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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

Not only could Sadducees and Christians that did not believe in resurrection have interpreted Dan. 12 as a metaphor for national restoration (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Da ... frontcover), they could have also pointed to Job 14 to prove that there is no resurrection.

[14:12] So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

Till the heavens be no more - That is, never; for such is the fair interpretation of the passage, and this accords with its design. Job means to say, undoubtedly, that man would never appear again in the land of the living; that he would not spring up from the grave, as a sprout does from a fallen tree; and that when he dies, he goes away from the earth never to return. Whether he believed in a future state, or in the future resurrection, is another question, and one that cannot be determined from this passage. His complaint is, that the present life is short, and that man when he has once passed through it cannot return to enjoy it again, if it has been unhappy; and he asks, therefore, why, since it was so short, man might not be permitted to enjoy it without molestation. It does not follow from this passage that he believed that the heavens ever would be no more, or would pass away.

The heavens are the most permanent and enduring objects of which we have any knowledge, and are, therefore, used to denote permanency and eternity; see Psalm 89:36-37. This verse, therefore, is simply a solemn declaration of the belief of Job that when man dies, he dies to live no more on the earth. Of the truth of this, no one can doubt - and the truth is as important and affecting as it is undoubted. If man could come back again, life would be a different thing. If he could revisit the earth to repair the evils of a wicked life, to repent of his errors, to make amends for his faults, and to make preparation for a future world, it would be a different thing to live, and a different thing to die. But when he travels over the road of life, he treads a path which is not to be traversed again. When he neglects an opportunity to do good, it cannot be recalled. When he commits an offence, he cannot come back to repair the evil. He falls, and dies, and lives no more. He enters on other scenes, and is amidst the retributions of another state. How important then to secure the passing moment, and to be prepared to go hence, to return no more!


https://biblehub.com/commentaries/job/14-12.htm

So what kind of "this life" Jesus did the Christians in 1 Cor. 15:12 follow or invent if not a Fourth Philosopher or someone created to look like one (one who happened to have been executed in a way that I can only recall happening to Fourth Philosophers in the first century CE)?

Of the four sects Josephus mentions, only the Fourth Philosophy altered the oral Torah of the Pharisees. As he notes in Ant. 18.1.4, the Sadducees were "able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them."

[Ant. 18.1.1] Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy ...

As Josephus notes in Ant. 13.10.6:

... the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers.

Jesus is presented as similarly making changes to the oral Torah of the Pharisees in Mk. 7:3-5.

Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially. And on returning from the market, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions for them to observe, including the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and couches for dining.

So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with defiled hands.”

So given Jesus' rejection of the oral Torah and his opposition to the Sadducees on the issue of resurrection and that the NT never mentions Essenes, the only sect that fits Jesus' "system of philosophy" is the Fourth Philosophy, since they are the ones who made changes to the oral Torah and believed in resurrection of the dead.

Josephus goes on to say that the Fourth Philosophy was a new kind of Judaism ("which we were before unacquainted withal"), and Jesus' "system of philosophy" is similarly presented as being new in Mk. 1: 27 ("All the people were amazed and began to ask one another, 'What is this? A new teaching with authority!'"!

And their main belief was also that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth," which makes me think Jesus was or was thought of as being "one from their country."

Jesus to me (all things considered, but maybe even just in Paul) looks like the kind of Fourth Philosopher Josephus describes in War 2.13.4.

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.

So for me, the NT looks like a collection of writings made by people who acted "like madmen" by following someone who was this kind of Fourth Philosopher. I just don't see any need to invent someone like this when there were "a great many" real people like this.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

John2 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:23 pm
I think the Christians were a hierarchical sect. There were the apostles, the brothers of the lord and the ordinary Christians. And above all, all Christians were brothers and sisters of Christ (Romans 8:29). To see biological brothers in Galatians and 1 Corinthians 9:5 therefore seems to me illogical.

I suppose that could be the case, but it seems strange that James but not Peter would be a brother of the Lord and an apostle and a pillar. Why would Peter have been an apostle and a pillar but not a "brother of the Lord"? It seems simpler to me to suppose that James and Peter were apostles and pillars and James was Jesus' brother.
I was curious on what basis you conclude that Peter was not a brother of the Lord. In Galatians, the title serves to distinguish the James whom Paul met from other Jameses. In 1 Corinthians, there is a garden variety build of three (apostles, brothers of the Lord, Rocky) of people whose role in the church resembles Paul's.

