My comments presuppose that Jesus was a historical figure and that he is best understood as an apocalyptic prophet. I will discuss what I see as the implications of that view. My perspective is that of a contemporary secularist and not of a religious believer. While these comments are inspired by Prof Ehrman’s recent posts and are informed by his past writings on the subject they are not completely dependent on them. There is a vast literature on the subject and over the last twenty years I have read a considerable amount of it. Enough to be convinced this is the correct view.
When we consider the historical Jesus we are presented with an interesting paradox. The closer we come to knowing him the further he recedes from us. In a real sense, to know him is to lose him. What do we have in common with an iilliterate Jewish peasant who thought he was the Messiah and expected the imminent Kingdom of God? How can we contact that? Identify with that? We can certainly conceive of cataclysmic events like nuclear war or climate change but those are naturalistic phenomena. When someone comes along and tells us he is chosen by God and predicts the “end of the world” he may have a small following but the majority of people laugh and look on him as, well… kind of a nut. In the present day there is simply no context for that kind of message the way there was in first century Palestine. (I fully realize the world is still full of religious fanatics but I remind you I’m writing from a secular perspective.)
I think it follows that most non-apocalyptic scholarly interpretations of the historical Jesus are attempts to provide Jesus with some kind of relevance. We can identify with a political reformer or a wisdom teacher. We can even relate to Jesus the healer of the sick. But Jesus the apocalyptic exorcist? Not so much. He becomes for us a figure alien and strange. I see these non-apocalyptic interpretations as secular analogues to the so-called “Jesus of Faith”.
Scholars distinguish between the “Jesus of History” and the “Jesus of Faith”. They distinguish between the religion “of” Jesus and the religion “about” Jesus. And there is a definite tension in the gospels between the memories of the historical Jesus and the developing Christology of the church. A couple examples: Remember the famous passages in the Synoptics where Jesus sends out his disciples two by two to preach and to heal the sick and cast out demons? I don’t remember ever asking but as a teenager in Sunday School I do remember wondering what exactly it was that they were preaching? Repent and Believe the Good News? But what was the Good News? It couldn’t have been Jesus’ death burial and resurrection. Jesus predicts those things but when he does the disciples are confused and disturbed by them. For the historical Jesus the “Good News” would have been the imminence of the Kingdom not his sacrifice on the cross. See Mark 1:15.
Another example is the so-called “Son of Man” passages. Sometimes Jesus appears to be talking about himself. Sometimes he appears to be talking about somebody other than himself. Which is it? Scholars can speculate that the historical Jesus was probably referring to somebody else. It might not be that cut and dried but there is a definite discontinuity to be detected there.
I think it was this very discontinuity that made the Christian Church possible. Let’s face it. From a secular point of view Jesus’ career was a disaster. He believed fantastic impossible things and for his trouble got landed on by implacable Roman “justice”. If you were raised like I was you were taught that the Old Testament perfectly predicted the New Testament and the NT perfectly fulfilled the expectations of the OT and that Jesus was fully aware of his mission and purpose and indeed made predictions of what was to come. But hindsight is 20/20 is it not and the truth is, the development of the Christian Church was an improvisation based on and necessitated by a catastrophe. The Christian tradition largely developed as a way to explain why Jesus, whose career path didn’t fit the traditional view of the Messiah was in fact, the Messiah.
In his latest book Prof Ehrman has made an interesting case that at least some of the disciples must have had post-mortem visions of Jesus that were interpreted as resurrection appearances. (I waffle on this only because of psychological studies like Leon Festinger’s When Prophecy Fails and the example of the Millerites which show that communities faced with dashed hopes and failed expectations can reinvent themselves as enthusiastically as ever.)
But when you enter the realm of vision and personal revelation you’ve separated yourself from the historical Jesus. Take the example of the Apostle Paul. His connection with the historical Jesus is tenuous at best. He is somewhat respectful of received tradition and he defers somewhat to the Jerusalem Church but he derives most of his views from personal revelation. Whereas you or I might want to spend months interviewing everyone we could about the events of Jesus’ life and ministry, Paul simply puts in an appearance, somewhat begrudgingly it seems. Paul is one side of that discontinuity I identified and the historical Jesus is on the other. The Christian Church is on the far side as well.
So let me end where I began. What does Jesus have to say to contemporary secularists? Will the end of all our study be to simply make him irrelevant?
NOTE: I would love to hear responses from anyone interested in these issues. But could we stay on topic please? Don’t be like the Jazz musician who interpreted every pause by his fellow musicians as an excuse to start playing.
‘’What does Jesus have to say to contemporary secularists? Will the end of all our study be to simply make him irrelevant?’’.
