Mythicists like Price, Doherty, and Carrier discount the gospels as sources of information about the historical Jesus because the pericopes are all just basically guilty of scripture fulfillment. If a pericope has a theological structure, there is no reason to think it goes back to the historical Jesus. For example, Price argues that:
The Withered Hand (Mark 3:1-6)
Mark has borrowed the substance of this scene from the miracle of the Judean prophet of 1 Kings 13:1-7ff (Helms, pp. 90-91). There the prophet confronts King Jeroboam in the Bethel temple and predicts Judean King Josiah’s destruction of the rival altar. For this blasphemy Jeroboam orders his arrest, with surprising results: “the king stretched forth his hand (exeteinen… thn ceira autou) from the altar, saying, ‘Take hold of him!’ and his hand which he stretched forth against him withered (echraqh), and he could not draw it back to himself” (v.4). In Mark, the man is a nobody, but the authorities are nonetheless present in the house of worship and waiting to pounce. The man’s hand is already withered (echrammenhn) when Jesus calls him out. “’Stretch out your hand!’ He stretched it out (thn ceira… eceteinen), and his hand was restored” (Mark 3:5). The anonymous prophet, too, heals the sufferer: “And King Jeroboam said to the man of God, ‘Entreat the Lord your God, and let my hand be restored to me.’ And the man of God entreated the Lord, and he restored the king’s hand to him, and it became as before” (1 Kings 13:6 LXX). Whereas the withering and healing were the aftermath of the villains’ attempt to arrest the prophet in 1 Kings, in Mark it is the healing of the withered hand which makes the villains plot to arrest him: “The Phariseees went out and immediately took council with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him” (3:6).
I have been wondering lately about Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection as being “ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE” in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5:
“3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve (1 Corinthians 15:3-5).”
What does “according to Scripures” mean? Is Paul saying he experienced a vague savior experience of the crucified Christ and subsequently learned the details by reading scripture? Is Paul saying Christ’s death fulfilled scriptures?
We are all familiar with allusions to the Hebrew scriptures in Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ death, but maybe Paul has the same thing in mind even though he doesn’t elaborate. Is this what “according to scripture” means in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5? If Paul interpreted Jesus death in accordance with Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Wisdom of Solomon, this would certainly be “according to scriptures.” But why would Paul say Christ was buried and that he was raised in three days “according to scripture?” Maybe Paul had in mind the story of Jonah. For Matthew it is a symbolic prophecy represented by the three days and three nights that Jonah spent in the stomach of a great fish (Jonah 1:17). Jesus said the only “sign” people would be given would be “the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then proceeded to explain what He was talking about: “for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:38-40). Other scripture possibilities could be from Daniel (the Son of Man figure representing the martyrs and the dying Messiah there) and from the account of Abraham’s “sacrifice” of Isaac (Levenson). Hosea 6:2 speaks of being raised up on the third day, of course.
What was Paul talking about? If Paul is alluding to the Old Testament in his conceptualization of the death and resurrection of Christ, can historical content be derived from it?
The RSV cites Psalm 16:10 as Paul’s “Scriptures” for 1 Cor 15:4: “For thou doest not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” It references Acts 2:31:”[David] foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.”
Usually what we say is that if a section of text serves a theological purpose (such as Old Testament scripture fulfillment), then there is no reason to think it goes back to The Historical Jesus. If Paul is illuminating Jesus death, burial, and resurrection by saying he understands them “according to scripture,” then there is no reason to think that any of it goes back to the historical Jesus.
Any thoughts?
Mythicists like Price, Doherty, and Carrier discount the gospels as sources of information about the historical Jesus because the pericopes are all just basically guilty of scripture fulfillment.
Begs the question.
If a pericope has a theological structure, there is no reason to think it goes back to the historical Jesus.
This assertion doesn’t follow at all. When you understand why you’ll understand the fundamental fallacy of mythicism.
Lawyerskeptic said
john76 said
What does “according to Scriptures” mean?That might be a good question to ask Prof. Ehrman. Would understanding the original Hebrew help answer your question?
