john76 said
(…)I am aware of the etymology and there is nothing wrong with translating the word as “crucifixion,” since “crucifixion” in ancient times was understood as a form of “impalement.”
And there is every reason to think Plato would be familiar with the punishment of crucifixion. Crucifixion (or impalement), in one form or another, was used in pre-Roman times by the Persians, Carthaginians, and Macedonians. In his Histories, ix.120–122, the Greek writer Herodotus describes the execution of a Persian general at the hands of Athenians in about 479 BC: “They nailed him to a plank and hung him up … this Artayctes who suffered death by crucifixion.” The Commentary on Herodotus by How and Wells remarks: “They crucified him with hands and feet stretched out and nailed to cross-pieces; cf. vii.33.”
But this is all really beside the point. My argument was that the early Christian writers could have seen the passage in Plato and used it along with Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 and the Wisdom of Solomon to invent Jesus’ crucifixion narrative as haggadic midrash. Even if you are right (which I doubt), these early Christian writers could have seen the word “impaled” in Plato and interpreted it from the point of view of the popular punishment of their time, namely crucifixion. The early Christian writers were not really concerned with preserving the original meaning of the texts they were using for haggadic midrash. For example, they used “Out of Egypt I have called my son (Hosea 11:1)” to invent a story about the young Jesus in Egypt, even thought in the Old Testament original “son” referred to the Jewish people, not a specific person.
The main point is to begin to see the stories about Jesus as a bunch of deceptions and lies, just like the miraculous stories about Muhammad, Apollonius of Tyana, and Joseph Smith.
It is of course theoretically possible that a sect-founding group constructed a “historical narrative” out of old sources within a religious tradition and concocted something with a potential to sell well in the market of believers. It would of course not sell very well if drawn from various conflicting traditions.
The other possibility is that they had a real historical narrative and wanted to connect it to an existing historical religious tradition, by coloring it with ideas from and allusions to this tradition. This latter possibility, the “scripturizing” of historical events, is inherently more likely than the former, but let’s for a moment assume that they both have equal likelihood.
If this is the case, you need a scientific principle on which to test which is the most likely. Have you any suggestion? What kind of “testing” could possibly falsify the one or the other?
gavriel said
john76 said
(…)I am aware of the etymology and there is nothing wrong with translating the word as “crucifixion,” since “crucifixion” in ancient times was understood as a form of “impalement.”
And there is every reason to think Plato would be familiar with the punishment of crucifixion. Crucifixion (or impalement), in one form or another, was used in pre-Roman times by the Persians, Carthaginians, and Macedonians. In his Histories, ix.120–122, the Greek writer Herodotus describes the execution of a Persian general at the hands of Athenians in about 479 BC: “They nailed him to a plank and hung him up … this Artayctes who suffered death by crucifixion.” The Commentary on Herodotus by How and Wells remarks: “They crucified him with hands and feet stretched out and nailed to cross-pieces; cf. vii.33.”
But this is all really beside the point. My argument was that the early Christian writers could have seen the passage in Plato and used it along with Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 and the Wisdom of Solomon to invent Jesus’ crucifixion narrative as haggadic midrash. Even if you are right (which I doubt), these early Christian writers could have seen the word “impaled” in Plato and interpreted it from the point of view of the popular punishment of their time, namely crucifixion. The early Christian writers were not really concerned with preserving the original meaning of the texts they were using for haggadic midrash. For example, they used “Out of Egypt I have called my son (Hosea 11:1)” to invent a story about the young Jesus in Egypt, even thought in the Old Testament original “son” referred to the Jewish people, not a specific person.
The main point is to begin to see the stories about Jesus as a bunch of deceptions and lies, just like the miraculous stories about Muhammad, Apollonius of Tyana, and Joseph Smith.
It is of course theoretically possible that a sect-founding group constructed a “historical narrative” out of old sources within a religious tradition and concocted something with a potential to sell well in the market of believers. It would of course not sell very well if drawn from various conflicting traditions.
The other possibility is that they had a real historical narrative and wanted to connect it to an existing historical religious tradition, by coloring it with ideas from and allusions to this tradition. This latter possibility, the “scripturizing” of historical events, is inherently more likely than the former, but let’s for a moment assume that they both have equal likelihood.
If this is the case, you need a scientific principle on which to test which is the most likely. Have you any suggestion? What kind of “testing” could possibly falsify the one or the other?
I think the best criteria we can come up with is “what makes the most sense.” For example, miracles don’t happen, so the story about Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes to feed the multitude is “false.” But what does “false” mean. I submit that the story is a “lie” told to sell “the Jesus story” to people. If you disagree with this, how do you understand the story of Jesus multiplying the fish to feed the multitude?
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
(…)I am aware of the etymology and there is nothing wrong with translating the word as “crucifixion,” since “crucifixion” in ancient times was understood as a form of “impalement.”
And there is every reason to think Plato would be familiar with the punishment of crucifixion. Crucifixion (or impalement), in one form or another, was used in pre-Roman times by the Persians, Carthaginians, and Macedonians. In his Histories, ix.120–122, the Greek writer Herodotus describes the execution of a Persian general at the hands of Athenians in about 479 BC: “They nailed him to a plank and hung him up … this Artayctes who suffered death by crucifixion.” The Commentary on Herodotus by How and Wells remarks: “They crucified him with hands and feet stretched out and nailed to cross-pieces; cf. vii.33.”
But this is all really beside the point. My argument was that the early Christian writers could have seen the passage in Plato and used it along with Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 and the Wisdom of Solomon to invent Jesus’ crucifixion narrative as haggadic midrash. Even if you are right (which I doubt), these early Christian writers could have seen the word “impaled” in Plato and interpreted it from the point of view of the popular punishment of their time, namely crucifixion. The early Christian writers were not really concerned with preserving the original meaning of the texts they were using for haggadic midrash. For example, they used “Out of Egypt I have called my son (Hosea 11:1)” to invent a story about the young Jesus in Egypt, even thought in the Old Testament original “son” referred to the Jewish people, not a specific person.
The main point is to begin to see the stories about Jesus as a bunch of deceptions and lies, just like the miraculous stories about Muhammad, Apollonius of Tyana, and Joseph Smith.
It is of course theoretically possible that a sect-founding group constructed a “historical narrative” out of old sources within a religious tradition and concocted something with a potential to sell well in the market of believers. It would of course not sell very well if drawn from various conflicting traditions.
The other possibility is that they had a real historical narrative and wanted to connect it to an existing historical religious tradition, by coloring it with ideas from and allusions to this tradition. This latter possibility, the “scripturizing” of historical events, is inherently more likely than the former, but let’s for a moment assume that they both have equal likelihood.
If this is the case, you need a scientific principle on which to test which is the most likely. Have you any suggestion? What kind of “testing” could possibly falsify the one or the other?
I think the best criteria we can come up with is “what makes the most sense.” For example, miracles don’t happen, so the story about Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes to feed the multitude is “false.” But what does “false” mean. I submit that the story is a “lie” told to sell “the Jesus story” to people. If you disagree with this, how do you understand the story of Jesus multiplying the fish to feed the multitude?
I do not think that “what makes the most sense” is a sufficiently specific criterion. Everybody would agree. You would have to develop further criteria to decide what makes the most sense.
The other one is a valid criterion: many scholars clearly state that miracles does not happen, therefor miracle narratives are un-historical. But this does not help us very much if the main proposition is that the Gospels contain legendary developments and embellishments on a historical core. In fact, according to this proposition, miracle narratives are to be expected also in the case for a historical Jesus. The problem is still to decide between the to main propositions: Scripturized history or historized Scripture.
Further, miracle stories may contain a historical core. The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character.
It is an interesting problem to decide if the Gospel authors made up stories in addition to the inherited material they got from various preceding sources, in order to sell better. But that is really beside the question. These added stories would fall into the category of “legendary development and embellishment”. We do not need to know why they were added (lying or believing), we just need criteria to sort them out.
gavriel said
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
(…)I am aware of the etymology and there is nothing wrong with translating the word as “crucifixion,” since “crucifixion” in ancient times was understood as a form of “impalement.”
