Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

[Sinouhe]

The idea that Jesus is pre-existent and at the same time a "son of David" (after 10th century BCE) is contradictory, ...

...Result: Either Paul is doing theology without any historical rigor/logic since he makes Jesus a son of David while at the same time he presents him as having only the appearance of a man, as being the son of YHWH and as having existed even before the foundation of the world.

In this case, the davidic lineage is only a reference Isaiah 11:1, a very common messianic prophecy in second temple judaism.
How could the Messiah not be a son of David when Isaiah 11 is the messianic chapter of reference at the time of the second temple. And that Paul uses Isaiah as the main inspiration for his Messiah ?
It doesn't matter if Jesus is pre-existent and not really a man. Paul doesn't care about this kind of logical detail, does he?

Mark seems to notice the problem:

12:35-37 Jesus responded, as he taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? For David himself said in the Holy Spirit,

‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.”

Therefore David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?”

This is one of the reasons why, as happy as I am to accept that Mark knows Paul's letters, I don't think that Mark is some kind of cheerleader for Paul.

Good point.

As Matthew, Luke and John did with Him, Mark makes choices with his source Paul.

“Son of God” or “Son of David”, obviously he chose.

Hence the absence of Jesus' biological father in his gospel.

[John2]

Although the comparison is interesting and relevant at first glance, I am not convinced that the two cases are so similar.

The life of the teacher of righteousness in the manuscripts is loosely based on the scriptures when we read the pesharim.
But unlike Paul, it is evident that the members of the sect sought to interpret his life through scripture, rather than the other way around. Some of the verses they use, for example, are really vague, far-fetched or completely off topic.

Paul and the DSS sect use OT verses out of context to support their views about a leader and the events of their times. In the case of the DSS sect, they used verses that contain the word "zaddik" (or its cognates), similar to the way Hegesippus does regarding James in his version of Is. 3:10-11 in EH 2.23.15 ("And they cried out, saying, 'Oh! Oh! The just man is also in error.' And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, 'Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings").

This is the only version of Is. 3:10-11 like this that I am aware of, so either Hegesippus had a variant Greek text or he loosely cited or translated Isaiah. In any event, the word zaddik/righteous is in all versions of 3:10-11 and this is what Hegesippus hung his hat on, and this is what the DSS sect does for the Teacher, i.e., apply verses that contain the word "zaddik" to the Teacher regardless of the original context.

Paul similarly either had a variant Greek text or loosely cited or translated something when he says in 1 Cor. 2:9, "But, as it is written, 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him.'"

And the DSS sect were also not above altering the wording of the OT to fit their interpretations, e.g., by adding vavs to Ezek. 44:15 in order to make what was originally one thing ("the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zaddok") into three things ("the priests and the Levites and the sons of Zaddok") that are then interpreted according to the particular situation of the sect.

So Paul and the DSS sect appear to have played equally fast and loose with the OT in order to support their points of view.

In Paul, we do not have this kind of thing since the life of Jesus is the perfect reflection of the Servant of Isaiah 53. Paul does not insert any historical or external elements to the scriptures when he describes the life, the death and the resurrection of Jesus.

But 4Q541 uses Suffering Servant imagery and applies it to a Messiah-priest figure (who could arguably be the Teacher like in the Self-Glorification Hymn, since the Teacher is called a priest in 1QpHab:"the Priest [in whose heart] God set [understanding] that he might interpret all the words of His servants the Prophets"), as Brooke discusses here (concluding on pgs. 150-151):

All in all, this priest's activities are not only referred to with some of the phraseology associated with the Servant of Isaiah, but his career seems to mirror that of the Servant ... Lastly, it may be possible to construe 4Q541 24 as speaking of the death of this eschatological figure as Isaiah 53 could itself be construed, possibly even a death by crucifixion.


https://books.google.com/books?id=t7TSr ... 41&f=false

The life of the teacher in the manuscripts contains many details that seem historical and outside the scriptures.

He's described as a character who :

- founded a sect
- had disciples
- interpreted scriptures for his disciples
- was persecuted by a designated enemy (the wicked priest)
- and apparently died from it.

