What counts as a historical Jesus?

[maximara]

max

The topic is a historical Jesus who counts. As Belz has ably summarized, for some who have posted here, counting would be influenced by whether a candidate Jesus is the same man featured in the Gospels, the man who is presented in Acts as being Paul's Jesus. A necessary condition for that identification is that the candidate Jesus lived in the more recent First Century.

To identify in which First Century Paul's Jesus lived, it is useful to estimate whether or not there was already a sizeable, dispersed or long-lived church devoted to the man for Paul to persecute before Paul changed sides. That is the significance, for this topic, of your claim that "Saul Paul became infamous across three Roman provenances (sic) for his persecution of Christians."

So, let's begin at the beginning. Who told you, or where did you read, that Paul became infamous across three Roman provinces for his persecution of Christians?

John Fletcher Hurst's 1897 History of the Christian Church IIRC in reference to Paul's conversion: 'The persecution came to an end throughout the three provinces...' Reference of that as I remember was Acts 9:31 which does say "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied." (KJV)

I believe I mentioned those three as the most likely provinces where Paul was infamous. Furthermore if you go through Acts 9:1-30 KJV the implication is that Saul's conversion is the main reason the persecution came to an end "throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria" (NASB version of Acts (9:31)

So if we are to take Acts 7-9 seriously (please stop laughing ), Christianity had spread through out all of the provinces Judaea, Galilee, and Samaria and Paul as Saul has been the core cause of the persecution.

As mentioned in this thread before there are markers that point to Paul's conversion before 37CE ie December 31, 36 CE is the latest Paul could have converted (I don't remember enough to look for it properly but if the author of that piece is still with us could you relate those markers, please?). But based on Josephus the beheading of John the Baptist happened in 36CE and the synoptic all have Jesus preaching away after this event.

So unless Saul was going after Christians before Jesus was crucified you have a problem regarding time--you have to have Christianity spread throughout all the provinces of Judaea, Galilee, and Samaria and that Saul was the main if not the cause of early persecution in these same provinces and not one contemporary notices any of this.

Which brings us back to Herod Agrippa's letter to Philo c38 CE recorded in Embassy to Gaius (c40 CE). Certainly if Pontius Pilate was letting one lone person (Roman citizen or not) go Matthew Hopkins throughout Galilee looking for Christians he would have added that to his list of reasons why Pontius Pilate was a crappy ruler and why I should rule this region.

Yes, Acts is propaganda but is it on the level of Capra's Why We Fight? series or on par with the likes of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

 

[eight bits]

Acts 9:31

The church throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria was at peace. It was being built up and walked in the fear of the Lord, and with the consolation of the holy Spirit it grew in numbers.

That verse marks the transition between Paul's meeting with Peter (9: 20-30) and the various travels of Peter (9: 32-43), resulting in Peter's long absence from Jerusalem.

There's no reference to Paul in verse 9: 31. We know from Galatians 1: 18 that Paul says he hadn't persecuted anybody anywhere for three years before he first met with Peter.

We also have no reason to think Paul ever persecuted anybody in two of the places mentioned in verse 9:31 (Samaria and Galilee). We have reason to think there was no church to persecute in Samaria before Paul's conversion (see our earlier discussion of Acts 8). Finally, we have Paul's testimony that he was personally unknown in the third place mentioned (Judea), Galatians 1: 22-23, already quoted in an earlier post.

Clearly, the verse asserts only that nobody is giving the Jerusalem people a hard time at that point, which explains why Peter is free to travel, which he does for a long time. Nothing at all about Paul follows from that, certainly not that he was infamous in any of those places.

Acts 8:1-30 KJV

We've already discussed the chapter. Paul is mentioned only in the first three verses. The rest includes a different kind of problem altogether in Samaria, a rival magician infiltrates the group, bribery ensuses.... all kinds of great drama to be sure, the end of which turmoil could fairly be described as "peace," but no persecution, no pre-exisitng church to persecute, and there is no mention of Paul in chapter 8 after verse 3.

Here's Paul entire career as a persecutor before arranging to go to Damascus, according to Luke (Acts 7:58 and 8: 1-3)

They threw him out of the city, and began to stone him. The witnesses laid down their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul ... Now Saul was consenting to his execution.On that day, there broke out a severe persecution of the church in Jerusalem, and all were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.Devout men buried Stephen and made a loud lament over him. Saul, meanwhile, was trying to destroy the church; entering house after house and dragging out men and women, he handed them over for imprisonment.

Jews bury their dead on the same day they die. "Meanwhile" means that Paul's rousting people from their homes happened on the same day as he watched those cloaks.