And there is every reason to think Plato would be familiar with the punishment of crucifixion. Crucifixion (or impalement), in one form or another, was used in pre-Roman times by the Persians, Carthaginians, and Macedonians. In his Histories, ix.120–122, the Greek writer Herodotus describes the execution of a Persian general at the hands of Athenians in about 479 BC: “They nailed him to a plank and hung him up … this Artayctes who suffered death by crucifixion.” The Commentary on Herodotus by How and Wells remarks: “They crucified him with hands and feet stretched out and nailed to cross-pieces; cf. vii.33.”
But this is all really beside the point. My argument was that the early Christian writers could have seen the passage in Plato and used it along with Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 and the Wisdom of Solomon to invent Jesus’ crucifixion narrative as haggadic midrash. Even if you are right (which I doubt), these early Christian writers could have seen the word “impaled” in Plato and interpreted it from the point of view of the popular punishment of their time, namely crucifixion. The early Christian writers were not really concerned with preserving the original meaning of the texts they were using for haggadic midrash. For example, they used “Out of Egypt I have called my son (Hosea 11:1)” to invent a story about the young Jesus in Egypt, even thought in the Old Testament original “son” referred to the Jewish people, not a specific person.
The main point is to begin to see the stories about Jesus as a bunch of deceptions and lies, just like the miraculous stories about Muhammad, Apollonius of Tyana, and Joseph Smith.
It is of course theoretically possible that a sect-founding group constructed a “historical narrative” out of old sources within a religious tradition and concocted something with a potential to sell well in the market of believers. It would of course not sell very well if drawn from various conflicting traditions.
The other possibility is that they had a real historical narrative and wanted to connect it to an existing historical religious tradition, by coloring it with ideas from and allusions to this tradition. This latter possibility, the “scripturizing” of historical events, is inherently more likely than the former, but let’s for a moment assume that they both have equal likelihood.
If this is the case, you need a scientific principle on which to test which is the most likely. Have you any suggestion? What kind of “testing” could possibly falsify the one or the other?
I think the best criteria we can come up with is “what makes the most sense.” For example, miracles don’t happen, so the story about Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes to feed the multitude is “false.” But what does “false” mean. I submit that the story is a “lie” told to sell “the Jesus story” to people. If you disagree with this, how do you understand the story of Jesus multiplying the fish to feed the multitude?
I do not think that “what makes the most sense” is a sufficiently specific criterion. Everybody would agree. You would have to develop further criteria to decide what makes the most sense.
The other one is a valid criterion: many scholars clearly state that miracles does not happen, therefor miracle narratives are un-historical. But this does not help us very much if the main proposition is that the Gospels contain legendary developments and embellishments on a historical core. In fact, according to this proposition, miracle narratives are to be expected also in the case for a historical Jesus. The problem is still to decide between the to main propositions: Scripturized history or historized Scripture.
Further, miracle stories may contain a historical core. The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character.
It is an interesting problem to decide if the Gospel authors made up stories in addition to the inherited material they got from various preceding sources, in order to sell better. But that is really beside the question. These added stories would fall into the category of “legendary development and embellishment”. We do not need to know why they were added (lying or believing), we just need criteria to sort them out.
As I said, as a secular person, I believe The New Testament is full of lies about miracles that are designed to sell “The Jesus Story,” just like miracle stories were put forth to help sell Apollonius of Tyana, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. The lies about the miracles that Jesus supposedly did are probably from both The New Testament writers, and their sources (in my opinion).
I don’t know whether there are historical cores behind miraculous New Testament stories or not. For example, There is a heavy focus on the use of midrash by The New Testament writers in “The Jewish Annotated New Testament.” Co-Editor Amy-Jill Levine says, for example, Matthew’s Jesus infancy story recapitulates the story of Moses. Does this mean (1) the author of Matthew started with facts about Jesus and then added material to make it resemble the account of Moses, or (2) The author of Matthew started with the account in the Old Testament about Moses and rewrote it using Jesus as the central character to give Jesus the pedigree of fulfilling scripture? I don’t think it’s possible to answer that question. How can we apply the criteria of authenticity to Matthew in this case if we can’t know if any of the story is historical? The same goes for the story about Jesus walking on water. As you said, some of the story may be historical, but there is no more reason to think that it is than to think that it isn’t. If we bracket miracle stories as being the kind of writing where we can’t decide if there is anything historical there or not, that leaves quite a bit of The New Testament on the cutting room floor.
I think it’s a problem of biblical hermeneutics in general. Let’s say a particular miracle story is historical in part. How could you ever know that? You wrote: “The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character .” That could be right, but the same could be said if The New Testament is mostly miracle laden historical fiction which is consistent in the emotional makeup of it’s characters. The Jesus of history may have been very doubtful about his mission, like the prayer in the garden of Gethsemane suggests, but the writer just wanted to portray Jesus as doubtless most of the time because it cast Jesus in a better light. I personally think the criteria of authenticity do give us information about the historical Jesus, just not very much. If the Jesus of history was just an apocalyptic prophet who never did any miracles, why should he matter nowadays at all?
All I know is that I do not believe in miracles. When I read that Jesus walked on water, I believe that someone was lying about this miracle taking place. The liar may have been the writers of The New Testament, or one of their sources, but I think it is more likely than not that someone was lying about Jesus walking on water. I don’t know, nor care, nor think we can tell if there is any historical core resting behind the miracle story. There may be a historical core there, but how could we ever know? Again, you wrote, regarding the Jesus walking on water miracle: “The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character.” Your scenario is possible and fits the evidence, but we don’t know enough for it to ever become probable.
Michael Shermer does an excellent 14 minute utube video description of the Baloney Detector relating to testing scientific claims that could be applied to testing historical claims (or the Richard Dawkins Foundation website has it). Point 9 on weighing the preponderance of the evidence for and against is instructive and folks on both sides will argue dispositive here. Me? I’m more on the side of he existed, like it or not. The bar is set so high in Richard Carrier’s argument, that one wonders whether any ancient historical figure could withstand such withering scrutiny, or concocted alternative other world explanations from scanter evidence. Talk about poofing it all away! I wonder why from 33-53 so many who could have put the lie to his very existence wouldn’t have challenged these evangelical Jewish heretics using such facts and suppressed the nonsense before Paul ever jotted his first supposedly nonsense missive? Or that there is no literary trail or reference fragments we know of by anyone clearing up the misunderstanding and dust-up placing it in outer space from the outset, which if I’m not mistaken some Neo-Platonist/ gnostics safely place their story ideals beyond our reach (whom Paul distinguishes himself from in Gal 6 et seq?- why not just distinguish his outer space gospel understanding from theirs’ right there, if Carrier has it right?). Carrier’s credentials are impressive and his presentation skills exceptional. But he’s making an extraordinary claim for which he has not offered even a 51% alternative theory to me, much less the beyond-a-reasonable doubt level he needs to tip the scales of mainstream ancient history scholarship. His reach may have exceeded his grasp in this instance. Fanciful theory. Novel. Sells books.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
New article posted also in WashPo
Here is something relevant that hit the Washington Post today. It was originally posted on the 14th in the Conversation.
Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.
There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence.
Washington Post article Even the good Dr. Ehrman was mentioned several times.
It is important to have an understanding as to how the mainstream media is presenting the issues that many of us deal with frequently. Fortunately this article was written without the usual sensationalism which is found in the sidebars of the Huffington Post. The article gives a pretty good summary of some of the issues that modern historical scholarship faces today.
I hope this has some value to the thread.
Lee
john76 said
( nested quote history omitted)
As I said, as a secular person, I believe The New Testament is full of lies about miracles that are designed to sell “The Jesus Story,” just like miracle stories were put forth to help sell Apollonius of Tyana, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. The lies about the miracles that Jesus supposedly did are probably from both The New Testament writers, and their sources (in my opinion).
