seems to have raised not even an eyebrow could have emerged out of rural Galilee and spread throughout the Mediterranean in such a short time.

I agree also. I also noticed, that according to Josephus' Wars, poor rural Galileans were very much against the wealthies and city slickers, rather than the Romans or their client kings.

I cannot find a mechanism by which a movement started by an obscure preacher executed by Rome could emerge as any kind of social movement.

It looks to me you set up what you want to find, then when you cannot find what you are looking for, revert to some mythicist theories.
I do not think Jesus started a movement, nor his eyewitnesses. Once again, that's where historicists fail/failed: putting way too much weight on a historical Jesus.

The problem is that there is no way to disentangle what is layered myth from what might be real history.

Even if there were no way to disentangle what is layered myth from what might be real history, that does not mean there was no historical Jesus.
Contrary to what mythicists like Doherty or Carrier have been trying to re-interpret, Paul provided a frame on what a human earthly Jesus was and was not. That can be used as a strainer through which the gospels material can be sorted out (little stuff makes it through the mesh). Actually, I need very little material (mostly from gMark) to reconstruct that very minimal historical Jesus, and that HJ's story was prone, more than the rendition of him as charismatic, to ignite the development of Christianity.
For Paul's historical Jesus: http://historical-jesus.info/6.html
crucified in the heartland of the Jews: http://historical-jesus.info/19.html
and known by the Christians of Corinth in a worldly manner: http://historical-jesus.info/20.html

An easier way of that problem is to accept that there was not a real Jesus and that Jesus first emerged as a product of superstitious imagination.

I think the many mythicist theories, many of them conflicting or incompatible with each other, do not ease the problem, far from that. Furthermore they require elimination of many accounts of a human Jesus, from many sources, some of them not Christian. And the invention of a rural preacher/healer, with his most extraordinary (and performed on crowds) miracles unnoticed (even among his eyewitnesses: telling me these miracles were invented, never heard from eyewitness testimonies and establishing the fact he had a) eyewitnesses and b) they were not telling the extraordinary parts of real events: if not true on any of the two counts, why not have them make extraordinary claims?), whose alleged preaching & teaching never left a trace in Galilee, crucified by the Romans as a trouble maker (rather that offering himself for sacrifice as a free man), does not look to me the product of superstitious imagination.
http://historical-jesus.info/88.html
More about what the eyewitnesses were not saying (but the later gospels did, regardless):
http://historical-jesus.info/28.html

Paul says that the Jesus story is "according to the scripture."

That is part of what I consider, for many reasons, an interpolation (the same for Romans 16:25-26):
http://historical-jesus.info/9.html

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard,

What I see you doing on your website is exactly the sort of methodology I am questioning. You have a theory and you fit the evidence to fit your theory.

[cienfuegos]

@Bernard

For example, you say this:

Jesus enters here, so far as a lower class, uneducated, rural Jew from Galilee (HJ-1a).
He stays around JtB, among others (HJ-1b).

What is your source for this assertion?

I click the link and it takes me to long lists of mostly Gospel citations. For example:

b) "Evidence" for a human father:

Mt1:24 "... Joseph ... took Mary home has his wife."
Mt13:55a "Isn't this [Jesus] the carpenter's son?"
Lk2:33 "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him [baby Jesus]"
Lk2:48b "Your father and I [Mary] have been anxiously searching for you [boy Jesus]."
Lk3:23 "... He [Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph"
Lk4:22b "... And they said, "Is this not Joseph's son?"
Jn1:45b "... Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph"
Jn6:42a "They said "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? ...""
And finally the most revealing statements (indicating Jesus' father was a Jew), written by Paul more than one generation before the "godly conception" in GMatthew & GLuke:

Ro1:3 YLT "... concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh,"
Ro9:4-5a YLT "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..."
Gal3:16 "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He [God] does not say, "And to seeds [of Abraham]," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ."

When you get to what I consider would be relevant to our task, writings of Paul, it seems pretty clear that Paul is not referencing the actual father of Jesus, but saying that Jesus incarnated as a Jew. The rest is methodologically exactly what I said the problem is. You cannot discern the history behind the myth. It is a futile endeavor.

[Bernard Muller]

What I see you doing on your website is exactly the sort of methodology I am questioning. You have a theory and you fit the evidence to fit your theory.

Yes, after looking at all kind of theories, I settled on one, because I found a lot of evidence to support it and little to oppose it. This is what my website is all about: not only stating my theory (which is the easy part), but exposing the many arguments and evidence which easily support this theory. I do not have to force the evidence I used to fit that theory, contrary to many other theories on the matter. And I also address what seems to oppose it.
I do not see anything wrong with that.
It is like in the scientific world, where for a paper, first in the abstract, you formulate your theory and then you spend a lot of wording (and math) in order to explain it.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

When you get to what I consider would be relevant to our task, writings of Paul, it seems pretty clear that Paul is not referencing the actual father of Jesus, but saying that Jesus incarnated as a Jew. The rest is methodologically exactly what I said the problem is. You cannot discern the history behind the myth. It is a futile endeavor.

