• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What counts as a historical Jesus?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jayson

I have lost the ability to follow the correlation and meaningfulness of this particular tangent in its position to the concept regarding how if the texts were entirely fictional, then it would represent a new literary form.
So far as I can tell, we differ on the probative significance of the fact, if it were true. Inventing new literary forms is among the things that writers have done since wriitng was invented (which, of course, is tautologically true). So, one of the best selling authors of all time invented a new literary form. So what? Maybe that's part of why he's one of the best selling authors of all time.

Maybe it's not as easy an innovation to copy as it looks. After all, Paul apparently integrated his literary production with the marketing of the story and its signature character. That may be difficult to do. Paul complains about the road. Paul complains about his churches being high maintenance. Maybe, just maybe, there was some work involved.

I'm looking for a non-Jesus-centric piece of literature that followed the same new format of writing about a fictional figure of any kind that was purported in the story to live among the reading audience, or nearby them, within their lifetime; similar to modern fiction.
Assuming Paul did teach a Jesus from Galilee, none of his immdiate audience was in Galilee. Jesus hadn't "lived among the reading audience, or nearby them, within their lifetime."

Paul's story benefits from an exotic locale to complement the (apparent) immediacy of setting the story in the recent past. That spatial exoticism is all the more reason why it is interesting, then, that Paul's travel tales are a singing commercial for staying home.
 
Lets get to point here. Which is (to repeat) - at that time in that very region, there had for centuries already been belief in Greek Mystery religions and envisioned imaginings believed as reality etc. That's clear not just from the very obvious Hellenic influence of the people, but also from the DS-Scrolls (which unlike all the biblical stuff, are actually the original writing from precisely that time and precisely that small region).

Interesting. I have a book Ancient Mystery Cults by Walter Burkert and another titled Mystery Cults of the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden. Both authors agree any "ties" to Christianity are tenuous at best. In fact, Bowden talks of how Protestant polemicists argued for the ties at first, so they could show how the early Roman church was corrupted by these non-Christian ideas.

If you have other sources that support your ideas I would be interested in reading them.


And that writing and it's religious beliefs, and in fact the people's entire way of life, was entirely about their belief in imaginary gods.

What you seem to be asking for is other examples precisely like we eventually had in the biblical gospel writing which appeared centuries after the believed God Jesus was thought to have died. But that's not necessary at all. Because you already have that Hellenic religious belief in Mystery gods, who were often dying and rising gods, and you already had the imagining of gods being preached as absolute reality in real settings with real people etc. On top of which, the Jesus stories which evolved from that background over the course of 200-300 years, were also almost all (if not in fact, all) quite clearly taken from the messiah prophecies which had been known to everyone there as part of their everyday beliefs for at least 500 years!

Exactly which mystery cults are you referring to? There were many (many appearing after Christianity, but certainly not all) so maybe you could explain which cults you had in mind.

"The believed God Jesus" - Do you feel Paul's messiah is the same as John's messiah? Is Mark's the same as John's?

Do you think Paul's idea of a messiah lined up with the dominant views of the time?

Why did more Jews not convert? Why did some rabbis think Bar Kokhba was the messiah even after the Jesus "myth" had been established?

I would be interested in reading your ideas explained in more detail.
 
.... the only thing that causes me to think it's more possible that someone existed whom the legend was based on is because I spend my time in cultural anthropology and I don't see an anthropological wave of new literary format that I would expect if this figure was purely fictional.


What causes me to think a biblical type Jesus may well never have existed is -


1. It seems there is actually no evidence of his existence.

2. But there is overwhelming evidence that the biblical writers invented the stories about him.

3. Throughout history, religious fanatics have always invented entirely fictional claims of witnessing miraculous visions etc.

4. I'd be more impressed by the "expert scholars" if they were qualified in something more objective and less personally involved than Bible Studies, Theology, or Judeo-Christian religion.
 
Eight Bit;

None of that helped.
I'm still left without a single separate instance of a literary form that is not related to Jesus which parallels the fictional form we have in the texts regarding Jesus if we take Jesus to not have existed in any fashion at all.