I don’t know whether there are historical cores behind miraculous New Testament stories or not. For example, There is a heavy focus on the use of midrash by The New Testament writers in “The Jewish Annotated New Testament.” Co-Editor Amy-Jill Levine says, for example, Matthew’s Jesus infancy story recapitulates the story of Moses. Does this mean (1) the author of Matthew started with facts about Jesus and then added material to make it resemble the account of Moses, or (2) The author of Matthew started with the account in the Old Testament about Moses and rewrote it using Jesus as the central character to give Jesus the pedigree of fulfilling scripture? I don’t think it’s possible to answer that question. How can we apply the criteria of authenticity to Matthew in this case if we can’t know if any of the story is historical? The same goes for the story about Jesus walking on water. As you said, some of the story may be historical, but there is no more reason to think that it is than to think that it isn’t. If we bracket miracle stories as being the kind of writing where we can’t decide if there is anything historical there or not, that leaves quite a bit of The New Testament on the cutting room floor.
I think it’s a problem of biblical hermeneutics in general. Let’s say a particular miracle story is historical in part. How could you ever know that? You wrote: “The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character .” That could be right, but the same could be said if The New Testament is mostly miracle laden historical fiction which is consistent in the emotional makeup of it’s characters. The Jesus of history may have been very doubtful about his mission, like the prayer in the garden of Gethsemane suggests, but the writer just wanted to portray Jesus as doubtless most of the time because it cast Jesus in a better light. I personally think the criteria of authenticity do give us information about the historical Jesus, just not very much. If the Jesus of history was just an apocalyptic prophet who never did any miracles, why should he matter nowadays at all?
All I know is that I do not believe in miracles. When I read that Jesus walked on water, I believe that someone was lying about this miracle taking place. The liar may have been the writers of The New Testament, or one of their sources, but I think it is more likely than not that someone was lying about Jesus walking on water. I don’t know, nor care, nor think we can tell if there is any historical core resting behind the miracle story. There may be a historical core there, but how could we ever know? Again, you wrote, regarding the Jesus walking on water miracle: “The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character.” Your scenario is possible and fits the evidence, but we don’t know enough for it to ever become probable.
In your opening post (Nov. 10) you suggested a full-blown mythicist conspiracy theory, to the degree that even the crucifixion was invented as an outright lie. All scholars think this is one of the safest facts of all. Now you say that “I personally think the criteria of authenticity do give us information about the historical Jesus, just not very much”. Are you moving the goalposts slightly?
The example you give on Jesus infancy modelled on Moses has been known for ages by critical scholars. This is what I referred to as “scripturizing history”. It is exactly what is expected in religious communities with an impressive past. Of the options you suggest (1/2), 1 is to be preferred, because the main purpose is to explain why he was a Galilee (which was an inconvenient fact to the immediate posterity) with some unknown connection to an area traditionally associated with the tribe of David. But of course, most of it is wholly legendary.
I mentioned the story about the walking on water because Peter’s fickle character has some independent attestation. It is more likely that this character trait was true than not. I do not think that we can bracket miracle stories related to healing and exorcism, because the application of the criteria strongly suggests that he was practicing these arts, just like a number of people have done throughout all ages. The success rate is another matter.
Jesus prayer in the Garden was supposed to take place without witnesses, so that is wholly legendary. Even if it was not, it would not be evidence of wavering belief in an imminent, miraculous kingdom, or any other of his main pillars of belief.
Applying the criteria of authenticity ends up with legendary embellished history, rather than what you call “miracle laden historical fiction”. Why is the former better than the latter? Because it rests on the acceptance of the criteria of authentication. To have further progress, we have to start a discussion of the criteria and why they are better than no criteria. With no criteria, there are just a number of possibilities of equal value.
The final problem is analyzing the bits “on the cutting room floor”. You emphatically refer to them as “lies”, although there are many more categories that in most instances are more likely. Illusions, delusions, self-deceptions, superstition, wishful thinking, inherited legends, just to mention a few. Your suggestion, fabricated stories for marketing purposes, may be one of several. In fact, one has to develop criteria to determine the proper label in each case. In some cases it is even difficult to decide if the story-teller intended it literally or allegorically.
Finally you have a fruitful remark on possibility and probability. Personally I try to avoid the use of the mathematical term “probability” in historical studies on this level, because it is a numbers game borrowed from physics that mostly cannot be applied to this matter. I think one has to enumerate all possibilities and determine what is the most *likely* using common sense.
leering said
Here is something relevant that hit the Washington Post today. It was originally posted on the 14th in the Conversation.Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.
There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence.
Washington Post article Even the good Dr. Ehrman was mentioned several times.It is important to have an understanding as to how the mainstream media is presenting the issues that many of us deal with frequently. Fortunately this article was written without the usual sensationalism which is found in the sidebars of the Huffington Post. The article gives a pretty good summary of some of the issues that modern historical scholarship faces today.
I hope this has some value to the thread.
Lee
This is really an astonishingly weak article , if it is supposed to be written by a biblical scholar.
For a start, I want to comment on just two points. The author says, “The ** you do not have permission to see this link ** says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic.” But this is a distortion, because a “section” of a biblical writing may be rather un-embarrassing, because it relates to prime material that is embarrassing in a way so that the embarrassment of the prime material is softened or removed. A prime example is the baptizing of Jesus by John. The prime matter, i.e. the baptizing incident itself, is made acceptable in a “section” by the Gospel-writers by re-framing it.
My second point is the myth of Paul receiving all his knowledge about Jesus in revelations from above. The article author says : “Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources”
In fact he does not. He clearly says that he violently opposed the movement before he converted and that some relatives of him converted before him. This means that he knew the basic message before he converted. Further he says that he went to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James to learn more. Finally he says that his own message is basically the same as that of the other apostles (1 Cor. 15:11). On the other hand it is clear that he thought that his apostolic authority and mission directive specifically to the gentiles, came from above.
gavriel said
john76 said( nested quote history omitted)
As I said, as a secular person, I believe The New Testament is full of lies about miracles that are designed to sell “The Jesus Story,” just like miracle stories were put forth to help sell Apollonius of Tyana, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. The lies about the miracles that Jesus supposedly did are probably from both The New Testament writers, and their sources (in my opinion).
I don’t know whether there are historical cores behind miraculous New Testament stories or not. For example, There is a heavy focus on the use of midrash by The New Testament writers in “The Jewish Annotated New Testament.” Co-Editor Amy-Jill Levine says, for example, Matthew’s Jesus infancy story recapitulates the story of Moses. Does this mean (1) the author of Matthew started with facts about Jesus and then added material to make it resemble the account of Moses, or (2) The author of Matthew started with the account in the Old Testament about Moses and rewrote it using Jesus as the central character to give Jesus the pedigree of fulfilling scripture? I don’t think it’s possible to answer that question. How can we apply the criteria of authenticity to Matthew in this case if we can’t know if any of the story is historical? The same goes for the story about Jesus walking on water. As you said, some of the story may be historical, but there is no more reason to think that it is than to think that it isn’t. If we bracket miracle stories as being the kind of writing where we can’t decide if there is anything historical there or not, that leaves quite a bit of The New Testament on the cutting room floor.
I think it’s a problem of biblical hermeneutics in general. Let’s say a particular miracle story is historical in part. How could you ever know that? You wrote: “The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character .” That could be right, but the same could be said if The New Testament is mostly miracle laden historical fiction which is consistent in the emotional makeup of it’s characters. The Jesus of history may have been very doubtful about his mission, like the prayer in the garden of Gethsemane suggests, but the writer just wanted to portray Jesus as doubtless most of the time because it cast Jesus in a better light. I personally think the criteria of authenticity do give us information about the historical Jesus, just not very much. If the Jesus of history was just an apocalyptic prophet who never did any miracles, why should he matter nowadays at all?
