I’m going to throw in my lowly opinion just for honesty sake.
I think Carriers thesis has some strong arguments that throw doubt on the historical Jesus. I don’t think they are decisive, however. One technique that he expounds and I agree should be done more frequently is that you need to go over the evidence in Paul and the early epistles is with BOTH assumptions in view and weigh them against each other at the end. Which view winds up with fitting the evidence the best? I think good cases can be made for both. Any passage that can go both ways is evidence for both views. Those that need the fewest ad hoc reasons should weigh heavier than those that need more. I’ve noticed that both sides make assumptions.
A few points need to always be kept in mind:
Later Christians decided what letters and stories would be transmitted and were probably selected based on the ability to interpret them in the direction desired
Paul wrote many letters that were not preserved and those we have show signs of editing
Even critical scholarship is dominated by Christians. How willing would many of them be to entertain an ahistorical Jesus?
My final thoughts are that there are some passages that sound very much like a celestial Jesus and some that can go either way (brother of the Lord…Paul never mentions any family of Jesus). Both sides make assumptions, often using the Gospels for history. I haven’t declared victory for either side. I think both have strong points and weak ones so I just sit back and enjoy the discussion leaving my mind open to either possibility. Having been raised Orthodox Jew, I can see a celestial Jesus being accepted among some Jews as more likely than an actual man being accepted as divine and I know that religious development is often much more complex than we realize. I really don’t think either side can declare victory.
And if Paul had given just one definitive statement of historicity ie: Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem, Pilate, etc. the game would be over.
And if Paul had given just one definitive statement of historicity ie: Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem, Pilate, etc. the game would be over.
I agree with your comment, but did want to mention that even a definitive statement could be an interpolation.
I am certain you understand this, but it was the first thing I thought of reading the end of your comment.
Rthompsonmdog said
I agree with your comment, but did want to mention that even a definitive statement could be an interpolation.
I am certain you understand this, but it was the first thing I thought of reading the end of your comment.
Of course! But they would also have to have either evidence of interpolation or very good contextual reasons. Carrier tends to not jump to interpolation unless there are several scholarly agreements with him. I really wish he were a more pleasant person and a bit less full of himself. He wrote an excellent thesis on ahistory that should have generated some excellent discussions. Instead he just tends to claim that “they” don’t understand his point and are stupid. Sometimes they are but I’ve seen some serious rebuttals that he just blows off. A shame.
Paul was the master of ambiguity! As for Jesus having a brother, it really doesn’t make sense for Paul to say he met Cephas, the Lord’s brother and none of the other apostles except for James, the Lord’s brother. He seems to be differentiating between Cephas the apostle and James who was not only an apostle but his brother too.
I agree this is one of the strong points for historicity which is why I don’t completely agree with a celestial Jesus. But! Paul never mentions any family of Jesus otherwise and refers to all baptized Christians as brothers leaving ambiguity with the comment. Is he even talking about the leader James? Or just a Christian also with the name James? Common name at the time so I really think it can go either way and isn’t the slam dunk historicitists claim. None of the early epistles mentions a family. Until Mark. I also think it’s odd that both James and Jude’s epistles don’t reference themselves as Jesus brother especially if they were not written by James and Jude. They wanted to use the authority of those names but didn’t claim to be his brother! Not impossible but odd. It’s almost as if no one knew he had brothers until Mark told us. So I think this is one of those passages that can go either way. If Paul had called him the brother of Jesus it wouldn’t be controversial to me. But he doesn’t, he calls him brother of the Lord and often refers to followers as brothers of the Lord. So this doesn’t decide it for me. Like I said, I’m open to the idea.
Have you read Carriers book “On the Historicity of Jesus”? He argues the best case for ahistoricity I have read yet but he also has to make some big assumptions and stretching the meanings of the texts. I just think critical historicists do too, often without realizing how often they have to bring in the Gospels to make their case. I just really enjoy the discussions and how adamant some get over it. Bart included!
When Paul says —“Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”—I’ve wondered if Jesus had more than just one brother involved in the ministry. James Tabor has made several interesting posts regarding James and Jesus’ other brothers. He brings up how Luke doesn’t name any of the brothers in his gospel and barely acknowledges James in Acts. He was majorly into the fandom of Paul, so it’s almost as if he didn’t want to give James credit. Then the gospels have Mary, the mother of James and Joseph at the cross rather than saying Mary, the mother of Jesus. So it could have been James was a half brother.
I have read OHJ, and I agree with your assessment of the book. Some points are good while others get a major thumbs down from me.
I really enjoy Tabor. The only issue I have is that he needs to bring in the Gospels for all his analysis and doesn’t answer the big question about who this James is in Paul. The bringing of wives has the same problem…what exactly does Paul mean by brothers of the Lord? It is ambiguous. Only by bringing in the later Gospels are these questions answered but is it what Paul meant? Undecidable in my view. For all we really know, Mark created this family including James just to answer this. (Pretty weak explanation but possible, not probable).
