john76 said
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.
But you see, I never suggested that everything could be explained by “Legendary development”. If so, it would be just as overly simplistic as saying that all are lies. If you look back on my earlier posts, you’ll see I suggested this just as one of a series of possible explanatory factors for what we today mostly consider inauthentic. Your suggestion that “the simplest explanation for all these miracles is that the writers and their sources were lying” is true in the sense that it is one of simplest explanations. But a simple explanation is not necessarily the best.
Also I think that “selling” is a concept of limited explanatory power. The authors had different theological outlooks, and facing the mass of oral traditions and sources, they edited it to fit their theology, in which they firmly believed. The early christian community leaders could be reproaching their communities, in place of adapting the gospel message to the communities’ habits.
john76 said
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.
May I suggest that you give your own opinions, so that we know whether we discuss with Carrier or you. You could easily give Carriers arguments with your own words, if you mostly agree with him. I think that is better since Carrier hardly will show up here.
gavriel said
john76 said
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.
But you see, I never suggested that everything could be explained by “Legendary development”. If so, it would be just as overly simplistic as saying that all are lies. If you look back on my earlier posts, you’ll see I suggested this just as one of a series of possible explanatory factors for what we today mostly consider inauthentic. Your suggestion that “the simplest explanation for all these miracles is that the writers and their sources were lying” is true in the sense that it is one of simplest explanations. But a simple explanation is not necessarily the best.
Also I think that “selling” is a concept of limited explanatory power. The authors had different theological outlooks, and facing the mass of oral traditions and sources, they edited it to fit their theology, in which they firmly believed. The early christian community leaders could be reproaching their communities, in place of adapting the gospel message to the communities’ habits.
Even if I grant everything you are saying (which I don’t), I think the earliest sources who came up with the miracle stories about Jesus were still lying, even if later evangelists believed the stories (which I highly doubt).
You still haven’t explained how the approximately 37 miracle stories in the gospels came into existence. I say they are based on lies. You disagree. One of the explanations you give is “legendary development.” That might account for a couple of the miracle stories. Please feel free to explain how the other 35 miracle stories came into existence if they weren’t based on lies. We’ve already agreed the critical historian will not allow that Jesus actually performed any miracles as part of an historical explanation.
For example, the gospel of John says Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. What is your explanation for how this story came about? I say that someone was lying about Jesus doing a miracle. How do you explain it?
magpie said
John @ 100 Thanks! I enjoy reading your posts.
Thanks.
Gavriel and I are having a fun discussion. I am arguing that the miracle stories in the gospels are deliberate lies, and he is trying to account for them in other ways (like legendary development). I simply think there are far too many miracle stories about Jesus for Gavriel’s position to be the correct one.
And it is generally accepted that some miracle stories about Jesus are deliberate lies, like the walking, talking cross in the Gospel of Peter. I just take the position that all the miracle stories in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are lies, just like the ones in the Gospel of Peter.
Or consider another case from the Gospel of Matthew: Matthew 27:51-3. Matthew writes: THE DEATH OF JESUS …51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.…
Now, is there any historical truth to Matthew’s tale here about zombies roaming around the holy city, or is the author of Matthew just lying here?
I think the gospel writers are just lying about miracles to help sell “the Jesus salvation story.”
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
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.
But you see, I never suggested that everything could be explained by “Legendary development”. If so, it would be just as overly simplistic as saying that all are lies. If you look back on my earlier posts, you’ll see I suggested this just as one of a series of possible explanatory factors for what we today mostly consider inauthentic. Your suggestion that “the simplest explanation for all these miracles is that the writers and their sources were lying” is true in the sense that it is one of simplest explanations. But a simple explanation is not necessarily the best.
Also I think that “selling” is a concept of limited explanatory power. The authors had different theological outlooks, and facing the mass of oral traditions and sources, they edited it to fit their theology, in which they firmly believed. The early christian community leaders could be reproaching their communities, in place of adapting the gospel message to the communities’ habits.
Even if I grant everything you are saying (which I don’t), I think the earliest sources who came up with the miracle stories about Jesus were still lying, even if later evangelists believed the stories (which I highly doubt).
