The Historical Jesus II

[Belz...]

Yes, that is the hole: what Stone does and what I was doing are different, and you're trying to say they are the same.

No, I'm saying that they are similar. Very similar, to the point of giving the same impression to an outside observer. Of course, they are not the same to you because one of the people involved is you and the other is not. A common human response.

 

[IanS]

I would argue that it is far more then religious faith at work here.

John Armstrong is a deist (ie religious) and he has a whole series of youtube videos on how Jesus is a philosophical myth but Fightingatheist has a video that is pro historical Jesus.

Rather what you really have are is Confirmation Bias that bounces between Euhemerism and the Great Man hypothesis (more the later these days).

The Great Man hypothesis says that history is shaped by great men. Christianity is a major historical event therefore it must have a great man behind it.
That great man is obviously Jesus.

The converse is the Great moment hypothesis - that events made people who were in the right place in the right time to become great. If no such person materializes then the society will create one from what is available. And so people like Ned Ludd, Robin Hood, John Frum, and many others come into being.

History started with Great Man hypothesis as its default setting. In fact, the very concept of a Great Moment hypothesis didn't really hit its stride until the 1970s.

So you have nearly 3000 years of Great Man hypothesis vs perhaps 45 years of Great Moment hypothesis. It is obvious where the bias leans.

Oh, certainly there is more than just a background of religious faith displayed by bible studies scholars.

I am just agreeing with Proudfootz if he points out that bible studies scholars invariably have a background of very devout religious belief.

That's typically a background of belief in a supernatural divine creator ("God"), miracles and the power of prayer etc., as well as the theistic belief that the bible is a source of "proof" about the existence of Jesus. That's invariably the background these people have when they enter the academic profession of bible studies.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, certainly there is more than just a background of religious faith displayed by bible studies scholars.

Gosh, if I weren't on ignore I could ask you to support that claim.

 

[maximara]

I'm looking forward to getting my own copy of the OHJ. While you and Kapyong have been very generous in citing the work, it's time to leaf through it myself.

You won't be disappointed.

By being peer reviewed and published by a respected scholarly publisher (University of Sheffield is ranked 66th in the entire world and 11th in the UK) OHJ is the platinum standard for the philosophical Christ Myth theory.

I dare say that every Christ Myth theory past, present, and future will likely be held against this work...and found wanting.

On a side note I seem to remember reading somewhere in OHJ about a passage from the 2nd century that when read a certain way hints at possible questioning of Jesus as an actual person.

I want to say the quote is of Justin Martyr but the index doesn't lead me back to the quote so I'm not sure. What I do remember is the passage is very oblique and could be read in other ways but it was certainly weird.

 

[Belz...]

That's actually pretty interesting, then.

 

[proudfootz]

Oh, certainly there is more than just a background of religious faith displayed by bible studies scholars.

I am just agreeing with Proudfootz if he points out that bible studies scholars invariably have a background of very devout religious belief.

That's typically a background of belief in a supernatural divine creator ("God"), miracles and the power of prayer etc., as well as the theistic belief that the bible is a source of "proof" about the existence of Jesus. That's invariably the background these people have when they enter the academic profession of bible studies.

It may well be, as research pointed out, that New Testament scholars are heavily self-selected from those with intense religious devotion. It makes sense that this field would be attractive to such people. It also makes seems to logically follow since many of the institutions which teach New Testament studies are confessional institutions, and also that such non-secular institutions control a great deal of the teaching positions in the field.

While I am aware of these pertinent facts, my point was that even among people who do not consider themselves to be devotees of any particular religion (or perhaps are devoted to a religion where the Jesus is merely a prophet, or one in which the Jesus plays no role) there is a great deal of faith in the proposition that there was an historical Jesus.

To return again to the example of Bart Ehrman, I'm not so much referring to his early religious devotion so much as to the simple fact that not until he has expended virtually his whole career in the field of New Testament studies did it occur to him to critically examine the question of whether this character named Jesus ever had any real existence outside of literature. That is the unexamined belief that he has received from our culture in general and was only reinforced in his academic milieux.

