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

[MrMacSon]

It’s the same with the Jesus story, only more so. It was a local story, a small time event that only mattered to a small circle of believers, but it grew over time. Much of the story was dubious, but professional historians could look at the legends that arose over time and infer back to a reasonable, even likely beginning. And they have almost universally agreed that the most parsimonious explanation of the rise of Christianity is that it started as the teachings of a small-time holy man who was executed — that is, martyred — by the Romans, and that it prospered and changed over the years by evangelical preachers who spread it throughout the empire.

That sounds likely to me, a non-historian.

---

-- PZ Myers
25 December 2022

This —

And they have almost universally agreed that the most parsimonious explanation of the rise of Christianity is that it started as the teachings of a small-time holy man who was executed — that is, martyred — by the Romans, and that it prospered and changed over the years by evangelical preachers who spread it throughout the empire.

— is highly superficial and uninformed

There is no indication, afaik, that any "professional historians" have "universally agreed" beyond the Jesus Seminar

"executed ≠ martyred per se

And, most importantly,
the narratives were not changed (over the years) by 'evangelical preachers' spreading [them] throughout the empire

At least among that wibble is:

Much of 'the story' was dubious

[MrMacSon]

This thread is titled

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

The first line of the opening post

There is a cognitive dissonance in some mythicists that drives me crazy. I came across it often when debating Earl Doherty over the years

is off topic

The second paragraph

"If there was a historical Jesus, then he was nothing like the Gospels". And that's fine. A historical Jesus, if one existed, almost certainly wasn't like the Gospel Jesus.

The third paragraph is weird (especially in context of the title, but kinda fits with the first two paragraphs).

The next decent paragraph, the fifth, starts

There's much more to mythicism than just that

We might be getting somewhere with the first sentence of the 7th paragraph

I'll start by saying that, to me, Paul believed that Jesus was a Jewish man who lived in Paul's recent past

Yet then

If you believe that's not true

We then get saccharin Jesus

Who was that Jesus? Paul describes him as humble-minded, "obedient unto death", "who knew no sin" and because of that was declared Son of God by resurrection. "Obedient unto death" implies that, before death, he was obedient(!) More on that later.

Then, as with the saccharin Jesus, a synopsis a ten year old might have written at the end of, say, a short series of scripture lessons

[GakuseiDon]

The insistence that a historical Jesus has to in some way be like the Gospel Jesus is a strawman (unless arguing against someone who is actually making that claim).

in my (and probably Doherty's) opinion the paradox is that you (!) are really that "someone who is actually making that claim", i.e. that "a historical Jesus has to in some way be like the Gospel Jesus", insofar you write, only some row after:

I think the story of Jesus objecting to practices at the Temple is as plausible as any. He was complaining that the Jewish elite were not adhering to the Law and therefore not adhering to God in some way.

I don't see in Paul evidence of a such Jesus's objecting to Temple, etc. Despite of the fact that I see evidence, in Paul, of a lot of places (I would call them "induction places") where he would have appealed to an anti-Temple Jesus in order to make his point, contra factum that he didn't.

Yes, that's a fair point. In my defence, I have marked this as speculation. My speculation runs like this:

Gal 1.13 For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how severely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

I speculate that this relates to the practices of the Jewish elite and the Temple, how traditions about the Law were overshadowing the Spirit. There is a story in the Gospel about Jesus being critical of the same, so my speculation is that Paul had the same view.

But you are right, I should certainly be looking through Paul more diligently to see if I can find passages that confirm or deny my speculation.

I don't see how can you infer that Gospel-based Jesus from Paul. As a rule, I don't see in Paul a Gospel-based Jesus, for each possible Gospel-based Jesus.

I see it implied in Paul but it is certainly speculation.

[GakuseiDon]

The insistence that a historical Jesus has to in some way be like the Gospel Jesus is a strawman (unless arguing against someone who is actually making that claim).

LOL. You just forfeited any and all rights to be taken serious in any which way whatsoever Don.
Like Giuseppe said: this in itself is a straw man, and as hilarious as that it is shameless really - so thank you for the loud laugh!