All I know is that I do not believe in miracles. When I read that Jesus walked on water, I believe that someone was lying about this miracle taking place. The liar may have been the writers of The New Testament, or one of their sources, but I think it is more likely than not that someone was lying about Jesus walking on water. I don’t know, nor care, nor think we can tell if there is any historical core resting behind the miracle story. There may be a historical core there, but how could we ever know? Again, you wrote, regarding the Jesus walking on water miracle: “The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character.” Your scenario is possible and fits the evidence, but we don’t know enough for it to ever become probable.In your opening post (Nov. 10) you suggested a full-blown mythicist conspiracy theory, to the degree that even the crucifixion was invented as an outright lie. All scholars think this is one of the safest facts of all. Now you say that “I personally think the criteria of authenticity do give us information about the historical Jesus, just not very much”. Are you moving the goalposts slightly?
The example you give on Jesus infancy modelled on Moses has been known for ages by critical scholars. This is what I referred to as “scripturizing history”. It is exactly what is expected in religious communities with an impressive past. Of the options you suggest (1/2), 1 is to be preferred, because the main purpose is to explain why he was a Galilee (which was an inconvenient fact to the immediate posterity) with some unknown connection to an area traditionally associated with the tribe of David. But of course, most of it is wholly legendary.
I mentioned the story about the walking on water because Peter’s fickle character has some independent attestation. It is more likely that this character trait was true than not. I do not think that we can bracket miracle stories related to healing and exorcism, because the application of the criteria strongly suggests that he was practicing these arts, just like a number of people have done throughout all ages. The success rate is another matter.
Jesus prayer in the Garden was supposed to take place without witnesses, so that is wholly legendary. Even if it was not, it would not be evidence of wavering belief in an imminent, miraculous kingdom, or any other of his main pillars of belief.
Applying the criteria of authenticity ends up with legendary embellished history, rather than what you call “miracle laden historical fiction”. Why is the former better than the latter? Because it rests on the acceptance of the criteria of authentication. To have further progress, we have to start a discussion of the criteria and why they are better than no criteria. With no criteria, there are just a number of possibilities of equal value.
The final problem is analyzing the bits “on the cutting room floor”. You emphatically refer to them as “lies”, although there are many more categories that in most instances are more likely. Illusions, delusions, self-deceptions, superstition, wishful thinking, inherited legends, just to mention a few. Your suggestion, fabricated stories for marketing purposes, may be one of several. In fact, one has to develop criteria to determine the proper label in each case. In some cases it is even difficult to decide if the story-teller intended it literally or allegorically.
Finally you have a fruitful remark on possibility and probability. Personally I try to avoid the use of the mathematical term “probability” in historical studies on this level, because it is a numbers game borrowed from physics that mostly cannot be applied to this matter. I think one has to enumerate all possibilities and determine what is the most *likely* using common sense.
Hi Gavriel. Thanks for responding.
I still think there is good reason to think Jesus doubted his mission. Recall, in the Gethsemane prayer pericope, we read:
MARK 14:32-42
32 They went to the olive grove called Gethsemane, and Jesus said, “Sit here while I go and pray.” 33 He took Peter, James, and John with him, and he became deeply troubled and distressed. 34 He told them, “My soul is crushed with grief to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”
35 He went on a little farther and fell to the ground. He prayed that, if it were possible, the awful hour awaiting him might pass him by. 36 “Abba, Father,” he cried out, “everything is possible for you. Please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”
37 Then he returned and found the disciples asleep. He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Couldn’t you watch with me even one hour? 38 Keep watch and pray, so that you will not give in to temptation. For the spirit is willing, but the body is weak.”
39 Then Jesus left them again and prayed the same prayer as before. 40 When he returned to them again, he found them sleeping, for they couldn’t keep their eyes open. And they didn’t know what to say.
41 When he returned to them the third time, he said, “Go ahead and sleep. Have your rest. But no—the time has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Up, let’s be going. Look, my betrayer is here!”
Jesus clearly seems to be doubting the necessity of himself being the scapegoat in God’s plan, which would have been one of the pillars of his belief before this. Jesus could have easily told the disciples about his prayer and Mark just never bothered to mention it. And why would Mark have included this embarrassing pericope of Jesus shying away from his mission in the narrative if there wasn’t some historical truth to it? And in fact, he told the disciples before he went to pray, “My soul is crushed with grief to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” So the disciples knew that something was wrong. Of course they would have asked him about it when he came back from praying.
And what about Jesus’ cry quoting scripture from the cross? He yells:
“MARK 15:34 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
It certainly sounds here like Jesus is doubting his mission.
You haven’t given any reason why midrash in the New testament is historical fact colored with scripture, rather than just historical fiction constructed to give Jesus the pedigree of fulfilling scripture.
“Probable” isn’t just a mathematical term, it simply means “more likely than not.”
And I maintain what I said: if there is a miracle story reported in the New Testament, like Jesus walking on water, either the writer or their source is lying about it, because it never happened. You write that these miracle stories could be called: “Illusions, delusions, self-deceptions, superstition, wishful thinking, inherited legends, just to mention a few.” Yes, they could be called something else, but that wouldn’t be precise. In the same way, we could call the New Testament forgeries (like the forged letters of Paul) something else besides “forgeries,” but that wouldn’t be precise. The person who first came up with the story about Jesus walking on water knew that it never happened, so that person is a liar.
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said( nested quote history omitted)
As I said, as a secular person, I believe The New Testament is full of lies about miracles that are designed to sell “The Jesus Story,” just like miracle stories were put forth to help sell Apollonius of Tyana, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. The lies about the miracles that Jesus supposedly did are probably from both The New Testament writers, and their sources (in my opinion).
I don’t know whether there are historical cores behind miraculous New Testament stories or not. For example, There is a heavy focus on the use of midrash by The New Testament writers in “The Jewish Annotated New Testament.” Co-Editor Amy-Jill Levine says, for example, Matthew’s Jesus infancy story recapitulates the story of Moses. Does this mean (1) the author of Matthew started with facts about Jesus and then added material to make it resemble the account of Moses, or (2) The author of Matthew started with the account in the Old Testament about Moses and rewrote it using Jesus as the central character to give Jesus the pedigree of fulfilling scripture? I don’t think it’s possible to answer that question. How can we apply the criteria of authenticity to Matthew in this case if we can’t know if any of the story is historical? The same goes for the story about Jesus walking on water. As you said, some of the story may be historical, but there is no more reason to think that it is than to think that it isn’t. If we bracket miracle stories as being the kind of writing where we can’t decide if there is anything historical there or not, that leaves quite a bit of The New Testament on the cutting room floor.
I think it’s a problem of biblical hermeneutics in general. Let’s say a particular miracle story is historical in part. How could you ever know that? You wrote: “The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character .” That could be right, but the same could be said if The New Testament is mostly miracle laden historical fiction which is consistent in the emotional makeup of it’s characters. The Jesus of history may have been very doubtful about his mission, like the prayer in the garden of Gethsemane suggests, but the writer just wanted to portray Jesus as doubtless most of the time because it cast Jesus in a better light. I personally think the criteria of authenticity do give us information about the historical Jesus, just not very much. If the Jesus of history was just an apocalyptic prophet who never did any miracles, why should he matter nowadays at all?
All I know is that I do not believe in miracles. When I read that Jesus walked on water, I believe that someone was lying about this miracle taking place. The liar may have been the writers of The New Testament, or one of their sources, but I think it is more likely than not that someone was lying about Jesus walking on water. I don’t know, nor care, nor think we can tell if there is any historical core resting behind the miracle story. There may be a historical core there, but how could we ever know? Again, you wrote, regarding the Jesus walking on water miracle: “The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character.” Your scenario is possible and fits the evidence, but we don’t know enough for it to ever become probable.In your opening post (Nov. 10) you suggested a full-blown mythicist conspiracy theory, to the degree that even the crucifixion was invented as an outright lie. All scholars think this is one of the safest facts of all. Now you say that “I personally think the criteria of authenticity do give us information about the historical Jesus, just not very much”. Are you moving the goalposts slightly?
The example you give on Jesus infancy modelled on Moses has been known for ages by critical scholars. This is what I referred to as “scripturizing history”. It is exactly what is expected in religious communities with an impressive past. Of the options you suggest (1/2), 1 is to be preferred, because the main purpose is to explain why he was a Galilee (which was an inconvenient fact to the immediate posterity) with some unknown connection to an area traditionally associated with the tribe of David. But of course, most of it is wholly legendary.
