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

[davidmartin]

Sinouhe, you mention the easiest one, what about the 'super apostles' and the varying beliefs Paul tries to combat, in fact struggles to defend in the face of his rivals. you seem to accept the apostle's portrayal of the situation, but we only have his side of it. Paul is adept at presentation, masterful really but the whole movement seems very fractious. when Paul refers to his teaching as 'my gospel', that shows others had different ones. his one didn't need the earthly Jesus much. the others may have used parables or stories, these later found their way into the gospels, that's how i see it going down.
i mean, Paul admits he is the last apostle, what are the chances he is teaching the same thing as the first apostle? not great is what i think from looking at the epistles

[John2]

My original point was not that the followers of the Teacher of Righteousness randomly mixed OT verses to make pesharim, but that they clumsily or loosely used OT verses to try to interpret the Teacher's life after the fact ...

This is quite different from what Paul does, since he does not choose vague verses to try to interpret the life of Jesus, but rather makes certain OT passages a perfect reflection of the life of Jesus. For example, Jesus checks off all the servant boxes in Isaiah 53:

But Paul "loosely" used Hos. 6:2 for the "third day" part of the equation (which is one third of the equation, in fact), so he's not solely seeing Is. 53 as a perfect reflection of the life of Jesus. He brings together various things in the OT and applies them to Jesus, and the DSS sect bring together various things and apply them to the Teacher. What Paul does in 1 Cor. 15 seems similar to what the DSS sect do in CD, mix and match various OT verses (e.g., combining the "star" in Amos 5:26 with the "star" in Num. 24:17) and apply them to someone important.

The "star" prophecy is applied to Jesus in Christianity and to the Teacher in the DSS. Is. 53 is applied to Jesus and to the Teacher (or if not to the Teacher then at least to someone important, and in a messianic context in any event). The list could go on. In both cases various OT passages are mixed together and applied to someone important in a messianic context.

And since I take Paul as saying that Jesus had a brother named James, it follows for me that Paul and the DSS sect were doing the same thing, applying various passages to a real person.

The main difference to me is that Paul did not know Jesus when he was alive and the DSS sect knew the Teacher, so Paul's image of or information about Jesus is more text-reliant, a process that could have started years before he met Peter and James. And when he did meet them, he said they "added nothing to me." So what Paul "knows" or cares about Jesus' life is what is "in" the OT, whereas the DSS sect have more "real world" info that they know or care about to add to their applications of OT passages to the Teacher.

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.

Stauroó / σταυρόω in the pauline epistles does not necessarily mean crucified in the sense of the Roman practice of the term. Paul never links the crucifixion of Jesus to the Romans. A more appropriate term would be impaled on an upright stake.
This is obviously similar to the term "pierced" in Isaiah 53:5, which the early Christians must have used to interpret Isaiah 53.

I see 1 Cor. 2:8 as referring to human rulers though ("None of the rulers of this age understood it. For if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"), and since Paul lived in Roman times and Rome ultimately ran the show in Judea, I think this verse could include them.

As for 1 Peter, it seems genuine to me because it pre-dates Papias (since he knew it) and I date Papias c. 100 CE and regard his oral sources of information as valuable. And it is addressed to Jews (in keeping with Gal. 2:8) and uses the same "cornerstone" prophecy in the same way as the DSS (which are pre-70 CE). And it shares the pre-70 CE core Fourth Philosophic belief that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" and its emphasis on suffering is in keeping with noted Fourth Philosophic behavior (Ant. 18.1.6: "this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many ... the resolution they show when they undergo pain"; cf. 1 Peter 4:1: "Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves with the same resolve").

[John2]

To me, nothing sums up Christianity and shows its similarity to the Fourth Philosophy better than Mt. 23:9-10.

And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.

This is what the Fourth Philosophic willingness to suffer revolved around according to Josephus in Ant. 18.1.6 and War 6.5.4 (while also noting their adherence to "Pharisaic notions," with one of these notions being resurrection of the dead, as he mentions elsewhere and which Christians also share, along with messianism and a willingness to undergo "any kinds of death" for their cause):

These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only ruler and lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord.

But now, what did the most elevate them ... was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

So for me Jesus looks like one of these many Fourth Philosophic "wise men" who were "deceived in their determination" about the Messiah "in their sacred writings" (as does the Teacher in the DSS). He is even called a "wise man" in the TF, which I could take or leave, but it's a curious coincidence, all the more so that it's in the same book that opens up with a discussion of the Fourth Philosophy and all the problems they caused throughout the first century CE.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man ...

