The Historical Jesus II

[pakeha]

Pakeha,


This is the answer to both of your questions, as well as Dejudge's; that was the point - A) The Procurator must be around and B) If you want more than just a stoning (which technically the Procurator needs to be around for, but often enough it appears that it could be carried out in the absence periodically in minor figure cases [per Josephus' commentary]) and instead wanted to have someone crucified, then you are going to be forced to the Procurator to make your case as to why this individual belongs on the crucifixion rather than stoned to death as per your religious laws. [ . . . ]

This is a very quick reply to the first point of your post, JaysonR, which deserves a much longer treatment, one I'll get to after a morning full of domestic adventure.

Why would the Sanhedrin opt for crucifixion rather than an in-house stoning?
Why drag the Romans into the story?

Why do the gospels claim the Sanhedrin didn't have the power to execute someone, when they clearly did?

It's a puzzle to me.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha has set a little puzzle, how Jesus would manage to die by crucifixion, a Roman punishment, yet Paul insists that Jesus was killed by the Jews. I don't know, of course.

In checking out how (in)consistently Pilate "found no guilt in this man," following up on another poster's point the other day, I noticed that the three later Gospels (Matthew, Luke and John) all depict Pilate handing Jesus over to the Jews for punishment (at verses 27: 24-26, 23: 25, and 19: 16, respectively - in Mark Pilate "hands over" Jesus, but apparently to his own troops). The execution, however, has no "Jewish" features (except the concern to avoid gibbeting anybody past the first day, that is, sunset) and at least some Roman features (such as flogging first, the other two victims, sometimes a centurion onsite, and the use of crucifixion itself,. although we know that Jews had sometimes practiced crucifxion back when they could.)

So, I wonder. Jayson, please help me out here. The Temple had guards. They were Jews (else some restricted but public parts of the Temple, where guards might be needed, would be off-limits to them). My further guess is that the guards were also Roman reserves or auxiliaries (subject to activation by Roman authority on demand, but otherwise under the day-to-day command of Temple authorities, and not under Roman military discipline except on active suty).

John, in his account of Jesus' arrest, imagines a mixed party of Romans and Temple guards Judas has gotten a small-unit force from the Temple, but at 18:12 a tribune(?) accompanies them, with "soldiers" in the party seemingly distinguished from Jewish guards.

So, could the execution have been by a mixed party? Maybe Pilate allows Jewish reservists (Temple guards) to off their prisoner while his own regular troops dispatch two Roman prisoners, already scheduled for execution? The Temple would not likely have had scourging facilities, since human blood would be ritually impermissible onsite, so Pilate takes care of that part of the punishment.

A perennial problem of any military occupation is that ordinary civilian crime does not cease while the occupiers maintain their hold over the territory. So, native peace officers are sometimes tolerated, so long as they keep their own kind in line, and do not interfere with occupation objectives. I think the Romans may have been shrewd enough to implement this sort of arrangement. So long as good order was maintained, I doubt Pilate really much cared if some big-hat Jews killed a vagrant Jew in hideous fashion for a local-custom offense, if they were willing to provide the labor to do the heavy lifting.

(As always, I am only 60-40 that there even was a real Jesus of any interest to us. Any detailed story about him would be, at best, even closer to equipoise than that. I am just trying to sort out what the story is, subject to the constraint that it could have happened. Whether the crucifixion story, whatever it turns out to be, is actually true I don't know.)

 

[dejudge]

This is a very quick reply to the first point of your post, JaysonR, which deserves a much longer treatment, one I'll get to after a morning full of domestic adventure.

Why would the Sanhedrin opt for crucifixion rather than an in-house stoning?
Why drag the Romans into the story?

Why do the gospels claim the Sanhedrin didn't have the power to execute someone, when they clearly did?

It's a puzzle to me.

You seem not to understand that the authors of the Jesus story attempted to give the impression that the trial of Jesus, the Son of God, was DOCUMENTED in a Roman court and that it was DOCUMENTED in court records that Pilate found no fault with the Son of God.

Christian writers claimed it was prophesied by David that the Jews would crucify the Christ and would be brought to trial.

Justin Martyr "Apology"

And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots."

And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us...............And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.

Virtually all Christian writers claimed Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.


1. Aristides "Apology"--Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

2. Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" --Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

3. Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" ---Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

4. Tertullian's "Answer to the Jews"--Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

5. Hippolytus' "Treatise Against the Jews"---Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

6. Origen's "Against Celsus"---Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

7. Lactantius' "How the Persecutors Died"---Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

8. Acts of the Apostles-----Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

9. The Pauline Corpus---Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

10. Eusebius' "Proof of the Gospel"----Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

11. Optatus' "Against the Donatists"----Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

12. Chrysostom's "Against the Judaizers"----Jesus the Son of God was killed by the Jews.

 

[Rincewind]

I had understood that the whole Roman/Jewish thing was basically politics.

