Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[Stephan Huller]

http://www.raphaellataster.com/Articles ... r,OHOJ.htm

[Tenorikuma]

I don't think it's as easy as prematurely dismissing them as pure myth. Are they full of propaganda and developing legend? Of course! But does that mean we write them off completely? I see the gospels as something similar to the "biography" of L.Ron Hubbard on the official scientology website. They're idealised / stylised portraits. Not pure myth.

Hi, Toejam. While that is a respectable view, I have a problem with it — namely, that I can't find anything of historical value in the Gospels. If they read like an ancient biography with a mix of mundane historical detail and fantastic embellishment, I would agree with you. But the narrative seems to be cribbed from other sources or just plain made up to establish a foundation for later Christian beliefs and teachings. The only events Jesus historicists seem to agree on, like Jesus' birth in Nazareth and baptism by John, quickly evaporate when you examine the text closely enough. The Q sayings could have come from anywhere. I can't point to a single thing in the Gospels I can say with confidence "this probably happened". I can't find any teachings of the real Jesus that early Christians seem to have agreed on, which is simply astonishing. Every single doctrine seems to have been up for debate among early Christians, especially when we allow the heretics to have a voice. If Jesus was a teacher, why does no one remember what he taught? If he wasn't, then who are we discussing?

If you think the Gospels are a stylized description of historical events, I would be curious to know what events those are and why you think they are historical.

That's my problem with MH's "composite" paradigm too. The Gospels are a composite between myth and … what exactly? To be sure, there are echoes of real people and events in it, but no one that fits the Christian Jesus or the precise chronological setting of the events (late 20s or early 30s under Pilate). If the Gospels are a clever allegory for a person that lived 30 or 100 years earlier than the era depicted, then we end up reliant on non-Gospel material to uncover the historical Jesus.

I tend to agree that the key to establishing historicity is in the pre-Gospel literature, like Paul's epistles — absent future archaeological finds, I suppose.

[MrMacSon]

... "the characteristics of the Gospels are such that a 'composite' figure is just as likely implied as a historical one". See the difference? One position, the composite figure position, allows for historical figures to be reflected within that literary gospel figure. The other position in your statement, the 'mythical' position', relies on imagination or speculation. One position, the composite figure, has potential to open up the search for early christian origins. ie. it seeks to deal with historical realities. The 'mythical', re Carrier's above quote, finds the gospel story makes no difference to 'the equation'.

The evidence of the Gospels is that it's literary Jesus figure is a composite figure. (A zealot like figure combined with a man of peace type figure - turn the other cheek plus sell your cloak and buy a sword). A composite figure reflecting historical figures of interest to the gospel writers. This position necessitates that priority be given to the gospel story in the debate over historicity or ahistoricity. Richard Carrier notwithstanding....

I disagree.

These proposals/assertions ...

• "the composite figure position allows for historical figures to be reflected within that literary gospel figure"
• "the composite figure, has potential to open up the search for early christian origins ie. it seeks to deal with historical realities"
• "The evidence of the Gospels is that it's literary Jesus figure is a composite figure".
• "A composite figure reflecting historical figures of interest to the gospel writers"

... require further supportive arguments.

It seems one needs to also consider the spiritual figures present in Gnostic Christianity, and Marcionism dual gods, as presenting pre-corporeal figures as a foundation.


As do these proposals/assertions -

• "the 'mythical' position', relies on imagination or speculation"
• "The 'mythical', re Carrier's above quote, finds the gospel story makes no difference to 'the equation"'.

Loren Rossen's assessment of

• 
  
  “As evidence, the gospels simply make no difference to the equation.” (p 509)
  
  

is ...

For the most part he doesn't become victim of his aggressive claims ... he’s not stacking the deck in his favor as I expected.

That seems fair.

I agree with Tenorikuma's post preceding this one -

I can't find anything of historical value in the Gospels ... the narrative seems to be cribbed from other sources or just plain made up to establish a foundation for later Christian beliefs and teachings. ... I can't find any teachings of the real Jesus that early Christians seem to have agreed on, which is simply astonishing.

rossonl provides commentary

Carrier argues that Paul and other apostles worshiped a purely mythical figure into which the gospels later pumped historical life.

