For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[GDon]

Yes, I agree that Paul saw Jesus Christ as :

• a man
• a Jewish man
• the Sperm of David
• the Sperm of Abraham

But consider the comparand Enoch.

A real Jewish man, all of the above, but not a physical man - rather a heavenly man (presumably with a new heavenly body) although he started on Earth.

I'm sorry but doesn't that example actually support me? A man who starts off on earth and (it is claimed) ascends to heaven.

I just do not agree that a listener of Paul would assume that a 'man' who was also the son of God, who was crucified for our salvation etc., necessarily meant a physical man on Earth.

But what is your evidence for that? The problem I have with Dr Carrier's and Doherty's theories is that they either had no evidence to back up their assertions about what the people of Paul's time believed, or the evidence they presented was wrong.

The only example you've given is Enoch, who started as a man on earth but was thought to have gone to heaven. Julius Caesar is another example. What I'd be interested to see are examples from that time of a claimed 'man' who was never on earth. It simply seems a foreign idea to the thinking of that time.

BTW: Enoch clearly started on Earth, but is now in Heaven. You agree that (Paul thought) Jesus Christ was now in heaven, but suggest that before the resurrection/ascension he was on Earth. Where does Paul give any clear description of a change of location ? From Earth to Heaven ?

There is no clear description of a change in location, certainly. But there are indications of a change of state, i.e. from "fleshly" to "spiritual". To my mind, the usage of "flesh", "seed" and "man" would signify to the readers of Paul's time that Jesus was a man on earth.

The idea of being a "fleshly" man, etc, who was never on earth is unprecedented for the people of that time AFAIK. That to me is the sticking point of your reading.

Furthermore - I think we have to address your obvious bias on this issue

Paul went OOB, he rose to Pi3H, he met a supernatural being, he learned divine secrets. Have you done that GDon ? Do you believe such things are genuine ? (I suggest we avoid that slippery word 'real'.)

My point being that your view (like everyone else's) on Paul's view is skewed by the big difference in our society's views on heavenly beings. Paul's listeners were clearly far more likely to consider and accept a heavenly being, because they actually believed in such things.

Of course, that leads to the interesting question :
If I personally claimed to have risen to Paradise in the Third Heaven and met heavenly beings - would that make me more or less credible ?
Funny how things change - it sounds like Paul's own claim to fame.

This is all kind of irrelevant to the point of what the people of Paul's time would have made of the passages I identified above.

 

[GDon]

Indeed.
You have put your finger on the central hole in my theory - the references to 'according to the flesh'. I have abandoned my argument that it was about the 'fleshly' Air B.the Moon, which leaves the 'flesh' as an apparently clear reference to Jesus Christ being physical and historical - destroying my argument in one fell swoop.

I don't see it that way
Because Paul's use of the term kata sarka (after the flesh) is so odd, similarly odd to the way he talks about Jesus Christ :

Cor. 5:16 "Therefore we know no one after the flesh from now on. Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more."​

We no longer know anyone kata sarka ?
We used to know Christ kata sarka, but not any more ?

How can that possibly be a reference to physicality ?
Paul never knew Jesus physically, and he must still know people physically.

Paul is filled with metaphors :

Gal. 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. "​

There are many signs that Paul is not talking in literal and historical terms. Occam's Razor says there is no need for a Historical Jesus.

But how can Jesus be 'after the flesh', without being historical ?

By being 'in' Paul, and other Christians. Or some other metaphorical view that connects Jesus Christ with his physical believers. Now - I have no argument for such a specific metaphorical view, but nor do I need a specific argument, to show that a historical Jesus Christ is not the only possible interpretation - especially in light of Paul's frequent use of heavenly terms and concepts, and references which can only be metaphorical.

"To show that a historical Jesus Christ is not the only possible interpretation". I think that is called "argument by counter-example". That is, arguing that simply presenting an alternate interpretation is enough to counter a more likely one.

