Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book

[TedM]

Maurice Casey gave out my name, place of residence, birthplace and profession in his book - without ever asking my permission.

I am so glad I don't have his standards.

On the surface that does sound questionable, but let me play devil's advocate:

1. What is the downside to his having done this?

2. Is any of the information not readily discoverable anyway?

3. Why should he have asked your permission (ie, something other than "it's the professional thing to do"). What practical reason is there that he have done so?

[Bingo]

I wouldn't be surprised if that explains the development of Jesus — a high priest who could provide atonement and judgment from an eternal heavenly temple superior in every way to the earthly one. Some were convinced that this priest was already described in the Psalms, and they built an elaborate mythology around these passages. These ideas were centuries in the making, a natural evolution of a religion focused on a temple and a priesthood it no longer had access to, for one reason or another.

Why are you assuming that the ‘diversity’ came later?

Have you ever considered the possibility that ‘Jesus’ evolved from many diverse sources?

(Rather than evolving out of one single source?)

Stop thinking about the branches above the ground and start thinking about the roots below the ground.

What if Jesus was sewn together (from the git-go) from earlier traditions, like Frankenstein’s monster was sewn together from dead body parts?

[talitakum]

But that wasn't the original sense of Psalm 110.

But I'm not sure Christianity needed a historical Jesus either.

I'm just writing all this off the top of my head, so feel free to point out any egregious errors.

All the witnesses of early Christianity are a theological interpretation of life, teachings, deeds, death and resurrection of a person called Jesus. Therefore, as a matter of fact, Christianity needed an historical Jesus. For whatever reason. They may have fabricated it, but they needed it.

It's also true that in Gospels and Epistles you can find many references to Scriptures (both canonical and apocryphal) for almost any aspect of Jesus' life, however, you can tell a story in multiple languages - and Scripture was definitely a sort of language.

To me, the existence of Jesus - who preached as a prophet, died on the cross and then some people had visions of him - it's best and easiest (although not necessarily the only) historical explanation for the birth of Christianity. Since historicity is measured in terms of probabilities, the Jesus' existence is the most probable event. Any other explanation of independent sources converging on a basic set of facts, while diverging on theological implications, it's much more difficult to explain.

Put aside Casey and his polemics, you may find *very interesting* the following Dale Allison's interview on the subject (D. Allison is, in my modest opinion, one of the best NT living scholars):
http://christian-agnostic.blogspot.co.u ... 31-14.html

Ciao

[Bingo]

All the witnesses of early Christianity are a theological interpretation of life, teachings, deeds, death and resurrection of a person called Jesus. Therefore, as a matter of fact, Christianity needed an historical Jesus. For whatever reason. They may have fabricated it, but they needed it.

What are your thoughts on the Vision of Isaiah?

What are your thoughts on Philippians 2:9?

[Bingo]

Since historicity is measured in terms of probabilities, the Jesus' existence is the most probable event.

Historicity may be measured in terms of probabilities, but fiction is measured in terms of content.

[stevencarrwork]

Maurice Casey gave out my name, place of residence, birthplace and profession in his book - without ever asking my permission.

I am so glad I don't have his standards.

On the surface that does sound questionable, but let me play devil's advocate:

1. What is the downside to his having done this?

2. Is any of the information not readily discoverable anyway?

3. Why should he have asked your permission (ie, something other than "it's the professional thing to do"). What practical reason is there that he have done so?

He missed out one of my degrees!

[stephan happy huller]

I don't think this works this Frankenstein of yours. I think the reason you offering up a Frankenstein model is only because you secretly know there isn't enough evidence to support your hypotheses. You have this myth and this word and that phrase and none of it really comes together so you have to argue there was this 'hobbled together Jesus' only because you are forced to have this hobbled together thesis.

My advice is to just abandon pieces of evidence that don't work and search out for a thesis that stand alone - i.e. that's strong enough that doesn't require the Frankenstein approach.

An example.

Abandon any reliance on Hebrews or specifically Psalm 110:4. I know this is what is 'en vogue' among 'mythicists' but its a bad line of argument. Let me tell you why.