It either means “Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection fulfilled scripture” or that Paul “learned about them from an allegorical reading of the Hebrew scripture.” If it is the latter then Jesus never existed.
john76 said
Lawyerskeptic said
john76 said
What does “according to Scriptures” mean?That might be a good question to ask Prof. Ehrman. Would understanding the original Hebrew help answer your question?
It either means “Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection fulfilled scripture” or that Paul “learned about them from an allegorical reading of the Hebrew scripture.” If it is the latter then Jesus never existed.
And would knowing Hebrew help you no which is right?
Lawyerskeptic said
john76 said
Lawyerskeptic said
john76 said
What does “according to Scriptures” mean?That might be a good question to ask Prof. Ehrman. Would understanding the original Hebrew help answer your question?
It either means “Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection fulfilled scripture” or that Paul “learned about them from an allegorical reading of the Hebrew scripture.” If it is the latter then Jesus never existed.
And would knowing Hebrew help you no which is right?
Knowledge of the Greek in the Septuagint maybe. lol
None of the Gospels writers has actually known Jesus personally. It is all based on ‘Hearsay’. The copy of the copy of the copy of …’Hearsay’ is definitely no proof that the report is factual.
Any mention of “Christians” by Josephus could have been added because Josephus was under Roman control.
What I find astonishing is that there are no Jewish contemporary writings about the Jesus episode. If there was a Jesus and if he had had any sort of impact on part of the Jewish population, it would most certainly have been discussed and documented. At the very least, some Rabbi would have written to another rabbi to inform him of what is happening in Jerusalem. I have not found any trace of any discussion among Jews concerning any event relative to this period’s events. In fact, if Jesus had preached to 1000’s it seems inconceivable there was not one person attending his sermons who would write to some friends or relatives telling them about it.
From the Jewish point of view, Jesus could not possibly have been ‘interesting’ or ‘important’ or even ‘significant in any way. It is only the so-called Gospels who say that he was. Is this not strange?
Even stranger : The town of Nazareth … did not exist ! There was a Roman census at the time, it included all cities and villages but made no mention of Nazareth existing at the begining of 1st c CE. How come ?
john76 said
‘What does “according to Scriptures” mean?’
All of the answers offered seem plausible. I have another: “according to the scriptures” might mean, “consistent with the scriptures.” Paul may have simply been asserting that there was nothing in the Tanakh that would make believing his gospel un-Jewish.
Lef wrote
None of the Gospels writers has actually known Jesus personally. It is all based on ‘Hearsay’. The copy of the copy of the copy of …’Hearsay’ is definitely no proof that the report is factual.
Any mention of “Christians” by Josephus could have been added because Josephus was under Roman control.
It’s doubtful the Romans would be interested in a pro-Christian interpolation. The general scholarly view is that the references to Jesus are either a partial or complete interpolation by Christians.
What I find astonishing is that there are no Jewish contemporary writings about the Jesus episode. If there was a Jesus and if he had had any sort of impact on part of the Jewish population, it would most certainly have been discussed and documented. At the very least, some Rabbi would have written to another rabbi to inform him of what is happening in Jerusalem. I have not found any trace of any discussion among Jews concerning any event relative to this period’s events. In fact, if Jesus had preached to 1000’s it seems inconceivable there was not one person attending his sermons who would write to some friends or relatives telling them about it.
Why? Jesus was probably an illiterate preaching to other illiterates. He may have had as few as a hundred followers. I suspect the gospel writers greatly exaggerated his influence. Josephus seems to regard John the Baptist as the more important figure. But ask yourself, in this age of near universal literacy and almost instant communications, how many ministers do you know with a hundred parishioners or less within a hundred miles of where you live?
From the Jewish point of view, Jesus could not possibly have been ‘interesting’ or ‘important’ or even ‘significant in any way. It is only the so-called Gospels who say that he was. Is this not strange?
Not really. The gospels were written by believers.
You’d better go tell the the Israel Antiquities Authority. They think they’ve been excavating first century Palestine for years.
SidDhartha1953 said
john76 said
‘What does “according to Scriptures” mean?’All of the answers offered seem plausible. I have another: “according to the scriptures” might mean, “consistent with the scriptures.” Paul may have simply been asserting that there was nothing in the Tanakh that would make believing his gospel un-Jewish.
Yes, and scriptures being the Law and the Prophets writings.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)