These are details that lead to the conclusion that he was certainly a historical figure.
And this is the kind of detail that is missing from Paul's letters.

But this all sounds like what I get from Paul, that Jesus founded a sect, had disciples and interpreted the OT for them (1 Cor. 7:1-11: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband," cf. Mk. 10:2-12) and was persecuted by enemies and died from it.

I remain cautious, however, about the historicity of the teacher. There are some elements that are doubtful : he was apparently considered as celestial (after his death?) by the sect if it is indeed him that is mentioned in the hymn of self-glorification.
The apocryphon of Levi announces a messianic eschatological priest who is very similar to the teacher (and to the servant of Isaiah).

I see the information we have about Jesus and the Teacher as being an intersection of history and fantasy, i.e., as accounts of real people who tried to live up to and/or were thought to have lived up to whatever they and their followers believed the OT "predicted" about them.

[Sinouhe]

Paul similarly either had a variant Greek text or loosely cited or translated something when he says in 1 Cor. 2:9, "But, as it is written, 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him.'"

So Paul and the DSS sect appear to have played equally fast and loose with the OT in order to support their points of view.

Not when Paul uses scripture to give details of the life of Jesus. That's what we're talking about, right?

1 Corinthians 15
3 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

Philippians 2:6-11
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very naturef a servant being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

These are the verses from Paul that give us the most information about Jesus's life. They are not more or less based on the scriptures. They are an exact reflection of the scriptures. So it is very different from what we can read in the DSS about the life of the teacher of righteousness.

But 4Q541 uses Suffering Servant imagery and applies it to a Messiah-priest figure (who could arguably be the Teacher like in the Self-Glorification Hymn, since the Teacher is called a priest in 1QpHab:"the Priest [in whose heart] God set [understanding] that he might interpret all the words of His servants the Prophets"), as Brooke discusses here (concluding on pgs. 150-151):

All in all, this priest's activities are not only referred to with some of the phraseology associated with the Servant of Isaiah, but his career seems to mirror that of the Servant ... Lastly, it may be possible to construe 4Q541 24 as speaking of the death of this eschatological figure as Isaiah 53 could itself be construed, possibly even a death by crucifixion.

https://books.google.com/books?id=t7TSr ... 41&f=false

I know this book very well having read it. The difference between Jesus and this eschatological priest is that Jesus is supposed to have already come for Paul. Not in 4Q541.
I agree that this priest can be the same character as the one in theSGH, perhaps even the teacher of righteousness redivivus. But it could also be the Messiah of Aaron who is announced in the Damascus document.

But this all sounds like what I get from Paul, that Jesus founded a sect, had disciples and interpreted the OT for them (1 Cor. 7:1-11: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband," cf. Mk. 10:2-12) and was persecuted by enemies and died from it.

Oh no. If Paul said that Jesus himself had founded a sect in Judea, that he had disciples on earth and that he was killed by a Wicked Priest, then we wouldn't be discussing the historicity of Jesus on this forum.

[mlinssen]

But this all sounds like what I get from Paul, that Jesus founded a sect, had disciples and interpreted the OT for them ([youtube]1 Cor. 7:1-11: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband," cf. Mk. 10:2-12)[/youtube] and was persecuted by enemies and died from it.

Extremely interesting, as this demonstrates that Paul either comes between Mark and Matthew, or after both of them:

1 Cor 7:10 Now to those having married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): A wife is not to be separated from a husband

The emphasis on the lord isn't present at all in Mark - but only in Matthew:

Mark 10:6 but from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female.’ 7 ‘On account of this, a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two will be for one flesh.’ Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Matthew 19:4 And answering He said, “Have you not read that the One having created from the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘On account of this a man will leave the father and mother and be joined with his wife, and the two will become into one flesh’?