You said, "so what"?
Maybe it's not a big deal to you, but to me; someone who loves culture and anthropology; it's a very big deal.

If a new form was created, then we should see it repeated with different subject material; as is the pattern of human cultural behavior.
The first instance of something leads to duplicates of it within shot of the same culture from which it came, and near the same generational time frame.
More stuff on Jesus is not a parallel or duplication of the form.

If that happened; I want it accounted for and not lost to history for favor of a guy that didn't exist.


Ians;
Yes; and I doubt anything that will show up in this forum will change much in those regards.
 
Last edited:
Jayson

You said, "so what"?
Yes, meaning "What follows from that?"

We agree it's a big deal, but we differ about why it's a big deal, and whether the size of the deal has much bearing on the factual or fictional character of the literary performance. You think it does (apparently), I think it doesn't.

It can't be "helped," we disagree.

If a new form was created, then we should see it repeated with different subject material; as is the pattern of human cultural behavior.
As I said in my post, it is not clear that the cost of creating a second performance in this genre would be justified by the visible benefits to the creator. It is especially not clear that Paul's marketing could be separated from the performance, while still achieving an economically worthwhile result.

And I renew my objection to limiting elite human performance to "patterns." You have inferred things about typical human perfomance that are generally true most of the time, fine.

But I wouldn't choose an outrageously atypical example of a successful book, and then tell you that the circumstances of its composition must fit some "pattern of human cultural behavior." Just as part of its success may have been its literary innovativeness, another part may be the barriers to entry that inhere to the genre as perfomed, or that its creators or inheritors erected, against imitators.

After all, Paul's inheritors put out the story that he was killed for doing what he did. That was a smart move, in oh so many ways.
 
No, it's not about say, why Harry Potter was so popular, and because it was therefore we should see a bunch of Harry Potter clones.
That's not what I'm getting at.

In cultural history of humans, we have a few points of social evolution.
One of them is literature and the evolution thereof.
At the time in question, one form of literature that was yet to be invented (at least, this is the common holding of anthropology currently) was the literary form of contemporary fiction.

Fiction definitely did exist, and there are plenty of them.
However, the form of fiction that we crack open regularly in a Tom Clancy novel filled with people that are cast into our current environment, yet are purely fictional and unreal individuals was not yet invented culturally.

When a new form of literature arrives in human culture, it repeats.
For instance, Greek epic poetry created a ripple that was followed as a form, Plato's dialogues rippled into literature and brought us literary philosophy which was followed in form, apocalyptic literature was a form that caught on and was spread, etc... on through history.

If they did write a piece of contemporary fiction (meaning; fiction set in the time of the audience and filled with fictional characters imagined to be outstandingly real people), then these folks were 400 to 600 years ahead of their time and absolutely need to be noted in the historical timeline of literature more accurately as right now that kind of fiction isn't attributed to have begun in human history until the 6th to 7th century.
 
Last edited:
1 Corinthians, part 3

OK, let's resume with our examination of Paul's first letter to the assembly at Corinth:

Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly — mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task.

I won't dwell much on this section, because it's pretty much just a spat, and we've already seen the nature of it.

Paul is claiming that his gospel comes from God / Jesus / the Holy Spirit, and the gospel of Apollos does not.

But here's a bit that refers to a tradition that I've made reference to, but so far haven't fully explained:

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.

What is "the Day" to which Paul refers?

It is the Day of the Lord. We have already seen that Paul plays with this construction by referring to the "Day of our Lord". But what is the reference here?

It's to a Jewish scriptural tradition that is interwoven with the apocalyptic traditions we've already seen, which saturate the thinking of both Jesus -- by all accounts -- as well as his followers.