You still haven’t explained how the approximately 37 miracle stories in the gospels came into existence. I say they are based on lies. You disagree. One of the explanations you give is “legendary development.” That might account for a couple of the miracle stories. Please feel free to explain how the other 35 miracle stories came into existence if they weren’t based on lies. We’ve already agreed the critical historian will not allow that Jesus actually performed any miracles as part of an historical explanation.
For example, the gospel of John says Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. What is your explanation for how this story came about? I say that someone was lying about Jesus doing a miracle. How do you explain it?
I do not think “legendary development” should be applied to a few and the rest of the miracles stories to other factors. It is a rough explanatory factor that is present in almost everything, together with various other factors.
I think your basic error is that you transfer the logic and outlook of our scientific age to the culture of the Mediterranean of the first century, and this is anachronistic. Superstition , belief in daemons and belief in local gods that had be be sacrificed to, was the rule. When someone was claimed to be possessed by a spirit, there was no lying, but a way of explaining mental weaknesses of various types.
Even today, it is difficult to say that at some point someone cunningly lies in the emergence and circulation of urban legends. They are today regularly punctured by academics, but that is because we live in a scientific age and culture. Such stories tend to emerge or morph from earlier versions because they appeal to popular feelings, for instance during periods of stress or emergence of new social structures.
The Christian communities of the first century had their “spin doctors”. But that may have been out of necessity, among other reasons. When the Gospel of Mark (written in Rome?) softens the character of Pilate, blames the Jews and have a Roman officer proclaim 15:39, it should be seen in light of the persecutions in Rome a few years later. At the time of writing, Mark knew of the near complete rejection of the Jesus movement in the traditional Jewish communities, and that Christian communities were growing on Roman soil. So he gave a hopeful reconstruction in his Passion narrative, that also was “politically correct”, if not outright necessary.
When it comes to the stories of raising the dead, and what of it can possibly go back to the historical Jesus, I have benefited from John P. Meier’s “A Marginal Jew, vol II, chapter 22 (pp 773-873). I can try to give a very condensed version of it, if it has any interest, and as a starting point for a more thorough discussion of that topic.
john76
Or consider another case from the Gospel of Matthew: Matthew 27:51-3. Matthew writes: THE DEATH OF JESUS …51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.…Now, is there any historical truth to Matthew’s tale here about zombies roaming around the holy city, or is the author of Matthew just lying here?
Answer:
This story in Matthew 27:52-53 is neither a lie or “legendary development”. This story is, like everything else in the NT; Midrash.
This story is based on Hosea 6:2;
“Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. ** you do not have permission to see this link **“He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him.…
gavriel said
john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
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.
But you see, I never suggested that everything could be explained by “Legendary development”. If so, it would be just as overly simplistic as saying that all are lies. If you look back on my earlier posts, you’ll see I suggested this just as one of a series of possible explanatory factors for what we today mostly consider inauthentic. Your suggestion that “the simplest explanation for all these miracles is that the writers and their sources were lying” is true in the sense that it is one of simplest explanations. But a simple explanation is not necessarily the best.
Also I think that “selling” is a concept of limited explanatory power. The authors had different theological outlooks, and facing the mass of oral traditions and sources, they edited it to fit their theology, in which they firmly believed. The early christian community leaders could be reproaching their communities, in place of adapting the gospel message to the communities’ habits.
Even if I grant everything you are saying (which I don’t), I think the earliest sources who came up with the miracle stories about Jesus were still lying, even if later evangelists believed the stories (which I highly doubt).
You still haven’t explained how the approximately 37 miracle stories in the gospels came into existence. I say they are based on lies. You disagree. One of the explanations you give is “legendary development.” That might account for a couple of the miracle stories. Please feel free to explain how the other 35 miracle stories came into existence if they weren’t based on lies. We’ve already agreed the critical historian will not allow that Jesus actually performed any miracles as part of an historical explanation.
For example, the gospel of John says Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. What is your explanation for how this story came about? I say that someone was lying about Jesus doing a miracle. How do you explain it?
I do not think “legendary development” should be applied to a few and the rest of the miracles stories to other factors. It is a rough explanatory factor that is present in almost everything, together with various other factors.
I think your basic error is that you transfer the logic and outlook of our scientific age to the culture of the Mediterranean of the first century, and this is anachronistic. Superstition , belief in daemons and belief in local gods that had be be sacrificed to, was the rule. When someone was claimed to be possessed by a spirit, there was no lying, but a way of explaining mental weaknesses of various types.