And had it not been for the internet, Ehrman might have gone to his grave without ever once asking himself whether the 'historical Jesus' hypothesis was based on anything but received wisdom.

It appears to me a great deal of the hostility evinced by New Testament scholars (even those like Ehrman who teach a secular institutions) toward the idea that the Jesus may not have had a real existence outside of literature stems from this fact that it is a bedrock belief that has never undergone any critical analysis, and this hostility extends personally to anyone who might even give such an idea any consideration.

This is not to say that a person who examines the question should not come to their own conclusions. If, upon reflection, Ehrman or anyone else feels convinced that the belief is warranted that is certainly their right. I am merely talking about the hostility and scorn which is poured forth on people who come to a different conclusion. Part of the acceptance of the idea that history is a balance of probabilities is that one might be wrong.

It is this unwillingness to accept that others might be correct, or that it is only out of some personal defect that one might examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion, which shows there is something other than objective scholarship involved. The hatred and fear of 'the other' is truly not what one would expect in any purely academic pursuit.

I don't think it is a religion. Not all religions make use of such atavistic 'othering'. I think it is something far deeper and older, which some religions exploit.

 

[proudfootz]

You won't be disappointed.

By being peer reviewed and published by a respected scholarly publisher (University of Sheffield is ranked 66th in the entire world and 11th in the UK) OHJ is the platinum standard for the philosophical Christ Myth theory.

I dare say that every Christ Myth theory past, present, and future will likely be held against this work...and found wanting.

On a side note I seem to remember reading somewhere in OHJ about a passage from the 2nd century that when read a certain way hints at possible questioning of Jesus as an actual person.

I want to say the quote is of Justin Martyr but the index doesn't lead me back to the quote so I'm not sure. What I do remember is the passage is very oblique and could be read in other ways but it was certainly weird.

I have asked myself whether Origen was possibly responding to a question of historicity here:

"CHAP. XLVII.

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice..."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html

Since we don't have Celsus we only have this oblique reference to Josephus testifying to the existence of John the Baptist and a certain James, who Origen then tries to tie to Jesus.

I've wondered whether this is an early example of 'historicism' whereby the accepted existence of some characters mentioned in devotional texts is expected to 'rub off' onto Jesus by association...

The sense of it might be this: Celsus, you accept the existence of John the Baptist, right? Well, Josephus the historian mentions John and also James, and we say John baptized Jesus and that James was a doctrinal brother of Jesus. Therefore Jesus must have existed as well.

Is it possible this is what Carrier refers to?

 

[proudfootz]

No, I'm saying that they are similar. Very similar, to the point of giving the same impression to an outside observer. Of course, they are not the same to you because one of the people involved is you and the other is not. A common human response.

You keep doubling down on your mistake, because you are loathe to admit you were wrong in the first place.

A very human response.

 

[Belz...]

You keep doubling down on your mistake, because you are loathe to admit you were wrong in the first place.

Indeed. I might be mistaken, but you'd have to somehow demonstrate that. I've made my demonstration. Your turn.

 

[maximara]

I have asked myself whether Origen was possibly responding to a question of historicity here:

"CHAP. XLVII.

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice..."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html

Since we don't have Celsus we only have this oblique reference to Josephus testifying to the existence of John the Baptist and a certain James, who Origen then tries to tie to Jesus.

I've wondered whether this is an early example of 'historicism' whereby the accepted existence of some characters mentioned in devotional texts is expected to 'rub off' onto Jesus by association...

The sense of it might be this: Celsus, you accept the existence of John the Baptist, right? Well, Josephus the historian mentions John and also James, and we say John baptized Jesus and that James was a doctrinal brother of Jesus. Therefore Jesus must have existed as well.

Is it possible this is what Carrier refers to?