And how do you think Jews got incarnated? How do you think someone said by Paul to be a descendant of David and also a descendant of Abraham & Israelites (as Paul himself claimed to be) became conceived?
Just because Paul did not specify a human/earthly father for Jesus (or for Paul himself) does not mean he (or Paul) did not have any.
And of course, Paul did write Jesus had brothers (and even named one who he met). But rather than accept these "the brother(s) of the Lord" at the most natural reading, and corroborated by gMark & Josephus Ant. XX, mythicists concoct all kinds of dubious scheme in order to show it is not so.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

bernard wrote:

Jesus enters here, so far as a lower class, uneducated, rural Jew from Galilee (HJ-1a).
He stays around JtB, among others (HJ-1b).

What is your source for this assertion?

As indicated, in my webpages HJ-1a & HJ-1b.
Cordially, Bernard

[junego]

In the absence of the evidence that can corroborate the Gospels (and I do hold that we don't have such evidence), we are left with the plausibility of the hypothesis itself: It does not seem to have even face validity. Could an obscure rural preacher have been executed by Romans and yet ignite a major movement that spreads throughout the Mediterranean by the 40s or 50s? It just is not very likely. We cannot reject the null hypothesis, therefore we cannot accept the alternative hypothesis. The evidence, as we have seen, can support a number of different views of who the real Jesus was (or what he was like and what he taught).

In fact, the "obscure Jesus" hypothesis really puts Jesus beyond falsifiability (which puts the thesis beyond acceptability as a productive focus of examination). It seems to me an attempt to rationalize the lack of evidence for the real historical Jesus. An easier way of that problem is to accept that there was not a real Jesus and that Jesus first emerged as a product of superstitious imagination. There is evidence that some Jews began referring to a suffering servant figure in the past tense (such as in the Wisdom of Solomon) and possibly pre-Christian versions of the Ascension of Isaiah. Paul says that the Jesus story is "according to the scripture." I do not think, like maryhelena, that there were two Jesus stories, other than that the author of gMark created an allegory based on the beliefs of a heavenly Jesus in the wake of the destruction of the Temple.

[My emphasis]

Interesting post and excellent point above.

At this time I think both "obscure Jesus" and "celestial Christ" are unfalsifiable and "famous Jesus" has no evidenciary support. Maybe new evidence will be discovered, otherwise I don't see a resolution.

I'm leaning toward a more diverse Jewish "Son" or "Archangel" worship movement in the decades before the first Jewish War. Such a movement may have spawned more than one Christ story. The references in Philo to veneration of his Logos and hints in Paul of other apostles preaching a different Jesus are some evidence for the idea of different Son worshipping sects. One or more of these sects may have begun telling stories that historicized their Son and the idea of a human, earthly Son crashed into Paul's crucified Son after the War. And GMark was subsequently born. Not much evidence for that though, just speculation.

I've been doing a little reading about the early (first) 19th century Great Awakening in the US. Out of a time of broiling religious ferment many new, really diverse Protestent sects developed including Church of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists and Latter Day Saints (Mormons). I realize you can't just map 19th Century American Protestantism onto 1st century Judaism, but there probably are some purely human parallels to cultural/religious ferment.

I was also one of those crazy 60s/70s hippies...in California. I experienced and observed Christianity, Hinduism, Budhism, Gaia worship, AmIndian worship, etc all churning together to produce Jesus freaks, Hari Krishnas, new paganism, etc. People can combine different influences into some pretty amazing combinations results.

[maryhelena]

I do not think, like maryhelena, that there were two Jesus stories, other than that the author of gMark created an allegory based on the beliefs of a heavenly Jesus in the wake of the destruction of the Temple.

All you have here is one story. And it's, re Ehrman, an incarnation story.

Two Jesus stories requires that the gospel Jesus story be allowed to stand outside of Pauline interpretations.

Earl Doherty on FRDB

(2) You have little or no knowledge of my case if you think that I am saying that the Gospels, or Mark, are entirely based on historicizing the Pauline Christ. In fact, the Gospels would not ever have been written on such a basis, for in large part they are dependent not on Paul or any celestial Christ but on an historical "kingdom of God" preaching movement of the first century centered in Galilee and represented in the Q document.

|my formatting|

Notice this point.........The gospel Jesus story is not dependent on Paul or any celestial Christ.