But I don't know anyone who is confused about what that passage means:

2 Cor. 5:16 "Therefore we know no one after the flesh from now on. Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more."​

Paul is urging people to follow the spirit. Christ was flesh so people may have known him, but people don't know him in that state anymore. It's possible that it is a dig at James and Peter; but anyway the meaning is clear. Postulating a metaphorical meaning here simply seems unnecessary.

So how to we proceed from here, on this point? How do we break that impasse?

 

[GDon]

On the specific case of 'Seed of David' and 'Seed of Abraham', all I have to say at this point is that : 1) I do not agree that it must mean a physical historical person, 2) Paul's frequent and obvious use of metaphorical language clearly allows for a non-literal and/or metaphorical interpretation.

Okay. Here we can agree to disagree. All I can say is that there is no evidence on your side for your reading of the usage of "seed", etc, while there is evidence on my side. We can leave it at that if you like.

1I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—2that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.​

Speaking the truth in Christ, nothing historical.

Agreed. I'm not sure of the relevance to "seed", though.

3For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.​

Cut off from Christ ?

Again, not sure how you see "cut off from Christ" is relevant to the reading of "seed", etc.

5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.​

Well, I suppose that could mean Christ was born as a historical man. But a God over all ? It seems more likely to be a metaphorical point.

Not sure of how "God over all" is modifying "from their race, according to the flesh". The reading to me is clear. What is the metaphorical point being made, in your opinion?

 

[Mcreal]

Originally Posted by Mcreal:
One may as well say the series of Harry Potter movies, starting with Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Harry Potter; or that the Titanic movie proves the historicity of the main characters, Rose DeWitt Bukater (Winslet's) and Jack Dawson (DiCaprio's).

Except that we know that those stories are fiction, or presented as fiction. From what we know, the stories in Paul and GMark are presented as fact, and received as fact, at least as far as the idea of Jesus as an actual man. So a decision has to be made. Based on the evidence that we have, I can't see it going anywhere other than that the authors of Paul and GMark thought that Jesus was an actual man.

You have no evidence that the authors of Paul and GMark thought that Jesus was an actual man: the Pauline texts and GMark are evidence of narratives. Furthermore, GMark is not a person (wheterh Paul is could also be contented).

Of course Harry Potter is fiction!, and of course Rose DeWitt Bukater and Jack Dawson are fictitious characters (albeit in an otherwise true event with real people).

The point is that those stories being presented as true to unwitting people in a generation or two (or more) is likely to result in most of those people believing they would have been true.

I would differentiate "the development of the NT stories" with the origin of those stories. I'm not saying that Paul and GMark provide evidence that Jesus was the Son of God, etc, just for him being a man who lived in the author's near past.

What do you mean by 'those stories'?

Your reference to Paul and GMark not providing evidence that Jesus was the Son of God is argument by counter-example: "evidence that Jesus was the Son of God" is not at issue at all, so it's also a red-herring strawman.

 

[Mcreal]

Investigations into when & how the ancients talked about the nature or substance of Jesus are likely to give us more clues about the development of the NT stories.

For that to be true, there must be an abundance of ancient sources discussing the nature and substance of Jesus, but I have been sharply told that there is no trace of him in the record. Can you enlighten me in this matter?

I'm referring to musings in the texts by the Church Fathers through the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

 

[GDon]

You have no evidence that the authors of Paul and GMark thought that Jesus was an actual man: the Pauline texts and GMark are evidence of narratives.

No direct evidence, I agree. But what best explains the existence of those two narratives, both about a "Jesus Christ", etc, as I explained earlier? Those narratives exist. They appear to have been accepted as about a real person by all, even by later anti-Christians like Lucian and Celsus. The prima facie conclusion is that there really was a Jew known as Jesus Christ who was crucified.

What I am saying is that it is the most likely explanation. If you have another explanation that is just as or more likely, and indirect evidence to support that, I'd be interested to read it.

Of course Harry Potter is fiction!, and of course Rose DeWitt Bukater and Jack Dawson are fictitious characters (albeit in an otherwise true event with real people).