When the early Christians were expanding, it was obviously within the Roman Empire.

So it was important to let potential recruits know that it wasn't the Romans who were responsible for the death of JC.

The bit where the Jews accept responsibility was a kind of "get out of jail free" card that allowed Romans to become Christians.

I don't recall where this came from - it was a long time ago...

 

[dejudge]

Which is why I don't take any stock in the mammoth Hoax Forger idea. The Cargo cults in general and John Frum in particular show you don't need "Hoax Forgers" running around to create a religious cult whose founder (it they had one) might as well be the Man Who Wasn't There.

Don't you even remember that Brainache's is claiming that Jesus was a Rabbi and Paul was an Herodian?

If Jesus was a Rabbi and Paul was an Herodian then Brainache is implying Jesus the Son of God [God Creator] and Paul the Jew and Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin in the NT are products of Hoax Forgers.

Now, if Jesus and Paul in the NT never had any real existence or there is no actual evidence from antiquity then Brainache's Rabbi and Herodian are products of Hoax Forgers.

There is no actual evidence from antiquity of a Rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Herodian pre 70 CE.

 

[Brainache]

Don't you even remember that Brainache's is claiming that Jesus was a Rabbi and Paul was an Herodian?

If Jesus was a Rabbi and Paul was an Herodian then Brainache is implying Jesus the Son of God [God Creator] and Paul the Jew and Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin in the NT are products of Hoax Forgers.

What bizarre "reasoning" you exhibit. Being of the "Tribe of Benjamin" is a claim that Herod himself could make, whether or not he was a Pharisee in his attitude towards "The Law".

Now, if Jesus and Paul in the NT never had any real existence or there is no actual evidence from antiquity then Brainache's Rabbi and Herodian are products of Hoax Forgers.

This is just too idiotic to ignore. So I laugh instead: Ha!

There is no actual evidence from antiquity of a Rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Herodian pre 70 CE.

Assume for the sake of argument that they did exist: What sort of evidence would you expect them to leave behind? Sayings recorded by followers? Letters to their followers? Scrolls full of religious gobbledygook?

Autographed photographs?...

 

[JaysonR]

Eight Bits,

So, I wonder. Jayson, please help me out here. The Temple had guards. They were Jews (else some restricted but public parts of the Temple, where guards might be needed, would be off-limits to them). My further guess is that the guards were also Roman reserves or auxiliaries (subject to activation by Roman authority on demand, but otherwise under the day-to-day command of Temple authorities, and not under Roman military discipline except on active suty).

John, in his account of Jesus' arrest, imagines a mixed party of Romans and Temple guards Judas has gotten a small-unit force from the Temple, but at 18:12 a tribune(?) accompanies them, with "soldiers" in the party seemingly distinguished from Jewish guards.

So, could the execution have been by a mixed party? Maybe Pilate allows Jewish reservists (Temple guards) to off their prisoner while his own regular troops dispatch two Roman prisoners, already scheduled for execution? The Temple would not likely have had scourging facilities, since human blood would be ritually impermissible onsite, so Pilate takes care of that part of the punishment.

If I understand your question correctly, then yes.
If the Jewish court, for whatever reason, specifically wanted someone crucified, they would need the Procurator to facilitate that action as the only place around for that task was accessed through the Roman legal process - not the Jewish court.

From an anthropological reading of the narrative point of view; the arresting party's demographics are unremarkable as it is contextually accurate if the party was just Romans or a mix of Romans and Jews.

The only non-contextual element, inherently at least, would be that comprised of only Jews (well...more like, a bit unique).

This was pretty much my point and answer to Pakeha as to the reason it exists (the Roman inclusion).


Now, on the other hand, Pakeha, you have taken the question another layer deep at this point.

Why would the Sanhedrin opt for crucifixion rather than an in-house stoning?
Why drag the Romans into the story?

From the narrative perspective, we aren't looking for why the Sanhedrin wanted the crucifixion, but why the story is satisfied by the employment of the crucifixion instead of the normal stoning.

The simple way of putting it is that it really sticks in the head much more as a malicious tinge and death.
Stoning is rather mundane; especially for the times.

A crucifixion has much more narrative body to it as well; you have time to further portray the characters.
If we just stone Jesus, then well...it's over pretty quick. "And they stoned him until he was dead." - Fin

Well that's not a very thrilling ending.

Meanwhile, in the crucifixion, we get quite a lot more of an outline of Jesus' character; he goes hard-core Rocky-in-the-final-round.
We read him enduring torture and learn his stoic character there.
We then watch him give a pass on pain inhibitors bravely and stoically.
Then he weeps in sorrow for everyone else; not himself.
And then...when he finally dies in that final moment of the ultimate bad cowboy movie death scene, the world goes into a dramatic uproar.

Man...