Don't think so as the passage in question had some weird bit about Christ have not come yet or something along those lines in it as I remember.


An interesting mental exercise is to take Carrier's three criteria for a historical Jesus and see how you can have a flesh and blood Jesus running around and NOT meet his criteria:

1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death

2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his follower to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities

3) This is the same Jesus some of whose follower soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)

"If any one of these premises is false, it can fairly be said there was no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense. And at least one of them must be false for any Jesus Myth theory to be true."


Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) on with its mythical Paul Jesus + 1st century teacher who was not executed fails point 2 (they are not the same Jesus) so by Carrier's criteria is NOT a "historical Jesus in any pertinent sense" This does explain Carrier's classification of this work as 'ahistoricitical'


The same is true of John Robertson's 1900 idea that the Gospel Jesus was a composite character or that a person inspired by Paul's writings took up the name Jesus, tried to preach his own version of Paul's teachings, and got killed for his troubles.

Dan Barker's "Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." (2006 Losing Faith in Faith pg 372) would also fail Carrier's criteria.

Another possibly is that there was a Jesus but his following wasn't an identifiable movement until Paul and later the writers of the Gospels got ahold of it. This is essence what Remsburg's view was:

"Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith."

Carrier has broken the either-or barrier between Historical Jesus and Jesus Myth--we now formally have gray area which is neither and yet somewhat both.

 

[IanS]

It may well be, as research pointed out, that New Testament scholars are heavily self-selected from those with intense religious devotion. It makes sense that this field would be attractive to such people. It also makes seems to logically follow since many of the institutions which teach New Testament studies are confessional institutions, and also that such non-secular institutions control a great deal of the teaching positions in the field.

While I am aware of these pertinent facts, my point was that even among people who do not consider themselves to be devotees of any particular religion (or perhaps are devoted to a religion where the Jesus is merely a prophet, or one in which the Jesus plays no role) there is a great deal of faith in the proposition that there was an historical Jesus.

To return again to the example of Bart Ehrman, I'm not so much referring to his early religious devotion so much as to the simple fact that not until he has expended virtually his whole career in the field of New Testament studies did it occur to him to critically examine the question of whether this character named Jesus ever had any real existence outside of literature. That is the unexamined belief that he has received from our culture in general and was only reinforced in his academic milieux.

And had it not been for the internet, Ehrman might have gone to his grave without ever once asking himself whether the 'historical Jesus' hypothesis was based on anything but received wisdom.

It appears to me a great deal of the hostility evinced by New Testament scholars (even those like Ehrman who teach a secular institutions) toward the idea that the Jesus may not have had a real existence outside of literature stems from this fact that it is a bedrock belief that has never undergone any critical analysis, and this hostility extends personally to anyone who might even give such an idea any consideration.

This is not to say that a person who examines the question should not come to their own conclusions. If, upon reflection, Ehrman or anyone else feels convinced that the belief is warranted that is certainly their right. I am merely talking about the hostility and scorn which is poured forth on people who come to a different conclusion. Part of the acceptance of the idea that history is a balance of probabilities is that one might be wrong.

It is this unwillingness to accept that others might be correct, or that it is only out of some personal defect that one might examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion, which shows there is something other than objective scholarship involved. The hatred and fear of 'the other' is truly not what one would expect in any purely academic pursuit.

I don't think it is a religion. Not all religions make use of such atavistic 'othering'. I think it is something far deeper and older, which some religions exploit.

Yep.

Though I expect it probably all stems from the individuals original early devout religious belief.

I expect bible scholars find it very difficult to entirely jettison that faith ... certainly if they retain the belief that a divine creator exists. If you still believe in God (the heavenly creator of everything) then it’s hard to accept that Jesus could have been entirely imaginary ... much easier to believe that Jesus must have existed in some capacity at least.

 

[Brainache]

Oh, certainly there is more than just a background of religious faith displayed by bible studies scholars.