The point is that those stories being presented as true to unwitting people in a generation or two (or more) is likely to result in most of those people believing they would have been true.

I agree that's possible. The next step is to show how your point applies to Paul and GMark. (And remember, I'm not trying to say everything in Paul and GMark is true, just the part about there being a Jewish man called Jesus Christ who was crucified.)

 

[Mcreal]

They appear to have been accepted as about a real person by all, even by later anti-Christians like Lucian and Celsus.

That's an appeal to consequences fallacy.

To say that, and then say

The prima facie conclusion is that there really was a Jew known as Jesus Christ who was crucified.

is just bold assertion.

 

[pgwenthold]

Hence slowvehicle's terms Meat vs Fairy Jesus; I generally use the name Yesu ben Yusuf to refer to the probably-extant meat source of at least the name part of the story of FairyJesus.

But if said Yesu ben Yusuf didn't didn't have a mother Mary nor was did any miracles, how can you claim it has anything to do with Jesus if the bible?

L Frank Baum had a niece in Kansas named Dorothy. Does that make Dorothy of the Wizard of Oz a historical character? Is she the Historical Dorothy? Did

 

[vridar]

This is the problem with all these discussions. Before you can talk about "Historical Jesus" you need to define Jesus.

How dissimilar from the bible can you go before you decide that said person is not actually Jesus any more?

If he doesn't do a single miracle, is he really Jesus? Certainly not Jesus of the Bible, I would say. I mean, when the case for the "historical Jesus" turns into "there was a Jewish preacher in the region at the time," are you really referring to Jesus? Nah, that's not Jesus. Jesus wasn't just some Jewish preacher in the region at the time.

Spot on! Ben Witherington on his blog has just re-posted a discussion he had with Richard Bauckham about the study of the historical Jesus and the first thing Bauckham says is that as soon as we say the word "Jesus" we mean the man who appeared in history as told in the gospels.

I liked Verenna and Thompson's book Is This Not the Carpenter's Son? for its subtitle: "The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus" -- "Figure of Jesus", that's a more useful way of putting it.

A figure of Jesus covers as wide a range as you like.

 

[vridar]

Here I can only conclude that (IMHO) Paul thought that Jesus was on earth, because he is using language consistent with that idea. . . .

And that is the mythicist challenge: to show that Paul could use such language but mean that Jesus was never on earth.

Adam was on earth, too. That Paul should believe that person X was "on earth" at any time, especially when he also says that that person X was/is a pretty unreal entity in other ways, and given that there are precious few historical props that person to be located in history -- any one of these alone does little to establish the historicity of Jesus, and all three together do even less to establish a case for historicity.

Nor do they on their own preclude historicity as a possibility. But I don't see how anything stronger than that can be said.

 

[vridar]

GMark and Paul are writing about the same person, and writing within a short time frame after that person apparently lived, with both texts apparently being treated as presenting that person as real, and the audience by all accounts treating those texts in that way.

Paul wrote about a miracle-working Jesus? Not likely.

To suggest they both wrote within a short time frame after that person apparently lived is not a fact but an interpretation of evidence.

The only reason GMark is said to have been written within 40 years of Jesus is because the narrative is used as a testimony of its own historicity and scholars need as short a link as possible between 30 and 70 CE to allow for relative reliability of oral tradition and fulfilled prophecy of the destruction of the temple.

We don't know when Mark was written so cannot use this as part of an argument either way.

GMark does not present its Jesus as real in the same sense as biographers or historians ever sought to present known historical persons as real. He has Jesus talk with narrator's authority with spirit beings, perform miracles etc, act in bizarre ways and have his followers act in bizarre and unreal ways, even has the historical Pilate act in a manner contrary to what is known of the real Pilate, assigns personal and place names that are evident puns on the narrative themes, etc etc.

Yes, GMark presents Jesus with a tone of authorial authority, but unlike other historical or biographical works in general, he makes no attempt to persuade readers of the real-world historical veracity of his narrative.