[Sinouhe]

But Paul "loosely" used Hos. 6:2 for the "third day" part of the equation (which is one third of the equation, in fact)

He don't use Hos 6:2 "loosely".
Hosea 6:2 is a verse that announces that it is after 3 days that God raises the dead. Not having the information in Isaiah 53, he went to Hosea. But it is very precise: on the third day Jesus is raised = Hos 6:2 "on the third day he will restore us".

How can it be more precise ?

so he's not solely seeing Is. 53 as a perfect reflection of the life of Jesus

Who said he only used Is 53? He uses the whole book of Isaiah, the book of Daniel, psalms, etc etc...
But what we find in Is 53 is totally in line with what he presents to us about Jesus.

Again :

1/ Persecuted
2/ While he is innocent
3/ He accepts his fate to sacrifice himself to save humanity from sin
4/ He is put to death
5/ He is Pierced
6/ Put in the tomb
7/ Resurrected
8/ Exalted to heaven.

That's Isaiah 53...and Jesus in Paul.

The star prophecy is applied to Jesus in Christianity and to the Teacher in the DSS.

No. The star prophecy is applied to a Messianic figure that will come to the end of the day : in the FUTURE.


Damascus Document
The star is the Interpreter of the Law who shall come to Damascus; as it is written, A star shall comeforth out ofJacob and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel (Num. xxiv, 17).

Damascus Document
The Stave is the Interpreter of the Law of whom Isaiah said, He makes a tool for His work (Isa. liv, 16); and the nobles of the people are those who come to dig the Well with the staves with which the 10 Stave ordained that they should walk in all the age of wickedness - and without them they shall find nothing - until he comes who shall teach righteousness at the end of days.

Florilegium
I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever] (2 Sam. vii, 13). I will be hisfather and he shall be my son (2 Sam. vii, 14). He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of time.


You make a lot of assumptions that you present as facts, that is not very serious.

Is. 53 is applied to Jesus and to the Teacher (or if not to the Teacher then at least to someone important, and in a messianic context in any event).

Is 53 is applied (very) loosely to the teacher in the Hodayot by the teacher himself and loosely to some eschatological figures that will come in the future.
This is VERY different from what Paul is doing by applying Isaiah 53 IDENTICALLY to a character who has ALREADY come.

And since I take Paul as saying that Jesus had a brother named James, it follows for me that Paul and the DSS sect were doing the same thing, applying various passages to a real person.

I don't read that James is a biological brother of Jesus in Galatians nor in any other Pauline epistles.

The main difference to me is that Paul did not know Jesus when he was alive and the DSS sect knew the Teacher, so Paul's image of or information about Jesus is more text-reliant, a process that could have started years before he met Peter and James. And when he did meet them, he said they "added nothing to me." So what Paul "knows" or cares about Jesus' life is what is "in" the OT, whereas the DSS sect have more "real world" info that they know or care about to add to their applications of OT passages to the Teacher.

According to your historicist theory, Paul was in contact with the apostles who knew Jesus. The fact that he invokes nothing more than scripture and supernatural visions as a memory of Jesus shows that in fact oral tradition plays no role.
This is in contrast to the DSS, who give historical informations about the Teacher and apply it loosely and awkwardly to the scriptures.

I see 1 Cor. 2:8 as referring to human rulers though ("None of the rulers of this age understood it. For if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"), and since Paul lived in Roman times and Rome ultimately ran the show in Judea, I think this verse could include them.

This is a difficult verse since the term αἰών can be translated as "this world" or as "an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity."

So that it is not clear what Paul means here, although I think he is referring more to the rulers of this world here and not the rulers of this "age" :

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=KJ21

But in any case, this verse is an allusion to Psalm 2, a verse interpreted messianically before Paul, in Paul's time and after Paul.
There is no need to look for Pontius Pilate here.

As for 1 Peter, it seems genuine to me because it pre-dates Papias (since he knew it) and I date Papias c. 100 CE and regard his oral sources of information as valuable. And it is addressed to Jews (in keeping with Gal. 2:8) and uses the same "cornerstone" prophecy in the same way as the DSS (which are pre-70 CE). And it shares the pre-70 CE core Fourth Philosophic belief that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" and its emphasis on suffering is in keeping with noted Fourth Philosophic behavior (Ant. 18.1.6: "this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many ... the resolution they show when they undergo pain"; cf. 1 Peter 4:1: "Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves with the same resolve").