There's nothing there that implies or insinuates Paul having a position of prominence in any large-scale or long-lived undertaking. The passages illustrate his sincerity and dedication, not his effectiveness, leadership or infamy. No provincial boundary is crossed where any overt act of persecution is accomplished. Damascus would have been, where a nasty letter was going to be read in the synagogues (Take that, you Wayists!), but Paul didn't pull it off.

Christianity had spread through out all of the provinces Judaea, Galilee, and Samaria

As noted, we have no information about Galilee until three years after Paul switched, and Samaria seems to have been virgin territory when Philip shows up after Paul watched those cloaks. There's no indication of a persecutable church before Paul's switch in any of these places except Judea.

John the Baptist and Jesus die before 36, and Paul switches by the end of 36, after somehow finding the time to watch some cloaks, roust a few people out of their houses in Jerusalem later that day and then try and fail to arrange to have a nasty letter read aloud in Damascus. This is not conspicuously rushed.

 

[maximara]

We've already discussed the chapter.

If you followed the link you would have found it a typo there. It went to Acts 9:1-30 which we have NOT discussed.

 

[eight bits]

max

If you followed the link you would have found it a typo there.

Meh, no harm done, I discussed the only part of 9: 1-30 that occurs before Paul's conversion experience, which is the first two verses:

Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains.

So Paul blows some serious rootin' tootin' and asks for the letter(s) for Damascus synagogues. Paul doesn't know whether or not he'll find any Wayist there. "He might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains" is a nice aspiration. The Damascenes are going to give up their neighbor(s)?

Good plan. Maybe just as well it went "broken arrow" out in the desert. Anyway, Paul does find one guy, a former disciple (of Jesus?). Luke doesn't actually say whether Ananias was an active Wayist before Paul's arrival.

Paul preaches and maybe makes some converts and disciples, along with some enemies, but that has nothing to do with his persecutorial career. That ended back at at 9: 3. I also discussed Paul's meeting with Peter, years after the conversion event. The discussion appears earlier in the post, in connection with 9: 31, and Peter's leisurely travels which that verse introduces.

 

[The Norseman]

You wanna dumb this down for me and explicitly describe how all of the exceedingly detailed description of these passages is evidence of an historical Yeshua?

 

[maximara]

You wanna dumb this down for me and explicitly describe how all of the exceedingly detailed description of these passages is evidence of an historical Yeshua?

They don't, but they do show similar historical incompatibility seen in the Gospels. We are asked that Christianity in 36 CE was large enough to cover three Roman provinces and viable enough that Saul could persecute it and yet no one else notices it.

People have asked regarding the whole Jesus 100 BCE thing how could a Jesus cult have exited for about 100 years without anyone noticing all the while ignoring the fact even if Josephus was genuine you are looking at 60 years before any non Christian noticed and then you have to wait another 20 years for anther comment on the movement So the idea of a 100 year old Jesus cult floating around is no goofier then what the apologists are claiming.

 

[eight bits]

Norseman

You wanna dumb this down for me and explicitly describe how all of the exceedingly detailed description of these passages is evidence of an historical Yeshua?

One issue that is on-topic here is which historical character(s), if any, correspond with literary characters like Paul's Jesus, the Gospels' Jesus or the Islamic Jesus (Isa).

The Gospel Jesus is said to have died under Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem. For both the Gospels' and Islamic Jesus, John the Baptist (Yahya) would have been active before their Jesus' ministry began. Josephus says John died in Herod Antipas' time. A single historical figure who fit in with these other historical characters and who served as the model for the Gospel-Islamic Jesus would likely have died in the early-to-mid 30's CE.

Paul's surviving letters, working back from what many people think are reasonably estimated composition dates, also point to the mid-30's as the time of his conversion. Paul says that his conversion came after he had persecuted followers of his Jesus. So, when did Paul's Jesus die?

If Paul had a long and eventful career as a persecutor of a large, widely dispersed and long-thriving church, then his Jesus likely died before the 30's. However, if Paul 's career was only a riot one day and a failed plan to make mischief if he ran into a Wayist in Damascus, then there is no concern that he might have converted soon after his Jesus died.

A long persecution would therefore support that Paul wasn't talking about the character who appears in later scriptures. For some people who have participated in the thread, an "early Jesus" or "different Jesuses for different authors" would influence their estimate of how or how much such historical Jesus(es) would count.

Paul doesn't describe his overt acts of persecution, except to note that churches in Judea didn't know him personally three years after he switched. Acts, then, is all we have for one early and Paul-friendly Christian's understanding of Paul's anti-Way activity. A single day of overt physical action, followed up by harsh talk and a never-implemeted plan, is all we find there.

I hope that answers your question. Speaking of which, I thank max for answering mine.

