Jesus as a Failed Eschatological Prophet

[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.

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.

You're saying the criterion of plausibility works right up to the point where you think it stops being plausible, at which point it's irrelevant. This is arbitrary.

[beowulf]

One Ring to rule them all. and one word to answer them all: forgery.

The clever ones say it was Constantine and the strong characters shout LIES LIES LIES.

The educated ones cite Slavonic Josephus...

[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.

You're saying the criterion of plausibility works right up to the point where you think it stops being plausible, at which point it's irrelevant. This is arbitrary.

There are two types of competing explanations for why a claim of an event has never occurred elsewhere. One type of explanation is that the claim itself is improbable to be correct because one or more component does not follow from known patterns. Another type of explanation is that the event is statistically expected to be rare given what we know. For example, it really is extremely rare for there to be an industrial engineer named Herbert Mason in the town of Sundial, Arkansas. Such a thing occurs only once, at most, in all of human history. Still, it is the best explanation for a newspaper article that contains such a report, and that is because there are industrial engineers, there are men named Herbert, there are people named Mason, and there is a town named Sundial (not really) in Arkansas, and there is no reason not to expect that a combination of things could happen. If the newspaper instead reported about an outer space alien named Herbert Mason in the town of Sundial, Arkansas, then the outer-space-alien component of it strongly conflicts with existing patterns, so we can dismiss as improbable the claim that Herbert Mason really exists, in favor of other explanations.

[Blood]

One Ring to rule them all. and one word to answer them all: forgery.

The clever ones say it was Constantine and the strong characters shout LIES LIES LIES.

The educated ones cite Slavonic Josephus...

That was unfair and you know it. I only use the term "forgers" out of convenience. I didn't mean to convey some Dan Brown conspiracy. "Forger" is an easier term to use than "anonymous epistolary theology."

Incidentally, scholars like Ehrman use the term "forged" for many of the same epistles as well.

[Mental flatliner]

An Inference to the Best Explanation: Jesus as a Failed Eschatological Prophet

exapologist.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/one-of-main-reasons-why-i-think.html

I agree with mainstream scholarship on the historical Jesus (e.g., E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Bart Ehrman, Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen, et al.) that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.

Jesus of Nazareth turned the Roman world upside down and now dominates the free world.

If scholars want to take cheap shots with 50 cent words and deliberate strawman arguments devoid of academic value, I don't mind. Jesus succeeded at what he set out to do. He ordered his disciples to change the world by preaching the gospel, and that they did.

Simply put, no 100 leaders in history combined can match this accomplishment.

[MrMacSon]

Jesus of Nazareth turned the Roman world upside down and now dominates the free world.

If scholars want to take cheap shots with 50 cent words and deliberate strawman arguments devoid of academic value, I don't mind. Jesus succeeded at what he set out to do. He ordered his disciples to change the world by preaching the gospel, and that they did.

The narrative about Jesus of Nazareth came to dominate the then Roman world and then the 'free' world.

How much of the narrative is true is unknown: none of it is verified.

[Mental flatliner]

Jesus of Nazareth turned the Roman world upside down and now dominates the free world.

If scholars want to take cheap shots with 50 cent words and deliberate strawman arguments devoid of academic value, I don't mind. Jesus succeeded at what he set out to do. He ordered his disciples to change the world by preaching the gospel, and that they did.

The narrative about Jesus of Nazareth came to dominate the then Roman world and then the 'free' world.

How much of the narrative is true is unknown: none of it is verified.

I think it would be intellectual suicide to think that a narrative about a ghost could do such a thing. I have to reject your claim that Jesus didn't do it but his biography did.

Barbarian hordes, Greek philosophers, and Roman politicians for many centuries tried to conquer Rome from the inside and from the outside and only Jesus of Nazareth succeeded.

THAT is how you spell "messiah".

(Your premise that the gospels are not verified is false. We have four narratives in complete agreement, and we have numerous historical sources, none of which contradict. Therefore the gospels are verified.)

[Andrew]

You do realize that the synoptics are dependent on each other, right? Also, the gospels aren't completely consistent. For instance, Jesus was crucified on Friday according to the synoptics, but on Thursday according to the Gospel of John.

[Steven Donnelly]

"Barbarian hordes, Greek philosophers, and Roman politicians for many centuries tried to conquer Rome from the inside and from the outside"

To maintain impartiality, perhaps you should also include the zealous Jewish pretender whose endorsement (via R. Akiva) remains an egg on the face of second century rabbinicism? But then again, Matthew did previously call attention to the star of Balaam's fourth oracle (Num. 24:17; cf. Mt. 2:2, 7, 9-10), so I'm sure that Akiva felt tremendous pressure to revision the passage and redirect the attention of his co-religionists elsewhere.

Further, considering that Daniel's weeks which anticipated the advent of the anointed were long expired (Dan. 9:24-27) in addition to a pending awareness of the accurate forecast Jesus made about the demolition of the Second Temple within a generation of his exodus from Jerusalem (Mt. 23:38; 24:1-34; also cf. Mk. 13; Lk. 21), it's conceivable that self-preservation (in the sense of saving face) had something to do with botched attempts to deputize Bar Kosiba (aka Bar Kochva).

After the fact, one imagines that the shame of the occasion is what provoked the altering of his name from Bar Kochva (Aram. "son of the star") to Bar Koziba (i.e. "son of the lie").

[Peter Kirby]

Steven: welcome to the forum! Thanks for contributing.