Even today, it is difficult to say that at some point someone cunningly lies in the emergence and circulation of urban legends. They are today regularly punctured by academics, but that is because we live in a scientific age and culture. Such stories tend to emerge or morph from earlier versions because they appeal to popular feelings, for instance during periods of stress or emergence of new social structures.
The Christian communities of the first century had their “spin doctors”. But that may have been out of necessity, among other reasons. When the Gospel of Mark (written in Rome?) softens the character of Pilate, blames the Jews and have a Roman officer proclaim 15:39, it should be seen in light of the persecutions in Rome a few years later. At the time of writing, Mark knew of the near complete rejection of the Jesus movement in the traditional Jewish communities, and that Christian communities were growing on Roman soil. So he gave a hopeful reconstruction in his Passion narrative, that also was “politically correct”, if not outright necessary.
When it comes to the stories of raising the dead, and what of it can possibly go back to the historical Jesus, I have benefited from John P. Meier’s “A Marginal Jew, vol II, chapter 22 (pp 773-873). I can try to give a very condensed version of it, if it has any interest, and as a starting point for a more thorough discussion of that topic.
The ancients clearly understood that religion was an important way of controlling and deceiving the masses. We read, for instance, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful (Lucius Annaeus Seneca)”
I agree with magpie. Most reasonable people, including former Mormons, who take the time to study the origins of the Church of Later Day Saints, must conclude that it had, as magpie points out, the ability “to build a religion from scratch.” This is true even if The Book of Mormon, like the New Testament, builds upon existing and, at the time the religion began, well established already existing religions. The fact that Mormonism has not only grown relatively rapidly, much like Amway, Mary Kay and other multilevel sales organizations, but has continued to do so for almost two hundred years can, at least in my opinion, be attributed mostly to its founders’ and followers’ abilities to amend its statements of belief repeatedly so as to be more acceptable to its adherents and future adherents alike. While I don’t know whether or not Jesus actually exited, presently I believe such a person did likely exist and, given the ability of his followers to adapt and improvise as they converted mostly their pagan contemporaries, I think Jesus, if he did exist, ultimately became a combination of who he actually was and who his followers, slowly, but gradually, morphed him into by portraying him to be more similar to those whom they were trying to proselytize. To me, Paul is an excellent example of this. As he grew his congregation, to use a modern day term, he adapted parts of pagan beliefs and holidays that he encountered during his “missionary trips” (Winter Equinox, more or less, corresponds with 12/25 and Easter corresponds with a number of pagan celebrations). I don’t think this was coincidental. I think Paul was as egotistical as lets say Joel Osteen and his wife, Jim and Tammi Baker, Jerry Falwell, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. He wanted to grow his congregation and was observant and clever enough to do so very quickly and effectively by major, as well as subtle, changes in what we now know to be Christianity. Imagine the growth in the number of pagans Paul could have converted and the increase in “name recognition” he could have achieved had radio, television, films, the internet, direct mail campaigns, widely circulated magazines, and the ability to write and distribute books been available to him. Given the size of his “staff” (followers and/or devotees), the number of books and promotional material Paul’s ministry could have produced, either by Paul writing and working alone or with the help of ghost writers and co-authors available to him from his “staff,” he might well have become even more prolific than 21st century authors like Jim Patterson.
moose said
john76
Or consider another case from the Gospel of Matthew: Matthew 27:51-3. Matthew writes: THE DEATH OF JESUS …51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.…Now, is there any historical truth to Matthew’s tale here about zombies roaming around the holy city, or is the author of Matthew just lying here?
Answer:
This story in Matthew 27:52-53 is neither a lie or “legendary development”. This story is, like everything else in the NT; Midrash.
This story is based on Hosea 6:2;
“Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. ** you do not have permission to see this link **“He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him.…
The use of haggadic midrash by the New Testament writers is nothing but lies told about Jesus to make it seem like He was fulfilling Old Testament scriptures.
John76: Perhaps wishful thinking and self delusion rather than outright lies, although the art of political spin is not new and can be seen as generating “lies” from ancient times to current times. Probably a mix of all of the above. Everyone works on their confirmation bias and tries to make others see it their way. Don’t think that has changed over time.