Again John2, please stick with Paul rather than on a dubious source that seems to YOU genuine. Thanks.

To me, nothing sums up Christianity and shows its similarity to the Fourth Philosophy better than Mt. 23:9-10.

I don't understand why you invoke Matthew in the discussion about Paul's Jesus?

He is even called a "wise man" in the TF, which I could take or leave, but it's a curious coincidence, all the more so that it's in the same book that opens up with a discussion of the Fourth Philosophy and all the problems they caused throughout the first century CE.

Testimonium flavianum ? What is the next step? The letter of Jesus to Agbar ?
Sorry to be cynical but the discussion is about Paul's Jesus.

[Sinouhe]

you seem to accept the apostle's portrayal of the situation, but we only have his side of it.

You said it yourself. We only have the Pauline epistles, so I prefer to base myself on a source that we have rather than making conjectures on sources that we don't have. And I am not convinced that Paul is lying in Galatians about Peter's attitude.

Paul is adept at presentation, masterful really but the whole movement seems very fractious. when Paul refers to his teaching as 'my gospel', that shows others had different ones. his one didn't need the earthly Jesus much. the others may have used parables or stories, these later found their way into the gospels, that's how i see it going down.
i mean, Paul admits he is the last apostle, what are the chances he is teaching the same thing as the first apostle? not great is what i think from looking at the epistles

When Paul talks about "his gospel", I think you know it, but he talks about "the good news", that Jesus sacrificed himself to save the sins of men.

This is a reference to the good news of Isaiah (Isaiah 40:9, 52:7, 60:6, 61:1) that Paul and his fellow apostles appropriated by proclaiming themselves as the bearers of Isaiah's good news.

There may be doctrinal discrepancies between his gospel and the gospel of the Jerusalem apostles, especially with regard to circumcision, dietary laws and the Sabbath. This is logical since Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles and the apostles of Jerusalem were not dealing with pagans.
So i think that Paul for practical reasons invokes the uselessness of the law for the Gentiles who believe in Jesus, which must have made his life easier to convert them.

Once again, this does not mean that the apostles of Jerusalem had a gospel that was completely different from that of Paul. Rather than making assumptions like you do by imagining that the other apostles spoke of Jesus' parables (which Paul never does and never even mentions the term), let's be pragmatic and stick to what Paul tells us. And what he tells us is that there were doctrinal differences between him and the men of Jerusalem regarding the law for the Gentiles. Nothing more.

Furthermore, even the author of Acts (who we now know does not write history but simply reports what he reads in Paul and what he knew of Christianity at his time, which he anachronistically transposes to the first century) does not mention any teaching of Jesus during the supposed Council of Jerusalem where Peter and James were supposed to be present.

By the way, according to your theory, this would imply that Paul had several disputes with the Christians in Jerusalem but that they never invoked any teachings of Jesus on the matter. Or that Paul deliberately betrayed teachings of Jesus to more easily convert pagans.
I'm sorry, but I don't think it makes sens.

[davidmartin]

Rather than making assumptions like you do by imagining that the other apostles spoke of Jesus' parables (which Paul never does and never even mentions the term)

This is exactly my point. A historical Jesus would have spent time, years even, teaching his followers. His teaching/ways/steps would be the core and those parables. Then along comes Paul who was never a follower, gets his information from Isaiah (as John2 suggests above, that's all Paul thinks matters). And you don't think there might be differences? (in the proposed historical Jesus scenario, which I favour)

What you say doesn't make sense to me. It seems entirely logical to suggest this, and that the gospel stories and parables originated from the apostles opponents - especially when the movement is split

As for

Jesus sacrificed himself to save the sins of men

That is an interpretation of Isaiah, Jews today don't interpret it that way, what I mean is this is Paul's gospel not really what Isaiah clearly says
I do not mean to suggest that the 'good news' wasn't salvationary, or that the Messiah doesn't save in these other interpretations - just that can be proclaimed in numerous ways, but for these others it was based on the teaching of the historical Jesus
A historical Jesus who doesn't teach his followers in all his ways isn't a historical Jesus, and who is Paul?

I'm saying the apostle's interpretation was likely different from what others were saying, how much, in what ways is a secondary question to what i'm proposing

[Sinouhe]

This is exactly my point. A historical Jesus would have spent time, years even, teaching his followers. His teaching/ways/steps would be the core and those parables.