Why do the gospels claim the Sanhedrin didn't have the power to execute someone, when they clearly did?

John does, the other three don't.

In Matthew and Mark, they just go the next day to Pilate and on it goes from there; Matthew differs in that it parallels a lesson about the responsibility of moral action in comparing Judas' regret and his "responsibility" against the foreshadowed regret of the Jews upon Pilate telling them that Jesus is their "responsibility" (both are being employed in Matthew as a permanent moral stain...same word used in verse 4 as verse 24...it's not really "responsibility", but instead more akin to 'to hold, or conceive, to own, ['to see' is another way of expressing it a bit more passively]'...the way that it is used in the context refers to how we think of the idea of acute PTSD and a single event being burned in the mind - that is being "owned" in Matthew's narrative).

Luke has an entire extra soap-opera going on between Pilate and Herod - it's like watching Vader and Jabba the Hutt trade Han Solo for friendship, but in this version of that kind of trade Hutt then returns Han to Vader.

It's like a twist of a twist.


So...that leaves us John.

In the ever appalling John, we have this very queer idea presented where the "Jewish leaders" (John doesn't explicitly spell out Sanhedrin), claim that they cannot legally kill anyone.

I would chalk this up as the on-going compiler group of John not knowing Judean legalities very well, or at the least, hardly cared (most of John's knowledge of "Judean" law seems more "Torah" law instead - which are two different things).

Why John doesn't employ the soap-opera dramatics in Luke if they had that text to work from, I'm not entirely certain.
That is one sore puzzle that causes some consideration about a link between Luke and John; John loves the dramatic flare and melodrama; why did they go so limited as opposed to the rather dramatic version of Luke?

I can only venture a conceptual speculation here and not really much of an answer: if the story is entirely fictional; thus, literature, and John worked (in part) from Luke, and if John was a version created in the west coast of Anatolia, and thereby if it was conveyed under traditional Anatolian customs of retelling a religious tale on the stage as the means of dispersion, then perhaps the reason is both ignorance and convention.
It could be plausible that the performance preferred something a bit more brief than Luke; perhaps it was too much of a tangent in story to segue into an entirely different drama than the trial and execution during this part of the act.

If so (or even if not, there was still a clear absence of an answer and they felt compelled to provide one), then they would need another reason to explain why the "Jewish leaders" just gave Jesus to Pilate.
Well, there is that bit in the Septuagint about the commandment not to kill...sure, that sounds good and ironic - the holy people, who aren't allowed to kill, manipulate someone into execution. Alright, get out there and put on a show!

 

[maximara]

I was thinking of announcing the publication of Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, but maximara got there first. Here is its publisher's page on it. It has chapters like "Myth vs. History", "Myth from History", "The Minimal Theory of Historicity", "Heroes Who Never Existed", "Using the Rank-Raglan Reference Class", and "Rapid Legendary Development".

He'll be discussing Lord Raglan's mythic-hero profile, it seems, and Jesus Christ is very definitely on the mythic side there.

Carrier touches briefly on the range of Jesus myth theories going from the totally ridiculous ('the bulk of the New Testament is a hoax perpetrated by the Roman elite') to the least ridiculous (the earliest Christians preached a celestial being named Jesus Christ, then later this godlike figure was fictionally placed in a historical setting just like other gods were, and the original concept eventually forgotten, dismissed, suppressed') (pg 8)

If we go to John Frum as an analogy then there is the possibility that one or more followers inspired by these stories of Jesus Christ took up the name and starting preaching just as what happen with Manehivi, Neloaig, and Iokaeye and various "sons" of John Frum in a seven year period.

 

[pakeha]

But don't forget that according to Josephus, from about the time of the census of Quirinius up until the revolt against Rome there were lots of "Innovators" and "Deceivers" following the "Star Prophecy" and being proclaimed "Messiah" by their followers, so it isn't that unlikely that one of them could have been the one who formed the basis of the Jesus stories that became the Gospels.

I don't see why anyone would need to invent an entirely fictional Jesus, given that there were plenty of real ones to choose from.

I'm with you there, Brainache.
This would fit in with the analogies of the Jesus narrative with the Robin Hood/Til Eulenspeigel model of those little people who act as gadflies to brutal régimes, wouldn't it?

Yet the earliest accounts we have of Jesus don't seem focus on Jesus the Gadfly, but rather Jesus the Resurrected Saviour or Jesus the Miracle Worker.

[ . . . ]I really dislike this view (not that it's your view, mind you) that because the 'Jews are the killer of Jesus, they are being vilified' concept.
This is such a break of understanding the literary function and context of the people and the courts of Judah forcing Jesus to his unjust execution by Romans who saw him as without fault.

The Israelites are repeatedly scolded all through their own texts as being full of corruption, judging entirely incorrectly, abusing their position, being full of folly pride, and multiple times wrongly killing people who are blessed in some manner (Cane and Able are the biggest fame of this).