More affirmatively, but as a hypothesis, I agree with Sinouhe's observation of a hierarchical structure in Paul's churches (or at least in Paul's mind), but would add that it seems to me that there were at least three kinds of ranked apostle (messengers): those appointed by men (either by a church or by a higher ranking apostle), those whose appointment derives from a vision of the risen Jesus (perhaps these are the brothers of the Lord), and the two men at the summit (Rocky and Paul, whom the risen Jesus, in a vision, designated as his apostles to the Jews and to the Nations respectively).

All three ranks can be called apostles. It is unclear to me why the top two ranks could not both be called brothers of the Lord, or if not, then that would answer your concern. Under that interpretation Peter isn't a brother of the Lord because he outranks any brother of the Lord (as does Paul).
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by John2 »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 12:48 am
John2 wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:23 pm
I think the Christians were a hierarchical sect. There were the apostles, the brothers of the lord and the ordinary Christians. And above all, all Christians were brothers and sisters of Christ (Romans 8:29). To see biological brothers in Galatians and 1 Corinthians 9:5 therefore seems to me illogical.

I suppose that could be the case, but it seems strange that James but not Peter would be a brother of the Lord and an apostle and a pillar. Why would Peter have been an apostle and a pillar but not a "brother of the Lord"? It seems simpler to me to suppose that James and Peter were apostles and pillars and James was Jesus' brother.
I was curious on what basis you conclude that Peter was not a brother of the Lord. In Galatians, the title serves to distinguish the James whom Paul met from other Jameses. In 1 Corinthians, there is a garden variety build of three (apostles, brothers of the Lord, Rocky) of people whose role in the church resembles Paul's.

More affirmatively, but as a hypothesis, I agree with Sinouhe's observation of a hierarchical structure in Paul's churches (or at least in Paul's mind), but would add that it seems to me that there were at least three kinds of ranked apostle (messengers): those appointed by men (either by a church or by a higher ranking apostle), those whose appointment derives from a vision of the risen Jesus (perhaps these are the brothers of the Lord), and the two men at the summit (Rocky and Paul, whom the risen Jesus, in a vision, designated as his apostles to the Jews and to the Nations respectively).

All three ranks can be called apostles. It is unclear to me why the top two ranks could not both be called brothers of the Lord, or if not, then that would answer your concern. Under that interpretation Peter isn't a brother of the Lord because he outranks any brother of the Lord (as does Paul).


I think there is only one James in Galatians, and by my reading this James is an apostle and a pillar and "the brother of the Lord," and Cephas/Peter is an apostle and a pillar but not a "brother of the Lord" (same goes for 1 Cor. 9:5).

It looks to me like there are only two kinds of Christians here, apostles (in which I include Cephas) and "the brothers of the Lord" (in which I do not include Cephas). But if "brothers of the Lord" means Christians in general, then of course Cephas would be a "brother of the Lord" too.

But what I see going on in Paul's letters is that there are apostles (like himself, Barnabas, Peter, James, etc.), three of whom were esteemed as pillars in Jerusalem (James, Peter and John) and one of whom was Jesus' brother (James), and Jesus had at least one other unnamed brother.

This can't be proven using only Paul, but it's one of the possibilities and the one that seems best to me when other early Christian writings are considered, since I can't view Paul in a vacuum. And I think the James passage in Josephus is genuine, though I appreciate the arguments against it.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Re : Pourquoi je pense qu'un Jésus historique est la meilleure explication pour les premiers textes

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

John2 wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 4:43 pm I think there is only one James in Galatians, and by my reading this James is an apostle and a pillar and "the brother of the Lord," and Cephas/Peter is an apostle and a pillar but not a "brother of the Lord" (same goes for 1 Cor. 9:5).

It looks to me like there are only two kinds of Christians here, apostles (in which I include Cephas) and "the brothers of the Lord" (in which I do not include Cephas). But if "brothers of the Lord" means Christians in general, then of course Cephas would be a "brother of the Lord" too.

But what I see going on in Paul's letters is that there are apostles (like himself, Barnabas, Peter, James, etc.), three of whom were esteemed as pillars in Jerusalem (James, Peter and John) and one of whom was Jesus' brother (James), and Jesus had at least one other unnamed brother.

This can't be proven using only Paul, but it's one of the possibilities and the one that seems best to me when other early Christian writings are considered, since I can't view Paul in a vacuum. And I think the James passage in Josephus is genuine, though I appreciate the arguments against it.
Thanks for the reply, John. I understand your view better now.
Post Reply