In “Jesus Interrupted”, Ch. 5, “Liar, Lunatic or Lord” Dr. Ehrman condenses and summarizes Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (his other book, “Jesus: Apocalyptic prophet for the new millenium” is the longer argument for the teachings he boils down to essentials and this characterization), and then categorizes the deeds and activities of Jesus he concludes broadly historical: The Baptism; The Twelve Disciples; Jesus as a Healer and Exorcist; The Trip to Jerusalem; The Cleansing of the Temple; The Arrest of Jesus; What Jesus Taught about Himself. In each sub-section he enumerates facts that seem plausibly established. After reading many interesting posts in this thread about which incidents people think historically probable, I’m curious what others think of Dr. Ehrman’s list. It’s really not a long list, if he doesn’t mind me quoting a few excerpts from each point in sequence: “It is almost certain that Jesus began his public ministry by being baptized by the John the Baptist…”; “There can be little doubt that Jesus chose twelve followers to be a kind of inner circle around him…”; “Later in this chapter I will discuss the problem of whether historians can say anything about whether Jesus actually performed miracles. For now it is enough to point out that he was widely believed to have done miracles…”; “If a Christian theologian was asked why Jesus traveled to Jerusalem the last week of his life…”; “Independently of one another, Mark and John tell the story of Jesus entering into the Temple and causing a ruckus…”; “Why wasn’t Jesus arrested on the spot, but only a week later?…”; “All the pieces fall into place if Jesus taught his disciples in private that he would be their master not only now but in the age to come. When the kingdom arrived, he would be the king…when Jesus spoke of himself as the Messiah in private, he did not mean that he would drive out the Romans…”; “Why did the Romans execute Jesus for calling himself king of the Jews if he never called himself that in public? Because they learned that he actually did think of himself that way…”; “Pilate ordered him crucified, and the sentence was carried out immediately.” If there was an historical Jesus, one who was not invented out of whole cloth ready-made/designed for the purpose of creating a new religion that fit the times, how does your list of probable events compare? Or do you think Dr. Ehrman’s list sums it up well? On a personal note (or as a bonus round) as a kid I hoped that Satan’s temptations of Jesus scenes right after his baptism (Matthew Ch.4, Mark tells us nothing more than 1:13) were true and actually happened, but alas, I lost those amazing scenes from the story early on. So maybe that’s an optional second inquiry: what favorite story do you wish was true (but don’t think is historical, if you can’t say the resurrection? It’s ok to pick the woman caught in adultery, because that’s another fave of mine that, in most minds, didn’t happen) peace, sw
SWerdal said
In “Jesus Interrupted”, Ch. 5, “Liar, Lunatic or Lord” Dr. Ehrman condenses and summarizes Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (his other book, “Jesus: Apocalyptic prophet for the new millenium” is the longer argument for the teachings he boils down to essentials and this characterization), and then categorizes the deeds and activities of Jesus he concludes broadly historical: The Baptism; The Twelve Disciples; Jesus as a Healer and Exorcist; The Trip to Jerusalem; The Cleansing of the Temple; The Arrest of Jesus; What Jesus Taught about Himself. In each sub-section he enumerates facts that seem plausibly established. After reading many interesting posts in this thread about which incidents people think historically probable, I’m curious what others think of Dr. Ehrman’s list. It’s really not a long list, if he doesn’t mind me quoting a few excerpts from each point in sequence: “It is almost certain that Jesus began his public ministry by being baptized by the John the Baptist…”; “There can be little doubt that Jesus chose twelve followers to be a kind of inner circle around him…”; “Later in this chapter I will discuss the problem of whether historians can say anything about whether Jesus actually performed miracles. For now it is enough to point out that he was widely believed to have done miracles…”; “If a Christian theologian was asked why Jesus traveled to Jerusalem the last week of his life…”; “Independently of one another, Mark and John tell the story of Jesus entering into the Temple and causing a ruckus…”; “Why wasn’t Jesus arrested on the spot, but only a week later?…”; “All the pieces fall into place if Jesus taught his disciples in private that he would be their master not only now but in the age to come. When the kingdom arrived, he would be the king…when Jesus spoke of himself as the Messiah in private, he did not mean that he would drive out the Romans…”; “Why did the Romans execute Jesus for calling himself king of the Jews if he never called himself that in public? Because they learned that he actually did think of himself that way…”; “Pilate ordered him crucified, and the sentence was carried out immediately.” If there was an historical Jesus, one who was not invented out of whole cloth ready-made/designed for the purpose of creating a new religion that fit the times, how does your list of probable events compare? Or do you think Dr. Ehrman’s list sums it up well? On a personal note (or as a bonus round) as a kid I hoped that Satan’s temptations of Jesus scenes right after his baptism (Matthew Ch.4, Mark tells us nothing more than 1:13) were true and actually happened, but alas, I lost those amazing scenes from the story early on. So maybe that’s an optional second inquiry: what favorite story do you wish was true (but don’t think is historical, if you can’t say the resurrection? It’s ok to pick the woman caught in adultery, because that’s another fave of mine that, in most minds, didn’t happen) peace, sw
It is likely that the passion and resurrection of Jesus are just made up historical fictions. In “On The Historicity of Jesus,” Carrier demonstrates the passion narrative may be constructed by a haggadic midrash rewrite of Isaiah 52-3, the Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 22, Daniel 9 and 12, and Zechariah 3 and 6.