It begins, not surprisingly, with Isaiah. Here is the earliest reference to the Day of Yahweh:

You, Yahweh, have abandoned your people,
the descendants of Jacob.
They are full of superstitions from the East;
they practice divination like the Philistines
and embrace pagan customs.
Their land is full of silver and gold;
there is no end to their treasures.
Their land is full of horses;
there is no end to their chariots.
Their land is full of idols;
they bow down to the work of their hands,
to what their fingers have made.
So people will be brought low
and everyone humbled—
do not forgive them.
Go into the rocks, hide in the ground
from the fearful presence of Yahweh
and the splendor of his majesty!
The eyes of the arrogant will be humbled
and human pride brought low;
Yahweh alone will be exalted in that day.
Yahweh Almighty has a day in store
for all the proud and lofty,
for all that is exalted
(and they will be humbled),
for all the cedars of Lebanon, tall and lofty,
and all the oaks of Bashan,
for all the towering mountains
and all the high hills,
for every lofty tower
and every fortified wall,
for every trading ship
and every stately vessel.
The arrogance of man will be brought low
and human pride humbled;
Yahweh alone will be exalted in that day….

Stop trusting in mere humans,
who have but a breath in their nostrils.
Why hold them in esteem?

You can see how this fits with Paul's reference to "gold and silver", as well as the pervasive references -- not only by Paul, but by the non-Pauline Christian communities as well -- of the powerful being overthrown and the humble inheriting the earth.

Note, too, the reference to the sins of the Jewish people who have turned away from the truth of God. In the time when this passage was written, the reference was to perceived unorthodox religious practices, which were blamed for Judea's political and military troubles. But Paul interprets the passage as referring to his own time -- as people have a tendency to do at all times, even today -- in which, according to his theology, the Jewish people have turned away from God's anointed one, Jesus.

Also note that Paul is referencing a passage that condemns non-Jewish "superstitions". Does this sound like someone who embraces non-Jewish mystery cults? No, not in the least.

More from Isaiah about the Day of the Lord:

Wail, for the day of Yahweh is near;
it will come like destruction from the Almighty.
Because of this, all hands will go limp,
every heart will melt with fear.
Terror will seize them,
pain and anguish will grip them;
they will writhe like a woman in labor.
They will look aghast at each other,
their faces aflame.
See, the day of Yahweh is coming
—a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger—
to make the land desolate
and destroy the sinners within it.
The stars of heaven and their constellations
will not show their light.
The rising sun will be darkened
and the moon will not give its light.
I will punish the world for its evil,
the wicked for their sins.
I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty
and will humble the pride of the ruthless.
I will make people scarcer than pure gold,
more rare than the gold of Ophir.
Therefore I will make the heavens tremble;
and the earth will shake from its place
at the wrath of Yahweh Almighty,
in the day of his burning anger.

Keep this imagery in mind, because it will reappear in other non-Pauline Christian traditions, and it will be especially important in a key passage from Mark that we will examine very closely when we get to that book.

When Paul talks about "the Day", or "the Day of our Lord", this is what he is referencing. It is a time when almost all human beings will be quite literally killed by God's army, making human beings rarer than gold. (And guess who those rare survivors will be?)

Given the fact that all traditions emanating from the original followers of Jesus -- those growing out from Paul's assemblies as well as those founded by other apostles -- are rooted in this tradition and belief, it's clear that the trajectories converge on a doctrine, preached by Jesus, based on these Jewish scriptures and theological precepts. And given the fact that such apocalyptic beliefs were rife in the tumultuous religious and political environment of early 1st century Judea, there's really no reason to go fishing among other far-flung beliefs and cultures for an explanation of original Christian thought.

And by now, it should not be surprising to anyone who has followed my posts that this idea from Isaiah is taken up by Ezekiel:

They will throw their silver into the streets,
and their gold will be treated as a thing unclean.
Their silver and gold
will not be able to deliver them
in the day of Yahweh’s wrath.

Here's the thing about Paul… he is what he says he is -- a Jewish religious fanatic. A highly literate one, but a fanatic nonetheless. And his references are exclusively to Jewish scripture.

Anyone who thinks he's making references to some other tradition simply does not have a sufficient background in the literature to which Paul is referring, or else is doing a type of negative cherry-picking which deliberately fails to reference these passages.