Yes but that Jesus is nowhere to be found in Paul.

Then along comes Paul who was never a follower, gets his information from Isaiah (as John2 suggests above, that's all Paul thinks matters). And you don't think there might be differences? (in the proposed historical Jesus scenario, which I favour)

To imagine that a guy comes into a cult, and completely rejects the teachings of his master to impose his own teachings, is not a logical and credible way to look at the history of Christianity. Sorry.

What you say doesn't make sense to me.

However, you are the one who invokes things that are not found in Paul's letters, while I base my reasoning entirely on them. And I only make logical deductions from what he says. Your problem, like most historicists, is that you are unable to ignore the Jesus of the Gospels. Even when the subject is: THE JESUS OF PAUL.

It looks like you are trying by all means to make your vision of Jesus converging with the Jesus of the Gospels

It seems entirely logical to suggest this, and that the gospel stories and parables originated from the apostles opponents - especially when the movement is split

Mark is a pro-Pauline gospel. The teachings and parables of Mark's Jesus are essentially based on the teachings of Paul. This contradicts your reasoning. Besides, we can see what he thinks of Peter in his gospel ....
So you will be forced, once again, to invoke a Jesus that is not found in Paul and Mark to try to establish that the other apostles preached a Jesus totally different from Paul's (and therefore Mark's). And this is just one more conjecture.

That is an interpretation of Isaiah, Jews today don't interpret it that way, what I mean is this is Paul's gospel not really what Isaiah clearly says

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But if you're implying that Paul and the Christians had a completely different interpretation of the book of Isaiah and chapter 53 for example seems very unlikely to me. Minor discrepancies about the law for the pagans ? More certainly.

I do not mean to suggest that the 'good news' wasn't salvationary, or that the Messiah doesn't save in these other interpretations - just that can be proclaimed in numerous ways, but for these others it was based on the teaching of the historical Jesus

So the apostles based their teachings on Jesus and Paul on his own teachings. It doesn't makes sense and it's another speculation.
Besides, we see that Paul invokes from time to time a teaching of Jesus. Unfortunately when he does, we can't determine if it comes from a supernatural revelation or not.

But if I understand you correctly, Paul preached the words of Jesus from time to time, but when it does not suit him, he completely forgets the teachings of Jesus and preaches completely the opposite ? I agree that Paul is a complicated character and not necessarily the most honest, but still...

A historical Jesus who doesn't teach his followers in all his ways isn't a historical Jesus, and who is Paul?

Paul was the apostle of the pagans.
Hence his disagreements with his colleagues in Jerusalem concerning the ritual practices of the pagans. This is what he says throughout his letters. Why look elsewhere?

I'm saying the apostle's interpretation was likely different from what others were saying, how much, in what ways is a secondary question to what i'm proposing

It may be secondary for you but it is not for the subject.
And that is clear, Paul clearly explains what are the points of discord between him and the apostles of Jerusalem = Law, Kosherut and circumcision for the pagans.

Nothing more.

[andrewcriddle]

Sure, there's no absolute need unless it helps explain something

but what about all the apostle's run ins with other apostles?
he doesn't seem to get on with any of them
if some of them were the historical guys followers it could explain it
admittedly they could be competitors in a mythological Jesus, but i struggle to find that convincing i don't know it just seems strange
we could hypothesise that the historical info is with his opponents and the apostle just doesn't need it for his gospel to work

i connect that with why the gospels don't match up too well with Paul, the gospel sources were originally from these guys competing with Paul and no-one was able to create one that matched up it looks like they tried though. to me HJ explains stuff, that's all

I see no reason to invoke a historical Jesus to explain the doctrinal differences between Paul and the other apostles. Quite the contrary.

The Antioch incident, for example, is about eating with the Gentiles. Paul explains it to us several times in his letters: he has no problem with it, and kashrut, Shabbat, and the law in general for Gentiles are not necessary in his opinion.
Peter seems to have an intermediate position, or rather a hypocritical one. He shares Paul's opinion but has difficulty assuming it in front of the men of Jerusalem.
So it is only a doctrinal conflict.

Paul, who bases himself on Isaiah (and the other Christians as well), believes that the messianic times have begun and that the Gentiles must now enter the covenant through their apostolic mission.
All this is based on Isaiah as usual.
On the other hand, Isaiah does not say that the Gentiles should not submit to the law.
Paul believes that it is not necessary for them to do so. The Christians in Jerusalem obviously thought the opposite.