I mentioned the story about the walking on water because Peter’s fickle character has some independent attestation. It is more likely that this character trait was true than not. I do not think that we can bracket miracle stories related to healing and exorcism, because the application of the criteria strongly suggests that he was practicing these arts, just like a number of people have done throughout all ages. The success rate is another matter.
Jesus prayer in the Garden was supposed to take place without witnesses, so that is wholly legendary. Even if it was not, it would not be evidence of wavering belief in an imminent, miraculous kingdom, or any other of his main pillars of belief.
Applying the criteria of authenticity ends up with legendary embellished history, rather than what you call “miracle laden historical fiction”. Why is the former better than the latter? Because it rests on the acceptance of the criteria of authentication. To have further progress, we have to start a discussion of the criteria and why they are better than no criteria. With no criteria, there are just a number of possibilities of equal value.
The final problem is analyzing the bits “on the cutting room floor”. You emphatically refer to them as “lies”, although there are many more categories that in most instances are more likely. Illusions, delusions, self-deceptions, superstition, wishful thinking, inherited legends, just to mention a few. Your suggestion, fabricated stories for marketing purposes, may be one of several. In fact, one has to develop criteria to determine the proper label in each case. In some cases it is even difficult to decide if the story-teller intended it literally or allegorically.
Finally you have a fruitful remark on possibility and probability. Personally I try to avoid the use of the mathematical term “probability” in historical studies on this level, because it is a numbers game borrowed from physics that mostly cannot be applied to this matter. I think one has to enumerate all possibilities and determine what is the most *likely* using common sense.
Hi Gavriel. Thanks for responding.
I still think there is good reason to think Jesus doubted his mission. Recall, in the Gethsemane prayer pericope, we read:
MARK 14:32-42
32 They went to the olive grove called Gethsemane, and Jesus said, “Sit here while I go and pray.” 33 He took Peter, James, and John with him, and he became deeply troubled and distressed. 34 He told them, “My soul is crushed with grief to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”
35 He went on a little farther and fell to the ground. He prayed that, if it were possible, the awful hour awaiting him might pass him by. 36 “Abba, Father,” he cried out, “everything is possible for you. Please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”
37 Then he returned and found the disciples asleep. He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Couldn’t you watch with me even one hour? 38 Keep watch and pray, so that you will not give in to temptation. For the spirit is willing, but the body is weak.”
39 Then Jesus left them again and prayed the same prayer as before. 40 When he returned to them again, he found them sleeping, for they couldn’t keep their eyes open. And they didn’t know what to say.
41 When he returned to them the third time, he said, “Go ahead and sleep. Have your rest. But no—the time has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Up, let’s be going. Look, my betrayer is here!”
Jesus clearly seems to be doubting the necessity of himself being the scapegoat in God’s plan, which would have been one of the pillars of his belief before this. Jesus could have easily told the disciples about his prayer and Mark just never bothered to mention it. And why would Mark have included this embarrassing pericope of Jesus shying away from his mission in the narrative if there wasn’t some historical truth to it? And in fact, he told the disciples before he went to pray, “My soul is crushed with grief to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” So the disciples knew that something was wrong. Of course they would have asked him about it when he came back from praying.
And what about Jesus’ cry quoting scripture from the cross? He yells:
“MARK 15:34 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
It certainly sounds here like Jesus is doubting his mission.
You haven’t given any reason why midrash in the New testament is historical fact colored with scripture, rather than just historical fiction constructed to give Jesus the pedigree of fulfilling scripture.
“Probable” isn’t just a mathematical term, it simply means “more likely than not.”
And I maintain what I said: if there is a miracle story reported in the New Testament, like Jesus walking on water, either the writer or their source is lying about it, because it never happened. You write that these miracle stories could be called: “Illusions, delusions, self-deceptions, superstition, wishful thinking, inherited legends, just to mention a few.” Yes, they could be called something else, but that wouldn’t be precise. In the same way, we could call the New Testament forgeries (like the forged letters of Paul) something else besides “forgeries,” but that wouldn’t be precise. The person who first came up with the story about Jesus walking on water knew that it never happened, so that person is a liar.
I think most of the story about praying and agony in the garden is invented. As critical scholars have shown, the arrest and execution was unexpected, and the later story tellers wanted to make the execution incident into a part of God’s plan, including a willing Jesus. I do not think that Jesus considered “being the scapegoat in God’s plan” at all. It was something that was invented afterwards. Maybe he realized that the actions of the preceding days had provoked powerful forces, while he also was envisaging the final breakthrough of the Kingdom of God. That would put him into a state of mind never experienced before. It is thus no challenge to the idea that Jesus seldom doubted his mission in the period leading up to this moment.
It is impossible to know what Jesus thought between the arrest and the execution. The final walk was in public, so the oral traditions may have been built on some true facts. My guess is that he did not understand what was happening and was crying in pain, and begging for God’s intervention. Mark dignified it by giving him a line from Scripture. The later writers dignified it even more, until it ended up in John where Jesus engages in a completely unbelievable well-mannered conversation. Whoever wrote the gospels, they were not part of a tightly knit conspiracy group.
Once more on lying. Those claiming to be Paul, but not being Paul, was lying. It is more difficult to know if they were lying about the content if the letter that they attributed to Paul. But it is another matter with “legendary growth”. Let’s say Jesus had an argument with his disciples on the necessity of strong belief. “If your belief is strong enough, you can even walk on water!”, countered by Peter “No, that is going too far…”. It is well attested that Jesus attributed healing success to strong belief on the part of the healed person, so this is “plausible”. After Jesus death, the story is told and re-told and passes through long chains of telling and re-telling. All along the line there is no lying, just enriching of detail. At last it is captured by the evangelist. That’s the nature of legendary growth. There is no lying.
Probability theory is one way of giving precise meaning to “likelihood”. I just wanted to signal my opinion that this discipline does not apply to the problem under discussion here. Criteria for likelihood must be sought for elsewhere. Of course, probability theory in the sense of applied statistical theory is an important support discipline when discussing topics like the likelihood that the disciples could read an write. In such cases one has to make estimates on literacy rates in the Galilean population and its possible religious sub-cultures.
The idea of likelihood therefor mainly rests on the criteria of authenticity. You will have to challenge them.
gavriel said
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said( nested quote history omitted)
As I said, as a secular person, I believe The New Testament is full of lies about miracles that are designed to sell “The Jesus Story,” just like miracle stories were put forth to help sell Apollonius of Tyana, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. The lies about the miracles that Jesus supposedly did are probably from both The New Testament writers, and their sources (in my opinion).
I don’t know whether there are historical cores behind miraculous New Testament stories or not. For example, There is a heavy focus on the use of midrash by The New Testament writers in “The Jewish Annotated New Testament.” Co-Editor Amy-Jill Levine says, for example, Matthew’s Jesus infancy story recapitulates the story of Moses. Does this mean (1) the author of Matthew started with facts about Jesus and then added material to make it resemble the account of Moses, or (2) The author of Matthew started with the account in the Old Testament about Moses and rewrote it using Jesus as the central character to give Jesus the pedigree of fulfilling scripture? I don’t think it’s possible to answer that question. How can we apply the criteria of authenticity to Matthew in this case if we can’t know if any of the story is historical? The same goes for the story about Jesus walking on water. As you said, some of the story may be historical, but there is no more reason to think that it is than to think that it isn’t. If we bracket miracle stories as being the kind of writing where we can’t decide if there is anything historical there or not, that leaves quite a bit of The New Testament on the cutting room floor.
