Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

[outhouse]

Aspects of Wikipedia relating to Christian beliefs is heavily monitored and favorably-edited by Christian apologists.

Your factually in error again, to the point of your reply being nonsense.

The person who write the historical Jesus page is a friend of mine who is very balanced, and the most well read person I know on the topic.

[outhouse]

I'd say most scholars would, foremost, hold that the Gospels are historical documents.

You need a class on this topic. The error of your statement are in details and context. And you provided none.


Scholars claim these are theological documents that have to be studied to determine historicity.


The first thing you will be taught by a good professor is that history is gone, and that moment in time cannot every be fully recovered. They also state not to trust them and to question everything.

[outhouse]

This is the current state of study on this topic.

Nonetheless, despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Exactly. Notice that the grounds for this "considered" view is "almost all modern scholars consider" it so. Not all. "Almost all" -- whatever that assertion means or however it is determined. That is, the authority opinion of the guild decides what is "historical fact".

If pushed, I presume most scholars who hold this view would say the criterion of embarrassment is the primary reason for their conclusion. If pushed slightly further many would even admit that that criterion is logically flawed -- as has been the point of several in depth scholarly publications.

In other words, there are no grounds for, say, the baptism of Jesus by John being historical apart from logically flawed criteria.

On the contrary, a number of scholars have published the evidence that the baptism of Jesus story has its origins in the literary and theological creativity of the author of the first gospel. I know of no publications that have exposed how these arguments are invalid or erroneous. I might be wrong but I suspect they are ignored as curiosities. If they were taken seriously, and if the fallacious nature of the criteriology approach is also taken seriously, there would be no grounds at all for the claim that Jesus was historically baptized by John.

Ditto for the crucifixion. The first time this datum appears in the record it is not presented as a historical detail but as a theological "fact". A theological claim that must be accepted by faith. That's not how one argues for a historical reality. Then again in the gospel narratives the depiction is entirely of a theological nature padded out with theologically interpreted scriptures inspired by beliefs in the atoning power of the blood of the Maccabean martyrs (Williams 2010) and Isaac (Levenson 1993).

The earliest evidence of which I am aware of a claim that Jesus was crucified is in the Philippian hymn. The line referencing the crucifixion in that hymn has been identified by several commentators as something added (by Paul?) to the original since it breaks the rhythm of the other lines. Q is another gospel (if we accept Q) that was devoid of a Christ Crucified theology. (Other gospels here.)

Paul opposed other gospels that appear to have taught a Christ of power, not weakness -- e.g. the Christ we find in Revelation. If the Gospel of Mark is dramatizing the theology of Paul he is likewise protesting against this pre-Pauline gospel of a Christ of Power as opposed from a Christ of weakness via crucifixion.

On the other hand Paul declares that his gospel was not dissimilar from that of the Jerusalem Pillars so this leads us to conclude that those Pillars likewise taught a gospel of Christ crucified. Unfortunately the evidence is not bedrock stable. Warner (1951) and Parvus (2014) have argued that an examination of Galatians leads us to suspect that this claim of unanimity was the work of a proto-orthodox redactor. Such claims cannot be lightly dismissed given all we know of interpolations in ancient (Classical) literature generally and in early Christian writings in particular.

Couchoud (1939) and others(?) have also argued that the basis of Paul's gospel was his own personal experience of suffering.

On the other hand, we do have indications that there were strands of Second Temple Judaism that did believe in a future messiah (not necessarily a sole messiah) to die, probably by means of piercing somehow. If so, then we probably have to think of Paul being influenced by such beliefs.

Thanks for the quality reply Neil. There some good stuff in there I did not know. Of course I do not agree with the claimed logically flawed criteria.

And the theological aspect do nothing to show that Paul created the whole movement that would be Christianity.

[ficino]

Aspects of Wikipedia relating to Christian beliefs is heavily monitored and favorably-edited by Christian apologists.

Your factually in error again, to the point of your reply being nonsense.

The person who write the historical Jesus page is a friend of mine who is very balanced, and the most well read person I know on the topic.

Your friend may want to update some things. I didn't see mention of Carrier there, though Doherty is mentioned. Dale Allison is now at Princeton.

[outhouse]

. I didn't see mention of Carrier there, .

Because that clown has nothing to do with Jesus historicity.

Check the mythicist section in other areas, he is mentioned.

[neilgodfrey]

Thanks for the quality reply Neil. There some good stuff in there I did not know. Of course I do not agree with the claimed logically flawed criteria.

There is a general trend in the scholarship over recent years to be critical of the criteria approach and the validity of the criteria themselves. Scholars who still use them very often admit they are flawed but continue to use them because they know of no other tool to replace them. Some even admit their methods are circular -- and even they excuse this approach because they have nothing else!

I cannot imagine any serious historian using such methods anywhere else.

There is an alternative: that is, do history the way other historians do it. Don't try to manufacture "facts" by logically flawed criteria. No-one uses that method to prove Caesar crossed the Rubicon. But that's the only method scholars have and use to "create" so-called facts about Jesus.

Of course by doing history normally scholars would suddenly find most of the "facts" they currently use as their foundation simply vanish. But that's not a problem. That would be real progress. We would then be left with the actual evidence to study afresh and be forced to work with testable hypotheses instead of ideologically grounded myths posing as facts.

[maryhelena]

On the other hand, we do have indications that there were strands of Second Temple Judaism that did believe in a future messiah (not necessarily a sole messiah) to die, probably by means of piercing somehow. If so, then we probably have to think of Paul being influenced by such beliefs.

I remember not long ago there was a lot of controversy about the Vision of Gabriel inscription. I think some said that the guy who publicized it had misread some of the letters; others said the evidence for a suffering Messiah in literary Jewish sources was later and had been infected by Christianity (as in this blog:

http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2008 ... ssiah.html )

Neil, do you know how things have played out about the inscription, and do you have other "indications" in mind when you mention them in the sentences quoted above?

Have a look at this link:

The Vision of Gabriel and Messiah in Mainstream Judaism and in Christinaity: Textual, Philological, and Theological Comments

http://victorsasson.blogspot.co.uk/2009 ... ah-in.html

[Bingo]

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Corinthians_2

Joe,

What do you think of Stuart Waugh’s analysis of 1 Corinthians?

http://www.radikalkritik.de/1CoMR_Waugh.pdf
http://www.radikalkritik.de/1CoKR_Waugh.pdf

[outhouse]

Thanks for the quality reply Neil. There some good stuff in there I did not know. Of course I do not agree with the claimed logically flawed criteria.

There is a general trend in the scholarship over recent years to be critical of the criteria approach and the validity of the criteria themselves. Scholars who still use them very often admit they are flawed but continue to use them because they know of no other tool to replace them. Some even admit their methods are circular -- and even they excuse this approach because they have nothing else!

I cannot imagine any serious historian using such methods anywhere else.

The thing is, many areas of history don't even use methods that go into such details, and no one questions the historicity. Because this is so sensitive, popular and controversial, extra methods are used to do the best we can.

The criteria is not fool proof and the criticism has some merit to it, but not in all cases. Context and details are key, and the criteria can be used doing good quality work.

The problem is not the criteria as much as it is, how it is used, and by who. It is not used as much to prove a HJ existed, it is used to try and flesh out details of his life to add to what is known. I will grant that it is all done under the assumption the man exist, and it should until something better then a martyred Galilean that took over Johns movement that got himself killed at Passover.

[outhouse]

Either Paul started the mythology, or he did not.

And no one with any credibility states Paul started it all.


There is zero evidence in support of Paul starting the crucifixion legends, just because he is our oldest source.