1. Hebrews is a strange text. It claims to have been written by Paul but the earliest person to cite it as such is Clement of Alexandria (I think). But who knows what sort of a text Clement had.
2. You say that it doesn't matter what Psalm 110:4 actually meant. It could have been read a number of different ways. But that's a weak argument to begin with. The text is by its very definition 'to the Hebrews' meaning that Jewish types were the audience. Presumably Jewish types were aware of the Jewish reading and interpretation of the Psalms. Justin certainly demonstrates that this to be true with respect to Hezekiah.
3. Another difficulty is that Irenaeus doesn't cite from Hebrews ever (or doesn't seem to at least) and yet he has the bad reading of Psalm 110:4 (i.e. the way you want the text to be read). Look at Demonstration and then Tertullian Against Marcion (which is developed from Irenaeus's writings). No early witness ever says - 'the Apostle says ....' and then the reference to Psalm 110:4 with Paul's interpretation being what you want it to be. It seems to come out of Irenaeus's imagination and Irenaeus was notoriously bad at interpreting Hebrew (cf. 'In His Son, God created heaven and earth ... this is not only brought forward by Irenaeus as a 'fact' but also in Jason and Papsiscus or whatever the second guy was called pointing again to Irenaeus's authorship or editing of this text).
4. My assumption would be that Irenaeus wrote Hebrews or edited it the way it appears now and a controversy arose in Rome with Gaius about his forging the text which was subsequently buried because of it implicated Irenaeus as a forger. I can't prove this but it is curious that no one ever says 'Paul says X' where X = the Irenaean interpretation of Psalm 110:4 as we have learned to read it (i.e. badly).
5. Even if you want to pretend that the 'after the line of Melchizedek' was established before Irenaeus - how much before Irenaeus? The whole notion put forward by Doherty et al that Hebrews is an early text is unlikely. The Marcionites didn't use it. It is a forgery pretending to be Pauline perhaps with the incorporation of some of Pauline elements the Epistle to the Alexandrians.
6. Even if you accept the pre-existence of 'a priest after the line of Melchizedek' why isn't it said simply 'you are Melchizedek.' The heretical Christians who identified Jesus as Melchizedek did not do so through Psalm 110:4. Think about it. The Jews, people who could actually read Hebrew fluently, took human beings, men of virtue and applied it to the verse (i.e. Abraham, David, Hezekiah). What about applying the verse to Jesus assists the mythicist cause? Why isn't it made explicit that Jesus was Melchizedek redivivus - i.e. it should say Jesus is another name for Melchizedek. As it is the application to Jesus only seems to infer that Jesus was one of many human beings who were likened to the angelic figure from the book of Genesis. Hardly a convincing argument for the non-existence of Jesus. Jews thought that Abraham and David were historical figures. So too Hezekiah.
7. When Irenaeus and those who depend on his arguments develop their understanding from Psalm 110:4 it seems only natural to them that Jesus was born of a human mother. See Adv Marc 5:9. This again is without any specific application to Hebrews which was a text Irenaeus did not know when he wrote these other references. In other words, even people who read Psalm 110:4 badly did so assuming that Jesus was a flesh and blood person.

I am open to the possibility that Psalm 110:4 may have been used by Christians living in the second century to compare Jesus to a divine figure. But the continued appeal to Psalm 110:4 does not assist the cause of proving that Jesus never existed. As such, why use it? Why use Hebrews either for that matter? It's a problematic text. Just let it be.

Bottom line is Psalm 110:4 is a comparison of an unnamed mortal figure to a well known divine hypostasis. By employing Psalm 110:4 as a proof for 'mythicism' you end up secretly confirming that Jesus was thought to be a real historical person, like Abraham, David and Hezekiah (remember we have to see things from the perspective of ancient people rather than your own notion of 'myth') by those who first developed this line of reasoning. What mythicists want to find are arguments which identify Jesus as Melchizedek not 'like' Melchizedek.

[hjalti]

Maurice Casey gave out my name, place of residence, birthplace and profession in his book - without ever asking my permission.

I am so glad I don't have his standards.

How specific was he regarding the place of residence? :S

[talitakum]

All the witnesses of early Christianity are a theological interpretation of life, teachings, deeds, death and resurrection of a person called Jesus. Therefore, as a matter of fact, Christianity needed an historical Jesus. For whatever reason. They may have fabricated it, but they needed it.

What are your thoughts on the Vision of Isaiah?

What are your thoughts on Philippians 2:9?

My thought about what aspects? Authors, date of composition? I'd be glad to answer if you'll put the questions in context (just to be sure I won't miss the point).

Historicity may be measured in terms of probabilities, but fiction is measured in terms of content

I'm not an expert in studies of fiction, I'm here because the blog title says " Christian Texts and History" and I wrote about history. I'm glad to learn that fiction is much easier to study than history: people who can't deal with the complexity of historical studies can well decide to spend more time with fiction.

Ciao

[stevencarrwork]

Maurice Casey gave out my name, place of residence, birthplace and profession in his book - without ever asking my permission.

I am so glad I don't have his standards.

How specific was he regarding the place of residence? :S

The town.