Genesis 2:23 And the man said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man she was taken.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Observe how it is the narrator of Genesis 2 who, in an aside to the audience perhaps, continues the narrative. There is no gawd saying nothing here - so why did Matthew commit blasphemy?
Because Mark goofed up again

Mark 10:6 but from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female.’ 7 ‘On account of this, a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two will be for one flesh.’ Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Mark combines Genesis 1 as well as Genesis 2. And naturally all this serves to repurpose Thomasine words - in this case, his entire theme of making the two one

But what does Mark read, to the eye of the objective beholder?
1. Gawd makes male and female: two separate units
2. Man takes make and female - and make them one!!!

Man goes against the will of Gawd - that's not really good, or is it?
So Matthew comes along, "fixes it" with his usual respect for the Tanakh, et voilà

And technically, Paul spotted Mark's mistake and fixed it himself in 1 Cor, or he knew Matthew.
Or, technically, Mark read Paul, screwed it up, and Matthew restored it to what it needed to say - also according to Paul

[perseusomega9]

i think the most obvious interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

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, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

(assuming this to be Pauline) is that Paul believed that Jesus had before his death a group of followers, who after his death claimed to have encountered him alive again. I think that one should add to the very minimal Jesus being proposed here, the claim that Jesus had a group of followers.

Andrew Criddle

I would agree to the minimum ,with Paul as an example, that the appearance of a risen xc can appear to someone who wasn't a predeath follower.

[John2]

So Paul and the DSS sect appear to have played equally fast and loose with the OT in order to support their points of view.

Not when Paul uses scripture to give details of the life of Jesus. That's what we're talking about, right?

1 Corinthians 15
3 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

Philippians 2:6-11
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very naturef a servant being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

These are the verses from Paul that give us the most information about Jesus's life. They are not more or less based on the scriptures. They are an exact reflection of the scriptures. So it is very different from what we can read in the DSS about the life of the teacher of righteousness.

But does Paul derive all these details from the Suffering Servant passages? By my reading, Paul doesn't say that Jesus was buried "according to the scriptures," only that he "died for our sins" and "was raised on the third day."

... that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Are all three of these elements "according to the Scriptures," or only the "died for our sins" and "raised on the third day" parts? The way it is worded makes me wonder. But in any event, the "third day" part is commonly thought to have been derived from Hos. 6:2 (which I lean towards myself), so for me this is a detail that is taken from a different context and applied to the Suffering Servant, which supports my contention that Paul "played fast and loose with the OT" by mixing various passages together regardless of the original context.

Paul also knows Jesus' name and that he was crucified, details that aren't mentioned explicitly in the Servant passages and that are more than we can say for the Teacher of Righteousness. And the Servant (in context) is presented as being "cut off from the land of the living" in Is. 53:8, so if Paul thought Jesus was an unearthly figure, then he also used the OT out of context here to support that point of view.

The difference between Jesus and this eschatological priest is that Jesus is supposed to have already come for Paul. Not in 4Q541.

But the Teacher was alive in 4QpPs and is dead in 1QpHab and CD, so perhaps 4Q541 was written before he died and was thought to have become a heavenly figure.

I agree that this priest can be the same character as the one in theSGH, perhaps even the teacher of righteousness redivivus. But it could also be the Messiah of Aaron who is announced in the Damascus document.

Or maybe the Teacher was the expected Messiah of Aaron (and Israel) in CD, since he is called a priest in 1QpHab and 4QpPs.

But this all sounds like what I get from Paul, that Jesus founded a sect, had disciples and interpreted the OT for them (1 Cor. 7:1-11: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband," cf. Mk. 10:2-12) and was persecuted by enemies and died from it.

Oh no. If Paul said that Jesus himself had founded a sect in Judea, that he had disciples on earth and that he was killed by a Wicked Priest, then we wouldn't be discussing the historicity of Jesus on this forum.

Well, the sect certainly appears to revolve around Jesus, so at least in that respect I get the impression that he founded the sect (as an earthly or heavenly figure) and that this figure had disciples, and by my reading of Paul (and of the James passage in Josephus, which I think is genuine), Jesus had a brother named James.

I also take 1 Peter into account, since I think that letter is genuine and its author is the Peter/Cephas from whom Paul says he "received [what] I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," etc., and in 5:1 Peter calls himself "a witness of Christ’s sufferings" and in 3:18 he says Jesus was "put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit."