Why don't you do your homework, and list all the deeds that Jesus did, actively or passively, e.g.:

Jesus got baptised by John B
Upon baptism Jesus was entered by the holy spirit in the form of a dove
Jesus raised someone from the dead
Jesus healed a blind
Jesus healed a withered hand
Jesus calmed a storm
Jesus transfigured
Transfiguration was in the presence of Moses and Elijah
Jesus died on a stake
Jesus rose from the dead

And all of the above is to be taken literally, in full, all of it - unless you'll make explicit reservations of course, which is fine

And then tick m off please, only binary choices allowed: Yes or No. The goal? To present us the historical Jesus that you have in mind

Go on then

Am I allowed to speculate, or do my decisions have to be based on firm evidence? If the latter, then "not enough evidence". If speculation, then: "Jesus baptised by John B", "Jesus died on a stake".

[GakuseiDon]

This thread is titled

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

The first line of the opening post

There is a cognitive dissonance in some mythicists that drives me crazy. I came across it often when debating Earl Doherty over the years

is off topic

Fair enough, but it really isn't. I didn't want to make the title too long, but the following would have been more accurate:

"Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts and why evaluating that HJ as though he were the "newspaper reporter's Gospel Jesus" is a strawman, so stop using the strawman!"

We then get saccharin Jesus

Who was that Jesus? Paul describes him as humble-minded, "obedient unto death", "who knew no sin" and because of that was declared Son of God by resurrection. "Obedient unto death" implies that, before death, he was obedient(!) More on that later.

Then, as with the saccharin Jesus, a synopsis a ten year old might have written at the end of, say, a short series of scripture lessons

We have what we have.

Let me ask you two questions:

(1) If there was a historical Jesus, and knowing what we know about the Gospels: how likely is it that that historical Jesus was like the Gospel Jesus?

And if your answer is: If there was a historical Jesus, and knowing what we know about the Gospels: it's not at all likely that that historical Jesus was like the Gospel Jesus.

Then my next question is:

(2) If that historical Jesus wasn't like the Gospel Jesus, what is the impact on the historicity of that Jesus on NOT finding Gospel details about that Jesus in the letters of Paul?

[mlinssen]

Am I allowed to speculate, or do my decisions have to be based on firm evidence? If the latter, then "not enough evidence". If speculation, then: "Jesus baptised by John B", "Jesus died on a stake".

I'm just trying to tie you down Don. Of course there's no evidence of anything, but I'm tired of the pranksters waving their HJ around without specifying it one tiny bit - so thanks

• Jesus baptised by John B
• Jesus died on a stake

That's a fairly minimal HJ, but it is much more interesting to see what you exclude:

• Upon baptism Jesus was entered by the holy spirit in the form of a dove
• Jesus raised someone from the dead
• Jesus healed a blind
• Jesus healed a withered hand
• Jesus calmed a storm
• Jesus transfigured
• Transfiguration was in the presence of Moses and Elijah
• Jesus rose from the dead

No arguments from me, of course, but these are the bits that make the character interesting.
What's the use of having a live sample of nothing, who did nothing and was nothing? With just your two bullet points above John the Baptist actually did more than your HJ

[GakuseiDon]

I'm just trying to tie you down Don. Of course there's no evidence of anything, but I'm tired of the pranksters waving their HJ around without specifying it one tiny bit - so thanks

I'm definitely not waving my HJ around! My HJ is very small indeed. One might say, a micro-HJ.

What's the use of having a live sample of nothing, who did nothing and was nothing? With just your two bullet points above John the Baptist actually did more than your HJ

It's not the size of one's HJ that's important, it's how one uses it. That's what I've been told, anyway.

Would it be fair to say that you are working from an agenda when it comes to HJ studies? And that agenda isn't satisfied with the proposal of a minimalist HJ? Because I don't see the difference between thinking there was no HJ, thinking there was a minimal HJ or thinking there was a full-blown Gospel HJ, unless some kind of agenda is involved. It's either (1) making conclusions based on the evidence, wherever it leads, or (2) working from an agenda.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Am I allowed to speculate, or do my decisions have to be based on firm evidence? If the latter, then "not enough evidence". If speculation, then: "Jesus baptised by John B", "Jesus died on a stake".