 

[Craig B]

... So the idea of a 100 year old Jesus cult floating around is no goofier then what the apologists are claiming.

Then why claim it? Two observations: I am not an "apologist" for Christianity. I think that some of the beliefs about Jesus that we see reflected in the gospels are best explained by the supposition that an HJ existed. I don't understand why this idea excites such hostility among mythicists. I mean hostility, not mere disagreement.

When Wells says, there may be someone there, or Ehrman says he thinks it certain there was, they may be wrong, but the mythicists go totally bananas. It is as if in order to believe Jesus non supernatural, it is necessary to believe him non existent.

We have looked at that in relation to Midas. To believe he existed, is it necessary to believe that he had a golden touch? To deny that he had a golden touch, is it necessary to deny he ever existed?

 

[pakeha]

...
But a diversion like that is unnecessary here anyway - the simple fact is that the biblical writing about Jesus cannot be true. Because the claims are physically impossible.

And if you try to discard all those impossible supernatural events, so little of Jesus is left, and what is left is so general and uneventful, that nothing evidential or probative remains at all. ...

An alternative could be that Jesus staged the supernatural events, a first century Criss Angel, as it were.

Peter Kirby gives the common dates found in the basic texts on his earlychristianwritings site. But there have always been scholars who have argued for a mid second century date for Acts. I find their arguments persuasive because they are based on normative dating means and not what essentially boil down to apologetic assumptions. ...

Post the URL as text, with extra spaces, and some kind soul will put it up for you...

Thanks for the link!

...Paul doesn't describe his overt acts of persecution, except to note that churches in Judea didn't know him personally three years after he switched. Acts, then, is all we have for one early and Paul-friendly Christian's understanding of Paul's anti-Way activity. A single day of overt physical action, followed up by harsh talk and a never-implemeted plan, is all we find there. ...

Thanks for the explanation. Other than his epistles, all the mention we have of Paul is in Acts?

 

[pakeha]

...There's not much in Mark that suggests many Jews thought that Jesus was the Messiah during his lifetime, including cheerleader-in-chief John the Baptist. Paul doesn't necessarily think that Jesus "was the Messiah" in any practical sense until after God raised him. Perhaps Jesus, like Paul himself, was set aside at birth by God, but just as Paul didn't actually serve as "apostle to the Gentiles" until after he had lived humbly for a while, maybe Jesus didn't serve as Messiah before he had earned the job as a reward for a life sufficiently well lived.

Probably not the answer pakeha was looking, but then I'm only three-fifths of an HJ'er. ...

Cheers, eight bits.
I'm not really looking for a specific answer- the more I read the less I expect to find any clear-cut answers at all. Just when I think I've found something solid and factual, it seems to evaporate into opinions and interpretations.
No worries.

 

[Darat]

Then why claim it? Two observations: I am not an "apologist" for Christianity. I think that some of the beliefs about Jesus that we see reflected in the gospels are best explained by the supposition that an HJ existed.
...snip...?

Which bits and why is a HJ the best explanation for those bits?

 

[Acleron]

Then why claim it? Two observations: I am not an "apologist" for Christianity. I think that some of the beliefs about Jesus that we see reflected in the gospels are best explained by the supposition that an HJ existed. I don't understand why this idea excites such hostility among mythicists. I mean hostility, not mere disagreement.

When Wells says, there may be someone there, or Ehrman says he thinks it certain there was, they may be wrong, but the mythicists go totally bananas. It is as if in order to believe Jesus non supernatural, it is necessary to believe him non existent.

We have looked at that in relation to Midas. To believe he existed, is it necessary to believe that he had a golden touch? To deny that he had a golden touch, is it necessary to deny he ever existed?

Who are these mythicists? In this discussion I see people outlining the very sparse evidence for an HJ and questioning the reasoning of the HJers over the claim that no convincing scenario exists for an MJ. I also see the continual claim that anyone who doesn't accept the strong HJ hypothesis is a 100% MJer despite clear statements from all that there is some probability that at least a weak HJ exists.

 

[Belz...]

Which bits and why is a HJ the best explanation for those bits?

Ah, we're still waiting on that.

 

[Craig B]

Which bits and why is a HJ the best explanation for those bits?

Here are two, chosen on the basis that they seem to have caused theoretical problems, and the accounts given in the gospels are progressively modified to alleviate the resulting ideological distress: the baptism by John and the execution by Pilate.

 

[Craig B]

Ah, we're still waiting on that.

Don't be so impatient. You waited half an hour.