[ABuddhist]

i think the most obvious interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

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, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

(assuming this to be Pauline) is that Paul believed that Jesus had before his death a group of followers, who after his death claimed to have encountered him alive again. I think that one should add to the very minimal Jesus being proposed here, the claim that Jesus had a group of followers.

Andrew Criddle

I would agree to the minimum ,with Paul as an example, that the appearance of a risen xc can appear to someone who wasn't a predeath follower.

I further note that none of the people in the quoted passage are described as following Jesus, either before or after his death, nor as having been taught by Jesus before or after his death. Admittedly, a strong case can be made, through citing Revelation to John and other revelation type texts within Christianity, that these people claimed to have been taugh by Jesus after his death, and they, if this passage be regarded as authentic and accurate, would have considered themselves to be his followers after his resurrection - in the same way that Christians are. But in order to make them followers of Jesus before his death, we have to read the Gospels' narrative into the passage. And that should not be done without justification.

[Sinouhe]

But does Paul derive all these details from the Suffering Servant passages? By my reading, Paul doesn't say that Jesus was buried "according to the scriptures," only that he "died for our sins" and "was raised on the third day."

The burial also comes from the scriptures :

Isaiah 53:9
He was assigned a grave with the wicked

Are all three of these elements "according to the Scriptures," or only the "died for our sins" and "raised on the third day" parts? The way it is worded makes me wonder. But in any event, the "third day" part is commonly thought to have been derived from Hos. 6:2 (which I lean towards myself), so for me this is a detail that is taken from a different context and applied to the Suffering Servant, which supports my contention that Paul "played fast and loose with the OT" by mixing various passages together regardless of the original context.

Jesus died, resurrected and was raised in heaven.
The suffering servant died, resurrected and was exalted.
These are not random and banal parallels. It is the perfect reflection of the servant.

Paul also knows Jesus' name and that he was crucified, details that aren't mentioned explicitly in the Servant passages and that are more than we can say for the Teacher of Righteousness.

Yes, Paul called the Lord who saves men : Yeshua (Yehowah saves). It's a funny coincidence, isn't it?

+ Isaiah 53:5 (But he was pierced for our transgressions,).
The word חָלַל (chalal) can be translated by "pierced" :

----> https://www.sefaria.org/Klein_Dictionar ... .1?lang=bi
----> https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2490.htm

That's surely how Paul and the christians translated Isaiah 53:5.

And the Servant (in context) is presented as being "cut off from the land of the living" in Is. 53:8, so if Paul thought Jesus was an unearthly figure, then he also used the OT out of context here to support that point of view.

I don't think Paul thought Jesus was an unearthly figure.

But the Teacher was alive in 1QpNah and is dead in 1QpHab and CD, so perhaps 4Q541 was written before he died and was thought to have become a heavenly figure.

Perhaps. Perhaps not . It's all guesswork.

Or maybe the Teacher was the expected Messiah of Aaron (and Israel) in CD, since he is called a priest in 1QpHab.

Perhaps. Perhaps not . It's all guesswork.

Well, the sect certainly appears to revolve around Jesus, so at least in that respect I get the impression that he founded the sect (as an earthly or heavenly figure)

You used the good word : an impression.

and that this figure had disciples, and by my reading of Paul (and of the James passage in Josephus, which I think is genuine), Jesus had a brother named James.

I think the opposite.

I also take 1 Peter into account, since I think that letter is genuine and its author is the Peter/Cephas from whom Paul says he "received [what] I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," etc., and in 5:1 Peter calls himself "a witness of Christ’s sufferings" and in 3:18 he says Jesus was "put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit."

Since when is 1 Peter no longer an anonymous letter ? Only christian apologists can support the authenticity of 1 Peter.

[John2]

But does Paul derive all these details from the Suffering Servant passages? By my reading, Paul doesn't say that Jesus was buried "according to the scriptures," only that he "died for our sins" and "was raised on the third day."