Indeed, if Jesus was historical then all the study and research about this figure is irrelevant. Failed apocalyptic prophets, if that is the category we want to place a historical Jesus in, have no secular value. History demonstrates these figures come and go – leaving their followers to pick up the pieces via re-interpretations of the apocalyptic pronouncements – or hand in their membership cards….If Jesus was historical then, to my mind, apocalyptic was something added to his ministry after his death not internal to it. Playing the apocalyptic lottery is not a solid grounding upon which to build a new theology/spirituality or philosophy.
‘’……when you enter the realm of vision and personal revelation you’ve separated yourself from the historical Jesus’’.
Indeed! Indicating, to me, dealing with the historical Jesus position, that it would be the followers who engaged in such activity – including apocalyptic pronouncements. And, of course, this sort of thing did not even require an execution/crucifixion. People influence people, leave their mark on people, during their lifetime. Death often is a sad end to a successful life. A life spent in humanitarian endeavours. Whether it’s the epic hero or the everyday hero, people respond to leadership and charismatic people.
I’m not a Jesus historicists. I view the gospel Jesus as a symbol around which a political allegory has been created. A political allegory that is reflecting historical figures relevant to the gospel writers. As a symbolic figure, the gospel Jesus is a composite figure. A paradox, if you like – a figure reflecting historical figures from different historical time frames. Two very different historical figures.
The gospel of Luke reflects these two time frames in 3:1 when mentioning Lysanias of Abilene. Thereby dating the start of his story line somewhere around 40 b.c.e. Ending sometime past the 15th year of Tiberius. 40 b.c.e. was the year when Antigonus retook Jerusalem and ruled until his Roman execution/crucifixion in 37 b.c.e. In Antigonus the gospel writers had their ‘man of war’ – a Davidic type messiah figure with blood on his hands.
The big question regarding the gospel story is not that the writers have used the history of Antigonus in creating their composite Jesus figure – as the last King and High Priest of the Jews, the place of Antigonus and his execution by the Romans is firmly placed in Jewish history – it’s the ‘man of peace’ figure that is not so easily identified. An historical figure active, living, during the time of Pilate. A man that was not executed by Rome.
Josephus does record details about such a man. A man, re Josephus, who died in the 20th year of Tiberius, 34 c.e. after ruling 37 years.
”About this time it was that Philip, Herod’s ‘ brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty- seven years. He had showed himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him; he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgment, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal set down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint: he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp. His principality Tiberius took, (for he left no sons behind him,) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave order that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrachy. Antiquities book 18 ch.4
Julius, where Philip died, is Bethsaida Julius. (Philip, re Josephus, renaming Bethsaida to Bethsaida Julius) Bethsaida is where the early disciples of the gospel Jesus come from. It was also in the territory of Philip, around Casearea Philippi, that the gospel Jesus raised the question regarding his identity with his disciples. Indeed, re Josephus, Philip did not rule Jerusalem. If, as I think, the gospel writers have used this historical figure in the creation of their composite Jesus figure, then Philip might well have been to them a Joseph type messianic figure. It is in the territory of Philip that the gospel writers place a part of their Jesus ministry. Both historical figures, Antigonus and Philip, could be viewed, by the gospel writers, as relevant to a political allegory. Both historical figures impacted the lives of their contemporaries in a manner that no apocalyptic preacher could possibly do.
‘’What do we have in common with an iilliterate Jewish peasant who thought he was the Messiah and expected the imminent Kingdom of God?’’
Nothing – the gospel figure, in a historical context, is meaningless. In contrast; in Antigonus we have a Jewish King and High Priest endeavoring to remove Roman occupation from the Jewish people. In Philip we have a ruler with humanitarian concerns. Two historical figures, a ‘man of war’ and a ‘man of peace’, whose lives contributed to the paradox that is the gospel figure of Jesus.
The book of Acts tell us that Christians were first called by that name in Antioch – the city where Antigonus was executed/crucified by Rome.
The gospel of John tells us that the early disciples of Jesus came from Bethsaida – the village/town in which Philip died.
Coincidence? Or is the NT simply acknowledging, by use of these two places, that it’s Jesus figure has been created from the lives of the two historical figures who died in these places?
