Open thread on Charbonnel

[Irish1975]

If Charbonnel and her predecessors are right about the Gospels being Midrash from soup to nuts, the mythicism debate of the last twenty years has been misconceived.

• Ancient Jews wouldn’t need to have been inspired by a historical Jesus in order to write the Gospels; they had the Hebrew and LXX scriptures.

• Ancient Jews wouldn’t need to have been inspired by actual celestial visions of a Christ Jesus by Cephas or Paul or anyone, much less tales of an empty tomb; they had the Hewbrew and LXX scriptures.

The unfortunate conflation of ‘mythicism’ with the celestial vision thesis seems like an « own goal » by the secular critics of Christianity. You would think that a theory associating itself with « myths » would be connected somehow to imaginative literature, i.e. the composition of « stories. » Instead people try to geo-locate Jesus. OUTER SPACE? Jerusalem? Galilee? That’ll get views on Youtube, I guess. The framing of this « debate » reinforces the inevitability of the Jesus archtype. The actual scriptures are read by both sides as « evidence, » which they can never be, and not as « literature, » which they will always be.

The illiteracy of American Biblicism is not seriously questioned.

But what are your thoughts about Charbonnel’s book, Sublime Figure de Papier? (If you don’t have a copy, or you don’t read French, your only source might be Neil’s commentaries at Vridar.)

[Giuseppe]

I have read Charbonnel in the original.

The weakness of the her thesis (that then is only the Bernard Dubourg's thesis slightly revised) are two, in my view:

• The thesis requires a proto-Gospel written in Hebrew behind any our Gospel, hardly accepted especially by people who sees the hand of Marcion behind *Ev (i.e. different theologies can't appeal to the same language, especially when said language is the sacred language for the demiurge);

• Especially, Charbonnel is obliged to deny the authenticity of the epistles.

The second point is really her principal weakness. Dubourg argued for the same name "Paul" being found in the OT portrait of king Saul (and derived from it), which means to ignore completely that the midrash on Saul is only an addition by Acts against Marcion.

Dubourg raised the Argument from Silence, on the epistles, against the historical Jesus, falling so in a circular argument: if everything started with a midrash about Jesus/Joshua, then the "Pauline" epistles should know/show it, contra factum that Dubourg argues for the contrary.

(The same criticism, ça va sans dire, may be directed against Bruno Bauer).

Hence I continue to think that the "official" school of mythicists (Smith/Couchoud/Doherty/Carrier) advances, and continues to advance, the best mythicist paradigm in circolation, pace Charbonnel.

[Giuseppe]

So Dubourg on the origin of Paul. See the final Neil's criticism in the same thread.

[Irish1975]

Ok, but leave aside Dubourg and the epistles. Charbonnel is only dealing with the 4-Gospel book.

The lack of evidence for a Hebrew text, and the unlikelihood that the Greek Gospels were a translation from Hebrew, is a more interesting point. The DSS show that Jews were writing midrash on the older scriptures long before the NT was dreamt of. It also seems that the very same group was working in Greek as well as paleo-Hebrew Aramaic. So what is the problem if there had been a sort of « Hebrew circle » at the origin of the Gospels, while they were also conversant with LXX and essentially bilingual? (I have not read the whole book yet, not sure what she says about this.)

[Giuseppe]

So what is the problem if there had been a sort of « Hebrew circle » at the origin of the Gospels

there would be none problem. But I don't understand how you can ignore the epistles.

Charbonnel ignores the epistles and seems to be skeptical about their authenticity (somewhere she writes "if Paul existed...").
But without the apt discussion on the epistles, she is subjected to the same criticism addressed by Carrier against Thomas L. Brodie:

The non sequitur is common among myth proponents: the Gospels are obvious contrived myths, therefore Jesus didn’t exist. The premise is true (many have well proved it already, but I will marshal the best evidence in my book on this next year). But the conclusion does not follow.

Hence, if the epistles are genuine, then the first gospel that euhemerized Jesus was written in Hebrew. So what? In such case Charbonnel would argue merely for a particular instance under the Carrier/Doherty's paradigm. Not a new paradigm.