The burial also comes from the scriptures :

Isaiah 53:9
He was assigned a grave with the wicked

Of course! I overlooked that. But the "third day" part is still presumably derived from Hos. 6:2, so it remains an example of Paul playing "fast and loose with the OT" by mixing various passages together regardless of their original context (like the DSS do for the Teacher).

Paul also knows Jesus' name and that he was crucified, details that aren't mentioned explicitly in the Servant passages and that are more than we can say for the Teacher of Righteousness.

Yes, Paul called the Lord who saves men : Yeshua (Yehowah saves). It's a funny coincidence, isn't it?

Right, but it was a common name, and I approach it from the perspective of viewing James as Jesus' brother, so for me it can also work as a coincidence.

+ Isaiah 53:5 (But he was pierced for our transgressions,).
The word חָלַל (chalal) can be translated by "pierced" :

----> https://www.sefaria.org/Klein_Dictionar ... .1?lang=bi
----> https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2490.htm

That's surely how Paul and the christians translated Isaiah 53:5.

Sure, but it doesn't necessarily mean crucifixion in the original context. It's more ambiguous than that. So this is an example of Paul reading into (or "playing fast and loose with") the OT.

ISince when is 1 Peter no longer an anonymous letter ? Only christian apologists can support the authenticity of 1 Peter.

That's what it purports to be and I've thought this for a number years now and I wouldn't call myself a Christian apologist. I've never been a Christian or have any interest in being one and have no religious interest whatsoever in any form of messianism, including that of the Fourth Philosophy, which I view Jesus and his followers as being akin to. To think that a person with (from my view) crazy beliefs existed and wrote an extant letter doesn't mean that their beliefs were true, and in any event, whether or not it's genuine, I think the author of 1 Peter had crazy beliefs, and I assume that isn't the point of view of a Christian apologist.

[GakuseiDon]

Since when is 1 Peter no longer an anonymous letter ? Only christian apologists can support the authenticity of 1 Peter.

Actually, I find it interesting that Dr Carrier also suggests it might be genuine to the apostle Peter, though he stresses that we can't be sure. From his OHJ, page 283:

Finally, 1 and 2 Peter are regarded as forgeries... However, 1 Peter could be authentic, and if so it should be included with the authentic Pauline letters [for Bayesian calculation purposes], because it would be of roughly the same date, and by the very man who may have founded the entire Christian religion (having received the first revelation of Jesus Christ that started it all, if we're to trust I Cor. 1 5.5). Few scholars would agree with this position, but I personally believe it has more merit than is supposed.

OHJ, page 529-30:

1 Peter looks similarly curious [to the Epistle of James]. We know this was written by a different author than 2 Peter (their style is too divergent). Could it have been written by the actual Peter himself? We cannot know for sure. But it's noteworthy again that knowledge of a historical Jesus is conspicuously absent in 1 Peter. The author only describes himself as an 'apostle', not a disciple (1 Pet. 1.1 , which 2 Pet. 1.1 emulates). 1 Peter 1.10-12 describes the actual process by which facts about Jesus were discovered: scripture (vv. 10-11) and revelation to the apostles (v. 12). Jesus having ministered to the public and been known to anyone in person is again conspicuously absent here.

This is practically minimal mythicism in a nutshell. Nor is Jesus ever quoted in this letter, not even to back anything it argues, even though it contains an extended summary of moral advice (instead, Peter's knowledge comes only from scripture: e.g. 1 Pet. 2.6-8, which he frequently cites to back what he says: e.g., 1 Pet. 3.8- 1 2, where Jesus' teachings on the Golden Rule and turning the other cheek are directly on point yet strangely not mentioned­ -- we get instead just a quotation from the Psalms). Nor is any event in Jesus' life brought up as an example or encouragement--other than the mere fact of his suffering death and that only in vague terms.

If 1 Peter was a mythicist text, then since it seems to have been known and accepted by proto-orthodox Christians quite early -- early Second Century -- it suggests that the transition time from mythical to historical was quite short. Even shorter if it was a mythicist forgery.