In other words, there was never a man named Jesus who acquired followers in his life, and who was executed, or believed/claimed to be executed, which in turn led to his status as a divine Christ (On the Historicity of Jesus, pp 33-34). That’s how Carrier defines the minimal historicist position.

http://rossonl.wordpress.com/2014/06/24 ... -theories/

[MrMacSon]

http://www.raphaellataster.com/Articles ... r,OHOJ.htm

Re Lataster's

[Carrier] effectively begins this book (Chapters 2 and 3) by meticulously explaining the hypotheses of ‘minimal historicity’ and ‘minimal mythicism’. The latter position, highly influenced by the work of Earl Doherty, states that Jesus was initially believed to be a celestial figure, who came to be historicised over time.

I contend a better description would be

Jesus was initially believed to be a celestial figure, who came to be 'humanised', and thus historicised, over time.

[toejam]

Answering your questions above: Although I'm not a huge fan of Reza Aslan's latest book, I agree with him that the two most probable things about the historical Jesus are his crucifixion and his Jewish identity. Second to that, I would simply say that I see the broad outline of the gospels as being historical (in the same way that the broad outline of the scientology.com biography of Hubbard is historical - i.e. the basic story is there but it's filled with exaggeration, developing legend, propaganda etc.). So for Jesus, that means that I take his baptism by John, his cult-figure status (teacher/exorcist/miracle-worker etc.), his anti-establishment views, and his eventual arrest as more or less historical. In the next tier, things get blurrier. The best reconstructions I've read are those pointing towards Jesus being some kind of apocalyptic prophet, but it is at that point where I find hypotheses start to fall below the level I'd call "probable".

Tenorikuma, how do you explain the origin of Christianity without a crucified Jewish figure at its historical core?

[maryhelena]

That's my problem with MH's "composite" paradigm too. The Gospels are a composite between myth and … what exactly? To be sure, there are echoes of real people and events in it, but no one that fits the Christian Jesus or the precise chronological setting of the events (mid-30s under Pilate).

"...the precise chronological setting of the events (mid-30s under Pilate).?

If we are agreed that the gospel story is not history, then the setting of this gospel story, under Pilate, is just that, a setting for a story. If, as I maintain, the figure of Jesus is a literary, composite, figure; a composite literary figure that reflects real flesh and blood historical figures, then, there is no necessity, or logic, to assume that the historical figures reflected in the composite gospel Jesus figure lived under Pilate. Sure, historical figures during the rule of Pilate could be included in that composite Jesus figure - but one cannot exclude historical figures earlier than Pilate. Literary license allows for make-belief re character and timeframe.

Consider James Bond.

James Bond

Fleming based his fictional creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the Naval Intelligence Division during World War II, admitting that Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war".[2] Among those types were his brother, Peter, who had been involved in behind-the-lines operations in Norway and Greece during the war.[3] Aside from Fleming's brother, a number of others also provided some aspects of Bond's make up, including Conrad O'Brien-ffrench, Patrick Dalzel-Job and Bill "Biffy" Dunderdale.

James Bond was created from various people known to Fleming from World War II - but where does he base his James Bond figure - not in World War II but later. From the Wikipedia article.

When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument ... when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard.

—Ian Fleming, The New Yorker, 21 April 1962[5]

The article goes on to show that Flemming added other characteristics to Bond, including some of his own traits.

Thus, historical figures that are reflected in the literary, composite, gospel Jesus figure are not confined to having lived in the time of Pilate.

I tend to agree that the key to establishing historicity is in the pre-Gospel literature, like Paul's epistles — absent future archaeological finds, I suppose.

The Pauline epistles do not, cannot, over-ride or cancel out the relevance of the gospel story. Dating of manuscripts only dates the manuscripts it does not date the content of the manuscripts. Even if, for the sake of argument, it could be established that the gospel story was first written in 300 c.e., that would not diminish the value of the story. It's the gospel story that has to be evaluated not the dating of any manuscript it might be found in. Literary licence again; authors, in the 21st century, can write books about Elizabeth I, whether biography or novel - and we don't use the 21st century dating to devalue these books either for their historical details or the literary licence of the speculative novel. The point is - whatever the dating of the gospel manuscripts - the Jesus story they contain has to be evaluated on it's own merits and not by the dating of the manuscripts.

And a new gospel manuscript turns up tomorrow that can be dated earlier than the Pauline manuscripts - what then for any mythicist theory based on dating the Pauline manuscripts? Yep, carbon dating has debunked Eisenman on his DSS theory - it's a pitfall some mythicists would do well to keep in mind......

[Tenorikuma]

Thanks for the reply, Toejam.