I think it’s a problem of biblical hermeneutics in general. Let’s say a particular miracle story is historical in part. How could you ever know that? You wrote: “The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character .” That could be right, but the same could be said if The New Testament is mostly miracle laden historical fiction which is consistent in the emotional makeup of it’s characters. The Jesus of history may have been very doubtful about his mission, like the prayer in the garden of Gethsemane suggests, but the writer just wanted to portray Jesus as doubtless most of the time because it cast Jesus in a better light. I personally think the criteria of authenticity do give us information about the historical Jesus, just not very much. If the Jesus of history was just an apocalyptic prophet who never did any miracles, why should he matter nowadays at all?
All I know is that I do not believe in miracles. When I read that Jesus walked on water, I believe that someone was lying about this miracle taking place. The liar may have been the writers of The New Testament, or one of their sources, but I think it is more likely than not that someone was lying about Jesus walking on water. I don’t know, nor care, nor think we can tell if there is any historical core resting behind the miracle story. There may be a historical core there, but how could we ever know? Again, you wrote, regarding the Jesus walking on water miracle: “The story about Jesus walking on water may be seen as a legendary development on the likely historical fact that Jesus seldom doubted his mission, while Peter was of a more fickle character.” Your scenario is possible and fits the evidence, but we don’t know enough for it to ever become probable.In your opening post (Nov. 10) you suggested a full-blown mythicist conspiracy theory, to the degree that even the crucifixion was invented as an outright lie. All scholars think this is one of the safest facts of all. Now you say that “I personally think the criteria of authenticity do give us information about the historical Jesus, just not very much”. Are you moving the goalposts slightly?
The example you give on Jesus infancy modelled on Moses has been known for ages by critical scholars. This is what I referred to as “scripturizing history”. It is exactly what is expected in religious communities with an impressive past. Of the options you suggest (1/2), 1 is to be preferred, because the main purpose is to explain why he was a Galilee (which was an inconvenient fact to the immediate posterity) with some unknown connection to an area traditionally associated with the tribe of David. But of course, most of it is wholly legendary.
I mentioned the story about the walking on water because Peter’s fickle character has some independent attestation. It is more likely that this character trait was true than not. I do not think that we can bracket miracle stories related to healing and exorcism, because the application of the criteria strongly suggests that he was practicing these arts, just like a number of people have done throughout all ages. The success rate is another matter.
Jesus prayer in the Garden was supposed to take place without witnesses, so that is wholly legendary. Even if it was not, it would not be evidence of wavering belief in an imminent, miraculous kingdom, or any other of his main pillars of belief.
Applying the criteria of authenticity ends up with legendary embellished history, rather than what you call “miracle laden historical fiction”. Why is the former better than the latter? Because it rests on the acceptance of the criteria of authentication. To have further progress, we have to start a discussion of the criteria and why they are better than no criteria. With no criteria, there are just a number of possibilities of equal value.
The final problem is analyzing the bits “on the cutting room floor”. You emphatically refer to them as “lies”, although there are many more categories that in most instances are more likely. Illusions, delusions, self-deceptions, superstition, wishful thinking, inherited legends, just to mention a few. Your suggestion, fabricated stories for marketing purposes, may be one of several. In fact, one has to develop criteria to determine the proper label in each case. In some cases it is even difficult to decide if the story-teller intended it literally or allegorically.
Finally you have a fruitful remark on possibility and probability. Personally I try to avoid the use of the mathematical term “probability” in historical studies on this level, because it is a numbers game borrowed from physics that mostly cannot be applied to this matter. I think one has to enumerate all possibilities and determine what is the most *likely* using common sense.
Hi Gavriel. Thanks for responding.
I still think there is good reason to think Jesus doubted his mission. Recall, in the Gethsemane prayer pericope, we read:
MARK 14:32-42
32 They went to the olive grove called Gethsemane, and Jesus said, “Sit here while I go and pray.” 33 He took Peter, James, and John with him, and he became deeply troubled and distressed. 34 He told them, “My soul is crushed with grief to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”
35 He went on a little farther and fell to the ground. He prayed that, if it were possible, the awful hour awaiting him might pass him by. 36 “Abba, Father,” he cried out, “everything is possible for you. Please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”
37 Then he returned and found the disciples asleep. He said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Couldn’t you watch with me even one hour? 38 Keep watch and pray, so that you will not give in to temptation. For the spirit is willing, but the body is weak.”
39 Then Jesus left them again and prayed the same prayer as before. 40 When he returned to them again, he found them sleeping, for they couldn’t keep their eyes open. And they didn’t know what to say.
41 When he returned to them the third time, he said, “Go ahead and sleep. Have your rest. But no—the time has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Up, let’s be going. Look, my betrayer is here!”
Jesus clearly seems to be doubting the necessity of himself being the scapegoat in God’s plan, which would have been one of the pillars of his belief before this. Jesus could have easily told the disciples about his prayer and Mark just never bothered to mention it. And why would Mark have included this embarrassing pericope of Jesus shying away from his mission in the narrative if there wasn’t some historical truth to it? And in fact, he told the disciples before he went to pray, “My soul is crushed with grief to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” So the disciples knew that something was wrong. Of course they would have asked him about it when he came back from praying.
And what about Jesus’ cry quoting scripture from the cross? He yells:
“MARK 15:34 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
It certainly sounds here like Jesus is doubting his mission.
You haven’t given any reason why midrash in the New testament is historical fact colored with scripture, rather than just historical fiction constructed to give Jesus the pedigree of fulfilling scripture.
“Probable” isn’t just a mathematical term, it simply means “more likely than not.”
And I maintain what I said: if there is a miracle story reported in the New Testament, like Jesus walking on water, either the writer or their source is lying about it, because it never happened. You write that these miracle stories could be called: “Illusions, delusions, self-deceptions, superstition, wishful thinking, inherited legends, just to mention a few.” Yes, they could be called something else, but that wouldn’t be precise. In the same way, we could call the New Testament forgeries (like the forged letters of Paul) something else besides “forgeries,” but that wouldn’t be precise. The person who first came up with the story about Jesus walking on water knew that it never happened, so that person is a liar.
I think most of the story about praying and agony in the garden is invented. As critical scholars have shown, the arrest and execution was unexpected, and the later story tellers wanted to make the execution incident into a part of God’s plan, including a willing Jesus. I do not think that Jesus considered “being the scapegoat in God’s plan” at all. It was something that was invented afterwards. Maybe he realized that the actions of the preceding days had provoked powerful forces, while he also was envisaging the final breakthrough of the Kingdom of God. That would put him into a state of mind never experienced before. It is thus no challenge to the idea that Jesus seldom doubted his mission in the period leading up to this moment.
It is impossible to know what Jesus thought between the arrest and the execution. The final walk was in public, so the oral traditions may have been built on some true facts. My guess is that he did not understand what was happening and was crying in pain, and begging for God’s intervention. Mark dignified it by giving him a line from Scripture. The later writers dignified it even more, until it ended up in John where Jesus engages in a completely unbelievable well-mannered conversation. Whoever wrote the gospels, they were not part of a tightly knit conspiracy group.
Once more on lying. Those claiming to be Paul, but not being Paul, was lying. It is more difficult to know if they were lying about the content if the letter that they attributed to Paul. But it is another matter with “legendary growth”. Let’s say Jesus had an argument with his disciples on the necessity of strong belief. “If your belief is strong enough, you can even walk on water!”, countered by Peter “No, that is going too far…”. It is well attested that Jesus attributed healing success to strong belief on the part of the healed person, so this is “plausible”. After Jesus death, the story is told and re-told and passes through long chains of telling and re-telling. All along the line there is no lying, just enriching of detail. At last it is captured by the evangelist. That’s the nature of legendary growth. There is no lying.
Probability theory is one way of giving precise meaning to “likelihood”. I just wanted to signal my opinion that this discipline does not apply to the problem under discussion here. Criteria for likelihood must be sought for elsewhere. Of course, probability theory in the sense of applied statistical theory is an important support discipline when discussing topics like the likelihood that the disciples could read an write. In such cases one has to make estimates on literacy rates in the Galilean population and its possible religious sub-cultures.
The idea of likelihood therefor mainly rests on the criteria of authenticity. You will have to challenge them.