You're not speculating. Your claim was that you had determined the best explanation for some observations - the observations that you're trying to explain are the evidence. At this point, you're defining your hypothesis. "Some guy who really lived" doesn't explain anything. You needed something more specific. Which guy who really lived?

OK. From the Linssen top ten, you've chosen only the ones that I collected under the heading things anybody could do.

It seems to me, then, that you need one more thing. You've defined a class of people (men baptized by John and crucified) of undetermined size, not anything necessarily having exactly one member. Apparently neither Jews baptized by John nor Jews crucified by Pilate were rare. That more than one real person could be both is not too unlikely, and the idea of a fictive character who is invented to combine the two attributes is not too hard to imagine either.

It is not self-evident how even exactly one person belonging to that class would give rise to Paul and Mark's work, both of whom have so much more to say about the hypothetical man.

So could you add one thing (or as many more as you like) that "closes the gap" between one or more people having a few attributes in common with the Christ Jesus of Faith and some one specific man being the figure who inspires Paul and Mark?

[dbz]

Do you think Paul's Jesus was one single entity, or an amalgamation of entities? If the latter, what is the evidence for that?

Paul was Hellenized Jewish Sub-Culture engaging in a religious syncretism of the Jewish two powers in heaven with the topmost gods of middle platonism. Greek was his first tongue.

Walsh argues that Paul uses "middle platonic" philosophy. Cf. Walsh, Robyn Faith (2021). The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-83530-5. (Middle Platonism & Paul the Apostle: pp. 7, 126, 192)

Godfrey, Neil (7 August 2021). "Only One Explanation: Paul Believed in a Divine Christ "Before Jesus"". Vridar.

All this starts to make more sense when we understand that first-century c.e. Judaism was not the rigidly “monotheistic” cult that we associate with later rabbinism and today’s Jews. Whether we follow Margaret Barker and her The Great Angel : a Study of Israel’s Second God (which proposes that Judaism before the fall of the Temple in 70 c.e. contained factions that effectively still retained memories of El, Yahweh, Asherah as distinct yet all divine beings) or James F. McGrath and his The Only True God : Early Christian

Monotheism in Its Jewish Context (which argues that what passed for “monotheism” in the first century was a broader definition than we allow today), one soon learns that Judaism before the fall of the Temple was not the same as what it became in the second century.

Just a few drops to indicate the incredible diversity of Second Temple religious beliefs among Jews, which later rabbinic Judaism attempted to deny:

1. For some Jews, individuals such as Jacob existed in heaven before they appeared on earth, as we learn from The Prayer of Joseph.
2. And some wrote of subordinate heavenly beings with names like Yaoel, a contraction of Yahweh and El, as in The Apocalypse of Abraham, a text with remarkable echoes of the Gospel of John.
3. Some factions also dedicated themselves to the study of “hidden wisdom” and the roles of angels, as we learn from apocalyptic texts like the Book of Enoch.
4. Even the New Testament cannot avoid reference to these narratives of great powers in heaven, including their Enochian source, as we see in Jude.
5. For others, such practices had to be denounced and expunged, as we see from the survival of the texts that have since become the Jewish Bible and Christianity‘s Old Testament.
6. I have also discussed in depth Levenson’s exploration of how the Isaac story among some Jews apparently became transformed into a death and resurrection narrative by the Second Temple period.
7. And first-century Jewish philosopher Philo also speaks of the Logos as a second god.
8. Recall also the varied myths of Jacob’s Ladder,
9. and speculations that changed the original Aramaic meaning of Son of Man in Daniel.
10. and the “two powers in heaven” “heresy” with Metatron being found in the place of God in heaven according to visionary narratives.
11. and those strange references in the New Testament and other unorthodox Jewish literature to Melchizedek
12. and how seriously should we read take the description of a woman in Revelation being clothed with the sun — surely an obvious allusion to her divinity — who bore a child who was not crucified on earth but whisked immediately to heaven?
13. and the survival of the Ugaritic divinities in various forms in the apocalyptic literature, and Margaret Barker’s discussions of the distinctions between El and Yahweh even in the OT.
14. and the cosmic-spiritual meanings attributed to astronomical data, including within Mithraism of the same era.
15. and the Qumran community with texts discussing unorthodox messiahs
16. and Samaritan traditions, some involving John the Baptist,
17. and some scholars suggesting a link between Simon the Sorcerer in Acts and Paul, and Damascus traditions [link downloads a 2 MB PDF file]
18. and what do the above suggest about Paul’s reference to “the god of this world” who is responsible for the blindness of mankind and “the rulers of this age” or “the princes of this world“. In what sort of theological framework was he immersed?
19. and what did he discuss among converts about the meaning of his vision of Jesus, and the times he felt himself taken up to the different levels of heavens, and the meanings of the “marks of Jesus” in his hands, as he also mentions in his letters, and the power of angels from heaven to preach, and what he meant by Christ being revealed “in him”, and being “set forth crucified” before the very eyes of the Galatians?
20. To answer, these contents of Paul’s letters ought not to be overlooked as embarrassing oddities. We need to seriously consider how Christianity could have been so overwhelmingly dominated by Marcionites and Valentinians in the early second century, and that it was only as that century wore on that current orthodoxy began to gain the upper hand. Recall how the orthodox (Tertullian?) could even say that Paul was “the apostle of the heretics”.

