Actually I think the historical Jesus stands clear for all to see even if his story has been layered in myth.
Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
-Mark 1:14-15
Jesus was a disciple of John who took out on his own when John was killed. He taught a widely held apocalyptic messianic message about the coming kingdom of god. He ran afoul of the authorities and was crucified for his trouble. His followers carried on and a Jewish messianic sect became a popular gentile mystery religion when it attracted them to the movement. As unsexy as it might be to all the conspiracy buffs and the myth salesmen I think this kernel of truth is as historical as anything in ancient history. It’s the simplest explanation that fits the criteria we know. It doesn’t require any ad hoc theories or idiosyncratic interpretations of scripture. Consequently it’s the explanation most favored by the overwhelming majority of scholars and historians who know the field best.
Stephen said
Actually I think the historical Jesus stands clear for all to see even if his story has been layered in myth.
Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
-Mark 1:14-15
Jesus was a disciple of John who took out on his own when John was killed. He taught a widely held apocalyptic messianic message about the coming kingdom of god. He ran afoul of the authorities and was crucified for his trouble. His followers carried on and a Jewish messianic sect became a popular gentile mystery religion when it attracted them to the movement. As unsexy as it might be to all the conspiracy buffs and the myth salesmen I think this kernel of truth is as historical as anything in ancient history. It’s the simplest explanation that fits the criteria we know. It doesn’t require any ad hoc theories or idiosyncratic interpretations of scripture. Consequently it’s the explanation most favored by the overwhelming majority of scholars and historians who know the field best.
To take one example, there is no reason to think there is any historical truth about the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist. The narrative at this point is scripture fulfillment: Mark says “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ ; as it is written in the prophets.” Mark immediately interprets John the Baptist as a forerunner of the Messiah (a la Elijah in II Kings 1:8). Mark then clothes John similar to Elijah (Mark 1:6. II Kings 1:8.) He then says John ate locusts and wild honey,the food of the wildernes in which Elijah lived (and so on and so on).
I explained above why the crucifixion is scripture fulfillment.
john76 said
Stephen said
Actually I think the historical Jesus stands clear for all to see even if his story has been layered in myth.
Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
-Mark 1:14-15
Jesus was a disciple of John who took out on his own when John was killed. He taught a widely held apocalyptic messianic message about the coming kingdom of god. He ran afoul of the authorities and was crucified for his trouble. His followers carried on and a Jewish messianic sect became a popular gentile mystery religion when it attracted them to the movement. As unsexy as it might be to all the conspiracy buffs and the myth salesmen I think this kernel of truth is as historical as anything in ancient history. It’s the simplest explanation that fits the criteria we know. It doesn’t require any ad hoc theories or idiosyncratic interpretations of scripture. Consequently it’s the explanation most favored by the overwhelming majority of scholars and historians who know the field best.
To take one example, there is no reason to think there is any historical truth about the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist. The narrative at this point is scripture fulfillment: Mark says “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ ; as it is written in the prophets.” Mark immediately interprets John the Baptist as a forerunner of the Messiah (a la Elijah in II Kings 1:8). Mark then clothes John similar to Elijah (Mark 1:6. II Kings 1:8.) He then says John ate locusts and wild honey,the food of the wildernes in which Elijah lived (and so on and so on).
I explained above why the crucifixion is scripture fulfillment.
Further, as Price points out, the heavenly voice at the baptism (bath qol) speaks a conflation of three scriptural passages. “You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11) combines bits and pieces of Psalm 2:7, the divine coronation decree, “You are my son. Today I have begotten you;” Isaiah 42:1, the blessing on the returning Exiles, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights;” and Genesis 22:12 (LXX), where the heavenly voices bids Abraham to sacrifice his “beloved son.” And as William R. Stegner points out, Mark may have in mind a Targumic tradition whereby Isaac, bound on the altar, looks up into heaven and sees the heavens opened with angels and the Shekinah of God, a voice proclaiming, “Behold, two chosen ones, etc.” There is even the note that the willingness of Isaac to be slain may serve to atone for Israel’s sins. Here is abundant symbolism making Jesus king, servant, and atoning sacrifice.
In view of parallels I mentioned above between John and Jesus on the one hand and Elijah and Elisha on the other, Miller, also sees in the Jordan baptism and the endowment with the spirit a repetition of 2 Kings 2, where, near the Jordan, Elijah bequeaths a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior.
john76 says
…there is no reason to think there is any historical truth about the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist…
Then why is John in the story at all? Remember if they’re making it all up the story can be anything they want it to be. You could lop off the entire John episode and it wouldn’t affect the rest of the narrative at all. Why include the John baptising Jesus episode (indicating that at least at some point John was Jesus’ superior) at all unless you had an incontrovertible historical tradition that Jesus was associated and even got his start with the ministry of John? John’s in there because he has to be in there.
…as Price points out, the heavenly voice at the baptism (bath qol) speaks a conflation of three scriptural passages.
But so what? Did you think that Mark was working from a transcript of the conversation? Just like the example of Psalm 22, Mark is using his tradition to interpret the story. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the Historicist position is that there is a kernel of historical truth behind every story. Of course a lot of it was constructed and created. But just because there was no walking on the water doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist. The Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith are two separate things. The Jesus of history is merely one component in the creation of the Jesus of faith. But the Jesus of faith has as it’s foundation the Jesus of history.
…Mark may have in mind…
We have no access to the motivations of the author of the first gospel. All we have is the text.
Stephen wrote:
The Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith are two separate things. The Jesus of history is merely one component in the creation of the Jesus of faith. But the Jesus of faith has as it’s foundation the Jesus of history.