Now that does not mean Jesus could not have been historical, but it does mean the GMark is not prima facie evidence for historicity of anything.

 

[Mcreal]

To suggest they both wrote within a short time frame after that person apparently lived is not a fact but an interpretation of evidence unclear or vague information in narratives.
.

fify

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Craig B and all

I think it does, because both "sperm" and "flesh" denote physical substances.

Really ? Then what does Paul mean by this :

2 Cor. 5:16 "Therefore we know no one after the flesh from now on. Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more."​

If you think that this physicality should be removed from the connotation of your self-declared "direct translation of the words", please state why.

' My self-declared "direct translation of the words" ' ?

Pardon ?
The Greek states "SPERMATOS DAVID KATA SARKA" - that is THE translation. Haven't you ever checked the Greek, Craig B ?


Kapyong

 

[GDon]

That's an appeal to consequences fallacy.

Not that I can see. One way to evaluate a 'Harry Potter' story where its fictional aspect becomes lost between generations is to see how others view it. For the Gospels, even the pagans recognised that the stories were supposedly of someone real.

To say that, and then say

The prima facie conclusion is that there really was a Jew known as Jesus Christ who was crucified.

is just bold assertion.

Fair enough. I'm happy to agree to disagree. For me, it is a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence.

 

[GDon]

Adam was on earth, too. That Paul should believe that person X was "on earth" at any time, especially when he also says that that person X was/is a pretty unreal entity in other ways, and given that there are precious few historical props that person to be located in history -- any one of these alone does little to establish the historicity of Jesus, and all three together do even less to establish a case for historicity.

Nor do they on their own preclude historicity as a possibility. But I don't see how anything stronger than that can be said.

On its own, I might agree. But we have GMark as well, as an independent witness to a Jesus Christ. Together they form a strong prima facie case. Given that there is no strong alternative (IMHO) the case for historicity is the best one.

 

[GDon]

To suggest they both wrote within a short time frame after that person apparently lived is not a fact but an interpretation of evidence.

I agree, it is an interpretation of the evidence. But having that interpretation in place, can we not use it as evidence towards the case for or against historicity?

The only reason GMark is said to have been written within 40 years of Jesus is because the narrative is used as a testimony of its own historicity and scholars need as short a link as possible between 30 and 70 CE to allow for relative reliability of oral tradition and fulfilled prophecy of the destruction of the temple.

We don't know when Mark was written so cannot use this as part of an argument either way.

Why not, if the interpretation of evidence supports such a view? It does seem like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

GMark does not present its Jesus as real in the same sense as biographers or historians ever sought to present known historical persons as real. He has Jesus talk with narrator's authority with spirit beings, perform miracles etc, act in bizarre ways and have his followers act in bizarre and unreal ways, even has the historical Pilate act in a manner contrary to what is known of the real Pilate, assigns personal and place names that are evident puns on the narrative themes, etc etc.

That is going to the veracity of the stories within GMark. I'm only arguing that GMark presents Jesus as a real person: with a mother, brothers and sisters.

Yes, GMark presents Jesus with a tone of authorial authority, but unlike other historical or biographical works in general, he makes no attempt to persuade readers of the real-world historical veracity of his narrative.

I don't see the relevance of that. GMark is more like a hagiography than a historical or biographical work. Yet it does present the character as a real person. It seems to fall into the same genre as GLuke, which does attempt to persuade the reader that the stories are true.

Now that does not mean Jesus could not have been historical, but it does mean the GMark is not prima facie evidence for historicity of anything.

I see the combination of Paul and GMark as representing the prima facie case. It's not that we have one or the other, it is that we have both. Something has to explain the existence of both. Given the lack of strong alternatives, the case for historicity seems to be the best one IMO.

 

[Kapyong]

GDay GDon

But consider the comparand Enoch.
A real Jewish man, all of the above, but not a physical man - rather a heavenly man (presumably with a new heavenly body) although he started on Earth.