I am just agreeing with Proudfootz if he points out that bible studies scholars invariably have a background of very devout religious belief.

That's typically a background of belief in a supernatural divine creator ("God"), miracles and the power of prayer etc., as well as the theistic belief that the bible is a source of "proof" about the existence of Jesus. That's invariably the background these people have when they enter the academic profession of bible studies.

Yep.

Though I expect it probably all stems from the individuals original early devout religious belief.

I expect bible scholars find it very difficult to entirely jettison that faith ... certainly if they retain the belief that a divine creator exists. If you still believe in God (the heavenly creator of everything) then it’s hard to accept that Jesus could have been entirely imaginary ... much easier to believe that Jesus must have existed in some capacity at least.

Even the Jewish ones?

If I wasn't on ignore he might have an answer, but somehow I doubt it...

 

[Brainache]

Don't think so as the passage in question had some weird bit about Christ have not come yet or something along those lines in it as I remember.


...

I'm guessing the line you're looking for is in 2 Thessalonians:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+1

...
6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

Which bears a striking resemblance to this from the Dead Sea Scrolls:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

...Interpreted this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants the prophets.

"For there shall be yet another vision concerning the appointed time. It shall tell of the end and shall not lie [Hab 2.3a].

Interpreted, this means that the final age shall be prolonged, and shall exceed all that the prophets have said; for the mysteries of God are astounding.

"If it tarries, wait for it, for it shall surely come and shall not be late" [Hab 2.3b].

Interpreted, this concerns the men of truth who keep the Law, whose hands shall not slacken in the service of truth when the final age is prolonged. For all the ages of God reach their appointed end as he determines for them in the mysteries of His wisdom.

["But the righteous shall live by his faith"] [[Hab 2.4b]].

Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgement because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness.
...
Column 10 - "condemned House"

that its stones might be laid in oppression and the beam of its woodwork in robbery. And as for that which he said, "by cutting off many peoples you have forfeited your own soul":

Interpreted this concerns the condemned House whose judgement God will pronounce in the midst of many peoples. He will bring him thence for judgement and will declare him guilty in the midst of them, and will chastise him with fire of brimstone.

Column 10 - "the city is Jerusalem"

And as for that which he said, "because of the blood of the city and the violence done to the land":

Interpreted, the city is Jerusalem where the Wicked Priest committed abominable deeds and defiled the Temple of God. The violence done to the land: these are the cities of Judah where he robbed the poor of their possessions.
...

I guess there was a lot of this "Fire and Brimstone" type stuff floating around in those days...

 

[Kapyong]

Jesus Myth Theory NOT a conspiracy

Gday,

One of the most ludicrous conspiracy theories to gain a new lease on life through the web in the past decade is the laughable notion that Jesus the entirely human 1st-century rabbi who was nailed up by the Romans, after teaching all sorts of counter-cultural aphorisms, and who never revived, is not even historical!

But the Jesus Myth Theory does NOT depend on any 'conspiracy' at all.

This is a cheap shot attempt to dismiss the whole idea as crackpottery - what next - comparing it to creationism or Holocaust denial ?

The Jesus Myth theory in fact depends on mis-understandings and disagreements - not on any conspiracy.


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Stone,

I see that this posting from Proudfootz is kept in, but Kapyong's post -- directly quoted here -- gets removed. I wonder why.................
Stone

Yup, it's a real puzzle to me.

My post was on topic and polite.


Kapyong

 

[proudfootz]

Meanwhile people interested in christian origins continue to do their research:

----------

Jesus Evolved From an Angel?

by Neil Godfrey

Some passages in the Old Testament throw up bizarre riddles for those of us who have always thought its various authors were strict monotheists in the same sense as we expect modern Jewish rabbis to be no-nonsense monotheists. For starters, there are those most curious passages where we read of an angel engaging earthly mortals in conversation and suddenly speaking as if they are God himself. Sometimes after such a conversation the human characters are even made to say they have just met or spoken with God. Then there are those passages in Ezekiel that read as if God were a human figure who gets off his throne and starts to guide Ezekiel around his temple. There are other riddles but let’s stick with these two types for now.