My particular problem is that fabricating midrash can't make his author ipso facto a denier of the historicity of Jesus. The birth stories in Matthew and Luke are 100% midrash, but their authors were anti-Marcionites, hence probably historicist Christians. Charbonnel seems to argue the contrary: who writes midrash is ipso facto a denier of Jesus's historicity.

[MrMacSon]

The birth stories in Matthew and Luke are 100% midrash, but their authors were anti-Marcionites, hence probably historicist Christians.

It would depend on the circumstances in which the authors of the birth narratives wrote

[maryhelena]

If Charbonnel and her predecessors are right about the Gospels being Midrash from soup to nuts, the mythicism debate of the last twenty years has been misconceived.

• Ancient Jews wouldn’t need to have been inspired by a historical Jesus in order to write the Gospels; they had the Hebrew and LXX scriptures.

Ah - but the stories in the Hebrew scriptures are connected with Jewish history - actual or perceived history.

• Ancient Jews wouldn’t need to have been inspired by actual celestial visions of a Christ Jesus by Cephas or Paul or anyone, much less tales of an empty tomb; they had the Hewbrew and LXX scriptures.

Again - the Hebrew scriptures are not all imagination - the stories also had a historical relevance.

The unfortunate conflation of ‘mythicism’ with the celestial vision thesis seems like an « own goal » by the secular critics of Christianity. You would think that a theory associating itself with « myths » would be connected somehow to imaginative literature, i.e. the composition of « stories. » Instead people try to geo-locate Jesus. OUTER SPACE? Jerusalem? Galilee? That’ll get views on Youtube, I guess. The framing of this « debate » reinforces the inevitability of the Jesus archtype. The actual scriptures are read by both sides as « evidence, » which they can never be, and not as « literature, » which they will always be.

Indeed, the mythicism debate has been misconstrued. A celestial, outer-space, Jesus, however constructed - literally ?? - or philosophically, is not a substitute for the gospel story; it is not a way of avoiding perceived problems in the gospel story.

The Lukan writer has set the scene, as it were, for the gospel Jesus story: King Herod, Tiberius, Pilate, Herod of Galilee (Antipas), Philip (the Tetrarch) and Lysanias ruler of Abilene. That gives a historical landscape from 40 b.c. to 37 CE - a 77 year period. That's the historical backbone to the gospel Jesus story. The question therefore is: What was it, within that history, that inspired the gospel writers to write their story ? Yes, they could turn to the Hebrew scriptures to add colour to their Jesus story - but without a historical relevance their Jesus story would have been still-born. Imagination is no replacement for historical realities.

The early, non-Jewish, christians misread the gospel Jesus story as history. (Maybe the great falling away is what is behind that later man of lawlessness idea.) Failure to realise that a historical Jesus, of whatever makeup this theory comes up with) is useless for 'salvation' - then or now. It's not flesh and blood that 'saves' - it's ideas that can 'save' - just as they can destroy. It's intellectual evolution that can bring 'salvation' - not a presumed historical Jesus of two thousand years ago.

It's ideas that the NT writers were interested in - ideas with the potential to further human development. Humanitarianism is as much about intellectual growth as it is about putting food on the table.

[Sinouhe]

The best part of the book is the central table, which shows that most of the stories in the Gospels are allusions to the OT. Other than that, I didn't really enjoy reading it.

[Irish1975]

The best part of the book is the central table, which shows that most of the stories in the Gospels are allusions to the OT. Other than that, I didn't really enjoy reading it.

The table is very useful. But I also like her introduction, a bracing, delightful indictment of modern hermeneutics. She traces the bankrupt distinction of Jesus-of-History-vs-Christ-of-Faith not just to Strauss (who coined it) or even Reimarus, but to Spinoza! In a letter to Henry Oldenberg, he affirmed a literal meaning for the deeds and death of Jesus, but an allegorical meaning for his resurrection. For Charbonnel, there can be no literal/figurative distinction when it comes to ancient Jewish scripture. Literal reading produces a historical reading of Jewish texts, a historical reading is a false reading, and the false historical reading produces Christianity.

[Giuseppe]

If you think that Dubourg has proved successfully that Paul is derived entirely from king Saul, then the Charbonnel's thesis is a new paradigm.

Otherwise it is not a new paradigm.