Again, we see a disdain for "gold" and "silver", which is the imagery Paul is using, coupled with references to a coming day of the Lord's anger, a day in which Paul firmly believes.

More from Ezekiel:

The word of Yahweh came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: ‘Hear the word of Yahweh! This is what the Sovereign, Yahweh, says: Woe to the wicked prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! Your prophets, Israel, are like jackals among ruins. You have not gone up to the breaches in the wall to repair it for the people of Israel so that it will stand firm in the battle on the day of Yahweh. Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. Even though Yahweh has not sent them, they say, “Yahweh declares,” and expect him to fulfill their words. Have you not seen false visions and uttered lying divinations when you say, “Yahweh declares,” though I have not spoken?'

So, in the times leading up to the Day of the Lord, there will be false prophets pretending to speak for God, to whom God has not spoken.

Keep in mind, Paul's condemnation here is not a quibble. It's very serious stuff. And we'll see more of this sort of language leveled against those who have "false visions", and who claim to speak for God but who, unlike Paul, haven't had direct contact with God through the Holy Spirit (in Paul's estimation, anyway).

When we get to the book of Acts, we'll find that the author of that book attempts to smooth over these very bitter and acrimonious divisions, and portray the early church as a unified and harmonious community. But nothing could be further from the truth -- that vision is pure propaganda.

This notion of a coming Day of the Lord continues in later prophetic traditions, as in this passage from Joel:

For the day of the Lord is near;
it will come like destruction from the Almighty….

Let all who live in the land tremble,
for the day of the Lord is coming.
It is close at hand—
a day of darkness and gloom,
a day of clouds and blackness.
Like dawn spreading across the mountains
a large and mighty army comes,
such as never was in ancient times
nor ever will be in ages to come.
Before them fire devours,
behind them a flame blazes.
Before them the land is like the garden of Eden,
behind them, a desert waste—
nothing escapes them.
They have the appearance of horses;
they gallop along like cavalry.
With a noise like that of chariots
they leap over the mountaintops,
like a crackling fire consuming stubble,
like a mighty army drawn up for battle.
At the sight of them, nations are in anguish;
every face turns pale….

Before them the earth shakes,
the heavens tremble,
the sun and moon are darkened,
and the stars no longer shine.

Paul believes this stuff literally. In his mind, this army is coming from heaven, within his lifetime.

And note again the celestial signs, which we will see referenced by other Christian communities with no connection to Paul, indicating that this tradition is original with the community, not an invention of Paul.

(I can't help but note that this passage is also referenced by Lowell George in an alternate take of "Teenage Nervous Breakdown" -- "when the sky is all cast over and the sun refuse to shine" -- but I will refrain from concluding that Paul was in any way influenced by Little Feat.)

Unfortunately, that's all I have time for today.

I realize that I've spent a lot of time explicating a very small portion of Paul's letter here, but I think it's important that these particular references be understood in their proper context, and with everything else I had to deal with earlier, I gave short shrift to the critical concept of the Day of the Lord, which I have referenced in earlier posts without sufficient explanation.

More later….
 
Last edited:
JaysonR

The literary style argument is the first substantial argument for an HJ that I have so far seen.

But if Paul had invented a new literary style would anyone else know it? They might assume it was a true account, after all part of his writing was designed to deceive. If no-one else had noticed the novelty then there would be nothing for near contemporary authors to copy.
 
Paul isn't a literary style; he's writing letters.
The "gospels", and all of the variants that weren't accepted into canons are the tales with literary style.

Paul, for all I know, wrote everything he wrote in letters after reading the texts, or hearing about the tales orally before the stories were written down.

If those stories were purely fictional, then what that would indicate is that either Paul is the first person fooled by an Orson Wells 'War of the Worlds' "mockumentary', or that Paul was the first person to widely take advantage of a cultural unfamiliarity with a new form of fiction he recognized people would think was real because they didn't understand what contemporary fiction was.
 
Paul isn't a literary style; he's writing letters.
The "gospels", and all of the variants that weren't accepted into canons are the tales with literary style.

