New book on the Jesus from the remote past

[Giuseppe]

https://wipfandstock.com/9781666750843/ ... -nazarene/

I am skeptical about a such Jesus. The view assumes that Jesus was transposed under Pilate only because it is already assumed in advance that Paul was a contemporary of Pilate. Hence this new book would be interesting only if it gives new reasons to think so.

I am increasingly persuaded that, between the three Mythicist options:

• A) Jesus crucified in heaven, later euhemerized

• B) Jesus amalgam of many failed pre-70 figures

• C) Jesus lived in the remote past

...only the scenario (B) is more probable, for the simple reason that we have solid 100% evidence, in Josephus, of the existence of historical models for the fabrication of the composite figure who is the Gospel Jesus.

As to scenario (A) and scenario (C), they cease to be probable in the moment itself you start to doubt about the authenticity of all the pauline epistles, since you have not more solid evidence of what has to work, under the assumed scenario, as the basic piece of the puzzle.

[davidmartin]

One can doubt the Pauline epistles but the history of the 'Pauline gospel' found in the epistles still tells the story
Which is, the Pauline gospel message comes along later than whatever came prior - on the basis that Jesus revealed it to them, thus it must be believed
All other Christians are 'unbelievers' (that is, unbelievers in the Pauline gospel message)
Since the Pauline gospel is revealed 'from heaven' it could in theory work without there being any prior movement (or even an earthly Jesus) - but the evidence of the epistles and other texts is that there was a prior movement but the new revelation was supposed to replace all that
I just found another early 2nd century text that tells the same story of the Pauline gospel's introduction (ie, that it was recently revealed and not passed down from any other apostles)

[Giuseppe]

but the evidence of the epistles and other texts is that there was a prior movement but the new revelation was supposed to replace all that

ok, but in the case of a pre-70 Paul, the existence of the prior movement doesn't imply the prior existence of earthly stories about Jesus (at contrary, it is denied!), while in the case of a post-70 Paul, the existence of the prior moviment implies the prior existence of earthly stories about Jesus.

[davidmartin]

yes, this is the reason i'm focusing on beliefs rather than earthly stories about Jesus!
it's easier to plot how the beliefs changed and posit earlier beliefs. in the case of Paul i think there's substantial indication he (or this faction) comes in later with stuff that's new and unwelcome. the question is, what was it like before and did it feature an earthly Jesus in starring role?

but what if the earlier concept didn't focus on the earthly Jesus much either? If it's 'The Word' incarnating in a man. maybe there just isn't these gospel type stories originally? maybe he was always preached mythically which does not mean there was no Jesus per se, just can't much see evidence for 'gospel' type stories in the earliest layer. any such stories would probably have had mythical elements drawn from Judaism and Paganism?

[Giuseppe]

I have read the parts of the book of particular interest to me (why the pseudo-chronology under Pilate, if the Talmud knows Pilate).

In whiletime, I have to recognize that Andrew Jordan writes very well! HIs case is surely the more honest case of reductio ad Judaeum to my knowledge. It surely is a challenge to the historicist case that takes the following ridicolous form:

• Jesus was a 100% Jew.

• Therefore Jesus existed under Pilate.

When Jordan writes:

The Talmud is often considered to be too old to provide any reliable information about the historical Jesus, but this relies on faulty logic, that “older equals better.” This is not necessarily the case, but is often assumed to be so. It also discredits oral tradition and cultures that have a strong oral history, such as the case was with the Jews of the 1st century CE

Jordan, A. . Jesus the Nazarene: The Talmud and the Founder of Christianity (p.210, my bold)

...it is surely an intelligent way to confute the Christian apologetics by retorting against it the same claim "Oral tradition is important!", usually raised by the apologists against the mythicists.


As I had predicted, Jordan explains the pseudo-chronology under Pilate by appealing to a Paul considered historical (and lived under Pilate), just as, before Jordan, has been made by Stromholm and Ellegard:

Given that the Gospels are mostly not historical documents and meant to give a historical context to Paul’s gospel, I think it is more likely that they reveal traits about Jesus’ later followers in the first century CE. However, it is not impossible to see some traces of memories related to the historical Jesus the Nazarene

Jordan, A. . Jesus the Nazarene: The Talmud and the Founder of Christianity (p.122, my bold)


Also for Jordan, as for all the mythicists, the Josephian dating of John the Baptist is pivotal for the pseudo-chronology under Pilate:

The memory of Jesus having a teacher is the origin of the stories of John the Baptist in the Gospels, which are reworked to fit the Gospel writers’ chronology. Mark, writing after 70 CE, knew that Jesus came “before” him. He sought to put the birth of Jesus seventy years before the destruction of the Temple.