Another thing Carrier points out is how Jesus’s family drops in and out of the Gospels. Almost like they kinda thought he had a family but really didn’t know much about them and just used them when a point needed to be made. Joseph of Arimathea is another. He shows up, buries Jesus and then disappears completely from that point on. Wouldn’t he have been a bit of a hero for his part and then to never hear about him again? Again, odd. I tend to think he was a fabrication to give Jesus a legal burial because they really had no idea what happened to the body. The disciples believed in the resurrection because of their visions, not some empty tomb, in my view. I think Paul would have mentioned the tomb being empty somewhere in his writings if that was part of the earliest tradition. The empty tomb developed quickly but not before Paul. Just some of my rambling thoughts!
I think Carrier manipulates some of the information in his book. He uses Steve Mason, a Josephan scholar, to make some of his arguments but fails to point out that Mason translates the James passage himself, and there’s no hint that the Jesus in that passage is Jesus ben Damneus. I’ve seen several try to claim it was a different Jesus, but they use a much older translation by Lightfoot which was done in the late 1800s I believe. Not only that, Mason says the passage is authentic. He doesn’t strike me as an apologist either.
I’ve wondered whether or not Josephus wrote about James in the Testimonium Flavianum. I think it’s possible it was a negative account about the early Christian movement where James maybe believed his brother to be resurrected but not as God or preexisting, just minimally acknowledging Jesus being divine-like and very Jewish in nature. This wouldn’t have sat well with the early Church Fathers and spurred the virgin birth narrative accounts. That’s my pet theory anyway!
But I do agree that Paul is difficult to decipher.
I have pet theories too so no apology needed!
I don’t think Josephus wrote anything about Jesus. It’s funny, About 100 years ago scholarship decided the passages were total interpolations which didn’t seem to bother anyone much (except the conservatives). Then Serious scholars seem to realize that it was the only solid evidence outside the N.T. This is also when the first theories of a mystical Jesus started popping up. Then the Coptic (I think it was Coptic) copy showed up with a more “gentle” passage about Jesus. Scholarship then accepted an interpolated passage. Recently, it’s been shown that this is just another translation of Eusebius’s copy so the views may switch again to complete interpolation. I don’t trust Christian scholars to willingly abandon the idea of no mention of Jesus so I’ll just do a wait and see.
If Josephus didn’t write anything about Jesus, the James comment is an interpolation, too. No way Josephus mentions a Christ with NO explanation. He doesn’t do that and no Roman would have any idea what a Christ is. Josephus was writing for Romans. So I just keep my popcorn handy on watching this one play out. If Josephus wrote anything about Jesus, I think it would have been very condemning. He hated the messiah claimants and wrote disparingly of all of them…except Jesus? No way!
Mythicism is particularly vulnerable to Occam’s Razor. Carrier has an answer for everything of course but he doesn’t have any evidence unavailable to anyone else. He simply reinterprets. But he always prefers the more difficult and complicated interpretation. After the third or fourth instance where you read pages and pages of explanation as to why the simpler more straightforward reading of the text is not correct, when do you start suspecting that this effort is being made by someone starting out with a theory and then attempting to make the text fit the theory? Maybe “born of a woman” just means “born of a woman”?
The view of Jesus as a itinerant, apocalyptic preacher who ran afoul of the Romans and whose disciples subsequently told stories abut him, is always going to make the best sense of the material. It places him within a describable context that violates nothing of what we know about the times.
I think Paul’s “made of a woman,” “made under the law” is his way of expressing Jesus’ divinity taking on human form to subject himself to the Law. How did he become human? Through a human birth is the most logical reading to me.
As for Josephus, I would think it strange if he never mentioned Jesus. Even a celestial Jesus had a following, so why wouldn’t he at least mention it and write about its absurdity?
Pattycake1974 sa
As for Josephus, I would think it strange if he never mentioned Jesus. Even a celestial Jesus had a following, so why wouldn’t he at least mention it and write about its absurdity?
Christianity was still very tiny at this time. He had already mentioned several other Messianic movements that were probably a bit larger and from his point of view, Christians may not have even made it to his radar. We don’t even know how many other small schism sects there were simply because he didn’t discuss them and he was the only historian preserved by later scribes. We know there were probably more sects. We know there were other historians with writings and we’re pretty sure they didn’t mention Christians. Oh, to find a pre-Eusebius copy of Josephus!
Stephen, I completely agree that an historical Jesus is the more reasonable scenario. But I also know that religions can develop from a lot less reasonable scenarios. One of the reasons that I don’t totally discard the celestial Jesus scenario is that the Jews were pathologically Monotheists. They would much more reasonably have an angelic savior, read out of scripture (Pesher technique was all the rage) than conclude a man became or was God. Pagans wouldn’t have this problem but Jews really would. So I can envision a celestial being being developed out of Pesher techniques…which later was historisized. Likely? That’s the million dollar question! So, as I’ve said, I just leave the possibility open. I sure don’t insist on it.