The Jesus of history is certainly irrelevant to today, no less than Judas the Galilean or Theudas are irrelevant. But the Jesus of faith is certainly revelant, seeing as how almost half of humanity seems to think he’s relevant. As an atheist myself, the Jesus of faith holds no power over me, but I must still contend with him because I’m literally surrounded by people who value him. The Jesus of history, on the other hand, fascinates me to no end, because he’s arguably the greatest salesman of all time. He founded the largest social movement in human history, whether intentionally or not, and his ability to transform, chameleon-like, from the Jesus of history to the Jesus of faith displays a clear genius. I disagree with Dr. Ehrman on this point in particular. I don’t think Jesus was illiterate. I don’t think he spent his entire life in Galilee. I think Jesus spent time with other preachers and prophets. I think he learned to read and that he read the Bible in Hebrew. I think Jesus was exceptionally autodidactic, to the point where he could even feign humility so as to make his wisdom appear God-given. I think Jesus was the greatest religious huckster of all time (possibly tied with Muhammed). And in that sense, I think the Jesus of history is far more relevant to today’s world, but only insofar as the vast majority of humanity believes the Jesus of faith is actually the Jesus of history.
talmoore said
The Jesus of history is certainly irrelevant to today, no less than Judas the Galilean or Theudas are irrelevant. But the Jesus of faith is certainly revelant, seeing as how almost half of humanity seems to think he’s relevant. As an atheist myself, the Jesus of faith holds no power over me, but I must still contend with him because I’m literally surrounded by people who value him. The Jesus of history, on the other hand, fascinates me to no end, because he’s arguably the greatest salesman of all time. He founded the largest social movement in human history, whether intentionally or not, and his ability to transform, chameleon-like, from the Jesus of history to the Jesus of faith displays a clear genius. I disagree with Dr. Ehrman on this point in particular. I don’t think Jesus was illiterate. I don’t think he spent his entire life in Galilee. I think Jesus spent time with other preachers and prophets. I think he learned to read and that he read the Bible in Hebrew. I think Jesus was exceptionally autodidactic, to the point where he could even feign humility so as to make his wisdom appear God-given. I think Jesus was the greatest religious huckster of all time (possibly tied with Muhammed). And in that sense, I think the Jesus of history is far more relevant to today’s world, but only insofar as the vast majority of humanity believes the Jesus of faith is actually the Jesus of history.
Yep, like Judas the Galilean and Theudas, the gospel Jesus is irrelevant to history. Why? Because like them there is no historical evidence for his historicity. Just because a figure is in a written source does not confirm historicity. Sure, someone could have lived but to claim historicity for a person requires more than a name in a document. It’s not the nobodies that are remembered. It’s the lives of people who made a social/political impact upon the lives of their contemporaries. Two thousand years ago that would be people who were in a position to do so – not the nobodies. The famous nobodies are a modern phenomenon with the internet, media and TV allowing them their 15 mins of fame. Talk, as they say, is cheap – however great the orator. It’s when words are translated into action that they begin to live – either for good or for bad.
Which brings this back to your point about the Jesus of faith. People believe all sorts of things – good and bad. Belief in a Jesus of faith does not necessarily bring with it a humanitarian world. We only have to look back in Christian history to demonstrate that…..In our modern world the Jesus of faith has become a good luck charm – just in case one needs support from an invisible friend now and again…
I don’t have the negative view of early Christian history that your post reflects. I think the gospel writers were intellectually brilliant. It’s only when one imposes historicity on the Jesus of their story that one encounters all the difficulties that modern scholarship faces. Remove notions of historicity and one can admire the creative brilliance of their story. As history the NT story is illogical, contradictory and anti-humanitarian. As a political allegory the gospel story reflects humanitarian concerns that touch us all….freedom from oppression and care for our fellow man.
Stephen said
In his latest book Prof Ehrman has made an interesting case that at least some of the disciples must have had post-mortem visions of Jesus that were interpreted as resurrection appearances. (I waffle on this only because of psychological studies like Leon Festinger’s When Prophecy Fails and the example of the Millerites which show that communities faced with dashed hopes and failed expectations can reinvent themselves as enthusiastically as ever.)
Interesting post, Stephen
I think he means that they believed they had some sort of experience that they understood as being experiences of him.
I don’t think this is inconsistent with your Festinger example ( Although I haven’t read the book!) As far as relevance,
well….would we have Ehrman’s books without him? 😉
He is so thouroughly embeded in our identity. I think it was Hegel who argued that Jesus had introduced the princilple of subjective consciousness (eventually becoming the principle underlying the idea of freedom of conscience) I’m not sure that claim would still hold up in terms of what we know, but as Ehrman pointed out, we wouldn’t have had things like the reformation without him. Perhaps, it’s not the historical Jesus who can speak to us, but the Jesus of history; not the guy who probably died on the cross,but the guy who’s identity shaped and was shaped by our history; the lowest of the low rising to world historical signifigance.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)