I'm sorry but doesn't that example actually support me? A man who starts off on earth and (it is claimed) ascends to heaven.

Well the issue is whether Paul's listeners/readers would have interpreted him as refering to a physical literal man, right ?

While you argue that my heavenly interpretation does not fit well.

Yes Enoch did rise to heaven, which does mirror your Historical Jesus Theory, but my point here is this :

• Would Paul's listeners believe a MAN, a JEWISH MAN, who was born and crucified, was on Earth ?

So, could a Jewish man be living in heaven ?
Yes. Enoch is a (lonely) example. But consider Jacob seeing the ladder to heaven. And all those books of Jewish men visiting heaven like Isaiah.

And Jesus is a god-man too or an Angel-man - and we have very many examples of Angels living and acting in heaven - Satan, Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, Raphael, - and many more. The Nephilim were angelic beings who had sex in flesh with humans.

A hearer of Paul could reasonably interpret his crucifixion happening in heaven. I do not agree that Earth is an obvious interpretation.

I just do not agree that a listener of Paul would assume that a 'man' who was also the son of God, who was crucified for our salvation etc., necessarily meant a physical man on Earth.

But what is your evidence for that? The problem I have with Dr Carrier's and Doherty's theories is that they either had no evidence to back up their assertions about what the people of Paul's time believed, or the evidence they presented was wrong.

There is considerable circumstantial evidence about their beliefs :

• they believed in many supernatural angels and god(s) and beings.
• they believed a man could live in heaven (Enoch)
• they believed a man could visit heaven (Paul)
• they believed actions happened in heaven
• they believed earthly things were governed by the heavenly

I think that evidence is rather stronger than you judge it

The only example you've given is Enoch, who started as a man on earth but was thought to have gone to heaven. Julius Caesar is another example. What I'd be interested to see are examples from that time of a claimed 'man' who was never on earth. It simply seems a foreign idea to the thinking of that time.

Yes, sadly I have no specific example of that. But we must allow for originality - Paul's ideas were NEW, not necessarily foreign. A god-man who existed in heaven, whose crucifixion up there gave salvation down here, seems entirely plausable for these times.

The idea of being a "fleshly" man, etc, who was never on earth is unprecedented for the people of that time AFAIK. That to me is the sticking point of your reading.

Yup.
It certainly is that. But considering the very strange ways these people thought, I don't think it's crazy. Consider Cicero talking about the different 'flesh' of the gods.

This is all kind of irrelevant to the point of what the people of Paul's time would have made of the passages I identified above.

Well, I reckon if you had travelled OOB to Pi3H, then you'd be more open to a heavenly interperetation. I think society's background beliefs ARE important here.


Kapyong

 

[vridar]

On its own, I might agree. But we have GMark as well, as an independent witness to a Jesus Christ. Together they form a strong prima facie case. Given that there is no strong alternative (IMHO) the case for historicity is the best one.

Paul's writings need to be assessed on their own. GMark can hardly be taken as an "independent witness". To refer once more to the Schweitzer citation, they both derive from the single tradition, Christianity itself, and therefore we cannot claim to have independent or external controls.

GMark's presentation of Jesus bears no comparison with any other Greco-Roman presentation of historical or biographical information as pointed out in another comment -- Burridge notwithstanding. GMark's Jesus is clearly a fabulous figure living in a make-believe world where even Pilate behaves as if in a fairy-tale.

Adding Paul and Mark does not strengthen the case: it only doubles the indication of how weak the prima facie evidence is for historicity.

Historicity needs far more than Paul and Mark alone.

 

[Mcreal]

GDon said

They appear to have been accepted as about a real person by all, even by later anti-Christians like Lucian and Celsus.

I replied

That's an appeal to consequences fallacy.

GDon then replied

Not that I can see. One way to evaluate a 'Harry Potter' story where its fictional aspect becomes lost between generations is to see how others view it. For the Gospels, even the pagans recognised that the stories were supposedly of someone real.

To say "even the pagans recognized that the stories were supposedly of someone real" is further appeal to consequences.

