Jesus as a Failed Eschatological Prophet

[Blood]

In order to give plausibility to the Jesus as apocalyptic prophet paradigm, we need more than simply the existence of a Jewish sect with some apocalyptic writings or tendencies. We need such a sect venerating as a god-man one of their own that had predicted the apocalypse and been executed.

[ApostateAbe]

In order to give plausibility to the Jesus as apocalyptic prophet paradigm, we need more than simply the existence of a Jewish sect with some apocalyptic writings or tendencies. We need such a sect venerating as a god-man one of their own that had predicted the apocalypse and been executed.

And John the Dipper does not count? I think you may be asking too much for plausibility. Jesus became a god-man seemingly because of a special accident of language--the Jewish "Son of God" was a title applied to human beings, but non-Jews understood it to denote divinity.

[Blood]

Jesus became a god-man seemingly because of a special accident of language--the Jewish "Son of God" was a title applied to human beings, but non-Jews understood it to denote divinity.

Well, again, we don't have any precedent for non-Jews misunderstanding "Son of God" to be taken literally before Jesus. And non-Jews were around Jews and sampled their liturgy and terminology for a long time before Jesus, so there was ample opportunity for such a group to have formed.

[ApostateAbe]

Jesus became a god-man seemingly because of a special accident of language--the Jewish "Son of God" was a title applied to human beings, but non-Jews understood it to denote divinity.

Well, again, we don't have any precedent for non-Jews misunderstanding "Son of God" to be taken literally before Jesus. And non-Jews were around Jews and sampled their liturgy and terminology for a long time before Jesus, so there was ample opportunity for such a group to have formed.

No, it requires a special case of a Jewish cult going from Jews to non-Jews, and not just any such cult but one with the title "Son of God" for its leading figure. Our sample size is very small, here.

[Blood]

In other words, there's no precedent.

[ApostateAbe]

In other words, there's no precedent.

Yeah. With enough specificity, there is no precedent for anything that happens.

[Blood]

Precedent, or lack thereof, is often used in historical Jesus discussions -- but only when it supports historicity.

When someone says that the epistles of Paul give the impression of being fictitious letters attributed to a non-existent author, they're told that there's no precedent for that (even though there is). And that's the end of the argument. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a kook.

But when someone says that there's no precedent for the apotheosis of an apocalyptic prophet, somehow that's irrelevant.

[andrewcriddle]

Precedent, or lack thereof, is often used in historical Jesus discussions -- but only when it supports historicity.

When someone says that the epistles of Paul give the impression of being fictitious letters attributed to a non-existent author, they're told that there's no precedent for that (even though there is). And that's the end of the argument. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a kook.

Can you give me a good precedent for someone attributing something vaguely similar to Paul's epistles to a previously unknown author ?

(Following an exchange in another thread I've recently read the ficitious letters by Aelian and as I suspected they don't resemble Paul's epistles at all.)


Andrew Criddle

[ApostateAbe]

Precedent, or lack thereof, is often used in historical Jesus discussions -- but only when it supports historicity.

When someone says that the epistles of Paul give the impression of being fictitious letters attributed to a non-existent author, they're told that there's no precedent for that (even though there is). And that's the end of the argument. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a kook.

But when someone says that there's no precedent for the apotheosis of an apocalyptic prophet, somehow that's irrelevant.

I think we are right to think about precedent as it relates to hypotheses of the origins of Christianity. The point of "precedent" is plausibility. If it has never happened before, then maybe that is because it isn't plausible, as in: it does not follow easily from the patterns of the world. But, of course with enough specificity and complexity, you can choose any combination of occurrences, and it happened only once ever in history. It would not be good reasoning to say, "There is no precedent for an industrial engineer named Herbert Mason in the town of Sundial, Arkansas. Therefore, he doesn't exist." There is immediate precedent for every component of the model of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, and that is enough to sufficiently serve the criterion of plausibility, in my opinion.

[Blood]

Can you give me a good precedent for someone attributing something vaguely similar to Paul's epistles to a previously unknown author ?

All of the epistles in the NT are attributed to people not known as authors, or known outside of Christian legend. The forgers of these letters clearly had no such requirement as "reputation as a writer" when determining what to write or to whom to attribute.