So I do not see how a historical Jesus could better explain this doctrinal divergence between Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) and the Christians in Jerusalem on this interpretation of the book of Isaiah.
It seems obvious that Paul, in order to convert the Gentiles more easily, had to have a certain proximity to them.
He says it himself: with the Gentiles I am a Gentile, with the Jews I am a Jew (1 Corinthians 9:20-21).

So these differences don't need to be explained by a historical Jesus, I think even the opposite.
If Jesus was a historical figure, a rabbi who had taught disciples as claimed in the minimalist hypothesis, then he would obviously have given his point of view on the dietary rules and on the law for the Gentiles. This is obviously not the case.

Mark claims that Jesus ate with sinners, fed pagans, and preached in pagan territory (the Decapolis). If all this were true, then the men of James would not contradict their Master by forbidding the apostles to eat with these same pagans.
And Paul would invoke the teachings of Jesus on this subject, which he does not do since he gives his own arguments without ever invoking the authority of Jesus.

The feeding of the 5 thousand in Mark clearly involves Jews. The feeding of the 4 thousand in Mark may or may not involve Gentiles. (See Feeding 4000 for an argument from a consevative Christian viewpoint that it involves Jews.) Even if the feeding of the 4 thousand does involve Gentiles, (and it may well do), this is probably a relatively late doublet of the feeding of the 5 thousand and not relevant to the question of Gospel tradition at the time of Paul.

I don't think eating with Jewish 'sinners' raises the same issues as eating with Gentiles. (Assuming that the Jewish 'sinners' are reasonably kosher and are not serving roast pork).

Andrew Criddle

[Sinouhe]

The feeding of the 5 thousand in Mark clearly involves Jews. The feeding of the 4 thousand in Mark may or may not involve Gentiles. (See Feeding 4000 for an argument from a consevative Christian viewpoint that it involves Jews.)

I think it involves Gentiles since Jesus is pagan territories (Decapolis : Mark 7:31).
To deny that this is Gentile territory in Mark 8 is to make the text say what it does not say: that Jesus left the Decapolis.

Even if the feeding of the 4 thousand does involve Gentiles, (and it may well do), this is probably a relatively late doublet of the feeding of the 5 thousand

A late addition to Mark ?
I don't think so. It is only a conjecture once again since there is no manuscript evidence to support it.

And Paul said: first the Jews then the pagans? Mark knows his classics. First the Jews (Mark 6), then the pagans (Mark 8).
Wasn't one of Mark's agendas to show that the pagans had the right to enter the covenant like the Jews? (the Syro-Phoenician woman, the cross bearer, the Roman centurion)

and not relevant to the question of Gospel tradition at the time of Paul.

By mentioning the multiplication of 4000 or the dining with sinners, I was implying that these events in Mark are legends since Paul makes no mention of them when he argues that kashrut is unnecessary for pagans or that the apostles can dine with pagans. So I think it is relevant to bring it up in the discussion of Paul's doctrinal differences with the Jerusalem apostles.

I don't think eating with Jewish 'sinners' raises the same issues as eating with Gentiles. (Assuming that the Jewish 'sinners' are reasonably kosher and are not serving roast pork).

Mark being a pro-Pauline gospel and rather pro-Pagan as well, I think he had the same view of non-Christian Pagans as Paul did, whom he considered sinners until they were converted to Christ (Galatians 2:15-21)

[Paul the Uncertain]

The feeding of the 5 thousand in Mark clearly involves Jews. The feeding of the 4 thousand in Mark may or may not involve Gentiles. (See Feeding 4000 for an argument from a consevative Christian viewpoint that it involves Jews.) Even if the feeding of the 4 thousand does involve Gentiles, (and it may well do), this is probably a relatively late doublet of the feeding of the 5 thousand and not relevant to the question of Gospel tradition at the time of Paul.

I don't think eating with Jewish 'sinners' raises the same issues as eating with Gentiles. (Assuming that the Jewish 'sinners' are reasonably kosher and are not serving roast pork).

Andrew Criddle

On what basis do you propose that the feeding of the 4000 is a doublet (late or otherwise)? There's more than exorcism, more than one healing, more than one calming of the winds, more than one voice from the sky, more than one "claivoyant Jesus" episode, more than one unconscious child restored after a crowd pronounces the child dead - why would a second mass feeding be suspect as a departure from the work's authentic design in your view?