Paul, for all I know, wrote everything he wrote in letters after reading the texts, or hearing about the tales orally before the stories were written down.

If those stories were purely fictional, then what that would indicate is that either Paul is the first person fooled by an Orson Wells 'War of the Worlds' "mockumentary', or that Paul was the first person to widely take advantage of a cultural unfamiliarity with a new form of fiction he recognized people would think was real because they didn't understand what contemporary fiction was.

This assumes that Paul even cared about what text or oral tales were saying. As I see it he seems more intent on pushing whatever the Jesus in his own head was saying then what existed out there.
 
This assumes that Paul even cared about what text or oral tales were saying. As I see it he seems more intent on pushing whatever the Jesus in his own head was saying then what existed out there.
To a degree.
Though, you can actually extract Pauline theology and trace it back to essential components in the Synoptic theology.
Most of Paul's deviations are deviations of translating concepts into Hellenistic terms that would make sense for people that didn't understand much about Judaic heritage or context.

Either way, Paul's works aren't the "literary" text in consideration; the oral tales that eventually ended up as the Gospels and all the other rejected (by Orthodoxy) texts are.
 
Last edited:
To a degree.
Though, you can actually extract Pauline theology and trace it back to essential components in the Synoptic theology.
Most of Paul's deviations are deviations of translating concepts into Hellenistic terms that would make sense for people that didn't understand much about Judaic heritage or context.

Either way, Paul's works aren't the "literary" text in consideration; the oral tales that eventually ended up as the Gospels and all the other rejected (by Orthodoxy) texts are.

This is assuming that these "essential components in the Synoptic theology" actually predated Paul and weren't worked in later. Remember no one makes any sizable reference to the Gospels is c180 CE and the first attempt at putting together a bible was c140 CE
 
Interesting. I have a book Ancient Mystery Cults by Walter Burkert and another titled Mystery Cults of the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden. Both authors agree any "ties" to Christianity are tenuous at best. In fact, Bowden talks of how Protestant polemicists argued for the ties at first, so they could show how the early Roman church was corrupted by these non-Christian ideas.

If you have other sources that support your ideas I would be interested in reading them.




Exactly which mystery cults are you referring to? There were many (many appearing after Christianity, but certainly not all) so maybe you could explain which cults you had in mind.

"The believed God Jesus" - Do you feel Paul's messiah is the same as John's messiah? Is Mark's the same as John's? Do you think Paul's idea of a messiah lined up with the dominant views of the time?

Why did more Jews not convert? Why did some rabbis think Bar Kokhba was the messiah even after the Jesus "myth" had been established?

I would be interested in reading your ideas explained in more detail.



Re. the highlighted parts - I was not claiming that Christianity was a mystery religion. I'm not trying to invent any new Jesus myth theory, or anything like that. I was replying to Jason who had said to me that before Jesus, there were no known cases of Hebrews inventing fictional gods, so he concluded that Jesus would be a very unlikely exception. What I said in reply was simply that since at least 300BC, Jews all over that region had become thoroughly influenced by Greek culture (to the degree that they even spoke and wrote in Greek), and that Greek culture did include the invention of mythical gods in mystery religions. So the highly religious Jews in that region would have been well aware of that ... it would not have been something entirely new and unknown to them for religious fanatics to be inventing legends of mystical gods.

The later Roman influence also brought in more mystery religions. And again, with a similar long history of those religions involving dying and rising gods (like Jesus).

So this is not about dreaming up any specific details of how anyone (me, you, anyone) might think these ideas could have been incorporated with emerging 1st century AD Christianity. Instead it's simply a general observation that it's inescapably obvious that they would have been perfectly familiar with that sort of Hellenic and Roman culture, inc. the Hellenic and Roman gods etc.

You can see those influences in the Dead Sea Scrolls anyway. Where, iirc elements of their beliefs involved mystery type practices of successive stages of initiation.