But more than this, Jesus’ resurrection seems to be a haggadic midrash of Psalm 16. Peter stressed the significance of the resurrection and cited the prophecy predicting it in Psalm 16: “God raised him up, losing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it … Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:24, 29-32). Of course, Psalm 16 was not making a prophesy about Jesus, but rather Psalm 16 was used in a haggadic midrash to invent the story of Christ’s resurrection.
john76 said
It is likely that the passion and resurrection of Jesus are just made up historical fictions. In “On The Historicity of Jesus,” Carrier demonstrates the passion narrative may be constructed by a haggadic midrash rewrite of Isaiah 52-3, the Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 22, Daniel 9 and 12, and Zechariah 3 and 6.
But more than this, Jesus’ resurrection seems to be a haggadic midrash of Psalm 16. Peter stressed the significance of the resurrection and cited the prophecy predicting it in Psalm 16: “God raised him up, losing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it … Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:24, 29-32). Of course, Psalm 16 was not making a prophesy about Jesus, but rather Psalm 16 was used in a haggadic midrash to invent the story of Christ’s resurrection.
I think you will have to say that certain Jesus narratives were fashioned in a style like the later haggadic midrash, a rabbinic tradition which flourished between 100 and 550 CE. The early Jesus movement did not include rabbis. This type of midrash is characterized by considerable freedom of interpretation. As an exercise, one may take any ancient historical narrative known to be truly historical, and claim that it is haggadic midrash, by scanning the Scripture for passages with similar-looking elements. Given the liberal freedom of interpretation in this art, one may connect a large number of scriptural units with a large number of true historical ancient Palestinian narratives. The reason we do not do so is that the historicity of these narratives has been demonstrated, using criteria for historicity, so we rule out midrashic explanations in these cases.
We have to do this with the Jesus narratives as well, to determine how much has been taken from Scripture, how much has been used to colour the narratives and how much is truly historical in its core. Just to demonstrate that a plot might be haggadic midrash won’t do for the reason explained. “Might be” is not a proof, because it is too easy to construct an artificial parallel. One can see this at work, e.g. in Gospel of Matthew, in which the author tweaks scriptural passages awkwardly to make them fit the narrative.
So we are back to basics, that is, application of criteria.
Perhaps there was an historical Jesus but he is so divorced from the myth that surrounds him that he is barely recognizable. Perhaps he is a compilation of different historical prophets. Who knows for sure. This I do feel, the Jesus of Christianity, the one everyone calls Lord and Savior, is a myth. People are worshiping a myth not a real person. The little we know about a real Jesus would probably not be worth calling Lord and Savior. He was probably just another sandaled prophet with some devoted followers who he convinced to believe in him. I think he would be shocked to learn what has been made of him- poor guy!
Aleph82 said
Yes, I believe he existed. The story of Jesus becoming God is too wacky to have started out in fiction. His story contains too many incongruities with the Jewish expectations of the Messiah that it is hard to imagine a fabricator would include them in the first place. It makes much more sense that these incongruities actually happened and later had to be explained away (i.e. Baptism by John, Nazarene origin, the crucified messiah).I have found that Mythicists, who are mostly atheists, will not consider anything from the bible as evidence for anything historical. They are not interested in criterions or methodologies, the bible is unreliable and that is that. The baby is thrown out with the baptism.