Although I'm not a huge fan of Reza Aslan's latest book, I agree with him that the two most probable things about the historical Jesus are his crucifixion and his Jewish identity.

I think you'll agree, though, this description does not establish even a minimal historical Jesus. Thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans. Furthermore, nothing about Jesus' crucifixion in the Gospels seems very probable. A secret nighttime trial during the Passover? A reluctant Pontius Pilate? An audience with tetrarch Antipas? An improbable burial? A passion narrative cribbed from lines in Psalm 22? The Gospel authors don't even get the high priest right. If I admit every detail of the crucifixion story is fictional or improbable, what justification do I have to insist the event still happened?

So for Jesus, that means that I take his baptism by John…

How did anyone know of his baptism by John? He hadn’t recruited any disciples yet, and in the earliest Gospel, John doesn’t even recognize Jesus. Surely it is more likely that Mark made it up to fulfill prophecy and entice members of John’s movement.

It's like Jesus praying alone in the Garden of Gethsemane. How does the omniscient narrator know about it? Because he invented it, that's how.

…his cult-figure status (teacher/exorcist/miracle-worker etc.)…

Did Jesus actually perform miracles? Paul seemed to think that Christianity was not founded in any way on miracles (1 Corinthians 1:22).

…his eventual arrest

Which seems to be based on Josephus’ account of the Egyptian prophet when he led his followers to the Mount of Olives, plus the invention of a betrayer inspired by 1 Corinthians 11:23 (which was originally about God, not Judas).

Tenorikuma, how do you explain the origin of Christianity without a crucified Jewish figure at its historical core?

I’m still working that out, which is why I’m interested in Carrier’s book.

I tend to think Christianity grew out of Jewish groups that had no access to the temple (like the Yahad) and imagined they had a superior heavenly high priest who gave sacrifices on their behalf, as we read in Hebrews. Historicization occurred later and provided numerous advantages, including a stamp of exclusive authority for the churches that claimed certain apostles as their founders. It also provided a counter to Jewish messianic movements (like Bar Kochba) to portray Jesus as the true Messiah, who had come and died in secret. That’s just one idea, though. I'm not ruling out a historical Jesus either, but my point is that I cannot find one in the Gospels. Maybe the Talmud's depiction of Jesus is the correct one.

[MrMacSon]

As can be expected by any critical scholar of early Christianity, most of the extra-Biblical sources are discarded for being too late, derivative, and for likely not being truly independent (Chapter 8). In Chapters 9 and 10, the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are largely omitted also, as they are unreliable, and these relatively late mixtures of myth and (at least what purports to be) history would be expected if a celestial/mythical Jesus was later historicised and if a historical Jesus later became mythicised. This may surprise Gospel proponents, but the logic is sound. The mythicist theory is not simply ‘Jesus did not exist’, which the Gospels would seemingly contradict (if they were reliable), but that Christians originally believed in a celestial Jesus, and later attempted to place him in a historical setting.

http://www.raphaellataster.com/Articles ... r,OHOJ.htm

Galatians 3:2 KVJ
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit and worketh miracles among you, doeth He it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

[toejam]

I tend to think Christianity grew out of Jewish groups that had no access to the temple (like the Yahad) and imagined they had a superior heavenly high priest who gave sacrifices on their behalf, as we read in Hebrews. Historicization occurred later and provided numerous advantages, including a stamp of exclusive authority for the churches that claimed certain apostles as their founders. It also provided a counter to Jewish messianic movements (like Bar Kochba) to portray Jesus as the true Messiah, who had come and died in secret. That’s just one idea, though. I'm not ruling out a historical Jesus either, but my point is that I cannot find one in the Gospels. Maybe the Talmud's depiction of Jesus is the correct one.

Here's a much simpler and highly contextually credible hypothesis that doesn't require an appeal to conspiracy and that is actually based on what the sources describe: There was a historical crucified Jewish cult-figure called Jesus whose story started to get out of hand.

[Tenorikuma]

Now you're being uncharitable, Toejam. I'm not alleging any conspiracy. I am, on the other hand, trying to come up with hypotheses that are based on sources — especially those written long before the Gospels. They describe a heavenly Christ who was crucified in secret (Paul, Ignatius), who acts as our high priest in heaven (Hebrews), whose nature can be learned from the Jewish scriptures (Paul, Epistle of Barnabas), and who will one day return to be the Messiah. I'm also willing to admit I don't know how Christianity actually started; there are too many possibilities and not enough evidence for certainty.