It would be entirely queer if the story didn't involve the people and courts of Judah choosing entirely incorrectly and being full of folly and injustice.

And by the way...this is somewhat ironic and amusing; to be even more specific.
The Israelites are not 1:1 as those from Judah.
Israelites were a specific inner grouping who are just pounded on repeatedly in many of the texts as folly and in error.
Judah, an early underdog in the texts, later comes out on top as practically remarking at the sad and poor truth of the falling of the Israelites and the betterment of the line of Judah to correct those errors and set the people straight.
In this view, then, this Jesus is rather interesting as you have a Galilean (which is in the Northern region of the former Kingdom of Israel) who is righteous and a Judah, this time, who is folly and in error.

As it has been said; what a twist!

Matthew is a brilliant iconographic piece of work in this regard, really.
Jesus is of the line of Judah's most prized King, and born from the Womb of Judah (a literal meaning of Bethlehem), flees and comes from Egypt from where the rightful will return (Zadok line - btw, also mirroring the actual instance of the original Zadok High Priest ousting by the Hellens), and comes from the spirit of the Northern Kingdom of Israel to Judah to unite the Nation symbolically and reverse the pattern (which, completes the cycle - Hebrew calender's were symbolically cyclical and counter-balanced; not a shocker there) for now Judah has made the critical error and Able is once again murdered by Cane (symbolically).

I think I need to flip on Eye of The Tiger for this story's soundtrack.

(btw - the above does not inherently indicate that a Hebrew wrote anything...there are others who would be aware of these considerations outside of their culture nearby, such as those in Antioch or Alexandria)

Eye of The Tiger!
Ah, that was a good laugh.

Anyway.
We seem to both be agreed the Roman trial and execution are literary devises rather than evidence Jesus was an historical figure, correct me if I'm wrong, JasonR.

I can sympathise with your comment
"I really dislike this view (not that it's your view, mind you) that because the 'Jews are the killer of Jesus, they are being vilified' concept.
This is such a break of understanding the literary function and context of the people and the courts of Judah forcing Jesus to his unjust execution by Romans who saw him as without fault."

I enjoyed reading your take on the literary antecedents for this chapter, that of the Roman trial and execution in the Jesus narrative.
I'm grateful for your input and always feel a trifle less ignorant after reading it.
Still, the more I learn about the historical context of the Jesus narrative, the only things I can take away from what I see as yet another syncretic mystery cult are the saying of Jesus.
And even then, that's generally what I take away from any cult- the words of wisdom of the cult's object.

You have to go far to beat Apollo's "Know thyself", though.

 

[pakeha]

I just got my copy of Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus and he makes an interesting comment on page 260 regarding the dates given to the New Testament material.

He agrees that there is plenty wrong with the current dates but it would take a minimum of seven years of full time research to sort through the material and even at the end of that odds would be there wouldn't be any clear resolution. [ . . . ]

I'm looking forward to your reactions to the book.
It beggars belief that the mainstream academic bible scholars haven't sifted and re-sifted all the material available, doesn't it?

 

[eight bits]

Jayson

Thanks for answering the call .

The only non-contextual element, inherently at least, would be that comprised of only Jews (well...more like, a bit unique).

OK. Then a mixed party would mean that John is correct about that point. The Fourth Gospel arrest scene has radically unrealistic aspects, as do both John's version of the "Sanhedrin Trial" and the "Trial before Pilate." However, I can still see John "correcting" his colleagues on a procedural point, rolling his eyes, patting himself on the back.

If the Temple guards are Roman reservists, then Jesus' arrest could be spun however the storyteller wished, as Roman or Jewish. The initiative for the action seems to be Jewish, regardless of who's telling us, and in John, Judas appaers to be ithe guards' leader for the evening (although as in all the Gospels, Judas has no further role in Jesus' legal troubles.)

pakeha

Yet the earliest accounts we have of Jesus don't seem focus on Jesus the Gadfly, but rather Jesus the Resurrected Saviour or Jesus the Miracle Worker.

Or, if you prefer, Jesus the answer to What's in it for me?, especially if I happen not to be Jewish.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ](As always, I am only 60-40 that there even was a real Jesus of any interest to us. Any detailed story about him would be, at best, even closer to equipoise than that. I am just trying to sort out what the story is, subject to the constraint that it could have happened. Whether the crucifixion story, whatever it turns out to be, is actually true I don't know.)

I'm glad other posters are simply trying to sort out what the story is. I've read apologists' arguments that the crucifixion of Jesus is more or less one of the most well-documented events of the first century. Yet the more I investigate and read, the less plausible the entire passion story becomes.

I can't imagine a reason why the Jewish authorities would call for and participate in a crucifixion during the Passover celebrations.
The only explanation for this narrative that makes any sense at all, given what we know, is that it's theological narration or hagiography.