 

[Craig B]

Who are these mythicists? In this discussion I see people outlining the very sparse evidence for an HJ and questioning the reasoning of the HJers over the claim that no convincing scenario exists for an MJ. I also see the continual claim that anyone who doesn't accept the strong HJ hypothesis is a 100% MJer despite clear statements from all that there is some probability that at least a weak HJ exists.

I am referring to unwarranted hostility. Here is Carrier on Ehrman's recent book. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

I can officially say it is filled with factual errors, logical fallacies, and badly worded arguments.

Lousy with errors and failing even at the one useful thing it could have done, this is not a book I can recommend.

It’s actually the worst. It’s almost as bad, in fact, as The Jesus Mysteries by Freke & Gandy (and I did not hyperlink that title because I absolutely do not want you to buy it ... )

But I cannot recommend books that are so full of errors that they will badly mislead and miseducate the reader

Did Jesus Exist? ultimately misinforms more than it informs, and that actually makes it worse than bad.

(I)t will only fill your head with nonsense that I will have to work harder to correct. Ehrman’s book ironically does much the same thing.

Therefore, it officially sucks.

This book is also badly written (I’ll give some examples of that, too) and almost useless in its treatment of mythicist authors (even when he’s right).

But even his treatment of the “good” mythicists ... is weak to the point of useless.

The next most alarming thing about this book is its astonishing plethora of blatant logical fallacies and self-contradictions.

But Ehrman not only uses that fallacious methodology (completely unaware of any of the literature in his own field refuting it), he makes the field’s methodology look even worse,

In fact, there are so many errors and fallacies and questionably worded statements in his book that documenting them all would produce a monstrously long article.

 

[IanS]

But a diversion like that is unnecessary here anyway - the simple fact is that the biblical writing about Jesus cannot be true. Because the claims are physically impossible.

And if you try to discard all those impossible supernatural events, so little of Jesus is left, and what is left is so general and uneventful, that nothing evidential or probative remains at all.

An alternative could be that Jesus staged the supernatural events, a first century Criss Angel, as it were.

Well much earlier in this thread a poster named Grahbud (well known from Rational-Scepticism) said that he believed the “miracles” really happened, but that they were examples of faith healing. He said Jesus was thus a very convincing faith healer, such that people believed they had been cured etc. But as I pointed out at the time 50 pages back, that could hardly account for people witnessing him walking on water or raising the dead etc.

It might be argued that it was all a case of mass delusion, rather like the Miracle of Fatima where thousands of people all saw the sun dancing around the sky etc. But in the Jesus case it calls for continuous mass delusion events seemingly occurring almost every day!

However, in the bible, the supernatural fictions are not just confined to Jesus. Paul sees visions of the dead Jesus, and he visits a third heaven, 500 people at once see the risen deceased Jesus, the dead Jesus speaks to people, and so on.

So it’s not just a case of Jesus staging supernatural events, or being a rather good “faith healer”, because all sorts of people are apparently experiencing supernatural happenings all the time.

Apart from that, what are we left with? We are left with a lot of sayings from Jesus, which appear to come from the OT.

 

[Bad vibe]

Here are two, chosen on the basis that they seem to have caused theoretical problems, and the accounts given in the gospels are progressively modified to alleviate the resulting ideological distress: the baptism by John and the execution by Pilate.

Do you find the John the Baptist stuff convincing? I'm not sure an HJ ever met the guy it reads more like propaganda to neutralize a rival messiah claimant to me? Much of it sounds ad hoc, ie them being related etc.

 

[maximara]

I am referring to unwarranted hostility. Here is Carrier on Ehrman's recent book. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

How is that an example of "unwarranted hostility"? In the long quote you gave Carrier compares the quality to the Christ myth book The Jesus Mysteries by Freke & Gandy which he states "will disease your mind with rampant unsourced falsehoods and completely miseducate you about the ancient world and ancient religion."

"Like the worst of mythicist literature, you will come away after reading it with more false information in your head than true, and that makes my job as a historian harder, because now I have to fix everything he screwed up."

Carrier even provides links to other reviewers who lamblasted the book on FACTUAL and ACCURACY grounds:

Tom Verenna Preliminary Overview of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Did Jesus Exist?’

Neil Godfrey Bart Ehrman and another unprofessional blow at mythicism

Both these blogs show Ehrman doing the type of research we would except out of Holding...ie total garbage.

The Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism and McGrath on the Amazing Infallible Ehrman articles by Carrier show just how bad Ehrman's work is and the desperation of those that like it will go to salvage what is in essence Bermuda Triangle Mystery level of research.

 

[Craig B]

How is that an example of "unwarranted hostility"? <snip> ... how bad Ehrman's work is and the desperation of those that like it will go to salvage what is in essence Bermuda Triangle Mystery level of research.

So no unwarranted hostility, then. OK.