Paul’s letters need to be read against this three-dimensional context of Jewish religious speculation and writings, not just through the two dimensional OT and modern Christianity perspective.

Once we leave behind the monochrome Judaism of our OT and begin to enter the far richer and more complex world that was first-century c.e. Judaism then Paul’s letters begin to need less creative imagination from Borg and Crossan to explain. Lydia was a capable and articulate woman who may well have been engaged by a theological-cum-philosophical discussion about powers and beings of heaven and what they offered anew for people like her on earth. Or maybe there was much allegorizing, as we find in the first gospel of Mark.

The Gospel of Mark, seen by many as reflecting the theology of Paul, allegorizes the crucifixion to indicate the overthrow of the demonic powers of this earth and the opening of the gateway (cross/ecliptic . . .) between heaven and earth, an event privatized for Jesus at his baptism, but made available to believers with the tearing of the veil (representing heaven with its pattern of stars) that had hitherto separated the place of God from the place of humankind. Paul’s cross fits in well with theologies of the overthrow of demonic or “lesser god” powers, and declaring just and saved all who believe in their “oneness with God” through the cross, symbol of giving up all their earthly desires, and symbol of the gateway between heaven and earth.

I suspect Paul taught the sorts of things he wrote about. He discussed why and how circumcision was no longer valid because of the complex meaning — hitherto a mystery, as he says — of the crucifixion of Jesus. He taught about how a new way of relating to God could be based on faith in a crucified Messiah, much as Stoics could teach of a new way of living and relating to the cosmos through the denial of the flesh (see Engberg-Pedersen — will do some posts on his work sometime). In both, new communities arose out of such teachings. All of this is lost to modern readers who are fixated on an historical interpretation of a narrative that in its original form was clearly allegorical — see my notes on Gospel of Mark on my vridar.info site.

By no means am I claiming that the above points as presented like this are proof or even linking evidence that Paul did teach something more esoteric than a biographical narrative. I can do no more in this post than point out the religious environment and suggest alternatives. There is certainly no evidence for B’s and C’s imaginative scenario — quite the contrary.

---

---

---

--Godfrey, Neil (21 June 2009). "The diverse Jewish religious environment of Paul outmatches the imagination of Borg and Crossan". Vridar.

[GakuseiDon]

Do you think Paul's Jesus was one single entity, or an amalgamation of entities? If the latter, what is the evidence for that?

Paul was Hellenized Jewish Sub-Culture engaging in a religious syncretism of the Jewish two powers in heaven with the topmost gods of middle platonism. Greek was his first tongue.

That's the background on which his beliefs rested, sure, but did Paul think that Jesus was one single entity? That was your question: "Why does Yesus have to be one single individual?" The Gospels probably contain stories collated from the actions and sayings of various individuals, but with regards to Paul, the answer can only be "yes, one entity" as far as I can see.