Wow - after all my years of negative interacting with Earl Doherty I now find myself quoting Doherty against Carrier....

[cienfuegos]

In the absence of the evidence that can corroborate the Gospels (and I do hold that we don't have such evidence), we are left with the plausibility of the hypothesis itself: It does not seem to have even face validity. Could an obscure rural preacher have been executed by Romans and yet ignite a major movement that spreads throughout the Mediterranean by the 40s or 50s? It just is not very likely. We cannot reject the null hypothesis, therefore we cannot accept the alternative hypothesis. The evidence, as we have seen, can support a number of different views of who the real Jesus was (or what he was like and what he taught).

In fact, the "obscure Jesus" hypothesis really puts Jesus beyond falsifiability (which puts the thesis beyond acceptability as a productive focus of examination). It seems to me an attempt to rationalize the lack of evidence for the real historical Jesus. An easier way of that problem is to accept that there was not a real Jesus and that Jesus first emerged as a product of superstitious imagination. There is evidence that some Jews began referring to a suffering servant figure in the past tense (such as in the Wisdom of Solomon) and possibly pre-Christian versions of the Ascension of Isaiah. Paul says that the Jesus story is "according to the scripture." I do not think, like maryhelena, that there were two Jesus stories, other than that the author of gMark created an allegory based on the beliefs of a heavenly Jesus in the wake of the destruction of the Temple.

[My emphasis]

Interesting post and excellent point above.

At this time I think both "obscure Jesus" and "celestial Christ" are unfalsifiable and "famous Jesus" has no evidenciary support. Maybe new evidence will be discovered, otherwise I don't see a resolution.

I'm leaning toward a more diverse Jewish "Son" or "Archangel" worship movement in the decades before the first Jewish War. Such a movement may have spawned more than one Christ story. The references in Philo to veneration of his Logos and hints in Paul of other apostles preaching a different Jesus are some evidence for the idea of different Son worshipping sects. One or more of these sects may have begun telling stories that historicized their Son and the idea of a human, earthly Son crashed into Paul's crucified Son after the War. And GMark was subsequently born. Not much evidence for that though, just speculation.

I've been doing a little reading about the early (first) 19th century Great Awakening in the US. Out of a time of broiling religious ferment many new, really diverse Protestent sects developed including Church of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists and Latter Day Saints (Mormons). I realize you can't just map 19th Century American Protestantism onto 1st century Judaism, but there probably are some purely human parallels to cultural/religious ferment.

I was also one of those crazy 60s/70s hippies...in California. I experienced and observed Christianity, Hinduism, Budhism, Gaia worship, AmIndian worship, etc all churning together to produce Jesus freaks, Hari Krishnas, new paganism, etc. People can combine different influences into some pretty amazing combinations results.

Celestial Jesus is easily unfalsifiable. The problem is that the evidence that would falsify it doesn't exist. That does not mean it isn't falsifiable. The fact that evidence did not exist was obviously a problem for the ancients as well because they manufactured some (for example Jesus' correspondence with King Agbar, which would easily falsify mythicism if it were authentic). The fact that the evidence needed to falsify the celestial Jesus can be imagined (we know what kinds of evidence would falsify the theory) but does not exist means (in empirical research, at least) that we cannot reject the null hypothesis if our question is:
h(1): There was a Jesus of Nazareth, who preached in the early first century and was executed by Rome.
h(0): There was not a Jesus of Nazareth who...

We cannot reject h(0). That does not mean we "accept" h(0), only that we cannot reject it and we need further research.

Bernard makes these errors: a) having a preconceived answer to his inquiry (yes, Jesus existed); b) adopting all interpretations of the evidence, even disputed interpretations in the most favorable light; c) fitting all evidence into his theory (rationalizing away inconsistencies, such as even when his sources agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Bernard adopts the position that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem; d) very naive use of the sources themselves. He doesn't seem to see these things, that's fine, there won't be any convincing. He's been pretty clear that he does not view his answers as tentative, so the conversation is over. I don't agree with him. We could talk in circles forever but with the evidence as it is now, there's no meeting ground.

We could each make predictions though. I would predict that the more evidence that is uncovered and as the evidence that already exists is incorporated into the body of evidence explained by Jesus theories, the Jesus myth theory will become more tenable and the historical Jesus less so. In all the 90% of evidence yet to be examined, there will be no historicist smoking gun. If I am wrong, I would gladly change my position because my position is tentative, as it should be at this point.

[Clive]

I'm sorry, how do people connect an historical jesus to a religion? That is continually asserted, but what are the actual connections?

(never mind which Jesus - if there is one the gospels themselves note he was probably at least the equivalent of upper middle class, educated.) Not everyone got to appear before the Sanhedrin and Pilate)