You seem not to understand that the authors of the Jesus story attempted to give the impression that the trial of Jesus, the Son of God, was DOCUMENTED in a Roman court and that it was DOCUMENTED in court records that Pilate found no fault with the Son of God. [ . . . ]

Actually, that's my point, dejudge and I'm glad you agree with me.
There's no reason to believe the passion of Jesus ever occurred, is there.

[ . . . ]From the narrative perspective, we aren't looking for why the Sanhedrin wanted the crucifixion, but why the story is satisfied by the employment of the crucifixion instead of the normal stoning.

The simple way of putting it is that it really sticks in the head much more as a malicious tinge and death.
Stoning is rather mundane; especially for the times.

A crucifixion has much more narrative body to it as well; you have time to further portray the characters.
If we just stone Jesus, then well...it's over pretty quick. "And they stoned him until he was dead." - Fin

Well that's not a very thrilling ending.

Meanwhile, in the crucifixion, we get quite a lot more of an outline of Jesus' character; he goes hard-core Rocky-in-the-final-round.
We read him enduring torture and learn his stoic character there.
We then watch him give a pass on pain inhibitors bravely and stoically.
Then he weeps in sorrow for everyone else; not himself.
And then...when he finally dies in that final moment of the ultimate bad cowboy movie death scene, the world goes into a dramatic uproar.

Man...


John does, the other three don't.

In Matthew and Mark, they just go the next day to Pilate and on it goes from there; Matthew differs in that it parallels a lesson about the responsibility of moral action in comparing Judas' regret and his "responsibility" against the foreshadowed regret of the Jews upon Pilate telling them that Jesus is their "responsibility" (both are being employed in Matthew as a permanent moral stain...same word used in verse 4 as verse 24...it's not really "responsibility", but instead more akin to 'to hold, or conceive, to own, ['to see' is another way of expressing it a bit more passively]'...the way that it is used in the context refers to how we think of the idea of acute PTSD and a single event being burned in the mind - that is being "owned" in Matthew's narrative).

Luke has an entire extra soap-opera going on between Pilate and Herod - it's like watching Vader and Jabba the Hutt trade Han Solo for friendship, but in this version of that kind of trade Hutt then returns Han to Vader.

It's like a twist of a twist.


So...that leaves us John.
[qimg]http://ilovefuzz.com/images/smilies/picard.png[/qimg]
In the ever appalling John, we have this very queer idea presented where the "Jewish leaders" (John doesn't explicitly spell out Sanhedrin), claim that they cannot legally kill anyone.

I would chalk this up as the on-going compiler group of John not knowing Judean legalities very well, or at the least, hardly cared (most of John's knowledge of "Judean" law seems more "Torah" law instead - which are two different things).

Why John doesn't employ the soap-opera dramatics in Luke if they had that text to work from, I'm not entirely certain.
That is one sore puzzle that causes some consideration about a link between Luke and John; John loves the dramatic flare and melodrama; why did they go so limited as opposed to the rather dramatic version of Luke?

I can only venture a conceptual speculation here and not really much of an answer: if the story is entirely fictional; thus, literature, and John worked (in part) from Luke, and if John was a version created in the west coast of Anatolia, and thereby if it was conveyed under traditional Anatolian customs of retelling a religious tale on the stage as the means of dispersion, then perhaps the reason is both ignorance and convention.
It could be plausible that the performance preferred something a bit more brief than Luke; perhaps it was too much of a tangent in story to segue into an entirely different drama than the trial and execution during this part of the act.

If so (or even if not, there was still a clear absence of an answer and they felt compelled to provide one), then they would need another reason to explain why the "Jewish leaders" just gave Jesus to Pilate.
Well, there is that bit in the Septuagint about the commandment not to kill...sure, that sounds good and ironic - the holy people, who aren't allowed to kill, manipulate someone into execution. Alright, get out there and put on a show!

The Jesus narrative as soap opera?
Sounds about right.

How interesting you see this:
"I can only venture a conceptual speculation here and not really much of an answer: if the story is entirely fictional; thus, literature, and John worked (in part) from Luke, and if John was a version created in the west coast of Anatolia, and thereby if it was conveyed under traditional Anatolian customs of retelling a religious tale on the stage as the means of dispersion, then perhaps the reason is both ignorance and convention.
It could be plausible that the performance preferred something a bit more brief than Luke; perhaps it was too much of a tangent in story to segue into an entirely different drama than the trial and execution during this part of the act."

We also have the Graeco-Roman tradition of acting out the death of kings in dramatic productions and the enduring tradition of Passion plays. It's tempting to see the NT figures as dramatis personæ.

ETA
eight bits, thanks for something to chuckle over as I go about the daily routine!
"Or, if you prefer, Jesus the answer to What's in it for me?, especially if I happen not to be Jewish."

 

[JaysonR]

I have some comments regarding the philosophical attraction to the story; 'what Jesus offer more interestingly than rivals prior to the orthodoxies establishing the triune value for worth'.

I'll post them later today.

 

[maximara]

I'm looking forward to your reactions to the book.
It beggars belief that the mainstream academic bible scholars haven't sifted and re-sifted all the material available, doesn't it?

As, in Carrier's own words, "the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review" On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt has forever removed the idea that the philosophical Jesus myth theory is only the domain of the delusional or cranks who would just as easily believe in Holocaust denial or the Moon Landing Hoax. Simply by existing Carrier's book puts the Jesus myth theory in the domain of the professional scholar and at over 600 pages it can't be written off as a single article in some Journal could (not that some apologists won't try)

Hector Avalos in his The End of Biblical Studies already lambasted the disregard of the historical method but that was by Prometheus Books which is not often regarded as a "respected academic press" in bible scholar circles. Carrier explains why the pro-Historical Jesus side has had such a easy time of it--nearly all the pro-philosophical Jesus myth material has been poor. Not that the pro-Historical Jesus side has been much better but when the go to for nearly 1700 years has been Jesus existed as a historical person they didn't really need to prove their case.

The fact that when you get right down to it the Historical Jesus "evidence" is the same usual suspects again, again, and again (Paul, Gospels, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Talmud, and on a bad day Thallus) like some parrot shows something is messed up.

 

[Brainache]

...
The fact that when you get right down to it the Historical Jesus "evidence" is the same usual suspects again, again, and again (Paul, Gospels, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Talmud, and on a bad day Thallus) like some parrot shows something is messed up.

Just to touch on this point: Why wouldn't Historians keep using the same evidence? Are they supposed to invent new evidence? I can't see why using the same evidence to reach the same conclusion is a bad thing.

Since the 1940s they have had the Nag Hammadi texts and the DSS have only been available to wide scrutiny since the 1990s, so you might start to see a bit more, but barring any new discoveries, it is what it is.

 

[JaysonR]

Maximara,

Carrier explains why the pro-Historical Jesus side has had such a easy time of it--nearly all the pro-philosophical Jesus myth material has been poor. Not that the pro-Historical Jesus side has been much better but when the go to for nearly 1700 years has been Jesus existed as a historical person they didn't really need to prove their case.

Which is what I outlined in various details several pages back and was misunderstood as defending the HJ position.

As I said back in that tangent - a regular practice is to receive the positive and await a negative to be proven sufficient to overturn the positive; the negative has not been sufficiently supplied.

Carrier says that and everyone is alright with it.
I say it and receive demands for proof for HJ.

Must be the fancy initials at the end of his name.

Eight Bits,
John is correct, but in a way of asking if, in the "Old West" of America, Native Americans would be in the mixed company of Law officers out to arrest an outlaw.
Sure. Typical? Not really, but sure; it could happen.

If John got something right about that detail over the other texts, I would rack that up to luck or a rare matter of happening on some short-lived informant that knew some juicy details of the region.

John is pretty terrible and not at all superior to the other texts in any academic sense.
If Luke is the Shakespearean play of Hamlet, then John is akin to the daytime Soap General Hospital's version of Hamlet.

So it would be like saying, 'I can still see the writers of General Hospital "correcting" Shakespeare on a procedural point, rolling their eyes and patting themselves on the back.'
Sure, maybe they got something right over Shakespeare, but even if they did...I doubt it was exactly intentional, or even if it was intentional, I doubt it was by a merit of academic prowess.

So if we were watching "John" pat himself on his back for getting something right that another text did not (which...again, I hardly think "John" gave two ***** about technical accuracy), then it would be like watching Hodor from Game of Thrones pat himself on the back.
Good job buddy...you finally said something other than your own name!
Slow clap to the winning circle for Hodo- I mean, John.

An apologetic note: I rip on John quite a bit because I hate reading and translating that giant mess of a text - it's grammatical trash. Emphatically, it reads like sifting through a journal compiled in collage from letters by inmates at the Institution for Grammatical Invalids and Failed Fact Checkers [isn't this just Fox News? - sorry, couldn't resist].
That said, what John does well, John does very well. If we go through and correct John's form and just put together what was intended (as best as we can discern it, anyway) then what we do have is one hell of a brilliant piece of theatrics.
John is clearly the Movie version of Princess Bride, Luke is the Abridged Novel as by William Goldman, Mark is the short-story that William Goldman's Father "read" to him every night when he was growing up (omitting huge sections of meaningless and boring material for the little boy-Goldman), and Matthew is the Unabridged, and remarkably boring to most folks, version by S. Morgenstern.

Don't get hung up on which is really the original, or the order of etc... the point in this was the manner of their reception value.

So while I really rip on John for one thing, I can at the same time praise John for what it does well - it is incredibly by far the most entertaining version.​

Pakeha and Eight Bits,

Still, the more I learn about the historical context of the Jesus narrative, the only things I can take away from what I see as yet another syncretic mystery cult are the saying of Jesus.
And even then, that's generally what I take away from any cult- the words of wisdom of the cult's object.

You have to go far to beat Apollo's "Know thyself", though.

Or, if you prefer, Jesus the answer to What's in it for me?, especially if I happen not to be Jewish.

(not that these comments were related to each other directly; I put them together for topical purpose)

The story of Jesus, even in the slimmest - Mark, has an appeal that most everyone looking at it today entirely looks right over without ever considering it worth note.
"You have moral authority"

Fictionally or factually; it doesn't really matter - that is a huge political philosophy message around this time period.

It's not like Zoroastrianism didn't equally say this same message, but that story wasn't as good by comparison; not even close.
The Jesus story has all sorts of modern (at the time) and juicy bits in it - Zoroaster is to Jesus like Hercules is to Superman; kids in the 50's were far more interested in Superman comics than books about Hercules.

Humans are sometimes quite predictably human, and it is pretty understandable why Jesus was more fascinating of a character and story than Zoroaster despite their numerous likenesses.

So the attraction is the message and the packaging.
The packaging is attractive, and the message is meaty and no other such ontological offering carried the message (aside from the ignored Zoroaster).

It's also pretty fascinating in how it delivers this message, and this is also where it really departs from Zoroastrianism surely.

The message is presented, uniquely, as a discussion of authority and right.
The authority and right of making a moral judgement, that is on the face of it by custom declared as immoral, is charged as being literally in every person.

OK, well...depends which text you pick regarding "every person" (Matthew, for example, is rather specific to the logic being about Hebrews and not just everyone), but either way, it ends up meaning that to the recipients once 'Jesus goes wild' and starts spreading everywhere.

Every argument made in the texts revolves around, eventually, everyone being from Adam and Adam being from their god and thereby everyone has in them the authority of the divine, which..."Kingdom of God" in the Greek ..."Kingdom" is the word for the right of authority, not a physical construct.
The right of authority of the divine powers is the right of moral authority over man.

If this never stood out to you before, keep it in mind and go back and start skimming through all of the sections on the Kingdom of God, Jesus' various debates and his many parables.

It's on almost every page (or leaf, if you will ).

That is the attraction here; the concept being conveyed is that you don't have to beg and pull on the divine for an answer about what to do (seriously; people did - Temples were quite popularly employed in the Mediterranean by folks wanting divination over a decision that vexed them - just look into the variety of machines built for temples to fool people into thinking they received an answer from the divine and you'll see this demand rather evidently).

No, says this story, you are He-Man (or She-Ra).
YOU HAVE THE POWA!

As a Free Gift*!

*Free Gift of ontological moral authority accessed after indefinite patronage to Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior of every one of us, per compliance with the Mediterranean Religious Regulation of 2nd c CE, Article 5 Subsection 3,509.2.f "That's about enough out of you", and Nicene Jesus Communications Commission regulation governing the proper Jesus Christ moral authority invocation conduction rod™ installation and operation. Limit one per customer, unless a resident of Utah post 1820 CE - which is the future and irrelevant right now. Local taxes and Imperial orders and Emperors apply and override any authority assumed by consumer. Violation of statutes of executive order will result in pain, death, or at the least ridicule for being very, very silly.

So pick up your tunic and Acts now!!

But on a more serious note; that was the point prior to the Orthodox take on things: that each person has the authority of the divine and can decide moral dilemmas for themselves without needing to put everything on hold until they can get an answer from the divine.
The Orthodox took this and said, "Weeeell...hold on now Mr. Fancy pants; are you "the" Son of God? Okie dokie, didn't think so, so no you don't have the authority of moral judgement, but it can be yours through patronage to Jesus, and thereby ... well ... me"



Pakeha,

We also have the Graeco-Roman tradition of acting out the death of kings in dramatic productions and the enduring tradition of Passion plays. It's tempting to see the NT figures as dramatis personæ.

It certainly is this; regardless of the historicity of Jesus, this is what these texts are.

At the very least, these texts are like Cowboy novella of Jesse James.
Well...post Orthodoxy they are at the least like if Jesse James was the main protagonist in Cowboys and Aliens.

 

[lpetrich]

Carrier touches briefly on the range of Jesus myth theories going from the totally ridiculous ('the bulk of the New Testament is a hoax perpetrated by the Roman elite') to the least ridiculous (the earliest Christians preached a celestial being named Jesus Christ, then later this godlike figure was fictionally placed in a historical setting just like other gods were, and the original concept eventually forgotten, dismissed, suppressed') (pg 8)

I've seen some attempts to explain away Paul's shortage of details about Jesus Christ's alleged earthly life. Like that he was presenting high theology for those who already knew about Jesus Christ. But as Earl Doherty notes, there are lots of things in the Gospels that Paul could have cited in support of his positions, but didn't.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Maximara, a regular practice is to receive the positive and await a negative to be proven sufficient to overturn the positive; the negative has not been sufficiently supplied.

So wait, I really DO have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage?

 

[Brainache]

So wait, I really DO have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage?

Yeah, because itinerant 1st Century Jewish holy men were as rare as invisible fire breathing dragons...

Or, do you believe that if Jesus existed he must necessarily have been the magic carpenter of the later gospel stories?

 

[lpetrich]

Richard Carrier refers to the "Rank-Raglan" hero profile. That's referring to Freudian psychoanalyst Otto Rank's book The Myth of the Birth of the Hero. Otto Rank was an associate of Sigmund Freud himself.

He discusses Sargon, Moses, Karna, Oedipus, Paris, Telephus, Perseus, Gilgamesh, Cyrus, Tristan, Romulus, Hercules, Jesus, Siegfried, Lohengrin.

In The Myth of the Birth of the Hero: III. The Interpretation of the Myths,

The standard saga itself may be formulated according to the following outline: The hero is the child of most distinguished parents, usually the son of a king. His origin is preceded by difficulties, such as continence, or prolonged barrenness, or secret intercourse of the parents due to external prohibition or obstacles. During or before the pregnancy, there is a prophecy, in the form of a dream or oracle, cautioning against his birth, and usually threatening danger to the father (or his representative). As a rule, he is surrendered to the water, in a box. He is then saved by animals, or by lowly people (shepherds), and is suckled by a female animal or by an humble woman. After he has grown up, he finds his distinguished parents, in a highly versatile fashion. He takes his revenge on his father, on the one hand, and is acknowledged, on the other. Finally he achieves rank and honors.

Much of it is parallel to Lord Raglan's hero profile. However, Rank also included prophecy, a curious omission from Lord Raglan's work.

A warning about Lord Raglan's profile. One should not interpret it too literal-mindedly, or else hardly anyone would score big in it.

Here's a blow-by-blow analysis, with how real heroes typically score in it, and comparing Jesus Christ.

But before that, prophecy. It can be stated as: "The hero fulfills a prophecy made of his coming and career, often despite efforts to thwart that prophecy."
Real: never
Jesus Christ: yes

1. Hero's mother is a royal virgin;
Real: not very often
Jesus Christ: the virgin part yes, the royal part maybe

2. His father is a king, and
Real: not very often
Jesus Christ: the successor of a king

3. Often a near relative of his mother, but
Real: seldom
Jesus Christ: no

4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
Real: seldom?
Jesus Christ: yes

5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
Real: never
Jesus Christ: yes

6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather to kill him, but
Real: never. I don't know of it ever happening.
Jesus Christ: yes

7. he is spirited away, and
Real: never
Jesus Christ: yes

8. Reared by foster parents in a far country.
Real: sometimes one or both
Jesus Christ: foster parents no, far country yes

9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
Real: sometimes
Jesus Christ: his being a child prodigy in the Jerusalem Temple

10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.
Real: sometimes, though almost always from being born and raised outside of it, as Napoleon was
Jesus Christ: yes

11. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
Real: sometimes, because real heroes often get to power without defeating a predecessor or a rival claimant, their usual versions of this
Jesus Christ: yes, by successfully resisting the Devil's tempting of him

12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
Real: sometimes
Jesus Christ: no

13. And becomes king.
This is a free point. It was likely included for narrative coherence.

14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
Real: sometimes, because real heroes sometimes have very dramatic reigns
Jesus Christ: yes

15. Prescribes laws, but
Real: often
Jesus Christ: yes. His teachings can reasonably be considered laws in a broad sense.

16. Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
Real: not very often. Some heroes have had the opposite: diehard supporters, as Napoleon and Hitler did.
Jesus Christ: yes

17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which
Real: somewhat more often
Jesus Christ: yes

18. He meets with a mysterious death,
Real: seldom. They often die in very ordinary fashion.
Jesus Christ: yes

19. Often at the top of a hill,
Real: seldom. Some of them die in the opposite sort of locale, like Adolf Hitler in his Berlin bunker.
Jesus Christ: yes

20. His children, if any, do not succeed him.
Real: often
Jesus Christ: yes

21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless
Real: not very often
Jesus Christ: he was buried, but he didn't stay buried

22. He has one or more holy sepulchres.
Real: sometimes
Jesus Christ: yes


It ought to be evident that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels is much more like mythical people than like well-documented real people. If there was a historical Jesus Christ, he must have been much like Haile Selassie, the subject of massive mythmaking.