Now something even stranger happens when we turn to other Jewish writings from the centuries either side of the BCE/CE point. Various writings from that period appear to have picked up these riddles in the Scriptural canon and run with them into places we could never imagine any truly monotheistic rabbi would dare follow. They bring us into a heavenly world where it is often difficult to decide who is God and who is an angel. Sometimes there appears to be an angel so exalted that he appears to be God’s proxy or principal agent who does all of God’s work. That angel is sometimes depicted as very much in the form of a man.

To put it most bluntly, this literature introduces us to a ”man” in heaven (or celestial figure in the form of a man) who is a manifestation of God Himself. That same angelic or celestial Man sometimes appears on earth — still as a manifestation of God — to communicate with mortals. He is sometimes called the Angel of the Lord but at other times he calls himself by the name of God. Further, this celestial “man” figure or divine manifestation) is known and experienced in visions.

This most highly exalted angel sometimes starts to look very much like the image we have of Jesus Christ, the “Son of Man”, at the right hand of God in heaven from our readings of the New Testament epistles and book of Acts. These Christian sources likewise speak of that Christ being revealed in visions.

<full article is found at link below>

http://vridar.org/2014/07/06/jesus-evolved-from-an-angel/

----------------

There seems to have been quite a bit more to Judaism than the strict 'monotheism' we are commonly taught.

 

[Belz...]

But the Jesus Myth Theory does NOT depend on any 'conspiracy' at all.

I agree. I don't see where Stone takes this. Perhaps he can expand a bit.

 

[GDon]

On a side note I seem to remember reading somewhere in OHJ about a passage from the 2nd century that when read a certain way hints at possible questioning of Jesus as an actual person.

I want to say the quote is of Justin Martyr but the index doesn't lead me back to the quote so I'm not sure. What I do remember is the passage is very oblique and could be read in other ways but it was certainly weird.

You may be thinking of Hebrews 8:4:

• 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.

The implication is that "Now if he had been on earth..." is also a valid interpretation, which implies that Jesus had not been on earth in the past.

If that is the passage in OHJ you were thinking of, I'd be interested in Carrier's views on that passage.

 

[proudfootz]

You may be thinking of Hebrews 8:4:

• 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.

The implication is that "Now if he had been on earth..." is also a valid interpretation, which implies that Jesus had not been on earth in the past.

If that is the passage in OHJ you were thinking of, I'd be interested in Carrier's views on that passage.

Yes, that is a passage that Earl Doherty discussed at some length in his book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (2009) devoting some seven pages to what he describes as a 'smoking gun' for a non-historical Jesus.

I'm also curious whether Carrier follows this lead or has another take on it.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, that is a passage that Earl Doherty discussed at some length in his book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (2009) devoting some seven pages to what he describes as a 'smoking gun' for a non-historical Jesus.

I'm also curious whether Carrier follows this lead or has another take on it.

Hebrews is not a smoking gun for an heavenly only Jesus.

1. The date of authorship of Hebrew is unknown.

2. The unknown author of Hebrews implied the Son of God was on earth in Hebrews 1.1-2, Hebrews 2.3, Hebrews 2.16, Hebrews 3, Hebrews 4.14, Hebrews 5.7.

3. Hebrews is a major source of mythology, fiction, discrepancies and contradiction.

4. Many claims in Hebrews are without corroboration in the NT.

5. Apologetic writers who used Hebrews claimed Jesus was God Incarnate.

6. Hebrews was unknown up to at least c 180 CE.

7. Hebrews is compatible with the teachings of the Church--Jesus was God's Son--God Incarnate.

8. Apologetic writes who used Hebrews claimed the Jews killed the Son of God.

9. No manuscript of Hebrews have been found and dated pre 70 CE.