Hi Gavriel:
I’ll restrict my comment to one thing here because I think we’re discussing too many issues to give them a proper treatment.
On Lying:
The gospels record Jesus doing 37 miracles (38 if you count the resurrection). I would say the simplest explanation for all these miracles is that the writers and their sources were lying. “Legendary development” may explain a few of the miracles, but I would say the vast majority were deliberate lies. There are simply too many miracles for “legendary development” to account for the majority of them. The writers and their sources certainly wanted us readers to believe Jesus was doing all those miracles, even though they never happened.
Also, you wrote:
“My guess is that he did not understand what was happening and was crying in pain, and begging for God’s intervention. Mark dignified it by giving him a line from Scripture. The later writers dignified it even more, until it ended up in John where Jesus engages in a completely unbelievable well-mannered conversation. Whoever wrote the gospels, they were not part of a tightly knit conspiracy group.”
All this means is that the later gospel writers were changing the gospel story because they thought the new version of the Jesus story they came up with would be a better sell. If anything, later changes to the earlier story is evidence that the main goal of the gospel writers was selling “The Jesus Salvation story,” not preserving history.
I am not as convinced as Dr. Ehrman is, but I do lean towards the idea that there was a guy. I think the standard ‘apocalyptic prophet’ archetype makes the best sense of the evidence, though I struggle to say that with a level of confidence in its probable-ness. The problem will always be the unknown ratio of history remembered vs. legend historicised in the gospel traditions.
People like Bob Price and Richard Carrier etc. make excellent negative arguments, pointing out potential problems with the reliability of the standard evidence presented for a historical Jesus. But when it comes to them putting an alternative on the table, i.e. a positive case for how Christianity began without a historical Jesus, it falls apart fairly quickly when you realise they’re committing the same crimes only to greater extremes than what they’re accusing historicists of doing. E.g. Carrier quickly dismisses the Gospels as sources for the historical Jesus because they clearly contain mythical elements, but then appeals to even less reliable and more mythical stuff like “Ascension of Isaiah” and “Life of Adam & Eve” to put together his case.
At the end of the day, the inference that there was a historical crucified Jewish cult leader at the core just makes so more sense of the data. I often liken the gospels as probably being similar to the ‘biography’ of L.Ron Hubbard found on the official Scientology website. Sure, it’s full of exaggeration, lies, misunderstandings, over-the-top devotion etc. It’s trying its darnedest to “sell” Hubbard to the unsuspecting reader. But the basic outline of his life is still in there – Hubbard was a charismatic larger-than-life person, attracted to adventure on the high-seas, who was a prolific writer, etc. And I suspect the same is true with the Gospels – Jesus probably was some Jewish faith-healing cult leader who gained a following and was arrested and crucified for being seen as a political threat. The harder question is the what did he actually preach?
I would like to argue that the conspiracy that the first Christians participated in was to create a better world where they were not dominated by the Romans or the corrupt elites of the Jewish temple cult. The first Christians conspired to replace the temple cult and its sacrifices with faith in the sacrifice of Jesus. According to Richard Carrier’s model of Christian origins, Christ fulfilled by his death the two greatest annual sacrifices in the Jewish religion, Passover and Yom Kippur, and thereby had replaced the temple as a relevant religious institution. Many commentators have noticed the similarities between Passover and the Eucharist. Paul said “Christ is our Passover sacrifice (1 Cor 5.7)” and therefore God will “pass over” our sins (Rom 3.25), while at the same time preaching that Christ was the definitive atonement sacrifice (and therefore the definitive Yom Kippur). This is spelled out in Hebrews 9, and besides this Paul said Jesus atoned for all sin once and for all (see 1 Cor 15.3, Gal 1.4, 3.13, 2 Cor 5.18-19, Rom 3.24-26, 5.6-11) which was the point of the Yom Kippur sacrifice, except that it was made every year, whereas Christ’s sacrifice was final (for reasons explained in Hebrews). Christians no longer needed the temple as a conduit to God, because “Christ-in-us” was their conduit, and since they were permanently cleansed of their sins, there was no need for a priest to act as their intermediary. Christians were themselves now “temples of God (Gal 6.14-17)” and God dwells in them (1 Cor 3.16, 6.19, 2 Cor 6.16). Christ’s sacrifice brought about the forgiveness of sin (the role of Yom Kippur), and salvation from death (the role of Passover). To sell this lie with a Good Jewish pedigree of Christ fulfilling Old testament scriptures, the story of Christ’s humiliating death was created by a haggadic midrash using Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Wisdom of Solomon, Daniel 9 and 12, Zechariah 3 and 6, and possible allusions to Plato’s narrative of the crucified just man in the Republic. The first Christians taught that Jesus had died to atone of sins, and was now at the right hand of God waiting to return and destroy the enemies of the Christians, resurrect the dead, and establish an eternal paradise (eg. Rom 8, 1 Cor 10.11, 15.23-26, 1 Thess 4.14-17). Jesus’ death was an atonement sacrifice (1 Cor 15.3, Rom 3.23-26, 5.6-11, 2 Cor 5.18-19). This is the gospel Paul preached and he said his gospel was in accord with the one preached by Peter, James, and John (Gal 2.6-10). When Jesus was alive, the holy land was under direct control of the Roman government. This contradicted God’s promise to the Jews to rule their own land, city, and temple, and subjugate all people and rule that whole world as the chosen people of God (Zech 14.9-18, Psalm 2). The Romans were too powerful to be expelled from Judea by force and diplomacy. Traditional Jewish messianic hopes were doomed. And there was the all too present danger that Roman military power plus Jewish military messianism could result in the destruction of the Jews. Besides this, there was corruption and moral decay among the Jewish civil and temple elite. This bad behavior was viewed by many Jews as to why God had not kept His promises. It was thought God would only come through when all sin had ended and been atoned for (Dan 9.5-24). The Jews couldn’t physically retake the temple and end the corruption there, so the first Christians devised a way to deny the physical importance of the temple at Jerusalem itself. The first Christians replaced the temple with something intangible which neither the Romans nor the corrupt Jewish elite could control, and which required no money nor material power to bring about or maintain, and whose ruler was incapable of corruption: God. God had arranged a supreme sacrifice capable of cleansing all sins once and for all, and God’s spirit would, as a result, dwell in each individual who pledged themselves to Him. This newly concocted religion was brilliant for what it promised and the problems it solved. It solved the problem of Jewish elite corruption and Roman invincibility. The idea that God dwelled inside us and not in the temple was a brilliant and attractive idea to many. The sovereign would be Christ, not the corrupt Jewish elite. Christians could then just wait for God’s wrath to come from heaven, while in the meantime, God’s promise could be delivered unto the kingdom they had spiritually created (Rom 14.17-18, 1 Cor 4.19-20), first in anticipatory way (in the moral and ‘supernatural’ success of the Christian community), and then finally in the hoped-for apocalypse (1 Cor 15.24, 6.9-10, Gal 5.19-25, 1 Thess 4.10-5.15). All the first Christians needed to sell the new religion was the story of a new prophet, Jesus, who had the authority to sell the new moral code everyone would aspire to (Jesus’ authority was understood because all of his miracles showed that he was favored by God, and therefore should be listened to), and his atoning death and resurrection as the first fruits would convince people they better behave and adopt the new morality because the end was coming soon. I would like to argue that this is the plan the first Christians concocted to create a better world, saved from Roman domination and the corruption of the Jewish temple elite. Christianity was also a brilliant pacifist model at a time when the Jews could have been destroyed in a conflict between Roman military power and Jewish military messianism.
toejam said
I am not as convinced as Dr. Ehrman is, but I do lean towards the idea that there was a guy. I think the standard ‘apocalyptic prophet’ archetype makes the best sense of the evidence, though I struggle to say that with a level of confidence in its probable-ness. The problem will always be the unknown ratio of history remembered vs. legend historicised in the gospel traditions.