————————–
Let me reword that for you:
History and the Jesus of faith are two seperate things.
History is merely one component in the creation of the Jesus of faith. But the Jesus of faith has it’s foundation in history.
With this rewording the emphasis is placed on history not on assumptions of history. And that, I would suggest, is a far better approach when searching for early christian origins. Once one takes an assumption as history and begins to create a ‘historical’ scenario, one has lost the plot – so to speak….
One builds possible historical scenarios on history, history as far as it is known. Any other approach in searching for early christian origins, whether that of the Jesus historicists or the Doherty/Carrier mythicists, is building on sand. Neither has a historical foundation able to withstand a flood of criticism.
Stephen said
john76 says…there is no reason to think there is any historical truth about the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist…
Then why is John in the story at all? Remember if they’re making it all up the story can be anything they want it to be. You could lop off the entire John episode and it wouldn’t affect the rest of the narrative at all. Why include the John baptising Jesus episode (indicating that at least at some point John was Jesus’ superior) at all unless you had an incontrovertible historical tradition that Jesus was associated and even got his start with the ministry of John? John’s in there because he has to be in there.
…as Price points out, the heavenly voice at the baptism (bath qol) speaks a conflation of three scriptural passages.
But so what? Did you think that Mark was working from a transcript of the conversation? Just like the example of Psalm 22, Mark is using his tradition to interpret the story. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the Historicist position is that there is a kernel of historical truth behind every story. Of course a lot of it was constructed and created. But just because there was no walking on the water doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist. The Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith are two separate things. The Jesus of history is merely one component in the creation of the Jesus of faith. But the Jesus of faith has as it’s foundation the Jesus of history.
…Mark may have in mind…
We have no access to the motivations of the author of the first gospel. All we have is the text.
You will be hard pressed to find any historical material in the John the Baptist pericopes. This becomes even more pronounced if we compare the John the Baptist stories to Greek literary models. For instance, as Price points out:
Dr. Dennis MacDonald of Claremont University shows how the story of John the Baptist’s martyrdom matches in all essentials the Odyssey’s story of the murder of Agamemnon (3:254-308: 4:512-547; 11:404-434), even to the point that both are told in the form of an analepsis or flashback. Herodias, like Queen Clytemnestra, left her husband, preferring his cousin: Antipas in the one case, Aegisthus in the other. This tryst was threatened, in Clytemnestra’s case, by the return of her husband from the Trojan War, in Herodias’, by the denunciations of John. In both cases, the wicked adulteress plots the death of the nuisance. Aegisthus hosted a banquet to celebrate Agamemnon’s return, just as Herod hosted a feast. During the festivities Agamemnon is slain, sprawling amid the dinner plates, and the Baptizer is beheaded, his head displayed on a serving platter. Homer foreshadows danger awaiting the returning Odysseus with the story of Agamemnon’s murder, while Mark anticipates Jesus’ own martyrdom with that of John. The only outstanding difference, of course, is that in Mark’s version, the role of Agamemnon has been split between Herodias’ rightful husband (Philip according to Mark; another Herod according to Josephus) and John the Baptizer. So, there is no reason to think there is any historical material here in the story of the martyrdom of John The Baptist.
Why do you think it’s so hard to explain why John The Baptist makes an appearance in historical fiction? Would it be odd if Abraham Lincoln made an appearance in a piece of historical fiction about the civil war?
You will be hard pressed to find any historical material in the John the Baptist pericopes.
Thou sayest it.
Why do you think it’s so hard to explain why John The Baptist makes an appearance in historical fiction?
Begs the question. But are you saying that Mark can make up stories about historical figures like John or Herod but can’t about Jesus?
john76 said
the story of John the Baptist’s martyrdom matches in all essentials the Odyssey’s story of the murder of Agamemnon (3:254-308: 4:512-547; 11:404-434), even to the point that both are told in the form of an analepsis or flashback
What’s your point, John? If people chose to tell stories about John the Baptist in terms of the murder of Agamemnon, does that mean John the Baptist didn’t exist; that there weren’t similarities, even substantial similarities in their stories? I don’t see how you get from mimetic techniques to any sort of mythicism.
Consider that modern conservatives look up to Ronald Reagan and often cast other politicians they look up to in terms of how that person is like Reagan. If you’d like you can also go back a few years to the presidential candidacy of John Kerry and see the same tendency in the way democrats referred to John F Kerry ( an obvious allusion to Kennedy) So should we conclude Kerry didn’t exist? Was he was a literary invention?
Stephen said
You will be hard pressed to find any historical material in the John the Baptist pericopes.Thou sayest it.
Took me a few minutes to catch that. Amusing!
Why do you think it’s so hard to explain why John The Baptist makes an appearance in historical fiction?
Begs the question.
Does John76 realize the glaring problem with characterizing Mark as historical fiction, precisely when that is what is in question?
This becomes even more pronounced if we compare the John the Baptist stories to Greek literary models.
Why would such a comparison be appropriate? I don’t see how this would necessarily lead one to think Gmark contains no history. In fact, the very definition of mimesis is “representation or imitation of the real world in art and literature.” So I don’t see why it would necessarily be “so hard to explain” Even on the odd chance Mark is entirely a work of historical fiction, it doesn’t mean the character of John isn’t a representation or imitation of a real world person. It seems that the very comparison John76 suggests, leads to the conclusion that John the Baptist would most likely be a real person.Fortunately, Stephen your own arguments here tend to increase that likelihood considerably.
Does John76 also think Shakespeare was a historian or does he think Julius Caesar didn’t exist?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)