I usually counter this narrow view with the inverse of Christopher Hitchens’s maxim: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Atheists love this quote, and I think it’s a good one, but it also helps my case regarding the existence of Jesus: what if anything is extraordinary about the claim that a 1st century Jewish apocalypticist was crucified by the Roman authorities? Or that his followers formed a religion based on him? I’ll concede that it doesn’t happen to everyone, but this is hardly a miraculous event. I don’t think his name needs to be etched everywhere in stone to prove it.
It’s not the Jesus story that is so extraordinary, it is the resurrection story. That is just tooooo extraordinary for anyone to believe. Adding the resurrection to the myth just makes the entire thing suspect. If that is throwing the baby out with the bath water, well maybe that’s a good idea. I suppose if you want to view the resurrection metaphorically, that may work but a literal resurrection, no!
I am new to the site, so am just now reading the postings relating to this topic. I was thrilled to read your post about the John Smith. We can add to that creation of religious belief Scientology. It’s odd that a person thinks, “why would ancient writers dream up such a story?” Clearly, modern writers of fiction and movie makers create all types of fantastic characters, that, as best we know, do not and have never existed.
As for myself, a non-academic in this field, a former Roman Catholic, I think there was no historical Jesus. I think perhaps “Jesus” was not a single person but an amalgam of several Jewish leaders or teachers who taught a particular type of religion; or what we might even call a philosophy. I acknowledge that a religion or movement must have a “source” of said movement, which is why I think whatever it was that was being taught at the time was condensed into a single person. It seems we humans need and depend on a leader. For Christians, Jesus is that leader.
I’m back! I didn’t realize my post would end up at the end of the postings, as I had originally replied to one specific post. Regardless, now that I have perused all the posts, and the back and forth about “lying,” I’d like to through this thought into the ring: Does a fiction writer lie? Do we refer to films based solely on fiction or loosely based on real life characters and/or events, lies? Do we say that a film is fake or full of lies (we might say this about some documentaries)? How many of us retell a story of a situation we encountered or engaged in without adding a little embellishment? Haven’t we all heard or read the urban tail about the woman whose child was about to be crushed under a car, and she lifted the vehicle enough to save the child’s life. I’ve heard such a story. Is it a lie? True? Partially true?
It seems odd to call ancient writers liars. It is most likely that they, first Christians or writers of the first Christians gospels truly believed the stories they heard, and then wrote about, perhaps adding a little embellishment of their own to drive home a point about Jesus. Personally, I don’t believe in any of the stories, not as such. I don’t believe in miracles or even that Jesus, as a single individual existed. But to call the gospels lies and the authors as having had huge agendas and liars. . .? Seems harsh.
kdgecko said
I’m back! I didn’t realize my post would end up at the end of the postings, as I had originally replied to one specific post. Regardless, now that I have perused all the posts, and the back and forth about “lying,” I’d like to through this thought into the ring: Does a fiction writer lie? Do we refer to films based solely on fiction or loosely based on real life characters and/or events, lies? Do we say that a film is fake or full of lies (we might say this about some documentaries)? How many of us retell a story of a situation we encountered or engaged in without adding a little embellishment? Haven’t we all heard or read the urban tail about the woman whose child was about to be crushed under a car, and she lifted the vehicle enough to save the child’s life. I’ve heard such a story. Is it a lie? True? Partially true?It seems odd to call ancient writers liars. It is most likely that they, first Christians or writers of the first Christians gospels truly believed the stories they heard, and then wrote about, perhaps adding a little embellishment of their own to drive home a point about Jesus. Personally, I don’t believe in any of the stories, not as such. I don’t believe in miracles or even that Jesus, as a single individual existed. But to call the gospels lies and the authors as having had huge agendas and liars. . .? Seems harsh.
It is clear that Luke invented stories. But it is very difficult to say that he was lying. He probably thought his creative guesswork was justified. For instance the Census story in the birth narrative was made up from known elements that he probably held to be true: The was a universal Roman census around 8 BCE, counting Romans citizens. Property-owners had to be present during a Roman tax-census. Jesus forefathers may once have migrated from the Bethlehem area. That was all he knew, and he made a fantastic narrative, connecting the birth of the Messiah to the Roman empire. This is a kind of spin-doctoring for promotion of the Gospel within the Roman empire. As opposed to Matthew, who connected the birth of the Messiah to the wisdom of the East.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)