To say

The prima facie conclusion is that there really was a Jew known as Jesus Christ who was crucified

is hardly based on sound or even valid 'evidence' when one is relying on fallacy or belief in someone 'supposedly real'.

The Christian tradition over the first two centuries is one of dubious descriptions of it's key god-like figure by the Church Fathers.

 

[vridar]

To suggest they both wrote within a short time frame after that person apparently lived is not a fact but an interpretation of evidence.

I agree, it is an interpretation of the evidence. But having that interpretation in place, can we not use it as evidence towards the case for or against historicity?

No we cannot. An interpretation can be used as an argument but not as evidence. An interpretation is not itself the evidence.

Different interpretations need to be tested. As long as there is debate or uncertainty then they cannot be treated as if they were facts, or evidence itself.

We don't know when Mark was written so cannot use this as part of an argument either way.

Why not, if the interpretation of evidence supports such a view? It does seem like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Interpretations are not evidence or facts. If there is debate or uncertainty or inconclusiveness on a particular question then we can't simply declare that our own particular solution to the question can be used as a bedrock support for an argument.

If we do then we need to acknowledge that our hypothesis is really being built upon a lot of other hypotheses, ifs and maybes and possibilities etc.

I know many biblical historians work this way (mercifully not all do) but it's not how sound historical inquiry is done. We are still at the level of trying to ascertain simple "facts" such as did "so and so" live and play a significant role in history.

The question of historicity or mythicism cannot rely upon a view that gospels were written around year whatever if we simply have no way of knowing (as distinct from believing/hypothesizing) when the gospels were written.

GMark does not present its Jesus as real in the same sense as biographers or historians ever sought to present known historical persons as real. He has Jesus talk with narrator's authority with spirit beings, perform miracles etc, act in bizarre ways and have his followers act in bizarre and unreal ways, even has the historical Pilate act in a manner contrary to what is known of the real Pilate, assigns personal and place names that are evident puns on the narrative themes, etc etc.

That is going to the veracity of the stories within GMark. I'm only arguing that GMark presents Jesus as a real person: with a mother, brothers and sisters.

It is going to the heart of how Jesus is presented. He is presented as a spirit possessed miracle worker. That's how he is presented. You can't just take out a couple of verses that show him in some other aspect (he had brothers) and say that no, Mark doesn't present him as a miracle worker etc but only as a brother and son.

That family relationship is just as arguably a theological narrative -- with theological intent etc -- as is the miracle working side of the Jesus presented in the gospel.

Yes, GMark presents Jesus with a tone of authorial authority, but unlike other historical or biographical works in general, he makes no attempt to persuade readers of the real-world historical veracity of his narrative.

I don't see the relevance of that. GMark is more like a hagiography than a historical or biographical work. Yet it does present the character as a real person. It seems to fall into the same genre as GLuke, which does attempt to persuade the reader that the stories are true.

It goes to the heart of the nature of the texts we are examining. None of the canonical gospels attempt to demonstrate the historical veracity of their narratives in ways we see most Greco-Roman historians and biographers attempted to instill confidence in their readers. The scholarship on Luke's prologue is rich with demonstrations of this.

Now that does not mean Jesus could not have been historical, but it does mean the GMark is not prima facie evidence for historicity of anything.

I see the combination of Paul and GMark as representing the prima facie case. It's not that we have one or the other, it is that we have both. Something has to explain the existence of both. Given the lack of strong alternatives, the case for historicity seems to be the best one IMO.

That sounds like question begging. Paul tells us that a pre-existent being came to Israel and remained a nonentity (not even a miracle worker is implied) and returned to the heavens and gives us no historical markers as to when, etc -- Mark gives us a Jesus who is presented as a man with superpowers and divine contacts etc --- Adding both together does not increase the prima facie case for probability.

We know Paul's Christ has much in common with the Stoic's Logos and Mark's narratives have much in common with other heroic figures in the Jewish literature. Yet you say the prima facie case for historicity stands out as superior.