Pattylt said
I agree this is one of the strong points for historicity which is why I don’t completely agree with a celestial Jesus. But! Paul never mentions any family of Jesus otherwise and refers to all baptized Christians as brothers leaving ambiguity with the comment. Is he even talking about the leader James? Or just a Christian also with the name James?
Paul mentions a “James” a total of four times. Only once as the “brother of the Lord”. I must admit, I’ve always assumed it’s the same guy. Three out of four times James is just James. But let’s put it into context.
Paul’s Jesus was unequivocally the Son of God. That would make James the brother of the son of God! Now, notice the casual indifference of Paul’s Gal 1:19 reference to the brother of the son of God. You’d expect a consistent recognition of the high status this would bring James, but there is none.
The explanation is actually in Romans 29-30 which states that believers will become brothers of the Lord. The formal title of the rank and file membership would have been “Brothers of the Lord”. The usual salutation was shortened to “brother”.
Yep Tony, no argument from me. The best part of Carriers book, to me, was explaining how when you are deciding between 2 theories is to put yourself into the position of agreeing with each and viewing all the evidence. I guess I am able to do this pretty easily because I can see the case for both sides. I think each side has some weaker evidence and some stronger evidence. That’s what kind of blows my brain a bit. If myth is false, almost nothing should have STRONG evidence for it. Yet myth does. By the same token, historicity has much more weak to strong ratio in it. It shouldn’t look that way either. (all based in Paul only). But I just really don’t care enough to wave the victory flag for either side. I didn’t grow up Christian, only became one for a short period in my early 20’s during a very confusing period of life so I don’t have the vested interest that longtime Christians seem to have. I do enjoy watching you confront Bart… just do it gently (as you have been lately). His fan boys are a bit rabid at times!
Thanks for your quick response Patty. For me, the balance of probabilities favors a celestial Jesus/mythicism. Easy for me to say, because like you, I was not brought up as a Christian. My parents mistakenly (I hope) send me once to Christian summer camp. I was 7-8 – I think. I immediately took to the whole thing and prayed to Jesus throughout the day, but it did not stick.
Also thanks for your views about my blog comments. However, I’ve decided to discontinue my membership, at least for now. I think Bart is becoming tedious – and so am I. I’ll be commenting on that on the blog shortly. Take care.
I’ll be sorry to see you go. I rather enjoyed your confrontations with Bart but I knew he wouldn’t really consider them. His mind is made up and in order to see an alternate view you have to be willing to honestly consider it and leave every preconceived notion behind. It’s extremely hard to do. Carrier can be a bit stubborn on this, too. He gets so frustrated with those that can’t see his points though he does still acknowledge that historicity has its points.
If you ever return I will welcome you back. Thanks for your input on the blogs though I don’t think Godspell will miss you! ????
There is a real paradox here. On the surface the Mythicist position looks provocative but the more you penetrate it the more incoherent it becomes (who exactly invented Jesus and how did that work?). On the other hand the historicist position looks shaky on the surface until you understand how actual historians do their work in analyzing their sources. An interior coherence and logic appears.
One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the techniques and processes used to analyze the Biblical materials is the same as the ones used in the study of all ancient sources. Many YouTube mythicists attack these methodologies when they lead historians to the conclusion that Jesus existed without realizing that their point of view undermines the entire study of ancient history.
The real question is not really “Did Jesus Exist?” The real question is “What is the best explanation for the origins of Christianity?” Given our current source materials and understanding, Jesus the apocalyptic prophet is that best explanation. Magic Space Jesus is too complicated. Entertaining though.
However, the consensus position has been wrong before. So I encourage Carrier to keep at it. But not on YouTube. That’s a waste of time. (It’s exasperating. You can always tell the Youtube mythicists by their myopia and their willingness to comment across wide fields of expertise without understanding any of them. It is indeed very tedious to try to have a discussion with such folks.)
Finally, a note about conspiracy theories. I’ve heard several of the mythicists go there. First it was that all the New Testament scholars were Christians and that’s why they rejected mythicism. Then when it was pointed out that secular historians accept the historicity of Jesus as well it shifted to something like, well they all were raised in a Christian environment or that they were trained in institutions influenced by Christianity so that’s why they can’t accept mythicism. It just can’t be that they looked at the evidence and made up their minds. Noooooo…
Pattycake1974 said
I think Paul’s “made of a woman,” “made under the law” is his way of expressing Jesus’ divinity taking on human form to subject himself to the Law. How did he become human? Through a human birth is the most logical reading to me.
As for Josephus, I would think it strange if he never mentioned Jesus. Even a celestial Jesus had a following, so why wouldn’t he at least mention it and write about its absurdity?
I think Paul simply says that Jesus was born of a Jewish woman. In Judaism, membership passes from the mother, not the father. Paul says that Jesus was born a Jew. In human flesh on earth.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)