People like Bob Price and Richard Carrier etc. make excellent negative arguments, pointing out potential problems with the reliability of the standard evidence presented for a historical Jesus. But when it comes to them putting an alternative on the table, i.e. a positive case for how Christianity began without a historical Jesus, it falls apart fairly quickly when you realise they’re committing the same crimes only to greater extremes than what they’re accusing historicists of doing. E.g. Carrier quickly dismisses the Gospels as sources for the historical Jesus because they clearly contain mythical elements, but then appeals to even less reliable and more mythical stuff like “Ascension of Isaiah” and “Life of Adam & Eve” to put together his case.
At the end of the day, the inference that there was a historical crucified Jewish cult leader at the core just makes so more sense of the data. I often liken the gospels as probably being similar to the ‘biography’ of L.Ron Hubbard found on the official Scientology website. Sure, it’s full of exaggeration, lies, misunderstandings, over-the-top devotion etc. It’s trying its darnedest to “sell” Hubbard to the unsuspecting reader. But the basic outline of his life is still in there – Hubbard was a charismatic larger-than-life person, attracted to adventure on the high-seas, who was a prolific writer, etc. And I suspect the same is true with the Gospels – Jesus probably was some Jewish faith-healing cult leader who gained a following and was arrested and crucified for being seen as a political threat. The harder question is the what did he actually preach?
One good point Carrier makes is in pointing to Phil 2.5-11 and explaining that it paints a very different picture than the usual miracle performing Jesus we are used to:
Have this mind [of humble love] in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not decide to seize equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being made in the likeness of men, and being discovered as a man in outward form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, a death of a cross. Phil 2.5-11
Carrier comments on this passage that “Key things to notice here are that again no mention is made of Jesus having a ministry, teaching anything or performing any miracles. To the contrary, having ’emptied’ himself of all he was and ‘humbling’ himself completely to the status of a ‘slave’ imply he would have had no supernatural powers at all (Richard Carrier, On The Historicity of Jesus, pg. 535)”
^Yeah, but then Carrier goes a step too far in trying to imply that the Philippian Hymn isn’t talking about an Earthly-Jesus, despite the hymn saying that Jesus was found “being made in the likeness of men, and being discovered as a man in outward form“. Carrier’s case requires Paul not to think Jesus had been a man (or some sort of man) here on Earth. Verses like this (and there are many others) seem to me to imply otherwise. Paul thinks Jesus is some kind of angel who had been incarnated here on Earth, born of a woman, with David descent etc. This makes more sense of such verses IMO.
john76 said
The person who first came up with the story about Jesus walking on water knew that it never happened, so that person is a liar.
We don’t know whether the first person to come up with that story was a liar, or simply telling the story of Jesus in an artistic way. E.g. An abstract painting of a person isn’t a “lie” just because it’s not an attempt to capture their photographic likeness. As a teacher, I often tell my students silly little jokes that I assume they will recognise as not a literal story. But sometimes they take them seriously. It could be that the original author assumed his audience would recognise this as not a literal story. I’m not saying that’s the case. I think if I had to choose, I would go with the “liar” option. But we don’t know that. It could simply be allegory mistaken as history.
john76 said
(citations from Carrier, On The Historicity of Jesus, in italics)
I would like to argue that the conspiracy that the first Christians participated in was to create a better world where they were not dominated by the Romans or the corrupt elites of the Jewish temple cult. The first Christians conspired to replace the temple cult and its sacrifices with faith in the sacrifice of Jesus. According to Richard Carrier’s model of Christian origins, Christ fulfilled by his death the two greatest annual sacrifices in the Jewish religion, Passover and Yom Kippur, and thereby had replaced the temple as a relevant religious institution. Many commentators have noticed the similarities between Passover and the Eucharist. Paul said “Christ is our Passover sacrifice (1 Cor 5.7)” and therefore God will “pass over” our sins (Rom 3.25), while at the same time preaching that Christ was the definitive atonement sacrifice (and therefore the definitive Yom Kippur). This is spelled out in Hebrews 9, and besides this Paul said Jesus atoned for all sin once and for all (see 1 Cor 15.3, Gal 1.4, 3.13, 2 Cor 5.18-19, Rom 3.24-26, 5.6-11) which was the point of the Yom Kippur sacrifice, except that it was made every year, whereas Christ’s sacrifice was final (for reasons explained in Hebrews). Christians no longer needed the temple as a conduit to God, because “Christ-in-us” was their conduit, and since they were permanently cleansed of their sins, there was no need for a priest to act as their intermediary. Christians were themselves now “temples of God (Gal 6.14-17)” and God dwells in them (1 Cor 3.16, 6.19, 2 Cor 6.16). Christ’s sacrifice brought about the forgiveness of sin (the role of Yom Kippur), and salvation from death (the role of Passover). To sell this lie with a Good Jewish pedigree of Christ fulfilling Old testament scriptures, the story of Christ’s humiliating death was created by a haggadic midrash using Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Wisdom of Solomon, Daniel 9 and 12, Zechariah 3 and 6, and possible allusions to Plato’s narrative of the crucified just man in the Republic. The first Christians taught that Jesus had died to atone of sins, and was now at the right hand of God waiting to return and destroy the enemies of the Christians, resurrect the dead, and establish an eternal paradise (eg. Rom 8, 1 Cor 10.11, 15.23-26, 1 Thess 4.14-17). Jesus’ death was an atonement sacrifice (1 Cor 15.3, Rom 3.23-26, 5.6-11, 2 Cor 5.18-19). This is the gospel Paul preached and he said his gospel was in accord with the one preached by Peter, James, and John (Gal 2.6-10). When Jesus was alive, the holy land was under direct control of the Roman government. This contradicted God’s promise to the Jews to rule their own land, city, and temple, and subjugate all people and rule that whole world as the chosen people of God (Zech 14.9-18, Psalm 2). The Romans were too powerful to be expelled from Judea by force and diplomacy. Traditional Jewish messianic hopes were doomed. And there was the all too present danger that Roman military power plus Jewish military messianism could result in the destruction of the Jews. Besides this, there was corruption and moral decay among the Jewish civil and temple elite. This bad behavior was viewed by many Jews as to why God had not kept His promises. It was thought God would only come through when all sin had ended and been atoned for (Dan 9.5-24). The Jews couldn’t physically retake the temple and end the corruption there, so the first Christians devised a way to deny the physical importance of the temple at Jerusalem itself. The first Christians replaced the temple with something intangible which neither the Romans nor the corrupt Jewish elite could control, and which required no money nor material power to bring about or maintain, and whose ruler was incapable of corruption: God. God had arranged a supreme sacrifice capable of cleansing all sins once and for all, and God’s spirit would, as a result, dwell in each individual who pledged themselves to Him. This newly concocted religion was brilliant for what it promised and the problems it solved. It solved the problem of Jewish elite corruption and Roman invincibility. The idea that God dwelled inside us and not in the temple was a brilliant and attractive idea to many. The sovereign would be Christ, not the corrupt Jewish elite. Christians could then just wait for God’s wrath to come from heaven, while in the meantime, God’s promise could be delivered unto the kingdom they had spiritually created (Rom 14.17-18, 1 Cor 4.19-20), first in anticipatory way (in the moral and ‘supernatural’ success of the Christian community), and then finally in the hoped-for apocalypse (1 Cor 15.24, 6.9-10, Gal 5.19-25, 1 Thess 4.10-5.15). All the first Christians needed to sell the new religion was the story of a new prophet, Jesus, who had the authority to sell the new moral code everyone would aspire to (Jesus’ authority was understood because all of his miracles showed that he was favored by God, and therefore should be listened to), and his atoning death and resurrection as the first fruits would convince people they better behave and adopt the new morality because the end was coming soon. I would like to argue that this is the plan the first Christians concocted to create a better world, saved from Roman domination and the corruption of the Jewish temple elite. Christianity was also a brilliant pacifist model at a time when the Jews could have been destroyed in a conflict between Roman military power and Jewish military messianism.
OOPS! I just realized I forgot to indicate in my post which passages were citations from Carrier’s book “On The Historicity of Jesus (2014).” I’ll fix that as soon as I can.
It’s all fixed now. Sorry about that.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)