Second highlight - I don't know anything about Paul, John, Mark all believing in different messiahs/Jesus-variations. But again, I don't think it's necessary to invent ideas like that. Because, as I say, the point is - it would not be completely amazing for Jews in that region to have believed in legends of a messiah-god who was in fact only ever a fictional character ...

... for a start, Paul's letters and the gospels are in any case describing Jesus as a fictional character of past legend. Eg, the only way people can now try to make a real historical Jesus from that biblical writing is to discard all the numerous miracles, visions, voices from god etc. ... but that's inventing a new modern-day Jesus who was never the legendary figure who Paul, Mark, Mathew, Luke and John had once written about.
 
... for a start, Paul's letters and the gospels are in any case describing Jesus as a fictional character of past legend.
No they are most certainly not! They are describing Jesus as a person of their own time who really existed as a physical human being in the recent past.
Eg, the only way people can now try to make a real historical Jesus from that biblical writing is to discard all the numerous miracles, visions, voices from god etc. ... but that's inventing a new modern-day Jesus
No, it is attempting to discern if there is a probable reality under the layer of evidently mythical accretions. We have been through this with King Midas of Lydia. The sources make him a mythical figure with a golden touch. He wasn't. Scholars "invented a new modern-day Midas" without a golden touch - and his tomb has been found. He really existed. As to the golden touch .. it was in Lydia in his day that gold coins were first used; clearly the source of the myth.
who was never the legendary figure who Paul, Mark, Mathew, Luke and John had once written about.
Because they were writing about what they believed was a real figure, and telling exaggerated stories about him.
 
Last edited:
Jayson

Either way, Paul's works aren't the "literary" text in consideration; the oral tales that eventually ended up as the Gospels and all the other rejected (by Orthodoxy) texts are.
I disagree. The epistulary form, accompanied by the episodic live performances described in the letters, are a perfectly fine literary form. The Gospels come later, and their christology disagrees among themselves as well as with Paul's. (As is unsurprising, since with the passage of time it becomes increasingly obvious that Jesus isn't really coming back). There are no oral tales in evidence, and Paul's letters deny that he relied upon antecedent human communication.

If you insist that Paul is untruthful, then that would considerably simplify my task. Under the circumstances, then, I would expect you to take Paul at his word.

At the time in question, one form of literature that was yet to be invented (at least, this is the common holding of anthropology currently) was the literary form of contemporary fiction.
Except that's not Paul's genre. Paul tours the ecumen, giving live performances of his work. What survives for us to examine are either prospectuses (Romans) for a performance about to be given, or retorspective reinforcers (many of the letters), or just plain business correspondence (Philemon - usually read today as Paul's acquiescence in slavery, but also an example of his appropriation of a follower's property - we don't see that part as clearly, since we are so viscerally repulsed by the very idea that a man could be property. Paul, not so much.)

However, the form of fiction that we crack open regularly in a Tom Clancy novel filled with people that are cast into our current environment, yet are purely fictional and unreal individuals was not yet invented culturally.
Tom Clancy is a great example, since he pioneered an unprecedented subgenre. The Hunt for Red October is a novel that was published and then marketed through a serious naval non-fiction imprint, a house which had never before published fiction.

The Hunt for Red October was a hugely successful book, a career-maker for Clancy, the debut of a signature character, and a money-spinner for the publisher, too. So, under your theory, we should see lots of scholarly imprints bringing out fiction topical to the brand's niche.

About a generation has passed (1984), and we don't see that (feel free to correct me if you have another example). Why not, if that is the way of human cultures?

Simple: the performance is, by its nature, difficult and perilous to repeat. For one thing, the firm took an enormous risk that could easily have backfired. That's a barrier to Brill, say, publishing a novel about early Christians... or The Da Vinci Code.

And, while we're here, that is also a mechanism for why examples chosen to be unusual in one way might reliably be unusual in another. Enormous financial windfalls (and ruinous losses) are typically accompanied by unusual financial risks. Therefore, if you choose some conspicuously successful enterprise (Mormonism), then you are apt to find somebody who had a lot of skin in the game (Prophet Joe, until he was shot, while in jail).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom