What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Slowvehicle]

Well first, I did not say that I accept anything about Paul or letters written under his name.

But the reason for mentioning that James passage is, of course, that those who believe in a real HJ almost always cite that as one of two pieces of written evidence showing Jesus was a real person (he had a brother, James). So that's the reason I (and others here) have often concentrated on those five words in Paul’s letter.

If you throw out all the supernatural stuff in the gospels and Paul’s letters, then how much is left of the Jesus that 1st century Christians thought was the messiah?

...which is kinda the point, innit?

 

[TimCallahan]

Well first, I did not say that I accept anything about Paul or letters written under his name.

But the reason for mentioning that James passage is, of course, that those who believe in a real HJ almost always cite that as one of two pieces of written evidence showing Jesus was a real person (he had a brother, James). So that's the reason I (and others here) have often concentrated on those five words in Paul’s letter.

If you throw out all the supernatural stuff in the gospels and Paul’s letters, then how much is left of the Jesus that 1st century Christians thought was the messiah?

Precious little. In fact, you don't have to limit it to supernatural stuff. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot, particularly as presented in the Gospel of Matthew, is entirely made up from material in the Jewish scriptures. What's left over is a messianic pretender, one of many, with an apocalyptic message, i.e. he expected the world to end in his generation. That he might have preached a way of life similar to that of the Cynic philosophers would fit well with an apocalyptic withdrawal from the world.

My view of any historical Jesus is that he served as a mannikin upon which to hang stories and philosophies like so much fancy clothing. Those of Paul's letters considered genuine, an in particular, Galatians, seem plausible to me. They present a Jewish sect, followers of a failed messianic pretender, essentially hijacked by Paul, to create a new religion. To this nascent religion accrued a blend of Jewish and Gentile stories. I would suspect that Paul's initial proselytes were mainly hellenized Jews

 

[neilgodfrey]

Here is a list of some of the would be messiahs Josephus mentions:


Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE) - Jewish War 2.57-59; Jewish Antiquities 17.273-277
Athronges (c 3 CE) - Jewish Antiquities 17.278-284
Judas of Galilee (6 CE) - Antiquities Book 18 Chapter 1; death of sons in Antiquities 20.5.2 102. Also refereed to in Acts 5:37
Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE) - Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98
Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE) - Jewish War 2.259-263; Jewish Antiquities 20.169-171
Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE) -
John of Giscala (d c70 CE) - The Jewish War appears periodically in Book IV, V, and VII.

The devils are in the details. Take, for example, the Theudas reference. As I concluded in a longer discussion of this once before:

I find nothing in Josephus’ account nor Horsley’s discussion to point to the Theudas event being a case of popular messianic expectations. Even if Theudas was seen as some revived Joshua, what evidence do we have that Joshua was a messianic (anointed) figure? What evidence is there of an expectation of such a figure of which Theudas was the apparent fulfilment?

I also think that Josephus’s reference to the followers of Theudas taking their possessions with them — and not weapons! — counts against him being thought of as an expected messianic conqueror.

Ditto for the Egyptian.

What I think we are seeing here is a confusion of modern scholarly assumptions of popular messianism -- assumptions that are based on specific readings of texts that I suspect few of the average Jews in those days would have been familiar with (more likely they were the preserve of priestly literati of sorts) -- in the era imputed into the minds of peasants.

Josephus does not tell us these were messianic movements and scholars rationalize his failure to give us that evidence. They may be right, but the fact remains we can't be sure.

Indeed, the story of the nativity in Matthew is predicated upon the complete lack of sense of popular messianism at the time of Jesus: how else to explain Herod and others all being confused and having to go consult priests who needed to consult dusty verses in their scriptures?

I am not dogmatic about there being no messianic movements at the time -- at least till towards the time of the Jewish war -- but I have yet to see sure evidence for it. Most of what I do see is assumption.

The first time we have any clear evidence of a Jewish interest in a messianic movement is in the second century with Bar Kochba.

Until then, the notion appears to have been more a theological or mystical one that was the preserve of cultists (Enochians, Paul) and the intellectual elites in their literary debates, and not part of the popular consciousness.

 

[neilgodfrey]

Here's a check. The Pharisee leader Gamaliel made by Acts 5 to describe anti Roman rebels as possibly "from God" and comparing Jesus' companions with them.

Acts is hardly a historical source. It is a propaganda tract, written in the guise of history but with all the flavour of a Hellenistic novel, to justify the Christian movement, and especially to coopt Paul to proto-orthodoxy, and there is no evidence of anyone knowing of its existence until the latter part of the second century.

The author has in fact used Josephus as his source there -- as I think someone else pointed to recently with a link to an online scholarly discussion about Luke's use of Josephus. Likely, however, he was relying upon memory after hearing an oral reading and he got the order of the two contenders mixed up.

The chronology of the events in Acts verifies the unhistoricity of the narrative.

 

[Belz...]

The devils are in the details.

Yes, I know (look to the left).

 

[Brainache]

The devils are in the details. Take, for example, the Theudas reference. As I concluded in a longer discussion of this once before:

I find nothing in Josephus’ account nor Horsley’s discussion to point to the Theudas event being a case of popular messianic expectations. Even if Theudas was seen as some revived Joshua, what evidence do we have that Joshua was a messianic (anointed) figure? What evidence is there of an expectation of such a figure of which Theudas was the apparent fulfilment?

I also think that Josephus’s reference to the followers of Theudas taking their possessions with them — and not weapons! — counts against him being thought of as an expected messianic conqueror.

I've recently read a theory that "Theudas" is actually a contraction of "Thomas Judas", the name of one of Jesus' Brothers.

Ditto for the Egyptian.

You mean the guy who tried to knock down the walls of Jerusalem (ala Joshua at Jericho) by gathering all his followers on the Mount Of Olives and chanting?

No, nothing Messianic about that...

What I think we are seeing here is a confusion of modern scholarly assumptions of popular messianism -- assumptions that are based on specific readings of texts that I suspect few of the average Jews in those days would have been familiar with (more likely they were the preserve of priestly literati of sorts) -- in the era imputed into the minds of peasants.

Josephus does not tell us these were messianic movements and scholars rationalize his failure to give us that evidence. They may be right, but the fact remains we can't be sure.
<snip>...
The first time we have any clear evidence of a Jewish interest in a messianic movement is in the second century with Bar Kochba.

Until then, the notion appears to have been more a theological or mystical one that was the preserve of cultists (Enochians, Paul) and the intellectual elites in their literary debates, and not part of the popular consciousness.

Sure, if you ignore everything in the Dead Sea Scrolls...

 

[maximara]

Precious little. In fact, you don't have to limit it to supernatural stuff. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot, particularly as presented in the Gospel of Matthew, is entirely made up from material in the Jewish scriptures. What's left over is a messianic pretender, one of many, with an apocalyptic message, i.e. he expected the world to end in his generation. That he might have preached a way of life similar to that of the Cynic philosophers would fit well with an apocalyptic withdrawal from the world.

My view of any historical Jesus is that he served as a mannikin upon which to hang stories and philosophies like so much fancy clothing. Those of Paul's letters considered genuine, an in particular, Galatians, seem plausible to me. They present a Jewish sect, followers of a failed messianic pretender, essentially hijacked by Paul, to create a new religion. To this nascent religion accrued a blend of Jewish and Gentile stories. I would suspect that Paul's initial proselytes were mainly hellenized Jews

This is in essence the "classical" Christ Myth theory presented by Drews, Robertson, Remsburg, and others of that time:


"In wide circles the doubt grows as to the historical character of the picture of Christ given in the Gospels. (...) If in spite of this anyone thinks that besides the latter a Jesus cannot also be dispensed with, this can naturally not be opposed; but we know nothing of Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology, he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow. Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this 'unique' and 'mighty' personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness." (Drews, Arthur (1910) The Christ Myth)

"The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" (Robertson, Archibald. (1946) Jesus: Myth or History? on John Robertson)

"That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written. A Renan and others have attempted to write it, but have failed -- have failed because no materials for such a work exist. Contemporary writers have left us not one word concerning him." (Remsburg)

If Jesus was some Doomsday prophet then odds are his message would have been very anti-Roman and if it was resulting in a disturbance a perfect reason for Pontius Pilate to crucify him.

But this raises a troubling issue--what if Jesus being crucified by Pontius Pilate is the only part of the story that is historically accurate? What if the rest used Paul's visions as a baseline to make Jesus more acceptable to Roman?

But if that is the real state of things then the Gospel Jesus is a fiction in the same way the Robin Hood and King Arthur we know are fictions.

 

[Craig B]

Acts is hardly a historical source. It is a propaganda tract, written in the guise of history but with all the flavour of a Hellenistic novel, to justify the Christian movement, and especially to coopt Paul to proto-orthodoxy, and there is no evidence of anyone knowing of its existence until the latter part of the second century.

The author has in fact used Josephus as his source there -- as I think someone else pointed to recently with a link to an online scholarly discussion about Luke's use of Josephus. Likely, however, he was relying upon memory after hearing an oral reading and he got the order of the two contenders mixed up.

The chronology of the events in Acts verifies the unhistoricity of the narrative.

Indeed so. His chronology of the reported events is awry. The issue however is "popular support for political resistance movements". Clearly Gamaliel, as represented in Acts, is offering or indicating such support by suggesting that such enterprises might possibly be "from God". Clearly, only in the event that they succeeded (which none of them did) would the divine mandate be demonstrated; but Gamaliel appears to live in hope, and on that account advises his colleagues to treat the Jesus people leniently. I am not depending on the historicity of this transaction: even if entirely spurious it indicates an attitude to the rebel movements of the first half of the first century.

 

[IanS]

Precious little. In fact, you don't have to limit it to supernatural stuff. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot, particularly as presented in the Gospel of Matthew, is entirely made up from material in the Jewish scriptures. What's left over is a messianic pretender, one of many, with an apocalyptic message, i.e. he expected the world to end in his generation. That he might have preached a way of life similar to that of the Cynic philosophers would fit well with an apocalyptic withdrawal from the world.

My view of any historical Jesus is that he served as a mannikin upon which to hang stories and philosophies like so much fancy clothing. Those of Paul's letters considered genuine, an in particular, Galatians, seem plausible to me. They present a Jewish sect, followers of a failed messianic pretender, essentially hijacked by Paul, to create a new religion. To this nascent religion accrued a blend of Jewish and Gentile stories. I would suspect that Paul's initial proselytes were mainly hellenized Jews

If you remove all the miracles, and take out all the visions etc., who do you think is left?

Why would any of the disciples have ever followed a person who never did any of those things? Who were they following? What was it they were all constantly seeing if they were watching a real person who never performed any of the miracles?

Why would any of the gospel writers have ever bothered to write about a person like that?

The whole point of the gospel writing and the whole reason for the adoring disciples etc., is that they are describing a highly miraculous person, who through the proof of his constant miracles, showed himself to be the supernatural Son of God.

Who is this individual who would be left after almost everything about him is discarded? Do we know who this is supposed to be?

Or are we just saying that maybe what’s left could be very much like many hundreds (if not thousands) of other anonymous street preachers who were probably around in those days?

If all that’s left is just a completely general speculation like that, assigned to no particular evidenced individual, then that's not at all a real HJ of the bible, is it?

 

[Craig B]

If you remove all the miracles, and take out all the visions etc., who do you think is left?

Why would any of the disciples have ever followed a person who never did any of those things? Who were they following? What was it they were all constantly seeing if they were watching a real person who never performed any of the miracles?

Why would any of the gospel writers have ever bothered to write about a person like that? ...

That's a strangely naive question. Jesus' followers presumably "saw" whatever it is that is "seen" by the followers of the many miracle working preachers who have infested the planet throughout history. Why did, for example, Philostratus "bother to write" about Apollonius of Tyana, a contemporary of Jesus, if the latter existed? Apollonius also healed the sick and performed miracles, or so it is said, and his historicity is, albeit very marginally, better attested than that of Jesus.

Now, does it follow that his miracles must have been authentic, because people "bothered to write about" him? Or are we to take the fact that people did write about him, if in truth he performed no miracles, as evidence against his historicity?

 

[neilgodfrey]

I've recently read a theory that "Theudas" is actually a contraction of "Thomas Judas", the name of one of Jesus' Brothers.



You mean the guy who tried to knock down the walls of Jerusalem (ala Joshua at Jericho) by gathering all his followers on the Mount Of Olives and chanting?

No, nothing Messianic about that...



Sure, if you ignore everything in the Dead Sea Scrolls...

Do you actually have any evidence-based argument or do you normally get by with just make sweeping assertions like these?

 

[neilgodfrey]

Indeed so. His chronology of the reported events is awry. The issue however is "popular support for political resistance movements". Clearly Gamaliel, as represented in Acts, is offering or indicating such support by suggesting that such enterprises might possibly be "from God". Clearly, only in the event that they succeeded (which none of them did) would the divine mandate be demonstrated; but Gamaliel appears to live in hope, and on that account advises his colleagues to treat the Jesus people leniently. I am not depending on the historicity of this transaction: even if entirely spurious it indicates an attitude to the rebel movements of the first half of the first century.

Gamaliel's speech does not indicate anything about rebel movements of the first century if, as the evidence indicates, Luke was a mid-second century composition and an apologetic one at that.

We are just assuming here that political resistance movements were by definition messianic, but that is actually begging the question. We have no evidence that that's how they were conceptualized by the masses in their own time. At least none that I know of.

Thomas L. Thompson is one scholar who has published much on the messiah concept in both the BCE and CE eras and who argues (he's not alone, but his is the name that comes to mind right now) that until the second century the title of messiah was never assigned to any contemporary figure.

Others have argued that there is no evidence that the "messiah" concept (until the second century CE) was ever a feature of popular Jewish consciousness. It was a theological concept that, as far as we can say for certain at this point given the evidence, was confined to esoteric speculations of priests and scholars.

This all changed after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

 

[Craig B]

Gamaliel's speech does not indicate anything about rebel movements of the first century if, as the evidence indicates, Luke was a mid-second century composition and an apologetic one at that.

Yes it does! Whether the passage was written in the second century (if indeed it was) or the twentieth century, it contains a discussion of the possible divine inspiration of these first century rebel movements. For evidence of first century messianism we may look to Josephus. In his work we find an unambiguous statement that messianism was a major incitement to revolt.

But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil.31 (J.W. 6.5.4 §312-314)

And for Simon bar Giora, a leader of the First Revolt, see http://www.ucalgary.ca/christchair/files/christchair/Evans Messianic Hopes.pdf

Simon entered the city and took command in the spring of 69 C.E. (J.W. 4.9.12 §577). Among the leaders of the rebellion “Simon in particular was regarded with reverence and awe . . . each was quite prepared to take his very own life had he given the order” (J.W. 5.7.3 §309). By his authority, coins were minted declaring the “redemption of Zion.”

Similar coins were also minted later by Bar Kochba.

 

[Craig B]

Gamaliel's speech does not indicate anything about rebel movements of the first century if, as the evidence indicates, Luke was a mid-second century composition and an apologetic one at that.

I'd be interested in seeing sources for that. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html gives 80-130, with a preference for c95-100 if Luke did in fact draw on Josephus. Earlier is "permissible" if he didn't.

 

[pakeha]

...If you throw out all the supernatural stuff in the gospels and Paul’s letters, then how much is left of the Jesus that 1st century Christians thought was the messiah?

A good question.
Any answers from the HJ advocates?

 

[maximara]

I'd be interested in seeing sources for that. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html gives 80-130, with a preference for c95-100 if Luke did in fact draw on Josephus. Earlier is "permissible" if he didn't.

Carroll, John T. (2012) Luke: A Commentary puts Luke at 75 - 125 and given we have Marcion with his "Luke" c140 CE that makes some degree of sense.

 

[IanS]

That's a strangely naive question. Jesus' followers presumably "saw" whatever it is that is "seen" by the followers of the many miracle working preachers who have infested the planet throughout history.

Why did, for example, Philostratus "bother to write" about Apollonius of Tyana, a contemporary of Jesus, if the latter existed? Apollonius also healed the sick and performed miracles, or so it is said, and his historicity is, albeit very marginally, better attested than that of Jesus.

Now, does it follow that his miracles must have been authentic, because people "bothered to write about" him? Or are we to take the fact that people did write about him, if in truth he performed no miracles, as evidence against his historicity?

No it's not "naïve", and we are not getting into a quite different discussion about whether or not other ancient figures were supposed to have performed miracles and what the evidence was for that etc etc. We talking about the biblical figure of Jesus. Stick to the subject here, please.

The claim was being made that we could discard all the miracles and supernatural stuff, and still be left with a real preacher who just preached his religious beliefs.

But in that case I am asking what marked him out from all the many hundreds of other street preachers of those times, such that people mistakenly believed this person was producing miracle after miracle and must therefore be the messianic Son of God?

IOW - who was this "real Historic" individual who did almost none of the vital things in the gospels, but who is still claimed to be the same figure described in those gospels? Any idea who that "real" person was? ...

... or are we just saying that such a person could have been any one of hundreds of anonymous preachers of the day? ...

... because in that case the claim is so vague and tenuous that it could apply to almost anyone at that time.

That's not a demonstration of any historical Jesus of the bible. That's just a statement of such broad and speculative generality as to be entirely empty and quite worthless.

 

[Craig B]

Carroll, John T. (2012) Luke: A Commentary puts Luke at 75 - 125 and given we have Marcion with his "Luke" c140 CE that makes some degree of sense.

75 - 125 is earlier than "mid second century". If Luke is drawing on Josephus as regards Judas, Theudas et al that would suggest after c95.

 

[Craig B]

No it's not "naïve", and we are not getting into a quite different discussion about whether or not other ancient figures were supposed to have performed miracles and what the evidence was for that etc etc. We talking about the biblical figure of Jesus. Stick to the subject here, please.

That reproach is, I think, quite unjustified. You asked how people could have followed a Jesus who was not in fact a miracle worker; and why anyone would be bothered to write about such a person. I gave an example of another alleged miracle worker who was the subject of a later biographical work. The question of whether other people resembled Jesus in this respect is quite evidently relevant to the discussion of Jesus' historicity.

 

[IanS]

That reproach is, I think, quite unjustified. You asked how people could have followed a Jesus who was not in fact a miracle worker; and why anyone would be bothered to write about such a person. I gave an example of another alleged miracle worker who was the subject of a later biographical work. The question of whether other people resembled Jesus in this respect is quite evidently relevant to the discussion of Jesus' historicity.

No. Please do not try to confuse the issue by introducing other ancient historical figures for whom we are really not familiar with the evidence and any claimed actual verified history etc. That will just take us off into an endless derail about other figures entirely.

Just stick to what is being claimed here for Jesus.

The point is - to leave a non-supernatural messiah from the bible, you have to remove so much from the figure of Jesus, that what is left becomes so vague ill-defined and un-evidenced, that it might equally be anyone or no-one of that period.

Keep in mind here that we are not talking about a messiah who any of those biblical writers actually ever knew. All those authors, are describing their belief in a legendary figure of past times. They are re-telling the details of legendary stories about what was believed for a miraculous messiah sent to them as God’s own favoured chosen special people on Earth.

If this is only legend, then it’s quite easy and obvious to see how later biblical writers came to believe the miracle stories without themselves ever actually seeing any of it. But that’s because it’s only legend and not actually true - there were actually no miracles. But where does that leave their belief in the figure of Jesus who none of them knew?