(p. 59, my bold)

The claim that 70 - 40 = 30 CE hence 'Pilate' appears to be dubious to me. But since there are late talmudic sources that insist on the happenings of anomalous prodigia in the 30 CE in virtue of the same reason (i.e.: that 70 - 40 = 30), then there is no wonder that Jordan, rigorously faithful to his logic of Reductio ad Judaeum, explains in the same way the fabrication of the pseudo-chronology under Pilate.

Important thing: the Talmud doesn't know Pilate. The only possible reference to him is really vanishing: the mention of "Pinehas".


Note of merit:
I don't know if I have to replace an enigma (Pilate) with another enigma (Janneus). I find the Amalgam Theory more persuasive against the only other two serious reconstructions: the Outer Space Theory and the Talmudic Theory (=the Jordan's view). But if someone has to persuade me that really Paul lived before the 70 CE, then I have to concede that the Outer Space Theory and the Talmudic Theory are more persuasive than the Amalgam Theory (the latter makes sense only under the hypothesis of post-70 Origins).




Some criticisms:

• In the bibliography I don't see mention of Stromholm. The authenticity of the pauline epistles is given as a brute fact.

• Reference is given to the possibility of a lost Hebrew Gospel. Howard is mentioned. But not Bernard Dubourg. Very bad!

[outhouse]

Andrew. I would ignore Josen or Giuseppe, and his review. After 10 years of knowing his work. He is one of the last mythcist I would trust as far as an academic opinion. He refuses everything academic and is a typical mythcist. The only reason he is replying, is because you are deviating from academia. Something he loves.

The Talmud is often considered to be too old to provide any reliable information about the historical Jesus, but this relies on faulty logic, that “older equals better.” This is not necessarily the case, but is often assumed to be so. It also discredits oral tradition and cultures that have a strong oral history, such as the case was with the Jews of the 1st century CE

Its not just the age, which is a huge part of the reason. But much of the text is polemic against Christians when mentioning Jesus. The reason it is not faulty logic, is that there has been very little to nothing of value in this late text, after extensive study. It does not discredit in any way the possible oral tradition. The Talmud gives us a very specific lens to view how the rebuilt Jews of the early third century viewed Christians. Much the same way Josephus has to be viewed from a pro Hellenistic and pro Roman lens. You cannot read the text literally where you want to pull evidence from. Nor can you throw the baby out with the bathwater. The text has to be studied to determine the value of said traditions being studied, to verify it does not only reflect early third century polemic.


Given that the Gospels are mostly not historical documents and meant to give a historical context to Paul’s gospel

Full stop wrong. That is one huge assumption. First of all. You would need to explain how many of Pauls letters were collected as a corpus in 15 years before Mark started being circulated. Now if you could show the Markan narrative came from a city/polis where one of the 7 Pauline traditions were written. You might have something. There are good reasons for and against a Pauline connection to the community that produced the Markan narrative. But certainty in this field of study on this topic is not settled.

The Markan narrative was a product of the war. While it is possible they were layering on top of the Pauline narrative to dress it up as you say. How much and exactly where, is what is important. A general statement like yours does not apply.


The memory of Jesus having a teacher is the origin of the stories of John the Baptist in the Gospels

Not really. This is something the gospel authors had to deal with, which is something we see them downplaying in different ways. Fact is John was the popular teacher, he was the famous teacher at this time period. It certainly was not the origin for this tradition. And by all rights Jesus was more than likely Johns best student, and tried to further Johns traditions, after Johns death. There was nothing reworked here.

[Giuseppe]

Andrew. I would ignore Josen or Giuseppe, and his review. After 10 years of knowing his work. He is one of the last mythcist I would trust as far as an academic opinion. He refuses everything academic and is a typical mythcist. The only reason he is replying, is because you are deviating from academia. Something he loves.

I agree with this judgement.

Another author omitted by Jordan: Michael Thomas.

[maryhelena]

I downloaded a sample of this book - the sample ends with this:

A civil war arose between Hyrcanus II and his brother Aristobulus II who wanted the throne. Eventually, Hyrcanus II lost and renounced the kingship, accepting only the office of high priest. After this point in history, the story of the Hasmoneans becomes even more complicated, and beyond the scope of what interests us now. However, what is important to know is that the Hasmoneans were a corrupt ruling class that were often involved with conflict, and who caused immense internal strife for the Jewish People. Their victory under the hands of the Maccabees led directly to the Roman occupation later in the first century BCE. Jesus lived during the time when the Hasmonean dynasty was beginning to wane. He lived in a time of civil war and persecution for his tribe, the Pharisees, and the bloodshed and brutality that he witnessed was the reason he left Palestine for Egypt.

Jordan, A. (2023-04-12T23:58:59.000). Jesus the Nazarene: The Talmud and the Founder of Christianity . Resource Publications, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Goodness, after the civil war, the Hasmonean history becomes complicated and is of no interest....

Oh well, the writer has lost my money...

Anyway - I suppose the writer is at least highlighting the idea that the Jesus story has long roots - way back to the Hasmoneans.....and that should give anyone researching the roots of early christianity pause for thought.